General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHey, you sensible people... Why don't you just can it. Permanently.
If I hear one more person tell me why I should vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter how infinitesimally left of "center" he/she is, I'm gonna puke. That means if I keep reading this site through the primaries, I'm gonna be puking a minimum of 5 times a day, and I only read the greatest page which means the people recommending this tripe are equally to blame for my continuing nausea. I've had enough, quit insulting my intelligence and that of everyone else on this site and just stop already.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)
Response to Flying Squirrel (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
maxrandb
(17,415 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)
so I guess if you can't handle folks supporting the Democratic Party's nominee and slate of candidates over and opposed to the slate of nutbaggery, you may have to take some Imodium AD.
There are plenty of sites that you can visit that will provide you with non-stop attacks against our candidates, but you would have to get used to calling our candidates the nominees of the "Democrat" Party.
I'm not normally a "with us, or 'agin' us" type, but this upcoming election is too vitally important to the survival of our country to be lost because some Democratic candidates don't "complete you".
I just wonder how your stomach will feel as state after state enacts "right to work" legislation? How will your "delicate" constitution handle women's reproductive rights being set back 100 years? How nauseated will you be as you witness Voting Rights and Civil Rights being returned to the 1950's?
Frankly, I could give a rats-ass about your digestive system. I'm much more concerned with the country my kids and grandkids will be asked to live in when I'm gone.
Now excuse me while I go buy some stock in Pepto Bismal, because obviously you will need it if Democrats win, and the rest of America will need it if they lose.
Oklahoma_Liberal
(69 posts)You would support her?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Because she wouldn't run on ANY Democratic principles. Whereas, let's say Hillary Clinton supports a plethoa of them in the opinion of REAL Democrats who vote. (just not you).
Oklahoma_Liberal
(69 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...just like they did in 2008.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I would and do continually question the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton's "Democratic" supporters. I think we'd be better off without her...and them. The tent is too big and too devoid of litmus tests to compel liberal positions.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Hillary the Stealth Republican will get no love from me...and I will always consider her supporters to be quislings and enemies.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...you're welcome to hold it, and to try to sell it to as many people as possible, but it's irrelevant in the REAL world, where REAL Democrats vote for REAL candidates. 17 million voted for Hillary in 2008; and polls indicate that number will be going up from there. Try to convince them, rather than just yelling into the DU echo chamber.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I enjoy being perfectly free to despise her and anybody what would support her.
Have a nice day supporting your Republican. 
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...likely to include Warren and Sanders at the end of the Primary process. Maybe you should throw them under the bus now, to save time?
Chan790
(20,176 posts)maxrandb
(17,415 posts)Sarah's an idiot who actually found people dumber than her that she can fleece (quite an accomplishment if you ask me)..not the "fleecing" part, but finding people dumber than her?...AMAZING!
Now if Sarah had spent her entire life dedicated to the causes and positions of sane people (i.e., Democrats), and wanted to run as a D, then sure, but your argument is moronic, or should I say; "moranic"?
There is not one single Democrat, even a Dem that some would say are "far from liberal", that advocate, support, believe, or want to enact the crazy shit Caribou Barbie wants to enact.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Change has come
(2,372 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Welcome to DU.
Sid
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,842 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)Fail. 
zappaman
(20,627 posts)Again...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)and then yell got ya. Too funny.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)We've blown it on the state level.
Electing another DLCr to the White House will help with that? And if so, why isn't it helping now?
maxrandb
(17,415 posts)because Democrats getting out and voting has absolutely NO impact down-ticket at the state level. 
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)in those states.
The remarkable Republican takeover of state legislatures, in 1 chart
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
We need to run actual Democrats with a message other than "we're not as bad as them", or this will continue. People need a reason to vote. Democrats aren't giving them one.
Candidate Obama gave us a reason to vote. We could use that again, by someone who actually believes the rhetoric they give us.
maxrandb
(17,415 posts)because folks sat on their asses in 2010 (AN "EFFING" CENSUS YEAR) and allowed the nutbaggery to take charge of our nations redistricting process.
I get so fucking sick and tired of people saying you "can't just have people vote against something". That's exactly what the T-Baggers did in 2010 and again in 2014. They were motivated by nothing other than hatred of this President. They proudly marched to the polls to vote en masse for the Party of NO.
If watching what these pricks are doing to our country at every level of government doesn't make you angry enough to get the fuck out and vote, what will?
As I used to say sometimes when I was in the Navy; "I'm so fucking pissed I can't see straight"
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its the people busy with their lives, not politically engaged, that see both parties as the same & don't vote because of that.
I was in line at a grocery store this past November, talking to the person in front of me about how few people were at the voting place and the guy behind me(obviously white blue collar, maybe lower middle class) chimed in & proudly said he didn't vote. When I asked why not, he said, "Because no one represents ME". He said it angrily & with passion.
I believe he's what they call the disaffected voter. And b*tching about it won't get them motivated to vote. Proving we represent & Stand up for People will.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Today, I read in the paper how the Dems in the state senate vote with Repubs to appoint a Christie shit hook to the Pinelands Commission so that the commission will be stacked to approve a gas pipeline through the Pine Barrens. (I wonder if Christie will get a contribution to be president.)
It ain't about the party label. Its about the candidate and Hillary stands for shit.
No, Agnes. This one ain't sarcasm.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)core values that once made it the party of the people. IMO, the democratic party has been chasing after republicans, trying to somehow hold their dem base, while in many ways akin to republicans. And I hear that from many walks of life.
I agree so much with your last statement! "I believe he's what they call the disaffected voter. And b*tching about it won't get them motivated to vote. Proving we represent & Stand up for People will."
I also know people incredibly wealthy that are strong democrats, but say the same as the guy in line, that the party has drifted far too rightward. So, it's not even about how much money one has IMO.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Now if only the Dem leaders would pay attention.
Couple of good articles~
Progressive Policies Are Popular–So Why Should Democrats Be Afraid of Them?
Progressives vs. Republicans and Democrats
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)On every ticket we need progressive, populist, liberal candidates. Those who stand proudly and fight for the people. People respect that, especially when you show how direct policies improve their lives.
For example, I'm not calling it right-to-work. That's not what it is. It's right-to-fire. Right-to-pay lousy wages. People don't want that. They want higher wages.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not going to regurgitate the many accomplishments of this administration on a range of democratic issues (http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/)
but the difference between the parties is vast and if the average Joe on the street cant figure that out I don't think it has much to do with dems just not having decent core values as much as it is a failure in our media to deliver information.
The republicans were just threatening to block an AG nomination because they did't want sex slaves to be able to get abortions. It doesn't get any different than that.
I would be willing to bet you could walk right up to that average Joe and ask him if he was aware of the crap the republicans are pulling and the vast majority of them wouldn't have a clue.
No sorry, while Dems do stuff I don't agree with at times the difference between them and the Republican party is massive.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)When people feel like that the only vote they have is to abstain from voting.
And that is the state of affairs in politics.
And the parties don't really care because if only 10 people vote they still have a winner.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)You said "Its the people busy with their lives, not politically engaged, that see both parties as the same & don't vote because of that."
I guess we have a bunch of those "not politically engaged" people here on DU since some here claim the old "both parties are the same" meme is real.
You see a lot of the people that sit home don don't bother to vote, are in the group you talk about, but a lot more of the think they are sending some kind of "message" to the democratic party by not voting, and that if they do this enough the party will move to the far, far left and that will solve all the problems. Thing is when democrats don't vote republicans win, and when republicans win they take us further and further in the hole that we can't dig ourselves out of. The cut all the programs that actually help those in need, and give billions away to their rich buddies that put them in office. You see the idea that not voting is going to "help" change things is insane to say the least. Both parties are NOT the same, no matter who tries to tell us that. When you don't vote republicans win and that's just plain bad for this country and the 99%.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)"mainstream Democrats" in the 1980's. Unfortunately what you now support was called "mainstream Republicans" in that same 1980's timeframe.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Someone who will actually confront them instead of giving them most of what they want, calling it a compromise.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)When you're struggling just to keep a roof over your head and not starve, you don't pay much attention to anything else.
You want more people to vote? Get Democratic candidates who will raise the minimum wage to $15, get social security to pay MORE - not try to find ways for it to pay less, strnegthen the safety net in a myriad of ways.
When people don't have to spend every moment simply trying to survive, they have time to pay attention to politics.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Andy823
(11,555 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I thought I had most of the Full of It on Full Ignore....
A gentle reminder to the gentle readers of DU...there is going to be ZERO liberal policies with a Republican in the White House...less than zero.
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)a DLCr could veto the House bills that seek to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I've been told that every single election for quite a while now. It's amazing that every single election somehow manages to become more important than the last. I wonder if that could be because we keep getting talked into supporting ever more 'Democrats' who slide farther and farther to the right, warhawks and plutocrat-supporters who can't wait to sign on to corporate-friendly 'free trade agreements. So things keep getting suckier, making the next election EVEN MORE IMPORTANT!
Maybe elections could get less vitally important if we actually started electing Democrats who move to the left, not the right.
Fearless
(18,458 posts) 
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)maxrandb
(17,415 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's a pretend bubble world where the Republicans don't exist and the Democrats are the right wing party.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)instead of chewing them out for not helping you.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Non-sequitur. We don't need these people and they don't want to help us. In fact, they want to undermine us. The OP does not want to listen to us and in fact says we should shut up!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)2014 and 2010 say "Hi". And 2004 and 2000 and 1994 and 1990....
You need these people, or you get Republicans. Raging against them will not get them to the polls.
Martin Eden
(15,582 posts)... but then how would the vomit come out? 
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts) 
stonecutter357
(13,045 posts)Democratic Underground,
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)
Sarcastica
(95 posts)What could happen?
barbtries
(31,298 posts)it is sensible.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)I will vote for the eventual nominee but I'm over being hectored by 'reality based' 'sensible' posters telling me that my choice will lead to fucking Scott Walker being president.
What a load of bullshit. When people run as Democrats with a voice for change we win.
The last two midterms showed conclusively that rethug lite or 'conservative Democrats' lose to the actual rethug.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)the white flag smilie. Never surrender.
TRoN33
(769 posts)My only true sensible vote is Bernie Sanders. He is one of few who stood up to oligarchist corporations.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)a new party that would support the same rich folks but on the backs of tens of millions of more people than the Democrats already do.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)is the best we can do, than you should fight for her. If you want to see someone else who aligns more closely with your values, an you should support that person. This is going to lead to disagreements, and those who do support the wall-street loving Hillary Clinton are going to use every tool in their toolbox, which includes suggesting that any failure to support her now will lead directly to President Ted Cruz. If they believe that than they should say it.
You just have to tune them out, I guess, if it bugs you that much.
Bryant
democrank
(12,582 posts)There are some positions of mine that I can`t imagine ever changing: anti-torture, anti-death penalty, pro women`s right to choose, but I certainly try to gather new information on other issues all the time.
When George W. Bush was president, I remember DUer after DUer after DUer commenting on how terrible it was that Republicans followed him so blindly....without thinking for themselves. I agreed, so even though there is a Democrat is in the White House, I want people to continue thinking for themselves and not blindly follow anyone.
Democrats should`nt be accused of "hatred" just because he/she disagrees with President Obama or Hillary Clinton on one or more issues. That trend disturbs me. Most DUers I`ve read, even those I disagree with, probably aren`t going to vote a straight (R) ticket because they disagree with President Obama or Hillary Clinton. The airing of opinions is healthy.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Thank you.
riqster
(13,986 posts)
This is a diverse site. We all have to read shit we don't like. Telling people to "can it permanently" is ridiculous.
randome
(34,845 posts)Intellectually speaking, it is vitally important that the GOP not make any more inroads this next election.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Township75
(3,535 posts)Voting for our nominee?
This bs happens evey election cycle.
But it always clears up within 2 months of the election. No one here is postin how they won't vote for our nominee in that time frame except for a few trolls with less than 100 posts.
So let's stop the BS.
valerief
(53,235 posts) treestar
(82,383 posts)And go to the appropriate sites instead of here. Seriously, you're telling us off for supporting Democrats on this site?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,842 posts)But not as comical of some of the posters braying about how they won't vote for the eventual nominee of our party if he or she doesn't pass their subjective litmus test...
Laughs all around...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)unless they convince me to do so by offering reasonable, liberal solutions.
MineralMan
(151,187 posts)I think you should expect people on this site to be working toward electing Democrats. If that makes you physically ill, it might not be the best place for you to read threads, since I can guarantee that your request won't be honored. People are going to recommend voting for Democrats, not Republicans on DU. Sorry.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Can it your damn self.
Permanently or otherwise.
greatauntoftriplets
(178,947 posts)
edhopper
(37,339 posts)in 2010 was that Democrats stayed home.
How did that work out for you.
I bet you wish there were more right/center Dems in Congress now.
maxrandb
(17,415 posts)Because even what folks call a "right-center" Dem would never advocate for the privatization of Social Security or elimination of Medicare, but you give these current T-bagging pricks one more election cycle, and watch the "eff" out!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Hold your nose as much as it takes, please, but I ask that you not throw away your vote.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)maxrandb
(17,415 posts)has to be victory for the Democratic Party at every level.
When these rightwing whack jobs win, it emboldens them. They begin to believe and act like a majority actually support their crazy 18TH century policies. They enact those destructive policies and pay no consequence for it. Since they pay no consequence for those destructive policies, they assume that we want MORE destructive policies.
I don't care if the only reason to vote for a Democrat is to send a message to the rightwing that; "NO! We don't support your asshattery"!!!!
At least they will get the message.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Republicans got their ass handed to them in 2008. They lost very badly.
Their response was to start scorched-earth opposition to everything the Democrats tried to do.
They will not "get the message".
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)I would vote for a bad Democrat than any republican, no matter how great you tell me he/she/it is.
Here is your
Skinner
(63,645 posts)
betsuni
(29,045 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(44,493 posts)Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)
We Democrats pride ourselves on being the intelligent party, so that being the case, why do some people feel that it's necessary to continually hector the rest of us to do what an intelligent person is obviously going to do anyway? It's the people who DON'T follow politics closely who stay home, and they are by definition not reading the hectoring posts here. It's people in deeply blue or deeply red districts who vote for some third party in protest, not those in swing states (2000 was an aberration and intelligent people learned the lesson - it doesn't need to be constantly pounded into their psyche ad nauseum).
It just gets old hearing the same broken record every election cycle and watching the same pointless, futile arguments.
The part that really makes me want to puke is actual cheerleading for mediocrity.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)
"intelligent"
It just gets old hearing the same broken record every election cycle and watching the same pointless, futile arguments.
Not to mention, the same pointless, futile whining.
btw...you do know that you are under no obligation to be here.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)And I've heard "you're under no obligation to be here" since I first joined in 2007. That gets pretty old too 
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Apparently this place has thoroughly run its course with you.
You're the one with the bizarre digestive issue here. I mean why on earth would someone subject themselves to the agony of dealing with such unsophisticated, tiresome nonsense?
I've been here since 2006 myself, and frankly, I'm tired of the incessant whining from folks who think they're somehow above it all. But then again, you probably won't see me posting an agonizing, puke-laden whinefest in retaliation. The day I get physically ill as a result of what I read here, I'm gone. So what?
Was glad to see Skinner chime in here. He made a number of valid points, not the least of which; expect some push-back if you're running around here threatening to withhold your vote for the Democratic nominee. It's always interesting to watch the verbal gymnastics involved in the effort to preserve one's posting privileges.
Good luck with your "condition."
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Attacks like yours are one of the main reasons. That kind of thing does nothing but add suckage to DU.
I'm not worried about losing my posting privileges. I only responded to Skinner out of courtesy, since it's his website.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)
Attacks like mine? Your entire OP was nothing but an attack. 
Looks like we're having a pot/kettle moment.
Perhaps you should consider your own contribution to the suckage.
ETA: if you find yourself citing the TOS to demonstrate that your views/actions are within the parameters of the guidelines, you're attempting to preserve your posting privileges. Pretty obvious, really.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)Is the "cheerleading" of those who constantly bash the president, the party as a whole, and have no discussion on how to change things, except to NOT VOTE for Hillary is she is the nominee! Now that's sickening. 
Skinner
(63,645 posts)...is because there are a fair number of people here who repeatedly insist they might not do so. Now, personally, my reaction most of the time is to roll my eyes because I know almost everyone on DU who is saying that is going to suck it up and do the right thing in the end.
But let's be honest here: when someone comes to DU -- an ostensibly Democratic website -- and insists that they can't be trusted to vote Democratic in the general election, they are deliberately doing it to draw attention to themselves -- they think that insisting their vote is up-for-grabs will force the nominee (or "the party" or their fellow DUers) to pander to their concerns in order to get their vote. The fact that some people take the claim seriously and then explain to these people why it would be unwise to withhold their vote from the Democratic nominee should be expected -- after all, the people have plainly stated that their vote is not guaranteed.
If a person doesn't want to be hectored about voting Democratic then they shouldn't make a big show of their unwillingness to do so.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).
I live in a very liberal area (Seattle) but I pay attention to statewide polls and will always make sure to vote Democratic if I see even the slightest chance it could make a difference, for example the Gregoire/Rossi governor's race in 2004.
I do agree that some people are deliberately drawing attention to themselves, though.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)What did I miss? The only person I know of who has, for sure, announced they are running is Lee Mercer, Jr. (ALL THREE). The only thing I really agree with him on is I don't want Jeb Bush all in my house with disease either.
Why is DU arguing over the primaries so early when no one has announced they are running? Haven't most of the ones people here are arguing over repeatedly said they are not running?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts). . . abide by that same premise when she announces that she is not going to run for President.
It won't matter one whit whether I vote for the eventual Democratic nominee or not, because the state of Idaho hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964!!
Back then President Johnson, the incumbent, barely beat Goldwater.
By a mere 5,363 votes!
And so, then there is the issue that the President is elected by the members of the Electoral College, not by direct vote.
There are so many Republicans who vote here that many people just throw up their hands and say, "forget it, what's the use?"
A lot of people say it is a foregone conclusion what party will win the Presidential race in Idaho before the campaigns even begin.
So, the Democrats that live here are not accountable if they don't vote for the Democratic nominee for President in the General election because of the 40+ year history of losing to Republicans in this state.
They're miserable and suffer along with everyone else who voted, of course, but it's not their fault we can't get a Democratic nominee to beat the Republican nominee.
Yet, the potential downside of having such an "interesting" candidate, as Hillary would be if she were the nominee, is the affect on the rest of the ticket.
I don't think another Clinton campaign would have long coattails.
Something that very few people here have even thought about much yet, perhaps.
However, we, the members of the Democratic party in Idaho, are currently trying to get a Democrat elected back into the U.S. Senate, as well as into the U.S. House of Representatives, to represent our state of Idaho.
So, coattails matter a lot here.
The person at the top of the ticket has a lot of influence on the turnout of voters for the rest of the ballot.
I live in so-called "fly-over country" as do many other DU members.
The Presidential candidates do not campaign here hardly at all.
One of the main reasons that Obama won the primary in Idaho back in 2008 is because of his appearance in Boise when he came to Idaho that year.
But, that visit was not intentional.
Obama was originally headed to a campaign stop in Salt Lake City, Utah when the President of the Mormon church passed away.
So, he diverted his campaign to Boise, out of respect to the members of the Mormon church.
If I don't vote for Hillary in the General election in 2016, don't be surprised.
Because I sure as hell do not intend to vote for her in the primary!
That's the only time my vote for the Presidential candidate for the Democratic party counts in this state.
And I am not about to fritter it away, sir.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)This is why we keep seeing posts telling people they need to vote for the Democrat in the general election. Because there are posts like this from people who say they might not.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)just because they are the nominee? So while intelligent people might act sensibly, some will not.
I agree that the posts telling people to get on board are pointless, and I can see why they irritate you. I'm also irritated by the posts insisting associating Clinton with every ill under the sun. It does get old, and it's a lot of noise about nothing.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Getting you to not vote is their goal!
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Hell they won't even have to bother stealing your vote, you're handing it to them on a silver platter.
betsuni
(29,045 posts)I don't understand.
Response to Flying Squirrel (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,149 posts)... any candidate not sufficiently pure? Would that be a good forum for discussion? Would that be a good outcome for states and the nation? I think not.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Yes, it would be a great forum and a great rescue for an utterly directionless and devoid-of-core-ideology Democratic party.
It might not be so awesome today or tomorrow...but after a few years of misery, I think it would be great for America.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,149 posts)had never appealed to me. It allows the Republicans to change laws, slash benefits, and appoint right wing judges. All to teach people a lesson. No thanks.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)had never appealed to me. It allows the Democrats to further enrich the MIC, slash the Constitution, and appoint Wall Street executives to the cabinet. All to confirm tribal identity. No thanks.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,149 posts)It's not 'just because they're a Democrat'. It's because each individual Democrat is better than the individual Republican they're running against. Always, these days.
If there's a viable left-wing alternative to the Democrat (Seattle, for instance), then there's some sense in considering them. But how often is that the case?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and to hold them accountable when they fall short of them.
Responding with "Oh, well, they completely sold us out AGAIN - but if we pretend we don't notice, they won't do it NEXT time..." simply ensures that we will continually be thrown under the bus by the Party that claims to represent us.
Frightening us with the spectre of Republican control of government is the Democrat's version of the protection racket. The objective is to coerce voters into supporting a candidate that will work for Wall Street and not us. They know that they can pay lip service to liberal ideals during the campaign to lure the rubes into the tent, and immediately abandon those ideals once they've cast their votes and outlived their usefulness. We watched this exact scenario play out with Obama, and there is no reason to think Hillary won't do the same thing.
If we have any hope of changing the country for the better we have to look at the long term. We cannot be short-sighted, like most American corporations, and only consider the next quarterly earnings report or election cycle. Liberals and progressives need a Party what will actually pursue liberal and progressive agendas, rather than pay them lip service to shore up the base.
Hillary has already shown that she has thrown me under the bus with her vote on the IWR, her support of the TPP, and her role in destroying Libya. I don't want her to be President.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,149 posts)The primary system gives a huge opportunity for alternative candidates, that people in many other countries don't get. If there's a reasonable amount of support for moving the Democrats left, then it should show up in the primaries.
But when the primaries are over, the "not a good enough Democratic candidate this time, so I hope people suffer under a Republican - then they'll be sorry" argument is awful. That suffering happens to real lives.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That many principled liberals and progressives won't vote for her is one of the reasons she will be a weak candidate in the general.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,493 posts)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)But in doing so perhaps you should leave DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The one and only difference between HRC and any 'puke in terms of economic policy is how fast we frogs would get boiled, but boiled we shall surely be in either case. All of the above are wholly-owned, bought-and-paid-for subsidiaries of the banksters, Wall $treet and the MIC.
JI7
(93,561 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm like, yeah, I always vote for the damn nominee.
I'm not sure why we're not allowed to have primaries this time around, though. Maybe because 8 years ago the primaries de-inevitabilizized the inevitable nominee and so this time to ensure the inevitability of the inevitable nothing must interfere with the inevitable inevitability?
akbacchus_BC
(5,830 posts)all the progress that a true Democratic President got achieved. No freaking republican is better than a Democrat, no way no how! However, you are free to choose!
Even though I do not like Hilary, if she is the nominee, you all should vote for her. Lesser of two evils is better than a freaking republican!
We have our asshole Harper here, he would love if a freaking republican gets into office. So, lets stop a freaking republican in the US so our asshole cannot be little bush, more fucking wars!
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)People seem to think if they call themselves left enough times it means something, or if they call someone else centrist or Third Way it means something. It says nothing about any issues, and the main purpose seems to be to create an us. vs. them divide.
I think 99 percent of the discussion of the election on this site has been vapid and meaningless, largely because we don't actually have candidates or defined issues to discuss. People who want to vote Democrat will, and people who want to vote Republican will. No one is going to force you to vote for anyone you don't want to, and you are going to be able to force others to quit arguing their positions.
What label people call themselves or others means nothing. I see people who I consider to the right to the average American claiming they are "the left." The original use of the term relates to socialism and Marx, which has no influence on the political views of most here since most have never read Marx. As far as I can tell, people use the labels exclusively to attack others and create their own in-crowd. The more I read, I increasingly think that is what is most important, and I think that is why we see so many threads attacking Democratic voters. Few discuss any issues in the context of the election, and when they do it is entirely projection and has virtually nothing to do with any issues the potential candidates have taken.
Two things I'm fed up with: empty references to center, left, third way, etc...and the inane focus on individuals, pretending it means anything. The end result seems to be what people really care about, creating their own clique that excludes others. What none of it has anything to do with is the well being of the nation. That seems to be the last priority.
I'm not talking about you here, Flying Squirrel, but my general reactions to seeing these terms bandied around.
I can conceive of no understanding of leftism that doesn't seek a more equitable society. Therefore when I see people who insist they are too ideologically pure to vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't their choice, and then see them turn around and argue positions that actively promote inequality and special treatment for the chosen few, like Julian Assange, or backing a right-wing autocrat like Putin and making excuses for his annexation of the Ukraine, I don't see signs of what I consider leftism or principle. Left and right had clear meanings during the Cold War. They do not anymore, and without an ideological fulcrum people are left rudderless, unable to conceive of a conception of politics or truth outside their own egos. My conception of leftism remains based on Marxism, and I am unable to understand how people who promote a society where only a few benefit at the expense of the many can be considered leftists, no matter how many times they repeat the term. In fact, I think if they truly believed in equality or social justice, they would have something to talk about besides labels and their contempt or worship for one individual or another.
betsuni
(29,045 posts)"unable to conceive of politics or truth outside their own egos" -- so tired of these hot air balloons.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered. When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted, and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups."
Interesting that you use Julian Assange as an example of "special treatment" rather than David Petraeus vs Chelsea Manning.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)I must have missed that. I do tend to take it seriously when people promote a system of inequality that relegates me and half the human race to less than nothing. Yeah, I take basic human rights pretty seriously. I know that pales in comparison to your particular assessment of one individual or another.
Additionally, I don't see people here arguing that Petreaus should be immune from the laws and procedures of mortals. The legal system is full of inequalities, but it is evidently not unequal enough to satisfy Assange's defenders.
The French Revolution heralded the idea of liberty, equality, and solidarity. I see people actively working against the latter two, though they do seem to be invested in fraternity, or rather patriarchy. Solidarity is clearly not the goal.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)One is advising the White House still and the other is serving 35 years in Federal prison.
And as far as victims of sexual crimes go I have posted before on DU that I was a molestation victim as a pre-teen, do a search and you can find my posts on the subject.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)but that doesn't change the fact that at least 100 people on this site who claim to be leftists insist Julian Assange should not have to face justice for allegations of sexual assault. They hold him above the rest of humanity, and relegate the victims to less than nothing. My point was about claims of leftism that are not borne out in the positions people take, such as arguing for concierge justice for Assange. There is no challenge to power. It is a complete and utter affirmation of power and the subjugation of the many for the benefit of the few.
The example you site of Petraeus doesn't relate to my point in anyway. If I were to point to inequality in justice for its own sake, I would focus on racism in sentencing, and rape remains a stunning example of that inequality everywhere, including the US. Racism, like violence against women is something that pales in comparison to the hero worship for the few that prevails around here, unless it involves the police or Republicans (the same with rape) because then it serves a purpose other than equal rights for the people of color and women. My point is such sycophantic attitudes toward individuals fly in the face of anything approaching justice or equality. As long as people hold a few above the many, they promote inequality. That does not comport with my conception of leftism. It instead is based around ego, the ego of the great men and of those who can see no space between their own egos and truth.
What I have observed is that many appear to be concerned with people like them, who look, live and think like them, and very little else. They don't seek to do away with inequality. They simply seek to position new characters on the top of an unequal society, hence the obsequious reverence for Assange, whom they imbue with King like status. In a year it could be another individual but the phenomenon would remain the same because that is how their value system works. That is why so much discussion on this site is about individuals rather than issues--Clinton, Greenwald, Assange, Snowden--rather than broader issues endemic to society, as though arguing about the boxes in Snowden's garage means a fucking thing. It illuminates nothing about the national security state or the rights of privacy. It does provide them an excuse to insult others, which increasingly seems to be the point. Hence my comments about us vs. them. One went at my throat when I suggested working together for a constitutional amendment to end the role of money in politics, where others insisted on talking only about particular politicians in response to that point. Challenging power and inequality is not the goal. They merely seek to place new faces at the top and respond with hostility to any ideas that deal with systemic issues rather than reinforce cults of personality. Calling themselves leftist doesn't change what they promote. It is merely an empty label that they use to form their own in-group. They can have it. I've never been a conformist joiner, and I won't start now.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)After a nominee is 'clear' you've got to button your lip about their flaws until after the general or risk being banned.
tjwash
(8,219 posts)[img]
[/img]
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)HRC will NOT get a "Democratic Wing"
justice through the confirmation vote.
Does anyone think the REPUBLICAN SENATE
will approve of a pro-choice justice???
People need to see how the senate
ACTUALLY voted for the current SCOTUS
It tends to be overwhelmingly bipartisan
or bitterly partisan
HRC can't change that reality.
For her to get an justice seated
she will HAVE TO appease republicans.
That's just a bitter truth democrats need to accept.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hillary supporters seem to be blind to the repuke blockade which is amazing given that all the repukes have done for the last 6 years is to obstruct. So now they think the repukes will give a pass because it's Hillary? It's absurd.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts) 
pansypoo53219
(23,031 posts)so, are you anti-union as well?
DIVIDE & CONQUER.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)How will TPP impact unions?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There really is a contingent here who don't understand people actually being FOR a candidate. Their whole thought process is based off being against people and they cannot comprehend standing up for someone. You really nailed it. Excellent satire. Well written.