HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Stop!!! You must vote for...

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:29 PM

 

Stop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs!

Because... Jeb Bush!

With us or against us!

147 replies, 13293 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 147 replies Author Time Post
Reply Stop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs! (Original post)
JackRiddler Feb 2015 OP
wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #1
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #2
woo me with science Feb 2015 #3
Ramses Feb 2015 #14
TimeToEvolve Feb 2015 #33
merrily Feb 2015 #86
TimeToEvolve Feb 2015 #31
Maedhros Feb 2015 #90
elehhhhna Feb 2015 #134
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2015 #40
Pooka Fey Feb 2015 #42
Scuba Feb 2015 #47
GoneFishin Feb 2015 #52
CrispyQ Feb 2015 #62
Mimosa Feb 2015 #63
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #82
SammyWinstonJack Feb 2015 #89
Agony Feb 2015 #93
hifiguy Feb 2015 #96
vt_native Feb 2015 #127
cantbeserious Mar 2015 #147
Rex Feb 2015 #4
JaneyVee Feb 2015 #5
bigwillq Feb 2015 #16
SidDithers Feb 2015 #34
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #6
sharp_stick Feb 2015 #7
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #15
sharp_stick Feb 2015 #23
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #25
Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #50
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #55
Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #57
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #58
Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #59
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #85
Orsino Feb 2015 #64
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #69
Orsino Feb 2015 #98
RandySF Feb 2015 #11
AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #17
RandySF Feb 2015 #22
Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #49
bigwillq Feb 2015 #8
Terra Alta Feb 2015 #9
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #10
Ramses Feb 2015 #12
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #13
arely staircase Feb 2015 #18
Ramses Feb 2015 #20
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #24
woo me with science Feb 2015 #28
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #44
Agschmid Feb 2015 #26
Scuba Feb 2015 #48
peacebird Feb 2015 #84
woo me with science Feb 2015 #92
Octafish Feb 2015 #122
Scuba Feb 2015 #138
Octafish Feb 2015 #139
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #32
Agschmid Feb 2015 #46
brooklynite Feb 2015 #38
TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #141
arely staircase Feb 2015 #99
Ramses Feb 2015 #101
arely staircase Feb 2015 #103
Logical Feb 2015 #37
CrispyQ Feb 2015 #77
arely staircase Feb 2015 #100
CrispyQ Feb 2015 #116
arely staircase Feb 2015 #120
uponit7771 Feb 2015 #124
msongs Feb 2015 #19
RiverLover Feb 2015 #45
LineReply .
MohRokTah Feb 2015 #21
SidDithers Feb 2015 #27
jwirr Feb 2015 #29
still_one Feb 2015 #30
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #67
still_one Feb 2015 #72
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #133
Buzz Clik Feb 2015 #35
NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #36
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #39
woo me with science Feb 2015 #41
Phlem Feb 2015 #76
Octafish Feb 2015 #97
RiverLover Feb 2015 #43
Phlem Feb 2015 #78
marym625 Feb 2015 #51
MineralMan Feb 2015 #53
jeff47 Feb 2015 #60
aspirant Feb 2015 #73
MineralMan Feb 2015 #74
aspirant Feb 2015 #75
Bonobo Feb 2015 #105
MineralMan Feb 2015 #112
think Feb 2015 #79
MineralMan Feb 2015 #80
think Feb 2015 #83
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #88
Bonobo Feb 2015 #107
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #110
Bonobo Feb 2015 #113
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #117
Bonobo Feb 2015 #118
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #119
uponit7771 Feb 2015 #125
Bonobo Feb 2015 #104
MineralMan Feb 2015 #114
Bonobo Feb 2015 #115
Maedhros Feb 2015 #136
MineralMan Feb 2015 #144
Maedhros Feb 2015 #145
MineralMan Feb 2015 #146
LWolf Feb 2015 #54
NCTraveler Feb 2015 #56
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #66
NCTraveler Feb 2015 #68
Octafish Feb 2015 #61
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #65
riderinthestorm Feb 2015 #70
Autumn Feb 2015 #71
AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #81
bobclark86 Feb 2015 #87
Fumesucker Feb 2015 #94
we can do it Feb 2015 #91
backscatter712 Feb 2015 #95
uponit7771 Feb 2015 #126
brooklynite Feb 2015 #102
Fumesucker Feb 2015 #108
Buzz Clik Feb 2015 #106
alcibiades_mystery Feb 2015 #109
charles d Feb 2015 #111
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #121
uponit7771 Feb 2015 #128
L0oniX Feb 2015 #123
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2015 #129
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #132
6000eliot Feb 2015 #130
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #131
6000eliot Feb 2015 #137
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #140
brooklynite Feb 2015 #143
JEB Feb 2015 #135
JackRiddler Feb 2015 #142

Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:30 PM

1. well...

 

ok then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:34 PM

2. Easy choice for me, Hillary of course, dont need a republican for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:36 PM

3. K&R Yep, that's certainly the "lesser of two evils" scam


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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:18 PM

14. you should really make this a post here

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:19 AM

33. i second that notion!


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimeToEvolve (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:14 PM

86. I am all for saying what you want to say, so please don't misinterpret this:

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM

31. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TimeToEvolve (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:31 PM

90. Good cop, bad cop.

 

The one to worry about is calling the shots from behind the mirror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:14 PM

134. badcop/worsecop

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:23 AM

40. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 08:04 AM

42. Excellent post +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:25 AM

47. I'll endorse the "make this an OP" comment. Sad list.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:23 AM

52. Excellent post. I totally agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:23 PM

62. This:

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:41 PM

63. Good cop, bad cop game seems to work.

woo me with science, your post is truly great. I've seen it the same way for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:07 PM

82. Okay ...

 

BUT, we are reminded by sneering corporate Democrats, Republicans will do all of this to us, too, PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds!


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!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:27 PM

89. + a billion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:34 PM

93. Yeah...

that appears to be the trajectory to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 08:30 PM

96. This belongs on the Greatest Page.

 

NO MORE TURD WAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:50 PM

127. But, What about the Supreme Court?

That's another part of the scam. The Supreme Court is already gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 6, 2015, 09:10 AM

147. + 1000 - Well Said

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:37 PM

4. Stop!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:38 PM

5. Jeez, it's going to be a LONG 2 years...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:37 PM

16. It's going to be a GREAT 2 years!

 

This is when DU is at its best: #primaryseason. Bring it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:21 AM

34. 10 years...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:40 PM

6. If truth be told, he'd probably be better on foreign policy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:59 PM

7. Well I guess we know where you stand

well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:31 PM

15. Yes, I'd like to not invade Syria and Iran.

 

Both of which warmonger Hillary Clinton has expressed a keen interest in doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:34 PM

23. You think Jeb would

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharp_stick (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:08 AM

25. Speaking of Henry Kissinger (sic)

 

and your magnificent foreign policy chops:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:38 AM

50. Hey, we can post pictures of your favorite 2016 candidate too:

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #50)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:48 AM

55. Well, since you asked.

 

My favorite 2016 candidate:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:57 AM

57. That might sting if I gave a damn.

 



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ykcutnek (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:09 PM

58. Not passionate enough to care who wins?

 

That's not what this guy said:

Ykcutnek (1,275 posts)

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:30 PM

59. It would be, but I still don't care if she wins or loses the nomination.

 

Warren or Sanders would be fine if they had a snowball's chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:43 PM

64. So you'd prefer the only Bush PNAC member? To avoid more Iraqs?

Rethink, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:17 PM

69. In a match-up, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

 

I'd write in a progressive like Elizabeth or Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:38 AM

98. That answers a different, if related, question.

But do you really think Jeb would start fewer wars than Hillary would? Or what sort of "better" did you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:05 PM

11. Yes, he wants to pretend we never invaded Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:48 PM

17. Much less egregious than Hillary's expressed

 

interest in invading Syria and Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:09 PM

22. Good luck with that.

I remember the 2000 campaign when Dumbya said he opposed "nation building".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:34 AM

49. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:01 PM

8. Nope. Never!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:03 PM

9. I'm not a Hillary fan

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:04 PM

10. Break out the Loyalty Oaths.

 

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:12 PM

12. I wont vote for Republicans

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:13 PM

13. Not the point.

 

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...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:53 PM

18. if you dont want to vote for HRC

Then dont. Many more will. I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you. Hard as it may be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:05 PM

20. Hillary is not a Democrat

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #20)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:38 PM

24. And there are no true Scotsmen...yes, she is a democrat. We MUST face that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:14 AM

28. The Third Way was never a grass roots movement.


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 Way’s 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











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 08:48 AM

44. No doubt the DLC was elitist and 3rd Way is just rebranding that movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:11 AM

26. Here we go again...

A new study suggests Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007.

(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...

NARAL 100%
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:28 AM

48. Pro war, pro Wall Street, pro TPP, pro Keystone XL, pro H-1B visas, member of "The Family".

 

Yeah, that's a liberal all right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:12 PM

84. ^^^this!^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:21 PM

92. War is Peace!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:58 PM

122. Not to mention Jackson Stephens, Walmart and BCCI.

Which amount to more than a few IOUs for future favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #122)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:08 AM

138. Thanks Octafish. I'd never before heard of Stephens or BCCI. Scary stuff.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #138)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:35 AM

139. You might enjoy some of the DUer summaries and connections from 2004, Scuba:

Of Jackson Stephens, Jimmy Carter, BCCI & the Bushes

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM

32. Are you lacking in knowledge of Hillary's record or is determined from listening to

The trashing of Hillary. Yes, she is Democrat, study her record before declaring her not to be a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:10 AM

46. Yup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:28 AM

38. What power you have: the ability to solely decide who is and isn't a Democrat.....

I hope you only use it for good...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 AM

141. No, there are several of your seemingly less salonish that also seem to have such authority

according to their posts.

What goes around comes around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #20)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:51 PM

99. you can call her Madame President soon

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #99)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:00 AM

101. I will call her a REPUBLICAN, which HILLARY CLINTON is

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ramses (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:14 AM

103. I dont give a shit what you call her

I seriously doubt she needs to either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:25 AM

37. Which democrat are you talking about? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:53 PM

77. "I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you."

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #77)

Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:57 PM

100. nobody blames the left

Except that time enough of the less brighter ones got conned by Ralph Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #100)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:23 AM

116. Then you haven't been reading DU.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #116)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 07:59 PM

120. no. bullshit naderite neghead divisive assholes catch shit from actual liberal democrats

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:47 PM

124. I'M NEVER EVER going to vote for Obama!!!!! Remember that? FUD is strong here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:00 PM

19. voted for the MAN from goldman sachs twice nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 08:50 AM

45. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:08 PM

21. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:12 AM

27. ...



Poor you. Having to read Democrats supporting a Democrat on a Democratic forum.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:16 AM

29. With you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM

30. no, vote for whoever the fu*k you want, but anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee or

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:57 PM

67. So many mistakes, where to start.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:23 PM

72. The election fraud would not have been possible if it hadn't been so close in key states

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #72)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:04 PM

133. You're confusing lawful with criminal.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:21 AM

35. -1

 

I do not support Hillary at all, but this herd mentality from DU is disappointing.

You'd think I would learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:23 AM

36. Who in the hell is "the lady from Goldman Sachs"?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:21 AM

39. Top donors to Sen. Hillary Clinton, career.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 08:00 AM

41. +1

Revolting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:50 PM

76. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:52 PM

97. UBS thanks her in other ways.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:53 PM

78. You mean that wall of text you posted

the other day is missing this information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:56 AM

51. +1000000000000

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:34 AM

53. This is all getting pretty ridiculous.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:51 PM

60. Turnout.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:32 PM

73. Not even primary season yet

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:37 PM

74. No, actually I haven't done that.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:44 PM

75. You made your prediction on your own OP

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:22 AM

105. That post presumes name recognition as the centrally important issue.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #105)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:54 AM

112. But name recognition has a great influence on

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:59 PM

79. If Hillary didn't suck so bad on MAJOR issues it sure would help.... /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:00 PM

80. So, who do you have in mind to oppose her in the primaries.

Why doesn't anyone answer that question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:09 PM

83. Kind of hard to say without knowing who's running. I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

And just expecting to vote against the Republican because pathetically it will be my only option.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:24 PM

88. Because every stinking time they name their preferred candidate ... Elizabeth Warren ...

 

some smart-a$$ posts a reminder that she said she isn't going to run for President in 2016!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:23 AM

107. You know...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 08:07 AM

110. What world was that and in what era? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #110)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:57 AM

113. Jimmy Carter.

He was not well known. And that's just off the top of my head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #113)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:32 AM

117. Really? ...

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #117)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:03 PM

118. I was 10, so no.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #118)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:17 PM

119. Primaries are about policy positions and platform ...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #88)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:48 PM

125. Yeah, but... making up reality is so fun and.. and they actually don't have to think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #53)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:20 AM

104. Two massively untrue statements are at the core of your post right there.

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???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #104)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:59 AM

114. Watch the primaries.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #114)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:02 AM

115. See reply #105 for your syllogism. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:36 AM

136. It is my hope that Party leadership sees the negative attitude vis-a-vis Hillary as nominee

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #136)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:33 AM

144. That's very unlikely. The national party organization

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #144)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:30 PM

145. So you're saying that no matter what kind of groundswell we might create on social media

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #145)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:00 PM

146. What groundswell are you talking about?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:35 AM

54. So I've been told.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:54 AM

56. I believe you have hit it out of the park with this one.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:51 PM

66. Thank you for kicking this important thread.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:07 PM

68. Kicking again for the creative thought alone. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:56 PM

61. What would Goldman think of that?

Summers looked at Stiglitz like Stiglitz was some kind of naive fool who'd read too many civics books.

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-goldman-sacked/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:50 PM

65. Some people will never get the point of this thread.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:20 PM

70. If she's the nominee, I will because SCOTUS

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:22 PM

71. Stop!!! I mustn't vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs!

And I shan't do it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:02 PM

81. I'm not exactly one of Hillary's biggest fans, but she's better than ANY Republican, for damn sure.

 

EOM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:23 PM

87. How about we wait for people to actually run?

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:37 PM

94. I think that was kind of the point..

At least that's what I got out of it.

Of course, YMMV..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:32 PM

91. Enough already

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:41 PM

95. Whee! We suck less than those mean Republicans!

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #95)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:50 PM

126. ... cause life is 99.9% clear cut choices?... no.. come on people ... the "suck less" happens cause

... we're dealing with humans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:03 AM

102. Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro Social Security...

I'm with you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #102)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:27 AM

108. You left one pro out..

Pro War..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:22 AM

106. "With us or against us!" My experience: it is not the Hillary supporters espousing this.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:36 AM

109. You're going to lose this argument. Primarily because it is thoughtless and stupid

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Wed Feb 18, 2015, 08:09 AM

111. The Lesser of Two Evils

 

Sadly, that's the norm in this world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charles d (Reply #111)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:09 PM

121. Point being...

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charles d (Reply #111)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:50 PM

128. Cause we're dealing with humans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:31 PM

123. Goldman Sachs 2016

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:51 PM

129. Let it out now

Go ahead....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #129)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:01 PM

132. Smells just like 2007.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:52 PM

130. Make sure to let us all know when you find a candidate who passes your ideological purity test!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #130)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:01 PM

131. I suppose it's easier to have no standards whatsoever.

 

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #131)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:24 AM

137. Because of course there are only two possibilities.

Either the SUPER standards of some people or no standards whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 6000eliot (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 AM

140. Some people!

 

They keep wanting peace and justice. Why won't they shut up? The only two possibilities are Clinton or eternal hell for all!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #131)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:20 AM

143. Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro ACA, pro stable social security...

...sound like pretty good standards to start with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 12:18 AM

135. Why not cut to the chase and

 

nominate Kissinger/Summers for 2016?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #135)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:06 AM

142. The sick thing is...

 

those aren't Bush advisers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread