HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 197 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: 14,418

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

Can somebody explain

the Republican obsession with the confusion surrounding the motivations of the attackers? It seems to matter so damned much to them, possibly even more than the attack/deaths themselves. What if it was the You Tube video? What if it was an organized terrorist attack? Does anybody- to this day- even know for sure?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jul 21, 2016, 11:19 PM (1 replies)

I remember that lunacy all too well

It's ALL about finding SOMETHING to blame Obama for. The Fox/hate radio/Republican echo chamber just gets crazier and crazier because they can never find much, if anything, that they can actually blame him for.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Jul 19, 2016, 11:19 AM (0 replies)

Yeah, I suppose you're right

I believe that they've devoted an evening to Benghazi this week and, presumably, how evil and/or incompetent Hillary was and how she sent those four Americans to their doom in Benghazi and coldly refused their pleas for assistance while blaming a YouTube video for the attacks. Oh, and how Congress threw bucketfuls of money at her to help pay for diplomatic security but she deliberately kept the Libya mission woefully under protected. I'm actually surprised at this point, they haven't suggested that she either hired terrorists to kill Ambassador Stevens and the other people or was there doing the deed herself.


While what happened in Benghazi is a tragedy (Americans died, so it's definitely more of a tragedy whenever that happens- by default), why do Republicans keep getting away with over-scrutizing what happened in Benghazi when they BARELY wanted to investigate 3000 people being killed on 9/11/01 (and knowing that Bush sat on a "historical" PDB about a possible attack for almost a month beforehand) and didn't do any oversight AFAIK for the 60 or so people who died in embassy attacks during the Bush II (mis-)Administration. Yet, they're all over Benghazi and the four dead diplomats like flies on...........
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jul 18, 2016, 02:16 PM (0 replies)

If anybody needs to reinvent themselves

it's Trump IMHO. His campaign is a walking disaster and it's beyond me how he is going to draw the necessary broad electoral support to beat Hillary, especially when he can't stop shooting himself in the foot everytime he speaks. His selection of Pence as his VP nominee further cements his insanity/lack of ability to win in November. I'm not going to sweat a few "tightening" (or him ahead) polls. Unfortunately, there is a rabid group of people of roughly 30% who will vote for ANYBODY with an "R" next to their name, including Trump/Pence. Logically, I can't see him winning over a broader coalition. Hell, he doesn't even have a lot of REPUBLICANS in his corner at the moment and those whom are supporting/endorsing him are lukewarm about it and not even showing up at their national convention. What does that say to worrywarts about his electability? Do you see a similar group of Democrats refusing to attend the DNC because Hillary is the nominee? Even most of the "Berniecrats" have moved to Hillary- even before Bernie himself formally endorsed her. We're overall in much better shape than the Republicans. No, we shouldn't get complacent but neither should we be running around with our hair on fire over a few random (bad) polls. We need to resurrect the "Chill the f**k out, I got this!" memes from 2008! Whatever you think about Hillary, whatever mistakes she has made, whatever the right-wing conspiracy says about her, she is clearly not the walking disaster that Trump is. End of line.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jul 18, 2016, 11:06 AM (0 replies)

Even if you think that what Snowden did was virtuous (which I don't)

This is pretty idiotic IMHO
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sat Jul 16, 2016, 01:57 PM (0 replies)

How is he "mending the divisions" by staying in?

I feel like he is making it seem like there is still a race to win when there isn't. His campaign is sort of devolving into a farce and his decision to comment on the FBI non-indictment of Clinton over her e-mail server earlier today was equally baffling. Despite it being a much closer race in 2008, Clinton had no issues with bowing out almost immediately at the beginning of June and quickly endorsing Obama. Yet Clinton won a sizable PD victory that no SD would dare overturn absent some extraordinary circumstances that have yet to materialize and Bernie is still pretending that he has a chance and is extending things all the way to the convention for some reason that I simply can't discern. He could suspend his campaign like all of the other candidates and still remain just as involved in the DNC, so I don't get what his endgame is. Is he even going to accept the results of the DNC?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Jul 5, 2016, 03:17 PM (0 replies)

So, are Bernie's chances of winning the Democratic nomination

officially negative zero, now? What's his argument to the SDs, now? He doesn't have the polls to lean on anymore (Hillary is doing quite well against Trump in GE polling), there is NOT going to be an indictment/prosecution of HRC, and the DNC has adopted at least some of his agenda for the platform, so what's left?

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Jul 5, 2016, 11:28 AM (2 replies)

That seems like a pretty idiotic way to run a party

I don't know how to evaluate DWS relative to previous DNC chairpersons (in terms of what they have some modicum of control over) but I've never heard of a political party that purposely sets itself up to fail just because they supposedly don't want to hold power and be on the hook for their votes (and I certainly would not vote for such a party either). What would be the logical point of a party that WANTS to lose and helps ensure that they do?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:08 PM (0 replies)

I agree with you that it probably won't result in anything getting passed with THIS Congress

but, hopefully, Democrats will have drawn some much-needed attention (i.e. "publicity") to this issue so that people might re-think their votes in the upcoming election and vote to elect a Congress that might actually do something positive in addressing this issue.


This IS politics after all.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:47 PM (1 replies)

It sounds like a bad call

to suggest- as I presume you are- that all of Hillary's SCOTUS picks will therefore be awful right-wingers seems a bit of a stretch (never minding the fact that she herself didn't pick him).
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:37 PM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 197 Next »