General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHad An Interesting Conversation Late Last Night ... About The Democratic Party...
This guy is a neighbor...
And I'm watching SNL, having a smoke out the front door... and he comes up and says...
"I worked for 20+ years for the The Democratic Party of California...
John Burton, state assembly persons, state senate persons...
U.S. Congresspeople, both House and Senate, Lobbyists..."
Thing is after working within the Beast... and with tears streaming down his face...
He had given up... and now votes Green Party.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all over the internet for links to illustrate a comment. Which is why I don't bother, too much work, unless I find a topic to be very interesting and worth the effort.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Hard work indeed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)interesting.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Fascinating.
Although perhaps for reasons you might not understand.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Democratic and curious minds may want to know, depending on your information.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)15 Things You didn't Know About STAR TREK
I knew some of these but #2 was fascinating!
2. People thought Spock was Satanic.
Leonard Nemoy's character was originally rejected by U.S. Censors because they deemed his pointy ears "demonic." Obviously, the ears became a trademark to him and his species although, no one really knows what purpose they serve...
http://www.supercompressor.com/vice/15-things-you-didn-t-know-about-star-trek-william-shatner
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You should have just said so.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2014, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)
understand something?
What are you trying to say about sabrina 1's ablility to understand things?
merrily
(45,251 posts)how broad I make my statements. However, someone who disagrees with her posts cannot honestly say she lacks mental acuity, only that his or her political views are different from hers.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I see how little the facts mean to some people here, I have very little time to waste doing the work I used to do when posting online, unless I am among people who actually CARE about the facts. Now, I feel the role of democrats who want to see this party respond to the people rather than the Corporate powers that appear to control everything, is to simply counter those who appear to be here to attack GOOD Democrats who DO take the time to write GOOD OPs which you may have noticed, they never do.
So you will probably see less attention to detail in my posts, I spend most of my time here now defending good Dems against the constant attacks. It's a role I chose and it doesn't require detail, all it requires is to not allow good Dems who are spending their time CARING about what we always cared about, become the lone targets of those whose goal appears to be to simply disrupt them.
Maybe some day I will go back to focusing on the details of issues, but Dems need warriors now, as well as writers. It was how I started out years ago when Bush was annointed and I spent my time doing the same thing in defense of Dems on right wing dominated forums.
I leave the serious work to the many good Democrats we have here, hardly write OPs anymore and make sure to defend those under attack.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)for some.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)us stupid people who are below your mental agility?
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Here I'll spell it out...
F
A
S
C
I
N
A
T
I
N
G
You're more than welcome!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)here's a definition and phonetically...
fas·ci·nat·ing
ˈfasəˌnātiNG/
adjective
adjective: fascinating
extremely interesting.
Anything else?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)a conversation between neighbors.
So, why the dismissive video if you think the post is so fascinating? Do you have any actual coherent thoughts about why the post is fascinating? Because the video you posted sounds rather dismissive and there must be a reason you posted it.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Especially the tears.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)"fascinating" or why you chose that particular video to dismiss the OP?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)memes, images, a couple of words, nothing more. Not much in the way of discussion but more of a snarky "cool story, bro" kind of thing. An unfortunate thing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)I try not to play the "back in my day" game, but it does feel like since the advent of social media, old style discussion forums are less about discussion and more about the one-liners. Which is even easier with DU since you can just do a subject line and walk away with a nt. at the end of it and not say more.
merrily
(45,251 posts)OP being fascinating, especially the part of the OP that mentions tears, as doubting the OP's veracity.
If I am not mistaken, calling a poster a liar more frankly would risk a hide and some DUers work hard at avoiding that risk. I rather suspect that some of them that excel at avoiding that risk are also among DU's more frequent alerters, but, obviously, that is pure speculation on my part.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some get easily manipulated because the Power That Be tell them to vote for their favorite (H. Clinton-Sachs) because she can be elected. Doesn't matter that her principles closely parallel those of the corporations.
Vote your principles and let the chips fall where they may.
TexasProgresive
(12,148 posts)bush and thousands of dead people.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I sleep better at night knowing that all those people killed would have agreed with me.
If they were alive.
Not my problem.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If you continue to vote against your principles, then you really don't have principles.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)vlyons
(10,252 posts)That's what the various Talibans of the world do. The Islamic Taliban, Christian Taliban, Trickle-down-economics taliban, Racist taliban etc etc etc.
Our government at every level has been bought and paid for over hundreds of years. Periodically, reform movements come along to sweep corruption of money and influence from the system, but it takes a long time. And there always seems to be a true-believer ideology that the corruptors latch onto. In the end, the reformers mostly become the next wave of corruptors. I must say however, that the current crowd of Republican T-Party corruptors is astonishingly pernicious. It will take a big big effort of people over a long time to mount a successful diminishment of their power and influence. Think European style socialism. That's the kind of effort it would take. The very thought of socialism makes them foam at the mouth.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I would not be the least bit surprised if most posters do nothing more than vote and post. I have seen more than one admit that is all they do, equating posting with activism.
In fact, I would not be very surprised if a lot of them don't even vote always, especially when lines are long and weather is bad.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Just like any political message board it will be loaded with keyboard warriors and self appointed experts on everything. I used to post here many years ago during the golden age of this site. There WERE activists then. Now it's just a bunch of very angry people who sit around all day whining about politicians they don't like and administering ideological litmus tests
There is almost no REAL activism going on here. It's a shadow of what it once was, 10 years ago. It's more or less for entertainment value now. To see what the next outrage will be.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)I did not vote for Bush, I actually liked Gore and voted for him. But the only people at fault for Bush getting elected are the people who voted for Bush. People like to target the 1% that voted for Nader instead of the 40+% that voted for Bush, clearly responsibility for his election lands on those who voted for him.
merrily
(45,251 posts)not the best team. Not to mention, they were all Roved. Putting gay marriage on as many state ballots as he could in both 2000 and 2004 was not the dumbest strategy. And then, there was the mother loving Supreme Court's unprecedented "this case is not precedent" decision.
But sure, let's blame Nader. Meanwhile, Bush ran against, to his right, candidates from the Libertarian Party. the Constitution Party and the Reform Party (Pat Buchanan). (I have no idea how to classify the Natural Law Party.)
