Some Clinton fans here try to claim that we are all Democrats and we are really not

[rhett o rick]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the 2016 Postmortem forum).

that far apart. And that we should all unite behind THEIR candidate.

This is wild-assed fantasy of course. The reason that there has been such a large and enthusiastic support for Sen Sanders is because the Clinton/Conservative Wing of our party isn't adhering to Democratic values. In other words the millions supporting Sanders believe that there is a huge difference between Democratic values and what Clinton stands for. Her positions on the TTP and TTIP show this.

So let's see an example. Here is an OP that discusses the TTIP and the dangers set to befall the 99%.

www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7797776

Do you think that the Clinton fans will jump in to defend their candidate's position? I doubt it. Why you ask? Because the Progressive Wing that stands up for the 99% is miles apart from the Clinton Wing of our party that stands with the 1%. It appears that the Clinton Wing of the Party really don't care about this issue that might bring the death knoll for democracy around the world. It appears to me that they don't really support democracy but prefer the domination of a strong authoritarian leader.

Again, why won't the Clinton side of our Party enter this discussion?

[Dem2]

1. Big tent, priorities vary

Stand in the rain if you like.

[JaneyVee]

4. Exactly. Never mind back alley abortions, SCOTUS, and criminal justice reform.

[rhett o rick]

17. So you won't commit to supporting Clinton's positions because they are not important enough? nm

[JaneyVee]

21. I support trade agreements. They are imperative to our economy.

[malokvale77]

61. "our economy"...

as in you and yours?

They sure haven't benefited "our economy", as in me and mine.

[Hortensis]

78. Yes. We do need to restore business to the role

of educating, rather than instructing, our legislators on what should be in them, of course. (!)

Rhett, I've pointed out before that all liberals are progressive, but only most progressives are liberal. Others are far left, centrist and actually conservative.

This year the Radical/Far Left, hearing rumors of "revolution," brushed the cobwebs off its rusty pitchforks and ran excitedly to revolt, only to be sadly disappointed. Rhett, dreams of progressive change didn't really cause all that fervor. Dreams of extreme change did, change profound enough to require destruction of what came before. Many left-wing extremists do sincerely back "progressive" programs, but only the progressivism that is both theirs and is extreme in its degree of change.

So you see, not only are they are appropriately labeled, but I'll make a prediction. Over the coming months as their dreams fade, the current Far Left extremist denial and obstructionism of Democratic Party progressivism will strengthen until they spend most of their political time bitterly criticizing and trying to sabotage progressive advances eagerly planned by Democrats.

What?! Under the bus with progress itself? Yes. Watch and see. Extremism, both left and (especially) right, has been very well studied, and extremists make quite...interesting subjects for study.

[azurnoir]

36. so we're supposed to support someone who says they'd compromise abortion and makes money

from the private prison industry, and we have no guarantees about SCOTUS

[rhett o rick]

6. I think you are exactly correct. Those that side with the wealthy 1% are looking for strong (tough)

authoritarian leadership and that takes priority over all else. Even regaining our democracy.

Why won't the Clinton fans defend her position on the TTP and the TTIP?

[bettyellen]

14. Is that theory from Psych 101 or a cut and paste from Reddit?

Is that supposed to goad people in engaging with you? That's so cute.

[zappaman]

49. It's a broken record.

You're lucky you didn't get the usual insults like
"Hillary fans worship money and get on their knees for their God, Goldman Sachs" or "Hillary worshippers don't care about dead children."
What would you expect from someone who thinks "Vote for HRC and let the country slide right into fascism"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778



By the way, if you want to have fun, have a shot of your favorite liquor every time you see the word "authoritarian".
But make sure you have a comfortable couch!

[bettyellen]

52. This lazy cut and paste "authoritarian" crap blows my mind. It is kind of obvious it comes from a

place of huge fear of a woman boss. All these special new standards apply because ....whut? They woke up angry that Mommy was going to tell them what it is.

[earthshine]

80. "We need to bring them to heel," she said.

"Mind blowing" indeed describes what she says.

"Authoritarian" has nothing to do with having a female boss.

