General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (MohRokTah) on Mon Feb 23, 2015, 11:04 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts) 
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I expect the namecalling to enter the end stage and call HRC supporters the Spawn of Satan.
Every Democrat, elected or not, is the anti-Christ to people who hate the Democratic Party.
Meh!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You know that I've been called an Obamabot and other unsavory names, as well. I guess it just needed to be pointed out that some people don't think doing that is a-okay even if the one doing it thinks it is.
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her. I am a Democrat, after all, and I don't care if I'm voting "for the lesser of two evils". Better to have one flawed Democrat in the White House than two pristine Liberals in the bushes.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Because she will pursue the exact same policies but no one here will oppose it because she did it rather than Bush. The Hillbots should just vote for Bush. That way at least we can start organizing some opposition because we will be aware that we are screwed instead of following the same path blindly. Hillary is all NSA, Wall St, Keystone Pipeline, War Machine and Mass Incarceration. This so called editorial is extremely weak and pointless and just another cheerleading obfuscation and misdirection from a supporter of war and oppression.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Compare her record to that of Bush. You can start here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
And here:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/leslie-marshall/2014/02/19/hillary-clintons-accomplishments-speak-for-themselves
So we'll agree to disagree since I understand that no matter what I say, post links to, argue, and show you just how wrong you are, you'll stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la!" - determined to hate on a Democrat. And no matter what you say, especially after that hyperbolic "Hillary is no different than Bush, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Just be careful not to do the Koch Bros and the GOP's work for them - which is exactly what you're doing.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Hillbot mania once again.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6261959
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling somebody who supports Hillary Clinton a "Hillbot" is namecalling and not worthy of a place on DU.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 22, 2015, 07:16 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hillbot? really? I don't like Hillary, but I wouldn't call her supporters 'Hillbot's...HIDE
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Childish comment. But if it stands, everyone can see how immature the poster is.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: MohRokTah is a Freeper disruptor.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: hillbot is rude
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
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.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Disgusting juror. That juror should be thrown off DU for that comment. Hopefully the Admins will look at that alert and the results.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)That would not be a bad thing.
H2O Man
(79,051 posts)In the OP, you refer to those who may not vote for a specific candidate by use of the word "stupid"; when someone takes an equally cheap shot at you, it is your opinion that they should be thrown off of DU.
Now that I've gotten off on the wrong foot, I will say that I think you make valuable contributions to this forum. I'm not in favor of things like the OP, but it's no better or worse than a lot of the nonsense on DU:GD lately.
Personally, I think it is entirely up to Hillary Clinton to convince people to vote for her. I do not think party affiliation alone insures that every registered Democrat shares my values.
I also think that people should not limit themselves to voting 100% along party lines. That does not mean ever voting for a republican, however. In local elections where I live, there have been a good number of people from the Democratic Left -- some registered Democrats, some not -- who have run for office. As an active member of the area's Democratic Party, I've found it possible to win elections, by finding common ground with the Democratic Left and Democratic Party. When we are divided, the republicans always win.
It would seem rather short-sighted to assume that we can get together to support Democrats running for office, but never consider supporting for anyone else.
This, of course, is only my opinion.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)I'm too tired today after shovelling out my 120' driveway to have patience....
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The announced ignore, one of my favorites.
Go ahead and me to that list please.
was the queen of the announced ignore!
I think I was ignored at least three times.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Is assuming that anyone that refuses to vote for Hillary doesn't have valid reason.
What's stupid is to use a false argument to debate.
But good luck with your post
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Regardless of who that person is.
Doing so is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
marym625
(17,997 posts)There will never be a candidate that is everything we want. If we're lucky, we might have one person we vote for that will vote the way we would if we held office. We all comprise to some extent whenever we vote.
However, there are things for which I refuse to ever compromise. I will not vote for anyone that aligns themselves with Larry Summers, author of the End Game Memo that brought down the world economy, and I will not vote for anyone that voted for the illegal, immoral war in Iraq. A war that killed millions of people, thousands of whom were young, American men and women military sent in because of lies.
I have repeatedly stated I will campaign in the primary for the Democratic candidate that I actually support. If the nomination ends up going to HC, I will follow the rules of DU and either not discuss the election or I will leave. But I will not vote for her.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)crew will remain small in numbers. Otherwise, we may once again get Nadered, at which time we can look forward to another Alito and Roberts joining the SCOTUS. That would basically eliminate reproductive freedom, any semblance of civil and/or voting rights, and guarantee that corporate interests will prevail in any issue before the court.
But, hey, you will no doubt sleep the sleep of the ideologically pure.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I would hope that actual liberals don't vote for her in the primaries so there won't be this issue. Or better yet, that she doesn't run.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)But in the post to which I responded, you appeared to be referencing the General Election, and that is where we part ways.
marym625
(17,997 posts)I meant what I said. I also meant what I said that I hope it won't be a choice I have to make. My hope is she either doesn't run or is defeated in the primary. Something I will work hard to make sure happens.
11 Bravo
(24,310 posts)in Florida had not adopted your attitude in 2000, there would be thousands of US and Iraqi families intact, the Voting Rights Act would not have been gutted, Citizens United would not have handed the American electoral process over to the Koch brothers and their friends, and a host of other repressive, regressive, politically partisan, bullshit decisions would not have been handed down but the SCOTUS.
Just my opinion.
marym625
(17,997 posts)That was a stolen election.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Had 549 purists actually voted their own interests, we'd not have had the Iraq War.
H2O Man
(79,051 posts)The republican machine was going to steal that election, even if 550 more people voted for Gore.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Had even 1% of those voted for Gore instead, the history of the 21st century would have been completely different.
It made zero difference how many votes Nader or Pat Buchanan got. It did make a difference how many registered Democrats were taken off the voting roles, though. That is evidence that the republicans were intent upon stealing FL, no matter what the vote count.
marym625
(17,997 posts)They really have no clue. They're looking at the "official" numbers and think that's reality. Obviously, "stolen election" and the unprecedented SCOTUS decision is lost on them.
No point in arguing with ignorant.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And if you knew and understood what happened, or if you knew and understood what the End Game Memo did, or if you cared at all that we killed millions of people and started a war based on lies, you might be worth debating. But then you wouldn't be shoving Hillary Clinton down our throats, you would be fighting against her even running.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)he would have won.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Go push your warmongering, bank bought, candidate with your ridiculously simplistic posts and I will work for a real Democrat.
Done with this and you.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)End of discussion.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Now does that sound stupid? Makes more sense than what you said about Nader causing Gore to lose. Nader got far less votes than Gore got.
Facts count, Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Gore won Florida and the election. Those are facts and they make what you are saying irrelevant. If you are interested in fixing a problem then first identify the problem. The Supreme Court cost Gore the election that was the problem, not Nader.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)you more than 10 years old at the time?
Your ignorance is showing BIG time.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)How about to stop a damned President Walker from happening? 
I realize lots of folks here are fairly well off and have no fear of the massive damage a total republican government would do to people living paycheck to paycheck.
Or people depending on SSI and food assistance to survive or social security. Or gay people who want to live their life in peace with the people they love.
A full on republican controlled government is NOT GOING TO ALLOW those things to happen! The bagger prez is also going to pack SCOTUS with the worst reich wing demagogues he can find!
They will make war on the sick, the disabled, the elderly, the poor, the working class, the environment, public schools, science itself!
Are you really saying, go ahead and let the republicans win?????
marym625
(17,997 posts)Are you really going to push for a candidate that is a shill for the banks? That is using the author of the End Game Memo, that brought down the world economy, as her main adviser? The same guy that threatened Elizabeth Warren when she first took office? Are you really pushing for a woman that voted for an illegal war that killed millions? That sent hundreds of thousands of US young people into harms way and killed thousands of them? A warmongering, bank shill to be the presidential nominee?
Really? Really?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)How about you and others stop backing right wing Democrats which allows the Republicans to move further right.
The Republicans aren't pulling the Democrats to the right like so many like to say, the Democrats are pushing the Republicans to the right. It's as if the 1% planned it that way isn't it. Why do you play into their plans?
Takket
(23,715 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Please try to keep up.
Why would you have me vote against my best interests?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So long as you vote for the Democrat, you won't.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Not for me, thanks anyway. I will vote for a liberal candidat. I am all done wasting my vote on the lesser of two evils especially if you can't tell which is the lesser. Most especially if it ends up being Hillary against Jeb, that there is a coin flip election.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Refusing to vote for the Democrat is voting AGAINST liberal values.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Find out who is running and what they stand for, I have no doubt there will be a liberal candidate on the ballot. That candidate as it looks now won't be the Democrat. The most liberal candidate will be the Democrat... you should take that show on the road and play all the comedy clubs.
But if you only vote for the D why are you mocking those that want Warren or Webb, etc. to be the Democratic nominee? You say you will vote for the party not the person so why do you care who it is?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Maybe YOU should educate yourself about the reality of the process.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Then you imply it doesn't matter because you, and everyone else, should vote for the Democrat no matter who it is.
A year and a half out from the election you have already decided to vote for some unknown candidate because they have a D after their name. And you mock others for wanting a specific candidate?
You with a nice little picture of Hillary in every post. So if by some odd chance Hillary decides she has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination instead of the Democratic nomination, just who would you vote for?
I would prefer that the candidate that best matches my platform would be the Democratic candidate, but I also know that the only way the best candidate, whoever or whatever party if any, wins is if we vote for them.
Again, you put party before Country and mock others for wanting the best candidate for the country. Shame on you, do you know what America even stands for. One thing America stands for is that anyone qualified can run for President and everyone eligible can vote for whoever they think is the best person for that position.
Personally I think the Country is ready for a strong independent candidate for President. People are sick of both major parties.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The absurdity of that alone caused me to disregard everything you have to say.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You just implied people that support a specific person other than Hillary for the Democratic nomination are stupid.
So much smarter to support an unknown person just because they have a D after their name.
No, I'm wrong again, mock was a good choice and I bet you did read the whole post.
But you have the right idea, I'm done with your posts for today. Enjoy your party.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Conservative Democrats are directly responsible for the wave of frightening Republican kooks that have risen up. Because when Blue Dog Democrats push the center further to the right the right wingers move further right because they feel an inherent need to differentiate themselves from us culturally and not be associated with us. It's that simple and we better wake up quick. I'll never vote Republican but installing someone who wants the image of a liberal but the policies of a Wall St conservative is very dangerous because it neutralizes all liberal opposition to those policies. Very clever and sneaky indeed.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Then yes, in those cases, voting for the Democratic nominee is enabling agendas that aren't liberal to be put in place in our government.
still_one
(98,883 posts)After the next election, and not giving a damn how the SC will affect millions of people
marym625
(17,997 posts)If actual liberals would not support her in the primaries, this won't be an issue. So that if she is elected we don't go further down the corporate rabbit hole.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Because I don't.
StevieM
(10,578 posts)than Obama's? Or her husband's?
Clinton will appoint justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer and Kagan. And her SC nominees will probably be people that were placed on the appellate court by Barack Obama.
still_one
(98,883 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Now you're telling me that she will do exactly what he did.
And you ask me if I know what I'm talking about?
I'm not the one with the consistency problem here.
still_one
(98,883 posts)inflexible
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)most/many who have had to vote for the lesser of two evils for decades now do so predominantly for that reason
That's certainly the best if not only reason to vote for another corporate dem. They have to moderate there or the gig is up.
still_one
(98,883 posts)after the primaries if Hillary wins the nomination, and they post that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if it is her
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I think they're in a minority, and likely a small enough one where it won't make a diff in the pres election.
I seriously doubt that there's anyone here that's been a more strident critic of the "third wayers/corporate dems" or for a longer period of time, and the SCOTUS pic always compels me to make that "lesser of two evils" choice. Hopefully the SCOTUS won't rule against BHO and the ACA in the months to come, but if they do, well, perhaps those "NO Wayers!!!" will have a change of heart and mind.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)stupidicus
(2,570 posts)eom
still_one
(98,883 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Best case scenario is a moderate. So we lose Ginsberg, and we get another Kennedy? If we're lucky we'll get another Kennedy. Because the Republicans will hold the Majority after the next election too. So do you think that even if we had another Ginsberg waiting in the wings, we couldn't get them through the Senate.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and unless and until a list of criticism matching those leveled against her in size and egregiousness is produced, it's really a false equivalence as well.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)(actually, Elizabeth Warren is great, I'd be thrilled to vote for her....)
Autumn
(48,962 posts)no one will be looking for a purple finger. 
You may not have a valid other than a d but other people most likely have valid reason for voting or not voting for someone.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but it means you are a Left Leaning Independent....not a Democrat.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Autumn
(48,962 posts)in January. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)asterisk in place....
Autumn
(48,962 posts) VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am not living with a dilemma...I am a Democrat!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Don't answer. I know why.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If not, you have no say in the Democratic nominee.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)and are effectively disenfranchised anyway. But so far no Democrat is running or talking about running that I care to support so I don't need a say at this time.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I guess that means you have no right to complain about any Democratic nominee on any level since you have removed yourself from the process.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)As for removing myself from the process I don't feel I have lost anything at this time. I can vote in the general and if I had a reason, I can always change back. So far I have no reason to.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So I guess you don't care how liberal your state rep is, or your state Senator.
Heck, I guess you just don't give a damn how liberal your Attorney General or your governor are either.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)psychic at all.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So you have no say in the nominees, which means you're cool if a blue Dem goes up against a Republican at any level on the ticket.
Again, you really don't care how liberal those who represent you are since you refuse to participate in the only process where you can have an effect on how liberal the candidates are in the general election.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
FarPoint
(14,765 posts)Indeed...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Just as I will.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)On Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
If Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, Biden, or Warren end up the nominee, I won't vote for them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026261953
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I believe this is trolling and is not conducive to constructive dialogue.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:37 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please, not "trolling." Just Primary-Dems eating our own.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm sick of all the attacks on Hillary too. Freakrepublic doesn't savage Hillary as bad as some so called democrats on this board have recently. Frankly its getting hard to believe this site is a democratic board.
If the anti-clintons can sling mud then they should be prepared to get some back!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think more people need to take advantage of Ignore, Trash Thread and/or the Hide by Word options that the Admin have made available. This may not be conducive to constructive dialogue but, I don't think it is trollish by any means. Going forward into the Primary Season things on DU will only get better/worse. This is nothing compared to what the future holds. Please do not rely wholly on the alert/jury system. Thank you.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't feel that this post is in any way disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I'd vote for the rodent.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
lark
(26,081 posts)LOL, glad you haven't gone insane or over to the dark side.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Not at this time in history. We need real change. Hillary cannot deliver it. We need someone who is true blue and truly honest and not bought. Hillary does not fit that description.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Since you post very frequently in support of Hillary Clinton, please tell me where she stands on each of these issues. Maybe you can persuade me to back her.
1. Wall Street reform including the enactment of a bill much like Glass-Steagall and enforcement of the bill.
2. Appointing progressives, not the standard Clinton cronies, to cabinet posts.
3. Prosecuting corporate and bank executives who encourage or cover up illegal activities or fraud in their companies. Appointing and attorney general who will go after the big guys without fear.
4. Charter schools.
5. Instituting a program like Social Security that would fund long-term care and end-of-life care for seniors but that is not needs based.
6. Making sure the 1% pay a larger share of the taxes since they own most of the assets in the country.
7. Changing the H1-B visa program to give the holders all the same opportunities that regular immigrants have.
8. Standing up for immigration rights of people who came to our country without visas, who have lived and worked here without any problems and who would like to stay.
7. Drastically lowering the cost of higher education for all qualified Americans.
8. Drastically lowering or even permitting the working off of student loan debt for all Americans (debt would include debt for graduate studies and professional training).
9. The TPP.
10. The Keystone XL Pipeline.
11. Raising the cap on Social Security, that is payroll, taxes to require payment on all income earned including capital gains. (Lowering the rate of the payroll taxes might be possible if this were done.)
12. Increasing Social Security benefits.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You are one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this website. I want to know whether you know where she stands on these issues. I want to know why you support her so strongly, but most of all I want to know where you think she stands on this issues. Take your time. I'm not in a hurry. Thanks.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)neither you nor Hillary nor anyone else knows where she stands.
She has to check with her hundreds of advisers before she dares make a policy statement.
That's one of the reasons I don't support her for president.
We know where she stands on the uncontroversial issues, but where does she stand on the tough ones?
And what shocks me the most is that people support her but cannot explain why or what her views are on central issues.
I have seen this before during the Kerry presidential campaign. It does not make for winning an election.
If she were a solid candidate, you would be able to answer my question with very little effort and even less research. But the fact is that Hillary is waiting to find out where she stands on a lot of issues until her paid and bought advisers tell her what the public wants to hear.
That's why I don't trust her and I won't vote for her.
Everybody makes mistakes. Everyone is wrong on issues or at least some issues. But a person who is qualified to be president knows where he or she stands on these major issues and is not afraid to tell the public about it.
We don't really know what Hillary stands for. Yet Democrats are supporting her merely because they have been told that she is ahead in the polls and is the "frontrunner." Just what she is running so far in front to do is a mystery. But to people who follow the leader, to people who don't ask questions, to people for whom personality is more important than issues, knowing nothing is fine enough.
We know what Hillary voted on in the past and where she stood on the issues of the past, but where does she stand on the issues of the present. All these people support her but they cannot say what her views are. That is a travesty.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)difference anyway. California will vote Democratic. But I don't want to be any part of a Hillary Clinton presidency. It will be awful. We can do much better.
Hillary has the money because corrupt people think she is great. That is not a good sign.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
I think he is an independent.still_one
(98,883 posts)time, you will be irrelevant on DU, because people not supporting the Democratic nominee at election time are considered violating the TOS
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)and once in the general.
And you are right, it looks silly when you put it that way, though I don't think you will sway anyone.
My choices in the primary will be very different than in the general because we are voting on a different issues.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)the aisle to protect the status quo and then just fib later just like you can't find a Reagan Democrat or an Iraq War supporter.
People lie, conservatives quadruply.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)How, um, progressive of you.