HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mad_Machine76 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Mara Alis Butler
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 22,487

About Me

Transgender Woman /Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

He's going to tell us that he's been trolling everybody the whole time?

and that he wasn't ever really serious about running for POTUS?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:50 PM (1 replies)

Why should she?

Should Bernie repudiate any Republicans voting for him in open primaries (or in the GE)? After all, I have heard that, unlike Hillary, Bernie can attract Indie and Republican voters and work with the Republicans in Congress. Did we give President Obama grief for attracting some Republican votes in 2008 (and probably in 2012)?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Mar 1, 2016, 08:44 PM (1 replies)

What are the Sanders "revolutionaries" going to do

the minute that Bernie fails to deliver on a promise, comes up with a bad policy/strategy, has to "compromise" with Republicans, and/or fails to show up with his "comfortable shoes" to walk a picket line (because, you know, Presidents are pretty busy with a country/world to run)? Whether or not Obama turned out to be the perfect Progressive POTUS, there is so much more that progressive activists could have been doing the past 8 years at the state, local, and congressional level to ensure more progressive policies and improved quality of life for more people (i.e. voting, GOTV). President Obama got TWO years with a Democratic majority to do stuff and only a matter of months when he didn't have to worry about Republicans filibustering stuff to death. The rest of his Presidency, he has had to cut deals with massive Republican obstructionists and wrecking balls in the House (and now the Senate) just to keep the federal government semi-functional.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:57 AM (2 replies)

Doesn't sound like Sandoval is one of the looney ones

At any rate, I believe that he has already publicly declined to be considered. Obama was probably messing around with Republicans anyway.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:54 AM (0 replies)

If the polls support him

He will win the nomination, right?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 09:26 AM (1 replies)

I personally think that SCOTUS is too high-profile to obstruct successfully (for the long-term)

When President Obama publicly nominates and promotes an obviously well-qualified and seemingly non-partisan/"non-threatening" nominee, the Republicans will have to twist themselves into all kinds of knots to explain why they won't even allow for a nomination hearing. Something tells me that they won't be able to hold out for a whole 10 months and if they do, the GOP is far from destined to win the WH next year, esp. if Trump is their nominee, so Hillary and Bernie will wind up nominating somebody when they take office and the GOP will have to eventually relent. They can't keep the seat vacant for years and they know that. Plus, institutional problems on the Supreme Court while the Republicans are pulling their shenanigans might put some pressure on them as well. Roberts might care about wanting a fully seated court to preside over and *might* convince his Republican buddies to give up on this nonsense. I just can't see this ending well for the GOP but we'll just have to all sit back and watch this farce play out.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 09:18 PM (0 replies)


Sounds like he plans on stalling out the rest of Obama's term and doesn't sound like expects that Obama will nominate the Justice who is eventually confirmed.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:29 PM (0 replies)




Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:52 PM (1 replies)

When Republicans are in the WH

We have to accept that they are going to nominate conservative-leaning justices. When we are in the WH, Republicans are just going to have to learn to accept that we will nominate left-leaning justices. That is the reality. There is also no precedent for expecting Republicans to nominate left-leaning justices. There should be no expectation from anybody that Democrats should replace conservative justices with like-minded individuals in order to preserve some kind of ludicrous notion of "balance".
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:13 PM (0 replies)

They could lose the chance to replace RBG

who will likely not survive the next 4-8 years on the court (Not that I would care if they do of course). And Scalia will HAVE to be replaced at some point. His seat can't stay vacant forever. It is not politically possible IMHO. Fighting over lower court nominees is one thing. Fighting over SCOTUS is taking it to a whole other level. Obama is going to nominate and Republicans will have to repeatedly justify their obstructionism, which won't do them many favors politically, at least with indies.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:55 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »