General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat message would we send if we quickly rejected Bernie and crowned HRC?
Wouldn't we then be saying that principle means nothing?
That we think so little of the American people that we truly believe they will only elect militarists who put corporate interests before the common good to the presidency?
That a couple of(probably meaningless by 2016, since every important issue will have been ruled on by then) seats on the Supreme Court could be worth backing perpetual U.S. military intervention in the Arab/Muslim world?
That "winning an election" is worth letting the party be forever controlled by the rich?
That we're just fine with giving up on ever getting big money out of politics?
That what Steve Earle once described in song as "four more years of things not getting worse is the best we can do?
I'd like to have HRC supporters here come in to this thread and actually make a case for the idea that giving their candudate the unchallenged coronation they think she's entitled to is anything other than checking our party's sould at the door and settling for the least we can possibly get.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
beaglelover
(3,436 posts)in the white house for the next 8 years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to say that. Haven't you learned that not all Democrats want to reduce poverty, save American jobs, punish torturers and war criminals? It isn't enough to have just any Democrat in the White House. It's important to have one that supports the people the 99% and not Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang. How far into poverty are you willing to let our children slide before you recognize that there are some Democrats that serve Wall Street and not Main Street?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and that is on all sides, considering you said you thought funding foodstamps constituted an adequate response to poverty. The same foodstamps supported by all the DLC Democrats. For all your hyperbole, when it comes down to actual plans, I don't see you supporting anything that challenges the status quo.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)accepts $2 Billion, do you think she can effectively fight the wealth inequality that is driving the lower classes into poverty? Honestly, do you think those that give her campaign $2 billion dollars won't expect some quid pro quo?
There are two sides to this class war and Goldman-Sachs isn't on the side of the 99%.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)You care about yourself and your own class interests, and say the poor should be content with food stamps. You see the poor as objects of charity, not citizens who are as worthy of articulating their concerns as you are. You refuse to consider that anyone has legitimate interests, that their lives even matter. You insult people far less privileged than yourself as allied with Wall Street simply because they don't share your contempt for one woman. Class isn't defined by hatred for a single politician. It's defined by wealth and privilege. The poor and subaltern are not allied with Goldman Sachs because they refuse to abandon their own concerns for your interests. You are so certain that our concerns are so inconsequential that you insist all that matters is what you declare is important. You completely ignore, and define out of existence, the concerns of the vast majority of Americans who don't fit your narrow view of politics. If we are drawing only two sides, I don't put you on the side with the lower 50-60 percent.
I think this 99 percent thing is a pretty convenient artifice for the upper-middle class. They pretend they speak for the majority, while demonstrating nothing but contempt for the voices and interests of members of that majority, refusing to consider anything they have to say and instead insulting them. You aren't on the side of the 99 percent. You promote your own class interests and are completely hostile to the very right of those less fortunate to articulate their concerns. You show no more concern for my basic rights, or the rights and concerns of the rest of the subaltern, than do bankers. Like it's supposed to matter to us if someone is in the upper 1 percent or the upper 10 percent when they show that they see us as less than them and don't give a shit about how we define our own concerns. If there are only two sides, you are a lot closer to Goldman Sachs than Justin or I are.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Nailed it.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)H. Clinton has close ties to those that want to eliminate all safety nets. She has close ties with the neocons that love the MIC and continuous war. She lied to help George W. Bush kill a million innocent people. She does not represent the 99%.
Of course, like the Third Way she knows to get power she must throw the people some bones (or cake), but she represents the 1%.
The proof is the fact that she solicits money from the super wealthy and is expected to reap $2 Billion dollars to buy the presidency.
She supports those that give her money.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and because you have no interest in anything other than keeping one woman from becoming president, you pretend that is all her fault rather than a result of the American political system worsened by recent SCOTUS decisions. You don't want to do a thing about the influence of money in government. You want to pretend it is all about Hillary Clinton, which guarantees that money continues to influence the political process.
I don't give a shit about your hatred of her. Actually, the fact you despise her makes her all the more appealing. You invent from whole cloth false charges and insult anyone who dares to believe they have a right to an opinion that you don't sanction. She doesn't' support cutting safety nets. That is a complete fabrication, as is your claim that she lied us into war. Clinton is not the liar here, and the fact is she does something you refuse to do at all costs: listen to what ordinary Americans care about. Meanwhile, you hurl insults because you are capable of nothing else. You don't bother to inform yourself even minimally on issues you claim to care about. Your entire worldview is based on exclusion and derision. It's inconceivable that you think you are doing anything but turning people off Sanders. Given that the only thing you care about is defeating Hillary Clinton, you could at least figure out how to work toward that goal rather than having the opposite effect. In the process, you show complete and utter disrespect, in fact contempt, for the vast majority of Americans who dare to care about their own lives and interests as opposed to what you see as the far more important matter of your anger.
The poor deserve more than a safety net, a fail safe in a system based on rampant inequality, a system the white upper-middle class benefits from. They deserve a living wage, and they deserve the right to voice their own concerns. All of us deserve that right, including the LGBT members you habitually insult as being allied with Goldman Sachs, when the fact is your privilege means you have far more in common with that elite than they do.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)This is about the message about assuring the party recognizes that there are progressive positions on economic issues and that it ought to run on them. Even if Hillary does win the primary I want to be sure that she knows that we want in increased minimum wage, a stronger social security system (smash the cap!), and policies that are going to be more directed at helping citizens than banks.
If she really embraces this then it will all be worthwhile. If Sanders gets the nomination that will be even better for my money. But ultimately this is about sending a signal to the party about where the majority of the American people really stand. I know third-way wants everyone to believe that excessive progressivism doesn't sell but there have been a number of supposed red states that have passed minimum wage increases as ballot initiatives. Imagine if we actually ran that way.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)worked against wallstreet and banks. he was only able to go so far. and it is being weakened by repugs. that is not exclusively sanders.
here is the point. your argument is an all or nothing sum game between clinton and sanders.
that is not reality. it is a failed argument.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Seriously, read what I wrote again and feel free to edit your comment. I won't judge.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)small number of people and to only $10 per hour. Why didn't he he raise it to a decent $15 per hour like some regions have?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)be different with 15 an hour?
states and communities raising to 15 an hour, or whatever, will help to make it more of a demand, as much as anything.
i also expect another push from him in the next year and half, before he leaves office.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)amount. Don't expect much between now and when he leaves office. He wants the TPP to be his legacy. Then watch wages drop.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jumped on. some up to 15. some over 9.
that will help anyone going further. who knows where sanders would land.
that is something to see
regardless, my point is. this is not a all or nothing some total. you see sanders doing more. and obama still addressed it.
i prefer the 15 also. that was not the start of the conversation with minimum wage back in early 2009. that has not even become part of the discussion until recently with washington state.
i wont right off tomorrow, before i have gotten to tomorrow. and i will certainly not argue tomorrow today, as if it is fact.
sanders going to 15 is one of the reasons i support him
along with other things.
i am also not going to be a fool arguing obama and clinton do not have the same position of increase in minimum wage.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)great statement. The $10.10 per hour actually undercuts the efforts withing states to get to $15 per hour.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but not to the point of disowning what he did or where he stands with minimum wage.
which is my argument.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i think this is a false argument. ya. send her the message. i am good with that also.
reality is, our dems are addressing a lot of things, dont get them thru or weakened cause of repugs. i think that has to be part of the discussion.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I think increasing the minimum wage IS an issue and that we have to make sure ALL the candidates agree on it. I don't want lip service on it and I think having Sanders in the debates keeps these debates on progressive economic issues.
I don't know why you are making a fuss about something that should be practically an entrance requirement for the democratic nomination. I mean, couldn't you just as easily have dug up a news story where Hillary states she supports increasing the minimum wage?
Like this?
http://www.statecolumn.com/2014/04/hillary-clinton-promotes-womens-rights-in-front-of-thousands-of-methodist-women/#!
I mean seriously, are you just looking to fight Sanders supporters for no bloody reason?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for an increase in minimum wage.
it is like me saying. good think clinton is in the primary so she can make sanders understand minimum wage is an important issue
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I am no longer convicned you are actually a Hillary supporter. You seem to come here to spoil for a fight. If you look one thread up I pointed out how you could make your argument better. Afterwhich you still seemed to want to fight about it.
I am done with you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)your boat. i am not into presenting false arguments. i challenge false arguments. spoiler? to false arguments? sure.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)You are familiar to me. You previously have stated that you support both candidates when someone calls you on your statements. Given that I am having difficulty figuring out what your intentions are here since you seem to shift who you are claiming to support based on who is calling you out.
No, you do not flip my boat. You do not spoil anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sittin with sanders. we will see as his campaign continues. i will be fine with sanders or clinton as president.
i have been at that position since before sanders declared.
i do call out bullshit.
to suggest both obama and clinton need sanders to address minimum wage is a straw man argument.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Must be someone else. My mistake. Mea Culpa and all that.
So... to sum up.
You are a Sanders supporter.
But are upset that I would post something suggesting that Sanders being in the race awhile would be a good thing because it would make candidates push harder on progressive economic policies. And you suggest pushing Hillary this direction is a false argument.
Is there something I'm missing? It just seems to me that you are making an awful lot of fuss in disagreeing with the posts of Sanders supporters.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am neither upset or "making a fuss" over disagreeing.
the false argument i am pointing our is neither obama or hillary sit in the all or nothing argument with minimum wage, banks or wallstreet.
the argument is being made, and incorrectly, that obama and clinton will do nothing about banks, wallstreet, or minimum wage.
do i like sanders pushing more and harder on these issues, and american people standing up for him to get a message across to clinton? sure.
obama has addressed wallstreet, banks and minimum wage. as well hillary. we can argue, not as far as we like or want, but, they do address those issues.
taht would be the false argument. and what i am speaking out against
even WHILE i support sanders.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Did I say that they weren't for increasing the minimum wage?
You are putting an awful lot of words in my mouth at this point.
You had a very strange reactionary reaction to my post that followed a thread that had a fairly pragmatic goal of trying to keep all candidates progressive.
Again, I don't know who you are trying to help or how.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"You had a very strange reactionary reaction to my post"
re read the comments. my ONLY point was hillary TOO will address minimum wage. lets not make it an all sanders, nothing clinton argument.
nothing reactionary to addressing the fact you addressed the argument all or nothing. sanders is ALL for economic. clinton ignorant, lets remind her. that is not correct. i challenged that and only that.
now.... look at your replies to me. assumptions and judgment thru out.
this could have stopped after my first reply to you, if you had said, yes. clinton does stand for an increase in minimum wage, but sanders will push her more
that is ALL
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Done with this game.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to accuse me of stuff and then...
meh
whatever. right?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Still done with you. Glad you can convince yourself you won something. There might already be a prize of somekind heading your way.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)but some of his supporters on this site are intent on making it impossible to support him. I just watched this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017267953
All spot on. They don't talk about any of that. Instead, they spend their time insulting people. I don't watch television. My only exposure to Sanders is through print media and what his supporters on this site say, and the politics they present is incredibly ugly and exclusionary. I understand that is not who Sanders is but who they are, but it's very difficult not to let it influence my view of the candidate they support.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Some of them are very pushy about it and dismissive.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)including by Clinton supporters. What I have not seen from them are the insults and contemptuous dismissal. You could say the same, but it wouldn't make it true.
So if all you care about it tit for tat, fine. I suspect most of this has nothing to do with the election and all about creating an in-crowd of people who see themselves as superior to the rest of humanity. As I told Rhett, I won't be applying for admission into the country club. I'll be staying in the kitchen with the help.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I look for the numbers. If the polices are in support of the working poor and the working class then that is where I put my support. I don't know anything about Rhett. I was working off of his arguments. If you know something that I do not then fine.
I do have a little difficulty buying into anyone that is making an all/none argument. I could find people that claim to support both candidates that are either doing a very bad job of arguing that. That you cannot makes me scratch my head a bit.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just ridiculous.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)After all, he wouldn't vote for a fascist would he?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Do you mind if i twitter the bernie sanders campaign your quot?
just in case rhett o rick
15. And we are willing to sell our souls to Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold for the ability
View profile
to say that. Haven't you learned that not all Democrats want to reduce poverty, save American jobs, punish torturers and war criminals? It isn't enough to have just any Democrat in the White House. It's important to have one that supports the people the 99% and not Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang. How far into poverty are you willing to let our children slide before you recognize that there are some Democrats that serve Wall Street and not Main Street?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)other candidate won't help the people. Maybe there will be some progress on social issues but not on the sweeping inequality that is literally killing the lower classes.
The Oligarchs want our resources. They don't care that we have 22% of our children living in poverty. If they are allowed to continue their quest to steal our resources, the poverty rate will climb.
Sen Sanders is the only candidate that is willing to fight Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)The Sanders campaign would likely use such a well thought, incisive quote...
"Vote for HRC and let the country slide right into fascism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)status quo won't change that course. The Sen Sanders campaign knows this and in fact, Sen Sanders is running to try to fix that.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)On that we agree.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Bernie Sanders would pick better justices than Hillary.
Senator Sanders stands a better chance in the general election than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton couldn't even beat the black man with a Muslim sounding name in the Democratic primaries, much less the generals.
Republicans want her as our candidate because they know they will slaughter us at the ballot box.
No Republican will cross over for Hillary. They will for Bernie. Many independents and new voters will get behind Bernie.
Bernie is better on social issues than Hillary And he stands above her on the economy, which is what this election will be about.
Hillary = oblivious
Bernie = gets it
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I know 22 who definitely will crossover!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I'm 28 ahead.
Get a grip.
beaglelover
(3,436 posts)POTUS. He will be absolutely crushed in the general election. Just because a group here on DU are very enthusiastic for him, the general population just needs to hear the word 'socialist' and Bernie is toast come election day. It really is not that difficult to understand that he is unelectable.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)my rude awakening came with my son's wife trapped on a plane not being able to land at DFW airport.
Her flight was due at 3:30 pm. It finally landed just after 11:pm.
Nothing you have to say concerns me.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And what caused that kind of a delay?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Tell me, what makes the republican lineup so magnificent?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Most people do not agree with you, btw.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)voted Rep. - this time he's very excited about Bernie.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Right now I am happy that my son and his wife are still alive.
brooklynite
(93,843 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)brooklynite
(93,843 posts)As you're probably aware, I do a lot of financial support of candidates and get a lot a requests, so I make my decisions based on cold hard crunching of data. I'll be happy to support the most progressive candidate of those who can actually get elected, but I need solid data that shows a path forward. I don't see one for Bernie and nobody's offered me one beyond "people are yearning" generalities.
840high
(17,196 posts)brooklynite
(93,843 posts)I'm a 1%er (not a boast; context); my wife and I are deep pockets funders for competitive Democrats nationwide (we'll probably spend about $100,000 this cycle). That means someone progressive like Warren in Massachusetts or Grayson in his safe district in Florida, but it means someone like Third Wayer Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire. It means I have close contacts with DCCC, DSCC and DGA; it also means I have close contacts with the Clinton campaign. And it means I do a lot of research into fundraising, polling and race ratings from a variety of sources. Bernie Sanders is a nice guy (I've had a private dinner with him), but his ability to raise the funds to compete in large States where retail campaigning is impractical appears limited, and his perceived left-wing stance is going to make him a harder sell in States that are more conservative than Vermont.
840high
(17,196 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)He is scared of HRC and hopes Bernie will win the primary enough that he recently expressed to me that he might register as a democrat for the primary so he can vote for him. I'm trying to promote that idea to encourage him.
On the other hand, every new voter and independent I encounter favors Bernie. As he gets more exposure, Bernie can only go up, whereas Hillary can only go down.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Bernie is the "Real Deal".
I will not be dissuaded by the "only Hillary can win" crap on DU.
There are way too many Third Way, Reagan Democrats on DU for my liking.
Paka
(2,760 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I disagree with most of the posts under your post here that are both pro-Hillary or pro-Bernie.
There are not that many hard core republican voters that are going to cross parties these days. Most of them inform themselves through Fox news and aren't really interested in debate or discussion. Where we can win is by getting our base fired up and by getting people that aren't as excited about politics enthusiastic about issues that the majority of people care about. Hell, if we could get the working poor to show up and vote then we could take a majority in both houses of congress.
When we start worrying about attracting supposedly moderate republicans we are already losing the fight strategically in order to make some tiny tactical victory. Any republican that still calls themselves a republican, given the current insanity of that party, isn't someone that is going to be convinced out of their theocratic, paranoid, randroid fantasy terribly easily.
840high
(17,196 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC has no special appeal, and gets no support that wouldn't automatically go to anyone else we chose.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Republicans want her to be our candidate.
It killed them when the black man with the Muslim sounding name beat them.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)appeal and if we were to make the mistake of falling again for the old 'but he can't win because he won't have the money' garbage, we will get a Republican in 2016.
All Bernie needs now is an introduction to the American people and the more people get to know him, the higher his polls are going. We have nearly a year to introduce him, without corporate money, to the people and I am confident he will win the primary and then easily defeat any one of the Right Wing clowns currently lining up for the WH race.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The primary will be what it will be. It doesn't matter if someone wins in the first month or at the convention. That person is still the winner. Would slowly "rejecting Bernie and crowning Hillary" make you feel better?
Principle is only a part of the consideration in a presidential race. That's why Kucinich never won a state in two attempts. He didn't even win a delegate in 2008.
We are all (mostly) the American people. We all have a say and we don't all agree with your narrative.
The comment about "every important issue will have been ruled on" is one of the worst thought out comments I have ever seen on DU. Nothing important will ever happen again? OK.
Too many Democrats want to feel good about losing. In your case you don't want to lose too quickly. But losing is still losing.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You don't even want to fight the good fight. Bernie is willing to do that and that's why so many of us are behind him. He won't accept defeat before he tries. And if everyone would rally behind him he won't be defeated. So why are you resigned to having him lose?
If people want what is truly good for this country and its people they will support Bernie. Supporting Hillary is compromising way too much and settling for another corporate centrist. That isn't going to bring this country back to where it needs to be.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)I haven't discouraged him from running or people from supporting him. I was just trying to find out what the OP meant by "quickly." Not that we really have any control over timing.
Do you think it is possible that people that want what is truly good for this country might support someone other than Bernie? Did you know some of those people even support republicans?
Your narrative about compromise and centrism is not universally accepted.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I appreciate you not discouraging him from running, but you did state to the OP that they just want to lose slower, which is kind of implying that. Also it is stating that there is no way Bernie can win and I disagree with that. I believe the people will get fired up with him. Unfortunately he will have the party leadership and the media working against him.
If you don't agree about compromise and centrism, make the case for how Hillary fights for the American people (whoever they are!) more than Bernie does, and how she is not centrist.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)And the OP doesn't speak for all of us. My interpretation of the OP was that it was important for Hillary to not win too quickly. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't think he has a good chance of winning, but Obama didn't have the best chance in 2008 and he pulled it out.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and positions, which are decidedly liberal.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)And if I post someone else's opinion I will include a link.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)and my opinion is right there with you.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)You're mistaking their enthusiasm for the notion of an unchallenged coronation. IOW, their non-excitement for other candidates doesn't equal unchallenged coronation.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)I don't think people realize that Bernie running helps Hillary in the long term. No one can say she wasn't challenged from the left. And if Bernie wins, great.
eloydude
(376 posts)derriere....
Just listen to the debates. If Clinton doesn't offer solutions, and Bernie offers better solutions, better choices, better path of things to get done, then do you want the same old crap we've had for the last 15 years, a stagnant Congress with a corporatist President, OR do you want to try to break the gridlock and get things done the way the people of America has been asking for the last 30-40 years?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Is sure turning me off. Luckily I love Sanders but still haven't made up my mind. Waiting for debates.
eloydude
(376 posts)Don't worry about the DU $CANDIDATE_OF_CHOICE supporters. They are but a small number of what reflects America, I guess. But social networking is a key piece that Bernie has effectively used to spread his message. You may be relying a dying medium to get your information, but for us, it's now on the 'Net.
Bernie has been doing this for a very long time, and I trust him to represent me and my ideals.
I know of Hillary because I had a relative working for the Clinton WH in the first term, and she enjoyed her experience there. I agreed with some of her policies, but there are key policies where Ms. Clinton and I differ. Foreign policy and economic policies is where I differ.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Your vote is your own but if a HRC supporter accuses you of having your lips glued to somebody's ass please let me know.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)"eloydude" does not speak for Bernie Sanders supporters as a group.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)Offensive to the Hillary supporters.. I suspect they may need this.....
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You are in good company.
eloydude
(376 posts)We Bernie supporters have the fire and the passion.
Where's the fire and the passion for Hillary supporters right now?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)No Hillary supporter on this board has ever accused a supporter of Bernie of having their lips glued to his ass. That was the most pathetic and childish thing I have ever read on this board and I have been around for a long time.
eloydude
(376 posts)and using the debunked excuses, and there's really no answer, then they start to pound you down with stupid garbage or find a distraction method, or Gish Gallop or whatever to beat you down.
brooklynite
(93,843 posts)The fact that you choose to ignore them isn't our fault.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No doubt, your petulant and peevish actions are thankfully not shared by Sanders-- or any other candidate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I won't be intimidated.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I am seeing lots of newbies for Bernie!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)On Mon May 25, 2015, 10:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Then you do have the right to change your mind, instead of Super-Gluing your mouth to HRC's
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6727729
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is over the top for a new poster making accusations all over this thread and can't back them up.
JaneyVee did not deserve this.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 25, 2015, 10:22 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Personal attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not sure what the alerter read into the post, but I am not seeing it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There were better ways to word that. Anyone newbie with 262 posts has had plenty of time to learn some DU netiquette.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Coming on a little strong, but it is a primary so gonna let it ride..
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Posters new or old all have the same rights on this board. If you don't like that then you need to refer to Skinner for further details.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh boo fucking hoo.......
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This poster is using crude, rude, offensive and abusive language to try to denigrate a DUer who doesn't deserve insult. I think the admins might want to think about instituting a program where new posters, especially, after getting a post hidden, have to digitally sign a document stating that they have read and understand the Terms of Service for this site, and if they don't do that, they can't post anymore. Skinner, Elad, EarlG--the trolling is getting out of hand. People who talk like this aren't Sanders supporters. Sanders would never talk like this and he would disavow anyone who did. HIDE.
eloydude
(376 posts)I like the idea.
The trolls are, indeed, getting out of hand.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)If you are lock, stock, and barrel for Hillary before the debates, and won't even consider other candidates, then it's a problem.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6621269
P.S., since that comment, Bernie's numbers have indeed risen, at the expense of Clinton.
It will only continue to rise as they see Bernie more and more... hence, my question: "What makes Hillary better than Bernie" - and I never get their arguments for Hillary.. only to demonize him... and quickly debunked...
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Build your own candidate up instead of disparaging Hillary and her supporters. My vote is none of your business!
brooklynite
(93,843 posts)In any event, what I'd learn in the debates is irrelevant. I have no issue with any of Bernie's positions. My concern is that he won't get elected to implement any of them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Just so you know you don't fool me!
zappaman
(20,605 posts)Again...
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and you're so bothered that a few support another candidate, you make up a scenario about a "coronation."
I cannot for the life of me understand why people can't just wait for the fucking primaries rather than playing fantasy presidential elections day in and day out on this site. Primaries are scheduled. They will take place. Candidates will run against Clinton. Those are facts. The results will be decided by those voters, and amazingly they actually let some people vote who aren't on DU! Whatever scenario you concoct in your head has no bearing on those elections. I don't see what the point of this sort of nonsense is.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Do you lie in wait so that you can exercise your poison pen?
Can you just let people express themselves without all the fucking vituperation?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)How dare I discuss the actual elections.
Put me on ignore. I have as much of a right to respond as anyone.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You do not address the issue, the question of the OP.
It is a spiteful, poisonous attack on the nature of the poster.
That's the issue.
And if what you say is true, if personal questions such as your 'For the life of me, I don't know why people like you write such things!' are all fine, there is no problem with me responding similarly to your response.
Ad nauseum.
My point is, if you don't like the OP's question, why don't you just not respond. Why do you have to spew poison everywhere?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)If you don't like that , well that's too damn bad.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Which does not conform to reality. You made a personal attack based on nothing but personal animus. I get you don't think I have a right to speak in public. Tough shit. I don't care.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You attacked with great venom against the OP personally.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I asked for a list of posters who are demanding a coronation and all I got was obscurantism, casuistry, and sophistry as responses.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Can you just let people express themselves without all the fucking vituperation?:
Bemusing that you hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to. No doubt, you rationalize a wonderfully creative distinction without a difference to better maintain that pretense.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)money to see that Clinton is elected. Doesn't that set off any warning bells? Rhetorical question. Some don't care about the state of the nation as long as their authoritarian leader wins. They don't care that 22% of American children live in poverty but are willing to give Goldman-Sachs more government money. Those that support Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang don't support the 99%.
There are two sides to this class war and Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Gang are not on our side. Whose side are you on?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)You want to do away with elections? I am not engaged in the great and noble struggle of the 10 percent vs. the 1 percent. In fact, I don't give even a little shit about the imperious upper-middle class that goes around insulting the poor and people of color. I stand with the poor and subaltern, against the class project of white upper-middle and middle-class that works to subordinate the majority for their own economic benefit, while tossing out a few foodstamps to the poor to placate them.
I do not stand with people who talk about taking America back to the days of "real Democrats," when those Democrats also supported Jim Crow and the denial of rights to the majority of Americans. I stand against the elite who wants to return America to a time when their race and class prospered at the expense of the majority. I stand with the working class, the poor, and people of color--not the self entitled country club set who treats those groups with disdain. I stand against people who think they and they alone determine political priorities, who refer to African Americans as "uninformed" because they don't support their choice for a political position.
Anyone who so imperiously dismisses the rights of the majority to make their own political decisions and insults anyone who doesn't set everything aside to promote their own class interests is a side I want no part of. Sanders biggest liability is some of his supporters, and people like you are working assiduously to turn as many voters off as possible. No wonder you don't want elections. You merely want to substitute yourself and those exactly like you as the new political elite. You have no more concern for the lives of the majority than do the bankers, and your continual dismissal and insults demonstrate that.
I am not on the side of Goldman Sachs and the self-entitled elite, which is why I will never be on your side. That after all is what you want, isn't it? You can't possibly think that insulting people less privileged than yourselves is actually going to bring people to your cause. It only serves to exclude, which is precisely your goal.
I will not applying for membership in the country club. Instead, I stand with the help--where I came from--looking forward to the day when the self-entitled get their due.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)about. I think that's called a Strawman Argument.
I asked whose side you are on in this terrible class war? Goldman-Sachs' and the Clinton billionaire club's or on the side of the people?
beaglelover
(3,436 posts)immature and idealistic. I do admire their enthusiasm and hope they remain enthusiastic and vote for the D candidate even if that is HRC. Time will tell.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... went door to door for Bobby Kennedy. And I don't mean junior.
Assumptions are for fools.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)win the hearts and mind of voters.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Which is older and whiter than the majority of the nation. Clearly Sanders has many supporters who are not young, but seniors and middle-aged.
840high
(17,196 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(59,940 posts)thank you!
JI7
(89,172 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)to appoint SCOTUS justices. By saying that they are ignoring the fact that we have a primary and in that primary have the choice of several Dems, ALL of which would be appointing justices when elected president.
So I agree with the frustration of people not waiting for the "fucking primaries". In fact, I'm MORE frustrated because I see people refusing to even acknowledge that the primary exists!
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)than Sanders supporters on this site.
I would agree such posts are likewise nonsensical. People will, and should, vote for whomever they choose in the primary. I hope that in the general that all get on board with the nominee, whomever ends up being selected.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I agree that no one has the primary until the votes are counted.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Since there are considerably fewer Clinton supporters, there are fewer pro-Clinton threads and comments. So the angst appears to be over the opinion of an even smaller subset within that small group of Clinton supporters. It appears to me that people have trouble with the fact that support for their own candidate isn't unanimous.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)against the GOP right now.
I will admit that I do have trouble with the fact that politically 'active' Dems would go for another corporate Dem rather than one who fights for the people against the banskters and huge corporations.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)in who gets the nomination, as though that itself is transformative. I just don't think it matters that much. The problems in our society are far more pervasive than a single election or a single presidency. Focusing so obsessively on that office ignores the profound role that money plays in our political system by reducing it to a contest among two members of the political elite. I can imagine there were similar discussions eight years ago, similar claims, and Clinton wasn't elected. Yet did the role of money in politics lessen? No, it got worse, and it will continue to get worse as long as people keep pretending the next president can change it.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Nothing will change...so we might as well elect HRC.
Just surrender and learn to love oligarchy.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)the individual president, less so.
What does electing Sanders do about the fact we live under a capitalist state, what you call oligarchy? Why would you imagine something like oligarchy is altered by a president?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Willing to try.
And then there is that thing about faith in the voting system...if people believe like you that it makes no difference what president is elected that we are fucked no matter what, they don't vote...why bother?...and the GOP wins because they don't feel that way at all...they understand that it does matter. That a president with the desire to change things can.
And if people have faith in someone they will come out to vote and the 60% who do not vote do and when they do democrats win at the polls not just for president but congress too.
The president is the leader of the party, and if the president does not want to change things then the party does not matter.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so, your particular problem is i address someone that say they will only vote sanders and if hillary wins they will not vote for her.
this is what your problem?
well. i tell you. each and every time i see a poster say
i wont vote clinton. let the rat bastard repugs win
i will say something
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It would be like nullifying our principles, our pressure. It would be the left committing suicide.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Also this here:
That a couple of(probably meaningless by 2016, since every important issue will have been ruled on by then) seats on the Supreme Court
Yes, the Supreme Court--a life time appt--meaningless. What the fuck universe did I stumble into?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(other than through legislation forced through by massive grassroots action)
The Voting Rights Act is reduced to nothingness(and again can only be restored through mass activism).
After that, there's nothing else SCOTUS could possibly deal with that could matter. There simply aren't any major future issues it could ever address that could possibly outweigh having more Middle Eastern blood on our hands.
Same-sex marriage will be the end of SCOTUS' importance. Court seats in an era when the Court will be forever irrelevant aren't worth our souls and anyone's lives.
Besides, HRC doesn't get votes no other Dem couldn't get.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)candidates fall in all this? You seem to have left them out. As if the only two that are running are Hillary and Bernie.
As for your answer on the SCOTUS--your 'whatever it doesn't matter' attitude is dangerous. Both Hillary & Bernie have said they'd work to overturn Citizens United--I'm sure the other candidates will too.
How nice for you that you can be so cavalier about the SCOTUS--I won't. Middle Eastern blood is more important than women in back alleys. I can't make that choice, I kinda want both to not happen, but that's just me.
I think I'll wait before declaring anyone a winner/loser etc. I'd like to hear from all the candidates.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And that SCOTUS appointments justify accepting conservatism of almost everything else.
No disrespect to the other Dems was intended...it's just that, at this stage of the race, none of them seem to be registering with the voters yet.
And what I said was that SCOTUS will never overturn Citizens United, not that it can't be overturned at all.
The fight for change and the progressive cause is now permanently outside of the court system.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)into denmark with repug house and senate?
is this what you are saying?
we gotta hire sanders, cause he will be able to do all that.
and it oes not matter if we hire clinton cause the supreme crt? meh...
fuck. really dudes. do not tell me the populist is not everything i have been saying it is.
this is become blatantly unrealistic and insulting and controlling.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Thank you in advance.
eloydude
(376 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I have all night.
I would say a whole lot more but I don't want to run afoul of the terms of service.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I don't like people making shit up about me...
eloydude
(376 posts)"The One" to elect to save the Democratic Party. Oh! SUPREME COURT! Oh! But Bernie's UNELECTABLE! Oh! But Bernie's a SOCIALIST!!!!! SCARY SOCIALIST!!!!
That, to me, shows that you are firmly stuck in the Hillary camp, without any consideration for other candidates that are currently running, which includes Bernie, and his policies and stances on issues are FAR better than Hillary than it will ever be.
The fact that Hillary is heavily entrenched with the 1%, and is palsy-walsy with some of the most disgusting human beings put forth on the planet has me questioning her loyalties to the progressives. Is she for the progressives, or is she giving lip service to the progressives? I suspect the latter.
I'm sorry, I'm not buying what candidate Hillary is selling me, and I certainly know what President Hillary will probably most likely do, and it'll not favor the 99%.
I don't think she has begun to understand income inequality, and it is still a huge issue that is unanswered, specifically, by her.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)You got nothing! Quite frankly, our support for Hillary isn't really any of your business now is it?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)You and your cronies are trying to bully the rest of us into submission. That's not how I roll in real life and it's damn sure not how I roll on the "internets".
The only ones who ever told me what to do was my mom and dad and they are both dead.
LuvLoogie
(6,854 posts)Are you calling her supporters serfs and vassals?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ridiculous post.
eloydude
(376 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)yeah, ok. bridge sale, something like that.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)It's pusillanimous behavior.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)substantiate that with links.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I didn't forget nor will I.
eloydude
(376 posts)Bernie's issues are outstanding, and poll numbers continue to rise, media can't ignore him much longer.
That's what all the Hillary supporters are avoiding this question: "Why Hillary over Bernie?"
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you can not you need to apologize.
eloydude
(376 posts)Sorry, hrmjustin.
All I can find is references of you not minding Sander in the primary, and only think it can make your *cough* nominee *cough* "stronger".
Somehow, I disagree with that premise.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You have a pleasant evening.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)HRC's polling is dominant and formidable. HRC has a proven record and an excellent resume. HRC is an extremely strong candidate. That's why.
eloydude
(376 posts)I don't think HRC is capable of doing that. She is currently in a "shell" mode - insulating herself from the real world, and not really understanding the issues of income inequality. What's YOUR issue that you care deeply about that Hillary is better than Bernie?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Senator Sanders will win.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)beaglelover
(3,436 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He was out of line in what he said above.
I was proving that Bernie supporters don't support the kind of things he does.
Guys like that don't listen to politeness.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)SCOTUS justices. That implies there is no primary or the primary is hers already.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Saying Hillary is the only one who can win is not calling for a coronation.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)will appoint SCOTUS justices.
That is not saying she is the only one who can win. That is skipping the primary entirely.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Seriously, you are losing it over Hillary. I used to think you were reasonable but these responses and your 'mischief' - to put it extremely lightly - in that other thread leave me with a completely different take on you. Also the fact that you told me you were completely decided on HRC no matter who else entered the race, showing a closed mindedness.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Mistaken!
GOODBYE!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Some of us are honest. Some, not so much.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)clinton if she WINS the PRIMARY
argue what is being said. do not make up an argument to argue for a win
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Compared to the epithets some Sanders supporters throw out like candy that's actually mild.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Getting sick of being insulted.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Meet me in the Hillary Forum!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)That is their raison d'etre, to chase everybody who disagrees with them from this site. If this was real life I would tell those trying to make me leave when I have a right to stay what I have told every bully since I was eight years old; make me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)A few days.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I live in one of the biggest cities in the nation and we are either nice to each other or leave each other alone.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DU is going places right now that i don't like.
Not saying i am not without faukt but i did not deserve the crap I got in this thread.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I have had conversations with people of all races and all walks of life. Even if they say something I disagree with it I don't insult or disrespect them.
MY aunt used to live on Flatbush Avenue and my grandfather in Brighton Beach. I hear Brooklyn is a hip place now.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I wouldn't know the south from the east...
Isn't Williamsburg hip?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)Where is Barclays?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I am really a Floridian by way of NY as a child.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)around this web site, lying about what posters have said and DEMANDING that pro-Hillary posters state why they support her (as if they have the fucking right to demand anything) is shocking.
I'm honestly starting to think that it's no way these are legitimate Sanders supporters. No way in hell.
JI7
(89,172 posts)about attacking other democrats.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)It seems to me that this arguing is merely going to hurt whoever is the candidate and DU in the end and there will still be a primary even if we all continue to try to destroy each other for the next 18 months.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)responded to something different than what I actually responded to?
Don't play innocent. That was a very intentional move. You apologized for "being wrong" but not for doing the wrong thing, the dishonest edit. You said you looked at it again and saw that you were wrong, but you knew you were editing a post that I had already responded to, it was quite some time after you had responded to me again. Apparently you thought you could get away with it.
As to the closed mindedness, well, you did say no matter what, your mind was made up for Hillary and that was before anyone else had announced at all. That is closed minded. How is it not? It's not an insult, it's a fact.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)No matter who else entered the race it didn't matter. That is closed minded. Has nothing to do with who I support, it has to do with being open to the new possibilities, especially when the country's future is at stake.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)because he decided what democratic candidate he supports?
wrong!!!!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Please quote me.
Thanks!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)clinton, he must must must give others a chance or well, you know... closed minded.
you know exactly what you did in your post
cui bono
(19,926 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)And pointing out a fact is not an insult, it's an observation.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)make yourself the victim. just no.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Please quote me.
Thanks!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Ah, so you don't hold yourself up to any standard you attempt to force onto others even though the other person never made the statements and demands you claim they did?
Good to know.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is clear to everyone reading this thread.
and your little run of gotcha gotcha? not so much.
i can stand with what has been posted.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Some want me to change candidates but this never going to happen.
Response to cui bono (Reply #224)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)All except for the literal meaning, that is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If a poster says he wants to smack Hillary in the back of the head is he advocating for violence against Hillary
Note to jury this happened they other day here on DU.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)A return question: If a poster makes a passive aggressive insinuation, is he a gutless coward?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... you won't see me saying i want to hit things.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Yup, that's exactly what I would expect from someone supporting Hillary in the Primaries against a man that was opposed to the war that KILLED and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and ruined the lives of many, many more times than that FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.
Congratulations at your comically inappropriate sense of proportion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)death and not iraq.
And i completely agree with you the Iraq war was wrong and i lost a cousin in the war almost 10 years ago.
I completely understand your anger at war but my reaction against war is not to want to hit someone in the head.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I am sorry to hear that you are supporting someone in the Primaries (when you have a clear choice) that was partially responsible for your cousin's tragic death and is, in fact, much more likely to proceed with another "popular" war when the need arises than would Bernie Sanders.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)similar to how you have judged me, the big difference being that I am not asking for your trust that I should be at the helm of the most destructive military force in Earth's history.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But if you think the answer to someone saying something you don't like is to smack them then you are wrong.
Vote for Sanders and say Hillary 7s wrong. That is whwt this site is for.
But when you say things like you did the other day you will be called out on it.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You are, to me, a poser.
Your sense of moral outrage about "violence" (smacks to friends and thought crimes) is belied by the ease with which you pave over truly monumental acts of violence.
Your parting "Then don't vote for her" is really going out with a whimper.
Vote as YOU like as well, but do not expect that YOU will not be called out for your own little part in actual, real death and misery.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Please proceed sir if you can.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You have a choice here, before the GE, to vote for someone who neither votes for the continued use of cluster munitions nor votes for giving a blank check to clear madmen from the opposition party to go to war.
And yet, you have made up your mind.
THAT is why your sanctimony rings so false and you give the impression of being a poser, as opposed to an honest person with flaws.
Such is the case with religious people in many cases, I am afraid.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I feel so ashamed.
i mean how could i be so foolish!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Once a poster responds with that, it is actually quite pathetic.
No, of course, you can have a different opinion.
But calling you out, that's what we do, right? Right?
When we feel it is "justified" I mean.
And I'm pretty sure that it's justified when we're discussing decisions of great moment as opposed to thought crimes and head slaps between friends 30 years ago. Right?
Your sense of perspective has got to be at least that functional, I think.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)undisturbed by war and cluster bombs blowing off the hands of little children.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Night.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)What a sanctimonious pile of crap.
Someone suggested sending Sanders links to some of the bile that is spewed in his name. This would be a perfect choice.
I feel certain he would be sickened by what some of his supporters say. You all seem determined to ensure as few people vote for him as possible. I have never seen any group of people less effective at championing a candidate in my life. All you do is insult. and you clearly are furious that anyone dares to hold an opinion you do not control.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)issues, and so much more. just the absurdity the argument has become.
i stay a sanders supporter regardless of all this shit. but you know.... what a turn off. it is a turn off for me. it is a fuckin turn off. and the irony? this is a thread, and sander supporter posts..... DEMANDING sander be given a chance as they do everything to insult and dismiss the very people they make this demand off.
it is fuckin theater. a tragic Shakespeare. tragic, or brilliant in the irony.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You've insisted(based solely on what people in that "populist" group, a group that is not a Bernie Sanders group)that people who back economic justice don't care about fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
It's been repeated shown that Bernie supporters all join you in insisting on fighting the oppressions you fight against, yet you won't stop pretending that you're being persecuted.
Please stop. We are on your side and there isn't an argument here. Please, for the love of everybody, just stop.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"fighting racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. "
YOU started an OP with... meh, to supreme court.
please STOP, telling me you are on my side.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Can you really imagine any issues ever coming to the court AFTER the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and after the likely death of Roe that will ever provide any chance of a victory for those of us who fight against oppression?
The Court will have dealt with everything by then. Even if we do get to appoint more justices, they'll be nothing left for them to decide about. That's all I'm saying.
We'll have to fight in other venues.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)friendly to minorities.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)which is what the populist are doing continuously and has us others speaking out.
i never.... NEVER said sanders would not also put in a good supreme crt choice. EVER. got that? do you HEAR that yet????
i am fuckin supporting the man and if i did not think he would EQUALLY take care of the supreme crt, i would NOT being supporting him.
does that make sense to you?
YOU are the one that threw the supreme crt away in YOUR argument and what i addressed.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in your accusations will take you a LONG way
RandySF
(57,612 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)and chose to elect HRC instead.
The rest is just your opinion.
HRC is not unchallenged, and nobody is saying she is entitled to anything.
As of this date, however, the majority of democratic voters prefer her.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hillary is center while Bernie is left. If we don't fight for Bernie we will put the nail in the coffin of the Dem Party as a party for the working people.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)HRC is left.
There really isn't much difference between the two candidates, except that HRC has more experience and is killing it in the polls.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There is so much more difference than that.
Hillary is a hawk, Bernie is a dove.
Hillary has lots of ties to Wall Street. She appointed a Monsanto person to a position on her campaign. Bernie fights Wall Street and wants them regulated and prosecuted.
Bernie is killing it in the polls too. He rose 10 points in a week or so and he hasn't even really started his campaign yet.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)And polls show that Democrats who are very left, and moderately left, are supporting her. She is winning in every single demographic there is. By very large margins, to boot.
The wall street and Monsanto stuff is silly. But I will grant you that Senator Sanders was right on Iraq.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)not Wall Street. And her record clearly shows that.
Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)Can doves win in 2016? I think people will be some amped up about ISIS and international affairs that someone perceived as weak on defense will have trouble.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)thats all I hear and it reminds me of adolescence .
KMOD
(7,906 posts)That is important in elections. People vote for people they respect and admire.
She has a wonderful record and has been a tremendous advocate for the Democratic party.
mythology
(9,527 posts)By being more popular and thus generating more votes.
I haven't made up my mind who to support as I'm not sure who all is running yet other than Senators Sanders and Clinton, but I don't think we should crown anybody yet. The primaries/caucuses will determine who has the most support among Democratic primary voters. That is the one who should be the nominee.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Mouthing of other candidates. It sure does not help Bernie. I am backing Hillary but I don't think Bernie is the type of guy who says things about others like this, maybe I do mot have a good picture of Bernie.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Even if you think they are all negative, which you seem to think since you think they are bad mouthing. In which case I would have to wonder why you support her.
When sizing up candidates one must look at the strengths and weaknesses of each, the good and the bad of each.
But there have been a lot of posts where people are just giving her the primary.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)as a pro-Wall Street candidate who is a former lawyer for Walmart, paid speaker for Goldman Sachs and principal architect behind the DLC and Third Way corporate centered group known as the New Democrats.
Just because these organizations continue to be very, very bad for America by working against the best interests of the majority of Americans, doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)I will tell you that I have never run a negative political ad in the state of Vermont in my life. People of Vermont know that. I just don't think that that's what politics is about. So, will I criticize Hillary Clinton on her position of TPP, or the lack of position? Will I criticize her on her views of Wall Street? Will I criticize her on foreign policy? That's what democracy is about. But taking cheap shots at people, making it personal, I don't think that's what politics should be about.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/05/24/sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt-to-brian-stelter-on-cnns-reliable-sources-you-have-abc-cbs-and-nbc-not-devoting-one-minute-to-the-most-significant-trade-agreement-in-the-history-of-the-usa/
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to do with issues. it is the drama of it that is being used to attack the supporters of clinton. not clinton issues.
that is a poor way to run a campaign. i have been saying this since sanders declared. that is how sander supporters on du, have taken the race. not issues.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)some of us do not take that very seriously.
we keep telling you all. you keep demanding we not take the supreme court seriousy.
when we say no, you call us names.
ya
taking that seriously, i say in very heavy sarcasm and emphatic, .... no!
onecaliberal
(32,478 posts)Forever.
840high
(17,196 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)call this being moderate and electable.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)sanders.
you do not get to make obama null and void with wallstreet or bankers any more than you get to make the clinton, before she has done anything.
i am for sanders. i will get my supreme court, and will be interesting to watch him attempt to do something about
corporate
wallstreet
bankers
i do not think he willl be a lot different in middle east. obama thought he could do more. he did only so much.
but there is a lot of myth in what a clinton presidency would be.
duers are allowed to address the myth being created.
AGAIN
i am a sanders supporter
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)concession of our constitution to foreign corporations, low wages, and privatization of everything, as long as abortion rights are preserved (of course Sanders would also preserve abortion rights, but try not to mention that)
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)proves to be politically convenient at any particular moment in time among the Wall Street corporations who pay her speaking fees, which are about $300,000 more than a dime.
Who wouldn't be happy about that sort of yoga-like, pretzel-twisting flexibility?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)which. The hyper rich have done a masterful job of selling her and the president as liberals, at least to those who want to believe
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)They always are. They are not ever anything that resembles a debate in the meaningful sense of the word.
And that applies to both parties.
I honestly don't understand how the HRC supporters come up with the idea that only she can win the election in November, 2016. What, exactly, is their proof here? All the many general elections she won in the past? Her overwhelming march to the nomination in 2008?
The reality is, that any reasonable (by which I mean any of the possible nominees so far) Democrat stands a decent chance of winning in 2016, with various caveats. The very most important of which is that the good voters of this country tend to want to change parties after 8 years. The other is, it will depend on who the specific nominees are. On both sides.
There is also a charming, if naive, assumption on the part of Clinton's supporters that there is such a huge desire for a woman President that women will almost without exception vote for her. No. They won't. All the Democrats will, of course, if she is the nominee. But Republicans? No. They won't. They will be so unhappy that the first woman at the top of the ticket is a Democrat, they'll come out in vast numbers to vote against her. And that's not taking into consideration all the very conservative and religious people who sincerely believe a woman has absolutely not place in higher office. None of them will vote for her.
Then there's all the baggage she carries. It's not fair, but every failing of Bill Clinton will fall upon her. All of his sexual escapades. Then there's Benghazi. Then there's the claim she was fired for being too partisan during the Watergate thing. None of those should have anything to do with her candidacy, and as for me, none of them have any affect on whether or not I vote for her. But I don't watch Fox News. I have a reasonable understanding of what has happened all these years.
No. Hillary Clinton is by no means a shoo-in to the Presidency. And even her most enthusiastic supporters need to understand this, especially if they hope to see her nominated and then to win the election.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They'll even dig up Vince Foster...and I don't mean metaphorically.
Why put ourselves through all of that AGAIN?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)who will be putting ourselves through that shit. It will be the outsiders, the Republicans who will do so. Which is why all those who support HRC need to be very mindful of this, who need to be willing and able to counter all this crap. If they are not, if they just keep on repeating the mantra "Hillary is the only Democrat who can win in 2016" they will not win. They (more to the point, HRC) will lose and her supporters will be completely bamboozled as to why that has happened.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Any so-called democrat that has the balls to get on a democratic board and say that the next SCOTUS openings are unimportant is either a total idiot or a republican trolling this board.
Lets get down to reality shall we? You Bernie purists can talk all the BS you want, you can insult Hillary voters, AKA the vast majority of democratic voters, all you want. You can keep on using Rush Limbaugh's and Fox news lies and innuendo against Hillary.
But.....on these dates next year.
This is where your bullshit ends!
Monday, February 1: Iowa caucus
Tuesday, February 9: New Hampshire
Saturday, February 20: South Carolina
Tuesday, February 23: Nevada caucus
Tuesday, March 1: Colorado caucuses; Massachusetts; Minnesota caucuses; Oklahoma; Tennessee; Texas; Vermont; Virginia; North Carolina
What will make it perfect is after these dates, when Bernie concedes to Hillary, he will, wait for it, endorse her for President! And so will Senator Warren!
And OMG I will laugh my ass off when it happens! I will be taking many victory laps on this board for sure!
So keep spewing your garbage on DU because you are doing NOTHING to help Bernie get the nomination while you waste time here insulting your fellow democrats and making enemies!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)FUCK the supreme crt
no. we do want to be inclusive!!! how dare one suggest otherwise
surpeme is insiginifant!!! a third of our govt, that will help the oppressed and poor does NOT matter.!!!!
we want your support! no, we demand you support us!!!
for a month we have been having this argument. my head spins.... at the absurdity and audacity of this argument.
*now, i will continue reading your post*
yes.
and so will i.
i wont laugh. i will not dance. i will roll up my sleeves and jump enthusiastically into the campaign. and if i come across some ass doing a dance or laughing at me, they will get a finger and i will continue on with the work
this primary is an easy victory for me be it sanders or hillary. i am going to enjoy it.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)and declare their eternal loyalty to somebody they will write in.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Why I bet some for these fine liberal folks will go republican after that, I bet you!
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)well played, sir. well played.
JI7
(89,172 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)She never fought for either of those groups as First Lady, in the Senate, or as SOS.
JI7
(89,172 posts)if it's just about supporting a front runner ?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those groups backed Bill early on, even though they knew he was basically running on a promise to keep them out in the cold. They figured he'd win in name and a lot of Dems, in the early 90's, were willing to settle for just electing somebody who called himself a Dem.
JI7
(89,172 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's not as though either Clinton ever deserved the support of any non-millionaires. They proved what side they were on, once and for all, when they fought for NAFTA with ten times the passion they ever displayed about healthcare.
JI7
(89,172 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In the Chicago mayor's race, blacks voted for the conservative white incumbent who'd spent his whole first term shitting on them against the progressive challenger-and did so, from what I can see, solely because Obama wanted to save the conservative(pro-corporate is always equal to conservative)white guy out of personal loyalty(never mind that said conservative white dude spent most of his time as White House chief of staff fighting to make the administration agenda as non-progressive and anti-people as possible). Go figure.
For that matter, working-class whites often vote for the economic royalist candidate against their own interests because they've been convinced that holding down people who don't look like them is more important than actually preserving their own standard of living.
JI7
(89,172 posts)this time than he did last time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's not arrogance, it's simply the belief that all have the right to make themselves heard.
Excuse me for not being deferential to anyone's belief in their own intrinsic superiority over all others.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and claimed, based on no evidence, that they want to go with the front runner. You refuse to even consider the possibility that they do know who supports their interests and who doesn't. The fact that you folks dismiss huge swaths, in fact the majority, of the population as inferior to yourselves is why you will not succeed. When you lack the basic respect to listen and consider what huge swaths of the population care about, you advance a politics of the few by the few. That turns people off. You are certainly not anywhere close to the worst offender. But that dismissal of African Americans and Latinos above is not wise, and it's something they are quite likely to see as hostile exclusion. That is at least suggested in the comments by some African American members to similar comments in a thread on recent polling data. They have described it as seeing them as inferior, not intelligent enough to know their own interests. Perhaps you ought to consider that your and their interests are not the same, and therefore your candidate may not be as appealing to them. If you want to persuade anyone to support your candidate, you need to seriously reevaluate your approach.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the absolute rejection of what other grown adults are saying. this OP alone, totally rejects the third body of our politics. the one that helps the poor and minorities.
totally rejects it and says
what? dont get it.
amazing. going thru this thread, they totally knocked me on my ass, stupefied that they argue so blatantly and with insult, whole swaths of democratic voters.
ya know
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)All the OP says is that getting Supreme Court appointments doesn't justify accepting non-progressive policies on other things. The battle against oppression can't be won in the Supreme Court anyway, no matter how many justices we appoint...it can only be won from below, through continued mass action and grassroots pressure. The Reagan/Bush judicial appointments of the last thirty-four years have made it impossible to ever get a progressive judicial system in this country again.
We need to fight at the ballot box and carry the struggle for justice on in the streets.
The Supreme Court can't be worth accepting perpetual war in the Middle East. War is the ultimate oppression. No one can truly be freed while people are dying on battlefields in wars fought for oil. That's why the Great Society stopped...staying in Vietnam killed it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I simply said I didn't know why some people made the choices they made. The poster who was pressing me about that was trying to get me to say that the interests of those groups could be fairly represented by the less-progressive candidate, when we both know it never is.
I don't regard anyone as inferior to me. I simply rejected the idea that the less-progressive candidate was ever the best choice for their interests. I also think that the less-progressive candidate never represents the true interests of white working-class voters either.
Am I supposed to say that, if the majority of a certain group makes a certain choice, that choice can't ever be questioned?
My interests are not different than the interests of African-American, Latino, or LGBTQ voters. We all get screwed anytime the less-progressive candidate gets elected. That's all I'm saying.
seabeyond's whole argument with me is based on a myth...for some reason, she thinks that Bernie Sanders and Bernie's supporters don't care about racism, sexism, homophobia, trans phobia or any other form of group oppression. She has no reason to think that, since Bernie's record on all of those issues is better than HRC's or anyone else's in the race, and since Bernie's supporters, as the left of the party, are by definition going to be more committed to fighting oppression than centrists ever would be, and are better than Obama's own history in terms of actual voting record and principles. Obama has done some good things, but he puts the rich ahead of the people at least half the time...no one can seriously dispute that.
And I'm not even attacking Obama, nor is anybody else who backs Bernie, from what I can see.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)And of Hillary?
akbacchus_BC
(5,700 posts)You either vote for Ms. Clinton or a stupid ass rethug. Your choice. As a Canadian, I cannot vote for Hilary but why the fuck you guys have to choose between two evils. We have three parties here in Canada, Justin is not ready yet! Our population is smaller, yours is bigger, why the fuck you all have only two parties?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)who is running as a Democrat, and who has consistently worked with Democrats as a Senator while working to pull them to represent populist causes rather than corporatist causes.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, if so I welcome a clarification.
Sanders is an excellent choice for Democrats. I can see how people would suck it up and vote for Hillary in the general election if she wins the primary, but I cannot see significant policy reasons for choosing Hillary over Bernie, and her supporters in this thread have, as usual, offered virtually no such reasons to support her.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you will not hear clinton supporters say, fuck the third branch of our govt. doesnt matter.
progressive vs populists see significance of shoring up supreme crt. hence, the minority vote. but hey... do not listen to me, even though i have been repeatedly stating supreme crt is my number one issues, over populist causes.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I have no doubt about that. Seems odd to me that you wouldn't see that, or that you wouldn't agree, but you're entitled your opinion, however mistaken it seems to me.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you made up an argument, to argue.
meh...
the OP dismisses supreme crt. no.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)so your response to me was misguided. I do not agree with the OP's position on the SCOTUS.
The most compelling argument I've seen for supporting Hillary is that we must not let a Republican make appointments to the SCOTUS. It is rather desperate and sad when a candidate's supporters need to pull the SCOTUS fear card to show a reason to support him or her, but I agree that the SCOTUS is important. That is, however, an argument for supporting her in the general election, if she gets the nomination, not an argument for supporting her in the primary.
I have confidence that Bernie can and will win the general election if he gets past Hillary in the primary.
Hillary supporters seem to use an argument of "electability" for supporting her. First, I don't agree that she is more electable than Bernie, she has a lot of problems in the electorate, and a lot of corrupting influences in her campaign war chest, which will greatly diminish the value of getting her elected. Also a lot of the country hates Clintons, perhaps as many as hate Bushes. Bernie is an honest public servant, we know who he will be working for, ad he will win over a lot of voters that Hillary cannot.
I see little chance that he beats Hillary in the primary, for all the wrong reasons. I will work for him, so will others, we could use more on our side, stranger things have happened, let's run on our principles and our values for once rather than holding our nose for someone who is better than a Republican but not by much.
Democrats have clearly shown that they don't fight back hard enough against corporate-friendly policies when a Democrat is pushing those policies.
still_one
(91,938 posts)there have been independents who have one federal elections, and third party candidates who have one local elections.
In order for a third party to become prevalent though, they need to start locally, move up to the state level, and then the federal level, and that takes time.
In 2000 Nader ran as a third party candidate, and no matter what the argument is of who won or didn't win that election, the result of his candidacy was a spoiler.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the primary race has gotten going. i still have to wait.... still listening. but, i support sanders position a little more, ... though there is some i support clinton. i am siding with sanders.
hillary clinton is not evil.
still_one
(91,938 posts)more potential candidates in the primaries.
As for your comment regarding the SC, you are way off base to project that "every important issue will have been ruled on by then". That is simply NOT the case.
To your point regarding getting money out of politics or the rich, ignores the fact that until publicly financed elections become a reality, it takes a lot of money to win elections. That is how they get their message out by advertising, and that takes money
As for the "four more years of things not getting worse is the best we can do?", yes, sometimes it is.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)quickesst
(6,280 posts)no HRC supporter has done that, and as far as I can tell will not do that. vote for whoever the fuck you want and quit whining about something that's not happening. the only time coronation is mentioned is when HRC haters bring it up. another manufacured excuse to keep whining. Drag yourself away from the pity party and start supporting your candidate in a positive manner. might make you feel better about yourselves.
quaker bill
(8,223 posts)but this is the result we are likely to get anyway. I think your characterization of HRC is over the top. She is not that bad. I prefer Bernie, but will happily vote HRC in the general.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Is there a strong, collective opinion that everyone except Clinton should drop out? Or is the sentiment merely shared by only a small few, yet advertised as a lion's roar to gain some traction and attention...?
MineralMan
(146,190 posts)People will vote for their choice. There will even be other candidates in the mix, most likely.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)road
damn bench, well played. to turn off more to your side. rah populist.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Don't associate me with them.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)and her policies than the other candidates. It's really very simple.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)and possibly eight years.
That's what I say when I reject Bernie in favor of Hillary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)brooklynite
(93,843 posts)Who is stopping Bernie from running, keeping out of the news or "coronating" Hillary Clinton?
There seems to be an inordinate amount of sensitivity to the suggestion that Sanders won't be as competitive as his supporters hope he'll be.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)then they would not need to post so many threads each day saying he doesn't have a chance.....
I personally don't think HRC could win in the general election. She will inevitably say something foolish again like when she was on her reintroduction book tour.....
Response to peacebird (Reply #276)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Response to peacebird (Reply #285)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and thinking, that does not sound like you over the years. so i really was attributing something to you, that should not have been. i am glad i made the mistake. when names are close, i have a tough time separating. will try and keep this in my mind, in the future.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)You frame the issue in terms of, "My candidate is just as good as yours," and that's OK, but it goes beyond that. The Democratic Party should have a "real" primary. This means caucuses and primaries should be run fairly, so that candidates appear on the ballot and have a shot at getting the number of votes approximately in proportion to how well they campaign. Of course, many primaries are run by the state parties, and Hillary Clinton's supporters can be expected to "freeze out" Bernie Sanders in some states. His name may not appear on the ballot at all, and may appear only as an independent in some places. If this happens, and it probably will, it's due to the effective, efficient Clinton campaign machine and its determination to "sweep" her into office. That's normal. That's what campaign organizations do. They try to crush the competition.
This time, it might be a good thing for the Clinton people to hold back, to give Sanders a fair shot, to make sure he doesn't get forced out in the early going. The Democratic Party would look good if it allowed an independent candidate to appear on its primary ballots. Think of the contrast between Democrats and Republicans if we saw an intelligent, civilized debate between Clinton and Sanders, as opposed to the circus that will be the Republican debates. Think of how good it would look for Clinton if she won the nomination after an open and fir primary process, without keeping Sanders off the ballot or excluding him from the debates.
frankieallen
(583 posts)Gothmog
(143,998 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think it would probably be healthy for the Hillary bashers to drop the delusion that Bernie has the slightest chance of actually winning. And the constant streams of silly anti-Hillary talking points are useless at best.
But constructive discussion of the issues and where people stand on them is a good thing.
TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)That we don't walk our talk.