HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » PDittie » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 7,547

Journal Archives

Spot on

She'll pick Kaine, maybe Vilsack. One of two milquetoast white guys from swing states. Since Castro flamed out on the Hatch Act violation this week, he's no longer on the short list. Perez would be the right choice to mollify the Berners, but he's too far left for her.

Kaine speaks Spanish; she's campaigning in Florida today, my money's on him.

I'm forced to wish him well

Because if he dies, we get Governor Dan Patrick.

Her fate still lies in the hands of a federal grand jury

Even if the investigators recommend indictment, the GJ could still no-bill.

IANAL, just somebody who knows that the old adage about indicting a ham sandwich also works in reverse. Here in Texas, a Harris County GJ returned an indictment against a Republican Texas Supreme Court justice for arson, but the county DA -- also a Republican -- declined to prosecute. (Google "David Medina arson").

Either of these outcomes could spark a very loud uproar.

There may also be some protracted negotiations around pleading down a charge of mishandling of classified data, as there were with Sandy Berger and David Petreaus.

All good things must come to an end

This place really kept me sane from 2002 through 2007, and even inspired me in 2008.

"Bernie Blew It" is an ad hominem

from an out and loud Clinton supporter and Sanders adversary (Jamelle Bouie).

So I believe you're mistaken. But in the interests of harmony around here I won't be doing the alerting. Though to be clear, if I juried it... I'd vote to remove the post. I believe it's in violation of this part of the new TOS:

Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary
Regardless of whether you supported a winning candidate or a losing candidate, do not prolong the agony of the last Democratic presidential primary by continuing to pick fights, place blame, tear down former primary candidates, bait former supporters, or do anything else to pour salt on old wounds.

Why we have this rule: Most of our members want this to be forward-looking, friendly community that is focused on creating a better future for our country. Continuing to rehash old fights that have already been resolved is divisive and counter-productive.

Yesterday the op-ed in the NYT entitled "Democrats Need to Wake Up" by Bernie Sanders was posted without any additional comment, alerted, removed and the member's posting privileges were revoked. Which is why I'm not linking that article here. I don't really see the difference, with the exception that your comments seem to be baiting people who don't agree with you to respond in such a way that they could be alerted, removed, and banned.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing; it just seems that way to me. I could be mistaken (but I don't think I am).

Trump has already seized the reins


I believe this will be a successful line of attack against Hillary Clinton on the basis of the Democratic platform as it currently exists, in its zeal to not speak ill of Barack Obama and TPP.

Over the years she has managed to take multiple positions on a variety of issues without much political expense, but the two things she has steadfastly supported are globalization (and economic neoliberalism in general) and militarism. If Trump can convince people he's sincere about NAFTA and free trade being bad for the nation ...

I truly doubt his sincerity, but it's up to the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania and a few other swing states (or at least to the company that counts the votes in those states via electronic machine).

The people elected him

resoundingly, so if the elites try to remove him, there's going to be a full-scale actual shooting revolution on the right, with real blood and lots of bodies.

Trump is going to be the nominee, and he's going to get flushed in November. Bank it.

This guy is my favoite

so I'm guessing she won't pick him.

Your toon posts kept me

coming back here long after the thrill was gone from this site. I found you at the other place, but it is in need of much improvement -- specifically allowing your extensive curation of the political satirists' best work -- before I will be comfortable.

Shit happens, things change, I still don't like it but I better get used to it.

Avoiding the meta disagreements ... what Sanders did

was establish a new paradigm for funding presidential elections. And I believed he accomplished that mostly as a force of nature. If he hands off my email address (and everybody else's that he has) to Clinton I'll be more than a little disappointed. I'll just have to wait and see what comes to my inbox, I suppose. This account amkes it seem as the two aren't ... well, not quite seeing seeing eye to eye.

The Clinton campaign said that the candidates "discussed a variety of progressive issues where they share common goals like raising wages for working families, eliminating undisclosed money in politics and reducing the cost of college for students and their families."

The Clinton statement said that the two talked about "unifying the party," but the Sanders statement did not, as NBC News noted.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 31 Next »