It would take getting out there and doing something.

One wonders who will play Pozzo, and if this time, someone will bring a sufficient rope.

Sid

I'm out of Chris Guest movies.

Unless we somehow work Count Rugen into it.




Has anyone checked to see if Jeb has six fingers on his right hand?



Sid

I see defense of some of the stupid shit posted that reads like it's from Alex Jones....

But that isn't demanding anyone to do anything.

There's a reason why Obama won in 2008, and Hillary was one of those reasons!

And can't believe that actual democrats support more of the same...they're not baiting, they're challenging ideals as must happen in the lead up to a national referendum on our party and it's policies...

that someone giving their opinion is baiting them.... or forcing something upon them..

Not a winning strategy.

So if claiming that other folks' opinions are 'baiting you', by your own words, that makes you thin skinned?

Not a winning strategy.

Because I actually attend the meeting of the Democratic Party. There 101st Chairborne don't.

One step removed from celebrating victimhood, I suppose.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

I think the whole fucking system is a sham and can't wait for it to implode. And I don't like baiting people either. That's mean.

- Now telling the truth, that's the BOMB! I love doing that. Like Harry, a REAL Democrat.....

[center][/center]

You're missed the objective...it's not about helping a candidate that doesn't exist yet.

It's entirely about destroying this one and driving her from the race, ideally before the start in earnest of the primary season and demoralizing her supporters so they will fall in line behind a real Democrat once Hillary is vanquished. That is...not helping not-existing hypothetical candidates but actively working to destroy one specific existing actual candidate: it's all about ending Hillary as a candidate for the Presidency forever.

(I have no expectations that 2016 is going to be any less bloody than 2008, even if Hillary runs effectively-unopposed. She is simply unilaterally-unacceptable to too many people for Democrats or DUers to fall in line behind without a fight and a purge.)

I simply-put will never support her under any condition ever. I will ascribe her subsequent loss to the worst Republican option as inevitable, the result of her supporters not banding with real Democrats to drive her out. It's not our fault for not voting for her...it's your fault for not working to destroy her futile candidacy.

Recognize reality, if nothing else.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

Polls are meaningless this far out and only slightly more meaningful closer in.

Polling led the Romney campaign to believe they could win 2012 and convinced a lot of people that it was a horserace when the result really confirmed it was not and never had been.

Polls are crap. They're about as meaningful as deducing the median intelligence by conducting "person on the street" quizzes outside Disneyland.

approval from Democrats? Sorry, but the DU hate bubble means nothing.

- You, on the other hand.....


I mean after all, I'm not the one here who believes politicians are the answer to anything.....

Polls supporting Hillary are meaningless because Democrats are ignorant and scared. Spoken like a true Republican, although I HOPE you didn't mean it that way, since you are, after all, on the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND board.

it won't work because
1. DU doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
2. No way you or anyone else is going to demoralize her supporters. In fact, it probably has the opposite effect.
3. No one cares if you support her or not. I see by your posts here on DU you loathe her. Bully for you.
Acid eats the cup it's held in.

The gentleman has $500,000.00 in discretionary income and I would like to convince him to donate some/all of it to worthy cause(s) :






http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6542362

But maybe we can find some common ground. I found a worthy charity for you to donate the $500,000.00 in discretionary income you alluded to:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6542362


since Ms. Clinton isn't going anywhere.

I requested a fellow member who has $500,000.00 in discretionary income to donate it to a charitable enterprise that seeks to help former gang members from some of Los Angeles' most dangerous gangs turn around their lives, ergo:

http://www.homeboyindustries.org/

And that's your response. Here's a:





KISSES
DEMOCRATSINCEBIRTH

I ask this as someone who is more than neutral in this primary season--largely because I can't expend the energy at the moment and have more pressing things to think about at the moment. But who is the "real" Democrat you claim we should fall in behind, once Clinton is "vanquished," who is a sure win against the eventual Republican? (Knowing full well that is is historically very difficult for any party to win a third consecutive term in the presidency in modern times.) Who is a "real" Democrat anyway? Someone you think is a true Democrat? (I saw someone above cite Harry Truman. Would we have approved of everything he did? Using nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Proposing legislation to draft striking workers into the Army? Sending troops into Korea? Escalating the Cold War? He did many good things, and just as many we would disagree with. Like any Democratic president.)

Your notion of vanquishing a candidate would appear to come out of both fear and malice: it's authoritarian and undemocratic as well. Are you afraid to let the people decide?

I have to say, it's attitudes like this that are making me consider falling into the Hillary camp (something I opposed back in 2004). Your malice and hyperbole are, quite frankly, counterproductive. They scare me. Besides, the collective wisdom of DU has been universally misguided over the past decade plus: none of its darlings were either progressive nor electable, starting with Howard Dean, continuing through John Edwards (really? he was one of the most conservative Democrats in his brief tenure in Congress), and ending now with Senator Warren (who only converted to Democratic politics very recently and who doesn't have much history on any subject aside from banking and finance, on which she has been vocal and good; but that is not representative of the broad range of issues we expect of a Democratic candidate.)

The idea of "vanquishing" one of the candidates is the most non-democratic, non-progressive thing I can think of.

First they're screaming "why can't Hillary be more like Warren" and "if Warren or Bernie were to run, it would pull Hillary left".

And then, when Hillary begins to sound more like Warren or Bernie, it's "don't be fooled by her fake populism!!".


The perpetually outraged really aren't happy unless they're outraged about something. They're outraged even when they get what they want.



Sid

she cannot be trusted... so don't believe a word she is saying.

It's getting comical.

I said in 2008..."I hope her campaign implodes and ends her ambitions permanently."

Still waiting.

I got half of what I wanted...she imploded real pretty. It just didn't stick.

tolerate badgering about it meanwhile. It's pointless.

Some of us just think that Hillary Clinton is not the best possible candidate. We are bothered by her cozying up to people like Henry Kissinger, her close ties to Wall Street, her willingness to bomb women and children in the Middle East, her Iraq War vote, and various other things. Her sudden appearance of being a Progressive makes us wonder if she's just cynically saying what many want to hear just so she can win, and then it will be all business as usual if she becomes President.

In addition, we don't think that a coronation is the best way to find the next President, and we're not at all crazy about the idea of the Presidency being in the hands of two families for six or seven terms. We think it's time for new players, someone who does strongly support unions, who will make it crystal clear from the very beginning that he or she is firmly on the side of the working and middle classes, and will do everything possible to roll back the tax cuts to the very rich.

Somehow, that doesn't feel like baiting to me. What does feel like baiting is the Hillary supporters who essentially keep on telling us to sit down and shut up because she's inevitable. And when we try to point out she was supposedly inevitable back in 2008 they get quite huffy, and point out she almost won, as if she didn't actually lose. We recall the Pumas from eight years ago, and how it seemed they really didn't care if they wrecked the Democratic party.

But it's mostly the constant refrain that there's simply no one else, and that we have to roll over and accept Hillary Clinton that gets under our skin. We'd like to see a few more candidates in the actual running.

I would have gladly laughed my ass off WHILE shooting bin laden's head off his shoulders.

I'm on the fence.

People who don't like Clinton have been called stupid, purists, haters, Republican shills, and many other things by Clinton's supporters. In an apparent attempt to get them to like Clinton.

Clinton has a long past. It's a mixed bag. People tend to hear only one side of that mix. In order to "woo" the other side, you're going to have to address the other "side" of her history.

If someone hates the TPP, or the constant drag to the right of the DLC-style leadership, you're going to have to address those arguments. If someone is backing Clinton because of her current polling, you're going to have to address how inaccurate polling this early is.

Instead, we get a lot of name calling. Either by people who do not want to deal with the objections of "the other side", or people who have become exasperated by others not addressing their arguments.

You know someone more suited to their liking??

Or is it as stated very truthfully above, they just don't want Clinton... Well, that is a very short sighted strategy if you ask me.

You're demanding that a viable alternative be in place RIGHT NOW because.........?

It's April. It will be a while before the primary field is complete. At the moment O'Malley looks better to me, but it's way too early to make a decision - there have been zero debates and very little scrutiny of anyone not named Clinton or Biden.

Thanks for calling me an idiot. That will surely get me to change my mind this time!!! And if it doesn't, you can just keep calling me an idiot. Surely it work eventually. Just like that asshole cat-calling women in the street will surely get a date if he just keeps trying.

Tell ya what: List the bills that Clinton introduced or co-sponsored to expand abortion access. How she worked to stop the Hyde amendment's perpetual addition to funding bills. What bills did she introduce to try and fix the harm caused by free trade agreements like NAFTA? What tax cuts did she vote against? What safety net programs did she vote to expand?

In other words, give the people who don't like Clinton a reason to like her instead of calling their objections "short-sighted".

Wasn't meant to be.

Fact of the matter is, tearing down Clinton this early in the season when there is NO ONE else, because as you put it, "it's FUCKIN APRIL" is short sighted.

It's like having a conversation with a ghost. There are plenty of people already decided they don't want her no matter what. That is short sighted.

Frankly, I don't care what you think of me. I'm trying to steer the "debate" away from name calling and actually discussing what people like and do not like about Clinton.

Doubling-down on "short-sighted" is exactly what you complain about. And it's especially bad when you're only concerned about 2016 yet calling others "short-sighted". I'm worried not just about 2016, but every election after it. If Clinton wins, that will have an effect on how the party operates for decades. Even if she only wins as the lesser of two evils, the party will continue with it's 1991 mindset for another 20 years, shredding more of the safety net and giving more to the wealthy.


If Clinton and her supporters can't handle the mild criticism of "what did you do to help the non-wealthy?", they are utterly unprepared for the Republicans.

Get your shit together and come up with an answer, because those of us who are Democrats that do not like Clinton are kittens compared to what she will face later. ("Your shit" being Clinton and her surrogates and her fans)


And there are far more who don't like her, but can be persuaded. Saying "You're short-sighted" over and over again just pushes them into the "no matter what" camp.

If you want to convince people, start listing concrete things she did to earn support. The vast majority of us would like to be convinced she is worth voting for. Instead we're told how stupid we are for even considering not voting for her.

If you want to bully people, keep saying nothing more than "short-sighted". You'll even be ready to lash out at the same people when bullying doesn't win enough votes.

I never mentioned you!

You think I'm bullying you?

I'm beginning to feel bullied by you. Get over the persecution complex. I never insulted YOU..

You want people who do not like Clinton to start liking Clinton. Give them reasons to like Clinton. Address their concerns about her history. And most importantly, stop disrespecting them.

And before you try to hide behind "It wasn't a personal insult" again, you'll notice nothing in the previous paragraph is in the first person. Perhaps that will get across to you that I really do not care what you think about me, and thus you can not personally insult me. Call me a big poopy dodohead. I do not care.

You have a problem. To solve it, you are using "they must stop". That will happen shortly after Senator Inhofe personally performs a federally-funded late-term abortion on an undocumented worker while burning an American flag and cursing the NRA. So you're going to either need to pursue a different course of action, or you're going to have to live with your current path being ineffective.

Given that you are setting up a "you are being a bully" defense in order to deflect, I'm assuming you are going to choose the latter path. Just be aware it continues the problem you claim you want to solve.

You are reading incorrectly... Not sure what else to say, but that.

But for the rest of this week I want peace.