But saying you won't vote for her if she's nominee is... flawed.

We need Sanders or Warren.

Goody for you.

No more third way.

Glad reality is on ignore for you. For others, it will not be wasted.

See: Ralph Nader.

And this is what I'm talking about -- raising concerns is getting automatically slapped with a "bashing HRC" label.

Saying something positive is getting automatically called out as the "HRC mob mentality."

It's not helpful to discourse, and it doesn't help us figure out what are the really important things each of us would prefer not to compromise on. It's just a bunch of chest thumping and name calling.

kidding.

I would be in favor of such debate.

Not even sure of the usefulness of that.

she will fight for economic equality. That is it. I don't hate her. If you want to vote for her, then you should vote for her. I do not tell people who to vote for. I just don't appreciate it when others try and tell me who to vote for.

Talking about whom one should vote for, and why, is pretty much what DU is for...

Is there anyone who will be aligned with anyone on every single issue? Not a chance.

I will support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

It's a bad pain night and I'm not on top form. What's "Manichean thinking?"

Binary thinking
Mutually exclusive thinking

Seeing the world as a battle between good and evil and nothing in between...


Nuance is good.

Nuance is GOOD!
Thank you.

Thinking with no nuance. The World, unfortunately doesn't operate that way.

. . .is RESPECT.

Whether that translates into a vote for her or not is your own choice.

those who love her are not demanding i do the same.

There's no must; see her how you will. In reality, the same can be said of most politicians: flaws, hope, concern. The dichotomy is a propaganda device for campaigns; it's not going to go away, but you don't have to buy into it.

And it sucks.

be debated just as any other bill would be.

All or nothing

... leverage by removing the right for Congress to amend or to threaten a filibuster on any "trade" agreement proposed by whoever happen to be president in the next 6 years.

Considering the history of "trade" agreements, and what we have managed to learn about who influences the negotiations and what provisions are being sought, the FT deal is an attempted end run around democratic process, and should be soundly defeated.

Congress should not limit their power and duty, granted by the constitution, to block bad "trade" agreements (which happen to be the preferred modus operandi by which multinational corporations are now seeking to marginalize democratic governance and establish global corporate domination).

And, then, if the final language is terrible, it gets voted down. I'm good with that.

To the contrary, it establishes a process for present and future "trade" agreements ("trade" is in parentheses because only 5 of the 29 chapters of the TPP under negotiation are about "trade", while corporate interests seek an end run around democratic processes by enhancing intellectual property monopolies, undermining the authority of democratic governments in areas of environmental law, labor law, and safety, to name a few, and removing jurisdiction of disputes regarding these fundamental issues from state, local, and federal courts to "Investor State Dispute Resolution" tribunals, immune from appeal to the judicial system, all in the name of "free trade", a process which has historically been understood to increase competition by weakening monopoly power, whereas recent "trade" agreements have the opposite effect.) proposed by whoever happens to be president for the next 6 years to bypass the constitutionally established powers of Congress to make amendments, and to remove the leverage that Congress constitutionally enjoys via the powers inherent in the ability to threaten filibuster.

And, considering the history of recent "trade" agreements, and what we have learned about those currently under negotiation, being "good with" reducing the leverage which Congress has been provided constitutionally seems less than prudent.

but given this congress' failure to apply facts, and/or commonsense, to the many things put before it, why would you trust it to apply wisdom to trade agreements, through the amendment/filibuster process?

I, by far, trust experts on trade to come up with a good trade deal; than a Congress, that lets ideology over rule facts/common sense.

That's why Krugman, for example, who is a free trade advocate, has discussed how from a trade standpoint, the TPP is "not a big deal", as there are very few restrictions to trade still in existence, but now has come to the point where he would be relieved if the TPP failed to materialize, because of the fact that is is fundamentally about enhancing monopoly power, primarily through such measures as enhanced intellectual property restrictions, rather than removing barriers to trade.

When it is proposed that "experts on trade" come up with a trade deal, this obscures the sad reality that corporate interests continue to use "trade" agreements to do end runs around environmental law, labor law, safety regulations, and to establish sovereign tribunals to settle claims that governments attempting to fulfill their duty with regard to promoting the general welfare in these areas may be sued if such regulation negatively impacts projected profits, and all decisions are not subject to appeal within the judicial system.

As fallible as is our democratic Congressional system, decreasing Congressional authority and enhancing the processes of global corporate domination does not seem like the way forward.












'
'

Has presented. She has been in the bottom and she has been to the top. She has compassion for others and still she is strong. She will make a good president.

sentences...so it takes little thought and there is no explanation or reasoning or convincing. It's just kind of "in your face" by its very nature. I'm getting a bit used to it, but I tend to write out my reasonings and opinions and thoughts.

The Hillary situation is such a complex political issue that it invites the bi-polar style.

JMO

YAY YAY HRC

and

NAY NAY HRC

Into the trash. It's the same posters over and over and the same slanging match over and over. It's been tiresome for months.

and nowhere more than on DU.

And it's getting worse. Today on DU there were flame wars to the death among people who all believe in the absolute right of women to have an abortion at her own choice, over what sort of rhetoric should be used to express this position. The saddest part of it is that the combatants have very good points and arguments worth thinking about. But once you've been attacked in battle, it's hard to think clearly or acknowledge that your interlocutor is still a human being, and probably sane.

believe in a woman's right to chose when I myself have had an abortion and do believe in a woman's right to chose. The internet is a nasty place. It can be hard to navigate sometimes. I have to use the trash and ignore buttons a lot.

You don't have to have any emotion re Hillary. She's the strongest Dem candidate to date and so many decisions hang on party, not pipe dreams. Save those for the coffee flavor at Starbucks.

No candidate will meet everyone's goals. That simply won't happen. We vote for the better of two candidates for that office. Vote for the one that supports your positions on more issues than the other. It's a simple binary choice in November. All the rest is just posturing.

You can join them on the death star, or you can join us have have the force be with you.

Yet ANOTHER invitation to argue about Hillary, utterly devoid of reference to policy.

Yet ANOTHER post pretending that elections in a democracy are about whether you like the candidate.

The corporate propaganda is deep, and thick, and it is trying to reteach us the meaning of "democracy," divorcing it altogether from the important civic meaning our elections once had.

We are flooded with OP's like this, that encourage fake "political" discussion that's not political at all. This is elections in a corporatocracy...vacant of policy, but full of bids to argue about personalities. We marinate in a sea of propaganda designed to pervert our fundamental understanding of democracy. To pervert the very meaning of the electoral process by pretending that it is the most natural thing in the world to detach political loyalties from policies and principles and attach it instead to team label and personality contests.

This is what happens when corporations buy democracies. Our presidential elections are now a sports event that, as the Princeton study showed, have virtually *nothing* to do with the actual direction of policy or of governance in this country anymore.

Princeton study: U.S. no longer an actual democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025405658

We have TWO Superbowls in this country now. Two major, vapid, nationally hyped and advertised sporting events in which the people are urged to take a side and mindlessly cheer for their side to win. Where the most important policies that affect people's lives - the TPP, plans for Social Security, plans for corporate taxes and dealing with predatory banks, war policy, mass surveillance, police state policies - are assiduously avoided, and from which the media oligarchs, the political oligarchs, and the banking oligarchs profit BILLIONS.

It's actually her policies and her positions that I'm most interested in. I couldn't care less about her personality. (Have edited OP title to reflect this.)

What I was trying to say, and did so badly I guess, was that it seems of late that any post here about an HRC position or policy, be it pro or con, automatically turns into a shouting match about "hating" or "cheerleading." It's ridiculous.

How can we have a substantive discussion about what policies we support and which ones we'd like to see change if we can't even get past the good/evil, for-us-entirely-or-against-us-entirely mentality?

the important issues are their policies.

BTW, I find it somewhat amusing that there was an outrage
on this board about low voter turn out in 2014.
"People should vote if they are US citizens"


a lot of people don't like the 2 major parties and what
they offer, but if they decide to vote Green or
Justice party, for instance,they will be called Naderists,
Republicans or other names. I am now talking about
the general population and not DUers. In that case,
should we not be grateful that they vote at all?

If she comes to your door and asks what time it is, you don't even have to tell her.

You may, within the bounds of decency and good taste (which are TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE), say whatever you want about Hillary Clinton.

IF she becomes the party's nominee for President, now that will be a different matter altogether.

cut and dried binary sides, you are either with them or against them, and it is just like a boxing match. I am also supposed to watch more bloodsports and stop being 'so upset' when bullies demand that their be combat and war and that their vision of aggression and brutality is the only true vision.
It's very George W, really. All of this 'with us or against us' bullshit.

She's certain to be the nominee, and nobody cares how tightly you hold your nostrils while voting for her because the Repuke will unquestionably be far worse.

The militantly pro-Hillary and militantly anti-Hillary folks can ***** ****** ******.

I will vote and support the party's nominee for president in 2016. That is what a loyal Democrat does. The alternative in our current political milieux is unthinkable.

Of course I'll vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election (although I live in New York, so I could vote alternative and it wouldn't really matter, the D will take the state no matter what).

But this "love person x or hate person x" thing is just bizarre to me. No candidate is a perfect angel, few candidates on our side at least are the devil incarnate, so why the brutal dichotomy? Why is it not safe to say here that I am repulsed by HRC's Iraq was vote but very happy about her support for abortion rights? 'Cause you know such a statement is gonna get jumped on by both sides of the HRC divide.

It's sad. We should be able to talk policies without it degenerating into shouting matches.

Not by the words OTHERS might say.

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

The Merchant of Venice, Act 4, Scene 1

If you agree that money has a corrupting effect, Hillary Clinton is being corrupted in ways very much UNlike anything we face.

Judge her by how well she overcomes the isolation imposed by wealth, but maybe don't assume she is accessible or flawed in the same ways we are.