Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:03 PM Jun 2014

Want to Stop Hillary? Here's a Place where You Can Donate

to that cause:

Stop Hillary!

I mean, if someone's serious about keeping Hillary Clinton from becoming President in 2016, why not go straight to the source of all anti-Hillary efforts? Bypass DU and futility and go right to the GOP website and contribute, FFS!

177 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Want to Stop Hillary? Here's a Place where You Can Donate (Original Post) MineralMan Jun 2014 OP
Cause then you'll be funding someone worse? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #1
The problem is this: election math is pure binary. riqster Jun 2014 #2
It will stay that way as long as you can convince enough people Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #8
Convince, schmonvince. It's an observable, verifiable fact. riqster Jun 2014 #16
Came pretty damn close with Perot. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #19
Spoiler, perhaps. But it didn't alter the math. riqster Jun 2014 #24
Yup, math is math. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #26
Might, maybe, etc. etc. hasn't happened. riqster Jun 2014 #28
Sounds like some Greenwald crap, but we don't advocate for "3rd parties" at "Democratic" Underground Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #63
Yes, I did rather suspect I was Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #70
Nope, not my motivation. riqster Jun 2014 #79
Don't let them change your mind. The only way to choose the best candidate is to A Simple Game Jun 2014 #97
Perhaps you should get into a knock down drag out with the guys who made the rules? They're..... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2014 #162
Spot on, Tarheel_Dem, spot on. greatlaurel Jun 2014 #120
True ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #85
I'd be fine with Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #89
This ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #98
And the perpetual whiners have NOTHING! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #46
Well, since the whine comes from sour grapes, it's usually bitter anyway. riqster Jun 2014 #50
I have to agree....they would only bring Velveeta Cheese like product anyways.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #52
Observable, repeatable, independently verifiable. MohRokTah Jun 2014 #18
I get what you are saying; but, ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #82
Ah, it'd possibly be the same. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #87
How will voting third party or staying home ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #93
First, I never 'stay home'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #96
Forgive me ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #107
I think one needs to differentiate between D=R and DLC=R. Chan790 Jun 2014 #172
That one problem with metaphors ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #176
lose what has been gained noiretextatique Jun 2014 #99
And not voting will be a stop-loss measure? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #108
Not voting dem = 0; voting dem = 1; voting rep = -1. Vattel Jun 2014 #130
That ain't how binary works. There is no third option. riqster Jun 2014 #134
Fail. Vattel Jun 2014 #149
Proof? riqster Jun 2014 #150
lol nt BootinUp Jun 2014 #151
I edited the post to provide proof Vattel Jun 2014 #152
However, you make my point regardless: not voting D helps the R. riqster Jun 2014 #153
If that is your only point then i agree. Vattel Jun 2014 #154
Let's break it down, shall we? ljm2002 Jun 2014 #165
I think it is our responsibility to show up. riqster Jun 2014 #167
Agreed. ljm2002 Jun 2014 #171
No argument there. But I am done waiting for the party to do it. riqster Jun 2014 #174
Kind of. ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #159
Quite possibly. But increasing D votes is always useful. riqster Jun 2014 #160
You make a good point. nt ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #161
Dude! Nobody has even declared candidacy. MineralMan Jun 2014 #4
I want different candidates. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #6
OK. Just as soon as the 2014 election is over, I encourage MineralMan Jun 2014 #10
My influence is teeny tiny. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #17
OK. If he's on the primary ballot in Minnesota, he'll probably MineralMan Jun 2014 #20
as my grandmother used to say "wish in one hand..." VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #47
Oh, I'm fine with many of the Democrats. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #69
that you "think" being the operative word... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #83
It IS weird. Especially since no one has declared. JaneyVee Jun 2014 #15
That's how I've always done it. I vote more liberal in the primaries,but "D" in the general election Hekate Jun 2014 #62
I love you mineral man warrior1 Jun 2014 #78
Let me check with my wife on that... MineralMan Jun 2014 #80
more of that stupid 'homespun' wisdom. nt xchrom Jun 2014 #3
Thanks for kicking the thread! MineralMan Jun 2014 #11
No chance in hell would I give money to RW a-holes! nt arthritisR_US Jun 2014 #5
Maybe you can't see the sarcasm smiley on your device. MineralMan Jun 2014 #7
Damn, you're right...ok, time to open my g.damn eyes, sorry :( nt arthritisR_US Jun 2014 #12
ROFL. BootinUp Jun 2014 #9
dumb stuff is.... dumb stuff. cali Jun 2014 #13
It is, indeed, cali. MineralMan Jun 2014 #14
Why is it dumb? JaneyVee Jun 2014 #23
I certainly wouldn't contribute to Rethugs for any reason. Besides, Hillary will stop herself w/ all those self-destructive comments she makes. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2014 #60
"If you want to stop Hillary,"... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #135
Only dumb to those unwilling to see the reality for the trees! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #49
I believe in treating a candidate like a candidate. I think a primary should not be easy for anyone Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #21
Yeah, me, too. Let me know when someone announces. MineralMan Jun 2014 #22
Your OP presumes her candidacy and I am speaking in the context created by your OP Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #65
and who has done that? I have not heard a single HRC supporter call for no Primaries... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #51
That's not what I said, what I wrote is there to read again. I suggest you do so. Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #64
and who HAS presented themselves yet? Projection much? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #84
Wow. Another dumb OP suggesting DUers that don't like Hillary want someone to the right of her. n/t Dawgs Jun 2014 #25
I suggested nothing of the sort. MineralMan Jun 2014 #27
Whatta guy! riqster Jun 2014 #33
I second that Emoji! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #53
Eh, whatevs. Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #29
The Dumb is strong in this one. WilliamPitt Jun 2014 #30
Thanks for the kick. MineralMan Jun 2014 #31
I have a CPAP device. Saying "I am your father" sounds very Vaderish when wearing it. riqster Jun 2014 #34
Indeed. But, it's also a very useful thing. I hope it's helping MineralMan Jun 2014 #36
Oh hellz yeah, MM. Life-changing. Literally. riqster Jun 2014 #39
I have no problems with sleep apnea, but I have relatives who do. MineralMan Jun 2014 #42
Here's hoping the holdout changes their mind. Nt riqster Jun 2014 #43
Yes. We all keep trying. MineralMan Jun 2014 #44
I have sleep apnea too Spirochete Jun 2014 #155
"I sure picked the wrong week to put glue in the reservoir!" riqster Jun 2014 #158
"Cause now I'm stuck and can't get out of the water" Spirochete Jun 2014 #166
... sheshe2 Jun 2014 #121
Are you saying that only Republicans oppose Hillary? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #32
No. Not at all. MineralMan Jun 2014 #35
It may well be, but I prefer the Democrats who oppose Hillary and their posts. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #37
Oh, OK. MineralMan Jun 2014 #38
As I recall, Hillary did some particularly egregious negative campaigning in '08. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #40
Not with my support. I do not participate in negative MineralMan Jun 2014 #41
That's hilarious. This OP is negative campaigning. Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #67
Well, I appreciate your concern, but I'm pretty sure on my feet. MineralMan Jun 2014 #68
But you're not the (presumptive) candidate, are you? ljm2002 Jun 2014 #138
I'm no kind of candidate. So far, I've never encountered any MineralMan Jun 2014 #139
Your position is clear... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #145
"it's fairly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the official candidate in 2016, right?" Warren DeMontague Jun 2014 #127
So on the one hand... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #136
Thanks for your reply. MineralMan Jun 2014 #137
You're very welcome. ljm2002 Jun 2014 #142
wish in one hand.... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #55
Some have. And, some Democrats vote for them. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #59
Okay good luck with that!!! VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #88
If you're not an "idealogue" have you no ideals? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #91
I am a realist....perhaps you have heard of us? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #92
Realists have no ideals? No principles? No morals? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #94
Heh! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #45
I've been told it is dumb, though. MineralMan Jun 2014 #48
I never listen to the opinions of lesser minds ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #74
Nor should you. MineralMan Jun 2014 #76
Just the latest lame riff on whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #54
Well isn't that a taste of your own medicine? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #56
Huh? whatchamacallit Jun 2014 #57
Typical "love it or leave it" type BS... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #58
I thought you used to post on freerepublic Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #61
I was banned from that site eight years ago. MineralMan Jun 2014 #75
But the internet history proves you wrong Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #81
You will do as you see fit, I'm sure. MineralMan Jun 2014 #90
Six years Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #103
+1000 Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #128
And even if you did post to the site that shall not be named ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #112
Thanks. I don't discuss that stuff here. MineralMan Jun 2014 #113
And I, for one, appreciate it. ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #114
Yup. That's what matters. MineralMan Jun 2014 #115
Yep. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #116
Alrighty then... sheshe2 Jun 2014 #124
"So it makes me wonder why so many want her to leave her seat"... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #168
Results of alert AgingAmerican Jun 2014 #66
Thanks for the results. Posters don't see jury MineralMan Jun 2014 #73
It's a lot simpler than that. ieoeja Jun 2014 #71
That could happen, but none of it will happen until MineralMan Jun 2014 #72
Only thing I've seen indicating a Hillary run is writing a book. ieoeja Jun 2014 #77
Putting out feelers doesn't always indicate an actual run, though. MineralMan Jun 2014 #86
kick & recommended. William769 Jun 2014 #95
K & R Iliyah Jun 2014 #100
If you stay home on election day because you don't like any candidates, then your silent protest String Fiesta Jun 2014 #101
What a LOAD of SHIT. n/t DeSwiss Jun 2014 #106
You're right. String Fiesta Jun 2014 #126
"Nobody cares what you think." ljm2002 Jun 2014 #140
"On election day, I will agree it is only your vote that carries any weight." String Fiesta Jun 2014 #177
Shouldn't we be focused on 2014? morningfog Jun 2014 #102
Actually...... DeSwiss Jun 2014 #104
I can think of a lot of REPUBLICANS I would rather stop HockeyMom Jun 2014 #105
What is all this about? sadoldgirl Jun 2014 #109
Maybe just concentrate on 2014. Not worth getting worked up over Hillary Haters. Rex Jun 2014 #110
Well played mcar Jun 2014 #111
Trashing. truebluegreen Jun 2014 #117
Is this the start of the PUMA's again? neverforget Jun 2014 #118
I have a counter suggestion. Why bother following politics at all? Bonobo Jun 2014 #119
+100000 Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #129
You are a good man MM. sheshe2 Jun 2014 #122
What a silly post. Nt Logical Jun 2014 #123
Pledging to support a third party candidate has the same effect BainsBane Jun 2014 #125
Will you support Bernie when he wins the primary? grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #131
If Bernie wins the primary and gets the nomination MineralMan Jun 2014 #132
Cool! I'll do the same with Hill! grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #133
Clinton won't run. The GOP is just using the spectre struggle4progress Jun 2014 #141
I don't think that's clear at all. MineralMan Jun 2014 #143
When she stepped down as SoS last year, she said struggle4progress Jun 2014 #156
I remember that. She looked tired and frustrated to me at the time. MineralMan Jun 2014 #157
"I can engage in threads like this one"... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #169
Four stars for use of All Caps AND Boldfacing in your rant! MineralMan Jun 2014 #170
And I reiterate... ljm2002 Jun 2014 #173
Surely, Comrade, you do not want Jones back. n/t Orsino Jun 2014 #144
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. MineralMan Jun 2014 #146
Hence this thread, alas. n/t Orsino Jun 2014 #147
Because it's Hillary's turn! JoeyT Jun 2014 #148
haha and that is true too. Demsrule86 Jun 2014 #163
good call...if you want to hand 2016 to GOP beachbum bob Jun 2014 #164
OK; so if you are not a HRC supporter, you are SURELY a conservative???? Sooo easy!!!!! mylye2222 Jun 2014 #175

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
1. Cause then you'll be funding someone worse?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:08 PM
Jun 2014

Not voting for the lesser evil is not the same as voting for the greater evil, no matter what the people who tear out their hair and scream 'if you're not voting Dem, you're voting Republican!' scream.

So no, I'm not going to help the greater evil either, even if I decide not to go the lesser evil route.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
2. The problem is this: election math is pure binary.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:16 PM
Jun 2014

R or D. Non-D = R. Fewer Dem votes = higher relative count for the Repube.

On a philosophical level, I grok what you are saying. But philosophy does not win vote counts. Math does.

Sucks, but there it is.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
8. It will stay that way as long as you can convince enough people
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:29 PM
Jun 2014

to accept that math.

The more people willing to break away from accepting that binary math, the more quickly you achieve a place where it becomes untrue.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
16. Convince, schmonvince. It's an observable, verifiable fact.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:34 PM
Jun 2014

Until and unless a third party puts up superior numbers, it will remain an irrefutable fact.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
19. Came pretty damn close with Perot.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

Seems to me that if he hadn't pulled his 'in again/out again' dance, he would have pulled a lot more than 19% of the popular vote. You might even call him the 'spoiler' that got Clinton elected that year.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
24. Spoiler, perhaps. But it didn't alter the math.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:49 PM
Jun 2014

Still D or R, with spoilers lessening one side or the other.

It's sad, because I am a firm believer in President Washington's admonitions about the corrosive effects of parties. But math is math.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
26. Yup, math is math.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:54 PM
Jun 2014

And 19% is more than half-way to 34%. Get a good 3rd party type up who isn't as obviously loony as Perot was and doesn't jump in and out of the running, and you just might see that 34% of the popular vote that would pass up an evenly split D/R crowd.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
28. Might, maybe, etc. etc. hasn't happened.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:58 PM
Jun 2014

And at this point, there is nothing to indicate that it is going to occur anytime soon.

I'll continue to work on candidates and GOTV. Those are two activist methods with a proven track record of success. Hoping for a miracle, not so much.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,200 posts)
63. Sounds like some Greenwald crap, but we don't advocate for "3rd parties" at "Democratic" Underground
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014
Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
70. Yes, I did rather suspect I was
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:14 PM
Jun 2014

letting people troll me into going too far out on a limb for the pleasure of seeing me banned. It's why I mostly stopped responding.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
79. Nope, not my motivation.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:25 PM
Jun 2014

I can't see why anyone would bother with such machinations anyway. I just disagreed with your posts, and responded as such.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
97. Don't let them change your mind. The only way to choose the best candidate is to
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:55 PM
Jun 2014

vote for the best candidate, primary or general.

I have too few years left to settle for the lesser of two evils and wonder why things aren't getting any better. I won't see any significant change unless there is a revolution but can do my best to turn things around for my grandchildren.

Our system was not set up to be simply a choice between two candidates, people too lazy to study all of the candidates let others tell them who to vote for that's how we ended up with primarily a two party system. Some here think that is the law, it's not. Is Sanders and D or an R? It can be done even with the word socialist in your title.

Is electing the best possible candidate more patriotic and important than blindly supporting the Democratic or Republican party? More important than DU? Study the candidates for every election and vote for the best one, it's the only way they can win.

The same people that say a two party system is so important are the same ones that would be happy to see the Republican party go away and only have one party. The sad part is although there are two names unless you are one of the elite we basically only have one party now.

My Democratic Senators and Representative have more in common with their Republican counterparts than they do with me, always have and always will. Like Carlin said, "it's a big club and you ain't in it". Carlin was wrong on one part, it's not that big a club and they don't want it to be any bigger.

Vote your conscience, not for who an anonymous person on a message board tells you to vote.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,200 posts)
162. Perhaps you should get into a knock down drag out with the guys who made the rules? They're.....
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:11 PM
Jun 2014

right over here ------------>>>>>>>>>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

Otherwise, you're not helping the stated mission of this board.



 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
85. True ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Jun 2014

Perot was the spoiler that gave us Clinton; but, he would have pulled enough of the vote to win in the general ... all he could have done is cut deeper into the gop vote count; thereby, benefitting Clinton more, but never enough to win.

And that's what you are calling for the Democratic Party to do?

No think you. Please don't.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
89. I'd be fine with
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:33 PM
Jun 2014

the party swinging back around to strongly support its own party platform, and its heritage of support for labour, minority rights, and the poor.

I'm not anti-Democrat. I'm anti-plutocrat.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
98. This ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:59 PM
Jun 2014
the party swinging back around to strongly support its own party platform, and its heritage of support for labour, minority rights, and the poor.


Is done in the primaries ... and more importantly, the work that you are willing to put in up to the primaries.

I'm not anti-Democrat. I'm anti-plutocrat.


Then, really you shouldn't be voting in any national, and most state-wide elections ... as all national and most state wide candidates are a part of the Plutocracy, either in class or deed.

I am far more concerned with the destruction of government and a corruption of government's role, than being "ruled by the wealthy" (which this nation has always known) ... FDR, JFK and Soros, all occupied/occupy a place in the same Plutocracy, as the Koch brothers; the only difference is their view of government and its function, with the formers viewing it as valuable for benefitting the masses and the latter wanting it to benefit themselves, only.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
50. Well, since the whine comes from sour grapes, it's usually bitter anyway.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:47 PM
Jun 2014

Best to save the cheese for a better vintage IMNSHO.

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
18. Observable, repeatable, independently verifiable.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

The "math" is a fact. You can have your own opinions. You cannot have your own facts.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
82. I get what you are saying; but, ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
Jun 2014

are you willing to accept what we get for the next {unknowable} election cycles, until a critical mass of the newly convinced find that third party candidate that they can get behind.

Further, I offer the likely 1st elected/electable third-party candidate to emerge will be a libertarian, as they have been working at it since the "Paul Revolution" almost took control of the gop ... and is, now, working hard at piling off Democrats.

Vote your conscience in the primaries and the Party nominee in the general ... Period.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
87. Ah, it'd possibly be the same.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Jun 2014

I'm a Democratic Socialist these days, not a Democrat. So 'voting 'the party' for me would mean not voting for the Democrat.

As far as my vote goes, I'm more likely to vote for the Democrat if it's not Hillary, even if the socialists do put up a candidate.

I simply can't find it in me to vote for her after the racism coming from her camp in the 2008 primary

If/when she does become the Dem candidate, I'll simply stop commenting on the 2016 Pres race, though, since I prefer not to be banned from the site.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
93. How will voting third party or staying home ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:46 PM
Jun 2014

advance your interests in any way?

In politics, when you can't win; than you work not to lose what has been gained.

And if I can forgive the racism of 2008 ... that bone-headed attempt to pick up Southern/rural whites ... surely, you can!

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
96. First, I never 'stay home'.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:53 PM
Jun 2014

Even though I'm dubious about the utility of my vote in most races, I still exercise the franchise for which so many fought and died.

Second, I'm not big on people demanding fealty or purity to party above all. I vote probably 95%+ Democrat over the course of of my votes. If Dems don't feel that's enough 'unity' for them, and would rather drive me away for the sake of a single vote for a candidate I feel does a poor job of representing the Dem party, well, that's their choice. Drive off folks who mostly vote Dem, shrink the 'big tent', and see how well that works for the party. I'm guessing the answer to that is 'not so well'.

The problem with so many in politics is that they seem to feel the solution is to bully people into voting for specific candidates by threatening how bad 'the other guy' is, rather than offering up better candidates. As a result, we keep drifting ever rightward. And that's not good for any of us.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
107. Forgive me ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:44 PM
Jun 2014

I'm not trying to drive off you, or anyone else that tends to vote Democratic. I, unapologetically, am absolutely trying to drive out those advocating "vote 3rd party or stay home because Democrats equal republicans."

I live in Arizona ... but for, my living in the only real purplish district, I would question the utility of my vote, as well; but, while Gibby Gifford and/or Ron Barber was/is no where near my ideal candidate, have you heard the name Jesse Kelly and/or Martha McSally? Considering the lunacy of the latter, is/was enough to stay away from the Green or Socialist candidate, that had/have no shot at winning the House seat.

The problem with so many in politics is that they seem to feel the solution is to bully people into voting for specific candidates by threatening how bad 'the other guy' is, rather than offering up better candidates. As a result, we keep drifting ever rightward. And that's not good for any of us.


I have a different take (not bullying aside), 2009 - 2010 were the most productive years, in terms of left leading (though far from perfect) legislation, even with the Blue dogs, despite most of them voting FOR the legislation. But the legislation was not good enough for the more impatient on the left. They blamed the Blue dogs for not supporting the more progressive legislation and sought to punished Democrats, in general (for, e.g., supporting the consistently, Caucus-voting, Blue dog Lincoln over the progressive Halter), and stayed home (there were 60,000+ fewer Democratic votes in the General, then in the general).

What would have happened had these voters came out in the same numbers in the General, as they did in the primaries ... Lincoln would likely have held the seat. It seems that the Left's political strategy is to "build anew", rather than "retain and build."
 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
172. I think one needs to differentiate between D=R and DLC=R.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:41 PM
Jun 2014
It seems that the Left's political strategy is to "build anew", rather than "retain and build."


We, well, I, I do not want to speak for others...view the Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism as Democratic cancer. You do not retain-and-build on cancerous tissue...you cut it out. It's malignant, it needs to go.

