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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
147 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stop!!! You must vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs! (Original Post) JackRiddler Feb 2015 OP
well... wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #1
Easy choice for me, Hillary of course, dont need a republican for sure. Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #2
K&R Yep, that's certainly the "lesser of two evils" scam woo me with science Feb 2015 #3
you should really make this a post here Ramses Feb 2015 #14
i second that notion! TimeToEvolve Feb 2015 #33
I am all for saying what you want to say, so please don't misinterpret this: merrily Feb 2015 #86
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. TimeToEvolve Feb 2015 #31
Good cop, bad cop. Maedhros Feb 2015 #90
badcop/worsecop elehhhhna Feb 2015 #134
... R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2015 #40
Excellent post +1 Pooka Fey Feb 2015 #42
I'll endorse the "make this an OP" comment. Sad list. Scuba Feb 2015 #47
Excellent post. I totally agree. GoneFishin Feb 2015 #52
This: CrispyQ Feb 2015 #62
Good cop, bad cop game seems to work. Mimosa Feb 2015 #63
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #82
+ a billion! SammyWinstonJack Feb 2015 #89
Yeah... Agony Feb 2015 #93
This belongs on the Greatest Page. hifiguy Feb 2015 #96
But, What about the Supreme Court? vt_native Feb 2015 #127
+ 1000 - Well Said cantbeserious Mar 2015 #147
Stop! Rex Feb 2015 #4
Jeez, it's going to be a LONG 2 years... JaneyVee Feb 2015 #5
It's going to be a GREAT 2 years! bigwillq Feb 2015 #16
10 years... SidDithers Feb 2015 #34
If truth be told, he'd probably be better on foreign policy. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #6
Well I guess we know where you stand sharp_stick Feb 2015 #7
Yes, I'd like to not invade Syria and Iran. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #15
You think Jeb would sharp_stick Feb 2015 #23
Speaking of Henry Kissinger (sic) AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #25
Hey, we can post pictures of your favorite 2016 candidate too: Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #50
Well, since you asked. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #55
That might sting if I gave a damn. Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #57
Not passionate enough to care who wins? AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #58
It would be, but I still don't care if she wins or loses the nomination. Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #59
Can I play? ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #85
So you'd prefer the only Bush PNAC member? To avoid more Iraqs? Orsino Feb 2015 #64
In a match-up, I wouldn't vote for either of them. AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #69
That answers a different, if related, question. Orsino Feb 2015 #98
Yes, he wants to pretend we never invaded Iraq. RandySF Feb 2015 #11
Much less egregious than Hillary's expressed AtomicKitten Feb 2015 #17
Good luck with that. RandySF Feb 2015 #22
... Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #49
Nope. Never!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111 bigwillq Feb 2015 #8
I'm not a Hillary fan Terra Alta Feb 2015 #9
Break out the Loyalty Oaths. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #10
I wont vote for Republicans Ramses Feb 2015 #12
Not the point. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #13
if you dont want to vote for HRC arely staircase Feb 2015 #18
Hillary is not a Democrat Ramses Feb 2015 #20
And there are no true Scotsmen...yes, she is a democrat. We MUST face that HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #24
The Third Way was never a grass roots movement. woo me with science Feb 2015 #28
No doubt the DLC was elitist and 3rd Way is just rebranding that movement. HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #44
Here we go again... Agschmid Feb 2015 #26
Pro war, pro Wall Street, pro TPP, pro Keystone XL, pro H-1B visas, member of "The Family". Scuba Feb 2015 #48
^^^this!^^^ peacebird Feb 2015 #84
War is Peace! woo me with science Feb 2015 #92
Not to mention Jackson Stephens, Walmart and BCCI. Octafish Feb 2015 #122
Thanks Octafish. I'd never before heard of Stephens or BCCI. Scary stuff. Scuba Feb 2015 #138
You might enjoy some of the DUer summaries and connections from 2004, Scuba: Octafish Feb 2015 #139
Are you lacking in knowledge of Hillary's record or is determined from listening to Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #32
Yup. Agschmid Feb 2015 #46
What power you have: the ability to solely decide who is and isn't a Democrat..... brooklynite Feb 2015 #38
No, there are several of your seemingly less salonish that also seem to have such authority TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #141
you can call her Madame President soon arely staircase Feb 2015 #99
I will call her a REPUBLICAN, which HILLARY CLINTON is Ramses Feb 2015 #101
I dont give a shit what you call her arely staircase Feb 2015 #103
Which democrat are you talking about? nt Logical Feb 2015 #37
"I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you." CrispyQ Feb 2015 #77
nobody blames the left arely staircase Feb 2015 #100
Then you haven't been reading DU. CrispyQ Feb 2015 #116
no. bullshit naderite neghead divisive assholes catch shit from actual liberal democrats arely staircase Feb 2015 #120
I'M NEVER EVER going to vote for Obama!!!!! Remember that? FUD is strong here uponit7771 Feb 2015 #124
voted for the MAN from goldman sachs twice nt msongs Feb 2015 #19
+1 nt RiverLover Feb 2015 #45
. MohRokTah Feb 2015 #21
... SidDithers Feb 2015 #27
With you. jwirr Feb 2015 #29
no, vote for whoever the fu*k you want, but anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee or still_one Feb 2015 #30
So many mistakes, where to start. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #67
The election fraud would not have been possible if it hadn't been so close in key states still_one Feb 2015 #72
You're confusing lawful with criminal. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #133
-1 Buzz Clik Feb 2015 #35
Who in the hell is "the lady from Goldman Sachs"? NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #36
Top donors to Sen. Hillary Clinton, career. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #39
+1 woo me with science Feb 2015 #41
+1 Phlem Feb 2015 #76
UBS thanks her in other ways. Octafish Feb 2015 #97
... RiverLover Feb 2015 #43
You mean that wall of text you posted Phlem Feb 2015 #78
+1000000000000 marym625 Feb 2015 #51
This is all getting pretty ridiculous. MineralMan Feb 2015 #53
Turnout. jeff47 Feb 2015 #60
Not even primary season yet aspirant Feb 2015 #73
No, actually I haven't done that. MineralMan Feb 2015 #74
You made your prediction on your own OP aspirant Feb 2015 #75
That post presumes name recognition as the centrally important issue. Bonobo Feb 2015 #105
But name recognition has a great influence on MineralMan Feb 2015 #112
If Hillary didn't suck so bad on MAJOR issues it sure would help.... /nt think Feb 2015 #79
So, who do you have in mind to oppose her in the primaries. MineralMan Feb 2015 #80
Kind of hard to say without knowing who's running. I'm not getting my hopes up. think Feb 2015 #83
Because every stinking time they name their preferred candidate ... Elizabeth Warren ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #88
You know... Bonobo Feb 2015 #107
What world was that and in what era? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #110
Jimmy Carter. Bonobo Feb 2015 #113
Really? ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #117
I was 10, so no. Bonobo Feb 2015 #118
Primaries are about policy positions and platform ... 1StrongBlackMan Feb 2015 #119
Yeah, but... making up reality is so fun and.. and they actually don't have to think uponit7771 Feb 2015 #125
Two massively untrue statements are at the core of your post right there. Bonobo Feb 2015 #104
Watch the primaries. MineralMan Feb 2015 #114
See reply #105 for your syllogism. nt Bonobo Feb 2015 #115
It is my hope that Party leadership sees the negative attitude vis-a-vis Hillary as nominee Maedhros Feb 2015 #136
That's very unlikely. The national party organization MineralMan Feb 2015 #144
So you're saying that no matter what kind of groundswell we might create on social media Maedhros Feb 2015 #145
What groundswell are you talking about? MineralMan Feb 2015 #146
So I've been told. LWolf Feb 2015 #54
I believe you have hit it out of the park with this one. NCTraveler Feb 2015 #56
Thank you for kicking this important thread. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #66
Kicking again for the creative thought alone. nt. NCTraveler Feb 2015 #68
What would Goldman think of that? Octafish Feb 2015 #61
Some people will never get the point of this thread. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #65
If she's the nominee, I will because SCOTUS riderinthestorm Feb 2015 #70
Stop!!! I mustn't vote for the Lady from Goldman Sachs! Autumn Feb 2015 #71
I'm not exactly one of Hillary's biggest fans, but she's better than ANY Republican, for damn sure. AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #81
How about we wait for people to actually run? bobclark86 Feb 2015 #87
I think that was kind of the point.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #94
Enough already we can do it Feb 2015 #91
Whee! We suck less than those mean Republicans! backscatter712 Feb 2015 #95
... cause life is 99.9% clear cut choices?... no.. come on people ... the "suck less" happens cause uponit7771 Feb 2015 #126
Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro Social Security... brooklynite Feb 2015 #102
You left one pro out.. Fumesucker Feb 2015 #108
"With us or against us!" My experience: it is not the Hillary supporters espousing this. Buzz Clik Feb 2015 #106
You're going to lose this argument. Primarily because it is thoughtless and stupid alcibiades_mystery Feb 2015 #109
The Lesser of Two Evils charles d Feb 2015 #111
Point being... JackRiddler Feb 2015 #121
Cause we're dealing with humans? uponit7771 Feb 2015 #128
Goldman Sachs 2016 L0oniX Feb 2015 #123
Let it out now ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2015 #129
Smells just like 2007. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #132
Make sure to let us all know when you find a candidate who passes your ideological purity test! 6000eliot Feb 2015 #130
I suppose it's easier to have no standards whatsoever. JackRiddler Feb 2015 #131
Because of course there are only two possibilities. 6000eliot Feb 2015 #137
Some people! JackRiddler Feb 2015 #140
Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro ACA, pro stable social security... brooklynite Feb 2015 #143
Why not cut to the chase and JEB Feb 2015 #135
The sick thing is... JackRiddler Feb 2015 #142

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
3. K&R Yep, that's certainly the "lesser of two evils" scam
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:36 PM
Feb 2015

that corporatists in both parties keep using on us.

Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.

BUT, we are reminded by sneering corporate Democrats, Republicans will do all of this to us, too, PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds!

What a vicious scam by both parties to justify relentless, predatory evil. To demand that we vote for our own sellout and exploitation and the dismantling of our democracy itself.

You know what I've decided? At a certain point it becomes necessary to say no to deliberate evil. To refuse to bow to the scam and the manipulation and refuse to endorse evil, period. *Even* when it is waving its claws and protesting that there's even scarier evil over there.


TimeToEvolve

(303 posts)
33. i second that notion!
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:19 AM
Feb 2015

if not ELIZABETH WARREN for prez , the BERNIE SANDERS!
if it ends up as bush vs clinton, I'm not voting because if it gets that bad, then the outcome really doesn't matter

merrily

(45,251 posts)
86. I am all for saying what you want to say, so please don't misinterpret this:
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:14 PM
Feb 2015

The terms of service of this board are that you vote Democratic, not third party, and that you don't choose not to vote at all.


Inasmuch as no one on this board knows whether you hauled yourself to the polls (or in my case, strolled three blocks) or what you did in the polling booth, I translate that to "if you post certain things, we might hide your post or suspend or ban you especially if post those things during election season."

If you have read the terms of service and wish to say those things anyway, go for it. I am on the side of self expression. I just don't want you to get blindsided because you forgot about the terms of service.

TimeToEvolve

(303 posts)
31. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM
Feb 2015

there isnt a lesser evil, they are equivalent evils, the corporate dems are tacitly complicit with the repubs, but they keep it on the DL.

CrispyQ

(36,221 posts)
62. This:
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:23 PM
Feb 2015
What a vicious scam by both parties to justify relentless, predatory evil. To demand that we vote for our own sellout and exploitation and the dismantling of our democracy itself.

You know what I've decided? At a certain point it becomes necessary to say no to deliberate evil. To refuse to bow to the scam and the manipulation and refuse to endorse evil, period. *Even* when it is waving its claws and protesting that there's even scarier evil over there.




Post it woo.

Mimosa

(9,131 posts)
63. Good cop, bad cop game seems to work.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:41 PM
Feb 2015

woo me with science, your post is truly great. I've seen it the same way for years.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
82. Okay ...
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:07 PM
Feb 2015
BUT, we are reminded by sneering corporate Democrats, Republicans will do all of this to us, too, PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds!


Of the two alternatives ... the sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs, or the Party that will do everything that the sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs, will do PLUS inflict transvaginal ultrasounds?

Okay, hit replay now ... "But all we have to do is just vote in a non-sneering corporate Democrats, i.e., lesser of the evils sell-outs!"
 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
15. Yes, I'd like to not invade Syria and Iran.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:31 PM
Feb 2015

Both of which warmonger Hillary Clinton has expressed a keen interest in doing.

sharp_stick

(14,400 posts)
23. You think Jeb would
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:34 PM
Feb 2015

leave them alone? Holy shit man that's some good foreign policy chops you've got. Fucking Henry Kissenger pretty much lives with that family.

 

Ykcutnek

(1,305 posts)
57. That might sting if I gave a damn.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:57 AM
Feb 2015


You should have saved that zinger for someone else.

I'm not passionate enough to care who wins. My activism begins and ends with washing my hair and armpits before going to the polls to vote straight Dem. Oh, and signing the occasional online petition.

If someone happens to beat Hillary in the primaries, I'll apply the same amount of pressure on the touchscreen as I would with any D running and not give it a second thought.
 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
58. Not passionate enough to care who wins?
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:09 PM
Feb 2015

That's not what this guy said:

Ykcutnek (1,275 posts)

Outside of La La Land, people still adore the Clintons and it will be amazing to have them back at 1600 Pennsylvania.

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026232931


 

Ykcutnek

(1,305 posts)
59. It would be, but I still don't care if she wins or loses the nomination.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:30 PM
Feb 2015

Warren or Sanders would be fine if they had a snowball's chance.

 

AtomicKitten

(46,585 posts)
69. In a match-up, I wouldn't vote for either of them.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:17 PM
Feb 2015

I'd write in a progressive like Elizabeth or Bernie.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
98. That answers a different, if related, question.
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:38 AM
Feb 2015

But do you really think Jeb would start fewer wars than Hillary would? Or what sort of "better" did you mean?

Terra Alta

(5,158 posts)
9. I'm not a Hillary fan
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:03 PM
Feb 2015

won't vote for her in the primary, but if she is the nominee I'll vote for her over any Repuke in the general election.

I live in a swing state, so my vote matters.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
10. Break out the Loyalty Oaths.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:04 PM
Feb 2015
Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently.

Rosa Luxemburg
 

Ramses

(721 posts)
12. I wont vote for Republicans
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:12 PM
Feb 2015

I promise you that. Politicians can call themselves whatever they want. It is their deeds and actions that matter. And if its a choice between two republicans, millions more American citizens will sit home, and protests and anger will grow on a daily basis. Most know the electronic voting is rigged, so much of what we see is preening and in your face mocking at this point. The 1% know they will win either way.

Its the American people that lose that game.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
13. Not the point.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:13 PM
Feb 2015

The campaigns are still pre-primary, and there are those who want to settle it beforehand to the favor of the lady from Goldman Sachs, because... Jeb Bush!!!

(In fact, the campaigns are not even announced yet, officially...)

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
18. if you dont want to vote for HRC
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:53 PM
Feb 2015

Then dont. Many more will. I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you. Hard as it may be.

 

Ramses

(721 posts)
20. Hillary is not a Democrat
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:05 PM
Feb 2015

Hillary can call herself Barney the Purple Dinosaur for all I care. Hillary's policies and ideology is republican as can be. So support a Republican if you want. Tens of millions of Americans will become poorer, more angry. more in poverty. Rigged electronic voting will determine the election anyway. Im not sure why the bother except to rub salt in the wound and rub it in our faces.

The 1% always wins.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
24. And there are no true Scotsmen...yes, she is a democrat. We MUST face that
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:38 PM
Feb 2015

she does represent what has developed on the right side of the party.

She has very conscienciously shaped her credentials to be a perfect match that side, too.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
28. The Third Way was never a grass roots movement.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:14 AM
Feb 2015

The Third Way is and has always been a corporate-bankrolled, deliberate infiltration of the party with the goal of transferring the party's representation and policy agenda from the people to corporate interests.


In their own words. An "intellectual buyout" of the Democratic Party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026216863

Hillary, DLC/Third Way, Neocons, PNAC, Etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121











Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
26. Here we go again...
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:11 AM
Feb 2015
A new study suggests Obama had the most liberal voting record in 2007.

(CNN) - Barack Obama has demonstrated his appeal to independent voters and even some Republicans as he campaigns for president, though a just-released study from the National Journal indicates the Illinois Democrat was the most liberal senator in 2007.

Chief rival Hillary Clinton held the 16th most liberal voting record last year, the non-partisan survey of 99 major Senate votes found.

Source


Here are some ratings by organizations...

NARAL 100%
Planned Parenthood 100%
National Organization for Women 100%
Humane Society of United States 100%
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100%
Sierra Club 90%
Human Rights Campaign 95%
ACLU 75%
NAACP 96%
National Council of La Raza 100%
PeacePAC 100%
Service Employees International Union 100%
Alliance for Retired Americans 100%
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100%
League of Conservation Voters 100%

Source


The list goes on an on... it's a bull to say she isn't liberal.
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
48. Pro war, pro Wall Street, pro TPP, pro Keystone XL, pro H-1B visas, member of "The Family".
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:28 AM
Feb 2015

Yeah, that's a liberal all right.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
122. Not to mention Jackson Stephens, Walmart and BCCI.
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:58 PM
Feb 2015

Which amount to more than a few IOUs for future favor.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
139. You might enjoy some of the DUer summaries and connections from 2004, Scuba:
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 09:35 AM
Feb 2015
Of Jackson Stephens, Jimmy Carter, BCCI & the Bushes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=977792&mesg_id=985500

Part of This Old Thread:

BCCI class action begins January 13th, London, UK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x977792

Loads o' links to help explain how money came to trump peace and a whole lot more.

Also shows how important DU is for recording history that, for some reason, Corporate McPravda and Crapademia work to miss.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
32. Are you lacking in knowledge of Hillary's record or is determined from listening to
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM
Feb 2015

The trashing of Hillary. Yes, she is Democrat, study her record before declaring her not to be a Democrat.

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
38. What power you have: the ability to solely decide who is and isn't a Democrat.....
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:28 AM
Feb 2015

I hope you only use it for good...

TheKentuckian

(24,934 posts)
141. No, there are several of your seemingly less salonish that also seem to have such authority
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 AM
Feb 2015

according to their posts.

What goes around comes around.

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
99. you can call her Madame President soon
Tue Feb 17, 2015, 11:51 PM
Feb 2015

let hating begin. The Clintons back inv the white house will be such a joy for many reasons, not the least of which they piss off the right people.

 

Ramses

(721 posts)
101. I will call her a REPUBLICAN, which HILLARY CLINTON is
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:00 AM
Feb 2015

I thought voting for REPUBLICAN POLICIES AND IDEALS was forbidden here. Guess not, if the REPUBLICAN is HILLARY CLINTON

Keep repeating the lies over and over, NO ONE IS BUYING THE REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT ANYMORE


repeat the LIES and LIES over and over and over.

HILLARY SUPPORTS REPUBLICAN POLICIES.. and I will repeat the truth over and over and over...

CrispyQ

(36,221 posts)
77. "I am sure we can elect a Democrat with out you."
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:53 PM
Feb 2015

If that's true, then why does the left always get blamed when dems lose?

2010 - the left didn't show up
2014 - the left didn't show up

CrispyQ

(36,221 posts)
116. Then you haven't been reading DU.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:23 AM
Feb 2015

The left gets blamed every time the dems don't do well. Hell, I've even heard it on the MSM – that the left didn't show up & therefore the cause of the dems loss.

arely staircase

(12,482 posts)
120. no. bullshit naderite neghead divisive assholes catch shit from actual liberal democrats
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 07:59 PM
Feb 2015

If such people think they are "the left" they are fucking delusional. The left in this country are those of us who get out and work our precincts for progressive candidates like Ann Richards or Wendy Davis or Warren or Clinton. Bullshit keyboard posers are just noise.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
30. no, vote for whoever the fu*k you want, but anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee or
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:18 AM
Feb 2015

stays home is irrelevant because they are ignoring the potential consequence of their actions in the make up of the SC

but don't let me sway with your distortion of the talking point of "what a monster" Hillary is:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

Nader tried that bullshit in 2000, and thanks to those games we have Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
67. So many mistakes, where to start.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:57 PM
Feb 2015

Just two key bits:

1) Thanks to a fraud in Florida and an unconstitutional move by the Supreme Court, Bush was given the presidency in 2000 against the actual vote of the people. (Those who blame this coup d'etat, this crime, on Nader's legal campaign are in a deep and sad denial.)

2) The Scalia and Thomas appointments to SC preceded the 2000 election, one reason that it turned out the way it did.

3) Most importantly, the point of the OP is that it's not Clinton vs. Bush.

That is the distraction chosen by Clinton's supporters. It is dishonest. Right now, it is Clinton vs. a different nominee.

I choose a different nominee. Because I understand how bad "Bush" and the rest are, and I want more of a difference.

still_one

(91,937 posts)
72. The election fraud would not have been possible if it hadn't been so close in key states
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:23 PM
Feb 2015

I understand your view but thanks to big money choices at least for now are limited

My point was that they were Republican appointments

bill Clinton appointed Ginsberg, not bad, and I there is no doubt in my mind that Democratic choices would be far better than Republican ones, that was my main point, with a little dramatic license

Appreciate your views though

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
133. You're confusing lawful with criminal.
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:04 PM
Feb 2015

It should matter more to you that democracy was rendered moot through a coup d'etat by a cabal of mass murderers than that some third party candidate ran a legal campaign. Someone's burning down the house and you're complaining about the neighbor's party.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
35. -1
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:21 AM
Feb 2015

I do not support Hillary at all, but this herd mentality from DU is disappointing.

You'd think I would learn.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
97. UBS thanks her in other ways.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:52 PM
Feb 2015

Phil Gramm spearheaded the deregulation and legislation that gave us the Banksters and their Trillions, stolen from Wall Street mopes, then repaid by penured U.S. taxpayers. About the day after leaving the Senate, Gramm went to work as Vice Chairman for beneficiary UBS of Switzerland. He's since brought along to the pirate sector those who helped him, like the one who signed the repeal of New Deal protections into law.

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

marym625

(17,997 posts)
51. +1000000000000
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 09:56 AM
Feb 2015

We were told on another thread that if we have anything negative to say about Hillary, we should go to a Republican site

So now we don't even get to push for who we would prefer over another friend of the banks, war monger prior to the primaries.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
53. This is all getting pretty ridiculous.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:34 AM
Feb 2015

We aren't even in primary season yet. That won't happen until next year. There is no candidate for President from either party.

I'm pretty sure that the best move at this point is to find a favorite candidate to run in the primaries and work like crazy to sing the praises of that candidate. While Hillary Clinton will probably be one of the primary candidates, beating up on her will do nothing to promote anyone else. If she runs, she'll be hard to beat, so the better approach would be to identify the primary candidate you like best and work to promote that candidate.

General negative campaigning is not going to change the outcome of the primaries. It's not going to do much toward determining who th eventual candidate for President will be, either. In fact, I can't see that it does much good for Democratic candidates in general.

You want to attack someone? Attack Republicans. Then, when a Democratic candidate is finally chosen, you'll have a good start on trashing whoever the opposing candidate will be. That's the real race, not this pre-primary stuff.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
60. Turnout.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:51 PM
Feb 2015

2016 hinges on turnout.

You may not see much value in these posts, but they should be giant red flags for Team Clinton. They need turnout. They lost 2008 due to turnout - that's how Obama beat them. Clinton can only win 2016 via turnout. And pissed-off activists does not bode well for turnout.

Clinton needs to adopt more "Warren-style" positions in order to get the turnout she needs. But that's going to be extremely difficult for Clinton, due to the lengthy track record. Which means she needs to start now, and start repudiating the parts of her past that are not attractive.

If she doesn't, and we get Clinton 2008 again, it will be a close race. And Republicans can win close races.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
73. Not even primary season yet
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:32 PM
Feb 2015

but you have already sat in your high chair and crowned Mrs. "Billy Jeff" Clinton the winner, your amazing psychic predictions.

So now talk nice about her because she is are anointed Queen.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
74. No, actually I haven't done that.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:37 PM
Feb 2015

At this point, she has a distinct lead in polling. I don't see anyone else who is even close who is considering running, do you?

At this point, I do believe she will be the Democratic candidate and that she will win the general election.

Can you offer the name of someone else who might run who can beat her? Nobody seems to be able to do that.

And no, it is not primary season yet, but announcement should start coming in soon. Who are you encouraging to run?

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
75. You made your prediction on your own OP
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:44 PM
Feb 2015

and bragged how accurate you have been.

You even said it is too early to predict the GE, not the primary

Is your memory fading?

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
105. That post presumes name recognition as the centrally important issue.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:22 AM
Feb 2015

As such it is an elegant example of why we still have Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Cuomos, and other royalty-like presences in our fucked up political system.

Star worship ain't just for Hollywood anymore.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
112. But name recognition has a great influence on
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:54 AM
Feb 2015

presidential elections. It can't be ignored. Now, if every voter took the time to research candidates and learn their positions on everything, that might not be the case, but they don't. The presidential election is the only one voted on by people everywhere and in ever state. It's our only national election, despite the electoral college aspect.

That's why I pay much less attention to that election than I do to state and federal legislative races. That's why my electoral activism is focused on races in my districts and state. The presidential election is a completely different thing, and is an election where I have approximately zero effect on the results.

As a national election, it has a completely different set of things that affect the outcome. And name recognition is one of those.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
80. So, who do you have in mind to oppose her in the primaries.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:00 PM
Feb 2015

Why doesn't anyone answer that question?

 

think

(11,641 posts)
83. Kind of hard to say without knowing who's running. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:09 PM
Feb 2015

And just expecting to vote against the Republican because pathetically it will be my only option.....

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
88. Because every stinking time they name their preferred candidate ... Elizabeth Warren ...
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:24 PM
Feb 2015

some smart-a$$ posts a reminder that she said she isn't going to run for President in 2016!

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
107. You know...
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:23 AM
Feb 2015

a world in which people vote based on positions and platforms -as opposed to star-like name recognition- was once the reality.

No reason to give in to stupidity and abandon hope for a return to rationality.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
117. Really? ...
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 11:32 AM
Feb 2015

The Carter election was the first election I voted in ... and to be honest, I couldn't have told you what his policy positions/platform was. My vote was a rejection of the republican Nixon corruption and the Ford's place-holding ... And I suspect, I was NOT in the minority on that.

Can you honestly (i.e., without do the google) recount, today, what Carter's policy positions or platform was?

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
118. I was 10, so no.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:03 PM
Feb 2015

But if your claim is that he only one as an opposition vote, then how did he get through the primaries to defeat a Kennedy?

No, he won despite having no big name because of his positions.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
119. Primaries are about policy positions and platform ...
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:17 PM
Feb 2015

as the those voting in them are interested in politics and electability, as they sort through their partisan alternatives; whereas, the general is more about perception and image among the larger electorate.

Carter won the General largely because he was NOT a corrupt and/or lackluster republican.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
104. Two massively untrue statements are at the core of your post right there.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:20 AM
Feb 2015

Let's look at them:

"General negative campaigning is not going to change the outcome of the primaries."

"It's not going to do much toward determining who th eventual candidate for President will be, either."

Stunningly wrong on both. There is no reason or justification for such a deluded belief. Why on earth would it NOT change the outcome of the primaries and thus change the eventual candidate for President???

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
114. Watch the primaries.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 10:59 AM
Feb 2015

Neither of my statements is untrue, as those primaries will demonstrate. What really matters in the Democratic primaries is whether or not some strong Democratic candidate appears to challenge Hillary Clinton. I can't see one on the horizon, frankly. Can you? If so, time is rapidly running out for that candidate to declare and start building support.

Warren has pretty clearly stated her intention not to run. Sanders, who isn't even a Democrat, hasn't announced running as a Democrat. I can't think of any others who would be a serious challenge to a Clinton primary candidacy.

If you can think of someone, let me know.

That said, if Hillary Clinton does get the nomination, negative statements from Democrats about her certainly could change the outcome in the general election. They could also work to suppress turnout and affect state and federal legislative elections. That's always something to consider. I do not want a Republican-controlled government. Not one bit.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
136. It is my hope that Party leadership sees the negative attitude vis-a-vis Hillary as nominee
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:36 AM
Feb 2015

and puts its weight behind another candidate. To that end, pointing out Hillary's connections to Wall Street and other policy shortcomings is timely right now.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
144. That's very unlikely. The national party organization
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:33 AM
Feb 2015

will no doubt stand behind Hillary Clinton. I have no doubt that the Minnesota DFL state convention will send Hillary Clinton delegates to the national convention. I can't imagine any other outcome, and we're a pretty progressive party, in general. Why? Because, beginning with the precinct caucus straw vote, she'll be the winner by a huge majority. The party is controlled by the local organizations, since delegates come directly through the caucus and district convention route.

Lacking a very, very strong opposing primary candidate, what you would like will not happen.

 

Maedhros

(10,007 posts)
145. So you're saying that no matter what kind of groundswell we might create on social media
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 01:30 PM
Feb 2015

in opposition to a Hillary candidacy, the Party will still simply ignore us?

Not very Democratic. In any case, if I can convince others to not vote for Hillary then it serves my interests.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
146. What groundswell are you talking about?
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:00 PM
Feb 2015

I'm not seeing any such thing out in the real world.

You want to convince people not to vote for Hillary? Whatever. You're going to need an alternative choice to sell them, then.

Me? I'm working to elect Democrats to office. Whoever is the presidential candidate selected by the Democratic Convention will get my support. You will do whatever you please or whatever "serves your interests," whatever those might be.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
54. So I've been told.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:35 AM
Feb 2015

Ad nauseum.

In the latest round, it's my fault that HRC is going to be the nominee, because I should have started a vigorous campaign for someone to oppose her long ago. Besides, apparently, Democrats "love" her. She's so popular, you know.

So who can we start pushing to throw their hats into the ring? Warren? Should she decide to do so, I'll be there. Sanders? At this point, he may be my guy. Anyone else? Either of my senators would be great, although I'd hate to lose them in the Senate.

Who else? Any governors?

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
56. I believe you have hit it out of the park with this one.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 11:54 AM
Feb 2015

One of the most insightful things I have ever read. You should win something. I get that you are poking fun at the anti-Hillary group by use of hyperbole. Pretty easy target though. I mean, things no one has ever said for 2000 Alex.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
65. Some people will never get the point of this thread.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:50 PM
Feb 2015

Prior to a disaster that may befall us in 2016, for at least the next year and a couple of months there is no Clinton vs. Bush. Or Clinton vs. any Republican.

For now, there is Clinton, yes or no.

I say no. No, no, no.

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
70. If she's the nominee, I will because SCOTUS
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 04:20 PM
Feb 2015

It will be as simple as that for me. Holding the line for Roe v Wade is hugely important for me and I wonder how many more years Ginsberg has left...

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
81. I'm not exactly one of Hillary's biggest fans, but she's better than ANY Republican, for damn sure.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:02 PM
Feb 2015

EOM.

bobclark86

(1,415 posts)
87. How about we wait for people to actually run?
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:23 PM
Feb 2015

I know, I know. It would drop the number of hyperbolic, sarcastic OPs, but just CHILL, man. Go take a vacation to Colorado Springs or something.

Seriously considering trashing every thread on 2016 until the day before the NY primary...

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
95. Whee! We suck less than those mean Republicans!
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 07:41 PM
Feb 2015

The Republican Lite strategy worked sooooo well for us in 2014...

Everybody clap louder!

WE SUCK LESS!

WE SUCK LESS!

WE SUCK LESS!

I feel inspired and fired up and ready to go already!

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
126. ... cause life is 99.9% clear cut choices?... no.. come on people ... the "suck less" happens cause
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:50 PM
Feb 2015

... we're dealing with humans

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
106. "With us or against us!" My experience: it is not the Hillary supporters espousing this.
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:22 AM
Feb 2015

It's the kneejerkers calling Clinton "the Lady from Goldman Sachs."

I do not like Hillary Clinton, but I hate this shit. And every time I say so, the howlers come out in full force.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
109. You're going to lose this argument. Primarily because it is thoughtless and stupid
Wed Feb 18, 2015, 12:36 AM
Feb 2015

And I'm not even a Hillary fan.

You simply have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Your post is silly and immature and, yes, stupid. And I know you're not, but you really have nothing to say. It's sad, but it's a symptom of why the Left can't field anything of value. Dumb, childish, lashing out arguments.

Do better.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
121. Point being...
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:09 PM
Feb 2015

Neither of the two evils are set yet, so that isn't the question, and the people who are already saying Clinton or a Republican are merely trying to preempt democracy on behalf of her misbegotten candidacy.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
131. I suppose it's easier to have no standards whatsoever.
Thu Feb 19, 2015, 11:01 PM
Feb 2015

Your cry of "ideology" is mere rhetoric to dismiss legitimate concerns about a bought-and-sold politician of the 1%. She and the rest of her neoliberal gaing don't care about you, unless you're for Goldman-Sachs and humanitarian imperialism.


6000eliot

(5,643 posts)
137. Because of course there are only two possibilities.
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:24 AM
Feb 2015

Either the SUPER standards of some people or no standards whatsoever.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
140. Some people!
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:05 AM
Feb 2015

They keep wanting peace and justice. Why won't they shut up? The only two possibilities are Clinton or eternal hell for all!!!

brooklynite

(93,834 posts)
143. Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro ACA, pro stable social security...
Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:20 AM
Feb 2015

...sound like pretty good standards to start with.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Stop!!! You must vote for...