If Clinton wins the nomination...

[CajunBlazer]

I've read the posts that some of the Sanders supporters say they wouldn't vote for her. Here's why they should rethink those statements.

Never let perfect be the enemy of good. If you live in a non completive state you are free to do as you please without affecting the outcome. However, f you live in a competitive state and are forced to choose between Clinton and Rubio (or Trump, or Cruz, or Bush, or ....) or just not voting, you would be a fool to choose the latter option. Then consider that if a Republican takes the White House, they are also likely to remain in control the House and take even more seats in the Senate - yep I'm sure you would like living under absolute Republican rule for the next 4 or 8 years while they pack the Supreme Court with the most conservative Justices imaginable for the next 20 or so years. Yep that would really help your cause

Just for the record - I don't think anyone here is a fool.

[randys1]

1. Anyone who refuses to vote for Hillary in the GE if she is the nominee is someone I dont

want to talk to , hear about, know about.

They are likely straight, white males anyway...

[AOR]

8. Well there's an idea that all "true leftists" like yourself....

should wrap their heads around. Comedy gold...

[CajunBlazer]

11. Hey, careful there!

I an a straight, white male... And I'm old too. That doesn't make a Republican.

[randys1]

12. So am I , but i wouldnt for one second stay home on election day because Bernie wasnt

the person running next Nov.

Anyone who would, especially for that reason, I dont want to talk to or anything, it is the height of irresponsibility.

[restorefreedom]

19. not staying home

I plan on voting for every office and for every question if there any questions on the ballot. There are lots of options. Everyone should vote.

[AOR]

24. Through the dazzling haze and incense of lesser of two evils political impotency...

lies the true face of the enemies of the working class and the poor.

[RBInMaine]

108. Enough of the derogatory crap about "STRAIGHT WHITE MALES." Enough of THAT SHIT !!

Your post was good until you hated on "STRAIGHT WHITE MALES." There is ZERO need of saying stereotypical SEXIST and RACIST shit like that.

[Logical]

112. Ill vote for her, but it will be the worse dem i have ever voted for. Nt

[Logical]

113. Classy as usual. Nt

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

116. I am not voting for her so put me on ignore, block me or whatever. Just letting you know to save

You time and trouble!

Same goes for anyone else who feels that way too.

[demwing]

2. Fear...I guess it works /nt

[restorefreedom]

3. this is a fair argument....

but some of us feel that part of the reason the country is in the state its in, is because people have held their nose too many times and voted for the least of the worst.

no more hawks
no more corporate coziness
no more third way

good points, but sorry, no. sometimes the path to ultimate victory is through adversity. there might be some losses, but this is a revolution, not a skirmish.

the future of the country and much of the world is at stake.

[CajunBlazer]

9. The path to ultimate victory....

...seldom involves letting you opponent win the battle or shooting yourself in the foot.

[restorefreedom]

14. not saying we should "let" anyone win

but ask any group of people, and among them you will find folks who have held their nose too many times to vote for the least of the worst. That kind of strategic voting not only fails much of the time, but it doesn't produce real change. This is going to be the election when people vote their conscience.

[leftofcool]

10. Then don't vote.

[restorefreedom]

18. i have every intention of voting

even for president. i am confident that at each level, there will either be a running candidate or a write in candidate that I can vote for with conviction. I don't recall ever leaving a space for an office blank on the ballot, and I don't plan on starting now.

[Hortensis]

29. Why bother writing-in, tho, instead of just clicking on the GOP candidate?

[restorefreedom]

39. well by that logic,

why don't I take the ballot home and put it in a sandwich? Because elections are about voting our convictions. I'm not going to vote GOP because nobody on that side represents me. But I will find someone who does.

[Hortensis]

67. No. They're about choosing who governs. That is our duty as citizens.

By your logic, why bother voting at all if you're not going to vote for someone who can win? Your convictions could be served just as well by leaving that spot blank or staying home and watching sitcom reruns. Which, of course, many millions of people do every election. How many sit-outs consider their behavior highly principled, how many are aware of dodging their irresponsibility, and how many don't care enough to bother thinking about it at all is a question for Pew.

[restorefreedom]

68. participating is not the same is not participating

and the only way we get our message out is by voting for candidates we believe in. And the only way they win, no matter how many people seem to think they can't, is by people voting for them. That's how change happens.

[Hortensis]

69. No it's not. Recommend reading a book on political science, ANY of them.

[restorefreedom]

75. are you suggesting

that votes don't matter?

[CajunBlazer]

71. And what have you gained if the candidate you voted for ....

... Gets less votes than Mickey Mouse?

[restorefreedom]

74. less than mickey mouse,

The satisfaction of knowing that I voted my conscience. Significantly more votes than that, the knowledge that I and a number of other people have sent a message about the direction this country needs to go in.

[Hortensis]

76. But most of us would feel you didn't do your duty as a citizen.

Especially those whose who might be victimized by a bad government your "conscience" did nothing to stop being elected.

[restorefreedom]

84. we all have different definitions of bad government

and our duty is to use our vote in the way we feel is best for the future of the country. some of us do not feel that voting for the least of the worst is the best use of our vote. And if the party really wants our vote, then maybe they should help a candidate that best represents party ideals and not just the one the establishment power mongers wants to shove down everyone's throat.

if someone feels victimized by the outcome, then they should take it up with the party elites who try to pick the winners and the losers before people even get a chance to vote, not the other voters. that is exactly what is wrong with the system and you helped to clarify it beautifully.

[Hortensis]

86. Gotcha. Have a nice evening, Freedom.

[restorefreedom]

90. you too! nt

[saturnsring]

15. the reason things are the way they are is b/c the cons are driving it there and they can do so

b/c of attitudes like this. your not voting only drives left leaning pols to the center giving you the very thing youre complaining about.

it's not a revolution it's just another election

[restorefreedom]

23. i never said i was not voting!

I don't advocate that anyone else do that either. I plan on voting for every office and for every question. But there are lots of people running for president and there more than two parties in this country. Plus there's always write in option...people have choices.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

88. I think voting for the lesser evil

is the same as voting for the greater good (not that I think any of the candidates are actually evil). The republicans are all about not compromising these days. They are not likely to deliver us a reasonable candidate for president. Now if the democrats also are not willing to compromise... we are just getting nowhere. Interesting you say this is a revolution. That's what a lot of conservatives think too, but the revolution they envision is totally different. I just don't know how any of this will work out in the end. I think it is important to continue to vote in moderates. Those are the people that can compromise and get a long and get something decent done that helps the majority.

[restorefreedom]

93. i don't think any of them are evil

i think the repubs are in the same place dems are, sick of establishment politics. they just have a different idea as to how to fix things.

as ironic as this might sound, i think trump is the most moderate on that side. he is prochoice, has said in the past he could support single payer (in some form), and does not like nafta or the tpp.
he is also a scumbag misogynistic racist, so that complicates things.

and bernie is actually quite moderate imo. but we have been exposed to pnac/cheney/cruz wingnutiness for so long he seems like a radical

so bernie in the wh would actually be a pretty moderate and reasonable choice, imo

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

100. I like Bernie

and I would support him if he wins the primary. He is a reasonable person, but I think the republicans are really going to tear him apart if he is the democratic candidate. Just the "socialist" thing alone... I don't have a problem with it, but I know lots of people that do. Hillary has been so thoroughly vetted by the republicans, that I don't think they have anything left to attack when it comes to her, nothing new. I think the republicans are going to turn off the undecideds if they perseverate over e-mails and Benghazi.

That is kind of ironic about Trump, but being a misogynist and racist is definite deal breaker for me. I think anyone who has had their own reality TV show should be disqualified from running for president (that includes Palin too).

I agree about the republicans being sick of establishment politics, but they are picking people that are much worse than the existing establishment politicians.

[restorefreedom]

101. reality tv presidents, ugh

i think that the Republicans would do the same thing to Hillary that you think they might do to bernie. I think Bernie has a lot of crossover appeal to conservatives. But I think that most Republicans would rather chew off their own arm before they would vote for Hillary. Sometimes I watch Fox just to keep tabs on what they're saying, and they're not gonna like anybody that the Democrats put forward. They will have a smear sheet for every single one of them.

yeah weird about Trump. He actually had some decent things to say about Bernie today in an interview. I might actually be OK with him if he wasn't a knuckle dragging asshole and didn't attract all the racist and loony birds in the party.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

103. I'm not sure about Bernie's cross over appeal.

That would be great if that is the case, but I'm just not sure at this point. I've talked to some pretty moderate republicans about socialism before and they just weren't willing to consider it. Maybe it is just the people I know though.

[restorefreedom]

105. in some cases

people don't understand what it really is. especially when you've got idiot pundits on FOXNews comparing it to Venezuela and Cuba. some people understand what it is and don't like it because they're capitalists, and the people you know might be people who know what it is and don't like it. I think a lot of people just need to learn more about it.

[HERVEPA]

4. Well, actually, plenty of people here are fools. But that's a different subject. :-)

[JRLeft]

5. Wall Street wins!

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. Is she "good" ?

Sometimes I wonder.

Rahm Emanuel likes her.


That says a lot right there.

[saturnsring]

16. he likes obama too

[Snotcicles]

7. This again, These posts are starting to remind me of the old Nader drive by's on slow days. nt

[Doctor_J]

42. Yeah, i hope we don't get this same post twice a week for the next year.

Reruns are annoying, especially platitudes.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

13. I won't be a member in the Democratic Party anymore

No point remaining in an organization any longer who's leader does not reflect my values.

Besides if she does win the nom FEAR is all she has to run on just like you posted.

[yeoman6987]

25. I understand but if Hillary is the nominee isn't that Bernie's fault for not resonating with enough

Voters?

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

37. No I just question the intellect of those in the party who picked Clinton. again

Why stay in an organization that does not reflect my values? If the majority want her so be it. I will have nothing to do with it.

The only reason I am still in the party is because of Bernie.

I was ready to walk away from the party this election cycle Bernie running as a dem made me stay, for now.

[CajunBlazer]

97. Well, I guess you just have given your self no other choice than to leave, but...

Where will you go that provides you with a suitable alternative?

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

107. One does not need to be part of any party to vote

[CajunBlazer]

44. Okay, go join a little splinter party...

.. hat will never be a consideration in the national elections or you can be an independent like Sanders and some of the tea party supporters. You and others like you will marginalized yourself, but that's a choice you will have to make.

We'll miss you here.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

47. Ok, I won't be missed in fact many will be happy to be rid of me and those like me

Not much love in the party for liberals and progressives anymore anyway.

[LittleBlue]

83. Same. I'm out of politics altogether if another corporatist us our nominee

I've heard all the arguments about why we shouldn't leave, most based on group shaming. This system is too corrupt to continue participating.

No matter what people say, it just isn't persuasive to me anymore. I've grown tired of the game.

[TM99]

17. I am not voting for Clinton.

Period.

I have already stated that perfectly clearly several times.

No more neoliberalism and with her neoconservativism.

The New Dems will destroy us by a thousand paper cuts. The GOP will bomb us. At this point, maybe we need a bombing in order to wake the fuck up.

[saturnsring]

20. isnt this a tos violation

the stupid, it burns

The New Dems will destroy us by a thousand paper cuts. The GOP will bomb us. At this point, maybe we need a bombing in order to wake the fuck up. such a brave fighter to determine how much pain to inflict upon others

[TM99]

22. Insulting a fellow DU'er is.

Nope. I am not advocating against her or suggesting someone else if she wins the Primary. I simply won't vote for her, and I won't post here until after she loses in November 2016.

[restorefreedom]

32. yup

some of the Hillary supporter seem to think that the only choice is to vote for Hillary, vote for the Republican, or stay home. I have never once said I was going to stay home and I don't advocate it for anyone else. I will find someone I can vote for with a clean conscience. But that's part of the fear mongering. making us feel like there's nowhere else to go. Except it's not working this time.

[TM99]

38. No, it is not working.

A minority on DU pushes these constant purity oath tests.

It is old and tiresome. I refuse to vote for another neoliberal New Dem. If the Democratic party can get their collective shit together and primary a genuine FDR progressive like Sanders, then I will work my ass off to get that person elected.

Otherwise, no, I will vote and vote for who best fits my principles and positions.

[restorefreedom]

50. it seems to be all they have left

if they really wanted to try and win votes for Hillary if she would be the nominee, they should present arguments as to why her policies represent us. But using fear and insults isn't going to sweeten the pot if any were even inclined to consider her as an option.

[CajunBlazer]

98. it's not a purity test, it's a test of reasonableness and flexibility

It's a test whether you believe that it's your way or the highway. It's a test of whether you can still make the best choice even when the perfect choice isn't available. It would be hell going house hunting with you.

[TM99]

106. It is not a test of anything.

Our vote is our vote.

I think it is unreasonable and frankly quite stupid to keep voting for the lesser of two evils. I know that it is not in this country's best self interest to have either a conservative OR a neoliberal at the helm for another four or eight years.

Sometimes the only way to effect change is to stand on principles and make the right choice instead of the easy choice.

I am not seeking the perfect. I just don't accept the worst. Now who again is the least flexible?

[restorefreedom]

28. name calling is often the refuge

of those who have no substantive counterpoint.

[saturnsring]

36. there are lots of substantive counterpoints to not voting and im sure the poster knows them

but what can u say to rational thought like I don't like neoliberalism so Im gonna let the cons have it all

[restorefreedom]

41. no one on this thread

is advocating not voting. I'm not sure where that's coming from but it's not from this thread.

[TM99]

43. I never said I wasn't voting.

Did I?

I said I was not voting for a neoliberal. You may not understand the term, but it is functionally the same as voting for a conservative. You can do the research yourself since you are so damned smart.

[saturnsring]

52. voting green has the same effect

neo liberal is not the same as conservative - and we have only ourselves to thank for the neo liberals

[Bobbie Jo]

102. Agree completely

Doing a write-in or voting third party is essentially the same as not voting at all as far as I'm concerned.

It amounts to a passive aggressive act, or a private temper tantrum that only serves to elect Republucans.

I don't see how any self-respecting liberal could possibly square that with their conscience.

It's a purely selfish move, AFAIC.

[Renew Deal]

51. Another person that learned nothing from 2000

[TM99]

58. Well that is probably because

nothing needed to be learned, at least not by me.

The Dems pushed Gore without Clinton. It was a lackluster campaign, and more Dems voted for Bush in FL than any myth of Nader & the Green party so then the election was easily stolen.

It kind of looks like from where I am sitting that maybe someone else needs to learn from 2000....oh and 2010....oh and 2014 too.

[Beacool]

72. Ahhhh, another purist who will cut his nose off to spite himself.

So foolish.......

Please note that the next president will appoint two, maybe three, justices to the Supreme Court.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, period.

[99Forever]

21. Ahhhh gee willikers....

...the good old "where else ya gonna go" fear card. Like that hasn't been played to death. Settle for the same shit that got us into the mess we are in or worse, cuz scary Republicans, BOO, amirite?

No thanks.

[oasis]

26. Supreme Court is huge. Add two more Scalia/types

suffer the consequences.:

[restorefreedom]

34. A vote based on fear

does not advance true democracy. Fear-based voting is over in this country. The page is turned.

[oasis]

48. A non-vote which helps the opposition does not advance common sense.

I don't see how fear has anything to do with it.

[restorefreedom]

55. i have every intention of voting for every office. nt

[Renew Deal]

53. You're right.

Let the republicans win.

[restorefreedom]

57. i'm not letting anybody win

i'm going to vote my conscience. And frankly, if the best the Democratic Party can do is produce a nominee who is pro-war, pro Wall Street, and has the backing of corporate tax cheats, and only recently "realized" that this trade deal is bad for this country, and didn't have a position on Keystone XL until she took a position on Keystone xl, if this is the best the Democratic Party can come up with, then maybe they don't deserve to win.

it is the parties responsibility to support all the candidates until nominee becomes apparent. They have stacked the deck for Hillary and against Bernie and the others. They're picking winners and losers. So if they decide to hitch their wagon to a corporate hawk, then they have nothing to complain about when people decide to vote their conscience elsewhere.

[saturnsring]

40. i know i cant believe the shit being said here by "dems"

- jesus it's 2010 all over again how well did that work out

[restorefreedom]

46. i know you are reading this thread,

because you are sending replies. No one on this thread is advocating not voting. Hillary (if she is the nom) and the GOP are not the only two choices.

you can keep repeating the "they're not going to vote" line until your fingers get sore, but it's not gonna make it true. Most of us are going to vote. We just might not vote for Hillary. And that's our right.

[Renew Deal]

54. Not voting for the Democratic nominee is equivalent to voting republican.

It's your right. And your choice just like in 2000 has consequences

[restorefreedom]

59. yes, and hillarys iraq war had consequences

but I'm not gonna put pictures of that up because people can find them if they want them. No more war, no more hawks. and if the Democrats don't want some of us to vote for another party, then maybe they should have a candidate get nominated who's not gonna take us into another war and actually represents what the people want.

[TM99]

60. Yeah, if only those fucking Democrats in the House & Senate

like Hillary Clinton had not voted for Bush's little war, just maybe the consequences would have been different.

Hard to blame the progressive left with a neoliberal neocon like that.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

66. Many also see no difference between HRC and a republican either

i know I don't when it comes to economic issues

If HRC is the best the party is offering then the party has no worries right? those us who will not vote for her are a small meaningless minority and will not matter

[saturnsring]

80. it's isnt that she's the best but she is the most electable and the most qualified

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

81. Then she lost already her supporters don't know it yet

[saturnsring]

56. throwing your vote away on a 3rd party is as someone put it "is functionally the same as" not

voting. your still surrendering your vote to the republicans

[restorefreedom]

62. bullshit

if the Democratic Party wants my vote so badly, then they can help nominate someone who represents true progressivism, not another Warhawk or corporate enabler. dws and the party have been propping up and shielding Hillary from the very beginning. If they don't want to present and assist a real progressive to get the nomination, and they want to work against him, then their loss is on them not us for voting our conscience. they need to either let it be a fair fight, or shut the fuck up when they lose.

[saturnsring]

79. talk about bullshit

and bitter . youre really gonna show them .

[restorefreedom]

85. not trying to "show" anyone

I will vote for the person I think is best and I hope everyone else does the same. But if the party tries to rig the process before the voters get to vote and then they lose, well I guess that's on them for playing favorites.

[iamthe99]

27. Let's just hope people vote for Senator Sanders instead

We really need someone else in the White House instead of another corporate minded president

[hrmjustin]

30. Puma sucks!

[Doubledee]

31. I do understand your position, I think

However several thoughts come to mind, please bear with me.

Those who seek a revolutionary change in our governance might agree that the worse things get the more likely sweeping change will occur.

Those like me, on the other hand, think that this nation has survived a republican in every pot in the past and will surely survive such in future, just as we have survived a democratic party controlled government. Continuing to vote for corporate controlled leadership gives us only the status quo. Further, the myriad of problems besetting our government will not be resolved as long as the two major parties are our only choices.

I will vote Green as I do, because this process for change is slow and difficult and requires, in my opinion, third party presence to even bring issues to the floor. I look to nations like France, as one example, with 12 parties representing all viewpoints and a concomitant environment in which working class folks flourish .

Thanks to those few who continued to read this to the end.

[restorefreedom]

35. good post. nt

[CajunBlazer]

64. I read it to the end....

But what what works in a parliamentary democracy like France doesn't usually work here in the US. In countries like France small parties can be part of a ruling coalition and have an effect on the coalition's policies; in our form of government small parties ar shunted to the side. That is why, while the parties have changed through our history, there have always been only two major parties except during times of transition.

Our form of government has usually insured that neither the far right or the far left have dominated for long. There is always a natural pressure toward the middle ground

[Doubledee]

92. An excellent point

as well as being historically accurate. However, the times they are a'changing and what was once two august bodies civilly ( and sometimes not so ) jockeying for ideological gain through endless arguments followed by compromises, has now become two greedy and grasping entities jockeying only for the river of corporate money and, individually, second careers as six figure lobbyists. Further, rule changes, have made it far easier for an extreme and vocal minority to hold undue sway over the legislative process especially when they are from the same party. The threat of government shut downs becomes ever more frequently heard.

Issues , many important, never see the light of day or even have one speak to them on the floor of either house. Despite France's differences in the mechanism of governance, no positions, no issues fail to have a vocal backer and that is more because of the numerous parties representing such a wide swath of the electorate.Far too many Americans are being shut out of , not only the conversation, but also the consideration of their important needs. We are not legally bound to two parties,our first President in fact was from no party whatsoever. In his later years, Madison came to ponder his advocacy for two parties as perhaps too few. I humbly agree.

I see third party presence in our Legislature as a brake on radicalism, an ensurer of the needs of the disenfranchised and the under represented. You may very well think these important, if not inalienable, and currently being served. I strongly do not.

[CajunBlazer]

114. Excellent Counterpoint

However, third party candidates are usually extremely marginalized. When the have an impact, it isn't always a positive one. Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter once said: "Third parties are like bees. Once they have stung, they die". The last third party candidate to sting was Ralph Nader who won 2.8M votes, 2.7% of the total in 2008. Many Democrats blame him for Gore's loss and calamities we suffered under "W".

And what are you going do if Bernie loses and he asks you to support Hillary?

[Doubledee]

117. Do?

As I am not going to vote for Sanders I will face no such quandary when or if he loses .....

Third parties face enormous challenges in seeking to run against the two major parties, enormous but not insurmountable. The Green Party has chosen to build from the bottom up and is doing so, if rather slowly. To despair of third party successes is sort of like those who thought we would never walk on the moon, until we did so.

Many democrats, those who blame Nader for exercising his constitutional right to run for that office, or any other are simply wrong and allowing their bias to color their understanding of the Constitution. Those who believe his being in the race accounted for Gores cowardice and lack of a backbone are equally wrong and should read the numerous studies that disprove that sour grapeian attitude. That sort of tactic seems to say "I got nothing else" ,sorry .

In the end it is my belief that neither major party truly represents me and I sought, and think I found, one that does. As a good citizen I will work for the success of that party and its candidates. I would hope that a loyal democrat such as yourself would work equally hard for the reform and restoration of your party's honor and duty, not to corporations and the wealthy, but to the people of this nation. If you are successful there will then be two such parties extant; the Democrats and the Greens. But, so far, I see only the one.

[CajunBlazer]

118. I am a realist

I am a Democrat who understands that the majority in this country, the folks who decide most if not all of the national elections, are turned off by both the far right and the far left.

I am a student of history who understands that the political pendulum has swung slowly back and forth over many years from liberalism to conservatism and back again throughout the history of our republic. I also note that it has never swung too far to the left or to the right without ultimately slowing and eventually starting to swing back in the other direction.

Those my friend are historical facts. Now, if I may, I will indulge in my theories. I firmly believe that when either liberals or conservatives find themselves firmly in charge, they try to push their agendas too far, thus initiating a negative reaction from the public at large. Those on the far left and the far right are, and have always been the most vocal and active in politics, but because of this they fail to realize that they represent but a small percentage of the overall population. They are the instigators of change, but never the beneficiaries of change. That is why when they have asserted themselves too strongly, the majority in the middle have always pushed back.

That is also why I believe that third parties based on a ether very liberal or very conservative philosophies may flourish for an instant in time, but are ultimately doomed to oblivion. Or as one historian put it, "Third parties are like bees. Once they sting, they die."

I also believe that when a major political party allows itself to be totally dominated by one political philosophy or the other (the Republicans come to mind), they are also doomed to defeat unless more realistic party members can reassert themselves. Note the current battle as the establishment Republicans try to take their party back from the Tea Party rowdies who are intent on high jacking it. If they don't succeed, their party's chances of winning the Presidency in future election cycles are going to grow smaller and smaller.

On the other hand I can never fault a person for following his or her strongly held convictions, so good luck in your future endeavors.

[Doubledee]

121. One or two points, if you will

Firstly I would thank you for a discussion both edifying and adult. Far too often on this media we see insult carry the day, not so with you , a welcome change.

I would note that , in every poll taken on the subject, the fact remains that, on the issues, the American public leans liberal. That politics is cyclic is certainly true enough, but today we see a GOP moved far to the right and the Democrats, seeking to gain the voters lost by their opponents across the aisle as they move beyond rationality and into extremism, also shifting rightward. Far less so,, of course, than the tea party driven republicans. Yet the fact remains that today's Democratic Party has silenced, or at least diminished, its progressive wing as the DLC focuses on its rightward plodding, however one believes that a practical or even wise journey.

I am a member of the left, no denying that, thus I readily admit my views may be colored by my political opinions, as are most in fact. I do not seek to minimize or disparage your leanings in any way, especially as you seem a very reasonable and delightful foil in this discussion of ours. But , due in part to those points already made, and not forgetting the blunting of any progressive position because of fear of drying up the corporate spigot as previously noted in other exchanges here, the wishes and needs of the people of this nation are simply not being met.

I believe that Citizens United is a giant anchor on democracy, that presidential campaigns costing a billion or so dollars for each major candidate serves only the wealthiest and dooms our nation to a course leading every closer to fascism. It is corporate wealth that makes single payer health care an impossibility under our current two party system for fear of drying up the healthy checks written by Big Pharma, the HMO's et al, it is that very same need for ever more money that leads to never ending wars benefiting the MIC.

All this leads me to think your position, however well laid out, a bit off kilter. But I do think we have each exhausted our respective positions on this issue at least and I do thank you for your informative, intellectual and mature approach to our respective differences.

Hope to see you on other threads and other issues.

[CajunBlazer]

122. Enjoyed our discourse as well

I think that you will find over time that we agree on almost all of the issues, including the evil of corporate money in politics. Where we differ most is in the approaches we favor. I prefer more to work within the system where as you believe more in "revolution". You seem to view yourself as an idealist, where as I view myself as an idealist with few illusions. You have higher standards for yourself, while I on the other hand am very content to settle for a bit more than half of the loaf.

Therefore I tend to pick candidates who share most of my views, like Bill and Hillary, but are who more centralist, and perhaps have a few flaws. Aside from the fact that such candidates are more likely to win in the general election, I believe they are also more likely to be able to persuade the general public to resist the "dark side" once they are in office and actually get the things I favor done. I love the way Bill often frustrated the Republicans. In 2008 I was a big Hillary supporter in the primaries, but switched to Barrack when she dropped out and contributed more money than I could afford to his campaign.

I admire the passion and conviction of Bernie and his supporters, but he is the ultimate outsider. Because of that I firmly believe that he would not only have a difficult time winning the general election, but he would also have a difficult time governing if elected. That would not be good for the party I support. I could be wrong about all of that, but like you, I have to follow my convictions.

Please do me a favor and visit my blog at cajunscomments.com. I respect your opinion and would love to have your constructive comments/criticisms. I also like your writing style - perhaps you would consider being a guess columnist. Just a thought. I will fully understand if you don't have the time to waste to even visit.

If we don't meet on threads again, I will drop you a line on DU email now and again.

It was fun.

[Doubledee]

123. Thank you very much

for the compliment and the invitation. I will assuredly visit your blog, as time permits of course. We here, the few, the optimisti, in our Central Valley, California town are beginning to ramp up our Green party recruitment efforts and will start registering voters as we do every election cycle. Of course, living amidst a bastion of republicans, it is always a fun time for us...

I moved to this place when an attractive position opened up in my final years at work prior to my recent retirement, and after spending four plus decades working with a small group formed during the turbulent anti Vietnam War protests. Being closer to the Sierra Foothills where riding my motorcycle was sheer pleasure and planning to retire up there as well were motivation enough. In the ten plus years here I have met, through volunteer work at various community services, several like minded folks and (rather boastfully) have seen some progress even among the dyed in the wool republicans. It seems progressives are everywhere.

Let me be perfectly clear about my vision; everyone who works, in any way, for progress, to bring about our shared goals, is doing work that deserves respect. Saving this nation from the clutches of crony capitalism and its edging ever closer to Mussolini's apt definition of fascism deserves respect and you certainly qualify.

See ya soon.

[oasis]

65. "Process for change is slow" you say. Put two

More Scalias into the mix and see how much slower it gets.

Thanks to Nader we have Alito and Roberts. We'll have a never ending parade of ultra-right SC justices until those who insist on making the perfect an enemy of the good, wake up.

[Doubledee]

94. Thank you for the response

We disagree in that Nader tossed the election to Bush, that has been run around the tree any number of times, defended, refuted and re-defended. I do not wish to engage in that red herring other than to note two opinions:

My vote is mine to cast, not any party's to count on, and I cast it for whom I wish, just as Nader had every constitutional right to run for that office in that election.

You may ignore, in a rush of partisan adrenaline, the many articles citing how Gore lost it all by himself, how Kerry, if there is where you wish to go, was not anywhere presidential enough and a terrible candidate, that so many voting Nader would have refrained from voting at all had they not had the choice of Mr. Nader.

Perhaps we may meet and agree on other issues in other threads, on this I think you simply beat a long dead horse..

[oasis]

95. Climate change, SCOTUS, no rush.

Have a nice evening.

[Doubledee]

96. no rush no loss of sarcasm

Is it a rush to work for change as I see fit or most likely to succeed? Is it a rush you seek when modern history shows democrats in the majority, democrats in the white house and there was not only no rush but no progress made then either.
If I truly believed electing a democrat would change anything, or hasten anything I would reconsider. But my reading of history proves, at least to me, that the answers lie with other than our two party system.

You work for change as you see fit, and I do so hope you DO work for it, and I will continue to work for it as I see fit. I do not need to insult or even criticize your efforts, especially as I am unaware of them in the first place, as you are unaware of mine. I do not see why you see a need for sarcastic one liners saying nothing really, but flail away as you wish. I prefer to remain civil. and I hope to continue to be informative as well. Opinions sans backing are simply wasted I believe.

[okasha]

104. Add women, LGBTs and POC.

No rush.

[Doubledee]

111. rush away

and go nowhere. The problems are complex the solutions to them require vision, diligence and patience. I rise to object to people who cluck like hens in the coop , making all sorts of noise about important issues but offering no way forward.

[Scootaloo]

33. And if she doesn't...

We saw in 2008 that some of her supporters will very happily jump for the Republican candidate.

[Le Taz Hot]

45. 'Cause we've never ever heard

these memes before. Well, at least not in the last 15 minutes. Next up: Loyalty Oaths.

[NCTraveler]

49. I would like to disagree with you.

If Hillary wins the primary and someone here doesn't vote for her they are a fool. And my enemy. And an enemy to women. And an enemy to minorities. And an enemy to education. And an enemy to....... They would be more than a fool, they would be my enemy. Not one single difference between them and the republicans. Thankfully people here are not fools for the most part. Same goes for Hillary supporters if Sanders wins the primary. Fuck any moron that carries the republicans water during an election at this time in history. The current difference between the two parties is enormous.

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. The Electoral Anachronism, er...College changes the equation.

As you note, in a non-competitive state (like Oregon, where I live is likely to be), if I can't stand the Democratic nominee, it really doesn't matter if I choose not to vote or vote for a more progressive candidate. All of our paltry handful of electors are going to go the the Democrat, regardless.

I support eliminating the Electoral College, but I have to admit being completely free NOT to select the lesser of two evils is nice.

[Ino]

63. If it's still undecided, I'll let Hillary know if she can count on my vote...

after the election.

[CajunBlazer]

70. Fear has nothing to do with it

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I simply pointed out the consequences of not voting.

If you don't care whether the Republicans will be able pass laws to which will further marginalizes women, the LGBT community, imigrates, and other minorities got the next 4 to 8 years - you have nothing to fear.

If you don't care whatever laws they choose to pass into law - you have nothing to fear

If you don't care if the Supreme Court is stacked with ultra conservative Justices for the next 20 years - then you have absolutely no reason to fear.

However, one thing is without question - one that doesn't fear evil is the worst kind of fool.

[Beacool]

73. I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

I'm almost certain that it will be Hillary, but if it were to be Sanders, then I would vote for him.

2016 will not be 2008. After 8 years of Bush, two wars and the economic collapse of September 2007, it was almost a foregone conclusion that a Democrat would win the WH. This coming election is not under the same circumstances. After 8 years of Democrats in the WH, would voters be willing to give them a third term in a row? I guess we'll find out in a little over a year from now.

This will be a tough election and every vote counts. Any Democrat who refuses to vote for the nominee deserves a Republican president, but the rest of us don't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. In matters of conscience the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[Tarc]

78. This is P.U.M.A all over again...

I was way more active on the DU back in 2008, and fully bought in to the "Party Unity My Ass" thing when it was clear that Hillary wasn't going to get the nomination. Hillary basically called us all out and said "were you in this campaign just for me?"

That was a wake-up call.

Sometimes our favorite candidate doesn't win, but really, the lowest Democrat is still way better than the best Republican.

I will pull the lever next fall for either Hillary or Bernie. No exceptions.

[kelliekat44]

82. That in itself show you what kind of people Bernie attracts. You fill in the blanks. nt

[lovemydog]

87. I love your comment for the record.

I too don't think anyone here is a fool. Well, maybe just a few, rofl. But seriously, I agree with you on this one hundred percent. And I feel we should nominate and run and vote for and elect more democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders in every election - local, state, federal and presidential!

[fadedrose]

89. Maybe I am a fool

but I feel that Clinton is a Republican in sheep's disguise.

No one has told me or given me any explanation as to why the Clinton's could charge $100,000 to $250,000 for speeches made to Wall Street officials and other lobby groups.

I have never heard Hillary or Bill say anything that was worth any money at all on TV, so what can they be saying to be worth that much at a private gathering?

So I'm a fool if I have difficulty voting for her? Put a few of these gold mine speeches and who they're for in DU so we can all see what's going on...

[liberal_at_heart]

91. People who try to tell me how to vote get put on my ignore list.

[CajunBlazer]

99. I would hate to go house hunting with some of you folks

If the perfect house was aleady taken you would probably end up living on the street.

[Art_from_Ark]

110. We're not buying a goddam house

We are voting for someone who will have a lot of influence in our daily lives, and world affairs, for 4 or 8 years.

[Ken Burch]

109. Can we please not ever use the phrase "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" again?

It's just cynical code for "nobody has the right to ask anything from anybody we elect".

It was bullshit in the Nineties and it's bullshit now.

None of us is asking for perfection...just some basic level of accountability and respect.

[mr goodbeer]

115. I will vote for the Dem nominee

Period.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Get with me the next time there is actually something good being compared to perfect and

definitely wake me for the supposed perfect for sure.

Personally with a real shot at it I'd probably go for it on perfect particularly when good isn't guaranteed or even at , much better odds, the opportunity for such is too almost infinitely rare.

Good my ass, I don't find the Turd Way even minimally acceptable much less good.

[musicblind]

120. Those who advocate anything third party or against the democratic nominee will be banned after the

primaries are over.

Many pizzas were served last time around and it looks like that will happen this time too.

And I personally find that sad. I was a Hillary supporter last time and gladly supported Obama after the primaries.

P.U.M.A. has no place on either side of the fence and Skinner and the rest of the people in charge of DU will do what they did last time regardless of whether the nominee is Hillary or Bernie.