General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf Hillary is the nominee I will of course vote for her, so should you unless you are an idiot!
I do not like Hillary. I do not want her to run or be the nominee. I would not send her a dime of my money. I would spend it on other candidates.
You don't have to work for her. Donate money to her. Or even like her.
But helping elect a Republican right wing nut will not help our side at all.
People saying this are saying it on emotion only.
I am sure the real liberals here will do the right thing.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Here? On DU??????
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)In fact a truth honest person.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Mick and Keith said that.
And it's true.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The candidate most peaceful won the 2008 election, it will be that way again in 2016. Won't be too hard to find some one more in favor of peace than Hill.
Young people just want peace and they will turnout to vote for peace.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If he/she fails to do so, don't blame the voters.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Not speaking of anyone specifically, but should a Democrat support a Democratic candidate that supports some of the same policies as GOP?
What makes one a Democrat, their political beliefs or the candidates they vote for? If the two are in conflict, which is more important?
djean111
(14,255 posts)candidate, so no point in caring about her policies and words or whatever, just shut up and be on board the Hillary train.
No point in looking at or supporting other possible candidates, because Hillary has a mountain of money and fantastic poll numbers. (You know, like Cantor did.)
Because the GOP is evil, and Hillary is better than the GOP. That's pretty much the only cogent argument, but then again, any of the possible Dem candidates would be better than the GOP.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)even when she has a D after her name.
ancianita
(36,048 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
samsingh
(17,595 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Any person who has voted in the past, and doesn't vote because it is Hillary, is truly an idiot. Tens of millions of Republicans will not vote for her based on their principles. Some idiots with a complete lack of principles won't either.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine many half-wits and simpletons place party politics before ethical convictions, and further attempt to rationalize it as the only choice for "real liberals" (though I realize it does tend to allow one the veneer of both cleverness and party purity, regardless of its fundamental fiction).
While I'll certainly vote for the nominee, I can't begrudge other people abstaining if done so in good conscience.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I will not help elect any Republican, but I will cast my vote for whomever I believe to be the best candidate.
Your attempts to try and shame me into compromising my vote are ineffective.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I just believe in voting one's conscience, and disagree with lockstep partisanship.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and I am perfectly capable of determining what is in my best interests.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you do nominate Clinton-Sachs and she loses, dont blame those that warned you not to nominate her.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Hope this clears up your confusion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)For the record, I only support Democrats, but I dont support all Democrats.
Those that are happy with the status quo will support a Clinton/Goldman-Sachs ticket. I support Democrats that want to save SS, Medicare for all, spending money on infrastructure and not military buildup. I support a strong VA and bringing back manufacturing jobs to America. I dont support fracking, the TPP, the XL Pipeline, the Patriot Act, nor those that do.
I only support Democrats but will not walk lock-step with those supported by the oligarchs.
We need a progressive Democrat in the WH.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)or just write in Mickey Mouse, or just stay home, both of which also benefit the Republicans.
I'm sure the Republicans appreciate your upcoming support!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is equivalent to supporting Republicans is truly, deeply, alarmingly stupid.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and nominating Clinton will be a slap in the face. She does not represent change, she does not represent the 99%. She represents Goldman-Sachs and the Banking industry.
"Great! You can vote for the Republican against the Democratic nominee..." Really???
lumpy
(13,704 posts)horrendous that would move Democrats to hating her? I don't mean unspecified stuff like "she's a corporatist", "doesn't represent change".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We know she takes money from Goldman-Sachs-O-Money and has stood up for the banks.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)How does she take money from Goldman Sachs and how has she stood up for the banks? I really don't know, so clue me. Without more detail these statements are meaningless.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Let's start with her support of the Republican I-War. And are you trying to tell me you missed the big stink made a few months ago when Goldman-Sachs gave her personal account $400,000 for having tea with them or some such excuse? At that time she told the bankers that she thought they were being maligned. I am pretty sure she favors the Trans Pacific Partnership, but maybe you know.
Tell us why we should support her.
840high
(17,196 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)reasons only vague statements like "she's a corporatist". What is the evil she has wrought?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and that's good enough for our conservatives.
