Is your anger/discontentment towards Hillary worth living through 4 years of a Republican president

[Yavin4]

with a Republican congress?

[NYC_SKP]

1. BULLSHIT. I won't vote out of fear of a Republican, or the SCOTUS. Fear is a RW tactic.

Please take it elsewhere.

We can do better than that, we MUST do better than that.

[SidDithers]

4. So that's a yes....nt

Sid

[NYC_SKP]

7. Sure, I'll take a yes. Hillary will turn Congress even more red.

And I don't trust her capacity to make sound decisions on SCOTUS either.

She's clever, but she's not one of us.

Hillary in the White House = more backlash and more Democratic seats lost in the congress.

Is she worth that, is she?

[Yavin4]

11. A Republican president will take us to war in Iran and put another Scalia on the SCOTUS

You are okay with all of that?

[daleanime]

17. Hillary not a warhawk?

Really?

[Travis_0004]

47. Because hillary was against invading iraq?

My had. She actually supported invading iraq.

[HughBeaumont]

98. "another"? Try possibly FOUR.

Four justices are on the wrong side of their 70s. Jeb would make it 7-2 Opus Dei in the worst case.

That's what I have to swallow in all this. Human rights are on the line. Profit vs. humanity is on the line. I don't need any woman/gay/poor-hating fuckers on the SCOTUS.

[rhett o rick]

99. What makes you think that H. Clinton won't take us to war in Iraq (oops Iran)??

The neocons support her. I wonder why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Was Elizabeth Warren one of us when she was supporting Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan...

Was Elizabeth Warren one of us when she was supporting Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan , George Herbert Walker Bush and Republicans at every level of government?

[NYC_SKP]

31. I'll ask her but I've got to finish some video projects. For now, let me just leave this with you:

[cascadiance]

39. Why don't you vote for Michele Bachmann, since she actively campaigned for Jimmy Carter when he ran

... not just voted for him!

If you're convinced Bachmann is a hardcore Republican now, why can't you see the same thing might be the case for Warren now, who actively stands up against corporate rule moreso than other pols in a way that we sorely need now!

[NYC_SKP]

44. ~snort~

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. 1995 is a lot more recent than 1976.

And Michelle Bachmann deserves a pass because she is an utterly vacuous human being and Elizabeth Warren is a most perspicacious and intelligent one. I am going to hold the latter to a higher standard.


I do admire the gentleman in your avatar. I can say with absolute certainty he never supported a Republicant.

[cascadiance]

69. And Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until he was 51 years old in 1962...

and therefore was five years older when he switched parties than Warren was when she switched to being a Democrat in 1995. Did Republicans question that he was a Republican with his later switch to being a Republican?

And Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart right up until the time Bill Clinton went to the White House too.

Keep trying the effort to scare people. It's not going to work

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. "Did Republicans question that he was a Republican with his later switch to being a Republican? "

Well, John Stuart Mill, called the Tories of his day which would be our Republicans "the stupid party" so there's that.

But thank you for giving me another opportunity to praise the gentleman in your avatar. I would literally bet my life he wasn't a Republican until 1995.


Oh, and i'm not trying to "scare anybody". I'm not delusional enough to believe what we do here, barring a few exceptions, really matters.

[cascadiance]

73. Do you really have the mental capacity to confuse Earl Warren with ELIZABETH WARREN

... or are you really looking at my avatar?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. "And Ronald Reagan was a Democrat until he was 51 years old in 1962..."-casacadience

How did Earl Warren, the former governor of California and Supreme Court Justice of the United States,enter into our tete a tete?

As to your ad hominem attack I regret upsetting you so much you need to resort to them, truly...

But thank you again for giving me the opportunity to praise the gentleman in your avatar. He was never a Republican.

[freshwest]

161. And my beloved Bernie Sanders had this to say:

If Bernie Sanders Runs For President, It Won’t Be as an Independent: “I will not be a spoiler”

January 26, 2015

Naturally, “Will you run for president in 2016?” was the first question DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain asked Sanders. Though not definitive, his answer was enough to leave these activists hopeful.

“I am giving very serious consideration to it, but before you make a decision of that magnitude, …you have to make sure that you can do it well,” Sanders said. “So what we are doing is reaching out to folks all over this country trying to determine whether or not we can put the grassroots organization together that we need.”

