HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Look further than your ow...

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:02 AM

Look further than your own desire to get a left wing progressive in the White House

A Republican / RW president could have a disastrous impact on our country and our ideals for the next 100 years.

If Hillary is even a little left of center, she would be immensely better for the country and our causes than a Republican / RW president. Any Supreme Court and Federal Judgeship appointments, will have a lasting impact on generations.

The last 8 justices retired or died between the ages of 70-90.

Sandra Day O'Connor retired at 75
David Souter............retired at 70
John Paul Stevens.....retired at 90
William Rehnquist.........died at 81
lewis Powell............. retired at 80
Harry Blackmun.........retired at 86
Warren Burger..........retired at 79
Thurgood Marshall.....retired at 83

It's very possible there will be 4 vacancies either through death or retirement in the next 10 years (2 remaining of Obama's term, and 8 of new president(s)). If those next 8 years after Obama are followed by a Republican, we may as well bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. I would love to have a truly progressive president in the WH, (who is it by the way?), but I am also looking at the long term. Judgeship appointments have consequences.




Thanks to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/ for the chart.

117 replies, 6577 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 117 replies Author Time Post
Reply Look further than your own desire to get a left wing progressive in the White House (Original post)
Fla Dem Mar 2015 OP
MineralMan Mar 2015 #1
MineralMan Mar 2015 #2
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #6
MineralMan Mar 2015 #7
BlueCaliDem Mar 2015 #15
MineralMan Mar 2015 #63
cali Mar 2015 #3
msanthrope Mar 2015 #8
jeff47 Mar 2015 #24
msanthrope Mar 2015 #28
jeff47 Mar 2015 #36
msanthrope Mar 2015 #43
jeff47 Mar 2015 #52
msanthrope Mar 2015 #65
jeff47 Mar 2015 #67
msanthrope Mar 2015 #69
jeff47 Mar 2015 #71
mountain grammy Mar 2015 #55
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #61
jeff47 Mar 2015 #64
Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #107
mountain grammy Mar 2015 #51
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #13
Gman Mar 2015 #46
Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #4
cali Mar 2015 #9
MineralMan Mar 2015 #12
we can do it Mar 2015 #17
leveymg Mar 2015 #45
we can do it Mar 2015 #47
brooklynite Mar 2015 #75
leveymg Mar 2015 #85
Autumn Mar 2015 #5
MineralMan Mar 2015 #10
Autumn Mar 2015 #19
mountain grammy Mar 2015 #57
Autumn Mar 2015 #60
mopinko Mar 2015 #11
LondonReign2 Mar 2015 #20
Veilex Mar 2015 #29
mopinko Mar 2015 #48
mmonk Mar 2015 #14
guillaumeb Mar 2015 #16
appalachiablue Mar 2015 #34
Scuba Mar 2015 #114
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #18
NCTraveler Mar 2015 #21
99Forever Mar 2015 #22
Veilex Mar 2015 #25
closeupready Mar 2015 #77
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #83
jeff47 Mar 2015 #23
Veilex Mar 2015 #27
jeff47 Mar 2015 #30
Veilex Mar 2015 #32
jeff47 Mar 2015 #39
Veilex Mar 2015 #41
appalachiablue Mar 2015 #35
Dustlawyer Mar 2015 #26
Veilex Mar 2015 #33
mountain grammy Mar 2015 #58
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #72
ND-Dem Mar 2015 #31
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #37
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #88
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #38
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #89
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #97
daleanime Mar 2015 #40
Marrah_G Mar 2015 #42
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #87
GoneFishin Mar 2015 #44
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #79
w4rma Mar 2015 #49
Marr Mar 2015 #113
jalan48 Mar 2015 #50
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #90
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #53
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #76
Martin Eden Mar 2015 #110
earthside Mar 2015 #54
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #81
earthside Mar 2015 #99
freshwest Mar 2015 #56
blackspade Mar 2015 #59
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #91
RedstDem Mar 2015 #62
Dems to Win Mar 2015 #70
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #92
Oilwellian Mar 2015 #109
MisterP Mar 2015 #66
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #93
AZ Progressive Mar 2015 #68
Corruption Inc Mar 2015 #73
olddots Mar 2015 #74
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #95
betterdemsonly Mar 2015 #78
1000words Mar 2015 #80
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #82
99Forever Mar 2015 #84
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #96
99Forever Mar 2015 #103
Fla Dem Mar 2015 #108
99Forever Mar 2015 #111
1000words Mar 2015 #86
herding cats Mar 2015 #94
SomethingFishy Mar 2015 #98
kickysnana Mar 2015 #100
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #101
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #102
HereSince1628 Mar 2015 #106
KG Mar 2015 #104
PowerToThePeople Mar 2015 #105
Marr Mar 2015 #112
Scuba Mar 2015 #115
Iggo Mar 2015 #116
RiverLover Mar 2015 #117

Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:03 AM

1. Possessive? You might want to check that. But K&R.

Damned autocorrect...

ETA: Never mind. I see you caught it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:06 AM

2. You're absolutely correct. The next President

is going to have the opportunity to seat multiple SCOTUS justices. It's a crucial fact. We must not allow a Republican to be elected. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:18 AM

7. It certainly does feel like that at times.

I'm not sure whether it's short sightedness or deliberate attempts to swing the election to Republicans. I guess we'll never know, really, but I'll be working to elect Democrats to every possible office, as usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:55 AM

15. That's most likely the reason that the Koch Bros have pledged $899 million dollars

to spend in the 2016 elections - and you can bet it won't be on Democrats.

Unlike the majority of non-voting American people who don't care about politics (too boring - it's so much more entertaining to set ones brain to "0" and watch what the Dugger family are doin' these days with those nineteen kids - oh, hey! How about those Kardashians?!), the fraction who do vote need to support Democrats no matter how imperfect they are. Why? Because no Democrat is as bad as the Neo-Confederates now infesting our government. Not a single one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:28 PM

63. Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:07 AM

3. wow. never heard that bit of brow beating before.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:20 AM

8. It's not brow beating, cali......it's reality. Right now, you have SCOTUS

 

debating health care and equal marriage. Do you feel confident in the numbers that we have?

I can't even begin to describe to you how the Roberts Court has absolutely decimated the ability of citizens to hold corporations accountable. Nevermind the absolute tyranny of local control of police that they allow. and let's not even get started on the fact they rolled back voting protections, civil rights, and reproductive rights.......slowly and surely.

The bastards that get elected to Congress can be unelected.....Scalia AlIito Roberts Thomas will be there until they die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:12 PM

24. It's not brow beating! It's just a club being repeatedly brought down

upon the upper portion of your face!!

I can't even begin to describe to you how the Roberts Court has absolutely decimated the ability of citizens to hold corporations accountable

Golly....almost like Democrats should have not confirmed those justices in overwhelming majorities. Oh wait, that's the quaint idea that the Senate does more than rubber-stamp Republican nominees.

When the options are go to hell or go to hell slightly slowler, an argument of "but we'll end up in hell" is not terribly persuasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:16 PM

28. You know...I agree with you. Our Democratic Senators have not done

 

enough for us. Which is why 2016 is so damn important......look at how many Republican Senate seats go up. And we need people willing to work for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:21 PM

36. We aren't going to get them by accepting the lesser of two evils.

And we need people willing to work for us.

We aren't going to get them by always accepting "the lesser of two evils". Larger donations from the wealthy, pass tax cuts for the rich, and still get votes from the left. That means there's no reason to change.

We had a chance to not go down this road. Heck, 2008 was a vote to get off this road. Unfortunately, It's abundantly clear the people running the party are not interested in getting off this road.

We're only going to be able to replace those leaders by them repeatedly losing elections. "But it's a bad time to repeatedly lose"? It's always a bad time to repeatedly lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:32 PM

43. You know what jeff? When I go to the meetings of the people running

 

this party.....I'm the youngest one there.

I'm in my forties.

I'd love for the people who have better ideas to show up and take over. And I don't mean that as a gotcha......I mean that as a real assessment of how shit changes.....

https://m.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:00 PM

52. We tried. We were told to shut up and vote.

The age problem you describe comes from demographics.

Older Boomers, younger GenX and older Millenials tend to be liberal.
Younger Boomers, and older GenX tend to be conservative.

Younger Boomers and older GenX formed a coalition, creating the modern Republican party. It was pretty easy for them to do, since there's a fair amount of issue overlap due to being adjacent in age.

Older Boomers and younger GenX did not form a coalition. From the younger GenX side, we could not get the party to pay attention to our issues. For example, attempts to avoid tuition increases in the 80's and 90's got in the way of tax cuts and similar issues that benefited older Boomers at the time.

Instead, older Boomers formed a coalition with the younger end of the WWII generation. And the small size of GenX meant younger GenX just was not needed in the coalition in order to win in the 1980s and 1990s.

That resulted in extremely low turnout from young GenX and now Millennials. If the party isn't going to work on what they care about, their choices are shit or shit. That doesn't get people to the polls, much less interested in becoming party activists.

Unfortunately for the party, time marches on. And that 80's/90's coalition no longer has enough people in it to win. Yet the party leadership comes from that 80's/90's coalition, and does not want to change course.

They need young GenX and older Millennials now. So we get a whole lot of posts like the OP, lecturing "the kids" on how important it is to vote for the Democrat even when the policy history is bad. We also get a lot of complaints that we aren't marching or otherwise repeating the 1960s in order to do what older Boomers want passed - again, still no interest in what "the kids" want. Instead, there's a whole lot of people behaving as if they are entitled to the votes of everyone who doesn't worship Reagan, regardless of what the party has actually done.

The party isn't going to get younger voters until the party stops lecturing to younger voters, and starts listening to them. The party leadership shows no interest in doing so, and the lack of younger people in the party leadership means there's no one in power who can force the issue.

That leaves younger voters exactly one way to change the party: don't vote for it.

IMO, what's going to happen is the Republicans will wander further and further off into insanity. The Democratic party will become the right-wing party, and settle in to roughly where the Republicans were in the 1950's/1960's. Something else will arise as the new left-wing party, either a new party or one of the existing minor parties. It's going to take a generation or so. There will be a lot of bad things that happen in the meantime, because there will be no real check between the right and the far right. But our party backed itself into a corner, and only shows interest in moving to the right to get out of the corner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:38 PM

65. Come to the meetings, jeff. They can't listen to you unless you show up.

 

The 101st Chairborne can't make change from twitter hashtags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:41 PM

67. What makes you think I haven't?

And what makes you think it was not made abundantly clear that "the kids" are supposed to stop whining and vote?

Perhaps even by throwing in a few digs about Internet usage over political activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #67)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:50 PM

69. Come back and don't leave. I'm serious. Dig your heels in.

 

Subvert from within.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #69)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:27 PM

71. Again, what makes you think I don't?

My post is trying to get some of the "vote for Clinton or the SCOTUS!!!" brigade to realize what they have wrought over the last 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:04 PM

55. And at 67, nearly everyone is my age at the meeting I attend..

and there's precious few of us. Personally, I would just like to see more people in the room regardless of age.

In 2012, we actually had some great meetings, thanks to a primary between a conservative Democrat and a true liberal Dem. I was there for the liberal, as were a bunch of us, inspired and ready to fight for our candidate.

