My 2c on the Hillary question

[ruffburr]

I have been reading the Hillary bashing and the pro Hillary discussion and I must ask when all is said and done aren't you going to vote the democratic ticket? Sure I'd like to vote for Bernie and/or Elizabeth W we'll see how it shakes out but no matter what I,m not voting for any Right winger's so I'll vote the best way I can to stop the republican crooks at all levels. So stop the argument already and G.O.T.V. That's all I have to say about that.

[earthside]

1. The Hillaryites are engaged in a false choice effort ...

... here this evening on DU.

If you are not for Hillary, then you are for the Repuglicans.

It is a kind of steamroller tactic used to try and shut up everyone who might even think about supporting someone else.

And ... just like in 2008, it will backfire on them.

[William769]

3. I will support the Democratic nominee who ever it is and I say that as a Hillary supporter.

You seem to have your argument backwards. Just sayin.

[JaneyVee]

5. "A false choice effort"

Who are the choices? And why are you on a Democratic board trying to demean Hillary supporters? No one is stopping you from supporting the Democratic candidate of your choice, yet you seem to only want to tell others who they shouldn't support. Weird.

[merrily]

12. The poster pointed out false logic tactics.

[V0ltairesGh0st]

66. I smell Rats...on this issue on DU.

Seems like a James O'Keefe like divide and conquer trolling tactic to me.

Or should i say, i smell Elephants in rats clothing ?

[merrily]

10. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

[still_one]

28. That wasn't the point of the OP, it was to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is

[joshcryer]

79. If you are not for the nominee...

...if that nominee is Clinton, then you are for Republicans. Yes.

[hrmjustin]

2. I will support the nominee.

I think most DUers will support the nominee as well.

[NYC_SKP]

4. First there are primaries. In primaries we FIGHT for what we want.

After the dust settles, we fall in line or not.

[fadedrose]

6. No one is willing to fight

Something has all of them spooked.

Must be the polls.

I'd sure like to know who did the polls, what method was used, what questions were asked, what lists were used, and in what places or precincts, and were other Democrats listed in the poll, or was it just: HC would win over...Romney, Bush, Santorem, that Preacher on Fox, Walker, Trump,? and I forget who else.

If this was the way they ran the poll, no wonder Hillary won if the poll asked only about how she would do against Republicans...and did not include a healthy slate of Democrats who were running...

[merrily]

9. What has them spooked is the position of the Democratic Party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

It's not that hard to do well in the polls if you have both name recognition and no serious opposition--and the media is cooperating.

[William769]

11. The media is cooperating?

OMFG!

[merrily]

13. I didn't say the media was supporting Hillary.

But, who can have an intelligent discussion with a rofl emoticon now that ProSense left?

[William769]

15. Your post could only be taken one way.

And the rofl emoticon was the only reasoned response.

[merrily]

53. Maybe you are capable of reading it only one way, but it was capable of being read any number of

ways. And an emoticon is not even remotely close to a reasoned response to anything, let alone to what I actually posted--as opposed to what you imagined I posted.

If you want to refute my post reasonably, point out all the outcry from mass media during the past two or three years about Democrats saying there should be no primary challenges to Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

17. I miss prosense.

[merrily]

18. Awww. Maybe this will help.

Best I can do since I can't link to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that links to another post of mine that doesn't support the point I pretended my link supported.

(I actually tracked back through about 20 posts once and that the final post--the one with no more links to other posts of prosense--had nothing to do with the point her link was supposed to support, but how many posters tracked back endlessly to figure that out?)

[hrmjustin]

20. Well i liked her.

[merrily]

26. Did all I could to help you out.

[hrmjustin]

27. I rather think not.

[merrily]

33. No, really, I did all I could.

The three things that most characterized his or her posts were the rofl emoticon, cheerleading, and links that did not support the points they were supposed to support. I am not capable of two of those three, but I did post the emoticon for ya. So, I really did all I could.

[hrmjustin]

36. I thought better of you.

I guess I was wrong.

[merrily]

37. No, you didn't, but you are attacking me as a human being, which is

very different from pointing out excessive use of the same emoticon or links that go nowhere. So, maybe you should take a look at that.

[hrmjustin]

38. You would actually be surprised. i did.

[merrily]

42. I know from experience how important having the last word is to you, so go ahead.

[SidDithers]

46. +1...nt

Sid

[sheshe2]

30. I like ProSense.

I am sad that she has been gone, yet her husband was ill and hopefully recovering. We are all living human beings at the end of our keyboards. Please note that and do not ridicule them.

[hrmjustin]

31. Well said!

[sheshe2]

39. Thank you, justin.

You know what? She never hurt anyone. She posted facts. That pissed a lot of people off. They don't like facts, they like hair on fire hysteria. The other thing, she never got mad, she was never cruel to another poster, she never lost her cool. Ya, she laughed at them. Just like this President she let all the ugly comments that were thrown at her roll off her back.

My opinion, ProSense was priceless. I hope all is well with her. I wish her back here.

[hrmjustin]

41. She was one of a kind and had to endure a lot of venom by people on this board.

It is one regret of mine that I didn't get to know her better.

[tularetom]

64. Amen to that

I rarely agreed with ProSense and I must confess to poking fun at the blue link laden posts.

But I don't think I've ever encountered on DU a more gracious and dignified individual.

She took a lot of crap and never lost her cool or lowered herself to the level of her detractors. Me included I guess.

Anyway I miss her, I hope she is able to return here soon, and I wish her the best. She's a nice person.

[sheshe2]

65. Thank you so much for saying that, tularetom.

you didn't have to, yet you did.

Thank you so very much.

[merrily]

34. I am sorry her husband was ill.

I never said a word about her as a human being or about anything but her links that went nowhere and the perennial emoticon.

Plenty of my posts get ridiculed and I have problems IRL as well. We all do.

[sheshe2]

50. Aaaah...

We all get ridiculed here. We get hateful ugly hides. We get jury members calling us names hiding behind the anonymity of the jury. We get called a bitch and one of the worst bullies on DU by a JURY MEMBER! Me. This place has gone to hell.

No dignity, no respect. Not saying you, yet this place stinks lately.

Also, ProSense was trashed, beaten, disrespected and called a paid troll over and over. She never deserved all that was thrown at her for posting facts. She laughed it off. She laughed at the hate tossed her way. Some post crap here and deserve the ridicule, she did not. She never said a cruel word about a member here.

[merrily]

51. I have been attacked personally--not just my posting style, but my honesty and other things I value

a hell of a lot more than emoticons. I've also been alert stalked.

I made no personal attack on her, not while she was here and not on this thread.

If someone posts links that don't support the points they are supposed to support, that, IMO, is perfectly fair to point out, as is the constant posting of a rofl emoticon in never ending attempts to ridicule the responses of posters who disagreed with her.

[sheshe2]

54. actually

her links did move on to points. i know. i read them. you did make fun of her here. personal attack, no. however i think some at du can du better. they need to know we are all living breathing human beings with hearts and so many hurts. this place has become down right ugly.

[merrily]

59. I followed one through about 20 of her posts and it did not support her point.

I never had the patience or the time to repeat the exercise every time she posted. I'd usually give up after 5 posts.

My comments were confined to her posting style. Comments against me, posted directly to me while I have been here to read them--as I am reading your posts and hrmjustin's, have not been so confined. I wish they were. So, yes, we can all do better.

[Cha]

56. I love ProSense.. and I'm so sorry that her husband has been ill. She had many informative OPs and

yes, I know.. there's many here who didn't like her message so they attacked her for the "blue links and the ROFL". I couldn't care less what they have to say about it.

Hey ProSense.. HOpe you and your hubby are doing better than just "hangin in there"!

[sheshe2]

58. Kicking what you said Cha!

Spot on woman!



I miss her too and wish she and hers the best.

[Cha]

61. Mahalo she!

To ProSense and her hubby~

[sheshe2]

62. Perfect, Cha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cha]

63. ..

[NYC_SKP]

89. The polls are very poorly designed, even when they're trying not to push-poll.

However, usually I think the polls are designed to elicit a desired result.

As you suspect, the precise wording of questions is very important.

Also, the number or respondents is important, as is how respondents are selected.

Usually they say "of 600 registered Democrats", when what they need to say is "among the 600 people who actually took a phone call from a land line that were, further, willing to participate in this poll and who we presume were totally honest in their answers..."

So, forget busy people, young people, people without land lines, etc.

The results are going to be skewed.

I'm not at all surprised that a majority of registered Democrats sitting at home bored to death or retired, who have land lines and are willing to take a stupid phone push poll would vote for Hillary Clinton.

That result cannot, however, be considered representative of actual voters come election day.

[merrily]

8. Maybe, this time, the primaries will be non existent or pro forma, at best, though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7

Somehow, that seems to be fine with a portion of DU. Go figure.

[NYC_SKP]

90. Wow. If the Democratic Party wants to eliminate choice, they do it at their own peril.

TBH, I was sick about Bill Clinton winning the primary and I believe I voted for Ross Perot.

We may well need a third party if this nonsense continues.

Disappointed in Jerry Brown with his statement.

[merrily]

93. Do they really do it at their own peril, though?

Ross had billions. With them, he was able to mount the most signifcant third party challenge in maybe over a century, but he didn't win.

How many billionaires do you think are likely to challenge Democrats from the left?

[NYC_SKP]

94. It might be more accurate to say "at our own peril". True, it took a ton of money for 3rd party.

I can't think of a way out of it.

But if this cycle is any indication, we might see super candidates being groomed years in advance, making primaries obsolete.

As it is, primaries and conventions look quite different today compared to years past.

[merrily]

95. Given what Schumer, Brown and Frank--all prominent and powerful people within the party--

have been saying publicly, trying to avoid primaries didn't start today or even yesterday. And I sure don't remember any primary challenge to Obama. And it's not only about the Presidency, either. It's horrifying, imo.

To its shame, imo, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates well before the Republican Party did--and had tried to institute them long before it managed so to do. However, I guess the potential for a rebellion if the Super Delegates ever formally overruled a primary result is obvious. Much better to brainwash us that primaries can only mean handing the office to a Republican.

BTW, since you used Dewey as an example, looks as though Dewey was the Third Way of his day. Yet, he would not have come within shouting distance of Truman, if it had not been for two splits in the Democratic Party, one led by turd Thurmond.

Truman was right A real Democrat beats a Republican every time. The chances of a faux Democrat are nowhere near as good. Just look at 2010 and 2012.

Dewey believed in what he called "compassionate capitalism", and argued that "in the modern age, man's needs include as much economic security as is consistent with individual freedom."[38] When Taft and his supporters criticized Dewey's policies as liberal "me-tooism", or "aping the New Deal in a vain attempt to outbid Roosevelt's heirs", Dewey responded that he was following in the tradition of Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and that "it was conservative reforms like anti-trust laws and federal regulation of railroads...that retained the allegiance of the people for a capitalist system combining private incentive and public conscience."[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Dewey

BTW, Dewey's running mate when he ran against Truman was Earl Warren, who as AG of California, had enforced the heinous order to "intern" California's Japanese population.Warren went on to become possibly the most liberal Chief Justice of the SCOTUS ever.

[NYC_SKP]

96. "A Real Democrat"! Yes, indeed. I am confident that Warren would win if allowed to run.

People are smarter than are given credit, and a real person's politician can win over the majority of voters from both parties.

IMO, Obama ran this way. He may not have governed quite so well but he ran and won because his message was populist and sincere.

Clinton, both of them, are expert at marketing but it rings false to many and then their actual voting records and behaviors reveal their nature.

I'm not kidding when I say that Hillary as our candidate could cost us the white house.

[smirkymonkey]

88. +1000

I would love to see Warren as the nominee, but will vote for the democratic candidate no matter who it is. Anyone who doesn't is basically throwing the race to the republicans.

[merrily]

7. Why should debate stop before a primary even starts? How undemocratic!

[still_one]

32. Absolutely. Everything is up for grabs until a nominee is choosen

[merrily]

35. Not according to the OP.

Maybe not according to the Party, either. And that is a problem.

[Fearless]

14. I will not vote for a Republican or a DINO

[Man from Pickens]

16. I will certainly vote for any Democratic ticket

I simply don't consider a ticket with Hillary on it to be a Democratic ticket - that's a War Party ticket and I'll have no part of it.

[brooklynite]

19. It must be exciting to be able to decide who IS and IS NOT a Democrat.....

I hope you only use your powers for good....

[Man from Pickens]

23. Fear my awesome powers

the world shall TREMBLE beneath my feet! I have the power!!!!!!!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!



More seriously, though, I have a much simpler way of deciding. If the candidate doesn't give me a choice to say no to war and Wall Street, that candidate is not in my book a Democrat.

This should not be a difficult barrier to overcome. For any actual Democrat it should not be a barrier at all!

[brooklynite]

24. Guess that lets Barack Obama out...

Although 65 million Americans might disagree with you...

[merrily]

44. Take the loyalty oath, dammit! It was good enough for Joe McCarthy, it's good enough for New Dems.

[merrily]

29. No, he or she is deciding only whom he or she considers a Democrat. Surely, he or she has the power

to do that.

I wish you'd use your powers for good.

[hrmjustin]

21. I never cared for puma in 2008 and don't care for it now.

[Cha]

57. I know, huh.. whoa.. those guys. :(

[840high]

22. ....

[Scootaloo]

25. As i said, I will vote for the candidate on the ballot who closest fits my ideals as a progressive

Both in the primary, and in the general.

[brooklynite]

40. On the assumption that you're not in a solid red or blue State...

...in which case your brave stance is largely irrelevant, there are two and only two candidates who are going to have a chance of getting elected. By not voting for the Democrat, you are adding to the margin of the Republican. Your choice.

[merrily]

43. Terrorism and the SCOTUS. I would think Democrats would be embarrassed to resort to either of

those as the only reason to vote for the Democratic candidate. No shame, I guess.

[Scootaloo]

45. So you're saying the Democrat won't be sufficiently progressive?

Interesting. Tell me more

[brooklynite]

48. I'm saying I'll vote for whomever the Democrat is, whether he/she was my Primary candidate or not...

...as being miles apart from any likely Republican.

Perhaps you feel there won't be a difference, and are happy with either?

[Scootaloo]

52. So to recap...

I say I will vote for whoever the most liberal candidate on the ballot is.

You say "OMG U WANT TEH REPLUBIANS TO WINZZ0RZ!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I think maybe we're having different conversations. Or, more likely, you just get your tenders in a twist at the notion of a liberal winning.

[brooklynite]

55. I have no objection to a Liberal winning...

..which is why my wife and I supported Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign.

...and I see Hillary Clinton as a Liberal, by the standards of the 130 million people who will be voting.

...what I don't see is a way that a Liberal, by the standards of the anti-Hillary brigade, can win as well.

Please feel free to enlighten me.

[Scootaloo]

60. No, I think you need to do the explaining

I think we can agree that it's likely that Clinton will be the most conservative Democratic candidate, if she chooses to run - that is, any other candidate in the primary will be more liberal than her on most issues of note.

I want you to explain to me how absolutely none of these other potentials can possibly win. 'Cause that's the confusing part. Tell me how it is impossible for liberals to beat the clown cars of the Republican Party.

[brooklynite]

86. If you wish...

...While there has been some gravitation to the ideological edges, the bulk of the voters are still in the political center. A center-left candidate has far more room to pull votes than a hard left candidate does. People here love claim that DLC was an evil anti-liberal group, but it fact, it was responding to political reality. We lost with strong liberals in 1972, 1984 and 1988; we won with center-left candidates in 1976, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012. Add to that, Hillary Clinton will have the financial and political resources to be competitive. It would be great if we had publicly funded elections, but we don't. Bernie Sanders has never had to raise a lot in Vermont, and has one of the most liberal voting pools. Nobody has shown how he translates his Vermont experience to a more conservative national electorate, and how he finds the resources to compete.

[Scootaloo]

92. Oh dear.

Brooklynite, are you familiar with false compromise fallacies? it's the beleif that the middle point between two arguments must be the correct one. Also, are you familiar with the fact that people will lie to each other, and themselves, in a quest for social standing?

The "bulk of the voters are still in the political center" in the same way the bulk of Americans are middle class. They're not, but the social expectation is that "the middle is just right" and anything outside that middle point is 'fringe' and thus socially undesirable.

By the numbers, most Americans are actually poor and lower-income, a number that is increasing (yay centrism!) However, more often than not, even some guy living paycheck-to-paycheck and constantly owing his landlord half of the rent is going to claim to be "middle class." not because he actually is, but because that's the perceived societal norm. Admitting that he is in fact poor conjures all sorts of social stigma - he's on the fringe, an outsider, beyond "mainstream," practically an alien (and this is without touching on the calvinist financial perceptions of America, where poverty is a character failing rather than an economic problem)

Politics plays the same way. When presented policy-by-policy, more Americans favor liberalism. Even self-professed conservatives prefer liberalism (so long as you don't tell them what it is, because hey, reactionary conditioning.) So why the "moderation" fetishism? Same thing, the Goldilocks Principle of american society, where being in the middle is "just right." There's social pressure to cast oneself as "middle ground" because that is perceived as "normal," 'mainstream," etc.

Now. I want to hear two things from you.

ONE: What liberal positions are you willing to sacrifice or even strip entirely, in order to achieve "appeal to the center"?

TWO: Which particular liberal policies killed the elections of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakais and - oh, you forgot Kerry. What conservative policies brought victory to Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Obama?

[DonCoquixote]

47. here is why it matters

Let's say, we know, with a certainity that rivals 2 plus 2 is 4, that Hillary will win the nomination. OK, what people ignore is that the early par tof the cmapiagn, the primary, is where the candidiates have to appeal to everyone, including those in their party that have misgivings about them, especially those. It is not the idea of Hillary being the lone person that scares me, it is the idea that she would know she can ingore the left and go striaght to the megabuck right wing donors that want her to lean their way, especially when it comes to cutting what THEY call enititlements, and their pro Bibi war policy. As is, Hillary does not have to talk to anyone on the left, which means she will lean right. How can we belive that a person who, along with her huisband, dragged the democratic party acorss so many lines in the sand, so many things we promised never ever to do (like kill Glass Steagall and the fairness doctrine) will even preend to giovern from the left once in office.

Yes, she is good on women's RIGHTS, but when women have to work two jobs and cannot afford medical care, those are still women's issues. If you cut the social security that is the only thing keeping an old woman from mixing cat food into her diet, you still ignore women's issues.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. thank you for pointing out that economic rights are women's rights too.

I am so tired of Democrats ignoring economic issues. The middle class is almost non existent and yet when you mention this to Democrats they are silent.

[akbacchus_BC]

67. No matter who is running for the Democratic Presidency, you all have to vote

for that person! Imagine a Republican president taking over, all the strides that President Obama made will go by the wayside. Do remember, republicans want you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, they do not care about the working class or the middle class, all they care about are the big money people. Needless to say, the republicans want unions to go away.

Even if it is a lesser of two evils, vote in a Democratic President. Do not stay away from voting. And if Hilary is the nominee for the Democrats, support her, she is better than a frigging republican! I cannot say I like her, but in a country of so many people, all you all have is two parties, that sucks! Where are the younger people and why are they not interested in politics?

[liberal_at_heart]

68. If there is a socialist Democrat or even just a left of center liberal Democrat I will vote for them

If there is not one on the ticket, I will not.

[akbacchus_BC]

71. I understand! Then here we go again with the lesser of two evils!

Better to have a Democrat in office rather than a republican. They hindered this current President as much as they could, do you want them to repeal all the progress he made.

Politics sucks and some of our politicians are downright not for the working class. Conservatives have a different agenda, they are for the 1%.

[liberal_at_heart]

72. I will not vote for a Democrat that does not fight for economic equality, period.

The lesser of two evils argument does not work on me anymore.

[akbacchus_BC]

76. A vote that is not for a Democrat is a vote for the republican.

I understand how you feel, however, you need to vote for the Democratic candidate who is running for the Presidency. Sometimes we get disenchanted and do not go to the polls and then we cannot complain about the outcome since we did not exercise our right!

I strongly advise you to vote for the person on the Democratic ticket and if you have to hold your nose and vote, start advocating for change at a lower level, like mayor.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. I don't care if you think a vote not for a Democrat is a vote for a Republican.

[winter is coming]

97. I care, because it's shitty reasoning. No one's vote is "owed" to any party or candidate.

A non-vote for a Democrat is a non-vote for a Democrat. It's not a vote for a Republican. As long as people persist in believing the two are equivalent, they'll go on reassuring themselves that at the very least, people will hold their noses and vote for the not-Republican. And the Dems will keep moving to the right while wondering why "their" voters aren't turning out the way they used to.

This is not a "they're both the same" argument. Obviously, there are still some differences between the parties, but a voter doesn't have to believe both parties are identical to be turned off. All the voter has to believe is that neither party represents them. Every step we take to the right further alienates voters on the left, and we will reach a point where we're not different enough from the GOP to retain a significant chunk of those voters.

[liberal_at_heart]

70. You want to know why my 20 year old daughter is not interested in politics? Because she is trying to

go to college and she knows that she is looking at massive college debt, dwindling incomes, and massive rental prices. Democrats MUST start addressing economic issues or they will lose voters.

[akbacchus_BC]

73. I understand what you are saying. But under a republican regime, those costs will go up.

Republicans do not care about ordinary people. All they care about is the 1% who will support them. Republicans do not want working class or middle class children to get an education. They approve of universities raising fees and only the rich people children can get an education.

So what am saying is that a Democratic President is still for the people! Maybe am not saying it right.

[liberal_at_heart]

75. Sorry, I disagree. Like I said, if there is a Socialist Democrat or a left of center liberal

Democrat on the ticket I will vote for them. If not, then I won't.

[akbacchus_BC]

78. This is not a smart answer to you! A Democratic President

is much better than a retard teabagger as a republican president!

If you think that your daughter is in bad shape now with student loans, wait till a rethuglican takes over. They milk the poor to sustain the rich, that is how those fuckers are.

We have one here in Canada, his name is Stephen Harper, totally shut out the media, gives tax breaks to the rick and meanwhile, the poor is left to fend for themselves. If he had his way, he would get American Health Care so that he can fuck the poor over, more homeless people.

[liberal_at_heart]

80. I have lived here in the US all my life, all 39 years and have seen Republican and Democratic

Presidents come and go. They are all bought by the rich and they all work for the rich. They do not represent the people anymore. I have seen my autistic son suffer under a public school system that is under attack by both the Republican and Democratic parties; stagnant funding for education for decades and now a Democratic education policy called Race to the Top that punishes anyone who does not excel academically. I am also watching my 20 year old daughter suffer panic attacks and have to go to a psychologist because she is under so much pressure to do well in college and get a high enough paying job that she can pay off her massive college debt and afford the outrageous cost of living that just keeps getting worse every year while incomes go down every year. I will not vote for any Democrat who will not fight for economic justice, period. You will never convince me otherwise.

[akbacchus_BC]

82. I am not trying to convince you. You have to do what you need to do in your

best interestl

[whereisjustice]

69. Let's see, eliminate political choice then demand everyone vote for one candidate - sounds like

Russia. Or China.

Primaries are designed to foster political competition necessary for accountability and good (non-corrupt) government.

How about we use them to select a candidate?

Or is that too far left?

[MisterP]

74. yeah, a Republican victory would bring war, free-trade agreements, dismemberment of labor,

and ties to The Family

[gwheezie]

81. I plan on voting for hillary but

If another dem makes a stronger case to be the nominee, I'll vote for that person in my primary. I voted for hillary in 08 but it was very close between her and obama for me. They were very close on issues. I immediately supported obama when he was nominated.
I can say without a doubt I will vote for the dem in the GE no matter who it is. I am a democrat.

[pansypoo53219]

83. it's 2015. are we gonna be doing this til 2016?!?!? I VOTED FOR KERRY, DUKAKIS, it is ALL ABOUT

THE SUPREME COURT & WINNING. nothing else matters. NOTHING.

[Scuba]

84. FYI, some of the "Republican crooks" are self-identifying as Democrats. To wit ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026397975

[Savannahmann]

85. Wow, GOTV already.

That worked so well as our main plan in 2014 that I can't see it failing in 2016.

GOTV!

[cali]

87. This has been posted ad nausem

and no, I sure as shit will not stop.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. No.

I won't shut the fuck up about candidates or stop scrutinizing their qualifications for the job.