I'll vote, but I live in Oklahoma, so my contribution will be money. I'm a Democrat. I want a Democratic president.

I don't agree or believe that Bush and Clinton are the same at all. I could list 20 reasons they are different and I could list what Hillary has voted for when she was in the Senate that is in no way "corporate". Perhaps people should read up on her real record.

place. It's getting to the point where it is not even subtle.

If she (or anyone on the current "shortlist&quot is the nominee I will be volunteering as much as possible, and giving as much as I can.

solely by money and political machines. "We the people" are just in the way in the US of today. It's not a country about people, it's a county only about $$$$$. And IMO, often the best ideas benefiting the masses are rolled over by huge political machines. I will vote too, but often it seems an exercise in futility. Money must be removed from the political process. Elections today mostly benefit those raking in millions from the political spectacle. And the herd feeds money into the machine.

When WE vote...WE win!

Its as simple as that!

"Corporate-sponsored B". v. "Freaky religious nut".

Even at the local level often.

I suggest you take this to Discussionist.

This has become tiresome.

is people who don't want Hillary to be the nominee to be told to take it elsewhere. This kneejerk gotta-get-with-the-program business is VERY tiresome when we haven't even had primaries yet.

that is exactly why there are OPs like this. Voters got that message when they were told that their views were 'retarded' and to just 'stfu'. The 'leadership' will decide who they get to vote for and doesn't need any input from the voters.

Thanks, but I am of the opinion the Party works for the voters, not the other way around. And when voters tell them 'we won't vote for people who do not represent our interests' see the mid terms eg, 'we WILL vote for those who do' again see the mid terms where Progressives WON while the third way lost, the Party, if it really IS working for the people, needs to listen.

Now is the time to let them know that we do not want an appointed candidate. We want a choice, not just for show, but a real choice.

Maybe if they think we have no right to express that opinion it is THEY who need to go somewhere else.

I responded to what was stated in the OP.

they don't belong on a Democratic Forum that they should go somewhere else. As I said, voters have heard that message loud and clear, and they have taken it seriously.

So, in the mid terms, they voted FOR Progressives and won everywhere there was a CHOICE to do so.

They also, taking the message seriously, worked hard to put PROGRESSIVE ISSUES on local ballots and everywhere they did that, those issues WON, across the political spectrum.

So, voters responded to the message that told them their 'ideas are retarded' by proving that to be so wrong it makes you wonder, why on earth would a Dem in high office think that Democratic 'ideas' are 'retarded' in the first place. And when voters proved that WHEN their ideas are on ballots, WHEN Dems deliver Democratic messages, they WIN.

Now if the voters' successes in the mid terms are ignored, whose fault will it be if Dems insist on providing the voters with no choices AGAIN?

Is there ANY legitimate reason to ignore the voters who have now proven that their ideas are 'not retarded' and continue down the same losing path and continue with the policy of telling voters to 'get lost'??

I've never seen a worse strategy than to tell voters you need, to 'get lost'. Because they WILL which raises the question, 'do they WANT to lose'?

stuff to another site. Poster stated he would not even participate in the primaries as I read it. If Hillary has the votes--sorry but she wins. I like both Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. And I will comment as I see fit, BTW. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

saw fit to tell another poster, whose intentions regarding the election were made CLEAR in the OP, and which you either did not read, or actually think that if a voter is given no choice on who to vote for, they will check the box, but then spend their time and energy on other races, such as electing Dems in local elections etc.

THAT is what you told the poster to 'take to Discussionist'.

It's an opinion of what I think he should do.

the OP managed to refrain from telling you to take YOUR opinions to Discussionist?

If we could eliminate the childish temper trantrum-like discourse on this forum at least, raise it from the level of, say 'Discussionist' or other forums where the only response some people have to those who dare to hold different opinions is to call them names, or 'putin lovers' or to 'take your opinions somewhere else'.

THIS forum USED to have higher standards than that.

And you need to consider the fact that Democratic voters who are asking for nothing more than what they should already have in a Democracy, CHOICE of Candidates, apparently for some this is just 'too much', might feel as much frustration with your willingness to deny them that to the point of responding to you the way you respond to them?

Iow you're not the ONLY one with the right to feel frustrated. I am always amazed at the 'I'm just right, don't argue with ME your opinion is worthless, take it somewhere else' responses. It shows a total lack of respect for other people.

and currently the trend says....HILLARY is walking away with their support.....the voters overwhelmingly support her. You are in a small minority of those that vote for Democrats...that do not support her...its as simple as that!

getting involved because they can't see anything beyond the presidential primaries, they're only contributing to the problem. And it's likely the same people who ignore the primaries for anything position below presidency will pop up again when the primaries are over, complaining that the candidates who were elected by the small minority that bothered to pay attention were "selected" by the "elite." Eh.

That's the only reason I intend to vote. A clinton v. bush choice would tell me that banks and corporations are really in charge and we the people have finally been marginalized.

But if you vote you have some credibility when you object to what happens subsequent to the election.

How hard is it to vote anyway? I haven't been to a polling place since the 1980's. My ballot is mailed to my home and it costs me 1 postage stamp and a few minutes to do it.

I believe the first sentence addresses your point.

Looks like you and I are more or less in agreement.

reason left for us to vote is to be able to complain later, then the OP's point is made.

I personally think that Congress is way more important than the WH race. So will focus on the Congressional races AND locally.

Electing Democrats to Congress, who actually ARE working for the people and have a record to show, is the only way to 'win'. Just voting for anyone with a 'd' after their names simply continues the system. It is the system that is broken. THAT is what needs fixing and the only way available to voters is to NOT keep playing the game but to work to put people in office who they feel they can vote FOR, not continue to vote AGAINST the 'other guy',.

Please, no predictable conflation of "Hillary or whatever Democratic candidate = republican."

But they aren't going to work for Hillary's campaign.

Is that little character meant to ridicule my reasoned and sensible response?

I worked for a candidate in the mid terms.

If Bernie Sanders runs, I will work for him. I won't be working for Hillary or making contributions to her either.

but you can wait by the phone for her to call!

Nor will I sit by the phone and wait. I have a way to put phone numbers on a block list.

and if not he hopefully will be actually challenged rather than going through the Turd Way motions wasting my fucking time and shoe leather in a fake ass effort, and there are local races.

My involvement in those areas will not be diminished but no I won't be working and sure as fuck not donating my money to Clinton because I won't even be voting for her or knowingly any Turd Wayer for national office ever again though the seas dry up, the mountains crumble, the low places exalted, the stars fall from the sky, and the sun turn black.

No way, no how, not ever.

to contemplate.

Unless Dwight D. Eisenhower or Abraham Lincoln rises from the dead.

and held campaign events with anti gay evangelists of the worst kind. Every nominee I've ever voted for has said or done openly shitty things to or about LGBT people, none have supported equality.
So I guess your precious, curated, privileged straight view of things does not really impress me. It strikes me as an entitled whine.

but, he's "evolved" which is political for now telling the truth. Of course I voted for him, but he should have told the truth about his beliefs up front.

I think Michelle, like Eleanor Roosevelt on Civil Rights, was the president's conscience on marriage equality and the fight for equal rights for LGBT citizens of the world. Obama made more progress on this issue than FDR ever did on racial equality.

nominee are wallowing in a luxury many minority communities simply do not have. The privilege is apparently invisible to them.

wallowing in a luxury many minority communities simply do not have? Really? Interesting point of view.

I frankly wish Hillary Clinton had been President for the last eight years, and I'll support her enthusiastically in 2016.

Though if she wins the primary, I will put my vote down for her anyway.

Well, maybe you can get Ralph Nader to run again.
That'll show 'em!

They said that it's a big bucks election, and that corporate interests will be the driving force for either candidate.
They also said that they would be voting for the Democratic candidate.

Real clear.

That's pretty much all that is required.

...necessarily true.

I generally take people at their word. The OP says they will vote for the Democratic candidate. I'm not willing to call them a liar or doubt their word.

GOTV....when WE vote WE win!

Don't go around trying to encourage people to do what YOU are doing in protest...is that really going to help the situation? Is it going to do anything to move things in your direction really?

shouldn't do.

What you think I should be doing is of little consequence to me.

Ether?

the ether

Definitions
. the hypothetical medium formerly believed to fill all space and to support the propagation of electromagnetic waves
See ether (sense 3)
Example Sentences Including 'the ether'

But the dream had gone, evaporating into the ether without so much as an echo.
Barbara Erskine HIDING FROM THE LIGHT
I wanted him to know I'd thought about this carefully, that it wasn't just some figure I'd plucked out of the ether.
Stuart Harrison BETTER THAN THIS (2002)
`The fold-up bike,' he suddenly said, as though snatching this abiding image straight from the ether.
Nicola Barker BEHINDLINGS (2002)

ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether. In Newtonian physics all waves are propagated through a medium, e.g., water waves through water, sound waves through air. When James Clerk Maxwell developed his electromagnetic theory of light, Newtonian physicists postulated ether as the medium that transmitted electromagnetic waves. Ether was held to be invisible, without odor, and of such a nature that it did not interfere with the motions of bodies through space. The concept was intended to connect the Newtonian mechanistic wave theory with Maxwell's field theory. However, all attempts to demonstrate its existence, most notably the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, produced negative results and stimulated a vigorous debate among physicists that was not ended until the special theory of relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in 1905, became accepted. The theory of relativity eliminated the need for a light-transmitting medium, so that today the term ether is used only in a historical context.



Read more: ether, in physics and astronomy http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/ether-physics-astronomy.html#ixzz3SPAVlqd4

Whatever that means.


I'm waiting around for your usual independent left whargle bargle insult.

Or, is it just something 'really clever' you made up all by yourself?

Lieberman and McShame are fucking peas in a pod but they aren't the same but they both suck ass.

Sanders isn't the same as Brown but both are outstanding.

Clinton isn't the same as Cuomo but both are intolerable.

I get why folks like to get on this silly "same" tact because it is a lot better for them than getting into if the positions discussed are acceptable or not.

Same? Almost nobody is the same so it is by definition hyperbole or distraction.

for Kerry. I'm done with that mess, and instead, focus my time and energy on local and state candidates. They are infinitely more worthy of my time and cash.

I'll donate and knock on doors like I always do for the party nominee.

much less if you think you know what Hillary will do in the future.

I'll vote for the Democratic candidate - and I'll do all I can to get a Democrat elected.

There are things I don't like about Obama...but who wants another Bush? I will always support the Democrat.

No one can actually predict what a President Hillary Clinton would do once in office facing an unknown congress. Obama changed his mind on marriage (for example). Obama supports a trade agreement. Etc., etc. Any one issue voter will never find a candidate they can fully support.

The best candidate gets elected, and then makes decisions as the challenges appear. You are ALWAYS voting for a compromise on some issue or another, but who would make the best decision? If it was Hillary vs. Jeb - that's a no brainer.

It would be the same if the race was Warren vs. Rand Paul. I think Paul is correct to remove all our troops from a bunch of crazy wars. I think Warren may make decisions that clean up Wall Street, but she has very little track record in some areas. Even thought I think the military is out of control, I'd never support Rand Paul over Warren because of one issue.

and they will not get any donations from me. Republicans were bad enough against President Obama, when Democrats in Congress started distancing themselves on healthcare and other issues from the president I decided until they actually stand for something, and grow a backbone, they will not get one dime from me.

Thanks for asking.

So long as a ballot is being cast (Dem), fine. As for enthusiasm, appointing judges and thousands of grunt policy makers and implementers is justification enough to be enthusiastic.

Of course, I will vote on election day, even if I have to hold my nose.

I can. I WONT be voting for any republicans, thats for sure.

DSCC/DLC/DCCC/Third Way/New Dem Coalition and partners.
I'll donate directly to candidates I prefer. Period.

way I would ever vote for or not work against a man who prosecuted and harassed another man who's wife was brain dead. It went on for years. It proves that if Jeb believes in something, no matter what the courts say, no matter what the evidence, no matter what period, he will go after what he believes in. I think we already went through that with a president that lied us into two wars and ordered torture. He would stop at nothing to achieve his goals.

Any Democrat with a brain in their heads will work like crazy to stop another Bush.

And all the noise about "you're a disloyal Democrat if you don't back her up now" will just alienate people up front, and all the finger-pointing and blame-storming when we end up with a a GOP President later and this country officially goes down the toilet will not stop this apathy from happening.

People need to get their political energy from a candidate that inspires them. More importantly - that they believe is an actual Democrat!

I'm highly demoralized right now because I believe Hillary probably will be the nominee, which means this country probably will be handed back to Republican rule long enough to complete the Reagan/Bush project: a return to 19th-century Robber Baron oligarchy. This is a country in which disabled people like myself are left to die in a ditch because we didn't magically transform ourselves into something the oligarchs could make money out of.

Knowing that, you want me to drag myself out of bed and be one of the few people who vote for Hillary to "prove" I'm a Loyal Democrat? To who? To this forum?

Demanding Loyalty and toeing the line for a cause people don't believe in and that doesn't represent their interests is Fascism, pure and simple.

If Hillary wants people's votes she can always try to magically turn into a Democrat, but I'll doubt she will succeed this late in the game.

I'm really sorry a viable darkhorse candidate did not show up this time. I really wish I could believe Bernie could win. (And better yet that he was a woman). I really wish Warren would run. But it will probably be Hillary, and most of the voting public will probably not bother on election day.

It's February 2015. But I know how you feel. I will vote because I am a citizen, but I don't know if I will do more than that.

...that will mean supporting and defending our eventual Democratic nominee. I strongly urge others to do the same.

At the national, state or local level, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not overly inspired by Hillary Clinton, but I know I will have some candidates that will make me want to help them.

Hillary deserves all the support that we Democrats can give her.

see who is running and help them out.

Will vote Dem local. That's it.

I will continue to volunteer and work on voting issues and work this cycle.

It's sounding like the Democratic Left is going to have to depend upon an independent, self-identified socialist being admitted as a democratic primary candidate

Hopefully this problem is addressed with the emergence of an authentic choice by late summer.

They get their base out even for the boring little local elections. We're seeing what can happen when a president who gets a strong majority of the popular vote has to deal with a Congress that was elected by those who bothered to show up in the off-years - not to mention what GOP-controlled legislatures are doing to voting.

Maybe Clinton is inevitable: how much of that is because we haven't developed much in the way of strong, nationally-known Democratic leaders over the last ten years? She's not my first choice, but I'll be voting on primary day because IMHO one of the more important races will be who gets to replace Boxer in the Senate (and I really want a serious challenger for my representative).

There are currently two people I'm interested in seeing run, who may very well announce.

To be honest, I'm at a loss at what I'm seeing here. It's not what I see locally when I do Democratic meetups. We're curious who is going to take the step and willing to work toward common goals. We have some we like and others we like less, sure, but that's normal at this stage in the process. What's going on here is nothing like what I'm seeing in real life at this point. People here need to either be more involved locally, or they're just way too worked up too early. The media said Hillary was our nominee last time early on as well, after all.