"If my Democratic candidate doesn't win,

[MineralMan]

I don't care who wins, even if it's a Republican, so I'm not even going to vote for the nominee unless he or she is the candidate I'm supporting in the primaries."

How does that statement or anything similar to it make any sense at all? I can't see that it does. How can a thoughtful Democrat or progressive of any kind ever say such a thing?

If someone could explain the logic of statements like that, I'd like to hear the explanation. I simply can't think of any possible explanation that makes any sense at all. So, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be. I've seen Republican Presidents in office. I did not like the results. I've seen Democratic Presidents in office. I liked their results much better.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. Today's loyalty oath OP has already been posted

You did not wake up soon enough.

Trashcan for this.

[MineralMan]

2. I guess you won't see this reply, then.

Too bad. You could have provided me with an explanation, if that's possible. That's what I asked for. I don't insist that you vote at all. That's your decision. Plenty of others will. I'm just looking for the logic from someone who says something like the opening statement. Apparently you cannot provide that explanation.

[quickesst]

129. Well...

...there you go again trying to insert a square peg into a round hole using the dreaded(by many) logic.

[sufrommich]

4. You're on an internet forum,no one here has the

power to force a "loyalty oath". I notice this comes up a lot whenever someone states that we will either have a democrat or republican for President,as if that simple fact is too much truthiness for some.

[MineralMan]

8. Besides, I simply asked for someone to explain the

logic. I just don't get it, I guess. There are no demands for any "loyalty oath" in my post. In fact, I've never made any such demand. I fully accept people's word when they say they won't vote for some candidate or another. I just don't understand the logic of it.

[sufrommich]

11. I've always thought the "logic" to proclaiming

"I will not vote for the democrat" on a democratic board is this:

[MineralMan]

20. Well, in some cases, I'm sure that's true.

However, there appear to be those who sincerely have some reason for refusing to vote for a Democrat in a presidential election, if that Democratic nominee is not sufficiently progressive. I'm not sure what the alternative choice might be. Voting for a Republican would be similar to poking yourself in the eye with a sharp instrument. Voting for some third party candidate or writing in the name of someone has zero effect on the election.

So, the logic escapes me. In every election, I vote for the better option that is available to me. Since I have very little to do with choosing the Democratic nominee for President, that's the option in every case. Only a Democrat or Republican have any chance of winning, so the choice is binary. I vote for the better option.

[brush]

114. NAILED IT!

[RandySF]

53. Then just stay out of the way

of those who want make sure there is no Republican White House.

[mcar]

3. I've voted for the Democratic nominee since 1980

My first year voting. That won't change for me, regardless of the nominee.

[Scootaloo]

5. You ought to ask clinton supporters. They have relevant experience

[MineralMan]

9. How so? I haven't seen a single one say they won't

vote for whoever the nominee is. Not one. In 2008, they voted for Obama, too. Supporting a candidate is fine. Issuing ultimatums about voting isn't so much. I'm asking for someone who refuses to vote for anyone but their preferred candidate to explain the logic they're using to make that decision.

[Scootaloo]

105. Because that's what they DID.

You don't get to erase history because you dislike it. It was Clinton supporters who jumped for the McCain Train becuase they couldn't stomach the thought of a black man becoming the Democratic nominee. All of them? No. But still Clinton supporters. So if you want to talk about people betraying the party when they don't get the candidate they want? You start there, with the people who have actually done exactly that.

And i'll tell you? i'm seeing no difference between the rhetoric thrown at Sanders by you guys in DU, and the rhetoric thrown at Obama from the people who would be shouting "PARTY UNITY MY ASS!" not long after. So kindly remove your fucking finger from my face, and shake it at the people who are likely to give a lovely repeat performance.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Those who do not want to vote for the DNC nominee would probably be voting for the GOP nominee, they

are not true Democrats. They post the same RW talking points and hope cognitive dissonance takes over and support a candidate other than Hillary. Will not happen with this voter, too easy to see through their posts.

[pinebox]

7. This again?

How does a thoughtful Democrat or a progressive of any kind ever say such a thing?

I'll tell you how.
I'm not a Dem, I'm an indy and I'm very progressive, I am to the far left of the Dem establishment. Hillary is NO progressive & she should never be painted as such, ever. She's GOP-lite and there are other candidates out there who represent me better than Hillary.

It's about who best represents me and I see Hillary as nothing more than a Bib Dole era Republican.
That's my story & I'm sticking to it.

[MineralMan]

12. I'm not seeing that parallel between Clinton

and Republicans. Not at all. People also said that Obama was just like a Republican. I haven't seen that, either.

I am a Democrat. I am, because I've watched what both parties do when they're in power. It's very different. I don't always get everything I want in every area when we have a Democratic President. I never get any of what I want with a Republican in that office.

Electing a President is a binary choice in this country. It's that simple.

[pinebox]

65. The paralell

I am. A lot actually.

From her propped up by Wall Street, banks, her stances on Israel to Syria, to threatening Iran.....yup yup. Remember, up until 18 months ago she was against gay marriage. Sorry but nope.

Ok you've seen what both parties do and you say they're different. I'd say those margins of error aren't huge. Take for example the 89 Dem senators who voted to basically gut SNAP.

And there you go.

See, this is what makes us up & it perplexes you Hillary supporters. We're sick and tired of the system.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. Jennifer Howell NAILS it

[brush]

115. All that and you still haven't said if you will vote for the Dem nominee in the general election

We know how you feel about the primary but what about the general?

[Bobbie Jo]

130. I, me, I, me...

My, me, me, me...

Sorry, doesn't sound very "progressive" from here.

[betsuni]

141. This is the answer to Mineral Man's question. nt

[Android3.14]

10. And my respect for you drops another notch

There was a time when I thought you had a fire in your belly.

Alert stalking, loyalty oaths.

I'm starting to give your posts the same attention I give to someone who farts in a restaurant.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, you have ruined my day, for sure.

I don't know what I will do, now. I have no idea who you are and whether your respect for me is something I need. I post what I post, but I don't do it to earn the respect of anonymous screen names. I post because I want to say something.

Still, I am heartened by the knowledge that you have never farted in a restaurant. That eases my mind.

[Android3.14]

17. A good man regrets the loss of the regard of his community

Treating that loss with contempt only cheapens the respect that still remains.

[MineralMan]

18. You are not 'my community.'

You are an anonymous name on an Internet forum. I know my community. My concern for the "regard" of anonymous people is very, very limited. I, too, have a screen name here, but I am not anonymous. Anyone who wishes can know who I am.

