General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNot since LBJ
... have "liberals" and so called Democrats worked so hard to bring down their party's front runner in a presidential campaign. Sure they did it to Gore too, but not with as much vehemence as they are directing at HRC (unless you count Ralph's vehemence).
The result was Nixon and Bush.
As far as I can tell those are the only two victories the far left has ever obtained. Helping to elect republican presidents.
Sure, they COULD boost their preferred candidate without tearing down the front runner. But that's not how they roll. Sad.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)the way you pretend to like Sanders, whilst posting ops and posts that trash him. And I have posted dozens of threads boosting Bernie. I can both post threads boosting my candidate and threads criticizing and questioning HRC.
And you're wrong. Again. I suggest you look at the Teddy Kennedy/Jimmy Carter situation of 1980.
You could post ops boosting HRC instead of whinging on about how awful liberals are and constantly berating DU. Oh, and isn't it just adorable of you to put liberals in quotes.
You not only get your history wrong, the bashing of the left is repugnant as well. Now where are your threads that boost HRC? So far, I've seen more threads from you complaining about liberals, misrepresenting issues like the tpp and bashing Bernie, than I have ops from you extolling HRC.
What a towering pile of....
treestar
(82,383 posts)I would vote for either if they were the nominee.
From Hillary's position there is not much need to bash sanders, so there hasn't been much of it.
But now you know how it feels to support someone and I hope you get many fangirl and worship and adore comments, since you will get to know what that's like. Defending Bernie at every opportunity and never seeing what he does wrong or how he might not win is dangerous. It even scares me lol. 
I mean we should never trust any politician and they are all corrupt, right?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But he's not electable as many of you will come to find. I'm sorry if the facts bother you.
DU is very much engaged in tearing down the front runner. And history shows that helps elect republicans. That's reality.
cali
(114,904 posts)and prove that history shows that helps republicans. Primaries and elections are rough and tumble. They always have been.
Link to evidence for your claim that criticizing the front runner helps to elect repubs. If you're so sure of that and it's such a clear phenomena, I'm sure any number of studies have been conducted as well as scholarly and media articles written.
Maggie claiming something with NO evidence, doesn't make it fact, and your opinion is just that- opinion.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)About not attacking other candidates?
I don't idolize any politician. I think you're mistaking my lack of genuflecting for something else. My concerns about his electability are not an attack. I have not and will not post screeds about him making baseless allegations as you do to HRC nearly daily.
cali
(114,904 posts)It includes Pat Leahy, my other Senator. I have no problem with concerns about his electability as you well know. We've had that discussion. I've made it clear repeatedly specifically to YOU that I think the odds of his winning the primary are vanishingly small.
You sure have posted shit about Bernie- repeatedly saying that he might run as a third party candidate against HRC if he loses. And do specifically tell me what I've posted about HRC that's is baseless.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Right, I knew that. So how does posting screeds about HRC help?
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)you cannot say what you purport to believe because the election has not been held yet. in fact, not even the debates. you probably wouldn't even vote for hillary either. i suspect your real purpose is to attack democrats. period.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And have.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)just because you purport or say so does not make it so. but go ahead, it is your dance of insanity.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Even Bernie would tell you he's an extreme longshot.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)cali is right. you are wrong.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... The debate. I love that. But he has a much chance of winning as Dennis Kucinich or Al Sharpton.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Funny the history I remember shows DU tearing down the Democratic primary front runner in 2008 and getting a Democratic Senator named Obama elected as President.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)and that we were going to keep the GOP in the WH as a result.
This feels like déjà vu.
It also feels like jamais vu as I feel like 2024 we're going to hear the same whinging shite from the center-right "pragmatics" of the Clinton wing of the Democratic party as they try again to regain control of the party by arguing that real Democrats aren't electable.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)venomously anti-Hillary in 2008 that is now all for her.
It's already obvious that many on DU care more for the party than they do the country, but I am starting to think some, if not many, on DU are just out to get anyone other than a white male into the Presidency. This would be a noble task if that person were indeed the best candidate for the job. The President of the United States is far too important a job to be based solely on skin color or gender alone.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)now her most vehement supporters.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)The Progs who support him? The Republican base for whom his platform appeals?
People are fed up. Boomers, Millennial's, Gen-X and everyone in between...All of us. We are becoming more unified and less worried about "party affiliation/division" with Bernie Sanders and more focused on the actual, factual Issues that are destroying us...all across this country.
Win, lose or draw...I'm in it With Bernie.
"I'm sorry if the facts bother you".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)well on the way to grabbing this moment in time to give voters what they have been asking for, and voters are responding in droves.
I have no need to bash any other candidates when we can simply talk about Bernie's excellent record on major issues.
Pointing out the differences in the candidates' positions, records of consistency, funding is not 'bashing', it's talking about facts.
Having no fear of the few feeble attempts to bash Bernie because it doesn't take long to find a link to Bernie speaking for himself, I don't worry at all about the inevitable attempts there have been and will be to try to discredit him.
Supporters of other candidates should feel the same way if they believe their candidate has solid credentials on the issues.
And it's not just DU btw.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But how does that force anyone to attack Democrats? I guess you don't agree with Bernie about negative attacks, huh?
That's where you part ways with him, apparently?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)Sanders is a good man. Why not promote him? I understand about the system, but it seems sort of defeatist. Also is anybody talking about Biden? The vice president traditionally gets the nod for a whole host of reasons. At least in recent times.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)He really has no reason to at this point.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Sanders should not be a problem, eh? The fact that so many speak of people entertaining sanders (since it is the only way to make Hillary stop listening to those that want her to govern to reagan's right) shows a qweakness, not in Hillary, but in those who act like she mus be protected from deviant thoughts.
If she can beat the Bushes and Walkers, then sanders would not be a worry.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Your recollection of Ted Kennedy and my beloved Jimmy Carter is right on. I will never forget the convention, when Jimmy won the nomination, how he accepted handshakes from anyone, he had to go over to Ted Kennedy to shake hands, and Teddy abruptly turned his back in Jimmy's face and walked away quickly.
I wish I could forget, but Jimmy still does not get the accolades he should because he had no cooperation from Congress, and until Chappaquidik, no acceptance from the Kennedy's.
Sort of reminds me of how Bill Clinton (and other supporters?) behaved after Obama won the Presidency. He was rude for 2 years.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)until 1976. In 1969, he hadn't even been elected governor of Georgia. I love Jimmy Carter and agree that he has been treated unfairly, including by many Kennedy supporters, but no need to drag Chappaquiddick into this.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Kennedy's campaign staff were disorganized and Kennedy was initially an ineffective campaigner.[138][139] The Chappaquiddick incident emerged as a more significant issue than the staff had expected, with several newspaper columnists and editorials criticizing Kennedy's answers on the matter.[138] In the January 1980 Iowa caucuses, which initiated the primaries season, Carter demolished Kennedy by a 59–31 percent margin.[131] Kennedy's fund-raising immediately declined and his campaign had to downsize, but he remained defiant, saying "[Now] we'll see who is going to whip whose what."[140] Nevertheless, Kennedy lost three New England contests.[131] Kennedy did form a more coherent message about why he was running, saying at Georgetown University: "I believe we must not permit the dream of social progress to be shattered by those whose premises have failed."[141] However, concerns over Chappaquiddick and issues related to personal character prevented Kennedy from gaining the support of many people who were disillusioned with Carter.[142] During a St. Patrick's Day Parade in Chicago, Kennedy had to wear a bullet-proof vest due to assassination threats, and hecklers yelled "Where's Mary Jo?" at him.[143] In the key March 18 primary in Illinois, Kennedy failed to gain support of Catholic voters, and Carter crushed him, winning 155 of 169 delegates.[56][131].....
His divorce in 1981 was the setback I was thinking of. He changed his mind about running against Carter in '84, but Reagan won. Jimmy didn't have the support of most of his party....
Wikipedia said that the 2 men shook hands in 1980. But I was watching and was shock by Kennedy's cold cold demeanor.
Oh, divorces were huge in those days, and Rockefeller for VP with President Gerald Ford (71-74), and Reagan's divorce were factors they faced. Rockefeller was found dead in some lady's apartment years after. Why bring that up...because it was brought up. That's how I learned about this stuff.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)That makes no sense...Carter would have been running for a third term, if he hadn't lost...? I don't get it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I think defeating the Michigan guy, Sen. Gerald Ford who was put into office when Nixon resigned (he had no choice).
Kennedy lost the nomination to Carter at the convention.
Kennedy intended to run against him in 84', but in 81' was divorced, and his family opposed his running. He was of no help to Carter when Carter was President, when Kennedy was a Senator.
In in 84' hostages were taken by the Ayatollah in Iran, and Carter sent a copter (not sure of how many) to rescue the hostages. This is when Ted Koppel (ABC) had a program on TV counting the number of days the hostages had been held. Anyway, the rescue attempt failed. And the hostage thing was one of the reasons Carter lost to Reagan. Also, the congress was not united enough to back him..
Reagan ran against Carter in 84 and won, and made a deal with Iran that they would hold the hostages until he took office. They were released either the day Reagan won, or took office, as per deal with Iran's Ayatollah. The hostage thing was a very big story.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Because of Chappaquidick Kennedy did not run for president in '72 or '76. Carter ran in 1976, and beat the not-elected-to-any-national-office Gerald Ford (appointed to replace Spiro Agnew who resigned in disgrace, Ford was president for 2 years after Nixon resigned in '74). Carter ran for re-election in 1980; Kennedy ran against him in the primary. Kennedy lost--imo he didn't run a good campaign, especially in terms of articulating why he was doing it. Carter lost to Reagan, largely because--as you said--St Ronnie was negotiating with the Ayatollah and therefore Carter was unable to resolve the hostage situation.
The hostages were seized in Tehran in Nov '79; and held until minutes after St Ronnie was sworn in (Jan 20, 1981)
StevieM
(10,500 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)It probably gives you an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance to understand that most HRC supporters like Senator Sanders just fine. They even like most of what he's saying, even though some know that a few of his ideas won't go over on a national level.
That, however, doesn't give you any excuse to insult DUers, even if you leave out the word "shit" after "towering pile of..." I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being talked to in that fashion.
Sanders doesn't think attacking HRC is a smart move and that's why he isn't going to do it. Would that his so-called supporters would take a clue from his behavior and emulate it.
I've always said that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. I'm happy to include Independents, Democratic Socialists, or even Socialist Democrats in that crew if it means defeating a Repubican. If Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have my vote.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I have human failings because I'm (still) human.
I did not criticize your candidate, and cali said the post was BS and made no bones about it. I just finished a sentence.
You expect more from us disappointed non-HC supporters that you expected from Bill Clinton, who as far as I know, made no public statements against Obama, but his anger was communicated to us in a way that I can't recall, but it was.
They did their best, and to me, their time in history is past. But that's me. You can believe what you want. The presidency is not a position where you wait in line till your turn comes. And when it comes, it seems some folks think that no one cut the line to get in front of their chosen candidate. In a grocery store you get complaints about the same issue.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I was talking to Cali. You can delete if you want.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)when I go on the computer. I rely so much on memory, feelings, and intuition and not enough on links....
I responded to truebluegreen on one issue, and your post looked like it was lined up with mine, but following the lines led me to cali's post that you commented on. Never even looked at the little thingy in the corner that has the post I'm replying to.
I sincerely apologize...for butting in...but I don't see where I insulted you in any way...and you very courteously told me that you weren't talking to me.....so buddies?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I just was concerned that you thought my remarks directed at another were for you, when they weren't!
Cheers
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)that are negative posts about Hillary Clinton than I'm seeing positive posts about Senator Sanders. In the long hard pull Sanders faces to get the Democratic nomination, that's not a good sign, I think.
As a Sanders supporter who will caucus for him in Minnesota, I'm disappointed in that. It's early in the primary race, of course, so that might change as time passes. So far, there's no Sanders organization here in Minnesota that I'm aware of. Organizations in individual states are going to be key factors in the primary. He'll be trying to come from behind. The sooner an overall campaign organization develops, the better. There is strong support for Clinton here in Minnesota, and has been for a long time. It's going to be very difficult to overcome.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)They will complain like that Bush is too liberal (I've actually heard that) and still get out and vote for him and defend everything he does. That's an advantage they have and why they win when they are a minority and they stand for turning the clock back when most of the country does not.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)I respect about their side (as much as I think their political views are misguided). They're reliable and will stay politically active in every election, even for candidates who may be more moderate than they like. It's our responsibility as citizens to participate and make our voices heard in order to right the ship, and anyone who doesn't has no right to complain.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)what constitutes "one of our own"?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's like the left wants to lose to be able to continue to complain about being the victims of the corporatists, etc. It's odd but some people prefer to think that way. They know they will still be basically living the same way and not much will change for them personally, so they have the luxury of "victories" like Nixon and Bush and the ability to be crabby again for the next 4 years, being the victims of republicans.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Could be given that once they are done and a republican is elected they never feel like it's partially their doing.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that the left doesn't want things like the Vietnam war, the invasion of Iraq, tax cuts for rich people, welfare reform, the repeal of Glass-Steagal, NAFTA, etc., etc., etc. That somehow "winning" by electing somebody from the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party, is not much of a win for the people.
Edit - is THAT possible? Or MUST it be some combination of bad faith and stupidity?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The country always does better when a Democrat is president. The facts are clear on that.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)or the Invasion of Iraq.
Johnson continued to support the first one, even in 1967 when a good portion of Democratic primary voters were sick of it, and Hillary voted for the second one.
and "the country" is rather hard to define. Average this and average that and never mind the people slipping through the cracks or the increases in income inequality or the holes punched in the safety net.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)The Great Society programs. Head Start. Medicare. Civil Rights. Voting Rights.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I feel like Hillary is far to the right of LBJ.
But he wasn't just undone by something he inherited. He embraced it, and in fact kept HHH from taking a strong anti-war stance going in to the 1968 elections.
At least as I remember some TV special I watched on 1968.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)he could have gotten us out of there. Instead he chose to lie about the Tonkin Gulf Incident to dig us in deeper.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That was the question.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)the poorest 20% got 4.2% of the national income and the richest 5% got 16.6%. When Nixon left office in 1974 the poorest 20% was getting 4.4% and the richest 5% was getting 15.9%.
Seems like the poor did better under Nixon and the rich did worse.
Contrast that with William Jefferson Clinton.
When he took office in 1992, the poorest 20% was getting 3.8% when he left office in 2001 they were getting 3.5%. Hmm, and the richest 5% was getting 18.6% in 1992 and 22.4% in 2001.
The rich seem to have done better under Clinton and the poor worse, compared to Nixon. The poverty rate went from 10% in 1968 to 8.8% in 1974. For Clinton it went from 11.9% in 1992 to 9.2% in 2001.
Here's what economist Dean Baker said about the Rubin Wing of the Democratic Party
"However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I got it. That's absurd to me. Not even gonna go there on something so ridiculous.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)completely changed the way this country's economy operates. Clinton and Obama have done various things to slow that trajectory, but to a great extent it is locked in, including future extrapolations. It would take a major overhaul to completely reverse the trends, and so far the votes haven't been there to accomplish that. Clinton and Obama just barely got the 1993 budget and the 2010 health care plan through congress.
The bottom line is that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama governed after Reagan. Nixon governed before him.
I don't agree that there is no difference between Rubin-Clinton and the Republicans. But I cannot deny that they did not reverse the overriding pull of Reaganomics. Hopefully that will happen at some point.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)rather than saying "no" difference.
The trouble I have with Clinton and Obama is that they did not even TRY to combat Reaganomics - in fact, they largely embraced and promoted it. Clinton campaigned on a tax cut and attacked Bush Sr. for raising taxes. Obama practically took the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes. Call it the Norquist-lite pledge, no tax increases for people making less than $250,000 a year.
The Bush tax cuts were set to expire - twice. Obama could have killed Reaganomics II simply by doing nothing. Instead he worked to make most of them permanent, and lied in our faces twice, calling it a great victory.
Yeah, permanent tax cuts which favor the rich - what a victory for equality. He had to do that for some reason, even after he just got re-elected? (so the BS excuse of "but he has to get re-elected" is not in play.)
And there was Clinton in his 2nd term, signing a tax cut for the rich. The ghost of Reagan made him do it?
treestar
(82,383 posts)If people voted for Nadar because Gore wasn't liberal enough, look what they got. Two whole wars that might not have happened. And a recession.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)You seem to want to write off anti-war people as "idiots who just want to elect Nixon so they can complain"
like they didn't really care about stopping the Vietnam war
They didn't want Nixon to win, they wanted McCarthy to win, or RFK, or HHH - somebody besides the pro-war Johnson. What I saw on the 1968 election, it seemed to me like Johnson himself was quite responsible for Humphrey's loss - threatening him if he criticized the war.
I have no use for Nader or 3rd party splinterism, but I also have little use for the Clinton-Rubin wing of the Democratic Party either.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He would not have "stopped the war" either/
If I wanted to vote for Clintonian values, I'd be a goddamned Republican.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)So in the run up to the primaries, people are not allowed to discuss ideas and candidates positions. We should simply have a coronation? 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They are smearing other candidates. You'd think they would take a cue from Bernie who is proud he's never run an attack ad in his life.
But apparently they don't share Bernie's values in that regard.
cali
(114,904 posts)he may run third party? Not that I particularly care if you do. And the criticism that gets labeled as a smear of HRC is amazing. Evidently any discussion at all about her funding is a smear. It's a smear to discuss her having changed positions except to laud her for doing so. It's a smear to mention her role in Bill's administration. And on and on. As far as I've seen, you consider everything that isn't laudatory toward her a smear.
And of course, HRC ran lots of unpleasant attack ads against Obama, so I guess that's not something you believe is admirable or should be emulated.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... if he wants to run in a DEMOCRATIC primary. I don't think that's an attack.
cali
(114,904 posts)against Hillary in the general as an independent and likening him to Nader.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I think it's foolish to do that. Ever known any? The one thing they all have in common is ginormous egos.
Why do you think he won't change the (I) to a (D)? I'm curious as to your thoughts on that.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think it's meaningful to Bernie to be independent, symbolic, if you will, of his independence from the big money corruption that's endemic in both parties. It's greater in the repub party by it sure has it's tentacle well wrapped around the dem party too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We live in a CU world. That's reality.
And here are people encouraging him to run as an independent. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6680948
So why shouldn't I be concerned he will be another Nader? Ralph also pledged not to run as a spoiler. But that's exactly what he did.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)as is everyone else on this board and elsewhere. That said most of what is posted here would be just that.... an opinion. I do not believe that questions about a candidate's positions, funding or frankly most any topic is a smear. I would also add that anyone naive enough to get into a Presidential Campaign (particularly HRC who has been through a few already) and does not expect every facet of their careers to come under scrutiny shouldn't be in it from the get-go.
Hillary Clinton is an adult as is Bernie Sanders and anyone else who chooses to engage in the 2016 Campaign. They put themselves in and I suspect they can take care of themselves without me or anyone else getting too worried about what may or may not be said on a political discussion board.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Saying he isn't for social justice, saying his economic policy benefits Wall St/corporations and is "trickle down" and therefore will only benefit white males. Yes! That was said about Bernie Sanders!!!
Saying he wants a sexist and white USA.
I've not seen anything close to that being said about Hillary Clinton.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Heck, I'll even donate to Bernie if he ever changes that (I) to a (D). 
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)And pigs might fly around in my shorts.
Overheard... "My darling wife; you're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen in my life, as long as you cover up that wart on the end of your nose."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But I only donate to (D)'s. We live in a two party system and I support Democrats.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I guess the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are figments of my imagination then... along with all the others.
I don't care that you find only two parties acceptable. There are DOZENS of political parties in this country.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Since they don't really impact anything in Congress.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The facts speak for themselves. Every victory the left has won came from Democrats - from the new deal to labor rights, to Medicare, civil rights, marriage equality and the ACA.
What has the Green Party accomplished?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they don't teach no history in them classrooms. No siree.
But at this point it is comedic.
You do need a backhoe though.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... You can't think of one. LOL!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the thread as well, that it is comedy gold. So yes, you do need a backhoe and an industrial rescue rig to get you out of that hole.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and you made some really basic time line mistakes here. It is not my job to teach you United States History. But I can tell your teachers failed, miserably so,.
Anyway, I just hang up for the comedy gold anymore. If I wanted to talk to you, I would try my wall first, It will be less painful, and i got hope the wall will listen. But I am getting quite the hunkering for vanilla... I really don't know why? So you are on the morning shift. I see.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Go right ahead.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I really need to go get some vanilla ice-cream.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LMAO! I can understand that, since they don't exist. But you go right on hating all those terrible Dems that brought you labor rights, Medicare, SS, ACA, GLBT rights, etc., etc.
And please do continue to worship at the throne of the fringe left. Who cares if they actually accomplish anything. That's beside the point, right?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)your demands and now personal attacks signifying nothing.
You got the morning shift I see.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)cute.
This is a nice distraction though from real work. I thank you for the entertainment.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Surely you can come up with just one legislative landmark victory the fringe left has brought us, can't you?
Well, I can't either, so I guess we are in the same boat!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and once again, it is not my job to correct the problems with your deficient education.
But you are rather cute. Adorable even. These demands... they are just empty, and looking for this
The whole line of "questioning" is just that.
I expect MORE demands though. You are not done doing the shit stirring.
It is quite adorable.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Come on -- just one. Just one landmark legislative accomplishment of the extreme left. If they are so very valuable to "the people" surely you could name one, right?
No, they are the shit stirrers. That's what they live for. They don't actually care about legislative achievements that help people. They just care about getting attention by screaming.
Nadine, I have spent my life working for change. And I live in Seattle, where we have plenty of the fringe left. They are not interested in actual legislative achievements, they are interested in screaming.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And the more you deflect the more proof you provide. Let's face it, if you could make an argument that the extreme left has elected anyone that brought us landmark legislation, you would.
Everybody knows that about you, Nadine.
Let's look at Dennis Kucinich for example. I grew up in Cleveland. Dennis has always been a firebrand. But he hasn't actually passed any legislation in his whole life that benefited anyone. I guess that is why the people got tired of and stopped electing him. Sure, he will call it gerrymandering, and to some extent that's true. It didn't help when they redrew his district to include more than just the fringe left.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Please do have the last word.
And make sure to include personal attacks, shit stirring. and overall broad brushes.
Oh wait you do that well. And that is all you do.
Tell me more.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Is effective. It's not. Clearly the fringe left needs some tutoring about effective debating and persuasion skills.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Then there is Kshama Sawant, the Socialist who is the deciding vote on most measures of the Seattle city council.
All those DFL politicians elected to state and federal office from MN...there is no Democratic party in MN without Farmers and Labor.
All politics is local...and the non-Democratic left has been leading progressivism at the local level for 2 decades while a Clintonian-dominated Democratic party has triangulated themselves into Republican values.
...you were saying?
All we're saying is throw the Clintonite trash out, it's starting to fucking stink.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But the council is very liberal already.
But back to the subject - what landmark legislation has anyone from the far left passed?
Vinca
(50,278 posts)If Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee I would certainly vote for her over any Republican.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Congratulations.
Vinca
(50,278 posts)You seem to be stirring the pot unnecessarily.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but it is cute in some sort of a strange way.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Including Medicare and civil rights. There are no perfect candidates except in the imagination of the far left. Remember when Obama was the chosen demigod here? I do.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)That and the fear of leftist politics
StevieM
(10,500 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Oh my - now that is an interesting take on things. All those flaming leftists in Texas are who we should credit. Not LBJs lifelong agenda. That's a real knee slapper.
Same for that filthy rich guy, FDR?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)obstacles. Kennedy and especially Johnson had to fight hard for those reforms, and for the large majority in congress that made their passage possible.
I realize that LBJ made mistakes in his judgement regarding Vietnam, but his accomplishments on the domestic front were nothing short of extraordinary. And their passage by no means went without saying. He deserved a lot of credit for getting his agenda through.
Can you imagine what out country would look like today had Lyndon Johnson not gotten his major legislation passed and made the transformations that he made to our society?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)and no one really knows how many Southeast Asians is OK, as long as you do something moderately good as well.
(paraphrasing) "Hell, those boys could have been shooting at whales out there for all I know." (laughs)
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LBJ's sin was being to prideful to be president and admit we got into a war we could not win.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Get back to me after you do.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We were already at war previous to the Gulf of Tonkin.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)LBJ created one though.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Declared or not, we didn't have ships in the Gulf of Tonkin for no reason.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Yea!
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)(if they've only served one term, or less, anyway.) Hillary is not a sitting president and therefore has no right to expect the nomination on a platter.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She's beating ever possible republican candiate so far in every poll.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)
NO!!!
And party members are simply not swallowing the notion that we should just anoint and crown her as president without an election process that helps us put forth candidates that we feel best stands for the issues we think have been neglected by corporate controlled government for too long!
Sorry, but just because she's in the race doesn't mean she's already our "presumptive nominee"! Many of us take those as fighting words to work that much harder against that PTB that have destroyed the middle class and stolen our wealth from us! It looks like Russ Feingold is learning more from watching this all by doing much more to take the "same" position of Warren's than Hillary is!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026686138
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And honestly she would have been a better president than him, IMO. She would not have wasted 4 years on the naive notion that republicans would compromise with her.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Obama was the one who was preaching a more nebulous "Hope and Change" agenda then. He avoided making promises, and Hillary showed more of her true colors on things like supporting a more war like stance against Iran, etc. then. She was more of a known quantity with what she and her husband have stood for in her past, whereas Obama was the candidate that many in America "hoped" would be the newer FDR. They of course were let down with that notion. I didn't feel that way then either as a photoshop I did during that election shows I felt that this choice that was fueling identity politics rather than issue politics (where those interested in such were directed to the "doomed" John Edwards then).
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Too bad it's not a real place, huh?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)eom
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and how Obama rose so quickly to overtake that lead is certainly potentially a lot more the same statistics than those trying to claim that Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have the "same" views on the TPP, which are definitely NOT the same, at least those that are publicly expressed!
StevieM
(10,500 posts)position today that Obama held in early 2007.
I am not sure who is claiming that Clinton and Warren have the same position on TPP. I think it is pretty clear that they don't.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I'm not speaking of you claiming that Clinton and Warren have the same position. Another Duer in this thread was trying to allege this and was telling me to google it when i asked for a link. I pointed out that a news story was out there that Clinton was quoted as having concerns about ISDS provision, but still have not seen anything about her support or standing against Fast Track or TPP to this date. If there were such news, you can bet that the media would be covering it now.
Yes, Obama had some notoriety beforehand when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention, and had a bit of help when Star Trek's Seven of Nine Borg actress Jeri Ryan had marital problems when she split up from the Republican who had the seat before Obama held the seat.
I think that there are many who have gotten to know Bernie Sanders through his town halls on talk radio that most other politicians don't have the benefit of. Now granted, that is a limited slice of voting public that he will need to grow beyond, but it is a space that knows him well, and through that experience has a lot of data to help him get his message out further than a real unknown would have.
i think we're seeing the tipping point of how the rules will soon be changed on how politican campaigns are going to be run. Maybe not officially, with the oligarchs in charge of our courts and other places with money-laden processes that has helped them so far gain more power, but Americans I think are more and more getting fed up with what's happening and NOT happening in Washington for them, and are looking in other places for those who have answers. Bernie has as much of an opportunity to be in those "other places" as any other candidate is, and people are very thirsty for real change, not just "Hope and Change" promises with little or no substance.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)I love Hillary Clinton and I really want her to win in 2016. If the Republicans manage to win the election, I would certainly consider voting for Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primaries, and I assume that she would start the race as the front runner.
I think your memory is a little fuzzy about Obama in 2004. (No worries, the details sometimes get a little mixed.) The outgoing Republican senator at the time was Peter Fitzgerald, who wasn't running for reelection. Fitzgerald defeated Carol Mosely-Braun in 1998 and only served one term. Obama was originally running against Jack Ryan, ex-husband of Jeri Ryan. And Ryan was well down in the polls even before the sex scandal knocked him out of the race completely.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't see much similarity between Bernie and Barack at all.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Barack Obama did not have the right to my vote for renomination in 2012 just because he won in 2008. He had to earn it through his performance, which he did.
Hillary has not done anything to justify saying that she thinks that the nomination is rightfully hers. She has a huge, unprecedented lead in the polls (for a non-incumbent), and that has the media talking about her like she is the presumptive nominee. End of story and not her fault. And no, she did not have anywhere close to this lead in 2008.
This doesn't mean that she will automatically win, just that there is reason to believe that it is incredibly likely.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Polls bear this out. Can't speak for the far left and the right.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Who would that be? 30-odd declared communists in this country? 'Cause pretty much nobody--including Bernie Sanders--is further left than FDR.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)with envy, etc.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)Define it. YOUR definition.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Not complete, but it captures most
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Because it sure seems that baiting, policy-free, diversionary OP's like this one have BECOME the messaging strategy for HRC supporters here.
See, you won't point us to the threads showing why Hillary is the best policy representative for the people, because you can't. They don't exist.
Look down the board. All the OP's by Hillary supporters are like yours. Here was my response to another like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6683607
What you have done here with this baiting OP *is* the campaign strategy: message control and manipulation. As long as people are taking your bait here, they are not talking about Bernie's campaign, his clear stances on issues ranging from the TPP to Social Security to campaign finance reform, and Hillary's lengthy record of coziness with Wall Street and predatory corporate and warmongering policies.
Yes, it's worth making the defensive, diversionary MO here explicit. But I'm off to substantive threads now.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... that can win.
But i guess you don't share Bernie's values either, huh?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Just because many in the corporate media were trying to fuel that she was the only one that "can win" doesn't mean that is the case...
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Than Obama. She knows how to gut punch republicans. He believed they would compromise with him. Naive.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It is Republicans that Obama has "negotiated with" that are wanting this to pass and have even stated for their power if they get elected in 2016. She should come out now and campaign against it if she wants our support and if she wants to show that she "would have been better" instead of just "talking the talk" and not having "walked the walk" on doing things for the average American.
You miss the whole point. She is a smart politician. There is no upside to her doing that since she has no vote on the subject.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... if she doesn't tell us she doesn't support TPP.
The upside is that if she can help affect the House and/or Senate vote by speaking out against it publicly, even if she doesn't even vote on it, she could affect policy that benefits that helps all of us.
But apparently getting the support of voters has no upside to people like you. Just keeping wealthy donors happy to buy her an election, so that she can support them and continue fostering the illusion that is wearing off that Third Way / DLC politicians are going to help fix the major problems of this country, which they've worked more over the past decades to make worse than make better along with their corporate owned Republican buddies.
There's a reason why Obama has to count on corporate controlled buddies in the Republican Party to pass Fast Track now. I wonder if that reason is simply lost on you, or you just choose to try and have it ignored, because you're being paid for us to ignore it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And Warren has said she agrees with her. I don't see any upside to her saying more. If you didnt listen the first 5 or 6 times why would listen next time?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)THAT would be equivalent to what Warren has said. You are making things up, unless you can prove otherwise!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But what does that have to do with the OP?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If Hillary were truly coming out and pushing against the TPP the way Elizabeth Warren has that has had even president Obama publicly criticize her, the media would be all over it. She HAS NOT come out against Fast Track and TPP.
Having miscellaneous comments about her having reservations about ISDS provisions is about the only thing I've heard. If she really is against the ISDS, and wants to fight to get it out of the TPP, then she should be fighting AGAINST Fast Track that would have the whole TPP shut down in order to get rid of ISDS if that bill is passed. If she sees any value to the TPP, but is truly against ISDS provisions, she should want to shut down Fast Track, or if she is against all of the TPP, then she should also want to shut down Fast Track. If she doesn't want to support what Republicans in lock step have wanted in the Senate, she should also be against Fast Track.
Oh, something we don't know about where perhaps ISDS is being removed from the TPP as her only objection to it so that she can support Fast Track secretly the way this treaty is being negotiated has her justified in not saying anything?
For me, and so many other Americans, having a public process where we know where critical laws are being negotiated and what is being negotiated with whom, so that we can advise our "representatives" is a key part of a democratic system. Politicians that don't understand this in my book don't believe in democracy, and DO NOT DESERVE OUR VOTE!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I mean outside the right wing talking points posted on DU. That is actually an option.
But again, how does attacking other Dems help? You don't agree with Bernie on that i take it?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and as being on a high school debate team would demand provide some EVIDENCE that Hillary is CLEARLY against the Fast Tracking of the TPP. You can't so you just resort to try to characterize us as echoing "right wing talking points" when it is the right wing Republican senators (ALL OF THEM!) who are on "Democrat" president Obama's side in helping him push through Fast Track.
That's a FACT and not a "right wing" talking point. Unfortunately, you and others don't want to seem to look at this.
I'm merely pointing out that Hillary Clinton has an opportunity to SHOW us that she's on our side by using her bully pulpit (as so many would say she has since she's almost already "elected" by your measurements) to speak out against passage of Fast Track, or if not, explain why she supports it.
That's not an attack on her, it is asking for her to be clear on what she supports and what she doesn't. I have already stated here, that I could support her more if on this ISSUE (NOT an attack) she would take a stance on this TPP ISSUE that I and so many other Americans care about that is potentially going to damage a lot of our futures if it gets passed in our opinion.
If she can't make a commitment in a timely fashion, that shows me a lack of leadership qualities that I'd like a president to have, who is decisive and timely in his support for or standing against issues that affect the American people. Bernie Ward shows that kind of leadership for me. Elizabeth Warren has too.
If it isn't a problem for us the way past trade agreements in recent decades all have been in breaking the promises that have been made about them before their passage, then we are OWED an explanation why this ISSUE of TPP being made law benefits us! That isn't an attack, it is asking for our politicians do their part in a democracy and keep us informed as to what they are going to put in place for laws for us all to live by.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Otherwise you'd know why Warren agrees with HRC.
But can you respond to the issue in the OP? I'm guessing not at this point. However we have uncovered an issue where you do not agree with Bernie!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)WHERE are your documents to back that statement up? They don't exist?
Does Hillary Clinton agree with Senator Warren that Fast Track treaty should be voted down? I would argue that she hasn't shown that she agrees with Warren on this. For you to establish your argument, you need to point to a post that shows that just like Warren, she's against Fast Track Authority being passed. You can't, and that is why you CANNOT SHOW that she agrees with Warren on this. Maybe she secretly does, but not publicly. Otherwise, like I noted, the media would be all over it. They AREN'T!
You and others were wanting to claim that Hillary Clinton was wanting to "gut punch Republicans" more than other candidates like Bernie would. I was simply giving you a place that is topical now that she could, but she's chosen to take a stance that shows no interest in providing any kind of leadership in establishing whether she views America should approve or disapprove of the Fast Track and TPP bills. For me, if she were to take a stance on that, that would "gut punch" the Republicans that are for this bill, and show that she's willing to do so and stand up for the American people even if it means her taking sides against Obama, who is showing through this process that he is taking sides against the American people in wanting to push this through secretly. And that would also show that she would be better than Obama in "gut punching them" where on this issue he has "negotiated" with them where he shouldn't be. Show that she is different and can work for us rather than corporate America in the ways Republicans want us to!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't play go fetch when someone tries to change the topic.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If you stood up and said "google it" to support a point in a debate in high school, you would lose EVERY debate and probably kicked off the team too.
As I have noted, just stating some concerns about ISDS that is about the only thing I find about her "agreeing" with Warren is NOT an agreement with Warren that Fast Track should be voted down. As I have noted, if Hillary truly believes that ISDS is a problem and should not be put in to law, then she right now should come out and say that either:
1) She cannot support Fast Track which would have congress people have to vote to put ISDS in to law if they were to pass TPP at all (assuming she has something she feels good about TPP which is why she's holding back from rejecting it altogether).
or
2) She cannot support Fast Track (like Warren has said) because of too many problems that would happen were it to enable passage of TPP that she couldn't support in to law. In other words come out against solidly both against TPP and Fast Track.
If you want to be accurate in your statement, then you'd say that Hillary Clinton has expressed concern about what would happen with the ISDS provisions of TPP, in much the same fashion that Elizabeth Warren has on this issue. THAT would be an accurate statement. But you are extrapolating more than what that statement would say, and trying to make it sound like she and Warren (and Sanders for that matter) are the "same" when it comes to TPP and Fast Track, when it is very clear that in general on both of those issues, they are NOT. Now, if you can provide specifics BESIDES ISDS concerns that they agree upon, then YOU google it to find out those areas that support your depiction of them both having the same views on TPP and Fast Track. That is a fabrication in my book without proof otherwise.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Here is a version unfiltered by you:
http://m.elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That Warren and Clinton are both documented to have concerns about ISDS...
But UNLIKE Warren, Clinton doesn't seem to agree with Warren on the need to PUBLiCLY stand against Fast Track Authority which would basically help force the whole of TPP down our throats WITHOUT the ability to take out the ISDS provision that they both are said to be in agreement of having concerns over.
If Clinton REALLY WANTS to get the ISDS out of TPP agreement, then she should BACK UP those words with ACTION and along with other senators, etc. say that we should vote Fast Track DOWN so that TPP can be passed like other bills with the ability to amend it to take out ISDS provision that she's concerned about.
And at some point, perhaps she can then explain if she's for or against the rest of the TPP which she's neglected to say whether she is or not (unlike a leader she wants to project to being for us), and whether we should stand against both Fast Track and TPP that Warren has already said she's against.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's MY job to prove the BS in your post is BS - right? That's how you roll. You make a ridiculous statement unsupported by fact. I call it bullshit, and you demand I prove it its BS. LOL!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or Fast Track authority in general, which Clinton has NOT taken a public position on UNLIKE Warren. Now, THAT is what I have issues with, and THAT is what you need to back up your words with here. Because trying to say that Clinton agrees with Warren on anything else but ISDS, is not really dealing with the issue I'm posing here.
If you think that I'm saying that Warren and Clinton agree with TPP or Fast Track in general in public to us is BS, then YOU prove that it is! I've done your work for you in showing you what I've already is out there, that I was NOT talking about when I made earlier statements here.
If you can't say that what I said about *TPP IN GENERAL* (*NOT* just ISDS) is BS, then YOU prove it. Otherwise, what you are saying is just BS!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You seem to like to just throw shit out and see if it sticks and when called on it make up shit about why you won't provide proof of your bullshit claims.
If you aren't going to back up your statements you should just stop making them.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Specifically?
So you guys can make some BS claim about HRC and I call BS on it, then it becomes MY CLAIM TO PROVE? LMAO.
Okay - http://m.elizabethwarren.com/blog/i-agree-with-hillary-clinton
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Why keep digging?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Yet you keep digging.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm sorry - your posts make no sense.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Please provide links to that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or at least enough that she can can't make a judgement about it?
If she doesn't know enough to make a judgement about it, then what is she doing talking to other countries in giving them information about it for them to make a judgement about it?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because she has issued so many statements that indicate that she OVERWHELMINGLY supports it. I put up a post where in her own words she glows about it, and the expansion of H1B visas.
She LOVES the TPP.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Rec'd and bookmarked.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)where exactly what I posted came out of Hillary Clinton's own mouth. That's a fact.
Here is the ONE thing that EW stated about Hillary Clinton:
"We should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules, as Philip Morris is already trying to do in Australia. The United States should be advocating a level and fair playing field, not special favors."
NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in that statement says "I agree with Hillary Clinton on all aspects of the TPP." She states "I'm worried about ISDS, and Clinton has misgivings about it, too."
It is disingenuous to warp that into "Elizabeth Warren endorses Hillary Clinton's stance on the TPP", because she does NOTHING of the sort.
Facts aren't out of style here - they are out of style with those such as yourself that have a specific agenda they want the facts to support. The facts don't say what you want them to say; attempting to twist things to suit your narrative is NOT relaying "facts".
It's called something else entirely and the four letter word isn't 'fact'.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)candidate. So why not get behind him so he can win?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)leftstreet
(36,108 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The venom against Hillary when she ran against Obama rendered Air America almost unlistenable.
Randy Rhodes sounded like Ann Coulter and got fired for it. Stephanie Miller sounded like Rush Limbaugh, I haven't listened to her since. Ed Schultz was unlistenable because all he did was spew anti-Hillary venom.
Obama supporters all over the internet teamed up with Republicans in a Hillary hate fest. If you look through the archives here on DU, many of those who now 'support' Hillary spewed toxic venom at her then.
I didn't even like her and I was disgusted by it. It is very mild this time in comparison.
Do your math before you post silly hair on fire OPs
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The difference is that Mickey Mouse could have won as a Democratic nominee after idiot son. That's not the case here.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You just contradicted your own OP.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sorry if you didn't like it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which I proved false.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LBJ and Humphrey brought themselves down by pursuing a lost war and killing millions of people. Nixon won because he promised "peace with honor" which is also what Humphrey promised in slightly different words.
LBJ and Humphrey and the Democratic Party who nominated Humphrey guaranteed Nixon's win not the protestors or those who voted against both Nixon and Humphrey.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Without the murderous war, LBJ would probably have won in a landslide.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Was he better?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I don't vote for/against labels or politicians or hairstyles.
I vote for/against policies, issues, and principles.
How about you?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not very well, correct?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But even then I was smart enough to know that "liberals" were helping elect Nixon.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)By protesting the war? Voting against the war?
Do tell.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I already stated how.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz you didn't like liberals, at age 9? Why the name change again?
/revision/latest?cb=20120514150623
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and how Republican senator Dirksen even acknowledged in a phone call then that Nixon was a TRAITOR then, we'd have had a different election outcome then. We had similar secrets that were kept about how the Reagan was able to manipulate the Iranian hostage crisis to his electoral favor too.
Longer recording of this call...
The bottom line is that when we see secretive things going on like what is going on with TPP now the year before a big election, we the public need to know what is going on with it to put in a decent government and not have the corruption in it grow as it has over the last few decades.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Yeah if only Johnson had told people that Nixon was being bugged by the Johnson administration.
Do you really believe that would have helped Humphrey?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)thank Sirhan Sirhan.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)and said nothing. Thank LBJ for Nixon.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I have nothing to say about HRC other than that I don't support her because of her neoliberalism. The only reason I have to say anything else is if one of her supporters actually challenges that, and then I simply offer up her record with policy, words, and donors. I'm sorry if you think that her record "tears her down."
If it's that easy, maybe she shouldn't BE the "front runner." And, of course, the whole point of a primary is to challenge any "front runners;" to give us a choice.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Worth putting in the subject line.
If posting the actual policies of corporate politicians is "bashing" them, then it would seem clear that there is a serious problem with the policies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761
Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank
How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647
Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441
On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar
Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29
The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257
Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136
Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279
Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343
Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285
How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611
Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071
Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575
Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986
Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9
LWolf
(46,179 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Talking points again. SMH.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)I thought Republicans were in favor of those things.
Can you point out the Republicans attacking Hillary on that position?
It seems that you only want to dismiss valid criticisms as RW talking points
Ring of Fire is a hotbed of Republican taking points?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)should get out of the kitchen (to quote Harry S. Truman).
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But it's not useful in helping a Democrat elected.
Perhaps you all should take a page from Bernie's values.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)because they are a Democrat.
Kind of sounds like the reasons why we are asked to cheer for our high school football team to win. Though in that case, it is more because we know those that are on that football team than just that we are supporting a given "mascot" label for a football team. A little better reasoning in that case than just voting for a "Democrat" just because they are a Democrat and not caring what they stand for at all.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Attacking is not necessary to win?
No one is saying you should vote for her by the way. You may need to read the OP again.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I've spoken out about ISSUES. Issues that if I were seeing her handle better, would give me a better feel for supporting her for president. Given her past history on many ISSUES, and the way she's not handling ISSUES like the TPP, H-1B Visas, and her desire to move to a privatized unaccountable email system for herself and presumably other politicians, then I still have many concerns. If on these ISSUES she would now:
1) Come out and say that the practice of H-1B program outsourcing has been abused, and we really don't need to expand this, but we need to work more towards free bachelors degree education for our high tech grads like they get in places like India, and streamline regular immigration processes for them to come here and compete for jobs on an even playing field where they are needed.
2) Come out and say that the TPP agreement is not working in the best interests of Americans and that she's concerned about how it was put together with many corporate leaders writing the details for it for years beforehand, and that it has been done in secret from the rest of us, and that details show processes like the ISDS and Medicare funding provisions show that it is flawed and not deserving of our support. Say something like "Please if you want to help me bring back America in 2016, you will vote these bills down and I'll work to restore American jobs through other means then."
3) ideally she should have done this earlier, but perhaps now she could say that she should have earlier stated that she had a lot of concerns (and be as specific as she can be to all of us or at least some governmental oversight entities), with our IT infrastructure that had her feel the justified need to move to private control of her emails. And recommend ways that she and those helping her with this email infrastructure recommend us doing to improve our government owned infrastructure, so that the system with more accountability could be trusted by all, and not leave us open to those privatizing email and really using it to foster corruption in our government, even if it is not her (and I don't have any specific reasons like the right is trying to claim that she is doing anything corrupt with them either).
If she were to do things like this and perhaps in other areas where there have been questions as to who she really serves, then I'd probably jump in to help campaign for her, and I think many others would too. But she isn't doing this yet, so I still look to those like Bernie Sanders who I do feel is running a decent campaign and championing good positions on issues I care about. I wouldn't elect him for a beauty contest, but I would elect him for being a decent representative of me and 99% of Americans. That is hardly an attack on Hillary Clinton. Just choosing someone now that I believe is working for me. Hillary could change that equation, but time is running out for me on what she could do to show that it isn't just all "talk" that even Obama was guilty of last election in many instances.
If there were other corporate candidates in the nomination process, I would speak out against issues that they supported or didn't support that are at odds with what I perceive I and many Americans want. And I certainly have NO feelings of any kind of representation from those in the Republican Party, which for most of us here goes without saying. I would have concern over Senator Biden as well if he were to run with his past in pushing through the bankruptcy bill, presumably to help the interests of so many "Delaware" corporations that were headquartered in his state then.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)on to defeat McInsane handily in the General Election, after first deposing the heir apparent. IOW, the primary campaign in 2008 did not damage Obama's chances one iota. But you want HRC to coast to the nomination this time and not have to fight for it. I see your game. I ain't playing. HRC has to explain why she voted for the Iraq War using logic that rises above the head of a five year old. Or she's unqualified to be POTUS. It's really that simple.
She's had 7 years now to think about it and to justify her AUMF vote. She hasn't done so and clings obstinately to the same set of BS that got her defeated in 2008.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Try again. He is the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)fawning over him in the infamous photo.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I think most liberals support the announced candidates.
If you're talking about folks on a message board, then I think you are taking a message board way too seriously.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)big foot.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Any far left media outlets like the Nation, and Truthout, or various far left writers for Salon, and Slate, and Huffpo then you may be out of your element for this discussion topic.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)A few individuals might be a little more left then the flagship they work for.
Thus is left.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)'far left'.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Tell us all about the landmark legislation passed by the far left's elected candidates.
Shouldn't take long since there isn't any.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)they love to go on and on about the "liberal" media
frylock
(34,825 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)bahahahahahaha!!!
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)the far lefts seeking the perfect candidate than by Reagan and a rescue mission gone bad.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Just more proof that its dumb to eat our own.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm just saying. [URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)My OP was not intended as an entry into a popularity contest.
But 908 views and no one can explain how over the top screeds against Democrats keeps a Dem in the WH.
NOW THAT says something.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Dems left DU a long time ago.
Response to MaggieD (Reply #124)
Post removed
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)it's the salvation of our Democracy, and Comprehensive facts don't Lie, Hillary does and beating up other Democrats won't only hand it to Jeb, yes Heb because ' Those People ' don't hold the people they support accountable, they just want to win at any cost, even if that cost is the planet and our civilization .
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)was the only time in our history beating up from within, gave it hands down to the other side, we're still paying for that . What are you first an American or a Democrat ?
eridani
(51,907 posts)And fuck those people who still think that the New Deal was a great idea, and cutting Social Security is a bad idea.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... End the war?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But he didn't. Because he was murdered. And the left had already torn down all the rest of our candidates.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)anyone who say's they are but aren't .
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)..... Without co-opting right wing talking points about other Democrats and helping republicans win.
One thing is for sure - most of Bernie's supporters sure don't agree with him about negative campaigning.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)are we ?
eridani
(51,907 posts)The 1948 version of Hubert was a flaming firebrand populist--too bad he didn't show up on the campaign trail.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)feel the need attack her all the time.
I am not talking about challenging but attacking needlessly.
Hillary will rise above these attacks.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)That term is used very loosely on DU. Criticism is not an attack.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)
Would you prefer a dictatorship?
The whole point of a govt of, by and for the people that governs at the consent of the governed is that the people are supposed to have a voice. What good does it do to have a voice if you can't criticize?
Response to cui bono (Reply #175)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 12:09 AM - Edit history (4)
You edited the post at 3:02pm. Well after your post of 2:42pm that I am now replying to in which you ask if I read your post.
[/IMG]That is very dishonest of you to then question whether I read your post or not, when the post that I read said "no criticism is healthy". You took the time to edit your "no criticism is healthy" post but didn't bother to edit your accusatory post to me. That's really bad form. Did you think I didn't know how to see the post had been edited? Did you think I would forget that there had been no comma before and that in fact you had posted "no criticism is healthy"?
Why would you not just say, "oops, I forgot the comma that's not what I meant to say"? The only reason I can figure is that you are purposely trying to make me look bad. Or after reading my post you changed your mind and didn't want to admit it. Either way, still bad form.
SMH
Response to cui bono (Reply #231)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My apologies!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)Good for you
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)too!
I can't take any so called democrat seriously who wants to knock off the only democrat who can win in 2016 for an unknown independent , not even a democrat, no one in real life has heard of!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)honestly think they won't rip Hillary apart, Jebs party doesn't put much stock in honesty and integrity, we do .
StevieM
(10,500 posts)The other candidates, like Scott Walker, can. Which is scary.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And the attacks on Hillary then were 10 times worse than now.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
(of vanilla ice cream that is)
WestSideStory
(91 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Problem solved with the best of all solutions.
Everyone supports Bernie and we get a president who will absolutely, uabashedly fight for the 99% for each and every one of the 'justices' that exist.
ananda
(28,866 posts)
Warpy
(111,274 posts)Funny, I don't recall that happening.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)read upwards from this one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6685931
frylock
(34,825 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
840high
(17,196 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)Not to a party.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)..... On that then?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and have wanted to ask where candidates stand on them, and through talking about it a lot, would LIKE to push Hillary to come forward and exercise the leadership qualifications she wants to show us and tell us how she feels on these topics instead of avoiding them, so that her stances, and her explanations for stances, can be out there to help convince us she's right that it works for us if she can really make that case. i'm open for her explanations of what she feels about it, but she at first has to choose "which side are you on" as the song goes and to make judgements ultimately which this office demands of a president, sometimes VERY quickly... We aren't voting for Miss America. We are voting for president and who will best work for us there on the issues. I think Bernie wants that contest to happen, and I'm with him there, as are many here that are being called out in many cases for "attacking" Hillary.
I'm waiting for her to do her job to convince me why she's working for us. If I just "didn't like her, period", then that would be a pointless effort on her part. But I'm not saying that. I'm open to her coming out and being truthful to us so that we can make the best judgement of who should lead us. We're just trying to push her to do that, not attacking her and saying she's "doomed".
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's your claim, based 100% on the fact that there are liberals who prefer a different candidate, and nothing else.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)They all would be better than anything the Republicants will put up.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Kind of fails as a rallying cry, but keep pushing it if it works for you.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Recs? Not so much.
G_j
(40,367 posts)you said is factually wrong. eom
liberal N proud
(60,336 posts)But you are spot on.
still_one
(92,219 posts)
Depaysement
(1,835 posts). . . might think it prudent to try to persuade people to vote for Hillary for reasons other than "electibility" rather than drive potential voters away.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I'm going to be as polite as possible. What you clearly don't know about American history would just about fill the Grand Canyon.
Nixon won because he committed treason. No, I am no kidding. Bush took Florida because 200k right-wing Democrats voted for him there.
JEB
(4,748 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And why can't you just defend Hillary's positions instead of crying all the time?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this person is giving me a hunkering for Vanilla and management KNOWS it.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There was a reason why we turned on LBJ. There was a reason why Gene McCarthy started a primary challenge from the left.
Vietnam. 1968.
We lost around 17,000 of our soldiers that year, that was over 300 dead every week. At the same time we were slaughtering the people of Vietnam in astounding numbers. Our own estimates were on the order of 250,000 combatants that year, the number of civilian casualties may never be known.
This isn't a team sport.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Never before have so called liberals and Democrats fought so hard to elect someone that is so far off the mark as a liberal. The "front runner" is a corporatist that; voted for the war in Iraq and supported it vehemently, uses the biggest mouth piece corporations and big banks have as a main adviser (who also threatened Elizabeth Warren), that championed the TPP and is now too afraid to voice an opinion on it (just screams leadership) and has consistently wanted, has worked for and voted to make life harder on the poor.
You use Johnson in your example and say that got us Nixon. Care to explain? Especially since they didn't run against each other.
Gore didn't lose the election. Fact.
This doesn't make you anything but undemocratic. Sanders can win the election. We get to have primaries and we get to vote for the person we want.
Hillary may be more electable in the general because the Republicans love her
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)As for the rest, I see just as much tearing down of Sanders as I do of Clinton. We need to spend more time getting people to vote for Democrats -- and spread the common sense reality of a liberal agenda -- rather than tearing each other down.
In 2016, I'll vote for the Democrat.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is mainly right wingers. She is wildly popular with the left. All factions of the left. Spend a day here and you might not come away with that impression. You also need to see that some of her opposition here has a thing for Andrew Malcolm. That should tell you something. The Gowdy crowd is making a run to take her down. Don't us DU as a barometer for her popularity. She is extremely popular among left leaning circles.
