General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe best thing about Hillary scuttling her own candidacy ?
the voices of better candidates, that some of us are MUCH more interested in, can now be heard over the impenetrable hard shell of the constant "nobody but Hillary" drum beat /chant.
Who is really surprised that, capturing e-mails on a private server was going to be trouble ? Who could have guessed that the appearance of deceit regarding 30,000 e-mails about chelsea, and yoga would be a problem. And now, who could have possibly thought that scrubbing the private server clean, rather than COME CLEAN if there was nothing to hide, would be the end of the Hillary primary coronation just 70 some odd weeks ahead of the election ? ................. this guy did.
Now, ..............there might be some advancement of candidates that have the juice, and the ideas, but not the baggage. maybe now there will be a return to moving the PEOPLE's NEEDS forward, you remember that, that "democratic platform thingy that used to exist"", instead of putting the PEOPLE's NEEDs behind another self ordained political dynasty member who feels it's "thier turn".
Keep bailing the Hillary Titanic in the hopes of limping that ship back to port for a fresh coat of paint, or get everyone off, and onto a seaworthy vessel that can make the voyage.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Chosen by the people, not a coronation. Same as it ever was.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)All the other candidates.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)starting with Iowa 
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)all the other candidates.
if she runs, she will command the spotlight with the gajillion dollar campain funding,..... spend the next 70 weeks trying to convince people she is trustworthy, instead of BEING trustworthy, and in the process cripple the Democrat campaign field.
Hillary runs ? My opinion a republican wins.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Which makes it not a coronation.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)No worries, you don't have to pay a cent for my opinion, it's free of charge. Hope it helps pass the time, just that you took the time is enough to show you care.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)I have a feeling that Hillary Clinton will do well in the primaries
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.
[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]
We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:
* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,
*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,
*had an Up & Running Political machine,
* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)
*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists
*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass
...and we were WINNING!
Guess what happened.
The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!
Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.
For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.
White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas
* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.
*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.
*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.
<snip>
What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.
Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"
<much more>
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.
Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?
Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.
When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.
Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-
So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule of Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Current polling reflects largely name recognition. Give Democrats a choice, and they will take it. Then and only then will polling reflect the actual status of the race.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I grow more confident of that daily.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The best candidate will come out in the end. I notice you have nothing positive to say about anyone in your op. Just word salad, that has nothing to do with reality, with the goal being the great past time of voter suppression.
Hillary
Warren
Biden
Sanders
O'Malley
We are in a great position. You should stand for something.
If you are aware there is a primary, you should also be able to connect the dots to figure out your op makes no sense.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Hillary, ....my opinion kneecapped her own candidacy.
Warren has said she WILL NOT RUN. maybe with Hillary currently doing all she can to poke holes in her own campain, maybe she will ? that would be another positive to no Hillary.
Biden ? seriously ? ........ whatever. At least it would be entertaining, like the comedy channel except it wouldn't be funny when a republican wins.
Sanders, THAT is the kind of candidate that I hope is able to make a real show, and is able to be seen and heard for the forward thinking he has. Without being washed overboard by the constant story of Hillary trying to prove she can be trusted because Bill was the most loved president.
O'Malley ? Don't know enough, except he appears to be very like-able. Nobody has really served up the meat and potatoes of his political agenda.
My OP and opinions make perfect sense to the person who matters most, ........... me. And I've never let me down.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While you would be one of the very few on earth, I am also sure you have never let yourself down. That is the mindset necessary to pull something like this off and to have it actually make sense to the author. Not many people are willing to make such an admittance. That truth coming from you is very refreshing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I would be curious what you actually thought of them, please don't tell me they are just names you hear on the news, and repeat them out of habit. Surely you have thoughts about them ?
A little truth IS refreshing, even if people don't agree with my opinion, honesty IS refreshing, and that is the sad truth. Truth and Honesty, is exactly what is missing, ........open debate and honest thought is what brings about the best solutions.
Do you have some honesty you can share, regarding the people you listed ?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is not worth the time to have a discussion with someone who feels this way. Complete waste of time. I have an opinion of all of those I listed and more.
"open debate and honest thought is what brings about the best solutions."
Then you should try it.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)at least...... "not until another news poll tells me what my opinion is". that about right ?
unable to express your own opinion, "with someone who feels this way".... impressive, that's some ivy league depth of thought. You are an original with the millions of others unable to express themselves. If only we had a bullet proof House, Senate and presidency,........ that's the only way people unable to engage are capable of seeing progress.
take care.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I don't see her scuttling her candidacy.
Who are all of these people that have "the juice" and where are they?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
FSogol
(45,481 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Polls 10 months out from the Iowa Caucus and 19 months out from the general election don't matter at all.
By repeatedly posting poll numbers that aren't terribly meaningful, you are exposing that there really is no substantive argument to be made for her candidacy.
Who gives a fig if she can win, if we end up with Jeb Bush in a dress?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Since everything on this board gets discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseum I can just recycle old posts:
This is how they differ:
-Breyer and Ginsburg instead of Alito and Roberts.
-Protection and expansion of the Affordable Care Act instead of repeal and tens of millions thrown off the insurance rolls
- Paid leave instead of no paid leave
-An increase in the minimum wage instead of leaving it up to the states
-A tax on the highest income bracket instead of more tax cuts that favor the rich
-Protection and expansion of lbtgq rights instead of a push to contract their rights
-Protection of reproductive rights instead of their contraction.
-A sane and humane immigration policy that doesn't rip families apart...
I will think of some more I am sure...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6434642
if you don't believe there are substantive differences between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...
The last group of people who didn't believe there were substantive differences between the Democrats (Gore) and the Pugs(Dubya) ) gave us thousands of American dead and hundreds of thousands of Arab dead in the M.E. and trillions added to the deficit.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I want "no more war aggression" and "no more selling everyone out to Wall Street".
The rest of that is a bait-and-switch only a sucker would fall for.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Millions of single indigent Americans who weren't eligible for Medicaid prior to the expansion of the Affordable Care Act can now see a doctor and get continuing treatment for their chronic illnesses because Barack Obama beat John McCain and Mitt Romney..They can now see a doctor and won't die at the ripe old age of 58 like my old man from a massive heart attack because they hadn't had a physical in twenty years.
Another ten million get subsidized insurance they wouldn't get before...
Millions of gay folks can now marry the person they love because President Clinton and Barack Obama appointed justices like Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead of justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia...
I'm in downtown Los Angeles and just broke a ten so I could give a homeless woman and her two kids 5 of it...I need the other 5 for bus fare to get home.
To them Wall street is a abstraction that only comfortable people who are on the internet when they are on the street can worry about...
If I can make the smallest differences in their lives and the lives of folks like them I will do it...
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Do you see the statistical impossibility of the one you keep posting ? I'll bet you don't, maybe I should ask if you understand what I mean ?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Does not mean 80% of dentists.
the overwhelming evidence suggest that Democrat voters "tuned out and turned off" during the mid term election, which is a partial reason the republicans are now in control the House and Senate. Now as we enter the 2016 home stretch of only 70 some odd weeks to go before the election, Hillary Clinton dominates the news cycle, and is projected to accumulate the largest campaign funding stream at the start of the 2016 election cycle.
The truth of that is yes,....... large numbers of people bailed on the mid term elections, they bailed not as a protest, I think it was apathy. Those that do not vote, are orders of magnitude more likely to spontaneously support a candidate with a name they recognize when put on the spot, or asked to choose one name from a short list.
it would take too long, and to be honest statistics are a bid mundane sometimes,.............. to review why polls have lost the credibility to accurately suggest a potential outcome. Much like the bullshit unemployment number, they are easily guided to a predictable number for an agenda driven aim.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)She hasn't scuttled anything. The other possible candidates still have a long way and a long primary season to go through. Some won't even try. Not everyone thinks about this the same way you do. In fact, very few people do. You will be one vote in one state's primary. Good luck to your favorite, once there are actually candidates.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I will never understand the vanity of thinking because I think a certain way others will think a certain way too and in the current instance Birder thinks a lot of others think the same way as him...
I am the humble type and let others think for themselves and don't presume I know how they think on this or that issue unless they inform me first.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)You see it a lot on the Intertubes. You see it a lot on DU, as well.
"This is obvious to me, so everyone else must feel the same." That's virtually always an incorrect statement, on both sides of the comma.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)or, was the reason "Democrats don't show up to vote in midterms", I've always LOVED that excuse.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)"this ain't no thing"
As it gets worse, and worse and worse. people only want to believe the bullshit "where there is smoke there is fire" crap only when it suits thier point of view.
that is whole problem with Hillary as a candidate, .......with everything she should be campaigning FOR and there seems to be PLENTY of issues to be solved,.............. her campaign is going to be all about her trying to appear trustworthy, and CONVINCE the voters she is trustworthy......mostly because of how much Bill was loved.
Sanders doesn't have to convince you he is trustworthy, his record does that FOR him, he just doesn't have the funding. Hillary will spend a billion dollars to convince you she is trustworthy, that tells me something.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Looking at the issue, it doesn't really seem to have very long legs. It's so early in the entire process, too. There will be some candidates in the Democratic Primary. One of them will end up as the Democratic Nominee. I can, and will, for for whichever one ends up being the candidate. In the meantime, I'll be listening to all of them, weighing their chances to win in November, 2016, and will vote accordingly.
If Bernie Sanders is on my primary ballot in Minnesota, I'll vote for him, but I don't think his name will be on the ballot, nor do I think he has any chance of getting any delegates to the National Convention from this state. That's political reality.
I have no idea where you are, so I don't know what any of the other possible candidates' chances are there. The only thing I'm sure of is that there will be a Democratic candidate after the Democratic National Convention. That's who I'll be voting for in November.
I recommend that everyone votes for the Democrat in November. My interest in the presidential primaries is minimal. There are so many other offices that I can actually influence. I have zero influence on who the Presidential candidate will be, and I doubt you do either. I advise working on your state and federal legislative races. You'll accomplish more.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you believe Bernie won't get one delegate from relatively liberal Minnesota what do you believe are the prospects for him getting delegates in the forty nine other states?
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Here's how it works in Minnesota. We have precinct level caucuses in February, where a Presidential straw poll is taken and where delegates to the district conventions are chosen. Then, in April, we have our DFL party district conventions. At those conventions, delegates are chosen for the state convention, which selects delegates to the national convention. Somewhere in there, there is a primary election.
Minnesota's delegation to the National Convention is charged to vote en bloc for the candidate endorsed at the state convention. Based on my experience here, that candidate will be Hillary Clinton, assuming she runs. She will win the primaries. She will have the most delegates at the district and state conventions and those delegates will endorse Clinton and elect delegates to the national convention based on a walking caucus system, which will overwhelmingly choose delegates who support Clinton.
That is what will happen in Minnesota. Other states have their own methods, but the winner of the primary in each state generally dictates the commitment of the delegates to the national convention.
I do not expect Bernie Sanders to win any state's primary election. I think he's great, but he's not going to win, any more than Dennis Kucinich won any primaries. I expect the national convention to make Hillary Clinton the official candidate, probably by acclamation on the first vote.
Those are the realities of the system we have in place for nominating presidential candidates. For the Democrats, the vast popular lead Clinton has is going to make life very difficult for other primary candidates. Actual voters, not DUers will be voting in the primaries. The vast majority of them are not participating in discussions like we have here. In 2008, Minnesota went with Barack Obama. His popularity here went through the roof, beginning with our February precinct caucuses. I'm not seeing any Barack Obamas among the names being mentioned as possible primary competitors.
Still, if Bernie's name is on my primary ballot, I'll vote for him. I'll vote for him in our precinct caucuses, too, and hold up a sign to try to build a caucus for him at the district convention. I'll try to get to the state convention as a delegate, but will probably fail if I'm caucusing for Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)If only more would be so willing to work through the process.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I'm involved in the party organization, but at a pretty low level. I'm just a precinct chair. My work and my age mean that I don't really have time to work up through the organization into a higher leadership position. But, even as a lowly precinct chair and district convention delegate, I get face time with candidates right up to our Senators. I'm vocal and am always a caucus leader at the conventions. It's really amazing how easy it is to be involved at that level. It's fun, too.
Local party organizations are more than worthwhile. Getting involved is pretty easy, too. I highly recommend it.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)I am precinct chair and work on voter protection issues
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)It's very rewarding and really helps.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Juanita Jean's husband is my county's party chair
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Maybe Sanders won't run, HRC will earn your support, you can become a delegate, attend the national convention, and hold up a sign "I'm Mineral Man" there so we will know it is you.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I've been to one state convention as an alternate delegate. I watched the process. If you're not in the congressional district leadership group, you aren't going to the national convention. Those district leaders are elected, too. They get elected because they are popular with their district membership. Being a national convention delegate is earned, and it's hard work to get there. It's not even easy to get the state convention, really.
It sure is interesting, though, seeing how politics actually works. More people who want to be activists should do it. Millennials, especially. They have time to work up through the ranks. I'm 69 years old. I don't have that time. Every single district level elected official has been involve in the party organization for at least two decades. It takes that long to be noticed enough to get elected to leadership, even at that level.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Texas lost 30 delegates so that the DNC can have more big donors issued floor passes. I am still thinking about being a national delegate this cycle but it sounds like that this will be a tough process
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)in the electoral college. We have some fantastic hunting and fishing, and the food, ah the food, no chile like Hatch chile........ but as far as politics go, we are pretty much that extra penny at the gas station that comes in handy once in a blue moon, and even then only out of convenience not really necessity.
Bill Richardson was the last candidate to come out of NM, and honestly Bill was just barely able to keep himself out of jail when he was Governor. he spent his term mostly trying to get to Washington, and making sure the new hospital was named after him. He fucked up a lot of stuff to get the support of a few influential people. basically burned us, for a chance in the spotlight.
I have a severe distrust of a campaign that has to spend 90% of it's message on, "yeah,....... but you can trust me". that is Hillary's slogan as far as I'm concerned.
The sad part is we probably agree, Sanders would be a fantastic candidate, and FAR better at the helm than Hillary, but he won't get enough money in the game to win. It's all about the dollars, not the record.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)votes, either. Sad, but true. I remember Kucinich's attempts. Sanders will have a similar result, I'm afraid. I don't think he'll even be on my primary ballot, and will be out of contention by Super Tuesday, if not before.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)The sad truth is .............Hillary HAD the best chance to win, but is not the best candidate.
I still hope we don't have 70 weeks of "yeah I know, ...but trust me I'm Hillary Clinton i can raise more money than anyone, and I approved this message"
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)There are elections where my participation matters, so I focus on them.
My prediction about the presidential election? Hillary Clinton will be the candidate. Personally, I think she'll probably win in November, but I really can't predict that with any accuracy at this point. Tell me who the Republican candidate will be, and I'll make a prediction, but we don't know that yet.
Frankly, at the presidential level, we rarely see the "best candidate." We see the candidate that the parties think might be able to win, based on the national political environment at the time. Then we vote. It's different at the state and national legislative level. There, we have some chance of electing effective, progressive people. The President? Well, that office is national, and our political environment nationally is just about evenly divided. It's usually a close call.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)NM sends a delegation to the national convention. That's where the candidate is selected. It also has a primary election. I don't know when the NM primary is held, so I can't predict whether Bernie Sanders will even be on the ballot there. If he is, he'll get some votes, but nowhere near enough to have a caucus at the national convention. At the state convention, his caucuses won't be large enough to have any delegates to select.
Most people have no real understanding of how national conventions work and where the delegates come from. I can tell you about Minnesota, though. Every delegate from our state to the national convention is a high-level DFL party organization official in the congressional districts. Nobody not in a leadership position has a prayer of becoming a national delegate. It's not even easy to become a delegate to the state convention. The local organization leadership ends up in those positions, too. I could probably do it, based on my official participation and because I'm a good public speaker. But I'd have zero chance of being a national delegate.
That's Minnesota. Other states use other methods, but all have a state convention where national delegates are selected, and it's always almost exclusively the party leadership who become those delegates. That's the system. If you're not part of that system, then you only get one vote in the primary election and have no other influence.
That's why I focus on local, state, and national legislative offices. I actually can influence those choices at the local and district conventions, and have influenced them in the past. I simply do not concern myself with presidential elections until November. There's no point, and a waste of my time. So it is for almost everyone.
If you want influence at that level, then you need to get a leadership position in your state's Democratic Party organization. Without that, you're just a primary voter. And those are the facts.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)one of the most informative, proactive and non-condescending posts I've read in a very long time. I appreciate it, thanks.
my answer before was kind of a mash-up, I know.
unfortunately I like many, pretty much just assume at this point the candidate will be chosen and presented for my vote. My activism in politics is pretty low, tried it a few times, in my experience it was more of a pointless social morning activity for the regulars, disguised as a political forum. I know that is not always the case.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)And you're right. Most of the time, party activities are boring and deal with boring organization business. The leadership group and its committees have lots of detail-oriented stuff to do most of the time. It only gets interesting between the local caucus meetings and the conventions, if a state has caucuses and local conventions. In states without those things, the party organization doesn't have a lot to do that isn't just procedural, and there's lots of that to do.
I don't have time for that stuff. I'm a caucus and convention guy, and during the campaign season, I canvass my precinct door to door. We have something like 2000 registered voters in my precinct, and I can usually manage to actually talk to about 500 of them during that canvassing. That's a lot, really.
I also maintain a website for the precinct - the only precinct website in the state, as far as I know. I get a few calls and emails from that in election years, usually from candidates, and lots of visits to the site from people looking for the polling place or how to contact someone. It doesn't take much time. You can see it at the link in my signature line.
I wish I had more time. I wish I were much younger and more energetic. But, that's in the past, now.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Sec. Clinton is the best qualified person right now to run.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)And if that is HRC, then so be it. Just a FYI, since I never see anyone bring that up.
brooklynite
(94,517 posts)Because the Hillary supporters have simply said she has the best chance of winning, and she's still a popular Democrat. All of the "inevitable" and "coronation" complaints have come from the other side.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)We all pretend to be prophets and know what will be at one time or another. And granted, the best prophets have a rather tenuous grasp of both grammar and punctuation (word has it, Joshua often proclaimed "Dude! That's so rad!" but it never made it into the Bible). Exidor was pretty funny on television during the seventies, too.
Thankfully, yours was not prophetic, included a wonderful mastery of both grammar and punctuation, and you supported your premise with a litany of objective source material for us to read over at our leisure instead of merely repeating in capital letters "PEOPLE's NEEDS" which would have been downright annoying.
Doggonit, people like your rational, well-thought out and sourced anlyses... and don't let anyone tell you different!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)This place has gone off the rails.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)