That is the crucial question:



or



Inquiring minds want to know.

These days a discussion goes from zero to personal attack in milliseconds.

I am taking a fairly hard stand against forgoing a primary, I'm challenging polls, and I'm questioning the apparent conventional wisdom that we must support the front runner because _______________.

This is the time to vigorously challenge fellow progressives, even at the risk of creating some heat among friends.

But it is NOT the time to draw conclusions about one another, call others names, or accuse people of parroting RW talking points, being a troll, or whatever uncivil and unproductive behavior you can name.

It's the issues, it's the record, it's about the things we represent and the direction our party and our nation needs to take.

but I understand some people view electability as a key issue in determining their vote, and that is their choice.

We also nominate candidates for the House and other offices on those ballots. To send delegates to the convention, they have to be elected. The process is not Constitutionally mandated, but at the same time we could not simply 'forgo all primaries' even if we all actually agreed in advance on a Presidential nominee without replacing the one process with another process. All the rules would need to be changed to other rules.

I have generally seen it applied to people suspected of having certain political leanings. Now I shall have to scan your posts for secret references to Hillary being a...... Well, being a corporatist.

And to think that crypto-Clintonians may be heretics! We need an inquisition to investigate this.

I also like the phrase "not mistake a failure to despise as support". Very well put.

but I recently went from radical feminist heretic to corporate sell-out heretic in a short span of time.

pretty much speak for me. I find this all very interesting, but it's way too early for anything. I'm not into arguing so much anymore either, so I'll watch!

Or unsure about being sure, or unsure about being unsure, or . . .

But the responses can get pretty tense.

I had to stop at "you snorted at Michelle Obama," because I was laughing so hard I thought I was going to have a heart attack. I need to pick up some raspberry ketone before I can continue.

From all sides. No one listening to each other. Or even acknowledging that the other side might have a decent point. It's now become like white noise, lol.

I want to see who all runs. I'm not opposed to HRC but I don't think she's necessarily the best available. I'm not one to decide until late in the game, when I've gotten all the information I can get.

Good on you.

that has any connection to the election.

Repetition of the pros and cons of the candidates has become extremely tedious and there's lots of other good stuff being posted.

Good for you.

fighting to take a look at themselves. My primary is over a year away, candidates are not announced, so demanding a binary reaction today to a race between several that takes place over a year from now is nothing but bullying.
Those who stand with me get my respect. So I'm not going to be bashing away at Hillary while praising those who were attacking me when my community was in great peril. Those who do such bashing and at the same time refuse to discuss their own candidate's shitty Republican background, which includes being in a Party that attacked Hillary for befriending 'militant homosexuals' before Bill even got elected.

Those white straight folks who demand that everyone do as they say are nothing new to me.

Let's get some more candidates, have some debates, see what they have to offer and go from there. It's way early in the process. Not a criticism, but I see no reason to make the announcement myself.

Good gawd, did I just say that out loud?

Actually, you and I agree on many subjects, and definitely on this. :thumbs up: