Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:01 AM Jun 2016

Clinton camp courting more pro-war republicans while browbeating Sanders over party loyalty



LINK: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy.html (paragraph 10)

She can hardly (other than pretentiously, hypocritically, and disingenuously) hit Sanders about "party loyalty" when SHE is wooing REPUBLICANS to HER party.

Pfft.

It's not that Dem candidates or Dem Presidents shouldn't court Republicans to their cause or policies - that's required for the CiC.

The issue is one "Dem" berating another (a much more progressive Dem) over party loyalty whilst doing so. It's hypocritical, disingenuous, dishonest. IOW it's what we might expect from a Clinton.
72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton camp courting more pro-war republicans while browbeating Sanders over party loyalty (Original Post) Triana Jun 2016 OP
democrats are big tent party...why they allowed a raving solcialist to run in OUR primaries beachbum bob Jun 2016 #1
Bingo. Some sane Republicans do still exist. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #3
the difference between zealots and the rest of us...we don't have to test for loyalty beachbum bob Jun 2016 #6
Except the point of view of those choie Jun 2016 #66
Seriously..."Oh, It's A BIG TENT; Big enough for REPUBLICANS, but NOT a "Raving Socialist". AzDar Jun 2016 #72
So embarrassing people reasonable for the Iraq War TimPlo Jun 2016 #13
obviously you havent followed sanders for 40 years...he proclaimed himself to be a socialist beachbum bob Jun 2016 #22
"raving socialist" Triana Jun 2016 #15
That's not "just like" a Republican. Scuba Jun 2016 #39
+++ frylock Jun 2016 #56
...raving socialist?? lol disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #17
+1 n/t Triana Jun 2016 #20
But FDR was a DEMOCRAT. FDR hated socialists. He despised dealing with Stalin during WWII too. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #53
tonyt53, wow, my memory is no saidsimplesimon Jun 2016 #57
I really don't know if your implying that.. disillusioned73 Jun 2016 #59
Bwahaha... B Calm Jun 2016 #64
Ah yes, a big tent. QC Jun 2016 #26
! vintx Jun 2016 #52
. Loudestlib Jun 2016 #58
Heh. +1 n/t lumberjack_jeff Jun 2016 #61
The last raving socialist president won WW2. B Calm Jun 2016 #42
I hate to say it...FDR would have never "raved or ranted" beachbum bob Jun 2016 #43
Today, you probably would have called him something much worse! B Calm Jun 2016 #45
Asking Sanders not to trash our party and candidate should be a given. seabeyond Jun 2016 #2
I've never heard him "trash" her. I have heard him talk about her record. Triana Jun 2016 #5
Oh bull. seabeyond Jun 2016 #10
depends on definition of trash is beachbum bob Jun 2016 #25
It's not trash when it's the TRUTH. n/t Triana Jun 2016 #31
She's showing her corporatism every day. She's better than a hard core right winger but she's still JRLeft Jun 2016 #44
But isn't that the reason the BS supporters exist? Seems so. nt Jitter65 Jun 2016 #8
Hillary's MONEY (and its sources) and her RECORD are fair game for a candidate Triana Jun 2016 #24
New to politics, aren't ya. It shows. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #4
+1 ouch. Nt NCTraveler Jun 2016 #32
Hillary is a Third Way "Democrat"--which means a moderate republican. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #7
we are big tent if "third way" means bringing all ideas int othe fold then so be it beachbum bob Jun 2016 #14
Man, can you not read? Triana Jun 2016 #23
Third Way is a corporate think tank comprised of Wall Street investment bankers & the likes think Jun 2016 #54
It's hypocrisy when they're questioning the "loyalty" of other Democrats whilst doing it. Triana Jun 2016 #16
I certainly don't consider bernie a democrat beachbum bob Jun 2016 #28
Of course you don't. He's a "raving socialist" to you. n/t Triana Jun 2016 #33
Yes, and if she gets the nomination corkhead Jun 2016 #40
No it is not. You (and I) are not loyal to the New Democrat's party. BillZBubb Jun 2016 #49
Sanders and his supporters have been quick to defend their republican voters bigtree Jun 2016 #9
Was he grousing at Hillary about "party loyalty" as he did it? You're missing the point here. Triana Jun 2016 #19
Well, Americans chose a person the last two elections who turned out to have not bjo59 Jun 2016 #11
I wonder PADemD Jun 2016 #21
What do you mean, "eventually"? VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #27
I am NOT going to vote for Trump and I am NOT going to work to get Trump elected. stillwaiting Jun 2016 #50
Money Trumps Peace is so... Mainstream Octafish Jun 2016 #12
And there you go. The moneychangers running world economies and gov'ts Triana Jun 2016 #18
bernie can't even manage $200 million campaign effectly or even hire the people can do it....wife beachbum bob Jun 2016 #34
Oh please. The man drew in and managed more money than Hillary. And has enough Triana Jun 2016 #38
The ''Again'' part is something old folks like me get. Octafish Jun 2016 #60
And "Democrats" keep swallowing their pablum and voting for them. Triana Jun 2016 #69
huh? wanting more votes for the party's nominee is good, not wanting more votes geek tragedy Jun 2016 #29
doesn't pass the purity standards beachbum bob Jun 2016 #35
Again you're missing the point. Her courting Repubs isn't the problem ... Triana Jun 2016 #36
you didn't document any dishonesty or hypocrisy. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #41
I love the attacks...june 16th is coming beachbum bob Jun 2016 #46
Thanks for this Triana. It's the hypocrisy nt riderinthestorm Jun 2016 #30
Exactly. Amazing how many here totally miss (or willfully ignore) that. Triana Jun 2016 #37
I have read the article twice exactly in what sentence did hillary slam bernie directly? beachbum bob Jun 2016 #47
again what sentence in your linked article indicates hillary slammed bernie over party unity?? beachbum bob Jun 2016 #51
so either you didn't post the right article...or your title is just wrong beachbum bob Jun 2016 #62
Sorry, but it's really tough to swallow. Want to gag when I read this op above. EndElectoral Jun 2016 #48
So sick of this shit vintx Jun 2016 #55
They have taken over the party that labor built. Now they say just get out, were no longer wanted. B Calm Jun 2016 #65
Bernie has made a point of saying he would reach out to Republicans oberliner Jun 2016 #63
Once again. Did you READ what I wrote? That's not the point. Triana Jun 2016 #67
Two separate issues oberliner Jun 2016 #71
I don't know why she just doesn't run as the Republican she is. Let that inner "R" out Hillary. pdsimdars Jun 2016 #68
She could go back to her conservative roots. Triana Jun 2016 #70
 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
1. democrats are big tent party...why they allowed a raving solcialist to run in OUR primaries
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:03 AM
Jun 2016

lets bring in as many moderate republicans as possible. We will NEVER have a ideological litmus test

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
6. the difference between zealots and the rest of us...we don't have to test for loyalty
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:08 AM
Jun 2016

we accept all points of views

 

TimPlo

(443 posts)
13. So embarrassing people reasonable for the Iraq War
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:11 AM
Jun 2016

Is ok with some? You have no problem with people who hurt this country from 2000-2008 as long as they are now called a (D)? Do you not care about any policy and just want to win at all costs even if you have to embrace people that want War so they can make money?

Thinking Sanders is a socialist is what a GOP person would think because they are Right Wing. Sanders polices are more Center-Left that full out socialist. Even the socialist parities in this country think he is too much to the Right to be considered a true raving socialist

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
22. obviously you havent followed sanders for 40 years...he proclaimed himself to be a socialist
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:20 AM
Jun 2016

countless times

I was 100% against the Iraq war and 100% for Afgan war ....and in general all wars should be avoided...but I have never been a single issue voter....The run up to the war and all the deceptions by the bush/cheney fills a book. Do I fault Hillary for her vote? Nope.....Do I hold accountable for the war...NOPE....that falls squarely on bush/cheney....and the nader voters who let bush win

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
15. "raving socialist"
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:12 AM
Jun 2016

You seriously do not know between a Marxist socialist and Democratic Socialism?

Wow - spoken just like a Republican. Amazing how the "socialist" talking point gets used here on DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Here. Let's have some schooling, shall we?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-communist-and-a-socialist-a6708086.html

Get back to me after you engage a brain cell or two.

 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
53. But FDR was a DEMOCRAT. FDR hated socialists. He despised dealing with Stalin during WWII too.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:11 AM
Jun 2016

He hated what he stood for. So please, never attempt to steal what FDR did as a socialist cause.

saidsimplesimon

(7,888 posts)
57. tonyt53, wow, my memory is no
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:21 AM
Jun 2016

longer photographic. First up on my search confirms I haven't lost my marbles. That's Communist, the second boogeyman in any mccarthyites' vocabulary.

 

disillusioned73

(2,872 posts)
59. I really don't know if your implying that..
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:26 AM
Jun 2016

Bernie is a Stalin type socialist or if you are trying to separate the fact that FDR was a "Democratic Socialist", according to the policies he put forth and passed.. let's not pretend that Republicans didn't try to smear him as an evil socialist..

Bernie is a "DEMOCRAT" as well - if not he wouldn't be able to be running in the Democratic primary.. that is pretty simple

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
5. I've never heard him "trash" her. I have heard him talk about her record.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:08 AM
Jun 2016

If that's "trashing" her maybe the problem isn't Sanders or the Truth -- but rather her record.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
25. depends on definition of trash is
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:26 AM
Jun 2016

berating hillary and her supporters and super delegates as in a negative context with term "corporatists" and the like, to berate her, her supporters and her super delegates....is trashing.....accusing the hillary of rigging the system...along with democratic establishment is trashing her....and us...when ever he lost....especially when its was the CLEAR INCOMPETENCE of his campaign that could find a way to research each states primary rules....to me the incompetence is appalling when you have spent $200 million dollars and can't even do simple google searchs


but this bernie sanders MO....its ALWAYS some else's fault....

always the establishment
always business
always the wealthy
always the system

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS

we are lucky to have saved america from bernie

 

JRLeft

(7,010 posts)
44. She's showing her corporatism every day. She's better than a hard core right winger but she's still
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:51 AM
Jun 2016

a right winger.

This is why the income inequality gap will continue to widen under democrats.

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
24. Hillary's MONEY (and its sources) and her RECORD are fair game for a candidate
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:26 AM
Jun 2016

that Sanders or anyone for that matter examines those things about ANY candidate should be expected.

And it's not "trashing" - it's paying attention.

I wish more people would do so.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
7. Hillary is a Third Way "Democrat"--which means a moderate republican.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:08 AM
Jun 2016

To her and her followers, courting republicans and even agreeing with them on policy is not a contradiction to their "Democratic" values. They are being loyal to the party they have transformed the former Democratic party into. They view it as expanding the party. It is not hypocrisy on there part. It is honesty.

The reality is the Democratic party has assimilated a lot of republican economic and foreign policy ideas. The majority of Democrats seem fine with this. They aren't going to have problems seeking and getting support from republicans--they are kindred spirits.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
14. we are big tent if "third way" means bringing all ideas int othe fold then so be it
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:12 AM
Jun 2016

we will never have a ideological purity test...leave that to the conservatives....not all republican ideas are wrong and not all liberal ideas are right


demanding purity is just plain wrong and goes against our core values more than any thing else....if there are some that don't like well. its really their problem

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
23. Man, can you not read?
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:23 AM
Jun 2016
My OP says that courting Repubs isn't the issue.

Slamming other actual Democrats about "party loyalty" whilst courting Repubs is the issue.

IOW:
The hypocrisy is the issue.
The disingenuousness is the issue.
The dishonesty is the issue.

Address THAT. Please stick to the subject and stop trying to create distractions from it.
 

think

(11,641 posts)
54. Third Way is a corporate think tank comprised of Wall Street investment bankers & the likes
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:11 AM
Jun 2016

It's goal is to profit off of the Democratic party.


Third Way Dems’ new war on Elizabeth Warren progressives: Why their centrist pitch is a political loser

By JIM NEWELL - TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015 07:00 AM CDT

The New Democrats want to spread their message of fulfilling big business's wish list. That'll sell!

~Snip~

The floor’s all yours, New Democrats. What policy ideas would sharpen House Democrats’ appeal to moderate voters?

• Trade deals. “When Obama needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes — 28 in total — to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the party’s left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.“

• Dynamic scoring. “Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Scott Peters of California introduced a ‘dynamic scoring’ bill — an issue normally favored by Republicans — that would encourage budget scorekeepers to score tax cuts favorably to reevaluate how Congress spends money on infrastructure, research and education.”

• “Reforming” Dodd-Frank. “Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is one of the most outspoken advocates for reforming the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill.” [Jim Himes seems like a nice fellow and has a good-by-congressmen-standards Twitter account. He is also owned by the banks.]

• Corporate tax reform. “Lawmakers in the coalition repeatedly stressed that reevaluating how the U.S. taxes corporate profits from overseas operations could be an area of compromise between the moderate Democrats and Republicans.”


OK OK, I think I see the problem here. This article and the quotes within it frame New Democrats’ proposal as geared toward appealing to voters. You know, voters! Humans who visit polling stations and cast their ballots for either Democratic or Republican candidates...


Read more:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/third_way_dems_new_war_on_elizabeth_warren_progressives_why_their_centrist_pitch_is_a_political_loser/
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
16. It's hypocrisy when they're questioning the "loyalty" of other Democrats whilst doing it.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:14 AM
Jun 2016

Hillary is a 1960s Republican. Perhaps Nixon in a pantsuit.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
28. I certainly don't consider bernie a democrat
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jun 2016

not after a lifetime of ranting on democrats...and many sanders followers are no way ever been democrats on any level as we see the demands of ideological purity coming from many of them

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
49. No it is not. You (and I) are not loyal to the New Democrat's party.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:59 AM
Jun 2016

You don't seem to understand, that ship has sailed, most of what you and I believe to be Democratic core values are no longer operative. The Democratic party as it stands now is mainly loyal to the new program. Those of us "stuck in the past" aren't.

bigtree

(85,918 posts)
9. Sanders and his supporters have been quick to defend their republican voters
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:08 AM
Jun 2016

...and we haven't forgotten Sanders' diversion to fundie Liberty University in the middle of our Democratic primary to appeal to some of the nation's most conservative voters.

Hillary's been drawing the most Democrats in this primary, Sanders the most republicans.

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
19. Was he grousing at Hillary about "party loyalty" as he did it? You're missing the point here.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:18 AM
Jun 2016

Read the OP again.

Carefully.

bjo59

(1,166 posts)
11. Well, Americans chose a person the last two elections who turned out to have not
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:10 AM
Jun 2016

too big a problem with war. This election it looks like we might well have a choice to vote for either a "Republican" who knows nothing whatsoever about governing and a Democrat who has the reputation for being the most pro-war candidate to run in decades. Interesting how it's "worked out" like that. Looks like party distinctions are for suckers. The people who run the show know that the distinction between Republican and Democrat is no longer where it's at. Lucky for them that enough voters haven't figured that out yet.

PADemD

(4,482 posts)
21. I wonder
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:19 AM
Jun 2016

I wonder if America will eventually become like the old Soviet Union and have only one party and one candidate for whom to vote. That would certainly make the corporate oligarchs happy.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
27. What do you mean, "eventually"?
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jun 2016

Money's corrupted both parties; the most pro-war "Democrat" on the rolls practically PICKED her opponent what with the Clinton's insinuating to Trump that he should run, and now they're painting it as "if you don't vote for us and only us, you're helping Trump" and using Inner Party math to justify that 0 - 0 somehow equals 1 for Trump.

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it."

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
50. I am NOT going to vote for Trump and I am NOT going to work to get Trump elected.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:02 AM
Jun 2016

I guess that equals 1 for Clinton.

If Clinton does not persuade progressives, leftists, and democratic socialists to vote for her that is her fault ultimately which in large part will be due to her choices and the election results will reflect her past actions and current campaign. Period.

If she loses to Trump then just how awful is she really? And, the fact that Trump is already beating her in a number of recent polls hugely underscores how pathetically weak she is as a candidate for the Democratic Party. What a nightmare.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
12. Money Trumps Peace is so... Mainstream
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:11 AM
Jun 2016

In NYT, warmongers crow:



The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0



Thank you for an outstanding OP, Triana. Most important information.
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
18. And there you go. The moneychangers running world economies and gov'ts
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:17 AM
Jun 2016

want more of OUR money for THEIR offshore untaxed coffers.

Hillary is their means of getting it.

Sanders? Not so much. He'd take our money but it would be used to pay for things for us. Like healthcare. Decent public schools. Free community college. Fixing our national infrastructure. Fighting climate change.

The MiC, PiC, Big Ag, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil & Gas and Wall St will take our money, hide it in untaxed offshore accounts and ask for more.

BIG difference. This is what this election is about.

People don't get it. People gonna get screwed.

AGAIN.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
34. bernie can't even manage $200 million campaign effectly or even hire the people can do it....wife
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:33 AM
Jun 2016

Jane poor financial decisions drove a college into bankruptcy....sanders has no chance on any level to incorporate effective change....he berates and belittles all those who disagree and his reputation for "not play well with others" is well deserved...

he pissed away $200 million in losing by substantial margins, this primary. Nothing to proud of and certainly is pretty indicative of major incompetence

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
38. Oh please. The man drew in and managed more money than Hillary. And has enough
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:39 AM
Jun 2016

to stay in the race until the convention.

He's obviously managing it just fine.

"Berates and belittles" - oh you mean he calls corporate parasites and oligarchs what they ARE?

Poor little innocent greedy entities. Bernie is SO mean to them!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
60. The ''Again'' part is something old folks like me get.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:39 AM
Jun 2016

Those who put profits ahead of people have no place in Washington. Yet, there they are.



Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse


Since Jimmy Carter, we keep pulling the lever marked "Democrat" and out pop these freaking republican after freaking republican administrations.



 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
69. And "Democrats" keep swallowing their pablum and voting for them.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:34 PM
Jun 2016



But hell, many of them can't even read. Just look at this thread. They're all "well Hillary HAS to reach out to Republicans because she needs their votes!"

Yet, nowhere did I write that she didn't. Or that Sanders didn't. My OP wasn't about that at all. But that's what almost all of the knee-jerk responses here are about.

What I DID write was that she's a dishonest hypocrite for criticizing Sanders about his "party loyalty" while she does this.

It's a bullshit criticism of Sanders. It's hypocrisy. It's dishonest.

It's Clinton and her dishonesty and hypocrisy. Ohhhhh. But they don't want to address THAT. Nooooo.

So they keep on about something else. ANYTHING else but that. Even something I didn't write and specifically SAID my post was NOT about.

It's FASCINATING to watch the willful BLIND spots here where she's concerned.

And with that, willful BLIND spots where we're all concerned. Where the economy and economic justice and the middle class is concerned. They see NONE of it or how or why she's a problem and a continuation of past "Republican Lite" or "Centrist Democrat" policies that got us (the regular non-millionaire people) where we are today where our children have LESS of a future than we had and where our children will likely NOT (already ARE not) be better off than we were.

And still. Blind. Clueless. Rushing in with knee-jerk responses to something I didn't even write or say.

It's easy to see how we got here. And why we'll remain here.

Holy smokes. Pfft.
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
29. huh? wanting more votes for the party's nominee is good, not wanting more votes
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jun 2016

for the party's nominee is bad.

not sure why this is a mystery to some

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
36. Again you're missing the point. Her courting Repubs isn't the problem ...
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:35 AM
Jun 2016

....her HYPOCRISY and her DISHONESTY is.

Address that.


 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
41. you didn't document any dishonesty or hypocrisy.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:45 AM
Jun 2016

it's not sufficient to merely allege such behavior, even if you put them in ALL CAPS

There's nothing wrong with asking for Republican support by saying "Trump is cray cray, you can't get with that" as opposed to "vote for me, and I'll cut the capital gains tax"

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
46. I love the attacks...june 16th is coming
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:55 AM
Jun 2016

all the rightwing based stuff posted here will come to an end.....sanders back to vermont

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
37. Exactly. Amazing how many here totally miss (or willfully ignore) that.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jun 2016

My OP clearly states that it's not her courting of GOP -- but slamming Sanders over "party loyalty" whilst she's at it.

Most replies to the OP jump in to defend her courting of the GOP when I CLEARLY stated that the issue is her hypocrisy about it.

Jeeze.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
51. again what sentence in your linked article indicates hillary slammed bernie over party unity??
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:03 AM
Jun 2016

are you having hard time finding too?

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
62. so either you didn't post the right article...or your title is just wrong
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:53 AM
Jun 2016

rarely if ever does hillary even say sanders or address sanders.....so saying hillary is saying this or that or demanding this or that of sanders is all just opinion....or what others are saying or doing


might be better if either links are posted that actually say with the OP title implies...or just post your opinion

 

vintx

(1,748 posts)
55. So sick of this shit
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:12 AM
Jun 2016

If I wanted to support hawks and labor exploiting candidates I'd be a fucking Republican

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
65. They have taken over the party that labor built. Now they say just get out, were no longer wanted.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:06 PM
Jun 2016

They're gonna have a big fight over this at the convention, and they fucking know it! They are afraid their sham is about to be exposed!

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
63. Bernie has made a point of saying he would reach out to Republicans
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:54 AM
Jun 2016

This is the same for both candidates.

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
67. Once again. Did you READ what I wrote? That's not the point.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:23 PM
Jun 2016

The point is that Hillary does so whilst bashing Sanders about "party loyalty".

It's about her DISHONESTY and her HYPOCRISY in regards to doing so. It's OK for HER but she criticizes Sanders re: "loyalty"

Address that.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
71. Two separate issues
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:41 PM
Jun 2016

Party loyalty, meaning that the Democrats should stand together to defeat Trump rather than sniping at each other.

The Democratic party, though, whoever the nominee ends up being, can still try to reach out to Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump (which Hillary is understandably doing).

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton camp courting mor...