Oh yes, she will bow down to REpublicans at the drop of a hat. She fully supported the Bush/Cheney illegal Iraq War.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it out.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)She hasn't been asked about TPP but TPP is geopolitical not economic, just as NAFTA was (and why Krugman won't apologize for his support for NAFTA to this day). So her answer probably would waffle.
Otherwise her ratings are pretty damn progressive across the board, you have to go really far back, when she was starting out and taking whatever she could get (Walmart, Rose Law Firm, etc). Of course, when you go that far back you have to ignore her working for Robert Treuhaft, a practicing communist. So you can't just pin her ideology to some past working environments, you have to take her at her word. At which point all you have to do is say she's a liar and can easily dismiss her offhand.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)will be thinking about? My son. The fact that some faceless name on a computer screen thinks I'm an idiot will not cross my mind at all.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Choosing between the lesser of two evils is not something I'm willing to do again. It isn't worth my time, effort or money.
The day Hillary gets the nomination I will change my registration to independent and never look back. It's sad because my family has been Democrats since the New Deal. My grandparents were union all the way. My grandmother would brag that my grandfather got bloodied fighting with scabs. We'd never betray the union, she said. Guess I'm not a "real liberal" after all.
I have absolutely zero interest in a party full of Wall Street puppets wearing Democrat masks. Count me out. If my grandparents were alive today, neither would recognize someone like Hillary as a Democrat. She is the kind of corporatist they fought against.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)competition. The first, and only, goal is to win office - any actual policy goals or concrete objectives (e.g. strengthen social security, decreasing militarism, restoring civil rights) are considered good talking points but ultimately unimportant.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)then she has my vote.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)get less and less. At some point we have to change the game. Sadly there are those among us that desperately want to hold onto the status quo likes it's a blankie. Afraid to fight for their freedoms and liberties. Our founders are rolling in their graves.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)to make the rule changes effective and permanent.
The most they are ever going to allow us on the political front is a few gains in social issues. And we'll get those with Democrats. We get less than zero with republicans. You might argue that the country has to get worse in order for the people to rise up and form a democracy, but the fact is, Occupy came about under a Democratic administration, and as disappointing as the Obama administration has been, life in the US is soooo much better than it was under Bush.
I'll take back any of our stuff I can until we move to take back everything that is ours.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html
The only solution is world revolution.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Elites will rule. Elites will always rule. We need to find elites that understand that they will be better off if they dont let us die.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)we'll be riding the unicorns that fly out of our asses.
We actually tried what you are suggesting a few times before in this country, and someone didn't like the idea much.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The Supreme Court determines many tough questions in our society, and we need at least moderately progressive justices on the Supreme Court bench. Remember, all federal judges serve for life if they wish, and are nearly impossible to impeach. Once a justice like Scalia takes the bench, he can be a disaster for progressives for decades.
I haven't always been happy with Dem presidents, but they always pick decent people for the courts, and that's one reason why I simply will not vote for a third party for president.
Hillary, if she is the nominee and becomes president, will undoubtedly nominate much more progressive candidates than, for example, Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush.
That's enough for me to get out and vote for her (and the rest of the Dems) no matter how much I might disagree with her on other issues.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)streamline my viewpoint.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I simply cannot get over that disastrous vote.
Also, IMHO, she is even more "in" with the big financial companies than Obama has been.
I'd like to read her book to find out what she was thinking about Lybia, Egypt and Syria because I was leery of the Obama administration's positions with respect to those countries.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
But we are better than her, it appears. I don't have much respect or admiration for Hillary, but I would support her over any Pug if it came down to the wire. Not saying much for her.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)mimi85
(1,805 posts)lumpy
(13,704 posts)in politics than Obama: she should have added, in her opinion, that McCain has contributed little good to the welfare of this nation perhaps. I suppose some might interpret her statement as being more supportive of McCain.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)But then, I've never really liked any Democratic candidate in my lifetime except for JFK (and then I was a young kid swept up in my parents' adoration of him). Even though I expect imperfection, disappointment and lies from every Democratic candidate I vote for, I don't have the virulent hatred for them as I have had for every Republican Presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And Bob Dole came across to me as a conservative but not a knuckle-dragger.
But all the other GOP candidates I remember, going back to 1968, were pretty bad.
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)we vote for a dead yellow dog in the road before we vote for a repke...or give them the victory.