[FSogol]

54. Don't do that unless you have a fresh batch of donor livers ready to go...

[JaneyVee]

23. Authoritarian is govt control.

[rhett o rick]

28. Exactly. It appears to me that some people don't care at all about Clinton's positions

because they admire her tough authoritarianism. 1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: It's so much easier to let the leader do the thinking.

[Ferd Berfel]

50. I'm here to tell you that these arguments with Hillarians

are the same damned arguments that I have with my Republican friends and acquaintances. THE SAME DAMNED ARGUMENTS.

WHen I talk with my democratic friends these arguments don't happen. It's interesting.

[malokvale77]

68. ^^^ this ^^^

The whole "with us or against us" rhetoric coming from the Hillary camp has made me totally rethink what the Democratic Party stands for. Or if it stands for anything at all.

[Rockyj]

60. Its like they've all been snatched...

by the Body Snatchers and they just don't get it!
Hillary People
Do you support TPP?
Do you support TTIP?
Do you support Keystone XL? (It still can come back after Obama leaves office)

Do you support Fracking? http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Do you support endless wars? http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

Do you support unfettered capitalism?

Do you support Neo-Liberalism? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Are you at all interested in viewing the transcripts from all her thousands of dollars speeches she made for the banks & Wall St.? http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/keeping_wall_street_speeches_secret_speaks_volumes_20160501?utm_source=feedburner&amp%3Butm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%25253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%25253A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines

Do you realize that all the Bernie stances that Hillary suddenly adopted will more likely change back once she's in office? Why would I say this? Based on her record she lies & she lies a lot.

So Hillary people...if you're TRUE democrats why do you support her?

[Fumesucker]

58. Indeed, we can talk about how they got that way later but right now they need to be brought to heel

It would be difficult to get a lot more authoritarian than "heel".

[AgingAmerican]

76. Authoritarian is a police state

[Binkie The Clown]

24. If you have no answer, it's easier to pretend the question doesn't exist. n/t

[rhett o rick]

30. Exactly. That's why you won't see them defending Clinton's positions. nm

[Dem2]

40. I'm confused - pro-con shows that every candidate running this cycle is against TPP.

What exactly are you wanting here?

[JaneyVee]

2. TPP is a renegotiation of NAFTA.

Its one or the other. I dont recall it being progressive to vote to protect the gun industry and vote against immigration. Didnt Bernie also vote against closing GITMO?

[rhett o rick]

8. The OP that I linked to is about the TTIP which will essentially eliminate pesky democracy

around the world. It is aimed at lowering our standard of living, us in the 99%, not Clinton in the 0.1%, to match the poor workers around the world. Do you support Clinton's position on this issue?

[pampango]

75. TTIP, if it happens, is an agreement with Europe, not the "the poor workers around the world".

Many European workers make more than American workers due to their strong unions. It is the European workers who have to worry about an agreement that pits them against American workers who are paid much less and are largely not unionized.

The specifics of both the TPP and the TTIP can be flawed but the argument that we can't do the TPP because Vietnam pays its workers too little and we can't do the TTIP because Germany pays their workers too much is ridiculous. There is a big world out there. We need to deal with it.

And all international agreements, if they are to be effective, have to have some type of neutral enforcement mechanism. We don't want Mexico, Vietnam or Germany deciding if their actions have violated an agreement. Likewise they do not want the US deciding whether we have complied with our commitments.

Either we stop negotiating international agreements or we accept the concept of neutral enforcement.

[rhett o rick]

93. So do you support Pres Obama's position or Clinton's new position as ragged as it is. nm

[oasis]

10. "Vote to protect the gun industry"?

But, to be sure, he had a reasonable explanation.

[rhett o rick]

19. That has nothing to do with this OP. Can I assume you don't support Clinton's position on the TTIP?

[oasis]

35. Perhaps if your link worked I could comment on it.

[rhett o rick]

38. Sorry about that. I should have know that would be a real hard one to deal with. Here's what you do

Put your mouse pointer at the beginning of the link and holding the left mouse button down drag the pointer across .... Wait. I bet you aren't really interested. You got me there.

[Dragonfli]

53. Here, I will make it easy for those unable to understand how to use the internet, click link below:

THE LINK YOU DON"T KNOW HOW TO REACH

[silvershadow]

62. lol. perfect. thread winner. nt

[malokvale77]

73. For some reason your post reminded me...

that Hillary wants IT companies and software creators to make it easier for our government to have access to our private information.

Something she herself worked so hard to avoid.

I can't take any of them seriously.

[rhett o rick]

96. I don't think they are interested.

[FSogol]

3. How do you explain the fact that Sanders voted the same way HRC did 93% of the time?

That he sides so much with the Democrats (the party HE JOINED to run for the nomination) kinda pokes a hole in your argument.



Pure hyperbolic rhetoric: "death knoll for democracy around the world. It appears to me that they don't really support democracy but prefer the domination of a strong authoritarian leader. " It was funnier when "running dog capitalist" was used.

[JaneyVee]

5. And that some of that 7% she voted to his left...

Such as guns and immigration.

[NWCorona]

11. And the Iraq war vote

[JaneyVee]

13. And Bernie's vote for Afghan War, Somalia, Kosovo, Libya....etc

[NWCorona]

20. The only one I really knock him for is Libya

The Iraq vote was much worse tho.

[George II]

64. AND votes to KEEP our troops in Iraq. I know, his "excuses" are:

1. "We need to support our ground troops" (even though if they weren't funded they would have been withdrawn)

2. MOST frequent excuse is "the bill would have passed anyway"

[scscholar]

56. Exactly, His dangerous position on guns...

is dangerous.

[rhett o rick]

9. LOL. Poor attempt to deflect. Do you support Clinton's position on the TTP

and TTIP? I am guessing your response will be, "Hey look at Sanders messy hair." I assume you really don't care about Free Trade as the most important thing is to get a tough, tough authoritarian leader, and the hell with democracy.

[JaneyVee]

16. Her position is no until currency manipulation is addressed.

[rhett o rick]

22. In other words her only worry is currency manipulation? Sounds like rhetoric to me.

I would appreciate a link if you have one.

[JaneyVee]

25. Addressing currency manipulation would create millions of more jobs.

[rhett o rick]

31. Sorry but I think you are making this all up. You realize that the word "addressing" isn't

definitive. Addressing might make things worse not better. It just means you do something.

Really would like to know how "addressing" will create jobs.

[Hoyt]

55. No, he's right. Would be much better than tariffs. Sorry, I support good Democrats like John Lewis,

James Clyburn, and even Elizabeth Warren, all of whom were trashed by the Sanders' wing.

[Ferd Berfel]

46. rhett o rick you're arguing with people that are basically dishonest.

They will never address the OP or the Issue because they know it's a loser. There is no defending ceding Government sovereignty to Corporate rule. It's just what the Global Elite wants and that's good enough.

[FSogol]

51. Nah, I'm against the TPP. Without having seen it though, I am loathe to proclaim it the end

of Western Civ or some such hyperbolic claptrap. Nice deflection from your original exaggerations.

[yallerdawg]

7. I'll damn sure defend her position!

Unless the free trade agreement supports jobs here in the USA, she is against them, and has already come out in opposition to TPP.

I do support President Obama's position, though.

[NWCorona]

12. I differ from Obama on TTP

[rhett o rick]

15. Obama supports these Free Trade agreements and you support his positions.

Clinton is on record stating that the TPP is the gold standard. She also supports the TTIP. But now she is waffling and saying she "doesn't like the way the TPP is written." Maybe it's written in cursive and she would prefer block lettering.

She hasn't said she doesn't support it she merely gave up some rhetoric about "if this and if that" when she already knows what those "ifs" are.

I am confused, do you support Free Trade Agreements like the TPP and the TTIP?

[yallerdawg]

69. Hillary does not support the TPP. TTIP is still being negotiated.

Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.

CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.

Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas Oct 13, 2015

No Democrat can go wrong opposing trade agreements.

Fortunately, we have strong, far-sighted Democrats who can see trade partnerships and alliances do more positive than negative.

You can actually read the finalized TPP, and draw your own conclusions. Myths and lies abound!

[VulgarPoet]

18. I don't believe we're anything alike.

I refuse to support corporate prisons.
I refuse to support people who would rather boost Big Pharma rather than legalize pot.
I refuse to support "robust foreign policy" that we all know is code for "bomb 'em till they acquiesce".
I refuse to support boots on the ground for regime change.
I refuse to support Americans having to train their foreign replacements and then lose their jobs due to trade deals.
I refuse to support killing our earth via fracking and poisoning our water with toxic runoff.

Sure. I'll give her props for her social work. But she's got way too much baggage for me to countenance voting for her, devil be damned the hand-wringing of her supporters.

We. Are not. Pawns.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Your argument would have more force if Hillary weren't clearly ahead in the primary votes

As it is, your claim that "there is a huge difference between Democratic values and what Clinton stands for" is countered by the larger millions who support her.

And, ironically, they're the ones on the side with the larger vote, but you're the one claiming they "don't really support democracy".

[rhett o rick]

34. When I see these types of posts I wonder if the poster doesn't understand politics or

is just looking for a rationalization. I doubt that any of them understand the dangers of the TPP and TTIP as the corporate media won't discuss it. But the fact they support Clinton doesn't mean the Free Trade will help people. Are you saying you support adoption of the TTIP and the TTP? Come on, commit to one side or the other.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. When I see you complaining that the majority of Democrats aren't actually Democrats

I wonder if you don't understand voting.

Maybe they don't understand the dangers of the TPP and TTIP. But that doesn't mean you can declare them 'not proper Democrats', as your OP tries to do.

If your point was that those agreements are dangerous, then you should have made them the main topic of your OP, not that people who disagree with you can't be Democrats.

[ucrdem]

47. Good luck.

[LonePirate]

27. If people are insistent they are not Democrats, why do they feel entitled to vote in Dem primaries?

I am not a member of the nearby country club but I don't worm my way into their decision making aspects.

[TheKentuckian]

77. Does said country club act as half of a duopoly which controls the national political process?

Does the country club decide it's leadership on the taxpayer dime often or even generally using public facilities?

Is this club designated on tax returns?

Is the club listed on general election ballots?

Can you vote a club straight ticket?

Does the club have a choke hold on national debates in concert with the other club across town?

Private club my ass. The parties are a defacto part of the government and afforded special privileges that affect the whole nation and the world.

[malokvale77]

82. If people aren't Bernie supporters, why do they sport Bernie avatars?

I live in Texas where we don't register by party, does that mean residences of Texas shouldn't have a say in the primaries?

Your country club metaphor suggests that our government is an exclusive "join if you can afford membership" organization. That's an oligarchy not a democracy.

[LonePirate]

91. Nice deflection without answering the question.

Primaries are state elections subject to state laws. If Texas does not allow/require/restrict a person from selecting a party, that is the state's and its citizens choice. Make use of the laws within your state. If other states require party registration, then the people need to follow the law in those states.

As for my avatar, I am one of maybe three or four actual Dems on this site who support Bernie. I'm not some fickle Independent or former Rand Paul supporter who hopped on the Bernie bandwagon and want to grab the wheel and takeover the Dem party. I'm obviously a very rare minority among Bernie supporters.

[RKP5637]

29. Bottom line, IMO, there is a significant split in the democratic party and I doubt

it's just going away. It's been building for a long time now IMO.

[beachbumbob]

32. Allowing trump or any conservative would become the responsility of those

Not supporting the democratic nominee...the impact would forever destroy America...don't put your ego first...think of the impact on your sisters....wives...daughters...sons...brothers...fathers....mothers

Put your ego first and you have yourself to blame

[truedelphi]

37. Most of us supporting Bernie Sanders understand that HIllary's chances of beating

Trump are marginal at best.
So we wouldn't be the ones destroying America. (Assuming the rest of your argument holds up.)

[rhett o rick]

41. Sounds like a pat statement that has nothing to do with the OP.

But since you are new here (LOL) is will say that I will not support the Rich and Powerful Fat Cats. I will not kneel before them. You do what you want.

[malokvale77]

86. If you care about the impact on all those people...

maybe you should put Hillary and your ego aside and work to get Senator Sanders elected.

[truedelphi]

33. I tried to rec this, but the rec button wouldn't take. n/t

[ucrdem]

39. Getting hot and bothered over an EU trade deal is pretty weak but have at it. nt

[rhett o rick]

42. The link is for an OP with regard to the TTIP and not the TTP. There is a difference.

So you do you support Clinton's positions on both the TTP and the TTIP?

[ucrdem]

44. Yes I updated. TTIP is an EU trade deal and I haven't read the final but yes to your question. nt

[bobthedrummer]

45. It's Al From's Democratic Party, the rest of us just live here. The takeover. (madfloridian 2015)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027191121

To hell with this "lesser of two evils" bifurcation bullshit-you nailed it rhett o rick "This is wild-assed fantasy of course."

There it is. K&R

[Dragonfli]

48. I understand the "Clinton wing of the Democratic party"

They are part of the party power grab which was described by one DLC member as the "intellectual leveraged buyout" of the party.

They like to consider themselves politically correct, believe in equality just enough to support it verbally and feel "evolved" (while thinking they deserve a badge for doing so) but would never put themselves in harms way for the rights and equality that sound as good to them coming out of their mouths as their own flatulence smells to them coming out of their own asses (they detect a whiff of roses when they breath it in). There is no sincerity in words of methane.

They ARE moderate Republicans (like the ones that no longer exist outside the Democratic party), I remember back when most Republicans were sane and many (certainly not the Goldwater or John Birch types though) believed in civil rights, choice and other equality issues, they were different in that they believed in Republican fiscal values, the old bootstrap philosophy made popular by Ayn Rand (even if the Democratic version would never admit it).

The party is going through a realignment, as parties do over the course of decades, (just as the Republican Party once was the anti-slavery party but have been quite the opposite for a long time now) - The Democratic party is changing into the moderate Republican party of my childhood (except they are far more hawkish than the old Rs used to be). There is no more room for the new Deal, The Great Society, or the working class in this newly realigning party.

The Republicans have also been going through a realignment during the same 35 year period as ours has. One of the reasons one no longer finds Moderate Republicans in the Republican Party, but only in ours, under their new (D) banner. Their realignment has already turned them into the modern equivalent of the John Birch Society wackos of old, but they are not finished yet, just as we are not finished yet.

Once the Realignments of the parties are complete, ours will be fully Republican, with no vestige of economic morality left, even in the "fringe" that was once the heart of the party. The Republicans in their completion will be the Fascist US party (they of course like the brand name they already have, Republican sounds so much like a "Republic" (a form of representative democracy this country was first created to be, and if one believes the bullshit group psychosis it still is), so they will never call themselves Fascists.

[malokvale77]

88. Thank you for posting this. nt

[Maedhros]

57. I see it this way:

Here are the relative positions of the candidates on the political spectrum:

(LIBERAL)---Sanders-------------X--------------|---Clinton-------Y-------------Trump---(CONSERVATIVE)

Clinton Supporters and the Democratic Establishment are desperate to ensure that the political battlefield remains in the Conservative part of the spectrum.

Sanders Supporters are insisting that the fight take place in the Liberal part of the spectrum

The difference is huge: by nominating Sanders, we are aiming at a compromise position of 'X'. By nominating Clinton, we are aiming at a compromise position of 'Y'.

X moves us to the Left, Y moves us to the Right.

[tonyt53]

59. Who is this "our" party anyway?

Most of us were Democrats before most of Bernie's followers were even born. WE have been through Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama. We had a position long ago. You want a "progressive party"? Then form one. It really is that easy.

You think any of the things Bernie has talked about are easy to accomplish, then you really are naive and foolish. Hell, Bernie doesn't even appear to recognize that it would take a Democrat majority in the Senate at the very least to get anything moving. You, his followers have no idea at all about that because you don;t vote the down ticket candidates. You have no idea what democracy is. You will stand back an cry as Bernie loses, but never look to who is getting 3 million more votes. You want that free college tuition and free healthcare, but you have no idea exactly how Bernie is going to pay for it. He HAS to raise taxes on every single American, including the poor according to most noted economists. How is that fair? You don't care, you 'll have your free stuff. Real Americans don;t want anything free. Real Americans know we have to work for it, and especially real Democrats.

[Dragonfli]

66. .

[malokvale77]

89. Thank you

That poster has no clue who we Bernie supporters are. In fact they have no clue at all.

[revmclaren]

94. Oh we know exactly who you are...

[Thirties Child]

72. And some of us are old enough to actually remember FDR

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

We remember FDR and Truman, have actually been old enough to vote for Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ. We remember the excitement of the Great Society, want it back. The Democrats have become the moderate Republicans, the Republicans the John Birchers. There is now a vacuum on the left, and nature abhors a vacuum.

[malokvale77]

90. You will get no response from that poster.

Too complicated, does not compute to Brockpuppetry.

[tonedevil]

63. We should not call...

political supporters fans it is really disrespectful.

[George II]

65. Who is in charge of defining "Democrat"?

[Dragonfli]

67. The platform. /nt

[George II]

71. And who writes the platform? This is getting to be a chicken and egg thing.

And I don't need anyone whom I've never met (not referring to you) telling me what kind of Democrat I am simply because I don't support the same candidate as him.

[dubyadiprecession]

70. We know your not democrats...

that's why BS is losing.

[JoePhilly]

74. So I go to your link ... and its from CommonFantasies ...

... that site lost all credibility for me years ago.

That site has been attacking Obama endlessly since he took office. Their reporting is not even close to objective.

Every piece of legislation has pros and cons. They pretend to not notice.

If we stop using coal ... coal miners lose their jobs. There is a pro, and a con to doing it. The world is complicated like that.

But not at CommonFantasies. Its all black and white in their world.

And this is why you are losing. Most Dems know the world is complex.

When you try to argue that its all "simple", smart people don't believe you because they know its not simple.

And this is why you fail.

[zappaman]

81. you sound like an authoritarian.

Probably worship Goldman Sachs and the oligarchy too!

[JoePhilly]

83. lol

[anigbrowl]

79. It's pointless...

Any time a Clinton supporter discusses trade with a Sanders supporter, the latter just shouts down or ignores andy points made. If Clinton supporters decide not to waste their time, Sanders supporters complain that they don't want to enter into debate. There's no real point in trying to change your mind and I really don't much care what you think because I think your reason has been subordinated to your preferred ideology, so why bother? I have only so much time and am not inclined to spend more of it on trying to change your mind. Vote your conscience, believe whatever you like, but spare me the complaints that I'm not paying you enough attention.

[JoePhilly]

84. Great response.

[NurseJackie]

87. This sums it up perfectly. Thank you!

[bvar22]

85. YUUUGE difference between FDR Democrats and Clinton Democrats.

...an unbridgeable chasm really.

When was the last time you heard Hillary praise FDR, the New Deal, LBJ, The Great Society,
or the very successful War on Poverty?....never?...That is the correct answer.

BUT, we DO hear praise and affection for Henry Kissinger and The Reagans.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

When have you ever heard Hillary claim the above as Basic Human Rights?

As an FDR Democrat, the above are MY values, ideals, and goals,
and the reason I joined the Democratic Party so many years ago.
What passes for the Democratic Party today is moving AWAY from the above goals.
When their "front runner insists NO. WE. CAN'T!!! whenever any of the above Human Rights are mentioned despite the fact that all developed countries take most of them for granted and have successfully implemented them, I can find no inspiration to lift a finger to help her.

[TheKentuckian]

92. We can all be Democrats, that's easy as checking the same of effectively 2 boxes.

What we don't share because of that tick are not necessarily things like values, priorities, worldview, goals, belief systems, or even political orientation.

The last several years has really stripped the bark off the old unity tree.

The problem isn't methodology or pace to arrive at the same desired outcome but rather the goals and the reasons for setting them in the first place other than in the broadest strokes that could be assigned to anyone if you stretch far enough.
Even Republicans want peace, prosperity, purpose, leisure, and love at least for themselves but in practical application that stuff is meaningless because some focus is required to figure out what you want to do much less actually do anything.

Much past the corporate mission statement level the agreement on the role of government breaks down too severely for cohesion for a political party yet a duopoly is both enforced and significantly baked into the cake so to find greener pastures effectively leaves the process in fewer, even less desirable hands so the least offensive folks must be pushed where we need to go.

It stinks though. I don't like being associated with the conservative ideology that has taken root that hides under the cover of radical regressives to paint it's self as liberal.

[bettyellen]

95. Many Sanders fans openly admit they are not Dems and they hate most Dems- how is that working

out for you all?