General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe manufactured outrage that purports to be legitimate criticism of Hillary is pathetic
Speaking fees? Her charity received donations from folks whose checks were drawn froma massive bank that had issues in a totally different area. This is supposed to be why we ought to be "concerned" about Hillary's impending candidacy?!
If that's all her detractors have got, I'm more confident than ever that she is the right candidate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not convinced she is the right candidate. I don't doubt her competency but her politics I am not so confident in.
I will take her if we get her but I will look for alternatives till there are none.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It won't have a thing to do with speaking fees. Actually speaking fees are just one small part of the objections to HRC. And it isn't the speaking fees so much as it is who she is paid to speak to.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)'we' have already lost.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)Thanks for making it clear how important voting is and thanks for worrying about the likely millions of americans who will NOT be allowed to vote.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Lacking that, its tough to side with your position.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I watched a short clip of Hillary today. It reinforced everything I said. She will lose.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Here's a hint: Not Hillary.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW "outrage" and "conspiracy" may be the two most overworked and incorrectly used words on this board since you guys finally retired pony.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)Her vote for the Iraq war is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that Hillary supporters prefer not to see (or try to excuse).
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)"....that Hillary supporters prefer not to see"
OR, lets play reality based politics and acknowledge that perhaps Hillary supporters have realized there are several facets at play and most are not single issue voters.
I think your attempt at putting everyone into a nice and tidy "small" box is a giant fail. Try and be intellectually honest and realize people are more complex.
Rather than putting pro supporters into a little box, how about you confess that you are a single issue non-voter. Probably isn't quite correct, yet you feel you can do this to others.
The reality is that there will NEVER be a candidate that meets 100% of every voters' expectations.
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)But ... I did not say **all** Hillary voters, though you were very quick to assert that was my intent when you wrote:
"...your attempt at putting everyone into a nice and tidy "small" box..."
(my bold)
Perhaps you should take your own advice about trying to be "intellectually honest." You think it is I who needs to realize that people are more complex, and yet your reply and your leaps of judgment about me indicate an assumption on your part that I lack the complexity you ascribe to "people."
I'm all about "reality based politics." My political awakening came during the Vietnam war, and I've been voting since 1976. Never in my life have I had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that meets 100% of my expectations, yet I vote nevertheless. I couldn't support John Kerry in the 2004 Dem primary because of his IWR vote, but that didn't stop me from driving to Akron Ohio from my home near Chicago to help get out the vote for Kerry in the general election because GW Bush had to be stopped (as he should have been before invading Iraq).
I also rode a bus with others to join 100,000 protesters in our nation's capitol a few days before Shock & Awe was unleashed against Iraq. If you were here at DU in 2002 you would have been exposed to multiple sources of reliable information which left no reasonable doubt that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, assertions of alliance with al Qaeda were ridiculous, there was no solid evidence of WMD factories or "unmanned aerial vehicles" that could threaten our shores, and the warnings about "mushroom clouds" were pure hype. We knew all about the neocons and the "New Pearl Harbor" they needed to advance the agenda spelled out in the PNAC paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that became GW's official National Security Strategy and their ambition for a world dominated by unchallengable US military power. We knew the same people who urged Bill Clinton to invade Iraq back in 1998 gained key policy positions in the Bush administration. Pronouncements that our troops would be there just a few months and leave a flowering stable democracy in their wake were off-the-charts nonsense.
This is not hindsight. This is what we knew before October 2002 when Bush sought authority from Congress to launch the war it was obvious the Cheney cabal were intent on from Day One. If Hillary Clinton didn't know this and actually believed the Bush propaganda she is not nearly as intelligent as I think she is, and is unfit for high office. If, on the other hand, she wasn't fooled, then she was on board with the agenda and is complicit.
Both are unacceptable, and an automatic disqualification as far as I'm concerned.
I'm all about reality based politics. We can see the reality of this political decision at Arlington National Cemetery, in the tens of thousands of maimed veterans, in the million dead Iraqis, in the rise of ISIS and the ongoing horrors this decision unleashed, and in the obscene cost of a war that exploded our national debt and continues to starve vital programs at home.
I've been paying close attention to national politics for 45 years. I don't think I am exaggerating in the least when I state the IWR was the most important vote anyone in Congress at the time ever took while members of that body. This was a time when strong and principled Democratic leadership was desperately needed to stand up and tell the truth to avert a catastrophic disaster from which we may never fully recover.
My opposition to Hillary Clinton is not punitive revenge.
I weigh the qualifications of every candidate by multiple criteria. Foreign policy and judgment in matters of war and peace are critically important. The plain fact of the matter is I believe Hillary Clinton is on the side of the Powers That Be in a national security state where perpetual military intervention is a means to many objectives I disagree with and also an end unto itself.
I fully understand that, according to polls more than 20 months before the general election, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner to defeat whatever opponent the R's put up. If she is the Dem nominee I will certainly vote for her because the prospect of any R in the WH is much worse.
But I will not be at all happy with that choice, and I see no good reason to accept her nomination as inevitable at this point. If the Democratic Party can't do better, then the prospects for real progress and meaningful change are dim.
Yes, I understand that not all Hillary voters are in the same "box." Some of them might not be well informed about what Hillary should have known regarding the bogus war propaganda in 2002, or perhaps they're on board with that kind of military interventionism as I believe she was.
Whatever the case, I am highly motivated to point out how vitally important and relevant to the upcoming election the IWR vote is. This is why I have taken the time to compose this lengthy post with details of 2002.
One thing I know for sure:
Your attempt to put me in your own preconceived box is a "giant fail."
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)perhpas you wonderfulness is masked by your public statments?
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)You wrote:
"Rather than putting pro supporters into a little box, how about you confess that you are a single issue non-voter. Probably isn't quite correct, yet you feel you can do this to others."
I stated right off my intent wasn't to put ALL Hillary voters in the same box; I stated I apply multiple criteria when evaluating candidates; I stated I always vote even though no candidate ever meets 100% of my expectations; and I pointed out how you attempted to place me in your own preconceived box.
Meanwhile, you totally failed to address or respond to the very substantive argument I put forward.
You need to look in the mirror.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There are so many problems.
Where does she stand on things like the TPP? H1-B visas? raising the cap on Social Security taxes? single payer? reducing interest rates on student loans?
I cannot list the issues on which I most likely disagree with Hillary because the list would be too long. It isn't just a matter of her taking money from the corporations. It's every issue other than women and children. And even there, she is weak because you can't stand strong for women and children when you owe your corporate donors and you can't let them down and standing strong for women and children will cost your donors (especially those from Walmart) a pretty penny.
Hillary's candidacy just does not work for me. and I don't think it will work very well for America either.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)the was is NOT the 800 lb gorilla in the room for you.
I enjoy reading all of you HRC dismissals on issues that haven't event been clarified yet. But you go ahead, it's what you do. Your post come awfully close that manufactured outrage mentioned in the OP.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)about her opinions, wise up and come down on the right side of a lot of the issues that concern me. I am more vocal than others, and because of sheer luck I have the ability to read, learn and understand more about issues than some other people. But I speak for the silent concerns, the worries people don't even realize they have.
Most important, I don't think that Hillary Clinton has shown the ability to think critically about the ideas and solutions that are generally accepted by the rich and powerful in our country.
She was in the White House for 8 years before 9/11. She must have heard little snippets of conversations if not more about what was going on in Iraq. She traveled in the diplomatic circles. She knew things we still don't know. Yet she voted for the War Resolution to go into Iraq. Now I know that it was worded in a round-about way and that theoretically, Bush was supposed to present evidence that a war was necessary. But Hillary must have known that the grounds Bush gave for going into Iraq were bogus. If she didn't know, it's because she did not do her due diligence. She did not research the facts before voting. That's sloppy. Dangerously so. And it certainly shows that she does not deserve my confidence of vote.
She has to do more than apologize for a '"mistake." She has a lot of explaining to do. She has led a privileged life. That's great. But she is too easily tempted to just go along with what is expedient. She does not seem to be a person who really questions the moral impact of the politically correct stance to take on an issue.
I remember. I have never forgotten her encounter with the Code Pink ladies about the Iraq War before she voted on the Resolution. She was dismissive and arrogant. And the ladies were right. I am not a member of Code Pink. Loud, aggressive demonstrations are not my thing. But boy, I really saw a side of Hillary Clinton that woke me up to what she really is when I saw the video of that encounter.
By the way, I can no longer find the video of that encounter on line. It is devastating to Hillary. It will turn up in someone's cache one of these days. (Not in mine, so don't send the NSA to look for it. They would be wasting their time.) That video could seal her defeat. She needs to think about how she treats those who disagree with her. Maybe she needs some therapy to react more wisely when she hears thoughts and opinions that differ from her own.
I do not hate Hillary. I wish her well. But I don't want her to be the Democratic nominee for president. It isn't her opinion on a specific issue. It is how she approaches reaching opinions, the historical baggage she carries as the wife of an ex-president who inevitably made mistakes and the personality that I have seen on display when she is angered by someone or something. I hate to use the words petty and vindictive. But she mostly damages herself and would damage our party if she acts as she has acted in the past.
I remember the campaign of 2008. She was a poor loser when she should have won with ease. She is not a good candidate because of the very personality flaws that I am pointing out.
I could be wrong. I hope I am if she is the candidate. I do not plan to vote for her. I will vote for every other Democrat on my ballot. No question. But not for her. I think our Party should look at other good candidates, candidates who are more aware of the problems of ordinary people and who will speak more for ordinary people.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Hekate
(90,681 posts)They get attention, and lots of it.
A couple of them seem to have developed an algorithm of some sort so they can riff of certain words from others' posts in their replies, never actually answering a question, but nevertheless generating a zigzag line of outrage. Very clever, don't you think?
I can't believe I wasted so much time on that thread. I have to go to bed -- I have a funeral to go to in the morning.
See you later, stevenleser.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hekate
(90,681 posts)Dr.Mengele, who counted people off to the left or right -- one direction for immediate death, the other direction for slave labor until you died.
Josef was young and strong, and lucky. He survived two camps, and died this Sunday at 97. He met his wife in a DP camp, helped build Israel, lived out his final 15+ years here in California with his son. His wife was here too, but died 10 years ago. Today Josef was laid to rest next to his Doris. That generation is almost entirely gone. Who will tell their stories when we are gone ourselves?
I'm not Jewish, but my husband is, and is also the child of two Holocaust survivors. We'll go across the street tonight for Shiva services.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)They will prevent many from voting by creating unconstitutional laws and others will not vote because they believe the
LIE
LIE
LIE
that both parties are the same
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Andy823
(11,495 posts)The thing I see is that the majority of those constantly bashing Hillary are pretty much the same bunch of have been trashing president Obama. Strange! 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"
Something to the effect of) If you don't see income inequality as THE problem; then, you ARE the problem!"
{I can't link to it nor quote it exactly because the post was "self-deleted".}
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 25, 2015, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)
About that Income Inequality thing:And about that spine:
By Jonathan Shroyer - Jun 13, 2013
History will look at Hillary Clinton as someone who never gave up and continued to succeed, despite being knocked down over and over again. She will be seen as a polarizing trailblazer who finally found her voice - leading to eventual success as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
Once in positions of power, Hillary is ruthless when it comes to effectively advocating for her positions and destroying the opposition. This is why Republicans have fought (and failed) to stop her political career from climbing to new heights.
Hillary's resilience is unparalleled. She bounces back in the face of defeat because she's smart, articulate, and tough.
Many of Hillary's colleagues have often noted that she is almost always the most knowledgeable person in the room about any given issue. Her knowledge, persistence, and stamina is an unstoppable combination. Her perseverance, despite being attacked daily for the last 30 years, is a testament to her political skill and brilliance.
Former President Bill Clinton, the other half of this political powerhouse, often describes Hillary as the most competent person in his generation. I couldn't agree more. So although she may have been too polarizing to win the Presidency in 2008, we can all be certain that if given the opportunity, she would have been one of the most competent and successful President's in our lifetime. And I hope she is given another chance in 2016.
Hillary Clinton:
"I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about what people think about me... I would be totally paralyzed. How could you get up in the morning if you worried about some poll or what somebody said about you? That's giving up power over your life to somebody else, and I don't intend to do that."
"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been."
"I'm not going to mislead anybody. Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There's a double standard, and you can't complain about it. You just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it. And you have to have a pretty tough skin. To paraphrase a favorite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: If a woman wants to be in politics, she has to have the skin of a rhinoceros. Most men who go into politics just think they're great. They believe they can do anything. Most young women, not only in politics but in most areas, are more cautious and more likely to say, 'Could I really do this? Am I good enough?' I was talking to a friend and very successful businessman the other day, and he said, 'The thing that still annoys me more than anything is that I see all these young women who are so much more capable than they allow themselves to believe. And I see so many young men who are so much less capable but who believe they are God's gift to the world.' I would just say to women: Try it! Put your foot in the pond and see if you want to swim."
"Occasionally I'll be sitting somewhere and I'll be listening to someone perhaps not saying the kindest things about me. And I'll look down at my hand and I'll sort of pinch my skin to make sure it still has the requisite thickness I know Eleanor Roosevelt expects me to have."
"When you stumble, keep faith. And when you're knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."
Her statements of how she sets her priorities go against the snickering voices that claim she's nothing but a scheming woman, and an egotist. It's really not about her personally, anymore than Obama has been. It's about using your time on Earth for something worthy. Naturally the GOP, etc. don't follow that path. It really is all about them. Too much projection from them and the repeaters.
In case some don't realize, candidates for POTUS put their lives on hold and are in the target sight of every RWNJ in the world. Wanna see some spine? Who puts their life and that of their family for trivial reasons?
The video uploader is a man who really wants her to run and those are his comments. I'm sure many have never seen this video, posted in 2013. Please share as it hasn't gotten many views yet. Well, if one doesn't think that 41,075 is a lot, but still, less than the millions that the Infowars Bircher swill get. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the truth or it's valuable. Such as Faux Nuisance.
No wonder the Hillary Hate that started with Rush in 1993, giving us the Gingrich majority, a government shutdown and derailed the UHC plan she was pushing by saying she was going to set up death panels like the Third Reich, is howling. Their machine is in overdrive and finding many to parrot their line. The GOP must be terrified, which says a lot about HRC.
Just think, 1SBM, the GOP lost and got a black man in the White House and they might get a woman in next. Wonders never cease. Their nightmare may come true at last. It'd be a firm blow to their governing model. At last there would be full Equality, where POC, LGBT and Women get a fair shake. No longer told to STHU when their 'betters' who spew their foolishness in public.
lindysalsagal
(20,682 posts)I just think the man is really trying to represent my best interests, and I think Hillary represents her own political best interests.
Obviously, I trust republicans even less, and she'll probably make a good president. But I will never trust her.
Obama ran on what he believed, and was willing to lose the election if need be. Hillary will never say or do anything that will jeopardize her political popularity. She's a political animal, without conscience.
On the Iraq vote, she was the one senator who knew for sure it was all BS: Her husband knew it and she knew it. that's why she doesn't deserve a break on that vote. She let thousands die for her popularity.
I don't care what anyone on here says about Hillary. You're wasting your breath. I'll never trust her.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I want to hear her start articulating cogent policy positions, and I hope they won't be endlessly poll-tested "conventional wisdom" beltway pablum of the sort that convinced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz it was a good idea, politically, to support arresting cancer patients who smoke pot.
There are real issues facing this country and they need real leadership. I want HRC to run on more than name recognition, inevitability, "my favorite bible passage" and bad country music videos.
Maybe she will. If so, that'd be great. But that's what the primaries are for.
In that vein, I do think that there very well be legitimate arguments to vote for someone else in the primaries, assuming we have more than one candidate. But you are correct, the speaking fees thing is lame.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You might recall that there was a contest for questions that would be submitted to Obama some time back, legalizing pot won a spot on the question list and Obama's answer was to make a joke about it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)By Jonathan Shroyer - Jun 13, 2013
History will look at Hillary Clinton as someone who never gave up and continued to succeed, despite being knocked down over and over again. She will be seen as a polarizing trailblazer who finally found her voice - leading to eventual success as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.
Once in positions of power, Hillary is ruthless when it comes to effectively advocating for her positions and destroying the opposition. This is why Republicans have fought (and failed) to stop her political career from climbing to new heights.
Hillary's resilience is unparalleled. She bounces back in the face of defeat because she's smart, articulate, and tough.
Many of Hillary's colleagues have often noted that she is almost always the most knowledgeable person in the room about any given issue. Her knowledge, persistence, and stamina is an unstoppable combination. Her perseverance, despite being attacked daily for the last 30 years, is a testament to her political skill and brilliance.
Former President Bill Clinton, the other half of this political powerhouse, often describes Hillary as the most competent person in his generation. I couldn't agree more. So although she may have been too polarizing to win the Presidency in 2008, we can all be certain that if given the opportunity, she would have been one of the most competent and successful President's in our lifetime. And I hope she is given another chance in 2016.
Hillary Clinton:
"I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about what people think about me... I would be totally paralyzed. How could you get up in the morning if you worried about some poll or what somebody said about you? That's giving up power over your life to somebody else, and I don't intend to do that."
"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been."
"I'm not going to mislead anybody. Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There's a double standard, and you can't complain about it. You just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it. And you have to have a pretty tough skin. To paraphrase a favorite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: If a woman wants to be in politics, she has to have the skin of a rhinoceros. Most men who go into politics just think they're great. They believe they can do anything. Most young women, not only in politics but in most areas, are more cautious and more likely to say, 'Could I really do this? Am I good enough?' I was talking to a friend and very successful businessman the other day, and he said, 'The thing that still annoys me more than anything is that I see all these young women who are so much more capable than they allow themselves to believe. And I see so many young men who are so much less capable but who believe they are God's gift to the world.' I would just say to women: Try it! Put your foot in the pond and see if you want to swim."
"Occasionally I'll be sitting somewhere and I'll be listening to someone perhaps not saying the kindest things about me. And I'll look down at my hand and I'll sort of pinch my skin to make sure it still has the requisite thickness I know Eleanor Roosevelt expects me to have."
"When you stumble, keep faith. And when you're knocked down, get right back up, and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on."
It was uploaded by a HRC admirer with his comments and is worth the time as it goes back years into her positions. She's definitely not letting the GOP get away with anything. They are right to fear her being in power. She has a clear vision. I never saw any of this before.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Are you sure you want to go with it?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)rather than seeing the larger picture. Many far-Left Liberals do that all the time.
Then Secretary Clinton, and other Democrats, actually hoped that Bush would exhaust all possible diplomatic avenues before deciding to go to war. After all, he did say that he was not into nation-building.
In the final weeks of the 2000 campaign, Bush slammed the Clinton administration for doing exactly what he's doing now, only worse. He warned voters his opponent Al Gore would turn more U.S. soldiers into "nation-builders" and "peacekeepers." Bush pledged to exercise "judicious use of our military."
These weren't off-the-cuff remarks. The anti-nation-building rhetoric was part of a carefully crafted campaign strategy to position Bush solidly to the right of Gore on foreign policy. Bush was the conservative candidate, and true conservatives don't get America mixed up overseas in bleeding-heart humanitarian missions. They don't use Marines for meals-on-wheels. What Bush vowed during the campaign regarding nation-building was delivered from hard-and-fast talking points that his political handlers had him commit to memory. And it resonated with American voters.
But also, Democrats and Senator Clinton harbored fear that the war would turn out to be a success and she would be branded soft on terrorism (remember those stupid 3 a.m. political ads?). Democrats feared that Iraq would ultimately prove to have WMD's and that they would be criticized for not doing more to stop them or blamed if the war did not take place. They feared that Iraq was dangerous, an opinion fostered by the general fear among Americans after 9/11. Democrats feared that "no" votes would be forever exploited by the GOP, perpetuating the myth that Democrats can't keep the United States safe (because they're doves), and this would be endlessly dissected by the M$M media elite pushing for war, war, and more war.
Both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Clinton have paid, politically, dearly for that misjudgment by losing the White House when they were so incredibly close to taking it. It's high time we stop punishing Democrats for that horrible mistake, and stop rewarding Republicans for the very same thing.
I didn't vote for Senator Clinton in 2008 because of her IWR vote. I will, however, now vote for her in the general in 2016 should she run and win the Nom.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You might recall that Hillary coined the phrase "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"..
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Frustrating, isn't it?
But there's no arguing the fact that the American people are easily spooked (which is underscored by the almost fanatical love of high-powered rifles and love for super heroes, as only an American can be), and the Commander in Chief better be prepared to "keep this country safe" and project that confidence, otherwise s/he will NOT be elected. A woman will be held to a higher standard than a man. At least, in this country.
Yes, yes she did coin that phrase. I do remember. And she's also intelligent enough to understand - and has experienced firsthand - that our media, still the only source of information for a large segment of our population, is part of that conspiracy. And so, whether she likes it or not, and if she wants to be the first female president in U.S. history, she has to boost confidence in our easily-spooked society and project a strong "Iron Maiden" or "Amazonian" type of woman who has the wherewithal to do whatever is necessary in order to keep us safe.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And there you have it, that was the motivation, thanks for admitting it.;
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You know I wasn't admitting to anything. You cherry-picked a sentence and took it out of context in order to create a "gotcha" response.
I'm sorry a "gotcha" moment is all you were after. That tells me you're not open to honest debate nor are you willing to consider other points of view. And that's a real shame for a person with your level of intelligence.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In my view she's been angling towards that for a very long time.
I can understand the motivation to want to put a huge mark in history, I'm not remotely wired that way but it's not beyond my comprehension.
Another DUer and I who are often at odds just reached a level of understanding we haven't seen before.
This subthread is where it happened.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6277133
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)which is fine, but it doesn't absolve her of the need to adopt actual policy positions and demonstrate actual leadership.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)a good half-century because she actually believed in the cheap and shoddy lies being peddled to justify it, no, it was only sheer and craven political calculation, nothing more!
Doesn't that make you feel better about it?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)No, it wasn't.
Yes, we all understand that the Dems who voted for it, did so by and large out of craven political calculus and fear of being called "soft on terror". Hell, that was obvious in 2002.
This is not something that can be re-packaged, 13 years later, as good politics or smart manoeuvring. It was a flat-out moral failure, and it sure as shit isn't some badge of honor.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We agree on many things, but this isn't gonna be one of them. Sorry.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do you also condemn the entire rest of the international community who believed the same thing at the same time and wanted to do the same thing at the same time as Democrats here in the US? Put pressure on Saddam to get weapons inspectors back into the country.
If you think you have the right and ability to say that all of the above are terrible or cowardly or complicit or dumb or whatever other invective I've seen hurled at Democrats for voting 'Yes' on the IWR vote, then your position starts to make sense. But to do that, of course, is pretty arrogant to the point of being insanely so. And for that reason, no one I have said that to has come back at me with "Well, yes Steve, I was smarter and had better information than all the world international community".
If you can't say that, you have no point in trying to criticize Democrats for this. It's a position that makes no sense at all.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In the 2003 SOTU were a lie. In fact, i distinctly remember yelling at my low-def CRT television, "that is known to be false" during that speech.
Does that make me arrogant or "better informed than the intl community"? Maybe. I can live with being called arrogant, wouldnt be the first time 
.... I know I was right. But I also know i wasnt operating on any special insight at the time. The thing about the uranium for instance, was widely known to be a lie at the time. Maybe Judith Miller wasnt telling everyone, but other news sources were.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)By the time the 2003 SOTU speech came along, we had the benefit of several UN Weapons Inspector reports saying, "Hey folks, we've been on the ground for four weeks and we haven't found anything yet, then two months and we haven't found anything" and at the same time, the Bush administration was increasing the rhetoric and prepping for war.
So, yeah, you and I and everyone else were getting mighty suspicious and not believing Bush and the admin officials anymore. That is a separate issue from saying you "knew" before the inspectors were there which is when the votes for UN Sec Res 1441 and the IWR votes were made. No one outside of the Iraqi government "knew" before the weapons inspectors got there and started issuing reports. If you say you "knew" you didn't. It was a guess on a boolean proposition. Toss a penny and guess heads or tails. Are you going to pat yourself on the back for guessing right? Are you going to condemn someone else who didnt?
You have fallen victim to viewing the entire incident of the run-up to the Iraq war as a single event. It wasn't. There were many phases and we learned different things for sure at different times.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I do not believe there was any clear evidence the situation on the ground was markedly different in 2002 than it was in 1999. The only difference was, Bush had an excuse, and was wasting no time trying to conflate that excuse with Iraq, never mind that there was no connetcion.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And I'm not asking for a secondhand answer on what her policy statement was on something 5 years ago- for instance, if we're talking marijuana legalization, which mark my words IS going to be an issue in '16- then she's been all over the map, hasn't she.
And as fumesucker notes AFAIAC she still needs to answer for the IWR vote, as does anyone else we run who voted for that turd.
I'm saying I want her to run a substantial campaign with brave or at least clear positions on shit that is IMPORTANT. And not fudging or dodging the answers on potentially controversial matters, which is what I suspect - I fear - we will get.
She may well be a strong candidate and she may well be the nominee, however, in the meantime we have a primary process and that is where I would like to see a display of leadership.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I found myself saying, "That's right!" many times as I watched the video. You made my morning. Thanks again, freshwest.
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)Come on folks, we are all on the same side.. Maybe we have particular views that separate us on issues, but not on the bedrock fundamentals.. I would not choose Hillary, first or second, but she very well may be OUR CANDIDATE in '16..
I have my reasons, and so do you, but lets debate those, thoroughly, and leave the character assassination to the enemy.. Let them spend all of their money trying to do the dirty, and not help them picking scabs off our own.. Just a thought..
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)in my estimation.
Corporatist, interventionist, Bill of Rights shredding fuckers are the deadly enemy regardless of a letter by their name. The fact that some are more extreme doesn't align us and in fact shows where the real "bedrock principles" are actually shared and that it is they who are separated by views on issues.
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)This Presidential contest will be won, and we can first agree that is the goal, between the fences, THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD.. Lets also agree, the we, at least to varying degrees, reside on the far left of the political field..
Lets also agree, the squishy center, unimpressed with nuance politics, especially this early, has little appetite for extremes on either end.. Perhaps we can also agree the Pubs have succeeded in painting anything that appears to expand Government as a Commie Intrusion, although they couldn't survive without it, they just don't want to realize the facts, or publicly advocate for it..
If Hillary or anyone else on our ticket, attempts to placate us with red meat rhetoric, and lets also agree that is all it may be, the other side will cover the airwaves with that information, painted in Bumper Tag Slogans..
The candidates are left to cautious hints, winks and nods.. All we have is our knowledge of their previous political, and personal history.. That is where most of my problems reside with Hillary, and others.. She, as was Bill, too much of a political weather-vane, with a strong tendency to deal behind closed doors, to lean in the direction of the deep pockets, and talk in the direction of the polls, and three day rolling averages.. My other problem is with the Big Dog, and his Horn-dog libido..
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)you are further assuming agreement with.
I also think (assuming your apparent parsing of motives is on target which I am beyond dubious of) you are underestimating the damage the validating the right wing extremist that mediocre New Dealism is radical fringe stuff AND (whether intentional or not) moderating a lot of far right philosophy by framing only the bleeding edge of the neoBircher Teabaggers as extreme right.
How can you see the entire package of tactics can only move the functional political spectrum to the fairly hard right, setting up essentially Thatcherism as the leftward end of the acceptable spectrum and extending the right way out deep into insane?
How is it helping anyone but the damn TeaPubliKlans to continuously validate the TeaPubliKlan worldview? Where are our "bedrock values" even expressed much less advanced in this way?
For another talk about previous politics and personal experience and seem to miss we are talking about a DLC cofounder, friend of The Family, John McShame, and the Bushes, an ever espoused part of a "package deal" with Bill Clinton, close relationships with bankers, has fucking Kissinger on speed dial, is proudly on film psychopathicly cackling about "we came, we saw, he died", we saw her about break her fucking neck to get to Obama's right on arms for Syrian rebels, was speachafying to whip for invading Iraq, and hell since she pushed a fucking flag burning bill I see little reason to expect her to be a voice of reason on dragnet surveillance and the shredding of our enumerated rights either.
Which brings me back to my original question about these common "bedrock principles" that was your previous focus but I'm missing the connection to that theme in your response.
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)OK, I really get it, you hate Hillary.. I've told you I want someone other than Hillary, but I will accept voting for her, if she survives the primary.. What will you do if Hillary is our candidate?? What happens if she wins, whats the plan, because I can see this is becoming premeditated..?
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and circling back to accusations of hate of a person that I don't know because I don't think they should be the Democratic nominee or President?
It would seem rather than circling around you'd just enlighten us on these shared "bedrock values" that were are but quibbling around the edges of without substance.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)lying about being shot at angle as that seems to have success in some instances.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Hillary on the other hand should get a pass, right?
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)I don't have the exact quote, but it was something like "a likely presidential candidate's claim of having to dodge sniper fire", using the context of all of the revelations about Brian Williams, O'Loofah, the Sec. VA guy, etc.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You might enjoy this.. 
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2008/03/23/yelling-when-they-are-weak/#comment-567869
Response to Fumesucker (Reply #23)
bullwinkle428 This message was self-deleted by its author.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I would bet many of the Williams critics are also Hillary supporters.
There seem to be many posts saying they don't want Hillary but will vote for her if she is the nominee, this shows support a mile wide and an inch deep. Democrats need to give people a clear choice. If the choice is between Jeb and Hillary people will vote for the honest one, that is the one that admits they are a Republican.
It doesn't seem that this is going the way the OP expected it to go.
Well as they say: If you don't want to know how many worms are in the can, don't keep asking people to look in it.
I believe Sanders could win it all as an independent, the country is sick of both parties.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Its her support of TPP, endless war, the insurance industry, and big banks that concern many.
I'm done supporting extreme right values. Hillary fights for extreme right values.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I get the distinct impression that HRC has adopted supply side. Did she take the Grover Norquist pledge?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Not to me.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)My anti-Hillary sentiments are not manufactured. I am perfectly welcome to see Hillary as an undesirable candidate and that doesn't make it manufactured.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)surrounded by a bunch of "I'll support the nominee, if forced to avoid worse" and popularity based on brand recognition.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)are either for it or against it. It's really that simple.
KG
(28,751 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Totally absurd!
And they keep bringing up the hundreds of thousands of deaths due to some "vote" she made for "war". Hey Leftys: it wasn't millions, so @$/& off.
Amirite?
Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)"Women voters, African American voters, Hispanic and Latino voters, teachers and other union voters are the base of the Democratic Party. Have been for decades.
We are what you'd call the "activist base," but we ain't the base. The true base of the Democratic Party outnumbers us 10-1, but even if they didn't, the party wouldn't cater to us. Why? Because we are very nearly impossible to hold together as a coalition. We are, for the most part, the purists, and we bolt when we get disappointed. The aforementioned groups are far easier to hold together, they are far more dependable as Democratic voters, and thus are the base of the party.
This probably won't be a popular statement here, but so be it. I've seen ten dozen posts warning the Democratic Party about "pissing off the base," meaning progressives and serious liberals, but that ain't the base of the party.
I'm not saying we're wrong - on Afghanistan, bank bailouts, health care "reform" and many other issues, we're exactly goddam right - but we are not the base of the party."
- William Rivers Pitt
Long version
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Glad to hear that...
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Splitting the vote in a close election is detrimental no matter what group does it.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In fact no one gave me a convincing argument why I was wrong about it.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)It would've been just as irrelevant.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)follow your lead. Do you need the left? You disparage them but then want their help. Those that nominated Al Gore nominated a loser and then looked around for someone to blame. The American public was fed up with the DLC corporatists and were willing to give the other party a shot.
And now the Third Wayers are going to do it again. They are going to nominate another DLC candidate and whine and cry when the left won't support her.
The Third Way are Conservatives that realized they could win elections if they simply supported social policies. They could keep their disastrous foreign policy and economic policies of the Republicons.
H. Clinton did more damage selling the Iraq War than George Bush. Clinton/Bush or Bush/Clinton the Powers That Be don't care.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Your knack for irrelevancy and failing to see the big picture is becoming legendary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Typical 'progressive' routine.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)wyldwolf. And everything he writes in that post is spot-on.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)that Will actually wrote that. But yeah, it's true. Minorities, women, and unions are the true base of the D party. We have more to lose from R administrations, so allowing them to get into power is out of the question.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)posts of the last few years. It is spot on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And I would add: the "activist base's, one time role, was to appeal to their individual constituencies WITHIN the big tent; rather than, the apparent move to BE the tent. That's why we saw the Union groups (despite its abysmal record with respect to its treatment of African-American workers) able to be in the same space as African-American/Civil Rights groups, and anti-poverty focused, Religious groups (despite some interpretations of their religious doctrines) in the same space as LGBT groups and Pro-Choice groups.
Hekate
(90,681 posts)...and excellently when he puts his mind to it. This essay is one of those times, and it still applies.
Thank you, wyldwolf, for resurrecting this. I hope at least a few folks will take it to heart.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Wow ... Powerful and insightful piece and when combined with wyldwolf's post ... I vote "wins the internet for today!"
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Oy vey.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)but I feel calling legitimate criticism "manufactured outrage" pathetic as well.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Makes sense that your a Hillary supporter
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Employees of a network aren't allowed to appear other places without special permission which is rarely given.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I suppose that's progress for you.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)criticize me about. Actually, what you defend Greenwald from is worse since he actually takes money from the Koch brothers. But you defend him and criticize me when I don't take money from any Conservatives.
As I said to Rex, your credibility called. It says it's not coming back.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
druidity33
(6,446 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Are the same who say "you got nothing! That's why you attack the messenger" whenever someone says anything negative about Greenwald.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)good or bad to do conservative media, or to get paid by the Koch brothers.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)as a propagandist, does it matter to you?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)you have any real convictions at all or are they all as fungible as this one.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)good. Little wonder Fox likes having you propagate their "fair and balanced meme"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)propagandist nothing has changed.
At least you make Alan Colmes look liberal
druidity33
(6,446 posts)debate the issues... all for no charge? You don't get an appearance fee? They don't pay for your hotel? Whether you're a "guest" or not, i gather this is your job. You should get paid for it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with charging for your services, whosoever wants to rent them. I just can't imagine anyone appearing on Fox News without being compensated for it...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts) Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So did General Clark, so I suppose he's just a goddamned liar now, too, huh?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... it's the quid pro quo they expect for the fees. It's the pro-war history. It's the TPP. It's the H1B Visas. It's war criminal Henry Kissinger being her bossom buddy. It's her association with "The Family." It's her support for the XL Pipeline. Etc, etc, etc.
If Hillary is the best our party can do, we need a new party.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Damn straight, that right there!
The Democratic Party is already represented by a man who calls his own economic policies "1980's Republican' and admits that "in many ways Nixon is was more liberal" than he is. Hillary will accelerate the rightward slide to the point where is will no longer be the Democratic Party.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Then go start one. I don't see anyone stopping you.
Just sayin' is all ...
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)should continue to move further to the right, past Bob Dole and Richard Nixon.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... that the party should move further to the right, that response is pure silliness.
However, my reply to you was an honest statement of fact. If you are so disgusted with the Democratic Party, the obvious thing would be to leave it, and start one that is more to your liking.
Of course, the alternative to that would be just staying with the Dems and complaining about them endlessly - which seems to be more your style.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts) NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Post links to where I have "pontificated" about moving the party to the right.
That was your accusation - now back it up.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... at your inability to back up what you say - which seems to be a habit.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)After all, you appear on the manufactured outrage channel quite regularly.
Which I'll point out I would not know but for your ceaseless self promotion, I don't even own a TV and wouldn't watch Fox on a bet, let alone appear on it.
If Fox didn't think you were helping them spread their propaganda you would not have been invited back the second time.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you thought I would forget that gross hypocrisy, I haven't.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html
Autumn
(45,079 posts) Rex
(65,616 posts)You in this thread;
\
Then again the OP never actually can argue with anyone over issues. That is why he is a sad little pundit.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Our whole society is marinaded in dirty money, it's inevitable that the dirt soaks into almost everything.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Which is what you posted.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)On Wed Feb 25, 2015, 04:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Nice pwnage you got going on there!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6277601
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
It doesn't appear that this person's issues with stevenleser are anything but personal. Appears to have entered this thread for the sole purpose of launching a series of personal attacks on the OP. May be better just to put steven on ignore than carry on like this.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 25, 2015, 05:02 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that his post is a personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh. The op is a public figure. I'm sure he can take the criticism. If not, then maybe he shouldn't be a public figure posting on a message board
Rex
(65,616 posts)I guess the alerter is desperate for me to put Steven on ignore! Poor kid, better luck next time! I stand by every single word I write about that person and I see the jury agrees with me. Pundits are destroying this country with their subjective opinion. People mistake them for real journalists and reporters. Sad really.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Not very convincing Steven.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)All he can do is counter people, which shows how little he understands about debate. I had hopes for Steven at one time, but he seems to have taken the easy way out. Sad really, we need some good objective journalists. Not these crap pundits like O' Reilly and Hannity.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I bet you are their fav!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and appearing on the same media for which you criticize me?
By the way your credibility called. It says it won't be coming back.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I knew you were clueless. This just proves it. It is so funny watching you question my credibility when you destroyed yours a long time ago. Seriously, go find one post were I defend GG. This is funny! You are clueless and desperate now.
So try making up another name that fits your pathetic narrative, maybe you will get lucky and it will be someone I do support!
Number23
(24,544 posts)it.
People accuse you of going on Fox, seemingly oblivious to the oft made point that you go on there to represent the DEMOCRATIC and progressive stance of the issues, while at the same time, lining up to lovingly lap the sweat off the back of Glen Greenwald's neck, a man who goes on Fox, Cato and myriad other places in order to slam Democrats and sing the virtues of Ron Paul.
You just have to laugh at the hypocrisy/stupidity/confusion. It doesn't make a bit of sense and it's becoming really obvious that it's not meant to.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Appearance at a Koch conference, and as some others pointed out for appearances on the same media they criticize me for. I will never forget it.
The bigger upshot is what does this mean for ANY point these folks raise if their hypocrisy in dealing with me vs Greenwald is so glaring. They have zero credibility on any issue
Number23
(24,544 posts)as well as hypocritical comments made here by your "detractors."
Whether they'll be decent enough to own up to the really blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy is the only question and looking around at who's doing the "detracting," my guess is that they won't.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So without trying to they have done me a huge honor.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It's pretty driving me crazy for years.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Lots of folks see the hypocrisy. Yes they do.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I don't agree that Hillary is the right candidate though. She is the least of the worst evil IMO. There is not one candidate in the Republican clown car that would not destroy what it has taken decades for people to achieve in the areas of civil rights, women's rights, and having a teeny tiny safety net. Yes, there is so much still to be done on all those issue. But, Republicans would shred everything and start more wars just to make sure there is nothing left for important things like infrastructure and safety nets.
So if I have to I will vote for her if she makes it past the primaries. She will at least keep the status quo which sucks from being the former status quo where at least there was something in place for people in poverty and some appearance of progress.
Vinca
(50,270 posts)Hillary haters need to get a grip. It's fine to criticize, but to say she's a horrible person for being part of an organization that helps poor people around the world is outrageous.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)This is an absurd assertion, but I think you already knew that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Does anyone, and by that I mean anyone who still has a functional mind, buy into this crap?
Like it or not pal, WHERE and WHO her money comes from, is indeed an important ISSUE, as the Anointed One has a history that favors those very same sources in her policies.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Only a fool would say that she did for any other reason.
And that's why many of us are outraged.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Steven's no Alan Colmes..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I did not know that..
/Johnny Carson
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. 
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #75)
BeanMusical This message was self-deleted by its author.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That's how long it took you to do a victory dance while I was refilling my coffee and attending to some of those mundane matters in real life.
I haven't had much if anything to say about Bernie or Elizabeth either for that matter. You'll note I don't have a sig line for either of them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You also haven't said much about Greenwald. Maybe your sig line should read "everyone in the world is a Republican lackie".
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)However he hasn't got back to me about Koch Bros funding of the DLC and at this point I don't expect him to.
You wrote three replies to one post of mine in fifteen minutes, my error for mixing them up.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or maybe it does. I'm still not sure if there are any liberals in the world that pass your purity test.
And I'm not sure that the Koch Brothers funding the DLC has to do with any of this.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Now maybe you'll stop dodging the issue that many liberals have appeared on fox but you only have a problem with Steven...
But you probably won't.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Brothers conference. You don't seem to hold that against Glen. So it looks like you have some kind of personal grudge against Steven.
Unless something else can explain your hypocrisy. But so far you're just dodging.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Greenwald on his original blog Unclaimed Territory and at Salon when he was there, he regularly conversed with his commenters.
I like Greenwald even though he can be prickly but Steven rubs me very much the wrong way. The main difference I see between them is that Glenn would admit it if you had a point and Steven absolutely will not.
You'll note Steven didn't reply when I pointed out the DLC was funded by Koch..
You can sue me for disliking Leser if you wish.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You just don't like the guy.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)It's not a cheap shot to point out he's a regular on Fox, invited back many times. Leser makes a big deal out of it himself and if he didn't I would have no idea what he does.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Once again, as with your criticisms of my media appearances versus defending Greenwald for accepting paid appearances at Koch brothers events, the extent of your hypocrisy is astounding.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)He is much more likely to accept criticism than you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What is much more likely is that your criticisms of Greenwald are given with kid gloves and your criticisms of me are invariably nasty.
This is what Greenwald is like when criticized: https://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/when-greenwalds-attack-10-examples-from-his-past/
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Irony lost.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And taken him to task for misinterpreting the words of others, he agreed with me that he took things the wrong way and revised his position.
He spent quite a bit of time in the comments section in fact, unusual for Salon authors in general who most of the time ignore comments completely.
On the other hand I do not recall you ever admitting error.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Glenn Greenwald holding an Oscar he had a significant part in achieving, getting applause from a crowd of glittering celebrities on camera in front of 30 plus million people, many of whom are not wearing Depends.
Meanwhile you are stuck on one of the most blatant propaganda outlets in the history of civilization, with an audience that has an average age of 68.8 and loathes your very being.
Life is so unfair, don't you agree Steven?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts) freshwest
(53,661 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)So, no, that is not all her detractors have got.
840high
(17,196 posts)still_one
(92,190 posts)If Hillary runs and is the Democratic nominee the vast majority of Democrats and progressives will vote for her
DU is not a good bellwether of prophesy
It reminds me of the doom and gloom regarding president Obama from these same folks. I remember one tirad thread that called the president every name in the book regarding the ACA, and later found out a particular medicine was covered. A typical walk back but no apology was actually given
I recall how they were so sure Obama would sign the pipeline, not to push for gay rights, push us into a war with Iran and Ukraine, and so many other DU assessments by some that never materialized
Hell, there was one thread criticizing Hillary for saying abortion should be rare, safe and legal, and identifying that view with being anti-women
Manufactured outrage is an understatement for some of the comments
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Without widespread opposition and a constant push from (wait for it) the left? There's been a whole bunch of stuff that the corporate wing has tried to sneak through, but we caught some of it, and resisted. Saying that these things never materialized is doing a huge disservice to those who fought against them.
And he got booted in spectacular fashion, no? There-s plenty of sexist and idiotic comments about Hillary to choose from, a troll might not be the best example.
still_one
(92,190 posts)Regarding Hillary on abortion, and how somehow that was anti-women's rights because they should be legal safe and rare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6245222
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)A couple of posts 2 days ago on a thread started a week ago is not "alive and well".
Second, you totally missed the point of part what I said. There were idiots defending Ramses (a troll who wasn't very good at it) in that thread, but the majority of people (even HRC "haters"
just thought he was stupid. There is plenty of sexism against Clinton, and whoever calls it out has my full support, but to put the trollish actions of one onto a group of people with very legitimate grievances against Clinton is disingenuous at best.
Third, you ignored the main thrust of my post entirely. Any response to that?
still_one
(92,190 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)some of these folks is "But there are legitimate criticisms too!!!11!1!1!!!111elevens!!"
There are legitimate criticisms of everybody. What we get about Hillary and Obama is rarely that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She's not the nominee, yet, is she?
still_one
(92,190 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but it's premature to order people to support someone who hasn't even declared for the primaries yet. If the only thing people were saying about her was shit regarding Vince Foster or "BENGHAZIIIIII" that would be one thing, but suggesting that objections to the IWR vote are "straw grasping"--- really?
Apparently the new talking point is that her vote for that spectacular poop was somehow evidence of her shrewd political abilities. Barf.
still_one
(92,190 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)So it's no surprise that they behave the same way with their manufactured outrages.
Sid
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)It is almost as if they are working together to try to tear apart the Democratic Party before 2016. The old divide and conquer routine is still in use.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)"In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes. Such wording is also known as high-inference language or language persuasive techniques." -- The Google
Rex
(65,616 posts)what did you really expect from someone that plays CYA for the BFEE? Intelligence?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)From 2010: Haitian Economy is the Blueprint for Future USA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7464287
Money.
Response to SidDithers (Reply #66)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)she actively supported the Republicons.
The Left wants someone with integrity.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
spanone
(135,831 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I find it a tad offensive that I'm being told who I have to support in the primaries, though.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The complaints about Clinton is not about speaking fees. It's about a host of DLC-style positions that she has held in the past, and has not done anything to distance herself from.
Please stop pretending to be a moron. You're better than that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thousands of posts objecting to her Iraq vote, TPP support, ties to bankers, "the Family", Keystone, and plenty of other DLC positions.
One thread talking about speaking fees on top of the other objections.
To claim the only objection is speaking fees is monumentally fucking stupid. It is beneath Steve. Or I may have to rephrase that as it should be beneath Steve.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)To claim there is just one thread talking about speaking fees is beneath you. Or at least it should be beneath you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, to claim it's only about speaking fees is incredibly stupid.
And it's also a great demonstration of the big problem in our party that will cause Clinton enormous problems in 2016. You minimize the objections within your own party, you don't get turnout. You don't get turnout, you repeat Al Gore's performance.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025070273
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025197534
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026123277
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025163221
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024963108
To claim that this isn't a big issue the Hillary haters have been pushing is incredibly stupid. And then there's the even more stupid issue that some of her donors had bank accounts at HSBC.
Sure, there's legitimate criticism of HRC, but the anti-Hillary people like to avoid that, the problem being that she has progressive views on a lot of issues, and across the board she's way better than any Republican. So instead we get speaking fees and HSBC.
PS. 25 recs and counting for the latest speaking fee outrage.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Boy, that's a massive criticism!!! 
And your last one is about Bill Clinton.
So so far you've managed to find 4 threads where someone objected to speaking fees.....as long as you ignore the actual objection in two of them were over her claims of poverty.
But yes, the objection is entirely about speaking fees. That's all that they're talking about. They have no other objections and we will all line up and vote for her. Just like Al Gore. Wasn't his presidency great?!
Ignoring all but the most trivial objections does not fix them. It lets you pretend that none of the rest of the objections exist. Which means not addressing them, which means not fixing them. Which means very large problems at the ballot box.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's good that you bring up Al Gore. Wouldn't it be awesome if a bunch of liberals throw their vote away and put another republican in office! Seems to be what a lot of people here are cheering for.
No wonder they complain about speaking fees and HSBC. If I was trying to argue that Hillary was no better than a Republican, I would try to avoid logic just as hard as they are.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Candidates have to work for liberal votes. Unlike conservative voters who will check the box for Satan if he has an (R) after his name. Gore failed to do so, and has admitted that he ran a terrible campaign in 2000.
If Clinton wants to win, she's going to have to work for liberal votes. If she fails to do so, that is not the fault of liberals. That's the fault of a candidate choosing to ignore liberals.
Why? Because if the choice is going to hell, or going to hell faster, that's not really a choice. You're still in hell.
"Not as bad as the Republican" is a terrible campaign theme. It was our party's campaign theme in 2010 and 2014. How'd that work out again?
If Clinton's strategy is "Not as bad as Jeb" or whatever mainstream Republican ends up with the nomination, then it will be a very close race due to low turnout. Republicans can win that.
Clinton versus Jeb is extremely vulnerable to this, since it's a dynasty versus dynasty election - that's not going to get people who want change to the polls unless Clinton does a lot of work to show she is not the status quo. And so far she has done nothing to indicate she is not for the status quo.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)nation in the last two decades is siphoning votes away from Gore and thereby facilitating the Bush debacle.
That seems to be the strategy that many, perhaps most DUers, seem to be using to try and achieve their political objectives. To sabotage any imperfect candidate. It worked so great in 2000, let's do it again! Maybe the next Republican will start another huge war and re-collapse the economy!
Is it any wonder they feel marginalized? Have they even accepted that the 2000 strategy was a mistake, and let to horrible outcomes in the real world? Not even close. Are they doing anything positive, like mounting energetic grassroots campaigns, say getting senators elected from blue states? No. There's a total of one Senator in the progressive caucus.
Their favorite activities are complaining, threatening, and pretending that Hillary and GOPers are the same. Yes, that's a great way to grow influence and be taken seriously.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Politicians are not entitled to votes based on the letter after their name. They actually have to work for those votes.
For Republicans, they have to work to avoid a primary against a more conservative candidate. For Democrats, they have to work to get turnout in the general election.
List what makes Clinton a great candidate without referencing Republicans or what Republicans could do. What would she actually do, instead of what would she prevent? What would she change instead of what would she maintain? And what actual evidence has she supplied that she will do so?
To merely be "imperfect", that list would still be pretty long. Instead objections to Clinton (TPP, Iraq, etc) are met with "Republicans would be worse". Like you are here.
You're still blaming the wrong people. It is up to politicians to earn votes. When politicians fail to earn votes, that is not the fault of the voters. That's the politician's failure. Al Gore has accepted this, even if you have not.
The last 50 years have created a giant mountain of shit that we will have to clean up. DLC-style Democratic politicians won't even acknowledge something smells bad, much less the giant pile. The only leverage we have against these politicians is to withhold our vote. If they get our vote regardless of our complaints, why would they listen to our complaints? They get what they want with no effort or risk by ignoring the complaints.
"Not as bad" worked for a while. And the pile of shit grew to epic proportions. "Not as bad" is not going to work anymore. And a few more turds will fall on the pile while the party leadership figures that out.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If the far left wants to build up a grassroots campaign and start winning primaries and getting people elected, that would be great. But they don't do that. At least not much. What they mainly do is complain and threaten and draw false equivalences. I don't know about you, but people who constantly complain about me and threaten me aren't the people who I am most anxious to jump into bed with.
What makes Clinton good? Let's see.
Supports Obamacare, and medicaid expansion.
Wants to raise minimum wage.
Supports gay rights.
Strongly pro-choice.
Rated 85% by AFL-CIO.
Wants to protect social security.
Wants higher taxes on the wealthy -- 80% rating by citizens for tax justice.
And so on.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
So the issues are not your friend on this. Also, the "don't mention the Republicans" game is plain dumb. I would hope that the Bush years taught the Naderites that the Republicans actually exist and do bad things.
When weighing two options, this whole idea of ignoring one of them completely and refusing to compare them is one of the dumbest things I can imagine. Do Naderites make life decisions based on the same principle? Like, when crossing the street, either I could wait for a green light, but that would take time, so forget it, I'm just gonna cross right now, no more time wasting for me!
There's plenty of blame to go around. Gore ran a bad campaign, Nader sabotaged him, with help from the "there's no difference" morons.
In the end, you care more about sending a message to party leadership than what actually happens the country. The Iraq War and the economic collapse were just "a few turds" and you have no problem with a few more of them falling. This is what makes Naderite leftism so bourgeois. People whose lives are actually affected by things like the minimum wage don't have the luxury of saying, well, who cares about a few turds, sending a message is the really important thing.
And the other thing is, the Naderite strategy was and continues to be a colossal failure. Has the Democratic party moved left thanks to all the complaints, threats, and false equivalences? No. What happened was, Bush got elected, Nader's reputation destroyed, the Green party almost disappeared.
If the far left wants to be a political force, the thing to do is win elections not sabotage them. If sabotaging is the only move, it's no wonder they get treated like the enemy.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Maintain status quo.
Not supported by actions or speeches. Support for free trade agreements that would easily counter the benefits more than offsets this
Followed the pack. Did not try to actually advance this cause.
Maintain status quo. Abortion is still icky. No effort to expand access, just fighting against Republican efforts to reduce access.
Not an action or a policy.
Maintain status quo. How about fighting to expand it?
Not supported by actions or speeches. Support for free trade agreements and banking deregulation undercuts this claim, since it would allow lots of tax avoidance. No effort to explain how her free trade agreements or banking deregulation would prevent tax avoidance.
Now, when she actually starts campaigning she could change those. But she has a very uphill battle on that front due to her lengthy political history.
Nice to know the point sailed completely over your head. "Don't mention the Republicans" is a crutch for you to make the case for Clinton instead of making the case against the Republicans. Clinton's supporters on DU have not been doing that. They've always reverted to "Republicans would be worse" when confronted with complaints. Which will not work as a campaign strategy.
Instead, cover why the positives outweigh the negatives. "Sure, she supported the TPP, but she also wants to (insert benefit here). That makes her worth it".
When my choices are "get shit on" or "get shit on, but they might feel bad about it", why is choosing the later any better?
What I care about is no political party has given a damn about my issues in my lifetime. In my first election, I got to pick lesser of two evils. That resulted in NAFTA, massive H1B visa increases, "ending welfare" and massive banking deregulation that destroyed the economy.
8 years later, I got to pick between continuing down this terrible path, or continuing down this terrible path. Woo-hoo! Let's go vote! Went ahead and took your advice about always picking the lesser of two evils.
4 years after that, I got to pick between continuing down this terrible path and keep starting wars, or continuing down this terrible path and start slightly fewer wars. Woo-hoo! Let's go vote! Went ahead and took your advice about picking the lesser of two evils.
4 years after that, I got a candidate who claimed it was time to change course. So I happily voted for him. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like he could actually change course all that much. Plus he decided to continue working towards free trade and other bad economic plans.
(It should also be noted that I was political aware long before I was 18, and thus able to vote. I was fully aware that DLC-style politics were on the rise for quite a while before Bill Clinton ran for president)
So now when we hit 2016, the Republicans are going to give me the option to continue down this terrible course, with even more war, or what? Clinton's past does not indicate she is very interested in changing course. She may try to change that with her campaign, but so far she has not.
"Lesser of two evils" has utterly failed to produce remotely acceptable results. All it's done is slow the descent into dystopian nightmare. But we're still heading to that same dystopian nightmare, and I'll easily live long enough to get there, even at the slower rate.
You need to spend a little time digging into the Democratic party's systems for selecting candidates. It's not nearly as open as you believe. I know because I actually tried to do it. We "kids" were not welcome to upset the status quo.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)taxation, healthcare, and so on matter. Fair enough. To each their own, I guess. As far as the "status quo" stupidity, those positions are taken from actual votes she made in the past (e.g. raising the minimum wage, etc), when she was a senator, and from the positions she advocated when running for president in 08. Recently she was Secretary of State, which explains for example, why she wasn't travelling around the country advocating for fairer taxation. But I'm quite sure that when she presents her 2016 candidate platform, it will reflect her long history of support for these and other progressive causes.
Sure, she supported the TPP, but she also wants all that other stuff I listed, and that makes her worth it. Particularly when the other option is a Republican. TPP is kinda funny, because nobody knows exactly why they hate it so much. We already have bilateral agreements with most of the countries. And it doesn't include China. Krugman has called it "no big deal", but what does he know, he's just another right-winger, right?
I understand the point clearly. When comparing the two alternatives, one is a hundred times better than the other. In fact, the difference between Hillary and say Cruz is much bigger than the difference between Hillary and say Warren. That doesn't fit into the Hillary-hating agenda. So we want to pretend that there are no Republicans.
Well, for people who truly think this is an accurate account of the differences between Hillary and a Republican, I actually applaud the Democratic party for not wasting time and resources trying to reason with them.
H1B visas, huh? So now we're anti-immigration too? I've worked with people on H1B, and they were great, and I was proud that my country welcomed them in, and thankful for the experience of working with them. As far as the economy, I'm sure glad we got Obama to pull us back from the brink, and also to pass the most extensive financial regulation since the great depression. Sure, if not for Nader, the economy might not have needed rescuing in the first place, but at least the 2008 election didn't also get sabotaged.
My first election as an adult happened to be the 2000 election. Guess what, I was (almost) a Naderite. I was young and dumb, and actually bought into the whole "crash the system, both parties are corporate sellouts, what's the difference." I didn't vote, wasn't politically engaged, but if I did, I may well have voted for Nader.
Well, it didn't take very long for me to figure out how wrong I was, and just how big the differences between the parties were. First 9-11 (which I don't think would have happened had Bush not ignored Bin Laden to focus on Russia and other "threats"
, tax cuts for the wealthy, the Iraq War, then near economic collapse. After that, I thought, wow, I was dumb, but surely after all this people are going to wake up and realize what's really at stake. And, thankfully, the overt attempts at sabotage like Nader's seem to have gone away. But there are still plenty of people who believe the "no difference" nonsense.
I'm sure it's not easy. Nothing worthwhile ever is. Maybe that's why the far left takes the route of threatening and sabotaging instead of the more difficult work of organizing at the grassroots level. The teabaggers have found a way into the Republican party, after all.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nope, read the post.
In all of those issues, Clinton has at best fought for the status quo. That is always a losing proposition, because you will sometime give an inch here, or an inch there until you've lost ground. "OK, you can have that dumb 20-week abortion ban so that I can block your union busting".
Where is she actually proposing to advance the current state of affairs? Where's she attacking TRAP laws? Where's her statement demanding higher minimum wage and mandatory overtime pay? Where's her change-of-heart on free trade agreements? Where's her regret about pushing for more H1B visas?
Again, if your only argument is "Republicans are worse", you have not make an argument for voting for Clinton. You've made an argument for voting for anyone who isn't a Republican.
Why vote for Clinton? What has she done/what is she proposing that actually makes things better instead of "holding the line"? You keep only arguing about her keeping the status quo going.
Problem #1 is we don't know what's in it, and Democrats are working very hard to keep it that way. From bits and pieces that have leaked, it goes well beyond most of those bilateral agreements you cite, and could be used to gut environmental and labor regulations.
But we don't know because we're not allowed to see it. And if they're insisting on hiding it, I'm going to assume it is bad.
Then you don't understand the point at all.
H1Bs are not immigration tools. They're temporary work permits. Despite the claims of H1B recruiters, you don't get to use the H1B visa to actually immigrate. A very small number of people manage to turn an H1B into a long-term visa. The vast majority are thrown out of the country at the end of the visa.
Additionally, fraud is rampant in H1B visas. I get 2-3 emails a week from recruiters asking if I'm interested in a job that is nowhere near the city I live in, and that pays below market rate. They are counting on me to turn them down so they can claim they need an H1B visa.
Excellent job skipping over the complaints. Now that way you don't have to actually address them......oh crap, I just mentioned them again.
Republicans actually run open primaries, and do not sabotage outsiders for fear of reprisal - they've been worse at keeping outsiders out of their elections, so those outsiders win sometimes. For example, Eric Cantor lost because he didn't bother to run more than one poll.
That's not true of the Democratic party. You don't make the state/local party apparatus happy, and they will do everything they can to destroy you. They're far better at it than the Republican party. Unfortunately, they aren't quite as aggressive in general elections.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's actually surprising that you are able to write so many words without even addressing any of the points that I made. Like the fact that Hillary has a long track record of fighting for progressive causes, but (obviously) as Secretary of State she wasn't out there fighting for minimum wage increases or unions. I guess it's easier to ignore than to try to rebut.
The funniest part of the whole argument is that many of the things that Hillary has fought for (e.g. healthcare, gay rights, etc.) have already become law (thanks to the Democratic party that you so despise), and now your argument is "but that's just the status quo." LOL.
But then when it comes to Obama, does he get credit for the things that have already become status quo, so Hillary can't take credit for fighting for them anymore? Of course not. That would require a shred of honesty!
Anyway, at the end of the day, since say 1975, the far left has produced absolutely nothing in terms of making the world a better place. Zero. Less than zero. Their crowning achievement is helping Bush steal the 2000 election. The Democratic party, on the other hand, has brought healthcare to millions, implemented the strongest financial regulations in many decades, rescued the economy from the damage that the Republicans (with their far-left allies) caused, made immense steps towards LGBT equality, and is currently pushing for things like increasing the minimum wage and free community college education.
And then you think the Democratic party is at fault for not listening more to the far left and their less-then-zero record of achievements in the last two or three decades. I hate to break this to you, but being utterly ineffective, complaining constantly, and then working against the people who are actually trying to make a difference, that is not a strategy for success.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)I would not waste five minutes responding to this deflective argle bargle.
Like 99 percent of DU I will vote for Clinton IF she is the Democratic nominee. However I very much resent her being shoved down my throat before she has earned that. But the same posters can be counted on perennially for this sort of behavior. I learned a long long time ago to not bother.
Good for you!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No. Not really. Reagan and Bush were allowed to get away with treason every time from 1980 to the present day.
And the Democrats have held the White House and Congress enough along the way to let them off the hook every time.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)other than siphoning away votes from Gore. Not writing a book or complaining on the web, I mean changing the course of policy or the direction of the country.
Anything?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)By 1968 even McNamara knew it was a lost cause but it kept right on grinding until the country was rioting in the streets.
Your argument completely ignores framing, if the framing is limited only to the far right and the pragmatic centrist moderates then moving to the right is dare I say inevitable with no counterbalance from the left.
The left has been told to sit down and shut up and the right is encouraged to stand up and shout, resulting in politics moving to the right.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That was 40-50 years ago. I was asking about the last few decades, though, in which case their biggest impact was the Nader/Bush debacle. Which means that, on net, the far left has, in the last 20 years, had the effect of pushing the government to the right. With friends like these...
I would be happy if the left organized at a grassroots level, got some more Green/progressive senators elected, and became a political force. But that's not what they do. They complain, and they threaten, and they falsely claim that both parties are the same, but they don't actually accomplish anything, except in 2000, where the "accomplished" siphoning enough votes away from Gore to facilitate Bush stealing the election.
Dear far left: do something productive. If all you're going to do is threaten to help Republicans, don't be surprised that Democrats ignore you or view you with suspicion.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Embarrassed the hell out of the centrists.
I actually can win arguments with the right on a regular basis if the forum is a fair one and I can prove it if you are interested.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't care about your debating prowess. I care about what happens in this country and in the world. In the last two decades, the only real impact that the left-left has had is facilitating Bush's rise to power. And then complain about how "they" are telling you to shut up, and "they" aren't listening to you.
Is that all there is?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)One side got ignored and the other side got vastly amplified.
Remember millions of people in the street protesting the Iraq War?
I had to go to a screening of Fahrenheit 911 to even see any footage of it, the anti war movement was shut out of the Mainstream Media.
But let four teabaggers show up in one place and the press is there to validate them and make sure their complaints are heard through the idiot box.
But it's all the fault of the left.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I mean, is the left so hopelessly ineffective that they can't get anything at all accomplished except for helping Republicans win elections?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Despite the largest protests in history.
Trying to get what we want is now seen as "sabotaging the Democrats", that kind of tells you where the Democrats are.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And yes, the method that you are using to try to get what you want is precisely sabotaging the Democrats. Let me give you a little tip. It's not going to work. You're not going to get what you want that way. You might succeed with the sabotage, but in that case what you will get is the Republicans.
So maybe come up with a new plan that has even the slightest chance of actually succeeding and making the world a better place. Because if you don't, and you're gonna stick to the sabotage, then you are part of the problem, and it's completely justified for the Democrats to treat you that way.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Joebituary was a far greater drag on Gore's electoral chances than Nader. You might recall his 2008 appearance at the national convention.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For all the talk of Hillary's "entitlement," it seems to me that the far left feels entitled to having people do whatever they want even though they aren't able to organize, mobilize, or get anyone elected even to the Senate, and their big accomplishment is sabotaging Gore in 2000. If you were the Democrats, would you listen to these people either?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)They put forth an effort and were completely and totally ignored, as I said I had to go to a fucking movie to actually see the protests, they weren't on my television at all.
Here's what I think the Democratic party should do if they want to win elections, I started off in a snarky vein in the OP and then realized as the thread progressed that in fact that's exactly the way professional politicians think.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026268568
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Maybe the far left these days actually prefers having Republicans in office, so that they mount their protests. If they had just voted for Gore, then there wouldn't have been any war to protest, and what fun is that?
Maybe it's a kind of defense mechanism. The far left has utterly failed to organize or mobilize into an effective political force, and so they rationalize it by arguing that anyone who actually accomplishes anything is evil. They don't hate Clinton and Obama because of their policies, which after all, are mostly progressive and far better than what the GOP stands for. Instead, they hate them because they actually get stuff done. Stuff, you know, like Obamacare.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)IF she gets the nomination, then yes.
But until then, we are going to have primaries, whether people like it or not. And until then her team is not entitled to automatically expect or demand support here.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)is full blown socialism with the government nationalizing private businesses. I don't think that you understand what it means. Nader's positions were more in line with the Democratic party platform than were Gore's. That is the reason Democratic voters voted for him. The blame lies with Gore not the voters.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,614 posts)I was Juror #5.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Feb 25, 2015, 10:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
You aren't this stupid.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6276792
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is just over the top. This post was in response to this post http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6275118
Jeff is being rude and obnoxious.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 25, 2015, 10:30 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alleged 'insults' were actually kind of complimentary, even if backhanded. Don't be so thin-skinned.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Unnecessary personal insults
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerter is way off base. This post is just fine and quite reasonable. The poster even compliments the person he's criticizing! Leave it alone.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think that's a stretch; Jeff47's response is a valid one to the initial post. El Bryanto
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Rude and obnoxious. Also, Jeff is wrong. There aren't policy criticisms, of Clinton, only generic criticisms. They aren't about policy, they are about bashing. That is after ignoring the frothing at the mouth type attacks straight out of RW media that get posted and rec here too.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
Alert abuse Delete this DU Mail
« Newer | Return to My Inbox | Older »
DU Home | Latest Threads | Greatest Threads | Forums & Groups | My Subscriptions | My Posts
About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Stillone's #57 shows how prevalent the nonsense is regarding Hillary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's nonstop nonsense attacks against Hillary here. It's not dumb or stupid to point it out. And I am sure that stillone invariably did not capture all of it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And the puma rearing its ugly head here against Hilkary is upsetting as well.
I just wish that people would remember that we are not here to do the gop's dirty work.
As a reminder to people we have a Hillary Clinton Room here for supporters only and we don't allow crap in there so if you are a supporter pay us a visit. http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and looting the commons.
That is the heart of their dirty work.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)You keep finding rationalizations for backing Turd Way politicians then you become a stockholder in their Turd Way policies.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)high level positions.
The cabinet appointments have been a who's who among the former DLC (and outright TeaPubliKlans particularly in security positions).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)with extraordinary name recognition with "generic Democrats" almost unerringly being that particular person's definition of Democrat be it in fact or almost wholly fiction.
Roughly 40% each way are flat out voting their party regardless of the actual individual is a communist or a feudalist.
Even in an absolute wipe out, a near or actual electoral sweep that lower is going to be around 40%.
Most people cannot name their own delegation much less senators and other officials around the country and while Democrats might do better than Republicans and unaffiliated voters it still largely applies.
People know who Hillary Clinton is, she is associated with Bill Clinton closely (call it sexist if you want but it is still true) who is popular, and know she is a Democrat and in the majority of cases I would contend it goes little deeper than that.
Take away people that have already been President and Hillary and I wonder which Democratic politician is over 25% name recognition nationally. Maybe Biden and he is the sitting VP. That goes even if you give the name and ask who they are.
We are talking a country where more than 25% think the Sun orbits the Earth.
In any event and whatever the rationale, I don't care about how popular a choice is but if they are at least an acceptable one and at this point in history it is dangerously wrong in my estimation in a long run of wrong that absolutely must be halted if we are to stop digging this giant hole.
The first rule of getting out of a deep hole is to stop digging not digging less than the most vigorous digging one can imagine.
I'm happy to discuss the options on climbing out. Happy to talk options on filling in the hole. We can look at different approaches for avoiding future holes but I am not here to negotiate the rate of excavation at all and consider all the pro digging folks to be deadly opposition.
Call me a radical (though absurd on an absolute political scale), call me uncompromising (though that is false, rather that I've compromised past my limits of what is tolerable for the habitat, for workers, for our civil liberties, for education, and for open, clandestine, and yes economic warmongering), call me what you will but I can't ignore the direction we are going and the orientation of our institutions on the grand scale.
No, people don't have to be Turd Way ardent to get taken in by it, snookered by it, ignorant of it or what it is about, and certainly doesn't stop folks from getting caught in triangulation and dirty hostage taking (accept "free trade" or your daughter is going to be in alley with a wire hanger up her vagina! or get behind some cuts to your Social Security or lose your vote, sucker!).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts) hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some here feel the need to shame people for supporting Hillary.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Because of her staunch and long support of Free Trade agreements like NAFTA which the AFLCIO says cost about one million agricultural jobs? The AFL-CIO is pointing out that Senator Wyden, who is pretty popular in his state, faces defeat at the polls if he supports TPP. http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Poll-Shows-Voters-Will-Hold-Lawmakers-Accountable-for-Fast-Track-Support
So a better question is this. Do we think that the Unions will support another Free Trade candidate? How will the members vote? Will they turn out and vote so that a Woman has her right to choose defended? Do you think that the Union members will turn out and donate time and cash and vote on election day for Gay Marriage while their jobs are sent overseas? I might be wrong, but I don't think they are going to get real enthusiastic about supporting Hillary.
Now, here is an issue, and the position warning Senator Wyden that his re-election chances would be better if he did not support the TPP. Is that an issue, a position that worries you?
Because if it isn't, if you are going to argue the Republicans have the same issue. Then you've reduced the election down to Choice, and Gay Marriage. In that case I'd like to take a moment and remind you how well War on Women worked for the Democrats in 2014. How will War on Women win us the White House? Just out of Curiosity.
Shall I continue to post issues that I think handicap Hillary to the extent that she can't win the election? Nah, you're grasping at straws to try and gin up more Hillary support.
William769
(55,147 posts)But then when you have nothing, that's all one can do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It is a shame some feel the need to do the gop's dirty work.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But I'm sorry, that particular crappy vote is not a "straw"
William769
(55,147 posts)52% of the Democrats in Congress voted that way also. They went on the information given and it wasn't till after the fact they found out they were lied to.
She has clarified herself on that vote since, as have many others. But as I said grasping at straws.
Response to William769 (Reply #238)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I don't know how well you remember 12, 13 years ago, but my memory is pretty good.
We all knew Saddam had jack diddly shit to do with 9-11. We knew that lies were being peddled to justify invading Iraq. Just like when Bush said that shit about yellowcake in the SOTU before the actual invasion--- it was KNOWN to be false THEN.
AT THE TIME.
People knew exactly what Democrats- like Hillary- were doing when they voted for the IWR. Karl Rove had bragged about putting Democrats in a bind regarding voting for that thing.
You have to be fucking kidding me, or else you imagine that Boxer, Wyden, Feingold, etc. were and are FAR more intelligent than Hillary, since they somehow managed to figure out "they were being lied to" before the vote, unlike her.
William769
(55,147 posts)Looks like my previous response is correct.
But we all new that to begin with.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)My previous response? Here's what I said:
I'll support her if she's the nominee, hell, I might even vote for her in the primaries, but like any other candidate she will need to earn my vote.
But she can't have it both ways. Either the IWR was a shamefully bad call that needs to be "clarified" (heaven forfend anyone should actually apologize for it) OR it was a brilliant piece of good poltickin', as others in this thread (your "crowd", maybe?) have tried to assert.
Yes, I know a bunch of Democratic Senators voted for that turd. And a bunch did not:
Here's the second response:
262. oh and by the way... "they went on the information given"- that, sir, is a fucking CROCK.
I don't know how well you remember 12, 13 years ago, but my memory is pretty good.
We all knew Saddam had jack diddly shit to do with 9-11. We knew that lies were being peddled to justify invading Iraq. Just like when Bush said that shit about yellowcake in the SOTU before the actual invasion--- it was KNOWN to be false THEN.
AT THE TIME.
People knew exactly what Democrats- like Hillary- were doing when they voted for the IWR. Karl Rove had bragged about putting Democrats in a bind regarding voting for that thing.
You have to be fucking kidding me, or else you imagine that Boxer, Wyden, Feingold, etc. were and are FAR more intelligent than Hillary, since they somehow managed to figure out "they were being lied to" before the vote, unlike her.
what's blowing smoke? What contradicts? Nothing, that's what. I don't actually believe that she's less intelligent than the folks who voted against the IWR, I believe it was craven political calculus to avoid being called 'soft on terror'. In fact, elsewhere in this thread, people say as much, even trying to assert that somehow it constitutes a badge of political shrewdness, which simply boggles the mind given that we're talking about the biggest foreign policy fuckup in half a century.
But if, as you say, we are to believe it was NOT craven political calculus but instead 'going on the information given' - patently false, because again many people knew damn well that Iraq was being peddled on lies - then one has to imagine that somehow the senators who did not vote for it possessed some insight she did not.
I don't believe that's the case. I think it was pure politics. But that's not honorable, given the reality of what was being voted on.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)there were two things which brought me to DU, the march for womens' lives and that clusterfuck of an invasion.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no way to spin it at this late date as anything but an exceptionally bad mistake. Did Bill Clinton have sanctions and a no-fly zone against Iraq? Yes, he did- and it's worth noting that there was nothing fundamentally different in the facts on the ground in Iraq, between 1999 and 2002, except a change in Administration in DC and a very large terror attack which they were attempting to use as justification for an Iraq invasion, despite the total lack of any connection between the two.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)things. If its bad for Democrats to try to put pressure on Saddam Hussain with the IWR, why wasn't it also bad for the UN to do so with UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Was Syria's UN ambassador evil for doing so? Russia's? China's?
Did you read my article?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm sorry, there is simply no way to polish that particular turd. That's not saying Hillary isn't supportable due to it, but she sure as hell isn't gonna be able to spin it. "It was a mistake, I'm sorry", move on.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)the experts on this like Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei. You remember those names, right? The heads of the UN Weapons Inspection teams?
There is no turd to polish. The only way you can make your point make sense is if you indict pretty much the entire rest of the international community who believed the same thing at the same time.
That's one of many reasons why your opinion on this topic is revisionist history.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Then why was the administration running around trying to imply some link between 9-11 and Iraq?
Of course i remember Hans Blix.
It was all "just show us the wmds" right, the ones that weren't actually there.
International community? How many signed on for the actual war? "Coalition of the willing", right?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Countries like France and Germany voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to put pressure on Iraq (again, at the same general time as the IWR), but a few months later, after the Weapons Inspectors preliminary reports started to come in, told Bush to go to hell when he asked them to go to war.
The actual history and timeline of this supports me 100%.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Playing games with semantics doesnt change the reason IWR was passed.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And everybody damn well knew that thing was a blank check for Bush to invade.
At the time.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The UN Security Council passed 1441 at around the same time for the same reason, and all the press reports at the time reflect that.
There is no support for your position.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)why didn't the UN take action, then?
Instead of the US, basically unilaterally?
Also, in regards to what did or did not constitute parameters of the known debate at the time of the proposal:
Rep. Filner, Republican from Chula Vista, seemed to believe that the Administration's proposal for authorization was being asked for instead of or in lieu of United Nations following through itself, at least, that's what he said at the time:
Filner voted against the resolution, saying disarming Iraq through the United Nations-sponsored weapons inspectors would be safer.
"A unilateral pre-emptive strike will not lead to a safer America," Filner said. "It will dilute world-wide resolution" that will lead to a greater risk
"I will not vote for a blank check for unilateral action"- Boxer (CA)
Interesting.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)THIS is why DU is the antidote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021255207#post40
Thanks to the great DUer MinM!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)IWR, attacks on whistle blowers, support for the TPP, support for fracking, support for the KXL pipeline, and many more bits of odoriferous history.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)For starters, there's Honduras:
Hillary Clinton's Real Scandal Is Honduras, Not Benghazi
By Emily Schwartz Greco
Truth-Out, OtherWords | Op-Ed, Saturday, 26 July 2014
EXCERPT...
Clinton's apparent unbeatability this time around helps explain the right-wing hysteria over the Benghazi tragedy. The conspiracy theories about the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya amount to a desperate effort to discredit the Democratic Party's strong centrist candidate. It's no surprise that this ploy isn't making a dent on her popularity.
What beats me is why more Democrats aren't deeply troubled by the legacy of Clinton's foreign policy blunder in Honduras.
Maybe you've forgotten what happened in that small country in the first year of the Obama administration — more on that in a moment. But surely you've noticed the ugly wave of xenophobia greeting a growing number of Central American child refugees arriving on our southern border.
Some of President Barack Obama's supporters are trying to blame this immigration crisis on the Bush administration because of an anti-trafficking law George W. signed in 2008 specifically written to protect Central American children that preceded an uptick in their arrivals. But which country is the top source of kids crossing the border? Honduras, home to the world's highest murder rate, Latin America's worst economic inequality, and a repressive U.S.-backed government.
When Honduran military forces allied with rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton sided with the armed forces and fought global pressure to reinstate him.
Washington wields great influence over Honduras, thanks to the numerous military bases built with U.S. funds where training and joint military and anti-drug operations take place. Since the coup, nearly $350 million in U.S. assistance, including more than $50 million in military aid has poured into the country.
That's a lot of investment in a nation where the police, the military, and private security forces are killing people with alarming frequency and impunity, according to Human Rights Watch.
CONTINUED...
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25184-hillary-clintons-real-scandal-is-honduras-not-benghazi
Then there's the time the Senator sided with the Republicans over democracy in Haiti...
Bill and Hillary Clinton: “Friends of Haiti?”
Marty Goodman
Black Agenda Report, Wed, 12/05/2012
Bill Clinton and Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are called “the Friends of Haiti.” Oh, really?
After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, President Obama appointed Bill Clinton as US envoy, partnering with the Katrina and Iraq criminal George Bush, Jr., a supporter of the 2004 CIA-backed military coup which overthrew the elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After the earthquake, Bill headed relief agencies, while excluding Haitians themselves. The stated theme of the Clinton-Bush effort was to “build back better.” Today, Bill is the UN envoy and acknowledged guiding hand behind international relief efforts.
Both Bill and Hillary are promoters of the U.S. dominated World Bank low-wage sweatshop plan for Haiti, angrily dubbed “the American Plan” by Haitians. Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti. The agreement includes massive tax breaks for sweatshop bosses. Workers there are making the starvation wage of about $3.50 a day.
On Oct 22, 2012 Bill and Hillary were on hand for the inaugural ceremony in Caracol. Also there was Haitian President Michael Martelly, a pro-coup right-winger linked to Duvalier era thugs. Hillary praised Martelly as Haiti’s “chief dreamer and believer.” Martelly, once again, declared Haiti “open for business.”
The sweatshop park was launched with $3 million from the “Clinton Bush Haiti Fund,” set up by the two Obama appointees to spearhead so-called earthquake relief fundraising. One park occupant, Sae-A Trading, is a large textile company cited by the AFL-CIO for “acts of violence and intimidation” against workers in Guatemala.
“Last year, Hillary signed an agreement committing $124 million tax dollars to the building of the Caracol sweatshop assembly park in the north of Haiti.”
In 1993, during Bill Clinton’s administration, he appointed his close friend Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce. In the early 1980s, Brown was a partner in the powerful Washington law firm of Patton, Boggs & Blow. Brown was a paid attorney and a lobbyist for Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier and his family. Brown was also personally linked to wealthy Haitian pro-Duvalier figures.
CONTINUED...
http://blackagendareport.com/content/bill-and-hillary-clinton-%E2%80%9Cfriends-haiti%E2%80%9D
Then again, War Inc needs the oil. Right? Let's ask
'We came, we saw, he died': What Hillary Clinton told news reporter moments after hearing of Gaddafi's death
UPDATED: 06:07 EST, 21 October 2011
Hillary Clinton joked with a TV news reporter moments after she learned that Muammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya.
She told the reporter: 'We came, we saw, he died' as she learned of the dictator's grisly end.
When the TV reporter asked if her recent visit to Libya had anything to do with Gaddafi's downfall, the Secretary of State quipped: 'No,' then rolled her eyes before adding 'I'm sure it did.'
Mrs Clinton was preparing for interviews in Kabul, Afghanistan, when top aide Huma Abedin handed her a BlackBerry with the first news of Muammar Gaddafi’s capture.
CONTINUED...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051826/We-came-saw-died-What-Hillary-Clinton-told-news-reporter-moments-hearing-Gaddafis-death.html
Hah. Hah. It is to laugh at death and suffering and wars for profit. Surprised I didn't stand up with my hand over my heart to say it on reflex.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Hillary voted against a ban on using cluster bombs in heavy civilian areas.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425303/-Hillary-Clinton-Voted-to-Continue-Cluster-Bombing-Civilians
She was joined by:
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)
I'm glad many on that list are no longer representing us.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)I wonder if in your judgement any criticism of Hillary is legitimate.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It is telling isn't it all of the criticism he chose to ignore, and the single bit he was willing to address. Kinda a case of attacking the weakness, not the strength.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)At least there is a DU member who can get on tv.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just sad.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's like, "hey, the guy from DU is on television."
Number23
(24,544 posts)done out of "principled objections" to... something. But instead, all they're really winding up doing is an absolutely SPECTACULAR job of looking like a bunch of petty, simple minded hypocrites who are simply eaten up with jealousy.
So not a good look...
BubbaFett
(361 posts)is the purest essence of propaganda in action.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Some of the attacks are a complete joke. Just look in those threads and it becomes clear who we should be laughing at. There are reasons to take issue with Hillary's past. A couple I have seen lately go even further than the Vince Foster bullshit. Those posters aren't as cute as they think they are.
Fact is her honest detractors are some of this boards best members. I say that as a big supporter of Hillary. The others are simply children behind keyboards.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)You need only look at her record and her husband's to know what Republicans they both are, effectively.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I don't oppose Hillary, and I have been a liberal most of my adult life, dating to the time when I learned what liberalism was.
Most of the Clinton opposition I've conversed with here have tended to self identify as progressives. Those are not identical ideologies.
This is the second post I've seen labeling Hillary opposition as "liberals." So I am curious.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)during his two terms - not all of it, but a lot of it. I object to her vote on the Iraq War Resolution, her coziness with Big Banks, her eagerness to embrace H1-B workers at the expense of American workers, her failure to liberalize Walmart's labor policies despite serving on Walmart's board for six years ...
I think she's likeable on some level, but most career politicians are - you don't get popularly elected by being unpopular (duh, I know). I've become convinced that she will, at best, fail at implementing needed liberal reforms, and at worst, cooperate with Republicans in giving them exactly what they want, while suggesting (as the Third Way has done over and over) that 'we win by losing'.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I don't think she is the candidate we need for the job at this time.
If Bernie Sanders runs, I would support him in the Primary.
But I will support her if she wins the nomination.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Are you under some illusion that browbeating people r.e. HClinton will get them to decide to vote for her after all? Did you think that insulting other members would result in something good happening? Are you just trying to burnish your creds? I actually would appreciate knowing your internal thoughts about what you hoped your OP would accomplish. Thanks.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I had hopes for Steven.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)this manufactured "alarm" is just that...manufactured.
If we are going to vet her seriously, then the concerns must be legit.
The More money "they" spend to defeat her, the more attractive (even for this skeptic) she, as a candidate will become.
my humble opinion of course.
randome
(34,845 posts)Who do we think Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders will vote for?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)For now ... LALALALALALALAALALLALALLA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!
Marr
(20,317 posts)You know very well that Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speaking fees is not 'all her detractors have got'. You know it's not even their main complaint.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Her detractors have "got" much, much more. Using this story as a stand-in for legitimate concerns is dishonest.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Perhaps you only meant that this particular story is weak?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)And not a reduction of all criticism to one straw man?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you don't understand ... her foundation received money from foreign governments that violate the human rights of women!!!
She is clearly being BOUGHT!
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)even more ridiculous.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I don't care what you think about me.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... from the election.
I just keep wondering what the discussion will be between now and then. You can only regurgitate the same old shit so many times before people just stop listening. So they're going to have to come up with new poutrages.
I figure by this time next year, we'll be reading about how Hill doesn't floss enough, or that her shoes don't go with her outfits.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)by the crowd here desperate for her to not be the nominee. They werent spending the time between 2008 and now trying to find someone else to nominate who wants to run and has a shot, but now that we're here and it's pretty clear that it is too late for them to do that, now they are making crap up about her at a rate that puts most conservative pundits to shame.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Few are upset at speaking fees, stevenleser. We're more concerned with her warmongering, her Walmart connections and her lack of support for regular Americans.
Thank you for playing, though.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bank non-scandal. Still_one up at post #57 listed plenty more.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)But I'm sure with Hillary's warchest we will keep getting spammy propaganda posts on DU that seek to delegitmize abd dismiss the opinions of OTHER DEMOCRATS.
For pete's sake I hope someone fires the Hillary 5.0 marketeering shills behind this.
My opinions are valid and deserve to be listened to, thank you very much.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Hillary wrote TPP
Hillary: "Outsourcing will continue..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html
But our outrage is "manufactured".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026280322#post12
betsuni
(25,517 posts)"There is no way to legislate against reality. ... Outsourcing will continue" we are supposed to blame her for the American economy? Thanks, Hillary!!!!!!1111!!!!!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)So it ok, for the US to chase after lowering wages is what your saying. Because we have to embrace this this new "reality"
Righttt.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose.. By Elizabeth Warren
By Elizabeth Warren February 25 at 8:38 PM
Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate.
The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?
One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.
If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt..............................
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?tid=rssfeed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)relationships with the big banks. Goldman-Sachs gives H. Clinton large "speaking fees" (read graft). I am sure they view it as an investment.
The Democratic Party can do better than someone in the 0.01% with close ties to Wall Street and a penchant for war.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Akin to a republican declaring themselves to being a moderate in the primaries. I get the feeling many a poster are tone deaf when it comes to real words they are using and actual sway of public preferences also.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The man is a punditubbie on Fox for Baal's sake.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)As Nance pointed out so eloquently crap like this is a disservice to credible criticism.
And as always your observations are spot on sir.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)In Hillary's trial run as President, she failed to reform health care.
As First Lady, she was placed in charge of health care reform. She assembled a task force that met in secret to develop an incredibly complex plan, but couldn't even get her plan out of committee in the Democrat-controlled House. After two years, the Repubs took over in the mid-term elections and the issue died. We had to wait 20 more years for Obama to run and win and pass and sign health care reform.
When so many people had lost their wits from fear after 9/11, Hillary lost hers, too. She voted for the Patriot Act, the Afghanistan War and the drone war, and the Iraq War. Our beloved country needs someone who can maintain their calm and wisdom in tough times. In her most important votes as a senator, Hillary failed to be a wise leader.
When I voted for Obama, I knew that I was also voting for Michelle Obama to become the First Lady, and I was quite pleased about that. Six plus years later and I still have positive feelings about the First Lady and First Grandma and First Daughters, and it's a factor in my positive feelings toward President Obama, in spite of some policy disagreements with him. Michelle has done a great job encouraging American children to eat right and get some exercise, and it's actually shown up in improved childhood obesity stats. Good job, Michelle. And I smile when I see a pic of Sasha in a Tshirt with a big peace sign, or a pic of the First Grandma joining the family at the Christmas tree.
When I vote for Hillary, assuming she's the nominee (and I will), it will be with disgust at the idea of Bill Clinton returning to the White House as first horndog, and no joy at the thought of a couple of hedge fund sharks as first daughter and son-in-law. I'm sure the first grandbaby will be a cutie, though, so there's that.
I'm not at all convinced that Hillary can win, no matter what the polls say today. And I'm sure not convinced she is the best our party has to offer.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Where does she stand on H1-B visas? Do you agree:
What about raising the cap on payroll taxes that fund Social Security?
Do you agree with her stance?
What about the situation in Greece? in the Ukraine?
Where does she stand on the TPP? Has she spoken about it? I don't like TPP. Do you? I know where Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stand on it? Haven't heard anything from Hillary about that yet?
These are just a couple of issues that concern me. Where does Hillary stand on them?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)While I'm not now, never have been, and never will be a supporter of HRC, and don't want to see her run, that's based on her record, not on some made-up outrage.
I save my authentic outrage for Democrats who allow the party to be yanked into neo-liberalism by consistently supporting neo-liberals.
