Most Democrats don't either.

has nothing to do with what I wrote. I spoke about what she says about him.

Bragging!

Unless they're repubs, why would they boast, as if its a good thing?

Is an appeal to establishment. It is also Hippie Punching, in, imo, a disastrous political policy meant to divide the party.

His name should never be mentioned in polite company without a knowing nod to the criminality he represents.

What I'd like to hear is what the young people think of how we are going on about as we relate our feelings toward him.

I wasn't familiar with that. It's very good. Thank you for it!

It's really strange to me, her speaking so highly of an evil man.

The memory of the hurting we put on him is long.

I am so pleased you are supporting Bernie. I took notice of your reticence in the early days of this race, so to see you here now is a good sign. Did your kids have some influence? <grin>

Do you remember this old saying: The Hippies were right.

a major influence on my thinking. I suspect that they would say that I am a major influence on their's, too. I suspect they would say that I raised them to be Bernie supporters.

To be honest, everyone in my extended family, my circle of friends, and network of associates, supports Sanders. That might not sound like much, but it really is a large, diverse group of people.

Maybe she doesn't consider his deeds evil? (which would be extremely disturbing).

I hope not.

In your OP, you mention about fracking:
"...subscribes to the big business model with “acceptable number of deaths” per hundred thousand, in association with a process or product. "

Maybe it's the same thing about Kissinger. She believes in a certain political/military agenda and there can be an "acceptable number of deaths" to achieve that political/military agenda.

(Actually, I think it's just a case of follow the money.

Money = access and access = influence. She's been unduly influenced by the energy industry and the MIC donors. )

You are good. Very good.

Thank you.

Thanks for the OP.

Have to go to work. Will check in later.

I don't care what Henry says. But, exactly as you note, both Bill and Hillary have spoken of him -- and recently, it's not ancient history -- as if his admiration is a badge of honor.

I think that this was clearly stated in the OP. So I'm unsure if the twisting of it in post #1 was purposeful, or more of a reflexive action. It seems to be difficult for some people to respond to.

If a person says they are okay with fracking and/or Kissinger, that's fine. They are as entitled to their ethics and values, as I am to mine. But, of course, that makes for very different ethics and values.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton spoke about Kissinger in the past week, which suggests that our friend's attempt to dismiss it as "old news" seems curious -- or perhaps non-curious.

Small comfort.

had fronted for it in other countries, but also think that she favors it domestically.

I have to finish dinner right now, though!

has potential to be both civil and worthwhile.

One of the factors I like to take into consideration when I vote, is the motivation of each candidate. Motivation can be inferred in a lot of ways - associates, associations, stated goals, life history. But you can read motivation from a person's face, how they talk and move, whether the sounds coming out of their mouths feel genuine.
So I take a lot into account when I try to judge 'motivation'. Facts, figures, feelings, hunches and the input from friends and family.
And then, like a closing argument, I ask myself which candidate offers a path with heart?


(And then I blow my 'impartiality' because I forgot about my sig line. Sometimes i think so hard I forget what I'm doing!)

Thank you.

...piece of writing and putting it in the wasteland that is currently GDP.

Your critique of Kissinger does give me pause for thought. Like Hillary, I spent 1968 earnestly working for Gene McCarthy, though in my then-home state of California. Unlike HRC, I didn't later specifically target Kissinger -- I was too preoccupied with Richard Effing Nixon, may he rest in Hell.

So, at what point did this shift for her? And why? Was there a forgetting because she found herself working with him, or because his many heavy books are required reading in foreign policy?

Yes, I'm with her. No, she is far from infallible.

Oh, and here's a DU hear for you --->

~~Hekate

I understand and appreciate why people are backing Hillary Clinton. And I know intelligent, sincere people who support her. I have absolutely no problem with that. And none of them have any problem with my supporting Bernie. More, we will all support the Democratic nominee.

At the same time, I know that for a lot of people, there's a very real lack of trust for those supporting the other Democratic candidate. It seems to me that we'll all benefit from expanding both the party, and our thinking. That includes trusting people who think differently about some things (such as tactics), but are aiming for a similar goal.

Hoping it was going to be about Purple Haze marijuana.

Admittedly, I will leave this thread disappointed.

in a way.

Somewhere there is a middle ground between telling the guy to fuck off publicly, and putting him down as a job reference.

Exactly. It's like saying that Dick Cheney gave you a recommendation as vice president.

I assume the Clintons are bringing it up in NH, to try to get the conservative independents to vote for her.

I have a huge Hendrix collection that includes numerous versions of the song. I always enjoy listening to it.

As Biden would say, don't question her motives; only question her judgment.

I don't care why she supports fracking and cozies up to Kissinger. I think both of those things represent poor judgment and I hope for (a) better judgment and (b) more progressive stances and actions from the person representing the Democratic Party in the GE.

Incidentally, I like the way you do not capitalize "republican" - I may have to follow suit from now on.

I ran into my old junior high school gym teacher. He is extremely pro-fracking, believing it to be a miracle cure for all of the local community's economic ills. I greeted him politely and respectfully; he could not resist tossing some insults in my direction.

I suggested that we get together, and discuss fracking over a cup of coffee. He became enraged -- no exaggeration -- and n a very loud voice stated, "No! You'll never change my mind. I won't talk to you about it!"

I said that I had no interest in changing his mind. I said it was an issue that was dividing people in our local communities, and was causing a lot of hard feelings. Thus, I thought it was worth our while to sit down and just talk to one another. Neither of us was going to change their mind, but we could at least try to understand the other's viewpoint.

The expression on his face was, I think, exactly as it would be if he were talking to Satan himself. He said, "Fuck you," and turned and walked away.

I was tempted to say that now I knew why he was a junior high gym teacher, rather than a high school math or social studies teacher. But I think we both knew.

head Ben Jealous that her swipe against Bernie for being scheduled to appear on SNL around the same time as if this meant that he didn't care about the people of Flint was petty to the extreme.

I know that such cheap shots are part of political campaigns. But they don't have to be. It's an individual candidate's choice.

Thanks, Uncle Joe!

the US was in a state of blissful grace. No problems at all then....

This is interesting as neither of these issues are of great interest to me (I can hear heads exploding as I type - I do care about fracking but I can't say that I believe Hillary is a big-time pro-fracking advocate.) I will admit, however, that I generally find much of the criticism of Bernie and/or Hillary to be high on venom, low on the "I care" scale. I do appreciate you presenting issues important to you in a relaxed way allowing those who find these issues of import to discuss them reasonably (or not, as is their wont.) The issues I care about are well articulated by Bernie - economic fairness and equality - but Hillary is also right there on these issues (albeit a tad less enthusiastic) but might even be a more effective leader when it comes to implementation. In other words, the differences between the candidates I see being screamed at high decibels are not generally issues that sway me; I haven't committed to either candidate, though I will admit that most arguments as presented on DU tend to turn me away from their favorite candidate. These high-decibel people need to calm the fuck down, they are NOT helping.

I thought that the two issues might serve as a vehicle to more relaxed, informative OP/threads here, for everyone to participate in. The two issues that I focused on are not "front-burners" right now -- though they are being discussed to different extents in other places -- but they do inter-connect with many other issues .....the types that people argue and rant about here on DU:GDP too often.

The truth is that there isn't any issue -- literally none -- that we couldn't have a more meaningful discussion of, no matter how intensely we may disagree with others, than we can ever have a confrontational argument about. Yet, many good people either chose to argue, or get sucked into arguments here.

I think that we would do better to invest our energies into serious, though not hostile, talks about all of the issues. Even when they might be uncomfortable. And that goes equally to both sides. More, while I don't advocate "the lesser of two evils" thinking, I believe that it is important -- even urgent -- that we pay attention to the republican primary contests. And in part, because parts of them are hilarious, and the DU community includes numerous people with outrageous senses of humor. That's a good thing. I love the DU humor aimed at republicans, and think it is hugely important.

Still, the sum-total of the republican primaries is unnerving. There are times that we see the potential threat posed by large crowds of unconscious herd animals, following the calls of amoral and immoral republican primary candidates.

I know that both Hillary and Bernie can beat any of the republicans. Yet, I am aware of the fact that a Democratic victory is not a given. And the passionate, emotional fights between us increases the chances of a republican win.

I believe that my best contributions here are when I simple say what a lot of us are thinking. An issue like Flint -- the poisoning of itty-bitty children outrages all of us. That includes everyone in the DU community. It's definitely a topic that we should be looking at, both in and outside the context of the election. The more attention paid to it, the better. Yet, the more information released on the cause and effect of the crisis grows worse.

As I've noted here and on other threads, the willful poisoning of water in Flint connects with all of the industrial toxic waste dumps from the past, as well as the terrible damage done today by fracking.

Pollution is also, of course, tied closely to climate change. We are poisoning the soil, the water, as well as the air/ atmosphere.

We can also connect the poisoning of the living environment -- which includes human beings -- to issues of health care. Frequently, toxic dumps are found in low-income and/or non-white neighborhoods and towns. But toxins in the environment move. And while many of the public health crises take place in those poor areas, they absolutely are now impacting everyone in the 99%, to some extent.

It just seems like something we could discuss, and even if we don't all agree 100%, that we could reach some common ground. And then protect it from toxins.

for me personally I am supporting the person who is talking about class. But my view is politics=economics, and other people have different lenses (or perhaps multiple lenses) they view through. Mostly I replied so I can come back and look at more responses.