We did fight, but lost. The conservative got the nomination and won the senate seat... Michael Benett. He's no Republican by any means, but he did vote for the Keystone XL.
Of course, I voted for Benett. His opponent was hideous and is now a United States Congressman from Colorado's 4th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:27 PM

61. Scalia and Thomas appointed in 1988 & 1988; very different dynamics then.

Scalia was a 97-0 vote
Kennedy was a 97-0 vote after Robert Bork's confirmation was voted down.
Thomas was a 52-48 vote
Alito was a 58-42 vote
Roberts was a 78-22 vote

Democrats have tried to vote down RW nominees in recent history.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:38 PM

64. Yes, 78-22 shows just how hard they've tried to vote down RW nominees. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #64)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:28 PM

107. And then there's that 97-0 vote for Scalia

They must have been huffing some pretty powerful kool-aid before that vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:55 PM

51. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:34 AM

13. Certainly not my intent to "brow beat" anyone.

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)



But it does feel at times like some miss the forest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:44 PM

46. Somebody needs to brow beat the shit out of them

To get it through their massively thick effing skulls. They hang onto this progressive fairyland pipe dream to the point of things like, oh, voting for Nader b

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:12 AM

4. Liberals need to unite around Obama completely and totally or you get what the GOP say you deserve.

Christofascism.....figure it out....liberals own the White House...and if that is gone or denigrated from within?

The GOP and their subservient media are trying to divide us...why are we helping??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:21 AM

9. It's not about Obama. It's about the next President and uniting around Hilary

 

something I am not prepared to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:23 AM

12. OK, cali. You're not going to support Hillary Clinton.

We knew that. You've said it often. Who are you supporting if not her? Who do you want to win the Democratic nomination? Clinton is the current front-runner in the polling, by a large margin. If you want someone else, it's time to start promoting someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #9)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:57 AM

17. So Cotton-Walker-Paul-Bush would be an acceptable alternative for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:42 PM

45. False dichotomy. It's not Hillary or Jeb (or whatever slithers out of the GOP Convention).

Any half-way liberal without all the negative baggage who the Democrats choose is likely to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:47 PM

47. No it isn't- And likely to win is not good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:22 PM

75. Okay--have you got one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:37 PM

85. We may end up drafting Michelle

She's not exactly begging for the job, but she brings with her a built-in constituency: her husband's voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:14 AM

5. Wow. Retired or died between the ages of 70-90.

Goes to show what an easy job, good health care and a lack of stress with a nice living income on the tax payers dime will do for longevity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:22 AM

10. Well, actually most adult Americans die in that age range.

The average US life expectancy is the late 70s (78.8 as of 2014), and a surprising number of people live into their late 80s. We don't do as well as some other countries, but those are the facts.

My parents turn 91 this year. Both are still living and still doing OK. I wouldn't suggest either of them for a SCOTUS seat, though, although my father probably would have been an excellent, fair judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:59 AM

19. Longevity is good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:07 PM

57. Yeah, ain't that the truth.

I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution to limit Justice's terms. I think it's absolutely necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:17 PM

60. No way in hell these people should serve that long. Four years at most.

Or do away with it all together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:23 AM

11. hell, even if she is a little RIGHT of center,

that is still a great improvement over these whackadoodles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:01 PM

20. Because sucking really bad is a great improvement over

sucking really REALLY bad.

Fantastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:16 PM

29. Right?!?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LondonReign2 (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:49 PM

48. look around. that is reality.

in the real world, grownups handle that sort of dilemma the best they can.
doesnt mean i am gonna go work for hill in the primaries, but if she is the nominee, i will work for her as hard as i can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:36 AM

14. It's pretty sad that what used to be stalwart Democratic positions

is now just relegated as "left wing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:56 AM

16. hit it perfectly

the genius of the GOP is in framing what used to be mainstream positions as somehow "extreme left" positions. Whether it is the "death tax" or taxation in general, or abortion, or many other issues, the GOP presents their extreme right wing fascism as the norm. The GOP is aided in this by the fact that the media in the US is predominantly corporate controlled.
One example:
The rich are far too lightly taxed yet many Americans are convinced that taxes are too high. They do not understand that their personal taxes are relatively high because their wages have been stagnant for over 30 years due to GOP policies.

Same for an assortment of other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:20 PM

34. +10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:30 AM

114. Eggzaklee!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:58 AM

18. 'desire'?

I'd say 'need'. Those 'moderate' Democrats are taking us down the same path to destruction more slowly. We need someone to make a sharp break with the economics of funneling money upward.

And the Supreme Court argument died on the vine, when Antonin Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0.

If 'moderate' Democratic Senators that we're told we HAVE to vote for are just going to vote in any ultrapartisan RWer, the system is already too far broken. for it to matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:04 PM

21. I think there is a time and place for this.

 

I think there is a better time and place for this. The exact time to work toward getting progressives in the primary is right now. The time for this argument, as it truly is a solid argument with obvious merit, is after the primary. Completely pointless at this point and no different than those running around here yelling EMAIL GATE!!!! This is nothing but divisive at this point in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:06 PM

22. No, just plain no.

I will not settle for holding my nose and voting for the less crappie of two VERY crappy choices.

You want my support, you earn it or do without it. Period

No more compromising with assholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:14 PM

25. Indeed +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:26 PM

77. Completely agree. Done with it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:34 PM

83. Ok, your choice, your future. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:08 PM

23. If you want to get people to support Clinton, you have to give them

reasons to vote for Clinton. Your post is a reason to vote against the Republican.

We can ask Senator/Governor Coakley and Senator Grimes how "not as bad" works as a campaign theme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:15 PM

27. That and she's not even running as of yet. EOM

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:16 PM

30. Only because of tax and political donation laws.

She can collect more and larger donations the longer she is not a candidate, and those donations have more favorable tax status while she is not a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:19 PM

32. She's STILL not running yet.

 

I'll vote for Bernie instead. I'd rather have a real progressive in the white house rather than yet another corporate lapdog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veilex (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:22 PM

39. He's not running yet either. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:25 PM

41. Indeed!

 

But the anti-Bernie crowd always lead with "He's not even running". So, I thought I'd toss that out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:21 PM

35. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:14 PM

26. True, just a shame that as a corporate Democrat she will appoint Wall Street/corporate friendly

Democrats to the bench. This is why we should back someone like Bernie Sanders through the Primarys. It would at least extract some more Progressive positions out of her and not hurt her chances in the General Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:20 PM

33. Definately voting for Sanders. EOM

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:08 PM

58. I agree. I think there must be a primary.

Progressive positions must have a place in our party and a primary puts them there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #58)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:22 PM

72. I totally agree. I want someone with "better" progressive credentials to challenge her.

That wasn't the point of my OP. My point was with all the HRC bashing, and "if she's the candidate I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for her" comments, are so self defeating. I would love to have an unknown, or known progressive run against her, if for no other reason than to make her move more to the left and if she ends up being the nominee to toughen her up for the general. But so far I don't see anyone stepping up to the plate or even indicating except for Bernie Sanders. Actually Sherrod Brown would be my pick. But here a list of possibles. Which one has the best credentials, and could also win a general election?


Joe Biden
Andrew Cuomo
Kirsten Gillibrand
Amy Klobuchar
Martin O'Malley
Bernie Sanders
Brian Schweitzer
Mark Warner
Elizabeth Warren
Jim Webb

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:17 PM

31. yeah, a president who leaned left couldn't get any good appointees. only someone

 

like Clinton could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:22 PM

37. Wait, are you suggesting they should 'Look further than their own desire to get a centrist into the

WH?'

Just because a leftist could get more votes than a centrist, because centrists keep telling us they'd all vote for whoever the Dems nominate, but leftists say they won't vote for Hillary? So by that logic, anyone to the left will automatically get more votes overall than Hillary would? And then that leftist would nominate SC Justices who are at least as lefty as any HRC would pick?

How dare you insert logic into this!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ND-Dem (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:44 PM

88. No one said that. I just don't want a Repub. I would be thrilled with a left leaning President.

Who might that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:22 PM

38. These telling folks how to vote threads are becoming comical.

As if the one hundred or so regular posters who won't vote for the Democratic nominee if he or she doesn't pass their litmus test is going to affect the final outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:46 PM

89. You're right I'll not pay any attention any more to the HRC naysayers because they are insignificant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #89)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:59 PM

97. Your characterization of my remarks is a bit rough but some folks minds are set.

It is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:25 PM

40. So continue the same game plan.....

because it's working so well for us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:25 PM

42. seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:42 PM

87. Good one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:37 PM

44. Since some of us will be satisfied with anyone with a D after their name, and others of us would be

satisfied with someone with a D after their name who does not behave like a Republican, we can all have our way if we nominate a progressive Democrat. That is what we should do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:29 PM

79. Great. let's do it. I'm on board. Can they win the general? Who do you suggest? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:50 PM

49. Neoliberals lost big in the previous election. Our best chance at winning the White House is for a

 

progressive Democratic nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:59 PM

113. +1. And those were right-leaning Dems without decades of baggage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:52 PM

50. I think we have been hearing this argument for at least 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:47 PM

90. So? It's still valid. Just look at the recent SC decisions. Thanks jalan for you input.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:02 PM

53. Fla Dem, what's your point?

It is a given the Dem nominee (whomover he or she may be) is prefereable to any Republican, and that one of the big reasons is SCOTUS selection.

So then, other than stating the obvious, why did you craft this OP of yours?

In the context of Hillary Clinton, are you suggesting a more Progressive president would make worse selections for SCOTUS?

Also, I take exception to the subject title of your OP. Wanting a more Progressive president goes way beyond my own desire. I'm in my late 50's and my finances are in good shape. I'm politically active not out of some selfish need to satisfy my own desire, but because I care deeply about the economic well being of millions of others not as lucky as myself. I care about environmental sustainability for future generations, and I don't want to see thousands of patriotic young Americans killed or come home maimed after being sent to some senseless war based on lies.

You know, the kind of war that HC voted for.

So you really need to re-examine your own desire, and think twice before applying that term to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:25 PM

76. My one and only desire is to have a Democrat in the WH on 1/20/2017

I don't do many OP's, generally just weigh in on others' OP's. But I have read so many posts bashing HRC. And in many of these posts they say I want a Progressive, not someone tied to Wall Street. But do they name a viable candidate? No. So it's a desire, a want, a wish, whatever you want to call it. I hope for all of them, they want this more than just because they don't like Hillary Clinton, but because they DO desire what is best for the whole country and the future for generations to come.

I have stated in other responses, I will be more than happy to support a Progressive candidate that has a chance of winning the WH. I consider myself a Progressive. If one declares and gives HRC a run for her money in the primary, and wins, I'm on board. I just got tired of all the HRC bashing before she even announces and before any other Dem, Progressive or otherwise has stepped up to the plate. Then they say," if she is the nominee I'm not voting for her because she doesn't check all the blocks on the Pure Progressive check list." It's like a person dying of thirst refusing a glass of water because it's only half full. Are we really going to bite our nose to spite our face?

I used the Supreme Court and Federal Judge appointment argument because of all the acts of a president, those have the most long term impact. Just look at the recent Supreme Court decision on Civil Rights; all the work that was done 50 years ago, the hard work of Democrats to get the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed and a critical part of it was erased by the Supreme Court.

"Today’s decision technically leaves Section 5 standing, but strikes down the formula for determining which jurisdictions need to preclear their changes. In practice, however, the court has gutted preclearance. There is almost no chance Congress will adopt a new formula, so arguably the most important provision in the most important civil-rights law ever adopted has been effectively overturned."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/the-supreme-court-s-ruling-and-the-end-of-the-civil-rights-era.html

Or the Citizens United Case where the SC has effectively given our democracy away to the highest bidder.

This is what scares me the most. These decisions have long reaching and permanent impact on our democracy.They can overturn good legislation that will have dire consequences on the lives of everyday people and put even more power into the hands of the corporations and the wealthy.

Oh, and I am and have been politically active ever since I was in high school going door to door for Ted Kennedy giving out flyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:37 PM

110. "more than happy to support a Progressive candidate that has a chance of winning the WH"

On that we agree.

I think we can also agree it's vitally important to vote for the Democratic nominee in Nov 2016, no matter who it is. What percentage of DUers who don't like Hillary will withhold their vote in the general election? I strongly suspect that number is much lower than the number who have been highly critical of her. I will not support HC in the primary, but I will definitely vote for the Dem nominee in the general election.

What really bothers me is the mindset that no one else on the Left can challenge her. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy and the product of mass media talking heads who dispense this conventional wisdom. The discussion comes down to WHO ELSE IS THERE.

The discussion is about WHO instead of WHAT. The national dialogue is about well known faces and the horse race of politics instead of the critically important issues that desperately need practical solutions. This election, and every election should be, first and foremost, about IDEAS and POLICY.

I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know. I will also tell you I'm a realist who understands the chances of our national dialogue gaining a large measure of sanity between now and Nov 2016 is next to zero. But there's another reality we need to consider: Until we change the status quo and the course of our country, all the things we care so deeply about will not come to pass.

Also for your consideration:
Nearly two thirds of eligible voters did not vote in the mid term elections, and a number that large can't be explained by voter suppression. Compare that with the turnout that brought Barack Obama to the White House. I understand turnout is always greater in a presidential election, but there was more at work than that. There was a surge in votes among young people and others because they really felt they had something to vote FOR.

The American people (even clueless Teapartiers) have the sense that our our country and our government are really messed up. The TPers have been manipulated into voting against their own interests, but they go to the polls. The only way to counteract that is find leaders who inspire greater numbers who have a better grasp of the reality of our situation to go to the polls.

Is Hillary Clinton that leader?

I think not, and I'm not alone among well informed politically active voters.

Let's not set our sights too low, or we'll never see real progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:02 PM

54. What a depressing, defeatist viewpoint.

Let's all give up on getting a genuinely progressive nominee because, well, you know, Hillary is inevitable and she's better than the other guys.

So inspiring.

Not.

Sacrifice the possibilities for a progressive America for Hillary Clinton's ambition?
No way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:32 PM

81. Who is your Progressive candidate? That can win a general election?

Seriously. I've listed a bunch of them up thread, but so far no one has made a suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:02 PM

99. If Clinton would get out of the way ...

... Democrats would have a lot of great, new, dynamic candidates.

Sen. Gillibrand
Sen. Klobuchar

Sen. Sherrod Brown

Gov. Beshear
Gov. Hickenlooper

... ones that come to my mind right off the top.

The establishment, center-right, risk averse, Wall Street Clinton machine is trying to bludgeon its way to the nomination.

Hillary Clinton is a boring and lousy candidate ... Democrats, liberals and progressives will be sorry if they let her steamroller this nomination contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:05 PM

56. Thanks for posting this job creating thread. It will help the popcorn industry.

Light the fire in 3... 2... 1...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:14 PM

59. WTH is this post even about?

What Democrat is going to allow a rethug to get elected?
Even if we end up with a corporate third wayer?

This is just the usual pre-election fear-mongering about a supposed Rethug win.
Have you even seen the potential rethug candidate list?
A five year old could win against them.
The US electorate is dumb, but not that dumb, as the last two presidential elections showed....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:49 PM

91. From you lips (fingertips) to God's ear. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:28 PM

62. if the next election is so damned important

 

Why risk it running Hilliary?

I see Hill and Jeb winning their primaries, with Jeb winning in a squeaker, with more than the usual amount of shenigans, and the lowest turnout in a presidential election ever recorded.

I hope I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedstDem (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:07 PM

70. My crystal ball is giving similar results

 

I also hope I'm wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedstDem (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:52 PM

92. Hope your wrong too. Who do you see beating Jeb? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedstDem (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:34 PM

109. You ask a very good question

It's a huge risk and I don't see Hillary winning either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:39 PM

66. it's cute how everyone's assuming a centrist will have a better chance of getting in

hint: if Hillary loses the WH and thus the SCOTUS, it won't be because of lefties; it'll be because she's not convincing

plus, y'know, putting some Silly Putty on a wound spurting blood and then saying you've done an exhausting 5-hour surgery to stop the bleeding won't actually stop the hemorrhaging

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #66)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:53 PM

93. OK, next time I'll try a band-aid. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:46 PM

68. Well, we have to admit that the price of failure is damn high

You either play it safe or give it everything you can possibly, humanly give. It's either all or nothing.

If a Republican becomes president, it's pretty certain that it's the end of America as we know it. SCOTUS right now are the overlords of America and are continuing their war against America as we know it, our only hope is to outlast those right wingers and put in someone to tip the balance. They have the power to reinterpret everything, and thus their power is immense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:16 PM

74. I very much disagree with you

 

N.t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddots (Reply #74)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:55 PM

95. OK, your prerogative. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:28 PM

78. I don't consider her slightly left of center.

 

Women in states that elect progressives will still have abortion rights. Relying on the courts encourages voter lazyness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)


Response to 1000words (Reply #80)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:33 PM

82. Yes Master, you have spoken, I will obey. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:35 PM

84. Pot meet kettle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #84)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:56 PM

96. Lol. you're funny. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #96)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:50 PM

103. You think blatant hypocrisy is funny?

You post an OP instructing all of us who to vote for, then have the audacity to answer this "Yes Master, you have spoken, I will obey. nt" when someone says to sell it elsewhere?

Funny? Yeah, it's a fucking laugh riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #103)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:33 PM

108. I didn't tell anyone who to vote for. I said look further, which means explore, consider.

That was a suggestion. I'm sorry you couldn't make the fucking distinction. So no hypocrisy here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #108)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:45 PM

111. Ahhh bullshit.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Reply #82)


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:53 PM

94. After the primaries, I'm onboard.

But at this stage of the game we should be looking at all our options and supporting the one we think best represents us. Once the majority of Democratic voters have picked a nominee, I'll respect their decision, even if it's not my top choice this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:59 PM

98. Oh fer christs sakes... Now I have to listen to both sides

tell me it's the end of the world of the other side wins.

You know what? I am an American citizen, no matter who wins, I. Fucking. Lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:53 PM

100. Dem polls, often solicitations, kept asking what is the most important?

DUers, screamed, posted, petitioned, called, lamented, Opeded and protested
do not allow Corporate SCJs." It and everything else fell on deaf ears.

We had done what we were told and supported them, sometimes holding our nose, with time and money and they ignored America and Americans best interest for some magic beans.

They will do it again because nothing has changed. This is exactly the same same stupid, flawed rhetoric they used back then.

Sorry, I won't get fooled again. I will vote for substance only. No substance?. No vote, no money, no time. This is the way it is this time. Get used to it or you will lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:58 PM

101. Newsflash...a rightwing conservative democrat could be just as devastating

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:13 PM

102. Hillary is an interventionist, corporate conservative and will appoint those who will support such.

They will support abortion rights for those who can afford one other than that I expect nothing but more surveillance state, more corporate domination, more executive power, and more corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #102)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:22 PM

106. I feel the same way...

A well qualified candidate if we faced a different set of problems

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:53 PM

104. heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:16 PM

105. Fuck third way. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:47 PM

112. Yes-- Hillary supporters should consider the SC before pushing her candidacy.

 

It would be irresponsible to nominate a candidate that is too far right to win, simply because you personally want that candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:30 AM

115. I miss the unrec button.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:31 AM

116. As long as you look further than your desire to elect Ms Clinton...

...then we have a deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fla Dem (Original post)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 08:36 AM

117. A Left Wing Progressive would win the WH, a fake Democrat would not. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread