OK. We're Down to Two Candidates, and There's Something I Don't Want to Hear

[MineralMan]

That something is "I'm Just Holding His Feet to the Fire."

Not in reference to either Democratic candidate. We don't need to hold anyone's feet to the fire.

It's a term I remember being used here again and again in another campaign season, and it was just a euphemism for attacking one or the other candidate. Typically, it involved presenting the same opposition research that the Republicans used, and calling it "holding feet to the fire." It's not that at all. It's a fake partisan technique used to degrade and belittle one of our own candidates.

It is nothing less than a direct attack on a candidate.

It's not pointing out differences between candidates. That's fair game.

It's attacking a Democratic candidate, pure and simple.

So, please, let's not use that euphemism during the rest of the primary campaign season, OK?

It is a medieval torture technique:

[still_one]

1. but my feet are cold...........

[MineralMan]

2. Here are some warm slippers...

[still_one]

4. maybe with a Donkey montif

[MineralMan]

10. Here you go:

/v1/fit/w_500,h_500,q_90/file.jpg

[zackymilly]

3. Time to wash some socks? n/t

[still_one]

6. I am still missing one sock in the dryer from last time

[MineralMan]

11. Just one?

I have a whole drawer of those.

Oh...wait...maybe I should sort through that drawer, eh?

[still_one]

12. +++

[SergeStorms]

5. Hey, MM.......

Tulsi is still in it to win it! Two candidates indeed!

[democrattotheend]

7. I disagree

If used legitimately, "holding his feet to the fire" should mean holding candidates accountable and pointing out when they shift their stance, go too far in attacking each other, or otherwise stray from what they promised to do. Also, I think it's a mistake to live in a bubble where we ignore right wing attacks on our candidates. I'd rather know what the attacks are going to be because it's part of my decision about who to vote for and support now. If you are saying don't give validity to nonsense attacks like the Burisma thing, fine. But I'd like to know what we're going to be up against and I think it's better to get it all out now instead of waiting until it's too late.

Also, please keep in mind that just because the right wing is using a line of attack does not mean that it's not a valid concern. For example, I have concerns, based on my own observations, about whether Biden is still sharp enough to handle the campaign and the job. I know he's always been prone to gaffes and has a stutter, but I don't remember him regularly sounding incoherent or forgetting what he's saying halfway through the sentence in 2008 or 2012. But every time I've expressed that here, I get accused of repeating right wing talking points. I don't think it's completely invalid to wonder if that's going to be an issue as we try to contrast our candidate with Trump on things like competence.

[MineralMan]

9. I edited my OP. See the illustration.

It is a medieval torture technique.

[LanternWaste]

13. And 'son of a gun' was a bastard born by prostitutes on docked British ships.

Yet no one implies that or infers that when we use the phrase in the here and now.

Literalism can really hold a person back.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. I heard a stat that up to FIFTY PERCENT of someone's supporters will NOT vote if ....

you know

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. So contrasting their positions on the Iraq War is okay?

I suspect that kind of thing could result in removed posts here.

[MineralMan]

15. Sure, it's OK. But, it depends how you do it.

If you point out that Biden voted for the Iraq war, that's fine. He did. So did tons of others who are Democrats.

If you call him a "warmonger," though, that's an unwarranted attack. He's not that.

He also voted for various trade agreements. So did lots of Democrats.

If you call him a "corporatist tool" then that's an unwarranted attack. He's not that.

See the difference?

Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. He did.

But calling him a "Tool of the NRA" is a vicious attack. He is not that.

It's how you say it, see...

[SergeStorms]

16. There aren't many DUers....

who do 'nuance'. 'Bludgeoning' comes to mind though.

[MineralMan]

17. Actually, there are more DUers who do nuance than there are bludgeoners.

It's just that they are less noticed. Being rational and analytical is boring to many people. Perhaps that's why you think that.

[SergeStorms]

21. You could be correct about that.

I worked in research and development my entire life, so being analytical is first nature for me. That isn't to say that I can't lose my shit every now and then, though. I guess the bludgeon folk are more vocal and adamant.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

18. We shall see.

I’m skeptical.

Sharing videos of past positions, with NO commentary added, shouldn’t result in deletions or bans, but it’s hard to know what juries will do.

Lots of possibilities — Iraq War, loss of bankruptcy protection for student loans, etc.

[DanTex]

19. LOL. I agree completely, but it's a little ironic that this comes after the "oppo dump" and

and all the right-wing smears against Bernie Sanders. Nobody seemed to have any problem bringing up old grainy videos of Bernie that were taken out of context and had nothing to do with any issues of today. That was supposedly "vetting" the frontrunner. But now that the frontrunner isn't Bernie, suddenly "vetting" is bad.

But, yes, I do agree that bashing other Dems is bad. For all Dems, no matter who or when.

[MineralMan]

22. How long has Bernie Sanders been a Democrat again?

His very short time as a Democrat is my main complaint against him, and it is a valid one.

[William769]

20. Kick & recommended.