General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs!
Because... Jeb Bush!
With us or against us!
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)ok then.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that corporatists in both parties keep using on us.
Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.
Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.
BUT, we are reminded by sneering corporate Democrats, Republicans will do all of this to us, too, PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds!
What a vicious scam by both parties to justify relentless, predatory evil. To demand that we vote for our own sellout and exploitation and the dismantling of our democracy itself.
You know what I've decided? At a certain point it becomes necessary to say no to deliberate evil. To refuse to bow to the scam and the manipulation and refuse to endorse evil, period. *Even* when it is waving its claws and protesting that there's even scarier evil over there.
Ramses
(721 posts)TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)if not ELIZABETH WARREN for prez , the BERNIE SANDERS!
if it ends up as bush vs clinton, I'm not voting because if it gets that bad, then the outcome really doesn't matter
merrily
(45,251 posts)The terms of service of this board are that you vote Democratic, not third party, and that you don't choose not to vote at all.
Inasmuch as no one on this board knows whether you hauled yourself to the polls (or in my case, strolled three blocks) or what you did in the polling booth, I translate that to "if you post certain things, we might hide your post or suspend or ban you especially if post those things during election season."
If you have read the terms of service and wish to say those things anyway, go for it. I am on the side of self expression. I just don't want you to get blindsided because you forgot about the terms of service.
TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)there isnt a lesser evil, they are equivalent evils, the corporate dems are tacitly complicit with the repubs, but they keep it on the DL.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The one to worry about is calling the shots from behind the mirror.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)What a vicious scam by both parties to justify relentless, predatory evil. To demand that we vote for our own sellout and exploitation and the dismantling of our democracy itself.
You know what I've decided? At a certain point it becomes necessary to say no to deliberate evil. To refuse to bow to the scam and the manipulation and refuse to endorse evil, period. *Even* when it is waving its claws and protesting that there's even scarier evil over there.
Post it woo.
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)woo me with science, your post is truly great. I've seen it the same way for years.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Of the two alternatives ... the sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs, or the Party that will do everything that the sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs, will do PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds?
Okay, hit replay now ... "But all we have to do is just vote in a non-sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs!"
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Agony
(2,605 posts)that appears to be the trajectory to follow.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)vt_native
(484 posts)That's another part of the scam. The Supreme Court is already gone.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Rex
(65,616 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)This is when DU is at its best: #primaryseason. Bring it!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)well done.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Both of which warmonger Hillary Clinton has expressed a keen interest in doing.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)leave them alone? Holy shit man that's some good foreign policy chops you've got. Fucking Henry Kissenger pretty much lives with that family.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)and your magnificent foreign policy chops:
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)My favorite 2016 candidate:
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)You should have saved that zinger for someone else.
I'm not passionate enough to care who wins. My activism begins and ends with washing my hair and armpits before going to the polls to vote straight Dem. Oh, and signing the occasional online petition.
If someone happens to beat Hillary in the primaries, I'll apply the same amount of pressure on the touchscreen as I would with any D running and not give it a second thought.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)That's not what this guy said:
Outside of La La Land, people still adore the Clintons and it will be amazing to have them back at 1600 Pennsylvania.
link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026232931
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Warren or Sanders would be fine if they had a snowball's chance.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Rethink, please.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'd write in a progressive like Elizabeth or Bernie.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But do you really think Jeb would start fewer wars than Hillary would? Or what sort of "better" did you mean?
RandySF
(58,772 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)interest in invading Syria and Iran.
RandySF
(58,772 posts)I remember the 2000 campaign when Dumbya said he opposed "nation building".
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)won't vote for her in the primary, but if she is the nominee I'll vote for her over any Repuke in the general election.
I live in a swing state, so my vote matters.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
Ramses
(721 posts)I promise you that. Politicians can call themselves whatever they want. It is their deeds and actions that matter. And if its a choice between two republicans, millions more American citizens will sit home, and protests and anger will grow on a daily basis. Most know the electronic voting is rigged, so much of what we see is preening and in your face mocking at this point. The 1% know they will win either way.
Its the American people that lose that game.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The campaigns are still pre-primary, and there are those who want to settle it beforehand to the favor of the lady from Goldman Sachs, because... Jeb Bush!!!
(In fact, the campaigns are not even announced yet, officially...)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Then dont. Many more will. I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you. Hard as it may be.
Ramses
(721 posts)Hillary can call herself Barney the Purple Dinosaur for all I care. Hillary's policies and ideology is republican as can be. So support a Republican if you want. Tens of millions of Americans will become poorer, more angry. more in poverty. Rigged electronic voting will determine the election anyway. Im not sure why the bother except to rub salt in the wound and rub it in our faces.
The 1% always wins.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)she does represent what has developed on the right side of the party.
She has very conscienciously shaped her credentials to be a perfect match that side, too.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Third Way is and has always been a corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the party with the goal of transferring the party's representation and policy agenda from the people to corporate interests.
In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026216863
Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673
When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556
When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432
GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Ways Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116
The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414
Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)(CNN) - Barack Obama has demonstrated his appeal to independent voters and even some Republicans as he campaigns for president, though a just-released study from the National Journal indicates the Illinois Democrat was the most liberal senator in 2007.
Chief rival Hillary Clinton held the 16th most liberal voting record last year, the non-partisan survey of 99 major Senate votes found.
Source
Here are some ratings by organizations...
Planned Parenthood 100%
National Organization for Women 100%
Humane Society of United States 100%
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100%
Sierra Club 90%
Human Rights Campaign 95%
ACLU 75%
NAACP 96%
National Council of La Raza 100%
PeacePAC 100%
Service Employees International Union 100%
Alliance for Retired Americans 100%
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100%
League of Conservation Voters 100%
Source
The list goes on an on... it's a bull to say she isn't liberal.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Yeah, that's a liberal all right.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Which amount to more than a few IOUs for future favor.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=977792&mesg_id=985500
Part of This Old Thread:
BCCI class action begins January 13th, London, UK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x977792
Loads o' links to help explain how money came to trump peace and a whole lot more.
Also shows how important DU is for recording history that, for some reason, Corporate McPravda and Crapademia work to miss.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The trashing of Hillary. Yes, she is Democrat, study her record before declaring her not to be a Democrat.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)brooklynite
(94,502 posts)I hope you only use it for good...
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)according to their posts.
What goes around comes around.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)let hating begin. The Clintons back inv the white house will be such a joy for many reasons, not the least of which they piss off the right people.
Ramses
(721 posts)I thought voting for REPUBLICAN POLICIES AND IDEALS was forbidden here. Guess not, if the REPUBLICAN is HILLARY CLINTON
Keep repeating the lies over and over, NO ONE IS BUYING THE REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT ANYMORE
repeat the LIES and LIES over and over and over.
HILLARY SUPPORTS REPUBLICAN POLICIES.. and I will repeat the truth over and over and over...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I seriously doubt she needs to either.
Logical
(22,457 posts)CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)If that's true, then why does the left always get blamed when dems lose?
2010 - the left didn't show up
2014 - the left didn't show up
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Except that time enough of the less brighter ones got conned by Ralph Nader.
CrispyQ
(36,457 posts)The left gets blamed every time the dems don't do well. Hell, I've even heard it on the MSM that the left didn't show up & therefore the cause of the dems loss.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)If such people think they are "the left" they are fucking delusional. The left in this country are those of us who get out and work our precincts for progressive candidates like Ann Richards or Wendy Davis or Warren or Clinton. Bullshit keyboard posers are just noise.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)msongs
(67,395 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Poor you. Having to read Democrats supporting a Democrat on a Democratic forum.
Sid
jwirr
(39,215 posts)still_one
(92,138 posts)stays home is irrelevant because they are ignoring the potential consequence of their actions in the make up of the SC
but don't let me sway with your distortion of the talking point of "what a monster" Hillary is:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
Nader tried that bullshit in 2000, and thanks to those games we have Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Just two key bits:
1) Thanks to a fraud in Florida and an unconstitutional move by the Supreme Court, Bush was given the presidency in 2000 against the actual vote of the people. (Those who blame this coup d'etat, this crime, on Nader's legal campaign are in a deep and sad denial.)
2) The Scalia and Thomas appointments to SC preceded the 2000 election, one reason that it turned out the way it did.
3) Most importantly, the point of the OP is that it's not Clinton vs. Bush.
That is the distraction chosen by Clinton's supporters. It is dishonest. Right now, it is Clinton vs. a different nominee.
I choose a different nominee. Because I understand how bad "Bush" and the rest are, and I want more of a difference.
still_one
(92,138 posts)I understand your view but thanks to big money choices at least for now are limited
My point was that they were Republican appointments
bill Clinton appointed Ginsberg, not bad, and I there is no doubt in my mind that Democratic choices would be far better than Republican ones, that was my main point, with a little dramatic license
Appreciate your views though
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It should matter more to you that democracy was rendered moot through a coup d'etat by a cabal of mass murderers than that some third party candidate ran a legal campaign. Someone's burning down the house and you're complaining about the neighbor's party.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I do not support Hillary at all, but this herd mentality from DU is disappointing.
You'd think I would learn.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Turns out Goldman is only #2, after Citigroup. Sorry!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=n00000019&newMem=N&cycle=2008
More to the point is the kind of politics she represents, which is in line with the donor list.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Revolting.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Phil Gramm spearheaded the deregulation and legislation that gave us the Banksters and their Trillions, stolen from Wall Street mopes, then repaid by penured U.S. taxpayers. About the day after leaving the Senate, Gramm went to work as Vice Chairman for beneficiary UBS of Switzerland. He's since brought along to the pirate sector those who helped him, like the one who signed the repeal of New Deal protections into law.
http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)the other day is missing this information?
marym625
(17,997 posts)We were told on another thread that if we have anything negative to say about Hillary, we should go to a Republican site
So now we don't even get to push for who we would prefer over another friend of the banks, war monger prior to the primaries.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)We aren't even in primary season yet. That won't happen until next year. There is no candidate for President from either party.
I'm pretty sure that the best move at this point is to find a favorite candidate to run in the primaries and work like crazy to sing the praises of that candidate. While Hillary Clinton will probably be one of the primary candidates, beating up on her will do nothing to promote anyone else. If she runs, she'll be hard to beat, so the better approach would be to identify the primary candidate you like best and work to promote that candidate.
General negative campaigning is not going to change the outcome of the primaries. It's not going to do much toward determining who th eventual candidate for President will be, either. In fact, I can't see that it does much good for Democratic candidates in general.
You want to attack someone? Attack Republicans. Then, when a Democratic candidate is finally chosen, you'll have a good start on trashing whoever the opposing candidate will be. That's the real race, not this pre-primary stuff.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)2016 hinges on turnout.
You may not see much value in these posts, but they should be giant red flags for Team Clinton. They need turnout. They lost 2008 due to turnout - that's how Obama beat them. Clinton can only win 2016 via turnout. And pissed-off activists does not bode well for turnout.
Clinton needs to adopt more "Warren-style" positions in order to get the turnout she needs. But that's going to be extremely difficult for Clinton, due to the lengthy track record. Which means she needs to start now, and start repudiating the parts of her past that are not attractive.
If she doesn't, and we get Clinton 2008 again, it will be a close race. And Republicans can win close races.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)but you have already sat in your high chair and crowned Mrs. "Billy Jeff" Clinton the winner, your amazing psychic predictions.
So now talk nice about her because she is are anointed Queen.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)At this point, she has a distinct lead in polling. I don't see anyone else who is even close who is considering running, do you?
At this point, I do believe she will be the Democratic candidate and that she will win the general election.
Can you offer the name of someone else who might run who can beat her? Nobody seems to be able to do that.
And no, it is not primary season yet, but announcement should start coming in soon. Who are you encouraging to run?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and bragged how accurate you have been.
You even said it is too early to predict the GE, not the primary
Is your memory fading?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)As such it is an elegant example of why we still have Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Cuomos, and other royalty-like presences in our fucked up political system.
Star worship ain't just for Hollywood anymore.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)presidential elections. It can't be ignored. Now, if every voter took the time to research candidates and learn their positions on everything, that might not be the case, but they don't. The presidential election is the only one voted on by people everywhere and in ever state. It's our only national election, despite the electoral college aspect.
That's why I pay much less attention to that election than I do to state and federal legislative races. That's why my electoral activism is focused on races in my districts and state. The presidential election is a completely different thing, and is an election where I have approximately zero effect on the results.
As a national election, it has a completely different set of things that affect the outcome. And name recognition is one of those.
think
(11,641 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Why doesn't anyone answer that question?
think
(11,641 posts)And just expecting to vote against the Republican because pathetically it will be my only option.....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)some smart-a$$ posts a reminder that she said she isn't going to run for President in 2016!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)a world in which people vote based on positions and platforms -as opposed to star-like name recognition- was once the reality.
No reason to give in to stupidity and abandon hope for a return to rationality.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)He was not well known. And that's just off the top of my head.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The Carter election was the first election I voted in ... and to be honest, I couldn't have told you what his policy positions/platform was. My vote was a rejection of the republican Nixon corruption and the Ford's place-holding ... And I suspect, I was NOT in the minority on that.
Can you honestly (i.e., without do the google) recount, today, what Carter's policy positions or platform was?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But if your claim is that he only one as an opposition vote, then how did he get through the primaries to defeat a Kennedy?
No, he won despite having no big name because of his positions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as the those voting in them are interested in politics and electability, as they sort through their partisan alternatives; whereas, the general is more about perception and image among the larger electorate.
Carter won the General largely because he was NOT a corrupt and/or lackluster republican.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Let's look at them:
"General negative campaigning is not going to change the outcome of the primaries."
"It's not going to do much toward determining who th eventual candidate for President will be, either."
Stunningly wrong on both. There is no reason or justification for such a deluded belief. Why on earth would it NOT change the outcome of the primaries and thus change the eventual candidate for President???
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Neither of my statements is untrue, as those primaries will demonstrate. What really matters in the Democratic primaries is whether or not some strong Democratic candidate appears to challenge Hillary Clinton. I can't see one on the horizon, frankly. Can you? If so, time is rapidly running out for that candidate to declare and start building support.
Warren has pretty clearly stated her intention not to run. Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat, hasn't announced running as a Democrat. I can't think of any others who would be a serious challenge to a Clinton primary candidacy.
If you can think of someone, let me know.
That said, if Hillary Clinton does get the nomination, negative statements from Democrats about her certainly could change the outcome in the general election. They could also work to suppress turnout and affect state and federal legislative elections. That's always something to consider. I do not want a Republican-controlled government. Not one bit.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and puts its weight behind another candidate. To that end, pointing out Hillary's connections to Wall Street and other policy shortcomings is timely right now.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)will no doubt stand behind Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt that the Minnesota DFL state convention will send Hillary Clinton delegates to the national convention. I can't imagine any other outcome, and we're a pretty progressive party, in general. Why? Because, beginning with the precinct caucus straw vote, she'll be the winner by a huge majority. The party is controlled by the local organizations, since delegates come directly through the caucus and district convention route.
Lacking a very, very strong opposing primary candidate, what you would like will not happen.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)in opposition to a Hillary candidacy, the Party will still simply ignore us?
Not very Democratic. In any case, if I can convince others to not vote for Hillary then it serves my interests.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)I'm not seeing any such thing out in the real world.
You want to convince people not to vote for Hillary? Whatever. You're going to need an alternative choice to sell them, then.
Me? I'm working to elect Democrats to office. Whoever is the presidential candidate selected by the Democratic Convention will get my support. You will do whatever you please or whatever "serves your interests," whatever those might be.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Ad nauseum.
In the latest round, it's my fault that HRC is going to be the nominee, because I should have started a vigorous campaign for someone to oppose her long ago. Besides, apparently, Democrats "love" her. She's so popular, you know.
So who can we start pushing to throw their hats into the ring? Warren? Should she decide to do so, I'll be there. Sanders? At this point, he may be my guy. Anyone else? Either of my senators would be great, although I'd hate to lose them in the Senate.
Who else? Any governors?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)One of the most insightful things I have ever read. You should win something. I get that you are poking fun at the anti-Hillary group by use of hyperbole. Pretty easy target though. I mean, things no one has ever said for 2000 Alex.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Prior to a disaster that may befall us in 2016, for at least the next year and a couple of months there is no Clinton vs. Bush. Or Clinton vs. any Republican.
For now, there is Clinton, yes or no.
I say no. No, no, no.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It will be as simple as that for me. Holding the line for Roe v Wade is hugely important for me and I wonder how many more years Ginsberg has left...
Autumn
(45,056 posts)And I shan't do it!
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)EOM.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)I know, I know. It would drop the number of hyperbolic, sarcastic OPs, but just CHILL, man. Go take a vacation to Colorado Springs or something.
Seriously considering trashing every thread on 2016 until the day before the NY primary...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)At least that's what I got out of it.
Of course, YMMV..
we can do it
(12,182 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The Republican Lite strategy worked sooooo well for us in 2014...
Everybody clap louder!
WE SUCK LESS!
WE SUCK LESS!
WE SUCK LESS!
I feel inspired and fired up and ready to go already!
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... we're dealing with humans
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)I'm with you!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Pro War..
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It's the kneejerkers calling Clinton "the Lady from Goldman Sachs."
I do not like Hillary Clinton, but I hate this shit. And every time I say so, the howlers come out in full force.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)And I'm not even a Hillary fan.
You simply have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Your post is silly and immature and, yes, stupid. And I know you're not, but you really have nothing to say. It's sad, but it's a symptom of why the Left can't field anything of value. Dumb, childish, lashing out arguments.
Do better.
charles d
(99 posts)Sadly, that's the norm in this world.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Neither of the two evils are set yet, so that isn't the question, and the people who are already saying Clinton or a Republican are merely trying to preempt democracy on behalf of her misbegotten candidacy.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Go ahead....
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)6000eliot
(5,643 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Your cry of "ideology" is mere rhetoric to dismiss legitimate concerns about a bought-and-sold politician of the 1%. She and the rest of her neoliberal gaing don't care about you, unless you're for Goldman-Sachs and humanitarian imperialism.
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Either the SUPER standards of some people or no standards whatsoever.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They keep wanting peace and justice. Why won't they shut up? The only two possibilities are Clinton or eternal hell for all!!!
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)...sound like pretty good standards to start with.
JEB
(4,748 posts)nominate Kissinger/Summers for 2016?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)those aren't Bush advisers.