Just as being a poor republican makes little sense, I cannot vote for Hillary.

[RadiationTherapy]

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't afford to support any more corporate, wealth-addled, and conventional candidates for President. Frankly, I feel as if my economic life as well as the environment are on a very short clock in terms of remediation. My brother and father are both disabled - my brother intensely so - and so I worry about the republican influence on SSI, but I have no reason to trust Hillary in terms of economic focus on the poor or disabled.

I believe that wealth corrupts and corrodes morals while distancing one from the day to day "animal" aspects of human life such as food, shelter, dignity, and so on. I am prejudiced in that way. I am sorry for that, but money-grubbers have ruined community in my experience and I will not vote for one for President.

I may skip that section. I may write someone in. I won't vote for Hillary or other weath-disabled moral personas because I don't think there is enough time for significant reform by moderates who money-grub.

Good luck to all.

[bigwillq]

1. I will likely not vote for her.

Although if it's Clinton/Warren, I may.
I live in CT, the DEM nominee is going to win my state with or without my vote, so I am free to vote for someone else.

[rhett o rick]

248. We don't want a Clinton/Warren ticket. There is no better way to neutralize someone

than to make them VP.

[bigwillq]

250. I would rather see Warren stay in the Senate

but I agree with your statement. But Warren as the VP candidate just may get me to vote for Clinton.

[rhett o rick]

252. Not me. I took an oath in 2002. Just sayin'. nm

[L0oniX]

324. A Goldman Sachs/Warren ticket would invalidate Warren forever.

[rhett o rick]

343. Yep!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

358. No way Elizabeth would compromise her principles and agree to run with Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

360. She would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. nm

[Ed Suspicious]

351. +1 Bucket of piss and all that.

[Art_from_Ark]

359. Better to have it Warren/Clinton

[MohRokTah]

2. .

[MoonRiver]

255. +1

[snooper2]

3. Only you can control your economic future

[RadiationTherapy]

6. Riiiiiiiight.

People never vote based on personal economy. I'll just grab the bootstraps. My brother has one paralyzed arm, so I better grab one of his bootstraps too! hahaha

[ND-Dem]

21. that's why 1/4 of americans were unemployed during the depression; they just didn't

have the initiative to control their economic future.

that's why the overwhelming majority of Africans are poor; just not seizing control of their economic futures.

that's why before social security most old people lived in poverty; they never took control of their economic futures.

[guillaumeb]

135. amen to that. nicely put.

The GOP would always rather blame the victim rather than blame the victimizers.

[calimary]

202. Yeah! Just start a business!!! Yep! That's the ticket!

I get so frustrated by this! Not everybody on the planet is cut out to start a business! Starting a business is no magic cure-all! That doesn't mean you're destined for an express-ride to Easy Street. Starting a business doesn't automatically guarantee you ANYTHING! Certainly doesn't guarantee you success or instant riches and the solution to all your problems! But for the other side of the aisle, hey! That's the Golden Ticket for all those lazy moochers out there. Just start a business, folks, and your all dreams will come true! And everything will be cool! And you'll be floating on a sea of magic money! And JEEEEZUSS will come back and restore all the trees we cut down, and clean up the poisoned ground and the toxic waters. And there'll be a car in every pot and a chicken in every garage, too! Whooopieeeeeeeeee!!!!

[guillaumeb]

232. Yikes!

You must learn to be more verbally assertive. (Ha ha ha)

You are correct. Start a business. Like say:
Donald Trump. Oh yeah, his father started him out with a $100 million stake

Or David and Charles Koch. Oh yeah, they got their money from Daddy Koch, the same guy that started the John Birch Society.

Or Mitt Romney. Oh yeah, money from Daddy again.

Or the Pritzkers, the Romney spawn, the idiot Bush clan, the Kennedys, the Hiltons, the Scaifes, the Mellons. I could go on but space limits me.

Or John McCain and Ronald Reagan. Oh yeah, they divorced to marry rich.

Or maybe we can all write apps and become billionaires that way.

Now you have me doing it!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

262. Also, it sickens me that for the RW, it really doesn't matter what sort of business you run, or who

or what your business harms. Just as long as your making money, anything goes. Money is all that matters.

[L0oniX]

325. I can see the lemon aid stands popping up all over now.

[BlueJazz]

338. "a chicken in every garage"

[marions ghost]

319. ditto

[daleanime]

31. ........

Thanks, I needed that.

[Katashi_itto]

44. Spoken like a true 3rd wayer.

Or local Koch Representative.

[L0oniX]

336. *

...or a pull your self up by your boot straps republican?

[benz380]

56. Which Koch brother are you? I think you may be on the wrong site.

[TBF]

67. ...

[Kelvin Mace]

68. Please tell me your forgot the

emoji.

[Rex]

96. Thanks for posting this.

I was afraid some here might begin to take you seriously for once.

[snooper2]

130. thank you, means a lot coming from you LOL, hey, there are a couple RT threads

GET TO WORK!

[Rex]

257. Yes because I am so supportive of RT!

I LOVE the fact that you are that clueless. It makes it that much sweeter watching you flail around for a comeback!

[Octafish]

365. snooper2 told me writing about JFK assassination is same as beating a dead horse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158313#post18



Which is weird, considering that's the kind of Democrat who worked every day in office to keep the peace and make life better for ALL Americans

[Fantastic Anarchist]

105. Said every conservative ever. n/t

[hifiguy]

209. What color is the sky in the world you live in?

Seriously.

[rhett o rick]

249. Me? Shit!. nm

[laundry_queen]

278. Sometimes...

This is all you need:

[L0oniX]

334. WTF? #@*&#*&$*oligarchy boot straps(#&*(@^^^@!*

[peace13]

352. Please tell that to the folks who have had their savings stolen...

...by the same banks that the American people bailed out. Maybe they can get their homes back by wishing and letter writing. Or, possibly offer an explanation to those who had their retirement funds raided. There is no way to guarantee that middle class savings will not be bilked from the pockets of the working class again and again. And...good luck finding 'middle class' Americans with any savings left to loot.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

362. I think you underestimate the power of politicians and those that influence them. nt

[Octafish]

364. ''Geithner foamed the runway for the banks.''

Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has published a new book, “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” It presents a damning indictment of the Obama administration’s execution of the TARP program generally, and of HAMP in particular.
…
By delaying millions of foreclosures, HAMP gave bailed-out banks more time to absorb housing-related losses while other parts of Obama’s bailout plan repaired holes in the banks’ balance sheets. According to Barofsky, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even had a term for it. HAMP borrowers would “foam the runway” for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. It is nice to know what Geithner really thinks of those Americans who were busy losing their homes in hard times.

CONTINUED w VIDEO and links and more letters...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/video-geithner-sacrificed-homeowners-to-foam-the-runway-for-the-banks/article/2502982

[Romeo.lima333]

4. just like santa monica mom just cant get vaccinations for their kids

a decision that will hurt more than help - what you dont want is president cruz picking 2 or 3 scotus seats. maybe you cant do it for you but there a lot of people who need you to vote

[Sheepshank]

9. Not sure why so many Clinton haters just don't see this potential fall out?

and here you are .... all newbie and already "get it".

Welcome.

[Romeo.lima333]

15. thanks i'm very concerned about scotus - all other concerns are secondary for now , to me anyway

[benz380]

73. Clinton would appoint who her corporate masters tell her to for SCOTUS.

You think she gives a shit about those of us who can't supply her or her family with wealth and power? Why do you think she has so many working on trying to find her a gimmick or slogan to get the people's vote?
After she's elected her fake accents and empty promises will all disappear, and it's back to corporate business as usual. She won't need us anymore until the next election cycle.
No way in hell will I vote for her or any other corporatist.
I'll save you a place under the bus.

[Sheepshank]

100. Please prove it.

I call you and raise you the thought that Thomas or Scalia or thier ilk would never have been appointed by Clinton.

You just go ahead and tout all the pissy little whiny crappola you want. Your transparent effort at suppressing the Dem vote complete and totally sucks.

[Fuddnik]

148. Remember who controlled the Senate when both Scalia and Thomas were confirmed.

Hint: Joe Biden chaired the Judiciary committee.

[nakocal]

270. But the PRESIDENT nominates the person for Supreme Court

Hint: Guess what party the President was from. And THAT is more important.

[bvar22]

240. Roberts and Alito could not have been seated...

..without the help of Senate Democrats.

[Sheepshank]

242. I thought we were talking about POTUS, and POTUS nomintions for SCOTUS? n/t

[olegramps]

205. Total BS. Why are you on this board- to tout the Republican crapola.

[Katashi_itto]

47. Not sure why so many Clinton supporters just don't see this potential fall out?

Find a different candidate.

Or face the consequences.

[99Forever]

64. Exactly n/t

[A Simple Game]

97. I'm not a newbie and I "get it."

What I "get" is that if Hillary is the candidate whoever, and I really believe whoever, runs against her will win.

While we are having a conversation, could you tell me why Hillary supporters put so much time and energy into someone that hasn't even said they are a candidate? The same people belittle Warren supporters by saying she hasn't committed to being a candidate. Does anyone but me see the disconnect here?

[Sheepshank]

103. My "get it" comment was regarding SCOTUS

Whether it's Hillary or Warren or whomever else, the Democratic Candidates will get my vote.............. and I WON'T sit home, I WON'T be disuaded from voting by the whiney crowd and I WON'T give my vote (by default) to the Republican nominee.

Simple.

[A Simple Game]

265. I know your comment was regarding the Supreme Court, indirectly so is mine.

But my point is that if Hillary is the candidate then the Republicans win the Presidency. Then where is the Supreme Court? Hillary can't win, people got it in 2008 and they better get it again in 2016. There is too much at stake to nominate someone because "it's Hillary's turn."

[Sheepshank]

291. Even against Bush?

I think you forgot to remove you jaded glasses.

[A Simple Game]

305. Especially against Jeb.

I repeat, the majority of Democrats realized in 2008 that Hillary couldn't win in the general election, they better realize it again in 2016 or we will have a Republican President. Given the options of a Republican and a wannabe Republican the public will pick the Republican.

Then again Hillary hasn't said she is running so why would anyone waste their time supporting her? At least that is the excuse used against Warren supporters.

And I'm so cool the only glasses I wear are shades.

[Sheepshank]

307. you are wong wrong wronggity wrong

your first line is simply made up shit

[A Simple Game]

311. My mistake, I forgot Hillary won the nomination and general election in 2008.

So what part is made up? The reason she lost the primaries? OK then she lost because Democrats realized she wasn't the best candidate. Happy now? Know what? If she has anyone at all qualified run against her in the primaries, she will lose again.

[Sheepshank]

312. you are still using personal opinion as if it were fact... in my book that's making up shit

I don't know for sure if HRC will make it through the Primaries, but she is very likley to win against any Republican nominee.

[A Simple Game]

313. At a year and a half out, my opinion is worth just as much as yours.

Oh, except for one thing, history is on my side.

How did Hillary do last time again?

[George II]

108. Maybe you should direct your question to the Warren and Sanders supporters? After all...

....maybe Clinton hasn't said she would run (yet) for the Democratic candidacy but Warren has said repeatedly she would NOT run for the Democratic candidacy and Sanders CAN NOT run for the Democratic candidacy.

[A Simple Game]

266. Warren has not REPEATEDLY said she was NOT running,

she has repeatedly said she WASN'T running. There is a difference. Have you ever heard of a draft?

All Sanders has to do is sign his name on a very simple form and he can run for the Democratic Party candidacy. But what difference does that make? If he is the best candidate wouldn't you vote for him anyway? Or do you put party before Country?

[George II]

268. Well....

...with respect to Warren, if her comments are intended to obfuscate (which I doubt), I don't like the little game she's playing. If not, you're playing the semantics game. Regardless of the words she used, she will not run and you know it (or should know it).

With respect to Sanders, I repeat he CAN NOT run for the Democratic nomination. That's what I said. And if he runs third-party (which he said he wouldn't) I won't vote for him. Not because he's not a Democrat but because he has less than a zero chance of winning.

You see, I'm a little practical. Every election I look at the candidates, the ones I would NOT like to see in office and the ones I would like to see in office. If there are two appealing candidates the sensible thing would be to vote for the one that has the best chance of winning than one that may be just a little "better" in my eyes but who has no chance of winning. What's the point of using my vote for someone who won't win other that for "principle". By voting for "principle", I'd could spend the next four or more years ruing my "principled" vote.

Use the bush, Gore, Nader election of 2000 as an example. Everyone knew Nader would not win, but some voted for Nader anyway on "principle", and where did it get us? Had they voted for Gore we might have tens of thousands of Americans still alive, many more Iraqis and others in the middle east alive, perhaps no ISIS to deal with, and trillions of dollars more in our treasury.

Thanks to those who voted for Nader we're still paying off two wars and fighting terrorists that were born out of the bush wars.

Thanks Ralph and your impractical supporters. I'm voting for Clinton next year.

[A Simple Game]

303. You may be the only person left to still blame Nader for Gore's loss.

As for who to vote for, well I will vote for the best candidate possible, that is the only way they can win. If they don't win, then at least I tried my best.

You on the other hand can settle for whatever you get. Me? I'm too old to vote for the "lesser of two evils" candidate anymore.

Well after all, it is Hillary's turn isn't it? But then by your little flag I don't think I should care what you think about our elections.

[George II]

304. Maybe I'm just the only one who hasn't forgotten about that election and what Nader did...

....to the country.

And I really don't give a rat's ass about what you think of my "little flag" or what I think about OUR elections.

[A Simple Game]

306. Although I didn't vote for or support Nader, as an American

I will always support his right to run for any office he is qualified for.

You may believe anything you want where you live especially if it's in America.

Gore won and Nader didn't have anything to do with it.

[RadiationTherapy]

10. Well, there are demonstrable advantages to vaccinations.

Hillary has no demonstrable advantages for me economically that I have seen or heard of. She would have to make some pretty radical comments to persuade me otherwise.

[Romeo.lima333]

20. "Hillary has no demonstrable advantages for me *economically *" but

she can appoint supreme court justices which WILL benefit you . dont look at it so narrowly

[RadiationTherapy]

27. Can you tell me some examples of SC influence on macro/micro economics?

[dbackjon]

86. I am gay. The SCOTUS can have a HUGE impact on my economic well being

You are being selfish. Even though it is likely that the current Supreme Court will overturn all gay marriage bans, that is only the beginning. While I can get married in Arizona, I can still be fired for being gay.

Until we are named a protected class, and that is upheld by the Supreme Court, the LGBT community will continue to suffer discrimination.


A President Clinton will not appoint a Scalia, Thomas or Alito.



And lets not forget Citizen's United. All GOP appointees upheld this travesty.

[RadiationTherapy]

190. Thank you for reminding me of these important matters.

[Sheepshank]

115. even more added to the list already supplied to you...

...Hobby Lobby decision had economic fall out for mant. Reduced access to birth control and having unplanned pregrnancies and raising unplanned for children, tends to have economic consequences.

Abortion rights or the remove thereof...same thing.

Citizens United that plays into who will get elected certainly has economic impact.

ACA....you are attempting to imply that this has no economic influense on and individuals pocketbook?

your credibility is in the toilet.

[RadiationTherapy]

191. Thank you.

Except for the credibility thing or whatever. I appreciate the information.

[guillaumeb]

157. Glad to help out

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) establishing money as speech
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) furthering the money=speech argument
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) corporate religious rights trump womens' personal and economic interests
Harris v. Quinn (2014) a decision attacking a union's right to require a non-union member from paying fair representation dues.
This last is an attack on Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), a decision that affirmed the "fair representation" principle referenced above.

If you feel that SCOTUS decisions do not have an affect on economic issues in the macro or micro you might want to do further reading.

[RadiationTherapy]

192. Thank you.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. Wow

That was a serious question?

[lovemydog]

184. Here are some examples of the Supreme Court's influence on economics.

They might not have an immediate affect on your bank account, but they have long-term consequences.

Abortion restrictions hit poor women hardest. The Supreme Court rules on many of these cases. The Court's upholding of the constitutionality of the primary tenets of the Affordable Care Act affected macro economics in terms of how the legislative branch may and may not shake up the largest most profitable industries in our country, and micro in terms of many millions now receiving free coverage. Going forward, the Court will help enable or obliterate legislative efforts to provide free accessible health care for every American.

An opinion confirming gay marriage might pave the way for millions to get the same taxation and other economic benefits that straight couples enjoy. Brown v. Board and the decisions that followed helped lessen economic discrimination on the basis of race, paving the way for millions to receive schooling and own homes in neighborhoods that they were previously denied.

The upcoming rulings on immigration will have macro and micro influence. Citizens United affects the way money and free speech, via Congressional efforts toward election reform, will be handled for decades. Imagine if we'd had one or two more progressives on the Court during the height of the Vietnam War or Iraq War. Justice Douglas wanted to shut down the Vietnam War on the basis that the President did not receive sufficient Congressional approval. The Court could have declared the extension of the War Powers Congress granted to the President to launch the Iraq War to be overly broad, or in violation of various treaties or laws.

Dozens of rulings historically both good and bad on ending slavery, housing & gender discrimination, the legality of collective bargaining, restricting rights of organized labor, expanding or restricting capitalistic or socialistic governmental regulations or interventions.

The judicial branch, from the Supreme Court on down to presidential appointees to federal courts, exerts tremendous influence on micro/micro economics by ruling what is permissible within its interpretation of conflicting State laws, previous precedent and the United States Constitution. Often by the narrowest of margins, most dependent on who the most recent President had appointed to the Court.

[RadiationTherapy]

188. Thank you for this post and the scope of your perspective is informative.

[lovemydog]

267. My pleasure.

I'm glad you asked!

[AgingAmerican]

32. Right

We might go into a massive, permanent depression, but would do so with good scotus picked!

[benz380]

82. The Hillary-picked SCOTUS meme is all they got. Wall St. will tell her who to pick. nt

[Sheepshank]

111. so much bull in such a short sentence.

bwahh haa haa, so much more messageing in my even shorter sentence.

[Romeo.lima333]

112. scotus is all that matters right now and i dont care who the dem nominee is

[peacebird]

123. Scotus is not all that matters. Not by a long shot. More bs trade agreements like TPP, more Keystone

Pipelines, more fracking? HRC is for all of that, enthusiastically. Screw scotus, we have more important immediate concerns. HRC is a corporatist and a war hawk. There is nothing good that will come from her for the 99%, but the bankers will be thrilled.

[Romeo.lima333]

106. yes we might and it would b better to go there with a scotus that isnt actively against us

but i love all the psychics on this thread who are so sure about how things are gonna be and how people are gonna act

[aspirant]

127. Scotus psychics

Please share with us the Supreme Court nominees that HRC has publicity stated that would be on her short list when the time came to nominate.

Then we can judge for ourselves.

[jwirr]

80. She's not Paul Ryan.

[Romeo.lima333]

109. he would rather have paul ryan becuase hillary might throw corporate america a bone

[Divernan]

119. A bone? HRC will thrown them the whole damn carcass!

[Romeo.lima333]

121. another seer - so many people can see the future

[Divernan]

128. Clintons' values/priorities are clear to the tune of $70 million.

That's the personal wealth they have accumulated since leaving the White House. That money did not come from us peons and it did not come without expectations/strings.

Clintons have handed out $70 million in corporate IOU's.

And when it comes to quid pro quo, Supreme Court appointments will be Number One on the Corporate agenda.

[Romeo.lima333]

132. how do you know where that money came from and what it bought

assuming that number is accurate

[Divernan]

154. The Clintons' Web of Wealth-yes indeed, where did it all come from?

As of the end of 2012, Bill's wealth (not counting Hillary's) was $55 million.http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/02/16/richest-usa-presidents/1923739/

In 2013, he made another $80 million.

Bill Clinton Net Worth
Net Worth: $80 Million
Source of Wealth Politics
The 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001, with an estimated net worth of $80 million.
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/president/bill-clinton-net-worth/

I'm SO glad you asked where that money came from - read this and rethink your support for the Clintons.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/hillary-bill-clintonwealthspeakerfees.html

Indeed, considering that Bill and Hillary Clinton have made more than $100 million since leaving the White House in 2000, it’s not surprising that many Americans see the former first couple as hopelessly detached from the problems of ordinary Americans despite presenting themselves as going through the very same struggles as other Americans.

The real scandal is how and where they made all that money!
In 2009, Bill Clinton addressed the Campus Progress National Summit, a gathering of progressive students in Washington, D.C. “I never made any money until I left the White House,” he told the students. “I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President [Barack] Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office. But after I got out, I made a lot of money.” Clinton didn’t just make “a lot of money” when he left the White House. Together, the Clintons pulled in $111 million from 2000 to 2007 — far more than what most people would consider a lot.

Thanks to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which compiles personal financial disclosures from federal public officials, and the ethics laws governing the U.S. Senate, we know a little bit about how the Clintons made their money. Federal disclosure laws require not only officeholders to disclose their finances but also their spouses, since spousal income is shared. Thus Hillary Clinton’s disclosures both as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state are a window into this shared fortune, one that was gleaned from the very same interest groups and corporations over which the Clintons had authority.

In February of 2001, Clinton had been out of the White House for less than a month when he gave his first paid speech, to none other than Morgan Stanley — another beneficiary of and advocate for Clinton’s Wall Street deregulation — for $125,000. His next address in Manhattan was at Credit Suisse First Boston, which gave him an additional $125,000. His paid speaking arrangements took him around the world, from Canada to Hong Kong, speaking to a variety of interest groups with major public policy interests, including the American Israel Chamber of Commerce and the investment banking giant CLSA. Clinton had also made passing the North American Free Trade Agreement a priority during his presidency, so it is no surprise that major Canadian firms such as the Jim Pattison Group ($150,000) were happy to pay to hear a few remarks from him as well.

The link provides chapter and verse of one payoff after another. I'll include those in another post immediately following this one.

[Divernan]

158. Continued expose-sources of Clintons' ill-gotten millions.

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The Wall Street payments were significant in that they represented a form of gratitude not only for Bill Clinton’s deregulation of Wall Street. That year Hillary Clinton, now a senator from New York, voted for a bankruptcy bill that made it much harder for people to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the bill was backed primarily by banks and credit card issuers.

Bill Clinton in his spree of speeches repeatedly returned to two of the banking giants at the heart of political power in Washington: Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. In 2004 he took home a quarter-million dollars for a Citigroup address in Paris; Goldman Sachs gave him $125,000 for a New York City address. That address must have been a real hit for the former president, because Goldman invited him back for a series of lectures the next year, at Kiawah Island, South Carolina ($125,000); Paris ($250,000); and Greensboro, Georgia ($150,000). The next year, Citigroup Venture Capital invited him for a $150,000 speech, and the Mortgage Bankers Association — representing the folks at the very heart of the financial crisis — gave him $150,000 for a speech in Chicago.

Goldman and Citigroup repeatedly paid Clinton for the next few years, and a number of other major corporate interest groups — such as the National Retail Federation ($150,000) and Merrill Lynch ($175,000) — also joined in the fun.

After Hillary Clinton lost her presidential bid and was appointed to the State Department, she and her husband had brought in more than $100 million from books and speeches. By any measure, they had far more wealth than they needed to pay debts and to take care of their daughter’s future — the reasons Hillary Clinton cited to Diane Sawyer.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/hillary-bill-clintonwealthspeakerfees.html

[Romeo.lima333]

162. and when potus is finished he'll do the same circuit just like all the presidents (xcpt for carter)

i fail to see why this makes her worse than any republican she's runs against

oh and btw im not pro hillary i am pro dem. a corporatist dem is better than any republican

[Divernan]

169. NO! Because Michele won't be a potential president herself.

And if you didn't care how much it was or where it came from; why did you challenge me to prove it?

[Romeo.lima333]

173. that doesnt stop ex-presidents from going on the lecture circuit ..

maybe the poster who posted it is right and people who say they wont vote for whatever dem is running ought to be booted out of here

[Divernan]

166. The Clintons' vortex of wealth comes from parties interested in U.S. policy

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/6/hillary-bill-clintonwealthspeakerfees.html


Friends and enemies

In June of 2010, months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law and the regulatory battle over the health overhaul was set into motion, the former president took $175,000 from the main health insurance lobbying organization, America’s Health Insurance Plans. A year after Hillary Clinton called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his family “friends” of her family, Bill Clinton was paid $250,000 to speak to the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which was closely tied to the Mubarak regime. As Hillary Clinton grappled with foreign policy issues in Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East, Bill Clinton took home $175,000 from the Middle East Institute, a think tank that does work in those areas. In 2011 she filmed a video congratulating Kuwait on its independence; a few months later, he was paid a $175,000 honorarium from the Kuwait America Foundation.

Shortly after stepping down from her post, the she then embarked on her own spree of paid speeches, which don’t have to be disclosed because neither Clinton is a public official anymore. But from voluntarily disclosures and press reports, we know that she gave at least two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each. Although she has not disclosed her full remarks at these events, a number of attendees talked to Politico about her tone and content. “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish,” read the article. We won’t know the full extent of payments for speeches unless Clinton chooses to release them or she officially declares for president and has to release her personal financial documents since 2013.
Common people

What has been laid out here is only a small sample of the vortex of wealth that Hillary and Bill Clinton have received from corporations, foundations, foreign organizations and others with an interest in U.S. public policy. No one with any knowledge of politics believes these payments to be disinterested or impartial; they are part of a larger political system that rewards politicians for fealty and obedience. The Clintons were simply following a path laid by other politicos, such as former U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, who raked in millions of dollars as a drug lobbyist after crafting an industry-friendly Medicare overhaul, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has leveraged his experience in government to enrich himself influence-peddling for a variety of corporate clients without ever having to officially register as a lobbyist.

Given their immense wealth and how they got it — politicized kickbacks from the most powerful political forces in Washington, on Wall Street and around the globe — the Clintons would do well to admit that they are unusually wealthy and stop trying to pass themselves off as ordinary folks. If they don’t, their fate may very well resemble Romney’s, as mounting public anger over growing income and wealth inequality could prevent them from returning to the White House in 2016.

[olegramps]

212. So people are willing to pay to attend his speech so what?

Working class people pay enormous amount of their salary to attend a football or some other form of entertainment. Maybe they want to know what the enemy thinks.

[Divernan]

244. When corporations pay, it's quid pro quo

If you'd paid attention to the Clintons' political values and votes, as per the article I provided, you'd know they are not enemies of the corporate interests.

Hillary's apologists are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they think any politically informed person would swallow, "Oh, they (Morgan Stanley/Koch Brothers) just want to know what the enemy thinks.

[winter is coming]

239. $70 million? Whoa, they didn't stay dead broke for long. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

35. Solidarity isn't a one way street. If the Supreme Court (aka mostly abortion) matters so much

then there are plenty potential Democrats that are just as likely or more so to appoint sympathetic judges to this issue that have better positions holistically than Clinton.

Seems to me the real intent is to continue the push for global corporate domination, the surveillance state, and military interventionism using choice as the Trojan Horse/hostage to get it.

[onenote]

46. and if the choice is in the primary for HRC or someone else, go for it

But if the choice in the general election is between HRC and any repub, not voting for HRC is the same as giving a vote to the repub. And if that happens enough, and the repub wins, we'll all be subjected to those who didn't vote depending themselves by saying its really the fault of those who made HRC the candidate.

If the party doesn't rally behind its nominee, whomever that nominee turns out to be, the consequences will be disastrous.

[aspirant]

137. So what are the corporatists going to GIVE for our votes

If they need our votes to win and the only thing they offer us is a SCOTUS selection, this is more than lopsided.

We want a 50/50 split, because we are tired of your side Taking,Taking and taking some more.

[onenote]

149. "My side"?

My side is the Democratic nominee, whomever it is, against the republican side.

Tell me again, in a two person race, whose side are you on? Oh wait, you've already told us. And its not the side of the Democrats.

[aspirant]

180. The democrats

have the loyal left and the corporatists Blue dogs, the HRC wing.

The 2014 election proved there aren't enough of you corporatists to even elect your own Blue Dogs so you come on here doing everything possible to get our votes.You take, take, take and when it is time to give you are nowhere to be found.

There is only ONE side, that's the PEOPLE'S side.

[onenote]

201. You make a lot of assumptions

You assume that I'm a corporatist who has voted to elect Blue Dogs. You assume I "take".

You don't know jack shit about me. But I know all I need to know about you.

You support the "People's side" even though your support for electing repubs instead of Democrats would make things worse for most people not better.

[aspirant]

227. Your as plain as a blank sheet of paper.

Your a taker through and through as you offer nothing for our votes, just fear and hate, the repub mantra.

The people's side isn't HRC and the DLC/third wayers

Evasion is your way until you show us a Grand Compromise list for our votes.

[Bobbie Jo]

233. Here:

That's about as productive as this conversation is going to get.

When they start throwing a wall of bumper sticker-worthy nonsense at you, best to just get on with your day.

[sabrina 1]

251. The choice is to elect REAL Democrats to Congress. And that is what people will be doing with their

time, money and energy.

Otoh, the Party has the option to listen to the voters who spoke loud and clear in the Mid Terms when they elected Progressives, voted for Liberal Policies which they got on ballots across the country, and WON, and refused to reelect those who did not represent their interests.

OR, they can go ahead and choose to let a Republican win.

The voters are not the problem here, the problem is that those forcing candidates on the voters must WANT Republicans to win.

[L0oniX]

327. Foisting Goldman Sachs on us is the oligarchy's way of insuring an oligarchy win ...either way.

[TheKentuckian]

287. Bullshit, a vote for a Republican is a vote for a Republican no other votes are added to their tally

my vote will be for the person on the ballot cast and no other. It will not be for Hillary Clinton or the like (see Andrew Cuomo, see Evan Bayh, see Wasserman - Schultz, see Chuck Schumer).

I said that Obama in 2012 was the last bid for time and that the current direction would no longer be tolerated regardless of what scary boogieman was trotted out to fear frame the Turd Way as acceptable and meant it.

Yes, it will be your fault for not nominating someone that could earn my easy to obtain vote if Clinton loses and if she wins whatever damage she does will also be your fault. You want it then own it instead of trying to make someone else the bad guy for your own insane behavior.

If winning is so important then act like it and stop trying to drag people you need where they cannot follow you. I've already gone further than tolerance allows. I'm done, if you want my vote then stop opposing my interests and needs to pad some fucker's pockets.

If corporate fucks and warmongers can govern via crisis and hostage taking then maybe that is the most effective means to assert political will.

I and folks like me are very reachable, our votes can be had and all you have to do is demand what you claim to want too.

If Democrats want someone to vote for them then they will protect my right to vote out of motivated self interest. If women don't want back alley abortions then they will support policies that allow me to care for myself and my child and opportunities for us to thrive. That demand we invest in our own country rather than bankrupt it destroying other while subverting essential liberties.

The Turd Way has got what they want for a generation, somebody else can lay on the barbwire.

[sabrina 1]

98. No we don't want a President Cruz. What you are proposing is a continuation of the 'vote for the

lesser evil' policy. We did that, remember, by electing Blue Dogs, because 'any Dem is better than (fill in the blank). THEN we were told that 'the reason why Dems can't get a PO, or whatever the issue might be where they seem unable to 'win' AFTER they 'win', is because of the Blue Dogs.

When things stop making sense, intelligent people stop doing those things.

No one has yet been chosen as the nominee for the Dem Party. NOW is the time to let the Party know, as the OP is doing, how they will vote if they don't have someone they can VOTE FOR, rather than continuing the status quo of 'VOTING AGAINST' the other guy.

[A Little Weird]

131. +1

[JEB]

276. +1000

Exactly correct and well stated.

[MisterP]

140. is there a stance she'll refuse to sell out on? a Pub policy she won't push?

she's already actively for fracking, TPP, war, and flag-burning bans, without using those as some sort of mystic "leverage" to get super-lefty stuff passed: it's almost like decades of armchair poli sci can be wrong

as we just saw in November, you get elected by standing for something: "Republican, but doesn't think gays cause hurricanes" won't turn off just DUers but the 99.4% of Americans who aren't "I'll back any Dem no matter what they do" Dems

[Romeo.lima333]

145. what i saw in november was the most pathetic turnout of any election and

and more republicans than before and they stand for nothing

[jeff47]

203. And that happened because "Vote against the Republicans" doesn't get turnout.

Democrats need to stand for something to get turnout. "Not as bad" is not standing for something.

Obama beat Clinton in 2008 by giving "marginally attached voters" something to vote for - change from the status-quo that is failing. So far, team Clinton isn't doing that. Their message appears to be "The Republican candidate would be worse".

That's not going to get those Obama voters to the polls. Which means a low-turnout election. Republicans can win low-turnout elections.

And I don't see how Clinton can credibly claim to be for change. She has a very lengthy status-quo track record.

[Romeo.lima333]

211. then maybe things do need to get really bad so that people will understand that voting, for

whatever reason, is still better than not voting. well the republicans want to take away all safety nets , unemployemnt , ss ,ssi , education , wages etc. i dont see hrc going after those things. if that's not something to vote for .. it's like the antivax thing in that people have had it so good for so long they forgot how bad it can get

[jeff47]

220. Yea, beat them until morale improves.

The part you are not getting is Democrats are not entitled to those votes. Democrats have to work for them. If Democrats aren't willing to work for those votes, then not getting those votes is the fault of those Democrats. Not the voters.

[Romeo.lima333]

228. "Yea, beat them until morale improves." not at all it's 'suffer the consequences of your actions'

the dems wont be beating the dems. the republicans you let into office will be the ones doing the "beating".
youre describing how the voting maybe ought to be, highly idealized, youre not going to get a perfect candidiate (perfect to you)to win. you are always going to vote for the lesser of two evils espicially whyile the country is as polarized as it is.

[jeff47]

234. Again, you are talking as if Democrats are entitled to those votes.

This is not about seeking perfection. It's about seeking a difference in policy. Right now, both parties want to drive us to corporatist hell, with Democrats driving slightly slower. In both cases, you end up in hell.

The way to keep going on that path is for voters to say, "Well, at least they're not as bad". And then they end up in hell. Because there is no reason to change course - they still win elections.

The way to get Democrats to actually change course is for Third Way tactics to fail to win elections.

The "not as bad" strategy had a good run, but it's time to change course. Will that cause some pain? Yep. But we already have 40 years of shit to clean up. A few more turds won't make a difference.

[Romeo.lima333]

237. well you can chose a rocket sled to hell where no one will care what YOU have to say

or you can ride a slower ride and perhaps have an input to create a change of direction.
Will that cause some pain? yes and perhaps your social security - your wages - a depression war war and more war. is that your definition of the pain that you feel is ok for everyone to have to live with?
we dont have a reasonable opponent now's not the time to vote in a way that will let the cons have all 3 branches of the government

[Buzz Clik]

5. Unlike cable news and their painful 24-hour news cycle....

DU has a 2-hour news cycle. Everything repeats itself every 2 hours (or less) and the usual characters line up to respond as if it's all brand new.

Wake me when this is over. Is it possible to nap for 21 months?

[1StrongBlackMan]

142. LOL ...

Yep. No matter where one stands on whatever issue.

[Egnever]

7. Then you are a tool for the Republican party

And the fact that you are spewing such nonsense here means you are actively working for them to discourage dem turnout.

Hillary could fulfill every negative expectation you project onto her and still be way better than any offering on the republican side.

Do everything you can to find another candidate in the primary but when it comes time for the general vote for the nominee. If you aren't doing that you aren't actually participating in making any of your issues move where you want them. The only message you send is that they aren't the least bit important to you.

Millions wont vote, if you want to join the chumps that can safely be completely ignored then be my guest but pretending what you are doing is anything more than being a chump like the millions of others who dont participate in their democracy is absurd.

[RadiationTherapy]

11. I am a tool of many powerful entities.

I have no doubt of that.

Thanks for your comment.

[Kelvin Mace]

42. Absolutely true

and most tools don't know they are tools. At least we have enough sense to know we are being used.

I really get tired of people who accuse those of us who cannot stomach HRC's corrupt views as "supporting the GOP".

[onenote]

48. If you help the GOP win the election

how are you not "supporting the GOP"

[Kelvin Mace]

57. One more time...

By your logic, my refusal to support execution by cyanide over execution by hanging automatically translates to my support for the death penalty.

[onenote]

72. You are assuming equal choices. But that's not the reality of political choices

The two parties are not in complete alignment. There are differences. There is a "lesser" and "greater" evil when you go beyond any one issue.

So, no, you don't understand "my logic." And your logic sucks.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. English, do you speak it?

The mere fact that I phrased my argument as a choice between the lesser of two evil choices means I am not assuming "equal choices". Both choices are ultimately detrimental to human society, it is just a matter of how detrimental and how fast the harm will manifest.

I never claimed the parties were in "complete" alignment so, no thanks for the straw man.

[onenote]

161. Yes I do speak English

I'm just having trouble understanding how you think that there is a lesser of two evils involved in a choice between death by cyanide and death by hanging. Let me clue you in to something you apparently don't understand (despite your command of English): those do NOT present a choice between the lesser of two evils.

[Kelvin Mace]

216. It is the lesser of two evils

in that the argument people make about a "humane" means of execution. Capital punishment is wrong, PERIOD.

Your point was that by refusing to vote for HRC a person is "helping" the GOP. In reality, both HRC and any GOP candidate are going to be "right of center" and thus evil to the liberal ethical and moral worldview. To vote for either one is to sanction evil. I am still trying to get the Obama blood stains off my hands and have no intent of dipping my hands into a fresh pool.

It's your black & white world, not mine. As long as people are willing to excuse evil on the basis of pragmatism, we are not really going to have any choice that is not evil.

[onenote]

253. My world discerns differences. Yours does not.

My world discerns that there is a difference in a party that passes the Lily Ledbetter Act and the party that would not have passed it. That there is a difference in $40 billion in food stamp cuts and $8.7 billion in food stamp cuts. That there is a difference in promoting immigration reform through executive orders and suing a president for promoting immigration reform. That there is a difference between Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer on the one hand and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy on the other. That there is a difference between being in the majority in the Citizens United case and being a dissenter. That there is a difference in supporting legislation to restore the substance of the Voting Rights Act and in blocking such legislation.

If that means I have a "black and white" world view, so be it. At least its grounded in reality unlike a worldview that cannot discern any differences in these and many other policy decisions.

[Kelvin Mace]

272. Again, a matter of degree, not substance

the Democrats have allowed torture and other war crimes to go unpunished. They continued the illegal war on Iraq, gave a pass to the CIA when it illegally spied on everyone from the public to the senate oversight committee investigating them. Wall Street decimated the world economy and not only paid no price, they are setting us up for round two.

As for the Supreme Court, name one justice appointed since Thurgood Marshall that was his ideological equal or to his left? The Dems replaced Marshall with CLARENCE FUCKING THOMAS (and yes, I blame the Dems because they REFUSED to filibuster Thomas which was a "no brainer&quot .

Yes, there is a difference between $40 billion and $8.7 billion in food stamp cuts, unless you are one of the people who still endured the $8.7 billion cut while America's wealthy elite pay a pittance in taxes.

As long as people keep making excuses that "pragmatism" dictates we vote for evil people and policies, we will have evil people and policies.

[onenote]

273. True, the people who are hurt by the $8.7 billion in cuts suffered

But those who would allow repubs to get elected would have 3 million more people suffer.

That's not a moral choice.

[Kelvin Mace]

284. You offer me a choice akin

to picking between a child murderer or a child abuser (who will only beat them half to death) to run the local day care, then berate me for refusing to choose either.

[onenote]

286. No, I offered you the choice of stopping someone who would harm 4 million

even if it means 1 million are still harmed.

Sort of like the choice to run into a burning building and save one child, even if you can't save three others, or doing nothing and letting all four die.

[Kelvin Mace]

290. I will run into the building to save children

what I won't do is vote for the people setting the building on fire.

[onenote]

292. No, you'll just allow the folks burning the buildings filled with children to do so

because you won't vote for the person who tries to stop them but can't prevent all of the children from dying.

[Kelvin Mace]

294. One more time...

a person who saves children from a burning, but was also the person who set the building on fire is not a hero, they are an arsonist. Blaming me for refusing to vote for an arsonist accomplishes nothing and you are making excuses for the arsonist.

But if it makes you feel better to blame me for it, then by all means, do.

[onenote]

298. One guy sets a fire to kill people. Another tries to stop it, but to prevent the fire from killing

everyone, that person makes a choice to save the vast majority of people in one wing of the building but not to stop the fire from being set in a contained area even though some will be injured.
You would prevent the latter person from acting, allowing the one who wants to kill everyone carry out their plan.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

[Kelvin Mace]

299. No.

The current administration had an obligation, moral and legal, to investigate and punish war crimes. It chose to ignore those crimes, and by doing so, sanction their future use. People will be tortured in the future and will die because Obama gave the Bush/Cheney war criminals a pass. The current administration decided to continue an illegal war and to expand it, adding such new twists as using drones to murder people identified as "enemies combatants" by the CIA, and organization who has lied about its actions since it was founded. In the course of murdering these "enemies" they have also murdered other people completely innocent of wrong doing.

Why would I ever vote for ANY candidate who plans on taking advice from people who have committed mass murder in every decade they have existed? How can ANYONE vote for HRC when she praised Henry Kissinger? That alone displays that at BEST she is completely amoral.

On the economic front the Clintonian legacy was "welfare reform", which meant cutting people of from food and vile trade agreements like NAFTA which has decimated the working class, but paid HUGE dividends to the wealthy elite. The legacy also involved the destruction of an FDR-era law that DIRECTLY resulted in the economic collapse of 2007, causing misery and death worldwide.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has never worked and never will. In fact, it is an absolute path to complete moral oblivion, whether practiced in foreign policy or politics.

I will not vote for the Vichy Democrats who seek to appease rather than defeat conservatives, all while enriching themselves in the process and lying to my face about it.

[TheKentuckian]

347. No, it is the choice between those that would harm a million and those that would harm 2.3 and

I'm not endorsing either and am pleading with people I thought that believed similarly to me to stop this cruel and insane plan to harm a million of our own pressed upon people.

Harming people is the agenda and I'm not backing that agenda in some vain, sadly crazed, stupid, and failed effort to convert the opposition and attract independents.

It is also getting to the point that corporate warmongering Democrats may well actually do more damage despite the greater bloodlust of the less effective TeaPubliKlans, particularly with the bellicose Clinton the sale for wars will be easier and it seeming takes Democrats playing Judas to shove through wage destroying, job killing, democracy eroding, environment wrecking "free trade" deals.

There also seems to be extra Teflon regarding meddling and destabilizing governments probably because party loyalty puts somewhat of a lid on the only people that are ever going to object to such things.

Instead of incremental improvement in the party I see willful, even thumbing the nose type spiteful regression.

[onenote]

348. The 1.3 million that suffer only because you stood on principle

will salute you, no doubt





(And believe me, the difference in the number of people who will suffer if the repubs capture the WH in 2016 instead of the Democrats -- any Democrat -- is a helluva lot more than 1.3 million)

[TheKentuckian]

349. and the one million you guys want to slaughter for shits and giggles don't care if you think it is

"pragmatic" that they suffer and die as pawns in your fantasy.

Aren't too strong on ratios I take it.

[onenote]

350. As I said, the ratios are far greater

And you're hardly in a position to criticize since your choice doesn't save the one million -- it lets them suffer along with millions of others that wouldn't suffer but for your "principled" stand.

Talk about slaughtering people for shits and giggles -- that's exactly what you're doing in the most heartless fashion imaginable. At least I'm trying to save those who can be saved. You're flushing everyone down the toilet and patting yourself of the back, to boot.

[TheKentuckian]

353. You aren't saving anyone. Intending to willfully kill less than another

isn't "saving" the remainder at all. It is simply being a lower aspiration murderer.

No one ever was or ever will an angel of mercy for plotting fewer murders.

[onenote]

354. Keep telling yourself that

I doubt the millions who will suffer if the repubs get the white house who wouldn't suffer if any Democrat does will build you a monument.

Not.

[TheKentuckian]

361. No, there is no expectation of awards for not being a willful, rationalizing murderer.

It is nothing special, in fact it is very much a minimal being a human being thing rather than being a monster fare so no monuments required.

I'm asking you to give up murderous ambitions, they are a sickness no matter how often you choose to point and say another is worse.

[onenote]

363. Willful rationalizing murderer is a good description of what you are

aspiring to be. Even if we can't stop all of the suffering,we're the ones endeavoring to stop some. You're the one who is enabling the largest amount of suffering possible.
You obviously can live being the facilitator of mass suffering. I'm done with you

[TheKentuckian]

370. Once again a plot to kill less people is not "saving" the ones you don't plan to murder.

Do you seriously try to paint Hitler as saving tens of millions of Jews because he killed 6 million? Did Charles Manson save tens of millions of Californians because he didn't plot to kill them all?

Your "logic" is absurd but the predictable fruit of a dedicated rationalizer trying to face their person in the mirror.

No one is asking you to save everyone, you are being asked not slaughter even if it is in a lesser number than what some more murderous psychopaths have in mind.

Abstaining from murder is not saving shit, what kind of person would frame it as such I can't imagine.

[RadiationTherapy]

59. I don't know. If I am broke as fuck and feel I have to shop at Wal-mart

how am I not supporting child slavery?

[benz380]

87. +100.

[Sheepshank]

118. So with that same mindset....

if you are so filled with hate, and disppointment at the Dem nominee, you feel compelled to vote elsehwere....how are you not supporting the Republican nominee?

[aspirant]

153. Why aren't the corporaDems accused

of supporting the repubs if they only give NOTHING to their fellow dems other than vote for HRC or else.

Where is the dem compromise with dems?

[RadiationTherapy]

156. I feel compelled to not vote for President.

So, technically, I am "supporting" both dems and repubs.

[Sheepshank]

241. NOPE NOT AT ALL

with voting, it only works with your analogy in mind, if a Republican also choses not to vote in either direction. That doesn't appears to be the mindset from the RIGHT. They will vote Conservative regardless. So it turns into a net loss for Dems and therefore you have provided the advantage to the Republicans. Kochs love the messaging you are trygint to impart. It works well for them, I'm sure they'd thank you.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. Claiming that HRC is the better choice

of two very bad choices is like asking a person whether they want to die directly from cancer or from the treatment.

The key point is, either way you die.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. To vote for evil is to sanction evil. If you are comfortable with that, great, but please don't claim moral superiority to those of us that don't.

[benz380]

91. Well said!

[Sheepshank]

120. NO!...it's not the same

in one case there is wiggle room, in the other there is not. Wiggle room translates to hope, the other does not supply any hope.

the continued message that unless you get your pony shitting rainbows, all else is evil is just plain wrong and misleading. I suspect youalrady know that.

[Kelvin Mace]

146. No, in the long run

there is no difference. It is simply a matter of how long to the end.

Vote for HRC, she may not feed you and your children to the wolves, but grandma has to go (or vice versa).

Those GOP mofos will feed your entire family to the wolves, then charge their fellow rich cronies to hunt the wolves down for sport.

As I explained in another post no matter who is elected between HRC and any conservative, the rich will get richer and the rest will get poorer. It is just a matter of how fast.

Substitute Sanders or Warren for HRC and then we can discuss hope.

I don't believe in "pony shitting rainbows" just like I don't believe in NBC weapons in Iraq (other than the ones we sold them), troop surges, illegal invasions of sovereign nations, deregulating banks, NAFTA, TPP, "welfare reform", "Don't ask, don't tell", or a myriad of other ideas the Clintons loved and advocated for.

[sharp_stick]

8. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

and make no secret of my loathing for those who don't.

[TexasProgresive]

50. well said

that's a sharp stick in their eye.

[silvershadow]

164. Ouch. My eye! nt

[dbackjon]

89. Anyone that doesn't have that philosophy has no business infesting this site

[fbc]

107. This is democratic underground

I'd say it's the other way around. Perhaps those that insist on a Wall Street candidate for the Democratic party should start a third way site.

As Democrats, I feel the most important thing we can do is to fight for the soul of the Democratic party.

Votes for candidates who do not represent our values may win an election here and there, but how many elections do we lose in the future because voters consider Democrats to be no better than Republicans.

People need to be inspired by a Democratic party that fights for them or we lose far more votes than the few here who refuse to assist in the Wall Street takeover of their party.

[MohRokTah]

94. The purists forget what they did in 2000.

Either that, or they continue to deny their part in putting Bush in the white house.

[TheKentuckian]

295. What a vote for Vice President "I agree with Governor Bush" and Senator "I stand with John McCain"?

No, I recall it quite well. I also haven't forgotten the tens of thousands in Florida and millions nationally of "Democrats" that straight up voted for Bush (as well as the many more that about broke their own necks to vote for Reagan) that aren't ever painted as villains.

Seems my non purity has only bought me more and more to be disgusted and harmed by as the cycles go, seems to me some purity and hard-nosed purity at that is required by ongoing circumstances, not the least of which is the ever increasing of the gravitational pull of the right wing. A "radical left fringe" that is upon closer inspection turns out to be New Deal non - interventionist moderates just is in no way a counter for a large far right that is made up of the Birch Society types and worse and a middle seemingly consisting of Nixonian, interventionists, corporate globalists who hate the Bill of Rights and have heaping disdain (or even enmity) for any below the professional class save perhaps the most meager of alms for the poorest of the destitute that manage to avoid becoming the untouchable class of the homeless.

Well, if New Dealism is going to be the left fringe then it better be very damn feisty and unrelenting because it is built on sanding down the worst excesses of a uncompromising and entropy fueled philosophy of ever increasing consumption and avarice.

If you are already based on compromise to maintain a toxic system then hell yeah you better be pure as the driven snow because every further move plants the seeds of absolute surrender.

[JoePhilly]

126. +1

[MineralMan]

243. +100

[great white snark]

256. Absolutley.

[pampango]

12. I've seen no sign that Hillary wants to cut SSI. Many republicans have made it clear

that they would like to do just that.

The safety net is more secure with Warren, Sanders and some others than it is with Hillary but it is way safer with her than with Walker or any other republican.

[RadiationTherapy]

24. There are so many dynamics at play that I have to resort to pattern-seeking.

So Hillary may "protect SSI" but if the other variables become too crushing, the results will be the same for me and my family.

[Kelvin Mace]

52. So,

If Sander or Warren run, you will be voting for someone who will protect your family from the wolves. Who ever the GOP candidate is will let the wolves eat you and your family. So, vote for HRC, because she will probably only let the wolves eat a few of your children, or maybe just grandama, and you know, she is getting up there, so, no big loss.

Gotta be pragmatic.

[pampango]

55. Neither have I seen any sign that Hillary will "probably only let the wolves eat a few of your

children, or maybe just grandama ..." If I believed that was her policy I would agree with you.

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Her policy is

to do the bidding of the wealthy while paying lip service to the poor. If she can help the poor out without endangering her rise to power and acquisition of wealth she will, but in the mean time we should carry the children and get grandma to practice sprinting.

[Divernan]

133. Yup.Gays in the military don't cost the One Percent anything.

In fact, it provides more cannon fodder for their uber-profitable war machine.

Similarly gays marrying also doesn't cost the Clintons' One Percent sponsors anything. And since the latest polls show 50% of Republicans are OK w/gay marriage, I'd say the Hillary boosters are about to lose that threat.

[Kelvin Mace]

150. This is why the Kochs

claim to be social liberals. They really don't give a damn who does what to who, as long as they get paid and as long as they don't have to pay for it.

[demigoddess]

13. So you would rather see a republican in the office

of president rather than vote for money grubbers???Well, good for you! The rest of us will be so happy when the repubs kill social security, privatize the post office, outlaw unions, and kill Obamacare! All because you did not want to vote for a money grubber!!! really not so much.

[aspirant]

165. If it's unacceptable to you to have a repub in office

where is your compromise to us?

[demigoddess]

317. When you have a Republican House of Representatives,

a republican Senate, no, I do not have space for a republican president at the same time.

[FSogol]

14. Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers thank you for your support!

[RadiationTherapy]

17. I am fairly certain they are thankful for Hillary's "inevitability"

[FSogol]

25. I doubt it. Why would they spend 1 billion to defeat her if they want her to win?

PS. Do you believe that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Howard Dean aren't voting for HRC? Think that they will throw away their votes like you?

[RadiationTherapy]

30. Do I believe other powerful multimillionaires will vote for Hillary?

Uh, ya, I do.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Because they win no matter who is elected between HRC and any conservative

Just like they won when Obama defeated McCain and Romney. They still got filthy stinking rich, just not OBSCENELY filthy stinking rich.

For the rest of us, the choice was one of how fast we descended into abject penury.

[FSogol]

69. If that were true, they wouldn't have to spend a penny on elections. They are fighting hard and

too many DUers are helping their cause.

[Kelvin Mace]

71. You very much underestimate their

rabid desire to be OBSCENELY filthy stinking rich.

[FSogol]

85. No, I completely understand it. No matter what happens, they will still be rich.

No matter what happens, they will still get richer. The reason they want to elect Rs instead of Ds is that they will get richer faster thru republican financial nonsense and deregulation than by anything the Democrats can/will propose. Electing Rs benefits them so much, they are willing to invest 1 billion to elected Walker/Bush. ANY Democratic candidate is better than the Koch's preferred candidates.

[Kelvin Mace]

102. In order for them to get richer

we must get poorer. So, either way we lose, it is just a matter of how fast.

If this were Monopoly, the Kochs would own everything except Baltic Avenue. Every time they pass Go, they get $2000 and we get $20. HRC would be willing to let us build a house on Baltic, collect $25 when we pass Go, and reduce the Koch's plan to get $3000 when they pass Go, to $2500.

The Kochs would make us pay them when we pass Go and just beat us up and take the deed to Baltic Avenue.

Either way the game is over for us in a turn or two.

[L0oniX]

329. A billion is chump pocket change for them.

[L0oniX]

328. Yea ...it's either we support them or Goldman Sachs.

[Orsino]

16. Good luck to you. n/t

[RadiationTherapy]

19. Thanks. Things are tough and I am balanced on a blade

like so many millions of others. Someone toss me an umbrella ferfuxsake! hahaha

[Orsino]

23. While I think you should vote for the better candidate, or for the lesser evil...

...I don't ignore the candidates' responsibility to earn your vote.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. Good luck finding someone to vote for...

They're almost all wealthy. They're all in the top 1%.

Elizabeth Warren is worth $8.75 million, Bernie Sanders (being one of the "poorest" Senators, ranking it at #84 in wealth) is worth $460K.

Of course, there's exceptions, but not many. Murphy (D-CT) is worth a whopping $7K. Kirk (R-IL) is worth only $17. Flake (R-AZ) is worth 32K. Heinrich (D-NM) is worth 53K.

[RadiationTherapy]

22. I know. It is so goddamm frustrating.

Bored money-grubbers with an urge to power.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

26. Or, highly successful people with good ideas.

As opposed to bitter, jealous people with no ideas other than hating those who have a modicum of success.

[RadiationTherapy]

28. Yeah! Sure! Totally!

hahahaha.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. So you disagree that Warren and Sanders

are highly successful people with good ideas?

Just because you have wealth, doesn't make you greedy or a "money-grubber". Mostly, it makes you successful at what you do. Whether that be a movie star, athlete, lawyer, professor, et al.

[RadiationTherapy]

45. I disagree that it is merely that simple.

I certainly - in 25 years of work - can only think of a very few examples of financially successful people that made me look twice and think, "Wow! That person is really impressive. I can see how they achieved success." There are very few of those people, I have found.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I have to tell you, I know lots of rich people, lots of poor people, plenty in the middle and I do

not find that income defines ethics, decency or excellence. That is to say there are plenty of poor money grubbing thieves and plenty of wealthy people of great ethics. Money, neither in presence nor in absence, is not a creator of principle and personality. Just being poor does not make a person good, just being rich does not make them bad.
Alan Grayson is very rich. Does that mean he's a grubber with power urges? It's just reductive, daft and meaningless rhetoric.

[RadiationTherapy]

74. It is a prejudice and it is unfair.

Nonetheless, I am not in a good psychological place to be more nuanced. I am downright hostile, to be frank.

[ProfessorGAC]

172. Could You Please Point Me To Your Reference?

No snark intended. Those numbers seem awfully low to me. I realize there is a lot to having to fund two places to live like a senator needs to do, but i have a hard time believing my net worth is 7x that of Bernie's.

I'm just in 401k, 401c, a vested pension, some personal holdings and a paid for $180k house. It's not like i'm a Wall Street investment guru.

Seems like he would have better investments just because some supporter from his state would offer him sound investment advice.

That number seems low for Warren and Murphy, and i really have a hard time swallowing the Flake and Heinrich NW's.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

179. I believe these are the sources I used.

Warren:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/

Sanders:
http://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders

Others:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/18/the-five-poorest-us-senators

[ProfessorGAC]

219. Thanks Doc!

I'll read these tonight.

Edited because i typed "That's" instead of "Thanks" in the title. Duh!

[Bettie]

29. I am not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton

I'd love to see someone else in the primaries.

She's too much a tool of corporate interests for my taste.

However, I'm not willing to turn the government over fully to someone like Ted Cruz, another Bush, or god forbid, Scott Walker.

She may not be perfect, but she's worlds better than anyone who is able to survive the Republican primary process.

So, I will vote for whoever the nominee is in the general election.

If wealth is a disqualification for you in terms of voting for someone, how do you manage to vote in any election? Beyond the extremely local, everyone involved in politics tends to be wealthy, it is the way the system is rigged currently.

[RadiationTherapy]

38. I have reached the age of moral outrage, I guess.

Even at the local level - mayor of a town of 50k - the organizers and influential personalities were outwardly wealthy and glamorous to the point of discomfort for me. It's like it is a hobby for an exclusive club.

[Bettie]

254. I get that

I really do.

What we need is money out of politics, but sadly, the only people with the power to do that are the ones who benefit from it.

Lately, I wonder if my vote matters at all, but even a little mitigation of the worst impulses of our corporate overlords is better than letting them run 100% amok.

How sad is that sentence? Really.

I just realized, just now that I have zero faith in the system or any of our elected leaders. They don't care if we live or die because we, those who are under that .01% don't matter. I don't think it is any particular malice on their part either. We simply don't matter enough to even be on the radar.

[randome]

33. When your decision is based on one person instead of an idea, you lose. And will always lose.

There are bigger issues than one person can be expected to resolve. Clinton may not be perfect but you will never find someone who is.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[RadiationTherapy]

41. I'm sorry if I implied perfection.

I meant to imply that I, we, the micro economy of family, and the relative ecological homeostasis of the planet are on a very short timeframe for any type of remediation.

[Rex]

258. Trust me, that poster knows what you meant.

Your OP hurt some fee fees here. Truth is like that, don't let it discourage you.

[closeupready]

34. Once, I thought I'd hold my nose and do it if she was the nominee; now, not sure

about that. I have to balance my need to be ideologically faithful with my need to be practical. It may be that, at the end of the day, I will need to do the former and write someone in.

I respect your choice. K&R

[greatauntoftriplets]

37. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

A Republican president will certainly try to do all the things you claim to fear. If the Republicans continue to control the House and Senate, they will certainly cooperate with that.

[RadiationTherapy]

40. I am tired of the threats. The money-grubbers serve the grubbers.

It is the area of greatest overlap between two technically non-identical parties.

[closeupready]

51. And she will do for the American poor what she did for Walmart's working poor -

nothing.

Or let's just say that while on Walmart's Board of Directors, she did attempt to make changes - she was ineffective. Do we really want an ineffective president? Republicans would like us to nominate an ineffective Democrat, of that I'm certain.

[randome]

58. 'Ineffective' is better than 'destructive', which is what Republicans would bring.

Vote for the best candidate available and hope for the best. That's all any of us can do other than actually working in the field to build up an alternate candidate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[RadiationTherapy]

181. "build up an alternate candidate"

And how certain are you that establishment dems and repubs don't intentionally suppress such building?

[Katashi_itto]

53. Tough. Find another Dem candidate then.

[Romeo.lima333]

155. it's ridiculous isnt it "hillary might do something i dont like so im gonna let the cons have it "

they bitch about how bad things are then had the keys back to the people who made it this way for them

[Ykcutnek]

43. The Clinton administration's policies saved my life as a child living in poverty.

I will gladly cast my vote for another Clinton.

Especially the one who advocated for and got us CHIP.

[TheKentuckian]

344. MISOGYNY! HILLARY IS NOT BILL, SHE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTS!

Mostly but I do tire of this defense being used but no objections for positive association or credit.

I suspect that often it is the same folks coming and going.

[Maedhros]

49. I will vote for that candidate who best represents my views.

If that candidate happens to be a Democrat, then great! I know that Hillary is not that candidate...

[jwirr]

54. As the parent of a severely disabled daughter and one who has advocated for her group for years

I do not see how you are going to help either one of your family members by helping to elect the very people who are right at this moment working to destroy SSDI. And that is the Rs.

[RadiationTherapy]

63. As I mentioned upthread, there are so many dynamics at play.

SSI can stay funded, but I could get laid off. Prices can continue to go up and wages to stagnate leading to a slow asphyxiation of my family's already squeezed-to-the-max resources. There is no indication anywhere of a desire to stifle the obviously rigged flow of wealth to the ultra-wealthy. None. Nothing.

[onenote]

83. Admittedly, if one defines one's politics entirely by "me me me" your position makes sense

Most Democrats I know look beyond themselves to the impact of policy on others in addition to themselves.

[RadiationTherapy]

93. I feel comfortable that my situation is common enough to earn the rhetorical "I, me, my"

I have no problem with that perspective. I would not be comfortable with that in terms of "I am a man so who cares about abortion?" and other such social matters though.

[TheKentuckian]

310. The "me me me" is indicative of probably the majority of people in the country.

I don't think trying to guilt the country into telling themselves to eat cake is going to be terribly effective.

It is one fool thing to believe you must burn the village to save it it is a whole different level to expect the village to burn it's self down in some such effort.

[LittleBlue]

62. Same here. I refuse to participate

unless a real choice is presented.

The choice between Hillary and the GOP is a choice between a slow or quick death. I don't care enough to vote if my only goal is to prolong the suffering.

This country needs a political revolution from the two-headed system. Our current system has to collapse before that can happen. The faster we get there, the better.

[onenote]

76. Those who will die from lack of medical care and food stamps etc.

if the GOP candidate wins no doubt would disagree with your apparent belief that the sooner they die, the better things will eventually be.

[RiverLover]

116. Our Democratic president cut $8.7 Billion in food stamp assistance.

We need to CHANGE the Democrats back to being Democrats.

It won't happen if we allow Hillary to be our nominee.

As it stands now, we have 2 conservative parties, one of which is pro-gay marriage rights.

[onenote]

177. Thus proving the point, although not the one you think you are making

Yes, the President signed legislation that cut $8.7 billion from food stamps over a ten year period.

You apparently see that as no different from what would have happened if the repubs occupied the White House. In fact, however, the 8.7 billion cut was a vast improvement over what the repubs proposed (and would have gotten with a repub president): $40 billion in cuts.

Does it suck that the program was cut? Absolutely. Would have sucked more if it had been cut by $40 billion instead of $8.7 billion. Unquestionably.

I get that for those whose benefits were lost or reduced under the cuts signed into law, its a very bad outcome. But for the even larger number of people who would have lost benefits (4 million in just the first year), it was a good outcome.

I prefer the bad but better outcome to the bad but worse outcome.

You see no difference.

[Doc Holliday]

143. "I refuse to participate

unless a real choice is presented" may make you feel very standing-on-principle-ish, but other than being a Rush song lyric, it has no practical value. As you say, it can mean the difference between a slow slide and a headlong rush. Plus (as was mentioned upthread) it can only serve to make it that much easier for a Cruz or a Walker or another Bush to capture the White House.

On the upside, at least you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that "I stood by my principles" when SS is privatized, voting rights are further eroded, social progress is retarded or reversed, unions are further emasculated, etc., ad nauseum. Hooray for you.

[SidDithers]

65. Well alrighty, then....nt

Sid

[Agnosticsherbet]

70. Since she is a registered Democrat and served as a Democratic Senator.

I can set your mind at ease about that. She is a Democrat.

I am sorry to hear that you will work against liberal polices and issues in the 2016 election. Only by regaining control of the Congress and having a person in the Whitehouse that will sign legislation favorable to the poor and middle class is it possible to make things better.

In 2012 Bernie Sanders was worth $8,096,792.50.and ranked as the 84th most wealthy senator.

You should know that Elizabeth Warren's net worth is 14.5 million.

Your Statement, shown below, clearly makes those two people unacceptable to you.

I believe that wealth corrupts and corrodes morals while distancing one from the day to day "animal" aspects of human life such as food, shelter, dignity, and so on. I am prejudiced in that way. I am sorry for that, but money-grubbers have ruined community in my experience and I will not vote for one for President.

By way of comparison, Ted Cruz, by the way, is only worth 3.5 million.

By the way, in 2010 (the last year in the link below) you had to make $332,300.00 a year to be one of he 1%.

Making it to the 1 percent is more common than you think

[link:http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/poorest-members-of-congress-2014/|
The 10 ‘Poorest’ Members of Congress for 2014 (Video)]

Curiously, Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif. is considered the poorest member of congress because he is 3.7 million dollars in debt. However, in spite of the debt, he owns between 2 and 5 million in property (declarations are imprecise) and his a take home pay as a Congressman is $174,000.

[RadiationTherapy]

84. Yes, they are unacceptable to me.

Though I will extend the courtesy to them and Clinton to convince me they can represent a shift in policy that will - to be blunt - take money away from some parties and increase the income and resources of those less fortunate. I am willing to hear the words and see the plan. I am willing to see them courageously put their candidacy on the line by taking a stand against entrenched wealth-power. Please let me know when that is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. And if Richard Nixon had John Kennedy's money he would have taken a bath in it.

What a silly way to evaluate people.

[Agnosticsherbet]

208. The rules of the Democratic Party are explicit. If you register, you are a Democrat.

Now, you can complain that she is not liberal enough, as some people do, or that she is a socialist, as Republicans do, but she remains a Democrat, no matter what point she occupies on the political spectrum.

I have a bigger problem with the refusal to vote, and in failing to vote supporting conservative causes.

Our government is elected by a majority of those who vote.

Those who don't vote, support the worst possible conservative government.

[tiredtoo]

75. Sir,

Keep it up, if you can get others to follow your lead, we should have another 8 years of a Bush presidency.

[donnasgirl]

114. Radiation does not have to keep it up

Nor does he need for anyone to follow his lead, the young people in this Country feel the exact same way he does, and everyday more and more people are feeling the same exact way.

[tiredtoo]

134. Yes I know that

My question to you is: are you ready for another 8 years of a Bush in the White House?

[donnasgirl]

138. Simply put NO

Just like i am not ready for another Corporate shill in my opinion.

[tiredtoo]

141. well then we are in agreement

However you may be interested in another thread along these lines. here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6236013

[donnasgirl]

160. I do not think we are in agreement when it comes to Hillary

The best way for me to explain why is with this piece.
http://quietmike.org/2014/11/21/hillary-clinton-fraud/

[Divernan]

247. Excellent article

[tiredtoo]

224. Hate to burst your bubble young lady but

The result will be one or the other.

[RadiationTherapy]

167. Yes, yes. I'm very sure.

If I choose not to vote for President, I am supporting Hillary every bit as much as Jeb or Cruz.

[still_one]

77. Brilliant, and obviously you don't realize there is a difference between republican

SC nominees and Democratic ones

Do you even know her position on most of the issues, or are you just going to spew the Goldman Sachs mantra

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee let's all cut our nose off to spite our faces, put our fingers in our ears and say Lalalalala, I can't hear you, the SC doesn't matter

Will it matters if you are a women, or for civil rights, etc etc etc

Luckily the views on some here at DU that they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee do not represent the vast majority of Democrats, so as far as I am concerned those who won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it is Hillary are irrelevant

Similar to Ralph Nader

[aspirant]

215. So what are you going to give us for our votes?

Please list your dem compromise and stop with your demands.

[still_one]

230. Vote for whoever you want, I don't care, I told you the SC is at stake, but for those

The don't believe that is an important enough issue that is their business

bill Clinton appointed Ruth Ginsberg, and most likely she will retire in the next election no matter who wins

LBJ expanded the war in Vietnam Name, but Medicare, the Civil Rights act and other social programs would not have happened

If Warren or Sanders were the nominee that would be great, but since citizens United, another SC masterpiece, highly unlikely

Jim Webb said with that ruling millions can be funneled by third party sources and he doesn't believe he can compete against that

[Kablooie]

78. The more I hear about Hillary the less I want to vote for her.

I haven't heard anything that indicates that she understands what the country's wealth problem is and that she will attempt to remedy it.
Just the opposite.
She seems to embrace the Wall Street mentality as Bill did and that bodes for even more disparity in the foreseeable future.

I wish she could realize that helping the average guy is in the country's best interest instead of thinking that Wall Street wealth is the only thing that matters.

[Bobbie Jo]

92. That's the whole idea.

Messaging works. Concern trolls have known this since the beginning of the internets..

[Divernan]

122. Clintons have handed out $70 million in corporate IOU's

And Supreme Court appointments will be Number One on the Corporate agenda.

The $70 million refers to the personal wealth the Clintons have accumulated since leaving the White House. That money did not come from us peons and it did not come without expecatations/strings.

[ColesCountyDem]

79. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but I will work for and support her, if she is our nominee.

On her worst day, Secretary Clinton is vastly superior to any of the GOP clown car's occupants.

[RiverLover]

81. A new facebook page, just today -Be a Progreesive Hammer not Hillary's nail

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Progressive-Hammer/1595411580693950

I'm not on facebook myself, but its open to public & the petition is public.

[NotHardly]

88. Yeah, sure, that will solve it...not

Seriously, kinda tired of this forum being a grab-bag of trolls and Luddites.
Hey... guess what, the election is nearly 2 years away and the haters start pretty da*n early and petty early too.

[RadiationTherapy]

95. Some people like to think long and hard. Some people like to have extended conversations.

Some don't.

[DownriverDem]

99. You have to be a guy

Of course you're a guy. Millions of women would never say they can't vote for a Dem. Are you nuts? Women know who is on their side. Why don't you?

[brooklynite]

101. So, other than spouting platitudes, what are the specific Clinton economic policies you object to?

Voting against the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Supporting the elimination of the Bush tax cuts in 2008?

Opposing Republican proposals to privatize Social Security?

Supporting ACA?

Extending Unemployment Insurance?


Feel free to chime in...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. You really shouldn't confuse the poor fella with facts./NT

[RadiationTherapy]

163. Those aren't policies, obviously, they are positions and votes.

She isn't running on any of those topics except in the negative, i.e. to prevent republican undoings, etc.

I explained that I find her tainted because of her wealth and power. I explained it is a prejudice and unfair. I explained that my family and life are near desperation despite the nattering of the wealthy in support of the wealthy for decades on end.

What actual policies has she proposed and will in the future that will shift power and wealth away from establishments?

[salib]

110. This is actually a very powerful meme

As shown by all the attempts to derail it immediately.

Let's keep this one going.

[brooklynite]

113. Perhaps if you want to keep it going you can respond to my #101

I'd hate to shut anything down.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Why are you interrupting his "very powerful meme"?

I'd like the OP or any poster to name an issue where she is out of sync with the mainstream of the Democratic party and then provide evidence for his or her contention.

[salib]

222. Yep, this is a powerful one alright.

I just want to vote for someone like me, not a one tenth of one percent-er.

Simple.

Try to be nit-picky all you want. It is really proving to be easy to state and powerful.

[salib]

223. BTW, that eliminates the entire Repug field, so this is not about voting for one of those thieves.

[randome]

117. You are never voting for one person. You are voting for a candidate's team.

I have said often I would prefer someone else as President, but Clinton will be surrounded by a team of advisers, both good and bad.

It's safe to predict that the good ones will outnumber the bad and we will therefore have better progress toward Democratic ideals.

That should be what you are voting for.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

259. You mean like Obama's "Team of Opposites":

[font size=5]
The DLC New Team
Liberals Need NOT Apply
[/font]
(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


Not a single Democrat who voted against the Iraq War was appointed to Obama's cabinet,
or given a position of power or authority in his administration.

I would expect the same from Hillary.

[Enthusiast]

296. Thank you for pointing this out. It's the appointments and the policies, not the D or the R.

[TheKentuckian]

281. Why is it "safe to say"? It isn't true now, Obama's "team" stinks like shit.

Chock full of corporate Democrats and actual Republicans and Hillary isn't half as trustworthy on hires as evidenced by the fucking hacks she surrounds herself with.

If anything Clinton's corporate hacks are even worse than she is.

[L0oniX]

330. Obama's picks stank from day one.

[Omaha Steve]

124. Hillary isn't my first, second, third, or fourth choice, but...

IF she gets the nomination she gets my vote. The SCOTUS is on the line as well as several other issues.

OS

[davekriss]

129. The place to battle Clinton is in the primaries

If she wins the primaries, then the only sensible thing for we 99% is to vote for her in the general.

[Cryptoad]

136. Papa Paul Whores work is never done!

[secondwind]

139. If Hillary is our nominee, I will most definitely vote for her. The alternative is not acceptable

[indivisibleman]

144. If she is the nominee I will vote for her.

Not voting for her would be a vote for the Republicans and that would usher in a flood of crazy. We cannot let that happen.

[gordianot]

147. Humans like all apes exist in a hierarchal alpha social structure.

It so happens that accumulation and leverage in our species comes in the form an abstraction of money which can purchase influence and power from those on lower levels of the pyramid which supports the elite. We as a species have developed various schemes to gain the support and acquire alpha status support. Much like Jane Goodall's alpha Chimp who discovered a discarded gas can that made for a good show in an Ape display, a gimmick goes far in gaining the support of those with lower status. Among humans power is for sale. We want to stay warm, protected, have enough to eat and definitely depend on others for our most basic survival and should support alpha's with similar motives. Some alpha humans get it they want and depend on your support for their status they are there because they can gather currency to put on their power display based on vast numbers of other humans. Other humans frankly do not give a SHIT they do not want your support and see you as a burden, your demise and disenfranchisement from human society makes no difference to them. Mitt Romney was a perfect example of this with his comments about the 47% who pay no taxes (look who was talking) would never vote for him, however he did/does want you available to clean his SHIT and contribute to his large nest by not looking at him too closely. Unfortunately for him one of those impudent human apes managed to record his arrogance.

Hillary Clinton is not one of the super wealthy but she can put on a display that attracts the attention of very wealthy stake holders who may have slight bend to compassion Do not get me wrong she is not inevitable or the only choice I understand her pragmatism rubs people wrong but she does rely on votes to acquire her alpha status which takes vast financial resources. Whoever is chosen for the Democratic nomination will need to match or surpass that attraction. My bottom line: When you give up your vote you give up your only leverage. The ability to money grub unfortunately is and has always been part of the system it is literally in our DNA.

[RadiationTherapy]

170. Maybe it is in our DNA. I don't know. I have a hypothesis though:

It takes roughly 3% of people to turn into grubbers in order to force the other 97% into grubbing... + or - 2%...

[gordianot]

193. Humans always have and will seek an advantage for survival no matter where on the human heirarchy.

That is how religion and science developed as a means freeing us with a scheme from having to grub, scratch and claw for survival. Maybe the next stage of evolution will free us from that burden.

[RadiationTherapy]

195. It just seems to me - and who can know - that "97%" (to be optimistic)

of people I know seem to just want some year-to-year security and not luxury. Of course, it is difficult to be sure.

[gordianot]

225. I compare it to the High School Football player who thinks he will make it to the NFL.

They want to emulate the success of others but have limited concept of the price you pay in the remote chance you make it. Never mind the toll in the form of serious injury and often inevitable financial ruin. I once had a student who announced he was going to be a dirt bike racer. I asked him if he had ever competed answer "No". As our project I had him to research what being a professional dirt bike racer entailed in experience as well as rewards and liabilities. In the end he thanked me for destroying his dreams and I am certain hated me. My response try it anyway or find a new goal. This is just typical of what you find among some as in late teens. We are constantly sold the line you too can get more. The mindset we are number sets in. Fact there are more gifted students in China than there are students in the USA. Life does not have to be a constant competition.

We could do year-to-year security others do it for less or at least try, for much of the world our first world security is a luxury.

[Corey_Baker08]

152. Well Thanks 4 Handing Over The Presidency To Republicans

Whether u support someone else in the primary that's fine, I will be...but if Hillary is our Nominee & you refuse to vote for the Democratic Nominee you are enabling a Republican victory & quite frankly U Are NOT A Real Democrat & You sure as hell don't belong on this site...

Do us a favor & leave NOW... U make me sick, shame on you, what a fake...

[RadiationTherapy]

187. Meh. I don't even know you. Block me.

Who gives a shit?

A non-vote supports both parties, it does not "enable a repub victory" Shitty, uninspiring, canned, corporate "liberal" candidates do that.

[Corey_Baker08]

300. A non vote supports both parties? That's BS...

This is likely to be a close election & for you to say that a non vote supports both the Democratic & Republican parties is ludicrous...

Essentially you would be taking your vote for a Democrat & throwing it away bcuz by not voting you are very much putting in jeopardy electing a Democrat into the White House & if you disagree with Hillary Clinton's policies, that is your right.

Yet not voting will West out a doubt ensure that A right wing Republican well walk through the doors of the oval office on January 20th, 2017...just imagine s the 45th president of the United States is A tea bagger. So well you May not agree with every policy or principal that Hillary Clinton shares, please think of the alternative...

Again Hillary is not my 1st choice for President & I will campaign hard in the primary election for my candidate, just as I suspect you will as well. However I sincerely believe that if Hillary Clinton is our Nominee she would be better than any teabag Republican...

BTW, I will not block you or put you on ignore bcuz as a 25 year old I am very open to hearing what you have to say & perhaps you can let me know who you would support in the 2016 Democratic Primary...

We can surely disagree without being disagreeable!

Peace,
Corey B

[RadiationTherapy]

308. I just have nothing more to add. I will re-emphasize that for my family, time is crucial.

I don't feel that my current - very modest - living standard and security (well, I am basically check-to-check anyways) will make it another 10 years. I feel there needs to be a radical press from the left in terms of economic and ecological reform. Without that, I feel there is no hope but hard-scrabbling and migration. That urge for radical left reform leaves me in the regrettable position of feeling there is too little difference between Hillary and the repubs to matter much.

I have been lectured on my selfishness upthread and I will think about the effects of USSC nominations, the unity of democrats, and the fallout from a repub president as time goes on, but I frankly wonder if my time and dwindling resources of health would be better used building a supportive community with others than participating in these "elections."

I am burned out and concerned for my family and friends; concerned for them in an animal sense. Survival. Food. Shelter. Things are desperate and I am more tired every day.

[Corey_Baker08]

318. I Know What Your Going Thru, I Am Homeless...

[RadiationTherapy]

321. Good luck to you and I hope you feel peaceful.

That must be very difficult.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

159. There's a difference between can't and won't. I'm in the won't camp.

My nose holding days for the lesser of two evils is over.

[Romeo.lima333]

168. you wont hold your nose for the lesser of 2 evils so youll just hand it over to the ... jeez

what kind of dem or lib says shit like this. sounds like the kock brothers have a large footprint here

[RadiationTherapy]

171. If one abstains from voting for Pres, they support all candidates equally.

The premise that a non-vote counts for one's ideological other is false.

[Romeo.lima333]

178. but that is what it does, non-voting is not a victim-less act - we need your vote to nullify

the vote of one republican if you dont vote that republican's vote is not nullified and there fore goes to the republican runner. so your not voting gives the republican a vote

[RadiationTherapy]

183. But I am also not nullifying a dem vote by voting repub.

So that's good, right?

[Romeo.lima333]

186. ok charles or is it david?

[RadiationTherapy]

196. You can click the link in my signature

and see I am just a guy.

[TheKentuckian]

288. If you need my vote then act like it. I'm convincable, what do I get in return?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

176. I think you highly overestimate the influence of my one vote.

From another Democrat:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

And, another Democrat

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

I doubt the Koch brothers were around back then.

[Romeo.lima333]

182. well those are some pretty sentiments and youre correct the koch bros werent there then but

theyre here now and we need you to vote - btw they also owned slaves so they werent always thinking so clearly -

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

194. I've voted in 13 presidential elections.

My vote changed the outcome of those elections in exactly zero of them. And, they would have turned out the same if I voted for any of the candidates. Or, didn't vote at all.

BTW John Quincy Adams was not a slave owner and was an abolitionist.

[Romeo.lima333]

235. every vote counts and every election is important - too bad more people dont get that

i know he didnt the "they" i was refering to was a general they not the 2 you mentioned but btw jefferson did own slaves.
what youre refering to is a dictatorship where my one vote will change whatever i vote for. elections arent won by one vote , that doesnt mean your vote is meaningless

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

238. Maybe, you're right. So, I don't waste it on politicians that I don't agree with.

So, would you have voted for Jefferson when he ran because he owned slaves?

In the case of Hillary, I won't vote for her because she supported Bush's wars that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of political expediency.

[silvershadow]

174. I'm with you. It is up to the extremists on the right of our party to rejoin the

Democratic wing of the Democratic party. If they don't, and the primary results in a Hillary nomination, it will mark the event that split the party into two. And it will be an epic disaster. I cannot say if she will go on to win the Presidency, or not. She will get a lot of Republican votes from the sane ones, agains whomever the batshit crazy nominee their party selects, so perhaps... But the left will likely splinter off, and where the Democratic party goes from there, who knows? There is literally too much at stake to f*** this up now...Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Will we do the same?

[MisterP]

185. if abstentionists are to blame for a winning GOPper's policies, are Hillary all on the hook

for the wars, crippling free-trade agreements, banksterism, hunger from Reaganomics' fourth decade of failure, and other reactionary policies she absolutely will pass? bluewash doesn't exactly get out stains if they're blood-red

will they sit around un- or underemployed, paying to bail out the Wall Streeters that put them underwater, taking care of the parents after SS and Medicare are sold off because only a Dem could make that oligarch dream come true, and BLESS the president for seating someone who's only occasionally homophobic in the SCOTUS?

but the larger issue is that this won't even matter: if every DUer past and present voted one way or the other it wouldn't swing an election--and yet for over a decade any critic or lefty has been blamed whenever the voters reject a conservadem: in fact the voters are pre-blamed while the political-class flunkies are assumed to be doing the right thing--that electoral failure means only that we have to double down; needless to say this has only moved the GOP further and further right, making it ever-easier to threaten voters with dire consequences (not that it's kept the conservadems from going along with it 85% of the time)

people are going to see a party vocally dedicated to entrenching the status quo, already disavowing all responsibility for its own loss, demanding the votes Americans owe it in exchange for maybe not being punched in the nose as much, and saying America's problems are due to its voters and not the politicians: it's not DUers that are going to make her lose, it's the fact that it gets reduced so easily to making more threats than Nurse Ratched

they're not running a party, they're running a prison--or maybe a veal pen

[pansypoo53219]

189. thank you all, purity democrats for electing a REPUBLICAN. i am sure you sole is a-ok. USA?

not so much. GROW UP. the left will NEVER GET WHAT WE WANT. because the 2% have made it so.

[RadiationTherapy]

197. If I abstain from voting, I "elect" both candidates equally.

So I am not moved much by that point.

[L0oniX]

331. Goldman Sachs 2016

[olegramps]

198. Then you have effectively voted for a Republican.

I makes me wonder why you would want to post on this board which is dedicated to advancing Democratic candidates. I can only surmise that you subscribe to the false equivalency theory and don't believe that Hilary Clinton is no different than a Republican. Sorry I don't buy it.

[RadiationTherapy]

206. I don't subscribe to the false equivalency that a non-vote equals a vote for one's "enemy".

Obviously a non-vote "votes" for both candidates equally.

[LynneSin]

221. You do realize that in a nutshell we are a 2 party system in this country

and it sucks, sucks giant size yucky suckies.

And if you ASSUME Hillary will win the nomination in 2008 then I am really sorry to hear about that coma you had for the last 8 years because that was the same exact message everyone was posting at DU back in 2007 and I guess you must have been in a Coma totally unaware of what actually happened.

We have primaries, enjoy it and fight for the very end for the candidate of your choice. But in the end this country's presidential election is run on essentially a 2 party system and if you are in a swing state this does make a difference. If you are like me and live in a solid Blue state (or solid red state) then I guess you have room to protest.

But what we don't have room to do is have another Republican President like George W. Bush running this country. Because even on Hillary Clinton's absolutely worst day, she is still a far cry better than any one of those candidates the GOP is offering.

[AtomicKitten]

199. Reasonable point of view.

k&r

[outside]

200. HRC

can run as a President Obama third term, or as a conservative democrat. After what happened in the midterms I say she runs as a conservative democrat. If she runs and wins as a conservative democrat the DNC will focus on other conservative democrats for lesser offices because they will say that's what the people want. The GOP and DNC are selling people and their ideas like Johnson and Johnson sell soap. Why change anything if the fools are buying it.

If people want to see more progressives in higher office Hillary must not win the white house. If Hillary Clinton wins. Why change anything if the fools are buying it.

Just my two cents.

[Enthusiast]

297. I'm afraid you are correct.

[TheKentuckian]

345. Oh there is always a reason for both parties to move to the right, that is change you can depend on

Always an impetus for corporate taint licking and military adventuring.

[abelenkpe]

204. I've heard and know a lot of democratic voters who say they won't vote for Hillary

Really think that democratic leadership ought to consider the lack of enthusiasm and find a candidate that will appeal to more people.

[Zorra]

207. Any possibility for positive change is better than the hopeless, stinking hell of republicans.

If she is nominated I will vote for her, and continue advocating revolution.

No matter who gets elected, we still need a major non-violent revolution to fix what is broken, and one of the things that is broken is the political process.

I'd love to see a genuine serious liberal socialist get nominated.

But if Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her, and hope for the best, and continue to try to help topple the system.

There is no "best" under a republican administration; only total fascism.

[BainsBane]

210. While we don't know who will run for or win the nomination

your post assumes that Clinton will prevail. Perhaps she will. Then you need to decide if you think your disabled family members will fare better under the GOP.

The fallacy in your logic is that you think "money grubbing" is embodied in a single candidate, as though not voting for her changes campaign finance, capitalism, and the capitalist state. Whether you vote for Clinton, whether she or another Democrat wins the nomination or the Presidency, none of that affects "money grubbing." What a Democratic or GOP win does affect is whether your family retains disability payments. Is their well being less important that your irrational association of one woman with the ills of capitalism and the American political system?

I find this whole meme about Clinton, vs. every other human being who might run for the Democratic nomination, perplexing. How I wonder did this come about and take hold? The argument prevails because it successfully depends on an American public ignorant of their own nation's history and the nature of capitalism. It also depends on an association of women with evil. As a historian, Marxist and a feminist, I find it frustrating.

[olegramps]

236. Does the DU actually represent the average Democrat.

It appears to me that the DU is populated mainly by ultra-progressives who would have a had time supporting anyone who doesn't share their rather utopia views of what a candidate must be. Their hero is Sanders or Warren, but in reality could either of these candidates actually be elected? It doesn't mean that I don't admire Sanders, but can he actually finance a campaign for president? The same for Warren.

I also wonder just how many people who are extremely critical of Hilary Clinton have even taken out the time to read her book "Hard Choices." I would encourage them to read it and come to an appreciation of just how complicated are the balancing the relationships of dealing with multiple governments. She demonstrates an expertise and understanding of foreign affairs that is astonishing.

This is a critical issue to me in regard to the presidency. It is the most important challenge facing a president. It seems that many are solely concerned with issues that are the sole governance of congress and that can only be solved by congress. If you want progressive legislation then elect representatives that are dedicated to improving the lot of the working class.

Another aspect is the appointment of judges including the Supreme Court. If you want progressive judges who will protect the right of the working class citizen then elect representatives who will assure that they are confirmed and not blocked by radical Republicans. As has been aptly pointed out here the appointment of judges can have tremendous affect on the well being of regular citizens.

The Republicans have astutely grasped this fact and have been extremely successful starting at the municipal and state level of building a solid foundation to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, the working class have been convinced that trade unions were unnecessary and that candidates support of unions was immaterial. The result is that they have seen their jobs outsourced, their health cancelled and pensions cut simply because their was no monolithic Democratic resistance to oppose this. Finally I would like to observe that the president can be bent to accept the will of the people and especially the will of the congress. You want a president that is dedicated to helping the working class then elect representatives that demand that he do exactly that.

[lovemydog]

269. Yup - the representative level.

Voting for President in a primary or general election is the least one does as a citizen.

The real action is at local, municipal and state levels.

[davidpdx]

356. I have an E-book version of it and was planning to read it

even though I am not of a fan of hers. I have read one of her past books and was impressed. Unfortunately as a doctoral candidate I have not had a lot of time to read for pleasure. So it's on my list, I just need to get everything else off my plate first. I miss actually being able to sit down and read something for pleasure.

[WhiteTara]

213. Thanks for nothing, since that's what you'll be doing.

Or, what you are doing is being a poor republican. You don't make sense, but you sure are emoting.

[LynneSin]

214. So you are saying IF Hillary gets the nomination you'd be ok with one of those Dimwit GOP as Prez?

I mean this strategy worked so well in 2000 and 2004.

Let's try it again in 2016. We'll show those democrats if they can't put a progressive on the ticket and we'll stick the country with the likes of Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Ted Cruz. That'll make this country a better place



I have no problem with whom anyone here votes for in the Primaries, not even sure who I am supporting. But in the end after a good fight, I am on board to support the winner of the Primaries. If that happens to be Hillary Clinton then I am there 100% because in the end she is a far cry better than any of the idiots in the GOP clown car.

[lobodons]

217. Gore lost Florida by 500 votes (arguably)

Nader received 90,000 votes in Florida in 2000

As a result we got Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS (not to mention 2 illegal wars, Trillions wasted, hundred of thousand people killed and maimed)

The question isn't about Hillary, but rather NEVER NEVER NEVER again should we allow a Republican in the White house!!

[gordianot]

229. That should never be forgotton there needs to be campaign ads reflecting that fact.

Many do not have any concept of the price we have and are paying.

[closeupready]

231. LOL - you didn't see Fahrenheit 911.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

218. Frame this...

https://medium.com/the-nib/sparky-dooms-the-nation-626374d14674

[NCTraveler]

226. So civil rights aren't your thing.

Understood. Sorry six years of Obama have left you feeling this way. He has truly helped a large amount of people.

[Jim Lane]

245. I expect to vote against Hillary in the primary and against the Republican in the general.

To accomplish the latter effectively (voting for a no-hoper third-party candidate doesn't count), I'll almost certainly have to vote for the Democratic nominee, even if it's someone from the right wing of the party.

A common argument in this thread seems to be "We progressives will withhold our votes from the Democratic Party if the party nominates Hillary and that will teach them the lesson that they must nominate more liberal candidates in the future." I think that's absurd. It seems to assume that the nomination is decided by a cabal of party bosses (it isn't) and that those party bosses would be mightily impressed by defections on the left (they wouldn't).

[workinclasszero]

260. The koch bros and the walton heirs salute you OP

You are a de facto republican teabagger, congrats?

Funny how you want to help the richest 1% "corporate, wealth-addled money-grubbers " party there is with your purity standards.

I just don't get why you would, on purpose, cut the throat of your own father and brother? They must have been horrible to you in life eh?

Because a republican white house and congress will most assuredly kill SSI dead along with social security in general.

I hope you all enjoy homelessness and hunger. Maybe some folks need to lose everything and go back to Hooverville type of survival before they realize what evil the republican party represents.

I don't need or want that myself or for my family either.

[great white snark]

261. Your selfishness will hurt others.

Elections are more important than you.

[hollowdweller]

263. I felt the same way when I voted for Nader

I felt Gore with his corporate democrat way and Bush with his compassionate conservatisim were both the same.

I feel safe saying I was wrong.

[RadiationTherapy]

271. It would be irresponsible of me not to keep this and the USSC conversation in my mind as I choose.

Thank you.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

264. I'll vote for her against the R opposition, but I really wish we had a better candidate.

And by better I mean one who stands up for the majority of Americans--those not rich SOBs--and vows to make corporations pay their fair share.

[glinda]

274. You don't vote we loose.

I don't like her. She is anti-environment. I just hope someone better gets nominated along with more progressives to kick her in the ass should she win.

[Savannahmann]

275. But if we do vote for her, and we win, we still lose.

It's the old conundrum. Feathers or Lead? Would you rather get hit by a ton of feathers, or a ton of lead? Either way, you're going to die. So which is the prefered manner?

When it comes to corporate donations, and corporate sponsorship, we are just as bad as the Republicans. Yes, I mean that. I posted a long explanation here.

I've not seen a week go by where someone didn't post a rant against the Koch Brothers and how awful/evil/greedy they are and how they hope to subvert the Democratic Process by influencing elections. Yet, our own billionaire backers do much the same thing for our side. They fund the PAC's, and they give to Moveon and other organizations to get the people out and talking about the issues. So are our backers doing so out of kind hearted patriotic zeal and love for the common man? Did they get their money through strictly honorable means?

Bill Gates gets mentioned as he talks about Tax reform or helping the poor. During the Clinton Administration, he was sued by the Justice Department for creating a monopolistic company and squashing competition. So how did this monopolistic monster who was squashing competition and cheating people of choice become the poster child of the Left? Why he donated a tiny fraction of a percentage of his billions to a few charities and said some populist things and now he's awesome man.

Berkshire Hathaway? They've done much the same thing as Romney, buying companies and gutting them. They avoid FTC oversight by being family owned and operated. But they donate to our side, so they're a great company full of awesome rich people as opposed to the evil groups on the other side who donate to Republicans. Warren Buffet says he should pay more taxes, but he hasn't fired any of the dozens of Lawyers and Hundreds of Accountants he employs to make sure he doesn't pay one damn dime more in tax than he has to. But he says the right things, and donates to our causes, so we like him and his company.

So Feathers or Lead? Is it worse to have your economic future destroyed by Corporations aligned to the Right, or Left? Having Tar Sands Oil transported by a pipeline built and owned by the Koch Brothers is bad. Having Tar Sands Oil transported by a railroad owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway is good. Because you never hear about a train accident spilling tons of crap all over the place.

So in this case, even if we win, we lose. We just lose to those who bought our side the victory.

[Logical]

302. The worst dem better than the best GOP, get it yet?? Clueless! nt

[Savannahmann]

309. Yes.

Of course they are. I mean, I'm thrilled to death that Warren Buffett has the only means of transporting the Tar Sands Oil from Canada to the Refineries on the Gulf. That way we totally thwart the greed of the Koch Brothers who stand to make millions off of the Keystone Pipeline. Sure, there are occasional accidents that almost inevitably occur in populated areas causing death and destruction on a massive scale, but at least we are preventing the RW from rewarding their corporate masters! The audacity of the RW thinking that we would stand idly by while they funneled billions into the coffers of their backers. Why, that money is much better routed to the coffers of our corporate masters!

We may be better on some issues than the Republicans. But we're just as guilty on other issues as the worst of the Republicans. Your argument has the sound of someone who cherishes the lowest common denominator. My argument is about truth, and striving to be more than we are, and more than we seem to want to be. I want more from my party. I want a return to principles. I want a party we can vote for, instead of one we decide is the lesser of two evils. In that case, we are still evil, but not in the ninth circle.

Get it yet? Or are you going to keep your head in the sand in wilful ignorance? One of us may be clueless, but from my point of view it's the one with the inaptly applied handle. I refuse to join the cheerleaders who sing one of two songs. A) My party is always right, which is juvenile. Or my Party Right or wrong, which is infamous.

I've said before, I'll say it again if you like. Should Hillary run for the election. I'll vote against her in the primary. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her in the General, I'll wear a cloths pin on my nose, I may have to vomit afterwards, and I'll definitely need a shower. But I'll vote against the Republicans as our party races to the bottom. I view our party honestly. I only wish you were able to do so as well.

[Logical]

314. I also will not vote for hillary and will campaign for her to lose the primary....

but will vote for her if she is the nominee!

I ave posted here many times, if Hillary is the nominee I will get drunk on election day and vote for her.

So we are not much different.

How is what I posted saying we must nominate Hillary?

[Savannahmann]

315. I misunderstood. I apologize.

[Logical]

316. No problem. Wish we could hang out election day! :-)

[treestar]

367. Stay off in that corner of negativity

You're never going to see anything you want, that's obvious.

[JEB]

277. Kissenger/Summers 2016

They are inevitable.

[L0oniX]

332. LMFAO

[betterdemsonly]

279. I think the big money who finance the candidates

Last edited Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:07 AM - Edit history (1)

have her running to lose anyway. The good news is the midterms in 2018 will be a massacre against the republicans and we can elect more progressives. So I will personlly be happier with her loss. I want to elect more people to congress so we have more Presidential prospect in the future. This election is a rotting corps already. Need to allow the vultures to have at it.

[seabeyond]

280. supreme court. it will be an easy vote. nt

[Amimnoch]

282. The SCOTUS alone is too much reason to rule out ANY candidate with a D behind the name.

Personally, I'm still waiting to see who the candidates running in the Primary are before throwing my time and money behind anyone or eliminating anyone from my selection. I will weigh what their message is, what their chances of winning the General is, what their voting/support history is.. then I will support whomever I think is the best candidate through the primary. Whichever Democrat candidate wins the primary will have my support in the General.

The most important thing about this next election cycle (IMO) is the makeup of the SCOTUS. Scalia is now 78 years old. Kennedy is now 78 years old. Justice Ginsburg is 81 years old. Justice Breyer is 76 years old. Just on modern mortality rate statistics, not to mention potential for retirement either by desire or declining health reasons, the odds that all 4x of these justices will remain the entirety of the 4 years after President Obama leaves office is unlikely at the least.

Do you all want to risk a more conservative SCOTUS??
Just look at the progress the country has made in the last 15 years, not by our legislature, but by Judicial rulings.
Are you keen for anti-gay laws to be judged Constitutional?
Are you keen for women's reproductive rights of choice to be taken away?
Do you want an even more conservative court should another election like the one in 2000 happen again?
etc.. etc.. etc...

Whomever has a D by their name in the general election WILL have my absolute and full support, and I don't care if i have to hold my nose while supporting, but they will have it.

[JoePhilly]

283. Those poor Republicans would do better voting for Democrats.

You on the other hand .... removes nose to spite face.

[Autumn]

285. Your vote is your voice. Use it as your conscience dictates.

Good luck to us all.

[Stellar]

289. Just wondering....

Which is worse/best, to be a democrat in name only or a republican in name only. Or, are they both the same person? And, which side is Hillary really on, or am I just voting for the 'party name' instead of the candidate....so confusing.

[Enthusiast]

293. Kicked and recommended! This is it, "a very short clock in terms of remediation."

We were there in 2008 after the damage done by the Bush miscreants. Now we cannot afford to be fooled again.

[Logical]

301. Well, i hate her and hope she loses in primarys, but will vote for her! nt

[hrmjustin]

320. Sounds like puma to me.

[Pisces]

322. ok, don't, are you trying to sway others? Ha!!

[RadiationTherapy]

323. I was just explaining my own feelings and perspectives. I felt they are probably common enough

that it may help others to understand the sense of urgency and drowning many are experiencing.

[still_one]

326. only here at DU, not with most progressives or Democrats who will vote for whoever the Democratic

nominee is

[Pisces]

342. They'll grab the democratic life preserver in in '16 when push comes to shove. I'm not worried about

the hand wringing now. When the alternative presents itself the incentive will be in place.

[RadiationTherapy]

346. You sound like the Mob, ferfuxsake.

"When the alternative presents itself the incentive will be in place." That sounds like a great campaign slogan. So inspiring!! haaaahahahahaha.

Oh well. Good luck to all.

[Pisces]

355. This is the slogan to those who feel like you. Others will be motivated for Clinton. Good luck to

you and your thinly veiled agenda.

[RadiationTherapy]

357. Everyone has an agenda.

But not everyone is a smug bully, thank goodness. Good luck with your slogan and future marketing career.

[liberal N proud]

333. Not voting is exactly what republicans want

[VanillaRhapsody]

335. this bullshit meme again?

Hillary Clinton on Health Care

Ebola won't stay confined; put resources into Africa. (Oct 2014)
Don’t legitimize end-of-life decision, but ok to help decide. (Apr 2008)
Decrease generic drug costs for developing countries. (Apr 2008)
Taxpayers pay for drug R&D, not drug companies. (Jan 2008)
Need a health care system that manages chronic diseases. (Jan 2008)
Universal health care is a core Democratic principle. (Jan 2008)
Pledges to support $50B for AIDS relief in US and world. (Dec 2007)
Worked on education & welfare in Arkansas but not healthcare. (Oct 2007)
No parent should be told ‘no’ for healthcare for their kids. (Sep 2007)
Local smoking bans ok, but no national ban. (Sep 2007)
Outcry if AIDS were leading disease of young whites. (Jun 2007)
Electronic medical records save $120 billion in health care. (Jun 2007)
Insurers must fund prevention without preexisting conditions. (Mar 2007)
Require electronic medical record for all federal healthcare. (Mar 2007)
Increase America’s commitment against Global AIDS. (Nov 2006)
FDA should compare drug effectiveness--not just safety. (Oct 2006)
Supply more medical needs of families, & insure all children. (Jun 2006)
Healthcare system plagued with underuse, overuse, and abuse. (Oct 2005)
Fought for pediatric rule: new drugs tested for child safety. (Oct 2005)
Low-tech low-cost water treatment for developing world. (Nov 2003)
Millions uninsured is source of America's healthcare crisis. (Nov 2003)
Recommended "managed competition"; not single-payer system. (Nov 2003)
Fund teaching hospitals federally because market fails. (Sep 2000)
Regulate tobacco; fine of $3000 for every underage smoker. (Apr 2000)
Be prepared with defenses against infectious disease. (Oct 1999)
Medicare should be strengthened today. (Sep 1999)
GOP overwhelmed by her health reform knowledge. (Jun 1995)
$100B to get started on healthcare reform. (Jun 1994)
Smaller steps to progress on health care. (Jan 2000)
1990s HillaryCare

Hillary appointed 8 days after inauguration to health cmte. (Oct 2007)
A plan is necessary; but consensus is more necessary. (Sep 2007)
1993:Ambitious role plagued from start by secrecy complaints. (Jun 2007)
1990s plan failed after big pharma & insurance worked on it. (Apr 2007)
1990s healthcare reforms laid groundwork for today’s reforms. (Mar 2007)
Still scarred from 1990s reform, but now doing it better. (Feb 2007)
1997: Helped found State Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Dec 2006)
More people read my health plan abroad than in the US. (Nov 2005)
1993 health plan initially praised as moderate & workable. (Jun 2004)
1990s reform called “secretive” but had 600 in working group. (Nov 2003)
When last Republican backed out, HillaryCare died. (Nov 2003)
Despite failure, glad she tried system-wide reform. (Nov 2003)
1994 "Harry & Louise" ads exploited consumer fears. (Nov 2003)
1990s plan based on employer mandate. (Feb 2003)
Learned lessons on health care; but hasn’t given up goal. (Aug 2000)
1979: Developed program to deliver rural healthcare. (Aug 1999)
1994: can't fix just part of problem; it's all or nothing. (Jan 1997)
2008 HillaryCare

2006: If I can't do universal coverage, why run? (Aug 2009)
AdWatch: Got health insurance for six million kids. (Mar 2008)
Include everyone, to avoid cherry-picking and its hidden tax. (Feb 2008)
Healthcare without mandate is like voluntary Social Security. (Feb 2008)
Many uninsured are young & don’t think they need coverage. (Feb 2008)
Make it illegal to discriminate against sick people. (Feb 2008)
Tired of health insurance companies deciding who live or die. (Feb 2008)
Universal health care will not work if it is voluntary. (Feb 2008)
Mandate insurance AND make it affordable for all. (Jan 2008)
Health care tax credit ensures affordability. (Nov 2007)
Insurance companies cannot deny people coverage. (Oct 2007)
Condemns insurers as motivated by greed. (Oct 2007)
American Health Choices Plan: keep yours or pick Congress’. (Sep 2007)
Pay for health plan by $52B tax repeal & $77B efficiencies. (Sep 2007)
Mandated responsibility by individuals, industry & employers. (Sep 2007)
Since 1993, new consensus developed on need for healthcare. (Sep 2007)
Include insurance industry in discussions, but rein them in. (Sep 2007)
Universal health care coverage by the end of my second term. (Feb 2007)
I have the expertise to achieve universal healthcare for all. (Feb 2007)
We need a uniquely American solution to health care. (Oct 2006)
ObamaCare

Non-employer system better; but don't turn back ObamaCare. (Mar 2014)
2007: recast 1990s disaster as experience to make it happen. (Jan 2010)
We need a movement to get healthcare done this time. (Aug 2009)
Voting Record

Health care initiatives are her first priority in Senate. (Feb 2001)
Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care. (Aug 2000)
Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (May 2003)
Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)
End government propaganda on Medicare bill. (Mar 2004)
Sponsored bill for mental health service for older Americans. (May 2005)
Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)

Hillary Clinton on Social Security

Privatization off the table; but maybe payroll cap increase. (Aug 2014)
No lifting cap on payroll tax; that taxes middle class. (Apr 2008)
Bipartisan commission, like in 1983, to address crisis. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: No, teachers & police won’t pay if cap over $102K. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, removing $97,500 cap affects middle-class. (Nov 2007)
Have a bipartisan commission on Social Security and its tax. (Oct 2007)
1997: Hillary warned against privatizing Social Security. (Oct 2007)
$1000 matching tax credit for first $1000 in 401(k) deposit. (Oct 2007)
Solvent until 2055 under Bill Clinton; now has lost 14 years. (Sep 2007)
Nothing else on table until fiscal responsibility returns. (Sep 2007)
Make sure nobody ever tries to privatize Social Security. (Aug 2007)
Soc.Sec. one of greatest inventions in American democracy. (Oct 2006)
Social Security protects families, not just retirees. (Feb 1999)
All should join the debate now to preserve future solvency. (Feb 1999)
Respect unique power of government to meet social needs. (Sep 1996)
Elderly poor are hit hardest by delays in COLA increases. (Jun 1994)
Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (Mar 2007)
Create Retirement Savings Accounts. (Aug 2000)
Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

[guillaumeb]

337. from now on I will only vote for perfect politicians

because anyone who is not perfect does not deserve my vote.

How do I determine who that perfect politician is? Easy, the politician who perfectly represents my positions on every issue that I deem to be IMPORTANT ISSUES.

Otherwise I will take my vote and go home. If a non-perfect politician is elected by the people who do vote I will spend the next 4 years criticizing all the deluded voters who fell for the lies of the non-perfect politician.

Make sense?

Not to me.

[RadiationTherapy]

340. I did not mean for this thread to re-surface. I responded to a post and didn't realize.

I have nothing to add that isn't already upthread; including the "demanding perfection" argument.

[treestar]

368. Some people are so relentless negative

I think they want to be miserable. They actually court it. At bottom is "my way or the highway" to the whole rest of the country/world. Therefore really it's just plain self centeredness. Nobody can expect a dictatorship of ME. Yet they really think they are right to the point that anyone else is and must be wrong, evil, etc., for having another opinion, or having another way to do things. Geez even the right wingers create a group they thing of as absolutely "right."

[RadiationTherapy]

371. "Some people like cupcakes better; I for one care less for them"

The party has moved steadily right for decades, so let's not pretend we know which groups in the party are compromising and which are requiring "my way or the highway" compromising. "Let's move left" is a far cry from a demand. Deciding I can no longer participate in the conservatization and corporatization of the democratic party is a far cry from "my way or the highway."

[Township75]

339. I don't have an issue with your choice, but my bet is you change your mind and vote for her.

Some here put the party before the ideals, and some put the ideals before the party.

As part of living and wanting to live in a free country, I can live with whatever your choice is regardless of my opinion about it.

But what I notice here is that people will trash the nominee and candidates, but once the republicans have their candidate picked out, everyone here gets behind the Dem candidate.

if you aren't one of them, I am fine with that, because I want the freedom to decide where my vote goes, therefore you should have it too.

I also hate nepotism, and both Bush and Clinton candidates are pure nepotism.

[Ramses]

341. And they will always blame the "left"

Even though we are "fringe", and our ideas dint count, we can somehow singlehandedly throw the entire election to republicans. It always has amazed me how the "left" is so meaningless and fringe, yet we can somehow all powerfully change the outcome of entire elections. Its amazing really, no actually its not.

[treestar]

366. FDR would have been out too

You're confusing the person with what they would support. Look at Hillary's voting record rather than vague and constant drumbeat about being "corporate." That's become meaningless.

[RadiationTherapy]

369. FDR campaigned on transference of (some) power to (some) people.

It was imperfect, but, as i mentioned upthread, I am willing to be campaigned to in that capacity by Hillary and others.