I am coming to the conclusion that the conclusions people draw from prior elections are the ones the PTB want them to draw. Like the 1980 election "proved" that no one should ever challenge a sitting President in a primary. Sure lines at gas stations and Koppel's nightly intonations about the hostages etc. had nothing at all to do with it. It's "indisputable fact" that Carter lost because Kennedy challenged him. So let's nobody ever do THAT again.
840high
(17,196 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)or fix crumbling bridges or create jobs or regulate industries or protect the rights of minorities or permit action on the world stage.
But have fun with your personal principles. I sometimes wonder why people think voting is something about themselves and hewing true to their personal principles rather than about the country and all its citizens. You can disappoint a whole shitload of people when you decide it's about your principles. People with real things to lose, like equal pay or the right to marry, or getting rescued from a mountaintop, or getting health insurance for the first time or eating safe meat.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democratic principles support candidates that put food on the table and fix infrastructure and not give tax breaks to the wealthy. The discussion was whether you vote for people with principles (Democratic Principles) or vote for people that can get elected (and support Wall f'n Street). It doesn't do any good to elect people that don't have Democratic principles.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)On two counts:
(1) First, your "principles" are based on false assumptions. It's simply utterly false that the majority of Democrats vote to give tax breaks to the wealthy. Why you would say such an unsupported thing is a mystery, but let's take a look at a few examples. First, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were the ones that most helped the wealthy because they reduced taxes on capital gains and dividends. How did that vote go? In the House, 99.6% of Republicans (or 224 of them) voted for these tax breaks for the wealthy (and 0.4% or 1 of them voted against). By contrast, 96.6% of Democrats (or 198 of them) voted against the tax breaks, with 3.4% (or 7 representatives) voted for. It passed essentially because Republicans had a majority in the House: those 7 Democratic votes weren't needed for passage. In the Senate the vote was 50 - 50: Dick Cheney cast the vote that put the Republican bill over the top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
How about jobs? Remember the American Jobs Act? It would have spent hundreds of billions on job creation and infrastructure. Harry Reid proposed to pay for it with a 5% surtax on incomes over $1 million. What happened? The Republicans filibustered it. So it was broken into individual pieces: the Republicans filibustered these, too. Are your principles on these issues based on blaming Democrats for policies that Republicans obstruct and block? Do you thus cling to your principles by voting for unelectable third parties who will ensure the election of even more Republicans?
(2) You do not put food on the table or fix infrastructure when you vote for people you know won't be elected. Because the people who don't get elected don't do anything. You are simply removing yourself from the system and pretending that you have no responsibility for what then happens in government. You are abrogating your duty. You've done nothing except opt out. Opting out helps no one.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I am only about a third of the way down the thread. I'll keep reading.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Thanks for the heads-up.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)You equate things like fixing a nation's aging infrastructure (which involves not just the public safety but massive job creation and the economic health of the nation now and into the future), regulating air and water and pollution, ensuring equal rights for all citizens to "trains running on time?"
Delusional is what I call it. You're not interested in government or politics at all, are you? Thanks for confirming that I shouldn't bother responding to these idiotic provocations.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I have to wonder WTF is actually going on. It's sad to see this here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)None of this seems well thought out, Mt T.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I struggle to put it into words. Yes, they make politics about themselves when it's about the people, and we can't force other, that is the Republicans, to change into socialists overnight. We have to live in the world we have. We can work to change it. But the Greens are not going to have majorities any time soon. So he's going to be crying a lot more.
merrily
(45,251 posts)They just vote to the left or right of the two existing parties because they are making a personal statement, having nothing at stake and no concern for their fellow Americans/fellow humans?
Wow.
BTW, a lot of people with the right to marry at stake voted for the Democrat who signed DOMA and got Congress to enact DADT, then voted Green the next time.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)...principles be damned.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)disappointment.
deafskeptic
(463 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)don't worry about their base, as someone once said 'you have nowhere to go', but they go after Independents because they know they have to WORK to get their votes. Maybe it's time to make them work for our votes ....
deafskeptic
(463 posts)He wasn't the progressive that I wanted.
merrily
(45,251 posts)None of the group that founded the DLC were liberals, but most throw around the word "progressive."
Then, there's Will Marshall, who both branched off from the DLC to start the Progressive Policy Institute, another centrist think tank, and signed the 2003 PNAC letter, urging Bush to invade Iraq.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I registered independent when I turned old enough to vote. However, I voted Democratic every time.
On this board, especially during election season, you can be registered any which way. But you cannot advocate voting Republican or third party. Nor can you advocate staying home. Well, you can, but you risk getting banned.
I am saying this only so that you don't get blindsided. If you already knew board policy, I apologize for mentioning it.
deafskeptic
(463 posts)I simply said that I regretted supporting Clinton on NAFTA. If I'm not mistaken, many Republicans also supported NAFTA. That's a policy - not a party.
I don't belong to any specific party though I lean heavily toward liberals. I haven't endorsed anyone though I have a pretty good idea who I want in the 2016 election. That is why I call myself an independent. Nor have I endorsed anyone or any party in this year's elections.
I'm disillusioned with any political parties in this country so how could I endorse any party or candidates? I haven't said anything about staying home either. That's entirely up to voters.
Hence my confusion.
merrily
(45,251 posts)knew what they say. And also knew that there is a two-tier standard, one for election season and a more lax one for other times.
I am more left than many on this board. That is exactly why I don't like to see leftist posters get blindsided by the rules here.
deafskeptic
(463 posts)I make it a point to remain neutral despite my actual position on some platforms/polices. That hasn't been easy at times given my outrage at some actions/positions.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I wish we could have franker discussions about third parties here. I think it would be helpful. However, only extreme of that issue can "speak" totally freely here without risk of hides and bans.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Didn't make me vote for Reagan, though it was clear he'd win, especially the second time. Ditto Bush the second time. I never thought there was no point voting for a Democrat who was sure to lose, did you?
Voting Green does not say nothing at all nor can it be spun into a positive statement about the right. Staying home, on the other hand, can easily be spun as pro-right and usually is. As someone who does not mind people voting to express a view that the Democratic Party has gone too far right I have less problem with Green voters than with those who stay home.
Besides, the Presidential is far from the only election. Greens do win some smaller contests, like school board and city council. Even Socialists win some of those. That is how the Libertarians started winning. Granted, a lot of big money often gets behind Libertarians, while neither Greens nor Socialists can say the same. But newer parties have to start somewhere and, in addition to winning smaller elections, Greens/Nader have won a lot of battles over ballot access. And have international affiliation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It looks like we're about to go back to full war in Iraq...and, if we do, the party is dead.
A lot of work and a lot of healing will have to be done between now and November 2016.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course, a lot of people in that part of the world think we're among the bad guys, but what do they know?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)to be on your side. It's better to rationalize, that way the security blanket isn't ripped away.
merrily
(45,251 posts)on this board and elsewhere, in a variety of ways.
1. Decide that you are really committed to the center right, after all.
2. Decide that the poor widdle Democrats are just too afwaid of Republicans. (Corollary: Decide that, although it is true that Democrats are smarter than Republicans by far, it is also true that Republicans are always outsmarting them--and then also decide that both parts of that equation are true.
3. Blame everything on talk radio and/or Joe Lieberman. (It doesn't matter if he's still in Congress or not, just as it never mattered whether he had actually voted with the Democratic caucus or not.)
4. Decide that Democrats aren't losing the battle, they are really winning the war and by thirteen dimensional chess that the rest of us mere mortals cannot see. You know, like mere mortals could not see the Emperor's new clothes.
5. Develop double standards and "elastic" principles.
6. Ignore any facts that you don't like and attack those who dare raise them.
And so on.
Not easy, I grant you. But, apparently well worth the effort. Else, why would so many be expending the effort daily.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We drown in propaganda.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)of a difference than is work for our party. I feel sorry for him as I think we all feel that way sometimes, especially lately.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The largest party in America!
Hard to join, but man, the bennies.
ETA: Well, hard to join for smart people, anyway. The idiots are already close.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)
current California Democratic chair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Burton
WillyT
(72,631 posts)alp227
(31,962 posts)and derp i didn't realize John Burton was the CURRENT Chair of the CA DP.
panader0
(25,816 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)the Greens than any other party. I have voted for Green candidates, but never for President. I voted for a Green in a Congressional race, though. I'm going to keep my mind more open from now on. I'm just so tired of getting let down.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)Too many Dems tend to nurse every little disappointment or even if it's a biggie they vote Green or Indy. High expectations and then think they're gonna teach those Dems a lesson for letting them down. It's how Nader got all his votes and those before and after him. It's how Dems LOSE!
It's about the real BIG picture. The FRAME. So while Repug voters may not be as smart it's their party's main advantage. They ALWAYS vote for their BIG picture and don't sweat the small stuff.
You either believe in Dem principles or you don't. If you do then you vote DEM!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself?
Are there no Democrats who could have been Sec. of Def, head of the NSA, the CIA eg? No, the old 'vote for Dems otherwise Repubs will win', isn't a good campaign slogan.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)than say, Bernie Sanders is, we are told: 'that's how Republicans get in'.. I'll try to go as slowly as possible now.
'Get Republicans IN'. We voted for a Democrat in 2008, it was brilliant, we THREW OUT THE REPUBLICANS from the WH, the Senate and the House. Are you with me so far?
Then it was time to build a Democratic Cabinet, something we could not wait for, no more Bush Appointees ... we THOUGHT. Still with me?
But we were in for a shock. Suddenly it seemed the Republicans we voted OUT, were being brought back IN. They were back in POWER in key positions in the Democratic Cabinet we THOUGHT we threw them out of.
In Defense and National Security!! Republicans, Bush appointees!! Back in power! We THREW THEM OUT. Clapper, Gates among them. We didn't vote for THEM. They were Bush guys, the very people we VOTED OUT.
And there were/are MORE to come, which I won't go into here, but hopefully so far you are still with me.
Now back to the reason we are being given to vote for Democrats, which hopefully you still remember, is that if we were to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders that would mean, wait for it, wait for it: THAT IS HOW REPUBLICANS GET BACK IN!! Really?
So I point out that Republicans GET BACK IN when we vote for Democrats!! Is this a lie??
Your completely out in left field response to all of this is 'So, (the old 'so' response which generally precipitates the putting of words into someone else's mouth) So, you say, 'you mean Obama is the same as John McCain'?
Now do you see how ridiculous and totally out there your response was?
I hope so.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Only because of some cabinet appointees? Is that what you were trying to say, because you didn't actually answer me.
You said "When you elect a Democrat to the WH and that Democrat puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself? " So my question is not "out there" but based on your own statements.
You can't imagine things being significantly different under Mc Cain? Wowsa. You'd have to be a real hawk to think Mc Cain would be just as good as Obama, a HUGE hawk.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)so I was just curious if you actually believed that you can;t see "a difference". You seem unwilling to actually clarify if that is your belief. Spare us the parroting about cabinet appointees and reply to the question- which is based on your statement (which is to quote you "out there" below.
"When you elect a Democrat to the WH and that Democrat puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself? "- Sabrina 1
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)us? I could not disagree more.
I assume that your have no problem with Republicans, Alexander, the Repub who lied to Congress eg, Gates who, as soon as he left, couldn't wait to slam this President. Not to mention Clapper who put the president in an untenable position by LYING to Congress. Yet he, a Bush loyalist, is still there.
Would YOU vote for Clapper, Gates, Alexander?
I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but you DID imply that these Republican in power isn't a big deal.
I disagree vehemently , I would never consider a Republican in power to be 'no big deal'. I consider Republicans in power to be a threat to our National Security.
Frankly I am shocked that you approve of Republicans in powerful positions in our government.
Are there no Democrats in this country capable of doing those jobs? Is that what you think?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)difference" stuff is hilarious, and as you have now made clear... indefensible.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I played along with your little game for a while, knowing exactly what you were trying to do.
You will not lie about what I say because I will make sure to correct any lies told about what I say. IF I wanted to say what you made up, I would come right out and SAY IT. I NEVER need anyone to speak for ME.
Either post that link or retract it. If you can't do either I will make sure people reading understand what you tried to do here.
I refer those who want to know my opinion on this, the FACTS, I don't generally IMPLY things, I say very clearly what I think, read POST #108.
And no, it was not all you said, you dismissed Republicans in power, like Alexander, Gates, among so many others, the Monsanto CEOs et al, as nothing to be concerned about. Because that IS WHAT I STATED I AM CONCERNED ABOUT, REPUBLICANS BY PROXY. I don't WANT Them in power, you otoh, seem to have no problem with them in powerful positions.
By that logic, why not just vote for them OURSELVES instead of voting for them by proxy??
I look forward to your link showing me comparing Obama to McCain.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"When you elect a Democrat to the WH and that Democrat puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself? "
You equated voting for Obama with voting for the republican candidate- who did you mean if not Mc Cain when you implied there was no "difference" you were aware of in voting for? Not the cabinet members, but the Republican nominee. That's the only possibility here. Not buying this convoluted explanation, there are loads of dog whistles here implying people should vote for anyone but a Dem.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and decline to say what they themselves feel.... or pretend a win for Mc Cain or Bush wouldn't have been worse than Obama.
You have to wonder why they are here, right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lies to go uncorrected. Now I am satisfied, it is clear your friend cannot back up what she said. If someone doesn't like banging their head against walls, DON'T LIE about other people's comments.
And since you decided to offer YOUR opinion on the false statements she made, now proven, it would be fascinating to hear what YOUR comment means?
zappaman
(20,605 posts)So...no.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)directly to them. A show of support for someone whose politics you like, even though it is clear they are making up stuff about someone you disagree with politically. It doesn't matter whether they are telling the truth or not, it's all about 'winning' something, on the internet.
Except you can't win anything by cheering for false statements.
If you WANT to win something, then do it with facts, otherwise you end up losing.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)directly to them. A show of support for someone whose politics you like, even though it is clear they are making up stuff about someone you disagree with politically. It doesn't matter whether they are telling the truth or not, it's all about 'winning' something, on the internet.
Except you can't win anything by cheering for false statements.
If you WANT to win something, then do it with facts, otherwise you end up losing.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)yet, she works so hard to paint others into corners with innuendos, poor assumptions and clear misrepreentations of the statements..
yeah...this
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hence, the head banging comment. Hope that clears it up for you.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you ARE proven to have made false statements. You had a chance to prove your claims but clearly could not. That is called proving the statement was false.
If you don't want to bang your head against walls, don't make stuff up about people, they are more than likely to ask you for proof. Personally I have zero sympathy for people who bang their heads against a wall because someone isn't going to allow them to lie about what they said.
The solution is simple, don't make false statements about people.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Obviously you're unwilling to explain.
No need for these ridiculous verbal gymnastics. It's waaay past silly.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I corrected you and asked for a link to the fantasy you tried to attribute to me.
Now you are hoping that a subsequent comment from you will be the one people believe is what is being corrected here. THAT comment included an actual quote from me, which HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH your initial false statement, in the form of a question.
Link to the quote you claim you posted from me that states 'Obama and McCain are no different'.
I do not respond to something that is in someone's head and that I cannot see. I have asked you over and over again to post that link, but you have failed to do so.
And here we go again. Right here you just made ANOTHER FALSE statement: 'Obviously you are unwilling to explain'. THAT IS FALSE.
No one can 'explain' what is in YOUR IMAGINATION.
For everyone reading, see post #108 where I make my position clear, IN MY OWN WORDS, not the fabrications of someone else.
What IS a fact however, is that you dismissed the importance of placing REPUBLICANS in positions of power. Since WHEN did Democrats start supporting Republicans in positions of power? THAT you have yet to answer.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"Star Member sabrina 1 (45,686 posts)
18. That's not going to work anymore. When you elect a Democrat to the WH and that Democrat
puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself? "
Indeed, you seem not to understand the difference between a Dem president and the alternative- in this case it appears you meant Mc Cain.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)saying what you are now trying to run away from. I of course never denied THAT quote since it is a FACT. Now show me where I claimed to NOT have stated what you just posted. You can't because I did not.
When you are caught making false statements about someone, the best thing to do is to admit it, people have respect for someone who is willing to do that.
You made a statement YOU made it, and TRIED to attribute it to me. It was false, and you have spent two days trying to lead people to believe, which is even worse, that you did NOT say what you said.
You falsely stated that I said 'Obama is no different to McCain. Either post where I said that or stop trying to wiggle out of it. It is getting embarrassing for you at this point. You even went further and claimed I was refusing to 'explain' how Obama and McCain were the same. So stop trying to get out of what you did. It's no big deal except that you are making it so.
For anyone who is confused, I of course stand by THAT quote above. That was not the issue at all.
See post #108 for my actual opinion on this. This poster has struggled hard to misinterpret my words. A tactic that we should not see on a Democratic Forum and which should be exposed when it happens.
The poster above also stated that putting Republicans in Positions of Power, is not big deal. WE DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY that Republicans in power are no big deal, I think that is a HUGE deal myself.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)stated that putting Republicans in Positions of Power, is not big deal." Link to THAT, please. I said it appeared that is what YOU were saying, and you know it. Very dishonest.
I ask about a direct quote, and your response is to make up crap about what I said. Lovely. We are totally done here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)AFTER we throw them out?? Now, where in that statement is any reference to McCain, either post it or keep on trying to deny you made a totally false statement. That's your choice.
Your response to that was to dismiss the return of Republicans to power after we throw them out with something like this: 'so that's all you're worried about'. What does THAT mean if it doesn't mean you have zero problem with Republicans in powerful positions?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that shit pile- since you were saying *you* couldn't see the difference in electing them because of who Obama appointed to the cabinet.
You're surprised it sounds like you are referencing Mc Cain there- seriously? You do recall he was the Republican opponent- the one people could have voted for if they believed their was "no difference"..
Spit it out- if not Cain- which republicans would govern with little difference from Obama? How about an actual answer this time?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)acknowledgement that you just simply made it up.
I otoh, did NOT make up the fact that you stated that putting Republicans in Powerful positions is not big deal. And that is scary to me.
If anyone reading wants to know WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, btw, please read POST #108
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to explain who you could not see "a difference" in voting for. You chose not to. What are we supposed to take away from your own words then?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You said what you said, not what I said.
It's curious though that the thought of comparing McCain to Obama would even occur to you. Is that what YOU think?
You did dismiss the huge problem of putting Republicans in very powerful positions, so who knows?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sorry you can't tell the difference between being quoted and having your mind read. Wow, you seem confused, or somehow unable to see the quotes in my posts? Perhaps someone at home could assist you finding them? Because Id still love you to clarify what you meant there.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)If I could refer while you wait people
go to post #123
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)when saying electing Obama had the same result? I'm going to guess it was Mc Cain, and since they are loathe to explain the quoted remark, I'll go with that. What republican nominee did YOU think she directly referred to in that quote?
