HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Hortensis » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: Deep South, USA
Home country: USA
Current location: My favorite chair, or maybe out on the porch.
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:54 AM
Number of posts: 31,522

Journal Archives

Maybe not. That was the pattern of the past, yes.

However, just look at Trump's supporters. Many were tea-partiers not long ago. Yet following Trump, they really don't care about deregulation and the evils of "big government." At least 75% of conservatives feel the wealthy don't pay enough in taxes. They like Social Security. The ultraconservative puppeteers have currently lost control of the right's ideological direction.

And let's face it, for every action there is reaction. Take a look at this history of the ideology of Congress. Just how batshit-crazy-conservative can that blue Republican Congress line go? The voting patterns of the people the ultrawealthy have been manipulating into Congress have moved farther and farther away from the traditional conservatism people grew up with for close to 30 years now.

NOT drop out. Run the clean, positive campaign

he promised in the first place. That is appropriate. It is also appropriate for his supporters. Not a single Hillary supporter has been converted to Sanders by insulting them, so maybe switch to insulting GOP CANDIDATES and see what you can do there. Leave GOP voters alone, tho.

Shamefully misleading post. Hillary's focus has always been

on the wellbeing of children, families and women. As soon as anyone reads this it should be obvious that this is at very best extremely incomplete. Not worth my time, but I will point out that Bill was president, not Hillary, and that historians consider her more liberal than he in that period.

Remember W? A very sobering lesson.

And we're getting one hell of a lesson right now as the GOP threatens to destroy itself and/or foist a nincompoop with a serious, diagnosable personality disorder right into the Oval Office.

I want one man, one vote, absolutely! But self destruction would throw away our power and negate our votes. I support some improved version of the superdelegate system that brings some political professionals into the process against the day that others foolishly try to steer our Democratic ship onto the rocks or into a hurricane.

Yes. I read that NV, and Harry Reid especially, changed to caucases because

they wanted to the date earlier to make Nevada, which is far more representative demographically and positioned in the West, more prominent in the early election cycle and to offset the untoward influence of whitey-white New Hampshire and Vermont. Unless we can someday attend caucuses from home, though, it's not the most democratic form.

BlackAdder, the only way Bernie could even

approach a moral victory on this claim would be to hire tens of millions on the federal payroll. I'd love to put all those people to work rebuilding America, but that just can't happen in this era. Half of our fellow citizens see cutting government power and spending as a moral and/or religious crusade. Those Americans have votes, the same as us, and they will have some real say in what we can do.

Please note also, Congress controls the pursestrings on the federal budget.

I've been known to read a book, not the safest thing tho. :)

Ulalula's right, you know. Some of us have been in it

for the looong haul. Bernie's views are not at all new to me either and socially pretty much in line with what I've always supported; his true economic positions are to my left as I don't support destroying tried and true systems that work well when properly controlled in favor of experimentation. Nevertheless, I've been waiting over 35 years for a politician to be able to admit to his positions in public again and still be able to be elected.

I'm grateful to him for taking a hint from Elizabeth Warren's success and stepping up to show the nation that we have moved left again finally. But he's not going to be president for a variety of reasons, most of which can be stacked right at his door, like spending his 25 years in Congress acting disdainful of his colleagues instead of building alliances.

Thank heavens, we don't have to choose him to have change. Hillary's never as far to the left as Bernie at any period, but their real-world positions are pretty similar on most issues and they compromise during the political process in roughly the same ranges of acceptability. This is something Bernie's supporters don't want to admit, but it's extremely well documented.

Well, if there had been a strong, effective liberal block

that was rebuilding America while HRC was working with the right to sabotage our greatness, I wouldn't forgive her either. But that was not the case.

I don't like where we've been, but I do not think that, out of so many to choose from who were there, loading all this resentment onto THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER FOR THE PRESIDENCY is half as principled as some choose to imagine it is.

The next president will name at least TWO and as many as FOUR justices to the Supreme Court, who still will be there long after many of us here are senile or dead.

Appointing young justices who can impose a strong conservative and/or libertarian ideology on the nation for at least the next 30 to 40 years is THE great shining hope of a desperate right, which now already has fewer voters than the left. Winning the presidency isn't their chief goal, taking the Supreme Court is.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3