2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA Message to the #BernieorBust Movement-Amanda Kerri
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/6/01/message-bernieorbust-movementThere once was a village named Ben Tre. It lay along a sleepy branch of a river a few dozen miles from the city of Saigon. When the Vietcong, in their attempt to overwhelm and defeat the combined forces of the South Vietnamese government and their American allies, launched a surprise attack during the ceasefire declared to celebrate the festival of Tet, the Vietnamese New Year, they attempted to overwhelm and capture the sleepy little town. The Americans, in their attempt to keep their South Vietnamese allies from being overrun, used massive artillery and air strikes to indiscriminately bomb the town. Eventually the Americans won that day, killing 300 communist Viet Cong guerillas. However, in the process of this victory, half the village was destroyed and almost 1,000 innocent civilians were killed. At one point a truce was even called so they could throw the bodies of the dead villagers in the river so they wouldnt spread disease among the soldiers. Later, when reporters asked how the military could wreck the town and kill some many innocent civilians, an American officer reportedly said, It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.
Its easy to morally justify things when we do them in the name of the righteousness of our beliefs. Sometimes they are epic in scale such as when religious crusaders slaughter the non-believers; sometimes they are seemingly petty, like when a person steals from another so they can eat. The problem with this is that while it may seem right to us and those who agree with us, it always comes at a cost to someone else. The more we are assured in the righteousness of our cause, the easier it is to become dogmatic in our beliefs and hurt anyone who may stand in our way the reality of the situation and circumstances be damned.
When I hear those people shout at the top of their lungs or type in all caps #BernieorBust and #Never Hillary, I wonder how they can claim that they actually care about the people they say Bernie would be the best at helping. Some have even said that if Hillary gets the nomination, they would vote for Donald Trump just to keep her from winning. A few have even said they welcome Trump winning because the damage he would cause would further justify and empower the revolution Bernie has promised them. Theyre ready to burn the village in order to save it.
I fully appreciate the loyalty and ideology of Bernie supporters; hes inspired many to vote for the first time and given hope to many that someone in Washington still cares about the little man/woman. However, Bernie will not win. Sanders has so thoroughly insulted the Democratic Party that he has begun to burn any bridges he might have had the chance to build. He is behind by 3 million popular votes and over 250 pledged delegates. There will be no miracle on June 7 to close a gap like that unless a political upset the likes of which havent been seen since Truman beat Dewey in 1948. The superdelegates Bernie will not flip to his side, especially after he has called them corrupt and rigged against him. That bridge has been not merely burned but carpet bombed. Clinton is the uncrowned winner; her victory in the Democratic primary all but inevitable. If through a cosmic miracle Bernie is the presidential nominee in November, I will vote for him though, because its the right thing to do.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)'Its easy to morally justify things when we do them in the name of the righteousness of our beliefs'
Not it's not, being principled within the context of DEM where the party has placed itself above principles is extremely difficult
These post, these 'pleas' to those of us that are standing firm on principle have made a very tough decision and we are well aware of the ramifications of making this stand but, rest assured that principle matters more than party in this election cycle
We do this 'because its the right thing to do'....
I disagree that you or any other HRC supporter, or party establishment regard 'I fully appreciate the loyalty and ideology of Bernie supporters' as a true sentiment... this weak play is a joke... earning our vote requires so much more than what you offer... it's not that difficult but then again you wouldn't know since clearly you don't understand the real fight going on...
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)Excellent post there HumanityExperiment and I couldn't agree w/you more!
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)appreciated
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)After all, enabling Trump is certainly enabling a set of principles. I'm just surprised people on a democratic board would want to see those principles aided and abetted.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)interesting reply...
deflection pivot here: 'After all, enabling Trump is certainly enabling a set of principles'
from my point here: 'being principled within the context of DEM where the party has placed itself above principles is extremely difficult'
So Trump is the DEM nominee now? Why the pivot away from HRC and her historic unfavorables?
I stand for progressive / liberal principles, HRC throughout here political life has not.. would you care to go through item by item to validate that fact or will you continue with the deflection attempt?
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Putting Trump in the White House is not the right thing to do and it is some seriously distorted reality if that is the belief system you hold.
When you agree to accept only 100%, you end up receiving 0%.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)interesting reply... mimics another HRC supporters reply: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512101488#post44
the pivot away from my point: 'being principled within the context of DEM where the party has placed itself above principles is extremely difficult'
I'm not 'putting' anyone into anything... if your candidate is that weak then that's on you and her
For ANYONE to be running even with TRUMP is a joke, and shows how feckless that candidate is compared to TRUMP in a matchup
I don't see you addressing HRC's historic unfavorables, this is something that's 'putting' Trump closer to the White House
standing for progressive / liberal principles is difficult but, it's a fight I understand and am willing to stick with because half measures don't and won't cut it, how many 'inches' have DEM party moved right for in that process?
HRC is republican light, her history has proven this over and over, I am more than willing to go over every item piece by piece to prove this out
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)You say you're standing firm on principles but all you're doing is strengthening the candidate who represents the antithesis of every principle you think you're allegedly supporting. I guess one of those principles you're representing is short-sightedness if you cannot grasp that result of your actions.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)your 'lens' needs adjustment... your perception is off
you're viewing this through the two party lens.. red v blue jersey whereas I'm simply pointing out principle wears NO jersey
'strength' of candidate is wholly on each of them, I'm merely pointing out that looking at the principles that both parties present in their candidates makes it simple for me looking through my principle 'lens' and ease choice of whom I support as a candidate, If my candidate isn't a nominee I'll simply write them in on NOV
This isn't a 'result' of my actions, I'm just one person... it's interesting that there are so many of like-minded folks though, so there is that, folks like yourself have to contend with that reality
If HRC's historic unfavorables is something you wish to continue to ignore and avoid, well then.... I've pointed out one of the main issues, and much of that unfavorable rating has to do with her lack of progressive principles
We can go item by item as it concerns HRC's history on progressive/liberal principle if need be, but I doubt that's a road you would want to travel...
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Only two candidates have any chance of winning the election in November - the blue one or the red one. No other candidate has any chance to win. The only principle you're representing is the one that promotes the red candidate to the White House. In doing so, you prove you have no principles whatsoever and everything you're spouting is nothing but a joke, a very unfunny and uninformed joke.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)correct, only principle matters to me, game on with your red and blue jersey contest
Like I stated, I'm just one person, if neither candidate meets my threshold as it pertains to principle it's my voting right how I cast that ballot so your continued ranting at me in these replies isn't making your case any better than you had with the initial reply
HRC is republican light in principle and policy/issue history... again, we can go line by line to validate but I'm expecting that you will again avoid that debate
Have a day!
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)You claim to stand for your vague principles but your actions indicate you are willing to abandon those cherished principles to empower the candidate who least represents your principles. Take your pick, It's either a complete lack of principles given your ease to throw them away or it's complete hypocrisy by saying one thing and doing another. Which is it?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)I've stated my position, it's pretty clear, your intellectual dishonesty is all on you past that point
gl
you'll need it
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Of course I could understand why you fail to see that given all of the lies and hypocrisy with which you shield it.
You stand for absolutely nothing, certainly not any principles which you falsely claim to hold.
Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #74)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Take responsibility for your own behavior and the behavior of your candidate.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)sell you into corporate slavery. You wouldn't want that, would you?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)looking over the course of human history... this current cultural cycle will crash.. and smarter minds will step in, and we will reset for another round until that crashes again down the road... our species is a glutton for repeating these types of cultural disasters upon it's own kind
LonePirate
(13,417 posts)You sound exactly like those moronic Naderites from 2000 who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They were then and you are wrong now.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)But then again, Bush wasn't under criminal investigation either.
In this primary season I've been "treated" to defenses of corporations, trade deals that hurt the American worker, laws that subsidize insurance corporations who sell prohibitively expensive policies, taking money from vulture capitalists, and the debacles of Libya and Honduras.
It's as if we're being told to vote for Romney only with the specter of a criminal investigation hanging overhead.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #67)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)Blah blah blah.
Yeah. So we keep hearing, here, many times a day.
Though, for being as inevitable as she is, there seem to be a LOT of calls for us Sanders supporters to shut up and fall in line.
What is that old Shakespeare line, again? Oh, yeah -- ''The lady doth protest too much.''
Howler
(4,225 posts)Neither YOU or anybody else has any business telling ANYONE how they should vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils for three decades is what got us to this point. No more. If you want our vote give us a decent candidate to vote for. Sanders is it. If not. You just worry about what comes next for the democratic party not the voters.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)As we are so often told here.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)"Sanders has so thoroughly insulted the Democratic Party that he has begun to burn any bridges he might have had the chance to build."
I'd say the same thing going in the opposite direction.
Interesting. You see I think the party and it's leaders are the ones who have irrevocably burned bridges. And if they put up Biden or anyone else it's only putting out fire with gasoline. I doubt very seriously that will bring in the Bernie or busters and will actually alienate them more. We are not going away. We are a movement . And there are alot of disinfranchised people out there alot by the democratic party this primary cycle with voter purges etc. So .
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Apologies for not being more clear.
My apologies VulgarPoet. I am working and only have a minute to d.u. can't wait till quitter time.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Means I can go home, kick back with a glass of cheap whiskey, put on music that would make my neighbor's ears bleed, and dread coming in to do it all over again. Thank the Goddess, I'm getting boarded though-- these people won't help for shit about my knee, when I know full well you don't get tendinitis three times over a year and a half.
Howler
(4,225 posts)The older we get.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I shouldn't be this rickety, yet here we are.
Ouch.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Now is the time
If you voted in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries for the nomination to be won by Bernie Sanders, and you have a strong distrust for Hillary Clinton, you need to always be aware of one thing: If you don't vote for general-election nominee Hillary Clinton, you have effectively voted to elect Republican Donald Trump to become the next president of the United States.
This will be the constant message leading up to Election Night 2016.
Howler
(4,225 posts)It for what it is desperation. Alot of uglies came out into the open about the democratic election system. Folks are not going forget it. Corrupt is corrupt.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Apparently, if I don't cast my vote for Hillary in deep-blue California, then I've cast a vote for Trump. One would need to have shit for brains to believe something like that.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)+1000.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Jesus Christ where do people come up with this shit?
QC
(26,371 posts)Why limit oneself to Vietnamese villagers?
I guess this is part of the "unite the party later" strategy. Sar far it's not off to a very auspicious start.
vintx
(1,748 posts)Shoving Hillary down our throats is going to lose Democrats even more support in both solid blue and solid red states.
They'll hold on to voters in swing states only because they'll use fear tactics.
Idiots
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)have no idea why we support him.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I particularly enjoy the idiots backing Hillary who call Bernie an egotist. They are so far removed from reality that even GPS isn't going to help to guide them.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)or at least one of the organs.
I think they do not see that he is not in this for himself, but for the betterment of human beings, and the planet.
They also just do not understand that his entire reason for 'running' is on an entirely different premise than I have seen in my lifetime of 72 years. The whole idea, simplified down to "the .1%" against the rest, is so much the center of so many other issues, it is invisible to them.. They even mock him for being, probably, a millionaire.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I've grown to expect that some people will call me Stalin because I don't support Clinton. Whatever. My vote is mine.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, you lose any right to call yourself a member of the progressive/left coalition if you sit out the fight against Trump.
go ahead and take your ball and go home though, there's always that crowd that does that
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So how does voting for her allow you to keep your "progressive/left" card?
Jill Stein is way more progressive. I think by voting for her, you're solidifying that you ARE a progressive and not a Third Way ConservaDem.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Being progressive means caring about what actually happens, not engaging in petty narcissism.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I did at one time.
I do not understand why anyone with two brain cells together would see Clinton being no better than Trump, no I do not.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)with the exception that, in my opinion, Sanders is the only one of the three who is not in this for himself, but for the betterment of human beings.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Not some Bernie supporter.
I am a Bernie supporter who will never vote for Hillary.
My vote doesn't count anyway. I live in TN where they have carefully put all the Democrats into only one district (It looks like a long snake that has eaten a rat.) and every other district can count on a majority of crazy RepubliCONS. It wont matter how I vote. The RepubliCONS will win TN. They have rigged it, it is theirs to lose and use. There is no doubt the majority will vote RepubliCON because that is how they rigged it.
Besides we have those voting machines that don't really count our vote anyway. So not to worry, my Bernie write in vote wont matter here in TN.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You should vote Green as Tennessee doesn't allow write-ins unless they're registered to be one.
I'm doing the Green thing so that party might get 5 percent of the vote which would allow them to qualify for federal funding.
That said: fellow Tennessee Bernie supporter!
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Our Democrats don't usually have a candidate for every race. I refuse to vote for a RepubliCON, even if it's for school board and he lives down the street from me. So, in those cases I do write ins. It may not be counted but with the awful voting machines we have, counting is not a concern.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)When you see both Clinton and Trump as equally destructive - but in different ways - you realize that it doesn't really matter to your future if either/or become president.
Trump and Hillary probably will take us to more wars.
Trump and Hillary probably will strip our Social Security and other safety nets.
Trump and Hillary probably will appoint Supreme Court nominees that are pro-business and Wall Street, regardless of their beliefs on social issues.
Trump and Hillary probably will kiss Wall Street's butts.
The only difference is this: Trump will be more fair to working people on trade and Hillary will be more fair to women on choice.
Wow... I don't see much difference. Not enough to vote for one or the other. I'll stick with voting Green at the top and trying to find the most FDR-like Democrats to vote for down-ticket.
Response to CobaltBlue (Reply #12)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I thank Bernie for pissing all the people who want him to be a good little liberal and kiss the asses of his opponents.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)After over twenty years of betrayal and deceit by the DLC/Third Way/New Dem/Clinton Democrats...some people really have seen and had enough. Hell, this post speaks of Bernie insulting the Democratic Party? They've been insulting us New Deal Dems for over twenty years now. We're wise to the game. We know there is always another GOP devil or the Supreme Court to be threatened with. A lot of people have decided to not settle for the lesser of evils.
Either give them a candidate that represents what they believe in and get their support or don't. But put the cattle prods of guilt and threats and demonizing and blaming away. It's not working and it won't bring unity.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You know, just like Iraq.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)How embarrassing for DU.
What privilege.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)There are many things DU should be embarrassed about. Reacting to an OpEd piece isnt one of them.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #30)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)because cudgeling people to vote is overwhelmingly dumbassary regardless of the flavor it's served up.
The over-riding fact is voters get to choose what to vote for, or when to hold their votes back. The candidates', campaigns and parties' jobs are to convince people to vote. Beatings usually aren't very convincing.
Other high ranking facts exist, among them, people vary in how they view and prioritize things. Beatings usually don't change people's minds about those things.
Sooner or later the abuse be it beatings or neglect, give rise to many clogs being thrown into the cogs. This election cycle appears to have people on both sides willing to go shoeless.
pengu
(462 posts)How could they? If they got it they'd never support Clinton.
This article was thoroughly unconvincing. It's preaching to Clinton supporters and won't change any minds.
randome
(34,845 posts)That's the big difference between us. You can have your BOBs. The rest of us see a larger picture. You don't even need to be a supporter of one candidate over another to see that picture.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
pengu
(462 posts)So, of course, you'd be fine with the better option.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)They are not satisfied with merely ensuring they will be able to complain about the lack of progressive policy, in perpetuity. They actually want such policy to be implemented.
If you actually think that NOT voting for Hillary has any chance in the world of furthering the cause of progressivism, then you should question who really "gets it", and who really doesn't.
pengu
(462 posts)At least not any positive impact. She's mostly awful on progressive issues.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Thinking that it is all about her, or the next 4 years, is a simple misunderstanding of how our political system actually works.
pengu
(462 posts)You can sell that shit elsewhere. They'll take a strange hold on the party at every level and progressive issues won't see the light of day for another 2 decades. Fuck that. It's time to cut off the arm to save the life. Third wayers have had 2 decades to compromise with the left. I'm done with carrots, it's time for the stick.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Did the Democratic party move to the left? Of course not. What actually happened is that most of Nader' supporters realized that they stabbed themselves with the stick in 2000, which is why his support collapsed by 90% in 2004 (despite the nomination of someone less progressive).
Unfortunately, their come-to-Jesus moment came a bit too late. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the strongest campaign finance bill since the 70s. After Alito replaced O'Connor, they replaced that decision with Citizens United. Oops. Looks like voting for the spoiler actually has consequences that could last a generation.
It is a bit absurd to hear Bernie-or-Busters complain about money in politics, when that same attitude caused the biggest explosion of money in politics since the 70s. At this rate, they will be back in 2026, railing against rulings that make progressive policy unconstitutional wholesale, forgetting that if it weren't for them, such rulings would not exist.
pengu
(462 posts)The party has shown itself as completely obstinate - for over 2 decades now.
Enough.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Your position is about as rational as someone who says
"I keep touching the burning stove, and it keeps hurting. Enough. I'm going to touch it more frequently. That will show it. Maybe next time it will listen."
It has the same chances of success, with the same effects. You don't even argue otherwise. You admit when exactly the same thing happened in 2000, it did not help move the party to the left one iota. Yet you choose to continue to take the same action anyway, knowing full well it will result in more conservative policy, not less (along with lifetime appointments to people that will use those appointments to block more progressive policy for decades).
You of course have every right to do that. Everyone can vote for Republicans, or take actions that help Republicans win. But it is pretty strange to say that you want more progressive policy when you willingly take actions that you know will do exactly the opposite of what you say you want.
There is a critical mass that needs to be reached. We're getting close.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Let's say your strategy is tried another time. As a result, Trump is elected. He appoints supreme court justices that strike down attempts to make new progressive policy for the next 30 years, and that then retire under another Republican (continuing the cycle). In addition, assume Democrats do not move further left, but instead move closer to the center.
Would you then admit that your strategy is a failed strategy? If not, how many times would the failure have to be repeated before you change your mind?
pengu
(462 posts)There is a party realignment every generation or two historically. We are long overdue. You're seeing the fissure now. It's coming.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)In rational argument, if one is making an empirical point (that a given strategy is superior because it will produce better outcomes than a different strategy), then one wants to show that there actually are hypothetical outcomes that would change their position. Perhaps one doesn't believe those outcomes will occur (which is why they believe their strategy is correct), but they admit that there at least exist possible outcomes that would cause them to re-think your strategy.
Yet when I asked whether there are such hypothetical outcomes, you freely admit that there are none.
Thank you for so beautifully proving my point. Bernie or Bust is not actually making a rational argument about what strategy would produce better outcomes. They would support their strategy even if it was known in advance that it would produce worse outcomes. Perhaps they should just rename their strategy to "Bust", since it is a much more apt characterization of the strategy.
pengu
(462 posts)You're certainly not arguing with anything I've said.
vintx
(1,748 posts)They don't though. They only compromise to the right
Enough.
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I hear the opposite
"The rest of us see the big picture" - that statement is laughable given Trump has surpassed Hillary in most polls.
randome
(34,845 posts)The accuracy of such polls becomes clearer once the nominees are chosen. Until then, they don't necessarily relate to reality. When it's a contest between Clinton and Trump, Trump loses. Just my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling on the emerging contest.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"That poll doesn't really count"
randome
(34,845 posts)You can count those polls if you want. Obviously the voters don't think they mean anything.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Response to randome (Reply #35)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Avalux
(35,015 posts)As in everything, some people are not going to fall in line and comply. Using the Tet Offensive as a tool to convince people they must just isn't going to work.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The left are feeling betrayed because for a long, long time our ideals and principles have been gradually abandoned. Each election cycle promises are made and manifestos claim that our issues will be dealt with, yet after every election those promises are shown to be hollow and the party drifts ever more to the right.
So if winning is simply the most important thing, then why exactly isn't the party leaning towards us if our votes are so important? Why are we told our ideals are naive and childish but if we don't give you our votes we're horrible people?
vintx
(1,748 posts)As long as they keep getting $$$, wtf do they care?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)No matter how angry and betrayed right-wingers feel that their politicians aren't as crazy as they'd like, they vote and work to elect Republicans, while advancing their policy.
When has the Democratic Party EVER lost an election to a hard right winger and decide "well we weren't left enough"?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)next time the candidate who purports to represent the left should start making connections with the African-American community before parachuting in to chase votes.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Reply #87)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to dlwickham (Original post)
highprincipleswork This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts).....the people are behind the issues and ideas. I will stay behind these issues and ideas as I have been since the '70's.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it's gunna happen any way so ya might as well learn to either like it or be silent about it
kiva
(4,373 posts)that the escalation of the war in Vietnam - including the response to the Tet offensive - took place under a Democratic president?
I'm a fan of LBJ for many things he did, but not Vietnam, and using it to justify the "all bow to Hillary meme" is ...well, come to think of it, maybe it is the correct analogy.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...the more concessions she may be willing to make. What in the way of concessions would occur WITHOUT the Bernie or Bust movment?
k8conant
(3,030 posts)probably as an extension of Hillary's "It Takes a Village" meme.
It strikes me as totally illogical.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)The rational people will wake up when the general election heats up and frankenrump becomes very real
Response to realmirage (Reply #89)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Response to realmirage (Reply #121)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)How low the Clinton camp has sunk. Hey Amanda, nice of you to bring up Vietnam. Remember who was Secetary of State when those war crimes happened?
HENRY KISSINGER!
Has he ever been prosecuted?
NO
Is anyone still taking advice from him?
Yes: CLINTON!
Karma13612
(4,552 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)And they wonder why Clinton is polling so badly with Millennials. Anyone studying Debbie's 2014 "successes" could have told that Third Way is a dead end after all.