HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We're well on our way to ...

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:31 PM

 

We're well on our way to a republican president in 2016

All conservatives have to do to make that happen is convince a few million of us that OUR candidate is not liberal enough and that we should protest by staying home and not voting. And they are MORE than pleased to have the "Democrats" here at DU help them.

Let's face it, it worked when Nader did it in the 2000 election. Worked like a charm. Remember his mantra - there is no difference between Gore and Bush? Remember that? Remember how many justices Bush appointed to the USSC? Remember how we got Citizen's United, which did more to destroy our democracy than any other single USSC decision in history?

Worked in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms too. Let's all sit home because Obama is not liberal enough. Now you have a republican house and senate to go with it.

You want to see all hell really break loose in this country? You think we can't be more screwed than we already are? Let republicans own every branch of government. Oh yeah, it can get worse.

The only thing Reagan ever said in his whole life that made any sense was "thou shall not bash a republican." They know how to win. We, on the other hand, know how to help republicans win.

Foolish. Just foolish. You can discuss policy differences without bashing other democrats. Try it. Please.

447 replies, 25022 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 447 replies Author Time Post
Reply We're well on our way to a republican president in 2016 (Original post)
MaggieD Apr 2015 OP
NoJusticeNoPeace Apr 2015 #1
TheMastersNemesis Apr 2015 #2
merrily Apr 2015 #229
Xyzse Apr 2015 #278
SCantiGOP Apr 2015 #375
Xyzse Apr 2015 #377
Andy823 Apr 2015 #3
TreasonousBastard Apr 2015 #4
MaggieD Apr 2015 #5
TreasonousBastard Apr 2015 #6
sendero Apr 2015 #231
leftynyc Apr 2015 #248
Jackpine Radical Apr 2015 #354
leftynyc Apr 2015 #356
Jackpine Radical Apr 2015 #358
sendero Apr 2015 #394
bvar22 Apr 2015 #395
leftynyc Apr 2015 #436
bvar22 Apr 2015 #443
leftynyc Apr 2015 #444
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2015 #7
MaggieD Apr 2015 #9
onecaliberal Apr 2015 #43
yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #143
frylock Apr 2015 #67
MaggieD Apr 2015 #69
frylock Apr 2015 #73
Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #74
MaggieD Apr 2015 #75
Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #77
MaggieD Apr 2015 #80
frylock Apr 2015 #88
MaggieD Apr 2015 #106
Agschmid Apr 2015 #202
frylock Apr 2015 #281
MaggieD Apr 2015 #286
ieoeja Apr 2015 #326
MaggieD Apr 2015 #332
ieoeja Apr 2015 #351
MaggieD Apr 2015 #352
Agschmid Apr 2015 #201
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #103
MaggieD Apr 2015 #107
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #114
MaggieD Apr 2015 #119
merrily Apr 2015 #246
MaggieD Apr 2015 #288
merrily Apr 2015 #294
MaggieD Apr 2015 #307
MaggieD Apr 2015 #357
backwoodsbob Apr 2015 #225
merrily Apr 2015 #227
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #336
merrily Apr 2015 #339
MaggieD Apr 2015 #308
backwoodsbob Apr 2015 #391
MaggieD Apr 2015 #393
Ken Burch Apr 2015 #198
bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #226
1939 Apr 2015 #252
jeff47 Apr 2015 #316
Adrahil Apr 2015 #10
MaggieD Apr 2015 #12
RKP5637 Apr 2015 #79
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #337
bvar22 Apr 2015 #396
markpkessinger Apr 2015 #54
AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #85
OLDMADAM Apr 2015 #126
merrily Apr 2015 #230
RiverLover Apr 2015 #233
woo me with science Apr 2015 #253
RoccoR5955 Apr 2015 #8
MaggieD Apr 2015 #11
frylock Apr 2015 #68
MaggieD Apr 2015 #70
frylock Apr 2015 #72
MaggieD Apr 2015 #84
frylock Apr 2015 #87
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #105
arendt Apr 2015 #133
MaggieD Apr 2015 #140
Capt. Obvious Apr 2015 #254
merrily Apr 2015 #234
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #361
LeftOfWest Apr 2015 #384
merrily Apr 2015 #232
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #172
MaggieD Apr 2015 #174
RoccoR5955 Apr 2015 #250
Adrahil Apr 2015 #13
MaggieD Apr 2015 #14
frylock Apr 2015 #283
deutsey Apr 2015 #327
realFedUp Apr 2015 #15
MaggieD Apr 2015 #17
realFedUp Apr 2015 #24
MaggieD Apr 2015 #60
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #108
MaggieD Apr 2015 #113
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #116
MaggieD Apr 2015 #130
merrily Apr 2015 #235
RoccoR5955 Apr 2015 #329
merrily Apr 2015 #241
longship Apr 2015 #120
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #135
merrily Apr 2015 #236
yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #146
merrily Apr 2015 #240
jmowreader Apr 2015 #228
libpride_15 Apr 2015 #440
MFrohike Apr 2015 #16
MaggieD Apr 2015 #23
MFrohike Apr 2015 #30
BeanMusical Apr 2015 #160
MaggieD Apr 2015 #178
MFrohike Apr 2015 #237
merrily Apr 2015 #244
truebluegreen Apr 2015 #260
MaggieD Apr 2015 #279
frylock Apr 2015 #285
MaggieD Apr 2015 #292
MaggieD Apr 2015 #277
merrily Apr 2015 #282
MaggieD Apr 2015 #284
merrily Apr 2015 #287
MaggieD Apr 2015 #291
merrily Apr 2015 #295
MaggieD Apr 2015 #299
merrily Apr 2015 #309
MaggieD Apr 2015 #318
MaggieD Apr 2015 #426
MFrohike Apr 2015 #433
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #422
MaggieD Apr 2015 #423
myrna minx Apr 2015 #258
merrily Apr 2015 #261
MaggieD Apr 2015 #296
frylock Apr 2015 #90
seabeyond Apr 2015 #18
appalachiablue Apr 2015 #57
merrily Apr 2015 #245
L0oniX Apr 2015 #19
seabeyond Apr 2015 #21
L0oniX Apr 2015 #22
seabeyond Apr 2015 #26
L0oniX Apr 2015 #33
seabeyond Apr 2015 #41
merrily Apr 2015 #317
merrily Apr 2015 #297
L0oniX Apr 2015 #330
seabeyond Apr 2015 #343
merrily Apr 2015 #344
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #366
merrily Apr 2015 #369
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #372
merrily Apr 2015 #374
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #386
merrily Apr 2015 #387
merrily Apr 2015 #373
MaggieD Apr 2015 #27
Cleita Apr 2015 #31
seabeyond Apr 2015 #36
Cleita Apr 2015 #47
seabeyond Apr 2015 #49
Cleita Apr 2015 #51
seabeyond Apr 2015 #52
MaggieD Apr 2015 #65
arendt Apr 2015 #152
MaggieD Apr 2015 #161
merrily Apr 2015 #262
MaggieD Apr 2015 #427
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #425
arendt Apr 2015 #150
MaggieD Apr 2015 #162
merrily Apr 2015 #263
MaggieD Apr 2015 #275
merrily Apr 2015 #280
MaggieD Apr 2015 #300
MaggieD Apr 2015 #64
merrily Apr 2015 #265
MaggieD Apr 2015 #301
merrily Apr 2015 #304
MaggieD Apr 2015 #306
merrily Apr 2015 #310
MaggieD Apr 2015 #312
merrily Apr 2015 #313
MaggieD Apr 2015 #314
merrily Apr 2015 #315
MaggieD Apr 2015 #320
merrily Apr 2015 #322
MaggieD Apr 2015 #350
MaggieD Apr 2015 #62
Cleita Apr 2015 #382
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #199
merrily Apr 2015 #239
L0oniX Apr 2015 #266
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #271
L0oniX Apr 2015 #273
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #274
Agschmid Apr 2015 #203
betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #20
MaggieD Apr 2015 #34
Hekate Apr 2015 #187
betterdemsonly Apr 2015 #216
TransitJohn Apr 2015 #25
MaggieD Apr 2015 #29
frylock Apr 2015 #91
arendt Apr 2015 #134
Cha Apr 2015 #39
MaggieD Apr 2015 #82
Cha Apr 2015 #211
Hekate Apr 2015 #194
Cleita Apr 2015 #28
guillaumeb Apr 2015 #32
liberal N proud Apr 2015 #35
MaggieD Apr 2015 #37
liberal N proud Apr 2015 #40
Jamastiene Apr 2015 #38
Cha Apr 2015 #42
MaggieD Apr 2015 #46
seabeyond Apr 2015 #50
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #144
merrily Apr 2015 #311
whatchamacallit Apr 2015 #44
yardwork Apr 2015 #45
Scuba Apr 2015 #48
Ron Obvious Apr 2015 #53
MaggieD Apr 2015 #59
frylock Apr 2015 #93
arendt Apr 2015 #136
BeanMusical Apr 2015 #151
arendt Apr 2015 #154
BeanMusical Apr 2015 #156
Autumn Apr 2015 #268
frylock Apr 2015 #289
Autumn Apr 2015 #298
merrily Apr 2015 #331
Autumn Apr 2015 #334
merrily Apr 2015 #335
progressoid Apr 2015 #376
markpkessinger Apr 2015 #55
Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #81
MaggieD Apr 2015 #83
Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #96
markpkessinger Apr 2015 #101
MaggieD Apr 2015 #104
markpkessinger Apr 2015 #408
MaggieD Apr 2015 #412
markpkessinger Apr 2015 #419
MaggieD Apr 2015 #420
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #371
Fumesucker Apr 2015 #56
frylock Apr 2015 #71
MaggieD Apr 2015 #78
Fumesucker Apr 2015 #115
MaggieD Apr 2015 #305
Art_from_Ark Apr 2015 #224
arendt Apr 2015 #58
MaggieD Apr 2015 #76
frylock Apr 2015 #94
MaggieD Apr 2015 #98
arendt Apr 2015 #131
MaggieD Apr 2015 #173
frylock Apr 2015 #290
Autumn Apr 2015 #302
Post removed Apr 2015 #129
arendt Apr 2015 #137
MaggieD Apr 2015 #142
arendt Apr 2015 #145
Hekate Apr 2015 #205
frylock Apr 2015 #293
arendt Apr 2015 #128
MaggieD Apr 2015 #138
arendt Apr 2015 #141
MaggieD Apr 2015 #158
merrily Apr 2015 #264
Capt. Obvious Apr 2015 #347
UTUSN Apr 2015 #61
jeff47 Apr 2015 #63
MaggieD Apr 2015 #66
frylock Apr 2015 #95
Post removed Apr 2015 #148
MaggieD Apr 2015 #163
Broward Apr 2015 #86
MaggieD Apr 2015 #97
frylock Apr 2015 #89
MaggieD Apr 2015 #100
arendt Apr 2015 #132
Change has come Apr 2015 #186
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #92
MaggieD Apr 2015 #102
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #112
MaggieD Apr 2015 #118
Fumesucker Apr 2015 #259
MaggieD Apr 2015 #303
Fumesucker Apr 2015 #400
MaggieD Apr 2015 #402
morningfog Apr 2015 #99
Doctor_J Apr 2015 #109
BeanMusical Apr 2015 #111
MaggieD Apr 2015 #123
Hekate Apr 2015 #210
Doctor_J Apr 2015 #267
appalachiablue Apr 2015 #249
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #110
MaggieD Apr 2015 #121
TheKentuckian Apr 2015 #435
longship Apr 2015 #117
MaggieD Apr 2015 #122
longship Apr 2015 #127
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #153
Hekate Apr 2015 #212
Cha Apr 2015 #214
longship Apr 2015 #217
Cha Apr 2015 #219
longship Apr 2015 #220
Cha Apr 2015 #221
Martin Eden Apr 2015 #124
MaggieD Apr 2015 #125
Martin Eden Apr 2015 #149
MaggieD Apr 2015 #157
Martin Eden Apr 2015 #243
arendt Apr 2015 #139
BeanMusical Apr 2015 #167
Trajan Apr 2015 #147
MaggieD Apr 2015 #159
Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #155
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #164
MaggieD Apr 2015 #165
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #166
MaggieD Apr 2015 #168
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #176
MaggieD Apr 2015 #182
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #397
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #442
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2015 #177
DCBob Apr 2015 #169
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #170
MaggieD Apr 2015 #171
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #183
MaggieD Apr 2015 #190
MaggieD Apr 2015 #399
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #398
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #175
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #181
MaggieD Apr 2015 #184
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #189
MaggieD Apr 2015 #191
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #195
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #405
daleanime Apr 2015 #179
vadermike Apr 2015 #180
MaggieD Apr 2015 #192
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #193
akbacchus_BC Apr 2015 #185
Gloria Apr 2015 #188
vadermike Apr 2015 #196
mikehiggins Apr 2015 #197
Ken Burch Apr 2015 #200
MaggieD Apr 2015 #207
JDPriestly Apr 2015 #204
MaggieD Apr 2015 #209
JDPriestly Apr 2015 #213
MaggieD Apr 2015 #215
JDPriestly Apr 2015 #218
MaggieD Apr 2015 #223
merrily Apr 2015 #333
MaggieD Apr 2015 #338
merrily Apr 2015 #341
MaggieD Apr 2015 #345
merrily Apr 2015 #368
MaggieD Apr 2015 #370
Gloria May 2015 #446
JDPriestly May 2015 #447
merrily Apr 2015 #238
MaggieD Apr 2015 #340
vadermike Apr 2015 #206
AgingAmerican Apr 2015 #208
DFW Apr 2015 #222
marmar Apr 2015 #242
nilesobek Apr 2015 #247
Vinca Apr 2015 #251
workinclasszero Apr 2015 #319
hobbit709 Apr 2015 #255
LuvNewcastle Apr 2015 #270
merrily Apr 2015 #321
MosheFeingold Apr 2015 #364
RedstDem Apr 2015 #256
Turbineguy Apr 2015 #257
G_j Apr 2015 #269
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #272
MaggieD Apr 2015 #276
bunnies Apr 2015 #323
MaggieD Apr 2015 #362
bunnies Apr 2015 #365
MaggieD Apr 2015 #367
woodsprite Apr 2015 #324
merrily Apr 2015 #325
FSogol Apr 2015 #328
MaggieD Apr 2015 #353
merrily Apr 2015 #355
MaggieD Apr 2015 #359
merrily Apr 2015 #360
MaggieD Apr 2015 #363
ucrdem Apr 2015 #403
merrily Apr 2015 #406
ucrdem Apr 2015 #407
merrily Apr 2015 #410
ucrdem Apr 2015 #411
merrily Apr 2015 #417
ucrdem Apr 2015 #418
merrily Apr 2015 #421
ucrdem Apr 2015 #424
merrily Apr 2015 #429
ucrdem Apr 2015 #432
Caretha Apr 2015 #441
Ms. Toad Apr 2015 #342
MaggieD Apr 2015 #348
Gothmog Apr 2015 #346
MaggieD Apr 2015 #349
progressoid Apr 2015 #378
Binkie The Clown Apr 2015 #379
HassleCat Apr 2015 #380
Octafish Apr 2015 #381
Cleita Apr 2015 #385
Octafish Apr 2015 #388
Cleita Apr 2015 #389
samsingh Apr 2015 #383
raven mad Apr 2015 #390
colsohlibgal Apr 2015 #392
nichomachus Apr 2015 #401
ucrdem Apr 2015 #404
MaggieD Apr 2015 #414
Jon Ace Apr 2015 #409
Rex Apr 2015 #413
MaggieD Apr 2015 #416
Rex Apr 2015 #434
corkhead Apr 2015 #415
MaggieD Apr 2015 #428
Bjorn Against Apr 2015 #430
MaggieD Apr 2015 #431
LWolf Apr 2015 #437
libpride_15 Apr 2015 #438
Caretha Apr 2015 #439
Blue_In_AK Apr 2015 #445

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:33 PM

1. Plus 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 + one more

AS to not bashing others here, I have a hard time considering someone a lib or dem who is willing to act in such a way as to allow a con government

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:34 PM

2. I Will Vote For Hillary No Matter What. Or A Dem.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:51 AM

229. Thread win at Reply 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:43 AM

278. This Independent will do the same.

I just don't want to propagate the lie that Republicans has any sort of legitimacy in their governing(or lack thereof) style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xyzse (Reply #278)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:38 PM

375. correct analysis

Campaign strategists will tell you that suppressing (I'm referring to legal means) the opposition vote can be a crucial to winning an election as getting your voters to the polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCantiGOP (Reply #375)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:45 PM

377. That is why I can't go with a feel good vote.

I mean, sure, I understand voting for a 3rd party candidate, but I can't do it.

I have a minimum set requirements before I consider such a thing in the Presidential level.

If:
--3rd Party has 2 people in the Senate
--3rd Party has 4 people in the House
--3rd Party has at least 1/4 of the voting population trending towards voting for them

Then:
--I will consider voting for a 3rd party candidate

Unless those minumum requirements are met, I just won't. I will always vote for the one I consider who would do the least damage, or who has a set of priorities closer to what I consider important.

Republicans have nothing to offer me at this time, with their insanity and glorification of stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:38 PM

3. I couldn't agree more.

However some on DU will NEVER vote for Hillary is she wins. I makes one wonder with all that is at stake in 2016, and you did a great job of pointing some of them out, just what the real agenda is for those who say they will NOT vote for the nominee if their candidate dose not win the nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:49 PM

4. You are absoutely right...

I've heard plenty of people trash Hillary or other democrats because they aren't pure enough.

They completely forget that no "liberal" politician can win the White House or could govern if by some miracle became President.

Look what happened two years into Obama's first term-- we barely got started and we lost the House. And the screaming from the Left about Pelosi's impurity didn't help one damn bit.

And look what happened last year. My Congressman, a perfectly good Democrat, lost not only because of the millions thrown at him, but in large part because our fucking party couldn't rally behind him. We couldn't even get Schumer or Cuomo to share a podium with him, much less our local lefties, greens and whatever.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:55 PM

5. Makes me sick

 

And I do not relish the thought of watching it here for the next 18 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:36 PM

6. Alas, between misguided Democrats and...

out and out trolls, there will be [plenty of it around here.

Always has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:55 AM

231. That's funny...

.. Obama got the the White House CLAIMING to be liberal. The fact that he showed his true colors later might give your point some validity for the 2012 election, but in 2008 Obama ran as a solid progressive and he WON.

So can it with the "liberal can't win" bullshit, poll after poll after poll shows Americans' most basic instincts are quite progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #231)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:42 AM

248. No - he was never a liberal

 

and never claimed to be a liberal. He was proclaimed a liberal by those who were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #248)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:06 PM

354. Having a fairly good idea of what we might get from Hillary,

and in a state whose Primary came after most were eliminated, I voted for Obama in the Primary. I guess I decided that taking a chance on Obama made more sense than voting for the known quantity.

If Hill gets the nom, will I vote for her? Sure; but at that point it's a vote in favor of her moderately liberal social policy views and seeking to somewhat limit the damage possible in foreign affairs if ANY lunatic Republican get in. I have no confidence at all in her ability (or even desire) to regulate banks & Wall Street effectively.

Ya know what? I don't know that I can muster or sustain much enthusiasm for her as a candidate. Traditionally it has been the left wing of the party, the "activists," who put in all the legwork, envelope stuffing, phone banking, etc., but I wonder how much grassroots support Hillary will muster among them. And of course, if she loses, guess who is gonna get the blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #354)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:09 PM

356. I must live in a bubble

 

ALL the Democrats I know and hang with are very excited about her candidacy. We've all looked into the public transportation way to get to her office in Brooklyn, have already looked into the effective ways of canvassing neighborhoods, etc. I think you make a mistake in thinking DU in any way, shape or form is representative of the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #356)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:14 PM

358. I'm not basing my observations on DU alone.

I have yet to hear any excitement for her (unlike in 2008, BTW) in the two county parties in the area where I live and work, and I'm in a couple of "geezer rant" groups, and the people I run into are just not thrilled with her. Maybe 2 or 3 that I would actually count in her camp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #248)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:34 PM

394. I could pull up a zillion...

... speeches that prove you dead wrong, but I am tired of arguing with folks that have short and selective memories. His campaigns and his after-election rhetoric were ALWAYS very progressive, it's only his actions that are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #248)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:45 PM

395. He was never a "Liberal"?

*Raise Taxes on the Rich

*Immediately renegotiate NAFTA to protect American Jobs

*Immediately "make card-check the Law of the Land"

*put on comfortable shoes and walk the line with strikers

*Keep us out of stupid wars.

*Raise-the-Cap on Social Security

*Immediately require food to be labeled as GMO and Country of Origin

....sounds pretty Liberal to me.
Kucinich had most of the same positions.


If you doubt me,
I saved the video,
so PLEASE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #395)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 04:57 AM

436. I see the problem

 

you looked at speeches - I looked at his voting record and his record was pretty much identical to Hillary's. Hillary's speeches are very liberal also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #436)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 04:01 PM

443. OH, I see your problem.

leftynyc
248. No - he was never a liberal

and never claimed to be a liberal. He was proclaimed a liberal by those who were looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between them.



That puts an end to the He never claimed to be a Liberal BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #443)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 04:32 PM

444. He never claimed to be a liberal

 

I FULLY STAND BY THAT STATEMENT. Find one place where he defined himself a liberal. In fact, the only people that called him a liberal - weirdly enough - were those on the far left AND the far right. You were both wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:41 PM

7. If the party wants the votes of the Left, it should move to the left.

 

Rather than blame the left for the failure of the party to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:57 PM

9. Yeah, that's how we got Bush

 

But when the "left" does it yet again they will immediately absolve themselves off all responsibility just like they did when they installed Bush. Then they will proceed to bitch about it for 8 years as if it was someone else's fault besides their own.

The "left" is incapable of understanding that Kucinich or Nader or Sanders cannot get elected in this country. Your trade off for that is that neither can a Rick Santorum or Ted Cruz. But instead of grasping that fact they would rather facilitate the election of a republican president. And then wonder why their democratic reps ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:30 PM

43. No that is not how we got bush. The Supreme Court appointed him.

When the votes were counted bush lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:35 PM

143. The election never should have been close

 

A Vice President against a Governor. Gore should have easily gotten 300 electoral votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:13 PM

67. the left installed bush lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:15 PM

69. By all means - encourage Bernie to run as an independent

 

Then you can watch it happen all over again in real time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:22 PM

73. if Bernie runs, it won't be as an independent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:22 PM

74. Bernie has emphasized that he would NOT run as a spoiler

"One thing he will not do, Sanders said, is serve as a spoiler in the general election as an independent candidate.

"I will not, I will not be a spoiler," he stressed. "There are ways to do this, but let me make it very clear. I will not be a spoiler and elect some Republican."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-democratic-voters-angry-enough-to-support-bernie-sanders-for-president/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:23 PM

75. That's what Nader said too

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:26 PM

77. Bernie's been in politics for decades

He knows how it works, and he has said repeatedly that he won't run if will help hand the White House to Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #77)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:29 PM

80. That's what Nader said

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:37 PM

88. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #88)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:50 PM

106. You'll be explaining how it was smart to vote Nader....

 

.... Any minute now, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #106)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:51 AM

202. You're beating this dead horse... why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #106)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:47 AM

281. right after you explain how anyone OWES the Democratic party their vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #281)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:54 AM

286. Never said they did

 

I just don't see how Democrats bashing democrats helps democrats. Can you explain how it does?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #286)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:54 AM

326. Good point. Why did Bill Clinton do that?

 


The central theme of his 1992 campaign was, "I'm not like those Democrats in Congress." Pundits were amused that he spent the election campaigning against his own party.

He then spent the first two years constantly fighting the Democratic controlled congress. He didn't really start getting anything done until Republicans took over the Congress.

His victory caused other Democrats, particularlly in the Bible Belt, to copy him. So we see things like Allison Lundgren (D-KY) denying she voted for Obama. With these Third-Way/DLC/New-Democrats telling everyone that Democrats are bad, it is no longer we can no longer win in much of the United States. And that will continue until your people stop bashing Democrats.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #326)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:09 PM

332. Too get elected and it worked

 

But let's not pretend him campaigning as a new type of democrat has anything in common with the over the top democrat bashing we see here. No democrat running for office would even come close to saying the disgusting stuff the purists post here.

False equivalence in the extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #332)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:31 PM

351. I grew up in a swing district that hasn't elected a Democrat since Bill Clinton.

 


That DLC strategy has caused massive Democratic defeats. We held the House for all but 2 years since the Great Depression before the DLC.

How much losing does it take for you people to admit that you fucked up? Sure, it worked for Bill Clinton. But that one victor, and maybe a few other isolated wins here and there, have been dwarfed by massive losses. As long as you refuse to admit it and face reality, accept the facts that are screaming in your face, until you do that you will continue losing us elections.

Or was that your goal all along? The DLC was funded by the very same people who funded the Republican Party. It's almost like they were rigging the election by making sure both sides were their side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #351)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:47 PM

352. Maybe that's why the DLC was disbanded

 

But it did get us the presidency for 8 years. Clinton would not have won in southern states without it. Things change, and we have to change strategy when it does.

I'm a pragmatic liberal. I loathe republicans and their agenda with every fiber of my being. People can say the lesser of two evils is still evil. I say, quite confidently, that is still less evil. Much less, in fact.

In a perfect world someone like Bernie could get elected in this country. But it's unrealistic for a multitude of reasons. We need to live in reality.

So, Bernie is not going to win - not a chance. O'Malley and Chafee are to the right of HRC. Warren isn't running, and seems delighted that HRC is running.

Where does that leave us?

I just don't see any utility in bashing members of our own party. We can disagree on policy without smearing democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #77)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:51 AM

201. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:48 PM

103. Where's the link?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:51 PM

107. To what?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:03 PM

114. To what you categorically stated.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:10 PM

119. It's not a secret

 

https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1

maybe you just don't understand political history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #114)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:30 AM

246. Apparently Jonathan Chait's opinion of and speculation about Nader in a book review is proof.

Hmmmm. I wonder if the same holds true of Jonathan Chait's opinion of the Clintons since Bill left office?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html

What's your guess, just off the top of your head?


(rhetorical question, requires no answer)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #246)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:57 AM

288. I think the Clinton Foundation does good things

 

I don't see the problem. Of course we know the Russian issue turned out to be bunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #288)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:04 AM

294. According to you, Chait is "always" a reliable source when he excoriates Nader, but not Clinton.

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #294)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:25 AM

307. He is....

 

He is accurately reporting what people are saying and reporting. Hence his links in the post. But the Russia story didn't pan out, did it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #246)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:10 PM

357. Facts and quotes

 

Not speculation. And absolutely, unequivocally true about Nader, which anyone who was paying attention to the inside baseball of politics at the time, realizes is deadly accurate.

Nader is a jerk in real life. That's a fact. If you'd ever seen him in action you couldn't possibly disagree. I once watched him absolutely berate a flight attendant because he was stuck in coach and thought the seats didn't provide enough leg room. As if the flight attendant actually had some control over that. He is a dickhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #75)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:09 AM

225. so the left was responsible for Bush because of Nader?

 

you do realize that FAR MORE *moderate* Dems voted for Bush in Florida than progressives voted for Nader.

By your reasoning Citizens United and the USSC under Bush can be laid directly at the feet of the moderate wing of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #225)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:37 AM

227. Not only that, but the ballot was so messed up, people didn't know who they were voting for

not to mention hanging chads, dimpled chads and bad chads.

It was insane. Gore did not lose that election at all. And it was not close enough to steal because of Nader or because liberals stayed home. Neither off those things accounted for Gore's inability to carry his home state. Gore did not run a good campaign.

If anyone is likely to stay home or cross over to vote Republican, it ain't liberals, that's for damned sure.

But, the demonization of the left never ends, no matter how many lies have to be told to sustain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #227)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:42 PM

336. And voter caging and other types of 'purges' of folks who would be voting Dem.

Really, Nader votes were meaningless. Republicans cheated just as hard as they needed to in Florida. Without Nader they'd just have cheated slightly more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #336)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:49 PM

339. Don't be silly. Every problem in this country, from 1900 until the present is the fault of the left

Wilson knew it, FDR knew it, Truman knew it, J.Edgar Hoover knew it, Revoltin' Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn knew it, the DLC knew it, and, now, DU has figured it out as well. No sense trying t deny it anymore. We may as well surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #225)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:26 AM

308. You should read the whole thread

 

That's already been covered and debunked. https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #308)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:16 PM

391. wow..that guy used ten thousand words

 

to say absolutely nothng

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #391)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:24 PM

393. It only says nothing to purists and Naderites

 

You have to willfully ignore the facts and quotes. And they are supported by other historical accounts of the time. Many in fact.

I've been in earshot of Nader twice as he interacted with people (not in front of cameras and crowds). He was an insufferable jerk on both occasions. Berating people that had nothing to do with the problem he was complaining about. In that respect the article rang very true with what I have seen of Nader up close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:43 AM

198. Wrong. We got Bush by staying in the bland, anti-progressive "center".

 

There were no significant number of votes that Gore received in 2000 that he could could ONLY have taken by running on the exact same dead-zone platform El Perro Grande had insisted on in '96 and '92-a platform Nixon or the George Bush of 1980 could have lived with.

It was stupid for Gore to run a "stay the course" campaign in 2000. Nobody but Republicans wanted him to do that.

The voters want a party that fights for the people-not one that always defers to the rich people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:14 AM

226. I don't think any Dem can beat Hillary. Not this election.

But voting for Kucinich, Nader, Sanders or Warren will almost guarantee a reTHUGliCON in the White House.

It's not time for the others yet. I like most things about Hillary but I really hate what the right wants to do to the country.

Let the Teabaggers and right wing extremists tear the reTHUGliCON candidates to pieces.

The others will get experience in the mean time.

Meanwhile, we need to get our shit together for the years down the road.

The reTHUGliCONS have been working on this for 40+years.

We need to play the long game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bearssoapbox (Reply #226)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:12 AM

252. Too many here are not old enough to remember 1972 NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:44 AM

316. No, we got Bush because Gore ran to the right. Yet it was not to the right enough.

Remember, more registered Democrats in Florida voted for W than voted for Nader. And there were several other states that were lost due to Gore's "I'm not liberal! Really!" campaign.

But instead of grasping that fact they would rather facilitate the election of a republican president. And then wonder why their democratic reps ignore them.

What you're failing to grasp is that the "liberals" still show up and vote for Democrats anyway.

What we're missing is the roughly 50% of the population who does not vote, because they are given the choice between Republican and Republican-lite. It's pretty hard to get people to bother going to the polls when the choices are "get screwed" or "get screwed a little less". So they drop out of politics altogether, and they will never recognize the slight nuances that are all-important to the politically active.

How do we get them back? Not by chewing them out, as you do here. But by pushing a government that helps people instead of the "job creators".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:58 PM

10. Thats incredibly naieve

 

It one thing to work to move the party left. It's another to allow the right to win because you didnt get your way.


It's fuckin' ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:59 PM

12. Yep

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:29 PM

79. Agree!!! Well said!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:47 PM

337. Actually, that's exactly what the centrists keep doing.

In 2000, far more Dems voted in Florida for Bush than for Nader. They not only 'allowed' the right to win because Gore was too far left for them, they deliberately voted for the guy farther right.

Bush in 2000 was a result of centrist 'Democrats' voting Republican. And, yes, it was 'fuckin' ridiculous'.

But it won't stop them from demanding a centrist candidate in 2016, and probably won't stop them from voting for the Republican again if they decide Hillary is 'too far left'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #337)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:58 PM

396. Best summation of the fiasco in FLorida I've read.

Recommending post 337 by Erich Bloodaxe BSN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:42 PM

54. Amen! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:34 PM

85. Amen II: Hear, hear.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:19 PM

126. I'll vote for our candidate, whomever it is, but would a true Liberal PLEASE step up..

I'm having a real problem with the trashing of any critics of Hillary, even those that I know just want a fair shot at a better choice..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OLDMADAM (Reply #126)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:54 AM

230. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OLDMADAM (Reply #126)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:59 AM

233. +2 /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:14 AM

253. Yup.


What utter fail from the corporate talking points machine this OP is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:53 PM

8. Nader did NOT do it

 

Bush was appointed by the Supremes Court, after they decided to appoint him, and not count all of the votes. Had all of the votes been counted Al Gore would have been president.

People just did not show up in the midterms, which is why the CONs won.

Plain and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:59 PM

11. LOL - yes that is the excuse people use

 

.... To absolve themselves of the absolute horror they helped to facilitate. I'm well aware of the excuses.

95k people voted for Nader in Florida. Sorry, that excuse doesn't wash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:14 PM

68. 200,000+ registered dems voted for bush in FL

200,000+ registered dems voted for bush in FL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:16 PM

70. So what?

 

People cross party lines in every election in states that force people to declare a party. That's a constant - not something unquie to the 2000 election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:19 PM

72. who can argue with logic like this?

95k v 200k. math much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:34 PM

84. Common sense

 

The 200k are swing voters forced to pick a party preference, in some cases decades ago. The 95k were stupid liberals who bought Nader's bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #84)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:36 PM

87. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:50 PM

105. No doubt the words she is looking for

 

are "effing retarded."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:29 PM

133. sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #133)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:33 PM

140. Based on what?

 

Are you too lazy to look at my profile and journal? Easier to post some bullshit accusation that I'm a sock puppet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:17 AM

254. You better believe it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #72)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:01 AM

234. Oh, please, everyone knows math and facts have a liberal bias.

Who you trying to fool with numbers and stuff?



200,000 Dems voting (R) so what?

95K Dems voting Third Party hair on fire.


Why can't you get that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #72)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:29 PM

361. The REAL Math comes into play

 

not by how many people voted for Nader vs. Bush...but how many votes Bush won by.

Using logic should have been pretty easy on figuring out the voting results in the Nader supposition, not so much in your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #72)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:01 PM

384. made me laugh

 

tried reading their views on corporate taxes, did not make mathematical sense to me either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:57 AM

232. Excusing Dems who cross party lines to vote (R), while bashing liberals doesn't stink to high heaven

at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:56 AM

172. Gore won the election, in spite of all the Bush/Cheney vote suppression and

all the other criminal games they played.

Then when it looked like all their criminal activity didn't quite do the job, the appealed to their buddies on the SC who violated the Constitution on their behalf, and GAVE them the Election.

When I see a few people, and it is a very few among Dems, drag this red herring into any discussion about that election, I wonder, why are they protecting Bush/Cheney and the felonious five on the SC? Why would a Democrat want to do that?

Nader had ZERO to do with the theft of that election, and every time it comes up here, it gets corrected.

Gore WON and the SC stole it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:59 AM

174. Close enough to steal

 

And he did it by design. Don't ignore history. https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #172)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:01 AM

250. BINGO!

 

That is the absolute truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 08:59 PM

13. The Supreme Court would have never been involved...

 

If idiots hadn't voted for that loser Nader.

And so we got Iraq. Thanks Nader voters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:01 PM

14. Exactly

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:51 AM

283. 200,000+ idiot democrats that voted for Bush in FL get a free pass though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:57 AM

327. Thank you

I read stuff like in the OP here on DU and I just want to

Gore won the national popular vote and would have won Florida if a proper statewide recount had been allowed (oh, and if all those voters had not been disenfranchised by Jeb Bush and his cronies).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:04 PM

15. Take a valium

Ain't gonna happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realFedUp (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:10 PM

17. Oh yeah it will - always does when...

 

The left of the left, the mega corps and media plus Republican Party decides to have a meeting of the minds. And it sure looks like the left is well on their way to repeating the same old BS of killing their own party.

They did it in 2000, and 2010, and 2012. What makes you think they won't do it again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:16 PM

24. I believe Obama was elected

And the last Senate election dealt with some states with gerimandered disricts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realFedUp (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:59 PM

60. LOL - cause he lied and pretended to be a lefty liberal

 

Is that all you need? Someone who lie to you about be left instead of center left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:52 PM

108. So let me get this straight:

 

Obama was elected because he lied and pretended to be a lefty liberal, but Bernie can't win because he'll run as a lefty liberal? Or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:58 PM

113. Bernie is seen as a socialist

 

Because he is one. He does not claim to be a democrat. Don't get me wrong, I love Sanders. But he is way more left than Obama ever even pretended to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #113)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:04 PM

116. The people who have a problem with that would never vote for him anyway.

 

And btw, he calls himself a democratic socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #116)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:25 PM

130. He's still a socialist

 

And a socialist is not going to be elected president in this country anytime soon. That's reality. And DU could use a good dose of that from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #130)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:02 AM

235. No, they are not the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #116)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:05 PM

329. The difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist is

 

that a pure socialist believes that Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Democratic Socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.
In case you didn't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #108)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:14 AM

241. Hmmm. Reminds me of

“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Bill Clinton

Kinda surprising that someone who's hair is on fire about disloyal Democrats and criticism of Hillary during the earliest stage of a primary has done a lot of bashing of Warren, posters who support Warren and now of Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realFedUp (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:11 PM

120. For Christ sakes! You cannot gerrymander a US Senator election!

They are all statewide elections!

Jesus! Some people post without thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #120)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:30 PM

135. I think they forgot the sarcasm tag

Or so I hope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #120)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:07 AM

236. Maybe, or maybe someone is still learning.

For your own sake, an obviously unintentional mistake is nothing to take so much to heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to realFedUp (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:36 PM

146. Gerrymandering in the Senate?

 

How does that work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #146)


Response to realFedUp (Reply #24)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 05:49 AM

228. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the Senate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 08:46 AM

440. Because Bernie's not a moron like Nader the abomination

 

Leftists still supporting Nader after all these years? Sheesh

I believe Bernie and what he says. If he runs in the general, I'll be shocked.

My only problem is that he probably is too old to run as Hillary's VP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:08 PM

16. Question

What about the 200k Democrats who voted for W in Florida? What about the fact Gore ran such a lackluster campaign that it was close enough to steal?

It's popular to piss on Nader 24/7, which I get, but to solely focus on him is to be completely wrong about what happened. If you don't account for all the facts, all you're doing is pushing a narrative that has repeatedly and decisively failed over the last 15 years.

By the way, the no enemies to the right strategy is the reason the GOP has taken such a radical turn to the right. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by replicating the same idea on the Democratic side, but I guarantee you that the results will be quite surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:16 PM

23. Lame excuse....

 

Borne of liberals not accepting accountability for being stupid enough to vote for Nader. Registered dems and republicans cross party lines in every election.

The issue was Nader splitting the liberal vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:20 PM

30. Hahahaha

That's hilarious. In other words, it's cool if right-wing Democrats sell out the party and country to vote for the worst president in American history, but it's completely unforgiveable if a fraction of that number vote for a goofy guy who did some good 50 years ago? Yeah, that's a winning narrative so long as you don't think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #30)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:04 AM

160. +1 Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #30)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:04 AM

178. Gore is not / was not a centrist

 

That's a ridiculous claim to make. A lot of you need to read some political history books - especially if you make a habit of posting about politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #178)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:32 AM

237. Oh?

I wasn't aware I made that claim. I did say he ran a lackluster campaign.

As for his politics, I do have to wonder how you would classify his reinventing, aka privatizing, government initiative in the 90s. Last I checked, it's a pretty centrist, if not right-wing, sort of thing to not only support, but champion.

By the way, I didn't miss the fact you've run from the Florida bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #237)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:22 AM

244. Gore was not a centrist in 2000, unless you infer something from a founding member of the DLC

running with another founding member of the DLC in 1992 and 1996 and with another founding member of the DLC in 2000--which other founding member went on to campaign for McCain Palin.

I'd be the last one to leap to any conclusions from any of that.

I'm told he got liberal (on things other than the environment) after that, but that's above my pay grade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #244)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:43 AM

260. <snort> Well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #260)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:44 AM

279. Yet fact free <snort>

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #279)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:53 AM

285. which facts are in dispute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #285)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:03 AM

292. Keep reading the sub thread

 

It's there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #244)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:43 AM

277. So which of his policy positions was....

 

A betrayal of the left? Was it using the surplus to preserve SS? His views on the environment? His idea that we needed to raise taxes to get out of bush daddy and Reagan deficits? Opening the Internet to the masses? Give me some policy stuff you disagreed with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #277)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:48 AM

282. Where did I say any policy of Vice President Gore was a betrayal of the left?

I attribute the policies of that admin to his boss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #282)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:51 AM

284. So you don't think he's capable of his own policies?

 

That makes sense since you seem to think Hillary isn't either. SMH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #284)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:56 AM

287. LOL! Your word twisting is just so very clever--and strangely familiar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #287)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:02 AM

291. You are free to clarify

 

You seem to be suggesting that Gore is not liberal enough. So I ask which of his policy positions makes you think that. Then you say "Clinton." As if Gore is incapable of a thought of his own.

So what are you actually trying to say regrading Gore?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #291)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:06 AM

295. Give it a rest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #295)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:10 AM

299. Shouldn't you be prepared to back up your arguments?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #299)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:27 AM

309. Stop twisting Ms Maggie I said he was in the DLC. That's a fact, not an argument.

You keep going on about facts when they're opinions and smears, yet when you read a fact, you don't recognize it and call it an argument.

If YOU want to dispute that he was in the DLC, provide a link. Otherwise, as I said, stop twisting my words and give it a fucking rest already. Stop wasting my time and yours on this bs.

You can also drop the prosecuting attorney routine. I doubt anyone's impressed but the usual suspects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #309)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:46 AM

318. So you're saying Gore wasn't liberal enough for you?

 

He didn't pass your purity test, so Bush was a better choice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #237)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:38 PM

426. If by running from it you mean posting the same link...

 

... about Nader's bullshit antics in 2000 like 5 times only to have the purists and Naderites ignore it, then okay.

Look, if you are going to deny history you will be doomed to repeat it. My OP stands. The bashers of democratic candidates really should find a new home. Democratic Underground SHOULD be for Democrats. IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #426)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:09 PM

433. Hoo boy

Why should the people who voted for Nader be hated and the ones who voted for W given a pass?

When I say you're running, it's from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #178)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:24 PM

422. Why not? Because he isn't between stupid and utterly stupid on climate change?

Dude is original DLC, good on him not only recognizing but being serious about climate change but that doesn't wave a magic wand over decades of body of work and positions.

I voted for Gore but he is a prototypical centrist, I'm not even sure what the argument he isn't one even is. Who would you define as a centrist, St. Ronnie of Ray Guns? Dumbass Dubbya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #422)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:31 PM

423. Bill Clinton is a centrist - Obama is a centrist

 

Gabby Giffords, Angus King, Claire McCaskill, Bob Casey, Joe Manchin, Jon Tester - all democratic centrists.

Gore and Hillary are to the left of ALL of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #30)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:26 AM

258. Not to mention the swell Dems that voted for Reagan. They get a pass too.

This thread is hilarious! Up thread, Nader voters are being blamed for Iraq. Um, no, Bush and Congress ( not to omit certain Senators running for president) voted for and are to blame for Iraq. Wow, this thread goes to 11.l

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #258)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:46 AM

261. Democrats for Nixon, too. How many liberals do you think voted for Nixon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to myrna minx (Reply #258)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:09 AM

296. I wouldn't go so far as to blame him for Iraq

 

Although it's true he deliberately played spoiler knowing a Bush presidency would be the result. I'm sure his massive ego prevented him from having the insight to imagine how devastating the result would be. That's the thing about Nader. He can't see past his own aggrandizement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:38 PM

90. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:12 PM

18. and are they strong and loud here. i am trolling a poster because i say supreme crt is priority for

 

me in 2016.

i am trolling him

though he will not stop replying, and i am merely answering, on a democratic board, becuase i insist a dem pres gets elected in 2016, .... i am trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:56 PM

57. who is they, and who are you trolling which you said 3 times in your post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:25 AM

245. Ever hear the saying, "Never ask a question unless you already know the answer?"

Or, "Never ask a question unless you want the answer?"

Well, never say never, but they may both apply sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:13 PM

19. Can you please try not to jam your candidate up our asses?

 

Some of us resent being forced to do something and have a reverse reaction to it. Thanks for making that happen. Fortunately it is still a Democracy where no amount of snark is going convince people of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:14 PM

21. you would like us to quit talking about the political candidates, on a democratic political board?nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:15 PM

22. I'm fine with having more than one Dem candidate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:17 PM

26. me, too. but then i did not suggest people NOT talk about democratic candidates, nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:22 PM

33. Some only want to talk about one and attack those that want a Democratic choice.

 

I want someone will will pick a SCOTUS that is not corporate friendly but rather common US citizen friendly. Some including me do not trust that Hillary will do that. Is there something you know that can offer some reassurance that we wont get another pro corporate SCOTUS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:25 PM

41. ah. well. i do not see her too far off obama. he mad ea couple good picks. she is adamant with

 

womens rights. any judge that goes for the social issue will not likely side with the right. i do not have that concern. but, i do hear that concern and can see it. thanks for telling me your position on this. i will be more open to that, in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #41)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:46 AM

317. I would never have nominated Kagan.

Sotomayor seems good. However, the true tests will come when Ginsburg is no longer on the bench..

I disagree that Hillary is not too far off Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:09 AM

297. No love for the coronation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #297)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:05 PM

330. Oh yeah ...about as much as a funeral.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #297)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:01 PM

343. she has the credentials, the history, the experience, the education to run. do not denigrate her

 

accomplishments to a coronation. she has the right to run.

i am all for other jumping in the race. i look forward to it and am excited about it.

at least my 17 yr old son and i know we are being petulant and whining, as we kick at the dirt and say.... i dont want another clinton in office. we say with a grin, though recognizing her accomplishments and credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #343)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:04 PM

344. No one said she doesn't have the right to run. That is a totally different issue from

whether a coronation has been planned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #297)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:45 PM

366. Coronation? Coming from the UK...I'm having a hard time understanding it's reference in US Politics

 

and specifically HRC. Isn't there a national vote?

If there is something else at play could you please fill me in, because I'm just not understanding the reference

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #366)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:51 PM

369. Hmm. I began noticing it before Obama was even re-elected. At that time, I referred to it as

the anointing. After Sanders and others began referring to it as the coronation, I switched.

I just googled and found quite a few articles about it. Here's one. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/04/05/why-the-hillary-coronation/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #369)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:02 PM

372. ahhh...so it's a gimmicy word used out of context to badger or belittle a candidacy?

 

And Dems are doing it to one of their own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #372)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:12 PM

374. I thought I sensed a gotcha question posing as wide eyed innocent question.

Hence the hmmm before I answered.

No, it is not to belittle a candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #374)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:44 PM

386. Sorry if it felt like a "gotcha"

 

my first question was actually as wide eyed as it seemed.

The follow up, not so much since it really does do anyone justice to try and add labels that are inaccurate and do little else that create animosity towards any "annointed" or "coronated" candidate.


It's simply false on its premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #386)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:46 PM

387. No, I said it seemed like a gotcha from the jump

And then, you proved me right.

I really see no point in beating this to death. Enjoy posting to someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #366)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:10 PM

373. Hi again. I really didn't look at that article before posting it to you

This is from a more Democratic oriented source, although it does cite the Washington Post article. I don't agree that the Democratic bench is weak.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/justin-beach/hillary-clinton-election_b_4698756.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:18 PM

27. I'm not jamming any candidate up anyone's ass

 

I will vote for whatever Dem we nominate just like I always do. And I'm sure as shit not going to spend the next 18 months bashing any other dem contender. Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:21 PM

31. You are jamming the TPP up our ass, a piece of legislation written by lobbyists

for international corporations and banks, so it makes your candidate choices pretty suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:23 PM

36. i did not see her take a position on tpp, just call out the misinformation. no position. do you

 

know her position on tpp? i do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:33 PM

47. She's been all over this board about TPP for days?

Have you not been around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:35 PM

49. i saw a couple threads where she was calling out the false information. but, i did not see her

 

with a position on tpp.

i have been accused of tpp supporter because i too call out the misinformation or just ugliness.

i am totally opposed to it. at this point.

i do not know that she is a supporter, or trying to keep things honest.

and i wont assume

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:37 PM

51. Well, then I guess it's wonderful that we can't see what our government is doing

until it's too late to do anything about it. Anyway that poster seems to think secrecy is just fine. Do a search on her posts and tell me if you think she's saying otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:41 PM

52. see. this shit.

 

doesnt mean i support tpp to call that ... shit.

anyway, i am not getting into that again. i was just pointing out, because people do not buy that shit does not automatically mean they support tpp. that is simply incorrect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:03 PM

65. Exactly

 

I'm against precisely because I'm informed about it. And I would much prefer our reps to discuss why it's bad instead of this BS about it being secret. We know plenty to know its bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:42 PM

152. You are a fountain of lies. It IS secret.

Only Congressmen can see it, and only with permission, and they are not allowed to take notes. All we know are leaked drafts - which all the TPP pushers use as an excuse to claim that the "final" document will fix any problems.

You can claim that it isn't secret the same way you claim that Nader wrecked 2000.

Both of the claims are proven false by the facts. Your insistence on those claims, in the face of the facts makes you a propagandist at best and a stone cold liar at worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #152)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:04 AM

161. Nope it's not

 

I know why I'm against it. I can read. if you can read you can learn why you should be against it too!!!

https://ustr.gov/tpp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #152)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:52 AM

262. She may be wrong on facts, but she seems nice.

As Jon Stewart might say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #152)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:40 PM

427. Here - it's not a secret

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #65)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:37 PM

425. You are all about it whether you acknowledge it consciously or not. You can count to 50

and know good and we'll that with even 100% solidarity (like that is plausible) in rejecting the agreement the TeaPubliKlans can ram that suckered right on through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:39 PM

150. You mean the same way someone who didn't vote for Nader would object...

to being blamed for people who did vote for him?

HAHAHA.

You just completed discredited MaggieD's canard about Nader.

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #150)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:06 AM

162. Oops, you're wrong again

 

That's a bad habit you have. Maybe if you informed yourself more before spouting opinions?

https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #162)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:57 AM

263. True dat. Who could possibly argue with one man's opinion of Nader in a book review?

It's like the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain, incised by the moving finger of God Himself.

I can't understand why no one gave Nader the death penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #263)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:34 AM

275. Facts and quotes and reality

 

Lots packed in there. And John Chait has always been a reliable progressive source.

I think some people are just loathe to accept that Nader is basically a jerk who played them for fools. I've been in the same room with him twice over the years and I can personally attest to his egomaniacal jerkish behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #275)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:46 AM

280. Sorry, but opinions are not facts, simply because you share the opinion.

"John Chait has always been a reliable source"

Always? You've admired his writings over a long period of time, yet never picked up his first name is not John?

Since you've long thought him a reliable source, you may be interested in something he's written more recently.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/disastrous-clinton-post-presidency.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #280)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:11 AM

300. The article is full of facts and quotes

 

Did you read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:01 PM

64. Yes, repeatedly stating I'm against it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:09 AM

265. See, and I saw it as being all over this board about Warren's being a liar.

I see this thread is a "Don't you dare NOT vote for Hillary," thread.

And she seems so nice, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #265)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:13 AM

301. I can't help what happens in your head

 

I said nothing of the sort. Try reading what I actually said instead of editorializing it in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #301)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:18 AM

304. Try a morning nap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #304)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:22 AM

306. Try backing up your assertions with facts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #306)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:28 AM

310. LOL! Another hilarious MaggieD thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #310)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:31 AM

312. Is that your way of saying you can't back up....

 

.... your assertions with facts? Sounds like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #312)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:34 AM

313. Oooooo, I can't back up a statement about how I interpreted something you said with....

Oh wait.

You're a regular F. Lee Bailey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #313)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:38 AM

314. "Interpreted"

 

I think you mean, "made up."

You've stated multiple times that I said I was in favor of the TPP, when I've said exactly the opposite clearly and consistently. You've even been corrected on this bullshit statement by other posters now.

Now you say I said everyone has to vote for HRC. AGAIN, never said anything remotely like that.

You clearly have issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #314)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:41 AM

315. Um, no I said how I SAW your posts and I NEVER said you were in favor of the TPP.

Never said you said everyone has to vote for Hillary either.

You have an odd relationship with facts. Also with straw men. Maybe with reading comprehension as well.

Again, try a morning nap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #315)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:47 AM

320. Sure you did

 

That's why other posters corrected you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #320)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:50 AM

322. Huh? Whatever Ms. Maggie

Again, stop wasting my time with this bs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #322)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:24 PM

350. No one forces you to reply with your imaginary ideas

 

I don't think it's BS to point out you are stating I said things I objectively did not say/post. If you don't want to be called out on that then don't make up shit. Pretty simple.

But, whether you like it or not, I'm not going to remain silent when folks post things stating I said things I did not say. Who the hell would?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:01 PM

62. I'm totally against the TPP

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #62)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:55 PM

382. You said it wasn't being done in secret in other threads. You said we could all see it anytime.

That was shown to you to be a lie. So now you are denying you were for it before you are against it. Remember we can all read what you said before, kinda like the cops now have videos taken of them when they brutalize a citizen. No amount of lying will change what is there in front of them on the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:47 AM

199. OMG! The last thing I want up my ass...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #199)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:44 AM

239. I'd have gone with the Chryler Building, but maybe that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #199)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:16 AM

266. Must resist... uhhhh... can't hold back... Then what would be the first thing?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #266)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:20 AM

271. Well, that would be a Butterfinger, of course!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #271)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:24 AM

273. I was thinking a bottle of Schlitz or Falstaff beer while strapped to an inversion table.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #273)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:26 AM

274. In a large stadium? I'm there!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:53 AM

203. Lol...

Can you please try not to jam your candidate up our asses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:13 PM

20. The left can be terrorized into voting for a centrist

 

Your not going to lose because of the progressives. You will lose because OFA voters won't bother voting without Obama in the election. They are apolitical personality driven voters, and they won't bother turning out for Hillary. That is who you have to worry about. Concentrate on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:22 PM

34. I'm concentrating here

 

This place reminds me of freepervile some days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betterdemsonly (Reply #20)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:15 AM

187. Reeeeeelly? OFA voters will stay home next year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #187)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:28 AM

216. They stayed home in 2010 and 2014

 

There was no green factor in our most disappointing losses. They don't bother to threaten. They just aren't engaged beyond whether Obama running or not. He isn't running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:16 PM

25. Smells like sockpuppetry. eom

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:19 PM

29. Based on what?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:38 PM

91. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:30 PM

134. sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:24 PM

39. I call "bullcrap" on your "sockpuppertry" personal attack because you don't like the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:31 PM

82. Thank you

 

It is bullcrap. I guess some people are too lazy to look at profiles and journals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #82)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:20 AM

211. You're Welcome, MaggieD.. some are too easily prone to

knee jerking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #39)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:27 AM

194. Agreed. Couple of tag-teamers here, too...

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:07 AM - Edit history (1)

.... "stupid liberals" .... "sock puppet" ...

Must be okay for me to mention it, because they're still here, bouncing along the whole thread like a couple of tennis balls going down a long stairway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:19 PM

28. Newsflash! They already do. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:22 PM

32. You mean actually talk rationally, AND without name calling?

Shocking. So...un-American!
But seriously,
I would argue that Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris actually stole the election for George W. Bush, but your point is very true. Far too many people make the perfect the enemy of the good. Or, as you say, they cannot be bothered to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:22 PM

35. The Democrat is not liberal enough, Vote republican

Yeah, that makes so much sense...











NOT


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:24 PM

37. Sitting home pouting or....

 

Bashing any candidate in our own party helps elect republican. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:24 PM

40. Now that is true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:24 PM

38. Actually, all Republicans have to do is see that Hillary is in the general election,

and it is a done deal. They will cream us if she is our nominee. End of story. Never underestimate how much the Republicans and quite a few Democrats hate Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:26 PM

42. Quite a few Dems like her for Prez. I was not a Hillary supporter and I don't have a candidate yet

but, I sure as hell don't want a republican and if she does get the Nom.. I will work hard to make that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:32 PM

46. Same here, and....

 

You won't find me spending 18 months posting about any democratic that is running saying they suck, which seems to be a major pastime here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:36 PM

50. nope. i may have favs and wants, but nope. i do not need ot beat up the dems. i actually want a

 

dem to win

i dunno, way out there. i hear ya.

even if the dem isnt a fav. still, a dem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:35 PM

144. They all suck

Cause I'm a stupid liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #144)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:31 AM

311. Did someone accuse you of being liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:31 PM

44. Ya'll act like she's already the nominee

Until she is, deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:31 PM

45. Rec

Your last paragraph says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:33 PM

48. I miss the unrec button.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:42 PM

53. Another one to put party loyalty over core values and principles

I'm sorry, but even the Democratic candidates will still have to earn my vote. Blind party loyalty is for fools and slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ron Obvious (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:58 PM

59. Seems like you need to read the OP again

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:38 PM

93. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:30 PM

136. sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #136)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:40 PM

151. Was banned in 2005.

Thanks - I'm not really new

Or maybe I am. Been here since 2001 (the beginning) and have read here everyday. Thousands of posts, but some Kerry supporter MIRT moderator tombstoned me back in 2005 because I had the temerity to say, 6 months after the election, that Kerry ran a bad campaign in 2004 because he wouldn't stick up for his military record and got swiftboated. I was suggesting we nominate someone with a stronger spine next time if we wanted to win.

I took advantage of the recent amnesty that allowed me to sign back up.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498982

There was a recent amnesty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeanMusical (Reply #151)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:47 PM

154. Huh? what is this non sequitur?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #154)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:53 PM

156. Sorry, I thought that you were talking about MaggieD.

Just read your previous posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeanMusical (Reply #151)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:17 AM

268. There was a recent amnesty?

Her profile say's she been a member since 2001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:57 AM

289. me?

I'm just repeating MaggieD's sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #289)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:09 AM

298. No it's all confusing

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

MaggieD says she was banned in 2005, someone, and it wasn't sid that called her a sock puppet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5498982

MaggieD's profile says she wasn't banned has been a member since 2001.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=106348.

I was trying to ask a MIRT member but got called for jury and lost it so said fuck it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #298)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:07 PM

331. sid would never do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #331)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:25 PM

334. So true

not in this case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #334)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:30 PM

335. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #298)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:41 PM

376. Well, isn't that interesting.

I think posters with over a hundred posts have to go to the admins anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:48 PM

55. If Hillary is the nominee, of course I will vote for her, BUT . . .

. . . Right now we are in a primary election season. The purpose of a primary season is to vet multiple candidates to see who is really the best fit for the party, and/or the most likely to be able to win in a general election. It is NOT supposed to be a coronation of a fore-ordained candidate. A robust, challenging primary is healthy for the party, and I heartily resent these attempts to shut down this very important process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:30 PM

81. I also resent the efforts made to shut down the primary process

If Hillary's such a great candidate, let her prove it in the primary with robust candidates, not just token sparring partners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #81)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:32 PM

83. Nobody here is trying to shut down the primary process

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:40 PM

96. Actually, they are

We are constantly being told that Elizabeth Warren isn't running so forget about her, Bernie will just run as a spolier, none of the other potential candidates can match Hillary's name recognition and campaign fundraising, Hillary's our only hope against the Republicans (even though they are all nuttier than a squirrel's winter cache), if you don't vote for Hillary you are only enabling the Republicans, ad nauseum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:45 PM

101. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:50 PM

104. That's true about Warren and Sanders.

 

Warren is not running and Sanders is not electable in a general. They aren't the only democrats in the world.

Do you have an aversion to common sense truth? Or do you prefer to kid yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #104)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:01 PM

408. Sanders is "not electable?"

Funny, it wasn't so long ago that the same was said of a mixed-race junior Senator from Illinois with an African-sounding name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #408)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:10 PM

412. Well there is a crucial difference

 

Obama didn't have a long record of political votes and actions. He mostly ducked controversial votes in the IL state house. Those that said he was unelectable were concerned people would not vote for him because he is black. I admit, I was a bit concerned about that. I have seen a lot of rank racism in my years, and didn't have a ton of faith in my fellow Americans on that scale.

But he made himself electable because he was basically a blank mirror that allowed a voter to see him however they wanted to imagine their perfect candidate to be. He has a gift for that. So if you wanted a moderate, he was your man. If you wanted a liberal, he could also be imagined as your man.

He was anything you wanted him to be. And that's a pretty nifty political trick.

