HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I just have to say someth...

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:09 PM

I just have to say something about this dynasty crapola

First, I have literally no doubt in my mind that if a scion of the Kennedy family were running espousing the view Sanders does the same people bleeting about dynasties would have not one word to say (especially if that person were running against Hillary Clinton). But it isn't just the hypocrisy of this crowd that irritates me. It is the essential lack of truth in the charge of dynasty.

Let's start with a real dynastic candidate. Jeb Bush's grandfather was a US Senator who went to a private school and then to Yale who's own father was president of a steel company. His grandmother also went to a private high school and had been raised in privilege. His father was the son of a Senator, went to Yale, and served in the US House, was CIA Director, VP, and President. His mother went to a series of private schools and grew up in privilege. His older brother went to a private school, then Harvard, was Governor of Texas, and then President. He went to a private school, then to University of Texas, was Governor of Florida.

In comparison, Hilary's father was the child of an immigrant, played football at Penn State and started a successful textile business. Her mother was quite literally a starving orphan. She was the first woman and only the second person in her family to attend college. Her husband, grew up with a single mother, was the first in his family to attend college. The fact is that her credentials in 69 were equal to his but they went back to Arkansas because of the sexism that was prevalent in the early 70's. Remember as a married woman in the early 70's she couldn't even get credit in her own name in large swaths of the country. What ever one thinks of Bill and Hillary Clinton, they worked themselves up to the positions they are in now. Only one of their four parents went to college and none of their grandparents did. In contrast, Jeb grew up in massive privilege as did his parents and grandparents. Hillary isn't a dynastic candidate no matter how many manifestly dishonest people pretend she is.

116 replies, 12347 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 116 replies Author Time Post
Reply I just have to say something about this dynasty crapola (Original post)
dsc Jul 2015 OP
Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #1
Sheepshank Jul 2015 #61
Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #62
LWolf Jul 2015 #2
hifiguy Jul 2015 #91
George II Jul 2015 #95
LWolf Jul 2015 #103
LordGlenconner Jul 2015 #3
Cha Jul 2015 #74
George II Jul 2015 #96
Cha Jul 2015 #99
OKNancy Jul 2015 #4
Cleita Jul 2015 #7
OKNancy Jul 2015 #20
Cleita Jul 2015 #23
OKNancy Jul 2015 #24
DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #40
Sheepshank Jul 2015 #63
treestar Jul 2015 #112
restorefreedom Jul 2015 #11
artislife Jul 2015 #54
Metric System Jul 2015 #57
artislife Jul 2015 #58
HappyMe Jul 2015 #59
dsc Jul 2015 #68
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #73
spqr78 Jul 2015 #82
dsc Jul 2015 #85
spqr78 Jul 2015 #86
Metric System Jul 2015 #79
artislife Jul 2015 #97
Cleita Jul 2015 #5
dsc Jul 2015 #9
Cleita Jul 2015 #14
dsc Jul 2015 #16
Cleita Jul 2015 #22
dsc Jul 2015 #25
spqr78 Jul 2015 #83
Cleita Jul 2015 #84
spqr78 Jul 2015 #88
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #30
JI7 Jul 2015 #37
Martin Eden Jul 2015 #6
daybranch Jul 2015 #19
Martin Eden Jul 2015 #26
abakan Jul 2015 #50
spqr78 Jul 2015 #94
dflprincess Jul 2015 #102
Martin Eden Jul 2015 #110
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #8
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #32
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #36
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #72
spqr78 Jul 2015 #98
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #101
spqr78 Jul 2015 #108
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #116
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #10
sufrommich Jul 2015 #12
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #13
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #18
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #33
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #38
whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #41
HFRN Jul 2015 #31
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #34
HFRN Jul 2015 #35
JoePhilly Jul 2015 #39
Tarheel_Dem Jul 2015 #44
HFRN Jul 2015 #70
Cha Jul 2015 #75
tazkcmo Jul 2015 #49
bvar22 Jul 2015 #42
Sheepshank Jul 2015 #66
SheilaT Jul 2015 #46
spqr78 Jul 2015 #92
sufrommich Jul 2015 #15
PATRICK Jul 2015 #17
DemocraticWing Jul 2015 #21
spqr78 Jul 2015 #93
HFRN Jul 2015 #27
SidDithers Jul 2015 #113
HFRN Jul 2015 #114
quickesst Jul 2015 #28
djean111 Jul 2015 #29
Lil Missy Jul 2015 #43
aintitfunny Jul 2015 #45
oasis Jul 2015 #76
tazkcmo Jul 2015 #47
spqr78 Jul 2015 #48
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #78
spqr78 Jul 2015 #87
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #89
spqr78 Jul 2015 #100
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #104
spqr78 Jul 2015 #106
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #107
spqr78 Jul 2015 #109
LuvLoogie Jul 2015 #115
Mike Nelson Jul 2015 #51
Popcorn 51 Jul 2015 #52
BlueJazz Jul 2015 #53
MerryBlooms Jul 2015 #55
HappyMe Jul 2015 #56
Trajan Jul 2015 #60
Post removed Jul 2015 #64
dsc Jul 2015 #65
StevieM Jul 2015 #67
tblue37 Jul 2015 #69
oasis Jul 2015 #71
Scuba Jul 2015 #77
dsc Jul 2015 #80
mike_c Jul 2015 #81
Cleita Jul 2015 #90
tularetom Jul 2015 #105
treestar Jul 2015 #111

Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:22 PM

1. It must be hard for some people to see the Clintons got an education, worked hard to get where

They are now. They started as a young couple without means and achieved assets on their own. I would have thought this would be the American dream rather than the dream to complain when others are successful, to bash those who worked hard and played by the rules. I am happy for anyone who works hard to have something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:27 PM

61. Drive, ambition and knowledge, used to be good qualities

 

These are very savvy people who know how to get what they want. To convert that same drive and knowledge in politics to get policies passed...it's one important edge Hillary has over Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #61)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:30 PM

62. Yes, she isn't a one trick pony show.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:24 PM

2. If a Kennedy or Clinton were running on

Sander's record and positions, I'd support them.

They aren't. And they won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 07:51 PM

91. And the last Kennedy to run for POTUS was Ted. 35 years ago.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:50 PM

95. Sanders has positions, true, but a sparse record of achievement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #95)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:17 PM

103. His record of achievements

has been posted repeatedly for anyone who had any intention of acknowledging them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:30 PM

3. The last Clinton elected president was in 1996

 

Almost 20 years ago. We've had 2 terrible presidents named Bush. And one named Clinton who did a pretty good job. And yet, in the eyes of many here, they are equal parts of the same kind of evil.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LordGlenconner (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:37 AM

74. And, besides that, LG.. It's sexist and demagogical. Hillary is her own person.. she's not

President Clinton.

She's worked hard on her own and has her own experience to get this far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #74)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:51 PM

96. And has her own impressive list of achievements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #96)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:08 PM

99. Yes, very much so.. thank you, George.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:32 PM

4. Not only all that which is all true, but she could divorce Bill

Boom... not related to him any more, so no dynasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:42 PM

7. Sorry. Not a valid comparison. She would always be know as the

former Mrs. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:20 PM

20. so, she is not related. I true dynasty means a relation

but go ahead and believe what you want. Soon you will be calling her Madam President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:28 PM

23. She will never be Madam President. She has too much baggage

including the biggest drag, Bill Clinton. A lot of Americans really don't want him back in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:28 PM

24. bookmarking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:00 PM

40. "Facts are stubborn things..."


She will never be Madam President. She has too much baggage including the biggest drag, Bill Clinton. A lot of Americans really don't want him back in the White House.















Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:31 PM

63. Dynasties are passed on parent to child

 

You are correct that not only is this not a dynasty, but that Bill is less of a liability than any Bernie supporter would care to admit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 08:32 AM

112. He would not be President

So he would not be "back in the WH."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:52 PM

11. that's a good comeback

but even divorced, she is not where i am on issues. but good one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:43 PM

54. If she hadn't been married to a president

 

I wonder if she would have ever been elected as a senator of such an influential state. We will never know and that is why I think the word dynasty is pretty close to describing her situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #54)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:57 PM

57. If Bill hadn't been married to Hillary he may never have been President. We will never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:00 PM

58. We didn't elect her first.

 

False argument, imo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #57)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:01 PM

59. lol! Really?



Seriously?


I voted for HIM. Had nothing to do with her. I didn't vote for Obama because of Michelle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #59)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:46 PM

68. You have no idea the extent to which she made him a better poltician

nor for that matter do I. No married person is unaffected by his or her spouse. Watch the Roosevelts on PBS and tell me that Teddy's and Franklin's wives didn't have an immense part in their becoming President. In Teddy's case it was his wife's death but still. But that dynamic was the poster's point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #68)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:30 AM

73. It's a wonder how progressives are so dismissive

of a woman's influence. The Clintons are a power couple who have busted their asses all their lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #68)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 04:45 PM

82. another desperate attempt

 

To suggest that the Clinton's are just like the Roosevelt's.

After nearly thirty years of modeling their lives in the image of Ronald Reagan, it's to late to pretend they're New Deal Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #82)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 05:43 PM

85. Not that their policies are similar

but actually Nancy also had a heavy hand in Ronald's governance. But if you don't like the Roosevelts then try the Wilsons or the Hardings. The fact is first ladies often shape their husbands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #85)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:02 PM

86. I don't doubt that.

 

But whenever I say I don't want Hillary Clinton to be president because of things that happened during Bill Clinton's administration, I'm told by Hillary's supporters that its unfair because she was only the first lady, not a member of the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #59)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:54 AM

79. When he lost his first bid for Governor, it was Hillary who convinced him to run again and was his

campaign manager in all but title. If there was no Governor Clinton, there would likely have been no President Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #59)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:51 PM

97. But if Michelle ran for senator

 

Of your state you would have name recognition. You would base your interest in learning more on policies supported by her husband.

I really cannot believe that we are mincing the meaning of the word dynasty when the concept is what is being debated. Reminds me of the definition of is. Another bright shiny example of the shared history of those two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:41 PM

5. So what do you think of kids of famous people getting jobs over

more qualified applicants because of whom their family is? I can think of a Kennedy who did and I never approved. So to answer your question, I agree it shouldn't be because of your association in that person's life. Btw Jackie never ran for any political office even though she could have ridden on John's coatails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:47 PM

9. Jackie hated public life with the intensity of a million suns especially after her husband was

killed. If Chelsea were to run, then you might have a point. Her job as a reporter seemed to be unearned. But I can't think of any job Hillary got that she wasn't qualified for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:58 PM

14. My point is that she wouldn't be a public figure except for Bill.

Sure she could have run for office, but I don't think she would have gotten any further than senator, like Barbara Boxer, whom I think is way more qualified to be first woman President than Hillary, yet she's never asked because she doesn't have the razmatazz of a Bill Clinton behind her. Now she's just retiring, yet I wonder if it had been her instead of Clinton in 2008, she might have won over President Obama, whom IMHO, was too inexperienced to be President. It's taken him that whole time to learn the job and how to deal in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:03 PM

16. frankly if you take out the sexism of the 70's

her qualifications for a political career were at least as good as his. The notion she only succeeded in life because of him is absurd. They both had college degrees, both had worked for legislative staffs, and both had connections due to those facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:25 PM

22. In the times when we had royalty, the queen had to be as well

educated as her husband because she often had to run the kingdom while the king was off to war but unless she was really ruthless, she did not succeed him. I don't think Hillary has the experience and background she should have. Why didn't she run for governor of New York first before eyeing the Presidency to get some executive experience first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:29 PM

25. running the state department isn't executive experience?

I would be willing to bet that the state department has more employees or at least close to as many employees, as Burlington has people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 04:48 PM

83. True.

 

But they also had to marry their cousins and believe that God chose them to rule over lesser people.

I'm not suggesting that Bill and Hillary are cousins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #83)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 05:03 PM

84. Sometimes they had to marry their brothers but I'm not suggesting that either.

I'm saying the queen did not inherit the throne from her husband no matter how much she was prepared for it. That only happened when she murdered all her siblings and then became ruler, like Cleopatra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #84)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:14 PM

88. If a sister marries her brother...

 

They're of the same dynasty, so she would or could inherit the throne.

But dynasties are messy at any time, and their beginnings are never as clear cut as official history remembers.

It could end up as the Rodham dynasty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:39 PM

30. Such bull

How do you know Bill Clinton becomes President without Hillary Rodham? You don't. You belittle her ability to excel and inspire. Maybe Bill becomes Governor, but that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:57 PM

37. that's bs

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:42 PM

6. I agree with the OP

A candidate must be judged on his or her own merits. FDR came from privilege and his uncle was POTUS, but we don't hold that against him.

I admire both the Clintons, especially Bill, for how far they've risen given their backgrounds.

That's why I take no joy in pointing out the damage Bill did in office by embracing trade agreements that siphoned off American jobs and for the repeal of Glass-Steagall that led to the financial devastation of so many Americans. I wish I could support Hillary in the primary, but I can't because of her coziness with Wall Street and her vote for the Iraq war.

Those are real, tangible, dreadfully consequential issues that are huge check marks against the Clintons.

The word "dynasty" (whether applicable or not) has no meaning compared to actual policies that affect real people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:15 PM

19. well said.

I do not know how to the clapping hands thing in this email but I am clapping for you at home. Go Bernie , Go O Malley, Go Elizabeth, Go Sherrod. Real supporters of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:33 PM

26. Thanks

All the Democratic candidates (including Hillary) have good qualities but on some extremely consequential issues and based on the actual record, I won't support Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary. We can do better. Our country desperately NEEDS to do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:17 PM

50. My feelings exactly! Thank You...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:41 PM

94. well said.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:43 PM

102. Teddy Roosevelt was FDR's 5th cousin (once or twice removed); he was Eleanor's uncle.

Sorry - I can't control myself over facts like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #102)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 06:30 AM

110. You are correct

And thank you.

I actually watched the recent documentary on the Roosevelts and knew Teddy was Eleanor's uncle, not Franklin's. Just a little careless on my part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:45 PM

8. Your first assumption is false and the rest is immaterial

Only idolaters and groupies would reflexively throw their support behind the scion of a popular politician. You know, the folks who daydream about the political careers of Chelsea and Malia.... In a functioning democracy the only consideration is platform. I'm curious how many successive generations of Kennedys you think democrats would auto-support. Another place where this breaks down is political access, if the inevitable name brands always dominate the process, all other voices and ideas are shut out. Not exactly the promise of America. Finally, whatever their origins; humble or silver spoon, they're all elites now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:41 PM

32. So was FDR.

He was blue blood who evolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:53 PM

36. I don't see privilege as

the salient issue in this discussion. It's more about the concentration of political power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:24 AM

72. Can America become a kibbutz? Adopt the Amish model?

For political power to remain with the people, the citizenry must contribute to the governing order beyond elections. But the citizenry abdicates its power instead.

Hear is what Bernie said at the end of his NRN remarks:

"The only way in my view that we are going to transform America is to develop a strong grass roots movement which I call a political revolution.

In other words we do not win and transform America when 63% of the American people don't vote. We don't transform America when 80% of the American people, young people, don't vote.

So let me conclude my remarks by just saying this...

no president...will be able to achieve what has to be done unless there is a political revolution.

We need a mass movement of the American people to say very clearly that enough is enough. This government, this country belongs to all of us and not a handful of billionaires."


Bernie alludes to a revolution outside of the electoral process, rather than point out to people that they need to get up off their asses and AT LEAST vote. Use it or loose it.

If the well being of the people you love isn't enough to motivate you to choose, then you get what you get and you don't get upset.

Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters voted in the 2014 elections. That is a dereliction of duty which warrants being stripped of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #72)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:54 PM

98. you've got it backwards

 

The people stopped voting when their votes stopped affecting the conduct of the administrations that were elected.

If I went into a restaurant and ordered a steak, but in lieu of a steak, the waiter punched me in the face and stole my wallet, I would only go back to that restaurant for that same treatment 8 or 10 more times before I stopped believing that they had what I asked for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #98)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:29 PM

101. So the President is like a Porterhouse?

Maybe you should get a bite to eat. Maybe a nice PBJ.

Something...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #101)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 01:33 AM

108. no, but the last several presidents have been liars and thieves.

 

Our government used to be an agreement between we the people and the megalomaniacal sociopaths who craved power. We would Give them power, and they would make the trains run on time, build roads, pay old people money so we wouldn't have to set them adrift on iceflows, and whatever else we could all agree was a benefit to society.

They haven't been keeping their end of the bargain for several decades now. But about thirty percent of the population believe that if we keep voting for the same parties over and over and over again, it will magically get better.

It's so hard to hear the disappointment in their voices and the desperate rationalizations of, "hey, he wanted to fix things, but the other party wouldn't let him!", and, "He actively lobbied congress to pass legislation that is in direct opposition to his campaign promises and fifty years of party doctrine as part of a complex plan to accomplish a greater good!", and, "His complex plan to accomplish the greater good was thwarted by the other party because of their natural cunning and evil, we'll just have to live with the consequences of his honest attempt.".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #108)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 10:37 PM

116. We all hear about how congress has a single-digit approval rating.

Yet most incumbents are elected.

There were over 50 votes to repeal the ACA. There have been over 400 Republican filibusters in the Senate. A lot of bills died that would have otherwise amounted to accumulated progress during President Obama's tenure. These things really happened.

Dem's got shellacked in 2010 and lost the house. Only 37.8 percent of eligible voters showed up to vote then, and only 36.4 percent showed up in 2014, when the Dems lost the Senate.

If our representatives have stopped listening to us, maybe it's because we've stopped paying attention to what they are doing. Laissez faire socioeconomics wins out because the citizens are laissez faire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:51 PM

10. Some struggle to see a woman doing the same job her husband did ... and not ...

... being able to be her own person.

She's an extension of him, in their minds.

The word "dynasty" would make sense if we were discussing a run by Chelsea Clinton.

Go back to the JFK reference.

If Robert F Kennedy were not assassinated, and he ran for President, would anyone have called that a dynasty?

Or how about those who supported a run by Ted Kennedy some years later? Were people upset about that Dynasty?

Nope they were "different" people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:53 PM

12. This.The double standard is practically slapping the

deniers in the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:54 PM

13. Dynasty would apply to the Bush family

For the Clintons, fine let's call it nepotistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:12 PM

18. So a former Senator and SecState is unqualified to be President?

Because inherent in the meaning of that word is that the person in question is not qualified for the position in question.

You might not like Hillary ... but she is certainly qualified to hold the position.

Oh on edit ... usually that term is used when a person in power appoints this unqualified individual. Which is also not true here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:46 PM

33. Sure, she's qualified

but the gravitas imparted by these family associations is a pretty big leg up. It may be within Hillary and Jeb's rights to run, but AFAIC it's a powerful example of the way wealth and power concentrate. That's not something we want to validate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:58 PM

38. But that is not nepotisim.

A simple question ...

Have you every heard of a store called something like "Bob and Sons"?

Of course you have. We all have.

My great grandfather worked in construction. So did my Grandfather. So did my father, and his brother. And, the sons of my uncle all still work in construction. Check your own family. I bet you find some similar history.

Should we tell them that this is "not something we want to validate?"

Hillary studied law in college. Practiced law after. Supported her husband as Governor and President. Became a Senator, then SecState.

Why should having been married to Bill disqualify her? Why would being wealthy disqualify her? Did it disqualify FDR? JFK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #38)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:08 PM

41. Well...

I think there's a big difference between a family business and the U.S. government, where decisions made greatly impact the entire population. I don't think it's a valid comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:40 PM

31. those who see trouble with her '.. being able to be her own person. '

 

generally aren't having that trouble from the perspective of her husband or her gender

i think it has more to do with this

Top Contributors
Senator Hillary Clinton

Campaign Finance Cycle:
Citigroup Inc $782,327 $774,327 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $711,490 $701,490 $10,000
DLA Piper $628,030 $601,030 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919 $617,919 $3,000
EMILY's List $605,174 $601,254 $3,920
Morgan Stanley $543,065 $538,065 $5,000
Time Warner $411,296 $386,296 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $406,640 $402,140 $4,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000
Cablevision Systems $336,288 $306,900 $29,388
University of California $329,673 $329,673 $0
Kirkland & Ellis $311,441 $294,441 $17,000
Squire Patton Boggs $310,596 $305,158 $5,438
21st Century Fox $302,400 $302,400 $0
National Amusements Inc $297,534 $294,534 $3,000
Ernst & Young $297,142 $277,142 $20,000
Merrill Lynch $292,303 $286,303 $6,000
Credit Suisse Group $290,600 $280,600 $10,000
Corning Inc $274,700 $256,700 $18,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP $273,550 $265,450 $8,100


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:48 PM

34. None of that has anything to do with "Dynasty".

So you could create an OP, and whine about who donates to her ... and you should.

But I will tell you ... the financial companies in there donate to EVERYONE.

And, did you notice ... U of California in there? Emily's list? We afraid of them?

I guess my point is, if you are going to throw this nonsense out there, you will need to do a better job, and maybe read the list before you post it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:52 PM

35. it was a direct response, to a direct quote of yours

 

sorry, you're not going to bully your way out of this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #35)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:59 PM

39. LOL ... lame.

You are not going to dumb your way out of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:42 PM

44. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

LOL ... lame.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=473055

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

insulting

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 24, 2015, 03:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed. A return to civility in our community means putting an end to members questioning others' intelligence and honesty. Calling another DUer stupid or accusing another DUer of lying will glean a vote to hide from this juror every single time. Such comments are without a doubt disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, inappropriate, and definitely make DU suck.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Anti-Hillary people seem to fall into the "dish it out but can't take it" category.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: insulting reply to a insulting comment
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pot meet kettle
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Insulting"? Really alerter? You were "insulted" by this post? Please stop.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.


This is abuse of the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #44)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 09:27 PM

70. 'This is abuse of the system. '

 

well, why don't you report me then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:39 AM

75. ..

thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:07 PM

49. While I agree it's not germaine to the dynasty subject

I disagree that Citibank, among others, is contributing to everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:27 PM

42. Good Post.

After all the BullShit, Nonsense, Propaganda, and Speculation,
FOLLOW THE MONEY is the way out of the Labyrinth of Lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #31)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:51 PM

66. Did you even bother to see how each of those dollar amounts panned out? of course not..

 

And you conveniently left out the headings, let me elucidate:
The first number is the total amount received
The second number is the total of individual donations from employees of the company
The third number is the amount donated via the PAC

In order for your argument to have any merit at all, you'd be using the third number.

Since it would be good to be honest about it all, why not go back to the same website and copy for us Bernie's numbers. Let's see just how many of his donations comes from individuals. Care to up front and honest about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:58 PM

46. At least some people were concerned

 

about a Kennedy dynasty back in 1968. I recall that rather clearly. There is no way to know what would have happened had RFK not been murdered, but I honestly suspect that if he had won the general election, it would not have been easy sailing for him. He was not his brother, and that would have been held against him He had a (well-deserved, I believe) reputation for ruthlessness, and that trait would have come out very strongly.

When Ted Kennedy ran in 1980, there was a lot of ambivalence about him because of his older brothers, not to mention his own personal failings.

But a father, then two sons as President? Or a man and then his wife? They both smack of the goings-on of a banana republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:02 PM

92. some of us are worried...

 

That she will do the same job as her husband, in the same way, for the benefit of the same few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:01 PM

15. It's a dog whistle. It's exactly the same as the petty rumor

around the water cooler when a woman gets a promotion. It's an accusation that she got where she is by sleeping with the boss.It's meant to diminish her successes and it's deliberate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:07 PM

17. The dynasties that really need

watching are those of self-perpetuating super wealth not dynasties of service. So long as that service is to the people and nation. Critique of Hillary should be more profound than this facile "fatigue" and "change" buzzword battle that is the easiest way to attack certain candidates.

If the dynasty issue were about the charismatic candidates it would all be a plus, like having the prestigious Adams presidencies modernized with enthusiasm and progressive elan. The absolute horror and shame of rewarding the Bushes with yet another substandard treacherous "dynastic" occupation of the presidency has no equivalency with the Clintons or anyone in the past. It should not even be allowed to pair the two, but it is the widely accepted meme- and guess where the tar sticks? or rather, is allowed to stick.

A dynasty of service is not a minus. Hillary fatigue is no more an accurate issue than accepting all the fraudulent hate campaigns she has had to weather. When you get down to the actual problems or critiques they hardly have any impact left- at least in the shallow end of the pool dominating the trumpeted game. The problem with the dynasty thing is that it is perceived generally as a problem, therefore IS a political problem, and being tired of the RW anti-Hillary screeching is not focusing on the real foes of democracy. Should she win, depressing the vote(of the sane and progressive) becomes a very important secondary problem that I can only hope we can overcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:22 PM

21. I don't particularly care who the candidates are married to

I do consider policies, and many of the policy positions on which I have disagreements with Hillary Clinton also happen to be cases where I have disagreements with Bill Clinton. I don't know if that's a product of marriage, but if it were I think it may make me think Hillary is more liberal than she's let on. She's had to give deference to Bill because Americans are fixated on the dumb idea that wives should submit to their husbands' political agendas.

Let's focus on the real issues, not somebody's marriage or who somebody had a kid with or whatever distractions people on all sides would like to bring into the campaign. On the issues, I think Hillary is our second (maybe 3rd, O'Malley is pretty good) best candidate for the nomination. All of our candidates for nomination are miles better than the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:05 PM

93. Wal-Mart and Kissinger.

 

She's not hiding her liberalism, she's faking it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:34 PM

27. a·pol·o·gist

 


əˈpäləjəst/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HFRN (Reply #27)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 11:00 PM

113. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #113)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 11:57 AM

114. ...

 



hfrn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:35 PM

28. A simple dictionary....

....would be of tremendous value. Clinton dynasty my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 04:39 PM

29. Nice comparison of Jeb and Hillary. But those are not our only choices.

 

And I sincerely doubt whether the "dynasty" thing is the sole reason that people are not supporting Hillary.
Policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:27 PM

43. "coronation" is also bullshit

Hillary has earned her way with hard work, and has the actual support of most Democrats. She has not been "anointed"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 05:57 PM

45. Good, accurate points made

I agree with you. If Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for her. In that process I will overlook those who were out of line in expressing their support for her and enmity for my candidate during the primary, just as I hope her supporters will overlook the most vehement Bernie supporters.

I choose to support Bernie Sanders for a lot of reasons. I do not, at the moment, support Hillary. Not because of the dynasty argument, though I understand where people are coming from when they lay that claim. I think they use the term dynasty when they mean: "more Clinton and Bush?" Dynasty is an easy term to use, but I don't qualify it as "manifestly dishonest."

Bernie caught my attention with his absolute stances, his priorities and his honest representation. I choose Bernie because he supports what I want. He says what I say, believes what I believe and I want the revolution to achieve the change we so desperately need.

Hillary's bona fides are unquestioned. She absolutely supports many things that I do. But I am not excited. Bernie lights a fire, I am running with the torch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aintitfunny (Reply #45)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 03:10 AM

76. "Hillary's bona fides are unquestioned"

On that we agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:04 PM

47. Dynasty or not.

This is a trivial reason to not support a candidate. I suppose a Clinton "Dynasty" would be great if you agreed with the successor. The Kennedy comparison is a good one. I'll support or not support a candidate based completely on record and history. Not hair, clothing, name, husband or wife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:05 PM

48. timing.

 

When discussing a dynasty at the beginning of its run is difficult but not impossible.

Would Hillary Clinton be a serious prospective candidate if she wasn't Mrs. Bill Clinton? Maybe, but we'll never know.

Is she running on the Clinton brand? Is she using the Clinton name and it's popularity among low information liberals and greedy one percent neo-liberal/neo-conservative dems? Yes.

If she isn't a dynastic candidate, she is absolutely a franchise candidate with all that that implies.

Defending her by quibbling about the semantics of a word that was used for hyperbolic effect is absurd.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #48)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 08:18 AM

78. Does Bill Clinton become President without having met Hillary Rodham?

You don't know, do you? What is it with this "Progressive," sexist blindspot?

Bill and Hillary have been busting their asses their whole lives

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #78)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:08 PM

87. sexist?

 

So you admit that it's true, but it's impolite to point it out.

To answer your question (with a declarative sentence), no, I don't think he would have been president but that's not a mark in her favor if you're a progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #87)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 06:59 PM

89. Admit what(?) is true?

There have only ever been two umarried Presidents. Nobody has ever made objections to a candidate based upon who they married. Except now people are trying to crowbar a notion of dynasty, or nepotism, or having married the right person, into Hillary's candidacy. This negates her work and her talent, and is sexist, because every "progressive" who objects to her "dynastic" candidacy does so on the basis of Bill Clinton's achievements.

Yes it's a blindspot, and I'm sorry if it's impolite to point it out to one who is so "well-informed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #89)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 09:24 PM

100. So much...

 

Crap.

"Nobody has ever made objections to a candidate based upon who they married."

(1)Nobody who was married to a president has run for president.

(2)The Clintons are a brand. If you deny that you're delusional.

"This negates her work and her talent, and is sexist, because every "progressive" who objects to her "dynastic" candidacy does so on the basis of Bill Clinton's achievements."

I know that the idea that "so called progressives" (racist, misogynists that don't care about anyone but themselves), oppose another Clinton presidency because Hillary is a woman is comforting. But the problem with that hypothesis is that progressives fought against Bill Clinton and his administration's war crimes, corporate giveaways, cuts to the social safety net, the defense of marriage act, the crime bill, and his deregulation of both the environment and the financial sector.

Google: DLC, third way, centrist, New Democrat or Al From

Read Al From's book
The New Democrats and the Return to Power

It tells all about their fight against the progressive, New Deal Democrats.

Hope that helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #100)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:32 PM

104. "Google: DLC, third way, centrist, New Democrat or Al From"

LOL! Most of the hits to that query would link to a DU thread. Maybe you should start another one.

Try to stay on topic. I can only deal with one maudlin term at a time. The subject is "Dynasty."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #104)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 12:57 AM

106. The subject, then...

 

Is the intentional twisting of hyperbole into an accusation of...I don't know, treason, I guess?

Do you think the the people who talk about the Clinton Dynasty are actually suggesting that the Clintons are attempting to impose imperial rule through heredity succession? If so, they are crazy people and they're probably too busy with the lizard people from space to interfere too much in the primaries. It's similar to the level of crazy required to believe that Bill and Hillary aren't a packaged set.

Talking about the the Clintons as a brand doesn't mean that they're glowing red pieces of metal used to mark livestock by cowboys.

Saying they're servants of the plutocrats who own our government doesn't mean they dust and vacuum, it means they do as their masters tell them.

Saying that they have masters doesn't mean they're into D/S.

Hyperbole is fun, but should be used (and obsessed over) in moderation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #106)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 01:14 AM

107. Okay, I can deal with that.

But it's 1:00 am where I am, and I've got young daughters that need my attention in the morning.

Look for my response but it may not arrive until tomorrow or the next day.

Have a good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #107)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 01:38 AM

109. Little ones in the morning!?!?

 



Gather your strength, then go forth bravely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spqr78 (Reply #106)

Mon Jul 27, 2015, 10:05 PM

115. The Clintons as a Brand...

I would say that they are a power couple. Perhaps that's a minor distinction, but--in the context of the "No more Dynasties" meme here on DU--to disqualify Hillary Clinton because of her position at the apex of American politics seems to beg the question.

She is a Washington insider because she has succeeded at the game of the Washington knife fight. Because she has survived, "she must now die!"

And when one points out to the "Dynasty" meme-slinger that Virginia Clinton was a single mom, and the Rodhams were small business owners, the fault in Hillary then becomes that she married Bill Clinton. She has no achievements of her own, otherwise. Her success is only defined by Bill's achievements.

Hillary grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois; spent some time in Arkansas and D.C.; became a Senator of NY and, well -- you know the rest.

Bernie grew up in New York City, but became a politician in Vermont. (I'm trying to come up with something clever to say about "authentic maple syrup," which, BTW, I love.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:23 PM

51. 100% correct. Hillary Clinton is not a "dynasty" candidate...

...she is the spouse of a former President. Jeb Bush-Pierce is blood-related to three Presidents, over several generations. There is 0 (zero) comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:29 PM

52. Good post.

What is amazing to me is how few people stayed on point in this thread. I am concerned about our educational system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:38 PM

53. I certainly can't speak for others but I don't care what or who the relatives of a person running...

 

...for office are or what great or not so great things they've done in the past. I want to hear specifics on what they want to do. I'm not naïve to really think that they'll accomplish even 50 percent of their goals but I DO want them to tell me exactly what they will try to accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:51 PM

55. I don't consider the Clintons as a dynasty... however...

The Roosevelt, Kennedy and Bush, families... definitely.

A dynasty can be good or bad. I think folks need to step off that meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 06:52 PM

56. None of that means shit to me.












Park Ridge Illinois was not a place of suffering. It wasn't then, it isn't now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:14 PM

60. I am with LWolf on this ... A fine Oregonian is he ..

 

The dynastic coronation talk is based on the personal opinions of individuals ... Whether it is true or not, that is beside the point ...

I don't agree with Hillary's policies - her focus on doing the bidding of her very rich corporate supporters at the expense of the little people ... It simply doesn't sit well with me, nor with most people I personally know ... LOTS of Bernie supporters in Oregon ...

I and other regular citizens support Bernie ... He is beholden to no greedy bankers ... We cannot say the same for his illustrious, well known opponent, who's campaign is primarily bankrolled by those same greedy bankers ...

We need real change, and the same ole same ole isn't going to do that ...

There will be no coronation, even if such a thing were being planned ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #64)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 07:38 PM

65. wow calling a gay poster sissypants

and people wonder why this forum is considered a cesspit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:19 PM

67. Jury Results on the hidden post

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

As Leonard's mother said: "Buck up, sissypants."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=473309

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The OP is gay...Calling a gay poster "sissypants" is unacceptable. This isn't Free Republic.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:15 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. I also voted several days ago to hide a post that called Hillary a "corporate whore." Name-calling is unnecessary and inappropriate (and a TOS violation) anyway, but certain labels are *especially* loaded, even when not being used against members of marginalized groups, because their "insult value" depends entirely on the marginalization and devaluation of those groups to work at all.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm not sure the poster knew the writer of the op is gay. I which case if he/she didn't, there would be no foul, just an unfortunate choice of a quote. But on the chance the poster did know, then I will vote to hide, because that type of name calling does not reflect progressive attitudes.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The poster, a known sexist, outs himself as a homophobe and a fan of execrable "comedy" in one post? God, I love the internet.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The poster may not have known the OP is gay. And sissypants is a potential insult to everyone, not just gay people. In fact, the poster quoted Leonard's mom from Big Bang Theory saying it to Leonard, who is straight. So I see no anti-gay slur here. That being said...it was an unprovoked personal attack. There was no justification for it. And so I am voting to hide.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 08:54 PM

69. A couple of jurors (one who voted to hide it and one who voted to leave it)

commented that the poster might not have been aware that the person he was replying to is gay.

Frankly, I don't think that matters. Name-calling is unnecessary and inappropriate (and a TOS violation) anyway, but certain labels are especially loaded, even when not being used against members of marginalized groups, because their "insult value" depends entirely on the marginalization and devaluation of those groups to work at all.

It does not promote progressive values to call Hillary a "corporate wh*," even if we don't like her cozy relationship with big banks and corporations (I voted to hide that post, too, BTW); to call protesters against police brutality "thugs" (regardless of their race); to call Ann Coulter what she is often called (I can't even bring myself to write it because it feels like writing the N-word and insults transgender people so much more than it insults Coulter!); or to suggest that politicians and others whom we deeply disapprove of are gay.

None of those personal characteristics should have any value as insults, because they simply should not be taken to mean that people deserve to be shamed, discriminated against, or devalued for them.

I agreed with the person who alerted on the post and voted to hide it, just I also voted several days ago to hide the post that called Hillary a "corporate wh**."
___________

NOTE: I used asterisks with the word "wh**" because I don't like the idea of having that word linked in my post with Hillary's name. Such linkages to specific persons' names tend to affect search engine results--which is, of course, what happened to Rick Santorum. Therefore, even when deploring the use of the label against her, I would be promoting it if I spelled it out next to her name (twice, yet) in my own post.

On Edit: FYI, I was Juror #1 on this alert. I seldom vote to hide, because I am big on open discussion, but certain things do seem to cross the line, and thoughtlessly using such slurs--even without consciously meaning to be homophobic, misogynistic, or racist--is one of those things.

Such carelessly slung slurs make DU feel really hostile to the marginalized groups the insults are based on. We lose good DU members that way.

Another Edit: Obviously I remembered the results incorrectly. Three jurors, not two, commented on whether the poster knew the person he replied to is gay, and all three voted to hide the post anyway, whether the alerted on poster knew or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Fri Jul 24, 2015, 11:19 PM

71. Bravo. Couldn't have been said better. I'll kick this OP until GE Day.

The "dynasty" issue is the bad penny that keeps coming back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 03:47 AM

77. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #77)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:05 AM

80. Yes how dare that bastard

attend a meeting of the nation's governors with either President or VP of the US. Shame on that mother fucker for doing his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 01:23 PM

81. regardless, I've had enough of Clintons and Bushes....

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #81)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 07:51 PM

90. *this*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:39 PM

105. She'd have plenty of her own baggage even if she'd never met Bill Clinton

As far as I can tell, the only job she ever got strictly on her own merits was with the House Judiciary Committee during the investigation of Richard Nixon.

You might want to google it just to see how that worked out for her.

But just a hint: apparently her tenuous relationship with the truth goes back a lot further than Snipergate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Original post)

Sun Jul 26, 2015, 08:31 AM

111. I agree, plus it is not a blood tie

Having been the spouse of a President is different from being a member of the family. And as you pointed out, if you are going to attribute the spouse's background, Bill's is not aristocratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread