2016 Postmortem

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)

49. Yes. It is a colossal embarrassment that we've gone this long...

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:13 PM

Jan 2016

... without a woman president.

I'm afraid we need to wait a little longer. And not because we aren't ready.

I wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina on that basis. I would've voted for Elizabeth Warren though. Or Barbara Boxer for that matter. But not Dianne and not you-know-who. Policy still matters. There's no doubt that some who oppose Hillary Clinton are misogynist, just as many who opposed Barack Obama were racist.

That said, the country will not be well served by another neo-con, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yo! Clinton supporters! Let's talk issues. [View all] Matariki Jan 2016 OP

We've been doing this for the past year Blue_Adept Jan 2016 #1

issues don't matter Matariki Jan 2016 #5

not here and not now Blue_Adept Jan 2016 #6

If you use the word "issues" in the HRC group you will be instantly banned, so... Binkie The Clown Jan 2016 #53

Don't forget those that got marketplace ins and are not renewing.... tokenlib Jan 2016 #2

Why won't people talk the issues here? Matariki Jan 2016 #3

They don't talk issues ypsfonos Jan 2016 #4

no, sometimes they say you're a bigot and that your denial only serves to prove them right MisterP Jan 2016 #8

"Keep us in chains"? WTF is that for a discussion point? What are we, the Soviet Empire? Hekate Jan 2016 #29

What about a handle ? TheFarS1de Jan 2016 #50

Eleusinian Mysteries. Triple Goddess, along with Persephone and Demeter.... Hekate Jan 2016 #52

I only now the name from my Black metal days TheFarS1de Jan 2016 #55

I got mine from this drunken monkey puppet in a wrestling helmet Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #58

Here you go. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #57

Lolz. That is pretty much what I figured. Guess the Secret Decoder Ring led him wrong. nt Hekate Jan 2016 #60

Does Clinton have a plan for those shortcomings in the ACA? Matariki Jan 2016 #7

Here's an overview: Lucinda Jan 2016 #9

Thanks for the link Matariki Jan 2016 #10

She is more specific in her stump speeches, and I think I saw a policy paper link a while back. Lucinda Jan 2016 #13

Truly hilarious... ljm2002 Jan 2016 #15

I have no idea what you mean? A web page overview is not remotely as in depth Lucinda Jan 2016 #16

That is not what we have been hearing over the last several weeks... ljm2002 Jan 2016 #17

She didn't say she would "try" - She has been very specific about her plans. Lucinda Jan 2016 #21

Here is her healthcare "plan"... ljm2002 Jan 2016 #23

That is just an overview - she is more specific in her stump speeches and here: Lucinda Jan 2016 #26

As you note--she has laid out many of her plans in sections during her speeches, along with funding riversedge Jan 2016 #38

Oh look Uponthegears Jan 2016 #40

Yep. The same process she used during her Senate run. She is a public servant Lucinda Jan 2016 #56

as per Chelsea, millions and millions of Americans would have no health care... libdem4life Jan 2016 #28

That's not fair...She is trying to make a good faith effort Armstead Jan 2016 #18

Who are you talking about... ljm2002 Jan 2016 #19

the poster Armstead Jan 2016 #24

Thank you. Matariki Jan 2016 #22

This one was handy, but not the one I was thinking of: Lucinda Jan 2016 #27

Again, thanks. Lots of info at that link. Matariki Jan 2016 #47

Health care is a biggie for me too. I am fairly lucky that my only real issue Lucinda Jan 2016 #54

I do appreciate the link Matariki Jan 2016 #12

Policy discussions don't happen here. Not In GDP. Not often anyway. Lucinda Jan 2016 #20

What is Clinton's plan for Social Security? Matariki Jan 2016 #11

What plan for Social Security? ChairmanAgnostic Jan 2016 #30

You have a link to that? Hoyt Jan 2016 #37

Why not do your own work and do some research instead of just asking others to do the riversedge Jan 2016 #32

Because I would like to see DU discuss policy, not just toss snark Matariki Jan 2016 #41

Nothing they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. JRLeft Jan 2016 #14

Why bother? Every time any of us has tried for the past many months, we get shouted down Hekate Jan 2016 #25

That is true--and note the vile RW name calling of Clinton supporters in the OP riversedge Jan 2016 #31

And note Uponthegears Jan 2016 #34

Calling Hilllary supporters a RW vile name call is NOT respect. riversedge Jan 2016 #39

You start your OP with "Clintonistas" and you want to talk issues? BigGLiberal Jan 2016 #33

See #34 Uponthegears Jan 2016 #36

I wasn't aware that was a problematic term Matariki Jan 2016 #42

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! RufusTFirefly Jan 2016 #35

I'm standing in pretty much the same place you are. Matariki Jan 2016 #44

Yes. It is a colossal embarrassment that we've gone this long... RufusTFirefly Jan 2016 #49

While we're here, I'll be happy to tell you O'Malley's Recursion Jan 2016 #43

+1 Matariki Jan 2016 #45

It is an unfortunate legacy of our Federal system; Obama alluded to this in 2009 Recursion Jan 2016 #46

That's a very good provision Matariki Jan 2016 #48

The ACA tripled FQHC funding Recursion Jan 2016 #51

I respect HRC's stated intent to leave Marijuana policy to the states, but in that case she should Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #59