Nine reasons to get off our asses and VOTE, God-Fucking-dammit:

[riqster]

The Supremes, who with their "Conservative" ideology are rapidly laying waste to the Constitution. Presidents nominate them, and Senates confirm them.

We MUST hold onto the Senate and the White House. Here is why:

Justice: President:
Scalia Reagan
Kennedy Reagan
Thomas Bush I
Ginsburg Clinton
Breyer Clinton
Roberts Bush II
Alito Bush II
Sotomayor Obama
Kagen Obama

Get the picture? Elections have consequences. And Supreme Court justices are consequences that last for decades.

Everybody, get out and VOTE!

[lostincalifornia]

1. but, but, I have heard some say there is no difference between the two parties? If your OP does not

demonstrate why that assertion is not worth anything, then nothing will convince those individuals

[riqster]

4. The OP does show such a difference.

But it won't convince the hard-core Naderesque fuckwits. Nothing will.

But if we can persuade the more rational people to get to the polls, it's a win.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. They have their "principles" to keep them warm at night....

[riqster]

7. Yup. While some of their fellow citizens freeze and starve.

[Glitterati]

8. Why, why, why?

Do you have to take a slam at DUers every fucking time you post?

Maybe we should have a few more juries agree with you just to save the congeniality of this message board.

It just thoroughly pisses you off when a jury decides against you, doesn't it? So you come out on the board and take it out on every possible juror.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. I am taking a slam at SOME of them...not all...

and WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about the Supreme Court just favored the Rich against the rest of us and WHY we have to stop tolerating the Idealists on DU BECAUSE we HAVE made some progress and we MUST defend it...just like Bernie Sanders said yesterday...

You got a problem with that?

[Glitterati]

10. No, you're not

you're taking a slam at DUers. That appears to be your only purpose in life.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. I explained myself...I don't owe you jacksh*t

My purpose in life at the moment is winning the MIDTERMS

What is yours?

[Glitterati]

15. You're exactly right, and I don't owe you jackshit either

and have no intention of answering any of your fucked up questions.

Nice attempt at a dodge, however.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Then GOOOOO!

No one is stopping YOU.....

Bernie Sanders said EXACTLY what I said just yesterday...YOU got a problem with Bernie Sanders too?

[Glitterati]

22. I've got a problem with what you do to this community

and I intend to call you out when you do it.

You got a problem with that? It seems your only problem is your inability to defend you animosity toward members of your own party who happen to disagree with you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. So you are the "Deciderer" of DU now?

Who died and left you Boss?

[Glitterati]

36. Why, no.

That would be the juries who vote against your silly alerts 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Over and over and over and over.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. I have only alerted on this board that I recall twice....

you must have me confused with someone else....

I rarely alert...

[Glitterati]

48. Right......and I should believe you why?

because you said it yourself........you don't owe me jackshit. Not even the truth.

[AgingAmerican]

47. Look in the mirror

...when you say that.

[Glitterati]

50. Irony is thick

and I really don't think most of them get the idea.

Too, too funny.

[Cha]

184. I do know he's a BIG Freakin' Hypocrite..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4758347

[Glitterati]

194. "He" is a she

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

You folks are so wrong, you can't even get your opponents sex right.

Here's a clue....I've stated many times on this community that I collect WIDOW benefits and that my husband died.

Research. It does the body good.

[beerandjesus]

21. Nailed it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. So you disagree with Bernie Sanders too?

"We HAVE made progress and we MUST Defend it"

I AM defending it...what are YOU and Glitterati doing?

[Glitterati]

38. You're not defending a damned thing.

You really missed that critical part of Bernie's statement..........it starts with "WE."

You're not following Bernie's wish - you're doing nothing but trying to tear apart the VERY people who will stand and defend.

[Marr]

216. +1

[beerandjesus]

39. Hm, just perused Bernie's site...

....and I don't see him extolling the virtues of trolling DUers.

So I'd have to say there isn't enough evidence to say whether I "agree" or "disagree" with him on that......

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. I am giving the exact quote by Bernie Sanders yesterday....

"We HAVE made progress and we MUST defend it" Bernie Sanders on the Ed Schultz radio show April 1 2014.

if you are NOT supporting Democrats instead of bashing them at EVERY turn....they are are not following Bernie's suggestion....

[Glitterati]

53. YEAH! You FINALLY GET IT!

if you are NOT supporting Democrats instead of bashing them at EVERY turn....they are are not following Bernie's suggestion....

Whew, that was hard work explaining that to you! I need to send Bernie an email thanking him for the assist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. I have been supporting DEMOCRATS all along....I am not one that has Bashed

them at every turn...BUT they do exist among DU'ers....and THEY are who I am talking about...

ARE you one of them?

or are you silly enough to say that everyone on DU has been "supportive" of Democrats...

[Glitterati]

55. ROFL, still lost in the wilderness, I see

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. I see you ran out of "pithy" remarks...

so I can laugh in YOUR general direction too....

[Glitterati]

60. I'm just laughing at your attempt to do exactly what Bernie Sanders said NOT to do

You'll obviously never get it. Lost cause.

[VanillaRhapsody]

70. I gave the EXACT quote....are you denying that he said it?

[Glitterati]

74. Wow. Just. Lost.

Your inability to understand the quote you are throwing around is just stunning.

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. We MUST defend the progress that has been made....

said to Ed Schultz yesterday regarding the Affordable Care Act....


YOU seem to have misunderstood Bernie!

[Marr]

217. You're always supportive of some Democratic *politicians*.

Not Democrats, generally. You seem to be quite irritated by rank and file Democrats, in fact.

[VanillaRhapsody]

246. No I AM the Rank and File....I support the Democrats...you don't hear me say....

ONLY Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are good Democrats....as some who shall remain nameless will say...

[Marr]

248. Well, so are we.

And I expect the people you're accusing of "not supporting Democrats" have voted for them pretty reliably. That doesn't mean they shouldn't criticize those politicians when they feel it's warranted, or try to push them leftward whenever they feel that they can.

[VanillaRhapsody]

251. then it is NOT ABOUT you.....who is this WE you are defending?

I am talking about the bunch that comes to DU simply to Punch Democrats...YOU Know who they are...

[Marr]

252. You've referred to 'people who bash Democrats' several times now.

And you seem to use the word interchangeably with "criticize". Also, while I don't remember your posts all that clearly, I do recall you having taken exception to my own criticisms of the party in the past, so it seems to me that this group you're talking about must be pretty broadly defined.

[beerandjesus]

56. Nice attempt at turning this around.

This whole sub-thread started because YOU were bashing Democrats.

Not feeding you any more though, troll. Glitterati and I need to get busy fund-raising for Rand Paul 2016, isn't that right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. I bashed some DU'ers.....not Democrats...

are there those on DU who really do not support Democrats or not? If you are Bashing them at EVERY turn denying even that there HAS been progress...JUST as Bernie Sanders said....then YOU are not supporting that progress...

GET IT?

[Glitterati]

61. ROFL

now you're searching DU for allies? Never. Happen.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Still nothing from you?

this is all you got...

[Glitterati]

71. What part of

I have no intention of answering your silly questions don't you understand?

I need nothing to point out your hippocratic behavior. Just your own words and actions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. then WHY do you keep responding?

and the word is hypocritical....

Hippocratic is the oath doctors take...

[Glitterati]

96. Context.

I see you clearly don't understand that.

Oh, and here's a real shocker for you....your new hero, Bernie Sanders, isn't a DEMOCRAT!

Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He was also the only independent member of the House during most of his service and is the longest-serving independent in U.S. Congressional history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Perhaps you should use the Internet before you post...

Sanders SAID yesterday..."We HAVE made progress and we MUST defend it"

PERIOD....if you don't then it is directed at YOU.

[Glitterati]

120. LOL, I see you still don't understand the word "We"

Too bad, so sad.

BTW, he was speaking about ACA there, not the Supreme Court.

Perhaps you should research his comments about the OP here. They might even have more bearing. That's assuming you're taken something for your allergy to research.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. I understand it more than you can spell Hypocritical....

"WE" have a Midterm election and progress to defend....Just like Bernie Sanders said....you have a problem with that?

You seem to be defending the continued bashing of President Obama, the Affordable Care Act and all Democrats on the Democratic Underground....

You know very well that is who I am talking to....

[Glitterati]

124. Awwww, poor thing.

So out of arguments since yours have all been shown to be illogical and out of context.

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. Said the person that couldn't spell....

a very simple word....

Not out of context with Bernie Sanders...I defend our progress of the Affordable Care Act...ARE YOU???

[Glitterati]

132. Thread topic: The Supreme Court

Are you simply stuck on ACA?

You'll need to find a thread on that topic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. This is Democratic Underground and YOU are not President of it...

[Glitterati]

135. I'm certain the OP appreciates

your threadjack.

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. I made a statement and YOU commented on it....and continue to

you are just as guilty!

because you want to troll me.....




FYI the thread is about the Supreme Court making an campaign contribution decision.....I am speaking about how to defend against that....

Try to keep up.

[Glitterati]

140. ROFL

again. Logic fail. Comparing apples and oranges.

Keeping up very well, thankyouverymuch.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. NO it is EXACTLY what this thread is about.....regardless of your trolling otherwise...

it is ABOUT a SCOTUS decision...not JUST the SCOTUS...

And BECAUSE of that decision we have an even TOUGHER row to hoe in the midterms.....

But I bet you are one that has said "we must get the money out of politics".....yet because you want to troll me....here you are seemingly defending the decision and my point that we must GOTV..OR you just want to troll me...you can't have it both ways...

[Glitterati]

157. Yawn, more logic fail

I'm off to work. Toodles.

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. Just because you don't understand....doesn't mean it is illogical...

could be you just being willful.....or just trying to troll me..(I believe the later)

I cannot help you with that.

[HangOnKids]

78. If the post is nothing how can it be

all you got? Logic burp.

[Walk away]

202. I don't feel slammed at all.

What is wrong with pointing out that if people don't vote because the Democratic candidate for president isn't "pure" enough, they have no one but themselves to blame when they get another Bush in the White House and a corrupt Supreme Court.

It is totally relevant to the original post.

Has DU become a place where only people with extreme ideologies may comment? It sounds like that is what you would like.

[VanillaRhapsody]

241. That is EXACTLY what they want....

they want to control the discussion on DU but don't have candidates.....they just want to Punch Democrats...

[Walk away]

249. Hopefully, they are so few in number (in the real world)...

that they won't gin up a 3rd party candidate to screw up our chances of keeping the presidency. I doubt there are many of them anywhere but here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

250. Yeah...I think here is where that happens....

it means they can keep their "sky high principles...yet still not have to actually DO anything...they think its genius...

[AgingAmerican]

14. Yes

God help anyone foolish enough to have principles!

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. God help the rest of us if we don't win the Midterms....

Anyone foolish enough not to understand that can go take a flying leap!

[AgingAmerican]

19. Principles be damned!

Values be damned! Integrity be damned! Seeing further than the tip of your nose be damned!

Damn it all!

[VanillaRhapsody]

23. take your precious priniciples and stick them....

we have Midterms to win....even Bernie Sanders said yesterday..."We have made progress and we must defend it" So I guess Bernie is sleeping at night....what is your problem?

[AgingAmerican]

43. Those with no principles

...will never understand those of us who have them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. So you are NOT voting in the midterms?

Or are you going to give up those principles and vote anyways....just like Bernie suggests you do and DEFEND the progress we HAVE made

Or instead continue to bash that progress?

[AgingAmerican]

49. lol

nt

[beerandjesus]

25. ^^^^ This message brought to you by...

.... the Blanche Lincoln - Zell Miller - Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.

[Glitterati]

30. AMEN! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Uh this message is actually brought to you by Bernie Sanders...

"We HAVE made progress and we must DEFEND it" Bernie Sanders April 1 2014!

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. You mean the ...

the Blanche Lincoln - Zell Miller - Joe Lieberman that brought us 50% (Kagan and Sotomeyer) of those fighting to preserve this democracy?

And the Blanche Lincoln and Joe Lieberman that brought us Breyer, as well?

Funny how that works. Huh?

[riqster]

197. +1

[treestar]

31. No one is going to agree with all of our principles

You are going to be a party of one.

Your principles are more about your personal conduct.

Letting Republicans win violates my principles.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Awoman treestar!

[riqster]

58. Perfectly stated, Treestar.

Should be an OP.

[beerandjesus]

64. Completely agree!

I'm not going to violate my principles, but guess what, I support Democrats!


Hats off to you, treestar, for getting Vanilla and me to agree on something. If that sounds sarcastic, hand to God, I do not mean it that way!

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Neither am I.....

but if your "principles" say...bash Democrats All Day every day....then THAT is who I am talking about...

[beerandjesus]

83. Jesus Christ.

We just had a really nice kumbaya moment there, and you had to go and fuck it up.

C'mon, what's the big idea!

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. Kumbaya NOW....as expected...

but we must forget all the bashing from the past right?

I am saying the time for all that foolishness has come to an end...we have Midterms...

[beerandjesus]

95. So I suggest that we might be on the same side, and you attack yet again?

But I'M the one undermining party morale??

You are really a piece of work.

***********

Hey Glitterati, how are those Paul-Nader 2016 flyers coming? I'm thinking after we send them to all of our crypto-bagger accomplices here on DU, we can go to the local 7-11 and draw Hitler mustaches on all the pictures of Obama on the magazine rack!

[Glitterati]

98. Bwahahahahaha!

They're coming along well. Almost ready to send them electronically over to Office Depot to get them duplicated!

[beerandjesus]

102. Sounds good, but send 'em to Staples so Mitt Romney gets some of the profits!

[Glitterati]

104. Hmmm, no Staples locally

so Mitt is just gonna have to miss out on this one.

But, maybe I could send the original on to you and you can get them to Staples?

ROFL, such fun!

[beerandjesus]

110. Vanilla's gotten quiet....

Must be on Bernie's web site looking for more ammunition to use against us!

[Glitterati]

122. Can't be!

Vanilla is allergic to research!

[VanillaRhapsody]

240. Uh people sleep sometimes....

You have a problem with Bernie Sanders?

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Yeah I AM a piece of work....are you working to defend our progress or NOT?

if you aren't then I AM directing it at you...
This IS Democratic Underground....not Libertarian Underground.

[beerandjesus]

126. Well, I'm not accusing Democrats of working for the Republicans...

....so by your standards, I guess I'm not.


If I were REALLY working to defend our progress, I'd be bashing loyal Democrats and posting insulting pictures of Ralph Nader.

Right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. then it wasn't ABOUT you....

I DON'T believe that they are Republicans...far from it....

WTF....how can you not know that I vigorously defend President Obama and the Affordable Care Act....I am defending progress that we HAVE made (some on DU deny that) just like Bernie Sanders said....

I am talking about those that continuously BASH Democrats on DU!

[Glitterati]

128. Heads up, Vanilla.

This thread is about the Supreme Court.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Heads up Glitterati...Democrats decide on Supreme Court Justices......

Or do you think they are born in those robes?

[Glitterati]

131. Just FYI, this thread has nothing to do with Health Care

it would really help if you'd try to stay on topic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. FYI I was defending the upcoming Midterms and WHY supporting Democrats is important

including Supreme Court Justices.....

Do try to keep up with OUR conversation...

[Glitterati]

141. So sad.

Confused which thread you were commenting in I see.

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. Here is the thread title...

Nine reasons to get off our asses and VOTE, God-Fucking-dammit: [View all]

My response was GOTV because of the SCOTUS decision....seems you are the confused one...


(regardless of your trolling)

[AgingAmerican]

168. No need for that

The person to which you are speaking says the exact same thing in EVERY thread.

[Glitterati]

183. ROFL, I know

And it's sooooo boring.

[Marr]

223. How quickly your demand went from "vote for Dems" to "don't ever criticize Dems".

I'd almost think you were *trying* to start fights.

[Bobbie Jo]

149. SCOTUS

How are you liking those principles and values today?

[riqster]

158. Shhhh. Never link cause and effect.

The theoreticians just HATE it when we do that.

[AgingAmerican]

167. So we should have no principles

...gotcha.

Perhaps if our DEMOCRATIC politicians REPRESENTED US instead of trying to impress the GOP, we wouldn't have gotten stuck with these SCOTUS folks in the first place?

Given the choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican, or a real Republican, Independents will pick the real Republican every time....

Perhaps Democratic politicians should remember that, then perhaps we wouldn't end up stuck with these retards in such high places? Perhaps, just maybe?

[Bobbie Jo]

170. Yes, that's what I said

You should have no principles.

Furthermore, you should worship ALL DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS at ALL times, and NEVER (and I mean EVER) communicate ANY disagreement no matter how constructive or useful your criticism may be....unconditionally.

Because....Lock Step

for those who will read this as an AHA moment.

[AgingAmerican]

171. Or at least....

...we should abandon them for the fantasy of political expediency, even though it costs us elections and we end up with Scotus like we have now...

[Bobbie Jo]

172. Hey, at this point it's your story

tell it as you see fit.

[riqster]

198. I'd say that expediency is far less a fantasy...

...than thinking our principles will somehow magically be embraced by Dem politicos if we all don't vote.

That, if you like, is fantasy.

[beerandjesus]

205. Who's not voting?

[riqster]

207. The Waffle Poster by their own admission.

And those who say "my principles are more important than my vote" or words to that effect.

[AgingAmerican]

210. The republicans have corrupt principles

Yet they stick to them, and keep winning elections. Have you ever thought about why? Youth and independents do not vote for cowards. We lost the last midterms because Democratic politicians were too paralyzed in fear to stand up for their own beliefs. "We have to abandon our Democratic principles so we can win elections", is a stupid way to think and it will always lose elections period.

It's a viscous circle and I will never understand those who perpetuate it.

[riqster]

214. No, the Repubs win because they consistently GOTV.

People who (like you) suggest not voting based on principles are anathema to the GOP.

In fact, their operation is almost diametrically opposed to what you describe. They have a huge number of rabid voters who turn out every election and vote against us. Principles? They care not one whit for them. They turn out and vote in off-year elections, and THAT is why they win.

Don't assume that your preferred cause corresponds to the observed effect.

[AgingAmerican]

219. Republicans win because they stick to their core beliefs

GOP GOTV efforts don't target independents, who the GOP need to win. If the GOP won solely on GOTV efforts, they would win EVERY election.

If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

[riqster]

224. Denying basic mathematics is fooling one's self.

The only way any party wins any election (chicanery excepted) is by turning out votes. And your assumption that Indies do not vote Reep is not supported by recent returns.

Your argument fails because it is entirely based on assumptions: and those assumptions are incorrect.

[AgingAmerican]

229. Your line of thinking

...is why we keep losing elections.

[riqster]

230. Data does not back up your hypothesis.

Math says more voters for a party wins elections. When we do a better job of GOTV we win. Math.

And we win with the flawed candidates that drive us nuts and with the principled candidates that we love: we win because we go to the polls.

Without voting, no victory is possible.

[AgingAmerican]

231. When we actually believe in something

We win. When we pretend otherwise, we lose.

Republicans stick to their stupid beliefs, and win. Ever wonder how that is possible? Republicans turn out because their party sticks to it's principles, as fucked up as they are.

[riqster]

232. If we are so feckless and unprincipled, how did we win 2008 and 2012?

After all, we weren't as ideologically pure as the Repubs then, either, correct?

We won by turning out and voting. Period. In spite of our insufficiently principled candidates, we won and won big.

That is why I cannot accept your premise: actual results refute it.

[AgingAmerican]

233. Tell me how

...abandoning core Democratic principles fits into a GOTV effort?

Thanks in advance!

[riqster]

236. Nice dodge.

I never advocated abandoning principles. J pointed out that we win with GOTV. And we lose without it.

And anyone who believes in Democratic ideology should be motivated to avoid yet another "conservative" jurist on the Supreme Court, because our principles will be bulldozed and laid waste to an even greater extent should that occur.

And allowing the Repubs to take the Senate and White House will create just that result. And not voting helps that to happen.

Principled people will vote.

[AgingAmerican]

237. Many people here do

And they are the same people who say that the Democratic party cannot be true to it's ideals, because they believe doing so is political suicide.

They are soooo wrong. What they advocate drives some true Democrats, and most Independents and youth, away. What they advocate harms any GOTV efforts. The irony is they do it in the name of GOTV. It's sad to watch.

[riqster]

238. It isn't either/or. One feeds the other, in a virtuous cycle.

More Dems in office enables greater adherence to principle, because we do not have to accept as much Repub crap to get bills passed.

And then as results prove that our principles are the correct ones, we elect more Dems, and more principled Dems, and the virtuous cycle continues.

But unless we get Dems in office in the first place, we get a vicious cycle instead. We have to GOTV. Without that, our principles cannot succeed.

[AgingAmerican]

243. Without principles

GOTV can't succeed. It's a viscous cycle indeed.

[leftynyc]

193. What makes you think we all have

the same principals as you do? And what makes you think yours are the right ones? Time to get off your high horse now.

[AgingAmerican]

211. I'm not talking about personal principles

I'm talking about core Democratic principles. Do you believe they are wrong?

[leftynyc]

234. Everyone has their own issues

they feel strongly about. My biggest issue is the supreme court - actually all seats on the federal bench because of the lifetime appointments. Anyone who can look at yesterday's decision and immediately see the difference in the parties is a moron.

[AgingAmerican]

235. I'm talking about traditional Democratic principles

Not personal issues.

How is it possible for the Democratic party to abandon those principles, and woo Democrats at the same time?

[leftynyc]

239. Issues like what?

From this website I can only conclude that kissing Glenn Greenwald's ass is a criteria. If you're talking about issues like income inequality, human rights, environmental issues - then I would think the vast majority on this site agree with those being core Democratic issues.

[AgingAmerican]

242. Economic issues

Unions, environmental issues, etc. Many on this site claim that we have to be 'pragmatic' and make horrible economic pacts with the RW in order to win elections, when in fact core Democrats are repulsed by these actions. If you want to win elections, you stick to your core principles and cater to your base.

That is how the GOP keep winning with a idiotic ideology.

Some here say, "We need to adopt parts of that idiotic ideology to win the middle" which repels and drives away voters. It is so irrational.

[leftynyc]

247. I'm sorry I disagree with you on this

Neither party can win with only their base. Blue Dogs can be maddening but the alternative is a republican taking that seat. I know what "purity" brings to Democrats - I remember the McGovern race.

[AgingAmerican]

253. Yet people still fall for it...

nt

[leftynyc]

254. Fall for what?

If you can't win an election with just your base, you're either forced to compromise on some issues or you lose the race. I will choose compromise every single time. Fortunately, my rep and both my senators are Democrats. Are they perfect Democrats? Well, I love Kristin Gillibrand but Schumer could use some progressive work. He's too close to wall street - however, he's near perfect on women's issues, the environment - no republican would support those issues - so I compromise. My rep is Nita Lowey - I love her also but am pretty sure she's going to retire soon.

[Glitterati]

18. And, DARE to put them over personality! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Is that what you would say Bernie Sanders is doing?

"We have made progress...and we MUST defend it" April 1, 2014 Bernie Sanders...

[Glitterati]

28. I think you misunderstood Bernie Sanders

Because I don't see him telling a SINGLE DEMOCRAT to "go take a leap" in his statement.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. NO I did NOT misunderstand Bernie Sanders...exact quote..

"We HAVE made progress and we MUST defend it"

Bernie Sanders on the Ed Schultz show April 1, 2014

If you are not SUPPORTING Democrats....then you are not defending that progress...

[Glitterati]

42. What part of WE don't you understand?

Because if you think YOU can stand to defend our victories alone, then you should probably quit telling fellow Democrats to "go take a leap" or "go join the Green party" or any of your other attempts to split this community apart.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. I told those DU'rs who are denying that the Affordable Care Act is progress

and those who despise President Obama...."because of their principles" to take a leap...

Are they going to stand by "those principles" and not vote in the Midterms...or are they going to give them up and vote Democrat?

But then you knew that...

[HangOnKids]

91. Care to cite where anyone on this board says they despise Obama?

Please do not bring conjecture or speculation or interpretation, I would like a citing of anyone on DU saying they despise Obama. A statement of despising Obama is most appreciated, because I have not seen one. Thanks.

[beerandjesus]

105. I can think of a poster or two who seem to despise Democrats.

Or at least, that they fell uncritically in line like Republicans....

[HangOnKids]

107. Indeed excellent point

Still waiting for the "despise Obama" quote from a DUer.

[Glitterati]

93. No, here's what I know

I know that you have no ability to research who you might be speaking to. Based on that inability, anyone who dares to disagree with you is the recipient of those kinds of remarks.

You throw your shit all over this place regardless of who you're speaking to.

[HangOnKids]

97. BINGO

and a JACKPOT!

[AgingAmerican]

63. Anyone who says...

"take your precious priniciples and stick them", is innately unable to grasp someone like Bernie Sanders.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. Oh yeah right....

I don't understand what the words "have made progress" and defending them means....

there are those on DU who HAVE been saying we have NOT made progress.....PERIOD.

[AgingAmerican]

208. Do you have any interests

...outside of trying to control what other people think? Seriously. You always talk about defending Democrats, yet you do it in the form of constant attacks on Democrats.

You are not defending Democrats, you are defending Democratic politicians. You attack actual Democrats pretty much constantly. Who is more important to you, politicians or the people they serve?

[VanillaRhapsody]

244. I have interest in ACTUALLY making progress...not just dreaming about it....

that is the reality......the Idealist Party has yet to come up with viable candidates and a plan to move forward...not just under the best circumstances....under THESE circumstances...

You don't get to JUST talk the talk...you HAVE to walk the walk....chronic complaining is just not productive

[Progressive dog]

204. Did Bernie Sanders give up his principles to say that,

or are your principles different than Bernie's? Logically, those are the only choices you have.
One of the easiest things to program into a computer are principles, once learned, they require no thought, no new learning, and no progress. It does keep it simple, though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

245. Thank you....I am not the most eloquent....I am more of the brutally honest type!

I always appreciate those that can make the point even better than I can....

[AgingAmerican]

45. Bernie has principles

What's his problem?

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. AND his principles say Support President Obama and the Affordable Care Act....

what do yours say?

[AgingAmerican]

66. What do YOURS say?

...if you have any...

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. I have supported President Obama AND the Affordable Care Act

since day one....my principle lie with making America better...how ever long that takes....

[AgingAmerican]

72. And how does short sightedness

help in the long term?

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. then YOU were not who it was directed at....

Do you bash Democrats all the time? THAT is who it was meant for...

[Glitterati]

100. Perfect example

Yet, you found it necessary to direct your venom right at that poster.

Logic. Complete lack of same.

[AgingAmerican]

109. I will repeat

How does shortsightedness help in the long term? Or does it do damage in the long term?

[riqster]

199. Voting against Repubes is not short-term thinking.

Indeed, as my OP pointed out, failing to defeat the GOP has serious, long-term consequences.

Five of those consequences fucked the lot of us yesterday.

[AgingAmerican]

209. Quaking in fear of your own basic principles

...for short term gain is short term thinking. Ironically, this mode of thinking keeps us LOSING elections. It's a viscous circle. This is largely why we lost the 2010 midterms. Our politicians were too paralyzed in fear of losing to do anything, and large swathes of the electorate stayed home in disgust. Independents and youth do not like cowardly politicians. They like brazen politicians, that's why the GOP keeps winning with an idiotic ideology, because they are so brazen.

[riqster]

212. Fear of principles? No. Awareness of consequences, yes.

The idea that we'd be better served by outrageous, idiotic, lunatic, big-mouthed politicos than by simply getting out the vote is even more disconnected from reality than the idea of success-by-no involvement.

Remember: winning elections is not the same as governing.

[AgingAmerican]

213. Ever wonder how Republicans win elections?

Their core GOP principles are corrupt, greedy, psychopathic and shallow. They stick to them no matter what, and win elections by doing so. Ever wonder why? Independents do not vote for cowards, and youth do not bother showing up when politicians are too scared of their own shadow to stand up for Democratic principles.

[riqster]

221. See my post 214.

[AgingAmerican]

222. See post #219

[lostincalifornia]

6. Yes

[Tarheel_Dem]

112. "Naderesque fuckwits".

[riqster]

113. Awesome graphic.

[beerandjesus]

121. Awesome sense of history.

[riqster]

137. S'truth.

Seems downright Sisyphean at times, doesn't it?

[beerandjesus]

160. Oh, the irony.

What about Ralph Nader's pioneering work on consumer protections? He ran against Gore, he can go to hell!

What about Obama's support for TPP? He passed the ACA, he's a hero!

What about Nader's environmental activism? He ran against Gore, he can go to hell!

What about Obama's escalation of the drone war? He passed the ACA, he's a hero!



Seriously, am I the only one who sees the cognitive dissonance? Can't we be grown-ups and see people in all their complexity, rather than pretending that this is some kind of winner-take-all sporting match?

[riqster]

161. Mathematically, it IS a winner-take-all contest, but is rarely sporting these days.

There is a difference between how we vote, and how we deal with our causes and the people we elect.

The consequences of defeat are painfully and frequently clear: today's SC ruling is but one example of many.

That does not mean that we take a long nap between elections, of course. We should be active for our causes and advocate for them with our public servants. But if we don't elect Dems, we'll get Reeps, and they don't give a shit what we say.

[riqster]

2. Skinner's excellent post on today's vote and the partisan breakdown:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024769146

Reep-nominated jurists voted to fuck us.

Dem-nominated jurists voted in our favor.

Vote!

[sufrommich]

3. Yep. k&r. nt.

[Thinkingabout]

11. This is a good reason why Democrats needs to vote, run candidates

To win. For about 40 years we made accomplishments to enhance the middle class and now it is everything to tear down the middle class. Shameful.

[wandy]

12. K&R

[kpete]

20. voting should be

mandatory

.

peace,
kp

[riqster]

125. Give voters a tax deduction. That will do it.

[treestar]

26. Oh but it's just so hard!

I can't do it without cajoling, exciting inspiration and big promises!

[riqster]

139. Mmmrmph? Whaddjasay?

Sorry, I'm so unmotivated, I am sleeping until mid-November...

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Hey, genius,

you're preaching to the choir here or haven't you figured that out yet?

[FSogol]

34. He might be preaching to the choir, but non-choir members will see this too.

Preach away, Rigster.

[riqster]

37. How I wish that I were.

But we do have DUers who have said they will sit out elections unless we run candidates that are sufficiently inspiring, who make us want to vote, and so on.

So the choir gets it, yay. Now about those in the pews....

[Bluenorthwest]

69. What State do you live in? What results did you get last midterms?

I'd like Vanilla Rhapsody to answer that as well. Because as a resident of a State that broke midterm turnout records in 2010, I think you and VR are using steaming rhetoric that we don't use. We, who get great turnout, don't rant at the electorate like you do.
So where are you located, when you go knocking on doors with this sort of an attitude?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. We have one DU'er that thinks

Waffles are best due to a few zealots here.

Think about that. DU is now having a mild voter suppression effect.

[riqster]

88. Yes, that is one example. Sad.

We need to promote activism that is practiced actively: not passive resignation masquerading as activism.

The only guaranteed way to lose is not fight at all. Waffles are an example of that.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. We elected nothing but Democrats and broke turn out records in 2010 here.

How'd you do in 2010?

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. But that is because of the zealots here

Look, I am about to give up on this site as a tool, beyond keeping up with my friends. Why? Basic principles of political science (what politichick posted on the two meta groups of politics) is called simplistic. If the basics are not understood, how the fuck do you coalition build? And I hate to say it, but a large part of the posters here have no idea how it works in the real world.

I am not registered with either national party. I left due to yes ACA and no single payer, it was a protest. As a reporter I cannot belong to any party. Myself I have been told to leave, stay home or vote green. This is coming from the zealots.

I am not leaving, just not seeing the place as useful anymore...it used to be. I am not voting green, you thing the Republicans are disorganized in my town...don't start me with the a Green Party. They make the Rs look like a well oiled machine. But due to the quirks of the California electoral system, the top two regardless of party advance to the General, I will have to vote for a republican sooner or later. In fact I had that choice already, non of the Dems advanced (and the support they got from the local party was laughable). So my choice was a moderate old school republican, (who also approached the dems out of fear of his opponent and what he would do in the courts) and the tea party fascist.

You know it is bad when the Officers of the Court hold a presser explaining why choice two was dangerous. Oh and the press covered a judge race in the 8th largest media market. By the logic of some here I should have sat that election and simply not vote in the judicial election, because purity, argle, bargle derp. The moderate republican won, and now sits in traffic court.

[zappaman]

145. "As a reporter I cannot belong to any party."

That is simply not true.

[Katashi_itto]

169. Waffles, its the reality. Watching the RW constantly make gains while listening to the various

interest groups here and elsewhere, argue that their agendas are the MOST important. And God help you if you disagree. I remember my efforts to campaign for Obama during his runs or a year ago having the energy to campaign for future dem prez. My fiery drive for social justice has now been replaced by:

All washed away, by the constant undercurrent of animosity that flows like a river on DU and elsewhere.

[zappaman]

173. For God's sake!

Can't we leave waffles out of this?

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. I do understand but the zealots

(multiple groups) do not. And they are actually depressing the vote now.

The irony is kind of deep there, but I was told I am not needed. You were told the same, but they will blame us if they lose the Senate. Never mind I will show up. But it is what it is.

[riqster]

176. If we show up and vote dem, we will win.

I haven't been enthused about a candidate for many a year. But I am loudly active. And I always vote.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Not guaranteed, and the zealots here are now actually depresing the vote

you understand what I mean? Let me repeat this, DEPRESSING THE VOTE

[riqster]

181. Thus my GOTV posts.

To counteract the "I'm not gonna vote" peeps.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. You are well intentioned but your friends are depressing democratic voters

get it now?

[riqster]

189. Which friends?

[sufrommich]

196. Anybody basing their vote on something

someone on the internet said to them is a moron.

[riqster]

200. Or someone who can't take responsibility for their own choices.

[riqster]

177. Don't blame others for your choices.

[Le Taz Hot]

99. Maybe 3 or 4 compared to the tens of thousands

who post here. Given that's the case, what was the real purpose of your OP?

[riqster]

108. Your question is specious, and thus not answerable.

First, an unproven assertation of number of vote-suppression advocates ("3 or 4&quot ;

Second, you ignore those who read but don't join, or who join but don't post,

And based on this unquantified "premise", you toss out a tendentious question.

I see nothing to refute my OP.

[Le Taz Hot]

148. I don't know anyone on this board who is a

"voter-suppression advocate." The 3 or 4 that I referred to were people who have announced that, "If X doesn't happen, I'll stay home."

Secondly, screaming and cursing at them, if they do exist, isn't exactly a proven winner in terms of persuasion, know what I mean?

[riqster]

152. Once again, "3 or 4" is an invention on your part.

So if you're just pulling numbers out of your a........natomy, why should I pay attention to what you say?

[Le Taz Hot]

153. I said that's all I've seen.

Now go out and make yourself useful:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024769909#post12

[riqster]

162. You presume to define "useful"?

A bit of horizon-broadening might serve you well. And awareness of how little we actually know of each others' AFK activities.

Some of us do a lot of useful work aside from online postings. Whether we choose to share that information is dependent on personal preference and circumstance.

To paraphrase Socrates, when we understand how much we don't know, we can become a lot wiser.

[FSogol]

32. K & R. n/t

[Brigid]

41. Well, five reasons anyway.

[riqster]

73. I'd say all nine, both sides of the coin.

Five bad examples and four good ones.

[TRoN33]

75. The actual historical fact about Scalia..

He was hand picked by George H.W. Bush and referred him to Reagan who nominated him. It was H.W. Bush the one who sat Scalia on Supreme Court.

[riqster]

79. Interesting!

Underlines the importance of GOTFV.

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Also underlines the vast stupidity of the 'moderates' who called themselves 'Reagan Democrats'

and handed the Oval to Ronnie as a gesture of their centrist bipartisan pragmatism....

[riqster]

89. Indeed.

I am a Truman Dem and consider myself a Centrist, but thank the Gods I knew better than to have voted thus.

[iandhr]

84. But but but

Obama is a POS used car salesman. A sellout for not going for single payer.



Obamacare without a Public Option was and is a PR wrapper for Corporate Healthcare.

"Obamacare WITHOUT a Public Option is a step in the opposite direction."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024752961

To them 7 million people getting care they wound't have had doesn't matter because they have purity standards to up hold.

[riqster]

90. Yep. Principles are reasons for action, not actions in themselves

Some people forget that.

[MineralMan]

86. GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[riqster]

92. Damn skippy!

Every election, every year.

[progressoid]

103. Oooh, is American Idol on?

I read somewhere that as many people vote for Am Idol as the general election.

We got our priorities!

[riqster]

114. Well, not many people are trying to suppress THOSE voters.

But the votes that really matter get all kinds of obstacles erected, so as to discourage participation.

[progressoid]

155. Supress the Idol voters? There would be blood in the streets if that happened.

But if some poor people can't vote. Oh, well.

[riqster]

156. Sad but true.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

164. Sad if true.

[calimary]

106. Meh, they're all alike no difference between Dems and GOP who cares doesn't make any difference

I just don't feel like going out to vote what difference does it make meh don't wanna stand in line meh who cares gee do I have to 'cause I'm too busy won't make any difference they're all corporate-owned all the same won't matter no difference who cares what's the use blahblahblahblahblah…

Yep. Tell me all about it. Willfully ignorant, apathetic assholes deserve what they get. Only problem is - the rest of us who give a damn DON'T!!!!!

[riqster]

111. Oh how true.

It's apathetic Fuckery at work.

[riqster]

115. A link to EarlG's awesome pic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017184612

Says it perfectly.

[They_Live]

116. I voted so much, that they changed my district

to make it into an R. Lost my good US House Rep in the deal.

[riqster]

119. Gerrymandering sure as hell doesn't help, that is for sure.

That's how we lost Kucinich, dammit.

[Dawson Leery]

142. There is NO difference between the parties, so I am told.

Obama is just as eager to start more wars as the neo-cons. He is also a homophobic bigot. At least these statements are true to those who say the two parties are the same.

[riqster]

150. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

But not to their own set of facts.

[MADem]

147. *********** KICK. REC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **************** nt

[Corruption Inc]

151. A lot of people voted in 2000, it didn't matter

It's time to start holding criminals accountable or else voting is useless, as proven by recent history.

[riqster]

154. Wrong. Sorry, but you are not correct.

2000: apathy and dissension on our side. Election stolen because the margin was slim enough to enable it.

2004: both parties energized. Election stolen because the margin was slim enough to enable it.

2008: both parties energized. Massive GOTV effort gives us a clear win with a margin that precluded theft.

2010: decent turnout, but more energy on their side. We got shellacked.

2012: both parties energized. Massive GOTV effort gives us a clear win with a margin that precluded theft.

Nothing here links the admittedly idiotic non-prosecution of the Bushistas to election results. If that were true, we'd have lost in 2012.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

163. Yet you still have many on this board who say there is no difference between the R & Ds.

Seems Ralph Nader said such in 2000.

[riqster]

165. Ah yes, the Naderoids.

On the one hand, he had no impact on the election results (since he was not at all to blame for the Bush Occupation), and at the same time they trumpet his importance.

The fact that they hold both of these self-contradictory propositions to be true is all we need know about their "thinking".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

166. Naderoids?

Good one.

[riqster]

175. Thanks.

Irritants, attached to an asshole. It does seem to fit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. And then there is the Black Caucus that had ZERO

Senators come to their defense when they challenged the election.

Or the fact that GORE WON. And the USSC gave the election to BUSH.

I guess, I should follow the advise of your friends and go now vote GREEN, never mind I voted for Gore. But really, this is the kind of language that is repelling people and WILL DEPRESS THE VOTE. Congrats. YOU are depressing the vote.

At this point the irony is deep.

[riqster]

191. I don't see how calling for GOTV is suppressing the vote.

Saying "if you voted for Nader you're a poopiehead" is not directed at Gore voters. Quite the opposite.

Saying "if you don't vote you're a poopiehead" is not directed at those who vote. Quite the opposite.

Not saying "GOTV" is not an option, because people like the Waffle Caucus members were already not going to vote and need to hear a GOTV message.

I understand being told that you "don't belong here", trust me: identifying myself as a centrist and a non-party member gets me a lot of that crap. But I am operating within the TOS, so screw those people.

And to the Waffle Caucus Leader's point, which one of your other posts related somewhat: saying that other people's negativity drives us away from participation is hogwash. We make our own decisions. To blame some group of anonymous loudmouths for our degree of engagement is a cop-out of the first water, and I reject it entirely.

We are all of us empowered to act as we see fit, so long as we obey the rules. A call to action is not suppression: it is the exact opposite.

A voter like yourself doesn't need to be told to GOTV, since you're already doing it. And thank you for doing so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. You are calling people names

You have already been told...I prefer waffles to voting

This is a tip from marketing, not that I believe you will get it. When one person tells you they are unhappy, there is another 20 who are unhappy. When they are happy, only seven will tell you that. Free hint, there are another 20 who like waffles. Congrats, you calling people names, calling people naderoids, who have voted for dems, will suppress the vote.

Please keep it up, Reînse Preibuss likes this.

[riqster]

226. Blaming a GOTV advocate for voter suppression is ludicrous.

Especially when you're also agreeing with an admitted non-voter. Those who advocate sitting it out are the real vote suppressors, and you are giving them a pass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

228. I am pointing out that calling people names will have the

Contrary effect.

As I said I did not expect you to get it.

But the irony is actually funny as hell.

Please proceed, oh and I did notice you never dealt with the CBC call for just one Senator to stand with them. I also find that curious. You people ignore all the multiple layers and blame only the voter.

Go along life like that, because part of the fault actually lies with you. And I mean that by not asking why did voters not just walk but run to the booth to vote for Gore? Centrist policies like NAFTA are part of that. Both parties pushed for that. Same with TTP. There are areas where you can scaresely see light between the two parties. At least at the national level, and people have been screwed by them. (Hint, foreign policy and trade)

I particularly don't give two shits about it. I know I will vote, who I vote for is definitely my business and will cover the elections like every June and every November and every special election.

But yes, Democratic Party zealots, who call other Democratic Party activists names, are now depressing the vote. It is funny, and perhaps even, worthy of a news story. Though that be in an extremely slow news day. Today that it is not.

By the way, I prefer if that particular voter shows up at the ballots, but given the harassment, yes harassment, I have seen here, and experienced as well, and continue to experience, I fully get it. If these are my allies, who needs enemies?

Oh and one last thing, I am in my 18 year old mode when I first voted in Mexico City, I do it to keep in practice, cause you know what? The solutions are not in the booth. If we are to retake this for the people, like the 1880s, it will be a lot of blood, sweat and tears.

[beerandjesus]

206. DING DING DING... WINNER!

[Cha]

178. Great minds, riq..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017184612

Who nominated them, and how they voted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024769146

Thank you!

[riqster]

180. Yeah, I linked to them upthread.

Thanks for posting the pic-my mobile device won't allow that.

[Cha]

185. No worries.. good on you.. great minds! :)

[riqster]

192. Back atcha, Cha!

[Cha]

195. KICK!

[blkmusclmachine]

187. Since $$$ = speech, the Kochs have A LOT MORE speech than any of us combined.

[blkmusclmachine]

188. And Supreme inJustice Roberts has the George W. Bush sh!t-eating smirk down cold.

Evil.

[riqster]

190. Q: what is the only tangible thing ever to have come out of Roberts' mouth?

A: Koch's cock.

[Iggo]

201. OUR asses?

I vote all the time.

When was the last time you didn't vote?

[riqster]

203. Yeah, that was an imperfect pronoun choice on my part.

Problem is, saying "your" would have been even more unfairly accusatory, not to mention inaccurate, since (as you point out) quite a few of us do vote.

[Rex]

215. I love that passion, keep it up!!!

[riqster]

218. Glad you like it.

As you can see, not everyone agrees.

[Rex]

225. That's okay, let them...we are going to TROUNCE the GOP!

Despite what some think here with all the doom and gloom...doesn't phase me one bit! I KNOW we are going to take back the House! Obama talked to his base and told them to get ready, as long as he keeps their feet to the fire they will vote!

I'm going to do my part locally by driving people the the polling booth, but nationally I believe there is a fire lit in the bellies of many going without now. They know who did and did not sign bills to help the poor. I discount the Foxnews groups, because they are already dead to the world.

We are keeping the Senate and regaining the House!

[riqster]

227. Hear, hear!