General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe're well on our way to a republican president in 2016
All conservatives have to do to make that happen is convince a few million of us that OUR candidate is not liberal enough and that we should protest by staying home and not voting. And they are MORE than pleased to have the "Democrats" here at DU help them.
Let's face it, it worked when Nader did it in the 2000 election. Worked like a charm. Remember his mantra - there is no difference between Gore and Bush? Remember that? Remember how many justices Bush appointed to the USSC? Remember how we got Citizen's United, which did more to destroy our democracy than any other single USSC decision in history?
Worked in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms too. Let's all sit home because Obama is not liberal enough. Now you have a republican house and senate to go with it.
You want to see all hell really break loose in this country? You think we can't be more screwed than we already are? Let republicans own every branch of government. Oh yeah, it can get worse.
The only thing Reagan ever said in his whole life that made any sense was "thou shall not bash a republican." They know how to win. We, on the other hand, know how to help republicans win.
Foolish. Just foolish. You can discuss policy differences without bashing other democrats. Try it. Please.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)AS to not bashing others here, I have a hard time considering someone a lib or dem who is willing to act in such a way as to allow a con government
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I just don't want to propagate the lie that Republicans has any sort of legitimacy in their governing(or lack thereof) style.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)Campaign strategists will tell you that suppressing (I'm referring to legal means) the opposition vote can be a crucial to winning an election as getting your voters to the polls.
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I mean, sure, I understand voting for a 3rd party candidate, but I can't do it.
I have a minimum set requirements before I consider such a thing in the Presidential level.
If:
--3rd Party has 2 people in the Senate
--3rd Party has 4 people in the House
--3rd Party has at least 1/4 of the voting population trending towards voting for them
Then:
--I will consider voting for a 3rd party candidate
Unless those minumum requirements are met, I just won't. I will always vote for the one I consider who would do the least damage, or who has a set of priorities closer to what I consider important.
Republicans have nothing to offer me at this time, with their insanity and glorification of stupidity.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)However some on DU will NEVER vote for Hillary is she wins. I makes one wonder with all that is at stake in 2016, and you did a great job of pointing some of them out, just what the real agenda is for those who say they will NOT vote for the nominee if their candidate dose not win the nomination. 
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I've heard plenty of people trash Hillary or other democrats because they aren't pure enough.
They completely forget that no "liberal" politician can win the White House or could govern if by some miracle became President.
Look what happened two years into Obama's first term-- we barely got started and we lost the House. And the screaming from the Left about Pelosi's impurity didn't help one damn bit.
And look what happened last year. My Congressman, a perfectly good Democrat, lost not only because of the millions thrown at him, but in large part because our fucking party couldn't rally behind him. We couldn't even get Schumer or Cuomo to share a podium with him, much less our local lefties, greens and whatever.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I do not relish the thought of watching it here for the next 18 months.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)out and out trolls, there will be [plenty of it around here.
Always has been.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. Obama got the the White House CLAIMING to be liberal. The fact that he showed his true colors later might give your point some validity for the 2012 election, but in 2008 Obama ran as a solid progressive and he WON.
So can it with the "liberal can't win" bullshit, poll after poll after poll shows Americans' most basic instincts are quite progressive.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and never claimed to be a liberal. He was proclaimed a liberal by those who were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between them.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and in a state whose Primary came after most were eliminated, I voted for Obama in the Primary. I guess I decided that taking a chance on Obama made more sense than voting for the known quantity.
If Hill gets the nom, will I vote for her? Sure; but at that point it's a vote in favor of her moderately liberal social policy views and seeking to somewhat limit the damage possible in foreign affairs if ANY lunatic Republican get in. I have no confidence at all in her ability (or even desire) to regulate banks & Wall Street effectively.
Ya know what? I don't know that I can muster or sustain much enthusiasm for her as a candidate. Traditionally it has been the left wing of the party, the "activists," who put in all the legwork, envelope stuffing, phone banking, etc., but I wonder how much grassroots support Hillary will muster among them. And of course, if she loses, guess who is gonna get the blame.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)ALL the Democrats I know and hang with are very excited about her candidacy. We've all looked into the public transportation way to get to her office in Brooklyn, have already looked into the effective ways of canvassing neighborhoods, etc. I think you make a mistake in thinking DU in any way, shape or form is representative of the Democratic party.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I have yet to hear any excitement for her (unlike in 2008, BTW) in the two county parties in the area where I live and work, and I'm in a couple of "geezer rant" groups, and the people I run into are just not thrilled with her. Maybe 2 or 3 that I would actually count in her camp.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... speeches that prove you dead wrong, but I am tired of arguing with folks that have short and selective memories. His campaigns and his after-election rhetoric were ALWAYS very progressive, it's only his actions that are not.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*Raise Taxes on the Rich
*Immediately renegotiate NAFTA to protect American Jobs
*Immediately "make card-check the Law of the Land"
*put on comfortable shoes and walk the line with strikers
*Keep us out of stupid wars.
*Raise-the-Cap on Social Security
*Immediately require food to be labeled as GMO and Country of Origin
....sounds pretty Liberal to me.
Kucinich had most of the same positions.
If you doubt me,
I saved the video,
so PLEASE.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)you looked at speeches - I looked at his voting record and his record was pretty much identical to Hillary's. Hillary's speeches are very liberal also.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)248. No - he was never a liberal
and never claimed to be a liberal. He was proclaimed a liberal by those who were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between them.
That puts an end to the He never claimed to be a Liberal BS.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I FULLY STAND BY THAT STATEMENT. Find one place where he defined himself a liberal. In fact, the only people that called him a liberal - weirdly enough - were those on the far left AND the far right. You were both wrong.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Rather than blame the left for the failure of the party to do that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But when the "left" does it yet again they will immediately absolve themselves off all responsibility just like they did when they installed Bush. Then they will proceed to bitch about it for 8 years as if it was someone else's fault besides their own.
The "left" is incapable of understanding that Kucinich or Nader or Sanders cannot get elected in this country. Your trade off for that is that neither can a Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz. But instead of grasping that fact they would rather facilitate the election of a republican president. And then wonder why their democratic reps ignore them.
onecaliberal
(32,862 posts)When the votes were counted bush lost.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)A Vice President against a Governor. Gore should have easily gotten 300 electoral votes.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Then you can watch it happen all over again in real time.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"One thing he will not do, Sanders said, is serve as a spoiler in the general election as an independent candidate.
"I will not, I will not be a spoiler," he stressed. "There are ways to do this, but let me make it very clear. I will not be a spoiler and elect some Republican."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-democratic-voters-angry-enough-to-support-bernie-sanders-for-president/
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)He knows how it works, and he has said repeatedly that he won't run if will help hand the White House to Republicans.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Any minute now, right?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I just don't see how Democrats bashing democrats helps democrats. Can you explain how it does?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The central theme of his 1992 campaign was, "I'm not like those Democrats in Congress." Pundits were amused that he spent the election campaigning against his own party.
He then spent the first two years constantly fighting the Democratic controlled congress. He didn't really start getting anything done until Republicans took over the Congress.
His victory caused other Democrats, particularlly in the Bible Belt, to copy him. So we see things like Allison Lundgren (D-KY) denying she voted for Obama. With these Third-Way/DLC/New-Democrats telling everyone that Democrats are bad, it is no longer we can no longer win in much of the United States. And that will continue until your people stop bashing Democrats.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But let's not pretend him campaigning as a new type of democrat has anything in common with the over the top democrat bashing we see here. No democrat running for office would even come close to saying the disgusting stuff the purists post here.
False equivalence in the extreme.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)That DLC strategy has caused massive Democratic defeats. We held the House for all but 2 years since the Great Depression before the DLC.
How much losing does it take for you people to admit that you fucked up? Sure, it worked for Bill Clinton. But that one victor, and maybe a few other isolated wins here and there, have been dwarfed by massive losses. As long as you refuse to admit it and face reality, accept the facts that are screaming in your face, until you do that you will continue losing us elections.
Or was that your goal all along? The DLC was funded by the very same people who funded the Republican Party. It's almost like they were rigging the election by making sure both sides were their side.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But it did get us the presidency for 8 years. Clinton would not have won in southern states without it. Things change, and we have to change strategy when it does.
I'm a pragmatic liberal. I loathe republicans and their agenda with every fiber of my being. People can say the lesser of two evils is still evil. I say, quite confidently, that is still less evil. Much less, in fact.
In a perfect world someone like Bernie could get elected in this country. But it's unrealistic for a multitude of reasons. We need to live in reality.
So, Bernie is not going to win - not a chance. O'Malley and Chafee are to the right of HRC. Warren isn't running, and seems delighted that HRC is running.
Where does that leave us?
I just don't see any utility in bashing members of our own party. We can disagree on policy without smearing democrats.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Hmmmm. I wonder if the same holds true of Jonathan Chait's opinion of the Clintons since Bill left office?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html
What's your guess, just off the top of your head?
(rhetorical question, requires no answer)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't see the problem. Of course we know the Russian issue turned out to be bunk.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Got it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He is accurately reporting what people are saying and reporting. Hence his links in the post. But the Russia story didn't pan out, did it?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not speculation. And absolutely, unequivocally true about Nader, which anyone who was paying attention to the inside baseball of politics at the time, realizes is deadly accurate.
Nader is a jerk in real life. That's a fact. If you'd ever seen him in action you couldn't possibly disagree. I once watched him absolutely berate a flight attendant because he was stuck in coach and thought the seats didn't provide enough leg room. As if the flight attendant actually had some control over that. He is a dickhead.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)you do realize that FAR MORE *moderate* Dems voted for Bush in Florida than progressives voted for Nader.
By your reasoning Citizens United and the USSC under Bush can be laid directly at the feet of the moderate wing of the party.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not to mention hanging chads, dimpled chads and bad chads.
It was insane. Gore did not lose that election at all. And it was not close enough to steal because of Nader or because liberals stayed home. Neither off those things accounted for Gore's inability to carry his home state. Gore did not run a good campaign.
If anyone is likely to stay home or cross over to vote Republican, it ain't liberals, that's for damned sure.
But, the demonization of the left never ends, no matter how many lies have to be told to sustain it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Really, Nader votes were meaningless. Republicans cheated just as hard as they needed to in Florida. Without Nader they'd just have cheated slightly more.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Wilson knew it, FDR knew it, Truman knew it, J.Edgar Hoover knew it, Revoltin' Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn knew it, the DLC knew it, and, now, DU has figured it out as well. No sense trying t deny it anymore. We may as well surrender.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's already been covered and debunked. https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)to say absolutely nothng
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You have to willfully ignore the facts and quotes. And they are supported by other historical accounts of the time. Many in fact.
I've been in earshot of Nader twice as he interacted with people (not in front of cameras and crowds). He was an insufferable jerk on both occasions. Berating people that had nothing to do with the problem he was complaining about. In that respect the article rang very true with what I have seen of Nader up close.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There were no significant number of votes that Gore received in 2000 that he could could ONLY have taken by running on the exact same dead-zone platform El Perro Grande had insisted on in '96 and '92-a platform Nixon or the George Bush of 1980 could have lived with.
It was stupid for Gore to run a "stay the course" campaign in 2000. Nobody but Republicans wanted him to do that.
The voters want a party that fights for the people-not one that always defers to the rich people.
bearssoapbox
(1,408 posts)But voting for Kucinich, Nader, Sanders or Warren will almost guarantee a reTHUGliCON in the White House.
It's not time for the others yet. I like most things about Hillary but I really hate what the right wants to do to the country.
Let the Teabaggers and right wing extremists tear the reTHUGliCON candidates to pieces.
The others will get experience in the mean time.
Meanwhile, we need to get our shit together for the years down the road.
The reTHUGliCONS have been working on this for 40+years.
We need to play the long game.
1939
(1,683 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Remember, more registered Democrats in Florida voted for W than voted for Nader. And there were several other states that were lost due to Gore's "I'm not liberal! Really!" campaign.
What you're failing to grasp is that the "liberals" still show up and vote for Democrats anyway.
What we're missing is the roughly 50% of the population who does not vote, because they are given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite. It's pretty hard to get people to bother going to the polls when the choices are "get screwed" or "get screwed a little less". So they drop out of politics altogether, and they will never recognize the slight nuances that are all-important to the politically active.
How do we get them back? Not by chewing them out, as you do here. But by pushing a government that helps people instead of the "job creators".
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It one thing to work to move the party left. It's another to allow the right to win because you didnt get your way.
It's fuckin' ridiculous.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)In 2000, far more Dems voted in Florida for Bush than for Nader. They not only 'allowed' the right to win because Gore was too far left for them, they deliberately voted for the guy farther right.
Bush in 2000 was a result of centrist 'Democrats' voting Republican. And, yes, it was 'fuckin' ridiculous'.
But it won't stop them from demanding a centrist candidate in 2016, and probably won't stop them from voting for the Republican again if they decide Hillary is 'too far left'.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Recommending post 337 by Erich Bloodaxe BSN.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)OLDMADAM
(82 posts)I'm having a real problem with the trashing of any critics of Hillary, even those that I know just want a fair shot at a better choice..
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What utter fail from the corporate talking points machine this OP is.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Bush was appointed by the Supremes Court, after they decided to appoint him, and not count all of the votes. Had all of the votes been counted Al Gore would have been president.
People just did not show up in the midterms, which is why the CONs won.
Plain and simple.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... To absolve themselves of the absolute horror they helped to facilitate. I'm well aware of the excuses.
95k people voted for Nader in Florida. Sorry, that excuse doesn't wash.
frylock
(34,825 posts)200,000+ registered dems voted for bush in FL
People cross party lines in every election in states that force people to declare a party. That's a constant - not something unquie to the 2000 election.
frylock
(34,825 posts)95k v 200k. math much?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The 200k are swing voters forced to pick a party preference, in some cases decades ago. The 95k were stupid liberals who bought Nader's bullshit.
frylock
(34,825 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)are "effing retarded."
arendt
(5,078 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Are you too lazy to look at my profile and journal? Easier to post some bullshit accusation that I'm a sock puppet?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Who you trying to fool with numbers and stuff?
200,000 Dems voting (R) so what?
95K Dems voting Third Party hair on fire.
Why can't you get that?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)not by how many people voted for Nader vs. Bush...but how many votes Bush won by.
Using logic should have been pretty easy on figuring out the voting results in the Nader supposition, not so much in your response.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)tried reading their views on corporate taxes, did not make mathematical sense to me either.
merrily
(45,251 posts)at all.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all the other criminal games they played.
Then when it looked like all their criminal activity didn't quite do the job, the appealed to their buddies on the SC who violated the Constitution on their behalf, and GAVE them the Election.
When I see a few people, and it is a very few among Dems, drag this red herring into any discussion about that election, I wonder, why are they protecting Bush/Cheney and the felonious five on the SC? Why would a Democrat want to do that?
Nader had ZERO to do with the theft of that election, and every time it comes up here, it gets corrected.
Gore WON and the SC stole it!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And he did it by design. Don't ignore history. https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)That is the absolute truth!
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If idiots hadn't voted for that loser Nader.
And so we got Iraq. Thanks Nader voters!
frylock
(34,825 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I read stuff like in the OP here on DU and I just want to 
Gore won the national popular vote and would have won Florida if a proper statewide recount had been allowed (oh, and if all those voters had not been disenfranchised by Jeb Bush and his cronies).
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)Ain't gonna happen.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The left of the left, the mega corps and media plus Republican Party decides to have a meeting of the minds. And it sure looks like the left is well on their way to repeating the same old BS of killing their own party.
They did it in 2000, and 2010, and 2012. What makes you think they won't do it again?
realFedUp
(25,053 posts)And the last Senate election dealt with some states with gerimandered disricts.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is that all you need? Someone who lie to you about be left instead of center left?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Obama was elected because he lied and pretended to be a lefty liberal, but Bernie can't win because he'll run as a lefty liberal? Or something?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because he is one. He does not claim to be a democrat. Don't get me wrong, I love Sanders. But he is way more left than Obama ever even pretended to be.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)And btw, he calls himself a democratic socialist.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And a socialist is not going to be elected president in this country anytime soon. That's reality. And DU could use a good dose of that from time to time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that a pure socialist believes that Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Democratic Socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.
In case you didn't know.
merrily
(45,251 posts)“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Bill Clinton
Kinda surprising that someone who's hair is on fire about disloyal Democrats and criticism of Hillary during the earliest stage of a primary has done a lot of bashing of Warren, posters who support Warren and now of Obama.
longship
(40,416 posts)They are all statewide elections!
Jesus! Some people post without thinking.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,020 posts)Or so I hope
merrily
(45,251 posts)For your own sake, an obviously unintentional mistake is nothing to take so much to heart.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)How does that work?
Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #146)
merrily This message was self-deleted by its author.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)libpride_15
(32 posts)Leftists still supporting Nader after all these years? Sheesh
I believe Bernie and what he says. If he runs in the general, I'll be shocked.
My only problem is that he probably is too old to run as Hillary's VP.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)What about the 200k Democrats who voted for W in Florida? What about the fact Gore ran such a lackluster campaign that it was close enough to steal?
It's popular to piss on Nader 24/7, which I get, but to solely focus on him is to be completely wrong about what happened. If you don't account for all the facts, all you're doing is pushing a narrative that has repeatedly and decisively failed over the last 15 years.
By the way, the no enemies to the right strategy is the reason the GOP has taken such a radical turn to the right. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by replicating the same idea on the Democratic side, but I guarantee you that the results will be quite surprising.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Borne of liberals not accepting accountability for being stupid enough to vote for Nader. Registered dems and republicans cross party lines in every election.
The issue was Nader splitting the liberal vote.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)That's hilarious. In other words, it's cool if right-wing Democrats sell out the party and country to vote for the worst president in American history, but it's completely unforgiveable if a fraction of that number vote for a goofy guy who did some good 50 years ago? Yeah, that's a winning narrative so long as you don't think about it. 
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's a ridiculous claim to make. A lot of you need to read some political history books - especially if you make a habit of posting about politics.
I wasn't aware I made that claim. I did say he ran a lackluster campaign.
As for his politics, I do have to wonder how you would classify his reinventing, aka privatizing, government initiative in the 90s. Last I checked, it's a pretty centrist, if not right-wing, sort of thing to not only support, but champion.
By the way, I didn't miss the fact you've run from the Florida bit.
merrily
(45,251 posts)running with another founding member of the DLC in 1992 and 1996 and with another founding member of the DLC in 2000--which other founding member went on to campaign for McCain Palin.
I'd be the last one to leap to any conclusions from any of that. 
I'm told he got liberal (on things other than the environment) after that, but that's above my pay grade.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's there.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)A betrayal of the left? Was it using the surplus to preserve SS? His views on the environment? His idea that we needed to raise taxes to get out of bush daddy and Reagan deficits? Opening the Internet to the masses? Give me some policy stuff you disagreed with.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I attribute the policies of that admin to his boss.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That makes sense since you seem to think Hillary isn't either. SMH.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You seem to be suggesting that Gore is not liberal enough. So I ask which of his policy positions makes you think that. Then you say "Clinton." As if Gore is incapable of a thought of his own.
So what are you actually trying to say regrading Gore?
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)You keep going on about facts when they're opinions and smears, yet when you read a fact, you don't recognize it and call it an argument.
If YOU want to dispute that he was in the DLC, provide a link. Otherwise, as I said, stop twisting my words and give it a fucking rest already. Stop wasting my time and yours on this bs.
You can also drop the prosecuting attorney routine. I doubt anyone's impressed but the usual suspects.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He didn't pass your purity test, so Bush was a better choice?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... about Nader's bullshit antics in 2000 like 5 times only to have the purists and Naderites ignore it, then okay.
Look, if you are going to deny history you will be doomed to repeat it. My OP stands. The bashers of democratic candidates really should find a new home. Democratic Underground SHOULD be for Democrats. IMO.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Why should the people who voted for Nader be hated and the ones who voted for W given a pass?
When I say you're running, it's from that.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Dude is original DLC, good on him not only recognizing but being serious about climate change but that doesn't wave a magic wand over decades of body of work and positions.
I voted for Gore but he is a prototypical centrist, I'm not even sure what the argument he isn't one even is. Who would you define as a centrist, St. Ronnie of Ray Guns? Dumbass Dubbya?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Gabby Giffords, Angus King, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Joe Manchin, Jon Tester - all democratic centrists.
Gore and Hillary are to the left of ALL of them.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)This thread is hilarious! Up thread, Nader voters are being blamed for Iraq. Um, no, Bush and Congress ( not to omit certain Senators running for president) voted for and are to blame for Iraq. Wow, this thread goes to 11.l
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Although it's true he deliberately played spoiler knowing a Bush presidency would be the result. I'm sure his massive ego prevented him from having the insight to imagine how devastating the result would be. That's the thing about Nader. He can't see past his own aggrandizement.
frylock
(34,825 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)me in 2016.
i am trolling him
though he will not stop replying, and i am merely answering, on a democratic board, becuase i insist a dem pres gets elected in 2016, .... i am trolling.
appalachiablue
(41,143 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Or, "Never ask a question unless you want the answer?"
Well, never say never, but they may both apply sometimes.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Some of us resent being forced to do something and have a reverse reaction to it. Thanks for making that happen. Fortunately it is still a Democracy where no amount of snark is going convince people of anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I want someone will will pick a SCOTUS that is not corporate friendly but rather common US citizen friendly. Some including me do not trust that Hillary will do that. Is there something you know that can offer some reassurance that we wont get another pro corporate SCOTUS?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)womens rights. any judge that goes for the social issue will not likely side with the right. i do not have that concern. but, i do hear that concern and can see it. thanks for telling me your position on this. i will be more open to that, in the future.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sotomayor seems good. However, the true tests will come when Ginsburg is no longer on the bench..
I disagree that Hillary is not too far off Obama.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)accomplishments to a coronation. she has the right to run.
i am all for other jumping in the race. i look forward to it and am excited about it.
at least my 17 yr old son and i know we are being petulant and whining, as we kick at the dirt and say.... i dont want another clinton in office. we say with a grin, though recognizing her accomplishments and credentials.
merrily
(45,251 posts)whether a coronation has been planned.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and specifically HRC. Isn't there a national vote?
If there is something else at play could you please fill me in, because I'm just not understanding the reference
merrily
(45,251 posts)the anointing. After Sanders and others began referring to it as the coronation, I switched.
I just googled and found quite a few articles about it. Here's one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/05/why-the-hillary-coronation/
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And Dems are doing it to one of their own?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hence the hmmm before I answered.
No, it is not to belittle a candidacy.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)my first question was actually as wide eyed as it seemed.
The follow up, not so much since it really does do anyone justice to try and add labels that are inaccurate and do little else that create animosity towards any "annointed" or "coronated" candidate.
It's simply false on its premise.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And then, you proved me right.
I really see no point in beating this to death. Enjoy posting to someone else.
merrily
(45,251 posts)This is from a more Democratic oriented source, although it does cite the Washington Post article. I don't agree that the Democratic bench is weak.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-beach/hillary-clinton-election_b_4698756.html
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I will vote for whatever Dem we nominate just like I always do. And I'm sure as shit not going to spend the next 18 months bashing any other dem contender. Ridiculous.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)for international corporations and banks, so it makes your candidate choices pretty suspect.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)know her position on tpp? i do not.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Have you not been around?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with a position on tpp.
i have been accused of tpp supporter because i too call out the misinformation or just ugliness.
i am totally opposed to it. at this point.
i do not know that she is a supporter, or trying to keep things honest.
and i wont assume
Cleita
(75,480 posts)until it's too late to do anything about it. Anyway that poster seems to think secrecy is just fine. Do a search on her posts and tell me if you think she's saying otherwise.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)doesnt mean i support tpp to call that ... shit.
anyway, i am not getting into that again. i was just pointing out, because people do not buy that shit does not automatically mean they support tpp. that is simply incorrect.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm against precisely because I'm informed about it. And I would much prefer our reps to discuss why it's bad instead of this BS about it being secret. We know plenty to know its bad.
arendt
(5,078 posts)Only Congressmen can see it, and only with permission, and they are not allowed to take notes. All we know are leaked drafts - which all the TPP pushers use as an excuse to claim that the "final" document will fix any problems.
You can claim that it isn't secret the same way you claim that Nader wrecked 2000.
Both of the claims are proven false by the facts. Your insistence on those claims, in the face of the facts makes you a propagandist at best and a stone cold liar at worst.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I know why I'm against it. I can read. if you can read you can learn why you should be against it too!!!
https://ustr.gov/tpp
merrily
(45,251 posts)As Jon Stewart might say.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and know good and we'll that with even 100% solidarity (like that is plausible) in rejecting the agreement the TeaPubliKlans can ram that suckered right on through.
arendt
(5,078 posts)to being blamed for people who did vote for him?
HAHAHA.
You just completed discredited MaggieD's canard about Nader.
LOL
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's a bad habit you have. Maybe if you informed yourself more before spouting opinions?
https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's like the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain, incised by the moving finger of God Himself.
I can't understand why no one gave Nader the death penalty.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Lots packed in there. And John Chait has always been a reliable progressive source.
I think some people are just loathe to accept that Nader is basically a jerk who played them for fools. I've been in the same room with him twice over the years and I can personally attest to his egomaniacal jerkish behavior.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"John Chait has always been a reliable source"
Always? You've admired his writings over a long period of time, yet never picked up his first name is not John?
Since you've long thought him a reliable source, you may be interested in something he's written more recently.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Did you read it?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I see this thread is a "Don't you dare NOT vote for Hillary," thread.
And she seems so nice, too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I said nothing of the sort. Try reading what I actually said instead of editorializing it in your head.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... your assertions with facts? Sounds like it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Oh wait.
You're a regular F. Lee Bailey.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I think you mean, "made up."
You've stated multiple times that I said I was in favor of the TPP, when I've said exactly the opposite clearly and consistently. You've even been corrected on this bullshit statement by other posters now.
Now you say I said everyone has to vote for HRC. AGAIN, never said anything remotely like that.
You clearly have issues.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Never said you said everyone has to vote for Hillary either.
You have an odd relationship with facts. Also with straw men. Maybe with reading comprehension as well.
Again, try a morning nap.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's why other posters corrected you.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Again, stop wasting my time with this bs.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't think it's BS to point out you are stating I said things I objectively did not say/post. If you don't want to be called out on that then don't make up shit. Pretty simple.
But, whether you like it or not, I'm not going to remain silent when folks post things stating I said things I did not say. Who the hell would?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What the hell are you talking about?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)That was shown to you to be a lie. So now you are denying you were for it before you are against it. Remember we can all read what you said before, kinda like the cops now have videos taken of them when they brutalize a citizen. No amount of lying will change what is there in front of them on the video.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Your not going to lose because of the progressives. You will lose because OFA voters won't bother voting without Obama in the election. They are apolitical personality driven voters, and they won't bother turning out for Hillary. That is who you have to worry about. Concentrate on them.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This place reminds me of freepervile some days.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)There was no green factor in our most disappointing losses. They don't bother to threaten. They just aren't engaged beyond whether Obama running or not. He isn't running.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)arendt
(5,078 posts)
Cha
(297,283 posts)It is bullcrap. I guess some people are too lazy to look at profiles and journals.
Cha
(297,283 posts)knee jerking.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)
.... "stupid liberals" .... "sock puppet" ...
Must be okay for me to mention it, because they're still here, bouncing along the whole thread like a couple of tennis balls going down a long stairway.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Shocking. So...un-American!
But seriously,
I would argue that Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris actually stole the election for George W. Bush, but your point is very true. Far too many people make the perfect the enemy of the good. Or, as you say, they cannot be bothered to vote.
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)Yeah, that makes so much sense...
NOT
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bashing any candidate in our own party helps elect republican. Period.
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)and it is a done deal. They will cream us if she is our nominee. End of story. Never underestimate how much the Republicans and quite a few Democrats hate Hillary Clinton.
Cha
(297,283 posts)but, I sure as hell don't want a republican and if she does get the Nom.. I will work hard to make that happen.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You won't find me spending 18 months posting about any democratic that is running saying they suck, which seems to be a major pastime here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dem to win
i dunno, way out there. i hear ya.
even if the dem isnt a fav. still, a dem
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,020 posts)Cause I'm a stupid liberal
merrily
(45,251 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Until she is, deal with it.
yardwork
(61,634 posts)Your last paragraph says it all.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)I'm sorry, but even the Democratic candidates will still have to earn my vote. Blind party loyalty is for fools and slaves.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)arendt
(5,078 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Or maybe I am. Been here since 2001 (the beginning) and have read here everyday. Thousands of posts, but some Kerry supporter MIRT moderator tombstoned me back in 2005 because I had the temerity to say, 6 months after the election, that Kerry ran a bad campaign in 2004 because he wouldn't stick up for his military record and got swiftboated. I was suggesting we nominate someone with a stronger spine next time if we wanted to win.
I took advantage of the recent amnesty that allowed me to sign back up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498982
There was a recent amnesty?
arendt
(5,078 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Just read your previous posts.
Autumn
(45,105 posts)Her profile say's she been a member since 2001.
I'm just repeating MaggieD's sentiment.
Autumn
(45,105 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)
MaggieD says she was banned in 2005, someone, and it wasn't sid that called her a sock puppet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498982
MaggieD's profile says she wasn't banned has been a member since 2001.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106348.
I was trying to ask a MIRT member but got called for jury and lost it so said fuck it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Autumn
(45,105 posts)not in this case
progressoid
(49,991 posts)I think posters with over a hundred posts have to go to the admins anyway.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . Right now we are in a primary election season. The purpose of a primary season is to vet multiple candidates to see who is really the best fit for the party, and/or the most likely to be able to win in a general election. It is NOT supposed to be a coronation of a fore-ordained candidate. A robust, challenging primary is healthy for the party, and I heartily resent these attempts to shut down this very important process.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)If Hillary's such a great candidate, let her prove it in the primary with robust candidates, not just token sparring partners.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)We are constantly being told that Elizabeth Warren isn't running so forget about her, Bernie will just run as a spolier, none of the other potential candidates can match Hillary's name recognition and campaign fundraising, Hillary's our only hope against the Republicans (even though they are all nuttier than a squirrel's winter cache), if you don't vote for Hillary you are only enabling the Republicans, ad nauseum.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Warren is not running and Sanders is not electable in a general. They aren't the only democrats in the world.
Do you have an aversion to common sense truth? Or do you prefer to kid yourself?
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)Funny, it wasn't so long ago that the same was said of a mixed-race junior Senator from Illinois with an African-sounding name.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Obama didn't have a long record of political votes and actions. He mostly ducked controversial votes in the IL state house. Those that said he was unelectable were concerned people would not vote for him because he is black. I admit, I was a bit concerned about that. I have seen a lot of rank racism in my years, and didn't have a ton of faith in my fellow Americans on that scale.
But he made himself electable because he was basically a blank mirror that allowed a voter to see him however they wanted to imagine their perfect candidate to be. He has a gift for that. So if you wanted a moderate, he was your man. If you wanted a liberal, he could also be imagined as your man.
He was anything you wanted him to be. And that's a pretty nifty political trick.
With Sanders there is a long history of his on the record speeches and votes. And they are definitely (at least in my opinion) to the left of the mainstream. I think there are too many moderates and independents that have a deathly fear of "socialism" and therefore would not vote for him. I don't think he will even win the nomination for that reason.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts)It is rather like those polls that were conducted about healthcare reform where, when people were asked if they supported individual components of the proposed healthcare reform legislation, they were overwhelmingly in favor of the individual provisions. But when they were asked if they supported the President's proposal, the level of support dropped significantly. Sanders has demonstrated a superb ability to speak to people on the issues.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I agree that the ACA is the perfect example of what you state. I wonder if there is a secret sauce to getting the American people to grasp that. If he can do that you may be right and I may be wrong. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to be wrong about this!
One big hurdle is the corporate media. They seem to despise talking about actual issue in favor of the inside baseball of politics crap. Sometimes I get the feeling they choose our president instead of the voters because they assault us 24/7 with political bullshit instead of issues that need to be debated.
In the end, as long as a democratic party candidate wins I will be happy. I lean toward HRC because I think she will be better at kicking republican ass. But Bernie would be great too.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)DU doesn't have a single solitary thing to do with that Primary Process. Prognositcation aside, it's upto a potential candidate to make the Primaries happen. All we do here is voice the probability of a win, loss, or even entering the race.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)But it is absolutely the fault of the left if the Democrats lose an election.
frylock
(34,825 posts)when things are going well, the left can go pound sand. when things go sideways, it's entirely the fault of the left.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And the only reason for that is their own actions.
Very good analysis.
God Bless the Child that's got his own.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He needed 5% of the 2000 vote to accomplish that. He got 2.74%. He might have gotten to his goal if he'd campaigned in safe Blue states where people were more likely to vote for him knowing it wouldn't help Bush. But due to his massive ego and despite what he had earlier pledged to big money donors he deliberately played the spoiler in swing states.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)It's not my place to run the train
The whistle I cannot blow.
It's not my place to say how far
The train's allowed to go.
It's not my place to shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell.
But let the damn thing jump the track
And see who catches hell
arendt
(5,078 posts)To put this in a context you might possibly understand, this pile of speculative bullshit has less credibility than "Clinton Cash".
It is over a year before the convention, and you are predicted that liberals will do something they have never done. The Nader canard is a zombie lie. Try blaming Joe Lieberman, and the SCOTUS.
Despite the high-profile defections of Holy Joe and Zell Miller, and the GOP-supported scumbag, Rahm Emmanuel, you can always find a reason to predict that liberals are the ones who will stay home.
We are the ones who want to discuss policy differences. We want to talk about the TPP and the non-prosecution of Wall St. It is Obama who started calling people liars.
Bottom line: nothing new here. Same old rightwing flack froem the corporate Dems.
Go suck an egg.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I've seen the purity league do their thing way too many times. And they are in full blown bash democrats mode again. I wish they'd "go suck an egg" as you suggest I do.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Or are you going to make the case that Nader had a chance in hell of winning?? LOL! I'm guessing you're not.
arendt
(5,078 posts)Nader is the Patsy for the SCOTUS takedown.
Look everyone, get real mad at Ralph - and don't notice Joe Lieberman sabotaging Gore at every turn. Don't look at the spineless DINO establishment rolling overt and playing dead. Just blame Ralph.
As H.L. Mencken said: Conservatives have a solution to every problem, and it is simple, convenient, and wrong.
You see only what supports your nonsensical view of recent history.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Let me refresh you https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
frylock
(34,825 posts)Autumn
(45,105 posts)He hated my little blue Corvair!
Response to frylock (Reply #94)
Post removed
arendt
(5,078 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You're just to lazy to look at my profile and journal before making bullshit accusations.
arendt
(5,078 posts)I marked all his identical two-word posts, because a 12 year old could write a script that would do that.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)It's a long, involved thread
frylock
(34,825 posts)arendt
(5,078 posts)You started this thread.
You made a blanket bullshit indictment.
And, as is typical from the Rahm Emmanuel wing, it is all the "retards" fault.
There is no arguing with haters like you.
You do realize that is liberals who made this party great from Roosevelt onward. The fact that you feel the need to constantly piss on me tells me all I need to know about you.
You know Limbaugh calls us "libtards" with as much bile as you call us "liberals". Why don't you go join Rush? Cause that's where your loyalties are.
You knew this thread is flamebait. But, you had to throw a molotov cocktail. Because liberals
Look in the mirror.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm all ears. Willing to be convinced about just how brilliant it was.
FDR was a great president who did great things. But the facts are he took us to war (just like the HRC haters claim she did). And his wife pushed and pushed him left (just like HRC did with Bill).
I'm not hating on anyone. I'm saying stop using DU to bash democrats. There are plenty of republicans to bash.
arendt
(5,078 posts)Hillary is not Gore and none of the above is not Nader.
I reject your premise and your constant blame.
Nothing more to say.
Except I will remember what a hater you are, and your sock puppet frylock too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not to mention fact free and lacking in reading comprehension skills.
And yes, Nader gave the election to Bush. Deliberately no less. So much for purity tests, eh?
https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
merrily
(45,251 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
UTUSN
(70,706 posts)Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (2)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)More registered Democrats in Florida voted for W than voted for Nader.
And Gore's shitty "Oh my god don't call me liberal" campaign is why the election was close. He should have won several other states, any of which would have made Florida moot.
Were you unconscious during 2010 and 2014?
In 2010, Democrats ran on the platform of "OH MY GOD! I AM SO SORRY WE PASSED HEALTHCARE REFORM!!" and lost badly.
In 2014, Democrats ran on the platform of "I hate Obama so much I won't even admit to voting for him" and lost badly.
We are opposed to Democrats like Clinton not because of "purity test" or other such bullshit. We are opposed to them because we do not want yet another Gore, Coakley (Senate), Coakley (Governor), or Grimes campaign. Because they do not work.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's still BS. 95k liberals voted for that tool in Florida. Did you know he promised the big money liberals he wouldn't run in swing states? Yeah, he lied. Once he got the money.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Response to frylock (Reply #95)
Post removed
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That you disagree with me? Or that you're too lazy to check my profile and journal?
Broward
(1,976 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But liberal yet unelectable is not going to get the job done. So while I love Bernie I hope he does not win the nomination. I hope he runs in order to push the rest of the democratic candidates to the left.
The nominee is typically decided before the primaries get to my state. But I will happily vote for whomever wins the democratic nomination.
frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I can't wait to hear the explanation on that.
arendt
(5,078 posts)
Change has come
(2,372 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This isn't rocket science. You can't really go "well, we have to run a conservative because yargblarghbargble and reasons!" and hten at the same time worry that the right will say "hah hah you're running a conservative!"
Competing for the conservative vote against the republicans is a dead loser for democrats. it has been since 1964. We need to fucking stop already.
Nobody sat home from mid-terms becuase obama wasn't liberal enough. it's becuase the Democrats running attacked him for being a liberal
Which in every fucking case, leads to THIS:
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We lost everywhere - not just in red states.
But you know, this is the pattern. The lefty liberals bash democrats non-stop, sit home and don't vote and then wonder why republicans in are the majority. And God forbid anyone mention they had a hand in the defeat. Oh no.
Well that's not reality.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That bullshit thinking is part of hte problem. "Well, Conservatives won that state, i guess we'll have to run conservatives there!"
It's about the candidates running. it might not register to some posters here, but you can't throw a right-wing toad at liberal voters and then snort about "well it's a democrat, you better vote for it!" becuase voters do not work that way. I guarantee you, easily half of the people like you demanding absolute unswerving party loyalty, if presented with a conservative democrat or a liberal outsider, will go for the outsider once the screen of the voting booth is pulled. Because peopel vote according to principles. Is it better to have an anti-gay, anti-abortion, jesus-is-my-governor Democrat, or to give a an outsider who actually emboies liberal principles a one-vote shot?
With the exception of the most hard-boiled party loyalists here, and the clump of trolls posing as them, the answer will always be hte latter, because voters worry about ethics. Principle. Standards.
You take your worry about - god fucking forbid - "lefty liberals" and you keep it somewhere warm, snug, and safe, okay?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This issue has nothing to do with what happened in a red state. We had poor turn out everywhere. And it's ridiclous not to see that. IMO, the purity fools are terrible for democrats in more ways than I can say here without having a post hidden.
I saw firsthand how they prevented an LGBT anti discrimination bill from passing in WA state. Instead of finding people electable that agreed with them to run and support them they bashed every Democrat they spoke about. When you'd ask liberal electeds why they didn't vote in favor they would flat out tell you it was because of extremists.
And then we pushed THE EXTREMISTS out of the political process and we passed it the next year. Then we passed DPP, then we passed marriage. After 15 years of extremists fucking it up for the rest of us. The extemist, purity left is one of many reasons republicans run 3/4s of government.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Does this mean that your elected representatives voted in favor of discrimination for reasons of personality and personal politics?
These are the people you want to have representing you?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No politician does. Except nutty teabaggers. That's news to you?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I can see how some people might feel that way.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... and this is a true story of extremists in politics preventing their agenda from passing.
We'd get the bill to committee in whichever branch we had a dem majority (that varied from Senate to House over the years). They would show up and chant and scream, either outside the capital building or even in the gallery. And the bill would be tabled. They screamed and yelled horrible insults. It was awful.
In addition, here is what they DIDN'T do that WE did:
- they didn't try to line up GLBT people who had experienced discrimination to testify in hearings on the bill
- they didn't try to find candidates that would support the bill and help them get elected by knocking doors, phone banking, raising money for them
- they didn't reach out to business leaders who had the ear of politicians even though we found tons of them that supported the bill because it helped attract talent to their companies (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Sports club CEO such as from the NBA, WNBA, NFL and MLB, and a host of others
All they did was bitch and chant and march and scream. For 15 frigging years until the sensible progressives said get the fuck out of the way. That is how political change works. That is reality.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Don't practice Bush apologia. Don't cover for his theft.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)If you want environmentalists to vote, stop fracking. If you want union voters, stop crushing workers and pandering to the one percent. If you want seniors to vote, stop talking about cutting social security. If you want teachers to vote, stop profitizing schools. If you want to campaign as a republican, better round up republican votes
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is anti environment or anti Union? Can't think of any potential democratic candidate that is anti social security or anti teacher.
This is what I mean - it's ridiculous to paint any dem candidate as having those positions. It's just pure bullshit.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)I told my kids years ago that he who does not vote has no right to bitch about the results.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)whose drinking water is polluted by fracking, whose hours, wages, and benefits have been cut due to off-shoring, outsourcing and union-busting, whose fishing business was destroyed by the deepwell horizon or the warming ocean, whose school teacher spouse was fired or had her pay cut because of Race To The Bottom, or whose kids have to take weekly standardized tests because of RTTB, will vote for a person or party just because of gay marriage.
The party flourished when it passed the New Deal, SS, Medicare, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, the War On Poverty, integration of the military, and established NASA. Being "Republicans plus a couple of social issues" has failed.
appalachiablue
(41,143 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This. I vote because it is the right thing to do. Hearing those complain about a candidate being stuck up their butt and they don't think they are left enough. What about those who thinks candidates may be too far left. Candidates does not always have the same position I have but I still vote and I damn sure do not want anything the GOP bas presented in many years.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'd rather cut off my frigging right arm than do a single solitary thing that would help any republican get elected to any office anywhere.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)If what we have had is too far left then it sounds like some folks need to get to work reforming the Republicans.
longship
(40,416 posts)A huge R&
for you for absolutely nailing this.
I bow to you. Or at least tip my hat...
My best to you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)One has to work within the political system one has, not the political system one wants. That is the way one gets the political system one wants.
As always.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,020 posts)
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Cha
(297,283 posts) longship
(40,416 posts)I am always glad to see you around here.
I think you see things kinda sorta maybe like I do. Not that I would worry if you didn't. After all, the measure of friendship is not agreement, but respect. I kinda think that's where you are, too.
As always, my best to you.
Cha
(297,283 posts)I am there. 
I know of at least one thing we don't agree on but I'm not going to go there.. I respect you and our difference is okay. Not everyone shares my opinion on everything.. at least I haven't found them yet. 
longship
(40,416 posts)And never ever be reticent to engage me on anything. Or smack me around a bit, if you wish. I do not take such things as personal attacks. At least if it is done respectfully.
As always.
Cha
(297,283 posts)from the context. Fixed it!
Well it was on that long OP of Sabrina's that was suppose to be funny and was for most people. Only I take it very seriously. I have pretty fast internet but that was getting impossible for me to load.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)1) Some liberals will refuse to support a centrist Democrat cozy with Wall Street.
2) Voters who often don't bother voting will not be motivated to vote.
Group #2 is orders of magnitude larger. The vast majority of politically engaged liberals (read: progressive DUers) will hold their nose and vote for the centrist Dem because they understand the consequences of R's controlling all 3 branches of government. Some won't, but their numbers are negligible compared to group #2.
Therefore, the solution to winning the presidency in 2016 is to nominate a Democratic standard-bearer who will inspire and motivate people to go to the polls and vote.
If our election strategy is based on scolding liberals to vote for a centrist because the R's are terrible, we're well on our way to a republican president in 2016.
The most significant number in the 2014 midterms was 63.7. That is the percent of eligible voters who did not go to the polls.
Give the people something to vote FOR, if you really want to avoid the catastrophe of a Republican sweep.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's just bullshit. Her voting record as a senator from NY was liberal as hell. Where do people get this crap? You all really just think you can claim it and that makes it true?
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Larry Summers is helping to craft her economic agenda.
Whether or not you believe Hillary Clinton has earned the "centrist" label with her hawkish foreign policy and embracing the economics of Wall Street insiders, the more important question:
Is she the best candidate to inspire voters to actually go to the polls and VOTE?
She has high negatives among a lot of voters who aren't Republicans. The key to winning this election is inspiring people to go to the polls. That was a major factor in Obama's victory.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Larry Summers advises every democratic presidential candidate and is ONE of over 200. And he recently said this: "“It’s not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Clinton. “The challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy.”
He does not work for her campaign.
Also, since when does voting for the war make someone a centrist? My god, she represented the state that was brutally attacked on 9/11. And the Bushies lied. And she has said she was wrong. If I can forgive any politician for their wrong headed war vote it is definitely her.
Martin Eden
(12,870 posts)Voting to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq makes her much worse than a "centrist."
By October 2002 it was clear the Bush administration was indeed lying. If you were here at DU in 2002, you would have known that.
If Hillary Clinton didn't know that, she was too incompetent to hold the office of US senator.
More likely she was on board with the neocon agenda, or she stuck her finger in the political winds of the time and decided it was better to be "tough" on national security.
Take your pick -- it's one of those three. All three are inexcusable, and unforgivable in my book. What else could she do in the wake of the fiasco than admit she was wrong -- stick to her guns and insist she was right? It was a political necessity, regardless of what she really thinks.
If Hillary Clinton was strong and responsible in representing the people who were brutally attacked on 9/11 she would have stood up against the invasion of Iraq with every fiber of her political being. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do 9/11. Our military was engaged in a difficult mission against the Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq shifted focus and resources away from those who actually attacked our country.
I find it very hard to believe you don't know that, or that Hillary Clinton didn't know that. Your statement "My god, she represented the state that was brutally attacked on 9/11" shows the extent to which you're willing to put on the blinders to support this politician.
The state of New York, the United States, and the million who've died in Iraq desperately needed strong Democratic leaders to forcefully stand against this fraudulent rush to a disastrous war that has cost a lot more than the $3 trillion or more that will be spent on it before all is said and done.
Hillary Clinton is still a hawk. I do not trust her one bit in matters of war & peace or national security, and neither should you. Nor do I trust her to push for meaningful reforms on Wall Street, as opposed to colluding with Wall Street insiders. As it was clearly explained in the first link I posted, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than you think.
arendt
(5,078 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) Trajan
(19,089 posts)To expect human beings to not behave as human beings is simply naive ...
You want everyone to be in full concord behind one candidate? ... You have a lot of persuading to do yet ...
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I said we can discuss policy differences between candidates without bashing democrats.
Can you explain why that's silly?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because that was the only way George W. Bush could have ever been elected President.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's happened 3 times in 15 years. That's not fear mongering. That's reality.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...are going to cost the Dems the White House?
These people need to put it down and walk away.
DU disorder, a new mental illness
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And it's not just DUers. It's the purity club who feeds right into the Nader style (and frankly right wing) nonsense.
And fuck yes, it can cost us elections. It already has 3 times in 15 years.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)- we're screwed if we pout and sit home AND
- we're screwed if we pout and bash other potential nominees (which depresses votes) or vote for someone unelectable
The common thread is the pouting.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)fear monger now that your 3 boogeymen don't exist?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Dems lost due to gerrymandering. They received 1.37 million more votes but still lost seats
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)We cannot afford 8 years of President Repukio.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are talking about?
We do not HAVE a nominee. YOU may be of the opinion that we have finished with the Primaries and we have a Nominee, or is it that you want NO Primaries because YOU have already decided?
Just when did we get to the point in this country when the PEOPLE have no CHOICE??
And who is this 'Left' you speak of as if you are not a part of it? The opposite of Left is Right. So assuming, since you are on this Left Forum, you are a Democrat, therefore Left.
THIS is what lost us the Senate and Congress AFTER the LEFT won the WH, the House and Senate.
Slamming the voters when all they are asking for is to be given a choice of candidates who have a record of supporting Progressive policies.
How dare the voters, really.
And you could not be more wrong about the mid terms. While the leadership was backing losing candidates, the Left was busy SAVING the seats of Progressive Candidates, working locally to get Progressive issues on ballots and electing DEMOCRATS at local and state levels.
Feel free to support your candidate.
I hope we don't have to put up this kind of thing for the next year and a half.
I would hope we can discuss ISSSUES and the other Primary Candidates who have an absolute RIGHT to run for the office of President, and the voters have the right to choose who they think best represents them.
Again, there is no NOMINEE and there won't be for quite some time.
As for the right, who cares about the Right? Why do you care about them?
It is insulting to DUers here to assume they would not recognize right wing POLICIES being pushed on them, or smears against Democrats when they see them.
Until the Admins here announce that there is to be no discussion of Primary challengers, which will be the day when a majority here will be gone, you are complaining about the rules of this forum.
Try selling your candidate instead of bashing DUers for doing their duty as citizens, considering all their options regarding who they believe is the best choice for President of country.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Is that what you're trying to say?
If so, can you stick to being specific instead of the nebulous non-specific bashing that is pervasive here? Like maybe facts? Actual policy positions and things like that?
Here's something you can use as a guide. http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And please stop with the feeble attempt to twist people's words, that went out with the 'nineties on forums like this. People can read.
What I see is vigorous discussions about the candidates, because yes, we have at least two more ready to announce, and one of them so far, is looking very interesting to a lot of people.
It's politics, it's tough, and if you are this upset already, maybe it isn't good for you to participate on political forums. I love the debate, the passion and the excitement.
If I ever get so personally upset because everyone doesn't love MY candidate, that I have to tell everyone else to just stop challenging her/his policies, I will find something else to do.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I think you need to read the OP again. Because what I said is that we ought to be able to discuss addressing policy positions of various candidates without bashing them.
And if you can't see this place has turned into HRC bashing central you are simply not paying attention.
As for this mythical candidate of mine - I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, and happily, without bashing them. The nomination is decided long before WA has their primary, so that's the way it is.
But this damn place is starting to be as bad as the right wing nut job sites with all the Hiliary bashing. And FFS sake - if people feel so compelled they can't help themselves, could it at least be factual, actual policy issues???
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I can do it without bashing and lying my ass off about any of them.
I heard Bernie will be entering the race in the next day or so. As I posted in another thread, I don't think he is electable, but he will push the debate to the left, and that is a good thing.
Again, there is nothing to be gained by bashing our democratic candidates. We can discuss policy difference among them without tearing any of them down.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)pages and pages of opinionated blabber as if it's the be all end all of being a Democrat. Please look for the follow up martyrdome syndrome......And trying to paint you into a corner over issues that she thinks will be the make or break of the convo at hand. "Do you like having all those dead children and women in Iraq" is a favorite lobbed.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)A Democrat will get in and her name is Hilary Clinton!
Trust me, those dicks in the republican party will not be sniffing the White House in a long time, Americans are tired of Republicans!
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)With both republicans and so-called democrats smearing HRC non-fucking stop it could happen.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)look out for poor people. Republicans, hell no. Some republican states do not even want their veterans who have been used and abused to get health care. Would you seriously vote for that party?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And never will. That's my point. It's ridiculous to bash democrats here. There are a million republicans that are fucking evil. And half of DU is focused on bashing either Obama or Clinton. It boggles my mind.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)here, they purge you. I like your stance and you are feisty. Vote how you feel, but do not stay away, vote, it makes a difference.
Being here means you care and sometimes we might agree to disagree, but Maggie, voting for a Democrat is not an option, staying away from the polls give the rethug a vote. So, please go out and exercise your civic right, vote for the party that you believe in!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and the numerous other threads not knocking just policies, but personalities.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
vadermike
(1,415 posts)While we fight, The Rethugs are measuring the drapes in the WH.. and HRC 's polling is starting to plummet.. maybe i am just being overly dramatic.. but we need to sto fighting amongst ourselves.. i support HRC but am open to any alternatives.... i hop the blips we are seeing are temporary , otherwise we are in deep doo doo.. then again that was tow right wing pollsters (gravis and christopher newport Univ)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)drapes in the White House, she once lived there. She is rooting for Americans to have a better standard of living. I think that is what she is rooting for! I could be wrong!
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)will empower this asshole Harper, unless we can vote the idiot out!
If a Republican gets elected or selected (rigged elections), this piece of shit Harper will go awol on Syria! He is just warming up for war, he is Bush pet idiot!
Gloria
(17,663 posts)there is no "pure" candidate, none!
If Dems stay at home and let a Repuke win, then they will have a hand in destroying the country even further.
Stop the whining and face reality!!
vadermike
(1,415 posts)Agreed 1000% there is no "pure " candidate... we have to fight like hell for 2016 or its game over.. this time when the GOP gets all three branches they will make GWB and the reign of hell from 2001-2007.. a walk in the park.. and then you have national gerrymandering and a fascist state .. the kochs and birchers will have their dream fulfilled.. USA RIP at that point IMO.....and probably not any oppo parties left either.. the Dems will be splinter party and thats all.. think it can't happen here? see Germany 1938....
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)If Christ Himself ran on the GOPuke ticket I'd still vote Democratic.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Your whole message to progressives in this thread has been "shut up and know your place. You people have no right to ask for anything and the party can't win unless it keeps you out in the cold.
Essentially, your analysis is stuck in 1992. We don't have to accept the constraints of the first Clinton Era anymore-everything has changed now.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I certainly never posted anything even resembling what you are claiming I said.
Here is reality - if I randomly chose two democrat bashing posts from here and two from some right wing site - and read them out loud... You would not be able to tell which site they came from.
And that's bullshit at a place that supposedly supports democrats.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)How about not making baseless pronouncements?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I believe I remember a pretty nasty race that year.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And he did the same with her. That's not what is going on here.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and Obama's shuckin' and jivin' and this whole thing's the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen?
and a couple of years ago, he'd be bringing us coffee?
ETA: Or, Senator McCain and I are ready for that 3 am phone call, but Senator Obama is not?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You take things said by others and ascribe them to people who didn't say those things. Why do you do that? Do you think people don't notice?
I, personally, think it is sexism in the extreme to ascribe Bill Clinton's policies and comments to Hillary Clinton. She is fully capable of opinions and policy stances of her own. She absolutely does differ with him on any number of issues. So I don't have a lot of patience with people that seem to think she is just some woman who is a mouthpiece for her husband.
And any student of history would know that she has spent a lifetime trying to push his policies to the left when he was governor and president. She was absolutely effective at that as well. SCHIPS, early childhood education, expansion of the earned income tax credit, etc., are good examples of that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Cuomo and Ferrara.
As far as your accusations and insinuations of sexism, that's reeks to this gal of your desperation. Give that a rest, too. No one on the left is buying.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Don't fool yourself. It's as apparent now as it was in 2007. In fact, the day I turned off MSNBC was the day in 2007 that Howard Fineman opined on Tweety's show that "Hillary got where she is because of Bill." The truth is quite the opposite.
If the HRC bashers don't want to be viewed as rampant sexists there is an easy solution. Make your arguments about HRC and not Bill. She is completely capable of having her own thoughts, views, and policy positions.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not a sexist woman and I know that. So does everyone whose opinion matters to me, either on this board or IRL.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I agree it might not be sexism that drives your propensity to paint HRC with things Bill said, since you do the same thing to Gore. You seem to be equal opportunity on that. Looks like an overall flaw in your ability to reason from where I sit.
But the appearance is sexism in regard to HRC. Most of the Hillary bashers here seem incapable of separating her policy positions from Bill's even though there is plenty of opportunity to read her track record, and see that it is substantially different from Bill's.
Gloria
(17,663 posts)questioning her "likability."
His isn't so hot sometimes, btw.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary loses a lot because she is not liked by a lot of voters.
And she has no chance of winning conservative voters.
Bernie might, depending on who the Republican candidate is.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Same point since 1917. Maybe since Marie Antoinette. Or King George III.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I will say that for you!
vadermike
(1,415 posts)No, what the OP is saying at the end of the day we should all vote for the Dem nominee.. by all means we shoudl vote who we want in the Primary.. but if its a choice betw the Dem or Repub or Not voting we should vote Dem... unless we want GOP controlled all three branches, we would really be fucked 
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
DFW
(54,403 posts)"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
Will Rogers
DU is starting to look like the little village where Astérix lived.
"There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"
(from "For What It's Worth"--the Buffalo Springfield, almost 50 years ago)
marmar
(77,081 posts)
We hear this same whine every four years, and it gets more tired every time. ..... "Conservatives" can't convince liberals not to vote for a Democrat. That's intellectually dishonest bullsh*t.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)the Republicans will dominate every branch of government in 2016. Some people don't know what that's like, but I do, having lived in Idaho most of my life, totally dominated by Republicans.
I know there are true activists who make a difference here and I am not criticizing their efforts. The only activism I know it talking to people, my family and friends and trying to convince them one at a time that we can't go back to 2000. The really hard part is getting them to show up to vote.
Vinca
(50,276 posts)After all, they're telling us God wrote the Constitution.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and pack the SCOTUS they will institute a dominunist theocracy in this country.
I consider the upcoming presidential election the most important one in my life.
If the democrats lose it, we will be on the road to religious sharia law trumping the constitution and endless holy wars that may just turn nuclear if the hardcore teahaddists have their way.
And everyday here I see the strongest democratic candidate and the only one that can win being savaged by the blind and the gullible.
Its insane. If we lose in 2016 its over for America.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)the only real question will there be "D" or "R" after the name.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts) merrily
(45,251 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I would never vote for an R, but a corrupt politician with a D next to her name may not get these tired bones out of bed to vote at all.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)I want a candidate to support middle class economics, period.
I'm a single issue voter, just like a gun nut.
put someone up for a vote that I and others of the same thinking can have faith in.
Turbineguy
(37,338 posts)we turn the country completely over to the republicans, the sooner they will finish destroying it and the sooner we can start over.
Consider this: who would you want in charge of lubricating the guillotine, a creaky 90 year old or a relatively spry 65 year old?
X1000
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Policy difference wise, she has more Republican qualities than many Republicans.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She has a long record in public service so you should be able to give some concrete examples of why you think she has "republican" qualities.
Warren said just the other day that she is glad HRC is running. Why would she say that if HRC is so like a republican?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)from the person who calls liberals "stupid". Laughable.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's what I said. Isn't that objectively true? And as far as I can tell, people who did that because Gore didn't pass their purity test were not also running for office. IOW, they are candidates. Did you not realize I was talking about bashing democratic candidates?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I see very clearly how it goes with you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)How it goes with me is don't expect me to remain silent to responses that:
- pretend I said things I didn't say
- deny objective facts as if they didn't exist
- include nebulous non-specific pronouncements unsupported by any facts
I think that's reasonable.
woodsprite
(11,916 posts)Whichever Dem wins the primary is who I'm voting for. If Bernie runs as an Independent, as much as I love him, I couldn't vote for him because I feel he would totally split the ticket. I *KNOW* we *SHOULD* be able to elect a 3rd party, but we can't afford to split the Dem vote - especially since 4 of us need to vote for each Republican in the gerrymandered areas. NOW, if there was a total groundswell of both Dems and moderate Repubs for an independent as there was for Obama -- that's the only way I can see a 3rd party even coming close to winning -- and even then, with GOP cheating and manipulation, it might be a squeaker.
Unfortunately, there are no 'do overs' in Presidential elections. We have to do the best we can for our country and our fellow citizens. The safest plan is to not split the ticket, don't stay home in a huff, get our our butts out to vote. Even our weakest candidate is a millions times better than their strongest and most moderate candidate.
It just totally pisses me off that Congress has essentially wasted a good President for going on 8 years. America could have made so much forward progress and been a better, cleaner place without much of a struggle if we had all worked together and Pres. Obama had a Congress that would have worked with him for America's future.
merrily
(45,251 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts) MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And the democratic agenda?
merrily
(45,251 posts)As for me, I actually understand the difference between a fact and a lousy webzine smear. So, no, I am not smearing Democratic or anyone else.
Have no clue what you refer to as smearing the democratic agenda. I push for it, as opposed to Third Way.
I've had more than enough of your accusations and insinuations and word twisting for a while, though. So, if you can't stop posting that kind of thing to me. I'm taking a bit of a break from responding.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)(And I have said I like here in every post about her). I just think she would be more effective in talking about the significant negative effects of the TPP rather than going on and on about the "it's secret, so it's bad" scenario.
There is plenty known about it to understand why it is bad, and she and others can speak to that. I can't understand why she doesn't stick to that. The debate should be about the issues, not the imaginary bad intentions of Obama. I don't believe he has bad intentions.
merrily
(45,251 posts)with it.
I've asked you repeatedly to stop the bs. Apparently, you cannot and/or will not.
Buh bye.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's like your imaginary quotes of mine. You keep repeating it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Warren says "we're not allowed to talk about it":
But Warren has been talking about it, in public and on the record, for more than three months:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html
To quote the president, she's wrong on this. The Daily Banter article simply points that out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I said the Daily Banter article said Warren lied. You say it did not say that.
It's so interesting that your post links a video that has absolutely nothing to do with what the daily banter article said, and also link a WAPO article that has nothing to do with the daily banter article, but no link to the daily banter article.
I wonder why you omitted the only relevant link.
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)which starts with this:
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/
So let's start by dealing with the facts as they are and not as we wish they were.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The one and only issue was whether the banter article said warren lied
You bothered to give two links, neither of which had anything to with whether the banter article said Warren lied.
The one and only link relevant to the one and only issue was the link to the banter article. Care to explain why you did not give that one?
http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Correct. I pointed out one of the several ways she isn't. There are others, and now that the link has been posted a few more times, anyone interested can verify that this is so.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Stop wasting time with this nonsense.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And so did I. You're welcome
merrily
(45,251 posts)As I've been posting to you over and over, the ONE and ONLY issue involved in Post 360 is "Did the Banter article SAY Warren lied? Not prove. Not make a case. Did it SAY Warren lied? The answer is yes, the banter article did SAY that. Even the link to the banter article SAYS that.
This is two hours of my life I'll never get back.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Caretha
(2,737 posts)"I can't understand why she doesn't stick to that"
I can tell you why you don't understand. Because you have a very juvenile view of government, history & politics. Elizabeth Warren is a very intelligent, well educated person, and is in the midst of things and actually knows what's going on. She doesn't have to satisfy the likes of you or people like you who are not competent enough to "get it".
You don't get it. See how simple that was?
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)No Republican had to convince me that Clinton is not liberal enough. She did that all on her own.
It is not a Republican plot that many Democrats are reacting to the meme that Clinton is inevitable with anger because we cannot actively support a candidate who is a hawk, and in bed with Wall Street.
That doesn't mean we won't ultimately vote for her, but stop calling our legitimate concerns right wing talking points, or implying that we've been duped by conservatives.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'd love to discuss it. Maybe this will help you: http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
By the way, I can't think of a single democrat I agree with on everything. Not a purist. And I don't see how the nasty things people post about any democrat help us get more democrats in office. That's really the point of the OP.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)My second concern is the shit the republicans will pass once they have the WH, the senate and the house. I cannot understand why anyone would not be full throated democrat in this forum given the stakes of this next election.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)cuz, this OP is stinkin'
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)It's more bother to NOT vote than it is to vote. If you don't vote then you have to recycle your ballot. Might just as well mark it and drop it in the mail and not have to haul it to the curbside recycling.
So whoever the Dem candidate ends up being, she/he can count on my vote.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Oh, yeah! With a Republican Congress in both houses, we absolutely must not have a Republican president. I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, anyone from Jesus to Hitler to Attila the Hun. Anyone who says they plan to sit it out because Hillary, assuming she gets the nod, is not quite aligned with the correct thinking is going to get an ear full from me.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And the Banksters. There'd be solid Democratic majorities in both Houses, the Supreme Court and the Executive for the next century.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It seems the revolutionaries were capturing Tories or Loyalists and throwing them on ships headed to Europe just as the ships set sail so they couldn't throw them back. If only we could do the same to those malfeasances, maybe on a cargo plane to one of the places in the ME or Africa where they might be lost for a long time.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
NASA's New Horizons spacecraft has captured its first color images of the dwarf planet Pluto and its moon, Charon. Image Credit: JPL / NASA.
I vote "Charon."
Cleita
(75,480 posts)samsingh
(17,599 posts)even the most middle of the road progressive is better than an efing repug.
repugs only screw things up.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)City, borough (county), state, federal. Never have missed a vote.
The ones who sit on their asses and talk and do nothing deserve what they get.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Astonishing, I wish I had the time to post 500 times a day.
Where does it end? Inequality is getting worse by the day.
Yes Hillary is preferable to anyone the right throws up. Wall Street Dems do ace Wall Street Republicans but that bar is not real high.
When do we draw a line in the sand and say this just isn't good enough for we in the 99%? That it's not acceptable for Wall Street Execs to crash the economy, ruin everyday people's lives, and then not only stay out of jail for obvious, widespread, and blatant fraud they leave with 100's of millions - they get to keep all that really ill gotten cash. You couldn't make this stuff up. That happened under Obama, who fought hard against providing any foreclosure relief for those victimized by predatory loans.
I think Hillary will win and then we'll see where she goes once in. If she loses by one vote my bad but I just can't do it anymore. Sooner or later the democrats need to get back to being democrats.
Or, we could go to a real democracy, multiple parties, IRV with no computers and real vote security. That a pipe dream though till we get public funding of elections so it's not all about legalized bribery.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Goodman: "Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?"
Nader: "I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over."
But the Democrats have perpetuated the lie. Just like Republicans perpetuate the lie that AlmGore said he created the Internet.
What has the potential to hand the White House to the GOP is the Hillary Brigade. They are busy trashing every other Democrat who is a potential candidate. If something happens to Hillary -- illness, accident, or someone decides to reveal emails from her supposedly "secure" home-brew email servers (of which there is a better than even chance) -- the Democrats have no Plan B. All other potential candidates have been tainted by the Hillary crowd. It will be a slam-dunk for the GOP.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/03-20-00/alibi_onassign.html
I guess you weren't around?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I guess he thinks most of us have dementia or very poor memories.
https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1
ETA - that's the other thing about Nader. He is a pathological liar.
Jon Ace
(243 posts)No way does that candidate win.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Man...if I had a nickle for every time someone post here to divide up DUers...I'd be in the .01% club on my yacht!
Thanks for your honest and sincere CONCERN.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They use DU primarily to bash democratic candidates and elected officials. It's their favorite pastime. They'd probably feel more at home on DI or Free republic. At least they'd have something in common with those folks - their love of bashing democrats without using a single fact to support their assertions.
Rex
(65,616 posts)But if you say so...
corkhead
(6,119 posts)As Harry Truman once said: " If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Here is a small portion of her extensive progressive record:
- Pushed for SCHIP
- Early childhood education
- Expansion of the earned income credit
- Expansion of CPSF
- Spoken out about outrageous CEO compensation
- Wants decrease in corporate welfare
- Against corps using bankruptcy to do away with pension responsibilities
- Support for universal healthcare
- Wants repeal of corporate subsidies for companies moving US jobs offshore
- Criticized "corporate elite" for treating workers as "invisible"
- Against school vouchers
- Voted against CAFTA / opposed NAFTA even though she wasn't a senator yet (gets a 17% rating by right wing group CATO on free trade)
- Supports constitutional amendment against Citizen's United
- Supports same day voter registration
- Supports increase in the minimum wage - has repeatedly stated the working poor deserve a living wage
- Supports unions
- No SS privatization - rejects COLA adjustments that screw seniors
- Pushed for unemployment insurance extensions
- Voted no on raising estate tax exemption from $1 mil to $5 mil
- Rated 80% by CTJ in supporting progressive taxation
Sure seems populist to me.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Look at the exit polls of any low turnout election, progressive Democrats are among the most reliable voters. It is the people who consider themselves moderates who are less likely to show up.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I've not seen an exit poll for 2014 that demonstrated that, and I can't find one when I search. Do you happen to have a link?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)The very idea that I would allow conservatives to tell me what to think; that I would consider them a reliable source to base my choices on, is an insult.
Of course, as a Democrat, I couldn't say that "OUR" candidate isn't liberal enough, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CANDIDATE. We choose our candidate through the primary process, and nominate that candidate at a convention which is well more than a year away.
Policy differences ARE what drives opposition to HRC from the left. The left wing of the party, what's left of us, and the left of the nation.
You want to elect a Democrat to the WH in '16? Insulting those whose votes you need is not a great way to get started.
libpride_15
(32 posts)... And won't repeat it, I'm convinced.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)Who is [q]OUR[/q] candidate?
How long have I been asleep?
Who won the Democratic primary?
Sheesh.....I hate that when it happens, I miss so much, first you think it was a little nap, next thing you know 16 months went by and you weren't awake to see it happen.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Believe it or not, most of us lefties are super voters who always vote Democratic when given a choice.
