Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The manufactured outrage that purports to be legitimate criticism of Hillary is pathetic [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)141. OK, so you don't think minimum wage, gay rights, abortion, social security, unions, progressive
taxation, healthcare, and so on matter. Fair enough. To each their own, I guess. As far as the "status quo" stupidity, those positions are taken from actual votes she made in the past (e.g. raising the minimum wage, etc), when she was a senator, and from the positions she advocated when running for president in 08. Recently she was Secretary of State, which explains for example, why she wasn't travelling around the country advocating for fairer taxation. But I'm quite sure that when she presents her 2016 candidate platform, it will reflect her long history of support for these and other progressive causes.
Instead, cover why the positives outweigh the negatives. "Sure, she supported the TPP, but she also wants to (insert benefit here). That makes her worth it".
Sure, she supported the TPP, but she also wants all that other stuff I listed, and that makes her worth it. Particularly when the other option is a Republican. TPP is kinda funny, because nobody knows exactly why they hate it so much. We already have bilateral agreements with most of the countries. And it doesn't include China. Krugman has called it "no big deal", but what does he know, he's just another right-winger, right?
Nice to know the point sailed completely over your head. "Don't mention the Republicans" is a crutch for you to make the case for Clinton instead of making the case against the Republicans. Clinton's supporters on DU have not been doing that. They've always reverted to "Republicans would be worse" when confronted with complaints. Which will not work as a campaign strategy.
I understand the point clearly. When comparing the two alternatives, one is a hundred times better than the other. In fact, the difference between Hillary and say Cruz is much bigger than the difference between Hillary and say Warren. That doesn't fit into the Hillary-hating agenda. So we want to pretend that there are no Republicans.
When my choices are "get shit on" or "get shit on, but they might feel bad about it", why is choosing the later any better?
Well, for people who truly think this is an accurate account of the differences between Hillary and a Republican, I actually applaud the Democratic party for not wasting time and resources trying to reason with them.
What I care about is no political party has given a damn about my issues in my lifetime. In my first election, I got to pick lesser of two evils. That resulted in NAFTA, massive H1B visa increases, "ending welfare" and massive banking deregulation that destroyed the economy.
H1B visas, huh? So now we're anti-immigration too? I've worked with people on H1B, and they were great, and I was proud that my country welcomed them in, and thankful for the experience of working with them. As far as the economy, I'm sure glad we got Obama to pull us back from the brink, and also to pass the most extensive financial regulation since the great depression. Sure, if not for Nader, the economy might not have needed rescuing in the first place, but at least the 2008 election didn't also get sabotaged.
My first election as an adult happened to be the 2000 election. Guess what, I was (almost) a Naderite. I was young and dumb, and actually bought into the whole "crash the system, both parties are corporate sellouts, what's the difference." I didn't vote, wasn't politically engaged, but if I did, I may well have voted for Nader.
Well, it didn't take very long for me to figure out how wrong I was, and just how big the differences between the parties were. First 9-11 (which I don't think would have happened had Bush not ignored Bin Laden to focus on Russia and other "threats" , tax cuts for the wealthy, the Iraq War, then near economic collapse. After that, I thought, wow, I was dumb, but surely after all this people are going to wake up and realize what's really at stake. And, thankfully, the overt attempts at sabotage like Nader's seem to have gone away. But there are still plenty of people who believe the "no difference" nonsense.
You need to spend a little time digging into the Democratic party's systems for selecting candidates. It's not nearly as open as you believe. I know because I actually tried to do it. We "kids" were not welcome to upset the status quo.
I'm sure it's not easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is. Maybe that's why the far left takes the route of threatening and sabotaging instead of the more difficult work of organizing at the grassroots level. The teabaggers have found a way into the Republican party, after all.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
369 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The manufactured outrage that purports to be legitimate criticism of Hillary is pathetic [View all]
stevenleser
Feb 2015
OP
A respectable, appealing Democrat that has not adopted a corporate centric stance.
Enthusiast
Feb 2015
#220
Hopefully, Hillary will hear about my views on her silence and my assumptions
JDPriestly
Mar 2015
#362
Some outraged people need attention in the worst way. You have to agree they are successful at it
Hekate
Feb 2015
#3
Thanks, fresh. He was my neighbor's father, a Holocaust survivor who was face to face w Mengele...
Hekate
Feb 2015
#221
I trust Obama. I don't trust Hillary. I didn't say I like everything about Obama
lindysalsagal
Feb 2015
#358
Hmm.. this kind of shoots down the talking points about Hillary and the IWR vote
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#22
Sometimes, the problem with being so knowledgeable is being too focused on minute details
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#97
Voting for something you know is wrong and going to be a failure for political expediency?
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#105
You're better than that, Fumesucker. Your "gotcha" response is beneath you.
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#128
I think her candidacy is a sort of proxy for a lot of peoples' ... stuff
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#228
See, Fume, she DIDN'T vote for the worst, bloodiest, most expensive foreign policy decision in
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#227
Blaming Democrats for the Iraq war because of that vote is revisionist history.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#286
Then you are determined to believe in revisionist history. This isn't hard.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#306
I knew the invasion was predicated on bullshit, just like I knew Bush's 16 words about yellowcake
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#309
That is a separate issue by the time the 2003 speech came along. This is my point.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#318
The SOTU speech is just one example. What was the impetus for running up to war in the first place?
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#330
Powerful compilation of speeches. Thoroughly enjoyed watching and listening, freshwest.
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#85
I agree entirely that this is trumped-up controversy, and frankly a bit sad..
OLDMADAM
Feb 2015
#152
Maybe we need to define what the bedrock principles are then because that is the problem
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#274
For one thing you have set up a ton of assumptions and rationalizations that
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#310
Gonna keep dodging the "bedrock principles" assertion, huh? Why is so hard to support your own point
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#359
There has been considerable mocking of Brian Willams on DU for "lying about being shot at"
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#23
Did you catch Rachel Maddow's call-out of that claim by Hillary last night?
bullwinkle428
Feb 2015
#56
What is largely manufactured is the support it seems to me. We have a few ardents
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#275
Well, that argument isn't manufactured. It's democracy in a nutshell, TK. The majority wins and you
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#278
Just for clarity: progressives and hardcore liberals are not the base of the Democratic Party.
wyldwolf
Feb 2015
#17
You never disagreed with my OP about how the Democrats should marginalize and ignore liberals..
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#24
Make up your mind. Spewing hatred about the left and then being disappointed when they don't
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#363
That's a powerful post by William Pitt! I never saw it before, so thank you for reposting it here,
BlueCaliDem
Feb 2015
#88
It IS hard to believe. He could have benefitted from reading it before writing some of his 'other'
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#210
THIS is the Will Pitt I used to admire. The man can think and write insightfully...
Hekate
Feb 2015
#243
Lol, Learn what it means when someone is introduced as "a guest" words mean things.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#269
Here's another hint for you. I appear on multiple networks. Employees arent allowed to do that.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#273
So you are giving up on your claim that I work for a network and moving the goalposts?
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#319
Translation: You are making stuff up as you go along. And defending Greenwald for the same stuff you
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#324
LOL, I'm consistent and have my facts right. You arent and don't. It's that simple. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#336
No. How many times do I have to explain this. Whatever network I go on I am a guest. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#335
Yep, including the other poster in this subthread who can't seem to make up his mind whether its
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#341
So is this the hour when you think its bad or good to do Conservative media? nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#340
I'm entertained by the question of whether you will own up to your hypocrisy. And whether
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#343
No deflection. That question is the only reason I'm still responding to you. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#346
If that was all her detractors had I would support her too. But it's not the speakers fees ...
Scuba
Feb 2015
#27
And of course you defended Greenwald for being paid to appear at a Koch conference
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#38
Most non-sequiturs are points. Points that are not directly related to what is being discussed.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#277
Nope, it's pointing out hypocrisy. That person can now explain where he "Really" means it. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#175
Well in fairness he is only a pundit. Not like he has any kind of objectivity in his posting.
Rex
Feb 2015
#222
Isn't it time for you to defend Greenwald for taking money from the Koch brothers for appearances
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#321
The post in response to this one makes so little sense I don't even understand the point in posting
Number23
Feb 2015
#230
The folks who criticize me for that really outed themselves when they defended Greenwald for a paid
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#270
Well, this thread has certainly shown the light on some of the really nasty and incredibly stupid
Number23
Feb 2015
#294
I feel honored in a way. They focus similar hypocrisy and dishonesty on Obama and Hillary.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#345
Many folks see lots of things. Like your group defending Greenwald for the same things.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#280
There is a sea of difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Koch brothers and their PACs.
Vinca
Feb 2015
#35
If Fox didn't think Steven was helping catapult propaganda he wouldn't be there
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#51
Oops. I would be surprised, if expected a shred of intellectual consistency from you...
DanTex
Feb 2015
#54
Leser belittles anyone even slightly to his left and is an asshole about it
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#159
A quick glance at your posts in this thread will tell anyone why I am snarky towards you.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#176
No, he's not. And there is evidence all over the web as to how Greenwald reacts when challenged.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#180
Links? And if and when you can provide them, I'll provide dozens that tell the opposite story. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#307
The man indeed has nerves of steel for doing so. He's always embattled by RWNJs.
freshwest
Feb 2015
#162
I don't care about the speaking fees. I care about things like the TPP and fracking.
djean111
Feb 2015
#53
You see exactly what I see. It's one ridiculous attack after another. And the response to me from
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#198
How do you tell the difference between the two? They use the same talking points.
greatlaurel
Feb 2015
#90
Hillary Clinton bowed down to George Bush and not only supported the worst decision in a century,
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#257
It's kinda sad that the biggest contribution the far left has made to the direction of the
DanTex
Feb 2015
#107
No I'm not. I'm blaming the people who are working against the party and not for it.
DanTex
Feb 2015
#118
OK, so you don't think minimum wage, gay rights, abortion, social security, unions, progressive
DanTex
Feb 2015
#141
Huh. 'biggest contribution the far left'...'last two decades is siphoning votes away from Gore'?
Octafish
Feb 2015
#117
I agree with that. Just disagree that the solution is sabotaging the Democrats.
DanTex
Feb 2015
#184
We tried to stop Dubya and Hillary but it didn't work, we didn't get any publicity
Fumesucker
Feb 2015
#190
No, you didn't try to stop W. You tried to stop Gore. And it worked. And we all got W.
DanTex
Feb 2015
#193
You also can't make complaints about splitting the vote or comparisons to Nader until she's the nom.
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#256
FYI, I was not the alerter nor would I have voted to hide, as much as I disagree.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#181
You're right, I am not stupid. And Stillone's post #57 here shows more of what I am talking about.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#182
I am all for a healthy debate here but sometimes like ladt night things just get ridiculous.
hrmjustin
Feb 2015
#81
Then stop supporting corporate policy, enabling government capture, warmongering,
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#112
Yes, you buy in on the policies of the politicians you support particularly as the pattern grows.
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#132
Who knows the exact percentage breakdown but yes it is significant, particularly in leadership and
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#192
Most of the people in the party are not doing much beyond blending generic Democrats
TheKentuckian
Feb 2015
#218
I guess the new talking point is to try to spin the IWR vote as some sort of brilliant politics.
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#234
oh and by the way... "they went on the information given"- that, sir, is a fucking CROCK.
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#262
No, nice try. So why don't you actually respond to what I've said, Bill?
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#264
Brilliant politics? No. But the bad thing some folks make it out to be? Also, no.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#288
No, it wasn't. And my article makes it clear why. If you dont agree, you have to explain certain
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#298
Everyone knew that the IWR wasn't about "pressure". The invasion was a foregone conclusion.
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#302
That's exactly the revisionist history I'm talking about. No everyone didn't. And that includes
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#304
Except it's called the "Iraq War Resolution", not the "Iraq Pressure Resolution".
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#331
And water which puts out fire is made of two flammable gasses. But that doesn't change what it is.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#347
No, they didnt, as debate over the wording showed. Moreover, and you always run into this problem...
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#350
If the intent, scope and effect of the UN resolution and US law were identical or nearly so,
Warren DeMontague
Feb 2015
#356
There's a lot more baggage on her train than merely cuddling up to bankers.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2015
#111
I agree. Steve is a terrific pundit for Democrats and the Democratic agenda.
closeupready
Feb 2015
#138
+ a million. I get the feeling that the ones doing the attacking want the rest of us to think it's
Number23
Feb 2015
#237
Sorry amigo, I disagree that liberals here who oppose Hillary are making it all up.
closeupready
Feb 2015
#137
I can speak only for myself, but as a liberal, I object to her and what her husband did
closeupready
Feb 2015
#206
As long as you acknowledge what is being written about Hillary here is manufactured outrage...
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#212
I've been thinking about that as well. How much new nonsense will be invented between now and then
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#214
So your logic is to just accept Hillary and do not say bad things about her? Really? nt
Logical
Feb 2015
#249
Nope, not an interesting use of the word. Pretty straightforward re: speaking fees and the
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#209
The Clintons have made $100,000,000 in the last 15 years. They are on close
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#259
Good point. We don't want the Right Democratic candidate but the Left Democratic candidate. nm
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#276
And more evidence of my point, the intentional misrepresentation of this poll
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#284
That poster will be congratulated in other threads. "Holding her feet to the fire" and all.
great white snark
Feb 2015
#300
Thank you. And the week isn't over! I am sure we will see more manufactured BS before its over.
stevenleser
Feb 2015
#325
What's 'pathetic' is a political party that can't come up with a better candidate than Hillary
Dems to Win
Feb 2015
#301
She voted for the authorization to go into Iraq. That is why she lost my vote. nt
kelly1mm
Feb 2015
#326
But..but...she single handedly started the Iraq War. Didn't you read Karl Rove's talking point?
McCamy Taylor
Feb 2015
#332