HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 199 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 14,491

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

Non-stories

It's the Republican speciality. Yet they can do whatever they want- torture, indefinite detention, incompetence- and sometimes, maybe, they're held accountable. Yet they will investigate the s**t out of anything with the slightest whiff of scandal if it involves a Democrat and when one "investigation" doesn't turn up something, they'll do another fishing expedition. It never ends.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Aug 23, 2016, 07:14 AM (0 replies)

I'm 40, started being interested in politics when I was approx. 16

The 1992 Presidential campaign was the first time I ever took an interest in politics and I found out rather quickly that I identified a Liberal Democrat through and through, mostly because of my father, who has been a Democrat pretty much all of his life. I paid a lot of attention to politics through the 1990's, sort of tuned out a little in 2000-2001 but then started paying attention heavily again once 9/11 happened and then Bush, et. el started talking about invading Iraq. That was when I found DU and have been a pretty active participant in online political forums ever since then- and I vote in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, big or small. Being a Liberal Democrat in red-state Indiana has been challenging at times but as bad as it can be here, I can imagine life being even worse in a few other states.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Aug 22, 2016, 11:16 AM (0 replies)

Trump's "Rehabilitation" & Media Double Standards

The last few days, the MSM has seemed enchanted with the new storyline of Donald Trump "rebooting" his campaign and shaking up his staff in the hopes of fixing enough of the issues that have plagued his campaign to (maybe) somehow eke out a victory in November. No less than NPR this morning is busy pondering whether or not Donald Trump can manage to turn things around in time to win November's election- or at least make it a tighter race with Hillary Clinton. Aside from the fact that the central problem with Donald Trump's campaign is, well........Donald Trump himself, it seems totally frustrating that the MSM is choosing to focus on whether or not Donald Trump can pull a win out of his hat in November- or at least keeping from vaporizing the Republican Party in the process of losing to Hillary Clinton.

I feel like, as in 2000, that the MSM had just gotten bored of the Clintons and the Gores and that George W. Bush- despite all of the evidence that he just wasn't up to the job- was a "shiny new object" and repeatedly gave him the benefit of the doubt, excused his "growing pains" as a candidate, and attempted to reassure us that he'd at least surround himself with competent people whom would keep his Presidency from being a natural disaster. Well, we all know how that played out.

Despite the historic nature of Hillary's candidacy, which the MSM seemed to have spent a whole five seconds on during the DNC, the MSM is spending most of their time fixated on Trump. While the man is obviously an embarrassing tweet-gaffe-a-minute machine and a walking trainwreck lumbering like a huge wrecking ball over our country, the MSM seems to be doing for him what they did for George W. Bush by breathlessly watching for signs of mental and emotional maturity from Trump while playing up Hillary's real and/or imagined negatives and, at least for me, the most frustrating thing is that they seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Clinton, like her husband and Obama before her, is a sane and competent public steward whom I would instantly trust to watch my own kids and have access to our nation's nuclear launch codes (if heaven forbid she ever needed them). Also, she hasn't had any serious crises in her campaign so far, let alone the need to "reboot" her campaign EVEN ONCE. Yet, we're supposed to be excited that Donald Trump can make it through a teleprompter-assisted speech (the Republicans better never mention teleprompters again when attacking Democrats!) without going off the rails and have a few days where he doesn't say something mean, insulting, embarrassing, etc.?

How far does the MSM plan on lowering the bar for Donald Trump?

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Aug 22, 2016, 10:34 AM (3 replies)

It's interesting to note

That Hillary hasn't had to "reboot" her campaign or replace her campaign managers at all- yet we're supposed to be awed and dazzled by the hopes of a Trump "comeback". Forget that we have a woman running for POTUS for the first time in American history or that she is a sane and competent public servant and has been for many years. But, hey! Look over there! It's Donald Trump!!!

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sat Aug 20, 2016, 10:45 AM (0 replies)

The Clintons beat them in 1992

and no matter how much they try to smear the Clintons and even when they genuinely mess up, people still generally like them. Unfortunately, this year, they've also brought a fairly vocal crowd of anti-HRC left-wingers along to help support them in their derangement but still, at a time where the Republicans had held the WH for 12 consecutive years, Bill Clinton finally ended it in 1992 and they failed to make him a one-term President. Plus, there's a very real chance that Democrats might actually have the WH for 12 years if Hillary wins this year and possibly more if they can't get their party in order at the national level.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 18, 2016, 11:14 AM (0 replies)

He seems to be a real downer about elections

He originally was a Nader supporter in 2000 and endorsed the belief that the two parties were essentially the same but reluctantly came around to supporting Gore to block Bush. He was super-critical of Bush II and made a huge effort with Fahrenheit 9/11 to deny Bush II (re-)election in 2004, albeit unsuccessfully. He wrote a book in 2008 (Mike's Election Guide 2008), which, while fairly entertaining, seemed pretty down about Obama's chances against McCain and seemed certain that the Democratic Party/Obama were going to blow it against McCain (this was *probably* written before McCain picked Sarah Palin but still). He seems like a smart guy and makes good documentaries but just seems like a huge "Debbie Downer" when it comes to politics and doesn't hold the Democratic Party in much higher esteem than the Republicans in general.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Aug 16, 2016, 03:39 PM (1 replies)

I'm assuming that this is rampant speculation

and that he doesn't have any specific inside knowledge-but I wouldn't really be surprised. I've been half-expecting Trump to announce that his candidacy was a joke from nearly the beginning.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Aug 16, 2016, 03:29 PM (0 replies)

No shame in us defending the withdrawal IMHO

Obama ran on opposition to the invasion and openly supported withdrawing as soon as possible- and caught some flak from the left for not getting us out of there sooner. Democrats supported a timetable in Congress in 2007, which, unfortunately, failed due to Republican opposition and Bush's veto. Of course, the GOP has never been forced to fully agree that we should have never invaded in the first place, never been forced to explain how many more days, months, years, decades, centuries, etc. they think we should have stayed there (or how we were going to pay for it), nor have they been forced to defend/justifying keeping our troops there over the objections of the Iraqi government (which would have essentially become another occupation if we had).
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 12, 2016, 01:09 PM (1 replies)

Trump's supposed "appeal" is that he is a "straight talker" who means what he says

except, when questioned about what he says, he says that he really doesn't mean what he says.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Aug 12, 2016, 10:34 AM (1 replies)

#5 is exactly how I feel

Even when Republicans don't win with a mandate, if they have the power, they are totally free and unencumbered to exercise it however they see fit. Yet, when Democrats win and have some real power behind them like they did from 2009-2011, we are supposed to be gracious in our victory and seek bipartisanship and consult with Republicans to avoid any hurt feelings. Now, I know that President Obama appeared to genuinely want to work with Republicans to fix things in the wake of the economic disaster unfolding around that time period (because, hey, we all love America, right? No matter who is in charge, we all want what's best, right?) but the point is that Democrats are naturally expected by the media, punditry, Republicans etc. to be Bipartisan and any Democratic aggressiveness in enacting policies is harshly attacked by same but Republicans can be as aggressive as they want about enacting their agenda, being obstructionist, etc. and they are essentially allowed to get away with it. The double standard here is simply infuriating and I'm certain that Hillary and the Democrats will be held to it if (when) they win in November.


IMHO she and the rest of the Democrats should NOT deal. Republicans nurtured the "base" that helped nominate Trump. That is THEIR internal party problem and it NOT Hillary's responsibility to try to "save" them from themselves.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:49 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 199 Next »