Is there any "legitimate" criticism of our 2016 candidates?

[Cosmic Kitten]

As the 2016 campaigns begin
it's obvious emotion is
overriding reasoned discussion.

There are a LOT of accusations
of disloyalty, bashing, shilling,
divisiveness, etc.

So, does the DU community
have any room for "legitimate"
criticism of our candidates
policies or campaign platforms?

If so, what qualifies as "legitimate"?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Given that it's not 'legitimate' to point out ways in which they're serving the Republican agenda

on certain issues, I'd say no. If you can't complain about people acting like Republicans, then there obviously is no room for complaint.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. A sticky wicket, eh?

[H2O Man]

2. Positions on fracking.

It is an issue that documents if a candidate is actually pro-environment, or is pro-energy corporations.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. Seems like a "pro-people" vs pro-money" issue?

[H2O Man]

36. Yep.

And it is a pretty clear example of the tensions between people vs money. We are not at a point where anyone can convincingly claim ignorance, that they innocently believe the claims of energy corporations that fracking is safe.

Yet it is another issue where we see resistance .....much in the manner that we see some resistance to simply answering the question posed in the OP.

[Cosmic Kitten]

39. There does appear to be a resistance to straight talking?

[H2O Man]

41. I think so.

In my opinion, there is more focus on emotions -- including anger -- than appeals to rational discussion.

[Cosmic Kitten]

44. Emotion trump reason

[cali]

45. I agree with you completely. But then I think a candidate's record, rhetoric, positions

and much more are legitimate. It might be more useful to discuss what isn't legitimate criticism.

[H2O Man]

52. Right.

I think it is good to discuss every aspect of a given candidate. That includes their positions on issues for the future -- should they be elected -- as well as their record in and out of office, their campaign style, and their position in society (including friends and enemies).

What I'm trying to say -- and admittedly not saying clearly -- is that the majority of discussions on DU:GD right now, as they pertain to Hillary Clinton, aren't really much about Hillary Clinton at all. Rather, they are the emotional projections of DUers, be they pro- or anti-Clinton. They allow us to see a great deal about the person making the comment, but shed remarkably little light upon the candidate.

Although this isn't really rare, it seems to be a bit more extreme in the case of Hillary Clinton. That doesn't render it insignificant -- quite the opposite, it indicates that it is very likely that the outcome of the 2016 presidential election will have less to do with the quality of the candidates, than on the emotions they generate among the public. And that is a sad reality.

[Zorra]

70. Supporting fracking is an indication that someone has serious personal ethics issues. nt

[H2O Man]

79. At the very least,

it severely compromises any claims to being an advocate for public health and the environment. A person simply cannot have it both ways. If you are pro-fracking, you are willing to damage the public's health and devastate the environment.

[liberal_at_heart]

3. Unfortunately I think the only acceptable criticism that is accepted around here is centered around

who is the most electable. I hear this criticism about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all the time, that they don't have the numbers to win. Any criticism aimed at Hillary is automatically deemed as supporting the Republicans because Hillary supporters think she is the only one who can win.

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. I hear ya. Apparently a 50/50 chance is a winning candidate?

[Agschmid]

22. She won in Mass. but we are a pretty liberal state and the margin wasn't that wide.

I'm always surprised by my state, very liberal but we elect a whole lot of republicans.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. anger at banks and income inequality are not just liberal issues though, at least not for

the average working class citizen. Maybe for the politicians. But for the average working class citizen, income inequality and anger at banks is not just a liberal issue.

[Agschmid]

27. I do think her message would resonate...

I know it would here, I wonder about the flyover states though? If I thought her candidacy in 2016 was viable I'd be right behind her, but I don't. I'm just lucky I get to keep her in the Senate for all of you

[LondonReign2]

68. Mass also elected Brown in the first place and has a history of

electing Republican Governors. Saying Elizabeth only won because it is a liberal state is a red herring.

Doesn't matter though, Warren isn't running, and I can't blame her.

[Agschmid]

89. .

electing Republican Governors. Saying Elizabeth only won because it is a liberal state is a red herring.

Is not what I was saying...

[upaloopa]

108. That changes once we have a nominee.

Who ever it is, we will need to support them.
I have trouble with people who think being pragmatic about the election is foolish.
I guess the best thing for me is to hole up and wait until we have a nominee.

[liberal_at_heart]

112. Then we can switch places if Hillary wins the nomination because I will not vote for her, and

I know that will be unacceptable around here, probably get me banned from the site once the primaries are over. I may just have to avoid this site until after the general election because I will not vote for her in the primary or in the general election.

[upaloopa]

114. Well I am sorry to read that. But this is a free

country and that is your right.

[sufrommich]

4. Have you seen mass bannings and OPs

hidden for criticism? No? Neither have I.

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. The question is "what is a legitimate criticism"

Is past performance open to scrutiny?
Is lack of a position open to question?

[sufrommich]

21. You're on an internet forum where debate

on past performance and lack of position have always been allowed,at least as long as I've been here. What has changed?

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. There does seem to be a change... a chill

When any critical voice is raised
there is a growing chorus that
people should STFU and support
their own favorite candidate and
stop "tearing down", "hating"
or otherwise presenting
unflattering commentary.

There does appear to be
an effort to put a chill over
and legitimate criticism?

[sufrommich]

31. It's an internet forum! Your definition

of a "chill" is people disagreeing and arguing about those disagreements.That's what happens on internet forums.

[Cosmic Kitten]

35. Actually, there is name calling, and STFU call outs

There is a whole thread
that essentially intimates
that the PRDP group
is divisive, or worse.

That is what I consider
a chilling effect...
the calling out of a DU group

[sufrommich]

38. Whether or not you feel "chilled" is beside the point,

you might have a point if the PRDP group (whatever that is) was actually being censored. Is it?

[Cosmic Kitten]

40. So, what do you consider legitimate criticism?

[sufrommich]

43. What does it matter what I consider legitimate criticism?

Your argument is that there's some kind of punishment at DU for criticism of democrats and there is certainly no such thing. If there is, make your case.

[Cosmic Kitten]

46. The OP is about what constitutes "legitimate" criticism

Do you have anything
to add to the OP?

[Purveyor]

81. I know of at least 3 bannings, one a 10 year poster that commenced on Sunday. One almost has to

'be on the scene' to notice them but indeed they are happening.

[gordianot]

5. I would like to know candidates positions first before complaining.

At this juncture other than Hillary Clinton just who are the candidates?

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. Except, some candidates have been around for decades

Are not their past decisions
indicative of their "positions"?

[Agschmid]

24. All candidates past decisions effect their history, but may not be an accurate predictor of their...

present positions.

People do change.

[liberal_at_heart]

26. I don't trust policy changes made during a campaign.

[Agschmid]

28. There is some truth to that statement.

[Cosmic Kitten]

29. Good point. People do indeed "evolve"

How do we discern
pandering from growth?

Should we expect any
explanation as to why or how
a candidates view has changed?

For example:
Hillary "evolved" on LGBT marriage.
Previously she was for leaving it to
states to decide, now she's for a
constitutional amendment.

How or why did she "evolve"?
Is it legitimate to ask pointed
questions to discover the reasoning?

[Agschmid]

32. I think it's entirely legitimate to ask questions, these people could be the next president.

However I think once some answers the question we can't just keep moving the goal posts.

I also thin that the LGBTQIA issue is a moot point, the differences are so clear between parties that I don't personally feel I need to ask how she evolved. To me it doesn't matter, what matters is I have someone in national elected office who is on my side, and it's clear Democrats seem to own that.

Also just an aside I don't see anything in the top 10 Google results that say anything about a constitutional amendment for gay marriage rights... can you link to what you mean by that?

[Cosmic Kitten]

34. It's not moot if we don't understand the candidates thinking.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s views on same-sex marriage have evolved in the almost 20 years since her husband, Bill Clinton, then the president, signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, saying that he had “long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages.” This week Mrs. Clinton, who is running for president, said she hoped that same-sex marriage became a constitutional right.

[Agschmid]

37. I think that refers to a outcome from a supreme court decision...

I haven't seen an amendment suggested by a candidate at this time.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong?

I do think it's a moot point, again the party contrast is very stark. Do you want to know because you don't believe that she actually truly does support gay marriage?

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. Yes, I stand corrected, no amendment suggested.

Party contrast should NOT
stand in for unexplained
changes in position.

Simply contrasting the
opposition reeks of pandering.
As though saying "not a republican"
should suffice to earn our votes.

Is it legitimate to question her
"evolution" on her positions?

[Agschmid]

47. To get to your base question, sure it's legitimate to question that.

Whether or not her answer will answer your question is an entirely different thing, and really is up to each individual voter.

My personal feeling is that I don't need to understand every step of her evolution, I just need to know that the Democratic candidate won't turn the clock back on LGBTQIA rights.

[Cosmic Kitten]

49. A candidates political evolution is relevant to voters.

If the reasons are expediency
or just a fickle nature that
is a big deal.

If they will change on one issue
they are likely to flip-flop on others.

We don't want flip-floppers.
For it before against it kinda stuff.

[Agschmid]

50. I don't agree.

I also think it's incredibly hard to find a candidate in 2016 who hasn't flip-flopped (I hate that term) on something.

Just a whim of a guess the best no flip-flopping candidate (again I hate that phraseology) would be Samders D-VT.

[greatauntoftriplets]

53. Has Sanders actually made the switch from Independent to Democrat to run?

If he does that and later reverts to Independent after the election, I'd call that a flip flop.

[Agschmid]

55. Me too.

Thanks for pointing that out, that was a "duh" moment from me...

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. No problem.

It's just something that bothers me about his possible candidacy.

[gordianot]

65. You would think but some politicians evolve and change.

George Wallace the segregationist Governor is a classic case. In his last term as Governor he was a very different Governor and politician than when he ran for President. Events and new realities changed him radically.

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United promises to change whoever runs against unlimited secret money. Whoever ends up being the Democratic candidate may well be a very different person than they were in the past. As for me I am one of the 47% that Romney refers to as not supporting a party that does not have my best interests in their agenda . I almost meet the criteria of the upper-middle-class Republican voter, difference is I understand my best interest . I also abhor Republican rhetoric and pandering .

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Good question

We only have one declared candidate at this point though - right? Or is Lincoln Chafee considered in the race and running?

[randys1]

16. I think Hillary has come out for a constitutional amendment on CU, and she also said something

about equal pay for Women, I think.

But yes we need to get issue statements.

[Andy823]

7. Well...

Calling candidates names like "Killery instead of Hillary, not"legitimate".

Making up crap like "there will not be a primary", not "legitimate"

Post BS from right wing sites about any democratic candidate, "legitimate"

Refusing to provide links to support claims, "legitimate"

I am sure there a a million more things that would not be "legitimate", but you get the idea. There are a ton of real issues to discuss, and if you don't like one candidate, post information about one you do like.

[BlueCaliDem]

12. +1000! There's a difference between criticizing and bashing, and the majority of "criticism" of

Hillary Clinton by the same people who bashed President Obama is beginning to wear thin. Purists will be purists - the larger picture be damned.

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. Are DU members being "bashed" or demeaned?

Criticizing candidates should not
devolve into bashing DU members.

Hearing "hater" thrown around
a LOT is wearing thin too.

[el_bryanto]

8. The other metric is what issue do you care most about

I care a lot about reigning in Wall Street and making it act as it should act. I am a capitalist and believe that investment does play a role in our economy, but Wall Street's actions over the last few years make it clear that when it comes to derivatives they need either the discipline of an open market or a firm regulatory hand. That's one of my main criticisms of Hillary Clinton; I don't believe she will do that.

But I admit that while important, I can totally see how others might view other issues as more important. For example there's no question that when it comes to Womens and LGBT Issues, HRC will be a strong advocate - and if those issues are very important to you, than I can see how you would see her as a strong candidate.

The conflict comes when you compare that to other issues, you can run into the accusation of "So you don't care about women or LGBT issues? How progressive of you." (or alternatively if you support Clinton you can be accused of wanting more people to die in the middle east).

The truth is that everybody has a different set of criteria on which to judge a candidate; according to some of those criteria Hillary Clinton comes off as very strong, on others she comes across as somewhat weaker.

Bryant

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. People before profits

[el_bryanto]

56. Yep. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

66. And yet it is always LGBT rights that get compared and parsed and questioned.

Funny how that works.
Of course LGBT groups have been protesting Wall St, big Insurance, Pharma and the government since before I was old enough to drive to the demonstrations.
I have to wonder where all of you reform minded people were when we were being arrested at various stock exchanges and Corporate offices. Amazing that you think LGBT interests are unrelated to the issues you care abut. Just amazing. I screams 'I slept though history, now I demand to write it'.

[el_bryanto]

67. This response doesn't make any sense

and reads like a personal attack. You can support LGBT equality without supporting HRC in the primary.

Bryant

[treestar]

9. There is but it doesn't seem to be here

And some seem overly concerned with criticizing our own candidates, as if that's all they want to do.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Exactly. The proverbial splinter in our candidate's eye is thoroughly bashed while the 4x10 in

the eye of Republican candidates are being totally ignored by the usual suspects here on DU.

I can't wait until the primaries are finally over. It will be a lot less antagonistic around here...hopefully.

[treestar]

60. It did get awful in 2008

But the thing is now, we want what is like a re-election, in that we want the party to have a third term, so to speak. So the big "healthy" primary of 2008 isn't really needed, and that may be why there aren't many other Democrats stepping in. Warren et al likely want the party to keep the Presidency.

There were a lot of good candidates in 2008 and Hillary was our second choice then. Now, our first obviously. I doubt she'll have many interested in going up against her. Maybe to make a name for themselves. Richardson and Kucinich don't seem to be running again. Edwards is out.

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. So what is legitimate to critique?

Lets worry less about
DU members personally
and focus on the issues?

[treestar]

61. If criticism is your thing

Then criticize away. Some people like to criticize. They find it boring to support anything in a positive way.

I usually don't see it framed as "I disagree with Hillary on issue x." with an explanation for why. It's usually "Hillary is a corporatist Third Way tool of the 1%." That's not "issues."

[Cosmic Kitten]

72. Issue: Hillary supports US military support in Ukraine conflict

She never seems to be against
armed conflict.

Is she a war hawk?
Do we need another war hawk president?

[treestar]

93. To avoid the

term "war hawk" is the standard never supporting any military action whatsoever at any time in any circumstances?

[Cosmic Kitten]

96. To avoid a direct answer

lemme ask you another question

[treestar]

98. Hillary's not a war hawk

And it is not true that she supports arming Ukraine

The former secretary of state and architect of the Russian “reset” policy, who has largely shunned public appearances in the last few months aside from the occasional paid speech, did comment on the Ukraine crisis last month. Clinton said she supported “putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government” during a paid speaking engagement in Winnipeg, Canada, as well as “new equipment, new training for the Ukrainians.” She did not specify whether that “equipment” should include lethal arms.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/arming-ukraine-where-the-2016-hopefuls-stand/

[Cosmic Kitten]

101. Apparently she has "evolved" on this issue:

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-calls-greater-military-assistance-financial-aid-ukraine-1884637

A year ago, Clinton called for the introduction of tough sanctions against Russia, and now the former secretary of state has stated she believes it necessary to strengthen the military and economic support of the United States for Kyiv.

She also mildly criticized current U.S. President Barack Obama for hesitancy over providing firmer support for Ukraine, according to Voice of America.

"I think we need to provide more financial assistance for the government of Ukraine, as it is trying to make the transition from a non-professional, corrupt system to a system that operates according to the global rules,” Clinton said.

“Ukraine works with the IMF and the European Central Bank. I think we need to provide more help to Ukraine to protect its borders. [We need to provide] new equipment, more training. The United States and NATO are still very reluctant to do it, and I understand why. It's a difficult, potentially dangerous situation, but the Ukrainian army and ordinary Ukrainians who are fighting against the separatists have proved that they deserve stronger support than we have provided so far.”
Read more on UNIAN: http://www.unian.info/world/1067774-hillary-clinton-calls-for-increased-assistance-to-ukraine.html

Sounds very hawkish to me

So if elected, would President Hillary
escalate the conflict with Russia?

[cali]

48. codswallop. You see what your biases let you see.

We all do to one extent or another. There's plenty of legitimate criticism on policy, history, rhetoric and more- not only of HRC but increasingly- and I welcome it- of O'Malley.

As for repubs, there's lots of criticism of them and that will only grow.

[treestar]

62. I give you points for use of "codswallop"

Criticize Hillary's position on the issue but then being both Democrats, one would think you might agree with Hillary on something. Probably more often than not, as you are both Democrats.

[sendero]

30. I've posted several..

... criticisms of HRC, all based on her positions and record and I haven't been hidden or warned or anything like that.

I'm pretty much done with it however as I've said what I wanted to say and I don't feel like repeating myself in every rah-rah Hillary thread.

I think most of us here are on the same side of the big issues facing the country. Where we are not on the same page is a strategy for getting there. I'll just close with IMHO "more of the same" is not going to cut it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

33. I don't think there is a concensus on the "BIG" issues

The economy, war, and privacy
are three big areas where there
appears to be a disconnect
among the DU community.

[sendero]

51. I think...

... that the GOALS are similar. I think the understanding of how we got here and what it's going to take to get us out varies widely.

[still_one]

54. I have no issues with criticisms of other 2016 candidates. However, what I do find lacking is most

of the criticism does not suggest or advocate an alternative.

Hopefully, that will change as more candidates join the field

[Agschmid]

57. Yup.

[cascadiance]

58. How about those that say they are progressive take a strong stance against Fast Track NOW!!!

If they know that most progressive voters out the don't want the TPP passed, and especially don't like the Fast Track secret methodology of it being passed, it would seem that those announcing their candidacy within a day or so of Fast Track bill getting out of committee, that it would be timely for true progressive candidates to express their opinions also this week that they stand with most progressives (and many other Americans as well) in opposing this bill as a way of showing that they would be a person of substance in calling themselves progressive candidates this week.

In short, many who have been frustrated with what they felt was a lack of substance and follow through on a "Hope and change" campaign in 2008, would love to see a candidate not only talk about how they are progressive, but demonstrate actions as well backing that up this week in opposing the bill moving through congress. A big missed opportunity in my book, and one that will have voters question whether they are going to be sold a bill of goods again that won't be delivered upon after a candidate is elected.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. People will claim this isn't a legitimate criticism

but I firmly believe one of the most disqualifying decision HRC made was voting for war with Iraq.

There were only two reasons to vote to give the least competent president in U.S. history permission to illegally invade Iraq:

1) You actually believed what Bush said.

2) You wanted to make Iraq a vassal state.

Neither of these two rationals speaks favorably about her judgment. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, a trillion dollars has been squandered for no other purpose than enriching defense contractors, and we have destabilized the region and are committed to a bigger folly than Vietnam for the next decade.

In 2004 she said:

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared."

Again, anyone with half a brain could see the case against Iraq was laughable and that Bush was the last person you let wage a war.

In 2005:

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."

By this time the fact that we invaded based upon a deliberate lie was pretty obvious, yet she was not going to admit error or pull out of a country we were in illegally.

In 2006:

"I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain."

Translation, "I am okay with us staying and killing more people based on a lie."

Today we have Pelosi making excuses for HRC:

"This was wrong all around,” said Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat. “Having said it, that was then, this is now. We go forward."

Forward? Continuing to kill people in an illegal war, wasting trillions of dollars and making the Middle East hate us more every day?

[Cosmic Kitten]

73. Perhaps Hillary as a "War Hawk" is a legitimate criticism?

What can we expect from
a Hillary presidency?

Would we be voting for more
war, bloodshed and loss of treasure?

She should address that specific issue
in light of the fact she said her
previous decision was misguided.

[Kelvin Mace]

80. She has never admitted error

or apologized for her vote. To me this is very problematic. People are dead, maimed, orphaned and homeless, yet she does not regret her decision.

I think we can expect a continuation of the "perpetual war" foreign policy that has failed us for the last 60 years. The problem is, one of these days we are going to bite of more than we can chew, say by starting a war with Iran, and find ourselves in the position that the only way to avoid a military disaster will be atomic weapons.

We are one step away from becoming the "rogue nation" we keep claiming must be stopped.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. As an issues oriented person, I find that in every primary the people who strongly favor a candidate

see all criticism or even questions about that candidate as illegitimate and every last bit of harsh invective placed toward other candidates as legitimate. It's sort of inherent to the process.

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. Yep, and it's so obvious when the republicans do it

[olddots]

69. people are drawn to popularity

it may be a human fault .

[Cosmic Kitten]

75. Unfortunately, the world can't afford that narrow minded thinking any longer

The globe is shrinking
and the stakes are higher.

[LanternWaste]

71. I'd guess objective analysis of policy position with a valid conclusion is fair game.

I'd guess objective analysis of policy position with a valid conclusion is fair game. Presenting sources, especially peer-reviewed sources would certainly up the standard.

However, I do tend to perceive anyone who uses the term 'inevitable' as either right-wing or simple-minded (yes-- on DU, also) much as I did when the GOP used the Messiah trope on then-candidate Obama.

What collectively passes for legitimate? My guess would be criticism that's neither spurious nor irrational-- that is, genuine and grounded in both logic and critical thought. The rest is editorial and bumper-stickers and hardly worth anyone's time.

[Cosmic Kitten]

77. Addressing a candidates foreign policy and position on war is legitimate?

Hillary has advocated numerous
uses of armed conflict.

Are we voting for a candidate
that will continue pursuing
armed conflict?

[LanternWaste]

87. I'm nit sure if this is a lure into a wholly separate conversation...

I'm nit sure if this is a lure into a wholly separate conversation... or if I was simply unclear in my response to your one direct and unambiguous question.

I don't know who we're voting for. I don't know who I'm voting for. I'm not as clever as most on DU, so I'll most likely wait until all candidates announce, read their policy and platform positions when available, read the objective analysis from the somewhat less passionate experts, and go from there.

[brooklynite]

76. Disagree with any policy you like.....

...but first, be sure there's an actual policy to disagree with. In the case of Hillary Clinton, a lot of complaints seemed to be about presumed policies. For example, she'll want to cut taxes for the rich because "she's a 1%er" (never mind that she voted against the Bush tax cuts when she was in the Senate); or, she won't regulate the banks because "we all know" she's "cozy with Wall Street" (never mind that she's said nothing about bank regulation and has commended Elizabeth Warren for her efforts; or, she's a "warmonger" because of her IWR vote (never mind it was 14 years ago, she's changed her position, and her efforts as SOS were to implement the policies of the Obama Administration. How about waiting to see what she actually proposes?

[Cosmic Kitten]

78. Did Hillary agree with providing military support in the Ukraine conflict?

[brooklynite]

83. Are you talking about in her role as Secretary of State?

[Cosmic Kitten]

85. NOW, as in lately

This week.

[brooklynite]

90. She hasn't stated a position...neither has Sanders

So, as I suggest, why not wait until she does?

[still_one]

82. Yes, all issues should be open to agreements or disagreements

[Cosmic Kitten]

84. What do we make of the shrill, emotional responses like...

Bashing
Troll
Hater
Shill
etc?

When legitimate criticism
is met with personal attacks
how should the DU community
address that vitriol and divisiveness?

[still_one]

86. It sure won't add value to a discussion, and indicates someone who does not want to listen to

another view

[LanternWaste]

88. One imagine the corollary is also true, e.g., "inevitable".

"What do we make of the shrill, emotional responses like..."

One imagines the corollary is also true, e.g., "inevitable", "fan club", war-monger", etc. to better illustrate that we do indeed, hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others to.


"how should the DU community address..."
One imagines that alerts could and should be used when passion overcomes reason or when colorful pejoratives are used in place of rational thought. Or ignore them.

[sabrina 1]

91. Yes, just ignore the garbage and concentrate on substance. Issues, where candidates stand on issues,

the kind of thing that political forums are all about.

The rest of the garbage is intended to disrupt this forum.

[Cosmic Kitten]

99. Indeed.

Just curious where the boundaries are.

[workinclasszero]

92. Yes there is but..

None of it comes from The Blaze, Fox "news", freakrepublic, redstate, etc.

I couldn't believe the teabag hate sites linked here by Hillary derangement victims yesterday.

Such as glennie beck's The Blaze. And sadly a jury was a ok with it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

95. Hillary derangement victims???

None of it comes from The Blaze, Fox "news", freakrepublic, redstate, etc.

I couldn't believe the teabag hate sites linked here by Hillary derangement victims yesterday.

Such as glennie beck's The Blaze. And sadly a jury was a ok with it.

Who are these "derangement victims"
of which you speak?

[workinclasszero]

102. People from here linking to

well known right wing hate sites in their anti Hillary zeal.

[Cosmic Kitten]

104. So what? It's only media. Can we not win the debate with reason?

Would you prefer DU
to become a echo chamber?

Maybe if we close our eyes and
cover our ears the world won't
give us a sad?

I believe Democrats are smart enough
and resilient enough to withstand
withering right-wing propaganda.

And furthermore, WE are more
than capable of separating fact
from fiction, wherever it comes from.

Don't live in fear of "links" or
"bad stuff the mean people are saying.

Buck up camper...
it's going to be a long campaign

[workinclasszero]

106. So where do you draw the line?

I'm sure stormfront and KKK websites will have lots of anti Hillary garbage.

So linking up with that is okay?

[Cosmic Kitten]

109. Hate groups vs right-wing media??? Hmmm?

What do the TOS say on this issue?
That should be the final arbiter.

[Agschmid]

117. Why are you begging for a callout?

Seems like you are just stirring the pot under the guise of a discussion of "legitimate criticism"...

[sabrina 1]

100. And there it is, 'Hillary derangement victims'. Seriously, I want to ask you, why would you feel the

need to name call rather than use reason and logic to make your point?

I can't think of a time I ever needed to call even the worst of my Right Wing adversaries and kind of name, because usually I could wipe the floor with them on the issues.

Is this done when people cannot defend their positions, because that has been my experience.

[workinclasszero]

103. How does logic work

When the person is trolling Reich wing sites like The Blaze to get republican talking points against Hillary?

Logic already flew out the damn window when you have to link to a cesspool like that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

105. Seriously?

I just don't get the fear
and apprehension about
freaking links?

Do you think WE are that stupid
we could click on a link and suddenly
reject our values, forget who we are,
and what we are working towards?

Seriously?

[sabrina 1]

111. Really? That is the only thing you can think of to resolve such a situation. You know that many

people mistake right wing sites, especially if they are not that familiar with Far Right (you apparently are since you recognized The Blaze ) sites for neuthral sites because they do not frequent them.

So, many times someone who never goes to those sites stumbles on them and posts it.

The think to do then is to tell them 'did you know that is Beck's site? Maybe find another source'.

That works very well most of the time.

Why the name calling, the jumping to conclusions, we are getting a very bad rep here and good people watching do not want to join in.

It takes a lot of strength and maturity not to get down to that level, but we on the Left can do it, I've seen it and it is so much more effective.

[Rex]

94. Some here always use negative rhetoric toward other DUers...they care nothing about this place.

Or about politics or the issues. They found a golden ticket to disrupt GD all day long without worrying about getting a post hidden. Just read this thread...it is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

[Cosmic Kitten]

97. Every day is a school day ;~)

[Rex]

113. I like critical thinkers, I don't like school yard bullies. nt

nt

[FSogol]

115. Its true.

[Agnosticsherbet]

107. The policies supported or opposed by candidate are open to criticism.

For instance, proposed solutions to the big money in politics thanks to two SCOTUS decisions are legitimate criticisms. Educaiton. Use of military force. Views on Climate Change. Minimum Wage. Use of antirust law to break up big banks.

[Cosmic Kitten]

110. Great examples

So if candidates are vague
on an issue, or just withholding,
criticism would be appropriate?
Ya know... tell us where they stand?
Yes/No

OR
If a candidate is on the wrong side
of an issue in the context of traditional
party values...

For example: EDUCATION
if a candidate supports privatization
of the public education system,
would it be appropriate to criticize that position?

[Agnosticsherbet]

116. I know where I stand on these policies.

So I look for a candidate that is closest to me.