I know this goes against popular thought here....

[TidalWave46]

But I really don't like the lack of vetting we have become accepting to in our primaries. I really don't like the whole thought that we better not bloody ourselves before going into the general. This is a blood sport. It should be. Going into the general with a candidate who has not been fully and publicly vetted is dangerous. It harms our chance at success in many ways.

The internet has made a difference. There is simply more available about the candidates and more being found daily. That does not mean that the vetting is making it to the masses.

Vetting also seems to be group or issue specific. I feel from what I've seen that the party faithful are a bit weary of vetting those on the further left side of the spectrum simply out of fear of losing the support of their voters. That garbage has to stop. It's unacceptable. Specially when the party is in such an amazing position with people from all parts of the ideological spectrum showing great numbers. There simply is no punching down. The party faithful have to lose this fear.

There are one hundred percent factual statements that can be made about the history of candidates that are not allowed on DU. These are things that are important for voters to know in order to make an informed decision. Please understand that. As rough as you think it is in this primary forum, the membership as a whole has decided we cannot fully vet our candidates on this forum. Some things must be hidden from the eyes of the membership. That is how far we will go to hide known facts about our own candidates.

We vet the living shit out of Republicans. We would be well served to do the same to our own candidates.

[Cary]

1. That worked out well for Hillary Clinton

[TidalWave46]

7. That really doesn't make any sense.

Clinton was taken down by conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory by the right. Billions of dollars spent over decades.

Now point to where I said we should make up conspiracy theories about our candidates. Thanks.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Cary]

21. If I had the energy I would show you the link

But I don't and I am under no obligation to prove anything to you. You have your mind made up and you are defending something. What you defend or why you defend it I don't know and don't care.

If you are actually interested you can find the link.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Links don't unfallacy the fallacy

I appreciate the lack of effort, however. Keeps things simple.

[Cary]

2. And I am disgusted that Russian Trolls, Orange Hitler, and his cult followers

Use the "bloodying" to shave 3% or so off of our turnout.

They do that and it works.

[TidalWave46]

8. For a second time, conspiracy theories.

Clearly apples and oranges from what I'm talking about.

[JoeOtterbein]

3. +1000!

Boxers have sparring partners for a reason.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. I love a vigorous vetting process. I have a high bar before I send someone money or knock doors for

them, and the more discussion about their views and background, the better.

[loyalsister]

5. Agreed

Get it all out now. It's a lesson that would have saved a lot of energy wasted during the 90s. If Bill Clinton had known all of his weaknesses would be exploited the way they were, we might not even remember the names Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, and Linda Tripp unless we knew them personally. I also think this impeachment would look very different if the only recent historical reference was to Nixon, whose corruption is pretty much universally accepted. With the justification for Clinton's impeachment still debated and questioned, it leaves this one debatable from the perspectives of way too many republicans. I think it should not be because the facts are obvious.

[TexasTowelie]

6. The administrators make the rules.

We agree to abide to the TOS when we register our accounts.

[TidalWave46]

10. I never questioned or requested any change of any rules.

I made a statement that would take away any argument that goes like "we vet our candidates".

[TexasTowelie]

16. I realize that you haven't made those requests and I agree with your OP that we should be allowed to

thoroughly vet all of the Democratic primary candidates. If DU were a democracy the members would be making the rules, but it isn't a democracy so we have to abide with the TOS for better or worse.

P.S.: I'll probably be alerted for interfering with forum moderation by making those statements even though that isn't my intention. If the post is hidden, then I can only hope that the admins realize it is an objective critique and approve an appeal. I post a lot of threads at night that provide information and appear to be appreciated by a lot of members so they would be harming the Democratic party and their own site if I felt like I was no longer welcome here after eight years and over 70,000 posts. I would also miss the friendships that I've developed here during that time.

TxT

[Atticus]

9. There's a reason your suggestion "goes against popular thought here".

THEY want the political process to be a "blood sport" because, being Republicans, THEY would not abide by any rules, laws or customs. Engaging in such amoral conduct where the only thing that mattered a was winning would be the condonation and acceptance of all that Trump stands for. That's not where we want to go.

We can be tough and aggressive and courageous without devolving into purely "might makes right" campaigners. Most of our contenders are respectful even as they criicize each other. Those who are not do not do well precisely because they "go against popular thought here".

Both sides are not the same. Both sides DON'T "do it", nor should they.

[TidalWave46]

13. You are talking about this as if it were a possibility, when it is actually current reality.

"THEY want the political process to be a "blood sport" because, being Republicans, THEY would not abide by any rules, laws or customs."

"the only thing that mattered a was winning would be the condonation and acceptance of all that Trump stands for. That's not where we want to go."

I never came even remotely close in my op to stating that is where we want to go.

"Both sides are not the same. Both sides DON'T "do it", nor should they."

Again, not sure what that has to do with anything in my op.

[Atticus]

18. Well gee---it looks like someone used your moniker to suggest that our primaries

should be a "blood sport" and that we not be reluctant to "bloody ourselves".

Hope you can track down who did that.

[beachbumbob]

11. Not sure why you think we don't vet our candidates?

You must be talking about DU rules, thats something else altogether. Just because Democratic Underground says democratic in the name, doesn't mean it has to be fair or open. We all know the rules here.

The best political online forum I knew was Political Crossfire but that website was bought and shutdown, much to do with ending open and free debate than anything else

[scheming daemons]

12. Vet ourselves over REAL issues.... not fake bullshit

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2019, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

The McKinsey stuff and Buttigieg is fake bullshit.

So is Warren and her past consulting.

So is Biden and shit he said back in 1993.

So is Bernie and deadbeat dad nonsense.




These are not good faith "concerns". These are bullshit oppo.

[TidalWave46]

14. At this point the McKinsey stuff is a conspiracy theory.

I agree with you on that.

Warren and her past consulting should be discussed only in factual statements. It's important and should be talked about.

Biden and the "shit" he was doing and saying in 93 is fair game and an extremely important part of the vetting process.

I've never even heard about Sanders and his deadbeat dad. Sounds like it would be a positive for Sanders with respect to messaging. It's impressive to me when people are dealt a short hand early on and overcome.

I don't see how you would see Bidens record as a congressman as a bullshit concern. Same with the history of Warren. They are important to know the people we are dealing with. Of course there are ways to honestly discuss these topics and that is often the difficult part.

[redqueen]

19. How about how Biden voted in - what was it - 2005?

When was the last time he voted for a ban on late term abortions?

[ecstatic]

17. Vetting is good, but we have to distinguish between substance, lies, and petty

bullshit. Lies and petty BS can be devastating when it comes to turnout on or before election day.

[redqueen]

20. I'd like to have a candidate with the least exposure

to lies and petty bullshit.

[Gothmog]

23. I agree that we need to vet our candidates

I have seen a ton of oppo on sanders that trump could use very effectively If sanders is the nominee of the party, trump will win 45+ states