This message was self-deleted by its author

[KMOD]

This message was self-deleted by its author (KMOD) on Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:24 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I always vote my conscience. I didn't vote for Bill Clinton and I won't vote for Hillary.

Bernie will cover all those WAY more comprehensively than Hillary Clinton.

In the end, Civil Rights and Equal Access and Women's Rights all hinge on fundamental economic rights, income equity, economic security.

Hillary Clinton, I'm sorry to report, has too poor a history working with the enemies of economic equity to be taken seriously on her promises of fairness to these groups.

It's pretty plain to see.

Good post, Recommended.

[dreamnightwind]

8. Wow, though I appreciate your OP

this particular post blew me away, hard for me to see how anyone could believe that. Believe what you want, I guess...

[L0oniX]

145. *

[longship]

3. So will you be leaving DU on Labor Day, 2016?

Because your kind of post is amongst the most insidious that I have seen on this forum recently. To state that one would not vote for a putative Democratic candidate if they were nominated, to me, goes against everything Democratic Underground stands for, the support of Democratic candidates. Christ, NYC_SKP, it's in the TOS.

Myself, I have not, and will not, state who my preference here, at least until the primary season is well on. Then, I pledge to support any party candidate nominated in our democratic process.

But, here we are, a full fucking 18 months before the election and we apparently have here people who would willingly tear a party apart simply because they would prefer one candidate not get the nomination.

Consider this, my friend. For decades, the main GOP strategy has been to try to win by tearing the Democratic candidate down. Why would any Democrat want to use that strategy?

For Christ sakes, if you like a candidate, support them. Advocate for them. But you gain nothing by tearing down a perceived opponent Democrat except the tearing down of all Democrats. To do so is to play into the hands of the GOP, something no DUer should ever do (and IMHO remain in good stead here).

Relax for a bit. Kick your shoes off. Have a beer, or a glass of wine, or smoke a joint. Stop being so fucking divisive!

It invites the question:
What the fuck are you trying to accomplish here?

Sorry for being so surly. I often appreciate your posts, but not so much recently.

Hopefully, my regards.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Hi longship! No, I am not allowed to leave the DU. I will be here for a very very very long time.

"Insideous"!

The primaries are precisely meant to support one's choice of a candidate.

Thanks largely to a corrupt system, media, and other factors, we come into this particular season without an equitable playing field for the potential slate of candidates.

Consequently, I'm working harder than I might otherwise fight against that individual who is taking all of the air out of the room, so to speak.

What's more, I believe with all of my being that Clinton will not survive the General Election.

If Clinton comes out and tells the DNC that she insists on ten debates, for example, I will back off significantly.

That's not likely, however, so I'll be one those member here riding the surge for someone else, someone better.

Once the primaries end, the trashing of candidates will end and a new phase will begin.

Not too surly, I think you were quite civil!

[longship]

7. Ride on, NYC_SKP.

But I hope that you recognize that you do little good for your preference by tearing down their opponent. That is why I will not express a preference here for many months.

And I very much appreciate your response. Thank you for tolerating mine. I've always known you to be a reasonable person.

As always.

[upaloopa]

82. You are not being noble, you are taking yourself

out of the game. You no longer matter in this upcoming election. You say so yourself.
Why repeat over and over? How many times this month now? We know what you think by now. You won't vote for Hillary got it!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

181. She's actually got a better chance now than she did a week or so back.

Jeb simply isn't 'catching fire', especially in Iowa. I considered the 'worst case' scenario for Dems in 2016 to be a 'Jeb vs Hillary' contest, because I figure that would depress the vote the most, and depressed votes help Republicans. With any other Republican candidate, HRC will manage to avoid that particular trap if she ends up being the nominee.

[seabeyond]

182. HRC will manage to avoid that particular trap if she ends up being the nominee.

agreed. i am liking what i see is far in the ability in running. i think the last 8 years in her progression will be exciting to see. i think it will resonate with the mass and i think the absolute extreme of right will hand it to her.

texas senator suggest women and girls carry dead fetus to avoid a n legal abortion after 20 weeks.

pretty absurd, you think?

as we plan a war with our u.s. military. that many are or were.

rollin eyes.

this has been since bush. the absurdity of the right. and they keep pushing it further an further. i feel handing us pres in 2008 and 2012. ya. obama did good. but we had that too.

much more comfortable than with kerry. that is another kerry took in the face. the beginning of that extreme and people didnt get it. lost opportunity, kerry, that.

[seabeyond]

48. +1. nt

[Maraya1969]

4. What upsets me about these types of thoughts is the terror

Of the possibility of a repub getting in. You your conscience can't be so strong that you'd give this country over to a barbarian because of it? That really negates the need for a conscious

[winter is coming]

6. I've seen that "Vote for HRC or the evil Republicans win!!!" meme trotted out many times.

Every time I see it, I think that someone is trying to scare me so much that I won't think about whether or not HRC would be a good choice for President. And that's a hint that I should be thinking about whether HRC would be a good choice, because if someone's using emotional tactics, especially fear, to pressure me into a decision, they probably don't have anything that isn't emotion- or fear-based to convince me.

Have you looked at the GOP clown car lately? We'd have to nominate Vermin Supreme to be in any danger of losing to those bozos. Stifle your "terror"; it's killing your ability to reason.

[dreamnightwind]

9. I thought Vermin Supreme was a Taco Bell burrito

Great post by the way, I completely agree.

[R B Garr]

19. So you're already over George Bush?

I didn't think that could be possible. <shudder>

[winter is coming]

24. It's not 2000, these clowns are obviously worse than Bush,

and one of the things that hurt us in 2000 is that people were tired of the Clintons. But thanks for dragging out the boogeyman instead of talking up your preferred candidate; that's the kind of non-thought I'm talking about.

[R B Garr]

34. Yet just a few short years ago, 60 million people voted for Sarah Palin.

You can't get more clownish than that.

BTW, I don't 100% have a candidate, and if you don't either, does that make us both non-thoughts? Sorry, I just think it's obvious now that anyone-but-a-Republican is still a viable and necessary voting option.

[Maraya1969]

22. And one of the reasons it was not a landslide in 2000 was

Ralph Nader. And then look what happened.

Please realize that we cannot be anything but 110% in order to combat all the cheaters. You think they don't have a shot. Look at some of the tea party zombies that got in to congress.

[winter is coming]

25. Oh, look, let's blame Nader and not talk about Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000.

If we're going to go all out, let's not forget to define the Democratic brand as something other than "we suck less". The lesser of two evils argument doesn't work on everyone all the time, perhaps because it's a tacit admission that your candidate is evil.

[redstateblues]

53. Nader denialism is alive and well

I don't blame Nader. I partially blame the people that voted for him.

[seabeyond]

61. sure, as nader fucks the repug last election, to get his face on the news.... while wanking with us

[frylock]

143. But not the 200,000+ registered Dems that voted for Bush

[Maraya1969]

165. Did you forget how close the count was? Or how many scams there were?

Palm Beach FL was the worst IMO. But if that dickhead had gotten out of the way everyone that voted for him would have voted for Al Gore.

It is just math!

[winter is coming]

166. The number of Dems who voted for Nader is dwarfed by the number who voted for the GOP.

I find it interesting that Al Gore blames himself while others have decided the blames lies primarily, perhaps solely, on Nader. That has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with constructing a hippie-punching narrative contrived to keep the left in line.

[Maraya1969]

186. That does not matter. The ones that voted Nader would have voted Gore if Nader

had gotten out. And that would have made enough votes that it couldn't have been a contest between them, even with all the stolen votes.

[winter is coming]

187. What about the the socialist candidates who also ran? Or Buchanan?

If only they'd gotten out of the race... Do you blame them, too?

The notion that any third-party candidate took votes that "should" have gone to Gore is ludicrous. Gore was never owed their votes. The people who voted for the various third-party candidates knew their candidates of choice wouldn't be elected, and still chose not to vote for a "major" candidate. Blaming Nader (or anyone else) for not dropping out of the race is childish and ignores the reality that his supporters had already decided not to vote Dem.

[merrily]

32. Many more Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader; Gore ran a lousy campaign;

Last edited Fri May 8, 2015, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Gore nonetheless won the popular vote in Florida, but lost the Supreme Court case; the ballot was incomprehensible to many; Gore should not have been in such a hurry to concede.

Time to put the fake memes to bed.

[winter is coming]

43. I think you meant to say, "Many more Florida *Democrats*"... n/t

[merrily]

44. Yes, thanks! I'll edit.

[merrily]

30. Merry Supreme Court and a very happy, healthy and prosperous "Say hello to President Cruz.

I like to think of that as Hallmark meets the terrorism version of "winning" your vote.

[frylock]

144. Put that on a bumper sticker

GOTV!

[merrily]

154. It's probably not funny unless you post at DU.

[reddread]

158. when you cant talk about issues

break out the loyalty oaths.

[seabeyond]

49. " "Vote for HRC or the evil Republicans win!!!" meme" it is a meme? you have a repug and a dem

clinton wins the rpimary, she is the dem

when one advocates not voting clinton, at any cost, at of principle, it is a vote for the repug.... not a fuckin' meme.

but fact

not out of fear

but reality

[L0oniX]

146. Stop picking on Vermin Supreme. I'm expecting a pot of gold soon.

[winter is coming]

147. It's probably hiding in his beard.

Put on a hazmat suit and dive in.

[R B Garr]

13. Do you mind if I ask who you voted for if not Bill Clinton?

Bush? Dole? You must mean in the primary...? I forget now who the also-rans were.

[NYC_SKP]

16. I believe I voted for Brown in the primary and Perot in the general.

I felt then that the Democratic Party was losing it's way, and Jerry Brown came to the same conclusion.

Fed up with Clinton as the pick, I think I went with the Reform party candidate that year.

[R B Garr]

18. Ah, I forgot about Brown. Thx. n/t

[justiceischeap]

31. I supported Brown in the primaries too

but being from Pennsylvania, where every vote counted, I went on to vote for Bill Clinton in my first Presidential election. I've yet to decide whom I'm supporting in the primaries this time around but if there's another Clinton on the ticket when the general comes around, I'll be casting my vote for that Clinton as well--as I seem to recall things were pretty good during the Clinton years as opposed to the Bush years. That said, at this rate if we don't pick up seats in the House and retain the Senate, it won't matter which Democratic candidate is President, we'll have more deadlock just like now.

[bettyellen]

90. OMG- Ross Perot? Good on you for admitting it....

Now we have context.

[HooptieWagon]

134. Perot was 100% right on NAFTA

Though I voted for Clinton.

[Adrahil]

40. Does your conscience include preventing a GOP President?

It should.

[NYC_SKP]

54. There's not a lot of different between a Right leaning Dem and the other team.

She's a corporatist outsourcing poser.

She will ruin the brand, take down the party.

[seabeyond]

63. yes. there are a ZILLION difference. they do not matter to you. and you are insisting,

out of principle, we too must ignore them.

[bettyellen]

92. If you're a white man who is not poor, sure thing!

I should bookmark for the next time I hear no one spreads that "all the same" crap here.

[DCBob]

93. Such an absurd ridiculous and dangerous statement.

You are the GOP's best friend.

[Quackers]

170. So when someone doesn't support Hillary, they are the GOP's best friend?

Someone's statement is ridiculous but it's not NYC_SKP's.

[DCBob]

171. When a supposed Democrat says they wont vote for a Democrat..

how would the GOP not love thst?

[seabeyond]

46. so you will advocate not voting if clinton wins. you pump up social issues a must to defend, then

with no pain, turn your back on those social issues if you candidate does not win. as if, your way is the only way when clearly other paths to social equality is much faster and effective and productive.

you are advocating not voting, allowing a repug in to hurt so many people.

peoples lives. womens lives. blacks lives.

when i say there is a group that advocate not voting clinton, if their candidate does not win, then your group is on my ass.

how is that being a democrat advocating not voting for a democrat?

becuase you do not get the one you want, you put people, children across the nation at risk, and yet stand in self righteous pride.

[NYC_SKP]

56. It's because I care about social issues, like keeping jobs here, living wages, income equity, that..

...I cannot in good conscience vote for this person.

[seabeyond]

64. yes. the $. we have a state senator wanting dead fetus to remain in uterus. killing our girls. life

[seabeyond]

65. do not fuckin tell this democrat, the parties are not different. on a progressive democratic board.

[L0oniX]

148. Many are now thinking that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Wall Street.

Do you really believe she would select an anti-Citizens United SCJ? I don't.

[seabeyond]

152. ah, is this the reasoning excusing the "others"? she would put someone in the supreme crt

that would not be on our side?

we can tell ourselves all kinds of stories, make up whatever, to justify selling "others" out.

imo, of course.

yes. i think she would put someone in at least par with what obama did. but, since it is not fact and just opinion, i recognize my opinion has no more strength than any fabricated story we tell ourselves.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

108. And if it is Scott Walker vs HRC you consider them so alike that you wont vote, got it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

179. NO! ...

In the end, Civil Rights and Equal Access and Women's Rights all hinge on fundamental economic rights, income equity, economic security.

NO ... THEY ... DON'T!

How many times do PoC and Women and the LGBT Community, and the host of traditional disenfranchised folks have to say it ... "economic rights, income equity, and economic security" does nothing to secure Civil Rights and Equal Access and Women's Rights, before you hear it? All rights, income equity, economic security does is give us more money (though in relative terms, not even more money), while we are denied Civil Rights and Equal Access and Women's Rights.

I, as a (some would say, wealthy, though I don't really feel wealthy) Black man, have economic security, and whose life wouldn't be appreciably improved by gaining "income equity", still gets racially profiled and face racial discrimination; wealthy women still are denied reproductive healthcare, and members of the LGBT are denied the right to marry whom they love ... no amount of money, in absolute terms or relative to the very, and very very wealthy, will affect that.

SO PLEASE HEAR THAT ... and perhaps stop promoting that (self-interested) lie.

[rhett o rick]

11. I have a problem with HRC because in 2002 she turned her back on Democratic Principles

and repeated the Republicons lies about Iraq and WMD. This was a disastrous mistake that resulted in untold damage to Iraq and our economy and our Democracy. My vote will go to a Democrat with integrity.

[think]

26. Do you feel she did the right thing in voting to send America to war in 2002?

For what it's worth I voted for Kerry in 2004 ( in the presidential election. Not the primaries.) but it certainly wasn't because of his war vote. It was a vote against George W Bush.

[Adrahil]

41. I don't. But I do think she will be better than ANY GOP candidate.

And I think she has the best chance of beating them.

[winter is coming]

58. "Better than ANY GOP candidate" is an embarrassingly low bar.

I have difficulty believing HRC is the only Dem who can win in 2016. Let's aim a little higher.

[ProfessorGAC]

97. Not as Embarrassing As Having An "R" in The WH

While you may be right, think of the other option.

[winter is coming]

141. So the only candidate on your radar months before the primaries start is the frontrunner?

How did that work out in 2008?

It's not at all unusual for the early frontrunner to not be the nominee. Behaving as if Hillary Clinton is the only person in the United States capable of beating a GOP opponent is ludicrous. Are the Dems truly that weak?

We can do better than a status quo candidate, but we have to dare to expect something better than more of the same.

[ProfessorGAC]

153. Who Said That?

Don't put words in my mouth or into my posts? I support Sanders right now, because i support the message.

Didn't see that coming, did you?

[winter is coming]

156. Let' s see. I say being better than the GOP candidate is an embarrasingly low bar,

and that we can do better than Hillary, and you respond with "Not as embarrassing as having an R in the WH", which is the classic knee-jerk response to the suggestion that Hillary's not the only Dem we can look to. Why yes, I am surprised to see a Bernie supporter spouting that nonsense.

[think]

124. Respectfully it's appreciated that Hillary has stated it was the wrong choice.

Still it was a terrible decision for ANY leader to make including all the other Democrats that did.

For what it's worth it's obvious that the majority of the GOP politicians would still claim that it was a good decision to go to war.

I'm sure they'd make up some crazy reason to tell their constituents just so they do not to have admit they were wrong. "They hate our Freedom" comes to mind.

The GOP machine never seems to admit mistakes. That is very scary.....

[rhett o rick]

129. Personally I thought her saying she wished she could have that vote back

was a very weak apology considering the horrendous damage done to Iraq and our democracy/economy.

But even with a heart felt apology to Iraq and this country, would not change the fact that she, not only supported the invasion, she helped push the WMD lies. She convinced Democrats that were looking to her for leadership. Like Bush said, "Better not be fooling me again." Or something to that effect. It's not like she is our only choice.

[think]

139. Ya, it was much too little too late. But admitting it was wrong is a start.

It still doesn't change the past devastation or instill confidence in her ability to make the right choice in the future. But it is a start.

That's something the neocons will never do. Admit it was wrong.....

[think]

28. I was reminded that she also voted for the Patriot Act while Bernie didn't

Another example of going along verses real leadership.....

[reddread]

160. Do you ever wonder

who Bill and Hillary voted for in 2000?

[rhett o rick]

162. Very interesting. No I never have thought about it. Hmmm. nm

[freshwest]

15. Nothing against your post, but the increasing use of principals instead of principles...

Is getting on my nerves.

Definition of Principal:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Principals

I always think, what do people have against school principals?

Defintion of Principle:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principle

And I will follow the lead of Bernie Sanders:

“I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”

[freshwest]

20. Oh, that lazy spell check won't help at all! You're doing great.

As I said, it's become a peeve.

Your thead didn't ooze with the outraged tone some have, which is negated when one reads that word.

It makes me wonder (not your OP as you explained the thead) if we're being trolled by baggers!

[reddread]

159. but that is the actual contest.

[mmonk]

23. Nice post.

[leftofcool]

27. I vote for the Democrat in the general no matter how many mistakes they may have made.

I know the alternative will be worse.

[99Forever]

29. I plan to. Thanks for agreeing. n/t

[99Forever]

111. Common ground is a very good thing.

[merrily]

33. "Some here" seem more obsessed with "some here" or with "many here" than with

actual election issues.

[NCTraveler]

36. True that. nt.

[Adrahil]

42. One of the election issues is the HELL we will be treated to...

by a GOP President. No voting for the D in the generals isn't an act of conscience. It's an act of capitulation.

[merrily]

45. It's not the general yet. Indeed, the primary has barely begun.

[demmiblue]

66. +1

Signed,

Not a Hillary fan, but would vote for her in the general if she is our nominee.

[NCTraveler]

35. I believe I am a very principled person.

I would love to vote for Hillary. Fuck anyone who would question my principles over it or claim to be more principled. My principles are why I can vote for her with a huge smile on my face. The only thing I am waiting for at this point is to see the team Sanders is able to create. That will be a big part of my decision. Over the last couple of months I believe Hillary has been courting the top campaigners in the country. For two reasons. One, she is in it to win it. Two, to take them away from possible opposition. I am truly interested to see the team Sanders assembles. It will make a huge difference in support.

[seabeyond]

37. i do not get those that feel appeased not voting because of "conscience" allowing repug win

that will hurt so many many many many people. to the point of death.

how can they proudly say, conscience does not allow them to vote for a dem, yet allowing a repug that hurt so many.

morally (nonreligious), ethically, that makes no sense at all.

personal prides takes precedent over others lives.

[hootinholler]

51. Geography affords some of us the luxury to be able to stand on principle

Without influencing the outcome of our state's electoral votes. That I do not vote for Hillary does not mean I will vote for the winner of the clown car roundup.

On the other hand, maybe the country does need to go to hell in a handbasket before the people will rise.

The last thing I can take is another bait and switch candidate.

[seabeyond]

52. that is easy for one to say, when it is not their life in danger, just the "others". nt

[hootinholler]

55. That's a bold assumption

About my willingness to put myself in harms way for "others"

I submit you do not have enough information about me to reliably make any such claim. You go ahead and make some claim about me anyway and that simply insults me.

[seabeyond]

60. ya. it is bold. we are talking principle, which is war, $ not voting progressive democratic which

represents FUCKIN lives being lost right in front of our face. and a greater effort in the future. i mean, we are droppin' like flies and you are telling me to leave them at the fuckin curb....

really bold. i agree. not in the asusmption of who you are as a person. from your fuckin words, YOU gave ME!

bold.

ya.

i thought we liked

bold.

[hootinholler]

70. Which words exactly?

I'm kicking no one to the curb.

We've been dropping like flies since I was in high school 40 years ago and shortly after when I was in the Navy we were attacked by Raygun.

That didn't wake people up. Neither did his recession and the loss of jobs, nor did NAFTA and the loss of jobs, and W and the loss of not only jobs but homes as well, hell I was sure W would wake people up to what's happening. Even now, what relief have the people received? Who has stood for us?

I have the luxury of registering dissent without electing the clown car candidate, so why shouldn't I?

I'm too old to once again surrender my principles to someone obviously not interested in upholding them.

[seabeyond]

71. IF you do not vote 2016, you are kicking a hell of a lot of people to the curb. that you do not see

that is what you are doing, then it suggests to me, these lives are irrelevant, in your position. though that is allowed, i do not personally respect it cause i see a lot of lives being kicked to the fuckin' side. does that piss me off? ya.

[seabeyond]

72. and then, to do it in a thread on principle, defining your principle. as i define mine. nt

[hootinholler]

76. Again, geography affords me the luxury

IT is a luxury. I'm not talking about not voting, I'm talking about possibly not voting for a candidate that will win my state no matter what I do to register dissent. I don't know how to be more clear than that. It is not kicking anyone to the curb.

Were I to live elsewhere, I would not have that luxury, and would act accordingly.

I don't understand why you are ready to kick those same people to the curb in the primary by supporting Hillary over Bernie. Her positions change with the political winds, Bernie's do not. For the first time in my life I have someone to vote FOR.

[seabeyond]

78. i do not know how to make my position more clear. IF you do not vote democratic 2016, even in

statement of a no confidence vote, you are saying those other lives are not significant enough to you to vote dem, because you have a dem safe neighborhood. hey. your right.

and my right to say why i find that offensive.

in a thread arguing principle.

[jeff47]

84. You should probably remember that we don't elect a president by popular vote.

As a result, "protest" votes do not affect the outcome in some states.

CA, NY and several other "blue" states will be voting for the Democratic nominee.
TX, AL and several other "red" states will be voting for the Republican nominee.

If you live in those 'safely red' or 'safely blue' states, a protest vote won't change the outcome.

If Clinton is the nominee, she won't win my state, with or without my vote. Democrats win NC when they get massive turnout in the cities, and Clinton won't be able to pull that off. "Status quo" will not get enough turnout in the cities to overwhelm the rural areas of the state. It's how Democrats have lost NC in the last several elections.

O'Malley or Sanders might be able to due to being able to run against the status quo, but it will be difficult for either of them.

As a result, my vote will not swing the presidential election, since all of my state's electors will be voting for the Republican. On the plus side, the Democratic nominee doesn't need NC. There are much easier "swing" states for the Democratic candidate to win that will get them to 270.

[seabeyond]

86. i am well aware we do not elect a president by popular vote. i stand by my point.

[jeff47]

98. So you stand by your point that every vote counts, after being shown that is false.

A Democrat voting for Clinton in Alabama will have the same effect as a Democrat voting for Cthulhu - the Republican wins the state.

[seabeyond]

101. every vote counts is your argument. not mine. argue what i say, not what you want to. nt

[jeff47]

113. So if their vote does not count, how are they kicking people to the curb by not voting?

The person you replied to already explained that the electoral result from their state is already decided by geography.

[freshwest]

161. I agree with these words:

I kept the faith and I kept voting.

Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand.

~ Billy Bragg

Some do not have the luxury or station in life to not vote as we see what the GOP will do to us and our loved ones. We live in the here and now, and die in the here and now, and cannot wait for the perfect.

We want it no less than others, but they look down on and mock our feeble attempts to stay alive. I find their pride to be the height of arrogance and a malevolent disrespect to us 'others.' EOM.

[seabeyond]

163. point. and right on. nt

[Rex]

39. .

[ucrdem]

47. Well if it's any comfort . . .

they aren't going to vote anyway. Figured that out a while back.

[freshwest]

172. Well, not for any Democrat, anyway. That's been obvious for a very long time. One doesn't just...

Turn off the disdain and dissing when one goes from online to the real world. What is said here is what is said to family, friends, coworkers and in the voting booth.

This has just been a game, years of messing with the heads of Democratic voters here. And the lurkers and websurfers who see the word Democratic in the domain and want information.

What they see is bitterness and vitriol that appeals to no one.

It literally runs away Democrats and potential Democratic voters.

As 1StrongBlackMan wrote:

And "Mission Accomplished" could be heard whispered throughout the land. (It seems)

GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!

Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!

Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

The media has played this narrative on a 7-day, 24-hour loop.

Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.

Nicely played, Oligarchs!

[seabeyond]

173. right on again. obvious to most of us. nt

[freshwest]

176. Morning, Sea:

[seabeyond]

183. morning woman. ... we got the power

[True Blue Door]

50. Not just principles. She's a bad campaigner, and would do long-term damage to the Party.

I see literally no upside to her being our nominee.

I'd rather roll the dice than accept the absolute best outcome being a razor-thin victory by default with no coattails, no mandate, and a candidate who constantly apologizes for being a Democrat.

[NYC_SKP]

57. Yep, she will kill what's left of the Democratic party brand.

TPTB want it that way, she'll help them.

[rock]

59. I suspect that is NOT the case

There are some here at DU that loud and frequent posters that don't like the Clintons. Statistically, anything else would be surprising.

[seabeyond]

62. as far as i am concerned. this thread has become perverted in the twisiting of principle.

it now just feels vulgar .... in the excuses.

[seabeyond]

67. i have st senate who wants girls to carry dead fetus in uterus, governor about to declare war on our

u.s. military and i am reading in THIS thread, on a democratic progressive board, there is no difference int he parties

ARE YOU FUCKIN' OUT OF YOUR MIND!!!

[seabeyond]

68. POINT with economic populist. the $ is not the ONLY moral issues here. you $ is not the ONLY thing

that matters. as a matter of fact, you are on wrung 3 or 4 for me. maybe 2.

[TBF]

69. You missed some:

It's hard to fathom a demccrat authoring TPP & sending more jobs out of the country ...

It's hard to fathom a democrat sitting on the board of Walmart ...

It's hard to fathom a democrat advocating for investment bankers ...

It's hard to fathom a democrat suggesting we should "obliterate" Iran ...

It's hard to fathom, in 2015, that some aren't talking about income inequality ...

[seabeyond]

73. didnt we get bill to control wallstreet a little,been weakened? working on minumum wage increase for

how long? address corps immediately thru 2009?, ACA.

and how did that work for us? you may not like that dems did not push harder or did not push as far or did not accomplish, but you cannot say this is something dems have not been talking about. you can think sanders has more the chance. reality, he faces the same as the others.

at the least, put your demands in proper perspective as you yell about principle. right?

[TBF]

99. "yell about principle"

lol. No yelling here. I am calm. Complete support for Bernie 100%. I'm not the one yelling about principles or purity. I am beyond thrilled that a candidate who understands and is not afraid to talk about class is running.

Truth:

[seabeyond]

105. you did not address my post. lets not pretend you did. nt

[TBF]

114. What would you like me to address? nt

[seabeyond]

118. It's hard to fathom, in 2015, that some aren't talking about income inequality ...

who is not addressing income equality. as i positioned, the dems have and are addressing this.

[TBF]

131. Income Inequality - Pew Research Center

I guess it depends upon how you define "addressing" - but this is the REALITY of where we are:


America’s wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families is widest on record

By Richard Fry and Rakesh Kochhar

The wealth gap between America’s high income group and everyone else has reached record high levels since the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-09, with a clear trajectory of increasing wealth for the upper-income families and no wealth growth for the middle- and lower-income families.

A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between America’s upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record. In 2013, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting these data.

In addition, America’s upper-income families have a median net worth that is nearly 70 times that of the country’s lower-income families, also the widest wealth gap between these families in 30 years ...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/17/wealth-gap-upper-middle-income/

[seabeyond]

132. i fail to see the point of this. ok. so? nothing to do with my reply, again. nt

[TBF]

137. You fail to see the point that most wealth in this country

is going to the top 1%? How can you fail to understand that? How can you fail "to see the point"?

I assure you the voters will see that point and they will vote accordingly.

[seabeyond]

138. you are making up an argument, to argue. i have not failed recognizing shit. you are still not

addressing what i replied to you about.

that simple.

you want to argue that? continue on. it is your argument. not mine.

i specifically called out where i felt you post error-ed. and you have consistently ignored what i posted.

[HappyMe]

74. Good additions.

[djean111]

75. It's hard to fathom why there are so many OP's about voting for Hillary for president before

the primaries are over.

[seabeyond]

77. because there are so many populist that advocate not voting for clinton if she wins.

[djean111]

81. I wouldn't worry about that until after the primaries. Right now, it seems like the pledgey thing,

and is, actually, pointless. Unless people get absentee ballots and let HRC supporters mark them for Hillary and mail them in, there is no real way to know how people are going to vote.

[seabeyond]

83. dont worry about it. no one is telling you to.

[HappyMe]

85. At this point in time, that kind of doesn't matter.

The election isn't on Tuesday.

Were there threads/people advocating not voting for Obama if Hillary didn't win the last time?

[seabeyond]

87. another,... that does not matter to you. fine. nt

[HappyMe]

88. That is not what I said.

I said that at this point in time it does not matter. The election isn't even close.

[seabeyond]

89. "I said that at this point in time it does not matter." can i not disagree with you? i think...

it still matters. hence, me saying to you. that it did not matter to YOU. it does matter to ME. even at this point of the election. whether sanders has a chance or not.

am i allowed?

[HappyMe]

91. I am working toward getting Bernie elected in the primary.

That's my immediate goal. I think Sanders has a good chance to win the primary. His message is consistent, and he's no big money corporatist.

Of course you are allowed.

[seabeyond]

95. thank you. i am looking forward to all that, also. IF i even take a position on a candidate.

i am thinking, i may not jump on a side. i do not like how one side is defining their campaign. i think it is at the determent of our party. the democratic party.

[HappyMe]

103. What is it about the campaign that you

consider a detriment?
Since I'm working on a campaign it would be useful to know - I am assuming you mean Bernie. Or not.

We haven't started the big formal push. Lots of stuff to take care of.

[seabeyond]

107. i have talked about it often. you are not aware? one would be people advocating not voting dem,

if clinton wins. that there is no difference in the parties. when the reality is, there is no difference (which is not correct anyway) with economic justice, but a vast difference in other democratic issues.

[seabeyond]

109. that the "other" issues are minor or down right insignificant to economic populism. nt

[HappyMe]

110. That isn't part of Sanders' campaign.

That's just people here voicing their opinions.

[seabeyond]

112. i disagree. the supporters define his campaign. i think as a democratic party, we address those

within our party who work for divisiveness. and the stance the parties are the same, or do not vote, or only economic justice is an issue are contradiction to our goals.

[HappyMe]

116. There are plenty of shit flingers that are Hillary supporters.

So her campaign is full of divisive people also who use threats and condescension. The supporters define the campaign.

Economic inequality is a big issue. If you can't pay your bills or have at least 2 meals a day, you really aren't concerned with much else.

Sanders' campaign here hasn't even formally begun yet.

[seabeyond]

117. "Economic inequality is a big issue." yes it is. if you are black and cant walk down the street

without threat of arrest or death, if you cannot get an abortion, then you might not be around to worry about the $.

i get that people are concerned about feeding their family, hence my support of sanders.

i also get that dying is an issue for some, and they equally count.

i am not even asking for life to be more important than $ but just the fuck up there with it.

[HappyMe]

119. Um....there are plenty of poor people period.

Plenty. Of all colors. That's what I see at the food pantry and soup kitchen. White, Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern...all equally fucked.

I have not heard a single thing saying that Bernie will somehow damage abortion as President. Nothing.

It's easy for people that are comfortable in life to complain that poor people are concerned about paying bills.

[seabeyond]

120. advocating not voting. advocating both parties are the same. the principle of. that is the

discussion i am having.

issues you have stated do not concern you now. which takes me to the first reply i made to you.

[HappyMe]

122. I am not advocating that.

That is on those people only. Not me or any other Sanders' supporter.

[seabeyond]

123. i did not say you were advocating. you are wrong saying it is no sander supporter. look at this

thread. that is what i am arguing.

[HappyMe]

125. That is on those individual people.

They don't represent anyone but themselves. You can't paint all of us with that broad brush.

[seabeyond]

127. i am addressing those within the populist movement in the democratic party that advocate this.

again i ask. am i allowed? cause ok or not, i will continue, as you ignore it because it does not matter to you.

[HappyMe]

128. I don't know what the hell you want from me.

Some people in this thread have said that. They don't speak for all of us. Address them.

I am not here to fight a battle for Hillary. She's not even the nominee. Nobody is. I am not going to demand loyalty oaths from people. Not my thing. This far out from the election it doesn't matter because we have no nominee. Sorry, but I am not going to be a part of the Hillary Berating party. Maybe those people live in a sold blue state, so it doesn't matter what you mark on the ballot. It's like that here. A squirrel could run as a Democrat here, and the electoral votes would go there.

[seabeyond]

130. i want nothing from you. you are the one continuing this. i continue to be on point. nt

[HappyMe]

133. Good luck.

[seabeyond]

135. ty. backatcha. i think this will be an interesting/exciting yr and half. nt

[bigwillq]

79. I will always vote my conscience.

I live in CT, which helps, so I am free to vote for the candidate of my choice without really playing the role of spoiler.
The DEM presidential nominee will most likely win CT in the GE with or without my vote.
I will NOT be voting for HRC, but I wish her well. If she is the nominee, and wins, I won't have any issue with it. I just cannot vote for her.

[Katashi_itto]

140. I will not vote for her either.

I have no issues if she is the nominee. But I will not vote for her regardless.

[upaloopa]

80. If we lose in 2016 you won't only wonder why

there is injustice in 2015, the right will take us back to 1915!
To not vote for our candidate in 2016 is not a noble stand and does not deserve any respect!

[KamaAina]

94. Enjoy President Cruz.

And Supreme Court justices Paul and Huckabee.

As you can plainly see to my left, I'm not voting for HRC in the primary -- but will vote for the Dem nominee in the general, even if it's Lee Mercer, Jr. (ALL THREE!!1!!11!!!)

[DCBob]

102. Our number one driving principal should be to keep a Republican out of the White House.

Nothing else trumps that. Hillary offers an obvious clear opportunity to do that now. Amazing so many "progressives" are ready to shoot themselves in the foot and grab defeat from the jaws of victory claiming she is no better than a Rethug. If they do that they are complete and utter fools.

[steve2470]

121. excellent post sis nt

[hrmjustin]

126. I am voting for Hillary because I think she is the most qualified for the job.

[dawg]

136. Hopefully, most will eventually come around if she turns out to be our nominee.

Especially those living in swing states.

I don't see much daylight between Hillary and President Obama on economic matters, but either would be a vast improvement over a Republican.

That being said, I probably won't vote for her in the primary.

[HappyMe]

142. I think it's up to her to convince people.

When I worked on a midterm campaign I did notice that people aren't handing out their votes like Halloween candy.

[dawg]

149. And I think that is only fair.

If she were to win the nomination, and then swerve hard to the right, I don't think it would be fair to blame anyone but the candidate for losing votes on the left.

[HappyMe]

150. Yes, that's true.

That's why I like Bernie. He is consistent and has a proven track record. Hillary paying lip service to Warren's work has me pretty suspicious about her.

[davidsilver]

151. I won"t vote for HRC in the primary and if she is the nominee I will refrain from voting for anyone

[DCBob]

157. Congratulations! The GOP loves you!

[davidsilver]

174. In a general election, I refuse to be forced to choose between a Republican and a Republican Lite

[DCBob]

177. Fortunately no one is being forced to vote a certain way in this country.

Its boggles the mind that so called "progressives" are so blinded by their pristine ideology that they are ready to shoot themselves in the foot and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. BTW, Hillary is not "Republican Lite".. far from it. She was ranked the 11th most liberal senator based on her voting record.

[seabeyond]

184. you're sittin in a factual lie. the only way to make your story even kinda right is sittin in your $

ignoring the "other" lives.

that would not be a dem, progressive, liberal.

that would be a republican.

tell me where i am wrong?

[reddread]

155. principles vs principals

that decision is ours to make.

[cantbeserious]

164. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[davidsilver]

175. +1

[NanceGreggs]

167. There is nothing "principled" ...

... about allowing a Republican to get anywhere near the WH.

In the end, there can be only one - it will be a (D) or an (R). Pointing out that fact is not a scare tactic; it's a reality.

Voting to elect a POTUS is not a matter of who you personally find most closely representative of your ideals. You are not voting for someone to govern you personally; you are voting for someone to govern the entire nation. The well-being of that entire nation should be your first and foremost consideration; your own personal
likes and dislikes are secondary.

If your "conscience" compels you to throw your vote away - and that's exactly what voting Third Party amounts to - you might want to examine that conscience, and consider why you feel your "personal principles" trump the principle of keeping the next SCOTUS judges from being appointed by some GOP nutjob. You might want to consider why your "principles" really come down to I want what I want, and I would rather risk a Republican presidency than vote for a Democrat I personally don't like.

In the end, there can be only one - it will be a (D) or an (R).

Like it or not, that's your choice. You can pretend all you want that the election of a president is about your "personal principles". You can rant away about what any (D) said that you don't agree with, what any (D) did that you find offensive, what any (D) stood for that you stand against.

It doesn't change the fact that In the end, there can be only one - it will be a (D) or an (R). THAT is the reality.

Vote according to your "personal principles"? No. Vote according to who you want to see inaugurated in January 2017, a (D) or an (R). Vote according to what is best for your country, a (D) president or an (R) president. Vote according to who you think will better the lives of your fellow citizens, a (D) in the Oval Office or an (R).

When the direction of an entire nation is at stake, "personal principles" are an egotistical, self-centered luxury - and putting a country at risk of yet another whack-job Republican POTUS is an indefensible position.

[djean111]

178. We have read all of this before. Some of it is obvious, some of it seems designed to engender an

acceptance that all that really matters is the "R" or "D".

Be all of that as it may, the "Part B" to this little homily, elsewhere, is "so you better support Hillary because she is the onliest one who can beat the "R"!!!!!!!! And if you pick on her now, that just weakens her in the general election!!!! So fuck your principles!".
And isn't it a little early for this sort of thing, anyway? Why not wait until we see how the primaries go? Why act as if we have to nail down the fuck-your-principles thing this far out from the actual voting? It is annoying at best, counter-effective at worst.

[LWolf]

180. I always vote my principles.

The foundation of those principles are issues, so I always vote for the candidate that best represents the issues, the change that I want to see.

[Maedhros]

185. "We came, we saw, he died" was the last straw for me.

It revealed a deeply flawed character, that seemed to take pleasure from what we'd done in Libya. It also callously ignored all the innocent women and children that we also 'came, saw and killed.'

In 2003 I marched against the invasion of Iraq. We chanted "No War for Oil!" I still mean it, and I believe Hillary will continue to wage elective wars for Big Oil. I won't vote for it.