General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs your anger/discontentment towards Hillary worth living through 4 years of a Republican president
with a Republican congress?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Please take it elsewhere.
We can do better than that, we MUST do better than that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I don't trust her capacity to make sound decisions on SCOTUS either.
She's clever, but she's not one of us.
Hillary in the White House = more backlash and more Democratic seats lost in the congress.
Is she worth that, is she?
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)You are okay with all of that?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Really?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)My had. She actually supported invading iraq.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Four justices are on the wrong side of their 70s. Jeb would make it 7-2 Opus Dei in the worst case.
That's what I have to swallow in all this. Human rights are on the line. Profit vs. humanity is on the line. I don't need any woman/gay/poor-hating fuckers on the SCOTUS.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The neocons support her. I wonder why?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Was Elizabeth Warren one of us when she was supporting Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan , George Herbert Walker Bush and Republicans at every level of government?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... not just voted for him!
If you're convinced Bachmann is a hardcore Republican now, why can't you see the same thing might be the case for Warren now, who actively stands up against corporate rule moreso than other pols in a way that we sorely need now!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And Michelle Bachmann deserves a pass because she is an utterly vacuous human being and Elizabeth Warren is a most perspicacious and intelligent one. I am going to hold the latter to a higher standard.
I do admire the gentleman in your avatar. I can say with absolute certainty he never supported a Republicant.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)and therefore was five years older when he switched parties than Warren was when she switched to being a Democrat in 1995. Did Republicans question that he was a Republican with his later switch to being a Republican?
And Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart right up until the time Bill Clinton went to the White House too.
Keep trying the effort to scare people. It's not going to work
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Well, John Stuart Mill, called the Tories of his day which would be our Republicans "the stupid party" so there's that.
But thank you for giving me another opportunity to praise the gentleman in your avatar. I would literally bet my life he wasn't a Republican until 1995.
Oh, and i'm not trying to "scare anybody". I'm not delusional enough to believe what we do here, barring a few exceptions, really matters.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... or are you really looking at my avatar?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)How did Earl Warren, the former governor of California and Supreme Court Justice of the United States,enter into our tete a tete?
As to your ad hominem attack I regret upsetting you so much you need to resort to them, truly...
But thank you again for giving me the opportunity to praise the gentleman in your avatar. He was never a Republican.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)If Bernie Sanders Runs For President, It Wont Be as an Independent: I will not be a spoiler
January 26, 2015
Naturally, Will you run for president in 2016? was the first question DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain asked Sanders. Though not definitive, his answer was enough to leave these activists hopeful.
I am giving very serious consideration to it, but before you make a decision of that magnitude, you have to make sure that you can do it well, Sanders said. So what we are doing is reaching out to folks all over this country trying to determine whether or not we can put the grassroots organization together that we need.
Sanders knows he will have to rely on grassroots mobilization to have a fighting chance at being elected, because his campaign will take on every monied interest. If I run, well be taking on the billionaire class, he said. Thats Wall Street, the drug companies, the military industrial complex.
To the dismay some idealists, Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler, Sanders said. I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17572/bernie_sanders_president
to pampango.
Bernie would never support what is said about not caring if a rightwing Republican takes over in 2017. It's why those who support him, but not what he says are not respecting his mission, principles or values. And they won't be affected if his mission fails, so why bother?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)whereas how long ago was it that HRC was gushing over Kissinger?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Did she vote for any of the administrations that put Henry Kissinger in office as did the senator we are currently discussing?
Hillary Clinton worked for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and her and Bill were Texas organizers for George McGovern in 1972.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Warren has become more liberal over time, whereas HRC has become more conservative.
But don't worry, she is the Wall Street candidate so she will be the next president. Yes, Wall Street would love a Republican, but finding a sane, electable Republican is impossible, so they will go with a sane Democratic conservative.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I have no personal animus against Senator Warren and would vote for her in a minute if she were the nominee...
daleanime
(17,796 posts)answering your own question,
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I will support someone else in the primary and doubt that I'll care at all if she's the nominee when the general election comes around.
California is a winner take all state, she doesn't need my vote.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)then having a Republican president is okay with you?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)eom
jwirr
(39,215 posts)of a R for president - absolutely - SCOTUS.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Let's step back and take a breath and tell the pollsters and the media and others to go to hell, we want the process to be allowed to work.
To me, they're stifling our ability to have an open discussion about options.
Let's face it, Hillary isn't polling well because she's great, she's polling well because she's got name recognition, political power, and she's a darling of the power players out there.
We should know better than to buy into it and we should really not help them.
Let's have a primary, for goodness sake.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,844 posts)Agree 100%
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That's what will happen if you nominate H. Clinton.
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)s/he is gonna ride their principles right into serfdom - THAT'S JUST BRILLIANT wake up!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She might not survive the scrutiny.
That, IMO, will be a win for our side.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And that is based on some personal comments I heard from someone else I know works with her in the Senate...
Romeo.lima333
(1,127 posts)Frances
(8,544 posts)is why we went to war in Iraq
I heard so many people say the same thing about Gore that you are implying about Clinton
They still won't admit Gore would have been better than W
I hope they say prayers every night for all the people killed and maimed in the War in Iraq
I think they should be required to visit VA hospitals and do volunteer work to atone for their stupidity
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Frances
(8,544 posts)that going to war with Iraq would have happened?
No way!
Chan790
(20,176 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)I love how her supporters gloss over that. George W. Bush's Iraq policy was Hillary Clinton's.
To quote my HS principal, Sr. Joan: "There isn't room for the Holy Ghost between them."
I have every faith that Hillary will get us into the next Iraq if elected, both because she supports military adventurism and because she knows who will be paying for her reelection if she does. (UTC, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, Raytheon, Boston Dynamic and probably every other defense contractor in the DoD rolodex.)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and Gore offered 8 more years of Clintonomics. And now we are faced with the exact same choice. Clinton vs Bush, yet some are hoping for a different outcome. Instead let's find a progressive candidate we can all get behind?
we can do it
(12,180 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)since the Dems gave it away when they appointed Thomas, Alito and Roberts by refusing to filibuster obvious extremists like they did Bork.
2banon
(7,321 posts)how inspiring. how motivating. gosh, i'm really getting "fired up" for the next election.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But that was not her time and voting for at the time Senator Obama was easy. Some who have Strong feeling against Secretary Clinton are not going to vote for her on principle. Personal principles are important and should not be looked at negative but with respect. I just hope we have enough votes to take the Republicans on and win. I think we will.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)And people wonder why we see this as a "Hillary is inevitable" whisper campaign.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)Anyone who wants the nomination needs to have some sort of campaign apparatus in place right now. Running a national campaign takes organization and resources, and you cannot slap those things together at the last minute and hope to win.
IOW, if Hillary is to have a real challenger, then that challenger needs to be in place right now.
cali
(114,904 posts)and it's clear that O'Malley is serious about challenging her. That's why he chose not to run for Mikulski's seat.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)She's going to be the nominee because it's too late for a serious challenger to get into the game.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She can't bring people together except to bring them together to prevent her from winning.
So, her power and self-interest and faux popularity, those things that make her the nominee, will produce a Republican win and we'll all be screwn.
Thanks so much.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)So save the hyperbolic either/or crap for a year from July, when the actual general campaign starts. At that point it will be legitimate to start whomping people over the head about voting for the nominee.
I plan to vote for the nominee, just like I do every fucking 4 years. But I'm not pledging something specific to someone who hasn't even announced her own campaign yet, and who might not be that much more inevitable than she was 8 years ago.
She's not the damn nominee, yet. Deal with it. If it's so unavoidably certain, why the frantic, flapping panic to get people to sign on now?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)That is, part of the very socioeconomic class from which comes the money that seeks to destroy social security, medicare, and everything else a liberal society holds dear.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)although some would like us to believe that.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If she loses, it will be because of her own faults. Not the voters.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)turned into something else and disingenuous. Especially since most of us are further away from Republicans than some of her positions.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)HRC won't be the only Democratic Party candidate, even if we have to draft Michelle.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)It's not as if the hundred or so folks on this board who may not vote for the eventual nominee of the party will swing the election.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Folks will do as they please...
My best friend and former business partner voted for Nader in 00 despite months of coaxing. If I couldn't convince somebody that close how am I going to convince somebody on a bulletin board?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)and threads such as this do nothing to sway me.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)I thought that this was a political forum.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)candidate's supporter or that one's...over the course of the 12 years I've been here. They've always been ridiculous. Nothing will ever change that, and the posts won't influence a soul. I've always found them (the posts) to be rather odd.
namastea42
(96 posts)I believe this is the best chance for a democrat to win in 2016 as the Republican are imploding into themselves. The Blue Wall speaks and to waste it on a center right Democratic instead of someone to the left would be a sin.
Renew Deal
(81,852 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)If she loses because of them, primary blame shouldn't fall on voters, IMO.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Gasp! Supporting another Democratic candidate than Hillary! IT's Blasphemy!!
At least wait until the primaries start.....jeeze...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"Tut tut, you won't vote for Hillary because you believe she's a corporatist shill...Look at how high the stakes are if the mendacious Republicans control all the levers of power."
"Tut tut, you are voting for Hillary who is to the right Of Marie Antoinette. Can't you see how you are selling out your principles."
LOL
Lil ole me is going to vote for our nominee, as I always have, and hope you do too but I'm not going to browbeat you into submission.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)4 more isn't exactly a threat.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)That bag o' tricks that Hillary's got is looking mighty empty indeed if this is all that's left.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Uh-uh.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)As proof that folks were comfortable with a Republican president over Hillary.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)before she was technically even a candidate.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I had my mind made up that I wasn't going to vote for any Republican candidate that ran for anything since I first voted in 1966.
They failed to convince me otherwise.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Oh the power of mass media propaganda.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which is why I vote for/against policies, issues and principles not politician or party.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and would you have continued to support him if he hadn't switched to become a Republican just because he was a Democrat, and excuse his horrible racist views because he was a Democrat?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another...
Oh, I wouldn't support Charles Manson if he was a Democrat either.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, equally fallacious?
If we don't support or vote for Hillary the Republicans will inevitably win?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The OP might be committing the "parade of horribles" logical fallacy though which suggests if a certain course of action isn't followed horrible things will happen.
Tierra, you do as you please, but I shudder at the thought of living in a land where nine Clarence Thomases sit on the Supreme Court,
sendero
(28,552 posts).. before we know who she is? You are kidding right?
No words out of HRC's mouth can change who she is the record is clear. And the goofballs bleating "she hasn't even become a candidate yet" are silly beyond words. Everyone knows she is setting up to run so spare us the disingenuous bullshit.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The most recent one being Ruth Bader Ginsburg not resigning.
Liberals prize freedom of thought, but when you pit a group that's not organized vs a group that is highly organized, the odds are almost certain that the highly organized group will win.
If Liberals really prize rational thought over emotions, they would realize that if you want to win, you need to organize and come together and work together. Being all emotional and unreasonable is a recipe for stupid decision making and bad consequences.
I certainly want a progressive candidate but we are shutting the door to our last chance to change the Supreme Court and undo citizens united if we allow a Republican to become president, not to mention being able to stop the Supreme Court from continuing to change America as we know it to our detriment. And remember that 3,000 people in 9/11 had to pay for Bush being president (since he didn't take the threat seriously, at the very least), as well as almost 4,500 soldiers in the Iraq war.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... will give us someone like him on the court, and if we don't get a real progressive as our president, we're going to get a corporatist on the court that will never help us roll back crap like corporate personhood or Citizen's United!
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)Bush left a long trail of disaster in his wake, and folks back then were saying that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)Right now, she does not have a challenger, and given the time, she won't have a credible one.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)But, she's still a far better choice than Scott Walker or Jeb. And, THERE IS NO CREDIBLE LIBERAL IN THE RACE SO FAR.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)Mind you, Obama had one of the smartest campaign organizations that we've seen in a long, long time. What candidate has that?
Logical
(22,457 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)Thanks for playing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)lindysalsagal
(20,641 posts)That's like saying a python is far superior to a polar bear in your bathroom.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What crock of shit.
This stupid argument gets more stupid every time is tried.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Here's the thing. Every Hillary supporter on here has said they'll vote for anyone who gets nominated by the Dems. Many non-HRC supporters have noted that they won't vote for Hillary.
By that math, if people don't want a Republican pres, they better nominate someone other than Hillary, so that they get every possible vote.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,844 posts)But someone besides or in addition to Hillary has to run for the nomination. Still waiting for that person.
brooklynite
(94,482 posts)...and so far, nobody has made a convincing argument about how Sanders, Webb or O'Malley is going to win a national primary.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It's a toss-up. I consider her a stealth Republican so if she's the Democratic nominee then we're going to have 4 years of a Republican President with a Republican Congress either way.
If she loses though, I would get the satisfaction of her supporters finally shutting the fuck up about her. Also, it might kill off the DLC/3rd Way/Corporatist/"New Democratic"/Clintonian scumbag wing of the Democratic party. That would do a lot of good. Fuck Center-Right Democrats everywhere.
Better to lose without them than win with them. It's time we came around to that reality. We're better off without the RW quislings in our midst.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)This is exactly how I see it, as well.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)There's plenty of time for that once she's a real nominee/candidate.
And yet our concerns are likely to remain long beyond those points. Are they worth your lobbying Sec. Clinton to correct?
belcffub
(595 posts)The odds of anyone other then the person on the ticket with a D next to their name winning the state are small... I'll vote for whoever I want comfortable one which way the state will go...
Nay
(12,051 posts)back to Republican hell. I can write in any Dem I want.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I do feel like it's way to early to make that argument though since we don't even know what the primaries will look like yet. Pushing the vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils approach so soon makes her and the Democratic party sound weak, imo. The fear based strategy also doesn't seem to work as well for Democrats. If fear of Republican leadership were effective in getting people to vote Dem, I'm not sure congress would look the way it does today.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)certain scenes can never be unseen:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)never happened.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)and blame us for it, which is what frickin' irks me.
lindysalsagal
(20,641 posts)She was the one senator who absolutely knew the truth about the iraq situation: Because Bill was around when we created the nasty little dictator and watched shrub et all falsify all of the reasons for war.
She, of all people knew the truth.
That is why I will never trust her. She lies. She hates. She is greedy and selfish. She will never represent me. I don't care if she carries the right chromosomes. She's one of them.
Nay
(12,051 posts)targeted assassinations, drone warfare on civilians, "touchups" to SS, the TPP, etc., has made these horrors OK, it seems. I have to consider that the slow introduction and normalization of these neocon ideas by Democratic presidents is at least as, or more, harmful than the introduction of them by Republican presidents. We're supposed to be the ones with actual liberal principles. When we (as in the Dem leadership) ditch those principles, it is much more dangerous than when Pubs don't have those principles in the first place.
Yes, A Pub president would be a horrorshow, it may also result in all of the Pubs being thrown out of many offices after 4 years of gross mismanagement. Who knows. As a subscriber to the the theory that environmental problems are going to put a quick end to all this bullshit in the next 20 years, I have trouble caring, since the Money God still rules everything whichever party is in power.
Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
A-Long-Little-Doggie
(1,011 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)America goes 100% RW Gov. control. Or if our country gets attacked by..IS? Iran? Russia/China?
We're close now, if not for an amazing D President, his loyal Admin. the Ds in Congress and D Reps we would be a totally 2 class society today.
If Mrs. Clinton runs, I'm pretty sure President Obama, Warren et all will back her, so will I.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)bad. But 35 years of continuous sliding to the right due to people being conned into holding their nose teaches me that the particular strategy actually is not the pragmatic approach unless your goal is to be cooked alive.
Throd
(7,208 posts)How will I apologize to my children that I didn't vote for Hillary as we're being marched off to detention camps?
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)I did, and it really was close to being the Apocalypse.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Who could forget the mass cannibalism of 2005? I had to eat my dad.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)If you were in New Orleans during Katrina, it was the Apocalypse. If you were in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the Apocalypse.
And for everyone else, we all experienced an economic Apocalypse in 2008 which some of us are still suffering for today.
So, yes, it was that bad.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Yavin4
(35,430 posts)lpbk2713
(42,751 posts)they'll find a way to steal the election for another four years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)However, your logic is backwards. If you don't want to see a Republicon in the WH, then don't nominate H. Clinton-Sachs. It's that simple. But no, you want to nominate someone that a good share of the party doesn't want and then coerce them into supporting her in the general "or else." Let's nominate a progressive and kick the hell out of the R-Cons.
To save the middle and lower classes from poverty, we need to end the continuous neocon wars and cut back on defense spending. H. Clinton isn't about to bite the hands that feed her money.
ananda
(28,856 posts)Ermm... she hasn't done anything as President yet.
Response to Yavin4 (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Anyone who considers themselves a Democrat & doesn't support Whomever the Nominee inevitably is are without a doubt enabling a Republican Victory...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I don't think they realize that it says much more about them than whatever it is they didn't get their way about.
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)There are things that I don't like about her and Bill, but NOTHING that they've done is worth having Scott Walker as president with a Republican congress. NOTHING.
Just reading some of the posts on this thread, there's a whole lot of false equivalency going on.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The choice is not Hillary or the bunny gets it. FFS nobody has even declared their candidacy!
Yavin4
(35,430 posts)It's a straight forward question. Are/is your frustration(s) with Hillary worth a Republican presidency?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)You grossly mischaracterize the resistance to Hillary Clinton which explains the ludicrous question you have posed. There are many reasons why people won't vote for her in either the primary or general elections in 2016 ranging from her support of the ill-begotten Iraq War to her hubris concerning Syria, Libya, and Iran to her complicity in the Honduran coup and its bloody aftermath to her snuggling up with war criminals like Henry Kissinger to her affinity for Wall Street bankers and corporations to her compromised ethical standards that invites nonstop drama to the ugly race-baiting campaign she ran in 2008 to her creepy surrogates like Lanny Davis to, well, the list goes.
It is the Democratic Party's responsibility to give people someone to vote for rather than against with regularly scheduled brow-beatings, not unlike this OP. To answer your "straight forward question" (wink-wink), I want neither Hillary nor a Republican presidency in 2016 because in too many ways some of which I have enumerated above, they are one in the same.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)This sort of post is obnoxious and makes people less likely to support her.
Edit: actually, fuck that noise. You and the rest like you can join the over zealous Obama primary supporters on ignore.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Save the fear mongering brow beating until at least after the conventions.
It is quite telling that some many feel the need to start this line this early.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Is this true? Perhaps there is just a better candidate that actually represents our platform, and that platform will appeal to people.
Offering false choices is extremely manipulative behavior, and if that's what Hillary's campaign is all about, that raises questions in itself.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)before she is OFFICIALLY declared the nominee of the party. Until then... she can stuff it.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Especially not if they run a total crook like Scott Walker or a nutter like Ted Cruz(one of my senators, btw: Cornyn's the other bozo).
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Jeb, on the other hand, is the one who scares me a bit.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to Logical (Reply #132)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Hekate
(90,617 posts)backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)Is having Hillary at all costs worth risking a repuke for four years
dolphinsandtuna
(231 posts)I would only get evils to choose between.
What''s the difference between a Republican and an incompetent Wall Street/apartheid country lover in terms of the well-being of the U.S.? Not a lot.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Drink up friends, democracy is dead.
Foolish, foolish, tactics, applaud the illusion
& drink plenty cuz you will get a female president for selling out on all you hold dear, you'll need to keep drinking too, all the way through more TPP & debt-ocracy.
This is a new low.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Hillary's loss probably makes it less likely the republicans will hold both houses. We do have many split government voters in the US. Getting congress back clearly helps us groom a more diverse field of future presidential candidates. We will lose Roe and that is sad but the truth is this hurts red state women who most likely voted for not having such rights. In moderate to progressive states it creates a strong incentive for women to really vote out right wingers and fence sitters. It also destroys the power of the wishy-washy voter, who is pro-choice but votes for the gop to cut taxes. They can't rely on the courts to defend abortion from the gop tax cutters anymore, so they will have fish or cut bait. I doubt it will make much of a difference in terms of economic or foreign policy. Hillary is very very conservative on economic and foreign policy.
anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)We could use a do over.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... offering death by a thousand cuts (like HRC and all the Third Way bunch, look where they have taken us) are offering nothing of value. I'd just as soon have a Republican and get it over with.
This sucker IS going down and folks like HRC can barely tap the brakes. Hell, they have their foot on the floor.
anotojefiremnesuka
(198 posts)if you are younger get the f out now before it is too late, most will have no future except for servitude if they stay.
Think Hunger Games, that is the end game for them.
Rex
(65,616 posts)But expected by some.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)I realize that switching back and forth between contradictory characterizations of "the left" can be confusing, but try to stick to the schedule, 'k?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)on the net we would come out ahead of having her over a TeaPubliKlan though I don't think the net differential is high as the common wisdom in the party would estimate but still a differential of some measure.
The problem is this isn't a one off and just about Hillary Clinton but rather a long-term agenda with many actors dominating power positions in the party and in the government with a common political ideology based off of Laissez fare capitalism, military interventionism, corporate dominance and capture of government, reducing safety nets, and apparently now the surveillance state that I think we have gone to the well on too many times with not only no sign of backing off but doubling and tripling down ever more committed to digging the exact same hole the wicked TeaPubliKlans have been working at for decades and generations.
It is that I can no longer abide, particularly the dimwitted heal digging after seeing the rotten fruits of their nonsense economics and warmongering.
No, I want off this train wreck and the threat of the racist churchy version isn't going to hold me any longer because it will not and cannot come to any good end, it has already failed.
The results are in and no I'm not going to forever be a hostage of nefarious people look pushing Ronald Reagan's evil works without the Southern Strategy but adding George W. Bush's interventionism and surveillance state because to do so takes any opposition to the right wing core agenda off the table because it has been adopted in a conditional surrender that it will be a more equitable dystopia as if such a thing is even possible though it sells to those with good hearts but unwilling to really think through or unable to take a peek at the bigger picture.
Of course there are also those that are quite conservative but are single issue Democrats or unwelcome conservatives rather than anything like natural ideological allies and so they are very satisfied with the direction of the party and the nation other than their particular rough edge.
I got news for you, even on the strong points all we are going to get is the right libertarian version of equality when all the meeting in the middle and "pragmatic" compromising is done. In the end most people are not going to have a pot to piss in or any rights that are more than decorative or if so that they can afford to take advantage of.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)issue more controversial than "my most inspirational bible verse is...."
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-17/hillary-s-mystery-where-clinton-stands-on-issues-dividing-her-party