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What you responded to was an original comment which questioned the logic of having a Democrat in the WH only to appoint Republicans to their cabinet. Indeed, why would the Democrat you work so hard to make president even make decisions like that? Your response focused on an irrelevant issue to distract attention. You did this by mentioning, "So Obama = McCain?" followed by some lame back-peddling.
That's a red herring. At the very least, it's a hasty generalization based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Star Member sabrina 1 (45,686 posts)
18. That's not going to work anymore. When you elect a Democrat to the WH and that Democrat
puts more Republicans in his cabinet, what exactly would the difference be if you had actually voted for them yourself?
Are there no Democrats who could have been Sec. of Def, head of the NSA, the CIA eg? No, the old 'vote for Dems otherwise Repubs will win', isn't a good campaign slogan.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)re Mcain, which you are unable to do because of course I never said those words. Now you are attempting to deceive people by claiming THIS is what I was asking for. IT IS NOT.
Either admit you made a false statement about what I said, or for as long as it takes I will continue to correct your false statements.
Wrt to THAT statement, is there something in there you don't agree with? It has zero to do though with the FALSE STATEMENT you made about my words. And while I stated there that I have a problem with Republicans being returned to positions of power AFTER we throw them out, YOU otoh, stated that it was no big deal.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ANd you refuse to clarify the quote- asking you which republicans you feel like you might as well voted for (after all- "what's the difference" you asked) , since Obama did a bad job with the cabinet. Yep, you refuse to clarify because it's an embarrassing statement. Because it says it doesn't matter if we vote for Republicans. The only thing unclear is which Republicans you feel you might as well have voted for.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You made false statements about the conversation, dragging in McCain YOU did that, I did not, to a conversation about BERNIE SANDERSin an attempt to deliberately mischaracterize the comment I made which was about BERNIE SANDERS not McCAIN. Which is why you are unable to provide a link.
Now either go back and read what you did, because by now almost everyone who has spoken to me KNOWS what you did and what you are now trying to continue to do, or give it up, you failed to provide a quote with the words YOU falsely attributed to ME. Words YOU said and I never said.
BERNIE SANDERS is who we were talking about, NOT McCain and you know it.
Your words below in response to my comment regarding BERNIE SANDERS and 'returning Republicans to power':
'some cabinet appointees', a complete dismissal of the number of powerful Republicans like Gates, who WE THREW OUT, back in power. So from that I deduce you have no problem with Republicans in power.
WHICH WAS MY POINT. We got them BACK in power without BERNIE SANDERS as a third party candidate. YOU tried to twist that into 'McCain better than Obama'. What utter nonsense.
I'm beginning to think you actually did not understand the conversation at all, it's either that a very silly attempt to pretend it was about McCain.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Thanks, it's been super amusing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that we may as well vote for IF returning Republicans to power, was BERNIE SANDERS.
Hey, I was hoping you would end up admitting your false statement, for your own sake, instead you just did it again.
Now let's see that 'quote'. A whole lot of people are waiting, most of whom have already read the conversation so they're not waiting with baited breath.
But, you make a false statement, now TWO of them, let's see that link.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Any time, bettyellen
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)McCain wasn't even remotely a part of it. Someone stated that if we voted for Bernie, 'that is how Republicans get into power'.
I pointed out that we also got them in power when we voted for a Democrat and they were returned to positions of power anyhow.
Iow, my point was, if that was the fear, Repubs back in power, then we might as vote for BERNIE SANDERS because we get them in power anyhow.
This poster has attempted to turn that into HER fantasy that I was comparing McCain to Obama.
Bernie Sanders was the issue, not McCain. McCain isn't running for anything, we weren't talking about 2008, we were talking about 2016 and Bernie Sanders.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)them yourself?
Yeah, it's not about Bernie, or 2016...... but it is slamming the current Potus while discouraging people from voting Dem. Because "what's the difference". LOL.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)this.
Narrator: Once upon a time there were people discussing politics on an internet forum. They were talking about a favorite Senator and a Party, not their own, the Greens.
So, because of that, SOME of those people, even though they thought the other party and the Senator eg, were great, said that they would vote not vote for that other party or a Senator, unless he became a member of their party. This conversation was going on all over the forum that day. Because a favorite Senator might run for the WH.
What followed on that sad day, went something like this:
Commenter 1: Voting for a Third Party or third party Candidate like Bernie Sanders even if we all love him, THAT is how we get Republicans in power.
Commenter 2: Why would it make any difference? We get Republicans in power anyhow. Even when we throw them out of power, then the member of our party that we voted for puts them BACK IN POWER so why not vote for someone we know represents us and take a chance, if Republicans back in power is what you are worried about?
Well that made sense to most of the people.
Well, nearly all that is.
Suddenly, out of the blue, another commenter jumped into the thread, made a strange comment to commenter 2 that had nothing at all to do with the conversation already in progress. She insisted that C 2 WASN'T talking about a Favorite Senator, a good Senator running for that office, she INSISTED that C 2 was talking about [i]an evil Senator from the ENEMY PARTY named John McCain!! Wow!
All the people were puzzled. Why did she say that, they wondered? No one could find anything like that in the thread.
But try as she did, over and over again, to get this person to SHOW the people WHERE she, C 2 had even mentioned the Evil Senator from the Enemy Party, she would not.
Well, I should say, she could not. Why? Because of course it never happened!
As time passed the people moved on out of the thread but the strange thing is, Commenter 3 simply would not admit how wrong she was .... to this day she is still trying to tell people about a non-existent comment that never appeared in that long ago thread ... no one is listening!
It is a sad tale to have to tell, but all you children out there should be aware, someone on the internet is going to twist what you say some day, and no matter how wrong people show them to be, they will not give up trying to put words in your mouth.
So, before you go out there on the internet, remember this, so long as YOU know what you said, that is all that matters!
The End
Sigh, sad indeed
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This has been quite a "conversation blossom", eh? The side conversation of Bernie Sanders was lost on some people here. I'm not sure what they are trying to prove in the purposeful banter. Maybe they secretly wish they could banter back and forth an issue and this is their way to provoke.
