HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » This is one reason I am e...

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:16 AM

This is one reason I am excited about a Hillary candidacy!

83 replies, 6378 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 83 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is one reason I am excited about a Hillary candidacy! (Original post)
boston bean Apr 2015 OP
leftofcool Apr 2015 #1
boston bean Apr 2015 #2
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #64
RiverLover Apr 2015 #3
boston bean Apr 2015 #5
RiverLover Apr 2015 #10
boston bean Apr 2015 #11
RiverLover Apr 2015 #14
boston bean Apr 2015 #15
RiverLover Apr 2015 #16
boston bean Apr 2015 #17
AgingAmerican Apr 2015 #50
A Simple Game Apr 2015 #27
boston bean Apr 2015 #29
A Simple Game Apr 2015 #33
boston bean Apr 2015 #34
A Simple Game Apr 2015 #41
mercuryblues Apr 2015 #42
okasha Apr 2015 #46
JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #6
boston bean Apr 2015 #7
JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #8
boston bean Apr 2015 #9
JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #4
cali Apr 2015 #12
DCBob Apr 2015 #13
MaggieD Apr 2015 #18
Logical Apr 2015 #22
MaggieD Apr 2015 #35
Logical Apr 2015 #44
Logical Apr 2015 #19
boston bean Apr 2015 #20
Logical Apr 2015 #21
MoonRiver Apr 2015 #23
Logical Apr 2015 #24
boston bean Apr 2015 #26
MoonRiver Apr 2015 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #25
brooklynite Apr 2015 #28
Zorra Apr 2015 #32
DawgHouse Apr 2015 #38
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #43
Sheepshank Apr 2015 #60
Adrahil Apr 2015 #69
bettyellen Apr 2015 #75
Savannahmann Apr 2015 #30
MaggieD Apr 2015 #37
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #45
MaggieD Apr 2015 #49
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #51
MaggieD Apr 2015 #56
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #62
MaggieD Apr 2015 #63
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #65
MaggieD Apr 2015 #66
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #67
MaggieD Apr 2015 #68
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #70
MaggieD Apr 2015 #71
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #72
MaggieD Apr 2015 #73
zappaman Apr 2015 #54
MaggieD Apr 2015 #57
zappaman Apr 2015 #58
MaggieD Apr 2015 #61
A Simple Game Apr 2015 #47
MaggieD Apr 2015 #48
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #79
hrmjustin Apr 2015 #36
boston bean Apr 2015 #40
SickOfTheOnePct Apr 2015 #52
DawgHouse Apr 2015 #39
tularetom Apr 2015 #53
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #76
tularetom Apr 2015 #78
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #81
tularetom Apr 2015 #82
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #83
SidDithers Apr 2015 #55
William769 Apr 2015 #59
Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #74
mike_c Apr 2015 #77
Buzz cook Apr 2015 #80

Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:17 AM

1. Absolutely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:17 AM

2. She told that asshole off!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:11 PM

64. Yep

And I think that figuratively left a mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:17 AM

3. And no other Democratic candidates would say the same!

No wait, all of them would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:20 AM

5. You got some video you want to post... go for it! would love to see it! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:06 AM

10. You do realize women's reproductive rights are a basic & fundamental Democratic Party principle?

And sadly, those rights are in the hands of states now?

It sickens me how this issue only comes up before presidential elections, used as a emotional ploy by both sides, and then its ignored on the national level after the election....because its in the hands of STATES, not the president.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:09 AM

11. No, I don't realize that to be a Democrat one must be pro-choice..


Elected Pro-Life Democrats

Posted in DFLA General


Below is a list of elected Pro-Life Democrats as of October 25, 2013. If you know of an elected pro-life Democrat who should be added to the list, please let us know via our contact form.

Pro-Life Democratic Senators
•Senator Bob Casey, PA
•Senator Joe Manchin, WV
•Senator Joe Donnelly, IN

Pro-Life Democratic House Members:
•Congressman Mike McIntyre, NC-07
•Congressman Nick Rahall, WV-03
•Congressman Dan Lipinski, IL-03
•Congressman Collin Peterson, MN-07

Pro-Life State and Local Officials:

If you know of an elected pro-life Democrat who should be added to the list, please let us know via our contact form.


State, District

Office

Name


Arizona, 27 State House Catherine Miranda
Arkansas, 58 State House Jody Dickinson
Connecticut State House Jeffery Berger
Connecticut State House Mary Fritz
Connecticut State House Antonio Guerrera
Connecticut State House Peggy Sayers
Florida, 108 State House Daphne Campbell
Idaho, 18 State House Branden Durst
Massachusetts, 1 Norfolk State House Bruce Ayers
Massachusetts, 1 Suffolk State Senate Jack Hart
Massachusetts, 10 Suffolk State House Edward Coppinger
Massachusetts, 12 Hamden State House Angelo Puppolo
Massachusetts, 12 Norfolk State House John H. Rogers
Massachusetts, 12 Plymouth State House Thomas J. Calter
Massachusetts, 13 Middlesex State House James Dwyer
Massachusetts, 14 Suffolk State House Angelo Scaccia
Massachusetts, 16 Middlesex State House Thomas A. Golden
Massachusetts, 17 Essex State House Frank A. Moran
Massachusetts, 17 Suffolk State House John Binenda, Sr.
Massachusetts, 19 Middlesex State House James R. Miceli
Massachusetts, 2 Hamden State House Brian Michael Ashe
Massachusetts, 2 Suffolk State House Eugene O'Flaherty
Massachusetts, 22 Essex State House Marc Lombardo
Massachusetts, 2nd Plymouth & Bristol State Senate Tomas Kennedy
Massachusetts, 33 Middlesex State House Christopher G. Fallon
Massachusetts, 36 Middlesex State House Collen Garry
Massachusetts, 4 Suffolk State House Nick Collins
Massachusetts, 5 Middlesex State House Paul Donato
Massachusetts, 6 Suffolk State House Russell E. Holmes
Massachusetts, 7 Bristol State House Alan Silvia
Massachusetts, 7 Hampden State House Thomas M. Petrolati
Massachusetts, 7 Norfolk State House Walter F. Timilty
Massachusetts, 9 Hamden State House Sean Curran
Massachusetts, Norfolk & Suffok State Senate Michael Rush
Massachusetts, Worcester & Norfolk State Senate Richard Moore
Michigan, 1 Bay County Commission Brandon Krause
Michigan, 2 Bay County Commission Ernie Krygier
Michigan, 84 State House Terry Brown
Michigan, 96 State House Charles Brunner
Minnesota, 1 State Senate Leroy Stumpf
Minnesota, 4 State Senate Kent Eken
Minnesota, 17 State Senate Lyle Koenen
Minnesota, 27 State Senate Dan Sparks
Minnesota, 10A State House John Ward
Minnesota, 10B State House Joe Radinovich
Minnesota, 12A State House Jay McNamar
Minnesota, 17B State House Mary Sawatzky
Minnesota, 24B State House Patti Fritz
Minnesota, 28B State House Gene Pelowski
Minnesota, 3A State House David Dill
Minnesota, 3A State House David Dill
Minnesota, 3B State House Mary Murphy
Minnesota, 4B State House Paul Marquart
Minnesota, 50B State House Ann Lenczewski
Missouri, 41 State House Ed Schieffer
Missouri, 68 State House Keith English
Missouri, 118 State House Ben Harris
New Mexico, 40 State House Nick Salazar
Oklahoma, 5 State Senate Jerry Ellis
Oklahoma, 9 State Senate Earl Garrison
Oklahoma, 12 State House Wade Rousselot
Oklahoma, 13 State Senate Susan Paddack
Oklahoma, 77 State House Eric Proctor
Oklahoma, 89 State House Rebecca Hamilton
Oklahoma, 94 State House Scott Inman
Rhode Island, 1 State Senate Maryellen Goodwin
Rhode Island, 4 State Senate Dominick Ruggerio
Rhode Island, 5 State Senate Paul Jabour
Rhode Island, 6 State Senate Harold Metts
Rhode Island, 7 State Senate Frank Ciccone III
Rhode Island, 8 State House John Joseph Lombardi
Rhode Island, 8 State Senate James Doyle II
Rhode Island, 10 State House Scott Slater
Rhode Island, 10 State Senate Walter Felag, Jr.
Rhode Island, 12 State Senate Louis DiPalma
Rhode Island, 14 State Senate Daniel DaPonte
Rhode Island, 15 State House Nicholoas Mattiello
Rhode Island, 16 State House Peter Palumbo
Rhode Island, 16 State Senate Elizabeth Crowley
Rhode Island, 18 State Senate William J. Conley, Jr.
Rhode Island, 20 State Senate Roger Picard
Rhode Island, 24 State Senate Marc Cote
Rhode Island, 25 State House Jared Nunes
Rhode Island, 26 State Senate Frank Lombardi
Rhode Island, 27 State House Patricia Serpa
Rhode Island, 27 State Senate Hanna M. Gallo
Rhode Island, 29 State Senate Michael J. McCaffrey
Rhode Island, 30 State Senate William Walaska
Rhode Island, 36 State Senate James Sheehan
Rhode Island, 37 State House Samuel Azzinaro
Rhode Island, 42 State House Stephen Ucci
Rhode Island, 43 State House Deborah Fellela
Rhode Island, 44 State House Gregory Costantino
Rhode Island, 49 State House Lisa Baldelli-Hunt
Rhode Island, 50 State House Jon Brien
Rhode Island, 51 State House Robert Phillips
Rhode Island, 52 State House Karen Macbeth
Rhode Island, 54 State House William O'Brien
Rhode Island, 55 State House Arthur Corvese
Rhode Island, 57 State House James McLaughlin
Rhode Island, 58 State House William San Bento
Rhode Island, 64 State House Helio Melo
Rhode Island, 67 State House Jan Malik
Rhode Island, 70 State House John G. Edwards
South Dakota, 1 State House Dennis Feickert
South Dakota, 4 State House Jim Peterson
South Dakota, 4 State House Kathy Tyler
South Dakota, 15 State House Pat Krishman
South Dakota, 17 State House Ray Ring
South Dakota, 18 State House Bernie Hunhoff
South Dakota, 21 State House Julie Bartling
South Dakota, 21 State Senate Billie Sutton
Tennessee, 41 State House John Mark Windle
Tennessee, 43 State House Charles Curtiss
Tennessee, 80 State House Johnny Shaw
Tennessee, 90 State House John DeBerry
Texas, 19 State Senate Carlos Uresti
Texas, 21 State Senate Judith Zaffirini
Texas, 27 State Senate Eddie Lucio, Jr
Texas, 31 State House Ryan Guillen
Texas, 36 State House Sergio Munoz, Jr
Washington, 24 State Senate Jim Hargrove


http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php/elected-pro-life-dems/pro-life-democrats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:18 AM

14. State level is where we need to fight this. If a Democratic President could change things,

Why hasn't it happened? We've had Democratic President Obama in office for 2 terms. Is he against Women's Rights? No.

And please note, he used this as a campaign ploy too. What a surprise! What tools we are if we fall for this.



Too bad it didn't mean squat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:20 AM

15. Oh, so voting based on womens rights makes one a tool...

A tool of/for who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:24 AM

16. Voting for president based on something over which candidates have no direct control

is a tool for those who want votes based on ghost issues rather than real issues the president does have control over. A emotional device used with low information voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:28 AM

17. Oh, so someone voting for someone who supports women are emotional, low information voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:23 AM

50. People can vote based on whatever they like

 

It's a free country and everyone has their own personal concerns, and everyone can vote based on said concerns as they see fit.

Women's rights advocates are emotional, low information voters? Wow you sound like Rush Limbaugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:48 AM

27. Nice list, probably violates the TOS but who cares. I don't get the point, what's wrong with being

pro life? I'm pro life and don't understand what your problem is with that stance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:56 AM

29. Thanks for proving my point....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:29 AM

33. What point is that? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:30 AM

34. read up thread, the entire subthread, you'll figure it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #34)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:47 AM

41. Well I read your OP with the video heading saying that Hillary

defends reproductive rights and family planning. From your header I understood that to be one of the reasons you supported her. Am I right so far?

Post #2 you call someone a name. How am I doing?

Post #5 you challenge someone to provide video proof which is provided in a response.

Then on to #11 which I found confusing causing me to ask for a clarification. I was assuming you would understand my confusion but it seems you didn't. What confused me was that in your header you state
No, I don't realize that to be a Democrat one must be pro-choice..
which caused me to assume the post would be about politicians that either are pro or anti choice. But you then go on to list politicians that according to the list heading(s) are pro life. I couldn't figure out the reason for the list. Unless you think that pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice, is that the problem? I am living proof that pro-life does not mean anti-choice. My pro-life stance in no way conflicts with my pro-choice stance. My pro-life stance is personal but my pro-choice stance is public, I would never make that decision for anyone but myself. Most people I know feel the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:48 AM

42. If you think

this issue only comes up during presidential elections, you aren't paying attention.

As for fighting it the state level, you are also not paying attention. Congress has introduced 29 bill so far this year alone.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897

It sure would be nice to have a president that would veto those bills, if and when they make it that far. Especially since the republicons have control of both houses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 05:26 PM

46. The veto is one method the president can use

to support reproductive rights. The other is the appointment of federal judges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:23 AM

6. The Democratic Party nominee

Won't back down when the social hand wringer on the Right tries to make it about Family Values and Jesus H Christ. This goes to show that IF Clinton is the nominee - she won't back down.

What I would encourage all of us to do is find videos of each of our top two - and post, tweet, blog, etc etc them.

One party hates women.


One party doesn't.

Showing our candidates displaying this difference needs to start now.

Force those feeble minded guys on the right to make an issue of it and get them on record snidely dismissing our ability to make the best health and financial decisions for ourselves and families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:26 AM

7. Amen, JAG...

I haven't seen such a full throated support for reproductive rights from Bernie or Elizabeth... but maybe video does exist.

I do know that Hillary is FIRM on this issue and it is an important one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:29 AM

8. The thing is those two are non starters

Warren isn't running and I don't think Sanders has registered as a Democratic Party member yet - right?

Now if either will be endorsing Clinton - they need to get off their asses and get the sound bite out there.

We need the opposition on defense the minute each announces their candidacy. We have to make this an issue in 2016. Part of the Platform. Unwanted pregnancies severely impact income and earnings.

It's an income inequality issue.


See what I did there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:47 AM

9. Yes, I see what you did there!

You're right too.

Also, why hasn't Elizabeth or Bernie announced yet... what are they waiting for... do they think they are inevitable or something and can hold up the field?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 07:17 AM

4. Rec!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:11 AM

12. I hope she repeats this often on the campaign trail

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 08:11 AM

13. I am no Hillary fan but I am warming to her.

The relentless RW bashing of her makes me want her more and more to stick it to them. Also, I do think its a perfect time for a female president... especially one who is very smart and very experienced as Hillary is. Many of the problem here in America and around the world revolve around women's issues. Hillary could be great leader helping to resolve those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:17 AM

18. This is emblematic of why I supported her in 2007-8

 

Because I knew she would kick some republican butt, and Obama would foolishly try to reason and compromise with them. We saw how his technique worked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:28 AM

22. So you think Hillary would of done more than Obama did? A better 8 years? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:47 AM

35. Yes I do

 

He wasted most of his first term pursuing the naive belief that the republicans in congress would compromise on things. Hiliary would have known better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #35)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 03:12 PM

44. I 100% agree the GOP and Hillary will get along from day one! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:19 AM

19. LOL, can we list the 1000 reasons we are not excited? Jesus, this is getting old. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:22 AM

20. This OP upsets you? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:27 AM

21. Not at all, just the endless posts trying to get us to love Hillary have started, and will not end.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:28 AM

23. How about the endless posts trying to get us to support Bernie

or Liz? Do they bother you also?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonRiver (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:31 AM

24. LOL, slowly for you, if I don't want Hilllary then why would posts trying to get someone to run....

 

against her bother me? Get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:34 AM

26. So, this OP bothers you, not upsets you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #24)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:04 AM

31. Because you stated it was just the endless posts in favor of her

that irritates you. Seemed like it is posters, not Hillary, that is your problem. Obviously not.

And slowly, for you, lol, I hope you won't blow a gasket when she gets the nomination. Because, then, there will be a whole lot more positive posts about her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:32 AM

25. Wouldn't it be logical?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume there will be advocating for a Democratic candidate for president on a Democratic board and isn't it logical to assume that some of the denizens of this board will make positive threads and posts about Secretary of State Clinton to counterbalance the negative ones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 09:55 AM

28. But you see, Hillary Clinton, a Democrat isn't REALLY a Democrat...

...and Bernie Sanders, who ISN'T a Democrat, REALLY IS a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:18 AM

32. And I'm the Queen of Atlantis, just because I say I am. nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:21 AM

38. You didn't say that slowly enough, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DawgHouse (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 01:03 PM

43. When you hold yourself out as being "Logical" you are holding yourself to a high standard./NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:21 PM

60. first pushing Obama and now Hillary on here...

 

I clearly remember all of your dislikes and frustrations for both candidates......makes one wonder why you hang around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 05:33 PM

69. And there have been endless posts by those who hate her. So TF What?

 

Get another candidate to run and support them if you want. SOme of us think she's a great candidate and support her. That "some" would be about 76% of the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:20 PM

75. Get used to it, she is going to be the nominee. It's done.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:04 AM

30. I am also totally excited.

 

Since some here like to claim I'm a RW plant, although I am not sure where I'm supposed to draw my pay for that, I decided to answer this thread tongue in cheek, and risk the hide.

I'm really excited that this way both of the major party nominee's will be big time pro business. Obviously anyone the Republicans nominate will be pro big business, but it's always touchy with the Democratic Party. They've been known to nominate someone who is totally on board with regulating the business environment, and that just won't do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-helping-hillary-clinton-stand-up-to-wall-street/2014/10/30/2765a1fa-604f-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/12/hillary-clinton-wall-streets-pick-2016/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#.VSk1J_nF_51

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070_Page2.html

As a "republican plant" according to some I'm obviously in favor of helping the Republicans, and that means passing the TPP. We must have it. Without it we can't finish our lifelong plan of making huge amounts of money while everyone is unemployed other than service jobs passing the rich the appetizers and drinks.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/03/omalley-says-opposition-tpp-differentiates-hillary-clinton-supported-deal/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

Republicans just can't stand the idea of protectionist policies, and with Hillary, Republican Plants would get a big laugh as we watch our stock prices jump.

The next subject in which Hillary would be a big help to Republicans is NSA spying. Obviously having the NSA utterly ignore the Bill of rights and essentially wipe their asses with the Fourth Amendment is problematic for a Liberal, and thankfully Hillary is not one of them. By keeping the spying going it would allow the know everything about you government agents great latitude in painting any who object as enemies. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/hillary-clintons-evasive-position-on-nsa-spying/386024/

So in case any of you misunderstood my post to think I really am a Republican plant. It was all As a liberal who thinks that the abominations that this nation is taking as the new normal to heart that hurt the unions, hurt the people, and make a mockery of the phrase privacy, I actually feel that Hillary is the worst candidate for those who think that any of these issues matter. While she might be great on women's issues, there are a lot more things to consider when selecting a candidate for our party. I doubt you'll find a candidate for the Democrats running for national office who says that Choice should be limited.

Only Hillary thinks that everything but choice should have limits. Choice did not lead to the economic disaster eight years ago. Choice did not lead to 93 million people not on the job market. Choice did not lead to people living in sewers. And if Choice is all you have for a candidate, than that candidate is either too shallow, or just plain wrong for the party, and the nation.

But by the time I get to vote, the race will be essentially over. I'll be stuck with Hillary. In all Honesty, it won't matter. Hillary won't win Georgia in the general election. But maybe I can get a Democrat on the county commission, and we can make some real progress locally on traffic signs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #30)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:50 AM

37. Well thanks to Nader we have a USSC

 

That has made campaign finance laws legal that ensure no one can get elected president without corporate money from billionaires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 05:24 PM

45. Nader didn't do anything wrong. Why blame him? How about Jeb Bush and the Great Florida

 

theft? How about blaming those that thought Al Gore would be a strong enough candidate. How about Sandra Day O'Conner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:18 AM

49. Gore was a strong enough candidate

 

.... Nader knew he was splitting the non-republican vote. You have him to thank, ultimately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:27 AM

51. He didn't force people to vote for him. Those that voted for him didn't want to vote

 

for either other choice. No way to know if they would have voted for Gore. Millions of people did not vote for Gore but you want to focus only on the ones that voted for Nader. Democrats needed a stronger candidate. One that didn't represent a continuation of the Clinton years. We are looking at the same situation if we nominate H. Clinton. Will you be looking for an easy scapegoat if H. Clinton of the DLC loses to another Bush?

In 2000 we had election fraud to blame. We had a weak candidate to blame. We had Sandra Day O'Conner to blame and the fact that we allowed the SCOTUS to overstep their Constitutional powers to blame. Yet some want to blame Nader for running for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:06 PM

56. It's a good lesson for people who think it's fun to waste their vote

 

We have two parties in this country. If you don't vote for the Democrat you're going to get a republican. It's not rocket science.

I don't think Gore was a weak candidate at all. What was "weak" about him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:58 PM

62. Gore got approx 51 million votes. There were 158.8 million eligible voters that

 

did not vote for Gore. Of those that didn't vote for Gore less than 2% voted for Nader. You should concentrate your wrath on the over 150 million people that didn't vote for Gore. Many thought Gore/Lieberman was a continuation of the DLC Clinton years.

It doesn't matter if you think Gore/Lieberman was a weak choice, millions of Americans thought so and didn't vote for him. A running mate of Lieberman didn't help.

The lesson should be for people that think that Democrats can run a corporate candidate against a Republicon candidate should be surprised when they lose. If you want Jeb, nominate another DLC, corporate candidate in H. Clinton. You won't have Nader for a scapegoat, it doesn't look like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:04 PM

63. I blame Nader for splitting the liberal vote

 

Nader's mantra was the Bush and Gore were no different. He was as wrong as he could possibly be. His EGO (massive EGO, by the way) wanted him to play the spoiler. He certainly accomplished that.

The lesson to be learned is that if you let a massive egomaniac split the liberal vote (because you are swayed by that dumb message that there is no difference between republicans and democrats) then you get a republican president.

And we see how that worked out. There was a big difference, wasn't there? The biggest, of course, was the USSC. And now Citizen's United.

Hey, the naderites asked for it, and they got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:18 PM

65. Your wrath is misplaced. He didn't force people to vote for him. Those that did vote for him

 

did so because they didn't want to vote for either Bush or Gore and probably would have stayed home had he not run. They were trying to send a message that we need a progressive candidate. If you run a DLC conservative you may alienate the Left.

Gore wasn't a strong enough to beat Bush by enough to matter.

The same thing will happen if we run another DLC Clinton and demand the Left to support her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 02:35 PM

66. Nader preyed on the politically naive

 

And he lied his ass off to big donors early on by promising them he would not run in swing states (like Florida).

Listen, I have heard a million and one unconvincing arguments that try to excuse what Nader did when he split the liberal progressive vote in 2000. None of them wash with me. They are non-sensical, IMO, and are nothing more than a way to white wash the damage he did and excuse him from accountability. Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 05:27 PM

67. Nader is an easy scapegoat. But hating Nader is easier than dealing with

 

running a weak candidate and doing nothing about a stolen election. People that voted for Nader were protesting the choice of Gore vs. Bush they weren't either tricked by Nader or even actually wanted him for President. They were protest votes that would not have gone to Gore anyway.

The Powers That Be didn't want a progressive to run against Bush. They were happy to have a DLC (Third Way) Democratic candidate and will love it should another DLC / Third Way candidate in HRC run against another Bush. Win-Frackin-Win for the Oligarchs. Eight more years of 22% of American children living in poverty.

For our children and grandchildren we must have change. Say no to Wall Frackin Street, say no to the MIC and wars in the Middle East, say no to the NSA/CIA Security State spying on all Americans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 05:30 PM

68. Nope. Gore would have won if not for Nader

 

And won solidly. Nader got 97K votes in Florida (a swing state he promised not to run in when he was bagging big money from big money donors).

You can make all the excuses in the world, but Perot was why Clinton beat Daddy Bush, and Nader was why junior beat Gore. And if democrats are stupid enough to split off the liberal vote in the 2016 you can bet you will have a Republican president.

That's how it works in this country. Third party presidential candidates are spoilers. And Nader knew what he was doing. No doubt about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 05:34 PM

70. I guess for some, rationalization is the key to happiness. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 05:37 PM

71. Naderites have been rationlizing this for 15 years

 

Anything to deny his culpability for splitting the progressive vote. And that's fine. They can rationalize all they want. The issue is that if they can't accept what a bonehead move it was they are apt to do something equally as boneheaded again. That's the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:07 PM

72. I think there is a misunderstanding by those people that call themselves centrists or something to

 

distinguish themselves from Progressives. I am guessing that marching in lock-step is seen as a virtue and when they choose a Third Way candidate they expect the Progressive Wing to dump their principles and follow in lock-step. IMO that's audacious and we all will pay the consequences.

If you want Jeb, then nominate H. Clinton.

Using the term Naderites as a pejorative is a bit childish IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:12 PM

73. I'm as liberal as they come

 

I'm just not foolish enough to waste my vote on a third party, therefore enabling a right winger to be elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:45 AM

54. Yeah, so strong he couldn't win his home state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:07 PM

57. Oh lordy, not that right wing talking point

 

No Democrat would have won TN., home state or not. IMO that is a silly argument. In the 8 years Gore was VP the south was lost to democrats in national elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:08 PM

58. Facts are now "right wing talking points"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:22 PM

61. No, I agree it's a fact... I don't agree with your implication

 

... that he was a bad candidate because he lost TN. And let's be honest, that is what you were trying to imply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 06:11 PM

47. So who do you think we will be blaming when Hillary loses to whoever the Republican nominee is? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:16 AM

48. I don't think the republican nominee will win

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 08:02 PM

79. I am not a fan of Nader eithet.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 10:49 AM

36. I can't say I am surprised by the exchange I see up top.

 

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #36)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:22 AM

40. We got anti choicers and everything.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #40)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:30 AM

52. I haven't seen anyone on this thread that appears to be anti-choice n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Apr 11, 2015, 11:21 AM

39. Me too, BB!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:35 AM

53. This is one reason I'm not



Thanks to that creepy old shitbag she's lovin on, a lot of women don't have any rights at all. Because they're dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:33 PM

76. Why does this bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 08:00 PM

78. Maybe I should explain to you who that old douchebag is

He's former Secretary of State and Richard Nixon confidante and advisor Henry Kissinger, widely suspected of complicity in war crimes and violations of international law.

He's been accused of involvement in the carpet bombing of a neutral country, Cambodia, because he suspected North Vietnamese fugitives had sought asylum there.

He has been connected with brutal and repressive regimes in various countries, namely Pakistan, Greece, Indonesia and most notably, Chile, where he is suspected of plotting a CIA-led coup which deposed elected president Allende and installed the dictator Pinochet and led to the persecution, murders and "disappearance" of thousands of civilians, men, women and children.

So yes, it bothers me when I see a candidate for the presidency of the US, who claims a strong commitment to the rights of women and children, unashamedly embracing a war criminal who has plotted to deprive many women and children of their most basic right, namely, the right to continue living.

Maybe the question should be, why does it not bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #78)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 08:21 PM

81. Do you know what the occasion was when this photo was made?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tularetom (Reply #82)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:11 PM

83. It bothers me some jumps conclusions about see two people in a photo and make conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sun Apr 12, 2015, 11:52 AM

55. DU rec for pissing off the right people...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:19 PM

59. Hell yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:13 PM

74. The last place I saw Hillary Clinton in person.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 07:42 PM

77. this is one reason I'm not...



There are a million or so others. Clinton is unfit for public office because she voted to authorize crimes against humanity in Iraq. Why do you think she did that? Was it just to prove that she's tough enough to authorize killing a million or so innocent civilians? To prove that ovaries don't make her too weak to slaughter innocents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #77)

Mon Apr 13, 2015, 08:08 PM

80. Yup Bush and Obama

Sure screwed the pooch, the former by lying us into a war and the latter by keeping us in it.

Clinton's mistake was by making a political decision instead of a moral one over the authorization to use force. It was one of many Neville Chamberlain votes the Democratic party made in the wake of 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread