Common Ground at DU

[Sparkly]

Is there anything that ALL DUers agree upon, or having in common, or share as a goal? (Trolls aside.)

(And I know the question invites a lot of joke responses... But really! Is there SOME common ground among us?)

[Kingofalldems]

1. I think we should all agree to vote for the Democratic nominee

No matter who wins the nomination.

[Sparkly]

8. I don't think that'll happen.

Which is okay as long as people don't use the site to campaign against the nominee.

[Kingofalldems]

14. IMHO anyone who trashes the nominee--on a regular basis that is

Should be shown the door.

[defendandprotect]

29. Define "trashing" for us please . . . I think you want censorship . ..

and to limit questioning and challenging of the candiates ---

[Sparkly]

33. The rules are pretty clear.

You can always ask the admins if you have questions about them.

[defendandprotect]

37. Let's let the individual complaining about "trashing" describe what HE thinks it is . . ..

because I don't see that any administrators have been citing any "trashing" of candidates . . .
If they are, I didn't get the memo . . .

Did anyone else?

[Kingofalldems]

44. I am talking about the NOMINEE

Not the primary candidates.

[defendandprotect]

49. What nominee . .. . ??? We only have primary candidates so far --

[Kingofalldems]

51. Read the OP

And then #1 AAAAAAAh!

[defendandprotect]

55. I'm replying to #14 . . . re "trashing" vs censorship . . ..

[Sparkly]

61. I think the line is drawn at actively trying to persuade others to vote against the candidate...

Especially by encouraging people to vote for a different party's candidate.

Not sure about suppressing votes -- encouraging people to stay home -- but I don't think that'd be smiled upon, either.

[defendandprotect]

66. I think the person objecting was objecting to "trashing" . . .

And I think you and I are having two DIFFERENT conversations ---

[Samantha]

74. There's absolutely nothing wrong with abstaining from voting

It used to be TAUGHT in civics classes of yesteryear. If one does not have a preference between two parties, abstaining from voting registers that lack of preference. It's giving those who DO have a preference between two parties the right to decide the election.

People who ABSTAIN from registering their preference should not complain about the results.

I personally think this makes a lot of sense. Of course, in no way does this comport with the line handed down by the "horse race" advocates -- if you do not vote for your party's nominee you are assisting the other party in a win. Truth is, we do not all have a sheep mentality -- you have to support the candidate whether you agree with their positions or not. How do you think the DLC got such a stranglehold on the Democratic party?

I do not plan on voting for any candidate who enabled Bush* to go to war in Iraq, and I will make no apologies here for that.

[Sparkly]

75. I think the site presumes a preference for Democrats to win over Republicans.

So for example, working to get out the vote is encouraged... Suppressing the vote by encouraging people NOT to vote is the opposite of that. As you point out, that means, "No Preference." I think there is a preference at Democratic Underground.

I sure hope so, anyway.

[Samantha]

85. My preference is for Gore who is a Democrat

I will be working to promote him, not a Republican. Should the candidate be someone Republican-like (or lite if you prefer), I will not vote for that person. I will not be actively promoting any other candidate, so I do not expect a problem. I have been here a long time Sparkly, and I believe I understand the rules as well as anyone.

But to take this philosophy I see often quoted here, those who do not support the nominee should be banned, I believe is radical -- not that is exactly what YOU said. Espousing a political philosophy that one MUST support the party's candidate or leave the site is merely a step below what the Bush* philosophy has been for seven years now -- support my position or you are un-American. I do not believe the philosophy at this site promotes the thought that one must promote the party candidate or one must leave. People who do not actively promote a candidate from another party or work to defeat the party nominee who simply abstain from voting I do not believe will have a problem.

As I stated earlier this act of abstaining from voting was legitimately taught in Civics classes, and I do not believe those who run this site will censor anyone who chooses this option over refraining from voting FOR a candidate whose political agenda is perceived by that voter as being simply too far removed from the voter's political preferences on important issues today.

[liberaldemocrat7]

83. If Hillary gets the nomination I will either abstain, vote for her on the Working Families party

or write in Al Gore's name in the general election.

