And politicians - all politicians - have all the issued related to a desire to lead. That brings a special set of issues.

I don't seek perfection, and don't trust ANY politician (as I've said before, I trust exactly one person - my wife). I seek a leader who most overlaps with my own particular principles and values. That's all.

and i agree with a lot of it. and i think it will be a turning point election. after the 2 ge candidates are nominated, i do not plan to try and tear down the dem nom whoever that turns out to be despite my personal feelings. i will vote my conscience and am going to try and preserve most of my ire for mr trump.

As difficult as it may be to keep postings under control and avoid things like name-calling, it's important. If someone is unable to post on DU because he or she lost control on multiple occasions, it's a shame. That person's voice is silent, once that happens, and it needn't be so.

I agree with some DUers and disagree with others, but I have no desire to have my voice silenced, so I try very hard to maintain control of my own words. That reason and the fact that I may be supporting any candidate after the nomination process is complete is my guide to posting on this forum. I could not support a candidate effectively if I had posted unnecessarily negative things about that candidate during the primary season.

For me, it is that simple.

I like how you share your thoughts and put yourself out there. On du and IRL.

We do need to know where each one stands on every issue. We do need to call them out when they don't commit to an answer. When and if they answer, we want/need to know why they are taking that stance. That is sometimes interpreted as tearing them down.

It isn't. It is holding them accountable.

Often, a candidate has stated a position but that statement was missed. I've seen that happen here frequently. Or, a candidate makes a statement, as Clinton did with regard to the Keystone pipeline issue. Her opposition to that was simply rejected by some as a lie. That's not useful.

Yes, we need to know how candidates stand. But we also need to pay attention to make sure we aren't saying things that aren't so. We need to listen and actually know those stances. That takes time and effort.

what is Hills stance on TPP?

I do not know her position on that at this time. I expect she will reveal it at a time of her choosing. It is not a make-or-break issue for me, however.

Now, if Hillary Clinton knows you and you call her "Hill" as a regular thing in conversations with her, then that answers my first question. Personally, I expect to refer to her as Madam President following the election, or as President Clinton. I would not call her "Hill," since I have never met her and do not know what she thinks of that diminutive name.

"Often, a candidate has stated a position but that statement was missed". so we didn't miss this one

What is Hills stance on breaking up the "too big to fail banks"?

And, again, it's not the major issue for me. Winning the General Election is the major issue for me, as I stated in the starting post for this thread.

Like many issues, breaking up banks is not a simple thing, and would require major legislation. A presidential candidate who promised to do that might well not be able to do any such thing, since it's not something that is within the powers of a President alone.

So, which candidate has said he or she would actually break up those banks, and how does that candidate plan to do that, exactly?

"Winning the General Election is the major issue for me," so the primary is second at best. Is that why you flip-flopped from supporting "the Bern" to Hills

More than once. Bottom line is that I never expected Sanders to be nominated and was only going to support him in the MN Caucus system to make a point. I changed my mind, due to the tactics of some of his supporters, since I believed they made it even more difficult for him to get the nomination.

I also do not believe that Sanders can win in the General Election if a serious Republican candidate gets that nomination. As I said in this OP, I believe that keeping Republicans out of the White House and control of all three branches of government is the highest priority, so I'm focused on that entirely now. I won't be making any point by supporting Sanders any longer, so I support Clinton for the nomination.

If I counted the number of times I have voted for a Democratic President with whom I did not agree on several issues, it would be the same number of times I have voted, frankly. I can't envision a candidate with whom I totally agree ever being on the ballot.

And now, I'm done with replies to you in this thread. I aspire to comment to others and in other threads, and don't have the time right now.

"If we cannot discuss Democratic candidates civilly on Democratic Underground, I'm at a loss to know where we might do that" (post 18). When you post a thread isn't it civil to have the time for discussion?

I hope you will aspire to comment to all posts and not discriminate.

I am active in my own threads, but reserve the right to stop replying in any thread to any individual DUer at any time and for any reason.

"discuss Democratic candidates civilly" so you really didn't mean that?

Do you have a time limit for discussions?

obtuse questions I will answer from any individual DUer. You've exceeded that limit. Sorry.

does Hills agree that banks are "to big to jail" or will her DOJ put banksters in prison?

My answer was, and is, that I do not know. That was the issue that I said was not one of my major concerns. It is still not one of my major concerns, since the President cannot simply say that the banks should be split up or that bankers should go to jail. That is not among the powers of the presidency.

I recommend a reading of the Constitution, with careful attention paid to the division of powers that is at its core. Perhaps you've forgotten those parts. It's worth a closer read, again for comprehension.

so if bankers have acted illegally,then it is the potus legal duty to prosecute them

The President cannot actually prosecute anyone. He can appoint an Attorney General, though, and federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices. But no President can prosecute anyone. That isn't in the President's power.

It simply isn't.

as we both know the ag is part of the potus cabinet and the ag he appoints is supposed to represent his priorities

the three parts of govt are clear

the legislature makes the laws

the sc interprets the laws

potus enforces the laws

First issue: Breaking up the banks and your response is Hills has no stance as far as you know.

Second issue: Would Hills and her DOJ prosecute the banksters for criminal activity and put them in prison. I will wait to hear your response on Hills stance on this.

If elect-ability was in question, Bernie wins it hands down. Clinton has no viability AT ALL.

Her numbers will accelerate on the downward trend once she is exposed on October 13th on her inability to debate on key issues.

you're contesting a premise. His argument is valid, that is, if the premises are correct then the conclusion follows.

If his premise is correct (Hillary Clinton would be a strong candidate in the general), then his argument is both valid and sound. If his premise is incorrect, then his argument is still valid, but it's not sound.

Not trying to be an ass, this (rhetoric) is just a subject I enjoy.

Whether Sanders or Clinton would have a stronger chance in the general election is an open question.

Hillary has no crossover appeal. Bernie does. Who wins?

from making election predictions. As a result, I tend to avoid them, or else to be more cautious when I do. Accurately predicting future voting behavior is an exceptionally difficult thing to do.

If the primary was held here in DUland, then Bernie Sanders is the hands-down, landslide winner. His support here is somewhere around 70%. By its very nature, DU tends to attract more than its share of the dissatisfied. But DU isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, representative of the general electorate.

You're clearly confident in your assessment, however I don't share your outlook.

Hillary Clinton, by almost any serious and objective measure, has broad appeal and support across a wide range of different groups in this country. She has significant and widespread institutional support, which is very useful. And by institutional support, I'm not just talking about the DNC. She has institutional support in state and local Democratic Party offices, business and professional organizations, some (but not all) labor organizations, non-profit institutions, major advocacy groups, etc.

I support Bernie Sander and I'd love to see him get the nomination. But I think it's a long shot. We'll see.

I assume you're making a joke. Not everyone is making a joke when they say something like that. It's really a pretty serious thing, this process of nominating a Democratic candidate. I don't find much humor in it, really.

the primaries "it's not the major issue for me" (post 21) and now you say, "really a pretty serious thing, this process of nominating a Democratic candidate. I don't find much humor in it, really.

Are the primaries "a pretty serious thing" or just "not the major issue for" you?

If you don't read my posts for comprehension, I can't discuss anything with you. What I said was not a major issue for me in #21 referred to the topic of your question, which was breaking up big banks, not the primaries. The other statement is about whether something was funny or not. It wasn't.

Finally, the post you're replying to was directed at someone other than you. Again, you appear not to have been reading for comprehension.

"Winning the General Election is the major issue for me". Therefore, by comprehension, the primaries must be minor at best

Are you implying there are DU restrictions on who I can and cannot reply to in a thread, rather an obtuse response, eh?

However, I may choose not to reply to anything directed at me. I usually do reply, as you have seen in this thread. Again, though, it does not appear that you are reading for comprehension. You have attempted to put words in my mouth that I did not say, once again. That is not comprehension. That is something entirely different.

As entertaining as bantering with you is in this thread, I'm going to have to call a halt to it, since I have other work to do.

that's called a discussion.

I think Sanders has been the most consistently in agreement with what I like. However whether he could get any of it thru is up in the air.

Hillary has been a bit too hawkish for me in the past and has been a bit too close to the Banksters but I think she is the most battle hardened and probably due to her long history of politics she could put a team on the ground to run the country the fastest. I also think she would do battle with the GOP if they continue to be in power and expose their fiscal irresponsibility on things like tax cuts maybe a bit more than the others.

I really like Biden also. When I have read about arguments inside the Obama admin and how every person had a viewpoint I found myself agreeing with Biden more than any other player. I think he's a nice guy too. I do think his fairly severe anti gun views and his anti drug views would hurt him in rural areas and the west though. Being a senator for a long time I sort of wonder if Biden, out of Sanders, Clinton, and Biden, would be the most able to pass legislation and contine Obama's legacy since he is friends with people in congress on both sides.

I know very little about O'Mally but hope to learn more. I wish there were more debates.

What I do know is I don't want anybody beat up so bad that the GOP wins, but I want a good contest because the GOP will come at whomever with every bit of dirt they can find.

However we have a LOT at stake. Preventing reckless wars or tax cuts that will fuck up the falling deficit. Increasing the amount of money coming to the working class (there is no middle class now) to "trickle up" and help the economy. Supreme court appointments.
Staying removed from the middle east clusterfuck.

We can't afford another GOP president and we really need to knock off some of the congress also.

Look at what Obama and Bill Clinton were able to do in 8 years with the economy and the country. If we could get 16 years of a dem president with at least part of that giving the dems a majority in congress we could really do something.

I can't imagine that it will be O'Malley, so it could be Clinton, Biden (if he runs, which I doubt) or Sanders. Any of the three would make a worthy President, although I certainly wouldn't agree with everything any of them did.

Any of the three would be far superior to any Republican running for the office. So, I won't attack any of them, although I will state my preference. Currently, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination. We'll see who wins, though. Then, I'll support the nominee, regardless of who it is, just as strongly as any other nominee.

I believe people will regret attacking candidates for that nomination. That's why I won't do it.

The letter they tack on to their own name doesn't change that.

If I have to hold my nose to vote for someone, they aren't getting my support. Ihad more than my fill of that horseshit. NEVER AGAIN!

In the end, our votes are just our votes, and there are millions of people who will be voting. I don't get to determine who the Democratic nominee is. I do get to support the Democrat over the Republican, though in the general election. That I can do.

Your vote is your own. Do with it what you think best, by all means, but please don't denigrate anyone else for their vote for a Democratic candidate, whether you like that candidate or not. We all get one, and only one.

Your opinion may not be shared by others. We're each entitled to our opinion.

In case you haven't noticed, in general We the People aren't real happy with more of the same. Nor are we afraid of that z Republican wolf you establishment types keep crying about.

there is no such thing. We are all individuals. If you believe that your views represent the entire population, you are incorrect. If they were, we would have a different government right now. That's why we have elections. At that time, we learn what the majority of voters think should happen.

If you're not afraid of having Republicans in control of all three branches of federal government, you're not paying attention very well, I think. I think your pretending that the majority believes as you do is simply wrong. They don't believe as I do, either. Our government is a compromise, due to that very fact. There is no single will of "We the People." Not even close. History is evidence of that. If you ignore that history, you'll be disappointed forever. That lack of common will in this country will not end in any of our lifetimes.

We the People KNOW who we are and what We the People want, and it sure as effe isn't another damn warmongering Wall Street sellout.

Then we can compare notes on how people voted.

In retrospect I should have held my nose and voted for Gore.

If only you had not voted for Nader....


....EVERYTHING would have been different!

individuals and by those only. I do not believe that my opinions have any more weight than the opinions of others, when it comes to voting for candidates. I can state the reasons for my opinions, if I choose to do so, or I can keep them to myself.

We can all do the same.

I think Democracy can survive a bit of primary back and forth on DU.

So far, I've seen a number of prominent DUers get time-outs for their inability to control their language and posts. I don't like to see that, frankly, whether or not I agree with the DUer. We need to hear people's voices and listen to their opinions here. We can go back and forth without putting ourselves out of the discussion, it seems to me. Wouldn't you agree?

This post is about that, really. If we cannot discuss Democratic candidates civilly on Democratic Underground, I'm at a loss to know where we might do that.

that's on them.

Believe me, if I said everything I want to say, sometimes, I'd be on time-out, too.

the circumstances. Civility is a good thing in a complex society. Still, I always feel bad when someone is unable to post here, even if I disagree with that person most of the time.

I would not like to be on a time-out for incivility. I try not to have that happen.

Right now, I'm embarrassed to have one hidden post in my profile. I've altered my behavior a bit to prevent a recurrence of that. Since I know why it happened, I won't repeat that mistake.

over those of Sanders?

For instance, why you feel chained CPI, means testing and raising retirement age as advocated by Hillary is the superior path forward to fix Social Security as opposed to raising the income cap as advocated by Bernie.

Polls mean squat, especially this early in the game, and yet is all that is ever talked about on DU. How about a discussion of actual policy differences between the candidates with input as to why you feel your candidates policy position is the superior way forward?

As for Chained CPI and the other issues you brought up, opponents of Obama have been trying to hang those on him since his election. None are in place. I have no doubt that the attempt to hang them on Clinton will proceed apace, without any of those ideas ever being implemented. Bye for now.

LOL. Brilliant and incisive, to be sure.

You know, the one where you dodged the question.

it was HE himself who proposed it.

You might want to watch this old video.

Perhaps I missed something, eh?

Obama, a Democrat, proposed it as an acceptable solution.

It did not take place. It may well have been a strategic move on his part. I don't actually know. But there is no chained CPI in force. It affects me, too, since I am a Social Security recipient. Just yesterday, my monthly benefit showed up in my checking account. I'm very aware of Social Security, indeed.

To my knowledge, chained CPI is not in effect. I don't think it will ever be in effect, frankly.

You didn't answer the question and decide to talk about Obama. Forget Obama for the time being - we are focusing on the 2016 elections.

I write about many things here. This thread is about civility during primaries. That's what I'm talking about in it. Some want it to be about something else. I don't. You can read other threads from me for other topics.

There are many other posts by me here. This is one thread, and its not an omnibus thread.

on Social Security and did so of his own volition with neither popular pressure nor need nor plausible beneficial outcome.

How in the whole universe of time and space are you blaming the people who rightfully and thankfully pushed back on what nary a one of us asked for, expected, or in any way desired that he and only he had the power and authority to put his name on it?

Now if you so choose you certainly may elect to buy into the creative speculation that it was some hyperspace variant of ultra 109 dimensional chess or whatever but demanding the world join this belief as fact is asking way too much.
I honestly believe "my dog ate my homework" to be a far more reasonable explanation, I've seen dogs and cats too run off with and fuck up all kinds of stuff.
The supposed fake willing to burn down the village to save it especially with folks under the influence of the likes of Pete Peterson and appoint way past terrible ass Bowles and Alan fucking Simpson to an iteration of his very proactive and multiple efforts at austerity committees is not something I much buy and believe the exception rate to be something we don't have the formulas or technology to calculate so I'm inclined to treat it as zero and vigorously and unrelentingly push back on hard as can be as well as hold a grudge on.

Every once in a while, some theater group stages "Our American Cousin." It's difficult to relate to today, though. If you'd like to read the play's script, you can download it here for your e-reader or PC:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3158/3158-h/3158-h.htm

Have you used Librivox? Although the narrations can be a bit of a crap shoot, it can be great fun to listen to unabridged audio versions of some public domain classics, particularly when the delivery is well done. I'd especially recommend John Greenman's narrations of some of Mark Twain's works.

for me. I read hundreds of books each year, and just don't have time to have someone read them aloud to me at <100 words per minute. It's just not my thing, I guess.

I tend to listen to audiobooks when I'm in situations (e.g. traveling) where I can't read in the traditional way. Otherwise, I vastly prefer text as well.

When I do, I find that audio books are distracting, so I don't listen to them. I just drive. On planes, I have my Kindle, loaded with books that have gone into the public domain. I'll be adding Our American Cousin to the list, too, so I can read it. My parents, who are 90 and 91 years old do listen to audio books sometimes, but still read regular books, as well. I think audio books are a great idea, for those who enjoy them, though.

No one riding the gravy train wants to see it derailed and a real left populist wave in DC would bork a remarkably cozy system in a huge way.

You can count on the Democratic establishment working subtly and eventually not so subtly against Sanders should he win the nomination.

I believe that is something you think, rather that something that has been demonstrated. I believe that Sanders would lose the general election on his own, despite a steady stream of attacks from the Republicans. Personally, on the off chance that he were the nominee, I'd be out campaining my heart out for him, just as I have done for other Democrats who did not have a chance to win a presidential election. You may remember a couple of those. I don't know how old you are.

They always proclaim the easy denial of lazy exploiters, who never help but say they "supported" the winning candidate all along. To this day they will deny that they failed to support the primary candidate who looked like the more progressive candidate at the time.

to create for our candidate is part of the primary process. But in the process we create some map of bad for each as well, taken later as part of the General Election opponent's campaign game plan.

We'll see how this sorts out.

Thank you for your post.

This is a huge, very diverse country. There is really no "perfect" here. The presidency is always a compromise, given the wide range of political viewpoints in the US. Since it is the only office voted on by everyone in the nation, it's always a battle to attract the most voters, and that means taking positions that will offend fewer people than the opponent does, mostly.

People of particular political factions often rail about this, accusing candidates of "compromising," when that is the very nature of the job of President. Government is compromise, always, in any form of democracy. It cannot be otherwise.

As you say, we'll see what happens.

With that in mind, a plea not to roil the waters from such is more than a bit self-serving.

It seemed to me he just said that when the roiled waters are calmed again, we either unite, for better or for worse or face a Republican president out of a group which, so far, includes a bunch of radical rightists who would pick new members of the Supreme Court that would make the Volksgerichtshof blush with embarrassment.

As for shooting itself to death during primary season, that seems to be the usual DU four year itch, and this time is no exception. The old line from the Chad Mitchell Trio's song comes back: "There's no one left but thee and we and we're not sure of thee."

Since I am the OP, I'd rather be referred to by my screen name.

I'm a partisan, that's true. I'm a Democrat, and will promote Democratic candidates seriously and actively. This OP does not favor any particular candidate. It is a call for civility in our discussions of the primary candidates. It is a recognition that the candidate any of us favors may not become the nominee. Many things can happen to turn the tables rather quickly.

You can look for attacks from me on any primary candidate. You won't find them. I may opine on a candidate's viability, but that's not an attack. It's an assessment of that candidate's prospects. You won't find me denigrating any candidate or dwelling on ancient history in discussion their current candidacy. You might find me questioning the wisdom of a particular campaign strategy, though. That's just politics.

As always I agree and disagree with all of the candidates, based on their statements and positions. Personally, I think any of them would serve effectively as President. How much any of them will accomplish, though, will depend on the makeup of Congress, so I'll be working on helping elect more Democrats to our legislative branch.

Which candidate would I prefer to see as President? The one who can win against whoever the Republicans get around to nominating. The one that can withstand the onslaught of negative campaigning with funds adequate to fight back on a level playing field. The one who gets the Democratic nomination. That's the one I prefer. At this point, based on my perception of viability, it's Hillary Clinton, based on a composite of opinion and polling over time. Biden is the pivot here. If he runs, he has a chance of overtaking Clinton. Not a great chance, but a chance. I don't see Bernie Sanders as the nominee, based on the same set of composite data.

What this OP is about is how we interact during the primaries. That's why it doesn't mention anyone in particular. Animosities pent up during the primary campaign have a way of poisoning support for the nominee later in the process. In 2016, we won't have a Barack Obama running. None of the candidates have his charisma and broad-based populist appeal. Some people really like Bernie Sanders. Not enough, though, I think, to carry him into the White House. Some people don't like Hillary Clinton. Not enough, though, I think, to keep her from winning in November. Biden's a mystery. He's much like Hillary in his positions, though, so the same objections will probably apply to him, too.

I'm content to support the eventual nominee. The process will give us a nominee. That person will be a Democrat, and I support Democrats. I will support the Democratic nominee with the same support I've given previous nominees, starting in 1960. I will hope the Democratic nominee wins. That doesn't always happen, but I always hope for a victory and do what I can to help make that happen.

In the meantime, I will refrain from attacking any of the candidates. It's not my style. I may be supporting any of them, if they get the nomination. See, I'm a Democrat. I'm a Democratic partisan.

And "partisan" in this case refers to your support for Clinton. It's hard to believe you misunderstood that point.

I'm not disguising that. It wasn't pertinent to what I wanted to say, though. I'd feel the same, no matter who I supported in the primaries. Once there's a nominee, I'll be a partisan activist for that nominee. Just like always. That's why I don't attack any of the nominees. All of them would be fine as President. None of them would be perfect.

that interests you?


This is no longer a contest of personality cult - which is what Clinton's group is thinking it should be, but rather an issues-based election as it should be - and Bernie Sanders has no doubt placed his issues before America.

This is my EXACT position. I'm cool with partisans of any candidate but some...A LOT of the shit that I'm seeing is ridiculous and sometimes insulting.

forward into the foreseeable future. I'm not willing to send that message.

This is where we stop dealing with the Devil at the crossroads - those that continue to do so don't sound nothing like Robert Johnson.

And you're right. I took one of those tests matching me with candidates. I scored 99% match with Bernie, and 86% for both Clinton and Biden. I'm in single digits with the GOP clown car candidates. I mean, their three issues going into the GE will be abortion, immigration and war, all shiny objects distracting us from the oligarchs who are picking our pockets and making our lives worse. I don't have the link, sorry.

Miss him so much.

If a candidate's positions are vastly superior to another candidate, then posting those positions should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion forum. Attacking any candidate in the Democratic primaries is foolish. As members of the Democratic Party and mature adults, we can explain our preferred candidates positive attributes without attacking the other candidates. Disrupting the civility of this forum with snippy comments, vicious right wing memes and misinformation only help the GOP. That sort of behavior demonstrates a lack of faith in the person's candidate.

Thank you for your call for greater civility. Is is well said and well reasoned. Always a pleasure to read your posts.

As Benjamin Franklin stated so wisely at the start of our republic, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

We can certainly advocate strongly for our preferred candidate. Maligning other Democratic Party candidates harms the entire Democratic Party and all our candidates.

I so appreciate how clearly you laid out this problem. Sadly, you have received many responses from people who either do not comprehend that fact or really do want to tear apart the Democratic Party.

I'll support the candidate who is running against the rethug clown car in 2016.

Control of the SCOTUS is up for grabs and the person who wins in 2016 will likely get to select three or four justices to SCOTUS which will control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

?itok=RU4tfAN1

I am basing my support on viability. We are in the primary process and each person should base their support on the criterion that they deem appropriate. Sanders is closer to my positions according to the online test/quiz but I do not believe that he is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billio dollars.

The only practical way to deal with Citizens United is to win in 2016 and then appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote against Citizens United. That means that a Democrat has to win which means that viability is a key factor