LuvNewcastle
(16,820 posts)I don't vote Green in order to teach anyone a lesson. I'm not a child, and the Democratic Party is not my mommy. If I vote Green, it's because either I like the candidate better or I feel I have no choice. Besides, I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere with our current system. You can't repeat the same actions over and over and expect different results.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The party has to NOT do the kind of things that cause this kinb of pain to the people whose votes we need. We can't just expect those votes without showing respect to the people who we need to come out and cast them.
Your attitude, expressed by others, is what caused us to lose in 1968.
treestar
(82,383 posts)if they refuse to deal in the political reality of the day.
And how do the Greens expect votes? Do they feel entitled to the votes of people who vote Democratic? Or Independents? Do they sit around in Green meetings decrying those who won't vote for them?
A party is not something that caters to you. A political party simply cannot do that. It's not a product. It's a union of people of as like interests as they can manage to gain enough political power to get some of what they want.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's about expecting the party you support to at least, at LEAST, respect what you stand for and be open to actually consider doing some of the things you stand for while in power.
Or, if nothing else, it's about being able to expect that that party, if nothing else at all, won't do things that sicken you...like getting back into unwinnable and endless wars that we never had any business being in.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No individual can rule and we have to band together with others. By definition other people don't agree 100%.
But on this board I see a lot of sentiment that they expect this or that of the party - they have to be that change if possible, not demand it of others without having to convince them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you're making an unfounded assumption if you conclude that people who express their expectations AREN'T trying to "be the change". And it's not like you have to vote for the party when it's bad to earn the "privilege" of calling on it to be better.
Marr
(20,317 posts)But you're right that you either believe in Dem principles or you don't.
Abandoning those basic principles because the establishment has told you X is the best you're going to get, and hey, at least they aren't batshit crazy like the candidate from that other party they bought, is how the party came to be infested with corporate shills.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)If you want to vote on your issues do that locally in your city and county elections. Then also do that on a state level. The goal is to have someone who actually represents what's important to you and to support them so that they can reach running for Congress on a house or senate level.
When it comes to national elections you vote for your party because the real goal is having a majority in Congress and hopefully also have a Dem POTUS.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)The ones who write the checks decide that we must vote for their idea of a good Democrat, not ours.
My county's party platform is as left as it gets: Supports Universal healthcare, protecting social security, fair elections, praises the actions of Snowden, condemns NSA, TPP, fracking, Citizen's United, GMOs, for profit charter schools or prisons funded by taxpayers, the war on drugs, our immigration policies. Calls for a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, abolishing the death penalty, charter schools, US working toward peaceful resolution of I/P issues, withdrawing from the ME, allowing travel to Cuba.
That's where my friends and neighbors stand. Does HC stand with us?
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)and encourage others to support them and then put them up for higher offices. Think long-term not short-term. The repugs and corporatists have been at this for a long time. We can't change it overnight but that's where to start. Get the right people in office until they are in place in the House and Senate. The more that happens then you'll change the DNC. Enlist the support of people who have money. It takes money to get elected and there really are more people with money who are principled and can be reached.
In the meantime we need to have a goal to change campaign financing. It will take time and messaging but it's doable. When people work together they can work miracles. We need to stop thinking of everything in Ramen noodle terms.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)to do anything but give money, get out the vote, and then vote lockstep. Other than being given lipservice every 4 years, the rank and file are ignored. Run for public office. What a joke. By the time my county's platform is watered down for general Democratic consumption it will pretty much be the opposite of what the grassroots desired.
I am not voting for centrists ever again as they have no idea where the center is. And in a tug-o-war, they just get pulled all over the place.
HC is not my candidate. Never has been, never will be. She does not represent my interests. She represents Wall Street and her own interests. If she had one ounce of fight in her, I might feel differently, but backing her means fighting her battles like we have had to do for Obama. We fight. He surrenders. You can't win a war with such weak generals.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)And may I say I find your co-opting of the Anonymous mask offensive? Were you an Occupier? Sure don't sound like one to me.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)and personally own 6 of the masks along with the dvd. I thought it was great when it was co-opted for the movement. I was a big Occupy supporter.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)so your mask fetish is at odds with your being offended by my calling the rightwingers of the Democratic party out.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)is a "fetish." I had them all wear them that Halloween lol. I never said the Dem Party was perfect. We have a big tent. In conservative areas a Dem has to represent their constituents or not get elected. But they at least give us a majority in the Senate. I've never been one to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. My parents, friends, kids, grandkids aren't or weren't perfect either, most often doing things I didn't like. That wouldn't be cause to leave my family. If you want change, then change it within.
I'm extremely liberal about most everything. I don't expect the rest of the Dems to support everything I do. Half a loaf is better than none.
I also respect the fact that governing is complex and there are many issues we don't understand. Our system requires compromise which means that you have to give up something and have to accept some things you don't want to get the bigger things you do.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)The mask has symbolic significance that goes well beyond the movie. It is typically an indicator of one's politics. Even in the movie, "V" did not symbolize the conservatives in the big tent!
The irony of this discussion! I don't for one second understand the nuances of giving up my highest principles in order to get some fuzzy "bigger things" I want. Just like I don't understand wearing a "V" for Vendetta mask while espousing middle-of-the-road politics. You can whine from the right all you want. I vote from the left.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, please see 178. Some posters here who absolutely love to alert on leftist posters until they leave in disgust or get banned.
I don't like leftist posters leaving or getting banned. However, as John Wayne's character in some movie or other observed, "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do." Women, too. And that's fine with me. I just don't want anyone to be blindsided.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Just disagreeing with others is now a TOS violation on DU? I don't see how the divide and conquer strategy is supposed to work come election day if you've kettled all your friends and left your enemies to run rampant! It doesn't make any sense to me.
So what are you saying to me Merrily? That I am about to be driven off or banned from DU?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Apparently, no attempt at a good deed goes unsuspected.
I was not threatening you, nor did I alert. Nor would I alert. I alert only for bigotry. At that, I think I've alerted on maybe three posts since I started posting here.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)you did anything. Just that the message was cryptic. I guess saying you won't vote for HC is not allowed here at this point and makes you a target. Is this what you are telling me? So be it. If HC bags the nomination, I will limit my posts to the hobby threads. And I will neither take credit for her loss nor blame for her victory.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It may or may not make you a target down the road, but you will not get a hide. After all, she has not even announced yet.
However, if she becomes the nominee, posting that you will not vote for her becomes risky.
You never have to confine your posts to the hobby threads, though.
If she loses the election by one vote in your state, though, I most definitely will give you all the blame or credit, as the case may be.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Their strategy seems to rely on backfilling with telegenic "moderate" Republicans, the type who believes torture is a selfless act of patriotism and the rich deserve protection from common law but gay marriage as a civil union might be ok. It's a media friendly narrative that helps the rich feel safe and comfortable with Democrats.
When you think about it, it isn't logical to blindly throw our support behind Democrats who work day and night to send our jobs to Asia, killing our livelihoods and wreaking havoc in neighborhoods across America, while scolding our kids for not being "smarter" and privatizing the teaching profession into a fast food style commodity business. And then there's Wall Street banks, insurance companies and state surveillance...
But, they say its for our own good, so we should shut up and vote. That and send lots of money via 100 fucking emails a day. In the meantime, many have learned to suffer and wait for change in silence. It's going to be a very long wait.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They have a plan, and it does not include us...but we can still chose between a D and and R...not that it will make a lot of difference.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)turn right around and stab you in the back and give it all away to the GOP for an a-historical, stupid, incredibly misguided notion that the GOP would be grateful or suddenly NOT be the GOP anymore. Sick of all the boot licking, which gets DEMS nowhere except losing elections because of the loss of morale.
I'm one of those famed "Independents" now. So f/cking wine and dine me, you g/damn Democratic Party!!!
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)maybe you need to find a site that supports Indy's.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)the left can support.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)We can reject the useless and counterproductive dogma while trying to build something better.
We aren't DNC here.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
jonjensen
(168 posts)Was that before or after he raped his black slave girl sally hemmings?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)whenever someone quotes him in defense of democracy.
jonjensen
(168 posts)1932 weimar germany I won't vote for hindenberg he isn't liberal enough! But what if hitler wins? Well its the principal not who gets elected. Those who voted for nader in 2000 got bush & cheney and the iraq war. Thats what voting principal gets you. Voting for the lesser of two evils sometimes gets you some someone a lot less evil! Mrs Clinton wins warren probably loses unless g.o.p. runs some nazi and even then....
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Nor do I see wasting my vote on a 3rd Way, DLC, neo-lib hawk.
Those who voted for Bush got Bush elected, including he "moderate" voters that voted for them.
If the candidate wants the votes of the Left, he or she, has to convince the Left to vote for him/her. Hillary doesn't.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)of where the system is rigged so that the moderate left needs to vote for the center right candidate so the far right candidate doesn't win and do all the scary stuff.
Seems the current game plan really DOES count as "tried and true."
I like moral that is also true under your example. The left compromises their principles and helps vote in the center right unappealing candidate just like their party members told them to to avoid "HITLER FERCRHISSAKES..."
and despite compromising their principles they STILL got Hitler.
What a motivating example. LOL.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)KG
(28,749 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Except for certain races where Greens could actually win, I would never want a republican be that much closer to a majority outcome.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)like getting us back into war with Iraq.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)...the green voters will remember the differences.
JI7
(89,187 posts)Earlier today when I realized I was out of bacon.
treestar
(82,383 posts)supposed to add to the drama, but actually reveals it as a work of fiction
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and yet so many are taking this seriously.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)Very interesting, one might say.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The party would improve quickly.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Autumn
(44,770 posts)Thank you.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It's where I am. No more Third Way Shills or Corporate Asskissers for this lefty. Never again will I hold my nose and vote for the less stinking POS.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)and vote Third Way Democrats on the ballot (since Green Party candidates aren't allowed on the ballot).
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seeing the wars for profit continue unabated, as well as the race to dismantle the New Deal, and the destruction of the Bill of Rights continue unopposed, is more than disappointing. They are heart breaking.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And I felt bad for him... He was the fly on the wall, and it finally took his idealistic self, and ruined him.
As you said... that's a good chunk of life to donate to... Insert word here _______________.
And those who snark and mock, are the ones demanding the greatest amount of loyalty.
Well I've got news... my franchise, IS MY VOTE...
Not yours, not ANY PARTY'S !!!
AND... it's PRIVATE...
Deal with THAT.
Thanks for letting me vent Octafish !!!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)third party" rule.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)being not so bad was allowed under the guise of...entertainment? Oh yeah, movie threads are supposed to be verbotten too.
Not sure why RW or racist OPs are allowed, I guess being a winger is considered a current event. Funny how they seem to only enforce the no guns thing, but RW nuttery is still allowed.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)The post is clever in that it doesn't actually advocate voting third party.
But I look forward to the opening of GreenPartyUnderground.com!
Looks like we might lose some of our posters to it, but we'll get by.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and after that, it's all one big disclaimer. The old turd in a punch bowl routine.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)around here, right? I thought we were all supposed to be grownups with liberal values, but now you get attacked for defending those values if you're not as polite as the RW racist you are "educating".
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You might have seen a person who after many years of engagement was indeed disappointed to a point of grief.
You might have seen this, but it might have been easier not to.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I remember the Democratic Party stood for peace and prosperity, for progress and liberal values, for working people and for the poor, for strong Unions, for quality public education, for affordable housing, for jobs and opportunities for young and old, for equal justice for all, for using the powers of government to make the nation better for ALL its people.
The party wasn't just for the rich then. It was much, much more. And that's what that crying guy -- and this Democrat -- misses.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)stranger81
(2,345 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)not just lip service.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)uponit7771
(90,226 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)to giving up.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)We need to fight for what we believe in. Encourage your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers to vote. For the right wingers ... just tell them with a big smile that Jesus supports Democrats. Everything Jesus preached supports Democratic principles ... there are oodles of quotes in any Bible.
Get involved and volunteer. I also found much of this thread demoralizing and it made me fighting MAD! Don't cave in we need you!
840high
(17,196 posts)don't listen to us. Not the party I grew up with.
ancianita
(35,817 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)The guy already had tears streaming down his face!
No reason to add more!
ancianita
(35,817 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)so he's taking his ball and going home. The Republicans can be the ones to fail him and worse.
The Greens will fail him too, of course, since at this time in history, they are powerless. But of course his contribution is going to change that. Like he changed the Democratic party and defeated the Republicans. Oh, wait.
Number23
(24,544 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,295 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)It sounds like your neighbor may have other problems than the Democratic Party. But I do hope voting Green will help to prevent further crying jags. I'm honestly sympathetic to his fragile state.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)But he was the ultimate fly on the wall inside CA DEM Politics...
Saw them run for office, beg for donations, change their positions based on those checks...
Came in as an idealist, worked for "the cause", made significant money, and then it wasn't worth it anymore.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I hate to sound dispassionate: but I don't really look to drunks for lessons in political activism. If he's even real: your story isn't really ringing true.
But nice try at provocation.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)My parents used to go to dinner at the Governor's Mansion with Governor Goody Knight back in the early 60's.
We used to get Christmas cards from Pat Brown and Family... then Jerry Brown...
My parents held cocktail parties where State Assemblymen/Senators would show up.
Me and Skipper, now Ron, were the terrors of the dunk tank at Ronald Reagan's house while he was governor...
But you don't have to believe any of it... I really couldn't care less.
locks
(2,012 posts)I was in Chicago with the protesters at the Dem convention. We never considered voting for Nixon but we couldn't vote for Humphrey because he would not take a stand against the Vietnam War. I had voted Dem since 1951 and there were many good policies we supported that Johnson and the Dem Congress had accomplished, but the war which was destroying Vietnam and our nation overrode every other issue.
I feel the same today about the wars in which our nation is continually involved. No nation or party should be supported while they are sending our children to kill and our wealth to other countries so that they can kill.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Right on.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Richard Nixon! Thanks for that! It really improved the country! And I can see you've learned a lot in the intervening years.
Let's do that again! Let's vote against Democrats and get ... oh, I don't know: Rand Paul or Paul Ryan or god help us, Rick Perry. Because the Democrats are just soooooo ... whatever.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You know
the Libby Holden character as played by Cathy Bates
. What a depiction of the kind of believers I also know in my boomer generation who had seen the wind blown out of the change wind sails after Kennedy, worked hard for the the commitment and upon seeing the flaw, became exhausted to the point of suicide.
And, what was it she said to the Clinton characters in that movie?
Our job is to make it clean.
Becausee if it's clean, we win.
Because our ideas are better.
You remember that, Jack?
To which the John Travolta's character says...
Libby, you said it yourself.
We were young.
And, to which Emma Thompson's character says...
Now we know.
It's a movie based on a book that is close, but too many of us are seeing the script over and over We still keep getting all messed up over the fact that the world's pretty much what you want it to be, not what you're willing to succumb to with a set of blinders on you.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)And HOLY SHIT...
People are a tad worried.
Yet it happend... Living in Sacto... A Company town... by Dem Goverenment...
We are sometimes privy to the unvarnished reality.
It dissapoints...
MrMickeysMom -
pansypoo53219
(20,910 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Each of us is capable of either, depending on our personal thresholds.
Do we sneer at the person who evacuates an hour behind the others when a hurricane approaches? Aren't some of the stubborn ones who stay behind proven at least partly right when they survive?
Both answers can be progressive. Don't be so discouraged by conservative lockstep that you dismiss fellow progressives for choosing a "wrong" answer. You may eventually be in the same lifeboat.
merrily
(45,251 posts)In many critical respects, we are all in the same lifeboat. Everyone on the planet.
If only we could all get that.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)We can complain about how bad people are running things, but the they are doing so because most people let them. The majority of people dont pay attention to candidates, dont vote in primaries, dont bother voting for state committee representatives (or have no idea who theyre voting for if they do). I dont see how the Greens solve these issues, which seem to be the root of the problem.
Thats not to say that there isnt any use for third party candidates. Bernie Sanders does a good job; if I campaign for anyone this fall, it will be an independent (usually this happens when theres not a traditional DvR race). But even then, I think a candidate would be better off running as an independent than a Green, since Greens have developed a reputation for not really running to win.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Confirmation bias?
Why would he have tears streaming down his eyes?
And you give no explanation. What have we done wrong now?
antiquie
(4,299 posts)I officially left the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton would not allow Jerry Brown to speak as a candidate at the 1992 convention. Jerry spoke as he seconded his own nomination. Jerry was not a threat to Gov. Clinton and the disrespect shown caused me to leave the Party I had belonged to since coming of age.
The DNC and the DLC do not operate in a manner I can support.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)When they run Walmart banker Hillary, the greens can claim my vote too.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)No one cried. Everyone was stable.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)A woman devoted twenty years of her life to her husband. She loved him for, among other things, his ideals and vision for the future, his generosity, his concern for the unfortunate, and his integrity. She put him through school, helped him write his job applications, and later stayed home so that he would come home to a clean house and a good dinner. She encouraged him every step of the way as he rose to the top of his profession. A side effect of this devotion was a very comfortable life.
But the husband changed under the influence of business partners. Soon he started talking in cynical terms about nice guys finishing last. He got into feuds with the neighbors, made excuses for the guys at work who embezzled money from the company, spoke disparagingly of his subordinates, and quickly gave in when there was a dispute with his business partners. He still talked like the man she had married, but she couldn't help noticing that his actions were in contradiction to his words.
Whenever she expressed her unhappiness at the change that had come over him, he sneered, "What are you going to do instead? Marry one of my business partners, you know. the REAL crooks?"
Yet he still came to her when he needed to entertain his business partners at a home dinner party or when he was going to put in an appearance at a company function and needed a "date." When he went on business trips overseas, he asked her to pack his suitcase. He expected her to pick up his dry cleaning. He promised that he would go back to his ideals just as soon as there were more ethical people at the company.
Mostly, however, he simply ignored her and spent most of his time buttering up his crooked business partners, some of whom were certifiably insane and/or frighteningly mean. He supported their promotions and always declared that he wanted to work with them and meet them halfway. Ethical people did join the company, but he simply ridiculed or ignored them.
Finally this woman got tired of being taken for granted in favor of some creeps and announced that she was leaving.
"If you leave me," her husband whined,"everyone will know about it, and I'll lose my standing in the company. I will no longer be able to rein in those creeps. You wouldn't want them taking over, would you?"
"Haven't they already?" she asked.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Change the names a bit and it could be a feature film about democracy.