Sanders knows he will have to rely on grassroots mobilization to have a fighting chance at being elected, because his campaign will take on every monied interest. “If I run, we’ll be taking on the billionaire class,” he said. “That’s Wall Street, the drug companies, the military industrial complex.”

To the dismay some idealists, Sanders rejected the idea of running for president as an independent. “No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,” Sanders said. “I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17572/bernie_sanders_president

to pampango.

Bernie would never support what is said about not caring if a rightwing Republican takes over in 2017. It's why those who support him, but not what he says are not respecting his mission, principles or values. And they won't be affected if his mission fails, so why bother?

[Kelvin Mace]

124. Let's see, she supported a Republican as recently as 27 years ago,

whereas how long ago was it that HRC was gushing over Kissinger?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. Did she vote for any of the administrations that put Henry Kissinger in office...

Did she vote for any of the administrations that put Henry Kissinger in office as did the senator we are currently discussing?

Hillary Clinton worked for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and her and Bill were Texas organizers for George McGovern in 1972.

[Kelvin Mace]

126. Let's see,

Warren has become more liberal over time, whereas HRC has become more conservative.

But don't worry, she is the Wall Street candidate so she will be the next president. Yes, Wall Street would love a Republican, but finding a sane, electable Republican is impossible, so they will go with a sane Democratic conservative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. I have no personal animus against Senator Warren and would vote for her in a minute ...

I have no personal animus against Senator Warren and would vote for her in a minute if she were the nominee...

[daleanime]

9. Must be nice....

answering your own question,

[rhett o rick]

106. If you don't want a Republicon president, then be safe and nominate a progressive. nm

[morningfog]

128. Will you commit to voting for Hillary?

[NYC_SKP]

133. No, I will not. And you can take a screen cap of it and everything. I will never vote for Hillary.

I will support someone else in the primary and doubt that I'll care at all if she's the nominee when the general election comes around.

California is a winner take all state, she doesn't need my vote.

[Yavin4]

6. And if we cannot do better....

then having a Republican president is okay with you?

[NYC_SKP]

14. We don't know if we can do better or not at this time, but we must try.

eom

[jwirr]

38. I am on both sides in this post. Yes, we can do better but it has to be in the primary. Am I afraid

of a R for president - absolutely - SCOTUS.

[NYC_SKP]

80. I hate to see our side helping to quash real options by echoing the Inevitability Meme.

Let's step back and take a breath and tell the pollsters and the media and others to go to hell, we want the process to be allowed to work.

To me, they're stifling our ability to have an open discussion about options.

Let's face it, Hillary isn't polling well because she's great, she's polling well because she's got name recognition, political power, and she's a darling of the power players out there.

We should know better than to buy into it and we should really not help them.

Let's have a primary, for goodness sake.

[jwirr]

88. Absolutely agree.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

96. Thank you

Agree 100%

[rhett o rick]

105. So you are ok with having a R-Cons president?

That's what will happen if you nominate H. Clinton.

[Romeo.lima333]

8. just fucking great yet another 'cut off your nose to spite your face' democrat

s/he is gonna ride their principles right into serfdom - THAT'S JUST BRILLIANT wake up!

[NYC_SKP]

16. She might not even run.

She might not survive the scrutiny.

That, IMO, will be a win for our side.

[cascadiance]

53. If Hillary doesn't run, I predict that Warren will!

And that is based on some personal comments I heard from someone else I know works with her in the Senate...

[Romeo.lima333]

172. now she is

[Frances]

35. IMO thinking like yours

is why we went to war in Iraq

I heard so many people say the same thing about Gore that you are implying about Clinton

They still won't admit Gore would have been better than W

I hope they say prayers every night for all the people killed and maimed in the War in Iraq

I think they should be required to visit VA hospitals and do volunteer work to atone for their stupidity

[NYC_SKP]

41. That's rich. Tell me, how did Hillary feel about going to war in Iraq?

[Frances]

52. Do you think that if Hillary had been president instead of W

that going to war with Iraq would have happened?

No way!

[Chan790]

64. Think? No. Know? Yes. n/t

[frylock]

66. look! over there!!

[AtomicKitten]

160. .

[Chan790]

61. She vociferously supported it. She's more of a war-hawk than many Senate Republicans.

I love how her supporters gloss over that. George W. Bush's Iraq policy was Hillary Clinton's.

To quote my HS principal, Sr. Joan: "There isn't room for the Holy Ghost between them."

I have every faith that Hillary will get us into the next Iraq if elected, both because she supports military adventurism and because she knows who will be paying for her reelection if she does. (UTC, Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, Raytheon, Boston Dynamic and probably every other defense contractor in the DoD rolodex.)

[rhett o rick]

108. You're right it was a mistake to run Gore against Bush. The people wanted change

and Gore offered 8 more years of Clintonomics. And now we are faced with the exact same choice. Clinton vs Bush, yet some are hoping for a different outcome. Instead let's find a progressive candidate we can all get behind?

[we can do it]

65. What the fuck ever...................

[Kelvin Mace]

121. Not to mention the fact that the SCOTUS is a lost cause

since the Dems gave it away when they appointed Thomas, Alito and Roberts by refusing to filibuster obvious extremists like they did Bork.

[2banon]

2. oh my gosh, not even announced her candidacy yet, and we're already being fed this meme.

how inspiring. how motivating. gosh, i'm really getting "fired up" for the next election.

[yeoman6987]

3. I am voting for Hillary and actually wanted to in 2012

But that was not her time and voting for at the time Senator Obama was easy. Some who have Strong feeling against Secretary Clinton are not going to vote for her on principle. Personal principles are important and should not be looked at negative but with respect. I just hope we have enough votes to take the Republicans on and win. I think we will.

[ieoeja]

5. A little early for the General Election campaign, isn't it?

And people wonder why we see this as a "Hillary is inevitable" whisper campaign.

[Yavin4]

10. Actually, it's not too early.

Anyone who wants the nomination needs to have some sort of campaign apparatus in place right now. Running a national campaign takes organization and resources, and you cannot slap those things together at the last minute and hope to win.

IOW, if Hillary is to have a real challenger, then that challenger needs to be in place right now.

[cali]

20. yes, it is too early. I sure wouldn't be surprised if Hillary imploded.

and it's clear that O'Malley is serious about challenging her. That's why he chose not to run for Mikulski's seat.

[Yavin4]

40. She's not going to implode.

She's going to be the nominee because it's too late for a serious challenger to get into the game.

[NYC_SKP]

87. Well then we are screwed because she can't win. So, Republican President here we come.

She can't bring people together except to bring them together to prevent her from winning.

So, her power and self-interest and faux popularity, those things that make her the nominee, will produce a Republican win and we'll all be screwn.

Thanks so much.

[morningfog]

129. You have no way of knowing that.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. Well she's not the nominee yet.

So save the hyperbolic either/or crap for a year from July, when the actual general campaign starts. At that point it will be legitimate to start whomping people over the head about voting for the nominee.

I plan to vote for the nominee, just like I do every fucking 4 years. But I'm not pledging something specific to someone who hasn't even announced her own campaign yet, and who might not be that much more inevitable than she was 8 years ago.

She's not the damn nominee, yet. Deal with it. If it's so unavoidably certain, why the frantic, flapping panic to get people to sign on now?

[closeupready]

171. +1. Further, she's a weaker candidate now. She's MUCH older, and superrich.

That is, part of the very socioeconomic class from which comes the money that seeks to destroy social security, medicare, and everything else a liberal society holds dear.

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. .

[daleanime]

13. Not an either or situation....

although some would like us to believe that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. What does our discontent have to do with her winning/losing the presidency?

If she loses, it will be because of her own faults. Not the voters.

[mmonk]

19. There are issues that I disagree with her on. Funny how that is always

turned into something else and disingenuous. Especially since most of us are further away from Republicans than some of her positions.

[leveymg]

21. Another false "either-or" dichotomy post. Getting sick of this illogical inevitability meme.

HRC won't be the only Democratic Party candidate, even if we have to draft Michelle.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Let folks vote for whom they want to...

It's not as if the hundred or so folks on this board who may not vote for the eventual nominee of the party will swing the election.

[ScreamingMeemie]

23. Are these types of posts ridiculous?

[Renew Deal]

26. Premature, but not ridiculous.

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. Utterly and completely ridiculous.

[AgingAmerican]

34. Hair on fire thread

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I am a huge HRC supporter and I find these threads comical...

Folks will do as they please...

My best friend and former business partner voted for Nader in 00 despite months of coaxing. If I couldn't convince somebody that close how am I going to convince somebody on a bulletin board?

[ScreamingMeemie]

32. That's my POV as well. I am not a fan of any of the "major contenders™"

and threads such as this do nothing to sway me.

[Yavin4]

43. So, when you don't have an answer, just ridicule the post?

I thought that this was a political forum.

[ScreamingMeemie]

60. Call the post ridiculous? Yes. We've seen it eleventy billion times from this

candidate's supporter or that one's...over the course of the 12 years I've been here. They've always been ridiculous. Nothing will ever change that, and the posts won't influence a soul. I've always found them (the posts) to be rather odd.

[namastea42]

24. Threats like this do not make the case to support Hillary in the primaries.

I believe this is the best chance for a democrat to win in 2016 as the Republican are imploding into themselves. The Blue Wall speaks and to waste it on a center right Democratic instead of someone to the left would be a sin.

[Renew Deal]

25. No, but we're not there yet.

[BeyondGeography]

27. She has 20 months to address any turnout issues

If she loses because of them, primary blame shouldn't fall on voters, IMO.

[AgingAmerican]

30. So not liking Hillary = GOP victory?

Gasp! Supporting another Democratic candidate than Hillary! IT's Blasphemy!!

At least wait until the primaries start.....jeeze...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. All this back and forth tut tutting is comical...

"Tut tut, you won't vote for Hillary because you believe she's a corporatist shill...Look at how high the stakes are if the mendacious Republicans control all the levers of power."

"Tut tut, you are voting for Hillary who is to the right Of Marie Antoinette. Can't you see how you are selling out your principles."


LOL


Lil ole me is going to vote for our nominee, as I always have, and hope you do too but I'm not going to browbeat you into submission.

[jeff47]

36. Well, I've been living through 35 years of Republican presidents so far

4 more isn't exactly a threat.

[HughBeaumont]

100. .

[Man from Pickens]

37. So now it's blackmail?

That bag o' tricks that Hillary's got is looking mighty empty indeed if this is all that's left.

[KamaAina]

42. Nope.

Uh-uh.

[NYC_SKP]

45. OOH! Look what I found! Words that you'll NEVER hear coming out of Hillary's mouth:

[mmonk]

95. I loved that so much I immediately Facebooked it.

[Yavin4]

46. I will preserve this thread when President Scott Walker is marching us off to war in Iran

As proof that folks were comfortable with a Republican president over Hillary.

[hobbit709]

50. I will preserve it when President Clinton sells us to Wall St.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. You can use it as proof that Hillary couldn't convince the voters to vote for her.

[LadyHawkAZ]

54. more like, proof her opponents already had their minds made up

before she was technically even a candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Which is not unusual.

I had my mind made up that I wasn't going to vote for any Republican candidate that ran for anything since I first voted in 1966.

They failed to convince me otherwise.

[LadyHawkAZ]

70. It's a shame so many have decided to do so for 2016

Oh the power of mass media propaganda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Which, in the case of electoral politics, both sides pay for.

Which is why I vote for/against policies, issues and principles not politician or party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I was born with my mind made up that I would only support Democrats...

[cascadiance]

76. So did you strongly support Strom Thurmond as a Democrat?...

... and would you have continued to support him if he hadn't switched to become a Republican just because he was a Democrat, and excuse his horrible racist views because he was a Democrat?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, ergo:

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another...

Oh, I wouldn't support Charles Manson if he was a Democrat either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Isn't the slippery slope scenario exactly what the OP is offering?

And, equally fallacious?

If we don't support or vote for Hillary the Republicans will inevitably win?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. I have mentioned several times in this thread I'm not going to browbeat on who to vote for.

The OP might be committing the "parade of horribles" logical fallacy though which suggests if a certain course of action isn't followed horrible things will happen.

Tierra, you do as you please, but I shudder at the thought of living in a land where nine Clarence Thomases sit on the Supreme Court,

[sendero]

156. We have to wait for her to declare...

.. before we know who she is? You are kidding right?

No words out of HRC's mouth can change who she is the record is clear. And the goofballs bleating "she hasn't even become a candidate yet" are silly beyond words. Everyone knows she is setting up to run so spare us the disingenuous bullshit.