[Kingofalldems]

41. Continual trashing--I know if a candidate makes a stupid blunder

He or she will be blasted here---but there are some who will trash on a daily basis for their own reasons (freepers?) I noted in '04 that there was way too much Kerry bashing.

[defendandprotect]

50. You're writing a thread based on your CRYSTAL BALL . . . ??????

[Kingofalldems]

60. Excuse me but--Why are you picking a fight about a post that says

we should support the EVENTUAL nominee and not trash said nominee on a daily basis?

[defendandprotect]

67. First, I am asking a question . . . not "picking a fight" ---

and I am asking what the objector's view of "trashing" is . . .
because what you are saying here suggests to me that you are more than overly sensistive to challenge and questioning -- and I think that should be looked at.

We need a definition of "trashing" because it is different from questioning and challenging.

There are some who don't want to see any unpleasant questions raised once the Dems have a candidate . . .

There are others who will still want questions answered --

Where are you in this?

[harun]

86. I don't think there will be that much trashing of the nominee

The primary season has been so long by the time we get a nominee we are all going to be too exhausted to complain (or have carpal tunnel).

[smalll]

9. Hillbot! DINO! Borg!

:sarcasm: Seriously, you have right there what should be our most central patch of common ground. :toast:

[Blashyrkh]

25. Terrible. That's not common ground. That's marching lockstep.

The most common ground that every legitimate member of this website has is a desire to see the most powerful country on the planet using that power for the bettermind of mankind.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

68. *LOL* What better cheese on bait to throw than the "marching lockstep" one.

:rofl:

I've seen this so many times it's finally become,...funny, to me!!!

:rofl:

[Blashyrkh]

77. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't agree with the idea of attempting to influence people to vote for a candidate they do not want to vote for.

If everyone on this board voted (D) simply because there is a (D) at the end of the candidate, then we are no better than the fools who vote (R) because of the (R).

To suggest, even encourage someone to hold their nose and do something they don't agree with to further your own political agenda is despicable, wouldn't you agree?

[Samantha]

88. Yes, when one votes FOR a candidate, one is advocating

the positions propounded by that candidate. That's the part posters leave out when attempting to convince the base they MUST support the nominee by voting for them, whether they agree with his or her positions on health care, the war, poverty, and the environment -- or not.

That's just bizarre people try to float that raft....

[emilyg]

2. We want Bush/Cheney gone.

[Sparkly]

12. That's gotta be true!

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Yep, that was my thought.

[Jamastiene]

72. If there were no trolls sliming around here

that would be true, but at any given moment, there has to be at least one or two of them around here. Your post might be the closest to being true, but trolls and moles are devious little bastards who would make it not true. I'm confused now. :P

[hfojvt]

78. probably some trolls want Bush/Cheney gone too

so they can be replaced by a 'real' conservative like, like Sam Brownback, or Newt Gingrich, or Mike Huckabee.

The OP excluded trolls from the question though.

[Vickers]

3. I believe we can all agree that The Ramones are the BEST BAND EVAR!!!11!!!

:P

[ruiner4u]

11. Ramones? UGH!.. your such a freeper......

j/k... :)

[abq e streeter]

24. love the Ramones----FAR from greatest band ever though

and Johnny Ramone WAS, inexplicably, a right wing nut case. On more serious note; yeah, I'd think we all agree that getting rethuglicans out of office is crucially important.

[Vickers]

42. Yeah, I kinda freaked out at their R&RHoF induction.

But still, they were the main reason I made it through middle school alive.

[AlCzervik]

4. i think we can all agree that another republican cannot be allowed to appoint

any more supreme court justices.

[Sparkly]

16. I hope we agree on that.

Who knows? :shrug:

There is a (dangerously dumb) theory that if we just let the Republican party sink the whole country, THEN people will wake up and vote for Democrats!

[emilyg]

76. Absolutely.

[hfojvt]

80. that depends

Stevens was nominated by Ford, and Souter was nominated by Bush 41, and they've been pretty good. O'Connor and Kennedy have not been that bad either.

Okay, I seem to be wrong about O'Connor. I read now that she voted with Rehnquist over 80% of the time in 2003.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Media monopolies should be broken up...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2047964

[Sparkly]

17. Great one!

[babylonsister]

6. End the war. Be treated like Americans instead of superfluous baggage. nt

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

71. HUMAN RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN DECENCY/DIGNITY.

Hope you don't mind my tagging on your post. :hug:

Why can't we all agree to apply the rule of law to those RULING our country? Wouldn't that be a good, unified stand?

[grasswire]

7. considering the fact that.....

...there appear to be some paid provocateurs among us whose goal is to destroy the Democratic Party and split the vote, I think you're asking a lot, Sparkly!

[Kingofalldems]

10. I see that every day.

Especially in the Kucinich threads.

[Junkdrawer]

20. Insanely easy too...

North/South...

Smoking/non-smoking...

Yada yada...

Did you ever notice that when an event occurs that would tend to unite us, a bunch of stink bombs get tossed?

[TwilightZone]

13. I think we all agree that the entire Bush administration should be removed/replaced/arrested.

Outside of that, I can't think of anything!

[DJ MEW]

15. I am sure we all agree that Republican ideals are wrong for our country.

I haven't seen much fighting about republican vs. democrat. It is usually fighting over who is the right type of liberal and how liberal, or not, a certian person is. (Hiliray seems to be a really devisive topic in the GD).

[Sparkly]

30. Yup.

And yup. :hi:

[mike_c]

18. I think we're all opposed to slavery....

I think.

[mmonk]

19. We dislike (hate) republicans?

[Fridays Child]

21. Will Rogers: I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

Big tent. Big, messy tent. ;)

[TwilightZone]

22. I think of that quote often.

Quite often. :)

[Sparkly]

26. I know.

All the more reason to look for common ground. :)

[Purveyor]

23. To work double duty to seat the 'veto proof' democratic congress come '08. This will protect the

country regardless of which 'status quo', ordained candidate is seated...

[Sparkly]

28. I sure hope that's true!

Very, very very very very important to get a super-majority in both Houses.

[defendandprotect]

31. Do we all agree that the DLC should be ousted from the Democratic Party?

[defendandprotect]

32. Are we all against TORTURE? Do we all support Geneva Accords . . . unquestionably?

[Sparkly]

34. I'd bet that's common ground, yes.

[defendandprotect]

35. Do we all understand the immense threat of Global Warming to humanity + the planet, itself?

[Sparkly]

38. Another good one.

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

43. Do we all think that the original FISA laws should be upheld . . .

IMO, they are already a violation of our Constitution . . .

but Bush has actually violated those laws and sought retroactive immunity.

[Sparkly]

54. Good question.

I don't know.

[defendandprotect]

56. You don't think that those original FISA laws were already a violation of our Constitution--????

Think it over . . .

[Sparkly]

62. To be honest

I don't know enough about the original laws to say. :dunce:

But my reply meant that I don't know whether there's full agreement among DUers on that, either way.

[defendandprotect]

65. Well, they responded to Nixon's wiretapping of citizens . . . which was illegal . ..

but they created a loop-hole where you could go to Judges and was very lenient re time, etal --
but, IMO, it is a "loop-hole" which is in violation of the Constitution.

[MadMaddie]

58. Uh yea....and I would bet that we would want to see ANY US

official tried for war crimes if they are applicable.

[ecstatic]

39. Almost like a boogie man talking point

That term has been misused to the point where it holds little or no merit. Anyone who pisses one of us off can be branded with the "DLC" title. So I don't take it seriously.

[hfojvt]

81. absolutely not

we need them to hold their nose and vote for the Progressive Democrat in the general election.

[ecstatic]

36. Common disgust for Bush--but our anger & forgiveness levels differ

And that's why some are against impeachment... or pro-Pelosi... or anti-Hillary, etc. It all just depends on how angry one is, how long one holds a grudge, and how eager one is to have a DEMOCRAT take the White House next year.

[WillyT]

40. We All Agree That One Shouldn't Smoke Tobacco While Breast-Feeding

At least I think we do.

Sorry.

:evilgrin::spank::evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

47. LOL!

:spank:

[IDemo]

48. The mother shouldn't smoke? Or the infant?

:smoke:

[Sparkly]

53. Why the hell n---- Ohhhh, you said tobacco...

Nevermind.

[renie408]

45. I dunno. I think common ground is overrated.

I have learned more from the heated arguments I have had here than from the people I agree with. But, yeah, there is some common ground. I have said it a million times, but I will say it again: A Republican looks at the world and says, "The world would be a better place if everyone would take responsibility for themselves." And a Democrat looks at the world and says, "The world would be a better place if we would all take responsibility for each other."

That is our common ground. We are all looking out for each other. Sometimes everybody has a different idea of what that means, but that's the root of it.

[Sparkly]

52. I think it's very important!

Diversity and commonality, both.

[renie408]

57. I guess that's why you read my answer so carefully and responded so fully. n/t

[Sparkly]

64. Was that sarcastic?

If you want a fuller reply, no problem.

I'm thinking of communities, movements, groups of any sizes with any purpose whatsoever. There's sure to be diversity, as there is here. (Imagine all commonality with no diversity!) So I think to move together, toward anything positive, it helps to find the common ground. What do we ALL want, need, share?

I was also just musing today in general about differences in people's approaches to diversity and specifically, tolerance. Why does one person seize upon a difference and take an oppositional stance because of it, while another person seeks community and a connection?

I was musing about how different my family and I were from other people, and how the GOP talks so much about "common everyday Americans" and "normal Americans in the heartland" etc., glorifying homogeneity in a way. I was thinking how feeling "different" has somehow made me seek commonality with people... (Different: for example, I make my living in bare feet, and today was seen in public dressed as a hen, an elephant, and a bird, among other things!)

So ... I was thinking that as divisive as DU is becoming, I wonder if there are some things we all share in common, because those are the points where people can work together to get things done, move things forward, rather than always focusing on our differences.

That's all.

[ruggerson]

46. We all like pie? (pronounced in a Cartman like way)

n/t

[KoKo]

59. Don't think there's much commonality here anymore. There used to be

but when our elected Dems started to cave in...it sort of left everyone adrift. So, the age group and lifestyle diversity that used to share with each other and co-exist pretty good on DU somehow started to fight over turf and values and lifestyles.

I don't think there's much commonality here anymore. It's kind of like an armed camp where some folks get together for card games, smokes and drinks, some skulk and roam and others sit writing poetry and others go around glad handling and peddling whatever they are selling and others wonder what happened to it all and many lurk for the meaty posts and news that keep the site going...but they are reluctant to get into anything much with anyone, anymore. Then there are those who have gone...one way or the other who took their duffles and back packs and headed for their own place away from it all. :shrug:

it is what it is...and i blame many of our Dem Electorate for this...whether folks agree or disagree...i stand firm in my belief on this.

[earth mom]

63. I would hope that everyone here believes in The Constitution & Bill of Rights. nt

[Jamastiene]

69. I think we all breathe oxygen.

I think. Other than that, no. Just like you cannot find two people anywhere on this Earth who agree 100% on everything, you also will not find a group of people, even DUers, who can agree on anything. It is statistically impossible.

[paulk]

70. one thing we all have in common is wasting way too much of

our time arguing about stupid things here on DU...

;-)

[travelingtypist]

73. Corporate personhood abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[bridgit]

79. when you find some beyond the warm squishy cliques let me know...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2039607&mesg_id=2042924

[scarletwoman]

82. Of course there's common ground on DU. Everyone thinks their own opinions ought to be given

deference.

;)
sw

[me b zola]

84. We all want the Constitution restored

At least I think that all of us do. :shrug:

[hootinholler]

87. Um the site that shan't be named is full of assholes?

Seriously, that's the only thing I could come up with. That's also why I like it here.

-Hoot

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. George W. Bush is one rotten president

And we cannot wait until the day he is out of the oval office.

[donsu]

90. FREEDOM

nt