At least 17 years!

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 07:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Do you believe, as I do, that social progress is as important as economic progress?

Yes?

Then I recommend that you join me in backing Bernie Sanders, who favored marriage equality at least 17 years before Hillary Clinton.

At least 17 years!

Proof that a single candidate can be a leader on social and economic issues at the same time, although some people seem to think that's impossible for some reason.

[hrmjustin]

1. As a proud gay man I stand with Hillary Clinton!

But i love Sanders as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. 17 years. nt

[hrmjustin]

5. I will only vote for a candidate I believe can win.

[FlatBaroque]

30. Then why support Hillary Clinton?

She is the most divisive politician in the country today. She has absolutely no chance of getting her dream house.

[hrmjustin]

34. Lol your opinion. My opinion is she is the only Democratic Candidate or possible Democratic

candidate that can win.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. But she's won many tough fights

I can't think of any at this moment, but there must be something.

[RufusTFirefly]

91. She endured Bosnian sniper fire, for starters

Plus she bounced back after being flat broke!

[MannyGoldstein]

96. I love you.

And I'm glad that's been OK with Bernie Sanders for almost two decades - maybe longer.

[RufusTFirefly]

105. Just as long as Mrs. Teasdale doesn't find out!

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

And I'm not sure the former Governor of Vermont will be all that happy either.


"Howard Dean is furious! He's waxing wroth!"

[Jackpine Radical]

158. Quit picking on her. She was telling the truth about being under fire in Bosnia

I got the video to prove it.

[MaggieD]

370. You got those right wing talking points

... Down cold!!

[RufusTFirefly]

375. Busted! You got me!

Maybe I should change my name from RufusTFirefly to JohnBirch?

Accusing progressives who have legitimate beefs about HRC of parroting right-wing talking points is a neoliberal talking point.

[whatchamacallit]

379. Haha thread win!

[Octafish]

305. There was the Credit Card and small peon bankruptcy legislation.

A tough fight, but it was worth it for the major NYC constituencies, the Banks.

[pnwmom]

49. She polls better than any other candidate -- Democrat or Republican.

EVERY Democrat is divisive as far as the Rethugs go. She has an excellent chance.

[hrmjustin]

52. Lol I wonder if Sanders supporters realize the gop wants him to win.

[pnwmom]

57. The GOP likes him as a spoiler, just as they did Ralph.

I wonder if Bernie, like Ralph, will decide to take conservative money.

[hrmjustin]

63. Probably not because it would hurt him with some of the purists.

But if he doesn't take big money he can't win In a general.

It is sad that it is that way but it is reality.

Some here think all he has to do is talk and he wins. they will be highly disappointed.

[daleanime]

64. Ralph?

don't you mean Barry?

[pnwmom]

88. Nader. n/t

[daleanime]

264. It's what I would expect from a republican....

the inability to tell between the primary and general elections.

[L0oniX]

347. +1 ...and we have a third pary now ...the 1%.

[KMOD]

253. Barry?

[daleanime]

260. When Obama first started his campaign for president.....

many give him little chance.

[KingCharlemagne]

113. At least Bernie doesn't have the blood of 1,000,000+ Iraqi civilians

dripping from his hands. Everything else pales away before that little monstrosity.

[pnwmom]

115. True. We can thank Ralph for helping to toss the election to Bush,

who was obsessed with Iraq. President Gore would never have carried out that war.

As long as Bernie doesn't run as an Independent he won't be a spoiler, like Nader.

[rpannier]

148. Actually you can than Al

His ineptly managed campaign cost him the election
He lost New Hampshire (Clinton; Clinton; Bush; Kerry; Obama; Obama)
He lost West Virginia (Carter; Carter; Reagan Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton)

His poor debate strategy and execution
His refusal to use Pres Clinton until the waning days of the campaign
His inability/refusal to defend himself against lies spewed by Bush
He never really had a well thought out attack

He lost it on his own
Had he won West Virginia(which at the time was a solidly blue state) he'd have had 271 electoral votes and won the presidency

on edit: I voted for Gore. But I blame him first and foremost because there was so much opportunity lost

[pnwmom]

155. And yet if 1% of Nader's 95,000 votes in Florida had gone to Gore,

Gore would have won.

Nader chose to campaign his hardest in the swing states, despite many of his advisors asking him not to. He thought it was fine if Bush won.

[rpannier]

161. Florida is always the thing that is pointed to

It's just a convenient way to avoid the many missteps his campaign made.
He should have worked harder in West Virginia. He should have relied on Clinton more in states and areas where Clinton was most useful. He should have had better debate strategy.

Florida is not the reason he lost. He lost for a multitude of reasons and to ignore them for just one thing is giving him a pass

[pnwmom]

164. It might not be the only reason Gore lost -- but he would have WON if 1% of Nader's voters

had not been deluded into thinking that Gore and Bush were just the same: Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

[FlatBaroque]

222. It "might" not be the only reason...?

You're kind of on the fence about whether there was any effect of the supreme court stopping the vote count with Gore ahead?

EDIT: ...and Gore didn't lose. That's a right wing meme

[pnwmom]

249. It would never have gotten to SCOTUS if 1% of Nader voters picked Gore instead.

Bush couldn't have stolen the election without a lot of help, and a significant amount of that help came from Nader.

[FlatBaroque]

262. You have

bought into a narrative that focuses all the blame on a convenient scapegoat. We will not be able to stand on common ground on this issue.

[SMC22307]

307. 300,000+ Florida Democrats voted for Bush.

They're culpable.

[pnwmom]

310. And each of them was responsible for 1 vote. Nader controlled 95,000 votes in Florida alone,

an an election decided by less than a thousand.

[tennstar]

382. This is so lame

Guess what I am no longer voting for corporate Dems if we lose you can blame the Dems for running garbage in these races.

[jeff47]

269. You realize Bush got 10x more votes from registered Democrats than Nader did, right?

So let's rephrase your lame argument as "Yet if 0.1% of W's votes in Florida had gone to Gore"

[pnwmom]

314. Most of them had left the party during the Reagan years.

Nader, unlike W., was running against another progressive, and pretending Gore was the same as Bush.

And Nader collected 95,000 Florida votes -- the Democratic voters were responsible for only 1 vote each. Nader, single-handedly, had a huge impact on the election that none of those individual voters could have.

[jeff47]

329. So now your argument is it didn't matter, but it did matter.

So W siphoning off Democrats doesn't matter, but Nader siphoning off Democrats was ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.

Uh-huh.

How about "Why didn't Gore clearly demonstrate to those voters that he was not the same as Bush?".

I eagerly await your insistence that it was completely obvious they were different, yet somehow Nader magically convinced them to ignore the obvious. Perhaps Nader played a flute or something.

Or maybe Gore ran the shittiest presidential campaign since WWII.

[Paka]

351. And just mayber...

putting Lieberman on the ticket was a grossly stupid move. I was in Africa and didn't get my ballot, but was totally grateful as I didn't have to mark a ballot that included Lieberman's name. I detest the man and I am convinced that move on Gore's part hurt him a lot.

[eridani]

340. And if 0.03% of the 300K Dem voters who voted for Bush in Florida had voted for Gore--

--he would have won. Oh wait--he actually did win!

[FlatBaroque]

254. HE didn't lose. He won.

The supreme court decided otherwise. The vote counting stopped. If we keep saying he lost he legitimize the most illegitimate decision in the history of the supreme court.

[pnwmom]

332. Nader's 95,000 votes caused the election to be thrown to the SCOTUS. If only a small fraction

had gone to Gore instead, that wouldn't have happened.

[TM99]

342. This fucking bullshit yet again?!

How about the real math. If only 2% of the nearly 300,000 Democrats in Florida who vote for Bush had actually voted for, you know, the actual Democratic candidate, Gore, then the vote would have been sufficiently strong enough to withstand the illegalities and the SCOTUS traitorous decision.

[KMOD]

208. Exactly. Bush actually campaigned on war with Iraq.

It's sad that many did not take his threat seriously. It was quite obvious what his intentions were. It's also quite obvious that the current Republicans are also looking for war.

[FlatBaroque]

267. Bush most definitely did NOT campaign on a war with Iraq.

He specifically campaigned on a non-interventionist policy.

[KMOD]

287. Oh c'mon. I remember the debates quite well.

I looked at my husband and said, "this guy wants war with Iraq". It was so obvious.

Look up the you tubes.

I'm sure he appreciates you trying to defend him though, so you have that going for you at least.

[FlatBaroque]

291. Thanks for the laugh

[KMOD]

296. It's mutual,

[KingCharlemagne]

330. You're not still trotting out that old canard (that Nader was responsible

for Bush's installation by SCOTUS), are you? You do know that far more Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader, right? And Ralph Nader certainly didn't hold a gun to Gore's head and force him to concede to the SCOTUS' bloodless coup. Bernie has said he will not run as a 'spoiler.' Are you sayinig you don't believe him?

[NYC_SKP]

355. Ralph Nader ran as an Independent. Please study up before you make silly comparisons.

Sanders is running as a Democrat against Clinton, he can't be a spoiler like Ralph Nader.

Good grief.

[Rex]

362. You expect their rhetoric to be different then any other time?

People on DU that say Al Gore lost, seem to like the GOP since they both have the same narrative. Pathetic, but it has been that way on DU forever.

Point is, some here have no shame in their body. None. Also not worth wasting time on either. Those that push the Nader narrative, probably ARE the very folks that voted for Bush in 2000.

Funny how NO Dem pushes that story in RL...only our 'special group' here, that loves to defend George W. Bush by never admitting he is the primary fault for the stolen election.

Sad right?

They also tee-hee giggles about the BFEE...another pathetic trait, but they seem to have tons of pathetic traits imo.

[DonCoquixote]

196. considering unlike raplh

he is runnign as a democrat, probably not.

[zeemike]

119. Nope the GOP feels like you do. that he can't win

And for the same reason...Hillary has 2.5 billion dollars and they worship money and think money always wins.
Why would they want someone like Sanders who they have nothing on when they have a library of shit they can throw at Clinton...ready made ammo.

Don't be the victim of child psychology.

[hrmjustin]

122. I am a thinking adult thank you very much.

And Hillary does not have 2.5 billion dollars.

And if you think the gop will treat Sanders any differently than Hillary you are sadly mistaken.

[zeemike]

157. That is what she is expected to raise and spend.

And no they will not treat Sanders any different, but they will have to have something to talk about, and what is there for him?...he has voted against all the disasters of the past...she voted for them...She has 20 years of scandals he has none.

[hrmjustin]

166. And after 20 years of so called scandal she is on track to be the president of the USA.

They got nothing on her and the public knows it.

[zeemike]

188. Do they now?

Is that why there is so much negative polling from the public about politicians?...where do you think that came from?
Voter turnout is low and will go even lower if their choice is Bush/Clinton again...and the GOP will keep both houses and probably increase their lead...and perhaps the WH as well.

You want Democrats to win offer them change and they will come out and vote, if you don't care then offer them more of the same.

[hrmjustin]

189. How is sanders going to win?

[zeemike]

204. By getting votes.

And he will be getting votes by doing what he is doing now...talking about issues that matter to normal people and by not being afraid to talk to the press because he can handle the gotcha people. And has no scandal to defend and explain.

And you can poo paw all those scandals as bullshit all you want but she was there and she is part of that administration whether she has any responsibility for it or not, and people tend to hold those in power responsible despite whether they did anything wrong or not.
And when the GOP uses it's billions to pound it home day and night it will have an effect on people...some will vote for them but most Dem leaning voters will just stay home in disgust...like they did last election.

[hrmjustin]

209. How are people going to hear about his positions?

[zeemike]

237. Well they are hearing about them now are they not?

And they will hear about them for the next 8 months and hopefully there will be debates.

You have bought into the notion that big money is all it takes...the more money the more votes you can get...well that is only true if there are no talks about issues that people care about.
In that case it is the one with the most and best propaganda that wins...and it is likely to be the GOP.

[hrmjustin]

241. The money is needed for comercials and gotv.

Look you want him then vote for him but i am not voting for him.

[zeemike]

315. Well I am not trying to convince you

I know you are locked in...and so am I to someone else.
It is the undecided voter we are talking about here...and they outnumber us greatly.
And money is not the measure of a winner...Ideas that appeal to those undecided voter are what matter...and the credibility of those expressing them are what will convince.

[hrmjustin]

317. And endurance and Hillary has endurance.

[FlatBaroque]

288. he seems to be getting heard, even while being shut out by the media. From the NY Times:

But somehow, Bernie Sanders, the 73-year-old senator from Vermont, has emerged as a king of social media early in the 2016 presidential campaign, amid a field of tech-savvy contenders.

His Facebook posts attract tens of thousands of likes and shares, and threads about him often break through to the home page of Reddit, where the cluster of topics rarely focuses on presidential election politics.

Amazingly he has around 200,000 more followers than Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

289. Yet he is still behind in the polls.

[FlatBaroque]

292. You're right. He should give up now.

[hrmjustin]

293. Lol.

[tiredtoo]

380. Sanders will get the Democratic base

He will get the progressives that may have stayed home rather than vote Hillary. He will get Green party voters that see the light. He will get independents that have given up on politics. He will get tea party votes from the few that really know what is going on.
The big money will paint him as a communist/socialist pig and any other disparaging manner available but at the grass roots level we will educate the masses.

[hrmjustin]

381. How will he get his message out without big money?

[tiredtoo]

407. it is going viral

Don't be so negative. we can do this.

[hrmjustin]

408. Realistic and it won't work.

[tiredtoo]

422. Just curious

Who did you support in 2008 primaries ?

[hrmjustin]

423. Hillary.

I voted for her 5 times since 2000.

[tiredtoo]

424. Well I Admire your loyalty

and i suppose you figured the same about Obama back then. Can't win etc.

[hrmjustin]

425. No i didn't. i liked him but i wanted Hillary.

And Obama proved himself.

Sanders will have that chance as well.

[tiredtoo]

426. Well then

I like Bernie and want him. Hillary is currently my second choice.

[hrmjustin]

427. Thats fine.

[KMOD]

202. 20 years of non-scandals that everyone is sick of.

Nobody is buying it anymore.

[zeemike]

220. They don't have to buy it.

As you said they are sick of it and that is the purpose of muck raking...make them so sick of it they no longer care about politics and stay home on election day...
You want them to vote then give them a reason to vote, and more of the same shit is not a reason.

The psychology of it is well known...tell a big lie and tell it offten and people will begin to believe it...and the ammo they have against Clinton is not such a big lie that it is hard for people to believe.

[KMOD]

257. Her campaign is doing just fine.

[hootinholler]

150. Good he can beat them like a drum too.

[hrmjustin]

152. How will he beat them if he won't take big money?

[hootinholler]

153. Like. A. Drum. That's how.

[hrmjustin]

162. Explain that to those of us that need a more detailed answer please.

[hootinholler]

177. Ok, maybe a video will help

[hrmjustin]

180. You have a lovely night.

[FlatBaroque]

247. lol

[hootinholler]

336. I liked the stick work

I don't think Justin got it though.

[Autumn]

352. That should be a stand alone OP in our group.

That's just how Bernie will do it. Thank you, I needed that this morning.

[KMOD]

263. I love Bernie,

but he's gonna need a bigger drum.

[FlatBaroque]

272. Maybe it's not the size of the drum

but the quality of the music. Bernie's dollar goes ten times as far as Hillary's dollar. Bernie's drum only needs to be heard once for him to gain supporters.

[KMOD]

285. We will see.

[hootinholler]

335. Nope.

Just more drummers. And he's picking those up daily.

[frylock]

409. What's your fixation on Big Money?

How did Big Money help Romney, or Fiorina in her bid for Gov of CA?

[hrmjustin]

410. I am a realist and i think younneed money to get your message out.

[frylock]

412. Just like Romney and Fiorina

[hrmjustin]

414. Their message sucked. people didn't like it.

[frylock]

417. Gee, no shit?

You just undermined your argument, unless you believe that the republican's message will be better than Sanders'. Surely you don't believe that?

[hrmjustin]

418. My point is you need money to get your message out.

[BainsBane]

76. Polls vs. hubris

No contest. The self-entitled know the minds of the little people better than they do themselves, and they know their choices don't matter. Here we have a conception of politics with ego at it's base. "I" believe Clinton can't win, therefore she cannot since only "I"know the truth. No thought that "I" do not share has any value because it is all about "me." Anything that exists outside of their experience is by definition inconsequential because nothing and no one else can possibly matter. The politics of ego, the ultimate manifestation of bourgeois entitlement that that treats all but themselves with contempt.

In sum, polls don't matter. There is no reality or political thought beyond what they want, beyond their interests and views. No one else can possibly have a valid opinion.

[KMOD]

250. Her polling is excellent.

and it scares the crap out of the RWers.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

56. This is a rightwing talking point, what is it doing on DU?

[FlatBaroque]

61. .

[Renew Deal]

193. Where did you come from?

[FlatBaroque]

200. You first

[Renew Deal]

207. Spare me the hugs

I read a news article about your type of post recently.

[FlatBaroque]

216. You should be commended for

remaining well informed about current events. If we replaced our bullets with hugs, the world would be at peace.

[pocoloco]

371. She is a repug wet dream!!

No wonder so many want the chance to oppose her!

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Do you think you control more than one vote?

Is there some sort of prize for voting with the majority?

Once there's a nominee, I'll vote for him or her. Until then, I'm voting for the best person and the best policy.

[hrmjustin]

94. No i get no toaster if that is what you mean.

But if my point escapes you i will tell you plainly.

I don't think Sanders can not win a General Election so i will not vote for him in the primary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. I don't consider "weathervane" a highly admirable character trait.

But since it's the core Clinton competency, I should not be surprised that this quality is shared by her supporters.

Views that evolve to conform to the perceived prevailing sentiment aren't values - they're tactics.

[hrmjustin]

106. One of my core principles is I will not vote for a candidate for president who is not likely to win.

I have many principles sir and I have been a Proud Hillary voter since 2000.

I have voted for Hillary 5 times and will do so again.

Cheers!

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. That's not principle, that's prognostication. n/t

[hrmjustin]

110. Call it whatever you will. i am not going to vote for Sanders in a primary.

If he is the nominee he gets my vote but not in a primary.

[Caretha]

132. "I have voted for Hillary 5 times and will do so again"

ROTFLMFAO.....

I love that saying, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, is basically insanity.

But, insanity is the meme of the Hillary Brigade.


Hahahaha

you have not one clue what the younger generation thinks, and I don't think you will ever get it, because as you pointed out......................

You continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

[hrmjustin]

138. Lol i could say something here but I won't.

Those damn juries!

[Caretha]

143. You said "Those Damn Juries!"

I guess you hate the Democratic Judicial process....


Too Bad, Unitl the rules change....


You loose...have a Good Day!

[hrmjustin]

149. Not at all. i love juries.

[Caretha]

156. Then be more careful

in the way you describe things. It leaves a bad impression of you.

[hrmjustin]

167. Thank you for Illuminating me.

I shall refrain from this bad behavior of mine. I would not anyone to think i am an animal.

[zappaman]

172. Ha!

Thank you.
Now things have become Luminous!

[BainsBane]

278. Some might say

Last edited Mon May 18, 2015, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)

a luminous light.

[hrmjustin]

283. But a bit repetitive at times.

Does things twice sometimes.

[BainsBane]

274. Some folks get double justice

Twice the fun!

[hrmjustin]

276. Lol.

[Caretha]

203. Sid???

Is that you?

[hrmjustin]

206. Are you accusing me of being a sock?

We can go to skinner and ask him to do an ip check on sid and I right now.

[KMOD]

217. We are all Sid.

[hrmjustin]

225. This is just too funny.

[okasha]

280. Me, too! Me, too!

I'm Sparta--no, I'm sid! We are sid, aren't we?

[KMOD]

284. Yes. We are

Sid!

[Caretha]

224. LOL

no never! I would no more accuse you of being a "sock" than your little "fan club" would of me.

Yeah...go take it to Skinner. Sounds good to me.

[hrmjustin]

226. I have a fan club?

News to me.

[Caretha]

228. Actually

probably not...you seem to be the only member of your fan club that I can tell.

Have a nice day.

[hrmjustin]

231. Do tell me what skinner says about my being sid.

[Caretha]

235. Uh...

you were the one who said you would take it to Skinner.

That's your job man, you are the one who came up with that lame idea and made the offer to do that.

I'm too busy with other shit to bother...but be my guest.

[hrmjustin]

239. I already know who i am.

I was giving you a suggestion. I think you should do it BBdcausexskinner will get a laugh.

[Caretha]

248. I have a suggestion for you too

but, I'm much too polite and a Southern woman to voice it out loud....

so I shall end this little back and forth with a "that's nice", and have a good evening.

[hrmjustin]

251. .

Pleasant evening to you.

[KMOD]

245. I'm a fan.

But then again, we are Sid.

[hrmjustin]

246. Thanks.

Sid!

[BainsBane]

319. I'm in your fan club!

[hrmjustin]

320. Thanks.

After this thread I need friends.

[BainsBane]

322. I don't see why you waste your time

Who even cares what they think?

[hrmjustin]

325. Well if they respond to me i feel i should respond back but tonight was a lot.

Too much in fact.

[BainsBane]

328. Look

You have a situation where people simply cannot accept that you or anyone else will make their own decisions about whom to vote for. What is to engage with? The only purpose of these discussions, especially in these sort of threads, is so they can demonstrate their own sense of superiority. There is no attempt at discussion because they simply do not respect anyone's right to hold a thought that diverges in even minor ways from the group think.

[KMOD]

215. Sid is in the basement working in the server room.

[Caretha]

218. But but but but

she has that cool rainbow logo thingy...

It just showed up on the internets 2 weeks ago, but I'm sure she meant it all along. Cuz you know she has that wiz of a group telling her how "the wind blows", and they knows photo shops and shit.

I'm so utterly fuckin' impressed...really, no really.

[hrmjustin]

221. Your illumination of issues is just fascinating.

please proceed.

[zappaman]

333. Lol!

How special...

[KMOD]

265. Your post is funny.

It makes me laugh. Thanks.

[Exilednight]

100. So you're not voting. Republicans are picking their candidate with Hillary, much

The same way Obama chose Romney.

[hrmjustin]

101. I am sorry but i am not getting your meaning.

My apologies.

[Scootaloo]

123. And what makes you think Sanders is such a loser, vs. the Republicans?

[hrmjustin]

126. He will have a hard time getting centrists to vote for him imo.

They will see him as an idealist and not a realist.

[Scootaloo]

133. Are you claiming that the Republicans play better to centrists than Sanders?

[hrmjustin]

144. No i am saying Hillary will.

Don't get me wrong I think he is a living saint but i have a hard time seeing him winning over centrists.

The reason is he won't take big money and if he wins the primary he will need big money to get his message out. The right willl portray him as a lefty thst will destroy jobs. He will need money to counter thst but he won't take it.

[Scootaloo]

176. No. You're telling me that republicans are too awesome for Sanders to beat.

[hrmjustin]

179. Thats crap and you know it.

How can a candidate beat 1 or 2 billion dollars when he refuses to take big money?

Answer me that.

[Scootaloo]

198. No, it's not. it's your argument. Let's take your points

You state you feel Sanders cannot win the general election. When asked why this is you cite "centrists" as the reason you feel Sanders would lose to republicans. You repeat this argument a few times to other posters as well. When asked why you feel the likes of marco Rubio or Ted Cruz would have more luck wooing centrists than Sanders, you start talking about Clinton's centrism.

The problem there is that Clinton is not a factor when we're talking about Sanders' chances in the general - such a discussion presumes sanders won the primary and Clinton did not. You're basically evading the question of why you believe Scott Walker has more centrist appeal than sanders.

You are now trying to change the subject again to campaign financing. Again this is an irrelevant subject, because money does not buy votes. it advertises, and advertising actually has fairly low returns. The attitude that "money is all that matters" is not only a problem in our political system, but is also factually incorrect.

So, if we can get back to the topic - What do you believe Rand paul and Ben Carson have for them that sanders does not?

[hrmjustin]

201. I don't think they have anything over him.

I believe that Sanders would be portrayed as an idealist by the gop. Sanders would have a great message to give but how is he going to get his message out if he won't take the big money?

No i don't think the gop has a better message and it is crap to say that. I do believe he will have a hard time getting his messahe out without big money.

The gop will have one or two billion had how much will Sanders have?

these are legitimate concerns.

[Scootaloo]

230. They're not especially legitimate concerns

For reasons I have already explained.

Now, i want to know why you think the republicans will sell better to Centrists. This was your premise going in, stick with it.

[hrmjustin]

236. I think centrists like comprimise.

I think they will see him as idealistic. If he had enough resources he can explain his view points and counteract the gop narrative that they will lay out for him.

The question remains which of their clowns are nominated.

[Scootaloo]

252. Can you see centrist dems jumping for any of those clowns like they did for Bush in '00?

I can't, if only because of the once burned, twice shy thing.

Centrist republicans? if there are any, I think we can basically count on them to run straight-ticket.

So that leaves... nonvoters, "independents," and "undecideds."

For the discussion we can just assume nonvoters will keep nonvoting.

The other two, well, what motivates them? For the Independents, it's largely a disgust with the "politics as usual" thing. This is the breeding ground of that American philosophy, "the parties are the same!" and I do not think that they will be particularly swayed by a big money corporate Democrat vs. a big money corporate lunatic. In fact given the option they will probably go for the republican - not for ideology reasons, but that old "it's time for a change" canard.

You want the independents? You have to give them something they want. I don't know if sanders can do that, but I think if anyone in this race can, he'd be the one.

Undecideds tend to not be very affected by the advertisement oversaturation - if they were, they would be "decideds." A great number of these people tend to waffle around until after the debates; undecideds who haven't figured it out by the conclusion of the debates are generally hte sort of person who will just vote for hair or whatever their car radio said just as they pull into the polling station; they're basically lost causes.

[hrmjustin]

255. Well this primary will be a chance to prove he can win.

[SMC22307]

234. Sensible Centrists... always the problem.

Sanders is too much of an "idealist" so they wouldn't vote for him in the General? Sit it out? Vote for the Republican?

[hrmjustin]

238. Well you need centrists to win.

[SMC22307]

243. Please explain why Bernie's message doesn't resonate with Centrists.

What, exactly, do they want? What is important to them?

(Besides a Hillary victory, that is...)

[hrmjustin]

244. Well not a centrist but i think they like compromise.

They will see him as idealistic.

[SMC22307]

297. Are Centrists principled? Do they stand for anything?

Why is compromise a good thing, especially when it hurts them? (Hold on to your Medicare and Social Security hats, folks!)

Didn't Ronnie Raygun sweep into the White House -- twice -- because he was perceived by many Americans as an idealist? A visionary? I have a coworker who still mourns that MFer and his shining city upon a hill bullshit.

Bernie can portray himself as an idealist (free tuition bill) and a pragmatist (against Iraq invasion). Just two examples. If he runs an effective campaign, they'll understand him better and their thinking will change.

Brat, on a shoe-string budget, beat Cantor who had a mighty war chest. It can be done. It'll take an army of volunteers, but it's worth a shot.

[hrmjustin]

300. I am not a centrist so you would have to ask them.

[frylock]

256. no, you need independants to win. independants aren't necessarily centrists.

[hrmjustin]

258. Some are centrists and yes you do need them.

[jeff47]

275. Actually, no. Almost none are centrists.

We're down to a very tiny fraction of the electorate that will actually vote across party lines.

There's much, much larger pools of voters who identify with one of the parties, but are not registered with that party. They are also not reliable voters. They have to be inspired to vote.

So your strategy is to go for the tiny fraction of voters who actually are centrists, and ignore the many, many times larger pool of voters known as "left-leaning independents"

In other words, your strategy is to do exactly what the party did in 2014 and 2010.

Great plan. Those elections worked out so well for us.

[hrmjustin]

279. The Sanders needs to prove himself.

[jeff47]

298. So, time to abandon that argument and throw up another failed argument?

Between Sanders and Clinton, only one of them has won a contested election. And it isn't Clinton. Republicans have gone so off the rails they can't win statewide in NY anymore.

So, Sanders has won a few contested elections (3 or 4, IIRC. Republicans in VT took much longer to go crazy than NY). Clinton lost her only contested election (2008 primary). Why do you need "proof" from Sanders?

[hrmjustin]

302. Sorry but Sanders has not been tested by Republicans electorally like he will be in a general.

[jeff47]

311. Neither has Clinton. So why do you only demand proof from Sanders? (nt)

[hrmjustin]

313. Hillary has been tested by every Republican mear and is still here.

Sorry but Sanders has n8t been tested like Hillary has.

[jeff47]

331. Tested how? By losing the 2008 primary?

Again, Clinton has faced one difficult election in her career. 2008. She lost and never faced the Republicans. She's faced 2 easy elections in 2000 and 2006.

As a result, Clinton's ability to win a difficult election against Republicans is completely untested.

If you want to claim she has been "tested" because she didn't curl up into a ball when Republicans attacked her, that isn't a terribly high threshold. And of little value in figuring out if she can win a difficult election.

[hrmjustin]

346. living in ny i can tell you 2000 was not simple.

She has been tested by the media from 1992 and is still here.

[jeff47]

399. Yes, 2000 was simple. Her Republican opponent was a cakewalk.

She has been tested by the media from 1992 and is still here.

So you're going to go with "she didn't curl up into a ball" as demonstration of her ability to win a tough election. Lovely. Tell me how Grimes and Coakley and Hagan are such superior, tested candidates.

[hrmjustin]

400. Do you live in NY?

[jeff47]

401. I used to.

Lazio was brought in when Giuliani imploded, and imploding campaigns are always very bad for the replacement candidate. And Lazio had never won statewide election. His only real positive was his large war chest from his Long Island seat.

[hrmjustin]

402. Well as someone who was involved in campaigning for hef that year I can tell you it

was not easy.

[jeff47]

403. Never claimed it was zero work. I claimed it wasn't a difficult challenge.

Lots of cash being thrown around, but IIRC Lazio never polled ahead of Clinton and could never mount an effective attack or an effective reason why he should not be sent back to Long Island.

[hrmjustin]

404. And i can tell you it was difficult.

[PosterChild]

210. Not only is he a socialist....

...he's a self admitted socialist. Game over.

[Scootaloo]

233. Not only is that a non-sequitor....

It's a pretty weak non-sequitor.

[PosterChild]

316. 'tis not..

...that, in and of itself, makes him a loser vs the Republicans. It follows, directly. He is unelectable. Game over.

[sabrina 1]

124. That's why I'm supporting Bernie. His chances of winning are imo, far greater than Hillary's.

He eg, has crossover appeal and will no doubt get the all important Indy vote. Hillary will not get that vote, and without that you cannot win the GE.

[hrmjustin]

127. I don't see him winning the centrist vote.

[Dragonfli]

194. Then you see the Republican getting the centrist vote? Makes sense, Reagan Democrats and all. /nt

[hrmjustin]

197. It is possible he could but the question is if he won't take big money how will he get his message

Out?

[Dragonfli]

211. We were talking about the centrist vote that you said he could not get, meaning you appear to think

the centrists would vote for the Republican over him, I tend to agree, Centrists love Republican fiscal policies.

Anyone can get a message out via the internet, it has started revolutions. 30 minute hit pieces on TV are only so valuable if no one believes them.

[hrmjustin]

214. Don't mistake my meaning. i don't think their message will be stronger but without

money i don't think he can withstand the gop money machine.

[frylock]

259. Democrats have lost time and again chasing that mythical centrist vote.

[hrmjustin]

261. Clinton and Obama won centrists.

[frylock]

268. I believe that you continue to conflate independants with centrists..

how does one determine that they're a centrist?

[hrmjustin]

270. They define themselves as middle of the roaders.moderstes.

Independents are those without a party.

I know the difference.

[SMC22307]

308. So that mush in the middle will vote for the Republican? (n/t)

[hrmjustin]

312. depends. If he hax enough money to get his message out then he might 7ght.

But he won't take the big money.

[TheKentuckian]

341. Who are these "centrists" and what is it you think they want? Compromise isn't much of an answer

it is a tactic to get a reasonable outcome not a rational end in and of itself.

In fact, isn't impossible to arrive at one without goals to work from? How do you know you worked out a good bargain without knowing what you were trying to do in the first place.

[hrmjustin]

345. I think they want both parties to comprise on legislation on different topics.

[TheKentuckian]

420. Again, compromise is a tactic to reach an acceptable end, it is not and cannot be an end.

Further, if they want compromise why do they seem to accept the TeaPubliKlans being dug in like an Alabama tick for decades and growing ever more radical by the day?

I'm not trying to beat you up but your argument makes little to no practically applicable sense at all nor will the anyone focused on the "centrists" even identify who these folks actually are and what ends they seek or explain based on what thin criteria they lay out why there is any remote chance of them voting for open extremist but will punish Democrats in context.

Your explanation makes no sense when the other option is the party of NO. If your end all be all is compromise then you are barking up the wrong tree while tilting at windmills with your head buried a mile below the sand.

[hrmjustin]

421. I am not advocating for compromise but giving an opinion on what I think centrists want.

[L0oniX]

348. "centrists" are the third party. It's the party of the 1%. It's the party that joins both...

the Dems and Repukes under one agenda for the 1%.

[KMOD]

223. I'm waiting to see a poll that supports that view.

I love Senator Sanders, but I'm not even sure if he can carry Vermont over HRC, in my honest opinion.

[99th_Monkey]

389. So to you, WINNING is EVERYthing?

A sure way to LOSE your country down the toilet, and fast.

[hrmjustin]

390. Yes! If we lose the country goes down with the gop and they replace the aging SC justices

with younger ones.

[99th_Monkey]

391. For now, that is totally irrelevant.

Hint: There is a PRIMARY ELECTION before the General Election.

Go Bernie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hrmjustin]

392. Hint:Primaries are about getting our best candidate.

Hint: it is not totally irrelavant!

[99th_Monkey]

393. Then why settle for 2nd best?

Hint: Bernie is more in line with the true sentiments of the American people than Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

395. I'm not. She is my first choice.

[99th_Monkey]

396. OK

I think this is where we "agree to disagree" and move on the Primary.

[hrmjustin]

397. .

[Andy823]

147. Almost 10 years. nt

[MaggieD]

357. Sorry Manny

Bernie hasn't actually engaged with the GLBT community on any level I'm aware of, (maybe in Vermont?) and I sat on a national advocacy board at one time. HRC has. She has been a very good friend to the community. And frankly, the GLBT community loves her.

[yeoman6987]

60. +1,000,000

[hrmjustin]

66. .

[sheshe2]

170. Justin~

[hrmjustin]

173. Thank you She!

Could use a little love in this thread.

[sheshe2]

183. Well~

That's about the best I can do. For the obvious reasons, you get my drift~

I could go down the thread and keep hugging you though.

[hrmjustin]

187. This is just fine my friend.

It is not easy being a HRC supporter on DU.

[MannyGoldstein]

277. So, are you blown away that Bernie

is way ahead of Hillary on both economic and social issues?

[MaggieD]

358. He hasn't been especially vocal about it

She has.

[cali]

361. actually he has, but as YOU have noted several times, HRC has a much

bigger megaphone. You can go into the VPR archives and find him speaking about it on several different occasions.

Hillary was very vocal in her opposition to marriage equality in 2008. We have lots of prominent repubs in Vermont who have been not only much earlier supporters of marriage equality, but more vocal.

[MaggieD]

368. Cali, the GLBT community loves HRC

And she has been a good friend to GLBT people in a very vocal way. She's been in favor of civil unions for a decade. So it's pretty silly to say she was ever "very vocal" about opposition to marriage.

In the meantime Bernie wasn't saying jack about it, regardless of what he believed. At least not outside Vermont.

[hrmjustin]

372. No.

[randys1]

3. you got it, right up to the point where he isnt the candidate, if that happens, then I will

support the one who was at least at the party, albeit late

[JaneyVee]

4. Wouldn't social progress be a first female president?

[hrmjustin]

6. Thread win!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. And the first Jewish President would be chopped liver?

(I realize that this post will probably offend every single member of DU, although I don't yet know why, so I apologize in advance.)

[Jim Lane]

38. So you're backing Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a two-fer?

That would ensure that you offended any DU members you missed the first time around.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Hmm...

[TM99]

11. It would be ignorant to

choose a candidate to be our next President JUST because she is a woman and not because she is the right candidate.

Thatcher immediately comes to mind as a very bad choice once made.

[Thinkingabout]

24. It would be more ignorant to choose a lesser qualified candidate because he is a man.

[MannyGoldstein]

27. 17 years! nt

[Thinkingabout]

47. It does not make him more qualified. Just being a member of

Congress does not make one qualified or disqualified.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. What *does* make Hillary more qualified?

Her willingness to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson?

[Thinkingabout]

62. Oh, really, we sure can't say Bernie is even qualified to teach Saddam a lesson.

I am very happy we have Hillary running, she give a very qualified person to be president.

[yeoman6987]

65. Well he is off the planet.

[okasha]

295. Sanders voted to fund the war.

His hands are no cleaner than anyone else's.

[cali]

363. Just being first lady and a senator and SoS doesn't make one qualified or not qualified

either.

What makes him qualified? His record in Congress. His record as Mayor. His positions. His consistency on issues. His policy proposals.

There you go, you "thinker" you.

[Thinkingabout]

385. Either you can look at the record for both or exclude the record for both.

You can't cut off Hillary's record and leave Bernie's record. You would not want everyone else to throw out Bernie's record. Yes she is qualified and in my opinion she has more foreign experience in dealing with officials than Bernie has.

I also like her stand on many issues more than I do with Bernie. Just as you make a choice I will also make a choice. It troubles me when a person is "consistent" so much as not willing to compromise and work across the aisles.

[MaggieD]

364. She's been a much more vocal advocate

For GLBT rights than Bernie. By a country mile.

[Thinkingabout]

416. Now you know some do not want to hear these things,huh.

[TM99]

46. Except the man currently running

is not the lesser qualified.

About all the Clinton supporters can muster is that he has messed up hair and doesn't have the billions to run against the GOP.

If the only thing that makes the woman more qualified is her ability to make money, yes, that is still very ignorant.

[Thinkingabout]

51. Perhaps in your opinion, in my opinion he does not have the qualifications

As Hillary.

[TM99]

69. If we stay on topic with this OP,

Sanders did not have to evolve on a very important liberally social issue.

That fact discounts opinion.

[Thinkingabout]

111. He is not acceptable on other issues so what does it matter.

Get over the evolving thing, I guess you prefer no one evolves on anything, what does that get you?

[TM99]

146. What other issues is he not acceptable on?

When the only reason some are pushing Clinton is because she is a woman and she is socially progressive (cause her foreign & economic policies are fucking neo-con & neo-liberal!) then it is relevant that a Democratic opponent did not have to evolve on LGBT issues.

[Thinkingabout]

199. Then the only reason you are pushing for Bernie is because hevhas not "evolved" on the LGBT issue,

There are many issues important for the president to face than this one issue of which BTW is goingvto be handled by SC probably by the summer of 2015 and therefore not an issue in 2016 and you are pointing this one out on Hillary evolving is thecreason you are voing for Bernie, wow. I can see my decision to back andcwork for Hillary is growing. When are you going to evolve on people evolving?

[TM99]

205. The only reason? Ha!

Is there anything different than Sanders would do with regards to the Supreme Court? No.

So, you actually didn't answer the question.

I actually know the difference between the person who has actually grown and changed on an issue and the person who has changed their rhetoric only when an election is eminent.

[Thinkingabout]

213. When are you going to evolve on people "evolving"?

This is the reason you gave.

[TM99]

273. This is a typical Clinton supporter response.

Evade the questions. Evade the facts. Attempt to turn around on to the other person. Walk away smuggly.

[Thinkingabout]

318. You can't answer, is it because you will never evolve? Talk about evading the question.

This isn'tthe first time a supporter evaded simple questions.

[TM99]

327. Real human beings change & grow.

Politicians evolve.

Want to know the difference?

Someone who has changed and grown on an issue expresses remorse. They are contrite. They apologize for their hurtful stances, positions, words, and actions. Then they work hard to re-gain trust by doing things that show they are making amends.

Clinton is a fucking politician. Has she expressed remorse for her support of DOMA & DADT? In 2004, she defended 'traditional marriage". In 2007, she was positive on civil unions, wanted the states to decide the gay marriage issue, and supported parental discretion when telling kids about gay couples. Finally in 2013, she stated that she had "re-evaluated and changed her mind" on gay marriage. In June of 2014, she said "We have all evolved on gay marriage since 1990s." No lady, some of us including Sanders were for full civil rights for all in the 1990's.

Evolving is bullshit spin to justify and rationalize past bad behavior without suffering any consequences for those past actions. There is no remorse. There are rarely apologies. And the actions taken are always those that may look good on the surface but in fact push one agenda alone, which is election to an office.

Show me someone who has changed and grown and is working hard to re-earn trust like Robert Byrd did, and I will applaud them.

And if I have a choice between 3 people - one has evolved, one has changed, and one was always that way - guess what? I am going to go with the one who was always that way and didn't need to change or evolve.

[Thinkingabout]

413. I have not seen where you have expressed remorse. Can you accept the fact some have evolved without

Continuing to bring it up over and over. If one wants acceptance then there has to be some give also. I can't tell if some are happy evolution has occurred or not. Maybe the continuous complaining is never going to stop.

[TM99]

430. Done playing your game.

[Thinkingabout]

431. I see you think it is a game, perhaps others does not, continual denial does not change the facts.

Enjoy your life.

[TM99]

432. You are the one playing a very sad game.

In the 1990's while the Clintons were promoting anti-LGBT positions, Sanders and many of us were taking very seriously the abuses and denial of rights that were occurring.

Yay, Clinton finally fucking changed in order to meet the consensus of the Democratic platform almost 20 years late. Bravo! Woohoo!

Isn't she fucking amazing?

The facts have been presented, verified, and the only one denying them are YOU...you....you!!!

[Thinkingabout]

433. See, you are not pleased with opinions changing, never happy, you should try being happy for a

few days in your life, it will extend your life.

[Kermitt Gribble]

388. Can you please answer the question?

On what other issues is he not acceptable?

Social Security?
Health care?
Labor?

Please explain.

[Thinkingabout]

415. I do not agree with the social issues and am apprehensive on his national security for two things

[tkmorris]

82. NO ONE here is voting for Sanders because he's a man

The idea itself is odorous.

[malokvale77]

99. What?

a) Senator Sanders is in no way lesser qualified.

b) Do really think we support Senator Sanders because he is a man?

Just WOW!

[nashville_brook]

175. omg -- here comes the "you're sexist if you don't vote for Hillary" thematics.

[Thinkingabout]

195. Don't attempt to rewrite my post, I posted what I posted. Whatever you say is what you say.

There has already been one elected (Bush) who was not qualified for the office, we do not need another. Why would you even post "here comes the "you're sexist if you don't vote for Hillary" thematics."

[cali]

334. cough, cough, bullshit

Bernie has 9 years in the Senate, 16 years in the House and 8 years as Mayor. Now what experience did Obama have in 2008?

[Thinkingabout]

411. Obama isn't running.

[Autumn]

353. It is ignorant to choose a lesser qualified candidate based on their gender or their race.

That's why I support Bernie Sanders, he is the most qualified person and the man we need at this time in the White House.

[malokvale77]

89. ^^^ this ^^^ (nt)

[LanternWaste]

356. No more and no less ignorant than choosing a candidate simply because they arrived at a common

No more and no less ignorant than choosing a candidate simply because they arrived at a common consensus position prior to another candidate... as they're all there now.

[TM99]

429. Here is the deal that so many of y'all don't get.

Someone who takes 17 years to arrive at a now common consensus position as politician has a history of being on the wrong side of what is right. They have said and done things that are at odds with civil rights for all. Changing position on LGBT rights and finally speaking out when an election is imminent creates a trust issue.

Do I want a candidate who has been consistent and congruent and therefore is and has been trustworthy even before an issue became a 'common consensus position'?

Or do I want a candidate who has not been consistent and congruent and therefore is untrustworthy? Did they believe LGBT rights were not important but now are? Why not then? Why now? Saying 'all of us' have evolved is not even a first person admission of remorse and change. It is fucking third person!

Clinton has a history of lies & manipulations. I do not easily trust her given that history. This is just another issue to be concerned about.

Finally, the Third Way lie is that all Democratic candidates are basically equal except who is electable because of money and name-recognition. Well, they are not. Clinton may now be socially liberal as meets Democrats requirements but she was not always. She is not progressive in her economic policies like traditional Democrats (she is solidly neo-liberal). Nor is she progressive in her foreign policy positions like traditional Democrats (she is solidly neo-con with a history of lies and support for the surveillance state, the Patriot Act, and growing the War on Terrah!).

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Not necessarily.

[leftstreet]

15. Would you say the same if it was Carly Fiorina? Bachman? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

107. Being male or female does not qualify one to be president, we have used the male thing on the past

But it will not work anymore, women do not need to sit at home and bake cookies. It is wrong thinking.

[SMC22307]

321. I sit home and bake cookies.

Well, not really sit. I stand to bake.

I also have a four-year degree. A career. And own my home outright.

But if a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home whatever, she should not be disparaged for her choice.

Cookie?

[cali]

16. why wouldn't electing the first Jewish President be social progress?

Just as electing the first Catholic president was?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. because according to the privilege-o-matic, Jews are MORE privileged than Christians, even.

[JEB]

55. Good thing I'm tall.

[yeoman6987]

70. Oh my god! I am non privileged. Who knew.

That changes everything. I thought I was part of that big privileged group, but I am actually -75 wow!

[cherokeeprogressive]

130. Keep saying that and maybe Hillary Clinton will convert. n/t

[Caretha]

137. If she was a "progressive"

you would have a point. Since she is a DLC, Third Way Moderate, Right Leaning Republican.....


You don't PERIOD

[Caretha]

154. How do you equate

"progress" with a "first female president"....

If said "first female president" is not "progressive"?

I guess if Imeldo Marcus was running.... in your mind that would mean "progressive" since she is female.

Unfortunately, Hillary is Third Way, DLC and part of the right wing of the Democratic party. She is definitely not "progressive" and I'm truly sorry to have to inform you of that.

[leftofcool]

7. I will stand with Hillary, thank you.

I am glad that Senator Sanders favors marriage equality.

[cali]

18. you mean, Sanders supported it when it was unpopular while Hillary waited until

public opinion was for it, and prior to that, made bigoted arguments against it. Those are the facts. Live with it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

114. +1. n/t

[tularetom]

9. If economic equality is achieved social progress will follow

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Well, in that case, Hillary's your candidate.

[tularetom]

50. I wish you'd tell that to them people at the HRC group

They've banished me to eternal darkness for suggesting otherwise.

[Maedhros]

73. Well, you have to understand: Hillary's most Republican-like policies are Economic

and Foreign. This creates difficulty when trying to sell Hillary as a "Liberal" candidate.

Hillary does pretty well from the "social progress" angle, though, so her supporters need to make this primary all about the social progress so that we don't notice her horrible track record on economic issues (e.g. helping draft the TPP).

I can certainly understand why they would toss you out of the HRC group - by mentioning "economic progress," you are taking them off-message.

[hrmjustin]

74. It is for HRC supporters only.

[MannyGoldstein]

384. Any attempt by me to intercede with that group

will not help you. Trust me.

[Phlem]

383. I don't think she's "for" economic equality.

I do believe she is "for" her economic equality compared to the Koch brothers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Not true ... for the 4,000,000th time ...

No amount of money will affect any of the isms.

[sheshe2]

185. So true!

[1StrongBlackMan]

232. I guess I should have qualified that with ...

"except for, maybe, classism.

[F4lconF16]

87. Complete and utter bullshit.

By the way.

Economic justice cannot be without social justice. The varying forms of oppression that divide the working class prevent any possible fight against the power structures that create the inequality inherent to our system.

The working class has to know itself and be in complete solidarity when they choose to make a real change happen. What we're up against is too big for only a few of us to fight it while we fight amongst ourselves. The biggest step on the way to change is uniting the working class.

Not to mention, it's really kinda shitty to say to someone "hey man, yeah, racism will be fine if you have just a few more bucks in your pocket". It's insulting to those who know they will still remain oppressed despite a better economy.

[gollygee]

266. We have had periods of much greater economic equality

And it never helped social progress, and that economic "equality" never made its way to oppressed groups. Why would anything different happen now or in the future? There can be no economic equality until and unless we achieve greater social equality. If discrimination is still a thing, that discrimination will still affect people's education, employment, housing, banking, and everything else that leads (or doesn't lead) to wealth. Therefore, people who are victims of widespread discrimination won't achieve that equality.

[cali]

10. absolutely. and a man who fought for civil rights for African Americans

as a college student, marching with Dr. King in 1963, organizing a sit in against segregated dorms and working for SNCC.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I think the idea that the triangulation wing of the Democratic Party is supposed to be BETTER on

social issues--

is one of the more spectacular pieces of flat-out bullshit that I've seen anyone try to assert, in a political context, in my entire life.

It has zero basis in reality, it just helps some peoples' narrative they have running in their head- because the actual divisions on actual issues in actual reality aren't favorable to whatever script they're trying to run.

I mean, look, if you want to assert that triangulation is a more viable political strategy for winning, a la Bill Clinton '92-'96, hey, at least that's a logical position with a basis in actual facts.

But to try to say that the progressives who have been dragging the rest of the party forward on things like marriage equality for years are insufficiently committed to social issues... it's beyond goofy.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Look fella, we have a big tent

Even people totally unmoored from reality are welcome.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I told them to stay off the moors

but, they wouldn't listen.

[hifiguy]

25. Yep. HRC vs. Bernie on social/human rights issues is pretty much a push.

On economic policy and war/peace issues they could not possibly be more different.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. I think it's worth noting that only one of them had to "evolve" their position.

Call me crazy, but I respect people who did the right thing before the poll #s told them it was okay.

[hifiguy]

36. Oh, I am very aware of that.

I will give HRC credit for at least changing her mind, but Bernie has been there from Day One and that definitely weighs heavily in his favor.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. 17 years? nt

[TheKentuckian]

41. Only if you give equal credit to leading from behind as you do for being well ahead of the curve.

Sanders needed no shifting demographics or changing times to get to what is right.

[hifiguy]

43. I don't but will give her partial credit

for coming around. Bernie gets full marks and a bonus for being a mile ahead of the curve.

[TheKentuckian]

92. I agree 100%, the phrasing kinda gave me a different vibe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. Spot on. n/t

[jeff47]

294. Except even that doesn't have a good basis in facts.

I mean, look, if you want to assert that triangulation is a more viable political strategy for winning, a la Bill Clinton '92-'96, hey, at least that's a logical position with a basis in actual facts.

Except it didn't do all that well.

1996: Booming economy, running as an incumbent. Even Palin could have won that election. But despite all that going for Clinton, his coattails were extremely short compared to other "booming incumbent" elections.

In 1992. Perot got a good chunk of the vote that would have gone to HW Bush. Bush wouldn't have gotten 100% of Perot voters, but he easily would have received enough to beat Clinton if Perot had stayed out.

Cross-party voting died when "Reagan Democrats" got around to re-registering. Or died. It has been dwindling since the late 80s, and has been virtually non-existent since 2008. Yet we keep going for that "cross-party vote", despite the utter and complete failures of that strategy in 2000, 2004, 2010 and 2014. Yet a black guy with a funny name who campaigned as a liberal did quite well.

[Warren DeMontague]

323. Well at the very least Bill Clinton was the doc in the ER when the very sick man miraculously came

back from the dead.

And that sick patient was our party's chances for the White House, after 80-84-88.

So like it or not, he got credit.

Although that's not, totally, fair. The guy- for all his flaws- is the Michael Jordan of politics. A born natural. There is no one on the planet who can compare with his innate ability to charm, woo, shmooze and inspire.

But I do not believe that it was triangulation or "third way" approach which saved him.

Unfortunately, true or not, the idea that that sort of approach is responsible for The Clintons' many "comebacks", is now encoded into their political DNA.

[Maedhros]

19. Bernie is excellent on both, while Hillary is good on only one.

In the general election, they tell us we have to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils, but in this upcoming primary they tell us we have to vote for the Lesser of Two Goods.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. In the absence of economic progress, social progress is fragile. n/t

[hifiguy]

21. They are equally important and

largely inseparable. As Dr King said time and again the last years of his life.

[upaloopa]

22. So which one is Hillary apposed to?

Social progress or the other one?
Why is Bernie the only human on earth we have to look up to in this issue. There have been and there are many leaders in this area. I also suggest you seek to find it in your own life don't tag into someone else's band wagon.

[hifiguy]

28. Bernie doesn't count the likes of Dimon and Blankfein

and the rest of the Wall $treet gangsters among his close personal friends.

[kentuck]

29. They are interdependent...

...One is reliant upon the other.

What we see as progress on social issues, at this time, may actually be only a temporary illusion?

There is a need for balance in the social and economic issues that confront us. We cannot allot or permit justice in any other way. We cannot give to one and not give to the other...

[-none]

32. Economic progress IS social progress.

And I vote for those running that most closely reflect MY values.
This is not a sports game where it doesn't really matter who wins in the long term, so one can go with the post popular team without consequence. There are consequences. Lots of of them.
Being a Liberal, is the reason why I am pushing for Bernie Sanders.

[sadoldgirl]

37. They have to be tackled at the same time, but

you seem to have forgotten how important "evolution"
has become all of a sudden! (SARC)

[valerief]

40. Manny, Manny, Manny, do you believe that arm growth is as important as leg growth? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

42. I believe in anything that Karl Rove tells me to believe.

Ask anyone.

[valerief]

45. You mean Cruel Rogue. nt

[Andy823]

141. Good for you Manny

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Who knows there may be hope for you yet!

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Said the guy that wrote ... then, self-deleted ...

"If you don't understand that income inequality is THE problem; then, YOU are the problem."

[MannyGoldstein]

58. That, my friend, is utter bull@#$%.

Like my famous chicken and watermelon joke that you often refer to, but can never produce.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. "You know when I *know* our teenager's up to no good? ..." ...

You post something ... then self-delete it ... then, deny you posted it.

You post something ... and leave it up ... several people point to it AND your apology for it ... then, you deny you posted it.

Sad ... Really, sad.

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Still got nothin' but innuendo, I see

You should be proud.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. I can't produce what you self-deleted ...

I can, however, re-post the second post that you denied making ... if you would like.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. My chicken and watermelon joke?

Go for it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

85. Will you pull your ...

"I didn't say what my words said" act again?

[MannyGoldstein]

86. LOL

Seems like someone's getting cold feet...

maybe because it obviously ain't what you keep claiming it is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. No ...

Law enforcement officers take a dI'm view of typing while driving.

[cherokeeprogressive]

139. So pull over then. They take just as dim a view of those who read while driving too.

[MannyGoldstein]

282. No, there's nothing ironic in that he typed

that he couldn't type because the cops don't want people to type while driving.

[bettyellen]

142. Your mocking POC for being over sensitive about watermelon jokes.....

And then your later claims at being entirely unaware of any context of any racial jokes/ that was fun.
Yep, when people stick their feet in their mouths, rolling over and playing stupid is what they do.

[1StrongBlackMan]

190. Here you are ... for the 5th time ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5938247

[MannyGoldstein]

191. That doesn't even link to a post of mine.

As always, you link to your spin, not directly to my post - because it's clear that the post is innocuous in the eyes of the vast majority of people.

[1StrongBlackMan]

227. Okay ...

it's "spin" to post links to your words giving context to the innocuous stuff you felt the need to apologize for.

[LanternWaste]

359. I used to run from my statements too...

I used to run from my statements too... but I'll never rationalize it as anything other than running. Your miles obviously vary.

[SidDithers]

71. +1...nt

Sid

[pnwmom]

54. I love how Bernie has put an end to the argument

that Hillary is too old.

At least no one here is being ageist anymore.

[KMOD]

271. He also put an end to the hair thing and the clothing thing,

thankfully.

[jeff47]

301. Well, for Clinton. People still attack him for it. (nt)

[KMOD]

303. I don't.

And I laugh at people who do.

[rug]

59. Yeah, well where was he in 1997?

[BainsBane]

68. I find it interesting that Clinton is particularly popular among the LGBT community

Of course it is not universal, as they like any other demographic vary in political allegiances. I respect their choices, just as I respect those of DUers who back Sanders. As a straight person, it would be supremely arrogant for me to tell them I know their interests better than they do.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. I think she's particularly popular among Democrats in general, and certainly most Democrats

would like to see the next president have a (D) after their name, as opposed to an (R).

I know I would.

But I admit I am curious as to what, if any, specific preferable policy positions Clinton supporters think they are going to get under a President Clinton, that they wouldn't get under a President Sanders. (Leaving aside considerations of "can win" or "work with congress&quot

No, I just mean specific policies. Specific changes to the way things are done in the Federal Government, specific laws, specific facts on the ground.

Well, I suppose when HRC finally gets around to elucidating specific policy positions, maybe we'll know for sure. But until then I have a sneaking suspicion some people think she's going to accomplish or advocate for things which are not even close to being on her radar screen.

[BainsBane]

84. I can think of a few

1) She doesn't support the NRA and the unfettered profits of the gun lobby. 2) Two, she has diplomatic experience such that she can discuss the Middle East without indicating that she sees Palestinians as less worthy than Israelis, something Sanders seems to have trouble with. 3) She has worked hard to make clear women's rights are human rights and worked to combat human trafficking, something few liberals give even the slightest thought about. She is clearly better on women's issues than Sanders. it's something she cares about deeply because it's something she has lived. That last one will be a reason some so-called liberals oppose her.

Then there is the fact she is a highly competent person and has a phenomenal level of personal resilience that I myself find enviable.

I do not know if I will support her over Sanders if he remains in the face by the the time my state caucuses, but there are certainly legitimate issues for doing so. Sanders, as strong as his liberal bona fides are, has very little to show in terms of successful legislation and concrete accomplishments for nearly three decades in congress. That concerns me. All the good ideas in the world don't amount to anything if they can't be implemented. I won't vote for someone to validate my beliefs. I don't need that. I need someone who can get stuff done.

Lastly, her supporters (at least the ones I encounter online) are nicer people, less elitist and self-entitled. They don't seem to be committed to driving as many people out of the Democratic party as possible. I can't help but find myself influenced by that. If supporting Sanders means empowering the crowd that is so contemptuous of Democratic voters, particularly the subaltern, that becomes a very hard sell. People can mouth leftist platitudes all day, but when their actions show they in fact favor the interests of a few and target working Americans, people of color, and other ordinary voters as the enemy, I find it difficult to believe them. In short, some of Sanders most ardent online supporters are, in my view, his greatest liability.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. I think your narrative doesn't really line up with reality, frankly.

1) Fair enough- however, at a federal level gun control is a proven loser issue. I will be VERY surprised if HRC takes up that banner in 2016. Far more likely to see her doing a photo op with a hunting rifle a la John Kerry, to reassure heartland gun owners.

2) Similarly, Hillary Clinton is in no way likely to be any less pro-Israel than Sanders would be. In fact, given her ties to the more "muscular" foreign policy advocates in our party and government in general, I'd say it's a fairly sure bet she will be cozier with Likud and Netanyahu, than Sanders would be. But either way, she's going to be strongly arguing that Israel is an ally and needs support and to be allowed to defend itself. Take that to the bank.

3) She has been a powerful voice for womens' rights, globally- no question. I saw her speak at the March for Womens Lives in DC, in 2004. Her record of advocacy is admirable. However, both Sanders and Clinton would undoubtedly protect Roe v. Wade through Scotus appointments. Human trafficking is already illegal, of course. As far as "better on womens issues", that's debatable.

Let's see what specific concerte policy proposals come from the assorted camps. At least, that's what I'm waiting for.

As for the rest of it, again, I strongly believe you are jousting at windmills which exist only in your own head, but if that's what you want to do, hey, knock yourself out.

Being mad at DU members is really silly basis to go on for deciding who to support in the primary. I like Hillary Clinton, I may even vote for her in the primary, no matter how obnoxious some of her boosters may be.

[BainsBane]

219. Excuse me, but you don't determine my reality

I don't care in the slightest who you vote for, nor I didn't ask your opinion. You insisted there was no issue or reason anyone could support Clinton over Sanders. I gave some. What you think matters or likely to count isn't relevant to the positions and approaches I referenced. You clearly have paid no attention to Sanders of the Palestine issue, as what you think is likely has already been proven false.

Your point about human trafficking being already illegal shows the lack of concern for those lives that is far too common. Of course it's illegal. It also operates widely, with more people living in slavery than at any point in human history. It needs to be combated, including in this country where it continues in a range of industries, from textiles to slaughterhouses, domestic work, porn, and prostitution. A president's job, nor the responsibility of any politically aware human being, is not to simply decide something doesn't matter if it's illegal. It is to work to end it.

You believe I'm jousting at windmills that exist in my own head. Too bad. It's this head that determines my vote, not yours. I understand that concept is one many around here don't accept. I will not solicit advice or permission from anyone here about how to vote. Of that much you can be certain.

[Warren DeMontague]

306. that's right. And you don't determine what I think, either.

And I think your narrative doesn't line up with reality.

Like it, don't like it, you're gonna have as little luck changing the inside of my head, as I would changing the inside of yours, were I so inclined.

I'm not. Nor do I care who you vote for. Really. Honest.

I didn't ask your opinion.

Well, you're on a discussion board, so you're probably going to get it whether you ask for it, or not. The admins have provided several tools to rectify that if it becomes too much of a problem, starting with the "ignore" button.

You clearly have paid no attention to Sanders of the Palestine issue, as what you think is likely has already been proven false.

I really don't want to be one to say "I told you so", but come general election season... ah, who the fuck am I kidding. I'll happily say "I told you so" when Hillary runs both strongly pro-Israel AND bends over backwards to express support for 2nd Amendment rights.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would mean finally doing away with some things in American Society that, I don't know, get on your nerves?

I suspect you are mistaken in that regard, and on the off chance you're promoting her campaign to others based on that promise, they are certain to be profoundly disappointed.

I'm not sure what you think is my objection to Hillary Clinton- (although I have no doubt you will explain to me in no uncertain terms what I think, while simultaneously telling me that you don't care) but in truth it can be summed up in essentially one sentence, and that is "more of the same", particularly more of the same as per her Husband's administration, from 1993-2001.

Now, in 2001 I would have been perfectly happy with "more of the same", although I do think Al Gore would have delivered on more than that, as President. In 2016, I think this country needs more. Maybe Hillary Clinton is that candidate, but I doubt it. And so far her campaign has behaved exactly as I would expect- safe, poll-tested, equivocation, avoiding controversial issues.... not what I consider the brave leadership we need.

Danerys Targaryen, she aint.

[BainsBane]

324. I have no interest in changing your head

and I didn't try. You asked me a question so I replied. End of story.
I have no interest in influencing anyone's vote, and frankly I think it matters very little. Natter on all you want, but do it for your own benefit because I simply do not care.

[Warren DeMontague]

326. Meh. I have children.

If I'm not listening to my own nattering, then I have to listen to theirs.

Oh, sure, doesn't sound that bad...... A extended rendition of the Nyan cat song overlaid with a spoken word dissertation on whether Herobrine is actually Steve's brother?

Primary fights on DU are like a vacation in the Bahamas, after that.

[SidDithers]

78. "You know, somebody is always first," Clinton told NPR's Terry Gross last summer....

"Somebody’s always out front and thank goodness they are. But that doesn’t mean that those who joined later in being publicly supportive or even privately accepting that there needs to be change are any less committed. You could not be having the sweep of marriage equality across our country if nobody changed their mind. And thank goodness so many of us have."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

83. So, basically, "It's OK to think the LGBT community is inferior

for decades longer than others did. As long as I eventually changed my mind"

Isn't that what her statement basically says?

And how do *you* feel about that?

[hrmjustin]

98. So did Sanders think we were inferior before he came out for marriage equality?

If we follow your logic it seems so.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. Was Bernie ever against marriage equality?

Hillary was distinctly against it for many decades, no?

[hrmjustin]

112. You said he was for it 17 years correct?

[MannyGoldstein]

116. The earliest record that I know of is voting against DOMA

Before that, I have no evidence one way or the other.

I just updated my OP to make it more accurate.

[hrmjustin]

118. Ok well if he came out for it 17 years ago or so it has to mean before hand his opinion evolved

at some point.

[MannyGoldstein]

121. Why?

Perhaps he was always in favor, no?

[hrmjustin]

125. Are you saying then that he felt it was right but for political reasons kept his mouth shut?

[zappaman]

131. Ha!

[hrmjustin]

134. .

[MannyGoldstein]

140. Did anyone ask? nt

[hrmjustin]

145. If he was so cocommitted to marriage equality he would not need to be asked!

[MannyGoldstein]

151. Well, can we at agree that at the very worst, Bernie was probably

among the first 10% of Americans to embrace marriage equality?

[hrmjustin]

160. No we agree that 17 years ago he came out for it.

Without asking him we can only assume he evolved on the issue 17 years ago or he believed in it and for political reasons did not announce his support.


As a gay man i am thrilled that people are evolving on marriage equality. I don't keep a list of who in my life was first to support it.

[MannyGoldstein]

165. What percentage of Americans embraced marriage equality 19 years ago? nt

[hrmjustin]

168. maybe 25 to 35 percent. why?

[MannyGoldstein]

174. That high?

IIRC, it was less than 50% in Massachusetts when our SJC repealed restrictions - only 10 or 11 years ago?

Update: yeah, looks like 25%-ish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Older_polls_.282009_and_earlier.29

[hrmjustin]

178. It was a guess. lets assume 25 percent for the sake of tbis discussion.

What was your point?

[malokvale77]

169. Is that really where you are going to hang your hat? (nt)

[hrmjustin]

171. No.

[malokvale77]

181. No?

Your posts, avatar, and sig line say otherwise.

[hrmjustin]

182. Perhaps you should bit clearer about your meaning.

[malokvale77]

184. There was no riddle. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

186. You have a lovely night.

[Warren DeMontague]

159. I'm sorry, but waiting until the polls say it's okay, is not a badge of honor.

I strongly believe that both HRC -and- Obama have "privately accepted" marriage equality for decades.

And I don't doubt the strength of their commitment to it, now.

But a profile in courage- a profile in leadership- is someone who did it before it was politically tenable, like back in 2004 when Karl Rove was using it as a wedge issue against our people, who were falling all over themselves to reassure 'values voters' that they 'support traditional marriage'.

It may not be a profile in political shrewdness, but that's not the same thing.

[PufPuf23]

81. I like to rec Bernie Sanders threads at DU. nt

[cantbeserious]

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

eom

[840high]

128. ....

[DJ13]

108. Social progress is useless in an economically conservative environment

Of course that means in more ways than one Bernie is definitely a better candidate than Hillary.

[bettyellen]

136. Only if you're a white man is that actually true.

[malokvale77]

117. Problem for me is...

Hillary Clinton doesn't measure up to Bernie Sanders on either issue.

I would go so far to say, she does not measure up on any issue.

But hey, that's just me (and most everyone I know).

[840high]

129. Truth to me.

[840high]

120. I join you.

[quickesst]

135. this thread...

...like so many other threads started by Bernie Sanders supporters is one of two approaches taken. Either attack Hillary Clinton with words that would make a Republican proud, or start a positive thread in support of their candidate, then like this one, drive it straight into a shithole of insults aimed at her. but hey, no biggie. I guess that's just the way y'all are.

[RiffRandell]

163. Bullshit.

I love Bernie and will vote for him in the primary.

I love Hill too and if she's OUR nominee she def has my vote.

Pretty fucking simple.

[quickesst]

304. please re-read...

I did not say all threads, nor did I say all Sanders supporters. Some of those I am addressing that have posted in this thread are obvious. Except for my primary preference, I am in agreement with you. I will vote for the nominee, but I will not insult Bernie for atta-boy points from Clinton supporters.

[treestar]

339. The irony here is the idea that longevity of a position

is more important that holding the position causes one to observe that Hillary was a Democrat before Elizabeth Warren. OP swears by Elizabeth Warren but in the zeal to attack Hillary forgot that using a standard of longevity undermines Elizabeth Warren being once a Republican.

[Renew Deal]

192. What accomplishments does Sanders have on equality and LGBT issues?

Because Sanders is well known for symbolic gestures, grandstanding, etc.

[MannyGoldstein]

212. Compared to Hillary?

Let's start with just one action: voting against DOMA.

Your turn: name a less-symbolic action that Hillary took.

Then we can continue from there.

[Renew Deal]

229. That's hardly an accomplishment.

Signing the end of DADT is an accomplishment.

[MannyGoldstein]

242. But what greater accomplishment does Hillary have? nt

[JoePhilly]

240. The only way Bernie beats Clinton in the primary ...

... will be by getting people who would happily vote for Clinton to switch.

Many of them already believe that Hillary will beat any GOP challenger. And no matter what else happens, they do not want to let the GOP take the White House. Period.

Bernie and his supporters have to make the case that Bernie would also, absolutely, beat any GOP challenger.

Obama beat Hillary only by crossing this threshold. It was only after he demonstrated he'd beat anyone in the GOP as well, that he beat Hillary.

[jeff47]

309. Anyone will beat the Republican

Barring a scandal or other similar unpredictable event. Or an Al Gore level of campaign incompetence.

The Democratic candidate's got 257 electoral votes already. The Republican has 149. Those are the electoral votes from firmly "blue" and "red" states.

The Democratic candidate needs 1 large or 2 small "swing" states to win. For example, we did quite well in VA recently, and that would win it for the Democrat. Even in 2014 we did well in statewide VA races (Gov. was a gimme due to scandal, but US Senate wasn't easy). Or repeat Obama's two easy wins of Ohio. We've also done well statewide in CO and IA recently, and those two would win it too. There's lots of ways for the Democrat to get to 270.

The Republican candidate needs all 10 "swing" states, and needs to turn one "blue" state. That will not happen without the caveat above. 2016 is the Democratic nominee's race to lose. The Republican can not win without help from the Democratic candidate.

That's why the Republican field is nothing but crazy. The Republicans sane enough to count know this one is not winnable.

(This doesn't mean we can sit on our asses in 2016.)

[JoePhilly]

344. I agree with most of the math ...

... but it will still take work to get people to believe Bernie would absolutely win. Not just any Democratic nominee.

The story of the math is important. But its going to have to include Bernie specifically, head to head with those GOP crazies to get people to switch from Hillary.

[treestar]

337. Good point. Trashing Hillary at every opportunity is hardly likely

to get her supporters to change their minds to Bernie.

And it does not prove Bernie would beat the GOP. Interesting question. The clown car is starting to fill up.

[KMOD]

281. Thank you, Manny

for finally admitting that social issues, like gay rights, matter and are important.

[MannyGoldstein]

286. "finally admitting"?

Nice.

[KMOD]

290. I haven't heard you voice such loud opinion on social issues before.

I apologize if I'm wrong.

I suppose it's too late though, and I'll be alerted on for this nasty insult.

[GoneOffShore]

299. There's a lot of Douglas Adams in this thread.

[treestar]

338. I don't really care

How long they've held the position, as long as they do.

[Enthusiast]

343. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Thank you, Manny!

[NCTraveler]

349. Are you opposed to Hillarys stance on the issue? nt.

[NCTraveler]

350. By your own metric, wouldn't this put Warren well behind Clinton if Warren were to enter the race.

Hillary didn't vote for Regan. Then again, I am not so shallow as to make the point you are trying to make. Using an issue you don't really care about in the first place to make an extremely flawed point. By your own standards, you must have Hillary above Warren if she were to enter the race.

[MaggieD]

354. Nice that we have TWO candidates that....

.... Support marriage equality. I didn't know that about Bernie until recently. But I've been active in GLBT politics for some time. HRC had long been a friend of equality and actively engaged with the GLBT community for at least 10 years. Have not seen that from Bernie, but good to know he's supportive.

[hrmjustin]

360. As a gay man I trust Hillary on LGBT issues.

i trust Sanders as well.

So glad our party is on our side. WhWish the gop were.

[MaggieD]

365. I feel the same

But the facts are she has been much more vocal on her support.

[Rex]

366. .

Never get tired of yanking that chain do ya? I know it is easy to do...but don't you ever get tired of it!?

[Fumesucker]

367. As the rec count climbs the personal attacks become ever more frenzied

Plenty of yankers on all sides here in GD.

[MaggieD]

369. Well if there is one thing GLBT people love....

It's when straight people tell them which candidate is best for them. Because otherwise, how would GLBT people know who to vote for??!!

[Fumesucker]

373. There are leaders and there are followers

On gay rights it's clear which candidate is the leader, morally ahead of public opinion by a decade or more and which the follower, waiting for the safety of numbers before expressing support.

[MaggieD]

376. Bernie has not been a leader on this issue

This GLBT person prefers an actual advocate over someone who just provides moral support.

[Rex]

405. Oh no doubt, just wondering if MG ever gets tired of it since he should already

know the outcome by now.

[Fumesucker]

419. I know the outcome of a lot of my posts these days as I'm sure you do your own

For instance the one you originally responded to in this thread.

Sometimes it stops me from making them and sometimes it doesn't.

[MannyGoldstein]

406. Just making a point

There have been a growing number of OPs lately discussing how social justice will suffer if people are too worried about economic justice - which I believe is a nasty delusion. I've even been accused of posting that economic justice is more important than social justice, although the accusers never have time to provide links to the posts in question, or don't know how to use Google, or tell me not to @#$% with them because they know it's true, and so forth. Somehow, links to my crimes are never provided.

Wanted to show that the two can coexist just fine.

[LadyHawkAZ]

374. How many years is Hillary ahead of any one from the (R) clown car?

Granted, I'm not around much these days, but I find it...

Fascinating? Not the word I'm looking for but it'll do

...fascinating that every time I log in here these days, there's another post on the front page solely attacking other Democrats. Not Republicans. Other Democrats.

It's almost like there's people around with an agenda, although of course we all know that never happens here. Nope, just "legitimate criticism from real progressives". Every time I peek in.

[MaggieD]

377. It's really ridiculous at this point

[LadyHawkAZ]

386. And obvious. n/t

[zappaman]

378. +1

you better believe it!

[randome]

387. Oh...go hug a tree or something, you hippie!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bobbie Jo]

394. Yep, this thread is just another

bizarre example.

17 years!!

Geeeeze.

indeed.

[secondwind]

398. I'm with Bernie all the way, I've donated twice, and will campaign for him.. but I will pull the

lever for the Democratic nominee if Bernie is not in the game.

[orpupilofnature57]

434. No Doubt, I've never voted for a Republican . But DOUBT filled my

body the last time I " Pulled the lever ", and my fears were realized .

[orpupilofnature57]

428. Ahead of the loop in many ways .

Last edited Tue May 19, 2015, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Like WARNING us about the CIA, WMD's and the TPP .

[woo me with science]

435. kick