If you can chill out about the debate, then you can certainly chill out about worried DU reactions to the debate

[Silent3]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I mean, really.

In what universe is Biden's nationally-televised debate bomb a minor bump in the road, but comments from worried DUers are the thing that's going to bring the Republic crashing down?

Yes, we can recover from the debate. Yes, we're still not at a point where Biden dropping out fixes more problems than it would create.

I do think, however, that the Biden's poor debate performance quite legitimately makes Biden stepping aside a more salient topic of discussion than it was a few days ago, and it's hardy an unforgivable sin of disloyalty and hair-on-fire panic to merely broach the subject.

Too many of you act like it's chatter on DU that's the most powerful force in the election. You may know logically that it isn't, but many of you nevertheless react to and pounce on worriers as if it were.

The way I see it is that, first and foremost, DU is a discussion board.

We want to use DU, of course, to rally the troops and organize real-world action to promote Democrats. Most importantly these days, we want to promote Biden and save the country and the world from the ravages of a second Trump term.

But this place is still a discussion board first and foremost. And it's a perfectly natural human thing to want to discuss one's worries and fears as well as hopes and encouragement.

Someone here recently demanded that we "sell sell sell the fucking message", as if it's the job of everyone on DU to not engage in a discussion where a variety of views are expressed, but only to gather together to give sales pitches and pep talks to each other.

I vehemently reject point of view, and the related out-sized concerns that people expressing worry and despair on DU is a danger to the election that cannot be tolerated.

From the biggest think-positive cheerleaders on DU to the shakiest worrywarts, I think nearly every DUer (actual trolls aside, which are probably far fewer than the paranoid among us imagine) is prepared to crawl through broken glass in hail storm to vote for Biden, even if they live in a deep red state where their vote probably won't matter. Just to know we cast that vote is deeply important to most of us here, no matter where we live on the optimism/pessimism spectrum.

Yet some of you react like every expression of concern is the same thing as saying "I've given up, and I want you to give up too".

The knee-jerk reaction of "Don't worry! GOTV!" is treated as a pearl of great wisdom when it's merely a false dichotomy.

We aren't all obligated to belong to the cult of positive thinking, treating positive thinking as a magical force that wins all battles, and treating worry and fear as bad mojo that breaks the magical spell.

For those of you into the positive thinking thing, knock yourselves out with that. But don't act like it's everyone else's duty to play that game with you.

[ColinC]

1. Actual DU members I'm chill with -and there are valid concerns

Trollfarmereddie33 and the barrage of his friends that arrived on debate night with brand new spanking accounts to voice their “concerns”? Those are the ones I’m not chill with.

[Silent3]

3. I suspect there are way, way fewer troll farm posters here than you imagine

Further, as trolling goes, I really can't see expressing worries about Biden's debate performance as a very effective means of harming Biden's election prospects. How would that work? How would such messages discourage people on DU from voting for Biden?

[ColinC]

4. I'm not talking about discussing worries

I’m talking about outright calling for his replacement.

That is beyond worrying. And most of those at the very least were misguided individuals who were at best ignorant of DU rules. But there was certainly an uptick in brand new accounts outright calling for Biden’s removal as the nominee.

[Silent3]

12. So what real-world threat does "outright calling for his replacement" on DU actually pose?

If people think that's bad advice, they ignore it.

If a lot of genuine troll-farm trollers were responsible for those posts, I'd say they were wasting bot CPU cycles.

Misguided or not, I don't see how calling on Biden to step down should be considered a violation of DU rules. We are obligated to support Democratic candidates, but suggesting in (what to some people seemed) an emergency a change to a different Democratic candidate, and without saying "I refuse to vote for Biden if he doesn't step down!", should hardly be considered unforgivable disloyalty.

[ColinC]

14. If not genuine it takes the effect of propaganda

[Silent3]

25. It seems very weak propaganda then, delivered to the least effective place for that propaganda

This is a place where nearly every non-troll, non-bot member is going to get out and vote for Biden no matter what.

Even those on DU who, in a moment of panic, thought Biden should step down, or those who might still believe that, aren't going to give up voting for Biden in the 99%-likely case that Biden remains the Democratic candidate.

[ColinC]

26. It gives the illusion that there is far more support for a thing when you have fake people posting it

Which can be very strong propaganda

[Silent3]

28. But still, to what effect? If it doesn't change voting in November, it doesn't matter

There aren't any significant number of people who were Biden supporters who will refuse to vote for Biden if he doesn't step down. The apparent popularity of the idea of Biden stepping down is irrelevant there.

There aren't any significant number of people who will vote for Trump because Biden didn't step down. The apparent popularity of the idea of Biden stepping down is irrelevant there.

Biden and the Biden campaign team, the only one's who will decide if Biden stays in the race or not, are not going to be much effected by DU chatter.

Seems like weak propaganda to me.

[ColinC]

29. If most people think there is a lot of support for something when there isn't

It will definitely help change some people’s minds.

Troll farms have billions in funding for a reason: they work

[Silent3]

61. You still have to dispense propaganda in a receptive, effective environment

Not many people here are receptive to the idea of Biden stepping down, and, even if they were, unlike persuading people to vote differently in an election, there's no effective response that could result.

Imagine suddenly trolls convinced half of DU that Biden should step down (an enormous exaggeration of possible effect). Then what?

You think that the Biden campaign team is going to sign onto DU, look at a clamor of calls for Biden to step in, and cave to that idea without plenty of smart advisers telling them how bad an idea that is?

[ColinC]

65. It's not really an issue that is pertinent to DU as we do a pretty good job at policing ourselves, so I think you're

…right in regards to DU specifically. However places like Facebook and Twitter, etc that does not police this sort of speech have often fallen into being largely propaganda outlets after being overrun by troll farms -which I don’t think most people disagree with.

[Silent3]

67. I have no argument with that about Facebook, and as for Twitter...

...that's MOSTLY just a right-wing troll shithole at this point.

[ColinC]

71. Yeah. And just to clarify, my issue is just with the few apparent trolls we've had which are few and far between

Not with the legitimate folks like yourself who are simply understandably concerned with the ramifications of the debate.

[Silent3]

54. So you repeatedly claim...

...but with no supporting argument for how it would be effective propaganda.

[ColinC]

60. I mean, I thought I explained myself pretty well but I'm open to that not being the case :)

[ProfessorGAC]

44. For One Thing...

...since The Admins closed the primary season many weeks ago, recommending a replacement is a violation of TOS.
In fact, it violates at least 3 rules.
Whether a post will get alerted & hidden is a matter for the community & jurors.
But, per EarlG in his general post to DU in GD, it's a violation.

[Silent3]

51. If, for instance, Biden became gravely ill...

...discussing an alternative to Biden would become absolutely necessary. It's a mere matter of opinion, not an act of disloyalty, to feel like Biden's debate performance is as big an emergency as grave illness. (I personally think replacing Biden on the ticket is way, way riskier at this point than simply trying to recover from the debate and move on, I just have sympathy for those who feel otherwise.)

The only thing that would seem to be a straight-out violation would be promoting a third-party candidate instead of Biden. It's not like I'm looking back over the rules at this moment, parsing them like a lawyer, but I really doubt merely suggesting Biden step down is a clear violation.

[ProfessorGAC]

55. Read EarlG's Post

He specifically says it is a violation.
I don't think it's up for debate.

[Silent3]

57. Is this the EarlG post you're talking about?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19077397

I see no mention of discussing Biden stepping down as being a violation. He just points out, rightly, it's still a dumb idea. He ends that post saying:

(Emphasis mine)

So bottom line: Things don't look as rosy right now as we'd hoped going into the debate. But calls to replace Biden at this stage are nothing more than a fantasy -- a pointless academic exercise which will do nothing but create disunity, when we need the opposite.

At least, that's my opinion. You're welcome!

That sure doesn't sound like someone laying down the law about violations.

[ProfessorGAC]

70. Go Up A Few Paragraphs

He specifically says it's a violation.
Your selective reading has betrayed you.

[Silent3]

73. I see what you're talking about...

…but it comes across to me as a hedged interpretation of the DU rules, especially given what I quoted at the end, and not a definitive laying-down of The Law.

EarlG responded in this thread to, I then responded to him, and perhaps we’ll soon see a more direct pronouncement on the subject.

[piddyprints]

2. I'm the most negative,

Pessimistic person I know. But even I am saying let’s just get behind Joe and re-elect him. I see no point in any other discussion of the matter. The alternative is too horrible to consider.

[Silent3]

9. The point is to get things off your chest, which is what friends do with each other...

...rather than acting as if merely expressing fears causes harm, rather than acting as if voicing concerns is somehow a big opportunity cost that meaningfully subtracts from taking positive actions.

Look at this wording of yours:

...I am saying let’s just get behind Joe and re-elect him. I see no point in any other discussion...

There's an implicit assumption that "other discussion" somehow negatively impacts "just get behind Joe". That's simply not true.

As for "The alternative is too horrible to consider", that's a coping mechanism for you, not something that helps elect Biden either. You shouldn't try to obligate others to use the same coping mechanisms you use.

[piddyprints]

33. Whatever.

[chowder66]

5. It was ONE debate. With a cold, next to a felon. Joe has moved on.

[gab13by13]

6. Did you read the post from EarlG?

Joe dropping out is not a viable, reasonable option.

Once TSF became a convicted felon he lost support which he could not afford to lose. TSF still has to be sentenced. IMO it would be reasonable for the question to be asked, should TSF drop out of the race for the good of the Magat party?

[ColinC]

8. TSF should drop out for the good of the country

But maybe that’s just so obvious of a thing it goes without saying for most people

[GreenWave]

64. rearranging your title a bit ...Trump should drop out of the country for good.

[Silent3]

11. Point out one thing in my post that contradicts what you just said n/t

[Doodley]

7. Well said.

[Ocelot II]

10. I'm not all that concerned about DU.

Nobody cares much about DU but DU; we're our own echo chamber, which is fine. It's also fine and appropriate to argue against the negativity of the Debby Downers; even within our echo chamber it's important to stay confident, since attitudes do spill over into Real Life. There were, however, a pretty fair number of brand new posters who brought their own brand of FUD, and they had to be, and mostly were, disposed of promptly.

[PeaceWave]

13. I'm not asking (nor would I ever ask) for Biden to step aside...

Doing so would be a logistical and legal mess. My real concern is why we all didn't foresee and prepare for this fairly predictable situation? Newsom, either on his own or due to it being communicated in no uncertain terms, decided that running against Biden in the primaries would be political suicide. But, did that really have to be the case? We all know what went down between Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. But, there are those of us - to this day - who think Ted was right and that he would have fared better against Reagan in the general election. It shouldn't be considered "treason" to test the mettle of an incumbent candidate. If handled in a civil manner, debates between Newsom and Biden could have been incredibly constructive - for both men. It might also have been good for the rest of us too. Just saying.

[Silent3]

16. It is, historically speaking, a generally losing game to challenge the incumbent of your own party

Ted Kennedy very well might have fared better against Reagan than Carter, but to make that work it's Carter more than anyone else who would have to have been convinced of that.

It shouldn't be considered "treason" to test the mettle of an incumbent candidate. If handled in a civil manner, debates between Newsom and Biden could have been incredibly constructive - for both men.

Maybe not treason, but in most cases, regardless of the possible merits of such a public debate, the irrational but nevertheless real reactions to intra-party conflict make challenging an incumbent terrible strategy.

[Demsrule86]

19. Kennedy cost Carter the election...you run a challanger against an incumbent president and you lose every time.

[Sewa]

58. How can you quantify that statement

President Carter was blamed for high gas prices, pulling the US out of the Olympic, the failed Iran hostage rescue, three mile island. Carter would have lost either way.

[PeaceWave]

22. Admittedly, we do tend to fall in love with our candidate of choice...

Maybe there simply needs to be more education within the Party...That public debate is okay, but that - at the end of the day - we all need to come together. That is one thing that Republicans are, even to an irrational extent, really good at. Half of them are going to "hold their nose and vote for Trump" in the general election.

[Silent3]

24. The out-of-party effect of challenging an incumbent matters too

We Democrats have, of course, suffered from self-inflicted harm, most recently the Bernie-or-Bust crowd who could easily have handed the Presidency to Hillary Clinton if they hadn't been so pig-headed.

