Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

..but didn't really reach a definitive conclusion. I'm sure it is well known by now that I am not too fond of Clinton, mainly on foreign policy. I am anti war, not a pacifist, just your regular run of the mill anti wars of aggression dude. I have also made the realization that it will be Trump vs. Clinton in the GE. And I have given my loyalty oath to vote for the dem nominee. Does a vote for Clinton mean I support her past decisions on war? Will it be a little bit my fault if I know she is a hawk, and I still vote for her, and she starts or escalates military operations overseas? I'm not sure.

and the have a price, in pain and suffering......

The longer you wait to bite the bullet, the more difficult it is

Never.

Parts of it are corrupt.

If it were "saturated" then EVERYONE would be in on it, which can't be true. The point is that the "bits and pieces" are so numerous, so widely distributed, penetrate all levels of power so thoroughly, and are so complementary or mutually-reinforcing, as to be "total system-wide" or whatever other description one might prefer.

in politics and other endeavors such as business, law, or the arts and entertainment.

Corrupt may take less loaded but unjust forms as willful ignorant or crony or Tribe of like minded or entrenched or "special" or ...... the effect is the same, the exception rare of great talent, will, and circumstance.

The current system in the USA is way out of balance, in the past such balance resulted in sometimes rapid, sometimes slow transformative change.

The current system is weighted to maintaining status quo and concentrating privilege with decreased meaningful engagement of the masses.

Time is ripe but maybe not ripe enough. Many are resistant to change at risk of their own position.

I didn't. Neither did I say anything about Hillary Clinton.

Pols as a class tend to be ethically compromised.

Follow the money.

The Clintons, from a humble background, have monetarily enriched themselves more than any other pols in the USA.

What have they sold but access and their influence or future influence?

I have been a registered and exclusively voting Democrat (except voted in primary for John Anderson to stop Reagan in 1980) since 1972 and supported Bill Clinton.

I backed into Sanders as has been my habit. Sanders is refreshing and a surprise.

So what is your excuse for being rude and dismissive?

And this is hardly a "technicality." Non-swing-state votes for president in the GE are essentially meaningless. That will be a fact of American political life until such time as the anachronistic, anti-democratic Electoral College is at last eliminated.

The hubris of the Democratic Party elites at the time refused to listen to progressives and ran Gore even though people were fed up with the DLC. The Republicons stole the election, the SCOTUS took unprecedented action to appoint Bush with Sandra O'Conner betraying the country, and you chose to blame Nader. Those that voted for him were voting against both Bush and Gore.

Millions stayed home because they believed the system was rigged and they were correct.

You've been warned that Clinton is not the best choice against Trump but again hubris will rule and you made need to find another Nader to blame. If you choose Clinton, take the responsibility for the consequences.

I get tired of reminding people who of reality.

That's probably as much as I've posted these links over the past 11 years I've been here.



Feel free to re-post the info

Peace!

see here, starting at 4:10:

For one thing, even a small variance in Nader voters in favor of Gore would have tipped Florida his way. It wouldn't have taken much.

For another thing, Gore had to spend time and energy dealing with the Nader threat.

Did you read the links?

Nader voters were not the margin of error in that election.

Face it, Gore ran a bad campaign. Even he admits it and doesn't blame Nader. He couldn't even win his home state. He refused to let Bill Clinton campaign for him - not even in Arkansas (which Gore lost). If he'd even just let Bill Clinton campaign in Arkansas he would have won.

Furthermore, he wasted zero energy battling Nader/Green Party who got less than 3% of the vote.

Exactly how much time and energy is Hillary expending on this year's Green Party nominee?

Yeah, I read the links. I'm not convinced.

I was there in 2000 and I remember a lot of ink being spilled about Gore having to fend off Nader from the left. Nader was often polling 5-6% of the vote. It was a serious issue.

The Green Party was on even less ballots than today. Nader was a statistical impossibility and everyone knew it.

Here's a statistical analysis of the 2000 vote in FL. Its long but definitive and will put to rest any doubts that Nader was the culprit.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjjtNi9jbfMAhXolIMKHeyKA4MQFggsMAU&usg=AFQjCNGEYzlZbo0Ppf9PmXz8E47ONxHA8A&sig2=swF9myFIof6a-s4a5v6tDQ

200,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for W.
20,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Nader.

You are attempting to claim the smaller number was the problem.

Maybe try a better candidate, or a better message, next time around. Lay off the Gamer-Gater tactics and take a cue from prior activists.

Get offline. Your keyboard is not a substitute for action.

eyes of those who abhor him.

Why do you think a different login applies to Hillary?

it's people.

Take your gloating and condescension and pedal it somewhere else.

Bob-Bye

You'd be hilarious if you weren't already so sad.

doesn't give you the right to say it's not corrupt..history has taught us that many of the candidates who win ARE corrupt, as is the system in which they are running. Many if not most win because they are part of the problem and are steeped in corruption...not naming any names, but...

The world doesn't exist to placate you.

Or perhaps your response represents projection on your part. Another tantrum by a Clinton supporter who can't stand a critique of your candidate or the Democratic Party .

So is someone other than the voter changing their party status, thereby denying them the chance to vote in the primary.
Along with proven vote flipping using electronic voting machines. And that is just the start of the list.
Strange that it is mostly Bernie supporters that have been denied their vote.

including not voting,
not running for office,
not supporting people who are working in the right direction...
when you turn your back on potential allies because they aren't perfect,
when you enable the enemy because your potential allies are imperfect

just not for Hill.

They aren't an ally.

With "friends" like these...

We've held our nose and loyally voted for the Dem candidate for 6 elections now. It's gotten us nothing, while only further solidifying the hold on power the corporatists have in the party...making it even less likely progressives can effect any change. I can completely understand why a large number of the left is fed up and willing to say 'fuck you' to the party establishment. If the party is completely unwilling to even recognize the liberal wing, the votes are probably better given elsewhere.

Or not, not trying to get you in trouble, just curious to see his words and their context.

I will be glad to regain my sanity, though doing the right thing is a subjective term and I don't know if I'd agree with him on what this is. That post you linked felt icky, I will go shower.

if you don't eat their shit sandwich, you're a "perfectionist".

Which would be valid were it not for the obvious fact that "the perfect" in this case is HIGHLY imperfect, whereas "the good" is execrable and detestable.

Try again, bubba.

I have thought about this for some time but perhaps I used different words.
Money talks. Money is what is corrupting the system.
If we keep our meager savings in the big banks, we are propping up the corrupt system. If we buy from large corporations which refuse to pay taxes and ship jobs overseas, we are propping up the system.
I think you get the idea.
However, I do not think that voting is propping up the corrupt system. It is our way of taking the system back and making it work for us.

The people that continue to support the Democratic party, hoping for change to come slowly and steadily or people who only vote in general elections? Or people who don't vote at all?

Think of all the change that could be had if people were actually interested in politics outside the Presidential election cycle? How wonderful it would be if people actually voted in elections that effected them locally?

You can't say the system is corrupt, burn the system down without acknowledging the issues that created this system and it isn't because Democrats happen to support or elect moderate Democrats instead of progressive Democrats.

One of the things that really pisses me off about some progressives (and I consider myself a progressive) is that they are no better than the tea party wing of the GOP. It has to be their way or no way. Yet I know all kinds of Democrats and they all deserve to get the type of representation they want... not the kind I want for them.

For example (and I use this example a lot), I have a lot of family in Missouri who also happen to be Democrats... Democrats who will never, ever vote or support a Bernie Sanders because he's just too out there for them. However, they will support and elect a Hillary Clinton or Claire McCaskill, easily.

Should we eschew these Democrats? Call them traitors or complicit because they believe in moderation? The Democrats in Missouri, for the most part (I'm not talking urban areas) are moderate, they want moderate representation and guess what, Hillary Clinton/Claire McCaskill gives them that. Yet many on DU say they are no better than Republicans but that is so far from the truth that some progressives are getting used to the smell of their own bullshit they're shoveling.

Yes, the Democratic Party has moved to the right but why? Is it because their Wall St. overlords have told them to do so or is it because people are actually electing more moderate Democrats because those are the people actually willing to run for office?

You want to effect change, convince progressives to run for office, or better yet, create a new party to run as the progressive party if the Democratic Party doesn't suit. Hell, the Tea Party has been very successful in doing that to the detriment of many, so maybe a Progressive Party could help the Democratic Party turn left.

That's the myth the corporations sell us.

Moderate is not being far left or far right. Corporate/populist is independent of that. The corporatists claim to be moderate centrists, but they're really just greedy profiteers buying politicians who are themselves driven by personal ambition rather than by their desire to be public servants. There's nothing moderate about representing corporate interests over those of the people, there's just not.

Here's the political revolution, get on board, or not, your choice.

https://brandnewcongress.org/

Even though that person is running with record breaking numbers regarding unfavorable, untrustworthy, corrupt, and numbers that also suggest she is the most pro war candidate running in both parties.

It appears we may be about to cross that line and suffer the consequences.
The country will survive, but not as anything other than a Corrupt, imperialistic, banana republic.

No longer a world leader, but conqueror,, no longer a moral country, but an immoral one.
Unfortunately no longer a democracy in practice but rather in name only, the UN would have a field day monitoring our elections.

that's all that really matters.

Most unfortunately, such US "leadership" will be taken as enabling and legitimising by corrupt actors in many places. Thanks a lot.

There is a myriad of potential Democratic candidates that are qualified for POTUS and have no where near the negatives or conflicts of interest.

The Democratic leadership knowing this made no other plans but Hillary Clinton as you well describe.

Down ticket Democratic pols know that they face political suicide and lack of support from above should they pursue a non-neoliberal agenda.

...it's when I reach my line in the sand that I will not cross. I reached my line after the 2004 election.

Every time in a presidential election when I held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils, I got a really uncomfortable vibe.

And we have five supreme picks..not before.

And yes, climate change is that serious

Like choosing to buy cage free vs factory eggs. Your dollar is a vote. Used to be only one brand of cage free eggs. Now there are many to choose from.

Vote for the war corporatrist candidate. Why be surprised when you get war. You own it. You get what you pay for. Why be surprised.

We ain't perfect, but we offer opportunities for people that no other country has to offer and why so many wish to come here to live.....me thinks our downfall is a bit premature