POLL: Should candidate threads be limited to a single forum?

[JackRiddler]

Poll question: POLL: Should candidate threads be limited to a single forum?

No editorial, just the question: Has the time arrived to limit candidate/campaign threads to a single forum? (In the past, this was GD: Politics.)

ON EDIT: Feel free to explain and debate!

[Subdivisions]

1. Yes. Continuing to allow threads about this candidate and that

should either be moved to GDP or another forum titled "Election 2008" (or whatever) should be added.

GD looks more like the political forum than does GDP. Another thing, I've seen threads moved from GD despite the fact they were on a "general" (watercooler?) topic.

[stillcool]

2. until say a year before an election?

[Grateful for Hope]

3. A definite "yes" n/t

[AnotherMother4Peace]

4. These "I hate Hilliary..." "I hate Edwards..." "I hate Obama..." threads are getting tedious.

I don't know if DU has always been so negative about "our own". It seems as if some of the threads just want to inflict damage.

[JackRiddler]

9. Not to mention...

Sorry if you think it's "negative" but it's not the negative posts that are the problem but the ones that are obvious advertising by fans and campaign workers of these sterling personalities.

"Super Obama Lifts a Planet with His Bare Hands"
"Hillary is the One True Jesa Christ"
"Only Clark Can End War Poverty and Disease"
"Edwards' Life Is an Inspiration to the Workers of the World"
etc. etc.

This junk needs to go to a special, designated place.

The scandal here is that ANY of this crap is being discussed in February 2007 - in the middle of the biggest state crimes in US history, in which a regime that stole two elections, plundered the treasury and launched a global war of aggression is preparing to WAGE NUCLEAR WAR.

In that context, Britney and Anna are worthier of attention than HRC, Obama and Edwards. Britney (and Anna!) are likelier to say something that matters about current events.

NO ONE SHOULD BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN FEBRUARY 2007.

That anyone should be represents a blatant and disgusting fix by the MONEY.

This is a psychological operation by the media corporations, in tandem with the opportunistic campaign machines of the "candidates," to establish that

YOU HAVE NO SAY WHATSOEVER, BRAND NAMES BUILT BY AD FIRMS ARE PICKING YOUR "LEADER" TWO YEARS IN ADVANCE.

Arendt has a fantastic post about this in the appropriate forum, titled:

I will not be "Anita Hill"-ed regarding Hillary and Barack
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3131699

SAYS ARENDT:

This fight (HRC v. Obama, Edwards etc.) of course, serves everyone except genuine, pro-labor, pro-government, pro-Bill of Rights Democrats.

It serves the DLC, and all its corporate apparatchiks by giving their people (Hillary and Barack) free publicity, raising bucketfuls of corporate cash for them, and cutting off the oxygen to all other candidates over a year before the first primary election.

It serves the Republican Party in several ways. First, it moves the media spotlight away from the ongoing trainwreck of democracy and foreign policy that is the Bush Administration and its multiple wars of choice. Second, it allows the media to run with "Democratic disarray" while avoiding the meltdown within the GOP. Third, it gives boxcars full of opposition research to the GOP, should either of these two folks becomes the nominee; and it provides ample evidence of the triviality of debate within our party. Again, should either of them win the nomination, the public will be as sick of them by November, 2008 as they were of the OJ Trial.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

10. I agree & am pleased to facilitate your great explanatory response.

[Bobbie Jo]

12. This is why I avoid the "Politics" forum sometimes

Ironically, Hannity and Rush have the same effect on me. I'm not into Dem bashing, I've had my fill of that for the last 12 years.

[PhilipShore]

23. Some anti threads about a...

candidate, should be allowed as long as it is over a genuine new issue or idea, that they have that they hate about the candidate. But when it becomes just the same repeated group hate slogan - over and over again, then it should go to the dungeon. I also think some pro cause threads should go to the dungeon as well. I will not mention them (the cause threads) so as to not provoke a flame war, but they are hot button causes.

People generally just want to go to find out what is the hot topic, news for the day, so perhaps DU could have statistics on the top of the page that say what threads have the most traffic.

[jimshoes]

5. GD Politics started out for that exact purpose

during the primary run-up to the 2004 election. There were some guidelines about dem bashing back then and there probably will be again this go round. It was a great idea then and still is.

[hashibabba]

6. What a great idea! I hope they do it again soon. eom

[AnotherMother4Peace]

7. K & R for discussion, & in hope that they will be moved to a single forum.

Maybe there should be a candidate bashing forum.:sarcasm:

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. LOL! ....n/t

[JackRiddler]

11. 28 yes to 7 no as of 12:52 EDT - keep this kicked so people can vote.

[nam78_two]

13. YES.nt

[JackRiddler]

14. Kick for voters!

[JackRiddler]

15. Overwhelming result, but still... many more must vote to make it clear! nt

[annabanana]

16. Yes, (In regard to the '08 race) other races should be allowed

to roam free.

[JackRiddler]

17. sure that's what is meant - thanks for clarification nt

[JackRiddler]

18. you need to vote again! vote, vote damn you

[PhilipShore]

19. Other: Yes and No

New and original ideas about candidates - and new ideas about political issues should be on GD - and ones with a purpose of non combat, should be on.

But the ones that are just brainwashed groupie ideas, issues, causes; about this or that candidate and/or cause, that are just same over and over again rehashed topic, with slogans etc., should go to the dungeon.

[ConsAreLiars]

20. You are proposing to ban all mention of Gore Clinton Obama Clark Edwards etc. from GD?

I can see why "some" might want to keep people from discussing their true loves' actions or views in the main DU forums, but apart from hating to hear what their favorites have said or done, I don't see book-burning or willful ignorance as preferable to open discussion. The true believers, on the other hand, don't need and indeed can barely tolerate reality checks, so they may disagree.

[JackRiddler]

24. Such rhetoric!

Book burning! Willful ignorance!

The proposal relates to standard practice on the board, done several times in the past.

Special forums were established for campaign threads so that GD would focus on issues, and not be flooded daily with the equivalent of fluff ads by campaign workers (whether self-appointed or otherwise) or the inevitable counter-attacks. Anyone who wanted could visit the campaign forum (as with any section in the library).

But today it's even more important: the Money is imposing a two-year campaign period. The media and the Obama/HRC campaigns play along. This yet another gunshot to the still-wriggling corpse of democracy (hey, two can go over the top rhetorically, here).

This is an attempt to predetermine two corporate choices two years in advance and - more importantly - takes the focus off the continuing crimes of the usurper regime.

Both of these bozos are collaborating because they are not calling out the regime as criminal but presenting la-la about how great they will be.

In Feb. 2007, no one should be running for president or talking about campaigns. It's a capitulation to money power.

[Forkboy]

21. I think a lot of people want to post that stuff but are intimidated by GD:Politics

I can't imagine why that is ;)

I think they should all be posted there.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. Wasn't GD: Politcs originally used as a campaign forum back in 2004?

When not just use that?