Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 06:12 PM Nov 2014

I was gonna support Hillary..

And still might.. But thinking more and more about it...Hillary I feel is not a game changer, she’s just has a history of leaning towards the right on economic issues and really can not be relied upon to pursue a true progressive platform..

We all know about E. Warren ( today she just nixed an Obama Appointee) firm stance on progressive
economic programs and policies...She definitely has tons of positives and probably could gather a coalition of left and middle voters which would certainly give her a chance at the Pres,,

My other thought... we lose the presidency and the country plunges into Right Wing theocratic Hell.. Well perhaps an event like this would quickly bring the country to it's bottom.. So quickly and steadfast that even the the voters who vote against their own interests would have to begin smarten up...The light would be turned on and away we would go..

The other option of a Pres. Clinton, would most likely keep our country in an economic and political malaise which would probably last for decades...

A Pres. Warren might be the better choice..

86 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I was gonna support Hillary.. (Original Post) busterbrown Nov 2014 OP
A friend of mine Kelvin Mace Nov 2014 #1
But would “the commie, socialist, marxist”, win the General?? busterbrown Nov 2014 #2
Knowing what the 3 branches of government has nothing to do with bread and butter merrily Nov 2014 #53
Yes, but the pseudo-populist she lost to is a super-smooth and impressive orator. This quality Cal33 Nov 2014 #5
All the things HRC is not Kelvin Mace Nov 2014 #7
I would vote for HRC only if her opponent is a Republican. Cal33 Nov 2014 #13
So few Republicans (who admit they are Republican) run in the Democratic primary, though. merrily Nov 2014 #54
And don't forget an AMAZING PRESIDENT with a long list of incredible accomplishments... Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #31
To quote Hillary herself: davidpdx Nov 2014 #9
Clips like this ... earthside Nov 2014 #58
Makes me cringe to hear stuff like that LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #62
I appreciate you making the comment about this davidpdx Nov 2014 #77
I've said that here in post after post. cali Nov 2014 #14
Well, if your anonymous friend said so rock Nov 2014 #67
Wow! Kelvin Mace Nov 2014 #68
Hey! rock Nov 2014 #69
Did I? Kelvin Mace Nov 2014 #70
Yeah, and you didn't say, "May I?" rock Nov 2014 #72
She lost to an incredibly charismatic man WhiteTara Nov 2014 #76
We don't even know if she's running bigdarryl Nov 2014 #3
And ??? if she were? busterbrown Nov 2014 #4
Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose. blkmusclmachine Nov 2014 #6
I think she will try hard to run in the primary well to the left of Hillary 2008. merrily Nov 2014 #55
Warren would be a terrible choice. JayhawkSD Nov 2014 #8
This is the best response I've seen on Warren bigdarryl Nov 2014 #11
Lacking foreign experience? Even I have more than a repub lyonn Nov 2014 #29
Oh, I'm not advocating Hillary. JayhawkSD Nov 2014 #30
Problem solving aspirant Nov 2014 #39
Except Wall Street, banks and executive pay (the 1%) are not the whole problem JayhawkSD Nov 2014 #45
Hillary has wasted money on wars and is inept on creating jobs? aspirant Nov 2014 #47
But they are a large part.... daleanime Nov 2014 #52
+1 merrily Nov 2014 #85
Warren is better served in the senate Iamthetruth Nov 2014 #43
Hillary can't win aspirant Nov 2014 #48
The media Iamthetruth Nov 2014 #49
What media are you talking about? Let's start with the ones running only Obama ads aspirant Nov 2014 #50
Agree completely Persondem Nov 2014 #80
So, who would you suggest challenge Hillary in the primary? merrily Nov 2014 #56
Jim Webb. nt JayhawkSD Nov 2014 #82
I don't think he'll do well at all, but, if he's your guy, you're in luck. merrily Nov 2014 #86
Remember "It's the ECONOMY stupid"? Cosmic Kitten Nov 2014 #66
"She's an economic populist....but she has nothing else going for her" whathehell Nov 2014 #81
Buster, the DU cry is and will continue to be that we should bend over and accept davidpdx Nov 2014 #10
Really? All I see are people hating her here? n/t musicblind Nov 2014 #83
No, not true davidpdx Nov 2014 #84
Does anyone of you here still knows that there are 3 Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #12
First off why are you labeling Bernie Sander’s a Socialist? busterbrown Nov 2014 #16
Well Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #17
PLease list the DEMOCRATIC Socialist values that are harming the dem party. aspirant Nov 2014 #40
When did the Democratic party Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #44
It's the big tent and I'm still waiting for the list. aspirant Nov 2014 #46
He's a self-described Democratic Socialist and a self described Indie who may run merrily Nov 2014 #59
They said the same shit about Obama and now they're mad and hate him--they blame him Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #32
Exactly!!! Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #37
like i keep saying TheFarseer Nov 2014 #15
What utter nonsense!! Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #18
One can't, only a sell-out can aspirant Nov 2014 #23
Then we will just see now won't we? Legalequilibrium78 Nov 2014 #38
What specifically are these "important piece of policies and agendas"? aspirant Nov 2014 #41
Not Going To Argue With You... ChiciB1 Nov 2014 #74
Who gives a shit what the best thing for Republicans will be? merrily Nov 2014 #60
Post removed Post removed Nov 2014 #19
We're the idiots? Have you seen your stable of pols and potential pres candidates? Do you like ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #20
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2014 #21
Us morons? Rand Paul is the best you can come up with??? You didn't answer my question. Have you ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2014 #22
No! He left the building under MIRT escort. marble falls Nov 2014 #24
Must have been the thin crust type with lots of cheesey. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #65
Heavy on the cheesy! marble falls Nov 2014 #71
I won't be supporting Hillary. bigwillq Nov 2014 #25
There are several things I find actually scary about this drumbeat for Hillary. SheilaT Nov 2014 #26
Her name recognition is not necessarily a positive. merrily Nov 2014 #61
You really think another GW Bush-type result would be good in the long run? BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #27
How'd that work for us last time? You do realize that voters just put Republicans back in Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #33
Been there, done that BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #34
I do agree. I'm more inclined not to understand the thinking of those who proudly Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2014 #35
It's tragic BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #36
Posting to remember the Alexandra Pelosi thing . . . JustAnotherGen Nov 2014 #51
Where was are filibustering senate? aspirant Nov 2014 #42
"quickly bring the country to its bottom", then the voters wise up? bhikkhu Nov 2014 #28
Your theory that if we lose the Presidency the country will suddenly see the light and subsequently still_one Nov 2014 #57
Game changer Skeowes28 Nov 2014 #63
Warren and Clinton do not compromise the universe of potential candidates. merrily Nov 2014 #64
I Think We, As Democrats Need To Wake Up To ChiciB1 Nov 2014 #73
I think Hillary is quite an accomplished and well-qualified politician Zorro Nov 2014 #75
I don't really care for either of them. I picked Obama over Hillary last time. Warren is a late to Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #78
I like hillary mgcgulfcoast Nov 2014 #79
 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
1. A friend of mine
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 06:22 PM
Nov 2014

a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter when such things existed said HRC's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If someone like Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren stepped into the ring, it would vanish. HRC would lose to any genuine populist (Hell, she lost to a pseudo-populist last time around).

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
2. But would “the commie, socialist, marxist”, win the General??
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 06:30 PM
Nov 2014

Especially in a country which 3 out of 4 do not know what the 3 Branches of Govt are..

 

Cal33

(7,018 posts)
5. Yes, but the pseudo-populist she lost to is a super-smooth and impressive orator. This quality
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 08:05 PM
Nov 2014

is hard to beat.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
31. And don't forget an AMAZING PRESIDENT with a long list of incredible accomplishments...
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:06 PM
Nov 2014

...which may have been longer and more impressive had it not been for Republicans and some Democrats.

earthside

(6,960 posts)
58. Clips like this ...
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:22 AM
Nov 2014

... and tens and tens of others will make a Hillary Clinton candidacy a long, depressing and negative journey. Democrats could lose the 2016 election not because the Tea Party-Repuglicans have a good candidate, but because Democratic voters become so discouraged and fed-up that they again do not vote.

The Clinton baggage is a ponderous chain.

Seeing her mock Barack Obama and his supporters like that still makes me angry at her.

I have to agree with the essence of the OP -- 2016 may be the last best change to have a presidential 'game changer' election. We either seize that opportunity with a bold, progressive nominee ... or we resign ourselves to a Repuglican pluto-theocracy or four years of Hillary-Wall Street malaise.

 

LawDeeDah

(1,596 posts)
62. Makes me cringe to hear stuff like that
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:33 AM
Nov 2014

and like you say, there are sooooo many more like that.
Makes me cringe in fear that people think this is a person qualified to be President. This tone deaf empty vessel that has to poll for whatever opinion suits her at the moment.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
77. I appreciate you making the comment about this
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:29 AM
Nov 2014

It is not only she herself that is tone deaf, but also her supporters.

rock

(13,218 posts)
67. Well, if your anonymous friend said so
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 12:42 PM
Nov 2014

And now here you are posting it on the web. It must be true. I'm convinced! (Must I really post ?)

 

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)
68. Wow!
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 01:34 PM
Nov 2014

This sarcastic post ridiculing me for having an opinion has made me rethink my life entirely.

I shall now retire to a monastery and live a life of chastity and silent contemplation, worshiping at a tasteful shrine dedicated to Hilary Clinton, forever grateful that you took the time to grace me with your scintillating intellect.

WhiteTara

(29,676 posts)
76. She lost to an incredibly charismatic man
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:45 PM
Nov 2014

who is black and represented change. Being a woman is even more difficult in any field, so I wasn't surprised that a man was chosen over a woman.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
55. I think she will try hard to run in the primary well to the left of Hillary 2008.
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:19 AM
Nov 2014

Will Democrats see through it? I hope so.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
8. Warren would be a terrible choice.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 02:53 AM
Nov 2014

She is an economic populist and certainly has all the right words for the economic issues, but she has nothing else going for her. She is an economics professor with a couple of relatively minor government appointed positions under her belt. There is no foreign policy experience, no government administration experience, no military experience...

The few times she has ventured int discussing these issues she has made statements that were vague to the point of being nothing more than changing the subject, with the exception of being a 100% supporter of "Israel's right to defend itself."

She is a one trick pony and, while it is a really good trick, she has shown us absolutely nothing else that she can do.

 

bigdarryl

(13,190 posts)
11. This is the best response I've seen on Warren
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:46 AM
Nov 2014

You are 110% correct she is a one trick pony not that I disagree with her but running for President is not a good thing for her she would probably loose to someone like Jed Bush.or even Rand Paul

lyonn

(6,064 posts)
29. Lacking foreign experience? Even I have more than a repub
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 02:29 PM
Nov 2014

She is smart enough to know the difference beteen a Shiite and Sunni, that's more than could have been said about Bush W. She appears to be a quick learner. Hillary still worries me with her world view. Will she lean towards troops on the ground?

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
30. Oh, I'm not advocating Hillary.
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 02:31 PM
Nov 2014

Far from it. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of championing a candidate because of their view on one single issue, and that one single issue is all that she has ever spoken to.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
39. Problem solving
Thu Nov 20, 2014, 12:05 PM
Nov 2014

Maybe that one single issue is the issue the American people are screaming for. Remember Bill Clinton's winning campaign cry, "it's the economy, stupid". I don't see World War 111 on the immediate horizon and what are the State Dept and presidential foreign advisers for? Why isn't a progressive economic recovery a game-winning strategy? Everybody is screaming a lack of money here and a lack there, let's cut this and let's give there, how much will Keystone cost, equal pay for equal work, minimum wage, income inequality, banking abuses, inversions, corporate welfare and I ask how many pending issues are economic in nature? This one trick pony seems to address a huge amount of America's problems.

 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
45. Except Wall Street, banks and executive pay (the 1%) are not the whole problem
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:05 AM
Nov 2014

and that is the entirety of her mantra. The money wasted on wars and "national security," and the inability to develop high paying jobs are of huge imporatnce, and she has no solutions to offer for those. All she does is switch the topic back to blaming the one percent.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
47. Hillary has wasted money on wars and is inept on creating jobs?
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:47 AM
Nov 2014

"Money wasted on wars and national security" the key word is money, the basis of the American ECONOMY and her specialty. "Inability to develop high paying jobs" there's that implied word money again. "Switch the topic" I hope your looking in the mirror because everything you present are economic issues which is "the one trick pony" expertise. Have you forgotten she's on the banking committee and her limited exposure has been questioning bankers. This new leadership position will give her the podium to expand her views. She just came out against Obama's treasury pick involving her in the nominating process (just the beginning).

Iamthetruth

(487 posts)
43. Warren is better served in the senate
Thu Nov 20, 2014, 01:17 PM
Nov 2014

Stirring the pot behind the scenes. Hillary can win, Warren would have no shot just like Sanders would be.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
48. Hillary can't win
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 04:55 AM
Nov 2014

The Millennials and Progressives won't vote for her and there's not enough ConsevaDems to elect her. Barack Hussein Obama the Black, Muslim terrorist born in Kenya is far more damaging a label than a "Democratic Socialist".

Persondem

(1,936 posts)
80. Agree completely
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 11:49 PM
Nov 2014

Warren's only useful experience is as an economics professor. She has no foreign policy experience, no other credential other than economic. Her manner is off-putting to many Americans - too pedantic. Let her work in the Senate on things that she knows about.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
66. Remember "It's the ECONOMY stupid"?
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 11:49 AM
Nov 2014

Hardly a political loser of a slogan!

Considering the ECONOMY is the BIGGEST issue
on the minds of 99% of Americans, maybe someone
who understands and defend the PUBLIC INTERESTS
is exactly what is needed?

No president makes foreign policy alone.
That's what they have a cabinet and advisers.

whathehell

(28,968 posts)
81. "She's an economic populist....but she has nothing else going for her"
Sun Nov 23, 2014, 10:15 AM
Nov 2014

How much did Obama have when HE was running for President?

If she has only one thing going for her, I'd say that's more than Obama had

when HE ran -- He had no foreign policy experience either, and even LESS

time as a senator.

Additionally, as we have seen, he is no "economic populist".

I think you underestimate how RARE being an economic populist in today's democratic

party IS, and just how much it is worth.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
10. Buster, the DU cry is and will continue to be that we should bend over and accept
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:52 AM
Nov 2014

that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. Yes can you hear it "Rah rah, Hillary is the only one that can save us."

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
84. No, not true
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 03:33 AM
Nov 2014

And while I oppose her, I don't hate her. I dislike her. It's funny how people make it out to be Hillary "the victim" because anyone dare say something bad about her.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
12. Does anyone of you here still knows that there are 3
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:49 AM
Nov 2014

Co-equal branches of the gov't. in this country? Where the heck do you - as supporters of Elizabeth Warren or Socialist Bernie Sanders - get this beliefs that if they were elected Presidents that it will be a game changer? You guys said the same shit about Pres.Obama before he got elected.

Even if in your remote pipe dreams that your fantasy candidates win, how are they gonna govern the country that will see them enact your pipe dream solutions, when the house and the Supreme court are under the control of the Republican party? The last time I checked the last C.E.O. President this country had was during the reign of King George III and we know what happened, we had a revolution and formed this Republic.

Like it or not, Liberals are not the majority in this country, never was and never will be. A socialist Bernie Sanders will never be elected as President same goes to former Republican and recent Democratic convert Sen.Elizabeth Warren.

busterbrown

(8,515 posts)
16. First off why are you labeling Bernie Sander’s a Socialist?
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 02:34 PM
Nov 2014

Because he espouses concepts and ideas which favor the middle class? Single Payor, Stronger regulations on Banks and Corporations? Stronger Environmental laws?

It might be awhile but people who vote against their own interests (dumbed down republicans) are going to experience such pain that they are going to at one point see the light.

The republicans are in the process of destroying our country by eliminating the concept of a strong middle class.
People like you or either prospering from this lousy economy or favor an Ayn Rand type solution..

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
17. Well
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:01 PM
Nov 2014

I did not label the socialist tag on Sen.Bernie Sanders, Sir/Maam. He is a self-described socialist and the fact is Sen.Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has never been the party of the socialists nor it's creation was to provide the platform foe socialist agenda.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
59. He's a self-described Democratic Socialist and a self described Indie who may run
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:23 AM
Nov 2014

as a Democrat or an Indie.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
32. They said the same shit about Obama and now they're mad and hate him--they blame him
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:11 PM
Nov 2014

because they STILL don't realize that there are THREE, separate and co-equal branches of government.

And it doesn't matter if Hillary, Elizabeth, or Bernie wins the presidency. They STILL have to work with two other co-equal branches of government.

Even if Bernie wins, as much complaining as he does about Obama not being liberal enough and not having a spine, the reality of having to work with others who don't hold the exact same ideological persuasions as you do will creep in.

At some point, even Ted Kennedy realized this, and we saw him working with some of the nuttiest of wingnuts in the Senate.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
37. Exactly!!!
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:33 PM
Nov 2014

But for the life of me, It is hard for me to square this reality that some Liberals on this forum are either so out of touch with reality, or simply clueless on how the govt. works, which is pretty scary and sad.

TheFarseer

(9,308 posts)
15. like i keep saying
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 01:46 PM
Nov 2014

She will implement a mostly republican agenda and when it doesn't work republicans still get to complain about it. It's the best thing in the world for them.

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
18. What utter nonsense!!
Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:03 PM
Nov 2014

What Hillary Clinton will do is enact the policies that will get this country moving in the right direction, most of which has started by Pres.Obama.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
23. One can't, only a sell-out can
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:51 PM
Nov 2014

Have you forgotten your previous post; Co-equal gov, the repub congress and (R)supreme court being the reason progressives couldn't get anything done? Now you say Hillary will enact policies with these same repub barriers? Will all these repubs cave and knell before almighty Hillary and enact her policies or will Hillary become one of them and enact her/their policies?

 

Legalequilibrium78

(103 posts)
38. Then we will just see now won't we?
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 09:56 PM
Nov 2014

But I am hedging that Hillary Clinton will be a much formidable opponent legislatively, than say compared to your preferred candidates. The amount of time, connections personal and professional that the Clintons have racked up will help Hillary Clinton on ensuring or securing important piece of policies and agendas. You may cringe or dislike what I just wrote, but this is the real world, a matter of fact this how it also works in your professional field. Ideas and ideals are necessary to propel a vision. On the other hand, ideas and vision will not come to pass in our system of govt. without getting dirty and yes working with our political opposites.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
74. Not Going To Argue With You...
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:50 PM
Nov 2014

But that's BULL CRAP! But you did say one thing that I can agree with "country moving in the right direction" I'm sick of the RIGHT!

Response to busterbrown (Original post)

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
20. We're the idiots? Have you seen your stable of pols and potential pres candidates? Do you like
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:07 PM
Nov 2014

pepperoni?

Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #20)

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
22. Us morons? Rand Paul is the best you can come up with??? You didn't answer my question. Have you
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:10 PM
Nov 2014

seen your stable of politicians and possible presidential candidates?

Also, do you smell the pepperoni yet?

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
25. I won't be supporting Hillary.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:02 PM
Nov 2014

But if she runs, I wish her the best. I will be content with whatever decision fellow DEMs and the American people make.
I support Democracy. If she wins, fine. I just won't be voting for her.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
26. There are several things I find actually scary about this drumbeat for Hillary.
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:11 PM
Nov 2014

First off, she had her chance in 2008. She was inevitable then, we were told, and yet we are NOT at this point half way through her second term.

She has moved steadily to the right over the years. I don't trust her to stand up for middle class people, let alone the working class or the poor. She has been living in a bubble ever since Bill became President, and she has completely lost any connection with anyone outside that bubble.

She, and her surrogates, are doing everything they can to make sure that no one else is seen as even remotely viable, which is why the only names that come up as potential candidates are mostly other old and out of touch politicians. The closest thing to a newcomer who gets mentioned is Elizabeth Warren, and she's dismissed far too readily.

I just wish that there could be some absolute gag order on ANY speculation about who might run for President from Election Night until about 15 months before the next one. That way we could just pay attention to all the things we should be paying attention to, and potential candidates could (I'm expecting a miracle here) do nothing at all about positioning themselves to run, and we'd actually get to more realistically assess any potential candidates.

What Hillary mostly has going for her is name recognition, and that's it.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
61. Her name recognition is not necessarily a positive.
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:28 AM
Nov 2014

She also has her gender going for her. I think many are desperate for a woman to be President. And, thanks to the guy who invaded her personal space when she ran for Senator, there is also a mythology that one has to be kinder to a female candidate than a male, or it will backfire. Then, there's EMILYs List

On the other hand, many are sexist, so it may be a wash.

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
27. You really think another GW Bush-type result would be good in the long run?
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 12:04 AM
Nov 2014

How'd that work for us last time?

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
33. How'd that work for us last time? You do realize that voters just put Republicans back in
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:36 PM
Nov 2014

charge, right? After all they've done to destroy this country, dumb-ass voters reelected them. And yes, even those who stayed at home. Those stay-at-home votes count as Republican votes.

Apparently Americans haven't suffered enough under Republican rule.

---

Note: I work for the federal government and when the Republicans shut down the government, the government really didn't "shut down" completely. In other words, the constituencies that tend to vote Republican were not fully affected. For example, Americans 65 and older vote in overwhelming numbers for Republican, independent of income or education. They are more likely to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. When the government shut down, both parties went out of their way to ensure that those checks continued to arrive in the mail. I say: let those people understand what it means not to have a fully functioning government. Let them really understand how government works. Stop all the government payouts to military personnel and especially the military contractors. It was a slap in the face that military contractors continued to receive pay (their payment would eventually run out had the government shutdown continued, but they were still receiving pay). Those contractors would be on my Facebook laughing and taunting federal government employees--arrogantly mocking us and bragging about the fact that they were getting paid 4 times more for the work they were doing. It was disgusting!

My point?

Americans are as fucking arrogant as we are stupid and ignorant. Every single American needs to feel the pain of this shutdown so that we will be forced to understand just how important and essential government is to our daily lives. Stop the regulations and see how dirty food and contaminated water impacts people's lives. And only those very wealthy communities that can afford private industry to clean the water and inspect the food will be able to live healthy lives. Only the very wealthy who can pay for refuse disposal will be able to enjoy that service. And only the neighborhoods with a healthy, high-earning tax base will have the best schools (oh, wait...that already happens!).

We haven't yet suffered enough in our self-entitlement and our arrogance.

As the Canadian who recently wrote about how we have taken President Obama for granted stated: We Americans simply do not know how good we have it. It is this self-entitled, bratty behavior that has made this country the laughingstock of the entire world.

We have not suffered enough. Not at all.

BeyondGeography

(39,276 posts)
34. Been there, done that
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:55 PM
Nov 2014

Republicans bring disaster and people never learn. You should realize by now that a white male Republican will be absolved of all crimes by most of the majority population no matter how bad they fuck it up. That mortgage crisis was caused by poor black people, you know. It is never their fault.

The OP's attitude is what got us the 2000 result. There were plenty of people spouting about the value of suffering back then. Wrong.

If Hillary is the nominee and people on the left root against her thinking that the Republican will fuck it up so bad that we will have some sort of national healing moment that will lead to FDR Deux, they're certifiably nuts.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
35. I do agree. I'm more inclined not to understand the thinking of those who proudly
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:11 PM
Nov 2014

proclaim that staying at home "to teach them a lesson" hasn't done anything but bring more misery.

And no one has been able to explain how it makes sense that MORE elected Republicans will make Obama move to the political left?

How will Landrieu's loss to a Republican in LA make Obama's impending impeachment any less plausible? It doesn't. It *increases* the likelihood, not decreases.

And perhaps you're right.

No amount of suffering will ever get even poor white people to overcome hatred. I'm forced to reflect back on Alexandra Pelosi's recent documentary where she spoke to poor whites in Appalachia and other parts of the deep south who admitted to relying on welfare. They told her how much they hated government and how much they hated Obama because he's black. And even after she reminded them that they themselves were on welfare--that in fact most whites, not minorities, are on public assistance--they proudly responded that they EARNED welfare! WOW!! They deserved their public assistance, not blacks! (Note: public assistance comes in all forms, including unemployment insurance and various mortgage/homeowners programs that many Americans take advantage of--but only black people are typically equated with "public assistance" or welfare.)

Social Security insurance fraud is huge! And rampant! (in the form of workman's comp). And yet, we hear very little about it. Why is that?

Anyway, you're right.

I guess I'll keep pushing along... smh

bhikkhu

(10,708 posts)
28. "quickly bring the country to its bottom", then the voters wise up?
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 01:01 AM
Nov 2014

That's what the other side has been trying to do for 6 years. I don't think its a good idea for either side, whether "in power" or not, to stop trying to govern and advocate for people's best interests. Its irresponsible and it doesn't work. I'd hope we chose the best candidate, and that we retain the presidency. Lacking that, we have a good chance of regaining enough seats in congress to continue to influence good legislation and policies.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
57. Your theory that if we lose the Presidency the country will suddenly see the light and subsequently
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:21 AM
Nov 2014

vote accordingly, does not take into account that it may be too late by then.

Most likely there will be at least one Supreme Court Appointment for the next President. The court is already almost gone, and just hanging on by a thread. A republican presidential SC appointment would be disaster, and seal things for the next 20 years.

If that happened no doubt in my mind all the advances made in the 50's, 60's, and 70's from Civil rights, Women's rights, workers rights, separation of church and state, and so many other issues would undone.

There is also no doubt in my mind Senator Warren is not going to run, she has said so multiple times.

The Democratic candidates that most likely will run will be Jim Webb. Bernie Sanders, who will become a Democrat to run, and Hillary Clinton. I don't think Biden will run if Hillary runs.

Jim Webb has good progressive credentials on most issues, and we all know where Bernie Sanders stands, so as far as the primaries are concerned, you should have plenty of alternative choices.

I won't speculate which candidate has the best odds, most have already assumed anyway, but I will say messaging will be the key, and can make or break a candidate.

In the end, whoever gets the Democratic nomination, that Democrat will will be far superior than any republican potential prospect. Remember the bush's gave Thomas, and Alito.

 

Skeowes28

(62 posts)
63. Game changer
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:35 AM
Nov 2014

Vote for her if she gets the nomination or will have a real fNr changer in 6 conservative supreme ct justices

merrily

(45,251 posts)
64. Warren and Clinton do not compromise the universe of potential candidates.
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 10:37 AM
Nov 2014

I hope we see a dozen or so names at the start of the primary. In a country of 350 million, that should not be unrealistic.

If Hillary is the nominee, I don't think we will have to worry about President Clinton. She is disliked by many, both Democratic and Republican; she has more baggage than Louis Vuitton.

The more people are exposed to her, the lower her ratings go. She started out 30 points ahead of Obama, with a more seasoned team and bigger donors and lost to him, anyway. She had high ratings at the start of her book tour and the longer the tour lasted, the lower her ratings went.

This idea that she is a shoo in is fabricated out of whole cloth. The idea that, not only is she a shoo in, but she is the only Democrat who can possibly win the general is a Big Lie.

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
73. I Think We, As Democrats Need To Wake Up To
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 08:47 PM
Nov 2014

a little reality! I really don't support Hillary and I'm a female (that's a stupid reason anyway) but I just think she's too cagey. Am I, Am I not, will I, will I not, just let the stuff fly around. Plus, I don't really trust her. Mixed messages, lack of loyalty, very DLC and tied to Corporations and seems very hawkish.

I have never supported her at any time, and I really think we don't really know what we're getting. I have more questions about her than answers. I could go on, but just a few points to ponder.

And, I'm already TIRED of hearing about her! Yes, I'm a Liberal, but I can compromise to some extent... just not her.

Zorro

(15,691 posts)
75. I think Hillary is quite an accomplished and well-qualified politician
Fri Nov 21, 2014, 09:55 PM
Nov 2014

She'll have my vote if she runs.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
78. I don't really care for either of them. I picked Obama over Hillary last time. Warren is a late to
Sat Nov 22, 2014, 03:51 PM
Nov 2014

the Party former Republican, still smacks of social conservatism and her 'firm progressive stance' was absent all through her years of ardently voting for anti choice, anti gay, racist and down right ignorant policies. She says none of that mattered to her, because she thought Reaganomics was good for the 'markets'. She made millions under those policies. But those policies she favored helped destroy the middle class, bust unions and plunge the world into a major pandemic health crisis.
Very difficult for me to even think of any Reagan era Republican as anything like a decent person. She has not adequately spoken about her support for hateful, shitty, sexist and bigoted policies. She waves it off with more talk about money. She's got lots of money.

If Warren was our nominee, and Jeb theirs, we'd have a unique situation in which the nominees of each Party would have a common history of voting for the Republican Party and in particular for the father of Jeb both as VP and for President, twice. If nothing else that's interesting trivia.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I was gonna support Hilla...