Elections and Stumping on TFL

[Al Norris]

This is an answer to Joliet Jake in particular (so as to not detract any further from the Fred Thompson thread), and a general statement on all political stumping threads, now or in the future.

The opinions expressed herein, are my views as a moderator. Not as an advocate of a particular candidate. Nor are these views/opinions of mine the final say in how this forum is to be conducted. I'm the junior mod of this sub-forum. I will defer to the other senior mods (my term) in general and to Long Path, TheBluesMan and Marko Kloos in particular.

On to a particular item:

The thread title was: Fred Thompson supporters:

I said, in part: "But if you folks want to continue to "invade" specific threads to denigrate whichever candidate..."

I see no defamation here. That would be an untruth. Everything I posted about this candidate is true and factual with sources linked.

Denigrate, J.J. It was used as a verb and has two meanings:

1) belittle
2) charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone

Your posts in that thread met with one of those two definitions.

To only advocate reduces this board to a cheer leading section. Kinda like saying, "if you're not on board with MY "immigration reform" you are not patriotic" and can't post here.

I notice that in the Ron Paul thread, your actions were just the opposite. Kinda like saying, "if you're not on board with Ron Paul you are not a supporter of the second amendment." (but do read on, before your decide to answer this charge)

Since the objective of that thread was to gain support for Fred, why haven't you started a thread to show your opposition? Going into that thread, the way you did, was nothing less than trolling.

If anyone provides objective provable facts not just subjective opinions, positive or negative, on any candidate, I would like to know.

Fine. I have no problem with that. My problem was that you came into that thread, merely to denigrate the man. None of your posts served any other purpose.

I can go into the Ron Paul thread, and pick an individual or two, and say the say exact thing. I was tempted to do just that. Instead, I posted my sarcastic diatribe there and decided to open this thread as a general dialogue. The reason I'm using you as an example, is that I've gotten fed up with the petty bashing, bickering, intentional (or unintentional) sabotage of various threads, and generally having a double standard (do as I say, not as I do - type of thing).

Now, that out of the way, on to some general observations:

The campaign for the 2008 Presidential Election, started in general, the moment the voting was done back in November. It started in earnest, two months later, in January, immediately after the opening of the new Congress. So this places it at 24 months or 22 months before the next elections, depending upon when you started counting.

Up to this time, general campaigns didn't start until the following late summer/early fall of the year before the Presidential Election. For all practical purposes, this time around, for the first time in my memory, the campaigns have started (again, for all practical purposes) a year early.

This bothers me on several levels. Not the least of which are the sustainability of the campaign donations process itself (remember, this is just to get to the Primaries!), the sustainability of the fervor of the supporters (campaign volunteers), and the sustainability of the general publics attention (or notable lack of attention-span!).

I haven't even mentioned how it is affecting discourse on TheFiringLine or the other gun boards. An objective observer might say that things have gone south. They might say that attitudes have become less open to polite discourse. They might even say, "shut 'em down! We are harming ourselves, as gun owners." This theoretical observer might even say, "what a neat way to divert everyone's attention from other things."

Whatever...

So how does the general membership feel about this extended election process in general and how do you think it affects this board (the L&P forum) in particular?

By my own comments here and in other threads, I think I've conveyed my general feeling of frustration and disgust with this whole extended process, and my general feeling of dismay at the way some of the membership are at each others throats. Politics is a rough and brutal game, but does that mean we have to be brutal towards each other? Perhaps.

I tend to think we are alienating many members, but I could be wrong.

 

[Joliet Jake]

I apologize if I was misunderstood but I stand by my statements and don't think presenting fact, whether negative or not is trolling. If this forum believes in censorship it may not be the place for me then. Locking topics down and banning people is just plain censorship, imho. If your skin is so thin that you are offended by an honest attempt to, sometimes OT, debate, you should lock yourself in your room and change the channel to your favorite cartoon. If you're offended easily, you're going to be offended. This is America, Freedom of speech is what we're about.

If you meant belittle you should have said belittle but your post was all ex post facto anyhows because I had already posted. I agree my rhetoric may have been belittling but my facts were solid and square and not defamatory.

I've never seen any rules (what self respecting real man reads any directions anyway, j/k) that say you can only advocate in a topic on any forum board anywhere until your post and then seemed to contradict yourself with your "sarcasm" at the end. If the purpose is to sit around and backslap each other on how great the topic is, what is the real purpose. I'm new here so I again apologize for not being up to speed but most forums would like to keep the topic subjects together and I didn't know we should have a backslapping topic and a different topic to discuss anything not so PC to some but still with relevant facts but the same subject as the former. Isn't that spamming the board?

If you'll notice I hope I have never resorted to ad hominem against other members here for the simple fact I would want to stick to the facts and I don't see your post as an attack either. You can use me as an example all you want because it's no skin off my behind but there was a huge difference in what I posted and the subjective opinions of some, "He just can't win", "unelectable". "Freedom nut", "screwball". Why? is all I ever ask and if there is no other reason other than personal opinion I ask, what is the purpose. Is there anything wrong with that?

The reason I haven't posted anything negative about RP is because I can't find anything factual to back up the so called mainstream negative attacks on him. If I did I would post them also. He's very intelligent but he also has a kind of feminine side to him some might subconsciously distain but I think alot of doctors and super intellectuals are like that. No? I would love to see someone post anything negative about RP but with relative facts. Just that no one does it. His beliefs on the fed and trade would be a great starting place to argue except he's right. People have attacked his no votes on gun bills but he's right, the executive has no business there. People have attacked and frequently distorted his position on non-interventionalism but he is right and backed up by numerous credible sources.

As to your last question to the board. I say, politics is politics and we can never know too much about who's going to be our next President. We can say we hurt each others feelings all day long, all year long, but in the end I guarantee we will be standing shoulder to shoulder for the Rights that brought us here.

jmho.

 

[Al Norris]

Fair enough Jake.

As for thick skin, I rather tend to believe that abraded enough, even steel bleeds....

Now, as for your last... I don't think it's so much about hurting feelings, but more to desensitizing ourselves. How long can this fervor last? And when it is diminished, what of the road ahead? Humans simply cannot maintaine this level of enthusiasm. If anything, 9-11 showed that to be a truism (when it should have been the ultimate "wake-up call").

 

[GoSlash27]

Antipitas,
I think we can all agree that this election cycle is a little different from most. Any election cycle begins the moment the previous cycle's ballots are cast, but this time the climate compels the rank and file to speak out *before* the party leadership and media selects our choices for us.

Since I was the one who started the whole brouhaha, perhaps an explanation would be in order:
I did not intend my post (nor the subsequent Thompson post) to discuss the virtues or drawbacks of any candidates. That's not germane to either discussion. They're simply intended to direct supporters to places where they can help their candidates.

IOW, I think it's appropriate to point out drawbacks in a 'stumping' thread...but these aren't stumping threads.

Jake,
Read above. That's why I jumped on you in the Thompson forum. There's any number of threads discussing how wonderful/ horrible (insert candidate here) is, but that's not the intent of those particular threads.

 

[Al Norris]

They're simply intended to direct supporters to places where they can help their candidates.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of "stumping?"

I agree that this election is different. On several levels, it is/was good to see the media play "catch-up!"

As a nation, we face several difficult choices, all of which can be summarized by the less than brilliant decisions of the past 7 years and the squandering of political capital by the neo-cons and the Republicans who followed their lead.

IMNSHO, a wholly different approach is called for. Yet we won't get that, with the current two party system. A viable third party would be a nice change, but that isn't gonna happen anytime soon, as the game is rigged and none of the current third party contenders seem to understand what is necessary to achieve major party standing.

So we are stuck with what we have.

 

[johnbt]

"I tend to think we are alienating many members, but I could be wrong."

Could be you're right. I find myself looking at the election threads thinking I'd rather read another 9 vs. 45 debate than see the same people rehash their unbending opinions.

John

 

[GoSlash27]

Isn't that pretty much the definition of "stumping?"

No.

"Stumping" is "my candidate roxxors because...." and "yoor candidate sux because..." As stated above,

the same people rehash(ing) their unbending opinions

These threads are not intended to be rhetorical, but rather provide guidance. "If you like (insert candidate), here's what you can do to help".

And that should work to the forum's favor, because the most ardent supporters of (insert candidate) will spend less time here and more time folding flyers and raising money.

 

[wingman]

If you're offended easily, you're going to be offended. This is America, Freedom of speech is what we're about.

Sure, however one should try to use common sense although free speech
allows you not to have CS it is the mature thing and a point can be made
without offending. We in modern America seem to enjoy watching other
people belittled reference reality television shows, my question is why.

Make your statement about who you prefer and why after that read only,
don't post. I love the internet because it turns off so easy.

 

[FM12]

ANOTHER 9 vs 45 thread? Man let me tell you.....

 

[Sarge]

Al,

I don't think you can have discussion, by stumping or any other name, without dissent. Those who run for public office throw themselves on the alter of denigration, for a chance at the gold ring. They've got to run the gauntlet to get it.

I guess the only question is how far TFL will allow dissenters to go, in revealing the warts of the candidate being stumped for.

Like you, I am disgusted with the political process. I simply find it impossible to keep quiet, when a thread like "John Kerry is a hunter & 2A supporter" comes up. I think as long as the information posted is factual, it doesn't degrade into slander/personal attacks against members, or advocation of violence against a person (public or not) then it's pretty well within bounds. That's just my opinion, FWIW.

I can't say whether or not these discussions alienate existing or potential members. I have been on a lot of gun boards, been booted from a few and quit many others due to the 'kindercare on crack' atmosphere that existed there. I'm still here. This place has decent moderation and horse's asses don't seem to tarry long. That sounds like a win to me.

And of course, there's always the ignore feature for those who don't take the hint. I have taken to applying it liberally on the boards that have it as a feature, and it tends to make the overall experience a lot more enjoyable.

 

[Wildalaska]

So how does the general membership feel about this extended election process in general and how do you think it affects this board (the L&P forum) in particular?

On the Board: It isnt going to change many minds
In General: Good. More time for the media darling/special interest candidates to get outed for their hypocrisy, fraud and corruption.

Me..I'm easy. Im voting for the republican candidate, no matter who it is. That is because the main issue I see are those upcoming Court vacancies. So called conservatives need to make their ummph felt here. Rather than wasting time on the fringe, join the mainstream and exact those promises.

WildthenextstepinyourgunrightsdependonthoseoldfellasintherobesAlaska

 

[cuate]

Read what Wildalaska says

Well said, Wild... Ditto Antipitas..... The First amendment is great but can be
bent out of shape sometimes and "Peace and Harmony" ranks well on this or other forums.

 

[GoSlash27]

And 9mm sucks.


I'm kidding, I'm kidding....

 

[Joliet Jake]

Define "Peace and Harmony"? Not trying to troll here but it's impossible to please all people. "Peace and Harmony" to some only happens when others agree with them. I remember when saying "that sucks" was offensive on tv, now it's common place. I agree blatant ad hominem is obnoxious but is more than obvious to most and can easily be handled via pm if it's really that bad and recurring. I'm personally against a nanny state and nanny forums. Overbearing moderators at some other forums I've seen remind me of the bruts/bullys/dictators of that nanny state everyone seems to dislike. Most threads will die a natural death on their own and then no one feels slighted or censored because they didn't get their say. Or maybe I'm just totally out of line, in which case, just tell me to shutup but that's jhmo.