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

2016 Postmortem

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

16. I know that is your argument, and once again, anyone thinking that way should have known

Reply to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 08:25 PM

Dec 2016

that the reality of the situation we faced was at worst, a Democrat who would not create additional anti-pot legislation if elected versus Republicans who would attempt to turn back the progress made on that, no matter what BS they were selling during the campaign.

A Democracy depends on an electorate willing to educate themselves on the issues and the history of the behavior of the parties and individuals involved. We have seen this before again and again. There is no excuse for not knowing this.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I heard some folks say Hillary wasn't pro-Pot enough. Well, say hello to AG Sessions [View all] stevenleser Dec 2016 OP

The genie is out of the bottle on dope, I think Auggie Dec 2016 #1

My concern is he will usher in the corporate takeover NWCorona Dec 2016 #2

Yeah, that's where I see this going. (n/t) SMC22307 Dec 2016 #6

Trump Tokes...nt SidDithers Dec 2016 #13

The beer and pharmaceutical industries will absolutely love that fucking asshole Sessions mtnsnake Dec 2016 #3

Well, Hillary and Trump were functionally equivalent on the stump, ie "let states decide". Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #4

Nope, people have to be smarter than that, as you can see the end result stevenleser Dec 2016 #7

You seem to be arguing with phantom people who didn't actually vote for Hillary. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #9

Nope, I'm arguing re: people who said there was functionally no difference, like you just did. nt stevenleser Dec 2016 #11

I'm not going to play one of these "bad internet arguments" games, Steve. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #12

And I am saying people have to be smarter than that and use history as a guide. stevenleser Dec 2016 #17

I'm all for people being smarter. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #20

Would you acknowledge that maybe DWS was a real problem for our party in Florida? Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #5

Nope, people not learning from the past was the issue for our party stevenleser Dec 2016 #8

You're having a conversation with yourself, which bears no resemblance to anything I asked. Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #10

I know that is your argument, and once again, anyone thinking that way should have known stevenleser Dec 2016 #16

Who do you think I voted for, Steve? Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #18

Why do you insist in thinking this is about you or how I think you voted? This is broader than that. stevenleser Dec 2016 #19

Yes, it's about fighting imaginary battles against "some folks", most of whom aren't even on this Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #21

This entire forum is about that battle and that "DU primary fighting goodness" stevenleser Dec 2016 #22

No, I haven't seen any evidence that it was insufficiently enthused Sanders weed people Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #23

Hillary wasn't perfect on every issue mcar Dec 2016 #14

Yep, and here we are. nt stevenleser Dec 2016 #15