[Maedhros]

59. What will you do when Hillary marches us off to war in Iran? [n/t]

[AZ Progressive]

62. To say that liberals have a habit of shooting themselves on the foot is an understatement

The most recent one being Ruth Bader Ginsburg not resigning.

Liberals prize freedom of thought, but when you pit a group that's not organized vs a group that is highly organized, the odds are almost certain that the highly organized group will win.

If Liberals really prize rational thought over emotions, they would realize that if you want to win, you need to organize and come together and work together. Being all emotional and unreasonable is a recipe for stupid decision making and bad consequences.


I certainly want a progressive candidate but we are shutting the door to our last chance to change the Supreme Court and undo citizens united if we allow a Republican to become president, not to mention being able to stop the Supreme Court from continuing to change America as we know it to our detriment. And remember that 3,000 people in 9/11 had to pay for Bush being president (since he didn't take the threat seriously, at the very least), as well as almost 4,500 soldiers in the Iraq war.

[cascadiance]

78. I want someone like Erwin Chemerinsky on SCOTUS... I don't think Republicans or Hillary...

... will give us someone like him on the court, and if we don't get a real progressive as our president, we're going to get a corporatist on the court that will never help us roll back crap like corporate personhood or Citizen's United!

[Yavin4]

90. Don't forget the lives lost during Katrina

Bush left a long trail of disaster in his wake, and folks back then were saying that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

[Logical]

134. LOL, I can't tell if you are just fucking with us! nt

[Yavin4]

146. I'm not. Hillary is a far superior choice to ANY Republican.

Right now, she does not have a challenger, and given the time, she won't have a credible one.

[Logical]

147. You consider her a real credible liberal? nt

[Yavin4]

148. No. She's not a Liberal.

But, she's still a far better choice than Scott Walker or Jeb. And, THERE IS NO CREDIBLE LIBERAL IN THE RACE SO FAR.

[Logical]

149. You forget how she lost a 30 point lead to Obama. I have faith she can blow it again. nt

[Yavin4]

150. Who plays the role of Obama in 2016?

Mind you, Obama had one of the smartest campaign organizations that we've seen in a long, long time. What candidate has that?

[Logical]

151. 30 point lead. Lost it. Shows her appeal. nt

[Yavin4]

152. So, you don't have an answer to my question.

Thanks for playing.

[Logical]

153. I am confident a real progressive can crush her again. nt

[lindysalsagal]

154. Not exactly a qualifier to be proud of...

That's like saying a python is far superior to a polar bear in your bathroom.

[99Forever]

49. It's NOT a binary choice.

What crock of shit.

This stupid argument gets more stupid every time is tried.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. +1.

Here's the thing. Every Hillary supporter on here has said they'll vote for anyone who gets nominated by the Dems. Many non-HRC supporters have noted that they won't vote for Hillary.

By that math, if people don't want a Republican pres, they better nominate someone other than Hillary, so that they get every possible vote.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

97. This ^ ^ ^ ^

But someone besides or in addition to Hillary has to run for the nomination. Still waiting for that person.

[brooklynite]

103. It becomes one when the nominations are made...

...and so far, nobody has made a convincing argument about how Sanders, Webb or O'Malley is going to win a national primary.

[Chan790]

55. If it means the permanent demise of Hillary Clinton's political aspirations?

It's a toss-up. I consider her a stealth Republican so if she's the Democratic nominee then we're going to have 4 years of a Republican President with a Republican Congress either way.

If she loses though, I would get the satisfaction of her supporters finally shutting the fuck up about her. Also, it might kill off the DLC/3rd Way/Corporatist/"New Democratic"/Clintonian scumbag wing of the Democratic party. That would do a lot of good. Fuck Center-Right Democrats everywhere.

Better to lose without them than win with them. It's time we came around to that reality. We're better off without the RW quislings in our midst.

[RiverLover]

167. Great post.

This is exactly how I see it, as well.

[Lint Head]

56. Or 8 years.

[Maedhros]

57. I will not be coerced into voting for any candidate. [n/t]

[Ichingcarpenter]

68. National Lampoon from 1973 needs to be a meme generator.

[Orsino]

71. Fuck, no. Nor should/will I stop complaining just for early party unity.

There's plenty of time for that once she's a real nominee/candidate.

And yet our concerns are likely to remain long beyond those points. Are they worth your lobbying Sec. Clinton to correct?

[belcffub]

74. I live in NY

The odds of anyone other then the person on the ticket with a D next to their name winning the state are small... I'll vote for whoever I want comfortable one which way the state will go...

[Nay]

116. I live in VA. Obama wins here largely because of a big black population. In 2016, it'll be

back to Republican hell. I can write in any Dem I want.

[Bradical79]

77. Haha, no.

I do feel like it's way to early to make that argument though since we don't even know what the primaries will look like yet. Pushing the vote for Hillary as the lesser of two evils approach so soon makes her and the Democratic party sound weak, imo. The fear based strategy also doesn't seem to work as well for Democrats. If fear of Republican leadership were effective in getting people to vote Dem, I'm not sure congress would look the way it does today.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. Certain lines can never be uncrossed

certain scenes can never be unseen:

[rhett o rick]

104. In 2002 H. Clinton revealed her true self and now some here want to pretend that

never happened.

[Kelvin Mace]

120. Precisely

and blame us for it, which is what frickin' irks me.

[lindysalsagal]

155. +1000

She was the one senator who absolutely knew the truth about the iraq situation: Because Bill was around when we created the nasty little dictator and watched shrub et all falsify all of the reasons for war.

She, of all people knew the truth.

That is why I will never trust her. She lies. She hates. She is greedy and selfish. She will never represent me. I don't care if she carries the right chromosomes. She's one of them.

[Nay]

82. Well, I don't know. The sight of Pres Obama basically okaying such things as torture,

targeted assassinations, drone warfare on civilians, "touchups" to SS, the TPP, etc., has made these horrors OK, it seems. I have to consider that the slow introduction and normalization of these neocon ideas by Democratic presidents is at least as, or more, harmful than the introduction of them by Republican presidents. We're supposed to be the ones with actual liberal principles. When we (as in the Dem leadership) ditch those principles, it is much more dangerous than when Pubs don't have those principles in the first place.

Yes, A Pub president would be a horrorshow, it may also result in all of the Pubs being thrown out of many offices after 4 years of gross mismanagement. Who knows. As a subscriber to the the theory that environmental problems are going to put a quick end to all this bullshit in the next 20 years, I have trouble caring, since the Money God still rules everything whichever party is in power.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

85. Are those my only 2 choices?

[Sunlei]

86. I'm not angry or discontented with Mrs. Clinton, but I have started 'worse case' plans for 2016 if

America goes 100% RW Gov. control. Or if our country gets attacked by..IS? Iran? Russia/China?

We're close now, if not for an amazing D President, his loyal Admin. the Ds in Congress and D Reps we would be a totally 2 class society today.

If Mrs. Clinton runs, I'm pretty sure President Obama, Warren et all will back her, so will I.

[GoneFishin]

89. I am jumping the hell out of the hot water before it boils. I might land in the flame and get burned

bad. But 35 years of continuous sliding to the right due to people being conned into holding their nose teaches me that the particular strategy actually is not the pragmatic approach unless your goal is to be cooked alive.

[Throd]

91. Hillary or the Apocalypse!

How will I apologize to my children that I didn't vote for Hillary as we're being marched off to detention camps?

[Yavin4]

93. Guess you didn't live in America from 2001 through 2008

I did, and it really was close to being the Apocalypse.

[Throd]

107. Holy Hyperbole, Batman!

Who could forget the mass cannibalism of 2005? I had to eat my dad.

[Yavin4]

109. If you were in NY in the towers on 9/11, it was the Apocalypse.

If you were in New Orleans during Katrina, it was the Apocalypse. If you were in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the Apocalypse.

And for everyone else, we all experienced an economic Apocalypse in 2008 which some of us are still suffering for today.

So, yes, it was that bad.

[Throd]

112. So are you in the MIHOP or LIHOP camp?

[Yavin4]

113. Neither. What's that got to do with my point? n/t

[lpbk2713]

92. And you know if they get in the Oval Ofc for one term ...

they'll find a way to steal the election for another four years.

[rhett o rick]

101. Ah Yes, insinuation by question. It's intended to be a trick question. Clever, so clever.

However, your logic is backwards. If you don't want to see a Republicon in the WH, then don't nominate H. Clinton-Sachs. It's that simple. But no, you want to nominate someone that a good share of the party doesn't want and then coerce them into supporting her in the general "or else." Let's nominate a progressive and kick the hell out of the R-Cons.

To save the middle and lower classes from poverty, we need to end the continuous neocon wars and cut back on defense spending. H. Clinton isn't about to bite the hands that feed her money.

[ananda]

102. I'm not angry or disappointed with Clinton at all.

Ermm... she hasn't done anything as President yet.

[Corey_Baker08]

111. Not A Chance In Hell, I'll Support The Democratic Nominee Regardless!

Anyone who considers themselves a Democrat & doesn't support Whomever the Nominee inevitably is are without a doubt enabling a Republican Victory...

[stevenleser]

114. Some people are just "take their ball and go home if they don't get their way" kind of folks.

I don't think they realize that it says much more about them than whatever it is they didn't get their way about.

[Yavin4]

119. I'm trying to gauge the level of animus towards Hillary.

There are things that I don't like about her and Bill, but NOTHING that they've done is worth having Scott Walker as president with a Republican congress. NOTHING.

Just reading some of the posts on this thread, there's a whole lot of false equivalency going on.

[AtomicKitten]

115. Your premise doesn't hold water.

The choice is not Hillary or the bunny gets it. FFS nobody has even declared their candidacy!

[Yavin4]

117. Why is my premise invalid?

It's a straight forward question. Are/is your frustration(s) with Hillary worth a Republican presidency?

[AtomicKitten]

164. "frustrations" ???

You grossly mischaracterize the resistance to Hillary Clinton which explains the ludicrous question you have posed. There are many reasons why people won't vote for her in either the primary or general elections in 2016 ranging from her support of the ill-begotten Iraq War to her hubris concerning Syria, Libya, and Iran to her complicity in the Honduran coup and its bloody aftermath to her snuggling up with war criminals like Henry Kissinger to her affinity for Wall Street bankers and corporations to her compromised ethical standards that invites nonstop drama to the ugly race-baiting campaign she ran in 2008 to her creepy surrogates like Lanny Davis to, well, the list goes.

It is the Democratic Party's responsibility to give people someone to vote for rather than against with regularly scheduled brow-beatings, not unlike this OP. To answer your "straight forward question" (wink-wink), I want neither Hillary nor a Republican presidency in 2016 because in too many ways some of which I have enumerated above, they are one in the same.

[Marrah_G]

118. This doesn't make anyone want to vote for her unless they are already planning too

This sort of post is obnoxious and makes people less likely to support her.

Edit: actually, fuck that noise. You and the rest like you can join the over zealous Obama primary supporters on ignore.

[morningfog]

122. Good lord, not one candidate has declared.

Save the fear mongering brow beating until at least after the conventions.

It is quite telling that some many feel the need to start this line this early.

[daredtowork]

123. Wrong question. You are saying we need to sacrifice on a lot of our basic platform issues to "win".

Is this true? Perhaps there is just a better candidate that actually represents our platform, and that platform will appeal to people.

Offering false choices is extremely manipulative behavior, and if that's what Hillary's campaign is all about, that raises questions in itself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

130. NO amount of public shaming will force me to support her...

before she is OFFICIALLY declared the nominee of the party. Until then... she can stuff it.

[AverageJoe90]

131. IMHO, *hell fuckin' no*.

Especially not if they run a total crook like Scott Walker or a nutter like Ted Cruz(one of my senators, btw: Cornyn's the other bozo).

[nomorenomore08]

169. On the one hand, neither Cruz nor Walker can realistically win the Presidency.

Jeb, on the other hand, is the one who scares me a bit.

[Logical]

132. Oh FFS, this shit again? What you are saying is that she is the only one who can win? Pure BS! nt

[Logical]

140. LOL, no shit, they are trying. :-)

[Hekate]

135. Do you think anyone's really listening?

[backwoodsbob]

136. is your love of Hillary worth the chance of losing?

Is having Hillary at all costs worth risking a repuke for four years

[dolphinsandtuna]

138. Some time ago I decide that if I continued to pick the lesser of two evils

I would only get evils to choose between.

What''s the difference between a Republican and an incompetent Wall Street/apartheid country lover in terms of the well-being of the U.S.? Not a lot.

[mother earth]

141. Serving up kool-aid so all can enjoy the democracy of NO CHOICE & inevitablity.

Drink up friends, democracy is dead.

Foolish, foolish, tactics, applaud the illusion

& drink plenty cuz you will get a female president for selling out on all you hold dear, you'll need to keep drinking too, all the way through more TPP & debt-ocracy.

This is a new low.

[PowerToThePeople]

142. nice try. n/t

[betterdemsonly]

143. Putting up with Scott Brown a little while netted good results for Massachusetts

Last edited Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Hillary's loss probably makes it less likely the republicans will hold both houses. We do have many split government voters in the US. Getting congress back clearly helps us groom a more diverse field of future presidential candidates. We will lose Roe and that is sad but the truth is this hurts red state women who most likely voted for not having such rights. In moderate to progressive states it creates a strong incentive for women to really vote out right wingers and fence sitters. It also destroys the power of the wishy-washy voter, who is pro-choice but votes for the gop to cut taxes. They can't rely on the courts to defend abortion from the gop tax cutters anymore, so they will have fish or cut bait. I doubt it will make much of a difference in terms of economic or foreign policy. Hillary is very very conservative on economic and foreign policy.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

144. Yes and I no longer giver a crap if the whole thing collapses either

We could use a do over.

[sendero]

166. Democrats..

.... offering death by a thousand cuts (like HRC and all the Third Way bunch, look where they have taken us) are offering nothing of value. I'd just as soon have a Republican and get it over with.

This sucker IS going down and folks like HRC can barely tap the brakes. Hell, they have their foot on the floor.

[anotojefiremnesuka]

170. The best advice I give folks is to prepare for the worst

if you are younger get the f out now before it is too late, most will have no future except for servitude if they stay.

Think Hunger Games, that is the end game for them.

[Rex]

145. FUD is a sad thing to see on a progressive forum.

But expected by some.

[winter is coming]

157. Not this shit again.

Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays are the days when you're supposed to tell us we must vote for HRC or the scary Republican will win. The rest of the week you're supposed to inform us that we're an insignificant fringe of the party and that the rest of the Party can't wait to vote for Hillary.

I realize that switching back and forth between contradictory characterizations of "the left" can be confusing, but try to stick to the schedule, 'k?

[Scuba]

158. So no one else can win, but Hillary can? Is that your pitch? 'Cause that's just lame.

[TheKentuckian]

159. No, I have some major areas of disagreement with Clinton but all in all I think odds are

on the net we would come out ahead of having her over a TeaPubliKlan though I don't think the net differential is high as the common wisdom in the party would estimate but still a differential of some measure.

The problem is this isn't a one off and just about Hillary Clinton but rather a long-term agenda with many actors dominating power positions in the party and in the government with a common political ideology based off of Laissez fare capitalism, military interventionism, corporate dominance and capture of government, reducing safety nets, and apparently now the surveillance state that I think we have gone to the well on too many times with not only no sign of backing off but doubling and tripling down ever more committed to digging the exact same hole the wicked TeaPubliKlans have been working at for decades and generations.

It is that I can no longer abide, particularly the dimwitted heal digging after seeing the rotten fruits of their nonsense economics and warmongering.
No, I want off this train wreck and the threat of the racist churchy version isn't going to hold me any longer because it will not and cannot come to any good end, it has already failed.

The results are in and no I'm not going to forever be a hostage of nefarious people look pushing Ronald Reagan's evil works without the Southern Strategy but adding George W. Bush's interventionism and surveillance state because to do so takes any opposition to the right wing core agenda off the table because it has been adopted in a conditional surrender that it will be a more equitable dystopia as if such a thing is even possible though it sells to those with good hearts but unwilling to really think through or unable to take a peek at the bigger picture.
Of course there are also those that are quite conservative but are single issue Democrats or unwelcome conservatives rather than anything like natural ideological allies and so they are very satisfied with the direction of the party and the nation other than their particular rough edge.

I got news for you, even on the strong points all we are going to get is the right libertarian version of equality when all the meeting in the middle and "pragmatic" compromising is done. In the end most people are not going to have a pot to piss in or any rights that are more than decorative or if so that they can afford to take advantage of.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. What's there to be angry or discontented about? She doesnt seem inclined to take a position on ANY

issue more controversial than "my most inspirational bible verse is...."

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-17/hillary-s-mystery-where-clinton-stands-on-issues-dividing-her-party

[lovemydog]

165. No.

[B Calm]

168. I'll take Hillary over a republican!