[Fumesucker]

36. There are varying layers of "community" up to and including the entire human race

There is a person on the other end of each of these keyboards, I assume for the sake of argument anyway. There isn't anyone in my meatspace community I can discuss the things I do here without having to explain all sides of every issue in minute detail by which time their eyes are crossed and they are babbling.

A post this morning was talking about how we are weird because we pay attention to these things, I think that's true.

[MineralMan]

42. No individual on DU is representative of the community of DU.

Within a fairly broad range, DUers represent a hefty portion of the spectrum of political thinking. However, that range allows for so much diversity that nobody on DU is really representative of the DU community.

That's why there's so much problem with the "community moderation" concept being tested here. At any given time of day, a random selection of seven people can produce a jury panel that can be one-sided on either side or mixed in a representative way.

In many ways, there is no "community" here at all. There is just a motley collection of individuals, that is far from representative of the general society outside of DU. That makes it interesting, but only on an intellectual level. So, it's fun to participate on DU, but not particularly influential on society in general.

It's interesting, though, which is why I'm here. It's unique and diverting, which makes it a great way to fill the gaps in a busy day.

[Fumesucker]

52. I don't have any problem with the community moderation

I think I have five hides since DU3, maybe six and I'm a fairly prolific and opinionated poster who leans toward sarcasm without the smiley.

People are for the most part reasonable, I believe Skinner when he says that those who get multiple vacations are a tiny minority of DUers.

[MineralMan]

131. That's true. It's only a tiny group that gets timed out.

Really, the same group again and again. I've had four or five hides on DU3, but rarely and never more than one at a time. I'm really talking about complaints about "alert stalking, swarms," and stuff like that. Even though time-outs are rare, complaints about community moderation here are common and frequent.

Is there a community here? I think there are multiple communities here. I'm not really part of any of them. I don't participate in DU groups much, but have been blocked from a couple. I post here when I want to say something. I get recs and complaints.

[sufrommich]

19. Which "community" do you think you're speaking for?

I've been on DU since 2004, I assure you,you don't speak for me.

[brush]

117. You are good! I like this response — water off a duck's back.

[merrily]

13. Zzzzzzzz.

[MineralMan]

21. Have a nice nap.

I had one yesterday afternoon. Very refreshing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. If O'Malley wins, he gets my vote. If Chaffey wins, he gets my vote.

If Webb wins, probably wouldn't get my vote - too much into the MIC.

If Hillary wins, she DEFINITELY doesn't get my vote. She represents everything wrong with this country.

And I've never seen anyone on DU make the statement you have your your OP. I have seen people state they wouldn't vote for Hillary because:
She's a warmonger
She supports Fracking
She supports Wall St. Greedy thieves
She supports the MIC
She supports greedy Corporations
She supports Citizen United
She takes money from and supports PRISONS for Profits
She voted for the IWR
She voted for the Patriot Act
She voted for the Bankruptcy Bill which has hurt mostly women and children

How many more reasons do we need NOT to vote for her? Seriously.

[MineralMan]

16. Looking at your avatar, I believe the person

depicted there would vote for the Democratic nominee in every election. In fact, I'm absolutely sure of that.

Will you simply not vote, then, if Hillary is the nominee?

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. I've voted in every election since I was 18 years old and I'm not a young whippersnapper.

And I'll vote in this one, but will write in Bernie or vote for Jill Stein. I may vote straight Green Party - haven't decided yet.

Paul Wellstone may very well have voted for Hillary, should she win, but luckily, everyone in this country gets to vote for whomever they choose to vote for and standing on principle, my vote won't go to Hillary. I do know one thing for certain, Paul Wellstone would NOT be supporting Hillary.

The only way to change the corruption in WASHINGTON, is to vote the corrupt politicians OUT.

[geek75]

33. You'll be handing the White House to Trump

I feel the Bern and I'm voting for Sanders in the primary. But none of us know who will win the primary. Hillary is leading now and we don't know if that'll change.

But come general election time people refusing to vote democrat are handing over the keys to our country to very probably Donald Trump. He would make things so much worse.

A Trump Presidentcy
- Mass deportations
- Shut down Planned Parenthood
- Making our allies into enemies
- Be a champion of the Tea Party agenda

Putting Donald Trump in charge will give more power to the 1% than any democrat and even most other republicans.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. That's what they always say

And is exactly how the corruption in D.C. has become what it is. Democrats and Republicans are corrupt to the core and I'm not playing their sick game anymore. My goal, from here on out (if Hillary steals the election), is to vote as an Independent and probably straight Green Party. We have to do something if we want to change the CORRUPT system. If we keep voting for more of the same, guess what? We get more of the same! I'm finished with their sick games.

[Nedsdag]

76. Thank you!

Your one vote is going to turn a whole election around?

Tell that to those who have voted for the Libertarian, Communist, Socialist, Green, Constitution, and People's parties that their one vote will turn an election around.

I am tired of being browbeaten into voting for someone because it will help the other candidate. I will vote for who and what I want.

I have voted for the Democrat for 31 years. Many times I had to hold my nose to vote for Democratic candidates because the alternative was worse. However, when both candidates are terrible, why should I be forced to vote for someone who feels more at ease to their financial masters than to their constituents?

[in_cog_ni_to]

92. Exactly!

[brush]

118. Look at me. Look at me.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Wellstone, a DOMA voting anti civil rights buster, opponent of basic equality.

There is no way to excuse that vote. None. What terrible discernment that man had. Yuck. I am delighted to be able to support Bernie Sanders who did not vote for DOMA because he's an actual decent human being.

[Chitown Kev]

113. Wellstone apologized for that vote

and said that it was wrong.

I accept that.

Sanders has never apologized for his vote on the 1994 crime bill, for example...though he has explained it...so if I were to apply the same standards to Sanders as you do to Wellstone, Sanders would fail on that score.

[aidbo]

22. 'You can't have the salad!'..

..'Eat the chicken, or else it's the Shit Sandwich for you!'

But, I'm a vegetarian..

'If you know what's good for you, you'll eat the chicken!'

But the chicken is inside the Shit Sandwich..

'It makes the Shit taste better!'

[geek75]

35. Any republican would be much worse

Hillary has taken a middle position on many of these issues. Bernie is better which is why I'm voting Bernie in the primary.
I will vote for the democrat in the general because all the republicans are worse than all of the democrats. Even worse, some of the worst of the republicans are leading in the polls.
The thought of Trump or Carson should scare the heck out of any Democrat.

[OverBurn]

94. +1

[Motown_Johnny]

23. It makes no sense to me. Maybe ask a former PUMA to explain it.

That was their position. They must understand it.

[MineralMan]

30. I would have no idea who to ask, frankly.

I was an Obama supporter in 2008. I caucused for him in Minnesota that year in February. I caucused for him in our district convention, as well. I wasn't able to become a delegate to the state convention that year, but would have done the same there.

This year, I'll be supporting Hillary Clinton at those events, and I will be a delegate to the state convention this time, I'm certain. She is, in my opinion, the Democratic candidate who can win in 2016. I do not believe Bernie Sanders can win. So, despite my opinion that he is closer to my own ideas than Hillary Clinton, I will be supporting the Democrat I think has the best chance to win against the Republicans.

I'm a pragmatic Democrat. I want to win elections. I've seen Democratic candidates lose too many presidential elections in my years of voting. I didn't like the results one bit. That's what helps me make my decisions.

[Motown_Johnny]

31. If Hillary has another "Running from Snipers" moment

and it comes after she is the nominee, we are screwed.


Hillary is the gamble here. Bernie is the better candidate in the General. His message crosses party lines.

[MineralMan]

32. I doubt if his message crosses party lines very well at all.

At least not Republican Party lines.

Any candidate can have a bad moment that spoils their campaign. Bernie could easily do that, as well. He speaks in an unrehearsed way almost all the time. Slips are easy to make. Look at Dean. I didn't even think it was a slip. It destroyed all possibility for him. I can easily see Sanders blowing up at some questioner. He is an irascible man sometimes.

I don't think that is a reason for making a choice, anyhow.

Anyhow, you didn't give me any idea of what "PUMA" I should ask, which was my question to you.

[yallerdawg]

50. This fixation on PUMA's (not you, MM)...

I know PUMA's who voted for McCain.

Women who put time and money and love into Hillary and thought the M$M and Obama was the most corrupt and heartbreaking experience of their lives!

The DEMOCRATS voted for Obama and he WON!

So PUMA's and independent/green/democratic socialist/whatever's don't concern me at all.

The DEMOCRATS, those old Party Purist Yellow Dogs will deliver - or they won't. It just depends on the Nominee you have, not the Nominee you wish you had.

Sometimes you're the Gore, sometimes you're the Obama.

[geek75]

55. Those PUMAs were disgusting

I was afraid they'd cost Obama the election.
I'm even more afraid now because Trump is much worse and much scarier than McCain would have been.

[yallerdawg]

66. No worries!

All these people on here saying they won't vote for the Democratic nominee "unless it's my candidate?"

Insignificant in multiple ways!

Even "annoying" is turning into "amusing."

[geek75]

69. I'm worried

I will never forget what happened in Florida in 2000 and the 8 years of Bush.
This time it may be Trump who's even worse.

[brush]

122. Given, Trump is scary, but McCain would've had us up to our asses in war after war . . .

Trump is a blowhard and anti immigrant and all that but he has some views that creep towards sanity.

McCain just wanted to "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Boom Iran", remember that?

[sufrommich]

59. PUMAs were practically non existent and in such small numbers

that they barely registered in exit polls. I've seen more Bernie PUMAs right here on DU than I ever saw here in 2008.

[geek75]

68. Could have been

Had McCain not chosen Palin it could have been closer. Just 1% of even less can make a difference either way. Never forget Florida in 2000.

[yallerdawg]

75. Senator Sanders (I-VT) isn't even a Democrat.

Whatever his supporters are, most will vote for whatever Democratic nominee we have, just like Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats - and the rest were whatever's anyway!

[thesquanderer]

139. I think BS has more cross-party appeal than HRC does

As I have mostly said before...

* The Republican machine has been stoking Hillary hate for 20+ years. There are a lot of Republicans who simply will never vote for her, not because she's a Dem, but specifically because she's Hillary Clinton, and there's nothing she can do about it. BS doesn't start with that particular strike against him.

* Assuming that the Republicans ultimately put up a "traditional" candidate like Bush or Rubio, there is a large group of anti-establishment Trump/Carson/Fiorina Republicans who may be up for grabs... but they're not going to be Hillary voters, that's another establishment candidate.

* There are those in the Libertarian wing who might consider Sanders based on his positions on things like NAFTA/TPP, Patriot Act, IWR. Again, especially depending on who the Republican candidate is, some may feel that half-a-Paul is better than none. What does Hillary offer this bunch?

* And even a lot of Republicans think the banks are too big. Or actually think Social Security should not be cut. Or are concerned about sending their kids to college. Basically, some of his positions do resonate with some segments of Republican voters.

There is always some crossover voting. I think BS would likely get more of it than HRC.

That said, I think HRC is more likely to be the nominee.

[edgineered]

24. Pictures and a thousand words -

[Armstead]

25. Here's an explanation, though I don't agree wih it

People have several reasons for saying it.

(This is not me. I personally agree with the reasons but not the conclusion. I believe there is a difference between parties on several important issues, and overall tone. But I also feel the Democratic Party has sold its soul and is a poor substitute for a real alternative and opposition to the GOP . But it's better than nothing, so I'll hold my nose and support Hillary if necessary.)

The basic contention is that the Democratic Party (and Clinton) have become so corrupt and Corporate Conservative that they are just as damaging as any GOP president might be. And for years the Democratic Party has used the GOP bogeyman as manipulative and fear-inducing weapon against truly liberal voters, so they will fall, in line and give the Democratic candidates a win. But the same party ignores them and marginalized them once in office.

For people who feel that way, voting for a Democratic candidate in that familiar mold would seem no different than voting for a Republican . Their consciences won't allow it.

Some go even farther. There is a hope that if the Democrats lose because they failed to provide anything dedicated liberals and progressives can support, the Democratic Party might wake up and actually start behaving like the liberal progressive alternative to the GOP.

And some believe it is more constructive to build a new third party or support the Greens, to someday provide a multi party system.

[MineralMan]

26. I've heard that argument, but it's not logical.

The difference between the two parties is clear and measurable. They are far from the same and the results when each is in power is very different.

As for building a new party or whatever, someday may never come. I don't think any of us will live that long. The Republicans, if in charge of all three branches of Federal government for a couple of terms, could eliminate that possibility permanently.

I'm an old man. Any presidential election could be my last. In reality, that could be true for anyone, regardless of age. Republican administrations kill people, through neglect and lack of support. The longer they hold power, the more people who die unnecessarily. I won't acquiesce in that in any way.

No Democratic candidate will be the ideal nominee. All will fail to enact their policies to some degree. Thus has it ever been and thus will it be. We can only vote for the better option in any given presidential election. Or we can not vote at all, which is voting for no option at all.

I don't accept that argument as logical, because it's based on a faulty premise.

[Armstead]

29. No less logical than believing one has to be loyal to a party whose behavior they don't support

There are people who simply do not like the contemporary Democratic Party because it does not reflect their values and principles, or the direction they believe the country should go.

To them, the so-called differences between the current version of the Democratic Party and the GOP is irrelevant.

They may support individual candidats who reflct their views (o.e. Bernie) but not a monolithic political party as an entity.

That is no less logical or "emotion based" than saying one has to "choose sides" between two teams just for the sake of supporting a team -- or brand -- if someone believes that both are equally contrary to their own beliefs.

[CrispyQ]

102. Well stated!

I may refer people to your response, you made the point so perfectly.

[Armstead]

103. Thanks, but please make sure the while thing is included

As I said in the original, I don't necessarily agree with that, though I understand it, and agree with the reasons. .

[brush]

124. Yeah if that's his/her logic, why post on a board whose purpose is to elect Democrats?

Start another party and another web site why don't they?

[restorefreedom]

27. that's not what it is for me, mineral man

it's not a "if my candidate doesn't get it then screw it" attitude. I can't vote for a hawk. don't want to, conscience won't let me, not gonna happen. Even though I have no direct ties to the Iraq war through people I know very closely, I have such strong feelings about that war I can't see myself voting for anybody who supported it. There are other reasons too but that's the biggest one for me. And as far as other Sanders supporters go, I see a lot of people saying that they won't vote for her because she's a hawk, because she's for Wall Street, because they can't trust her etc, I see a lot of reasons. But I haven't seen anybody just say well it's because it's not my candidate. I see a lot of heartfelt reasons of conscience why people don't want to vote for particular candidate. At least that's what I'm what I'm reading.

there might be some people who feel like anybody but Hillary, but I'm not one of them, and I haven't seen a lot of that on this board. I see a lot of no more hawks, no more Wall Street buddies, but I don't think it's personal for most of us. I really don't.

[TheFarseer]

34. let me explain this to you

My fear is Hillary gets elected president and implements pro-corporate policies. People have an increasingly difficult time finding a good job and making ends meet. Republicans say the economy is failing because of her liberal policies even though they are not at all liberal. A generation of people conclude that we need conservative policies to save the country. Do you see why that's bad?

[geek75]

37. And Donald Trump would be better?

Are you kidding me? Hillary would be not be great, but would not be a catastrophe. Trump or Carson would each be the worst president in history, even worse than Bush.

[TheFarseer]

39. did you even read my post!? nt

[geek75]

41. Every word

People said the same thing about Obama.

What will guarantee a generation of republicans is electing republicans who will make the rules favor republicans.


Vote Sanders in the primary and vote democratic in the general. I hope it's Sandwrs all the way. Clinton would be acceptable but not great and Trump would be horrific. Compared to the republicans she's very liberal. Not as liberal as Sanders.

[TheFarseer]

79. I don't remember anyone saying that about Obama

He's been slightly disappointing to progressives but better than going to war with Syria and Iran, which I'm not sure I can trust Hillary not to do. And she's only slightly better on social issues than Trump but I've already said too much.

[geek75]

82. Only slightly better than Trump?

Trump is just the biggest bigoted xenophobe who's ever run for president. Hillary isn't great but lets for once go after Trump and realize how dangerous he is.

[99Forever]

38. Same character, same preaching, same loyalty oath.

Blah blah blah.

:yawn:

[geek75]

40. And Trump would be better?

How? By deporting every Mexican he can find? By shutting down all Planned Parenthoods? By transferring more wealth to the 1%? By making enemies with our current allies? How?

[99Forever]

48. Welcome to DU.

Just a suggestion buddy:

Don't dump your fucking presumptions on me.


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay?

[geek75]

51. I will not accept a Trump presidency

It would be nice to see more democrats exposing Trump for the horrible person he is.

[99Forever]

57. Well goodie for you.

I know what Democrat is. I know what a democracy is.

Just what the fuck is a "democratic?"

[geek75]

64. I know what a Trump is

Do you have shy Hispanic friends in America? Trump will deport them all!

Spelling corrected.

[99Forever]

71. Not a single one.

'cuz I'm one of the Volvo drivin', gunnut, lilly white Berniebros.

( just in case you don't get it: )

[TM99]

63. Well then you better hope

Sanders wins the primary.

[geek75]

74. I'm voting for Sanders

But I'm worried there too because many Hillary supporters are also threatening to sit out. If democrats don't vote in big numbers for the democrat expect president Trump.

Do we ever learn? Blanche Lincoln wasn't the greatest senator but look at the right ring crazy that replaced her?

[brush]

125. Don't recall Hillary supporters saying they won't vote for Bernie if he wins the primary

Droves of Sanders supporters though have said they won't vote for Hillary.

What's up with that?

[Warren Stupidity]

106. FYI

On Sun Oct 18, 2015, 03:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Welcome to DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=698126

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

cussing out a member?? while "welcoming" them to DU?? Welcome to a report of abuse.......

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 18, 2015, 04:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: tough call since the OP is stupid flamebait to begin with.

Can the corporate wing of the Democratic Party say why their policies are better than progressives instead the constant horse-race crap and trying to scare us with the Republican boogeyman who they snuggle up with as soon as the election is over?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: He cussed out the poster's presumptions, not the poster.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[99Forever]

109. Thanks WS.

Looks like someone really haz a madz now.

[Califonz]

43. I'd rather vote Green than for a DINO for president

But I don't live in a swing state so I have that luxury!

Swing staters, please hold your nose if you must and vote D.

[geek75]

47. Glad you clarified

I'm not in a swing state and Trump is about a zillion times worse than Hillary. Hillary isn't great, but Trump is really scary.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Thomas Paine

In addition: I've voted in 12 presidential elections. My vote, my single vote, didn't decide the outcome of any of them.

In addition: I don't waste my vote on candidates I fundamentally disagree with.

In addition: "Not as bad" rings up a No Sale for me.

[geek75]

49. remember 2000

Remember all the Nader voters who voted for principle. How well did that work out? If just 1000 votes Gore we would have never had a a president George Bush. If half the Nader voters had voted Gore, Florida wouldn't have even been close.


I'm voting principle in the primary for Sanders and voting for the democrat on the general.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Apparently, principles are flexible for you.

If just 1000 more Democrats who voted for Bush instead of Gore would have voted for Gore he would have won.

Conclusion: Gore didn't convince enough voters to vote for him

If Hillary's having trouble convincing the Left to vote for her, it's on her. Not the voters.

[geek75]

62. Eight long years of Bush

Over half the Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't in the ballot. Gore wasn't the ideal candidate but there is no comparison between him and Bush! No comparison.

There's principles and then there's stupidity. Sitting out the election in a hypothetical Hillary - Trump matchup is stupidity. I've seen both Hillary and Sanders supporters threatening to sit out the general. That'll guarantee a Trump win.

I love principles which is why Bernie is getting my vote, but I'm not stupid and will be voting democrat in the general.

[pinebox]

73. Gore couldn't even win his home state

You may want to have a read of this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/06/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

[geek75]

77. Tennessee has been inundated by extremists

It would be a tall order for any democrat to win Tennessee. This blaming if Gore for ridiculous things has got to stop. Right wingers loved to gloat that Gore lost Tennessee.
Gore had his missteps but he should have won that election. We paid through the nose with eight long years of Bush.

[brush]

126. Gore did win the election, remember. The Nader voters, even though they will jump through . . .

a thousand hoops to deny it by using the "he didn't win his own state" trope, made it close enough for repug shenanigans to steal it.

[geek75]

140. Many Nader voters regretted it

Just a few thousand more Gore votes and republicans wouldn't have had a chance to steal it.

[brush]

142. Yep! And history would have been completely different.

[One of the 99]

111. That's a right wing argument.

Which ignores that Bush spent 3 time what Gore did in Tennessee. As well as the political shift of all the southern states.
And the article posted neglects certain facts. First of which is that Nader accepted GOP money to run lying ads about Gore in Oregon and Washington. The Gore campaign has to divert resources from states like Florida to answer Nader's lies. It also ignores that Nader threw New Hampshire to Bush. If NH had gone to Gore, Florida would have been irrelevant.

[Jim Lane]

127. And, therefore, Katherine Harris is blameless, right?

Some of us are capable of handling the idea that an event has more than one cause.
* If Gore had won his home state, he'd have become President.
* If, out of 300,000 registered Democrats in Florida had voted for Bush, a few thousand had instead voted for Gore, he'd have become President.
* If Nader had chosen to exercise his right to run in the Democratic primaries instead of in the general election, Gore would have become President.
* If Katherine Harris hadn't illegally purged 50,000 mostly Democratic voters, Gore would have become President.
* If the Supreme Court had ruled on the basis of the law rather than politics, Gore would have become President.

What's notable is that "Gore couldn't even win his home state" is never raised as a counterargument to criticisms of Harris or the Supreme Court. It's only when someone criticizes Nader that his acolytes lose their ability to contemplate multiple concurrent causes.

Of course the analogy isn't perfect, because Nader's choice wasn't illegal. It was just inadvisable. The silver lining of the 2000 fiasco is that, at least, the folly of third-party politics was brought home to many people. Nader's vote in 2004 plummeted. Even his own running mate from 2000, Winona LaDuke, endorsed Kerry over him.

Bernie Sanders is one of the people who knows that a third-party effort, while possibly successful under the unique circumstances found in Vermont, is doomed nationwide. That's why he's not repeating Nader's mistake but is instead running in the primaries.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Do you think that John Quincey Adams and Tom Paine were stupid?

I won't be sitting out the election. My ballot offers more than two candidates for president.

But, rest easy. I've voted 3rd party before and my vote didn't have any effect on the elections. Nor, has it had any effect on any of the elections I've voted in.

What if Nader hadn't run but another leftist had run instead of him. Would Gore have won half their votes?

BTW. I voted for Gore, but he still lost.

[in_cog_ni_to]

87. Al Gore won that election.

The corrupt SCOTUS stopped the ballot counting and handed the election to the FL. Governor's brother, so your point (Nader votes screwed Gore) is moot.

[One of the 99]

112. It wouldn't have gotten to the Supreme Court if not for Nader.

So your argument is dishonest at best.

[in_cog_ni_to]

121. It wouldn't have gotten to the SCOTUS had voter rolls not been purged of THOUSANDS of voters, or if

Voters hadn't been told the wrong day to vote, or if police hadn't stopped voters to harass them while on their way to vote to deliberately make them too late to cast their votes, or if people hadn't been DELIBERATELY sent to the wrong polling places to vote....and THAT CRAP goes on and on and on.

So, YOUR argument is dishonest at best. Nader didn't cause the Florida debacle. Jeb Bush and his cronies did..

[One of the 99]

136. True.

That was a contributing factor but so was Nader. If Nader hadn't helped throw New Hampshire to Bush, Florida wouldn't of mattered.

[Fumesucker]

46. Hillary has already been fooled by the Vast Right Wing conspiracy once

And then of course the black man named Barack Hussein Obama drank her milkshake in 2008.

From our vantage point it's difficult to remember just how unlikely President Obama was in 2007.

[m-lekktor]

56. I live in a very blue state, my vote is irrelevent. nt

[Chitown Kev]

58. Bernie Sanders endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996

and has already stated that he will not run third-party and that he will endorse the Democratic nominee.

In fact, I believe that Bernie Sanders has endorsed every Democratic nominee for the presidency since a point in time when he was a mayor; a fact that has pissed off not a few people on the TRUE left.

There are far too many Sanders supporters that have said that they will support no Dem other than Sanders in the general esp. if the GE candidate is Hillary Clinton.

I will vote for the Dem nominee in the general AND I probably live in a state where I could get away with a 3rd party, if I chose to do that...so I already suspect the Bernie is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle for pent-up frustrations about the Clintons.

[djean111]

67. So, you don't think the issues where they differ count?

You think not wanting to vote for someone who espouses fracking,. war, cluster bombs, the TPP, increased H-1B visas, and BFFs with Wall Street is merely "frustration" with the Clintons?
You think the huge crowds, and the young people who are supporting Bernie are just "frustrated" with the Clintons?
Wow.

The young people I have talked to, and my grandson, don't hate Hillary, they are not frustrated with her. She just represents same old stuff that makes their lives miserable. None of them CARE about Hillary.

And your implication is that Hillary is The One that we have been presented with, and we are just being contrary.

[Chitown Kev]

72. Hell, I'm frustrated with the Clintons

FWIW, but your point is?

[djean111]

85. When you say

so I already suspect the Bernie is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle for pent-up frustrations about the Clintons.

You seem to be attempting to marginalize him and his supporters. Like saying that Bernie's candidacy is not about Bernie, or Bernie's ideas, but merely some sort of adjunct to Hillary's candidacy. I am not "frustrated" by the Clintons, I am tired of them and their DINO Third Way ways, and don't even want to think about them. If Bernie dropped out tomorrow, I would just be done with politics for quite a while, I cannot imagine voluntarily "supporting" Hillary.

[Chitown Kev]

116. But the thing is, Sanders has endorsed EVERY

Democrat for President going back, I believe, to Walter Mondale.

And he will do so this time; he's stated as much and he has a history of doing so (which is what brought about the rupture with Nader in 1996).

That's just a fact.

I do believe that his candidacy is about his ideas, though.

Now, of course, you can vote for whomever you want to, just as I will. But endorsing the Democrat nominee for POTUS, no matter who that nominee is, is a part of Bernie's history as well.


But I don't see none of his supporters flooding Bernie's FB page trying to educate him (as they did John Lewis) nor do I hear or see Bernie's supporters accusing Sanders of "Stockholm Syndrome."

[djean111]

120. You moved the goalposts from "frustrated with Clinton".

I agree with Bernie on most things, some things I do not. I am not after "purity".
In any event, I support Bernie because I believe he would be the best president, from among the candidates. Including Biden, for that matter.
But my vote and my support, if Bernie drops out, are not Bernie's to assign to another candidate. By the same token, if Elizabeth Warren were to endorse Hillary tomorrow, even though i think Warren would also make a fine president, that would not influence me to support Hillary. Not for a nanosecond.

But I don't see none of his supporters flooding Bernie's FB page trying to educate him (as they did John Lewis) nor do I hear or see Bernie's supporters accusing Sanders of "Stockholm Syndrome."

Oh, has he endorsed Hillary? Why would you expect to see that, at this point in time? That is strange!

[Chitown Kev]

133. Bernie Sanders has already stated

that he will support the Democrataic nominee for President in 2016 and that he will not run third-party.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says he will not run for president as an Independent if he falls short in his bid to secure the Democratic 2016 nomination.

Speaking at the Newseum in Washington on Thursday, Sanders said that if he ran a third-party campaign, it would draw support away from the Democratic nominee, potentially handing Republicans the White House.

“I would not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican president,” Sanders said.

However, Sanders, an Independent and self-described socialist who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, acknowledged that it was something he considered.

“As I was contemplating what I’d do, one decision I had to make was, there were a lot of people telling me to run as an Independent,” Sanders said. “They said the Republican Party is an extreme right-wing party, and the Democratic Party is too conservative, too cozied-up to big money … and that I should run outside of the two party system.”

“I thought about it,” Sanders said. “But I reached the decision … that the only way at this particular moment in history that we could run an effective campaign was within the Democratic primary and caucus system.”

Bernie Sanders has endorsed every Democrat since Walter Mondale, I believe...certainly since Bill Clinton's reelection bid.

[djean111]

134. Bernie, of course, is free to endorse anyone he wants.

As are we all.

And it is pointless to be discussing this right now - Bernie is doing just fine.

[Chitown Kev]

135. Yes.

all of us have that freedom, you are correct.

I just wonder that if and when that time comes (and I think that it will, personally) how many of the Sanders supporters who have outright harassed black people and gay people will accuse Sanders of "Stockholm Syndrome"...furthermore, given Sanders' history of endorsing Democratic candidates for the presidency (even "oligarchs" like Bill Clinton) (FTR, I did not vote for Bill Clinton in 1996) I don't think that any of the Sanders supporters on this board need to be harassing African Americans and LGBT folks on ANYTHING...much less their choice of candidate.

Have a good night!

[RKP5637]

60. I will vote for the GE democrat. I like both Bernie and HRC.

Allowing a republican back into office is nonsensical. Sit at home, pee your pants, feel good, and a republican wins. How can that be good.

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. My individual vote is irrelevant, thanks to the Electoral College.

Although I'll keep checking polls to be certain, there's really no way in hell my blue state's going to go to the Republican. I support abolishing the Electoral Anachronism, but in this matter, anyway, it's useful: I can refuse to vote for a candidate I can't stand just because the Republican manages to be even worse.

[geek75]

81. I do too, but

if every democrat thought their vote didn't matter and didn't vote, your state could go red.

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. Yeah, that's the danger.

So should Bernie not get the nod, I'll be keeping a close eye on statewide polls.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. I have a dream where we have direct national elections with instant runoff ballots.

Oh and 'election day' is a three day federal holiday, voter registration is a uniform standard process across the country and you are by default registered to vote as soon as you are eligible and have to opt out to not be registered. There are many more details to this dream, this is but one strand of where it goes.

[Broward]

70. If you're a progressive as many here claim, how does it make any sense

to support Hillary over Bernie? It doesn't.

[geek75]

78. None of us are supporting Hillary over Bernie

[MoonRiver]

88. Who's "us?"

That category certainly doesn't include me, or the numerous other Hillary supporters on DU, not to mention the majority of Democrats across the country.

[Aerows]

80. These passive-aggressive,

not-so-subtle "Hillary is going to win so why are you bothering to vote for anybody else in the Primary" posts have been so over used, they've become tiresome.

Everybody knows exactly what this is all about. A variation of this has been posted a nearly every day since the candidates have announced. We get it - "Hillary is going to win so get committed to voting for her!"

Can we give this a rest? Just come right out and say "I support Hillary and I want everybody to vote for her in the Primary!".

It would be a refreshing change from this cloying attempt to drill into everybody's head that the only path to the White House is to vote for Hillary.

I'm going to vote for Bernie in the Primary. I'm going to be voting for Bernie in the General Election, because he is going to win the nomination.

He can win, he will win, so get ready to vote for Bernie!

[geek75]

84. Never said that

I'm voting for Bernie in the primary and hope he wins the primary. I'm voting democrat in the general whether or not it's Bernie. Bernie would be outstanding, Hillary average, Trump or Carson horrific.

[Aerows]

96. That wasn't directed at you.

That was directed to the board, in general. We have literally had these posts every damn day since it became clear that Hillary Clinton had a challenger.

It's a naked ploy to keep "Hillary is the only path to the White House" beaten into our skulls.

I will be voting for Bernie in the Primary, and I will be voting for Bernie in the GE because he will be the nominee, so they might as well quit asking this every day.

[BeanMusical]

100. +1 Absolutely!

[sadoldgirl]

89. Scare tactics are in great form here:

Scare tactic 1: Bernie is not electable

scare tactic 2 : If you don't vote for the democratic
nominee (which due to 1 has to be HRC)
you will vote repugs in.

Well, this election will be different than any one I have
experienced before. The younger generation found a
candidate they believe in, which is close to 2008. And
people are angry. Both the young and the angry don't
care a hoot about those tactics used here.

[LWolf]

90. Who said that? nt

[MisterP]

91. so you're saying that if any Dem, say, backs the Ros-Lehtinens, Christie, Lieberman, etc

against the candidate of their very own party, if any Dem sabotages a primary so the less-popular candidate who'll lose against the Pub wins the nom--they're bad Dems?

because I want to make sure you're against the party turning into that!

[Gothmog]

93. I will support the Democratic Nominee no matter what

[Lyric]

95. It doesn't make any sense. It makes the person who says it sound petulant and immature.

I am in the hospital at the moment, so forgive me for being blunt. I am not up to wearing the conciliatory hat today.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

97. Can't we wait until after the convention to make nice?

The primary-cycle circular firing squad is a time-honored tradition, and should not be messed with.



Oh, yeah: My candidate rocks. Yours sucks. Unless it's my candidate too.

[demigoddess]

99. agree totally,

it 's not like there is just a sliver of difference between repub and democrat. There is a world of difference.

[cantbeserious]

101. It Truly Is Simple Mineral Man - Some Of Us Do Not Believe That Rhetoric Because We See That

The establishment Democratic candidate is just a warned over DNC DLC Third Way Neo Liberal.

Some of us are tired of the pretense.

[F4lconF16]

104. Simply put, I am not a Democrat or a progressive.

Party loyalty is a means of control. I vote for those who will represent me, period.

I firmly believe that continuing down this path will make our situation that much harder to fix. If we have not made significant progress in engaging our citizens (and non-citizens) within the next 5-15 years, we may not be able to return.

I genuinely do not think this country will last another 20 years without a revolution. I'd prefer not to go down that road; in a country this large, it is entirely unlikely to succeed. Though pockets of resistance may emerge, I think it likely that a fascist state will be what remains.

There is only one nominee who might change that. Sanders has the possibility of engaging the American population in a movement broader than simple elections. He does not advocate for radical change, no, and many of my comrades on the left refuse to support him for that reason.

I disagree that he will be ineffectual, however; he is a catalyst for a return to the idea of humanity, even if we are able to change little in the political situation. The engagement of currently disconnected people in a movement centered around human decency, anticapitalism (even if in word only), and communal support leaves wide room for leftists such as I to have our ideas heard on a larger scale than has been possible for many years.

Voting for Clinton does none of that, and perpetuates capitalist ideology. She is the embodiment of everything I do not like about liberalism (which is a lot).

I accept the risks of not voting for her. I am well aware of the possible consequences. But I fear more the possibility that we will stumble blindly along for another 8 years without change, our situation worsening as it has under Obama. When it comes time to truly change our world, it may be too far gone. It may be already. I will not be a part of perpetuating that blindness, and, in fact, a vocal opponent.

Before you inform me of my privileges and whine about how I am simply another white male who couldn't give a shit about the rest, let me tell you something.

This will be the second month I cannot make rent in a row. There may be a third, or a fourth. I work at a tiny coffee shop that is dependent on a good economic situation to survive. I am on the edge. I cannot take more of the same.

My roommate is trans and gender non-conforming. I am bisexual, and have been nearly assaulted for it before. Ze and I would be profoundly affected by the hate-filled rhetoric of the Republican party if they gained even more power than they already have.

My neighbor is black, and poor. She barely manages to make it through each month. She too, will not vote for Clinton. She is a lifelong advocate and worked with many of the big names in the social justice movement, particularly in the local Seattle scene. One of our good friends is an ex-addict. We know what would happen to him and others if the jail systems and mental health institutions were demolished. We know what would happen were social security to be dismantled. We know what will happen if the racist war on drugs is expanded.

I have a friend who recently needed an abortion. I know what would happen to her if that option was taken from her.

You do not get to tell me that I don't care about people that are different. I know the risks, and I am willing to accept them.

To me, the bigger risk is that we have a Democrat in control who will not represent us. One that will perpetuate the modern police state and expand it without notice, hiding our massive prison system and the war in the streets against the poor and PoC. One that will bail out the companies and not the people. On that will continue to support our massive war machine, committing heinous war crimes in the process. One that will continue to put in place massive neo-liberal trade agreements, destroying any pretense at a recovery. One that will attack our public education system, turning into a private profit machine.

One that will make things much worse while pretending the opposite.

We already have one. I refuse another.

Voting for a candidate in the hopes that--despite all evidence to the contrary--a neoliberal will happily advocate for working class and minority interests while not underhandedly giving more wealth and power to those who already have it is, to me, a far greater risk.

But you know all this already. I tire of the constant harassment of those who will not fall in line based on a seriously limited understanding of their arguments.

Stop trolling the board, MM. We've heard this crap before, from you and many others. It serves no purpose.

[Jack Rabbit]

108. Even if this is a loyalty oath, I will not sign it; whether it is or isn't, I will not make promises

I've been watching Mrs Clinton for about a quarter-century now. She's been on my bad side more often than she has been on my good side. I'm tired of getting screwed, and the best thing I can say about the prospect of another New Democrat as president is that New Democrats don't screw us quite as bad as Republicans do.

I'll be 65 in a little more than a year. I'm a veteran. I made some mistakes and got some bad breaks. I'll probably die in poverty. I can deal with that, but I can't deal with the prospect of starving to death in a nation where no one should go hungry so that crooked banks can continue to rob the public and fossil fuel corporations can stay on life support while they poison the air and water and make the planet less habitable and then lie about it. I have major depression, which is probably showing through as I write this, but I didn't forget to take my last night. I don't think you have to suffer from mental illness to be upset about things as they are.

Democrats, that is New Democrats, are as responsible as Republicans for this state of affairs. Ronald Reagan's tenure in the White House was a disaster for America. Banking became the primary "industry" in America and deregulation and privatization took place under the dubious theory that successful businessmen are more rational than the rest of us and that a market regulates itself by nature. The result was mourning in America. We should know by mow that this is nonsense. Those who say they still believe it are either fools or political stooges looking for generous campaign contributions, better known as bribes, from corporate criminals like Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd. Perhaps an even greater disaster was when some Democrats, blinded by the glitter and strobe lights of the propaganda from archconservatives about how good things were under Reagan, adopted Reaganomics as their own; they mayu call it something else, but it's still tricle down economics and it's still a failure. We ended up with Wall Street toads like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers pushing Republican policies in Democratic administrations. We got the deregulation of the communications industries, welfare deform and NAFTA. Those are not accomplishments in which any Democrat should take any pride.

We have an America that no New Dealer would recognize as spawning from the America they bequeathed to us. We fight imperialist wars to secure oil for western oil companies, a product we can replace and the sooner the better, widening income inequality and fascist leaders, some even passing a Democrats, who think the Fourth Amendment is dysfunctional and should be ignored. This is an America, and even a world, where bankers fixing interest rates manifests the blessings of liberty and workers organizing a union is subversive, even thuggish, activity.

I am supporting a candidate who very clearly wants to put a stop to this madness and reverse it. I am opposing a candidate who has been at the foundations of changing the Democratic party from a party of the people into Wall Street's go-to guys in government. Her recent populist pronouncements, at odds with her corporate-friendly past, are as murky and unconvincing as the pronouncement by oligarch-controlled media that she "crushed" all of her opponents Tuesday night.

Hillary Clinton is a hard pill for me to swallow. I will not make any promises I can't keep, so at this time I will not promise to vote for her in the general election if she is the nominee of the Democratic Party. I'll probably need every minute of the time between the close of the Philadelphia convention in August 2016 to when I vote on November 8 to make my final decision.

I will promise this: whoever is elected President, even if it is Bernie Sanders himself, then I will be in the streets demanding that the policies and programs he advocates today are enacted.

[One of the 99]

110. I support Bernie

and will vote for him in the primary and the election if he is the nominee. However, if he is not the nominee; I will vote whom ever is the nominee. The last thing this country needs is a republican president who will have a GOP congress to support his right wing agenda.

Bill Maher said the other night that he learned his lesson with Nader in 2000. Many of the same arguments made against Gore in 2000 are being made now.

For too many it is about upholding their principles, not about the good of the country. That's fine if they take responsibility for their actions. But they just want to sit on the high horse of "their principles" and take no responsibility for the result.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Incorrect, it isn't about who I'm supporting or the highway it is that I have swallowed my last

Turd Way candidate for the "team". I'm fucking done letting the cancer spread and dictate terms as it grows.

You were warned years ago, you relentlessly pursue the same course so it is 100% on you when you keep going where you are told over and over have been in no uncertain terms been told folks can't and won't continue to follow you and no election season carefully manicured sweet nothing evolutions will paper it over.

You look at the problems both domestically and around the world and think Clinton or bust and to me that is crazy. Just does not compute with what I'm seeing, experiencing, and have learned to this moment but still if it was a one off then I'd have to agree that since she'd be less terrible than a TeaPubliKlan that if forced I'd accept it and check the box for harm reduction.

Thing is it isn't a one off at all but rather a multi decade program that will just be given more momentum and power in the party to an element I see as not just unacceptable but actual cancer and rot and fucking no I'm not going to be herded like a little lamb from here on to eternity.

If folks want saber rattling, deregulation minded, privatization pushing, corporate enabling, "free trading", interventionist, civil liberties disdaining, "The Family" associating, fracking crazy, education deform promoting, Wall Street partnering, Arctic drilling allowing, election season evolving, conniving, self determination opposing dishonest pols in charge then I am finally convinced after decades of this phony little dance that they wants it they gets it because they won't stop until they get it.

It is not my duty to democracy to help with sweeteners to make the fascism go down rather it is to root the rot out so there is even a platform in our two party system to stop it and roll it back.

There is not going to be some mystical good time to break the habit but it must be broken maybe even for our long term survival as a species.
If folks have soooo much to lose then what better opportunity is it to cut the shit cold turkey?

If it is clear that much is on the table then what better motivation is it to straighten up?

No, not this time. This time if the same shit is shoved down our throats it is time for everyone to eat it and go on eating it until they will swallow no more. It might take a few cycles but by the time my daughter comes of age the lesson will be burned into the bones.

[McCamy Taylor]

128. It only works if you are endowed with lots of privilege.

Those who live with privilege have no actual stake in an election, because things will never get any better for them than they are right now, and while they may not want to think about the fact that they are doing well at the expense of others, in their heart of hearts they know that they will do just fine---even if they do have to suffer some pangs of conscience when they see other people's kids starving.

So, they talk the liberal talk---and then wallow in their privilege. They declare Gore the same as Bush---knowing that their own kids will never end up fighting in a war for oil. If the person who makes the statement "Bush equals Gore" is some kind of celebrity, then he or she can even increase his or her own brand worth by portraying him or herself as cutting edge. "I'd be a communist revolutionary in Central America if I didn't have three movie contracts I have to fulfill."

[Tarc]

132. It is a scorched-earth mindset reminiscent of Tea Partiers

We're all here to promote and support the Democratic Party, this isn't bernie.com, hillary.com, or biden.com

Vote however you like in the primaries, but please come together behind whoever wins.

[Bonobo]

137. Pffft. Forget it. nt

[thesquanderer]

138. re: "I simply can't think of any possible explanation that makes any sense at all."

Here you go...

If you're in a swing state, I look at it the way you do, if for no other reason than we can't afford to have a Republican appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

But you know, if you live in New York or some other state that is definitely giving its elecoral votes to the Dem candidate no matter what, then there's no risk that not voting Dem is actually going to help put a Repub in the WH.

In that case, when there are no "real" stakes, someone might easily prefer to use his or her vote to send a message, by voting for the Green candidate or whatever. Or even just stay home, because they don't want to be part of a perception of an even bigger popular vote win for the victor. Maybe you'd prefer that the candidate who doesn't support your views win, but not necessarily by margins that indicate overwhelming support. Maybe it's worth doing what you can to send a message about the direction you really want the country to go in. At least as long as you're not really risking putting a Republican in the WH.