General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFuck That! I'm Fighting.
For once in my life I have someone that I can proudly vote for. Someone genuine who has a forty plus years long unabated record of acting on the behalf of the people.
You nattering nabobs of negativity are totally harshing my mellow. By crying UNELECTABLE you are effectively turning good FDR Democrats into complacent oil for the gears of the vast post industrialist oligarchic machine. Fuck that, I'm not oil, I'm fighting.
The facts are that a strong populist showing happened in 2014. The people who care about populist issues supported referendum after referendum as strongly progressive initiatives were passed.
Yet we hear the piper's drones echoing he can't win daily, nay, hourly. Fuck that. I'm fighting.
We hear about a grumpy uncle with the wind tossed shock and rumpled suit. I'll get back to the suit. Let me tell you about that iconic hair. The wind doesn't move it, the force does. Grumpy? Fuck all yeah. We can use some grumpiness in the White House about how the people are treated. I have yet to see unjustified (Steve Irwin voice) Oooo, he's grumpy (/SIv) I see it when he's pissed off that people aren't cared for, which by the way, happens to be the whole fucking point of a god damned democratic republic. I get (SIv) grummpay (/SIv) about that shit too.
We hear about age, I've seen comparisons to Raygun's lost mental capacity. The dude is as vigorous as a Jedi fucking night. I challenge you to keep his itinerary and then disagree. Why do you think that suit is rumpled? It sees action.
For you young folk out there, I got one thing that is a once in a lifetime opportunity. A genuine candidate I can place total faith in to do what's right as I see right. Don't believe me? Look at the actions in the past 40+ fucking years and see how they align with your personal values. Once in a lifetime. I guaranfuckingtee it, unless it's for his second term.
Unfucking electable?
Fuck. That. I'm. Fighting.
Won't you please join me?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That kind of a comment would be what you'd expect at a comedy improv when someone in the audience yells, "Spiro Agnew smoking weed at a press conference!"
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I just hit the goog and I had no idea that was an Agnew line!
Your reply is so much more funny now.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.'
California Republican state convention on September 11, 1970
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)gort
(687 posts)Nt.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . the 9th grade.
Which is how young I was the day that Agnew spewed that horseshit.
And yet, I remember his worthless ass to this very day.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I usually, quite frankly, DESPISE these threads that play the "J'accuse!!" card.
But your post made this one entirely worthwhile! I don't even need to keep reading!
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Whom am I accusing of what? I tried to not be accusatory.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your words suggest that some mendacious force is somehow, in some vague way, trying to prevent you from doing that fighting you're "fuck that" yelling about. You're accusing unseen forces of attempting to impede you in some vague way from doing that "fighting."
No one is impeding you. Go on and do what you'd like. Make your choices, more power to you, but don't imply some great "To The Ramparts!!!!" battle when it ain't happening.
The "nattering nabobs" was hilarious, though. Made the whole exercise worthwhile.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I'm not intending to fight some mendacious force that exists. Rather I'm railing against a notion that exists in the wild.
At least I was entertaining to someone, always a plus.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)that I ably guessed at what the meat of the matter was gonna be. That said, I AM with you as regards the content. Bernie has as big a chance as we afford him. So let's afford him that chance.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)He is worth fighting for.
polichick
(37,569 posts)Planet Earth is worth fighting for.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Finding things to smear him with is going to be difficult, not that there won't be a multi million dollar effort to do so.
He is VERY electable which is why they are so scared.
He's probably the last chance we will get to begin the job of pulling this country out of the ditch it has been driven into over the past number of decades.
I'm not about to blow that chance, and I think, neither are millions of other voters!
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Bernie makes all the DLC and Third Way assholes piss their pants...
Not to mention the Adelsons and Kochs...Holy moly! They may not get a Wall Street shill to run against...we can see the angst all over...
But, but it was supposed to be so simple...whoever won...Dem or Repukian...wouldn't matter 'cause the oligarchs owned both parties...Then Bernie decided to run...end of their dream...
Bernie is the best...
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)The Kochs are going to spend $889 million by themselves. The GOP candidate will likely raise another billion dollars. How does Sanders intend to combat this?
I like Sanders but this is the primary process and I will support the candidate who is most viable in the general election. I have seen nothing to convince me that Bernie is viable but I would love to see some proof
RichVRichV
(885 posts)One thing I learned in business a long time ago. Ads are great for brand recognition, but if you want to draw people in nothing comes close to word of mouth. A referral from someone trusted is worth a thousand ads. It works the same in politics. Ground game is a major reason Obama beat Clinton in 2008 and went on to become president.
Right now Bernie has 100,000 volunteers and the campaign season has just started. By general the number of volunteers is going to be way larger getting the word of mouth out for him. Once people get to know Bernie they like him and what he believes in.
Bernie doesn't have to spend billions attacking anyone. He just has to spend enough to get his message across. The ground game will keep growing and handle the rest.
Besides, we're getting to the point social media trumps tv. And on social media all the money in the world can't trump viral.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)Radio still has some value to most who can't afford to pay for SiriusXM, as workers are trapped in their cars for the hour's commute. Social media carries the most weight with anyone under 60 y/o.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)From what I have seen, Sanders is gearing to raise $50 million and that would not be sufficient to run a viable campaign
RichVRichV
(885 posts)I'm pretty sure his objective is to raise $50M for the primary. If he's the Democratic nominee for the general he will get a much wider backing from party affiliates and virtually every union out there. He'll have a much bigger pool of money for the general.
He won't get the kind of money the republican nominee will have. However since he doesn't run attack ads, he won't need that kind of money.
That doesn't even take into account the Democratic PAC money spent. He may not accept it, but that doesn't mean it won't get pumped into the race against the republicans. If Hillary loses the primary that doesn't mean everyone is going to go sit on their thumbs and concede defeat. Many groups will push for whoever has a (D) after their name come generals. There's a lot of money out there and it's going to get spent one way or another. If it doesn't get spent on him we're going to have a hell of a lot of congress people with a sudden influx of advertising for them.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)Your analysis is based on the theory that money does not matter in the political process and that attack ads do not work. From what I have seen, $50 million will be a reach for Sanders and that is not enough to build GOTV organizations. HRC is bringing back the old 50 state strategy which will take real money. Sanders theory appears to be that money does not matter and I simply do not believe that this belief is realistic.
The primary process is for the candidates to be tested. I look forward to see in Sanders' theory that money does not matter works. In the mean time, I will be working on GOTV efforts and voter protection efforts. In Texas, we were hit hard by the Texas voter suppression/voter id law and the party needs to do some work to deal with a possible adverse ruling by the 5th Cir. and/or the SCOTUS on this issue.
GOTV and voter protection efforts require money and I doubt that Sanders will be able to fund these operations on what I am hearing is his budget. I will be happy to be proven wrong but that will take Sanders polling more than 20%
RichVRichV
(885 posts)If money wasn't important we wouldn't be fighting so hard to get it out of politics. It has corrupted our system from top to bottom. Most politicians aren't strong enough to stand up against it. But money isn't the end all be all of everything.
Here's the thing, you've got a candidate who has a proven track record a mile long of things people across the spectrum strongly agree with. He can appeal to most everyone that listens to his message, including a large block of people who are disenfranchised with the status quo and are hard to get to the polls. He's running on a major party ticket, not as a third party fringe. He already has over a hundred thousand volunteers (and growing) ready to fight for him in his first two weeks of declaring.
Yet in your mind he's unelectable for one simple reason, there's only one check box he doesn't check, he can only raise a piddly 50 million dollars for the primaries. To you not having obscene levels of cash is the one great disqualifier. If you're not bought and paid for you're not a real contender. Think about what you're really advocating for or against, it's not candidates.
I still believe that as long as it's one person one vote then even the all mighty dollar can be overcome by a large enough movement. You state that a movement can't be done without sufficient money. I state that movements have never been driven by money, not throughout history. Disgust for what is, desire for change, for betterment, is what has always driven movements. Bernie has always had great ideas. But what makes him much more dangerous to the status quo is he inspires people. He fearlessly shows us what could be instead of accepting what is. That's the candidate I choose to fight for.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)Sanders may be popular on DU but DU does not represent or reflect the Democratic Party as a whole. HRC polling numbers are holding up very well despite constant attacks by GOP wantabes and the media. Sanders is largely unknown to the general population and the issues that excite you and the other DUers will also tend to keep the base at large from getting excited. The last polling that I saw had HRC with between 60% and 80% of the democratic vote. Those numbers are impressive and are the basis of Senator Reid's observations
Again, Senator Reid's comments in the OP are based on political realities. Most people right now do not see Sanders as a viable general election candidate. This may change during the primary process.
As for the role of money, it was Obama's fundraising machine that helped him win in 2008 and again in 2012. Money played a very important role in both of these victories. This cycle will see the GOP and the Kochs spend more than 2 billion dollars and I do not believe that Sanders can counter that. I remember the 1972 campaign well and a populist message by itself is not sufficient to overcome the advantage of money and organization.
I wish you good luck in your support of Sanders. I really do like Sanders as a person and if he is the nominee, I will support him. However for now, I am unconvinced that Sanders is viable.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)Your analysis ignores the role of cash in the current campaign finance system. I hate Citizens United and want it overturn but cash controls a number of key things including TV adverstising and buidling infrastructure for a nationwide campaign. It takes money to fund get out the vote operations and I do not see Sanders being able to raise the money necessary to fund such an operation.
I am happy with the concept that HRC is bringing back the 50 state strategy and will be looking at all states. I am not naive and I know that at some point even HRC will be focusing on battleground states. I have been volunteering in voter protection efforts since 2004 (and even went to Florida for Kerry Edwards). We need a broad base GOTV effort and that will take money.
Social media is nice but it will not trump TV and social media has not proven that effective by itself on GOTV.
Again, I like Sanders but I am concerned about his viablity in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $889 million and Jeb or Walker will be spending another billion dollars.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)GOTV campaigns are a fraction of the cost of advertising, even when you have to pay the workforce. In Sander's case he already has a pool of 100k volunteers to draw from. So all he really has to cover is the cost of the lead organizers, local headquarter rentals, and material to hand out.
I've been involved in volunteer work with not for profits for 25 years. I know what can be done on a shoestring budget when you have a volunteer workforce, the answer is a lot. Ground games are about organization, not about money. Bernie already has the workforce to support him, whether he can succeed or not is going to depend on how well he puts us to use.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)That took money and that effort let him develop the organization and grass roots support for two amazing races. In my county in 2014, we spent $150,000 for GOTV and got killed in part due to a bad cycle and in part due to voter id. Sanders is talking about raising the same that Wendy Davis spent just in Texas for a nationwide campaign.
I personally like Sanders but I really do not see how he is viable and his polling numbers with the Democratic base do not inspire a great deal of confidence. We are in the primary process and we will see if Bernie can mobilize voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Right now, I am supporting HRC because I know that she can run a viable campaign and raise enough funds to be competitive. If I see any meaningful organization and support for Sanders, I may re-evaluate my position but right now I do not see Sanders being viable.
The SCOTUS is up for control in this cycle. I am reluctant to gamble control of the court for the next generation on the untested theory that money does not matter in politics and that one can win with just grassroots support and no money. That concept failed in 1972 and I do not think that it will work now under Citizens United.
I will support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. In the primary process, I will support the most viable general election candidate and right now that candidate is HRC by a long ways which is the premise on which Senator Reid's statement (from the OP) is based.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)but the republicans already control SCOTUS. They've already been screwing this country up for a generation. Voting based on fear of losing something we've already lost is completely illogical.
Nearly half the people in this country vote republican. Why do you think that is? It's not because they have better policies than we do. It's not because they have a better message. It's because no matter how lunatic they are they will stand up and fight for it. A bad message spoken loudly trumps no message at all.
Meanwhile the Democrats are busy trying to triangulate, we're scared to take chances that might cost us something. That's why we can't draw in all those independents that make up such a large portion of the voting block. We keep giving them no reason to choose our side. Our message is way better than the republican's message, our policies are way better than the republican's policies. We're just too scared to fight for it, afraid of losing what little we have left.
If you want to vote for Hillary because you believe that she's the best option for this country then great! I support that completely. But to vote for someone because you're scared of losing is exactly why this country is in the messed up state it is. We keep giving ground and the republicans keep taking it.
This isn't 1972. The country is in way worse shape now. People are way worse off. The population is ready for a change. All Obama had to do was say "Hope and Change" over and over and he inspired millions of people. You think someone who is an absolute populist can't do that and much more?
You can do what you want, I'm not giving up my country without a fight.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)Your analysis is simply wrong. Control of the SCOTUS is a key election in this cycle
If the GOP wins in 2016, then the GOP will control three or four nominations that will affect the control of the SCOTUS. Nader's stupidity gave the GOP two nominees (Roberts and Alito) who gave us Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
I am not comfortable letting a candidate who is not viable be the nominee of the party given the consequences. I am not convinced at all that Sanders is viable and Senator Reid's comments were based on this truth. I think that HRC is both the most qualified candidate and the best option for our country. I am not willing to give the GOP control of the SCOTUS for a generation in order to push a candidate who can not win in November.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)especially on this site where the facts about that election were well documented, but Nader had zero to do with the theft of that election.
Gore won the election, despite all the illegal efforts to suppress the vote for which many people should have gone to jail. Once it became apparent that all their efforts had failed, the Bush gang turned to their buddies on the Supreme Court as a last resort.
That was an unconstitutional interference in an election and Democrats never should have agreed to it.
I wish people would stop defending those five felons. Especially here.
Imo Hillary is not viable. She is popular ONLY with about half the Dem base.
The biggest voting bloc in this country right now is the Independent vote, a vote anyone from the Establishment will not get.
Bernie is going to get that all important vote.
Nothing personal, but you are out of touch with the mood of voters in this country.
You are basing your opinions on the way things WERE.
The money you believe is important to win, is exactly what may lose this election for Wall St Funded Candidates.
Things have changed radically even since the last election where signs of those changes were apparent to those of us who have kept up with the changes.
The poisonous effects of money in politics will be a major issue in this election and those who are taking it are going to have to explain how they will represent the people when they are so beholden to their donors.
Bernie doesn't have that issue, but his presence in the race is going to highlight the corrosive effects of that bribery on our system.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)There is a book that I love called from the Manson case prosecutor that calls the five justices who appointed W traitors and accuse them of treason. The book is based on this article http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason# My family actually had Amazon deliver copies of this book to each of the five traitors a long time ago.
Due to Nader's stupidity, W was able to replace two of the traitors with far more conservatives justices and as a result we have Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. The only way that the SCOTUS has a chance to steal that election was due to the fact that the vote totals were so close in Florida due to Nader's stupidity. Nader gave W the victory and as a result we have a much more conservative SCOTUS.
The next POTUS will get to replace three to five justices on the SCOTUS and these nominees will affect the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation. This is a key issue.
As to whether HRC is out of touch, I will let the primaries decide. I am yet to be convinced that Sanders is viable in a general election but I have some hope that HRC can raise the funds necessary to keep the race competitive. Things have changed since the last election and it will take money and organization to keep the GOP from stealing the election. I note for example that Mark Elias (one of HRC's attorney) is suing in Ohio on early voting issues and it is going to take a massive GOTV and voter protection issue to counter the GOP's attempts to steal the election. Both of these efforts take money
AGain, I am comfortable to let the primary process play out and we will let the Democratic base decide which candidate is more viable.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)He will be very effective in choosing SC justices who will abide by the laws of this country.
I am aware of that Bugliosi's book. Nader had zero to do with the theft of that election no matter how many times you repeat it. We have a legal process for elections in this country, Nader's candidacy was perfectly legal and if you believe that American citizens are 'stupid' to take advantage of their rights to run in elections, then you do not respect that legal process.
The crime that handed the election to the loser, is the MAIN reason for what happened in 2000. Other factors the caused fewer votes for Gore, were OTHER illegal actions taken to prevent people from voting. The 'Felon List' eg, not to mention the voting machines run by Republicans etc etc etc etc.
To single out one legal act and even attempt to blame the multiple illegal acts that took place during that elelction topped off by the MAIN criminal act of the Felonious Five, is simply ludicrous and only serves to diminish all the other criminal acts that led to the MAIN crime.
You may as well blame all those Democrats who voted for Bush. But to do that would also be pointing AWAY from all the crimes committed to something that was legal.
When a race is lost, it is generally due to the candidate not being able to win voters' confidence, period.
But in 2000, that was not the case, Gore overcame all the criminal activity engaged in to try to stop him but was finally the victim of the criminal decision made by the SC. Nothing else, no legal action taken by voters or other candidates caused the loss of that election. To say so means not acknowledging the enormous crime that took place.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I would add that it was the so called "Reagan Democrats" that brought this country to a place that allowed the SCOTUS to illegally decide an election.
Whining about Nader is just sour grapes.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)My vote will be earned and not given out of fear of losing.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)Bernie may have volunteers in some typical democratic strongholds but you need volunteers in battleground states where the base will not be as liberal as here on DU. GOTV efforts are not cheap in that even with volunteers you need computer support, telephone support and an organization to oversee the operations.
Unless the 100K volunteers are in battleground states, Bernie will need money to be competitive. I am not convinced that you do not need advertising and other forms of media in a nationwide race.
Why do you think all his volunteers are from liberal strongholds? Do you think people are only getting crushed in liberal strongholds? People are fed up with the way our government is going all over the country. They're fed up of being left behind and left out everywhere.
To give an example, I live in Southern Illinois. It usually votes around 55% Republican, 45% Democrat. I'd hardly call that a liberal stronghold. People of all walks of life in this area feel like our government is corrupt and out of their control, whether they're Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Third Party. And Bernie's ideas have resonated with the people I've talked to, regardless of party affiliation.
And if you think computer support and telephone support are costly then you need to find some good IT specialists to help you out. Those costs are trivial when you do it in house. And that's assuming volunteers don't use their own cell phones, which is how a lot of phone banks work now.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)We have a while and the primary process is designed to show the strenghts and weaknesses of the candidate. I really think that you do not understand the magnitude of the job in organizaing a true national campaign but I would be happy to be proved wrong.
Again, during the primary process I will be looking at a number of factors and the viability of the eventual nominee is a key element. Right now Bernie is down 50% to HRC in one poll and HRC has an 87% rating with African American voters. Bernie is going to have work hard to overcome these numbers
RichVRichV
(885 posts)So far the only factor you've brought up is so called "viability". Surely you've got a better reason than just that to support Hillary over Bernie. Or is your entire basis for supporting someone triangulation?
And if it's the general election you're so worried about then how he's polling against Hillary is irrelivent. Instead pay attention to how he's polling against republicans.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I would have to go back into 2014 Texas Group archives, but I seem to recall you advocating, for some 'not a chance in hell' candidates, just because you liked them.
Gothmog
(154,176 posts)We still went with the strongest candidate
Here I do not think that Sanders is the strongest general election candidate and that this election is a winnable election if the Democrats and HRC do not blow it
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I'm like you too. I'm flabbergasted at how the same people who complain about inequality ( and rightly so ) are so so quick to accept the "oh well, I guess that's just the way it is" as they exhort us to be lucky to try to get a the lesser of two oligarchic regimes.
We have a chance at a genuine populist as a president of the United States, and what do we hear? Complaints that it will dilute support for their own "not as bad as the republicans" choice.
I tell you, it's the craziest.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)that fight-therefore "Populist Trail-blazer Bernie" is Worth supporting.
I had ignored all week, listening to Bill de Blasio's new Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality....I watched it this morning. First off I am delighted to see Sen Merkley sign on. He, for awhile was making me nervous over the TPP amongst other things.
But there is a different tone, a more "Sanders style" of reality in their words this time.
I'm glad I watched it and if you haven't, please, if you are so inclined...go watch it.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325992-1/progressive-agenda-combat-income-inequality-news-conference
Maybe there's something different happening after all this time.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)cause the front runner to lose the general election so we should always support the front runner. The poster seems to have forgotten what happened in 2008 when the primary front runner was beaten. Hillary would have lost that general election just as she will this one if she wins the nomination. Republican lite will always lose to Republican.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)100% for Sanders, my contribution money and campaign work time is all in.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)However, the whole debate on "is he electable" or "isn't he electable" will be decided soon in the primaries.
Until then it is just all message board noise, don't take it so emotionally.
kentuck
(112,676 posts)I'm with you!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Millennials.
And all those who sat on their hands in 2010 and 2014.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Don't blame it on millennials, this millenial got you Elizabeth Warren.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Simply observing a lack of enthusiasm for lesser evil candidates.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Millennial a also helped get us Obama... He was also seen as the lesser of two "evils" by some people.
That didn't pan out for you did it?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)From talking to friends of my kids.
Pan out? I would love to be wrong.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)feel betrayed by the "Hope & Change" that was promised by Obama but rarely delivered.
They are stressed and cynical about any politician that sounds too good to be true.
For me it is important to point out that Sanders is a what you see is what you get sort of candidate. Sometimes he is rough around the edges, his hair is tussled, but he is congruent and consistent in his populist FDR Democratic policies and stances.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)No one can tell me Bernie is "unelectable" because I was there, in 1968,
to see how a repressed populist impulse for peace & justice can literally
rise up out of the dust to shake the nation, redirecting the trajectory of
history.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)They shot him.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I worked for Kennedy in Oregon and California.
Bernie knows that too, bless his big courageous heart.
He's in the fight of his life.
Which is just one more of many reasons I'm in this fight too,
We have a lot of work to do, but we can do it.
We're long over due for another Smedley Butler Moment,
to expose the real traitors and terrorists .. IMHO.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Not quite aware, not quite in the dark.
I agree the next year or so will be momentous.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Always have been.
polichick
(37,569 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
1monster
(11,026 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And appload all that you said.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)My husband and I have donated money four times and pledged to volunteer. Whatever the Sanders campaign needs, we're there. Bernie is the candidate of a lifetime for me, and since I'm a baby boomer, that's saying something.
K&R
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but don't plan to work any primary campaign ... I will, however, work Party voter registration and GOTV efforts; and then, will work the hell on the campaign of the Democratic nominee!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)"Don't give up the ship. Fight her till she sinks." -- Capt., James Lawrence, USN, commanding USS Chesapeake, last orders, May 31, 1812.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Fucking trolls.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)"...for I intend to go in harm's way." -- Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778, in a letter to le Ray de Chaumont.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,748 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)....let it begin here."
my ancestor Captain John Parker, Lexington, 1775.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Knew I liked you for a reason, grasswire! My ancestors were there, too.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Could be!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)My dad's side traces back to a cousin who married one of Ben Franklin's sisters.
Which explains a lot.
Faux pas
(15,347 posts)calikid
(624 posts)Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)I will give Bernie my full support. I still believe that Elizabeth Warren will eventually run. But if she's not in the race by 2016, I will give up hoping on her, and help Bernie's campaign.
Simply put, it is well past time for America to elect a female leader. But if we FAIL to elect a TRUE Progressive as our next leader, there will BE NO TIME ever again. To elect anyone. The Country simply cannot withstand another Republican-Lite for President. Not even if she sat on the board of freaking Wal-Mart and has the big banks drinking champagne out of her shoe!!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They obviously know it isn't true, because they PRETEND to be liberals. They lie every campaign.
Hillary is out there insulting us right now, pretending to care about income inequality, even though she is bankrolled by the predators. Even while she pushes H1B visas that take jobs from Americans. Claiming to give a damn even though she is an author of the predatory TPP.
They know her record is shit. That is why we get this obscene, manipulative parade of baiting talking points to divert from the conversations about actual policy: If you oppose such and such policy that Hillary supports, you are agreeing with a Republican! If you oppose HRC's policies, you are just like Republicans who are against her!
Always the baiting and manipulation. Never an OP laying out her agenda and arguing why she would best represent the 99 percent.
Because they can't.
And because that's how corporate politicians want elections to be in the new, non-representative oligarchy. Pure theater. Jerry Springer bullshit.
The nation is hungry for something better. Bernie is a threat to this vapid faux democracy they are trying to build. He is exactly what we need right now, and he is showing tremendous courage taking on the corrupt machine that is now the United States government and political process.
I hope he is being very careful about his personal safety, because this campaign is going to catch fire, and our deep state is not going to like that one little bit.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)he starts to look like he might win. Before he gets to that point he would do well to team up with Warren if possible. "They" could explain away one lone nut killing but taking both out would be too obvious.
I think they are more sophisticated than that anyway for the most part, they now have a record of everything everyone has ever said in public or on the internet, and it is pretty easy to discredit someone with that kind of info power.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And she won't say a word about the TPP. We don't actually need a word either.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And hopefully in the General, too!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Totally.
No more Third Way. No more compromise on Democratic issues.
Oldtimeralso
(1,942 posts)What did you say "No more Third Way" or no more turd way?
chapdrum
(930 posts)I'm with you.
I also hope to live long enough to see the system-gaming, government-disrespecting Bush family pack up and move to their apparently purchased 18,000 acres (atop a huge aquifer; no unseemly scrapping for water) in Paraguay.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yay, Bernie!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Call to Action and Reason, I love it !!!!!!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)can win an election. Doesn't help anyone to have two political parties who enrich themselves by selling the middle class to Wall Street.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)what have we gained ?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)we haven't gained anything. However, the Democratic Party just like the Republican Party is run like a corporation. As a corporation, the priorities are exactly in this order:
1. Enumeration in the form of cash, benefits, entitlements/privileges for officers and executive staff.
2. Enumeration in the form of financial profit for investors.
3. Delivering the minimum possible services to a consumer base such that #1 and #2 are maximized (that's 99% of us).
The product for consumers can be the illusion associated with a sophisticated marketing campaign. You'll notice that Hillary's ad campaign has all the authenticity of one of those pharmaceutical ads that show how one little pill can create happy, healthy, above average people. Dig down into the science and you'll discover that the drug may not have any benefit at all for people in desperate need of relief and the side effects potentially debilitating.
Ok, you made it this far. What's my point?
The Democratic Party, as a corporation, is winning on points #1 and #2 without expending any capital on #3. Any MBA would call this an excellent management system. In-bound profits are maximized, outbound services are minimized.
The Democratic Party leadership core is fundamentally tasked with balancing the perception of value without compromising their objectives #1 and #2.
Of course, we gain almost nothing, while the 1% gain almost everything.
The system is working perfectly as designed.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)To me that term would be REALLY worth having him in. And if he were to have a running mate like Elizabeth Warren, I would LOVE to have her inherit the mantle as a VP often does in the years following a given presidents's administration. Having a decent running mate inherit his position also makes him winning even only one term worth it!
TBF
(34,184 posts)lol - right there with you hoot!
tritsofme
(18,380 posts)Because the reality that he is very clearly not is a source of irritation to you.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It's that people who align closer with his positions that the electable ones are not supporting him because they've bought into the electability myth.
I expect better of people. I'm kind of like that. I also wish I had the mojo to get a myth like that accepted.
Why do you think Bernie isn't a serious contender? Is it myth or issues?
brewens
(15,359 posts)kacekwl
(7,477 posts)not style please. I'd take determined frown over a fake smile any day.
stage left
(3,016 posts)"Let me tell you about that iconic hair. The wind doesn't move it, the force does." Bernie Sanders starring in "The Return of the Jedi".
beemer27
(510 posts)I really don't care if he has a chance of winning. There is finally a candidate that I can believe in, AND feel good about voting for. It will be a unique experience to vote FOR a candidate instead of voting against a candidate. I will be able to leave the voting booth without that yucky feeling that I have had the last few elections.
By the way, "nattering nabobs of negativity" was a nice touch. I haven't heard that in a long time.
Go Bernie !!!
lexington filly
(239 posts)behind closed doors to his donors and what he'd say publicly are one and the same. It kinda makes me feel---dare I say the word?---trusting.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)The coming presidential race has me having a strange feeling. A sense of finality, or a huge importance perhaps is a better description. If I do not stand and point to the guy with the answers, I should be implicated in a turning of a new leaf that will be disastrous for the country.
It feels like it may be the final chance for the serfs to rise up and take back the land we have been pouring our love and labor into, before we are completely locked out by the overlords.
If HRC is the party's nominee, I will give her my vote, but I am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. I know it won't give me the same sense of satisfaction it would if I could mark that box for Bernie.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)These are interesting times.
Things are coming to a head.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We lose big either way.
Sorry, that's just the way I feel. (NAFTA, the Telcommunications Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley)
narnian60
(3,510 posts)Bookmarking this sucker.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)That would make a good icon, Jackpine, got one more in you?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)I'll be damned if I listen to any of the negative bullshit.
Bernie is the real deal and I'll be working for him in my area.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)A black name with a strange name.....never going to happen. That didn't stop me from voting for him, because I thought he was the best choice. It won't stop me this time either.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And, may I say, as I usually do
I'm not giving up just cause I keep standing upwind of the nattering nabobs.
We see someone who not only speaks to us now, but has been, as you say
All those older clips of Bernie on CSPAN
Thank GOD they preserve the message then, as now.
NOW
more than ever, cause frankly, we have it in our reach. He has arrived.
Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)for all of us who have sent Bernie money and will campaign for him, none of us will work as hard as he will in the coming months. I've seen his windblown (and sticking up straight) glorious white hair and his tired eyes and his gravely voice, and I see a person who sets a fine example for us. He is a leader with a stellar record and an honest, progressive vision, and I'm going to do my damndest to keep up with him.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)that Americans will vote for a person they agree with?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Bernie!
[url=http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons.php][img][/img][/url]
eridani
(51,907 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Wow is right.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)I hate it when I see Democrats say Bernie cant win
fuck that
Yes, I know my wording implies that I think he cant win, no, I think he can, but I am just saying that we can support him and not cut our noses off to spite our face too
nattering naboobs
hey, i resemble that remark
Evergreen Emerald
(13,095 posts)MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Great! Let the stalking begin!
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Hell ya!
Autumn
(46,181 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Just wondering what steps you plan to take to fight.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Seeking out young non voters and getting them registered and explain what's going on to them.
Getting signatures on primary petitions to be sure Bernie is on the ballot in my state.
DirtyHippyBastard
(217 posts)I can tell you from personal experience that the young voters are very open to Bernie's message.
An example- my nephew is a 20 something newly graduated chiropractor. He is now saddled with a debt for his education that would probably push me into deep depression (about 200K !!!). He has a newly awakened interest in politics, and I made a comment in passing that he should take a look at Bernie on youtube. He now posts daily Bernie-isms on his Facebook page, and has mentioned Bernie to his friends, some of whom considered themselves conservatives, and all have had favorable reactions to Bernie's message. I'm sure Bernie's little appearance on CNN yesterday and his announcement of his introduction of new legislation will only add to the snowball that is support from younger adults.
I figure that one mention of Sanders, by me to my nephew, has resulted in more than 20 more supporters taking notice and entering the fight to spread the message. It is easy to see from my perspective how this could explode into a much wider support for such an "un-charismatic" guy. Now, if we can just get the media talking heads to mention that HRC actually has someone running against her, but that's for another discussion
And, anyone who says he isn't electable doesn't remember what happened 8 years ago
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Around ninety percent or more of posting members here have said they are voting for Sanders in the primary. It is that overwhelming. Your mellow wasn't very mellow if such few people have such an enormous impact on you.