HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I am a Democrat and a Wom...

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:47 AM

I am a Democrat and a Woman...

I am voting for Hillary Clinton by using my brain and listening to my heart. For someone to suggest I am voting for her merely because I have a vagina is insulting, condescending and does not win you or your chosen candidate any favors.

I am a Democrat and a woman and I support Hillary Clinton. As a Hillary supporter and a woman, I support Women's Rights and so does Hillary. As a Hillary supporter and a woman, I am supporting the candidate that I believe best understands and supports Women's Rights and Issues and under that umbrella, I also support Planned Parenthood....an organization that has been supporting women for over 100 years.

It saddens me to see some people feel the need to punish Planned Parenthood by withdrawing their monetary support for such an outstanding organization that actually gives a damn about women's health because of some sort of political expediency. I am a Democrat and I support all women, regardless of who they are voting for. I am a woman and I do not insult other women just because they don't support my chosen candidate.

229 replies, 9984 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 229 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am a Democrat and a Woman... (Original post)
BooScout Jan 2016 OP
djean111 Jan 2016 #1
Squinch Jan 2016 #27
msrizzo Jan 2016 #41
Bubzer Jan 2016 #83
peacebird Jan 2016 #108
CreekDog Jan 2016 #124
randys1 Jan 2016 #152
Bubzer Jan 2016 #196
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #181
Bubzer Jan 2016 #195
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #202
Bubzer Jan 2016 #205
synergie Jan 2016 #137
BlueCaliDem Jan 2016 #151
synergie Jan 2016 #153
msrizzo Jan 2016 #166
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #145
Name removed Jan 2016 #207
cali Jan 2016 #2
sufrommich Jan 2016 #3
BooScout Jan 2016 #5
Vattel Jan 2016 #120
BooScout Jan 2016 #170
Cha Jan 2016 #17
Cary Jan 2016 #18
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #134
Cary Jan 2016 #136
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #139
Cary Jan 2016 #140
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #143
Cary Jan 2016 #147
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #150
Cary Jan 2016 #157
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #163
Cary Jan 2016 #167
Cary Jan 2016 #169
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #171
Cary Jan 2016 #175
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #177
Cary Jan 2016 #194
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #197
Cary Jan 2016 #200
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #203
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #176
treestar Jan 2016 #149
Cary Jan 2016 #156
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #159
treestar Jan 2016 #208
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #217
treestar Jan 2016 #221
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #223
eomer Jan 2016 #179
treestar Jan 2016 #209
eomer Jan 2016 #215
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #225
eomer Jan 2016 #182
treestar Jan 2016 #210
Vattel Jan 2016 #212
treestar Jan 2016 #213
Vattel Jan 2016 #214
treestar Jan 2016 #219
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #226
Vattel Jan 2016 #228
treestar Jan 2016 #222
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #227
Vattel Jan 2016 #229
eomer Jan 2016 #218
treestar Jan 2016 #220
eomer Jan 2016 #224
one_voice Jan 2016 #158
Cary Jan 2016 #160
one_voice Jan 2016 #161
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #162
Cary Jan 2016 #164
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #173
BooScout Jan 2016 #211
one_voice Jan 2016 #168
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #146
Cary Jan 2016 #148
Politicub Jan 2016 #33
Ken Burch Jan 2016 #125
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #185
JTFrog Jan 2016 #63
denvine Jan 2016 #66
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #70
denvine Jan 2016 #198
treestar Jan 2016 #86
Armstead Jan 2016 #117
denvine Jan 2016 #199
CreekDog Jan 2016 #87
Armstead Jan 2016 #118
CreekDog Jan 2016 #123
joshcryer Jan 2016 #119
BlueMTexpat Jan 2016 #131
DFW Jan 2016 #193
denvine Jan 2016 #201
BlueCaliDem Jan 2016 #79
CreekDog Jan 2016 #88
kz5 Jan 2016 #101
MoonRiver Jan 2016 #112
kz5 Jan 2016 #99
joshcryer Jan 2016 #121
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #122
sufrommich Jan 2016 #130
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #133
Gloria Jan 2016 #154
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #183
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #188
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #191
rhett o rick Jan 2016 #204
fredamae Jan 2016 #4
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #14
fredamae Jan 2016 #20
BooScout Jan 2016 #23
fredamae Jan 2016 #38
BooScout Jan 2016 #39
fredamae Jan 2016 #43
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #111
Cha Jan 2016 #6
BooScout Jan 2016 #8
Cha Jan 2016 #10
BooScout Jan 2016 #16
UtahLib Jan 2016 #7
Cha Jan 2016 #12
Cary Jan 2016 #19
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #9
Cal33 Jan 2016 #32
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #110
Cal33 Jan 2016 #141
haikugal Jan 2016 #11
Cal33 Jan 2016 #142
immoderate Jan 2016 #13
Cary Jan 2016 #22
immoderate Jan 2016 #24
Cary Jan 2016 #26
immoderate Jan 2016 #31
Cary Jan 2016 #37
immoderate Jan 2016 #44
Cary Jan 2016 #49
immoderate Jan 2016 #55
Cary Jan 2016 #67
immoderate Jan 2016 #94
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #50
immoderate Jan 2016 #57
uponit7771 Jan 2016 #60
kz5 Jan 2016 #97
immoderate Jan 2016 #98
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #100
kz5 Jan 2016 #102
geek tragedy Jan 2016 #103
immoderate Jan 2016 #109
lonestarnot Jan 2016 #15
Cary Jan 2016 #25
msrizzo Jan 2016 #58
NCTraveler Jan 2016 #21
TBF Jan 2016 #28
BlueMTexpat Jan 2016 #132
Bleacher Creature Jan 2016 #29
Spazito Jan 2016 #30
Starry Messenger Jan 2016 #34
Tom Rinaldo Jan 2016 #35
MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #77
raindaddy Jan 2016 #36
Bobbie Jo Jan 2016 #40
LexVegas Jan 2016 #42
CreekDog Jan 2016 #90
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2016 #216
bigwillq Jan 2016 #45
mcar Jan 2016 #46
LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #47
DhhD Jan 2016 #48
msrizzo Jan 2016 #53
synergie Jan 2016 #138
stupidicus Jan 2016 #51
leftofcool Jan 2016 #61
stupidicus Jan 2016 #71
leftofcool Jan 2016 #91
stupidicus Jan 2016 #192
Helen Borg Jan 2016 #52
synergie Jan 2016 #155
ejbr Jan 2016 #54
unapatriciated Jan 2016 #56
mountain grammy Jan 2016 #92
unapatriciated Jan 2016 #104
Kentonio Jan 2016 #135
JRLeft Jan 2016 #59
leftofcool Jan 2016 #62
JRLeft Jan 2016 #64
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #187
sus453 Jan 2016 #65
ejbr Jan 2016 #73
eggplant Jan 2016 #68
BooScout Jan 2016 #69
eggplant Jan 2016 #72
BooScout Jan 2016 #74
Babel_17 Jan 2016 #113
MeNMyVolt Jan 2016 #75
Fred75 Jan 2016 #76
Autumn Jan 2016 #78
BlueCaliDem Jan 2016 #80
pangaia Jan 2016 #81
BooScout Jan 2016 #82
Alfresco Jan 2016 #84
treestar Jan 2016 #85
Bubzer Jan 2016 #89
liberalnarb Jan 2016 #93
BooScout Jan 2016 #107
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #189
kz5 Jan 2016 #95
RichVRichV Jan 2016 #96
seabeyond Jan 2016 #105
Iliyah Jan 2016 #106
Babel_17 Jan 2016 #114
Cha Jan 2016 #115
betsuni Jan 2016 #116
merrily Jan 2016 #126
cheapdate Jan 2016 #127
SheilaT Jan 2016 #128
eridani Jan 2016 #129
artislife Jan 2016 #165
Aerows Jan 2016 #174
ismnotwasm Jan 2016 #144
Aerows Jan 2016 #172
Chemisse Jan 2016 #178
ronnykmarshall Jan 2016 #180
BooScout Jan 2016 #184
DrDan Jan 2016 #186
Beacool Jan 2016 #190
oasis Jan 2016 #206

Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:51 AM

1. Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Hillary Clinton was presented here as

 

"if you stand with Planned Parenthood, they support Hillary Clinton, so you should too, if you stand with Planned Parenthood".
Pretty off-putting, and the one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Guaranteed shit-storm, and I don't think it worked out as well as was hoped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:35 AM

27. I seem to remember being told by Bernie supporters that we are not allowed to judge a candidate

by his supporters. That SHOULD extend to: let's not pull our support for PP because of an OP on DU that we don't like.

But, yeah. Let's have a snit and stop contributing to PP. Let's see how that works out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #27)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:55 AM

41. It's sad to me.

I will continue my support and I suspect that many others will as well. And hope that just as Bernie fundraises on being frozen out by the DNC that Planned Parenthood will be able to make up the difference by appealing to supporters that their brave decision to endorse Hillary Clinton has cost them support from the Bernie wing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msrizzo (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:32 PM

83. Quid-pro-quo is not brave... its corruption. It's the 1 percent supporting itself....as ussual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:38 PM

108. Kid-Pro-Quo..... Definitely the 1% supporting itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:12 AM

124. Lily Adams salary is nowhere near enough to put her in the 1%

Your logic is not logical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peacebird (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:13 PM

152. So punish PP..good idea there. sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randys1 (Reply #152)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:33 PM

196. So, do you then believe that coruption should not be punished?

I ask because this has a direct quid-pro-quo aspect to it... even the appearance of which has, in the past, been enough to trigger legal battles, fines, careers lost, and even jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:11 PM

181. Turd way?

How fucking childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnykmarshall (Reply #181)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:29 PM

195. And yet so accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bubzer (Reply #195)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 09:59 PM

202. and yet so accurate

that you are childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnykmarshall (Reply #202)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:16 AM

205. Personal attacks will get you nowhere. Well, unless you're trying to get in good with third way.

In which case, keep it up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msrizzo (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:10 AM

137. I don't think that the people whining and throwing tantrums are the majority of Bernie supporters

 

nor do I think many of them actually donate to PP if something like this would cause them to cut off support when they're most in need of financial support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:10 PM

151. I believe you're right, synergie.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #151)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:18 PM

153. Thank you! I've already been banned from the BS group for daring to question some of the

 

anti-choice propaganda they were quoting to make themselves feel better about taking money away from Planned Parenthood, to lash back against the political committee. Didn't mention one word about Bernie!

The welcome is much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #153)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:32 PM

166. Sorry that happened to you.

I feel that people will calm down. My real life friends who support Sanders were not happy that PP endorsed Clinton but most of them are long time PP supporters and donors and they would never try to retaliate against PP, although I can't swear they didn't leave a few choice words on the PP Facebook page, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:37 PM

145. What About The Poor Economy That Will NOT Be Corrected Under Clinton Inc.?

A Better and more Fair Economy will most certainly result from a Sanders Revolution.

Ya think that might help women in general much more than a mere illusion of help for women as presented by Hillary as the candidate who is less likely to win the Presidency than The Revolution of young and new voters as well as Crossover support for Bernie that will NOT be generated by a HRC Nomination.

In fact, ingrained voter antipathy toward Clinton Inc. will lower the probability of a Democrat winning the POTUS. This cannot be ignored!

BTW, I have not heard anywhere that Bernie is somehow less augured toward advancing rights for women e.g., Sanders proposal for a $15 Dollar Minimum wage over Hillary's feeble response at $12 Bucks an hour...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #145)


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:53 AM

2. As is your right.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:54 AM

3. I don't think I've seen anything as upsetting to me

as this attack on Planned Parenthood,it literally makes me feel sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:56 AM

5. I feel the same...

It literally makes me want to weep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:00 AM

120. you'll get over it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #120)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:10 PM

170. Will the women and families helped by PP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:23 AM

17. But, so sadly predictable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

18. I don't see how one can attack PP like that and still claim to be liberal.

It is pure malice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 09:30 AM

134. The criticism is not for the organization or what it does, but for a leadership that

 

has made a decision that will bring harm to the organization. A decision that is purely political and divisive to our Party. The decision will affect the good work the organization does. We are fighting this corruption of our political process where the wealthy think they can buy everything, including the White House. We need change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #134)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 10:29 AM

136. I have yet to see the radical left matter in real life

Irrelevance is a hallmark of radical leftism, along with a lot of whining.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #136)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:28 AM

139. Easy for you to disparage something you call "radical left" but can you define the radical left?

 

What issues do the "radical left" support that you disagree with?

Here is a partial list of what "the radical left" supports:

Strengthening Social Security (e.g., raising the cap)
Opposing job killing "Free Trade" agreements
opposed to fracking for oil company profits over people's water
Helping college students afford college (telling them to get a job doesn't cut it)
Making major corps pay their fair share of taxes
Ending the unregulated domestic spying
Ending drone killing of terrorist "suspects" in foreign lands
Reducing the defense budget
Taking a hard stand against torture and indefinite detention.
Ending the militarization of our local police forces.
Ending Prisons for Profits
Legalizing marijuana esp. for medical use.
Funding rebuilding our neglected infrastructure.
Single payer health insurance.
Regulation of Wall Street (e.g. reinstate Glass-Steagall)
Break up the big bank and media monopolies.

Please add those I've missed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:11 PM

140. Radical as in I want it all my way, right now.

Or I take my bat and ball and go home.

Radical as in cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Radical as in "I don't care if we have no substantive policy differences you just suck because I say so."

Radical as in being odious and utterly obnoxious and claiming it's the victims' fault

You know very well what I mean by the radical left. Oh, and radical in being obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #140)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:21 PM

143. So you agree with the issues, you just don't want your freedoms and liberties "right now".

 

So would you say that our founders were "radical"? How about Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.?

You think that demanding that Social Security be strengthened in lieu of privatized is radical? Fighting to keep jobs in America is radical? Trying to get health care for the 16,000,000 American children living in poverty, is radical? How about fighting to keep police from killing POC on our streets?

What I hear is that you might want the 50 million living in poverty to have a better life but you won't demand that we do something about it. You are ok with waiting to see if the wealthy 1% and their lackeys might do something about it.

We have lost many of our Constitutional Rights and if you call me radical because I want them back, then call me radical. But where does that put you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:48 PM

147. I left that off my list.

Although hearing only what you want to hear is more of a tactic, I suppose.

If you were to actually listen to me I would suggest that there is something called a practical reality. I believe that has to be taken into account.