For me, everything comes back to economic issues...and Blue Dog Blanche was Democratic cancer. The next election that comes around, the Democrat will almost certainly be the left of Lincoln economically. The other "progressive legislation" is nice, it's stuff I support...but it's window-dressing for the apocalypse if we lose the big enchilada issues on economics. We should not tolerate them dragging their heels to slow the progressivism elsewhere either. The takeaway from Lincoln is 180-degrees from how you read it. It's a message to the "realist" wing to stop pushing through shitty "electable" (triangulating, centrist) nominees that we can't support in the GE.

When conservative-economics-loving, drag-weight, and quisling Democrats lose...that's Democratic chemo. We're going to purge the cancer and restore the Democratic party!

Good Riddance to Bad Democrats!
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
176. That one problem with metaphors ...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:13 PM
Jun 2014
view the Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism as Democratic cancer. You do not retain-and-build on cancerous tissue...you cut it out. It's malignant, it needs to go.


they don't work in real life. Yes, you cut out malignant cancers ... sometimes. Sometimes, protocol calls for letting the cancer sit, while you boost the body's immune system or treat another infection, so that the patient survives the surgery to remove the cancer.

Democrats accomplished a great deal of imperfect; but pro-liberal legislation with Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism Democrats. When we lost a number of House Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism Democrats in 2010, we lost seats in the House and senate and gained complete gridlock.

The takeaway from Lincoln is 180-degrees from how you read it. It's a message to the "realist" wing to stop pushing through shitty "electable" (triangulating, centrist) nominees that we can't support in the GE.


So it's better to push the "unelectable" general election candidate, that can't win in the general, even with the support of the "unrealist" wing; than push an "electable" candidate that will lose because the "unrealist" wing decides they can't support?

Do you see a gopish primary style problem here?

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
99. lose what has been gained
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:02 PM
Jun 2014

is pretty much what i've seen happening after voting D for thirty years. not a lot of incentive there.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
130. Not voting dem = 0; voting dem = 1; voting rep = -1.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:58 AM
Jun 2014

See, the math reveals that not voting dem is not the same as voting republican.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
134. That ain't how binary works. There is no third option.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:24 AM
Jun 2014

You either have more D or R votes. Fewer D means more R.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
149. Fail.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:56 PM
Jun 2014

Suppose (hypothetically of course) that there are 16 voters. Now compare two possibilities: (Case 1) 6 Dems vote for the Dem, 5 Reps vote for the Rep and 5 Dems do not vote; (Case 2) 6 Dems vote for the Dem, 5 Reps vote for the Rep, and 5 Dems vote for the Rep. In the first case the Democratic candidate wins a close one; in the second case the Republican candidate wins by a landslide. The only difference is that in the first case 5 Dems didn't vote for the lesser evil (the Dem) and in the second case 5 Dems did vote for the greater evil (the Rep). So clearly there is a difference between not voting for a Dem and voting for a Rep.

Obviously you are right that not voting Dem can sometimes help the Rep win. But voting Rep provides even more help to the Rep. There is a difference.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
153. However, you make my point regardless: not voting D helps the R.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:15 PM
Jun 2014

We can quibble about degrees, but the cause and effect are easy to see.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
154. If that is your only point then i agree.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:17 PM
Jun 2014

But I have seen many posts that suggest that there is no difference between not voting at all and voting Rep. That is false, as I hope you will agree.

And the post you originally objected to is correct. That poster said: "Not voting for the lesser evil is not the same as voting for the greater evil, no matter what the people who tear out their hair and scream 'if you're not voting Dem, you're voting Republican!' scream."

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
165. Let's break it down, shall we?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:53 PM
Jun 2014

The post you are responding to says:

Not voting dem = 0; voting dem = 1; voting rep = -1.

See, the math reveals that not voting dem is not the same as voting republican.


And you say, "That's not how binary works".

I think you're unclear on the concept. An actual vote is binary, yes: it's either yes or no, 1 or 0, for or against. But then there's this thing called "counting", where the total number of votes is counted. And that ain't binary, it's standard arithmetic -- and it operates just as the poster laid it out.

Anyway, politics is more than just arithmetic. You don't want to see those no-shows? Then give them a compelling reason to show up.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
167. I think it is our responsibility to show up.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:15 PM
Jun 2014

I know a lot of people put the onus on the party, but to me, that is abdication on our part. If we don't show up, politicos can interpret that as tacit support: I'd rather take the initiative so as to be explicit.

It's of, by, and for the people; not the party.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
171. Agreed.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:40 PM
Jun 2014

But realistically, we live in a country where voting is not mandatory. That being the case, those who campaign must try and get voters interested.

Poll after poll has shown that US voters are center-left on the issues (even many who self-identify as "conservatives&quot . Seems to me that a little more populism and a little less corporatism might be helpful in motivating voters to show up.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
174. No argument there. But I am done waiting for the party to do it.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:54 PM
Jun 2014

If they were going to give us center-left of left candidates, they'd have done it by now. Fuck 'em. I am done waiting.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
159. Kind of.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jun 2014

If you live in a red state, then your electoral votes will go to the Republican, regardless of who you vote for. The reverse is true for those who live in a blue state. I live in Montana, which is red, so my POTUS vote is irrelevant.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
160. Quite possibly. But increasing D votes is always useful.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:03 PM
Jun 2014

If every state has higher turnout among D voters, the Repubs have to spread their wealth over a larger area. Dr. Dean and his 50-state approach was based on that premise.

Voting is beneficial even if our candidate can't win.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
4. Dude! Nobody has even declared candidacy.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:17 PM
Jun 2014

Trashing a candidate who is not even a candidate is weird, IMO. But that's just me. I'm going to vote in the 2016 primaries for the candidate I like best. Then, I'm going to vote in November, 2016 for the Democratic candidate. I'm not going to be trashing anyone who might be running for that nomination even before that person declares that he or she is a candidate. That's just me, though...

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
6. I want different candidates.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:28 PM
Jun 2014

If I can achieve that even before anyone has declared, that's the best possible outcome. The longer you wait, the less time you have to change people's minds to agree with you. So why should I shoot myself in the foot, and simply wait for a fait accompli by the 'inevitable' candidate?

The time to shoot down trial balloons is when they still are trial balloons.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
10. OK. Just as soon as the 2014 election is over, I encourage
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:30 PM
Jun 2014

you to support the primary candidate of your choice. Nobody's going to declare until then. If you have actual influence with potential candidates, however, you should start using it now.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
17. My influence is teeny tiny.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:34 PM
Jun 2014

But I'll be asking Bernie to run - with whatever party affiliation he chooses.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
20. OK. If he's on the primary ballot in Minnesota, he'll probably
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:36 PM
Jun 2014

get my vote, too. And then, in November and during the campaign, I'll be supporting the official candidate. I'm a Democrat. I vote for the Democratic candidate, and I don't work to trash anyone who might be that candidate. That's self-destructive, and I'm not that kind of guy.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
47. as my grandmother used to say "wish in one hand..."
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jun 2014

"see which one fills up faster"

How about you find some candidates and fund them yourselves if you don't like what we Democrats are serving...

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
69. Oh, I'm fine with many of the Democrats.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:13 PM
Jun 2014

There are just one or two I think are general election losers, so I'm hoping the primaries don't tip them the nod.

Hekate

(89,976 posts)
62. That's how I've always done it. I vote more liberal in the primaries,but "D" in the general election
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:57 PM
Jun 2014

I think you and I are about the same age. There's something about long experience and a long view.

Locally, we have the opportunity to get some good people into office; the only reason we can't keep them there is my idiot fellow Californians enacted a term limits law that keeps office-holders churning in and out.

The people who cannot accept that the math doesn't support their wishes are beginning to remind me of that one Barbie doll that was programmed to whine "Math is haaard."

Hekate
*No, my ballot is not yet filled in for 2016

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
13. dumb stuff is.... dumb stuff.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

and your op is dumb. and so is your use of the sarcasm smilie. Why so coy there, MM?

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
23. Why is it dumb?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:44 PM
Jun 2014

If you want to stop Hillary, MM posted a link to help stop Hillary. If you want to stop Hillary from being the Dem nominee than you have to present a viable alternative (which most here seem open to). Otherwise, you don't really want to stop Hillary, you just want to bash Hillary, which seems weird and obsessive to do on a Democratic forum.

All of the absolute batshit ways the Republican Party is trying to destroy America and you spend your time trashing Hillary instead.

Hillary isn't the nominee, why not focus your energy on getting a candidate you like on the ballot instead?

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,103 posts)
60. I certainly wouldn't contribute to Rethugs for any reason. Besides, Hillary will stop herself w/ all those self-destructive comments she makes.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:54 PM
Jun 2014

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
135. "If you want to stop Hillary,"...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 11:51 AM
Jun 2014

..."MM posted a link to help stop Hillary."

He posted a link to the GOP's site.

Apart from the insulting insinuation that not liking Hillary for the 2016 Presidential race is equivalent to being for the GOP candidate -- apart from that, please explain how going over to support the GOP at this time will have ANY effect on the Democratic primaries? Because whoever will be the Democratic nominee has to go through the primaries first, and the GOP has nothing to do with that process.

Please clarify how that works.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
21. I believe in treating a candidate like a candidate. I think a primary should not be easy for anyone
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jun 2014

with the audacity to seek the office of President. I think those who seek to tamp down primary discussions and limit competition do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
51. and who has done that? I have not heard a single HRC supporter call for no Primaries...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:47 PM
Jun 2014

The only ones saying that are the Hillary Haters!

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
64. That's not what I said, what I wrote is there to read again. I suggest you do so.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:00 PM
Jun 2014

Any person presenting themselves as candidate or potential candidate should always be vetted and challenged and questioned. I understand some of you are John McCain types who say 'why Vet a President when you can just point and pick' but that's not me.
Demands for kindly treatment and kid gloves for people who are not even announced just means you are all going suffer greatly through what will be, needs to be and should be an actual race to win the nomination. The horn section with the fanfare has to wait for a thing called democracy.
And this habit of referring to people who back another candidate as 'haters' is a habit that screams of privilege. It is hyperbole of the sort favored by straight folks who have never really had to face any actual hate in their lives. They think it is a fun word to toss about at gatherings. It's not.
Why do you use the word 'hate' so casually to describe a Democrat who wants another nominee, prior to any candidates announcing? What is the value you see in the use of such word? Does it make you think 'this is how Rawanda did it!' or what?

 

Dawgs

(14,755 posts)
25. Wow. Another dumb OP suggesting DUers that don't like Hillary want someone to the right of her. n/t
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:51 PM
Jun 2014

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
27. I suggested nothing of the sort.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 02:55 PM
Jun 2014

Nor would I. But, folks who are doing little but trying to trash Hillary Clinton are working on it from the wrong side. I was just giving them a little help, you know.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
29. Eh, whatevs.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:00 PM
Jun 2014

People keep on not getting that on a national level, you only get center or center to slightly left for Prez. This is the US. It ain't France. It ain't even the UK.
However, when it comes to Hillary, there's a deeper problem: she's the Establishment Candidate. In my entire life, and I'm in my fifties, I've never seen the Establishment Candidate win, including in 2008, when she was the same thing that year. Being Establishment gets you precisely nowhere. As of yet, I don't see that she understands that. I mean jeez, she still keeps Mark Penn around. That's just dense.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
31. Thanks for the kick.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:03 PM
Jun 2014

The nice big Darth Vader image is a cool touch, too.

But, I'm not your father, Will.

riqster

(13,986 posts)
39. Oh hellz yeah, MM. Life-changing. Literally.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:12 PM
Jun 2014

Had I gotten one 20 years ago, my heart and such would be in much better shape now. As it is, I am still able to work because of my little breathing device.

Anybody who reads this: if your doc says "sleep study", do it.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
42. I have no problems with sleep apnea, but I have relatives who do.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:16 PM
Jun 2014

One has had the study and now uses CPAP. The other one refuses to get the study done and is not doing well, in my estimation.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
44. Yes. We all keep trying.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:21 PM
Jun 2014

Personally, I think it's at the life-threatening stage, but you can't force someone to get help.

Spirochete

(5,264 posts)
155. I have sleep apnea too
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:22 PM
Jun 2014

I sleep with a CPAP on. I'm getting more used to it, but I do keep having dreams that I'm Lloyd Bridges...

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
32. Are you saying that only Republicans oppose Hillary?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:04 PM
Jun 2014
why not go straight to the source of all anti-Hillary efforts?

I've been a Democrat since 1965 and I want to stop Hillary.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
35. No. Not at all.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:07 PM
Jun 2014

Clearly, there are people who identify as Democrats who oppose her, along with a helluva lot of Republicans. I'm saying that there is already an organized effort that is dedicated to stopping Hillary. It might be more effective than daily anti-Hillary posts on DU.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
38. Oh, OK.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:11 PM
Jun 2014

You do know that it's fairly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the official candidate in 2016, right? What then? Personally, if there is a good true progressive running in the primaries, that's where my vote will go. Then, in November, and in the election campaign after the primaries, I'll be voting for and campaigning for the Democratic Candidate. I'm not going to start by trashing any of the possible candidates. Instead, I'll promote the primary candidate I think would be a great choice.

I'm not a fan of negative campaigns. They suck, especially within a party during the primaries. They serve no good purpose at all, and only work to decrease voter turnout and increase the chances for a Republican to win. I've seen that happen too many times in legislative elections, and I will not participate in trashing primary candidates who might end up on the general election ballot. Instead, I work during the primaries FOR my favorite candidate, and FOR the candidate in the General Election.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
41. Not with my support. I do not participate in negative
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:14 PM
Jun 2014

campaigning within the party during primary campaigns. Never have and never will.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
67. That's hilarious. This OP is negative campaigning.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:06 PM
Jun 2014

You are slipping. At your age, slips can be troublesome. I worry.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
68. Well, I appreciate your concern, but I'm pretty sure on my feet.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:13 PM
Jun 2014

Despite my old age, I haven't slipped and fallen for several years now, and that's living in Minnesota, with all that ice and stuff.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
138. But you're not the (presumptive) candidate, are you?
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:07 PM
Jun 2014

The discussion at hand concerns Hillary Clinton, and when someone points out one of the reasons they are not wild about her, you counter by saying you did not support her action in that instance. But really, so what? We're talking about her, not about you.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
139. I'm no kind of candidate. So far, I've never encountered any
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

candidate with whom I agreed 100%. I never expect to, either. I did not support Hillary's negative campaign against Obama. That in no way means that I would not have voted for her and campaigned for her had she been the nominee. In Presidential elections, I vote for the Democrat who is the nominee. Every time. The alternative is unthinkable to me.

How about you?

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
145. Your position is clear...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:44 PM
Jun 2014

...no problem. But you seem to think that others cannot, or at least should not, have a different position.

The issue is not whether one expects to agree with a candidate 100% of the time; the issue is, where does one draw the line vis a vis whether they can support a candidate. For the poster to whom you are responding, Hillary's actions in that instance were a deal-breaker. For you, even though you did not support those actions, it was not a deal-breaker.

You both have different views on where that line is. I can respect both positions. What I cannot respect is your apparent belief that yours is the only logical, sane position. It is not.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
127. "it's fairly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the official candidate in 2016, right?"
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:13 AM
Jun 2014

Ah, the good old "inevitability" argument. Worked GREAT for her last time, didn't it?

It's not even 2015. It's way too early for anyone to start demanding fealty to a "presumptive" nominee. An incumbent President going for term 2 can usually make a pretty good case for being, more or less, presumptively entitled to the nomination, in most cases, but even that is not 100% given. Carter was seriously challenged by Kennedy in 1980. Sometimes the Vice President is the presumed front runner, but that's even less guaranteed. Despite being the fairly obvious choice, Al Gore in 2000, for instance, faced real primary challenges.

Beyond that.... Dukakis, Clinton in '92, Kerry in '04 and certainly not Obama in '08... none of them were automatically entitled to, or expected to be handed, the nomination. Each had to fight for it, had to make a case. That's how it works.

The idea that a nasty, drag-out, bitter primary is damaging in the general should have been put to bed for good in 2008, along with "inevitability". (and the sorts of tired beltway conventional wisdom canards like the "values voter" crap HRC has been pandering with lately) Once we have a Democratic Nominee, then it's reasonable on DU to expect Democrats to specifically support 'em.

Until then, sorry, no sale.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
136. So on the one hand...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:03 PM
Jun 2014

...you advise people to remain quiet if they don't like Hillary because she hasn't announced yet.

And on the other hand, you inform us that "she's fairly likely to be the official candidate in 2016".

So YOU get to look ahead and talk about her being the presumptive candidate, but WE get to STFU on the topic.

To be blunt: Fuck that shit.

Anyway, I'll tell you what will decrease voter turnout: another ho-hum, pro-corporate, pro-war candidate who lives in a bubble of wealth and inside-the-Beltway delusion.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
55. wish in one hand....
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

Independents should start their own party if they don't like the dishes that the Democrats serve at theirs...

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
59. Some have. And, some Democrats vote for them.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:54 PM
Jun 2014

I've been a Democrat since 1965 but I didn't swear allegiance or sign a contract. I have the archaic belief that our votes belong to us, not to a party or politician.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
88. Okay good luck with that!!!
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:32 PM
Jun 2014

I am a lifelong Democrat as were both my Grandparents who were both lucky enough to have voted for FDR....My grandfather was even in the CCC's

I guarantee you if they were alive they would both support WHOEVER won the Democratic Primary.....so shall I!

As I am no Ideologue..

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
91. If you're not an "idealogue" have you no ideals?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:39 PM
Jun 2014

Or, do you depend on the Democratic Party to supply them for you?

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
94. Realists have no ideals? No principles? No morals?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:46 PM
Jun 2014

Did you vote for Reagan in 84. After all, he had the most "realistic" chance of winning?

ismnotwasm

(41,885 posts)
74. I never listen to the opinions of lesser minds
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:21 PM
Jun 2014

And I get to decide which ones those are, for me anyway.

whatchamacallit

(15,558 posts)
54. Just the latest lame riff on
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:51 PM
Jun 2014

the perennial "get with whatever the party coughs up or you're a republican" lameness.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
58. Typical "love it or leave it" type BS...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 03:54 PM
Jun 2014

...equating criticism of a candidate with wanting to vote for the other party.

Some of us think it's a good idea to see where the weaknesses are, as well as the strengths. Whereas others think that if a negative is pointed out, it's tantamount to giving the election over to the other side.

Talk about a "sky is falling" mentality!

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
75. I was banned from that site eight years ago.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:22 PM
Jun 2014

They called me an "anti-freeper." I've been on DU for 6 years now. Time passes. But I was always on this side.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
81. But the internet history proves you wrong
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
Jun 2014

Shall I expose your posts there?


you were a freeper.........

And now you are a 'time passer'

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
90. You will do as you see fit, I'm sure.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:33 PM
Jun 2014

What I've been doing on DU for six years is promoting the election of Democratic candidates. You might want to look at that history. I was doing that before then, as well.

I was not a freeper. I posted on that website. There is a difference. But, you will do as you please.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
103. Six years
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:16 PM
Jun 2014

Is before Obama or right when it happened. you came 'on board'

I'm not gonna post your pro long republican threads history on free republic there and then your disillusion with their lies to come over here.

but your internet history speaks for itself.

No you are not a freeper but your history shows your conservatism

I find you as a old man like me
on different paths on your search for wisdom and the truth. I really don't find you very well read but opinionated without facts that makes me feel young


By the way ..... if you don't seek knowledge and the truth then
you compromise your existence and never find the wisdom that you want
to give us and share.

Like this OP.

Its intellectually, morally dishonest that plays on childish emotions of high school heroics.

I don't dislike you but I find you even more pretentious than me.
And that is amusing. Because it reminds me what I'm not and what I am.

Anyway carry on. I do enjoy your presence on DU.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
112. And even if you did post to the site that shall not be named ...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:26 PM
Jun 2014

getting banned as "the anti-site that shall not be named" is a good thing. And from what I have read, you seem more committed; actively doing the sh!t that actually matters (or rather, talking about what you are doing that actually matters ... this IS an anonymous message board) ... as opposed to pontificating about what legislation/policies others should be doing and/or pining for that magical candidate that could swoop in, tame the gop, and MAKE Democrats support progressive legislation that hasn't been written, and make anything right ... yesterday.

Funny thing is ... I can think of one VERY, VERY, VERY popular, among DU, Democratic candidate/non-candidate, with a republican history! They regularly stump for her here, and say they'll vote for her; but they don't want you to work to support Democratic candidates/non-candidates?

Yep ... These are the DUs of our lives.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
113. Thanks. I don't discuss that stuff here.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:32 PM
Jun 2014

Once the meta forum closed, where I did discuss it, I decided that eight year old stuff and earlier simply do not warrant any further discussion. There is one reference to that in my journal, which anyone can read. That's all I will say about any of that. My six years on DU tell the story of who I am and what I do.

sheshe2

(83,137 posts)
124. Alrighty then...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:48 AM
Jun 2014

you noticed that too. Hmmm curious is it not?

I voted for that said candidate and I am so happy where she is! She will do amazing things there. The GOP tried everything to kneecap her.They fear her. So it makes me wonder why so many want her to leave her seat that she just gained? Hmm.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
168. "So it makes me wonder why so many want her to leave her seat"...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:20 PM
Jun 2014

...huh? Since when is one required to give up one's Senate seat in order to run for President?

Please clarify. Otherwise, please retract your sly little innuendo that those who want her to run for President have some other, more nefarious motives.

 

AgingAmerican

(12,958 posts)
66. Results of alert
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:02 PM
Jun 2014
The skin is getting thin around here...

On Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Want to Stop Hillary? Here's a Place where You Can Donate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025144597

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Linking to a right wing site. Trolling flamebait, divisive. Take your pick. HIDE.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:55 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good for MineralMan! No way would I hide this and I hope the jury is 0 to 7 to keep. If you want to deride Hillary then you should be ready for criticism.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The obvious sarcasm is apparently lost on the alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes thick headed people need to be told what the real alternatives are.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obvious sarcasm to make a point about the nature of our two party system.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I understand the sarcastic tone. But he shouldn't have posted the link. Should be posted in a different way without the link.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I get his point even if I don't agree with it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
71. It's a lot simpler than that.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:14 PM
Jun 2014

Clintons haven't done well in Iowa. Hillary actually finished 3rd (though the media ignored the 2nd place finisher).

New Hampshire has been their come back state. But Sanders from next door has a good shot at winning this one.

So there are very strong odds that Hillary would start off the primary 0-2. As much as the media wants Hillary in the race, I can't imagine them not turning it into a two-candidate horse race between the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire.

That is their standard formula. And the media is nothing if not lazy. I see Hillary fading into an also-ran after New Hampshire.


MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
72. That could happen, but none of it will happen until
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:18 PM
Jun 2014

2016 and we have a slate of actual primary candidates. So far, we have none, although it certainly seems clear that Hillary is probably going to run.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
77. Only thing I've seen indicating a Hillary run is writing a book.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:23 PM
Jun 2014

They always seem to do that before running. Given that Warren also just published a book, the two have thus far shown identical signs of running to this point.

Sanders, O'Malley and several others have already started visiting the early primary states.

As you said, so far we none, but it certainly seems clear that several are running, including Hillary. It is just less clear regarding Hillary than most of the others.


MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
86. Putting out feelers doesn't always indicate an actual run, though.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Jun 2014

The Democratic Party isn't the same clown car during Presidential primaries as the GOP. Folks put their finger in the wind early, and then make a decision based on reality. Sanders would have to switch parties to become a Democrat, and O'Malley is still being very tentative, as I'd expect. So, I'd not say that either is actually running, yet. Hillary appears to be the most serious about running right now, but even she could change her mind before time to declare.

A lot is going to depend on how the 2014 election goes. If Democrats get control of the House and hold or increase their majority in the Senate, I'd bet strongly on Hillary running. If not, though, I could easily see her not wanting to have to face what Obama has faced and deciding not to run. Being President is a tough job, even in the best circumstances, and I'm not sure Hillary would take on a hostile Congress that willingly.

Announcements will not come until after the November elections, which should be the main focus right now for all of us.

GOTV 2014!

 

String Fiesta

(13 posts)
101. If you stay home on election day because you don't like any candidates, then your silent protest
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:06 PM
Jun 2014

will remain unheard. Your objection will only empower the Republican candidate. If your political ideology prevents you from participating in the political process, then your political ideology is flawed.

 

String Fiesta

(13 posts)
126. You're right.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:02 AM
Jun 2014

I'm sure everyone will be wondering where you are. Once they figure out why you didn't make it, they'll be sorry.

Sorry, but inaction is useless. That's quite far from being a load of shit.

Here's the thing: Nobody cares what you think. Your thoughts carry no weight. Your vote is the only thing that might carry weight.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
140. "Nobody cares what you think."
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jun 2014

"Your thoughts carry no weight. Your vote is the only thing that might carry weight."

Wait, what? Our thoughts are exactly what drives us to vote how we do, and anyone's thoughts may have effects on others. I know that I have changed people's thinking before, in various arenas, and others have also changed my thinking.

On election day, I will agree it is only your vote that carries any weight. The rest of the time, the opposite is true: it is our thoughts that count. It's why we have debates and such, so that people can see the candidates' thoughts -- it helps them when deciding how they will vote.

And that is also what is wrong with the "It's simple arithmetic" arguments. Politics is a helluva lot more than "simple arithmetic". Yes, it's important to crunch numbers and look and polls and figure out strategies based on the numbers. But politics ain't physics, it is a social undertaking. Perhaps Shakespeare said it best:

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;


The really good politicians understand that politics is not only about arithmetic.
 

String Fiesta

(13 posts)
177. "On election day, I will agree it is only your vote that carries any weight."
Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:03 PM
Jun 2014

My point exactly.

Obviously thoughts lead to actions and consequences of those actions. When thoughts lead to inaction on election day it has negative consequences for the Democratic party.

 

DeSwiss

(27,137 posts)
104. Actually......
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:18 PM
Jun 2014

...Hils seems to be doing a damn good job of stopping herself. She doesn't appear to need any help destroying her chances. She does that every time she opens her mouth to tell us how poor she was and how she grew up in a log cabin and read for the bar by candle light and how she had to plow 20 acres everyday before she walked 10 miles through snow and rain to school.

And of course in trying to be as ''tough as one of the boys'' she gets her war-on faster than anyone and her willingness to get troops killed for some worthy cause Washington has dreamed up is second to none!

- Nope MM, she doesn't need any help from the Republicans or the Democrats. She a one-woman wrecking crew all by herself.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
109. What is all this about?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:04 PM
Jun 2014

I would like to see who will run in 2016, if the Congress is in republican hands due to 2014 voter resignation. Would Hillary really run then? I doubt it somehow. She has seen how a black president got and gets blocked all the time; would a woman fare better? No way! Thus she waits until the end of November. So, why quibble about this now?

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
110. Maybe just concentrate on 2014. Not worth getting worked up over Hillary Haters.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:07 PM
Jun 2014

They seem to have your goat, not worth it imo.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
119. I have a counter suggestion. Why bother following politics at all?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:35 PM
Jun 2014

If you will vote for the Democrat in all cases no matter who they are or what they say or do, then there really is no point in wasting your time or brain power actually thinking for yourself about anything, is there?

BainsBane

(52,999 posts)
125. Pledging to support a third party candidate has the same effect
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:51 AM
Jun 2014

as voting or contributing to the GOP.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
132. If Bernie wins the primary and gets the nomination
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:50 AM
Jun 2014

at the national convention, of course I'll support him. I will support the Democratic candidate for President as part of my GOTV canvassing efforts. If Bernie runs, I'll also support him in Minnesota's caucus and convention system. I like Bernie Sanders.

I do not believe, however, that his primary run will be successful. That's based on my past experience with the nomination process. Unfortunately, I will be surprised if he wins as many as two primaries, and I wouldn't count on those, if I were him.

struggle4progress

(117,949 posts)
141. Clinton won't run. The GOP is just using the spectre
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:28 PM
Jun 2014

of a Clinton run as a fundraiser, hoping the old gang of ugly lunatics who goose-stepped about in their "Hitlery" costumes can be revitalized. Lazy reporters push the speculation because they can generate column inches without much effort

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
143. I don't think that's clear at all.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:38 PM
Jun 2014

I think there's a possibility that she won't run, but I doubt she'll make that decision. I do expect her to run. How she does in the primaries is going to depend on who decides to throw a hat into the ring. I don't think Elizabeth Warren will, and I'm not sure Bernie Sanders will, at least as a Democrat. Beyond those two, I'm not seeing a lot of support for others out there who might.

My guess is that Hillary runs and gets the nomination. If so, I think she wins in 2016, for many reasons. But, it's a guess, since I have no idea what the real dynamics are at the presidential nomination level. I confine my own political activities to legislative elections in my own state and federal districts. In presidential election years, I promote the Democratic candidate during pre-election GOTV efforts, along with the Democratic legislators running in my districts.

I have essentially zero influence in the selection of the presidential candidate, but have some influence in those legislative nominations. Not much, but some, since I'm active in the DFL caucus and convention system here in MN. We also have primaries, though, so convention endorsements of candidates have only so much weight, and can be overridden by other factors.

Presidential politics is simply not my area of expertise, although I follow those races closely. The politics at that level are not accessible to me. I can get to the MN state DFL convention if I want to, but there's no chance that I'd ever make it to the national convention. Too many folks ahead of me in that process, and I'm not willing to spend the time needed to move myself into that position.

struggle4progress

(117,949 posts)
156. When she stepped down as SoS last year, she said
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:28 PM
Jun 2014

she'd been in public life for thirty some years and that she had other interests she wanted to pursue. In a recent interview, she said how much she enjoyed not having much of a schedule and being able to stay at home and watch TV on a whim. She's had a long rough road from the day she was First Lady in Arkansas -- the target of constant personal attacks, year after year after year, from complaints about her hair in Arkansas to speculation about whether she had Vince Foster assassinated to the current Benghazi noise. She's smart and capable, and she grew a thick skin, but the attacks take a psychological toll

Her daughter's pregnant, and currently working with the family foundation, so there will be a strong temptation to focus on family and foundation

Campaigning is exhausting work, and occupying the White House even more so under the best of circumstances: if she ran and won, she'd be (like Reagan) 69 at inauguration, and the rule of thumb is that the President ages two years for ever year in office, so her vitality would deteriorate quickly, and she knows it. Reagan protected himself by being a hands-off President, who left everything to others and merely gave nice avuncular speeches; Clinton, being a much more goal-oriented person, and being much more ethical than Reagan, wouldn't be able to protect herself that way. And almost all the older generation in DC has been saying that the current style of politics there isn't much fun: the pleasure of working across the aisle to craft compromises isn't often available now

It's one thing to run for President if one has a real hope of doing something. But it's a completely different thing, if one expects all one's old enemies to pop from the woodwork to re-hash old attacks and expects eight years of pointless noisy obstructionism

So I really just can't see her revisiting her idea that she's spent thirty years in public life and would now like to pursue some other interests

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
157. I remember that. She looked tired and frustrated to me at the time.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 01:43 PM
Jun 2014

And no wonder, really. I'm sure she's more rested now and has thought a lot about what she said then. I see her current activity as evidence that she is very seriously considering another run for the presidential nomination. Certainly, she is not looking like a non-candidate.

I have no doubt that she is also aware of all of the negative crap that's going to be made public if she does run. Benghazi is just the beginning. The RW will trot out everything from Vince Foster to all those vicious rumors that she is a lesbian. It will be an ugly campaign, indeed. And that's just from the right. She'll also face a lot of criticism from the other end of the political spectrum, as we're seeing here on DU even now. She knows all of that.

Yet, she appears to be firmly on the campaign trail, with a book publication and a flurry of appearances. That's not atypical of someone who is actively pursuing the possibility of a run. Along with the negatives, she would also have a lot of support for a presidential run. Strong support. If she secures the nomination, she will have the endorsement of Obama, for one, and of just about every Democrat in a leadership position. She'll have the full support of the DNC, and a ready source of campaign funds in quantities that will probably break records. So, she's facing a decision.

I don't know what she will decide. I've never met her or talked to her. I probably never will. So, I'm making no predictions. I'm just saying that she looks like a likely candidate right now, for the stage of things as they are. The 2014 mid-term elections will probably make the final decision for her. I can imagine her skipping it if the Congressional elections don't go well. The past six years have been a very, very difficult time for a Democratic President, and Obama has weathered them with his good humor and resilience intact. Hillary may decide that she doesn't want to preside over such an environment, though. I don't know.

In any case, she looks like a candidate right now. That has brought out those who do not want her as a candidate, and in their numbers. For now, though, I'm dropping back to my default GOTV position for 2014. That is far more pressing and far more timely. I can engage in threads like this one without losing my focus on that, so I do.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
169. "I can engage in threads like this one"...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:33 PM
Jun 2014

..."without losing my focus on that, so I do."

Oh FFS. THIS IS YOUR THREAD. I'm "engaging in" it. You're not "engaging in" it -- YOU FUCKING STARTED IT!

Anyway. For you to acknowledge that "she looks like a candidate right now", and to pontificate at length on the topic, while at the same time suggesting that those of us who don't want her as our candidate in 2016 should STFU because she hasn't declared yet, is a remarkable display of hypocrisy.

MineralMan

(146,116 posts)
170. Four stars for use of All Caps AND Boldfacing in your rant!
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:36 PM
Jun 2014

Had you also used italics, I'd have given it five stars.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
173. And I reiterate...
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 03:43 PM
Jun 2014

...your posts in this thread display a remarkable level of hypocrisy.

BTW I agree on your star system. Drat. I forgot to work in italics. I'll try to do better next time.

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)
148. Because it's Hillary's turn!
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:50 PM
Jun 2014

Anyone that doesn't support her must really be a secret Republican, and she not only deserves your vote but your money as well, peasants. Not because she's done anything whatsoever to deserve them, instead she deserves them by divine right.

Yeah, that's going to be a winning strategy. Lemme know how it works out for y'all. It didn't work so well for the last people that tried it.

Demsrule86

(68,217 posts)
163. haha and that is true too.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:14 PM
Jun 2014

Those who bash Hillary or any Dem including Obama do the GOP's work for them.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
164. good call...if you want to hand 2016 to GOP
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 02:26 PM
Jun 2014

keep doing what you are doing Hillary bashers


remember what Nader supporters did for america in 2000


the blood is on their hands more than anyone elses

 

mylye2222

(2,992 posts)
175. OK; so if you are not a HRC supporter, you are SURELY a conservative???? Sooo easy!!!!!
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:03 PM
Jun 2014

"Or you are with us, or you are against us"

The Hillary supporters' meme sounds very..........Rumsfeldite!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Want to Stop Hillary? Her...