Children.

[The Doctor.]

How do you think it looks when you get up on your soapbox and post a thread on DU with the following message;

"We WOMEN will NEVER vote for Obama!"

Or even the more egocentric; "I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama!!"


Well, even if such a declaration were accompanied with a specific and cited offense by Barack Obama, you still look like this;




But they're not accompanied by anything of the sort, just vague references to non-existent sexism, and baseless accusations that he's 'done something' with never a direct quote or reference. Oh, I asked dozens of times for you spoiled little brats to produce something that would justify handing an election to McCain, what do I get;




Now of course I'm only talking to the small minority of Clinton supporters who are behaving like this;





And obviously I equally condemn the tiny fraction of Obama supporters who swear they will never vote for Clinton;



- But at least they can cite chapter and verse on what she's DONE to make them act like children.


So if you are the vindictive sort of person who would throw away a vote for a Democrat out of some perceived, hell even real, slight by a candidate and you don't think you look like this;





Then you have a lot of growing up to do. You are a child.


Grow the fuck up.

[Kittycat]

1. Looks like an ignorant spoiled brat, to me.

Coming from a woman that DID vote for Obama.

[The Doctor.]

4. If it weren't for the fact that so many of them have been here forever,

I'd swear they were trolls.

I'm not discounting the possibility that some of them were sleepers from seven years ago... but it's still sad.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Where's the post for the crybaby men?

[The Doctor.]

6. I counted them too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Now where's the Waahhhmbulance? LOL

[The Doctor.]

20. Place the call...

?t=1210290875

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Nice WHAM!bulance

[walldude]

3. Lots of that going around today.. however

if you dig, it did inspire some really good threads... On the other hand, I have read a couple of posts where Hillary supporters were angry because Obama supporters were trying to hold out an olive branch. Here's hoping that the faux Dems will get the hell out of here when the candidate is chosen.. :toast:

[The Doctor.]

13. I was actually about to post just such an

'olive branch'.

It's quite good, and I mean it most sincerely, but now I think I'll wait until Sunday. (really I was debating the timing anyhow.)
I just get the impression that the Clinton people paradoxically have 'maturity' issues. Oh, I know it goes 'both ways', but I just haven't seen all the crap they're complaining about from Obama... and I've given them every chance to produce some rationalization for their attitude.

I have well over two dozen specific threads and posts saved to favorites where I ask for anything that looks like Obama lying or using underhanded tactics... nothing. I got a couple of semi-offensive examples of other posters being rude, and tons of links to other Clinton supporters making claims of sexism as if that proved the rampant sexism... it'd be hilarious if it wasn't sad and perplexing.

I'm just sick of it, and I can't wait for this to be over. Then I'll be happy to watch the really vindictive get weeded out.

I have half a mind to make a list... but that might be too vindictive for me. ;)

[Cali_Democrat]

5. WAAAHHHHHH!!! Someone is being mean to me on the internet!!!!!

I don't think they realize how stupid they look.

[The Doctor.]

22. Yes, and like I said,

It goes for all of them. I just find the Clinton people a wee bit more on the irrational side.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. And that's the truth!

[palindrome]

9. Children?

Smart children! BTW if you say "you need to grow up", you follow it with "you are children", not "you are a child", to follow. It's plural.

Edit: I see the irony in my childish proofreading :)

[The Doctor.]

18. LOL... you have delusions of proficiency in English? Look again;

"So if you are (singular) the vindictive sort of person (singular) who would throw away a vote for a Democrat out of some perceived, hell even real, slight by a candidate and you (singular) don't think you (singular) look like this;





Then you (singular) have a lot of growing up to do. You (singular) are a (singular) child."


Now, I'm not saying that I'm perfect, but if you're going to try to pick out something so petty in a post in order to mount an assault on the OP, perhaps you (singular) should make sure you can read.

Cheers. ;)

-Dr. E

[greguganus]

40. OH SNAP! (singular) n/t

[emilyg]

10. Looks the same as all the posts stating

"I'll never for Clinton." Peace.

[Brundle_Fly]

11. huh?

[emilyg]

21. My bad.

[The Doctor.]

15. Uh, did you read the OP?

Try again... slowly.

;)

[The Night Owl]

12. What do you think about people who say that they would rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton?

[The Doctor.]

14. Read the post and you'll figure it out.

That aside, neither one would lose to Grandpa, and Obama will bring a bloodbath to the Republicans in November.

[msallied]

17. Hear Hear! I'm not even worried about the GE, really.

[msallied]

16. Sorry, but I'll never vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton

If it were any other Democrat vying for the nomination against Obama, I'd more than consider it. But since I don't even look at Hillary as a Democrat, then that kind of takes her out of the running for me... Not excusing childishness, though.

[The Doctor.]

19. That's very sad. I encourage adopting more perspective.

If you think of nothing else when you consider who you will vote for, think of Supreme Court appointments and the potential for WWIII.

At least with Clinton those will be lesser concerns.

If you can't see that, then find some other hobby besides politics and never complain again.

[msallied]

25. The potential for WWIII is just as much there with Hillary.

And I'm not about to destroy the executive branch to protect the judicial.

If you can't be comfortable with other people's decisions, might I suggest that you too find another hobby than politics. I'm more than at home and comfortable with my principles, thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. You may want to read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5894592&mesg_id=5894592

[The Doctor.]

30. LOL... That's all I need to know.

I may not like Clinton as much as Obama... and perhaps even by a great deal, but this has nothing to do with my being 'comfortable' with "other people's decisions".

In fact, let me tell you something about "comfortable";

Being "comfortable" was how so many people let Bush get away with a completely illegal and immoral invasion of another country. They were "comfortable" enough with the idea of invading a country that neither attacked nor threatened us in any way, and did nothing to report the facts, vote against it, or raise their voices in protest, and now we are minus over 4000 good young men and women, over half a TRILLION dollars and counting, and all of our national esteem.

Being "comfortable" is what allowed this administration illegally wiretap Americans in clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

Being "comfortable" allowed for Americans and other innocent people to be held without trial and tortured for years.

Being "comfortable" got us to $4/gallon gas.

Being "comfortable" has put our economy on the verge of total collapse, left more children and families in poverty than in decades, seen literacy decline, infant mortality rise, and the dream of America dissolve for millions of hope filled people right before their eyes.

So if I'm not "comfortable" it's because I belong here pushing on the 'net and in RL to bring the reality of what's been going on to as many others as I can, make them "uncomfortable", and get them to act to save this nation from disaster before it's too late.

Now, if you're "comfortable" with letting everything go to hell just because you have a vindictive streak over Hillary Clinton, who, no matter how, at what angle, and with whatever microscope, telescope, or kaleidoscope you look at it, is an infinitely better choice for president than Grandpa Neo-con McCain, Then you are the one, just like all the other sheeple out there who are "comfortable" with the world going to hell on a whim, who doesn't belong in politics at all.


You may be "comfortable" with McCain, but I'm not. Keep stating that here though, and we shan't need suffer each-other long.

[Beacool]

24. People will vote whichever way they want.

What's with the endless posts trying to coerce people into voting for Obama? Some Hillary supporters will vote for him, some will vote for McCain, some for Nader and others may choose to write-in her name or even stay home. That's why it's called a democracy, people have choices. Ditto if the shoe was on the other foot.

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

31. If the 'shoe was on the other foot', I'd vote for the Democrat.

You haven't been on DU for very long, so you may be a little shy on the facts, but voting for any Repulican these days is tantamount to voting for the destruction of America.

I know, that sounds like an exaggeration, and years ago I would have thought so myself. But there is a simple thread of deception by the corporate powers that be, one that is fairly easy to illustrate and clearly spells doom for Democracy at the end of the path, that is lengthened and strengthened by voting for Republicans.

I'm not trying to "coerce" anyone can can be convinced by an objective review of the facts that not voting for a Democrat, any democrat right now will do far more harm than one may realize.

Setting aside the simple fact that the attitude; "I won't vote for anyone buy MY candidate!" is utterly childish, I'd be happy to discuss with you why either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton must become President over McCain next year.

Now, as for "putting the shoe on the other foot" goes, you try it;

"Don't you think it's a little childish for an Obama supporter to refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton just because they 'don't like her'?"

I do. Because it is.

[Beacool]

35. Thanks for your comments.

I haven't been in DU for a long time, but I have been in politics for years. I have never voted for a Republican and I do not intend to start now, but I honestly don't know if I can force myself to pull the lever for Obama. I'm not trying to sound inflammatory, I'm just expressing my feelings. I think that he's an inexperienced rookie and not ready to handle the job. I'll wait and see how I feel in Nov.

[The Doctor.]

38. Fair enough. That's a position I can respect.

I feel very confident that as you watch the contrast between Obama and McCain, you'll start to see the appeal of putting someone fresh in office.

Think about this; We just had the least qualified candidate in the history of America installed in office for 8 years. On top of being infinitely more intelligent and empathetic than Bush, and infinitely more energetic and inspirational than McCain... he wants to do some real good. Even as a 'rookie', that counts for a lot.

As I've said, Obama wasn't my first choice, and I really don't have a problem with a Clinton presidency, but I firmly believe that Obama will bring a straight-ticket bloodbath to the Republicans this year. I can't wait for dozens of Republican reps being forced to go into the private sectors they've been starving for so many years. Mark my words on that - it will be a bloodbath.

Let's just hope that the more rabid Obama and Clinton people will subside or move on after the primary, and we can take a serious step back and look at what we have.

Cheers!

Dr. E

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. We are on the same wavelenght

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5894592&mesg_id=5894592

[Guaranteed]

28. I don't think I've ever seen a better DU post.

Outstanding.



And, you know what? I HATE Clinton- for very REAL reasons. YEARS' worth of reasons.

Yet, if she was our nominee, I'd vote for her.



This "I'm not voting for Obama" stuff is beyond ridiculous.

[The Doctor.]

42. You have some strange criteria for measuring excellence...

but hey... thanks.

:hi:

[ecstatic]

29. Clinton said she doesn't need my vote

She has the hard working whites on her side. Good luck!

[The Doctor.]

33. And that's already cost her the nomination... among other things.

I think we can agreee she's still preferable to Grandpa McCain.

[Beacool]

36. When did she ever say she doesn't need someone's vote?

She campaigned very hard to get every vote, sorry if you somehow feel that she didn't need your vote.

[dbmk]

32. Good advice from down under

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

[LWolf]

34. Cute.

Of course, there is a big difference between upholding and defending principles and throwing a temper tantrum.

Those same tantrum pics can be applied to the reaction of those who think that everyone ought to give up their principles and "get in line."

Some pictures of protesters would be just as appropriate. That's what those who withhold their vote are doing: protesting the nomination of a neoliberal.

[The Doctor.]

41. So... Helping McCain win is "standing up for principles"?

Selling out the Democratic candidate because your candidate didn't get the nomination is "standing up for principles"?

Well, in that case, "standing up for principles" equates to childishness.

Think about it; Let's say that all the Richardson supporters, Kucinich supporters, Biden supporters, Edwards supporters, Gravel supporters, Dodd supporters, and Obama supporters decided, after Clinton clinched the nomination, that they were going to "stand on principle" and withold their vote in November.

What would you think of that?

No, "That's their right" isn't an answer. What would you really feel about the temperment of these people who decided that their principles were worth another 4 years of a Republican in the White House when Hillary Clinton could have become President?

Tell the truth.

[LWolf]

43. Of course not.

Of course, not helping candidate "A" to win is not the same thing as helping candidate "B."

Not voting for a neoliberal that is bad for the party and the nation helps hold the party accountable, and therefore keep it relevant.

That's principle: holding the party accountable for issues and actions.

[The Doctor.]

44. That's where you're wrong.

Not voting for the Dem candidate is helping McCain. The net result is the same

Civics; take a course.

[LWolf]

47. No. That's where I'm right.

Civics:

It is my responsibility as a citizen to make an informed choice, and to vote my conscience.

It is the candidate's job, and/or the party's job, to win my vote.

If the net result of withholding a vote from the Democratic nominee favors a Democratic loss, then the party, the majority that put that nominee on the ballot, is accountable. It's the nominee's, and the party's, job to WIN the votes. If they don't, they are responsible for the loss.

My vote is won on two points: issues and record.

Obama doesn't earn a vote on either of those points.

[The Doctor.]

48. Right. Then you are, by abstention, giving McCain your de Facto support.

By all means make this same argument here in October.

[LWolf]

49. No.

I will be, should I choose to do so, giving support to the candidate I write in, or to the 3rd party candidate I vote for.

All the spin in the world doesn't change that fact, and that reality, or this one:

It's the candidate's job to earn the votes. If not enough votes are earned, that responsibility lies with the candidate, and with the majority who chose to run that candidate.

[The Doctor.]

50. So we shall disagree.

But what you call 'principle' I call an 'absence of pragmatism'.

As I said before;

"Think about it; Let's say that all the Richardson supporters, Kucinich supporters, Biden supporters, Edwards supporters, Gravel supporters, Dodd supporters, and Obama supporters decided, after Clinton clinched the nomination, that they were going to "stand on principle" and withold their vote in November."

If all the Democrats adhere to your "principles", McCain will win. That's a pretty simple and indisputable fact.

That puts a very fine line between 'principle' and 'pride' when your 'principles' would plunge the nation into four more years of war, torture, and the destruction of the nation. If one cannot compromise one's own principles for the principle of the greater good, then it is no longer 'principle' it is 'ego' and 'pride'.

Your ego, your pride in your 'special' principles would cause greater harm if all Democrats behaved that way. Luckily most of them are not willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for their special 'principles'.

But as I said; By all means, state your intention not to support the Democratic candidate on this site between the nomination and November.

[LWolf]

51. I can agree to disagree.

I readily admit to being a defiant idealist. That's who I am.

From my side of things, if Democratic voters, and the Democratic Party, had those "principles" I refer to, they wouldn't be nominating and supporting a neoliberal.

They would have nominated, and supported, a true, honest liberal/progressive.

[The Doctor.]

52. That I can respect. But you must keep in mind;

The media wields huge influence, and controls how much of which candidate's message gets out.

I really wanted Kucinich for President. He is brilliant, fearless, and has more unimpeachable character in his ears than most candidates accrue in their entire lives.

But the media made sure that the 90% of the voting population that are less diligent than we are were left clueless. Now it's easy to go about blaming the uninformed for their ignorance, and in some cases they deserve blame, but for the most part the people are too focused on just getting by to keep themselves informed. That is compounded by the media's convenient 'tight message' packaging that is the only form of information most people have time to digest, and then add the massive right-ring noise machine to keep the BS memes flying at ground level and sowing doubt, and you realize how badly the odds are stacked against any candidate that stands for real change.

Blaming the candidates for "not getting the message to you" and "earning your vote" really misses the point. The PTB are heavily invested in making sure that most people don't hear the messages they need to because that would spell disaster for their ruling class status.

So what does that mean?

Well, it means we're going to basically have three kinds of candidates to choose from;

1) The Uber-Liar aligned with the Military-Corporate-Media-Complex who will act in their best interest and against the needs of We The People. This candidate has the temendous advantage of a favorable media to market them to the people and always has the best chance of winning.

2) The true idealist who is not aligned with the PTB, and often aligned with the people. The populist candidate's message is powerful, meaningful, and a direct threat to the PTB. They will therefore spare no expense to quash the message and smear or dim the messenger. Such a candidate is unlikely to ever become a viable candidate.

3) The unknown. The candidate that isn't obviously aligned one way or another, and through careful self-censorship and message management, stays under the radar of the PTB while the other, more overtly idealistic candidates are culled from the running. The unknown candidate will rely on the strength of his or her appearance with the people while placating or otherwise ducking the scrutiny of the PTB.

Unfortunately, the 'unknown' doesn't make his or her idealism obvious, so it's easy to assume that they are the same pandering sort of politician as the rest. Is it possible that the unknown is just an opportunist? Absolutely. Therefore it takes extra diligence to determine whether the candidate is an opportunist or an idealist that came in under the radar.

Right now, the only candidate that may be a true idealist is Obama, and I say that after having researched his character, comments, record, and associations.

Could I be wrong?

Well sure I could, but that would mean that there are no 'idealists' running, and the next concern to address is 'who would best set the stage for making improvements to America?'. The simple answer to that question, after eight years of absolute insanity by Republicans, is "Any Democrat".


Right now, a misplaced sense of principles based on the manipulations of the corporate media plays right into the hands of the corporate powers that spit on your 'principles'. Ultimately, they don't care how they win, and if they can make people like you decide to stay out of the process and help deliver victories to their puppets, guess who loses?

It ain't them my friend.

Think.

[LWolf]

53. I'm aware of the corrupt manipulation by the media.

As a DK supporter, how could I not be?

I HAVE gotten Obama's, and Clinton's, message. I didn't wait for the media to bring it to me; I never do.

For the record, I haven't watched ANY tv news since the year 2000, with the exception of ten minutes on 9/11/01, because my son insisted that I turn on the tv. I don't listen to ANYTHING on the radio except for NPR, and I take that with a shaker full of salt. I do read newspapers, websites, etc., and manage to stay informed. I don't take anything that comes from the MSM, regardless of the topic, as a full or accurate account.

My impressions of candidates is therefore not shaped by the media, but by the candidates themselves.

I DON'T LIKE THEIR MESSAGE. That's why they don't earn my support.

[The Doctor.]

54. And yet it still escapes you that by withholding your support for them,

You're giving it to McCain.

Like I said, they don't care how they win, and if they can keep people from voting against McCain as they have succeeded in doing with you, they win.

I'm really amazed that escapes someone who may otherwise be quite intelligent.

[LWolf]

56. If I'm holding a dollar, and I hand that dollar to

a 3rd party candidate instead of the democratic candidate, I didn't hand it to McCain. A vote is a concrete thing. It's marked. It's counted, and it counts for the person that received it.

McCain won't receive it. It won't count for him. If you are trying to count my vote for the nominee before it's been awarded, you are counting a phantom vote that never existed.

This reminds me of a common middle school argument.

Middle Schooler: "Why did you give me THAT grade? It's your fault I can't compete on the track team!"

Me: "I didn't 'give' you a grade. You earned your grade based on your performance, and I recorded it."

[The Doctor.]

57. That's a broken analogy.

The less support the Democratic candidate receives, the more de facto or relative support McCain receives.

That you can't seem to wrap your head around that concept is stunning to me.

Like I said, make the same argument betweent the nomination and November and see just how much your pride is appreciated.

I'm afraid there's obviously no point in trying to explain this to you.


Peace.

[LWolf]

59. Again.

The nominees are responsible for earning support and votes. The amount that they earn is a reflection of their positions, record, and campaign.

I am obviously aware that when the Democratic nominee doesn't earn support from many independent groups and from some Democratic voters, that it's harder to beat McCain.

This point seems to be lost on you: IT'S THE NOMINEE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EARN THOSE VOTES.

If the nominee can't earn the votes, hold the nominee accountable for that, and the majority that put him or her on the ticket.

Voters don't owe any candidates votes. It's the job of the nominee to earn them.

Some votes can be won through rhetoric and baseless "inspiration." Others can be won by appealing to the gang tendencies and the inclination to polarity of human nature.

Some votes are earned honestly. Here is something that every candidate understands: seeking the support of some groups may lose the support of others. That's the nature of the game. Each candidate must decide which votes to seek, and which votes to accept the loss of. That's a reality of campaigning. I know this, and I think you know it, too.

Why pretend any differently? If a candidate has decided to risk the GLBT vote, for example, why act as if the loss of those votes is somehow a betrayal?

[OzarkDem]

37. Sexist

nothing new from Obama supporters.

[The Doctor.]

39. LMAO! So calling Clinton and Obama people "Children" is sexist?

Aren't you a sorry piece of work.

I recommend medication.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Delusional-disorder.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olanzapine

[Megahurtz]

45. LOL.

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

46. I WANT A PRESIDENCY **NOW** DADDY!!!!

I heart Veruca!

:rofl:

[JVS]

55. I have to take issue with part of your post

How do you think it looks when you get up on your soapbox and post a thread on DU with the following message;

"We WOMEN will NEVER vote for Obama!"

Or even the more egocentric; "I will NEVER vote for Barack Obama!!"

I actually find it much more egocentric to presume the ability to declare the will of an entire gender rather than just one's own actions.

Otherwise, great post.

[The Doctor.]

58. Except for the fact that I meant 'egocentric' in it's strictest sense,

that's fair.