But we lose swing voters when we challenge an incumbent too. Every primary produces fodder for the opposing party to use by pointing out the attacks the same-party candidates make on each other. An unchallenged incumbent is spared that problem, and ends up looking less tarnished to all voters, not just voters of their own party.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. If it's being talked about on DU, and on Pod Save America by former Obama staffers

You know it’s being talked about by Biden staff and DNC staff.

Confronting and combatting both panic and denial are critical to winning this election.

[Silent3]

18. "Confronting and combatting" is one thing, treating the expression of worry as if it is, in and of itself...

...an unforgivable act of disloyalty or nothing but trolling is quite another.

Respectfully confront what you think are out-sized concerns or bad strategic moves. Accusations of trolling, however, shouldn't be handed out so lightly, and a "shut up and get with the program!" attitude doesn't help either.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. I agree

IMO, the behaviours you describe are a form of denial,

[OneGrassRoot]

30. I also agree with you...

Of course there are limits to what we can say here which admins explain very well. But I do believe people can lose sight of the fact that this is a discussion board; if they’re relatively new, maybe that means something different to them than it does to most of us. I’ve recently been accused of being divisive and endangering votes for Biden by pointing out and criticizing a specific group of people - not Biden or elected officials or other DUers but a group on the left who, prior to the debate, swore they wouldn’t vote for Biden. Made me second guess whether I had lost the plot and it’s no longer a discussion board. Honestly it hasn’t been worth the aggravation to post here for a while now -- too many are so quick to attack and make assumptions — so while I used to be very active I now just read which is what’s most valuable for me anyway

[Demsrule86]

17. I am sorry, but I don't agree...multiple post which is what we have seen calling for a sitting president to

quit the presidential race a couple of months before the elections...is an attack on Joe Biden...a Democrat. Lots of people read DU who are not members. And that sort of thing has no place here. We support our Democratic candidates...and also, if you want to lose badly, replace an incumbent.

Joe Biden is our nominee and we support him. Our primary is over. Perhaps we would be better served in calling out Trump's lies...funny how we savage a Democratic President and nominee but have nothing to say about Trump's performance where he lied through his teeth repeatedly.
''

[Silent3]

20. You think the effects of discussion on DU are more powerful than the publically-televised debate itself?

That's the particular perspective and tone of reaction I'm challenging here.

[orange jar]

21. I've seen a lot of threads here about Trump's performance.

n/t.

[Music Man]

27. Thank you!

I haven't been able to stand the attempt to diminish what we all saw. What does a lack of fact checking by the moderators have to do with the fact that Biden's opening statement was already shit? Had a cold, huh? What does a cold have to do with finishing sentences?

I adore Joe Biden, think he's a great president, and he is our best chance to beat Trump at this point. But refusing to acknowledge Biden's faults--again, as you say, on a discussion board--is patronizing.

[Kaleva]

31. Some are trolls and several have been zapped by MIRT

Some are genuine. But it's often hard to tell the difference.

[Silent3]

35. The benefit of the doubt should go to someone NOT being a troll, however

Especially if what they are expressing something plenty of Democrats are thinking and saying.

The knee-jerk "Troll!" accusations are obnoxious, as if there's a prize being handed out for whoever identifies (correctly or not) the most trolls fastest.

[orange jar]

42. To your point here:

Especially if what they are expressing something plenty of Democrats are thinking and saying.

Thing is, the knee-jerkers probably don't realize it's something that Dems outside of DU are discussing. Not saying it's wrong or right, but some of the overly aggressive types likely mostly reside in their heavily curated social media/personal bubbles — meaning that they genuinely do not see it. I am someone who thinks that the "Biden should drop out/Gavin Newsom please save us" posts are silly and unrealistic, but I also agree that those who play troll patrol are also being a bit ridiculous (NOT talking about MIRT here, btw — just the armchair experts)

[ProfessorGAC]

47. One Thing To Remember About MIRT...

...is that the team has no jurisdiction on any poster with over 100 posts.
It's new posters, troublemakers, name-calling rightwingers, and dramatic concern trolls that MIRT can act upon.
If these "replace Joe" posters have 200, or 2,000, or 20,000 posts, MIRT is powerless.
Only the admins can address those.

[orange jar]

56. Oh, interesting!

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

[Kaleva]

69. In an idealized world that may work, but it's not case

Back when I joined, anyone with less then a thousand posts was suspect.

It's the norm , and has been the norm, to question those with low post counts. Particularly those who preach doom and gloom.

And to paraphrase Skinner, it helps to have a thick skin while here so everyone ought to expect blowback whenever one makes a post .

[Silent3]

76. "It's the norm"

It's not a commendable norm, however, even if we should also be expected to have thick skins.

[Kaleva]

79. It might not be commendable but that's the way it is

And it's been that way at least since I've been around and I'm pretty sure it was that way before I joined in early 2008.

[Blaukraut]

32. I'm a worrier by nature

My first instinct is to worry and be negative. I also voice that negativity. However; I actively look for positive posts to help me overcome my anxiety. So those of you who get angry about us Negative Nellies: most of us aren’t trolling, so please don’t immediately attack us and shut us down. We see the glass as half empty. It might be genetic. It might be a lifetime of bad experiences. But at least in my case, expressing my worries and fears is basically asking for reassurance. Of course it isn’t anyone else’s responsibility to alleviate my anxiety but my own. But every bit helps.

[OneGrassRoot]

41. ...

[bigtree]

34. they're mostly unbelievable

...I think the concerned folks need to get a grip on themselves and stop projecting their fears.

It's not political advocacy so much as it's trolling people who are working to promote our presumptive Democratic nominee.

No one needs the negativity. It's just unproductive and encourages more apathy and cynicism.

President Biden isn't 'stepping aside' and the people who are promoting, encouraging, or giving fealty to that bull are working AGAINST the party, not for it.

Proposing that Joe Biden declare himself to be a lame duck president and ex-candidate just because Trump was allowed to spit out an endless stream of lies is just some really fucked up politicking which punishes the person who leveled with viewers and rewards the inveterate liar.

I'm surprised people think they can sell the idea that incessantly lying during the debate wins Trump anything, especially here.

I guess I shouldn't be. Stop trying to whisper advocate what Earl G. clearly said was antithetical to our interests and activity here and in the party.

This thread is just you advocating for Biden to be replaced. Don't try and be sly about it.

garbage:

"I do think, however, that the Biden's poor debate performance quite legitimately makes Biden stepping aside a more salient topic of discussion than it was a few days ago, and it's hardy an unforgivable sin of disloyalty and hair-on-fire panic to merely broach the subject."

...pure twaddle.

[Silent3]

38. Your concern about concern is noted

...to paraphrase a reaction I see too often.

It's a discussion board. People talk about what they're feeling in the moment.

There is not a need for people to always, at every moment, for have "a grip on themselves". Talking about people "projecting their fears" on DU as if it's a dangerous and communicable contagion is way more absurd than anyone's worries about Biden's publicly-televised debate performance.

[bigtree]

40. it's not concern

...this isn't my board and I don't control anything here.

It's my opinion, and it's a damn sure better advocacy than promoting handwringing and retreat from an inveterate liar. It's as if you're unable to confront Trump and have just satisfied yourself with attacking our presumptive nominee.

And you've wrapped it in this disingenuous appeal for the viewpoint you agree with to be heard, likely ad nauseam if it's tolerated here.

This is what I read this afternoon:

EarlG:

"...current talk on DU of replacing Biden seems to me like a purely academic exercise born out of panic (not to mention, ahem, a violation of DU rules, since we declared an official end to Primary Season months ago).

...calls to replace Biden at this stage are nothing more than a fantasy -- a pointless academic exercise which will do nothing but create disunity, when we need the opposite.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19077397

[Silent3]

48. What "disingenuous appeal for the viewpoint you agree with" are you talking about?

For the past year I've been arguing fiercely that running anyone but Biden is a terrible idea. I have a sister who keeps suggesting that, and I argue back against that every time.

Right after Biden's awful debate performance, I still didn't think running anyone but Biden was a great idea, but I did think it at least became a more salient issue to discuss. That's the only degree of shift I had. The shift was strongest right after the debate. I'm human, and watching that debate hit hard. It did take a couple of days to recover somewhat, but I was never on the "Must step down!" bandwagon even at the worst of it.

I still have full sympathy for people who feel that Biden should step down, however.

As for "promoting retreat from an inveterate liar" that's a very emotional and besides-the-point take on talk of Biden stepping down.

The top concern for everyone should be that Trump loses. Biden winning is, of course, the far likeliest way for Trump to lose, but, boiled down to the barest essentials, Trump losing to any Democrat is much more important than Biden, the man himself, winning.

Whether or not we've fiercely stood up against a liar, in and of itself, as emotionally satisfying as that is, is a far, far lesser concern.

What many of the people who pounce on worriers fail to do is give those worriers, even those whose worry takes the form of suggesting Biden step down, any credit that they're doing so because, rightly or wrongly, they think it's the best way to save the country and the world from another Trump term.

[bigtree]

49. you're advocating in your thread that it be discussed here

...the rest about your sister and past advocacy is some weird justification.

[Silent3]

53. It should be discussed here. People who discuss it should be told it's a bad idea...

...but they shouldn't be shunned like infidels. It's a very culty reaction I'm seeing, not just counterarguments to a bad idea.

[budkin]

36. This. A million times this.

We are NOT in a cult.

[Silent3]

39. "Sort of if like you were recruited to be a spinner"

Where is that in the rules?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

46. We should not post messages about site rules and enforcement type issues nt

[OneGrassRoot]

43. May I ask why you're afraid...

to share some of your thoughts and ideas, as long as they don’t go against the TOS?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

45. We should not post messages about site rules and enforcement type issues nt

[OneGrassRoot]

50. I see. Thank you. n/t

[marble falls]

52. I am chill. Now is not the time for this discussion.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, that's what you think.

Other DUers have other opinions. Everyone can post here. Your opinions are just your opinions. They have no more heft than those of others.

[Silent3]

63. How does my post insist on having more heft?

And more heft about what specifically?

Of course, "Everyone can post here. Your opinions are just your opinions".

My OP, like many other posts, is merely encouragement for people who act in a cultish manner (as is their right), feeling the need to pounce on and eradicate the infidels, to calm down in just the same way they expect other people to calm down about the debate itself.

[EarlG]

62. Indeed, DU is a discussion board

And like all other discussion boards, it has rules. And one of the rules -- that we've had for the last twenty years -- is that once primary season is declared over, everyone gets behind the Democratic nominee. That rule doesn't have an exception for "unless the nominee has a bad debate."

If you think the rule is dumb, and you want to push the fantasy that the Democratic nominee should somehow be forced to quit the race four months before the general election, I'm sure there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can make that argument.

Otherwise, as long as Biden is the Democratic nominee, he's the Democratic nominee.

[Silent3]

66. This is, however, a very different thing than, say, getting on here and pushing RFK Jr or...

...some other third-party candidate over Biden. I don't think I've seen the idea of Biden stepping down framed in the sense of "I refuse to support Biden if he doesn't step down".

As bad an idea as Biden stepping down is, I don't see suggesting that idea (which I'll bet even a few members of Biden's own campaign staff have contemplated, especially in the heat of the moment) as a form of lack of support, especially if motivated by the most important goal of the moment, defeating Trump.

Now, you're of course the (or one of the chief) rule maker(s) here, so what you say becomes the law of the land. If you're saying right now talk of Biden stepping down is a rules violation, so be it.

But even in your own recent post on the subject it seems more like you were treating talk of Biden stepping down as really dumb strategy, but still with that being your opinion, not a decree of forum rules.

My biggest concern is that I feel a lot of DU posters are getting to where they have a very cultish, inflexible, shun-the-infidels take on the way they react to other members of DU.

[EarlG]

74. The rule is clear

"Do not post anything that could be construed as bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for any Democratic general election candidate..."

In its history, DU has never permitted the undermining of our presumptive nominee after primary season is over. We lost a lot of DU members in 2016 after they refused to abide by that rule.

I haven't made a big fuss about it since the debate because I thought it was fair to let people blow off steam. But the window for that kind of chatter is closing. If Biden chooses to drop out, that's his choice. Otherwise, he's our nominee, and he should be treated as such.

[Silent3]

75. I'm pretty sure, ban-stick applied or not, talk of Biden stepping down is on the way to a natural death...

...pretty quickly, no matter what.

Now, if I might be so bold as to disagree with "The rule is clear"...

Any rules, in my opinion, need to be interpreted with an eye toward the ultimate purpose of the rules, and being open to considering circumstances. You're already showing that you agree with that to a certain extent when you say, "I haven't made a big fuss about it since the debate because I thought it was fair to let people blow off steam."

But I also differ on the idea that discussing the concept of Biden stepping down constitutes "bashing, trashing, (or) undermining". Further, it would be a huge stretch to see how such talk could depress election turnout.

This is a very, very different thing than 2016, where I imagine you're largely referring to diehard Clinton haters who openly spouted absurdities like Clinton and Trump being essentially the same, or even calling Clinton worse than Trump. Now that's clear "bashing, trashing, (or) undermining". In fact, unlike people badly shaken by Biden's poor debate performance, many of these Clinton haters where filled with nihilistic "burn it all down!" anger, not giving a damn about how harmful a Trump Presidency could be to our country.

People suggesting Biden step down are mostly just guilty of bad strategic thinking. Actual honest-to-God trolls aside, I think every one suggesting (and hardly demanding!) Biden step down fully intends to vote for Biden when, almost inevitably, Biden remains our candidate. And in the unlikely event Biden did step down, they'd be fully behind whoever Biden endorsed and/or the Democratic party as a whole picked as a replacement. These people are motivated by desperately not wanting Trump to win, for the good of the country, the same as all of us.

To repeat an example I've used elsewhere in this thread, if Biden suddenly became gravely ill we'd all burst into spontaneous discussion of who might replace Biden on the ticket. I don't think it would be considered "bashing, trashing, (or) undermining" even if we didn't wait for an official announcement that Biden had stepped down or died.

In my opinion, it's just a matter of degree, and not of kind, to regard Biden's poor debate performance as akin to a serious illness coming on, especially if you don't know for sure Biden is going to come back in full force.

My whole point in creating this thread goes well beyond the specific issue of Biden stepping down anyway. It's about a feeling that some DU members verge on wanting to enforce narrow groupthink and a nothing-but-positive-vibes approach to discussions here.

[EarlG]

81. I've approved your appeal

SInce I instigated this side discussion about the rules, I don't think its fair for you to have a post removed by Jury for replying to me.

However, I'm locking the thread, because this discussion is over. Your quibbling aside, calling for the Democratic nominee to step down or be forced out four months before the general election is absolutely "undermining" the nominee. If you don't get that, I don't know what to tell you.

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

68. Your idea of a discussion is valid, perhaps, at the white house.

Your statement that "Biden stepping aside a more salient topic of discussion" is not welcome, it seems, now that we have our presumptive nominee.

Talking about how he might improve in the next possible debate may well be constructive criticism and a great topic of discussion.

[Silent3]

72. It seems to be a weird, overly-anal interpretation of DU rules if something that can be discussed by loyal Democrats...

…at the White House would be verboten here, treated as unforgivable disloyalty and/or trolling.

As I mentioned in another post, if Biden were gravely ill we’d all be talking about who would replace him, and not be waiting for an official announcement of Biden stepping down or dying before doing so either.

In those circumstances, interpreting such talk as “not supporting the winner of the primary” would rightfully be treated as absurd.

Given that, it’s merely a difference of opinion about the severity of Biden’s debate performance (a time-to-recovery-from-the-shock matter of opinion at that) vs. a grave illness, not a bright-line matter of supporting or not supporting the winner of the primary.

[Xavier Breath]

77. K & R.

[PortTack]

78. Why keep the topic alive..drop it! You do realize that comments here are edited and reposted over and over on SM!

That is not good for any dem running for office…period!

[Silent3]

80. This thread had a broader concept in mind...

…about overreacting to opinions you don’t like that crop up on DU, as if any dissent from a narrow range of opinion is not only unpleasant, but (gasp!) dangerous!

In a world where, for example, Biden’s debate performance can be treated as something to not worry about, something that’ll blow over if we just calm down about it, it’s silly to think posts here on DU are somehow a more dangerous and worrisome thing in the bigger picture.