2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy I do not Support Hillary Clinton
It could be summed up in one word: Judgement.
It is vitally important when choosing someone for the most important job in the country to look at their records and their positions on some of the major issues that faced them during their political careers. How they dealt with those issues, either by their votes if they were elected to represent the people, or their public positions on those issues tells us a lot about what kind of leader they will be.
If someone is in a position where they had the power to influence the lives of millions of other human beings then it better be someone who has shown they have the ability to judge the issues before them, to be able to asses the consequences that will result from their decisions and to judge those who are asking them for their support.
IF the record shows that on far too many important issues, a candidate has had to admit that their judgement was wrong, so wrong that they have to continually change their minds, to evolve and/or to apologize for their decisions then in my opinion, it is necessary to find someone else, someone who has demonstrated that they have made the correct decisions when asked to do so.
Hillary voted for the Iraq War stating she believed Bush/Cheney regarding the lies they told, which many ordinary people were able to see even though they did not have the access to the information Hillary had. I am sure there is no need to expand on the horrific consequences of that invasion still ongoing, to millions of human beings.
Hillary supported the horribly discriminatory Right Wing Welfare Reform Bill which statistics now show disproportionately adversely affected single minority mothers and their children. She public lauded the legislation and continued to do so in her last campaign for the WH in 2008. She has been silent in where she stands in this campaign.
Hillary supported the TPP while in her position as SOS and has not stated her position on this grotesque, labor killing Corporate written NAFTA on steroids, proposed secret deal so far.
When asked for her position on the Environment Destroying Keystone Pipeline, she is again evasive, stating she will let us know after she is elected. That is unacceptable for any candidate to say.
On Civil Rights for Gays Hillary touted the 'Sanctity of Marriage' in her opposition to Marriage Equality for Gays as late as 2013.
She also publicly supported all of President Clinton's devastatingly wrong policies on Tough on Crime Legislation which were responsible for expanding the prison population to the shameful rate of incarceration of mostly poor minorities which led to the destruction of families, voting rights and expanded the horrific Private Prison Industry which profits from locking up as many Americans, poor minorities mostly, as possible.
On the removal of regulations on Wall St which was signed into law by Bill Clinton, and which led to the Global Financial Meltdown, Hillary has stated she would not reinstate Glass Steagal.
On one of the most important issues finally being highlighted in this campaign, Campaign Finance Reform, the corrosive, corrupting influence of money on our electoral system, Hillary says she wants to rescind CU, while at the same time taking advantage of it.
For these and other reasons, I did not support Hillary in her last campaign, I supported Obama and do not support her in this campaign, I support Bernie Sanders.
I support Bernie Sanders because of his long record of GOOD JUDGEMENT on most of the major issues he was asked to make decisions on as an elected official.
Mostly for his prescience when he cast votes on the Iraq Wars, the Patriot Act, Welfare Reform, DOMA, and his long history on Civil Rights for AAs.
He has shown amazingly good judgement back when many politicians voted the wrong way either because they 'got it wrong', or because they were afraid of losing elections.
I cannot support anyone who has to evolve on major issues. It's great when people evolve on issues they were wrong about. Ordinary people have the time to evolve.
However, leaders do not have that luxury, their decisions will affect the very lives of millions of other people and for that reason it is our duty to make sure we choose wisely when choosing leaders.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Which party will control the Senate and House? If Sanders is elected and the Republicans continue their control of congress his presidency could prove to be an unmitigated disaster. The opposition that Obama has been faced with will be transcended when the entirety of corporate America unites to destroy any chance for reform on taxes, off shore banking and outsourcing. The working poor can write off any chance for a living federal minimum wage along with equal pay for women. Does Sanders even have a chance of being elected if he wins the nomination? This is highly questionable especially if he can't gain the support of Latinos and African Americans and they sit out the election. They will attack him as a little more than a pinko-commie and compare his policies to those of the socialist governments, especially Russia. It won't be factual, but it will be effective and deadly. Do I admire Sanders? Absolutely, but is he actually electable?
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)There is no scenario that Bernie would face where Hillary would not face a similar if not directly parallel obstacle.
The most obvious situation that gets trotted out, essentially every time the question is brought up, is Bernie's status as a Socialist.
In this respect, both Hillary and Bernie face attempts to frame the argument in a less-than flattering light. Hillary has had some genuine progressive actions under her belt that no corporatist would dare contemplate... though I've seen people try to frame them as being motivated purely by self interest. Bernie is a Democratic Socialist, which is, of course, worlds apart from the varieties of socialism from yesteryear.
Both candidates are fighting efforts to twist their image.
In both cases, the antidote to the lies, ignorance and propaganda is the truth.
Questioning Bernie's electability is a very common form of propaganda, intended to undermine perceptions of him as a candidate. The antidote, in this case, is to simply point to the enormous numbers of people showing up to Bernie rallies... and to point out how rare this level of enthusiasm really is.
In short; there's no question of his electability. He absolutely is.
A better question might be: where would each candidate get the bulk of their support, if elected.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)for Sanders who is nothing like McGovern. And Sanders will bring more Democrats out to vote than Clinton. And please explain on which issues you specifically disagree with the mythical "far left wing".
Sanders supports the 99% and not the billionaires.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I always want to ask "far left wing" compared to what exactly? But I always get even more absurd answers.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)All good people right on issues, not electable in general
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)someone here on DU not understand why these great Dems were STOPPED from getting elected.
George McGovern was a real WW11 here, a man of honor and courage. The rigged system doesn't want people like that in power.
But these are different times, and more and more people now get what has been going on.
THEY needed a political revolution to overcome the corporate/MIC powers that deprived this country of their service and instead gave us a string of war criminals and crooks, like the Bushes, Reagan and Nixon.
This time Bernie himself knows what is needed so the people get a real Representative, and he has raised so far, in just a few months, an army of millions of volunteers who are ready to fight for the people's right to have a president THEY choose, not one who is bought by corporate entities.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I could make the same argument and be just as right.
For example: You're wrong, cause History!
navarth
(5,927 posts)the troll is surely going to want to be fed again.
MoveIt
(399 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Best way to deal with a troll is starve it for attention... I got ya.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)
duhneece
(4,110 posts)Because I'm not THAT involved in the Hillary vs Bernie vs whomever race at this point (too much going on at our county and state level involving wolf restoration, grazing on US Forest Service lands and the 'land grab/takeover of ALL public lands', behavioral health and the total insanity of what our Rep Governor did to our Behavioral Health providers, more) I expect to find those discussions in a Dem Primary Group/Forum (see how little I care? I"m not even sure of what it would be/is called).
I don't want to read them in General Discussion (unless there is outrageously important news). I don't want to read them in Latest Breaking News.
I assume everyone on DU supports Hillary over any of the 16 (or more?) Republican clowns...maybe I'm naive?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)opposed to that job crushing Secret Deal written by Corporations? How about the Keystone Pipeline, has she decided to let people know where she stands on that yet?
PatrickforO
(14,558 posts)The problem is that Bernie is a traditional New Deal Democrat, and his supporters are mainstream Dems who stayed where they were while the establishment Third Way Dems moved right.
What I like the most about Bernie is that he is articulating the issues SO well. That's why he's attracting so much support; he's the first Democratic candidate in years and years to be as clear and compelling. It's time for us in the Democratic party to stand up for what we believe in rather than allow the oligarchs, their pet media and the establishment in both parties to tell us how untenable our positions are and how unelectable our candidates are.
Not gonna work.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--family income, and nothing has changed with the "acid, amnesty and abortion" culture wars either.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)no president can do what is necessary without the support of millions and millions of people, iow, we need a Political Revolution.
Everything you said about Bernie is true, and it will be true of Hillary should she be the winner.
Do you think Repubs will cooperate with her on issues of importance to the people.
We are at a point now where until we change the SYSTEM itself, the ONLY legislation that will get through will be what those currently in control of our government want, and their bought-and-paid-for members of Congress will do that for them.
And that is why when people go to vote for Bernie, they must also vote for every Progressive running against Corporate funded candidates.
And the most important issue in this campaign, is getting the corrupting corporate money OUT of politics, because as Joe Biden has said, 'until we do that, NOTHING else can be accomplished'. He should know, and he took the time to warn us that this is what we must focus on.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)What confounds me is why isn't it the primary effort of the party to get the masses of unregistered working class voters, many of whom are minorities, registered. The fact that Acorn was making great strides in getting workers registered is exactly why the Republican Party targeted them. They realized that this could result in a massive defeat for their party. It was just another aspect of their vote suppression.
Progressives should also target evangelicals and request to be given the opportunity to address their congregations. Their message could center on the basic teaching of Jesus of our obligation to assist the needed as a primary requirement and how this has always been the of the utmost concern to Democrats. Their concerns could be assuaged by stressing Jesus teaching of love and compassion for the all mankind. Every confrontational issue can be addressed in this manner. The situation is that Democrats forfeited their voice and let the Republican propagandists full reign to exploit the issues without a whimper.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)helped destroy ACORN with only a small number, about 75 airc, in Congress, voting against the defunding, which was based on the lies told by O'Keefe et al. I remember the disappointment of members of ACORN at the time, not wrt to Repubs who had been trying to destroy them for 40 years, but at Dems who had let them down.
Never mind that ACORN was completely exonerated in every court ruling AFTER Congress voted against them. A fact that was not given any attention by the media which helped promote the felon, O'Keefe and his cohorts with his doctored tapes. Gov Brown forced O'Keefe to produce the entire tapes and that was the end of the charade, but too late for ACORN.
So what that, and other actions by the current Dem party leadership, definitely demonstrates the need to work on getting people into Congress who are not beholden to anyone BUT themselves.
Iow I completely agree that Congress is even more important than the WH and should be a major focus for people during this election.
A list of seats coming up for election should be made and candidates for those seats who are progressives found and supported.
Bernie Sanders has said over and over again that he cannot do much alone. No president can. I hope this will be a major focus of this election also.
I agree also with your points about evangelicals, every voter should be engaged as much as possible. It will take a massive uniting of the people to even begin the necessary changes.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)It is somewhat analogous to the vote authorizing the invasion Iraq. Protect your ass.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Government is totally compromised by Big Money Donors, as Biden said recently. He stated that this needs to be the #1 issue of this campaign, and I agree, get the money out of Politics, and it is already maybe, very late in the game since they have accumulated so much power now, the job will be much more difficult, but we have to start somewhere.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Obstruction will continue no matter which dem sits in the WH. I believe dems will retake the senate as so many repub seats are up for re-election. My 1st choice is Sanders or Hillary if she is nominated as she is 10 Xs better than any of these GOP clowns. The repubs will have a hard time electing anyone without cheating because they lack substance or solutions and are without character. They actually want a repeat of GWBush while denying his actions.
Scandinavian countries are socialist but the impressive FDR was a Democratic Socialist and that is the only form of government which both ensures our Freedom and our Survival by voting to come together to prevent profiteers from destroying our environment our economy and our planet. The employer of last resort which is composed of "We the people" who vote to fix our infrastructure rather than give subsidies to Exxon-Mobile etc etc etc. A democratic government bent on protecting it's people and their social welfare as in "For, By, and Of the people" is the very definition of Democratic Socialism. Bernie is the Man of the people just like FDR.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)This of course couldn't possibly happen with Hillary....right?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)just months ago and already he is catching up to her as soon as people get to know. If she is so popular, how come eg, she got only 400 people to attend her meetup in Dubuque while Bernie had 1,500?
And what qualifies her or any other candidate to become President? She has had only two successful elections so far while Bernie has had so much more experience re elected office.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)anacodainfl
(13 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sen Sanders has far more integrity.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)olegramps
(8,200 posts)Perhaps Sanders can gain more and more support, but the polls at the present are highly in favor of Clinton for the nomination. I will emphasize again that without a majority in congress, even it he does manage to get elected his accomplishments will severely restricted. I would better welcome a major increase in getting young people and working class registered as Democrats. This is where the real efforts should be spent.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)... in getting young people and working class registered as Dem."
I would agree. I'd like to point out that the excitement Sen. Sanders has created is doing just that. Energizing young people to register to vote and participate. Re-energizing us older folks who have become cynical about our democratic processes and given up on our bought and paid for politicians. And all along the way, from before he announced his candidacy to today, Sen. Sanders is imploring people to get up, get involved and STAY involved in their government. He often says President Obama's biggest mistake was not harnessing the energy and excitement of all those people that voted for him and using them to get his legislation passed. Instead, President Obama basically said, "Thanks for electing me, I'll take it from here.". Sen Sanders on the other hand would like nothing more thant to see 5 million Americans march on D.C. and DEMAND expansion of SS, DEMAND demilitarizing of police, DEMAND real equality and an end to institutional racism, DEMAND a closing of for profit prisons. He is the only politician I know of that encourages such demonstrations.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Hillary has stated she will do that, in spite of what we have witnessed over the past several years.
Which translated means, she will 'compromise' rather than fight them.
And this is why the more people who learn about Bernie, they more his support grows.
Hillary is popular with a very small part of the electorate, loyal Dems.
The polls rely on people with landlines, so they are increasingly off on their predictions since a majority of several demographics do not use landlines.
Second, polls cannot get an accurate reading on the Demographics Bernie is attracting now, mainly young people, Independents who have left both parties, sick of the status quo who are now supporting Bernie. Also non-voters, I have already signed up one or two, who have not yet registered but will in order to vote for Bernie.
Which is why Bernie is spending nothing on polls, while Hillary has spent nearly one million so far.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
juajen
(8,515 posts)
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,517 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)and the 'Clinton Foundation' seems too easy of an influence peddling vehicle, something I don't want to see become the 'New Model'
we're really supposed to believe that those giving large amount$ really aren't looking for influence and access?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)diverse array of constituents? Why does he have so few accomplishments to show for his years as a politician? Why have none of his colleagues endorsed him? These are questions I have about Senator Sanders.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So Hillary never had to make tough decisions either then, according to your logic?
How about the Patriot Act? Tough decision? Very, so tough nearly all of our Reps caved and gave away our Constitutional Rights rather than risk their political careers, that includes Hillary.
How about the Iraq War? Even we ordinary people knew they were lying, so did Bernie Sanders and he again made the tough decision to vote against AND predict the consequences in his floor speech before he cast his vote.
Hillary, otoh, again went along claiming she believed Bush and that he would not abuse the power.
How about DOMA? Again, Bernie cast a most unpopular vote at that time, one of very few who made the tough decision to do what was RIGHT rather than what would help his career.
So what position has Hillary been in where she had to make more difficult decisions than Bernie? She in fact, has only been elected as Senator, her other positions were First Lady, hardly an elected position where she had to make tough decisions, and then appointed, not elected as SOS where she did not have to cast any votes.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... on them, even when she's in effect been the focal point in terms of selling these treaties to foreign countries as SOS. How can she have been functioning well as SOS if she didn't understand them enough to render a public opinion on whether these trade agreements are what our country should pass or not pass?
Either she wasn't doing her job effectively then in not really knowing the details the way she should have, or she's showing that she can't be trusted to give her real judgements on these issues to the public if she did know what was going on, but is trying to pretend that she doesn't.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)I mention that only because it is one of many reasons to discount heavily the claim that they voted alike in the Senate most of the time.
cali
(114,904 posts)he still would have voted against it. And there were many people here who opposed the.ACA.
He has many accomplishments to show for his years in politics. Unlike Hill, he didn't just parachute into a state where he could get elected as a carpetbagging ex first lady. And he.has far more political courage.than she has. Hill and her defense of the sanctity of her marriage as a reason she staunchly opposed marriage equality until last year.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So while I do believe he is principled, it is still a big question mark on how much impact he could have on such a diverse nation.
In a sense I think that is why he has tried to have a very narrow platform- that if he works like hell on the economics side of things- he has a chance at some success and continued support.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)values.
It is because his basic values agree with those of most Americans that I think that he could and will have a great impact on our diverse nation.
Good work deserves good pay. That is an essential American value. And it is at the core of Bernie's views on pay.
Imprisoning, jailing and killing people based on race or for petty misdemeanors is wrong. That is the value that underlies Bernie's stance on Black Lives Matter issues. Virtually all Americans, that is all sane Americans, agree on that.
On issue after issue, Bernie's ideas are founded in his strong American values.
As I analyze his stances, I see the core values beneath them. Mother Jones has published a brief biography of Bernie. He spend years living very simply, struggling and during those years, he spent many nights arguing politics with friends according to those articles. I suspect that during those years, he filtered a lot of the silly ideas of his youth. And what we are getting from him are the ideas that reflect his core values. Just so happens that when you work from your values up rather than trying to work around and solve each social problem on its own, you get a better result. You develop better judgment.
Hillary has so many, many problems. O'Malley is not bad, but he doesn't project, and I think does not yet have, that values-up method for making decisions. He seems to be a good man with his heart and mind in the right places, but he needs to work on strengthening his approach. He should observe Bernie carefully because Bernie's strength comes from the fact that he criticizes his own ideas by comparing them to his values and then is prepared to change when he realizes that his values demand that he change his ideas.
Hillary on the other hand, just seems to evolve on every issue. Her thinking appears to be unstable because she does not work from values but rather from expediency. She looks at the politics of an issue. Who is for it. Who is against it. How do I get on the side of the majority.
This is a time of great change. We need a strong populist movement if we are to save our democracy. This is not the time to compromise with wealth and the corporations. They need to serve us. Not us them. Same for our Congress and the leaders of our Party. We tell them how to vote. They should not be trying to tell us how to vote.
Bernie is the man of the moment. If Hillary by some mis-step of fate becomes our candidate, it will not be good for our country. She does not have the judgment because she does not have the strong values that our nation needs at this time.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pretty damned rude. I get the values thing. It is more of a matter of acknowledging that Bernie has been in a bit of a bubble (and a supportive one at that) and will lack populist support in congress and the senate if he becomes president. It seems to me this movement would have been better created from the bottom up, but Americans lack the political maturity to vote for good policy. I think he is going to have a harder time than Obama did if he does get elected. He could possibly have both republican and dem legislators working against him, which would be totally unprecedented and suck. But it would still be damned interesting, bully pulpit and all.
Sorry to be such a cynic here, and thanks again.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We had similar corruption toward the end of the 19th century. Tammany Hall, etc.
Theodore Roosevelt, starting in the legislature of New York, went on the warpath against that corruption.
His time was similar to ours in that the industrial revolution had brought about huge economic change that disrupted a lot of the social relationships and brought about a lot of discontent in society.
Theodore Roosevelt was a terribly violent man in my view, but at the same time when it came to cleaning up government, advocating for decent working conditions for ordinary people, social reform, etc. he is an excellent example of how to do it.
He simply, like Bernie, told the corrupt infrastructure to do to wherever bad people go, built a core of supporters and starting from minor positions in the cabinet and on the Police Commission of NYC, cleaned house. I think Bernie is the same kind of personality and can perform the same miracle that Theodore Roosevelt did. The situations and personalities are not entirely parallel, but the basic principle will, I think apply in both cases.
O'Malley and Sanders agree on a lot of policy issues. O'Malley is a good man. I just think he doesn't have the name recognition to be the nominee, and he doesn't have the kind of personality that Bernie has (not yet) to overcome the lack of name recognition. O'Malley seems younger. He is a politician to watch for the future. Like I said, he has his heart and mind in the right place. He is learning. He could be a very good leader in the future. I'd like to see him get at the very least a good cabinet position. Some time in the Senate wouldn't hurt either. I do not say that to put him down. I say that because it would strengthen his resume and give him the recognition I think is due to him.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all of the candidates. And he has a long record to show that he has been consistent on most of the very important issues he was faced with as an elected official.
What issues do you think he has not addressed?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Followed Bernies political career from the beginning and matches up with what I saw on his website the week after he announced. As I recall- everything on his site was related directly to economics except for global warming. They explained to me BS doesn't "do" other issues he thinks are used as "wedge issues" that have long alienated middle class voters who he is trying to reach.
I am aware he has expanded into social justice issues on his website in just the past week, which is why I used the past tense.
But at least on his website and initial stump speeches, he was largely focused on the economy.Hope that helps.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I know this meme gets repeated, but as a next door neighbor I can tell you Vermont is not all one big Ben n Jerry's.
Sanders has gotten a lot of support from people who tend conservative, who say "I don't agree with Bernie on everything, But in the ways that matter, I know he;s got my back."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)But that doesn't mean automatically he would lose because of that. Look at the Mayor of New York and many otehr big cities. Bernie could have the same appeal as any other "liberal" mayor, in addition to those of us who live in the sticks.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So now the PLCAA vote didn't happen? Or did it? How about his vote to limit the size of magazines? That happen or not?
How 'bout his vote against the 1996 welfare reform bill? Did that happen or not?
There's also this little AUMF vote. It might have been a wee bit important. But apparently that never happened either.
As for "so few accomplishments", he's passed more through our current, Republican-majority congress than any Democrat. Which according to Clinton supporters, is impossible so we shouldn't try to pass anything.
Shouldn't you guys try to get your story straight instead of flinging whatever you think of in that instant? Or was yesterday "ancient history"?
No endorsements? The Clintons are famous for holding a grudge. If Clinton manages to get the nomination, endorsing Sanders almost guarantees you will get nothing for 4-8 years. Sanders, on the other hand, does not have a history of holding such grudges. Basic political calculus says you don't endorse anyone except Clinton until it becomes clear she won't be screwing you over for 4-8 years.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)1) I'm sure many corporate donors, feeling threatened primarily by Obama over any other Democratic or Republican party candidate, will likely in effect offer many extra campaign donations and good PAC ad treatment for any politician that will endorse her now to try and shut him down.
2) These same donors, probably are threatening anyone that does endorse Sanders with the opposite effect of having far more of their campaign money being spent on opposition candidates, and other ads tearing them down.
3) Current politicians will not only fear campaign donors, but party leadership from the likes of DWS in the DNC, etc. who will go after them if they endorse Sanders, especially if he loses the nomination, and they will have just sunk their careers.
4) Many politicians in the past have waited and probably properly waited to do endorsements of other candidates when the playing field was more even and issues such as systemic corruption by the likes of Citizen's United, and other corruption that is heavy in all of our government wasn't as much of an issue then.
Now, if Sanders wins the nomination, at that time I would expect many in the Progressive Caucus especially to POUR in endorsements to Bernie at that point. No longer would the corporate donors have much of an axe to hold over them any more, when they would not only be endorsing who they personally want to win as president, but it would be harder for those to have ads go after them for choosing to endorse someone who the party has voted on as the nominee. Those ads or influence peddling wouldn't work then.
Up until the nominee is decided though, in my book all of these endorsements are just part of the 1%ers ad campaign, and should be disregarded as such. The endorsements in the trenches of thousands of people coming to see him each week in different locales in ways that dwarf other candidates in both this year's election and when measure to past elections, are the kind of endorsements I need to show that he's the right man for the job of the political revolution that needs to happen now if we want to save our planet from climate change and a host of other issues that are almost as pressing.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)Bunch of conspiracy nuts.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)you both resemble them and will resent them.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You have your own group to do that in. Heck, you have your own website set up by the admins to do so.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when she will probably sign all "trade bills" that a Republican congress can forward to her without the threat of a filibuster, and with ISDS courts, it won't even matter who gets elected for federal courts then!
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary will be representing the Dem's if she wins, most Dem's are
not the 1%.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)but majority of her political money donators are from the 1% . Just ignore that elephant .
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)in some cases and made the CORRECT decisions.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)That "tough decisions" always seem to be about "...why it was a good idea to do what was actually the wrong choice."
And Bernie actually was allowed a vote on a number of the things that Hillary voted wrong on; oddly they do let you vote on bill in the house of representatives too. So in that way Hillary's "tough decisions" were the same ones, as a legislator, that Bernie Sanders had. One of them chose correctly and the other did not.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders just sat in the Senate doing nothing: he should have
been plotting and planning the take down of the GOP. He
left that to other Dem's.
Sorry, Sanders is just not a leader, his ideals are old Dem ideas
that most Dem have been fighting for since FDR.
Sanders is nothing special!
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Bernie has stood for clear legislation and policy all of his career. Hillary has been little more than a weathervane with regards to rhetoric and a fairly pro corporate democrat when it comes to policy. There have been far too many democrats taht have fit that mold.
I would say that Bernie Sanders is a breath of fresh air in a Washington dominated by corporate interests.
Is there a policy that you are actually interested in doing anything about? Is there some position that you think is critical?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary knows how survive in politics and get things done, she
is a fighter; she is not a weather-vane: she supports the Dem
party, she works for peoples party, not just for the 1%,
even though she has eared enough money now to be come
the 1% and turn GOP selfish
Hillary and Obama took the risks and fought for the people leading the
Dem, Sanders stand on the sidelines: He waited unit he was 73 years
old to put himself out on the national stage: Too little to late.
Go Hillary GO
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)There is not a single economic issue where Hillary is more progressive than Senator Sanders.
And you have not stated one policy or issue that concerns you.
All you have done is spit out platitudes with no basis in fact or in policy or in legislation.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The Clintons raise taxes on the rich, they help rebuild the middle
class. The Clinton budgets show that just how progressive the Clinton's
have always been. (Bill is working in Africa, and the Clintons
have been talking about Climate change since Carter).
Bernie sat in the Senate working for 620,000 white liberals, the Clinton's
and now the Obama are actually working or all Americans.
Most of Sanders idea are just old Dem ideas recycled: FDR wanted to
expand ss as well most other Dem Presidents.
I just say no to Sanders, and Yes is Hillary a real fighting Dem
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You mean old FDR ideas like social security? Like the New Deal?
You either know nothing about history or are intentionally trying to get a reaction out of people.
You repeat the same nonsensical talking points with every post without any regard to what someone says to you and you refuse to answer questions. Despite your refusal I will still ask you one more:
Are you paid per word or per post?
navarth
(5,927 posts)Surprised so many of you are falling for it
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Yeah, what the hell am I doing?
I'm just going to put that one on ignore. Thanks for reminding me.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)or very young, or things I can't say without getting a hide, this is not an attack or a callout on him/her, I seriously wonder and can't tell, it feels like not very good satire to me, anyone know?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Support your candidate, don't trash ours.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)in the Senate more than a lot of Democratic Senators. I will admit Clinton has been taking risks. Using her own server for emails is risky. If a member of the 99% working for the government did what she did, they'd be at minimum fired or possibly arrested.
Not all Democrats have been fighting for the old FDR ideals. One Clinton dumped Glass-Steagall while the other thinks it doesn't need to be reinstated. The Third Way Democrats don't like FDR ideals.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Don't you agree? How do you rationalize her breaking the law. Normal government workers would be fired if they did what she did.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Sanders is a leader, trying to say he is not is BULLSHIT.
And here is where I'll piss some people off... But guess what, Hillary is a leader too.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
GoneOffShore
(17,336 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I also think that she's already past the "tends to corrupt" part of the axiom.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)She seems disconnected from the real world when she doesn't have a carefully worded script in front of her, which gives her a tendency to stick her foot in her mouth. I really don't want my next President to have to spend her time battling with all the Ken Starrs that will be thrown at her because she said something that her enemies can pounce on for a variety of witch hunts.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)She just wants to BE president, and will do or say anything to make it happen.
You speak for me
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)There may or may not have been anything illegal wrong in terms of moving secure emails to this location or not, but it was poor judgement for the following reasons:
1) It exposed official emails that were going through her mail servers instead of government run servers to insecure status in terms of whoever was managing these servers' security, which could put the nation at risk if certain information were leaked in that process, whether those secret emails were completely proper in terms of content, or something she wanted to have hidden from government records transparency.
2) It opens her, the party, and those who worked with her on this of having something to hide as a reason for doing this, which is why we have threats of a criminal investigation now. I don't want to believe that she was hiding anything, but whether or not she was, the suspicion and the whole process of investigating this is costly both monetarily and for those who surround her in this.
3) It begs the question as to WHY she needed to do this? What was having these emails being housed on government servers, where other government officials already abide by the rules and have their emails being kept here. Security problems from external sources? Security problems from perhaps illegal NSA spying? Security problems from other political party spying on them for political reasons? Or perhaps mail was inadequately administered, with availability of emails, perhaps some being deleted inappropriately because of inadequate system administration due to improperly managed email and other IT infrastructure at the government level.
If any of these issues applied, to her, one could say that these same problems existed for many other government officials too. That means that someone should have been challenging our current IT infrastructure as being inadequate, and forcing many like her to bypass it to keep her emails secure and properly accessible, if our current IT infrastructure is failing. If there's a problem with IT infrastructure, then who better than someone high ranking in Obama's administration to raise the flag and say that "THIS NEEDS FIXING" so that we can not have people do what I'm doing to move emails to a private server to have them properly managed in terms of avoiding errors in our official IT infrastructure. That would be the moves of someone that wants to ensure that our government run infrastructure is doing so right, and in that case if she made that visible at the time when she took the lead to note that she was moving her email to private infrastructure to deal with this problem UNTIL the government infrastructure was fixed, then people would feel that her moving mail temporarily to private infrastructure as an appropriate action for her to do, as opposed to inappropriate the way this move was done secretly and was exposed by others who wanted to note her secrecy in doing what she did.
4) This move to a private email server does nothing to help promote Democratic Party values, and in effect actually helps promote Republican values (and corporatist Democratic Party values) that we should be moving government infrastructure to privatized solutions instead of having them managed by government, which most people feel here is why we have so many problems in other areas of "privatizing" our government functions in the case of privatizing government intelligence services (spying) as noted by Snowden, privatizing prisons, privatizing schools which is highlighted by former Obama cabinet chair Rahm Emanuel doing so as mayor in Chicago, privatizing energy infrastructure (only government run energy infrastructure in LA escaped the problems with Enron's energy trading scandal earlier in the west coast meltdown that happened then), etc. Getting the government IT infrastructure fixed is the way the Democratic Party should be advocating to address any such problems mentioned above, not looking to using Republican policies of privatizing such infrastructure when they've not been adequately maintained due to funding, etc.
Hillary's actions in the email controversy, even if found to be legal, have in my book, been found to have many areas of poor judgement on her part in any form of leadership in properly dealing with problems there. I don't want that form of judgement and leadership to be spread to encompass the rest of our government were she to become president.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Aside from all of the important reasons you cite, there's also the practical political reason it was a terrible idea: It's great for attack ads.
Ominous music. Pictures of Clinton frowning. "She gave away our secrets" as a manila envelope with "SECRET" written in big red letters falls into dark-skinned hands. Cut to videoes of ISIS doing horrible things. This message was paid for by Be Very Afraid PAC.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ann Coulter said. Republicans fear an honest politician that has the support of the 99%.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If the GOP could find something on Hilary they wouldn't have
to make up stories about email.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and you decided to follow the Republican's lead into the Iraq War?"
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)You can't have it both ways!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bush to go to hell. But she either believed the lies or agree with their quest for war. The neocons are supporting her bid for the presidency as well as Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gangsters.
I think that Clinton supporters believe in social Darwinism.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary voted for the use of force, with the un: Bush and GOP
were the con artist. The Clintons chose not to invade Iraq, even
the GOP kept pushing him
Sander did have leadership in trying to support the Bush
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It was her first real contested election. She lost. Making a rather odd definition of "winner".
But I do have a question. Why are you here?
All of your posts are a subject line saying "Clinton is great". That's it. No substance. No discussion. No evidence. No attempt to counter evidence presented to you beyond "Nuh uh!!!!"
So why are you here? What is the point of mindless "Clinton is great" one-line posts?
ms liberty
(8,558 posts)It hit me down thread somewhere...this poster is the John Cleese character from The Argument Clinic. Always. In every thread. I just had to find your post again to say this! 
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Funny stuff. Didn't quite seem like that poster's thing (absoLUTELY didn't! you can pay me later, that was in my spare time for free), but I've been wondering if the poster is satirizing Clinton supporters, not sure at all really, quite strange, actually makes me laugh despite my best efforts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)motives when it comes to the Clintons who I defended fiercely against them for many years on right wing dominated sites and in RL.
However, one thing that does rub me the wrong way regarding this issue is what she said when Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for essentially the same thing people are now accusing her of, for the dissemination of classified material. And we know that most of what was released should not have been classified.
But regardless of the issue itself, she made a strong statement in support of that egregious sentence because 'no one should be disseminating classified material'.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Send me a DU e-mail, and I will K&R it. Thanks.
840high
(17,196 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... when SHE chose the preferred GOP method of moving to a *privatized solution* of where her official emails were being stored. Read my post here, and ask yourself how much of it is really GOP manufactured.
Yes, the GOP is trying to make a Benghazi molehill out of something that is likely nothing, but she opened up the doors for them to do this by using private email. WHY did she do that? She hasn't answered that question. And many of us question her judgement in doing that which has opened up her and the party for criticism for her moving of her mail there and the party in effect allowing that to happen and not questioning her judgement in doing so.
Notice how I didn't even say Benghazi once in my above post? I didn't need to. THAT is not the issue here, even if the GOP wants it to be the issue.
ms liberty
(8,558 posts)That is one of the issues I have a problem with: if the system was crap, she should have raised hell and done something about it. As SoS, it was certainly within her purview.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Leadership in getting something that needed fixing that affected a lot of people. Instead by doing it surreptitiously, if in fact there was just problems with the current system setup, which seems to be implied with the way she's explaining things, she was looking more like she was hiding doing something wrong, rather than showing presidential qualities of getting problems fixed! Why didn't she take that leadership opportunity if everything was above board. I'd like to think that she and her people did nothing wrong, but if there was nothing wrong, she could have done a lot better by trying to fix things rather than to hide things.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)That's the whole crux of her email debacle--her term as SoS was four useless years of promoting, guarding and saving herself for her Presidential run (and scrounging Clinton Foundation $$$, of course--the Clintons do NOTHING unless there's something in it for them).
840high
(17,196 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This remark is sexist: if woman seeks power, there is nothing wrong
with it, if she can do the job.
Empowering women is a good thing.
The Email server story has been made up by the GOP and New York times,
and the Clinton foundation is a charity.
You need to get some fact right!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Answer that question. Her judgement has NOTHING to do with what the Ny Times or other right wingers will extrapolate happen as a result of doing that. The question is whether she decided to move mail there, and whether that was good judgement doing so or not.
If you are denying that she moved mail to her private servers, then you sir, are DENYING REALITY!!! No one questions that FACT!
But we still haven't heard in my book an adequate explanation as to WHY she did this! WHY did her judgement lead her to do this? WHY was it done secretly, when if she had good reasons for doing so, that she should have publicly said she was doing so, and tell us publicly why she was doing it, if there presumably was a problem for her to use government servers instead that needed corrections to be made useful for her purposes. She hasn't answered those questions either.
You can tout "GOP propaganda" talking points and not deal with the details of my post here. But most people here are probably questioning your ability to have any depth in your responses here when criticizing so many posts in this thread. It also might help to at least get some of your spelling and grammar right if you want to persuade people here and draw a better picture of those who support Hillary here.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We don't empower women by electing people JUST BECAUSE they are women, THAT is sexist also.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)defending her actions, thank you for laying out clearly many of the reasons to not support her.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)But what happens if Sanders is not the nominee, and Clinton is? Should I vote for the Republican nominee? Which of them was on the right side of the issues you cite?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)more years of more people losing their homes, moving into or nearer poverty, increases in food stamps without any action to stop it, and making bank$ter/donors wealthier than they ever have been, people suggesting that our neighbors are lazy or not worth investing in, and the only thing worse would have been Trump,
what would be the answer to your question?
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I think it would be better to have a Democratic president, even one as horrible as the one you envision, instead of a Republican president. A Republican president would not veto a single thing coming from the nut job Congress we have now. If they instituted the death penalty for jaywalking, any of the GOP candidates would happily sign it into law. Chances are that Clinton, no matter how we see her as connected to the conservative drift of her party, would not sign the worst legislation coming from the looney bin. Yes, I suspect she would approve some union busting and financial deregulation, but she would probably stick up for civil rights, workplace safety, etc. Probably. That's my point. With Clinton, I can say "probably." If we get a Republican president, there is no way, not even a possibility. So my question is, should I vote for probably not as bad, or certainly much worse?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)much, not really. They may change a few overt behaviors, but the way they approach things can pretty well be called based on past behavior. It's ordinary behavioral science. One can choose to make up the future based on myths and fairy tales, but that's never seemed particularly valuable to me.
On the other hand, there are people who know what the label says on their shirt, because labels are important to them. Practical matters like who is eating or not don't seem to phase them, as long as things look like they should as far as they choose to see.
One has to come up with their own answers, eh?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for that matter, unless Congress goes along with their agenda.
So if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I suggest that all his supporters turn their attention to every Congressional and Senate race for 2016.
It's possible that if he doesn't win the nomination, a Republican will. And imo, we should always make that assumption. What if a Republican wins the WH? Make sure we have a Congress, unlike the one we had when Bush/Cheney occupied the WH, that will stand up to them and stop them from getting their agenda passed.
And that should begin now. Because if Bernie wins, he too will need a good progressive Congress that won't block his efforts to do the things that are necessary in order to begin repairing the damage that decades of right wing policies have caused, often with the help Dems who were either too scared to fight them or themselves, part of the corporate scheme to control this country.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I'm in California. California will vote for the Democratic candidate. Schwarzenegger nearly ruined us. We won't vote for a Republican for a long time.
Besides, the fact that the Republican Party is putting up with Trump's vicious speeches against immigrants will pretty much ruin any Republican's chances in our immigrant state.
So, I do not plan to vote for Hillary if she is the candidate. I cannot do that in good conscience. It would be positively hypocritical for me to vote for her. Her poor judgment, her decisions on so many issues, her constant updating of her views on issues to please the majority of Democratic voters of the moment, her poor communication skills, her inability to think on her feet, her reluctance to answer questions on very important issues, her views on the environment, trade and Social Security (all of which you have to figure out because she covers them up) even on LGBT rights and so many, many issues are just not what I can support. I cannot vote for Hillary, and I so want a woman to be president.
Hillary is sadly unqualified to be president in my opinion. Just does not have the character that is needed.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She is so calculating and bold with her personal goals yet so timid with the goals of this country. We have a crisis with more and more issues. The Climate, Food, Water, BLM, The Border kids, war, the exploding immigration around the world people fleeing war, persecution and hunger, the gap between rich and poor, economic/financial/civil justice.
And she is coy. I was unsettled by her early in 2008 and then when President Obama ran and I joined to support him, her tactics along with her minions repulsed me.
I was mad when I received an email from President Obama to help her pay off her campaign debts. Then when he appointed her SoS, I was incensed. I knew it was a carefully laid out plan for her to be the next nominee. I think President Obama looks like the person with the bigger heart and less ego for his actions, better than my response. I would have frozen her out after that campaign.
If she wins the nomination, I will be pretty disgusted. Really disgusted.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)without a Congress that supports them. Even if we get Bernie elected, he must have a true Progressive majority in Congress.
And the same goes if we get a Republican, a Progressive Congress not beholden to Wall St won't be as willing to go along with Wall St's agenda as the current Congress has been.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Jim McDermmit, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. Then the two ladies voted FOR the TPP. I sent a message to Patty's people on why I was disgusted and to stop asking me for money until I understood why.
Crickets, except for the pleas for money.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)vote was as very predictable.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)/ENDOFLINE/
\`~'/
retrowire
(10,345 posts)look at all these facts!
gee whiz, comparing this post with yesterdays "why I DONT support Bernie" sure puts that other list to shame!
what with that other list only having about 4 points and only 1 somewhat reasonable but affable personal opinion about how Bernie doesn't speak to the issues the way they prefer.
even though he speaks to the issues a lot more directly than his competitors, that poster still felt that was a reason to not support Bernie. that's cool though, this is the US, they have that freedom of opinion.
still though! seriously compare THIS list to THAT list against Bernie. please. it should seriously open peoples eyes to how narrow sighted you have to be to be against Bernie.
THAT list: www.democraticunderground.com/1251524437
wonderful counter point sabrina1.
MoveIt
(399 posts) 
retrowire
(10,345 posts)MoveIt
(399 posts)and is now flagged for review.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's not a "well-deserved hide", it's "ALERT STALKING!!!!"
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)kjackson227
(2,166 posts)...which is why I #feelthebern!
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)You talk more about Hillary than you do Bernie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)as is everyone, and see how wrong you are.
What I do notice about SOME of Hillary's supporters is that they never talk about Hillary on the issues, they talk mostly about Bernie. Thanks for reminding me.
ybbor
(1,554 posts)Rarely do they discuss her positions, mainly focus on our unicorns and fairy houses.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Response to Gamecock Lefty (Reply #30)
Post removed
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)
tinkerbelle
(38 posts)Well said -- it's about judgment.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Go, Bernie!!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)She basically threw her Democratic challenger -- our current President -- under the bus. That should give you pause when considering where her loyalties lie. It also -- to underscore sabrina's thesis -- demonstrates extremely poor judgment.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)This is a great video that highlights those moments. How quickly people forget what the Clintons did to Obama in the 2008 Dem primary:
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)
Faux pas
(14,644 posts)
abakan
(1,815 posts)Didn't trust her last time. Don't trust her now.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
K&R
chknltl
(10,558 posts)I got a lot of change out of President GW Bush but it was all bad. I got a lot of change out of President Obama but much of that change was fixing the damage the BFEE caused. Arguably 'Obama-Care' was a nice step of change for the good but like most Americans it wasn't near enough. There are exactly two candidates running for POTUS offering up change. Neither of these two are running on corporate monies-the very folks who are blocking change. I won't be voting for Trump-nor will the majority of self described Eisenhower Republicans because like me, they will be voting for Senator Sanders! As a member of the electorate, I join them in not being the sharpest knives in the electorate drawer but we know the single issue that we want above all else: The status quo isn't working for us, WE! WANT! CHANGE!
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.
Then Bernie will win
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Unlike the parallel post by Maggie, you stick to the relevant facts--namely, the candidate's actual record--rather than spewing out lies, distortions and subjective impressions.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Any reason given, 1 or a hundred, to not vote for someone is exactly 0 reasons to vote for someone else.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What do you mean?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)I voted for Obama. Twice.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)You are of course, fully at liberty to present your own definition of the term as it stands in your response.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in this election. So what are you saying, I don't understand.
frylock
(34,825 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I supported Obama, and still do. I also support Bernie.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the difference between non sander supporters not attacking you, and maggies thread of the ugliness by the sander supporters. for a legitimate thread of why one may not vote for a particular candidate.
says everything. and also validates one of the points maggie made
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)if you are wondering about the reaction.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)which is my point.
no need to argue you your OP..... not even read it cause well, meh....
your thread to do, expressing your opinion about why you wont vote clinton.
maggies did the same. laid out why she would not vote sanders. valid points. disrespect if a sanders supporter. hence the difference in the two threads.
which is one of maggies points in her OP, which validates what she was saying.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)supporters don't want to talk about the actual RECORDs of both Candidates. I do, so should everyone, and yes, it is my OP thanks for telling me.
There is a huge difference in both threads. For one thing, I would not have posted a thread that said 'why I don't support ..... fill in the blank, I would have posted a thread saying 'Why I support MY candidate'. But if this is how people want to do it, then I'm fine with that too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)fellow sander supporters alert stalked me off the board for raising the issue snaders needed to be more inclusive and go after the dem base vote. and you are welcome. it might make him a more viable candidate, might, three month later. but he keeps going back to his reaching out ,,,, exclusively working and middle class.
no. i have since done a lot of research on sanders. i pretty much agree point by point with maggie.
i appreciated her OP. well laid out, expressing how some of us feel.
i am sitting with omalley now. i am hoping that he will start moving. i like his tenacity. and he sits more comfortably in the social issues that are important to me.
so..... i will leave your thread.
i wanted to make a point the difference in allowing opinion and hostility to opinion.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)settle with the one we are most comfortable with.
i have no qualms doing just that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)makes no sense, why on earth would a candidate's supporters stalk that candidate's supporters?
Frankly I never thought you were a Bernie supporter so was surprised when you said you were. It seemed to me you spent most of the time attacking him and his supporters.
And why on earth would anyone base their decision on what is best for this country on a few people on the internet who represent such a teeny fraction of a candidate's support that it is negligible?
My decisions are based on where a candidate is and has been on important issues.
I can't imagine changing my mind because of a posters on DU. THAT makes no sense at all.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i saw where he had a weakness, from day one. i wanted more from the man. i wanted him more inclusive.
now, you see that as not supporting sanders.
i see that as making sanders stronger, ..... ergo kick ass support.
this is your problem, in YOUR interpretation of my actions.
not my problem.
i am done. and i am stepping out of your thread.
i was making a point. the difference between the respect for you int his thread, and the open hostility for maggie doing exactly the same.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I responded to what you said.
Bernie is so right about Economic Justice for all Americans and particularly for those who are the most oppressed. Your opinion is not shared by those who do not HAVE economic justice. It's fine for privileged people to deny those who are not so privileged, the same privileges they have, easy from a comfortable place where they cannot possibly relate to what it is like to be POWERLESS.
Money is power. The cops are killing POOR AAs, people who can't come up with a $200 bail and end up dying in a prison no one with MONEY would even be in.
Amazing to me the effort to deny AAs the same power, the power that goes with money, that those denying this is such an important issue, already have.
And you need to read beyond DU what AAs have to say about this. And every other minority.
I guess you don't think that women should get equal pay for equal work either because that won't solve sexism???
No, it won't, no one can solve hatred and stupidity but they can empower those who have no power and that is why Sanders is so right on this issue.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)think you are right. you will vote for the candidate you are most comfortable with. i probably will not vote primary and simply vote the general election.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,164 posts)That a "huge" percent of Sanders supporters are racist liberal elites?
Faux News couldn't have put it any "better".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with her on in the OP. i think a good portion of sanders crowd is racist, but then i also think a good portion is teabaggers, repugs, libertarians, populist and independents.
i think the dems of his crowd is a smaller number.
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)and then, gasp, they weren't... because meanies. They lack the courage of their convictions.
Drama llamas, is how I refer to them (yes, it is a funny term that my nephew and I use).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)comforting tale and not actually listen to what these very people are saying. any time you want to peruse the reality of this discussion, i would love to have, because it is a very interesting evolution and i had a wonderful time in the experience. it served me well. and has probably done the same for others.
you htough clearly show you are not capable of having a discussion as you lack the willingness to even listen.
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)You know nothing about me or what I think.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I call you on it and I am personally attacking you
Creative
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that position'. Lol, it was way too obvious from the start. I imagine that tactic has been scrapped by now. It did get a lot of attention and when that happens, there's no point continuing such a charade.
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)I think there are a few hold outs, though.
I am fine with people supporting their preferred Democratic presidential candidate, though I may disagree with their reasoning. However, the underhanded, slimy and nasty tactics of some are absolutely deplorable.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)demmiblue
(36,823 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)This one stuck.to what she doesn't like about Hillary. She didn't branch out into insulting everyone who supports her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with sanders.
fact
you have vocal sanders supporters (thom hart) and others along with non sanders supporters all over the net having this discussion.
just as i bring up the point that sabrina can create this OP but the end of the world and alert stalking getting maggies off the board creating the same OP per sanders.
again. making maggies point.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Plenty of people expressing similar opinions who aren't being chased off.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Certainly not people unhinged enough to blow themselves up.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Aug 18, 2015, 05:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I rarely alert on people
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=527462
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Personal attack. Calling a DUers 'unhinged.'
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 18, 2015, 05:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am just so tired of this. If you find your only reply is a personal attack it is probably time for you to step away from the keyboard, not to post
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a stupid alert. I've struggled to write a constructive comment about it, but just cannot. It's stupid, sophomoric butt hurt.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't strike me as personal attack on a hide worthy level.
--Blanche
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sea is fresh off of a suspension and right back at the usual shit. There's nothing wrong with this post. I laughed.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)You are on a roll today.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Aug 18, 2015, 05:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
yes. of course she did. says a supporter that might of helped her be kicked off for her opinion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=527400
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Personal attack/baseless accusation
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 18, 2015, 05:38 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: friviolous alert
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)aquamarina
(1,865 posts)I do think Clinton's supporters are a very big part of her problem. I look at this donor list and am very discouraged and worried about what her priorities will be as President. I have a hard time believing that all this Wall Street money she is getting is simply a gift with no strings attached.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....judgement over the years than her closest opponent.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)one would very hard put to find a candidate who is more in tune with what is currently trending well and adjusting their message to fit that, what ever it happens to be
40RatRod
(532 posts)Since you feel that way about Hillary, I assume if Bernie is not the candidate, you will either vote GOP or just sit out the election. Either way, you will be helping the GOP.
Both Bernie and Hillary have their warts but I pledge to support whoever OUR candidate is.
Our POTUS has evolved on many of his previous positions during his presidency, as most do. I suspect both Hillary or Bernie will have to do so as well. I can not imagine the GOP evolving on any of their positions.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Sanders has shown he also has that asset by considering the evidence on BLM issues, reflecting and modifying his personal opinions and setting them out clearly.
I give kudos, not raspberries, for that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about the issue, and I am very glad, because all those here on DU who suddenly became so 'concerned' about this decades-old issue of police murdering AAs were nowhere to be found last year when many of us were trying to help keep the attention on Ferguson. They absent from that effort, to the point that many of us took the issue away from DU and to where it could actually get the attention it so needed.
This is not a political issue, it is a societal issue, but for some, turning it into a political issue then forgetting it afterwards, is par for the course, where were they last year, eg? That is not escaping the notice of the AA community which people would know if they really were interested in the issue itself. The fact they do not know it and keep trying to USE it, says all that needs to be said.
Sanders always listens to the people, he always has, on every issue, and if they ask him to put focus on an important issue, he will and has. He agreed to try to get more attention for an issue he has always been a champion of.
As Lil B said recently, 'Bernie was there during the Civil Rights Movement, Hillary wasn't, that means a lot to me'. Yes, it does, thought some of Hillary's supporters have claimed that the Civil Rights movement means nothing to day. That shows how out of touch they are with AAs and what matters to them, thankfully they are able to speak for themselves and as they learn about Bernie, they ARE.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)in saying they are both excellent candidates for President. As would be Clinton, as was and is, Obama.
The bottom line for me, the absolute bottom line for me, to the point I give only fractionally more worth to much else - and measuring that against the the danger of being seen as an absolutist - is this: keep the fascists out of the WH....the revolution may have to be put on hold or be more measured, but giving the fascists even a fraction of a fraction of a percentage more chance of commanding the world's greatest military machine ever, by far, and concurrently raining down Maria Law on all of us, is unthinkable.
We are really preaching and reading from the same progressive book, maybe just on different chapters.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of this nation has continued BECAUSE we keep putting of that inevitable moment, WHEN do we finally decide that changing things means taking risks and that the time is NOW.
How much longer do we continue to take the position of being on the defensive, setting up weak barriers to try to hold back the 'enemy' who each time we make that decision, moves forward just a little bit more and push us back some more. We keep losing ground, doing it the 'lesser evil' way and they keep gaining ground.
We are so fearful that we have been paralyzed. But not all of us, sometimes things reach a critical mass, but before that there are signs that things ARE going to change because the more the people LOSE the LESS they have to lose.
OWS was the first sign of the enormous discontent and anger that exists in this country. Which is why it so frightened those in power they sent out the military to try to silence it.
Bernie is another sign that the people have decided to rouse themselves out of their fearful apathy and do what will have to be done eventually anyhow, get involved, not just in the election, but in a political upheaval, a real challenge to the rigged system that isn't working for a vast majority of the people.
And it may be that the will of the people will be so strong that a real change CAN begin.
It's not like it hasn't happened before, read the grievances after the main text of the Declaration of Indepence.
We're not being asked to go war, as they were. All we're being asked to do is to support this one person who didn't really want to run for the WH, but who was the obvious choice to begin to rid this country of the powermongering, greedy, cruel, heartless morons who are taking for themselves what belongs to all of us.
I'm willing to take that risk, having been 'cautious and fearful' in the past. We simply can't keep putting it off, too bad we waited so long.
Bernie is taking a huge risk, the least we can do is have his back because they will do everything they can to stop him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)is not a noble trait. By all appearances, that is exactly what Clinton does.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)never met better than me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)about same-sex marriage? Really?!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Epiphany is an actual thing. To have an ephiphany, by definition, is to be genuine.
frylock
(34,825 posts)And Sanders can't do a take back on PLCAA, nor should he.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)support, but used her enormous influence to help pass, the atrocious Welfare Bill, the dream legislation of the Far Right for so long, boasting how she 'drummed up votes' while she was First Lady to help get it passed.
Had she 'evolved' BEFORE that, she could have helped STOP that legislation that has helped plunge more children into the painful world of extreme poverty, decades ago.
So, while it's laudable to evolve on issues, it is simply not tolerable for the sake of millions of human beings, to allow privileged people to do that evolving WHILE they have the power to effect those lives.
Government is not the place to provide opportunities for people who are slow to see how their misguided beliefs can so adversely affect the lives of millions.
Come back AFTER you have evolved, or stay in private life. We need leaders who get it right the first time.
Reagan's Drug Tsar has evolved also, on the awful policies known as the War on Drugs he so vehemently believed in. But his evolvement cannot help those whose lives he helped destroy, generations now, as he tries now to make up for it, we needed an already evolved person in that position when it counted.
Bottom line, people who are in need of evolvement on major issues that affect the lives of millions, do not belong in powerful positions until AFTER they have evolved. I don't see why this is such a difficult concept at all.
Which is why I support Sanders who simply knew what was right on most issues, and used his position to try to get the right thing done. But faced non-evolved colleagues who often prevented those with the ability to see what needed to be done, from getting it done.
George II
(67,782 posts)
gregcrawford
(2,382 posts)Well-reasoned, accurate, and without the vitriol that tainted a recent OP with a different point of view.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts) Phlem
(6,323 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I like the guy that gets it right the first time.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Hard to vote for someone who has to ask the people what's bothering them. As a politician that should come easy, unless of course they don't want to piss off their donors.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)thank you
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
mckara This message was self-deleted by its author.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)mckara
(1,708 posts)I'm not a big fan of hers either.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts) 
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)succinct and brilliant. Puts it right out there.
totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)Sanders. 83 recs and counting. DU has spoken. Good. By tonight I predict it will be much better than 2-1 in favor of Bernie.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)ought to prove historically instructive to you.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... if we couldn't support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, since they knew his more direct words about progressive issues would attract us and being a running mate to John Kerry would make him a more likely to win candidate than Kucinich. Even though they likely KNEW at the time behind the scenes they could pull the plug on him at any time with his then secret personal problems that would come out later, and chose to do so right before Super Tuesday. Any coincidence? Something inside me tells me it wasn't.
So maybe Kucinich might have been a step closer had the corporate PTB not engineered that outcome too. I know I would have likely supported Kucinich early on had Edwards pulled out earlier.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think the point of my post went right over your head. Democratic Underground is an outlier. that's Sanders seems to be the frontrunner here is the kiss of death to his candidacy. this is how I know Sanders will never win the nomination.
well the other reason I know why Sanders won't win the Nomination is because he doesn't have the Democratic Party machine behind him and none of his supporters actually bother to show up to the actual meetings so their infrastructure is shit at this point.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and have done a lot within the party too to try and help have it move in the right direction too collectively with many I like working with to do build a better future too.
WHOOSH yourself! Just because some controlling elements are Third Way corporate owned infections that steer the party the wrong way at times and lead you to believe that Bernie can't win with their voices in the way doesn't mean that there are so many others of us here that feel differently and will work for Bernie too and when the time comes get behind him to help him get the nomination and win afterward.
That's what the Republicans are doing too when looking more at Trump, since unlike just about all of their other candidates is not "bought" by other money influence (even if he has a lot of money himself). Americans in general are wanting less bought politicians. That is why someone like Bernie is going to win many primary battles, even if the corporate controlled media is trying to make it sound like that is an impossible task.
DU here was probably more accurate than polls, etc. in the 2008 election in more early on siding with Obama's prospects than Hillary's that the media was in love with at the time. People didn't just "give up" because the media told them to do so with Hillary running then, and they wound up winning by sticking to Obama. Many here feel the same way about Bernie. Let the primaries come!!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a lot more knowledge of how this all works now than we did then.
Bernie Sanders was supposed to disappear about a week after his announcement, according to DU, so I guess you have a point.
totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)But win or lose, and I believe we can win, it's gratifying to see the support that Bernie is getting at DU, especially since the site's owner is in the tank for Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bush era. We are in a whole different time and those who are trying to compare the Bush era to today, are simply demonstrating how desperate they are to try to explain what is happening. The people are ANGRY. The MSM has ignored that anger hoping to create the impression that the country has 'moved on' from the Criminal Meltdown of our Economy caused by the crooks on Wall St.
But Bernie has exposed that lie, he has listened to the people and is speaking for them and they are rallying around him.
I like that they THINK we are back in the old Bush days. Meanwhile Bernie continues to gain traction with people as they come to know him.
840high
(17,196 posts)totodeinhere
(13,056 posts)SamKnause
(13,087 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Pile on the voting record, funding sources, poor judgement, scurrilous tactics and unwillingness to stand with the people over corporations, and it gets ridiculous.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)presidential material. People said the same thing about Obama, and he was tested even less than Berrnie.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders like Trump is not temperamentally suited for, or prepared
to become commander in chief of this country.
He just a nice man, that support most of Hillary's and Dem's goals.
cali
(114,904 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,282 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)But where I come from, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, we just simply call it a duck. It ain't judgement, it is loyalty that made Hillary support the rich. You are just too nice. Bernie is not better because he has better judgement, he makes better decisions because he has better values. Hillary votes with her donors , Bernie votes his heart.
It is wonderful to have Bernie run.
If you want to try to avoid knowledge this is a class war go ahead. It will certainly soothe the egos of those not up for the fight. I am a zealot for democracy, but glad to have you aboard sweetness.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and ultimately her judgement in aligning herself with money interests that is at the root of most of her problems as a candidate.
She's had a choice as a Democrat to do the right things many times in her past, but she's had judgement issues throughout her career that she's not delivered on good decisions consistently that reflect hers and Democratic constituents' values the way Bernie has done.
It's like me saying that perhaps if the extremist right wingers go after Bernie for being a "socialist" to respond back in some cases that their candidates are being funded by an empire built on Communist Dictator Joseph Stalin's money who helped the Kochs build their empire in his time.
Now that's an accurate statement, and perhaps as in my estimation would be good at helping us dismiss those that are truly lost causes and extreme in their views from polluting crowd discussions when they are present, but what works more with voters that really want to think about their vote and wanting to make judgement on who to vote for based on a lot of different facts, is to point out in more detailed fashion how socialism works for them, has worked for them, and has worked for their "ideal economy" the way studies have shown where people have been shown to favor the wealth division of Sweden over what they think they have here, which is not as extreme as the wealth division that we really have here.
Ultimately making the case for poor judgement really takes it down to the level of how people think about problems, and questioning how Hillary has exercised her judgement in her history and ask if we share the way she decided on those decisions and how she let outsiders affect those decisions. That brings it down to a personal level, and let's people stand in both Bernie and her shoes to ask themselves how they would make decisions in those situations.
V0ltairesGh0st
(306 posts)Everyone should also be looking to their states house/senate seats coming up for election, and any Governorship's. Not only do we need Bernie we need to take back congress as well. Find the best progressive candidates on all State/city/local elections also and push them into office as well.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)all you really need to know is who is funding the campaigns. There is no way in hell Hillary will do anything to harm her corporate donors. Thank you, John Roberts.
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)no matter which one.
Because to not do so would be total insanity.
SUPREME COURT baby
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)She is bought by the super rich and will work for them. That is why I don't support her.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)but she's added plenty of reasons to that, and some of which like this https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+cluster+bombs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 that are downright appalling and telling in terms of negative ramifications over "judgements". I suppose as long as it ain't our kids, etc, being harmed, it's alright....
Fred Friendlier
(81 posts)It really wasn't that long ago that the default position on the Left was that Marriage as an institution was an expression of the Patriarchy and that everyone would benefit from its elimination. Advocacy for Same Sex Marriage was extremely rare, and most people in the Movement did not find the arguments compelling.
Fast forward forty years, and Same Sex Marriage has turned out to be a winner for our side. Which is good. But it is dishonest in the extreme to insinuate that someone who needed until the last decade to get on board with the program must perforce be some kind of crypto-fascist. That kind of thinking blew up in our faces a generation ago, and if we do not take care it will blow up in our faces today.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Smart people evolve when they rec new info, or have
personal growth. I don't want someone that is in cable
of having a change of heart:, because like, Lincoln said,
that is what it takes for man kind progress ("is a change of
of Heart"
.
As long as Hillary has a heart change for her is always possible,
then for she can progress on any issue. (that makes her good listener)
Heck we all can
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)millions of people suffer, sometimes die, as with Iraq. Sorry, but if you are not where you ought to be on issues that directly affect people's lives, children, the elderly, the most vulnerable in our society, see the Welfare Bill Hillary helped push and get passed which has so harmed so many people. Anyone with heart would never have supported that disastrous, right wing legislation, they would have been thinking about what it would to children and single moms, mostly minorities.
Bernie who has heart, didn't need to evolve on this, he KNEW how much suffering it would cause and voted against it.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)when Hillary is nominated by the Democratic Party for President of the United States in 2016.
robertpaulsen
(8,632 posts)April 23, 2015 by John Vibes
Hillary Clinton recently announced that she will be appointing long-time Monsanto lobbyist Jerry Crawford as adviser to her “Ready for Hillary” super PAC.
Crawford has mostly worked with Democratic politicians in the past, but has also put his support behind Republican candidates as well. Anyone who was willing to support Monsanto’s goals would receive support from Crawford.
In the past, Crawford has worked with Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Bill Northey. Over the years, Crawford has been instrumental in fighting against small farmers in court and protecting Monsanto’s seed monopoly.
Just last week it was reported that Hillary Clinton is attempting to repolish her image and paint herself as a champion of the common people. She is planning to make “toppling the 1%” one of her primary campaign selling points, although she is obviously a part of the same ruling class that she is speaking against, and receives massive contributions from some of the most corrupt aristocratic organizations in the world.
Read More: http://www.trueactivist.com/hillary-clinton-hires-former-monsanto-lobbyist-to-run-her-campaign/?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=antimedia
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)robertpaulsen
(8,632 posts)Monsanto is not.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)robertpaulsen
(8,632 posts)You do realize you put the words "Hillary" and "pubic" in your subject line, right?
Is this some allusion to the Clenis?
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)All we can use is evidence. Specifically, track record and who she is working for. Neither of them look promising for the 99%.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)There will be no Hillary Clinton to support after the primary.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Bernie Sanders, otoh, does -- all of them, as far as I can see. So am glad I don't have to vote for her in the primary and will find it distasteful to vote for her in the GE if she wins the primary.
Not going to go into Hillary's values and ethics except to say that her decisions express her values and her behavior during the 2008 campaign exposed her ethics.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)She knew she was going to run for president and try to get the votes of Occupy Wall Street activists and supporters, among many others. Does she really believe they will turn out in large numbers to vote for someone who makes quarter million dollar speeches to the banksters? Those speeches are a drag on getting Democrats to the polls that we absolutely did not need, assuming she's the nominee.
Hillary is in the unique position of having a trial run at being President. She was given full responsibility for health care reform during Bill's first days in office. She assembled a task force that met in secret, heavily weighted toward insurance executives. She did not even publicly acknowledge the existence of single-payer advocates. The task force took their time and put together a complex plan based on the idea of managed competition. It was kind of tossed at the relevant House committees and told it was their job to put it into bill form. Squabbling ensued, cats were not herded, no bill came to a vote in the first 2 years of Bill's term -- and then, the midterm elections happened and the Republicans took over. Health care reform was dead.
I don't see Hillary's job performance as head of Bill's health care reform task force as recommending her for the job of president.
I don't hate Hillary, and I will definitely vote for her if she's the nominee. But there are at least a dozen Democratic women who are as qualified as Hillary who I wish were running instead to become our first woman president.
You know who else lacks judgement? The Democratic party leadership and funders who have all coalesced around Hillary and did not leave any room for anyone else to get into the race and find support from big fundraisers and congressmembers. I sure don't feel they've made a good choice here, and I'm doubting she will be able to win the GE. Hope I'm wrong about that if she's the nominee.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Really really important to a lot of people.
It's fairly immature to treat this all like a game.
I don't know anyone who has worked to GOTV to behave like this.
williesgirl
(4,033 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,278 posts)Thank you for sharing and I'm glad I didn't miss it. Bookmarked for future reference. Bravo.!!!
Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)Incredibly poor judgement on her most important vote as a senator.
And, as the OP has expressed, that's not the only reason why we need someone else to lead our country into a better future.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)You've laid out so many key arguments rationally.
Bernie has a gift of speaking truthfully, rationally, and passionately. I think that is what draws people in. They know when they're hearing the truth.
Ill vote for her if she gets the nomination, but it will be a vote against whatever freak job Republicans have nominated.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Clear...concise...facts.
And what is really bugging me is all her money grubbing from the wealthy.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That Hillary supporters haven't locked you out of your own thread like Bernie supporters did yesterday on the post that inspired yours. That's not how we roll. 
MoveIt
(399 posts)you roll in groups of 2-3 giving high-fives for the latest false smear.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)As for Hillary, there are only a few things I just cannot overlook.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777603
I won't delve into the personal characteristics of either candidate, except to say that I think Sanders comes out ahead on that score as well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)OP. I believe he also voted against the Wall St Bailouts. Issues are all I am interested in when deciding who to support for elected office.
All the rest is distraction imo.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I think Hillary was fine as Secretary of State. I see her as a smart, sharp-elbowed lawyer, but one who fundamentally thinks the status quo is either desirable or inevitable. A conservative Dem to the core.
I was struck in recent days by very odd proposition that Sanders is a sheltered, white-culture-only Vermonter who never thought about civil rights until recently, rather than the Brooklyn-born, Chicago-educated, die-hard civil rights advocate he has been all his life. Hillary is, respectfully, not fit to carry his protest sign.
Right about the time Sanders was being arrested for protesting college housing segregation, Hillary Clinton was literally president of the College Republicans at Wellesley College, not yet having even decided whether she supported the Civil Rights Movement at all:
Sanders was getting arrested for advocating de-segregation. Clinton was a Republican activist opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. He is a civil rights hero. She gradually evolved from a conservative person and a Republican.
This is not a talking point to me. This is indicative of a person who is a conservative, establishment Democrat who fundamentally sees the existing power dynamics in the country and the world at large as not something to fight to reform, but simply as an environment in which she can operate.
I see this more and more in the Democratic Party, as conservative-minded people flee the increasingly irrational positions Republicans have used to build their brand since the Newt Gingrinch, culture war, "It's not liberal policies we hate, but liberals themselves" attitude. It's led the Republicans to disavow reason entirely and change the debate from how we should be governed to quite literally whether government should do anything at all, besides get out of the way of the wealthy and business interests.
I think there is a core to this conservative element of the party that includes a specific eagerness to accede to the demand of investment bankers like Pete Peterson to dismantle the social safety net and funnel all retirement proceeds into private investment -- a greed-driven, disastrous plan that has already wreaked untold damage on the country by replacing pension plans with 401(k) subject to the violent ups and downs of a successfully de-regulated stock market. Peterson has been part of Clinton Foundation summits, and when I listen to Clinton speak, I do not hear the rock-ribbed support for the New Deal policies I hear from Sanders and Warren, who are both affirmatively pushing to expand those policies, rather than half-heartedly defend them, or prepare to trade them away entirely.
I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I will vote for her over whatever the Republicans do if it comes to that. But if she is the nominee, my hope is that the economic populism sweeping the country will force her out of her comfortable relationships with Wall Street interests and into policies that will stop the ceaseless push to grab more and more from the middle class and feed it upward.
But I see her as a conservative technocrat with an outdated, self-deluded view traceable to Bill Clinton's presidency that giving away the nation's wealth to Wall Street "floats all boats," because everyone can invest in the stock market. This is just another version of the trickle down myth, and in the wake of the $4 trillion decimation of middle class wealth that just occurred, we cannot afford it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Clintons were doing while Bernie was participating in the Civil Rights Movement. That is the risk they took when they attempted to distort Bernie's record, and attempted to use ageism against him. And people realized that they are of the same generation so what was Hillary doing at that time and contrary to what we are told, that the Civil Rights movement and Bernie's participation in it, matters a lot to a whole of people.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The Count is so pleased, he loves counting to big numbers and 304 is more than three times bigger than 92.
