Common Ground at DU

Is there anything that ALL DUers agree upon, or having in common, or share as a goal? (Trolls aside.)

(And I know the question invites a lot of joke responses... But really! Is there SOME common ground among us?)

No matter who wins the nomination.

Which is okay as long as people don't use the site to campaign against the nominee.

Should be shown the door.

and to limit questioning and challenging of the candiates ---

You can always ask the admins if you have questions about them.

because I don't see that any administrators have been citing any "trashing" of candidates . . .
If they are, I didn't get the memo . . .

Did anyone else?

Not the primary candidates.

And then #1 AAAAAAAh!

Especially by encouraging people to vote for a different party's candidate.

Not sure about suppressing votes -- encouraging people to stay home -- but I don't think that'd be smiled upon, either.

And I think you and I are having two DIFFERENT conversations ---

It used to be TAUGHT in civics classes of yesteryear. If one does not have a preference between two parties, abstaining from voting registers that lack of preference. It's giving those who DO have a preference between two parties the right to decide the election.

People who ABSTAIN from registering their preference should not complain about the results.

I personally think this makes a lot of sense. Of course, in no way does this comport with the line handed down by the "horse race" advocates -- if you do not vote for your party's nominee you are assisting the other party in a win. Truth is, we do not all have a sheep mentality -- you have to support the candidate whether you agree with their positions or not. How do you think the DLC got such a stranglehold on the Democratic party?

I do not plan on voting for any candidate who enabled Bush* to go to war in Iraq, and I will make no apologies here for that.

So for example, working to get out the vote is encouraged... Suppressing the vote by encouraging people NOT to vote is the opposite of that. As you point out, that means, "No Preference." I think there is a preference at Democratic Underground.

I sure hope so, anyway.

I will be working to promote him, not a Republican. Should the candidate be someone Republican-like (or lite if you prefer), I will not vote for that person. I will not be actively promoting any other candidate, so I do not expect a problem. I have been here a long time Sparkly, and I believe I understand the rules as well as anyone.

But to take this philosophy I see often quoted here, those who do not support the nominee should be banned, I believe is radical -- not that is exactly what YOU said. Espousing a political philosophy that one MUST support the party's candidate or leave the site is merely a step below what the Bush* philosophy has been for seven years now -- support my position or you are un-American. I do not believe the philosophy at this site promotes the thought that one must promote the party candidate or one must leave. People who do not actively promote a candidate from another party or work to defeat the party nominee who simply abstain from voting I do not believe will have a problem.

As I stated earlier this act of abstaining from voting was legitimately taught in Civics classes, and I do not believe those who run this site will censor anyone who chooses this option over refraining from voting FOR a candidate whose political agenda is perceived by that voter as being simply too far removed from the voter's political preferences on important issues today.

or write in Al Gore's name in the general election.

He or she will be blasted here---but there are some who will trash on a daily basis for their own reasons (freepers?) I noted in '04 that there was way too much Kerry bashing.

we should support the EVENTUAL nominee and not trash said nominee on a daily basis?

and I am asking what the objector's view of "trashing" is . . .
because what you are saying here suggests to me that you are more than overly sensistive to challenge and questioning -- and I think that should be looked at.

We need a definition of "trashing" because it is different from questioning and challenging.

There are some who don't want to see any unpleasant questions raised once the Dems have a candidate . . .

There are others who will still want questions answered --

Where are you in this?

The primary season has been so long by the time we get a nominee we are all going to be too exhausted to complain (or have carpal tunnel).

:sarcasm: Seriously, you have right there what should be our most central patch of common ground. :toast:

The most common ground that every legitimate member of this website has is a desire to see the most powerful country on the planet using that power for the bettermind of mankind.

:rofl:

I've seen this so many times it's finally become,...funny, to me!!!

:rofl:

I don't agree with the idea of attempting to influence people to vote for a candidate they do not want to vote for.

If everyone on this board voted (D) simply because there is a (D) at the end of the candidate, then we are no better than the fools who vote (R) because of the (R).

To suggest, even encourage someone to hold their nose and do something they don't agree with to further your own political agenda is despicable, wouldn't you agree?

the positions propounded by that candidate. That's the part posters leave out when attempting to convince the base they MUST support the nominee by voting for them, whether they agree with his or her positions on health care, the war, poverty, and the environment -- or not.

That's just bizarre people try to float that raft....

that would be true, but at any given moment, there has to be at least one or two of them around here. Your post might be the closest to being true, but trolls and moles are devious little bastards who would make it not true. I'm confused now. :P

so they can be replaced by a 'real' conservative like, like Sam Brownback, or Newt Gingrich, or Mike Huckabee.

The OP excluded trolls from the question though.

:P

j/k... :)

and Johnny Ramone WAS, inexplicably, a right wing nut case. On more serious note; yeah, I'd think we all agree that getting rethuglicans out of office is crucially important.

But still, they were the main reason I made it through middle school alive.

any more supreme court justices.

Who knows? :shrug:

There is a (dangerously dumb) theory that if we just let the Republican party sink the whole country, THEN people will wake up and vote for Democrats!

Stevens was nominated by Ford, and Souter was nominated by Bush 41, and they've been pretty good. O'Connor and Kennedy have not been that bad either.

Okay, I seem to be wrong about O'Connor. I read now that she voted with Rehnquist over 80% of the time in 2003.

Hope you don't mind my tagging on your post. :hug:

Why can't we all agree to apply the rule of law to those RULING our country? Wouldn't that be a good, unified stand?

...there appear to be some paid provocateurs among us whose goal is to destroy the Democratic Party and split the vote, I think you're asking a lot, Sparkly!

Especially in the Kucinich threads.

North/South...

Smoking/non-smoking...

Yada yada...

Did you ever notice that when an event occurs that would tend to unite us, a bunch of stink bombs get tossed?

Outside of that, I can't think of anything!

I haven't seen much fighting about republican vs. democrat. It is usually fighting over who is the right type of liberal and how liberal, or not, a certian person is. (Hiliray seems to be a really devisive topic in the GD).

And yup. :hi:

I think.

Big tent. Big, messy tent. ;)

Quite often. :)

All the more reason to look for common ground. :)

country regardless of which 'status quo', ordained candidate is seated...

Very, very very very very important to get a super-majority in both Houses.

:thumbsup:

IMO, they are already a violation of our Constitution . . .

but Bush has actually violated those laws and sought retroactive immunity.

I don't know.

Think it over . . .

I don't know enough about the original laws to say. :dunce:

But my reply meant that I don't know whether there's full agreement among DUers on that, either way.

but they created a loop-hole where you could go to Judges and was very lenient re time, etal --
but, IMO, it is a "loop-hole" which is in violation of the Constitution.

official tried for war crimes if they are applicable.

That term has been misused to the point where it holds little or no merit. Anyone who pisses one of us off can be branded with the "DLC" title. So I don't take it seriously.

we need them to hold their nose and vote for the Progressive Democrat in the general election.

And that's why some are against impeachment... or pro-Pelosi... or anti-Hillary, etc. It all just depends on how angry one is, how long one holds a grudge, and how eager one is to have a DEMOCRAT take the White House next year.

At least I think we do.

Sorry.

:evilgrin::spank::evilgrin:

:spank:

:smoke:

Nevermind.

I have learned more from the heated arguments I have had here than from the people I agree with. But, yeah, there is some common ground. I have said it a million times, but I will say it again: A Republican looks at the world and says, "The world would be a better place if everyone would take responsibility for themselves." And a Democrat looks at the world and says, "The world would be a better place if we would all take responsibility for each other."

That is our common ground. We are all looking out for each other. Sometimes everybody has a different idea of what that means, but that's the root of it.

Diversity and commonality, both.

If you want a fuller reply, no problem.

I'm thinking of communities, movements, groups of any sizes with any purpose whatsoever. There's sure to be diversity, as there is here. (Imagine all commonality with no diversity!) So I think to move together, toward anything positive, it helps to find the common ground. What do we ALL want, need, share?

I was also just musing today in general about differences in people's approaches to diversity and specifically, tolerance. Why does one person seize upon a difference and take an oppositional stance because of it, while another person seeks community and a connection?

I was musing about how different my family and I were from other people, and how the GOP talks so much about "common everyday Americans" and "normal Americans in the heartland" etc., glorifying homogeneity in a way. I was thinking how feeling "different" has somehow made me seek commonality with people... (Different: for example, I make my living in bare feet, and today was seen in public dressed as a hen, an elephant, and a bird, among other things!)

So ... I was thinking that as divisive as DU is becoming, I wonder if there are some things we all share in common, because those are the points where people can work together to get things done, move things forward, rather than always focusing on our differences.

That's all.

n/t

but when our elected Dems started to cave in...it sort of left everyone adrift. So, the age group and lifestyle diversity that used to share with each other and co-exist pretty good on DU somehow started to fight over turf and values and lifestyles.

I don't think there's much commonality here anymore. It's kind of like an armed camp where some folks get together for card games, smokes and drinks, some skulk and roam and others sit writing poetry and others go around glad handling and peddling whatever they are selling and others wonder what happened to it all and many lurk for the meaty posts and news that keep the site going...but they are reluctant to get into anything much with anyone, anymore. Then there are those who have gone...one way or the other who took their duffles and back packs and headed for their own place away from it all. :shrug:

it is what it is...and i blame many of our Dem Electorate for this...whether folks agree or disagree...i stand firm in my belief on this.

I think. Other than that, no. Just like you cannot find two people anywhere on this Earth who agree 100% on everything, you also will not find a group of people, even DUers, who can agree on anything. It is statistically impossible.

our time arguing about stupid things here on DU...

;-)

deference.

;)
sw

At least I think that all of us do. :shrug:

Seriously, that's the only thing I could come up with. That's also why I like it here.

-Hoot

And we cannot wait until the day he is out of the oval office.

nt