What do you think of DU members who disagree with you on the primary?

[Skinner]

Poll question: What do you think of DU members who disagree with you on the primary?

We generally don't permit you to discuss other DU members in the GD:2004 forum, and I would hope that we avoid doing so in this thread. This topic may be skirting the line somewhat, I admit. But I have been wondering a lot about this issue, and how it might affect discussions of the primary on DU. I'm not sure if it is possible for people to give an honest answer to this question. But I think it is worth throwing the question out there to get people thinking.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"I find it difficult to understand why any DU member would support some of these candidates, or how anyone could be undecided in this primary campaign. I tend to think that DU members who support a different candidate (or candidates) from the one(s) I support are not totally informed about all the facts, or do not share my values, or have something else wrong with them. While I know they aren't all bad, I find that I generally don't like them."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

24. I strongly agree about disagreeing

:D

[Padraig18]

2. I strongly disagree.

We each have our own personal set of beliefs and values, and the fact that others don't share those identical values makes me think no less of them. :)

[drfemoe]

12. Part of the statement reads ..

...or do not share my values...

[Rainbowreflect]

22. I wanted to vote strongly disagree, but had to honestly vote

the one above it. There is small voice in me that is aways saying anyone who disagrees with me is just wrong. I try and ignore that voice, but she is still there.

[janx]

3. I have no problem with disagreement.

But there's a major problem with lack of civility. Some people aren't really here to discuss politics; they're here to bash and to take out their frustrations--it's a game to them.

Others have developed such a blind allegiance to a candidate that it has actually affected their ability to be civil and reasonable.

[Bread and Circus]

4. I disagree somewhat, while I find a lot of folks kind of snobby..

or arrogant calling my candidate a "fake Democrat" (in so
many words) I still think they are just trying to stick
up for their candidate.

WE all fight because it is human nature.

It's called in-group/out-group bias and we are hardwired
for it. I am a psychology major by trade and their are scads
and scads of studies that prove it.

When we have a nominee, we will fall in line for the most
part and start to "like" whoever has a D behind their name.

[T Roosevelt]

5. I think it's human nature

to latch onto something you like or something you don't like, and then not understand why others don't agree with you. For example, I've seen discussions on Friends and Seinfeld - one I watch, one I never got. Many people wonder "how could you like/not like ___?" - I just do or don't.

[arewethereyet]

6. to paraphrase Tina: whats "like" got to do with it ?

Remove the last sentence and its a completely different answer for me. I really don't think of DU individuals in a like/dont like way.

Agree/disagree, sure. Pity/respect, you bet. Shake my head/non my head, certainly.

My 2 cents. Feel free to like or dislike me, won't hurt my feelings.

[maddezmom]

7. strongly disagree

we are a big tent, so there's going to be lots of issues we don't see eye to eye on.

[leyton]

8. I find that

most of the people here have good reasons for supporting their candidate. They support Edwards because he'd make a great opponent for Bush, they support Dean because he's passionate about the whole thing, they support Clark because he offers fine leadership, they support Kerry because he'd make an awesome president, they support Kucinich because of his ideas and ideals, they support Lieberman because... well, nobody here supports Lieberman.

There is quite a bit of vitriol directed towards a couple of the candidates, and I find it disheartening that so many DUers dismiss these candidates because of minor differences, but thankfully, ABB usually wins the day.

On the whole, though, I respect the supporters of other candidates. After all, we're all Democrats.

[trumad]

10. If we all agreed, we'd be Republicans!

RepublicanUnderground.Com just doesn't sound right.

[mmonk]

9. disagree somewhat

I do think some are misinformed by their choices (that seem different from their own positions) or that repeat obvious propaganda against my candidate, but there are alot that don't and I don't hate anyone here.

[Bluzmann57]

11. For whatever it's worth

I believe that we still have freedom of choice here in the USA and a person can support any candidate he or she chooses. The old saying goes, "I may not agree with your position, but I'll fight for your right to say it". I honestly believe that adage. It's unfortunate when one allows their support of a particular candidate affect a relationship, but thats the way it goes sometimes. I just hope that we all support the Democratic nominee, whoever it may be, 100%, instead of whining about how so and so got screwed or that there was some kind of conspiracy to keep this or that candidate out. Ok thanks for letting me have my say.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. What do you think of Americas who support Bush?

"I find it difficult to understand why any American would support Bush, or how anyone could be undecided in the general election. I tend to think that Americans who support Bush are not totally informed about all the facts, or do not share my values, or have something else wrong with them. While I know they aren't all bad, I find that I generally don't like them."

What's the difference?

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Like them or not

Some of them are going to be have to be convinced to support the Democratic nominee in the November.

[liberalnurse]

14. I don't know why the issue of agreement or disagreement is being

examined? I don't think that is the real issue .....I think we have embedded infiltrators and disruptor's that have every intention of corrupting the integrity of our democratic discussion.

[edzontar]

40. Right. I voted "disagree." I have no trouble with honest opinion.

It is the disruption and bashing that i can't stand.

I have met many intelligent and pleasnat people who support different candidates.

I have also been assaulted by attacks that would have been extreme on FR.

So it is imposible to generalize.

[banana republican]

15. Nothing Cleans better than the light of day

'healthy' disagreement is good.

[jsw_81]

16. They fall into two categories

(1) Those who support serious candidates like Edwards, Dean and Clark. I don't have a problem with their decisions (although I certainly hope that they'll change their mind and support Kerry) because I know we have a great field this year.

(2) Those who support unelectable fringe candidates. I simply don't understand these people, and yes, many of them are uninformed about politics.

[Iverson]

17. a "disagree somewhat" vote

Understanding the support is usually pretty easy, especially when the writing is clear. Since the reasons for supporting a given candidate are not monolithic, they may be more or less informed, more or less irritating, and so on.

There is plenty annoying in the polemics, but it's not usually safe to draw conclusions about the person from their polemics. It's the nature of the medium to bring out disagreement and crabbiness.

Also, the written word - even when crafted carefully - omits so much nuance that face-to-face discourse provides.

[CWebster]

18. If everyone was honest

we would all agree. Strongly.

Bush supporters don't generally win points either.

[jpgray]

19. I think the reasonable folks in every camp deserve a "disagree strongly"

There are plenty of DUers who have researched every candidate carefully, but they do not all end up at one candidate.

[kentuck]

20. It's the degree of disagreement that is so difficult to understand....

Naturally, we are going to disagree, but why at such a low level of discourse? I'm sure every candidate can be criticized for one stance or another but I'm afraid we may have to pick an apple with a small blemish if we are going to eat.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. Just because we have a "D" next to our names

doesn't mean we're on the same side. A hard learned lesson.

[_NorCal_D_]

21. I strongly disagree.

I appreciate the fervent debate that transpires on DU, even when the discussions revolve around mind control, a haircut or the Arkansas mafia.

[KC21304]

45. Thank you, thank you, thank you a thousand times for this.

Should be required reading for the day.

[SoCalDem]

23. I cannot vote , because I have no favorite

so none of the "criticism" bothers me personally .. I will gladly vote for the candidate who emerges..

By not reading the snotty comebacks, I will not "make enemies from friends"..

[Jerseycoa]

25. Disagree

I find some DU members tend to criticize candidates other than their own before any attempt to educate themselves about the opposing candidate; as a result they do not understand why the opposing candidate's supporters feel and believe the way they do. I can't even count the number of times I've seen posts saying Clark is not a liberal and it is inconceivable that Dems would want to vote for him. This is bunk, but presented as fact.

I don't have any trouble understanding why any of our candidates have their supporters and I see why some will never support mine. I think we have a great field. I've never seen better.

[KC21304]

27. I disagree strongly. It would have been great if we could

have kept this an advocacy only board. I held out until 2 weeks ago but then had to join in with some jabs back at the other candidates when it got too rough.

I hope we can ALL get behind ABB, but I guess that would be too much to ask after all that has happened here.

[NashVegas]

29. Skinner, This Poll Doesn't Address My Problem w/GD 2004

People who disagree with me don't bother me in the least. People who try to jump me and go "HAH!" are another matter.

What bothers me is people who are actively campaigning for their candidate(s) and trying to force those of us who would rather discuss the candidates and their issues into debating about the candidates/issues.

This activity:

Forces people to choose sides before they might ready to settle on a candidate in the first place, or else have no one to talk to about the candidates in this forum.

Forces people who are leaning towards candidate A into defending that candidate, which naturally is going to steer them against whatever candidate the debate-wisher is trying to promote.

Makes the goal of every such topic about winning or losing the argument. This is the antithesis of what one expects from a discussion group.

[Skinner]

30. That is a legitimate concern.

But that is not the issue that this poll is intended to address. At least, not directly.

[THUNDER HANDS]

31. I like how everyone plays nice in your polls, Skinner

Of course, once you slink back to the Ivory tower the orks will come out and start bashing at will again saying 'only so-and-so can win.' :D

[JohnLocke]

32. Highly amusing, Magic Rat.

[ibegurpard]

33. I have no problem with that

What is totally destructive is people (and I suspect some of them are disruptors and even campaign operatives) who attempt to destroy other candidates. All that does is make the supporters of the attacked candidate want to reciprocate and it generates tons of ill will.

[MuseRider]

34. I can't imagine

not liking someone just because they do not agree with you. I have found that when I get in my biggest fights here or get the angriest that it is usually because someone just does not like my candidate no matter what and says things that are insulting rather than just disagreeing. That being said, things are almost always worked out easily with a few PM's to make peace after the hot words. I think I could say that I like something about everybody here.

[DeepModem Mom]

35. When I first started lurking at DU, I was struck by...

the many times posters would say that DU "kept them sane" -- meaning, I think, that DU was a place where they found support and hope, especially if they lived in places where they were surrounded by Bush devotees. In fact, it's my understanding that DU started in this spirit, after the stolen election. I can find good reasons for supporting every one of our candidates, and my undoubtedly pie-in-the-sky wish would be for DUers to think before they start an attack thread,or post a snotty reply, especially when a candidate is down. Consider the community that we are, and maybe ask what purpose is served by a post you are considering. People come here for support, hope and solace. When a candidate in which you have a lot of emotional investment is having a rough patch, the last thing you need is to wake up of a morning, and, after a dose of news from the "liberal" media, log on to DU and find attack threads and snotty remarks. Our enemy here is the same as it was in January, 2001, and it's not fellow DUers and their candidates.

[Terwilliger]

36. This is all just sniping as we shake out a possible candidate

if we all consider ourselves as enemies now, then we must not have been friends to begin with

[Sideways]

41. Friends? ShitHowdy That Dog Got Lost Months Ago

Sniping has been the buzz on DU for ages. I check in from time to time but the fucking pit bull festival that has become DU is just way below my level of discourse.

Not lovin this scene any more.

[seventhson]

37. I have to agree somewhat. But I do not DISLIKE most of them.

My problem is this. As a researcher who hase studied Naziism and fascist tactics and blackops for MANY years (my father worked closely with the antiNazi and Jewish underground in Naxi-occupied Europe and did intelligence work. He also attended Yale and Harvard and an elite prep school where intelligence spooks recruited teenagers)- I tend to watch for trends which indicate blackop political operations and disinformation or provocateuring and chaos-building.

On this board you have done a good job f banning the serious overt greepers - but there is nothing you can do about the stealth opponents.

As you know I have grave concerns about both Kerry and Clark's proximity sociopolitically and/or financially to the Bushes.

So those who bashed and opposed Gore and who later bashed an opposed Dean in favor of the DLC candidates (Kerry. Clark and Lieberman) I view with suspicion.

Some may be operatives.

Some may not understand the intelligence/spook BFEE game.

Some may be naive or in total denial about these ties.

Some may honestly just not think these things are significant or they may believe that Kerry and Clark are just sincere and untainted by the ties to Skull and the Stephens group, respectively.

I do NOT like the operations pf folks who may be stealth proBush BFEE spooks promoting candidates I think are too close to the BFEE.

The rest I either feel kind of sorry for (if they are naive, ignorant, stupid or in denial) or else their ignorance sometimes angers me.

I hope that I am wrong about Kerry and Clark. I hope the BFEE is not secretly helping them in order to protect the BFEE crime network. I also hoped that I was wrong about GWBush in 2000 and that he would not be that bad. I was terribly wrong to have hoped that. It was a stupid and naive hope thoroughly dashed by Bush and his criminals.

But I believe that is how politics work. I sincerely believe that based on years of study and research from the Library of Congress to the Holocaust Museums in Washington and Jerusalem.

The entrenched interests of both parties will protect the status quo. Some, like Clinton. may do much good. But generally the entrenched interests, DLC and RNC, will destroy this planet.

That saddens and angers me and so I desperately want these entrenched interests OUT!!!

Those who favor the entrenched interests hurt and sadden and anger me - as my childrens' lives are in the balance.

But I hold no malice towards anyone who is sincere (unless they sincerely want to hurt me or hurt America and the world).

[MGKrebs]

38. My perception of one of the basic principles of being a liberal

or progressive, is recognizing that there are many legitimate points of view. Even if I don't really understand someone else's view, I can (in most cases) accept it's potential validity.

[emulatorloo]

39. Discussion is great, FlameBait and Snarky Hit & Runs Aren't

I think that the majority of folks on DU are good people, have done their homework, and are reasonable and great to talk with. I am pollyannaish enough to say that I truly see good in all the candidates. I can understand why their supporters support them.

It bothers me when people post baseless and fantastic criticism of any of the candidates - conspiracy theories, basically, w no evidence.

It bothers me when the same person posts the same attack thread several times a day, just to keep it on the front page.

It bothers me when someone asks a question like "why does candidate x support this" and then it becomes clear after a few posts that the poster isn't interested in hearing what the candidate's supporters have to say, but rather to keep repeating his or her pre-judgement of the issue.

It bothers me when somebody posts snarky hit-and-runs that are just aimed at demeaning others. EX: somebody started a thread about Kerry's and his wife's appearance on 60 Minutes. Somebody said "Oh he is imitating Dean again; will his wife say she is a doctor too? This was an intelligent person -- did he really believe that Dean is the first pres candidate to be interviewed on TV w his wife? Of course not, just a cheap shot to score points.

On Edit - I voted disagree strongly BTW

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. The question is a bit broad

It isn't whether one disagrees, but their manner and method of disagreeing that can matter - and that is on any issue close to my heart.

A big FOR EXAMPLE are people who use irrelevent propaganda to disagree. I no more can respect someone for comparing Kerry to Bush and likening him to a NAZI because of his fraternity than I can respect someone for using the DEAN DIDN'T PAY THE DELI story to smear him. That isn't a disagreement of principle..it's smutraking pure and simple.

[Skinner]

44. It is written that way for a reason.

The question is not asking how you feel about people who are uncivil. It is asking how you feel about people who disagree with you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. OK sorry..forgot to get in touch with my feelings before I responded

I don't really have any acrimony towards people who disagree with me..two of my closest friends on this board disagree with me. God love em..alternate perspectives are good :D

[The Magistrate]

43. Disagree Strongly, Sir

Respect for persons of differing opinions is essential to civil discussion. The principle behind the free expression of ideas requires it, for the whole point of the exercise is that a wide range of views should be encouraged since, the world being what it is, we cannot really know in advance what might fail and what might succeed, and ought therefore to have a wide range of possible courses articulated and available. Respect for persons of differing opinion is also essential to any endeavor to change their minds, for they will certainly react with anger and resistance to contemptuous treatment, and thus cling more firmly to their view.

There are two things, however, in this context that do arouse my ire. The first and lesser of these things is when persons advocate for their candidate by attempting to tear down their opponents, and resort to distortions and exagerations in this endeavor. The second, and by far the greater, of these things, is when persons are so attached to a candidate or ideological view, that they proclaim the intention of abandoning, or even working against, the Party, should it choose another candidate than the one they support. This is to give aid and comfort to the enemy, in my view, and gets right up my left nostril....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Adjoran]

47. Disagree strongly

And I agree with what the Magistrate says above.

I'm uncommitted. I have offered praise and criticism of each of the candidates over the past few months, just speaking my mind.

I haven't been flamed, but I also have been prudent enough not to put my critical comments on celebratory or rally-the-troops threads.

My only concern is the passionate support sometimes makes people myopic. We can't burn the bridges between the camps, folks, if we want to win in November.

[Rowdyboy]

48. Disagree strongly....

There are certain supporters of other candidates whom I find childish and immature, however the same can be said for certain supporters of my candidate.

Once the nominee is chosen, ranks will close.

[waldenx]

49. add "Don't Care" as a choice

}(

[LuminousX]

50. For me, it all depends on how they disagree

[On the Road]

51. I Was Going to Agree, But...

the final sentence specified "I generally don't like them." That's a horse of a different color.

I think that a lot of folks going for the most electable candidate are confused about the factors that will win in November. But that's not saying I don't like them.

[VOX]

52. Strongly disagree. Without the inquiry of a dialogue, we are dead...

This is the tiime to kick around different points of view, candidates, etc.

After the final candidate has been selected, either by delegate count or at the convention, if all oars are not in the water and in synch, *then* we're in trouble.

[sweetheart]

53. Agreement is not a zero-sum game

I don't disagree with anyone here. If i did, i would not be here. I can't answer your question, Skinner, because there is no choice for "neither agree nor disagree". I don't think like that sentence, its like reading ancient egyptian. The sentence presumes agreement is a win or lose, one side or the other sort of thing... and i see it more like children who are learning about different sorts of foods... and some like peanut butter. That does not mean that to like jelly also, means one does not like peanut butter. Maybe when you first tasted red wine, you did not like it, and yet now you have a wine cellar.

The candidates and political platforms are like food. Some childish ways of thinking about food imply that there must be a "best" tasting food. I respect that someone might feel that way, but see that as a fear-based contraction to ward off the incredible richness and complexity of life.

It reminds me of the zen answer: "Is that so." :)

We will all win this year, no matter what happens in an election, as winning is more than causing someone else to lose. It is awakening to ones power in life to make a difference.

namaste,
-sweetheart

[incapsulated]

54. There is a difference..

Between disagreeing with someone's choice and thinking there is something wrong with them or their judgement because of it. I can disagree with your reasoning, but that doesn't mean your conclusions are baseless or beyond comprehension.

Every candidate in this race has a platform that will appeal to different voters for different reasons, all of them legitimate and worthwhile in their own right. Nobody has to apologize or justify support for their candidate.

[Dark Star]

55. Strongly disagree.

If one looks at the records of Kerry-Clark-Edwards as well as the Dean history in VT, one finds they are almost uncomfortably similar.

Therefore, I can see someone deciding to support a candidate other than mine and I can certanly understand the undecided voter as well.

I can also understand those who support Kucinich or Sharpton because, when I was younger, I too was a 'true believer'.

What matters to me is that we realize we have enough common core values to truly come together once the nominee is chosen and work as hard as possible to defeat the currently (s)elected administration.

[Blue_Roses]

I often wonder

why it's so hard to just listen to valid viewpoints and then "agree to disagree," if there is no common ground.

It's impossible to think that everyone will agree on the same thing, but to disrespect someone and "hammer" away, cause their views are different really gets me.

I think when our convictions are strong we get "pigeon-holed" into seeing it one way, so it really takes "practice" or a "roadblock" to stop and listen to what someone else is saying.

[Blue_Roses]

I often wonder

why it's so hard to just listen to valid viewpoints and then "agree to disagree," if there is no common ground.

It's impossible to think that everyone will agree on the same thing, but to disrespect someone and "hammer" away, cause their views are different really gets me.

I think when our convictions are strong we get "pigeon-holed" into seeing it one way, so it really takes "practice" or a "roadblock" to stop and listen to what someone else is saying.

[Blue_Roses]

56. I often wonder

why it's so hard to just listen to valid viewpoints and then "agree to disagree," if there is no common ground.

It's impossible to think that everyone will agree on the same thing, but to disrespect someone and "hammer" away, cause their views are different really gets me.

I think when our convictions are strong we get "pigeon-holed" into seeing it one way, so it really takes "practice" or a "roadblock" to stop and listen to what someone else is saying.

[ulysses]

57. "disagree somewhat"

really "disagree mostly", but I would say that there are a few whose values aren't my values.

[denverbill]

58. You know, Dean was leading in DU polls 2-1 back a few months ago.

Back then, Dean bashing was so common in GDP2004 that many Dean supporters got fed up and quit going there.

Gradually, and unsurprisingly, after 3-4 month, the attacks (and other reasons) had their impact on the DU polls.

After Iowa, many of the exact same people who unendingly bashed Dean with the same lame articles day after day had an epiphany. "It's time to stop the bashing" they all cried in unison, a full 1/2 week into the Kerry bashing.

For the record, I chose 'strongly disagree'. Also for the record, there are a handful of Kerry supporters that I'll hate for as long as I stay at DU.

[JoblessRecovery]

59. I don't mind honest disagreement

But I run across so much that is more about bashing another candidate rather than promoting one's own choice, and some misinformation thrown in at times. I can only guess as to whether it is intentional or due to not being totally informed.

[kaitykaity]

60. What irritates me is when people say this:

"If you don't support candidate 'x', my candidate, you
support Bush." It takes all of my self-restraint and
personal discipline not to fire off expletive-laden personal
attacks.

I like being convinced, seeing things in a new way.

[flaminbats]

61. Am I a God?

I honestly can't tell you? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. 21% cast votes for intolerance

[not systems]

63. We are like the blind men and the elephent...

each one has a different idea of what we are looking at.

For one it is a snake for another a tree and a third feels a wall.

I do think that we have a range of values that can cause
cross currents but all candidates supporters are moving in
the way they think best.

[flaminbats]

65. vision is a curse when given to someone like shrub...

but when given to someone who has been blind, just think of the good that could be done!

[bigtree]

64. The part about un-informed posters rings true

I'm one of them. That's why I come here. We need to present supportable, fact-based arguments with examples and if possible links. Not links to republican sources. Good solid references from a Democrats point of view will prove infinitely superior in our debate against Bush.

Let's build our own solid references here in our arguments which will stand the test of time.

[mdguss]

66. The Problem Is:

What this primary has been about so far: electablility. While important, and a legitimate issue, people will have strongly opposed views on who is electable. Some people think that those candidates who mirror their beliefs are the most electable because they will inspire fellow progressives. Others want a more moderate face because they think elections are won on the margins of the middle.

I think that latter group is right. But the primary argument here essentially boils down to political world view. That's a deeply personal point of view and arguments with people trying to convince each other that their view is best are going to be heated.