None of Our Democratic Primary Candidates Are Bad People

[MineralMan]

Not one. None are racists. None are misogynists. None are right-wingers. None are conservatives.

All are Democrats, or have voted with Democrats consistently. All have served the public interest. All oppose Donald Trump and the right-wing that has supported him. All are concerned about climate change and want to find ways to slow it, stop it, or recover from it. All are for voting rights, women's rights, freedom of reproductive choice, LGBTQIA rights, and the end of all discrimination based on race or other inborn characteristics.

All oppose caging and mistreating asylum seekers, whether they are adults or children. All understand the importance of an immigration policy that continues our long history of welcoming newcomers to the USA. All want to continue to nourish our relationships with long-time allies and exercise caution when dealing with long-time adversary nations.

They all want fair elections that provide everyone eligible to vote elections they can trust. All want affordable healthcare for everyone, higher education that does not come with a lifetime of indebtedness, and support Social Security, Medicare, SSI, and assistance for those who need assistance, for whatever legitimate reason.

Every last one of our Democratic primary candidates is an honorable person who is sincere about Democratic values.

I hope we'll all remember that as we support the candidates of our choice.

I hope we do not tear down those candidates who are supported by others. That is not how this is supposed to work.

May the Democratic candidate who receives the most voter support in these primaries and caucuses be elected as President next November in a landslide, whatever that candidate's name is!

[bluewater]

1. So, should we just hold a lottery to pick our nominee out of a hat?

Or should we vet our candidates now before the primaries and see what the voters think after that?

This constant stream equating vetting with "tearing down" a candidate comes across as people being reluctant to have their candidates' record closely vetted.

If unpleasant aspects of a candidates record are not discussed now, that does little good, because those issues will be brought up in the General election.

It's better to hear the worst now, than to be hit with it in 2020.

[MineralMan]

2. Did I suggest such a thing? No, I did not.

As I said at the end of the post, I hope the candidate who wins the nomination in our primaries and caucuses goes on to win the presidency in a landslide, whatever that candidate's name might be.

We pick our nominee through elections and caucuses. That nominee might or might not be my favorite candidate or yours. I believe you have missed the point of my post for some reason.

[bluewater]

12. You did though, You spoke of "tearing down" candidates

"I hope we do not tear down those candidates who are supported by others. That is not how this is supposed to work."

This is the point I addressed in my reply to you.

Please define the term "tearing down a candidate" for me.

Then please define "vetting a candidate".

People, many people here seem to confuse the two.

Is it even possible for people to agree on the difference between "tearing down" and "vetting" a candidate?

[MineralMan]

13. No. Sorry. I'm not going to get into a subthread

argument about the difference between "vetting" and "tearing down." Not a chance. You're on your own with that.

[bluewater]

23. Then please don't throw around the phrase "tearing down"

Some people use that as a hammer to stifle discussion of their candidates record.

[MineralMan]

27. Thank your for your advice.

However, I will use the words that suit me in my posts.

[bluewater]

31. And thanks for the discussion.

But defining "tearing down" vs "vetting" remains an issue.


I am still asking the question:

Is it even possible for people to agree on the difference between "tearing down" and "vetting" a candidate's record?

Thanks for the discussion.

[Skya Rhen]

15. I will give an example that distinguishes "vetting" from "tearing down"...

Vetting: "Candidate A, the records show that you voted for the Crimes Bill. Can you please explain why?"

Tearing down: "Candidate A, I don't think that you are a racist but the records show that you voted for the Crimes Biil. Can you please explain why?"

I hope that this helps.

[bluewater]

18. So just posting news articles from reputable sources is ok? Right?

I have seen people complain about just posting news articles from reputable sources, calling that "tearing down" their candidate because the coverage was unfavorable.

People use the phrase "tearing down" as an excuse to stifle discussion of their candidate's record.

And is there a limit on the number of articles you can post, without adding any additional comments yourself, before that becomes "tearing down a candidate'?

[George II]

30. Bazinga!

[George II]

14. That took only ten minutes!

[MineralMan]

16. Well, I'm trying not to get into side arguments in

threads right now. Those never lead anywhere good, it seems to me, and tend to derail any thread's focus.

[bluewater]

20. Hi

What took 10 minutes?

[DownriverDem]

17. What matters

Beating trump is all that matters. As long as we have to win the Electoral College, we have to win the middle too. Why don't folks understand this? It's not who I like or who you like. It's who can win the Electoral College and beat trump. Without a Dem win, we can kiss our progressive goals bye bye.

[stonecutter357]

3. K&R

[mcar]

4. This!

So tired of the candidate bashing here.

[MineralMan]

6. Well, I prefer something more like this:

I recommend voting for {candidate's name} because he or she supports the following things, and has demonstrated a history of that support for n years.

I don't prefer this:

Don't vote for {candidate's name] because he or she was once a Republican or voted a certain way on some bill decades ago.

There is a difference between the two approaches.

[mcar]

7. One runs down a candidate

The other boosts a candidate.

[MineralMan]

11. Exactly.

If you focus on the negatives for a candidate and all attention to them frequently, it becomes difficult to turn around and support that candidate should he or she become the Democratic nominee. We all saw the results of that in the last election. I hope we learned something.

[wryter2000]

37. Or, how about?

"He/she is a corporatist!"

gag

[MineralMan]

39. Yes. That one was especially noxious in 2016.

I'm not hearing it so much this year, though.

The economic system of the United States is capitalism. Any large capitalistic nation is going to have large corporations. It will also have countless small corporations, just as exist here in the USA. Countless, as in millions of them. Some are sole proprietorships; some have less than 10 employees; some have multi-million dollar cash flow every month or year. But the corporation is the foundation of all of them, from that sole proprietorship S-corporation to Amazon and General Motors.

So, calling someone a corporatist really tells me nothing about that person's political points of view.

Here, we are almost all part of a corporation or work for one. Even freelancers, like myself, can trace checks for their services back to a corporate entity. Ridding the United States of corporations is probably not even possible, and is almost certainly not desirable. The economic upheaval would be tremendous.

I've written all the content of several websites for a local HVAC company near me. It is a corporation, with about 20 employees, total. It sells, installs, and repairs furnaces and air conditioners - all made by major corporate entities, ranging from Carrier to Mitsubishi. Without corporations, we'd all freeze to death in Minnesota. Only major companies can make enough HVAC equipment to meet the need, and only small corporations like that HVAC company can install them and repair them.

The United States of America is a nation of corporations, which all need to be well-regulated, but not put out of business.

[DownriverDem]

19. I don't bash

anyone. I want to beat trump.

[mcar]

21. Me too!

[pazzyanne]

38. "I want to beat trump."

That's my daily mantra until the day after the 2020 election.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. All of them are *good* people.

What we are missing desperately right now is fundamental decency in our government. It's evident that all of the candidates are decent people, which Trump and his minions are most definitely not. But I am already starting to see some of the internecine mud-slinging of the kind that infected 2016, and, as it turned out, was often either instigated or magnified by Russian trolls. It will happen again and we mustn't fall for it. In another thread there is an article about the "bitter feud" between Warren and Biden. I know they have some strong policy disagreements, but they are rational adults and decent people, either of whom would be fine presidents, and I would hope everyone can look at articles of this kind dispassionately and with the understanding that conflict or the perception of it means more eyeballs and more ad revenue for the publisher. But conflict also means depressed voting. Our adversaries want us to hate all of our candidates so we don't vote at all. Don't fall for it.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, they are.

I will gladly vote next November for anyone on the current list of candidates for the nomination. I'm pretty sure that nominee will be one of the current group that has more than 10% of support in an average of polls. However, if that should change, and some other candidate rises to the top, I'll support our nominee, campaign for that nominee and do whatever I can to increase turnout in November.

We should be celebrating our field of candidates, all of whom are honorable people and support Democratic goals.

[DownriverDem]

22. Me too but

if the candidate is too far left, we will lose. I've been there and have seen this before.

[MineralMan]

25. Well, that's certainly a possibility.

I've voted in every presidential election since 1968. Over 50 years. Each time, I've voted for the Democratic nominee. Sometimes that nominee has won and sometimes that nominee has lost.

The primary process will run its course. I'll be recommending a particular candidate for people's consideration. On November 3, I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee once again. Who will that be? I do not know. That's why I'm not going to be trashing any of the candidates or declaring any of them unsuitable to become the nominee. I can gladly vote for anyone who is currently running and who seems to have some chance of becoming the nominee.

There is far more that our candidates have in common than where they differ, frankly. I try to remember that.

[katmondoo]

8. We need a landslide

[MineralMan]

10. With a unified effort backing our nominee,

that's what we should have, I think.

[First Speaker]

24. Dammit, stop making sense...

...it's a bad habit of yours...

[MineralMan]

26. Sorry. I can't help myself.

[Cary]

28. Yes

[MichMan]

29. An All Star lineup for sure n/t

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2019, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)

[democratisphere]

32. Some are extremely overambitious and will do almost anything to increase their positions

in the early polling. Either you have the goods to attain the position or you don't. Attacking others with a false premise is a total disqualifier.

[MineralMan]

33. Well, candidates who do such things will likely not be the nominee, I think.

False premises are usually uncovered and debunked. An excess of zeal that leads to such errors generally ends up disqualifying a person who does so, in the end.

[democratisphere]

34. Well said.

I'm counting on it.

[msongs]

35. does vicious backstabber count as nice? nt

[MineralMan]

36. Not that I've heard.

[pazzyanne]

40. Only if you are a Republican.

Sorry, couldn't help myself!