With Sanders there is a long history of his on the record speeches and votes. And they are definitely (at least in my opinion) to the left of the mainstream. I think there are too many moderates and independents that have a deathly fear of "socialism" and therefore would not vote for him. I don't think he will even win the nomination for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #412)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:33 PM

419. On an issue-by-issue basis, I think a lot of people are further to the left than they often realize

It is rather like those polls that were conducted about healthcare reform where, when people were asked if they supported individual components of the proposed healthcare reform legislation, they were overwhelmingly in favor of the individual provisions. But when they were asked if they supported the President's proposal, the level of support dropped significantly. Sanders has demonstrated a superb ability to speak to people on the issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #419)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:52 PM

420. Good point!

 

And I agree that the ACA is the perfect example of what you state. I wonder if there is a secret sauce to getting the American people to grasp that. If he can do that you may be right and I may be wrong. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to be wrong about this!

One big hurdle is the corporate media. They seem to despise talking about actual issue in favor of the inside baseball of politics crap. Sometimes I get the feeling they choose our president instead of the voters because they assault us 24/7 with political bullshit instead of issues that need to be debated.

In the end, as long as a democratic party candidate wins I will be happy. I lean toward HRC because I think she will be better at kicking republican ass. But Bernie would be great too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #96)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:55 PM

371. I think you don't grasp "shutting down the Primary Process" very well

 

DU doesn't have a single solitary thing to do with that Primary Process. Prognositcation aside, it's upto a potential candidate to make the Primaries happen. All we do here is voice the probability of a win, loss, or even entering the race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:51 PM

56. The left is powerless and insignificant in American politics and has been for decades

But it is absolutely the fault of the left if the Democrats lose an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:18 PM

71. the single most ineffective and powerful voting bloc in the land..

when things are going well, the left can go pound sand. when things go sideways, it's entirely the fault of the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:28 PM

78. The left is powerless precisely because of their own actions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #78)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:04 PM

115. Exactly, the left doesn't and didn't have the big money necessary to secure political support

And the only reason for that is their own actions.

Very good analysis.

God Bless the Child that's got his own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #115)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:21 AM

305. Nader had a chance to get Greens funded for future presidential elections

 

He needed 5% of the 2000 vote to accomplish that. He got 2.74%. He might have gotten to his goal if he'd campaigned in safe Blue states where people were more likely to vote for him knowing it wouldn't help Bush. But due to his massive ego and despite what he had earlier pledged to big money donors he deliberately played the spoiler in swing states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:05 AM

224. We're the political equivalent of the lowly train worker

It's not my place to run the train
The whistle I cannot blow.

It's not my place to say how far
The train's allowed to go.

It's not my place to shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell.

But let the damn thing jump the track
And see who catches hell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:57 PM

58. The Liberal-bashing squad never sleeps here.

To put this in a context you might possibly understand, this pile of speculative bullshit has less credibility than "Clinton Cash".

It is over a year before the convention, and you are predicted that liberals will do something they have never done. The Nader canard is a zombie lie. Try blaming Joe Lieberman, and the SCOTUS.

Despite the high-profile defections of Holy Joe and Zell Miller, and the GOP-supported scumbag, Rahm Emmanuel, you can always find a reason to predict that liberals are the ones who will stay home.

We are the ones who want to discuss policy differences. We want to talk about the TPP and the non-prosecution of Wall St. It is Obama who started calling people liars.

Bottom line: nothing new here. Same old rightwing flack froem the corporate Dems.

Go suck an egg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:26 PM

76. Been here since 2001

 

And I've seen the purity league do their thing way too many times. And they are in full blown bash democrats mode again. I wish they'd "go suck an egg" as you suggest I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:39 PM

94. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:42 PM

98. Yes, stupid liberals

 

Or are you going to make the case that Nader had a chance in hell of winning?? LOL! I'm guessing you're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:28 PM

131. What a complete tangent that I am not going down

Nader is the Patsy for the SCOTUS takedown.

Look everyone, get real mad at Ralph - and don't notice Joe Lieberman sabotaging Gore at every turn. Don't look at the spineless DINO establishment rolling overt and playing dead. Just blame Ralph.

As H.L. Mencken said: Conservatives have a solution to every problem, and it is simple, convenient, and wrong.

You see only what supports your nonsensical view of recent history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #131)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:58 AM

173. You're ignoring history

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #131)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:00 AM

290. GOLDSTEIN!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #131)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:16 AM

302. Ralph is a doody head

He hated my little blue Corvair!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #94)


Response to frylock (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:31 PM

137. sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #137)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:34 PM

142. No, I'm not

 

You're just to lazy to look at my profile and journal before making bullshit accusations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #142)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:36 PM

145. The comment is directed to frylock, if you can follow the indent.

I marked all his identical two-word posts, because a 12 year old could write a script that would do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #145)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:59 AM

205. I think I get it now, sorta

It's a long, involved thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #145)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:03 AM

293. this is what my repeated posting is based upon..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:24 PM

128. I've been here since 2001 also

You started this thread.

You made a blanket bullshit indictment.

And, as is typical from the Rahm Emmanuel wing, it is all the "retards" fault.

There is no arguing with haters like you.

You do realize that is liberals who made this party great from Roosevelt onward. The fact that you feel the need to constantly piss on me tells me all I need to know about you.

You know Limbaugh calls us "libtards" with as much bile as you call us "liberals". Why don't you go join Rush? Cause that's where your loyalties are.

You knew this thread is flamebait. But, you had to throw a molotov cocktail. Because liberals

Look in the mirror.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #128)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:32 PM

138. Please explain the genius move of voting Nader

 

I'm all ears. Willing to be convinced about just how brilliant it was.

FDR was a great president who did great things. But the facts are he took us to war (just like the HRC haters claim she did). And his wife pushed and pushed him left (just like HRC did with Bill).

I'm not hating on anyone. I'm saying stop using DU to bash democrats. There are plenty of republicans to bash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #138)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:34 PM

141. Ask someone who did. I didn't. I aint playin your dumb game

Hillary is not Gore and none of the above is not Nader.

I reject your premise and your constant blame.

Nothing more to say.

Except I will remember what a hater you are, and your sock puppet frylock too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #141)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:58 PM

158. And I'll remember how nasty you are

 

Not to mention fact free and lacking in reading comprehension skills.

And yes, Nader gave the election to Bush. Deliberately no less. So much for purity tests, eh?

https://prospect.org/article/books-review-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #158)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:01 AM

264. This may be your funniest post yet and that's going some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:10 PM

347. You better believe it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:00 PM

61. R#18 & K, hey, us Dems keep on keeping on, win and lose nt

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (2)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:01 PM

63. Wow is your analysis vapid and wrong.

Let's face it, it worked when Nader did it in the 2000 election. Worked like a charm.

More registered Democrats in Florida voted for W than voted for Nader.

And Gore's shitty "Oh my god don't call me liberal" campaign is why the election was close. He should have won several other states, any of which would have made Florida moot.

Worked in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms too. Let's all sit home because Obama is not liberal enough.

Were you unconscious during 2010 and 2014?

In 2010, Democrats ran on the platform of "OH MY GOD! I AM SO SORRY WE PASSED HEALTHCARE REFORM!!" and lost badly.

In 2014, Democrats ran on the platform of "I hate Obama so much I won't even admit to voting for him" and lost badly.

We are opposed to Democrats like Clinton not because of "purity test" or other such bullshit. We are opposed to them because we do not want yet another Gore, Coakley (Senate), Coakley (Governor), or Grimes campaign. Because they do not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:07 PM

66. Yeah, I've listened to "not Nader voters fault" baloney for 15 yrs.

 

It's still BS. 95k liberals voted for that tool in Florida. Did you know he promised the big money liberals he wouldn't run in swing states? Yeah, he lied. Once he got the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:39 PM

95. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #95)


Response to Post removed (Reply #148)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:11 AM

163. Based on what?

 

That you disagree with me? Or that you're too lazy to check my profile and journal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:35 PM

86. Well, if you're right then you should probably start supporting a more liberal candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broward (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:40 PM

97. I want the most liberal AND electable candidate we can get

 

But liberal yet unelectable is not going to get the job done. So while I love Bernie I hope he does not win the nomination. I hope he runs in order to push the rest of the democratic candidates to the left.

The nominee is typically decided before the primaries get to my state. But I will happily vote for whomever wins the democratic nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:37 PM

89. stupid liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:43 PM

100. So you think it was smart of lefty liberals to vote for Nader?

 

I can't wait to hear the explanation on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:29 PM

132. sock puppet

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arendt (Reply #132)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:14 AM

186. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:38 PM

92. Well, the trick then is to get a candidate we damn well know Is a liberal, innit?

 

This isn't rocket science. You can't really go "well, we have to run a conservative because yargblarghbargble and reasons!" and hten at the same time worry that the right will say "hah hah you're running a conservative!"

Competing for the conservative vote against the republicans is a dead loser for democrats. it has been since 1964. We need to fucking stop already.

Nobody sat home from mid-terms becuase obama wasn't liberal enough. it's becuase the Democrats running attacked him for being a liberal


Which in every fucking case, leads to THIS:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:47 PM

102. Ah, KY is a bad example of a liberal bastion

 

We lost everywhere - not just in red states.

But you know, this is the pattern. The lefty liberals bash democrats non-stop, sit home and don't vote and then wonder why republicans in are the majority. And God forbid anyone mention they had a hand in the defeat. Oh no.

Well that's not reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:56 PM

112. It's not about "bastions."

 

That bullshit thinking is part of hte problem. "Well, Conservatives won that state, i guess we'll have to run conservatives there!"

It's about the candidates running. it might not register to some posters here, but you can't throw a right-wing toad at liberal voters and then snort about "well it's a democrat, you better vote for it!" becuase voters do not work that way. I guarantee you, easily half of the people like you demanding absolute unswerving party loyalty, if presented with a conservative democrat or a liberal outsider, will go for the outsider once the screen of the voting booth is pulled. Because peopel vote according to principles. Is it better to have an anti-gay, anti-abortion, jesus-is-my-governor Democrat, or to give a an outsider who actually emboies liberal principles a one-vote shot?

With the exception of the most hard-boiled party loyalists here, and the clump of trolls posing as them, the answer will always be hte latter, because voters worry about ethics. Principle. Standards.

You take your worry about - god fucking forbid - "lefty liberals" and you keep it somewhere warm, snug, and safe, okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:09 PM

118. Why use Ky as an example of a Dem loss?

 

This issue has nothing to do with what happened in a red state. We had poor turn out everywhere. And it's ridiclous not to see that. IMO, the purity fools are terrible for democrats in more ways than I can say here without having a post hidden.

I saw firsthand how they prevented an LGBT anti discrimination bill from passing in WA state. Instead of finding people electable that agreed with them to run and support them they bashed every Democrat they spoke about. When you'd ask liberal electeds why they didn't vote in favor they would flat out tell you it was because of extremists.

And then we pushed THE EXTREMISTS out of the political process and we passed it the next year. Then we passed DPP, then we passed marriage. After 15 years of extremists fucking it up for the rest of us. The extemist, purity left is one of many reasons republicans run 3/4s of government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #118)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 09:28 AM

259. What does this mean?

When you'd ask liberal electeds why they didn't vote in favor they would flat out tell you it was because of extremists.


Does this mean that your elected representatives voted in favor of discrimination for reasons of personality and personal politics?

These are the people you want to have representing you?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #259)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:16 AM

303. It means they didn't want to be associated with extremists

 

No politician does. Except nutty teabaggers. That's news to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #303)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:19 PM

400. Being in favor of equality is extremist?

I can see how some people might feel that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #400)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 06:30 PM

402. Let me give you explicit details

 

... and this is a true story of extremists in politics preventing their agenda from passing.

We'd get the bill to committee in whichever branch we had a dem majority (that varied from Senate to House over the years). They would show up and chant and scream, either outside the capital building or even in the gallery. And the bill would be tabled. They screamed and yelled horrible insults. It was awful.

In addition, here is what they DIDN'T do that WE did:

- they didn't try to line up GLBT people who had experienced discrimination to testify in hearings on the bill
- they didn't try to find candidates that would support the bill and help them get elected by knocking doors, phone banking, raising money for them
- they didn't reach out to business leaders who had the ear of politicians even though we found tons of them that supported the bill because it helped attract talent to their companies (Bezos, Gates, Balmer, Sports club CEO such as from the NBA, WNBA, NFL and MLB, and a host of others

All they did was bitch and chant and march and scream. For 15 frigging years until the sensible progressives said get the fuck out of the way. That is how political change works. That is reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:43 PM

99. Bush stole the 2000 election. Gore won popular and electoral votes.

 

Don't practice Bush apologia. Don't cover for his theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:53 PM

109. 10000th variation on the same post. still bullshit

 

If you want environmentalists to vote, stop fracking. If you want union voters, stop crushing workers and pandering to the one percent. If you want seniors to vote, stop talking about cutting social security. If you want teachers to vote, stop profitizing schools. If you want to campaign as a republican, better round up republican votes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:55 PM

111. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:16 PM

123. Who running as a democrat for president....

 

Is anti environment or anti Union? Can't think of any potential democratic candidate that is anti social security or anti teacher.

This is what I mean - it's ridiculous to paint any dem candidate as having those positions. It's just pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:16 AM

210. You have it exactly backwards. Voters have to show up, period.

I told my kids years ago that he who does not vote has no right to bitch about the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #210)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 10:17 AM

267. that is obviously not true, since they don't. I don't understand why people assume that a citizen

 

whose drinking water is polluted by fracking, whose hours, wages, and benefits have been cut due to off-shoring, outsourcing and union-busting, whose fishing business was destroyed by the deepwell horizon or the warming ocean, whose school teacher spouse was fired or had her pay cut because of Race To The Bottom, or whose kids have to take weekly standardized tests because of RTTB, will vote for a person or party just because of gay marriage.

The party flourished when it passed the New Deal, SS, Medicare, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, the War On Poverty, integration of the military, and established NASA. Being "Republicans plus a couple of social issues" has failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:52 AM

249. +10

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 10:53 PM

110. Thanks Maggie for your post. Voting is a right we have, for women and blacks it was always like

This. I vote because it is the right thing to do. Hearing those complain about a candidate being stuck up their butt and they don't think they are left enough. What about those who thinks candidates may be too far left. Candidates does not always have the same position I have but I still vote and I damn sure do not want anything the GOP bas presented in many years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #110)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:12 PM

121. Exactly

 

I'd rather cut off my frigging right arm than do a single solitary thing that would help any republican get elected to any office anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #110)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:36 PM

435. The think Democrats are too far left crowd has had full sway for 25 years and they have failed

If what we have had is too far left then it sounds like some folks need to get to work reforming the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:05 PM

117. BING! BING! BING! BING! BING! We have a winner!

A huge R& for you for absolutely nailing this.

I bow to you. Or at least tip my hat...


My best to you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #117)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:12 PM

122. Thanks! N/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #122)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:19 PM

127. No. This very liberal Democrat thanks you.

One has to work within the political system one has, not the political system one wants. That is the way one gets the political system one wants.

As always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #127)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:43 PM

153. This ^ ^ ^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #127)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:20 AM

212. ^^^ This

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #127)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:24 AM

214. Mahalo longship!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #214)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 02:51 AM

217. You are welcome, my good friend!

I am always glad to see you around here.

I think you see things kinda sorta maybe like I do. Not that I would worry if you didn't. After all, the measure of friendship is not agreement, but respect. I kinda think that's where you are, too.

As always, my best to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #217)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:15 AM

219. Exactly, longship.. . "After all, the measure of friendship is not agreement, but respect."

I am there.

I know of at least one thing we don't agree on but I'm not going to go there.. I respect you and our difference is okay. Not everyone shares my opinion on everything.. at least I haven't found them yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #219)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:21 AM

220. My best to you. And my sincere respect.

And never ever be reticent to engage me on anything. Or smack me around a bit, if you wish. I do not take such things as personal attacks. At least if it is done respectfully.

As always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #220)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 03:33 AM

221. I meant to say "haven't" found anyone yet.. as you could probably tell

from the context. Fixed it!

Well it was on that long OP of Sabrina's that was suppose to be funny and was for most people. Only I take it very seriously. I have pretty fast internet but that was getting impossible for me to load.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:16 PM

124. There are two main groups of voters who are not RWers that will stay home on election day:

1) Some liberals will refuse to support a centrist Democrat cozy with Wall Street.
2) Voters who often don't bother voting will not be motivated to vote.

Group #2 is orders of magnitude larger. The vast majority of politically engaged liberals (read: progressive DUers) will hold their nose and vote for the centrist Dem because they understand the consequences of R's controlling all 3 branches of government. Some won't, but their numbers are negligible compared to group #2.

Therefore, the solution to winning the presidency in 2016 is to nominate a Democratic standard-bearer who will inspire and motivate people to go to the polls and vote.

If our election strategy is based on scolding liberals to vote for a centrist because the R's are terrible, we're well on our way to a republican president in 2016.


The most significant number in the 2014 midterms was 63.7. That is the percent of eligible voters who did not go to the polls.

Give the people something to vote FOR, if you really want to avoid the catastrophe of a Republican sweep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #124)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:19 PM

125. Where is the fucking evidence she is a centrist?????

 

That's just bullshit. Her voting record as a senator from NY was liberal as hell. Where do people get this crap? You all really just think you can claim it and that makes it true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #125)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:37 PM

149. Her vote for the Iraq war, Larry Summers as her economic advisor

Hillary Clinton will be far more conservative than you think.
Larry Summers is helping to craft her economic agenda.

Whether or not you believe Hillary Clinton has earned the "centrist" label with her hawkish foreign policy and embracing the economics of Wall Street insiders, the more important question:
Is she the best candidate to inspire voters to actually go to the polls and VOTE?

She has high negatives among a lot of voters who aren't Republicans. The key to winning this election is inspiring people to go to the polls. That was a major factor in Obama's victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #149)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:56 PM

157. That's all you've got?

 

Larry Summers advises every democratic presidential candidate and is ONE of over 200. And he recently said this: "“It’s not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Clinton. “The challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy.”

He does not work for her campaign.

Also, since when does voting for the war make someone a centrist? My god, she represented the state that was brutally attacked on 9/11. And the Bushies lied. And she has said she was wrong. If I can forgive any politician for their wrong headed war vote it is definitely her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #157)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:20 AM

243. "when does voting for the war make someone a centrist?"

Voting to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq makes her much worse than a "centrist."

By October 2002 it was clear the Bush administration was indeed lying. If you were here at DU in 2002, you would have known that.

If Hillary Clinton didn't know that, she was too incompetent to hold the office of US senator.

More likely she was on board with the neocon agenda, or she stuck her finger in the political winds of the time and decided it was better to be "tough" on national security.

Take your pick -- it's one of those three. All three are inexcusable, and unforgivable in my book. What else could she do in the wake of the fiasco than admit she was wrong -- stick to her guns and insist she was right? It was a political necessity, regardless of what she really thinks.

If Hillary Clinton was strong and responsible in representing the people who were brutally attacked on 9/11 she would have stood up against the invasion of Iraq with every fiber of her political being. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do 9/11. Our military was engaged in a difficult mission against the Taliban & al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq shifted focus and resources away from those who actually attacked our country.

I find it very hard to believe you don't know that, or that Hillary Clinton didn't know that. Your statement "My god, she represented the state that was brutally attacked on 9/11" shows the extent to which you're willing to put on the blinders to support this politician.

The state of New York, the United States, and the million who've died in Iraq desperately needed strong Democratic leaders to forcefully stand against this fraudulent rush to a disastrous war that has cost a lot more than the $3 trillion or more that will be spent on it before all is said and done.

Hillary Clinton is still a hawk. I do not trust her one bit in matters of war & peace or national security, and neither should you. Nor do I trust her to push for meaningful reforms on Wall Street, as opposed to colluding with Wall Street insiders. As it was clearly explained in the first link I posted, Hillary Clinton is more conservative than you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #124)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:32 PM

139. +100. Its about turnout, not turn-off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #124)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:22 AM

167. Youre wrong because of Nader, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:36 PM

147. What a silly post ...

 

To expect human beings to not behave as human beings is simply naive ...

You want everyone to be in full concord behind one candidate? ... You have a lot of persuading to do yet ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #147)

Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:00 AM

159. Where did I say that?

 

I said we can discuss policy differences between candidates without bashing democrats.

Can you explain why that's silly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Mon Apr 27, 2015, 11:51 PM

155. Maybe Jeb will run his own version of his dad's Willie Horton ad and win the white vote.