For example "conservatism" is a dangerous ideology. That is reality. A Democratic victory in November isncritical: a practical reality. There is a lot at stake: a practical reality. Democrats will be constrained by asshole Republicans: a practical reality. Blaming Democrats for Republican treason is dysfunctional: a practical reality.

I have enough experience with the radical left to know that these practical realities do not register. I will be told what I think and I will be accused. It never fails, and it never matters because there are never enough radical leftists to matter. And there never will be enough to matter.

Now listening to: Dulcinea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #147)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:09 PM

150. Conservatism is a dangerous reality. That's why I am not supporting the Conservative Wing

 

of the Democratic Party. The one that accepts the Patriot Act and votes to invade Iraq. The conservative wing doesn't agree with my list. They want to see oil profits instead of clean water from fracking. Conservatives are championing the TPP and fracking.

The radical left is fighting for the 99% while the conservative Dems are accepting money from the wealthy 1%.

If we continue to allow the wealthy 1% run our government we will see the continuation of the looting of the 99%. That's the reality that some seem to be ok with. They disparage those of us that are fighting for the rights and welfare of the 99%. They call us "radicals" because we don't sit down and shut up. We don't drink the kool-aid dished out by the wealthy Oligarchy.

Reality is that we are fighting a class war and the Conservative Dems are on the side of the wealthy 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #150)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:45 PM

157. So did Don Quixote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #157)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:27 PM

163. We now have an American Aristocracy. Our founders would encourage us to fight that

 

and not worship them. One can't support those among us living in poverty by worshiping the Wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #163)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:32 PM

167. We do.

It is the age old struggle, some elite verses the masses. You can trace the dialectic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #163)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:01 PM

169. I think it would do you good to step out of that ideological bubble

What are you adding? What do you have to offer?

I want those policies and really I don't see your precious radicalism as an asset. All I see is practical Democrats making incremental progress, and you calling us names for it.

Why do we need you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #169)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:20 PM

171. There has been no "incrmental progress" for those that have been gunned down

 

by the police, nor those locked up in the Prisons For Profits. No "incremental progress" for our infrastructure as we watch it crumble before us. How about jobs, wages, unions, etc. We have been falling farther and farther behind for the last 30 years. The big banks are consolidating as are the big media giants. The profits for the wealthy have been going up like crazy while we have more infant mortality than any other modern nation. No incremental progress for the 50,000,000 living in poverty. Obamacare was progress until the insurance corps learned how to work around it. We've made no gains in SS, Medicare or Medicaid coverage. Wealth inequality has been growing and growing while your "practical" Democrats fiddle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #171)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:40 PM

175. I know the problems

This is where practicality and reality come in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #175)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:43 PM

177. Sorry but I am not taking the blue pill. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #177)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:10 PM

194. Ha!

If I were you I would prefer the Don Quixote metaphor. But if you prefer to be an untreated ED sufferer I won't argue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #194)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:33 PM

197. Really?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #197)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:56 PM

200. Either way it's not my problem

At this point Iike my odds and Iike that I haven't painted myself into some silly corner based on some ideology.

You see it otherwise but seem content to not achieve penetration. Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #200)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:02 AM

203. Of course you seem content to side with the Oligarchy because actually fighting to help

 

people is too hard. We have the highest rate of infant mortality and you are content with the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #169)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:40 PM

176. Accept what our masters give us and be thankful. Isn't that what you mean?

 

I think that millions of Americans are tired of the way things are going. Tired of just taking it. Tired of losing their homes, jobs, retirements, health care, while the wealthy don't pay their share and get wealthier and wealthier. I volunteer at a foodbank and believe me things are getting worse and not better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:06 PM

149. Mention a constitutional right that has been lost

I see only expansion. For example the finding that gay marriage is required due to equal protection (well it always was, but it is not recognized).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:44 PM

156. Totally

That is practical, incremental progress. It works.

Chasing windmills makes for great stage plays and musicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:17 PM

159. Habeas Corpus. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #159)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:57 AM

208. Please cite evidence that habeas corpus no longer exists in the US

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #208)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:47 PM

217. Are you going to make me do the research, even though you are fully aware of the

 

laws?

"On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[30][31] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2015."

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention_without_trial

One of the legacies of the Obama Presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #217)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:51 PM

221. Someone can still challenge that law if applied to them

in court, citing that the law somehow violates the 4th or 5th Amendment, so the rights we have are still rights we can enforce. Mere passage of legislation we don't agree with does not mean that any constitutional right is gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #221)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:44 PM

223. Let me see if I get your point. Just because a bad law is passed it's ok until actually used.

 

Totally weird. I disagree. Someone can get picked up if authorized by the President and held indefinitely and be within the law. You say that's ok because they can challenge the law. In the meantime they can be mistreated because they have no representation. Kinda like what happened to Jose Padilla. The courts eventually found that he was being detained illegally but by then he had been tortured into insanity. No one was punished for violating his rights. This can happen today and by the time it got to the SCOTUS it would be years. And no punishment for those violating the rights.

Indefinite Detention is law of the land. The President, by law, has the power to designate who is to be detained. Habeas Corpus in this country is dead thanks to George Bush and Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:06 PM

179. Are you serious?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #179)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:58 AM

209. That amendment is still the law

in the US. The "are you serious" gas lighting is of no interest. Facts are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #209)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:43 PM

215. Our 4th amendment rights have clearly been eroded.

That's what the facts show and any serious look at our rights will begin with that obvious conclusion.

The extent and nature of the erosion could be a topic for serious discussion, but whether there's been erosion is not debatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #209)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:52 PM

225. The fact that it's still in the Constitution doesn't mean it's being enforced. We know we

 

are being spied on by the CIA/NSA without any oversight. Laws don't do any good unless they are enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:12 PM

182. And...

Amendment V

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #182)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:58 AM

210. That is still the law in this land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #210)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:15 AM

212. Come on, you know that the issue isn't whether these rights are still part of the Constitution.

 

The point is that many of these rights have been reduced either in practice by violations of them, or by Court decisions that have gutted them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #212)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:20 AM

213. What court decisions?

Not agreeing with a court decision does not mean the right has been "lost." That's exaggeration at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #213)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:16 AM

214. Lots of court decisions and executive and legislative acts have reduced various individual rights.

 

I agree that "lost" is misleading. "Narrowed" or "reduced" or "damaged" is better.

The right of habeas corpus and the right to due process, for example, were damaged by the Bush Administration's detainment practices and court decisions such as Hamdi v Bush (not sure my spelling is correct).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #214)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:48 PM

219. I'll have to review Hamdi v Bush

but I recall the courts knocked Bush back on most of his BS from that era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #219)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:55 PM

226. The courts did tell Bush, "Now cut that out", with no consequences. Didn't help Hamdi.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #219)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 10:00 PM

228. They knocked him back some, but not as much as Souter and Ginsberg would have liked.

 

Even Hamdi actually knocked Bush back a little, but not enough. I could list dozens of other SCOTUS decisions that have damaged our rights. Fourth amendment rights have been weakened by allowing things like stop-and-frisk without probable cause, eighth amendment rights have been weakened by rejecting the idea that any but the most grievously disproportionate punishments can violate be cruel and unusual, due process has been weakened by allowing indefinite detention without trial. It seems only the second amendment has fared really well in the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #214)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:56 PM

222. in the Hamdi case the court

agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #222)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:03 PM

227. LOL. Yep they did. But since there were no consequences for the violation of Hamdi's rights, what

 

good is the decision? Without consequences, what prevents the government from doing this again. Especially when they passed a law that says it's ok?

