And fear has triangulated us into the destruction of our democracy and endless war.
Good work fear, your work is appreciated by evil.

As it is presented to us on a daily basis.
As I said fear works and that is why it is used to herd us like sheep into war after war, and towed politicians who lead us there.

If we ever lost our fear and stood up like brave humans the PTB would tremble with fear of their own. Their control and power depends on us being afraid.

The fact is more democrats will not vote if Hillary selected. That's just the way it is. All the whining will not change the fact that most people will not be motivated and she could lose the White House for democrats whether you like it or not. She is no different than Joe Lieberman.

--that Sanders is attracting by the carload.

Half the population is already alienated. But the thing about Hillary is she has massive negative ratings. People simply don't trust her and many of them are active within the party. People are so sick of her self-entitlement and deceit. There is a reason Obama totally buried the once inevitable candidate. And believe me everyone remembers her passing around photos of Obama in a turban.

That means voting for the Dem over the Republican.

The election won't be determined by the decides. It will be based on voter turnout. She will not motivate anyone but dedicated loyalists and there just isn't enough of them. Bernie energizes people to participate. Hillary turns them off. It's that simple. Those who vote will vote for any Democrat although a recent poll said 15% of democrats will never vote for her and don't trust her to act like a democrat once elected. It's the ones who don't show up to vote at all that may mean a President Trump or Cruz. If that happens expect parallels to Nazi Germany.

I remember that and I didn't realize who was behind it. is about all I can say.

in regards to what they're trying to speak about.

There's an old saying "it is better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool- than to open it and remove all doubt"

Grasshopper just hasn't quite learned enough yet and appears to be a victim of my sig line.

I'll have to remember it.

shoved with force back into the closet.

Clinton SC. If one of the three semi-sane pukes are the Republican nominee (Bush, Kasich, Rubio) there is way less difference on the issues that effect my everyday life than I can stand. Economic policy, International relations, social safety net, labor - they're all shades of neolib/neocon if you ask me. A sober analysis of candidates will have her winning out over the repubs for me, but not by nearly as much as you think.

If the poster is meant the SCOTUS, a reply is easy. Not sure what this is about, though.

I dont know how it CANT be SCOTUS.
But your answer is better

problem. That it seems to have been for you says a lot. Now, to make the reply I did not want to waste time making, in case you meant something else/

The SCOTUS is no longer a no-fail shibboleth. We had New Democrat President Clinton appointing a corporatist like Breyer and New Democrat President Obama appointing Kagan and also considering nominating a Republican or, the next thing to a Republican, IMO, Cass Sunstein. (Breyer and Kagan both joined the Republicans in invalidating a portion of ACA, rather arbitrarily, IMO.)

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=863294.

On the other hand, two of the most liberal Justices in the entire history of the SCOTUS were Warren and Stevens, nominated by Eisenhower and Ford, respectively. Warren had made his national political bones as AG of California, implementing internment of the Japanese and, to a much lesser extent, Germans and Italians. Kennedy, nominated by Reagan, has a number of times crossed over to vote with the Justices nominated by Democrats, including in the gay rights/equal marriage cases. On those, he has seemed a lot less shaky than Kagan, who before Obama nominated her, had stated flat out that there was no constitutional right to equal marriage.

So, it appears New Democrats are not necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Justices likely to make liberal decisions and not even necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Democratic Justices. On the other hand, it seems sitting on the SCOTUS bench can change Justices as it did Warren and Stevens. If New Democrats and DINOs want to keep using the SCOTUS to scare liberals into voting LOTE, they need to stop considering Republicans and corporatist DINOs as SCOTUS nominees.

However, no one is advocating electing a Republican President because you confused SOTU and SCOTUS or for any other reason. This is a primary. We are choosing between one Democrat or the other. And, when it comes to nominating a Justice likely to decide as I hope, New Democrats have proven unreliable. And that is another reason why Sanders, not Clinton, is my primary candidate. As discussed elsewhere, fewer Republicans, Indies and Democrats who flat out hate Sanders is another, as it portends a better shot in the general. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=878212

ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=853599 (SCOTUS POTUS).

President Obama replaced the most Liberal member (and my favorite) Justice JP Stevens with a "moderate",
shifting the whole SC dynamic to The RIGHT.

better start nominating reliably leftist Justices.

It's pretty sad, too, when the biggest reason you can give for voting for a Democrat for President is that he or she MIGHT nominate a leftist Justice--assuming the opportunity even arises.

You should vote for Bernie. Don't let the Republicans have the White House.

You appear to be heading in the wrong direction in the primary.

head match up polls with each Republican candidate than Hillary has. So, there is no basis for choosing Hillary over Sanders in the primary on the assumption she will do better than he in the general. If anything, more Republicans, Indies and Democrats dislike her than dislike him, so I have always had a concern about her chances in the general. However, if any Democrat loses to the likes of Trump or Carson, it's time to re-assess.

She had no path to winning with those states off the table.

Because if you don't want that, then I suggest you don't try to foist Hillary on us.

Really. I have lived life and I've been through the worst and the best. Things happen exactly as they are supposed to happen. I fear nothing, I fear no one.

You don't need no 'effin gun dare I guess?

Nothing to fear but fear itself as FDR once said!

I'm with you!

a gun and fired one was 4 or 5 years ago. I have guns, I don't need them. If the government decided they want my guns they can have em. The guns are not as valuable to me as our Dewalt tools are. They can pry my Dewalts from my cold dead hands.

I am still afraid of falling off the roof,
and pygmy rattlesnakes that can hide in our Strawberries.

and if necessary, I will write in the candidate I SUPPORT!

in the G.E. You can do that everywhere else, but not on DU.

Perhaps you need to read what Skinner has said about that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=8974

and I wrote in Jesse Jackson if I remember right.

Shame on me I guess.

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I wasn't aware of this. You wanna ban me already do you?

I'm being courteous and civil here. You should try to do the same.

Seriously.

...excited about banning anyone they didn't like, and threatening to do so despite the fact that they don't run this site.
It turned out NOT to be the purge so hoped for by the Hillary crowd. In fact, it was the Hillary PUMAS who left in a huff, and started their OWN little site.... a lot like now.

I laughed.

people who run this site. Apparently, some need to be reminded of it even though they've been a DUer since December 2004.

Keep telling yourself that.
It FAILED anyway.

I've been a member since 2001, not a 2004 newbie.
Believe me when I tell you I KNOW the TOS,
and still have some laughter at the ***** from 2008 who thought they could get people banned and turn DU into one BIG BOG.

Never Happened. Oh well, not everyone can get what they want for Christmas.
Good Luck with controlling DU, and getting people banned in 2016.

I wasn't referring to you with the membership date mentioned in my post. See, this is what happens when you inject yourself into a conversation without knowing the facts.

Keep telling yourself that.

It FAILED anyway.

Believe me when I tell you I KNOW the TOS,

another nonsensical gumbo of half claims and misguided notions.

In a conversation, ideas are exchanged, but no credible ideas have come from your side. Therefore, no conversation.

Stay in school.
Don't do drugs.

2. The poster simply said what he/she was going to do. He/She was not advocating that anyone else do it.

I've included in the post you're responding to, and what you apparently didn't read.

As a refresher:

I could use the same logic because Hillary has better chance at losing than Bernie. You should do what's right and ask that she drop out of the race by your own logic. So lame. I hate the GOP too and Hillary is way closer to them than Bernie.

the misguided DNC is offering up flawed a candidate?

If you don't want a Republican President, then maybe your outrage should be directed at the DNC for foisting a neocon, warmongering, Wall-Street-connected, fracking proponent who has only 7 percent support of Independents, no Republican support and the disdain of 50 percent of the party--due to the aforementioned malarkey!

We're the victims, not the problem!

a long time ago but it was this statement by Hillary that made me absolutely hate her.

She and her State Department worked to have Gaddafi killed and she's on TV laughing about it. This is behavior we expect to see from some Mafia boss, not someone who's trying to be president of this country.

For all of her foreign policy experience, what good is it when she's in favor of constant war, regime change, and destroying the lives of millions of people to achieve the objectives of some neocon think tank scum? Disgusting.

You arent insulting someone when you use their own words to describe them

will have no hesitation smearing and attacking Bernie. She did the same too Obama (but it backfired on her).

It would be next to impossible with repukes blocking everything. The country would not gain any ground toward becoming a better nation. It would be a simple straight line-nothing upwards in terms of progress.

The Clinton/Obama wing of the DP has pushed the Party so close to the conservative side that many of the policies Hillary would want to implement would be agreeable to many Republicans (who would put up token opposition of course for political purposes). The ACA was a Republican invention (most specifically, the Heritage Foundation) and it is something they technically should have been hailing as good, but have been trying to overturn simply because a Democrat passed it (it was OK when it was "Romneycare&quot .

Bernie is actually bringing more left-leaning issues back to the table, more in line with a true opposition party to the hard-right policies of today's Republican Party and more in line with pre-Clinton era Democratic policies.

for a 2008 run. And now she has the blood of 1,000,000 innocent people dripping from her hands.

Both clips make me sick and extremely uncomfortable.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I don't relate to her at all. I think she has a very serious problem in her complete lack of respect and consideration that she gives towards people in other parts of the world.

She frightens me just as much as a neo-con on foreign policy and before jumping all over me for feeling this way people should reflect on the fact that Robert Kagan is very comfortable with her foreign policy initiatives and worldview. That should motivate just about all of us to seriously reconsider her candidacy I would hope. This is a big deal.

If this is how she acts on camera, can you imagine what she is like when the cameras are off.

It's horrifying to even think about.

About Robert Kagan. He was a foreign-policy advisor to Hillary, while she was Secretary of State under Obama. She's a Democrat with 75 percent of her own party identifying as progressive/liberal. Yet, one of her closest foreign-policy advisors is the grandfather of the neocon movement.

She must have a real disdain for the base of her own party, because the base considers the neocons the arch enemy of everything the Democratic party stands for. And here she is--filling her inner circle with these war wolves.

It's a betrayal to all progressives/liberals and to those who are against perpetual war in the Middle East.

Hell, there's plenty of Republicans who don't agree with the neocons.

Just how far off the deep end have some in our party gone?

she is worse than we can possibly imagine.

"And then, frankly, there are those that are saying the best thing that could happen to us is to be attacked by somebody. You know, just bring it on." - Hillary Clinton

attacked by somebody? "You know, just bring it on". The trouble is, they're usually those countries with no defense to an attack by 'somebody' with the world's most well-funded and advanced military.

So hypocritical when she's for 'taking it to' so many millions who've suffered from atrocity after atrocity because of it, and are doing so to this day. Small children decapitated by bombs from above, losing limbs by cluster bombs she voted against the banning of, lying 'no-fly zones' she, in particular, pushed for - but it's all right when it's about regime-change, baby! 'Bragging ....... bring it on' is a sick joke really, when you think of what's been done to so many around the planet.

Take the profits out of war and they will end tomorrow.

working class.

Our wars cost in innocent lives and taxes.

12 Years Stats...

Terrorism : 350
Gun Deaths: 400,000
Collateral Damage: We don't seem to count or care about the innocent lives lost in our wars and definitely don't report on it.

"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/

we were not attacked by a nation state, so what do you think warring against another nation will accomplish?

Islam, seemingly defending groups that despise us more than anyone else.

It's because there are always voices on the right who seize any such discussion and twist it into a justification for war.

I firmly believe that. Terror begets terror.

Not only is she callous about the deaths of innocents abroad she sees the potential for dead American innocents as a positive step in a strategy to "allow" us to strike back.

disgusting

Who is voting for that person?

Reminds me of some cheerleaders I watched during a high school game. They rah rahed without understanding what was actually happening on the field. De-Fense De-Fense, while the offense was trying to make plays....


That's what it is like when I read some of team h responses.

But there's also the ones who know damn well how awful their candidate is yet really don't care. They have a particular interest in that candidate and that's all that's necessary for their support, excuses, and ignorance - willful or otherwise.

Look. I'm no different. I know damn well Sanders is a lousy singer.

There is NOTHING progressive,
about a callous indifference to life.
Those indifferent to the lives of others
and matters of war can NEVER be trusted.

Those who revel and find glee in
death and war are sociopaths.
Those are the MOST dangerous people in society.

They hide under a veneer of decency,
tell lies as easy as breathing, while their
inflated egos and unquenchable sense
of entitlement drives them to seek more
and more self-aggrandizement.

NO ONE who exhibits such pathology
should be considered fit for public office
and least of all Commander in Chief.

We don't want another neo-con president.