The government can lock anyone up without habeas corpus indefinitely per the law. Eventually, the courts may free the person, but without consequences for those that violated the rights of the individual, it's as if the law didn't matter. The government knows it can do it again and again.

Why was it written into the NDAA as law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #222)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 10:27 PM

229. The majority's notion of due process in that case is a joke.

 

Read Souter's dissent and Scalia's dissent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #210)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:50 PM

218. No, it's not.

Those are just words on paper at this point.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was assassinated by our government and this is now considered legal. We no longer can count on a guarantee that our government cannot kill us just because they decide to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #218)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 04:50 PM

220. Did someone appeal that decision

or file a lawsuit about it?

There is a difference between war abroad and not-war in the United States. You're creating a standard by which we would have to try each German soldier before killing them. I don't have to agree with the war to realize that once it is going on, only the rules of international law apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #220)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 08:48 PM

224. That 16-year-old was not engaged in any war.

And of course there are people being [strike]killed[/strike] murdered here in the U.S. by agents of government. They do it with impunity because of the government's de facto sponsoring of the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:04 PM

158. Yes, MLK was radical for his time...

and sadly he didn't get everything he wanted right away.

But we go backwards every time we demand we all or nothing--and this next part is important--when we know it can't happen. Look at the congress & the senate you could put Jesus Christ in the White House and those assholes would denounce Christianity.

I agree all those thing you listed are important, but I also know that NO ONE is going to get that list completed without help in the house. We need more Elizabeth Warrens that's what we need. Because let's be honest we're not going to get shit done with Joe Manchin.

You seem to think (accuse) people who don't want to do things exactly the way you do of caring less. That's not true. There is more than one way to do something.

There are two ways of getting to my house once you turn into my development. Neither way is wrong. Both get you to my front door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #158)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:18 PM

160. MLK was also practical

Malcolm X ultimately turned to MLK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:20 PM

161. Agreed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to one_voice (Reply #158)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:24 PM

162. I realize that we won't get all that we need, but I don't understand the acceptance of the

 

status quo that has and will continue to make things worse. The wealth gap is widening and we know that isn't good.

The difference I see is that one side wants to fight for 99% while the other side wants to accept what the wealthy give them. They call it pragmatism. I call it servitude.

For the last 30 - 40 years we've seen the wealth of the wealthy triple while the middle and working classes lose ground. A vote for the status quo means to me, acceptance. I see it as a moral issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #162)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:29 PM

164. So chase windmills

That's you're right. It's your choice.

No one can take your righteous indignation away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #164)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:27 PM

173. How sad that you feel so comfortable in life that you would disparage those that fight to

 

make this a better world for others. It's bad enough that we have to fight those trying to make things worse for the 99%, but to also have to struggle against those that are happy with the status quo is disheartening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #173)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 07:59 AM

211. Hi Rhett!

Thanks for so many kicks on my thread! Miss me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #162)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

168. I can't speak for everyone. But everyone I know...

want things to improve. Want the income inequality to change. Want affordable healthcare, college, decent paying jobs, etc.

I know people that support all three candidates, and I never see any of them disagree on the above. They may quibble some on exactly how to get there, but in the end there is agreement. This fighting that goes on on DU--I don't see 'in real life'

I've even seen a few conservative talking about crossing over to vote for the Democrats because it's gotten so bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #134)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:39 PM

146. Bernie Represents POSITIVE CHANGE While Clinton Inc., "Not So Much!"

!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #146)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:59 PM

148. Bernie is going to lose

I have said all along that I like him and would happily vote for him were he the candidate. I don't do cults of personality. The job of president is a job.

And the primary is not a general election so I am not going to off because of it, the way some people.here do.

I'm also not forgiving the radical left for what it tried to do to President Obama. I don't see sufficient remorse, let alone sensibility and rationality.

Extremism is toxic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:39 AM

33. Feeling the same way here

The attack on PP disgusts me beyond any of the other "feel the bern" tactics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:16 AM

125. It was equally disgusting for HRC to argue that the endorsement meant

 

that only HRC supporters "stood" with Planned Parenthood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:18 PM

185. I agree ..

I am so fucking sick of the #feelthebern and #bernieorbust bullshit here on various internet threads.

If PP endorsed Bernie, the Bernie folks would be throwing themselves on the ground saying shit like "Hillary is done" and the same bullshit they have spewed. God forbid ANY organization, Union, person that endorsed Hillary. They are quickly attacked by the Bernie folks here in GD-B.

Total fucking bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:24 AM

63. Definitely showing their true colors.

 

There seems to be a certain faction of so called progressive liberals here that jump at any opportunity to join hands with the Republicans. As long as they think it will somehow hurt Hillary. I thought they had jumped the shark when they started bringing up Monica and Vince Foster again. But this shit here is truly vile. There is no way that any of these people will ever regain my respect.

Fuck any and everyone who thinks it's ok to go after Planned Parenthood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

66. I am a liberal and a progressive

But Planned Parenthood should not have endorsed HRC. It is their first endorsement in a primary. Cecilia Richards is a friend of HRC and her daughter works for the HRC campaign. This was an insider connection endorsement. That is a huge mistake when Congress is trying to defund you. You need all the support you can to fund the good work you do, so to pick one person in a primary of candidates that all support you is a strategic mistake. I'm not surprised by the backlash. PP brought it upon themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:33 AM

70. There is also unprecedented attacks from the Right on PP

 

They are running at a fraction of the clinics that were operating just 2 years ago. While this might be their first endorsement, they have never been in this type of a fight before either...for their very existence. Hillary has a proven track record of promoting women's rights, bills and votes and policies. Bernie may have voted for such, but has never presented bills or done anything more than raise his hand and say "aye".

PP is endorsing a candidate they feel will actually accomplish the continuance of their very existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:39 PM

198. Again, a strategic mistake

They need all the support they can get at this time of Right Wing attacks. The backlash proves my point. If you want to talk about the health of all women, single payer insurance would insure the health of all. Where does Hillary stand on that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:38 PM

86. There are many reasons Hillary deserves their endorsement

There is common ground there. Hillary has fought for women's rights for years. And it is not surprising that leads to associating with people who fight for women's rights. This is really taking it very far. Like no one can associate for good or that's corrupt too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #86)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:54 PM

117. Bernie has commobn ground too, and I think if in the WH he'd fight hard to defemnd them

 

I think PP made an error (an understanement) by forcing this unnecessary addition to the primary friction.

The conventional wisdom is that Clinton will win the nomination. So what did they have to lose by waiting til then to endorse her against the GOP?

And if, by chance Sanders wins, they haven;t lost anything.

But they added a degree of discomfort for people who support Sanders and PP. It's just dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #117)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 07:41 PM

199. Thank you!

My point exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:40 PM

87. environmental groups have endorsed during the primaries, why shouldn't PP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #87)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:55 PM

118. They shouldn't have either

 

It's not like Bernie is an enemy of environmentalism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:06 AM

123. It's not your decision is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:59 PM

119. No rational reason to single out PP for their endorsement.

They chose not to endorse for 100 years. That shouldn't stop them from ever endorsing. I look at it this way, if they endorsed Sanders would I have a problem with it?

The fact that they broke tradition shows that they feel they have nothing to lose, and given the reaction by the so called left, it seems to have been self fulfilling.

Nobody in PP is regretting their decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:11 AM

131. One of the least heartening things about this primary cycle

is a comment like this that reflects an anti-PP mob mentality and conspiracy theories about PP's endorsement of HRC from "progressive" Dems.

This does not serve any Dems well, IMO. Even though the primaries are not over, Hillary's advocacy of PP is second to none and PP likely also took note that Hillary recognized its specific concerns in the Dem debates. Bernie's primary concern is income inequality, which affects everyone and is indeed vital. I love that he's putting this important issue up front and center. More power to him for that.

But the fact is that the war on women has been stepped up beyond fever pitch in recent years. The concerns of PP are almost as important to those of us who are supporters - no matter which Dem candidate they endorse whenever - as the concerns of BLM are to AAs. Yes, both groups recognize the broader issue of income inequality. But they also recognize specific ways in which income inequality affects women and AAs more than it ever will affect Caucasian males.

PP and BLM each represent issues within issues that the broad brush of "income inequality" does not specifically address. In respect to PP at least, Hillary acknowledged that before the American public in the debates and was the only Dem candidate to do so then. Thus, their endorsement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denvine (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:42 PM

193. Cecile (not Cecilia) Richards is also a good friend of Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina is editor of The Nation (and a friend of mine, incidentally), which supports Bernie. People at that level all know each other. Their friendships do not always follow their political allegiances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #193)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 08:04 PM

201. Sorry, I meant Cecile Richards! Typo!

With the attack on PP lately I just question why would they want their supporters to even be in the discussions we see happening on DU. It obviously has upset many people who are loyal supporters. Why would you do that when you know that any of the Democratic candidates are going to support you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:03 PM

79. I hear ya, sufrommich. It was pretty upsetting. PP and NARAL are powerful

organizations for women in all that they do. It totally took me aback when I saw so many attacks here and on FB because PP endorsed Hillary Clinton.

It upsets and saddens me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:42 PM

88. Those attacks on PP are horrendous and many seek to harm PP

The funny thing is I think most of us here who support Hillary for the nomination like Bernie and appreciate him, support him in many other ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:20 PM

101. Can't wait till primary season is over

Sick of democrats fighting democrats. The enemy is the republicans who have a scary agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kz5 (Reply #101)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:01 PM

112. A lot of these democrats aren't.

Just saying. Don't despair, I believe the true Democrats still support PP and other liberal organizations which endorse Clinton. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:13 PM

99. Good point

Direct the attacks at the republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:04 AM

121. I wasn't surprised when I saw it on Reddit.

But then I went to sleep and didn't think it would come here.

Saw it, made a post about ratfucking, got that post hidden. Then just threw my hands in the air.

You expect it from the unreliable Reddit crowd, not DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:20 AM

122. Planned Parenthood decided to enter the political fray. There was some quid pro quo involved

 

and they endorsed one Democratic candidate over the other two who also support them. They made the decision to be divisive and choose the side of the 1%. Maybe they were promised money. This is the corruption we need to end. HRC campaign has corrupted PP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:56 AM

130. There was no " quid pro quo" involved,that's an odious smear

that Sanders supporters made up out of thin air and spread throughout the internet. You took a grown woman who's done the same job for other campaigns and reduced her to a spoiled child who's mommy got her a job,you dragged her though the mud out of anger and revenge.Nobody really believes that a whole organization endorsed a candidate for a fucking job in Iowa and you know it.Now you're accusing PP of taking bribes and corruption,there's apparently no low that can't be reached with some of you. Sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 09:23 AM

133. The new great enthusasiam for Sen Sanders is because people see him as an honest

 

alternative to the dirty political games of the wealthy that think they can buy anything with their money. They think they can buy the loyalty of the DNC for their candidate and they think they can buy endorsements. They own the media and with Citizens United, they can buy candidates also. Sadly we have Democrats that choose to side with the super wealthy and Corp-Media instead of the 99%. They are willing to embrace Citizens United and the Corp-Media if they back their candidate. The wealthy believe they can do whatever it takes to win.

This decision by PP was most likely "encouraged" by the Clinton campaign. The decision is divisive to our Party but it's been obvious for some time that some in our Party don't care. It's win or nothing. This decision will hurt PP and the women that depend on them. But apparently that takes second string to political gain. The decision will hurt our Party and may jeopardize the General.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:18 PM

154. I would not characterize Sanders as

"honest" across the board.

He is a politician ....so, he is not holier than thou or anybody else...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:13 PM

183. Maybe they were promised money ......

Did you pull that out of your ass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnykmarshall (Reply #183)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:25 PM

188. It was a terrible decision that will cost the organization and the women counting on them.

 

But they had to make it political. Had to snub two Democratic candidates that are very serious supporters. And this will not help the ever growing divide in our Party and may effect the General. The HRC campaign is bound and determined to alienate those Democrats that don't fall in line. Hubris will be the death of the Democratic leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #188)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:31 PM

191. Well looks like I need to update ...

my monthly donation to support PP to make up for the assholes that have a crow bar up their butts for their support of Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnykmarshall (Reply #191)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:07 AM

204. What is ironic is that you pretend to support women's health but supporting the wealthy 1%

 

will not help women or anyone else in the 99%. When your 1% is through looting the 99% we won't have anything to donate.

I hate to break it to you but the Oligarchy that you apparently worship, doesn't love you and they won't help social justice causes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:56 AM

4. I know how you feel

"For someone to suggest I am voting for her merely because I have a vagina is insulting, condescending and does not win you or your chosen candidate any favors."


In my case: "For anyone to suggest I Must vote for a candidate Because she is a woman is insulting....." etc
As if-because I am a woman that I am some sort of "traitor" to women everywhere-because I don't support this candidate-based upon gender-is demoralizing, short-sighted and personally insulting to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:11 AM

14. I have not seen suggesting I must vote for the woman, I have been accused of not being

a Democrat if I am not supporting Sanders, called names, had nasty remarks and other remarks I do not appreciate. I am not supporting Hillary because she is a woman, I support her because of her qualifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:26 AM

20. Then you are in support

of your candidate for all the correct reasons....
I have no problem with anyone who supports a different candidate. That's healthy..but please don't lay some superficial insignificant "stuff" on me (nor you). Make the case...on Policy, Record etc why candidate A/B/C is the best choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BooScout (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:52 AM

38. I wasn't challenging

your statement of support for your candidate/position. I am pointing out this issue (complaint) is mirrored from Both sides.
I believe we should stick to the actual issues and lose the focus on the "insignificant fluff".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:53 AM

39. I agree on that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #39)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:57 AM

43. :) "thumbs up" n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fredamae (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:57 PM

111. Exactly, it is policy, record, experience and ability to take current

information and make a decision, may not be the decision made ten years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:57 AM

6. Voting for Hillary with my heart and my brain. And, so many strong, intelligent, independent

women are with us!

Shameless plug~ Thank you, Boo!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110733187

I think Planned Parenthood will be fine.. so many caring people in our country are helped by them.. and they're appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:01 AM

8. It isn't a shameless plug...

It inspired me to write this OP. Strong, intelligent women like you and Hillary inspire me every day of my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:03 AM

10. Oh sweet, Boo. the feeling is quite

mutual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:18 AM

16. Cha, my friend...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 09:58 AM

7. Very well said. I find it best to ignore the more vicious and vindictive among us. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UtahLib (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:04 AM

12. I'm right there with ya, UtahLib~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UtahLib (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:25 AM

19. They will prove to be irrelevant.

They always do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:02 AM

9. To be very honest, if Sanders or MOM had the same qualifications I would gladly support them.

Hillary is the most qualified candidate running so for me it is a very easy decision. I have wanted to see a woman president in my lifetime but it still has to be a qualified person, we have already seen what a not qualified president looks like with George W, don't want another of those in my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:38 AM

32. Would you vote for Elizabeth Warren if she were running? She and Bernie have the same political

 

views that I have. It doesn't matter to me which one of these two I vote for. I see eye to eye with
both of them. O'Malley is all right with me, too. I'm glad he is running. He's relatively unknown.
He'll get the exposure by running this time. It will help him in 4 or 8 years. He is young enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal33 (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:55 PM

110. It would still remain the most qualified, if I found Elizabeth Warren I would vote

for Elizabeth Warren and it would not depend on the fact she is a female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:15 PM

141. Good for you. Yes, gender should make no difference.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:04 AM

11. Then as a democrat, and a woman you would not have a problem with

my voting for Bernie because he supports women's right to self determination when it comes to abortion. He does not limit his support by adding 'and rare' to his support.

Many of us learned that what you see and hear from candidates is who they are, their history. We heard from everyone how liberal Obama was, how he was the face of change for our country. Many of us questioned how 'liberal' he really was. We were sold on Obama, but he's a third way democrat, not liberal, a Reagan democrat. I don't think people will make that mistake again. We are done with having our candidates chosen for us by the establishment.

I want a liberal. I will vote for a liberal. Hillary is no liberal.

Planned parenthood hurt themselves with this because it's inappropriate for them to endorse before the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to haikugal (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:19 PM

142. Agreed. I feel the same way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:10 AM

13. Hillary, like Bill and Barack, is a Reaganite.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:29 AM

22. Over the top ridiculousness.

It's Iike calling Lincoln a racist. Sure, if you take Lincoln out of his time and place he sounds racist. But you can't take him out of his time and his place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:32 AM

24. Trickle down is what it is.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:34 AM

26. It's a lie.

So is attributing it to Clinton and PBO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:38 AM

31. It's a lie that works for them.

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:51 AM

37. Presidents don't make laws.

Like I said to be honest and fair you have to consider time and place. Sure Clinton signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley. But it kind of matters that it passed with a veto proof majority.

You can cherry pick and use your retrospectoscope and pretty much say whatever you want. And apparently that's what you do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:58 AM

44. Can you cite an instance where Hil, Bill, or Barack denounced Reagan or Reaganomics?

 

I'll be here.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:12 AM

49. Given the fact that "supply-side economics"

Is primarily about the dumb and totally erroneous idea that you increase tax revenue when you cut taxes, I would say that they spoke.

Further they cut military spending and increased social programs.

I don't know whether they called it out by name and frankly don't care. I care about policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:19 AM

55. You are being modest. Romneycare?

 

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:27 AM

67. It was an incremental improvement

We took what we could get. Social Security wasn't perfect either. It was improved.

Ironically Reagan improved it with one of his 5 tax increases.

I do reality, not ideology. I know that's not easy for you to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:57 PM

94. No. The opposite. An excremental improvement.

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:14 AM

50. This is absurd at best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:20 AM

57. And true at worst.

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:22 AM

60. Not even close to reality looking at relative facts, not ONE of the lionized dem prez's in the past

... have a perfect record

NOT ONE...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:07 PM

97. Uh no

Hillary and Bill and Barack are far closer to Bernie than Reagan. On the other hand The leading republicans in the polls are worse than Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kz5 (Reply #97)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:12 PM

98. Would Bernie have appointed Geithner?

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #98)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:16 PM

100. no, and neither would have a republican. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:26 PM

102. There's going to be quibbles with every candidate

I haven't agreed with every decision made by every democrat, but compared with the awful republican presidential candidates I'll take any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kz5 (Reply #102)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:29 PM

103. yeah, I think people lose sight of the giant difference between

 

suboptimal Democrats and the least bad Republicans.

Geithner was not a good appointment, neither was Larry Summers. But compare their ideology to the Republicans and it's night and day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:50 PM

109. He did work for Kissinger Associates, and headed the NY Reserve Bank during Bush.

 

He's a Bildeberger, but maybe as a protege of Summers and Rubin he might have lost out. I saw where he might have become McCain's nominee had he been elected. That's in wiki. You should correct them.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:11 AM

15. My vote transcends race and gender, My best interests in issues for both the planet and

 

my economic security as an American worker are represented by the candidate who recognizes the threat imposed by richie rich ruling class. The candidate who has spoken to, and convinced me that, the candidate that will protect workers and their rights, the one who believes in more equitable distributions of the country's wealth among its citizens. Poverty is the root cause of America becoming two Americas, the one for the rich the other for the poor. That would be Bernie. Does not mean I will not support Hillary should she win the nomination. I think the vote should transcend a penis or vagina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:32 AM

25. The next president, if a Democrat, will make incremental progress.

And this person will he constrained by the millstone around our necks: Republicans.

George W. Bush was catastrophic. If Republicans win it will be worse than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:21 AM

58. I guess I am officially getting old.

I am starting to feel a little ill at ease with all this penis and vagina talk in political discourse. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:28 AM

21. K&R nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:35 AM

28. I don't agree with the PP endorsement

but I certainly still support the organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:23 AM

132. Good for you!

We can disagree about candidates but we can certainly agree about the worthy purpose of PP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:36 AM

29. Huge K&R!!! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:36 AM

30. Well said!

Denigrating women by reducing us to body parts is beyond appalling and is even more egregious when done BY a woman, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:40 AM

34. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:41 AM

35. Of course you make pefect sense

It is as absurd to think that a woman should vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman as it was to think that a black should vote for Barack Obama just because he is black.

And if it a factor in your decision that is fair also. It was a factor in my supporting her in 2008. It is not crazy or sexist to suggest that efforts to break up the exclusivity of powerful all male or all white institutions does not advance a social good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:48 AM

77. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:42 AM

36. Personally the question is, why would Planned Parenthood endorse Hillary in the midst of a primary..

when there are three Democratic candidates running for President?

I think we can assume that the supporters of all the candidates support Planned Parenthood.. So if the organization's real focus is keeping Planned Parenthood vital and functioning into the future why would they risk alienating millions of Sander's and O'Malley supporters by not waiting for the primary to endorse a candidate?

It makes no sense for the organization and smacks of political cronyism. Given all of the bull shit coming out of the DNC I can see why Sanders supporters are fed up..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:54 AM

40. Excellent post, Boo.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:56 AM

42. I would like to see Sanders shut down the sexist element among his followers.

Like McCain did with the racists when he ran against Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:45 PM

90. Yes I agree

some of the posts here are so over the top, I wonder if they are actually Bernie supporters or instead, are here for other reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:46 PM

216. What should he say? What examples should he cite?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:59 AM

45. I am a Democrat and not a Woman

 

I am voting for Bernie Sanders by using my brain and listening to my heart, and not because Bernie has a penis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:59 AM

46. This whole line of "reasoning" is a really odd

campaign strategy on the part of Senator Sanders.

I, too, make my voting decisions based on my brain and my heart. Planned Parenthood's endorsement, along with the hundreds of other excellent endorsements just reaffirm that decision. For anyone to suggest otherwise is insulting and demeaning.

Cutting off funding for PP because of this is counterproductive, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:10 AM

47. I think that Susan Sarandon's statement is caricaturistic

of Hollywood Liberal pretense at intellectual and moral superiority. Hillary Clinton's anatomy is the physical vessel that engenders her social experience. Being a woman is highly relevant in any society's power structure, and politics is the means by which we organize power from chaos. And in America, it's time.

From this male's perspective, I don't think that women need to be shy about supporting Hillary because she is a woman, of course that is not the only reason people suport her. I support Hillary for many reasons, but especially because she's a woman, and mostly because she is Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:11 AM

48. A service organization aligning itself to a political candidate could push at least 50%

of its patrons away, IMO. There has got to be another reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:17 AM

53. Who do you mean by "its patrons."

Do you mean donors or patients?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 11:11 AM

138. Well, they're not pushing anyone away. All you're hearing from is a few people howling with the

 

feelings of rejection of their chosen candidate, making up numbers to justify their outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:16 AM

51. oh boo hoo

 

they changed the dynamics by sticking their nose into a place they never have before. That alone makes their action suspect and justifies in whole or in part the negative reactions.

whether you HC supporters like it or not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:23 AM

61. Here's ya a tip: Don't donate or support them

Because that will show those uppity women whose boss, right? Sheesh! Ya'll need to get a grip. PP can support who they damn well please any time they please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:36 AM

71. here's a tip -- learn how to read for meaning

 

present and intended, and not to imbue it with meaning that was neither present nor intended.

Nobody wrote a damn thing about denying PP their right to endorse or who to endorse, and those with the negative reactions are just as entitled to them as PP is to cause them with this self-inflicted wound.

well, except with HC supporting hypocrites that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:46 PM

91. I'm so sorry Bernie didn't get this coveted endorsement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:36 PM

192. thanks for conceding the validity of my observations and accompanying remarks

 

you really should work on that imagination though.

Nobody posted anything about Benrie and a coveted endorsement either. You just make it up as you go along no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:17 AM

52. I'm a Democrat and a Woman...

I am voting for Bernie Sander by using my brain and listening to my heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 01:21 PM

155. Good for you. At least no one is suggesting that you're somehow voting with your genitalia when

 

you announce your choice, wouldn't it be great if the same respect could be extended to those using their brains and hearts and supporting his opponent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

54. I accept

there are Clinton supporters who are intelligent, sane, and pensive. I think Susan must too. Yet, she apparently was approached by some female Clinton supporters who indeed have Clinton's gender as the primary/only consideration. My belief is that she is responding to them. Yes, she did this poorly by implying all women may have this perspective. If that is what was understood, then I can appreciate your indignance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:19 AM

56. The majority of us still support PP and will continue to do so.

What we object to is their statement that we as women need to support Clinton because as a woman only she understands our struggles. The jest of their statement was that if we vote or support anyone else we are misguided. I found that insulting. I stand with Susan I do not vote with my vagina. I vote for who I feel best represents me as a person not just a woman. My gender is not the total sum of who I am.

The backlash to PP's statement was in part because many women felt that that once again someone was patting us on the head and telling us that we really did not understand and they knew what was best for us. This is the first time PP has chosen to endorse a candidate and it would have been best if they had waited until we as a party had chosen our nominee.

Both Clinton and Sanders support the ERA and getting this long overdue amendment ratified. So I do not have a problem with either of them in regards to women's rights. I do see differences in other areas and that is why I support and will vote for Sanders.

I have never been a single issue voter and at sixty-three I do not see that changing. Just like you, I have chosen a candidate based on who I feel best understands and will work to solving all the problems we face, not just women's issues.

I respect your right to support and vote for the candidate of your choice, just as PP should have respected the decision many of us as women made to support and vote for our candidate. They choose not to do so, thus insulting us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #56)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:50 PM

92. +1000

Edited to thank you for this post. Well said!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #92)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:31 PM

104. Thank you

We all have our reasons for who we support and some of those reasons involve what we have experienced in life.

I have been an advocate for single payor since the early nineties, along with women's rights and many different social inequities. I firmly believe it is way past time to address all these issues by doing this together we will be united not divided.

I was slammed on this board many times during the health care debates and told I just didn't understand how things worked.
Even tho we did advance in some areas we still left many out in the cold. Many may have achieved health insurance but in many instances they still did not receive the health care that they so desperately needed.

My mother has a saying nothing happens until their shoes get tight. I found that true for myself. I was not very involved in my rights or the rights of others until my shoes got tight. In the early eighties I became a divorced mother of four and found out the true meaning of poverty and how little rights I had as a woman. In the early nineties my son was diagnosed with Dermatomyosits and again my shoes became tight and I found out what a travesty our health care system was. It was during that time my daughter came to me and confided that she was gay and I saw first hand the struggles and discrimination she endured. I became an advocate for her rights as well.

We as a nation find that too many of us have very tight shoes and are finally speaking up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unapatriciated (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 09:47 AM

135. Beautifully put.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:21 AM

59. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Jamie Dimon.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:24 AM

62. So? This is about PP, not your friend Jamie Dimon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

64. It matters, because Hillary is corrupted by the financial services industry.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:24 PM

187. Who's she?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

65. If you look at qualifications,

Hillary does indeed have plenty. She lived in the White House for eight years and actively tried to get the ball rolling on health care reform. She was a United States Senator involved in some crucial votes (as well as a tireless supporter of women's rights and Planned Parenthood) and as Secretary of State she's well-versed in international affairs. I get angry when I see the thinly-veiled and utterly misogynistic attacks on her from the Republicans (as I am about the not-so-thinly veiled racism displayed against our president). I am a woman, and I believe it's important to have a woman in the White House, the right woman.

However, as a woman, a citizen, and a human being, I cannot support someone who has always been close to the big corporations (Wal-Mart for one) and banking interests. As a US Senator, she voted in favor of the Iraq War, one of the most disastrous escapades our country has ever undertaken (and we've undertaken quite a few). She more recently says she was misled by false information. But millions of people in this country and around the world knew exactly what was happening. All of the information we had, she must have had. She voted for the war for political reasons. She knew exactly what she was doing. As Secretary of State, she has promoted unwise and dangerous provocations in Libya (not Benghazi, but the whole approach which guaranteed its failure), Syria, and Iran. Where is she on the plight of Palestinians? I feel that she sticks her finger up to the wind and finds whatever will give her the most political clout, and follows that path. All politicians do that to some degree or another, but not all of them would sell us down the river. She's better than the Republicans, but is that what we've descended to in a nominating process when there is a true progressive and a socialist who is running and could actually win?


I would never vote for a Republican, but given my choice, I prefer to vote for someone who has spent his or her political career advocating and standing up for the rights of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized - common (and uncommon) working people. That's why I support Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sus453 (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:41 AM

73. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:29 AM

68. There are other places to give money that are just as important for women.

Planned Parenthood is a very good organization, but injecting themselves into the primary is uncalled for and is a needless distraction from the issues.

I choose to give my money locally via http://www.fundabortionnow.org/

It means that I can feel good that my money is having an immediate, direct, and positive effect on women and families near to me. As valuable as PP may be for long term political lobbying, it doesn't help women in crisis *today*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:32 AM

69. Do they give mammograms?

Or pap smears? Or provide birth control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:40 AM

72. Of course not. Nor do they claim to.

I am simply suggesting an alternate place to give money that directly helps women in crisis, for those people troubled by PP's endorsement.

I strongly support PP's mission of providing general services to (often) low-income women. How much of one's donation to PP goes to directly helping women who need help today?

Having options for where to give support is beneficial to all. Shame on you for suggesting that it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:43 AM

74. Shame on me???

For asking pertinent questions? Okey doke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eggplant (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:29 PM

113. They should set up a way where not a dime of a donation gets used against Sanders/for Clinton

They should set up a way where not a dime of a donation gets used against Sanders/for Clinton during primary season. I'm gobsmacked that they didn't foresee the controversy. Remember Obama vs. Clinton? Carter vs. Kennedy? Easy to see what a disaster taking sides in those contest would have been, right?

Yet somehow some people are nonplussed by the pushback from this? Well, this well get hashed out, and eventually there will be some judgements rendered by the most prominent of Democratic commentators. That might make for some good discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:44 AM

75. K&R. Well said. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:45 AM

76. Only a small portion of what HRC stands for

I agree that Planned Parenthood is a necessity for all women, but that's only part of what HRC stands for. HRC has millions of dollars, and when you have that much money, where do you put it. In Wall Street. If you have million of dollars in Wall Street, you're going to be on their side. You will not be against what they want. She will be working with them, and not against them?
Think about it.

Fred75

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:51 AM

78. I am a Democrat and a Woman... and you can change the name Hillary to Bernie and it

fits me to a tee, except for your last paragraph. I believe choice expands to other issues as well, such as deciding not to financially support any organization. I am a woman and I do not insult other women or men just because they chose to make other choices such as pulling their financial support from any organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:09 PM

80. I am a Democrat and a Woman...

and I am voting for Hillary Clinton using my brain, my understanding of how our government is set up, and because she's the strongest Democrat running who can actually get things done. She's a fighter and a feminist, she's a mother and a strong equal in her marriage, she's confident, experienced, connected, a born leader, and the perfect person to succeed one of the best presidents of my lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:27 PM

81. I do not see anyone

suggesting that you are "..... voting for her merely because (you) have a vagina..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #81)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:30 PM

82. You must have missed it.

It's out there. Lots of discussion on it lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:35 PM

84. It is sad indeed. :-(

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:35 PM

85. +1

The resentment makes no sense and Bernie could hardly expect to get PP's endorsement over Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:44 PM

89. To suggest there are no women voting for Hillary based on gender is insulting.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/77961-voting-for-hillary-clinton-because-shes-a-woman-is-a-perfectly-valid-not-to-mention-smart

Anecdotally, I had a verbal tussle with a woman who said she was going to "Vote my vagina". My jaw just about hit the ground. Not only was this disgustingly sexist, but she knew very little about what hillary stood for, or her long long history of very poor judgment.
After covering the position differences, without naming the associated candidates, she liked Sander's positions better, but said she was still going to vote hillary because "We girls have to stick together". She then turned to a nearby lady who'd stopped to listen in and said "Be sure to vote your vagina!". It was a pretty offensive conversation, and I was glad to be done with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:52 PM

93. I'm with ya on this one, BooScout.

 

I thought that thread was a little odd. It made me cringe when I saw it. I'm not a woman, I still thought it was offensive. As a Bernie supporter I've never been accused of "voting with my ***" its ridiculous. Consider this a kick and recommendation from an avid Bernie supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalnarb (Reply #93)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:36 PM

107. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalnarb (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:26 PM

189. and smooches to you too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:01 PM

95. Difference between Hillary and Bernie is exaggerated

Yeah they aren't identical but both will stop a republican congress in their tracks and appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices. I may not be deciding my primary vote until the last minute and the goal is to beat the republican who will be horrid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:02 PM

96. I have to applaud the end game.

Step 1) Launch attacks against other women as traitors for not supporting the female candidate.

Step 2) Wait for them to fight back by saying it's not about the vagina.

Step 3) Accuse them of making it all about the vagina.



It's an absolutely brilliant rovian tactic.




The funny part about all of this, the whole vagina statements were never about women supporting Hillary, they were about women defending their decisions for supporting Bernie, and being attacked for it. I know I'm not the only person who has been sitting here watching all of this play out over the last 5 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:32 PM

105. Reducing women to body parts at all times. Even in a Presidential campaign. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 01:33 PM

106. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 08:38 PM

114. When it comes to Sarandon and her vagina

When it comes to Sarandon and her vagina, afaik she was saying it's insulting to suggest loyalty is owed to the woman candidate, because they share having one.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:36 PM

115. KICK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:41 PM

116. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:31 AM

126. That is not what Sarandon "suggested." She said it was insulting for anyone to expect

her to vote for Hillary because she (Sarandon) has a vagina. She did not say that women who had chosen to support Clinton did so only because they had a vagina.

If you can distinguish between what Sarandon actually said and what your OP implies she said, you are being disingenuous, at best. If you can't distinguish, you should work on those kinds of skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 03:31 AM

127. Good luck to you and your candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 04:43 AM

128. Are you not at all bothered

 

by here willingness to bomb women and children? Or her willingness to send children back to countries they fled? Or her support of DOMA? Or her late coming to LGBT rights? Or her Iraq War vote?

If not, then by all means vote for her.

But think real hard about those other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:36 AM

129. And the women of Iraq and Iran can just go fuck themselves? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 02:31 PM

165. Well, we will get a white woman president "abuela" so it is all good, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #165)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:28 PM

174. She is a disaster

 

of a candidate.

I don't know who is briefing the DNC, but they are about as qualified as DWS is to lead the DNC.

In other words, nincompoops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:25 PM

144. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:25 PM

172. If Hillary gets the nomination

 

the Clinton Foundation financials are going to come out, and Hillary will be front and center responsible for them.

Her win for the nomination is the loss for the Democratic party. I will do everything under the sun to get Bernie elected, because he can actually win. Hillary has more baggage than an airport carousel, and Republicans are just waiting to exploit it.

It is time for a woman to be President, but that woman is not Hillary Clinton. I'll take the Jewish guy first. Not because of his gender or his religion, but because he is the right leader at the right time for our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 05:48 PM

178. It is demeaning to say that women are so brainless as to vote based on genitalia

I am leaning Bernie at this point, but in all my consideration of Hillary Clinton, having a woman president was never a factor.

It's disgraceful to see what Dems are willing to say to each other when they disagree about a candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:10 PM

180. You are the BEST!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ronnykmarshall (Reply #180)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:14 PM

184. Hello Ronny love!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:21 PM

186. well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:27 PM

190. Hear, hear!!!

Well said. Some folks are scary, they sound like the LW version of the Freepers. It's either their candidate or no one. By and large, I choose to ignore their over the top comments. They live in a bubble if they think that electing Sanders will magically correct all income inequality and whatever else they think is wrong with the system. They must have forgotten that there is a Congress in place and its members don't always go along with the president's wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BooScout (Original post)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 02:03 AM

206. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread