Party loyalty is a means of control. I vote for those who will represent me, period.

[F4lconF16]

I firmly believe that continuing down this path will make our situation that much harder to fix. If we have not made significant progress in engaging our citizens (and non-citizens) within the next 5-15 years, we may not be able to return.

I genuinely do not think this country will last another 20 years without a revolution. I'd prefer not to go down that road; in a country this large, it is entirely unlikely to succeed. Though pockets of resistance may emerge, I think it likely that a fascist state will be what remains.

There is only one nominee who might change this path though to be honest I don't think it will happen. Sanders has the possibility of engaging the American population in a movement broader than simple elections. He does not advocate for radical change, no, and many of my comrades on the left refuse to support him for that reason.

I disagree that he will be ineffectual, however; he is a catalyst for a return to the idea of humanity, even if we are able to change little in the political situation. The engagement of currently disconnected people in a movement centered around human decency, anticapitalism (even if in word only), and communal support leaves wide room for leftists such as I to have our ideas heard on a larger scale than has been possible for many years.

Voting for Clinton does none of that, and perpetuates capitalist ideology. She is the embodiment of everything I do not like about liberalism (which is a lot).

I accept the risks of not voting for her. I am well aware of the possible consequences. But I fear more the possibility that we will stumble blindly along for another 8 years without change, our situation worsening as it has under Obama. When it comes time to truly change our world, it may be too far gone. It may be already. I will not be a part of perpetuating that blindness, and, in fact, a vocal opponent.

Before you inform me of my privileges and whine about how I am simply another white male who couldn't give a shit about the rest, let me tell you something.

This will be the second month I cannot make rent in a row. There may be a third, or a fourth. I work at a tiny coffee shop that is dependent on a good economic situation to survive. I am on the edge. I cannot take more of the same.

My roommate is trans and gender non-conforming. I am bisexual, and have been nearly assaulted for it before. Ze and I would be profoundly affected by the hate-filled rhetoric of the Republican party if they gained even more power than they already have.

My neighbor is black, and poor. She barely manages to make it through each month. She too, will not vote for Clinton. She is a lifelong advocate and worked with many of the big names in the social justice movement, particularly in the local Seattle scene. One of our good friends is an ex-addict. We know what would happen to him and others if the jail systems and mental health institutions were demolished. We know what would happen were social security to be dismantled. We know what will happen if the racist war on drugs is expanded.

I have a friend who recently needed an abortion. I know what would happen to her if that option was taken from her.

You do not get to tell me that I don't care about people that are different. I know the risks, and I am willing to accept them.

To me, the bigger risk is that we have a Democrat in control who will not represent us. One that will perpetuate the modern police state and expand it without notice, hiding our massive prison system and the war in the streets against the poor and PoC. One that will bail out the companies and not the people. On that will continue to support our massive war machine, committing heinous war crimes in the process. One that will continue to put in place massive neo-liberal trade agreements, destroying any pretense at a recovery. One that will attack our public education system, turning into a private profit machine.

One that will make things much worse while pretending the opposite.

We already have one. I refuse another.

Voting for a candidate in the hopes that--despite all evidence to the contrary--a neoliberal will happily advocate for working class and minority interests while not underhandedly giving more wealth and power to those who already have it is, to me, a far greater risk.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. + 1000 for Courage and Vision !!!!!!!

[emulatorloo]

2. Vote however you want.

However don't expect every one else to be so cavalier about throwing you and your friends to the Republican wolves.

It is Bernie all the way for me. I will do what I can to get him the nomination and into the White House. I will worry about what happens if he doesn't get the nomination.

However I can say now I have no interest in the allowing the destructive Republicans any where near the Whitehouse.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

56. the more I hear Hillary, the more convinced I am that she will fight Wall Street & the GOP

She has been badly treated by the GOP. Like Obama she has strived for consensus. But she knows better than anyone here how horrendous their policies are for Women and their families. Not only unfair, but a policy by paying women less holds our economy to a virtual stand still.

If I can figure that out, so can anybody who tries. Do the math.

[aikoaiko]

66. HRC, "You guys cut it out!" very firmly

[SusanCalvin]

71. Really. nt

[Rebkeh]

84. She will not fight Wall St

I don't believe it for a minute. She's great on a lot of things but definitely not this one.

[truedelphi]

115. A much wiser person than myself wrote the following article:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

You can, of course, go ahead and believe that someone who
gets $ 400,000 for giving a speech to Goldman Sachs execs is going to represent the middle class, but that represents a total non-use of logical faculties that hopefully lie buried within you.

[rynestonecowboy]

126. Great

link and great point. It seems unreal that some here can honestly claim that someone who is so well taken care of by wall street would be impartial when elected to the presidency.

[Dustlawyer]

313. Why would they pay and donate all of that money if it did them no good?

All of the studies show that they get huge bang for the buck with their donations.

Bernie and I are for Publicly Funded Elections! That issue alone should be why all Progressives and most Republicans should support him. We are all losing when we support candidates that take the money in exchange for whatever the Donor asks for because we are the ones who have to pay!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

174. truthout? no more.

I once (when Bush.2 was in office)appreciated truthout. I've moved-on.

[BlueCaliDem]

278. Same here. It seems that after Obama's election, they went off the rails.

I'd like to keep both feet in a reality-based United States.

[murielm99]

353. I thought it was just me.

I don't read truthout any more, either.

[BlueCaliDem]

356. No, you're in good company, murielm99. :-)

[Duckhunter935]

120. Please stop

Now cut it out, lol

[Javaman]

316. why on earth would she fight the very people funding her campaign? nt

[sabrina 1]

216. I thiink you missed the point of the OP. It IS cavalier to contnue to vote for people

who do not and have not represented the people who elect them. To continue to do is cavalier. The Democratic Party has already lost 10% of its membership over the past number of years costing us the House and Senate.

If they want to stay relevant as a major party, then they better start listening to the PEOPLE not Wall St, very will represented within our party by the Third Way think tank. An organization whose board is made up of Wall St investors.

They have taken over our party dragging it further and further to the right. Backing Third Way candidates and leaving good Progressives without help, see the NJ Governors race eg where they BACKED CHRISTIE

Now why should Progressive Democrats even run for office in a party that has no time for them??

If a political party LOSES elections it is NOT the fault of the PEOPLE, it is the fault of the party.

This constant nagging at VOTERS who are more than ready to vote for DEMOCRATS IF they have that choice.

But if they don't, no one is going to be very patient with those who are blaming the voters.

Talk to the Party leadership and tell them if they don't do what is right, THEY are risking the SC and a Republican in the WH.

Now is the time to tell them. Before it's too late.

[orpupilofnature57]

252. + 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Eloquently stated !!!

[M_A]

342. Spot ON!!!

I've been trying to explain this to people for months! Thanks for spelling it out so succinctly.

[Thinkingabout]

3. I will be voting for the candidate who best represents my interest, that candidate is Hillary

Clinton. I will support het campaign and work hard to get her elected. Not only does she represent my interest but also has experience in working on both sides of the aisle in Congress, experience in foreign affairs and is very strong.

[JDPriestly]

38. Hillary is unelectable.

The e-mail and Benghazi scandals were kind of much ado over nothing.

But this latest scandal about her approval of arms sales or the approval of arms sales during her period as secretary of state and the correlating donations to the Clinton Foundation? That is a really damaging scandal that will force her to quit the race or in the alternative will insure that we have a Republican president.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251697624

The facts scream corruption.

She will not be our candidate. She damaged her career by trying to have a foundation that accepts "charitable" donations while serving in a position of political authority.

This scandal if for real and stinks. Sorry.

[Thinkingabout]

63. Sanders is not electable, of course Bill Krystal is hoping for Sanders to be the

Nominee so the GOP can win in the GE. Don't forget Sanders has also made moves which has damaged his electability and the other points are good RW talking points. Sanders lacks in foreign experience.

[Vincardog]

98. Bill Krystal is hoping for HRC to steal the nomination to electrify his base and demoralize ours.

[Thinkingabout]

110. Yes I see Krystal's big smile and listen to what he says.

[YOHABLO]

222. Why is so much credence given to Bill Krystal's opinions? He's a smirking little twit.

[saidsimplesimon]

297. yohablo, we agree, "He's a smirking little twit."

So is Joe Scarborough and all the other pundits pushing for a Sander's run. They think Mrs. Clinton can beat any of their candidates in the General.

[lewebley3]

328. Bill Krystal is wrong about everything

[JDPriestly]

154. Sanders looks very ethical compared to Hillary. What moves has he made that have damaged

his electability? I am unaware of any.

Sanders can appoint a good Sec. of State and Sec. of Defense.

On edit, Sanders has been in Congress since about 1991. That's many years of experience with foreign policy. George W. Bush had no experience whatsoever at the national level but managed to finagle his way into the White House.

Bernie's foreign policy statements make sense to the American people and that is what matter.

I think that Americans are sick and tired of the wars and the trade. So Bernie's foreign policy experience is a good fit with the mood of the country.

We want a president who will focus on our problems because our problems are very serious.

If the TPP is an example of what people who know foreign policy try to foist upon our country, we would be better off with people whose expertise is domestic policy. I think Bernie is great on foreign policy. He certainly understood the policy on the Iraq War Resolution far better than Hillary did.

Income inequality and corruption are going to be the issues in 2015.

The Republican candidates AND Hillary are pictures of the 1%, the winners in the income inequality, and this pay the foundation and then get weapons puts Hillary in the corrupt category.

Bernie is electable.

People will be disgusted with this scandal.

[Thinkingabout]

165. Sanders has stated he would use military action and use drones. He has voted for bombing and

Military action, how is this going to get you past military action vote by Clinton, both Sanders and Clinton has voted for action.

[JDPriestly]

229. Bernie Sanders was a small child in WWII. His father immigrated from Europe and the family

is/was Jewish. He is realistic. Sometimes war is necessary.

The problem with Clinton's vote the Iraq War Resolution is that the Iraq war was illegal in that we invaded Iraq without provocation.

Read the April 2004 article in Vanity Fair on the Iraq War. It was an illegal war.

And as BErnie pointed out when he explained why he was voting against it, we had no plan with regard to governing Iraq after our invasion. Nor did we have a plan to deal with an insurrection.

Bernie was utterly right about the Iraq War.

I disapprove of Hillary's vote for the Iraq War because it showed such poor judgment on her part. She did not ask the intelligent questions that Bernie asked before voting even though the women of Code Pink warned her that she would be making a mistake to vote for that war. (There is a video of Code Pink discussing this with Hillary before her vote possibly on YouTube if you are interested.) Hillary had just left the White House. She should have known to ask the questions that Bernie asked.

Hillary does not have good judgment, and I do not trust her. She does not make decisions based on solid values, careful collection of information and solid reasoning. She makes them based on polls and to serve her opportunistic purposes including her ambition.

She is the picture of the congenial corruption that reigns in D.C.

[Thinkingabout]

285. No response to my post? Well, if you must bring up another subject, Bernie did not have good

judgment when he made repeated no votes against the Brady Bill. We have daily gun violence in America and he voted against the Brady Bill, we have lost more lives in the US than we did in Iraq. Poor judgment, his NRA rating of D, it should have always been F. This vote plus other issues makes Bernie unelectable.

[JDPriestly]

319. I support Bernie on gun control issues.

Here is Feel the Bern's summary of Bernie's views on gun issues:

Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:

“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.

Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

I have lived in other countries in which hunting was an important aspect of the culture. We should not permit people to have certain types of guns. I agree with that. I'm not a gun expert but I would say that guns that are almost entirely only useful to shoot people should not be owned by private citizens. On the other hand, I think that hunting guns and guns that would be truly useful for self-defense should be allowed. I agree that local government should determine who may carry a gun and who may not. In California we have stricter gun control than elsewhere because we need it. My relatives who live on farms need guns that I don't need living in a city.

I agree strongly with Bernie that we need better mental health education and services in this country. It is quite evident just from participating on DU that we need better anger management education in this country. If people express themselves with so much anger on DU, I hate to think what it is like in their homes!

Also, guns and alcohol should not be mixed. We might do well to educate people about the extent to which violent crimes, especially domestic violence, are associated with alcohol use.

I support Bernie on the gun issue.

In particular I think that making gun manufacturers liable for gun use by their customers would set precedents that we might regret if applied (and they could be applied) to the manufacturers of other potentially lethal objects or services.

I've known of people who committed suicide by leaving the gas on in their ovens when not lit. Many of our household items are potential poisons. Should the manufacturers of ovens or household cleaning supplies that are poisonous be held liable if someone kills someone with their products. Knives???

The problem is the kind of anger and rebelliousness that is expressed in our gun culture, and passing laws will not change that culture. In fact, making a sort of political war out of fighting gun laws may be counterproductive. It may be making the political war over guns a focus when we should be focusing on making our society a less hostile, difficult place to live in.

How about focusing on free college and paid leave for new mothers and similar beneficial programs rather than on "taking people's guns away from them."

The mentality of the gun lovers is about four-five years old when it comes to their guns. The best way to end the gun fever is to distract them from their guns. All the argument about the subtleties of gun legislation just makes them defend their right to own guns all the more. Let's simply talk about the things that can make their and our lives better. Let's educate people about why we have these mass shootings (and let's find out why first) and then we can talk about our gun culture.

We already have a lot of laws about guns. Bernie supports closing some of the loopholes on gun sales through proxies and on background checks. I agree with his limitations on the kinds of changes in the laws that we need to have. I support Bernie's gun policies.

[sabrina 1]

343. Let's hope a President would use military action in defense of this country. That's what makes

Bernie so appealing to voters. His positions on the major issues is RATIONAL. He opposes the insanity of the PNAC crowd which is what Iraq, Libya, Syria and the latest 'let's go to war with Russia' propaganda is all about.

We've witnessed now how dangerous these policies are for this country not to mention for all the other unfortunate countries they have destroyed.

His position on War and Hillary's could not be more different.

I also support his position on gun control. So do a majority of Americans.

But if you want to use those issues against him, you are only going to help him.

So no objections from me to all the talking points that up to now have failed so spectacularly.

[sheshe2]

223. Lockheed Martin. nt

[beam me up scottie]

226. Laughing at the thought of taking out Iran:

[sheshe2]

228. You never answer a question.

Never. A non answer is guilty as charged.



OMG! You go to a foreign site for a link!!! Were there no American sites for you to post?

[beam me up scottie]

230. You asked a question? And since when is YouTube is a foreign site?

ZOMGWTFBBQ???

I'll have to stop watching all of those kitty videos now - can't take a chance on getting foreign cooties!




You never fail to make me laugh, she.

[sheshe2]

232. ...

[beam me up scottie]

234. Hello Cthulhu kicks ass and is adorable at the same time, isn't she?

I inherited her from Modem Butterfly.

[F4lconF16]

236. Did you see the kraken in the Sunday lolcats?

Release himmmm!

I've always loved that Cthulu you have.

[beam me up scottie]

238. No, I missed it, I'll have to check it out, thanks!

She is pretty awesome, I've had her in my sig line for about 10 years now.




eta: LOVE IT:

[pinebox]

169. Sanders is VERY electable in a general

and now you know why.
He crosses party lines and will also carry in the indy vote.

[Thinkingabout]

170. Oh, yea, I am going to bookmark this one for later reference.

[Ed Suspicious]

275. Good idea.

[pinebox]

293. Want more?

Here you go.

Republicans for Bernie Sanders
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders

It is a real thing.
Now before you all naysayers say "It's just Republicans who want Bernie to win so they can beat them in the GE!" Well maybe the politicians think that... but not the people who are calling themselves Republicans for Bernie Sanders. I believe that there are lot of Republicans who would actually going to vote for him in the general election.

What is my proof for this? Take a look at that sign in the top there. It's from Vermont. A sign on a rabid anti government person's store. Tea party to the extreme. And guess what... there's a sign promoting the "socialist" Bernie Sanders.

"Experience that money just can't buy." <--- That, right there, in a nutshell, is the essence of his crossover appeal.

[geek75]

290. Both are electable

That is if the democrats coalesce around the primary winner and get out and vote. No excuses.

[PosterChild]

121. Hadn't heard anything about it, thought it was late breaking news . ...

.... then I looked at the date - may? Ok, late may. Four or five months ago?

Did this come up in the debate? Maybe it did but I didn't hear anything about it.

As i remember a DUer saying a while back, you don't want to attack Bill Clinton about his charity and give him a chance to talk about it.

[enid602]

144. emails

Well, at least you're trying you get some new material. Frankly, the bgazi/egazi schtick was starting to wear thin. Interesting that you waited until the GOP admitted it was a contrived scandal with manipulated/falsifief records. BTW, who pays you to write these posts?

[JDPriestly]

159. The scandal about the link between the donations from foreign countries and Hillary's and Bill's

foundation is not a bogus e-mail or Benghazi scandal.

It really looks like corruption.

I'm sure Hillary will be asked about it.

This is not dirty politics or negative campaigning. This is the reality of Hillary's history.

Sorry. I did not make this up. The percentages of increased arms sales and their correlation to foundation donations is very troubling.

[Thinkingabout]

282. RW talking points, I would not believe the talking points from the RW

[JDPriestly]

320. David Sirota in Salon reporting on Hillary's approvals of arms sales is right wing?

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

Not sure whether I answered your post.

That's a pretty troubling article.

[SCantiGOP]

47. I vote with the Supreme Court in mind

Replacing Ginsburg with another Scalia would have more impact on our country than who is the President. Hillary is the most electable person from either party, and only blind loyalty to a different candidate and/or hyperbole could make one disagree with that or say that they would not vote for Clinton when she becomes the nominee.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Agreed, the next SC nominees are important for a long time.

[rynestonecowboy]

134. The supreme court is the reason we should all support the eventual candidate

but I believe making arguments like yours are harmful to our party. You can believe that HRC is more electable just like a Sanders supporters can feel like he is more electable. Insulting an energized and excited base that Sanders is creating by saying they have blind loyalty(I find this sort of hypocritical seeing how HRC is more of a moderate corporate type dem yet has been acting like a far left liberal) is counter-intuitive and destructive. If HRC ends up gaining the nomination you can almost guarantee a victory in the GE if you are able to retain those outgoing Sanders supporters. This notion that HRC will easily gain the nomination and easily win the GE is a good way for us to lose it all. We as a party are lucky to have either of these people to be our next president.

[Fawke Em]

156. The thing about the OP is this: it doesn't matter who he votes for.

He lives in a solid blue state. Even if he votes Green, his state will go for the Democratic nominee.

Same in my state. Mine is solid red. If Sanders isn't the nominee, I don't have to vote for Clinton - and won't because I don't trust her. I can vote for whomever I want since my state will give its 11 EC votes to the Republican, anyway.

[bowens43]

246. so you vote for the status quo, dishonest government , big business and the 1%. Good for you....

[Thinkingabout]

295. No, quiet the opposite, voting for a functional government, experienced candidate who knows how to

do the job required of a president.

[Martin Eden]

261. You've invested heavily in the MIC?

Personal profit from Hillary's militaristic foreign policy might explain why she represents your interests.

Personaly, I consider foreign policy to be THE WEAKEST part of her record, given that she would continue to mislead our country down that extremely costly, disastrous, tragic course. Hillary Clinton is "strong" on foreign policy the same way GW Bush was "strong" on foreign policy, and she was with him in the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States.

[Dawgs]

294. "Working on both sides of aisle" is kind of hard when you said that one side is the enemy. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

296. Hum, the RW TP thinks along this line.

[Dawgs]

302. What? Did she not say she's proud that the Republicans are 'the enemy'?

And, do you really expect them to work with her after she says stuff like that?

[Thinkingabout]

304. Think not said.

[Dawgs]

305. What do you mean, "think not said"? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

307. Your post #302

[Dawgs]

311. I know what I said. What did you mean in your response? n/t

[cantbeserious]

4. Agree Completely - Very Well Stated

eom

[randome]

5. Isn't that selfish of you?

Why not vote according to what's best for the country?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[SusanCalvin]

42. And yourself as well,

Much like putting your own oxygen mask on before your child's.

[jeff47]

162. Because when you pass out before you manage to get the kid's mask on

your choice to put the kid's on first will not sound quite so good.

[SusanCalvin]

175. Exactly. nt

[Vincardog]

43. Please enlightern us how any candidate is better for the country than Bernie? On What POLCICY are

They better?

[BeanMusical]

213. :crickets: As usual when asked about policies.

[randome]

260. Please excuse me for having a life.

I've already said I'd prefer Sanders to Clinton. But it's pretty obvious that Clinton will get the nomination. My point is that not voting for Clinton once she is the nominee is doing a disservice to the majority of your fellow citizens since it's obvious, for good or bad, that they prefer her.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[BlueCaliDem]

281. "not voting for Clinton once she is the nominee is doing a disservice to the majority"

Some people really don't like democracy where the majority WINS.

[BeanMusical]

306. You still haven't answered Vincardog's question.

Which was: How any candidate is better for the country than Bernie? On What POLCICY are they better?

At this point HRC is not the nominee and I never said that I wouldn't vote for her if she wins the nomination. In fact I didn't say a thing about what I would do one way or the other.

So? About her policies?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

323. Why should anyone answer that question?

Most people care about results, not about the POLICY (capitalized, underlined, and bolded) in some meaningless speech that will change not a single law.

So, even though I could easily get into the argument with you to show you were Sanders is wrong, the question is moot - so I won't.

The question here, for this little screed, is whether anyone cutting off their nose to spite their face is a good idea. It seems particularly ironic, that the OP states concern for abortion rights, and thinks that not voting for the pro-choice candidate is going to help with that.

But no. Sorry. No POLICY arguments here. This OP is all about being a PUMA (Party-Unity My Ass). Personally, I think it violates the Terms of Service of the D.U., but Skinner is very tolerant of Democratic party bashing from the left. Almost too much so.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[BeanMusical]

324. Well, that's ok if you don't know either.

Have a nice day!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

337. Another childish response.

And so typical of DU Sanders supporters, being deliberately disingenuous about what I said.

Next, you'll huff and puff, and get all mad that anyone not in your cult doesn't take you seriously.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[randome]

325. How many times do I need to say I support Sanders over Clinton?

Do I need to specify that I think Sanders' policies are better? There? Is that okay?

But it's very clear to me that Clinton will be our next President. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the candidate with the best policy wins. Has that ever happened in American history?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[BeanMusical]

327. So would you vote for a can of Spam if it was leading in the polls? It has no policy.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Bye now.

(To the jury: No I am not comparing Hillary to a can of Spam)

[840high]

85. You need to do the same. It's

most certainly not Clinton. I don't want the same old crap.

[1monster]

90. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the OP... I haven't given it much thought, yet.

However, the impression that I got from the post was that the OP was voting, with his conscience, what he felt was best for the country, rather than what was best for him.

In 2008, I finally stopped voting in the primaries for who seemed to be the most electable and voted my heart. Dennis Kucinich that year. And it felt good. He didn't win the nomination, and I knew he wouldn't when I voted. It still felt really good to vote for the person I thought would do the best job.

So I won't castigate anyone who feels s/he needs to vote his/her conscience. If more of us voted like that, especially in the primaries, we might have a better world.

[Paka]

227. Which is exactly why I am voting for Bernie.

He is best for the country. HRC would not be good for the country. It's not a difficult decision.

[randome]

272. I'll be voting for Sanders for the primary.

But Clinton will likely win the nomination so I'll do what I think is best for the country -vote Democratic.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[onenote]

6. Your willingness to live with the risk that the Supreme Court will take away

abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, what's left of voting rights, etc. is your choice.


It is not a choice I will make.

[SusanCalvin]

22. I will vote for Hillary, if necessary (I hope it isn't) for one reason only.

SCOTUS.

[dpatbrown]

64. Totally agree.

I realize there are some of you who have stated many times that voting for Clinton in the general is not going to happen, but onenote, I agree with you, it's the "Supreme Court stupid". I witnessed it in 68, and I hope it doesn't happen again. There are times in life where it's more beneficial to shallow the caster oil, and this is one of them. To THINK that the Republicans could be in control of Washington, is unthinkable.

I am totally behind Sanders, will work hard for him, and will be extremely disappointed if he loses. In my life, I have never seen a Bernie Sanders.

[onenote]

130. +1

[840high]

87. I don't think they would.

[onenote]

131. Really? You think that if a repub get elected he/she isn't going to appoint scotus justices

that would side with the current conservative group on issues where they've been in the minority by a 5-4 margin?

You've got to be kidding.

[jeff47]

163. Pssst...we don't all live in states Clinton can win.

Or states where Clinton can lose.

[onenote]

166. So if Sanders gets the nomination would you be okay with DUers

in states where he is thought to be a shoo-in or a certain loser staying at home?

[jeff47]

167. Yep. If it doesn't change electoral votes, it doesn't matter. (nt)

[SusanCalvin]

176. Exactly. We live in the real world here. Most of the time. nt

[joshcryer]

237. I completely disagree. It could lead to party weakening.

If, for example, the Greens get 5% of the vote and then are seen as a national platform, then Sanders would have lost ground for the Democratic party, a new national party would be seen as viable, etc. And yes, there are a lot of people who would vote for a Green over Sanders. Just read any host of counterpunch articles trashing Sanders. Sanders would not advocate for that and neither would most Sanders supporters (if Sanders is in a safe state go ahead and vote Green, I think that is silly on the face of it).

I realize the poster you responded to was asking about "staying at home" but the OP is not arguing against voting, they are saying they will vote for whoever they wish. Which I interpret to mean either write in Sanders, or vote third party.

[dreamnightwind]

241. A Sanders nomination will cause more people to vote Green than a Hillary one?

Honestly I can't believe I just read that, makes no sense whatsoever. I don't care what counterpunch says, this makes no sense.

Many people find Hillary unsupportable under any circumstances. I personally voted for Jill Stein in 2012, Obama didn't need my vote in my very safe state and after supporting Obama in 2008 and him putting on his pinstripe suit rather than his comfortable walking shoes as soon as he was elected, I was very happy to make a non-consequential protest vote. In 2016 my state will be just as safe if Hillary gets the nomination, same scenario, worse candidate.

[joshcryer]

242. I was giving an example.

I wasn't saying it was currently possible (that the greens could get 5% of the vote). In reality the American people are done with the petty third party or no vote crap since Gore had his election stolen.

But if we had another Nader, someone who could get that kind of third party advocacy, then it would weaken the party for supporters of our candidates to say "go ahead, don't vote just because the state is safe."

"The state is safe" is not a reason to not vote or to vote third party, period. It's just throwing away the vote. Gary Johnson got 3x the vote of Stein... the Libertarians still didn't break the 1% barrier, much less the 5% barrier.

If Sanders wins the nomination there'll still be that silly .2% of Greens and .5% of Libertarians who would vote for their candidates.

edit: you seem to not be aware of the Green vs Democrat vote exchanges that were going on in 2000. People in "safe states" were pledging to vote for Nader in exchange for people to pledge to vote for Gore in "unsafe states." It was extremely crazy at the time.

[dreamnightwind]

244. I am quite aware of all that, I simply have no problem with it whatsoever

We need a second party, not a third. If the Democratic Party won't step up and represent their constitutents, but instead represent their funders, they make their own problems.

Sanders is providing a model of how to win without being so compromised that it becomes a hollow victory.

It's a pity that Hillary won't forgo her corporate funding and SuperPac's in the primary, there is no legitimate excuse for using such tactics. I can see (but do not agree with) justifications for using all means necessary in the general since the Republicans will be taking dirty money in with both hands, but Bernie isn't and won't, so there's no acceptable reason for Hillary to do so in the primary, other than she has no principles except for power.

The candidate who could create your nightmare scenario of Greens or socialists getting their 5% (why does this bother you?) is, of course, Sanders himself, should he go 3rd party to carry on the movement he has built. He has a remarkable record of loyalty to the Democratic Party even as theey fight him, but seeing the way the DNC and Hillary's surrogates have rigged the game against him, and the overwhelming response he is getting from the people, who knows what will happen.

The triangulating corporatists have forever been telling the left that we have nowhere to go but to vote for them, with their snarky smiles as they enjoy our futility. I won't forget.

For the record I did not support the Nader movement, I thought he was an excellent consumer advocate but not a serious politician. Sanders is nothing like that. Our party needs to choose if it stands for anything or not, and this time we have a clear and viable choice.

[joshcryer]

247. Sanders would not go third party.

Getting 5% would be enough for a spoiler. If you want a third party advocate for approval voting, not party dis-unity, and Nader-esque or Perot-esque spoilers.

[dreamnightwind]

250. I'm pretty sure he won't, I agree

The 5% would be all about where it comes from. 5% evenly distributed, sure. 5% strategically placed in safe states, no problem.

I see it as the obligation of the party to compel us to vote for them, it's the only way we have of holding them accountable. If I'm so disgusted with my own party's nominee that I even have to think about it, there's a serious problem, and in almost every case, the problem is the money behind the candidate, and the fact that the candidate cares more about who writes the checks than who casts the votes.

What's approval voting? Is it like a none of the above option?

[joshcryer]

251. Here's a good video about it:

The basic idea is "vote for who you like" not just one person.

I don't believe we can break up the two party system without changing how we vote. So that's why I am opposed to saying "throw away your vote," or "vote third party," because we're stuck with the system so every vote for one or the other matters very much.

With approval voting your vote for the third party candidate(s) would actually have sway. As it stands now it has zero sway and does open up the possibility for future spoiler candidates.

[jeff47]

273. And the last 8 years have demonstrated this is false.

Obama won his elections by the largest margins since Reagan. Did the Republicans respond as if their party was weakening?

[joshcryer]

276. Republicans weren't eating their own

They tend to be far more unified. It's why the tea party caucus weilds so much power. They go with the fringe. Democrats are more diverse, really three major caucuses, parties in one. As the quote goes, "I don't belong to a party, I'm a democrat!"

[jeff47]

277. :rofl:

Right now, 40 Republicans in the House are preventing the election of a new speaker. They knocked off the old speaker. "Moderate" Republicans have been annihilated in election after election. They absolutely are eating their own.

[joshcryer]

280. That's internal crap.

You don't see this overwhelming effort to bash their own party. They get their guys elected, then because the party only operates if everyone is on the same page, the fringe gains power.

Paul Ryan is the pick they wanted and the one they'll likely get.

[jeff47]

283. Yes, you do see them bash their party.

There's tons of people shouting "RINO!!" at Boehner and McConnell, for example.

Paul Ryan is the pick they wanted and the one they'll likely get.

You mean the guy those 40 Republicans are now attacking as not sufficiently conservative?

Also, Ryan isn't stupid enough to take the job. His claim to fame is to produce bad plans with magic asterisks, and hope nobody asks for details. He won't be able to avoid details if he's speaker.

[joshcryer]

287. Theater.

Webster is not going to be second in succession, they just want new measures enacted and Webster is their front man.

Ryan is their choice and they know he'll budge.

He would inherit Boh ers staff and policy people, nothing much on the way of work, there. May have to take up drinking heavily.

[jeff47]

288. So why'd you claim you don't see attacks if there are attacks?

Whether or not you think they are genuine, they still exist.

[joshcryer]

291. OK, I think it's real, but sleazy.

It is not about damaging their own, it's about getting their way. Like when Grimm threatened to throw that guy off the balcony.

Not sure how to really put it, they don't wasn't to see their people lose, but they can trash talk their way to a better outcome. A Ryan with merely the ear of the caucus would be a better outcome than a Sessions.

But you look at dems, we lost in 2010 & 2014 and there was almost a celebration for some. We lost Feingold and Grayson and it was nothing.

[jeff47]

292. They literally drove the speaker out of his job.

The attacks are real. They are the true believers. And the Republicans need to appeal to them in order to win primaries. And they have deliberately sabotaged their party. For example, Reid was in deep trouble until the teabaggers caused Angle to win the primary.

Which means "working with the Republicans" is no longer possible. They can not compromise and keep their job. So they will choose their job.

But you look at dems, we lost in 2010 & 2014 and there was almost a celebration for some

No, the teabaggers celebrate when they knock off a "RINO".

We say "Stop the moronic 'who else you gonna vote for?' strategy".

[joshcryer]

344. I called it. Ryan to run for speakership.

And give them their House rules concessions.

[jeff47]

345. Except you've got it exactly backwards.

Ryan has said he'll run, but only if the "Freedom Caucus" falls back in line. That is, in fact, the opposite of giving them their House rules concessions.

[joshcryer]

346. Erm, Ryan said "update our House rules."

That's what the Freedom Caucus wanted.

Second, we need to update our House rules so that everyone can be a more effective representative. This is, after all, the people’s house. But we need to do it as a team. And it needs to include fixes that ensure we don’t experience constant leadership challenges and crisis.

http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398406

That's absolutely a concession in my book. He blinked.

[jeff47]

347. And if you pay attention to which rules he wants to change

you'll find that the rule he wants to remove is the rules around "Vacate the Chair" motions. Which is what the Freedom Caucus used to topple Boehner.

His conditions are litterally "You guys have to stop this shit and do what I say". That's why the Freedom Caucus reps are balking now at Ryan. If he had "blinked", they wouldn't be publically opposing Ryan now.

[joshcryer]

348. The rules they want changed are here:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000150-49be-d501-ab5d-6dbf7cd70000

I don't see how Ryan has ruled them out. He basically put them on the table. There are obviously parts that won't pass in a chance in hell. But they're open to being discussed.

[jeff47]

349. So now you've moved from "he blinked" to "he hasn't ruled them out"?

Again, Ryan has said "Here are my conditions". Those conditions would utterly neuter the Freedom Caucus. That's the point.

[joshcryer]

350. We'll see.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. I, largely, agree with everything you have written ...

And, then, comes the general election ... where EVERY SINGLE THING that you mention, gets worse under a republican administration.

Every single vote that I have cast has been a defensive vote ... I don't have the luxury of casting "message", or "sick of it" votes.

[Agschmid]

10. Yup.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. And neither does the OP author.

And neither do most of us. Our lives will get worse, maybe far worse, maybe even end under a Republican. But unless you're already living in the lap of luxury, you NEVER have the 'luxury' of voting to try and change the status quo. It ALWAYS involves pain and suffering and sacrifice to create the needed change. Pain and suffering is pretty much a given. The only question is whether or not that pain and suffering is leading towards change to make things better for those who come after us. It's long term strategic voting, not short term voting for 'less suffering'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Lossing, and the resulting suffering, is winning long-term? n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. It is if we can finally convince the Democratic Party to quit lining up behind pro-corporate

banner bearers who sell us out time and again to the rich while largely ignoring the social promises they made as well, unless they need something to get them re-elected.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Again ... I don't have that luxury ...

In the spirit of the baseball play-offs ... I'd rather win on singles and walks, than hope for those swing for the fences to connect.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. There is no 'luxury' except in your own mind. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Okay. n/t

[Rilgin]

185. To Be Blunt

The reason you can afford to play defense is because as an individual you are "privileged". You have a job, business and I know enough money to be trying to decide between a new BMW and a new Range Rover as one of your toys.

Yes, going to the heart of your favored issues, if the republicans get into office, race relations will not improve and racial inequities will continue. We probably will not see any changes in our justice system and policing. However, we are unlikely to see any improvement if we elect corporate politicians who are supported by private prison companies. We may not see improvement in institutional racism or in policing but we will not be returning to overt racism even if a Republican gets into office. Those days are pretty much past. If a democratic corporate president like Hillary gets in office, she will probably hit the singles you want in the social justice area but it will not change much from the status quo. She is a status quo president with authoritarian tendencies.

On the other hand, it is more urgent for some people who can not weather status quo politics whether its republican or democratic and on a planetary level we may not have any time to wait for an immediate change to our growth based economic system.

I think you might try to really read the OP with empathy as to what exactly he is saying and why you do have the "luxury" of the status quo. The OP is saying he does not have rent. He will or maybe homeless soon and probably out of a job. The status quo you can live with. He does not have time to play singles. It is the fourth quarter and has to go for a hail mary because a field goal really wont work. He will not lose by as much but he will still lose. Further, there is not much more they can take from a lot of people.

We need to reverse course on a number of our societal institutions and systems in an urgent matter not hit singles. We have been hitting singles for years. In the first inning, the strategy might be sound. However, it is not the first inning anymore. It is late in the game and we are losing.

[F4lconF16]

190. Thank you. Nt

[leftupnorth]

192. Holy Cow! Excellent response!

[840high]

214. ...^ that x100

[joshcryer]

239. Please don't lecture that poster about "privilege."

Assuming that personal information you're divulging is true, it doesn't change that people have different lived experiences. Especially in the AA community. No one has a monopoly on having shitty experiences.

People can use logic and reason and realize that under Republicans everything gets incontrovertibly worse and under Democrats everything gets unquestionably better. Everything is getting better, whether people accept it or not.

[Rilgin]

262. That is a falsehood

Under a democratic president Barak Obama, two of the most major issues of our time did not incontrovertibly get better. In fact they incontrovertibly got worse.

These are income inequality and climate change.

This is not to say that Republicans have anything to recommend them. They are insane especially the current crop but it is not the case that the democratic party is following a correct path.

[joshcryer]

265. It is objective truth.

http://www.gapminder.org/

Climate change is our greatest threat but we've already gone past the point of no return on that one (particularly because of Congress, Obama had no power over that). Geoengineering is the go-to solution.

Under Republicans everything goes to shit. Nevermind that this is their last wailing attempt to stay relevant with their hatred for immigrants. We don't need another EU. There is a huge difference between the parties. And voting for Democrats does matter over voting for Republicans.

[JI7]

240. if you say 1sbm is privileged, that would make Trayvon MArtin as having been privileged also

based on personal financial situation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

257. Or, What's that girl's name that people are saying? ...

Between your response and Joshcryers response, I don't think I need to respond further but, I will.

[joshcryer]

266. Don't take the bait.

You know that shit is going to lead to a hide.

[1StrongBlackMan]

267. You're probably right ...

but I wrote, and re-wrote, my response three times to be the most unhide-worthy post I've ever written (well ... maybe, not as much as my infamous, "Whoosh, over your head" hide).

It just amazes me that so many have convinced themselves that "it is MY candidate, or life is not worth living."

[Rilgin]

258. What does Trayvon Martin have to do with this thread

Perhaps you didnt read this thread. The OP said he can not afford more of the status quo. It has to get better for him. He is not one of the economic winners in this roulette board of a capitalist sytem. He does not have the time to wait for a system that will allow him some dignity and some security.

This should be met with understanding on a democratic board. This was met by someone who totally ignored what was said and talked about himself as a victim. 1SBM ignored the millions in the situation of the OP and said he did not have the luxury to do anything but play defense and started talking baseball metaphors.

I dont know 1SBM personally but I do know that in the middle of a distant thread he mentioned that in fact he had a business, a BMW and was thinking of what car to buy next. He is obviously not one of the masters of the universe but is also a winner (or not a loser like most of the bottom percentage of Americans) in the current american system. I pointed out that he in fact had the luxury to ignore all the problems that the OP and millions more have because of his success while he is claiming that he does not have luxury and privilege. His claim that he can not afford to play anything other than defense is total b***it.

And yes the reference to "privilege" is a bit of a tweak. His privileges in our system is a lot more than the OP and millions of others white, brown, red, and black. I somewhat regret tweaking but having someone who is economically stable ignore a post while trying to claim that things are dire for him kind of got to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

264. The fact you do not understand ...

what Trayvon Martin has to do with this, underscores you do not understand the case being made by African-Americans.

[Rilgin]

330. No one understands but you?

Frankly that post is very condescending. Trayvon Martin had nothing to do with the OP or my post or in fact your post. You posted about yourself and how you had to vote defensively because you could not afford to do otherwise. This is a claim of ultimate victimhood from someone I know is affluent and privileged in life.

I suspect you are an older man or at least not young. I can understand your internal empathy with young black men and women who face all the racial problems within our militarized local police forces. I can even understand the desire of women for a woman president. However, your identification is only half true. Half of the problems in police violence and in the criminal justice system relates to age. Police are scared of young men. Young men have a lot more testosterone. Young men commit more crimes and are more violent. Young men have less judgement. To be clear, in our society, youth is only half the issue with the recent spate of police killings, the other half is that the young are African American or other minorities. However, as an older person, you are not really at the heart of the problem.

You certainly could face bias issues and encounter discrimination both direct and institutional however your and older peoples police and violence issues are rather minor and even more minor for you because you are affluent in our current society.

As a question for you. All about myself. I am not a young man now and not at any real police risk in society. Much less risk than a young African American male. However as a young man (age 18), I had a direct personal experience with police over-reaction that could have led to my being shot.

I was out all night with friends and had trespassed on the local school roof to watch the sunrise. It was with other young men. This town totally over reacted. This town had 3 police cars. The town called local towns and 6 cars came to arrest us in a coordinated raid. When apprehended, I was thrown to the ground then handcuffed behind my back and then walked 100 yards with a loaded gun pointed directly at my head by an amped up local policeman.

Now I do not know you. Maybe you have had similar experiences maybe not. Maybe your relation to young black men getting killed by police is psychological identification over your similar pigmentation.

However, I know first hand and in a very scary manner about police over reacting. It could have easily turned ugly. Now my question If you have not had police guns pointed at your head, does your being African American make you understand police over reaction better than my personal experiences with having a police point a gun at my head when I was a young man?

That is what is condescending about your post. As a species, we will only survive if we start understanding our similarities and not making assumptions about other individuals solely on a pigmentation basis. Everything about your argument postulates that you are privy to some secret knowledge not available to other members of the human race and all you ever point to is your being African American and you use the word privilege to dismiss the life experiences of everyone who is not African American. As clearly shown, you do not like it very much to have the word used to describe yourself although its a more common usage to describe someone who does not have to make hard economic choices as privileged in society. Your affluence (using your word) is just privilege even if you dont want to use the word.

As for this thread, I regret jumping in again. I have tried to promise myself to avoid these discussions. The OP just got to me because I think he was defining the problems in how our society works from a personal view. If you are not in the top 20% of this country economically you are in very big trouble and this is not about democratic vs republican. I thought the OP was speaking his heart. Most people in poverty or just scraping by have very similar experiences in how the system does not work for them which we should understand and not dismiss. His point was that corporate Democrats will not change anything for him and others similarly positioned in society.

Into this discussion, predictably, was your post inherently claiming that you individually were different than everyone else and claiming a more precarious position for your individual life that gives you no luxury for voting to change the world for the better. This got to me because I think it is both predictable and unfeeling towards an OP that cried out for understanding of common problems in our society not a claim that such problems are nothing compared to your individual issues. Further compounded by my memory of your posting that you were indeed affluent which despite your posts means you, as in individual, have the luxury of surviving any president.

That is about all I have and am done with this thread

[1StrongBlackMan]

331. Funny ... I can point to a bunch of DUers that understand EXACTLY what Trayvon Martin ...

has to do with the OP/discussion ... some of them are even Bernie supporters.

Rather than post paragraph upon paragraph on how condescending my post was and telling me how you think my life experience plays out (i.e., "your identification is only half true. Half of the problems in police violence and in the criminal justice system relates to age. Police are scared of young men." ... And, "You certainly could face bias issues and encounter discrimination both direct and institutional however your and older peoples police and violence issues are rather minor and even more minor for you because you are affluent in our current society." ... now, THAT is some condescending and ignorant sh!t, right there); why not, take a moment to attempt to figure out how Trayvon Martin might be relative to this discussion.

As a question for you. All about myself. I am not a young man now and not at any real police risk in society. Much less risk than a young African American male. However as a young man (age 18), I had a direct personal experience with police over-reaction that could have led to my being shot.

You forgot ... #AllLivesMatter!

As for this thread, I regret jumping in again. I have tried to promise myself to avoid these discussions.

Perhaps, that is for the best!

[JustAnotherGen]

333. Actually 1Strong understands humiliation as a black man more than you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11878394


I notice notice you didn't respond to that.


His affluence or being about 50 does not make him immune.

Mine doesn't make me immune.

Actually our ability to navigate white spaces probably means we are exposed to more than you can ever imagine.

So - is he the only one? Nope.

But imagine what happened in that link happens regularly?

I say - you accept ALL black Americans or none of us at all. We don't get to pick and choose our black moments - you don't get to pick either.

See we aren't isolated like other members of America. Sunday dinner in our homes include the poorest and the wealthiest. Our stories are all the same. They are all the same.

[1StrongBlackMan]

334. And Yes ... I have had an Officer approach me with gun drawn ...

on a traffic stop ... within the last two years.

[Rilgin]

335. You win.

You are the only one who understands life. Any experience I or any other white person or non African American person has pales in comparison to your experiences and gives no basis for understanding the human condition.

I am very sorry i suggested otherwise that maybe we as a species have similar experiences. I have some respect for you. I just think you are invested in your own presumption that no one else can understand anything. Ultimately, all your posts lecture everyone else that being African American is different than all other races. You dismiss the fact that other races have had true genocides in the 20th century and that the world is full of different race problems.

I am sorry that you you were stopped by the police who pulled a gun. I have had that happen too even while I was older. I stopped on the side of a road that was evidently near a terrorist target. Both examples are 100 degrees different than what I told you. I had a loaded gun pressed against the side of my head after being thrown to the ground while I was handcuffed and being led off by an amped policeman who was part of a police over reaction. I do not know what would have happened if I did something that this individual officer deemed threatening. Your presumption is that you dismiss anything other than the African American Experience. I do not dismiss the problems that exist in our society illustrated by all of the cases that have come to light. I just do not agree with you dismissing others based on your pigment.

For me, I am not in the same position exactly as the OP although I am long term precarious economically. My family can survive a little longer than him if things get worse but probably just a little. I just heard what he said despite the fact that his situation is not the same as mine and I certainly did not dismiss it as you did as not equal to your own racial identification. I understood what he said perfectly.

Take care again. I am sorry I jumped in here. You win the argument. I do not understand anything about life because I am not African American. My other real regret is that this sidetrack was kind of predictable in responding to your dismissal of the OP. It sidetracked from the point he made.

[1StrongBlackMan]

338. Funny ...

You win.

You are the only one who understands life. Any experience I or any other white person or non African American person has pales in comparison to your experiences and gives no basis for understanding the human condition.

I don't claim to understand ALL of life ... I DO understand MY life's experiences, and that there are not far of from what other Black people experience in America; regardless of, economic status.

I am very sorry i suggested otherwise that maybe we as a species have similar experiences.

I would hope you can understand that our experiences ARE NOT similar ... you having a cop over-react because &quot were) out all night with friends and had trespassed on the local school roof to watch the sunrise"; while horrific and terrifying, is NOT similar to having a cop over-react to you for the "crime" of pigmentation. That is the point I would you would/will see.

And sadly, you wish to see this as my trying to "win" an argument.

[Rilgin]

339. I am glad you were there

Again you dismiss experiences. My experience was having a cop press a gun against my forehead after pushing me in the ground and handcuffing me. Then walking with that gun pressed against my temple for a hundred yards. But I am glad you were there since you know the cops mind and can tell me that it was both trivial and,as an aside, nothing related to my race. There is something called anti-antisemitism in the world. I am glad that you know that was not the reason the cop was so aggressive and amped with me. More to the point, you just dismiss the experience as forming any similarity with having police violence threatened against you personally. This was different than our joint experience of being stopped and having the cops approach our cars with guns drawn.

What is most similar to us is both of us were NOT shot. Neither of us have identical experiences to the people who have been shot or shot and killed by police. You have no claim on that experience. That is only your presumption that you can identify more with that experience then me.

With regard to institutional and other forms of racism. There are places in this world and country I would be killed on the spot. I think I understand the issues of racial animus in society. More importantly, in my race, half of my direct linear ancestors were killed as well as millions of others over a short period of time by government (which you might agree is an institution) because they were semites. Should that mean that you can not really understand institutional racism? No that is your presumption. Not mine. I believe that African American people face racism in America. I just reject your presumption that you are the only one that understands the issues involved. I think that African Americans are just like other people. Some are empathetic and see similarities, some want to presume that they are the only ones that know the answer.

Ultimately, my view and experience is that we are actually all very similar. You sound exactly like my father who thinks that no one in history has any claim to societal abuse because of what happened to his relatives. So yes I feel like I do understand your claim and your presumption that you are special, unique and have a unique understanding because of your race very well. I have fought that attitude from my relatives all my life so maybe you do not understand yourself as much as I understand you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

340. Noting that our experiences are NOT similar ...

is not dismissive of your experience. But okay.

[1StrongBlackMan]

263. And I will be equally blunt ...

Yes, I have attained a measure of affluence, and if I were to vote, solely, on my economic interest, I would have voted for Romney in 2012 and would vote republican in 2016 ... and would be just fine ... economically. But, there are always a hell of a lot more issues than economics ... and even more awaits whoever takes office in 2017.

Race issues will not be affected, in any substantive way, by whichever Democrat wins the Whitehouse but, they will likely get significantly worse should any republican take the Whitehouse.

And every other issue, affecting every demographic, will likely worsen significantly, should any republican take the Whitehouse in 2016.

So yes ... voting FOR whoever is the Democratic nominee for the G/E, should be a none question for any Democrat or Liberal or Progressive.

We need to reverse course on a number of our societal institutions and systems in an urgent matter not hit singles. We have been hitting singles for years. In the first inning, the strategy might be sound. However, it is not the first inning anymore. It is late in the game and we are losing.

To torture the analogy further ... what you suggest is a losing strategy as singles (and walks) produces base runners, striking out (or grounding out, or popping up, or even flying out at the fence) while swinging for the fences, just ends the game sooner.

[F4lconF16]

315. I have a favor to ask of you.

It is unfortunate that the poster did not realize Travon's relevance in my thread when responding to you.

Of course he is relevant to this discussion. Just as Zoreida Reyes is, and any other living under the intense conditions of institutional bigotry in the United States.

Here's what I have to say, though.

With all due respect, you do have the luxury of another 8 years of similar politics from the Democratic Party establishment. I don't. I really don't.

My complete lack of economic privilege in no way diminishes my privilege as a white man. My bisexuality and gender non-identification really doesn't affect me much, unless I get unlucky. It's not something I deal with everyday, like being a woman or trans or black. I can't be identified visually as being completely outside the norm: atheist, socialist, queer, etc. I am, for all intents and purposes as far as privilege tends to go, a straight white man.

I get why you say I have the luxury of not voting for my preferred candidate. I genuinely do. But I will not last another 8 years under a continuation of our current economic policies. I might not last 4, or even 2. I don't know.

I, and many others, will not let our voices go unheard this year. We have had enough.

I know that PoC in this country have never had their voices heard, so saying that sounds awfully privileged.

But here's the thing: for me, I refuse to vote for the establishment candidate not just for myself, but for the trans community who will not receive health care, the AA community who cannot take an invisible and slow escalation of the drug war, the women who will have reproductive services stolen under Democrats who pretend they are doing a thing to defend it. My voice cries out for the marginalized as well as for me, though of course I do my best not to speak for them.

Let me explain.

I have no hope that Sanders will change any of this. He or any other democrats, for that matter. Liberalism is not a friend to the oppressed; never has been, and I will be utterly shocked if he manages to change much, even with the support of his movement. Contrary to what he says, this is not even close to a "revolution". Not even a political one.

But he is changing the dynamics of the current American political scene, and I think that's what needs to happen. He is not going to bring up race or gender or sexuality or religion without being forced to, but he is changing to focus on those issues more. With pressure, we could have a real ally. I think he is already, though of course blinded by his privilege. We see that in his reactions to being challenged.

I cannot see Clinton being that way. She will be like Obama, who has pushed all sorts of awful policies under the surface. He pushed for the death penalty, for expansion of the COPS and Byrne grant program, for privatization of education, for trade deals (more than just the TPP) that will undermine our industry, for expansion of war and the crimes associated with it--among other things. Clinton will do much of the same, and more.

Yes, they are not as bad as Republicans, not even close. But how long do we have? In 8 years, will you vote for a Lieberman over a Cruz? What about all the suffering in the meantime? The solidifying of our new colorblind racial caste system? The tightening grip over our industry and society by a few elites? When we have a president who will claim to be fighting that while doing the opposite, we will not change a thing. 50 years from now, climate change renders all of the lesser of two evils thing a moot point. We will all be done for unless we change, and soon.

For those reasons and more, I am willing to stand up and take the risk of electing a Republican because our voices have to be heard. That is what is important now.

This country has survived them before, and will again--even the most oppressed of communities, though the harm done will be real and extremely painful. We will not survive a steady slide downhill over 20 or more years.

I am not interested in effecting change in politics; I am interested in changing the perceptions of people. The only way to do that is to show them an alternate way, to recognize that what we have now is NOT working and refuse to support it.

I promise I am not trying to change your mind or convince you of my ideas. I'm sure I'm wrong about plenty of this. I just want you to realize it isn't out of "luxury" that many of us are going to reject the Democratic nominee if it is not Sanders. Please do not call it as such, and please recognize the serious thought we have put into this. It is not an easy decision. Thank you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

318. Points well taken ...

Understand ... My saying I do not have the luxury, is not saying that you (and others) do.

But, it doesn't escape me that you will use a political tool (your vote) to attempt to affect change, that you admit, has no political efficacy.

Believe me ... I get the urgency of now! I just don't understand, how, I your currently dire circumstances, you would, knowingly, be willing to make your circumstances worse ... to speed along your demise (if you will) ... to make your voice heard politically; when, politics won't affect the change you (actually, we all) seek.

[F4lconF16]

321. I did not understand, and thank you for the clarification.

It does, on the surface, seem contradictory. I am aware that the vote will do little, but it isn't the results that count for me. It is the action.

I really like this quote from William Stafford:

"In politics--and maybe elsewhere--I have assumed that one chooses when he can the person or policy he thinks best, regardless of how others choose. Now I begin to realize that many choose with much else in mind, such as--will this build the party? Can this choice get enough others as backing to be effective?

I have also spent my vote often in order to be a certain principled minority: there are people everywhere who won't kill, or who won't vote for a person--no matter the other reasons--who advocates or has done this or that, etc. In taking such a role, part of my reason is that I want leaders to know there are such people in the public (and of course there are: could it just be that we can become beings for whom genocide just is not tolerable? Isn't that the kind of being our international laws assume? If not, why is their a limit on any national policy?). In taking these positions I am of course aware of some of the hazards. But I want to raise the question of whether in society one takes his part guided by policy. Should one ever be himself, and let policy derive from a resolution of everyone's naive directness?"

--William Stafford, 20 July 1964

It is so that others are aware there are people like me, and so that they realize there are other ways. I am for changing perspectives more than policies, as there is little hope of the latter if not for the former. Of course, serious activism is necessary above and beyond voting. Voting is one of the least useful ways to engage in political action, and the whole question is given far too much priority over actually committing to change.

[1StrongBlackMan]

322. Agreed ...

Of course, serious activism is necessary above and beyond voting. Voting is one of the least useful ways to engage in political action, and the whole question is given far too much priority over actually committing to change.

Very much so.

[SusanCalvin]

23. Your response has me in tears.

I, too, am so sick of "defensive" votes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. It is what is it ...

and for African-Americans, in America ... every vote is a defensive vote.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. I'd rather go big and lose rather than move slowly backwards. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Again, again ... I don't have that luxury. n/t

[SusanCalvin]

33. That might get us to the revolution faster.

But I'd just as soon not live through that if there's an alternative.

Plus the revolution might not happen even then, or not for a long time.

Nehemiah Scudder, anyone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. A lot of us have been going backwards for a while now.

Revolution or death is the choice for a lot of folks.

No matter how often some folks claim we're making such a choice out of 'luxury'.

My own life has been going down the drain for the last 7 years. I'm not sure I can survive another 8 under another corporatist.

[SusanCalvin]

40. Oh, I completely agree about corporatists.

I've been trying to get this meme picked up for some time:

IT'S THE CORPORATIONS, STUPID!

[saturnsring]

310. translation: if i dont get my way id rather burn it down

[zeemike]

54. Well what it is is a false narrative.

One repeated over and over again and is not true.
And that narrative is that only Hillary can win against the GOP,
When the opposite is true, the GOP's best chance is to run against Hillary and they stand a good chance of winning because all of the Republicans and most of the independents will come out to vote AGAINST her.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Okay. That is you opinion ...

An opinion that runs counter to all (most) of the metrics for predicting General Election outcomes ... predictions that don't rely on magic, i.e., millennials voting at 50+% ... for Democrats, 60% of Americans suddenly realizing the virtues of "SOCIALISM!!!", 40+% of independents, suddenly discovering their economic interests, etc.

[SusanCalvin]

74. That was then, this is now. I hope.

I really hope we and Bernie can change things. I can tell you from personal experience that high school kids (the ones I know, anyway) are nuts for him. Hope those old enough to vote do.

[zeemike]

108. I know what conventional wisdom says.

All you have to do is watch TV to see what it says...or listen to people repeat it...but is manufactured and it is wrong.

But logic will tell you that the GOP will vote in lock step for whoever they run if it is against Hillary...if it is Sanders then some of them, not many perhaps but some will reject their establishment candidate and may vote for the Dem.
And independents are the largest group...over 40% and they are independents because they have already rejected establishment candidates...so offer them another one and they will ether not vote or vote against someone.

And if Hillary is the one they will work her over good over the summer of 16 and a lot of people will vote against her, and we will see another president Bush and VP Carson or Florina.

[noiretextatique]

59. precisely

i don't think she will win, never have, and never will. if it happens, i will eat my words, however, i have always known her nomination would guarantee a republicon win.

[SammyWinstonJack]

269. I don't like her chances in the GE. I think she loses BIG there

[rynestonecowboy]

124. Thank you.

This argument that we all need to fall in line behind HRC because she is the only electable candidate is so shortsighted. The GOP has been creating false narratives about her for the past decade because they assume us democrats will surely fall in line and vote for her. This is exactly what they want, like zeemike said. In the GE many more people will get out and vote AGAINST her because of the constant GOP drumbeat which they could care less if the claims are false. As seen from last election HRC couldn't compete with the grassroots support of the President and eventually fell. Once again she is great at fundraising but lacks any sort of excitement for her campaign. I worry that my fellow democrats that feel that a vote for HRC is the safer bet may just be putting a nail in our own coffin.

[F4lconF16]

75. Read the OP again.

Neither do I.

Luxury is being able to vote for Clinton and being okay in the decline that will follow, just as it has under Obama.

People are on the edge, 1SBM. I respect your opinion, but you cannot expect those of us who cannot take anymore to simply accept a nominee who is diametrically opposed to our interests.

[SusanCalvin]

83. I am not (currently) on the edge financially,

And I'm the next most privileged thing to a white male (white female), but I feel pushed, do I feel pushed. Even if it's only empathy.

Nevertheless, SCOTUS.

[F4lconF16]

105. I don't think the SCOTUS matters.

Genuinely. Whatever judge is appointed will be moderate at best.

The supreme court has a nasty history of making terrible decisions whenever they can. They've totally demolished the idea of institutional racism in the law (well, prevented it from being used to abolish things, anyways). They've allowed massive inflections of money. Etc, etc, etc.

It's all movement politics. The supreme court is an inherently unjust institution. They are not on my side. We need to build movements to oppose them, or they will continue to destroy what little meaning can possibly be found in our legal system.

For instance, I don't think they would have legalized ssm if it hadn't been for the movement behind it. Just as an example.

So to me, the supreme court is a side issue. They're just one facet of a system I oppose (and relative to the big industries and financial powers, arguably less influential).

[SusanCalvin]

113. IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THE MOVEMENT BEHIND IT.

Exactly. But appointees by an R pres are less likely to respond, betting the odds. Although I'm fully aware some have surprised their appointers.

[F4lconF16]

116. True.

I just think it's arelatively small issue in the broader scope of things.

Also, if you're worried about the supreme court, wouldn't sanders be the better option?

I feel like this just comes back to electablility. And I don't think Clinton will win the GE. Not going to argue about that, though.

[SusanCalvin]

122. Huh? I'm a Sanders supporter.

But I'd vote for Hillary before most, if not all, Rs.

Still, I never say never.

[F4lconF16]

123. Whoops--

There's been a lot of responses haha. Sorry!

Getting confused up in here

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Okay ... for the primaries ...

I completely agree.

But if the G/E comes down to HRC and {insert republican candidate here}, I don't think there is a question as to what the most anti-HRCer should do.

That is my only point with respect to your post.

[F4lconF16]

111. I simply disagree that there is no question.

I think there's a lot of valid objections to voting for her in the general, though i know you disagree and I won't try to convince you.

Unfortunately for most liberals, those objections generally are good objections to support Sanders as well.

It's a tough question.

[1StrongBlackMan]

180. There's a lot of valid objections to voting for her in the general? ...

Really?

There is no "tough question" in the G.E ... vote "D" ... Period!

[F4lconF16]

189. D means nothing to me.

I am no fan of party loyalty.

Have you read none of the leftist critiques of Clinton? Or, for that matter, Sanders? There are many valid reasons not to, and you can't argue with that.

Whether you think the risks outweigh the possible gains is up to you.

For those of us who think they might not, yes, it is a hard question.

Please don't trivially dismiss our concerns.

[SusanCalvin]

196. Yes, sadly. nt

[Catherina]

8. Me neither. If Hillary is forced on us despite the underwhelming enthusiasm for her

Hillary is supported by everyone Bernie Sanders is fighting against. I'm not rubberstamping the status quo and hawkish policies she supports.

[noiretextatique]

60. you're not going to "take one for the team?"

when i realized i was not on the team, it became a lot easier to live under the bus

[SusanCalvin]

76. .

Nevertheless, SCOTUS.

[Catherina]

181. What team? My team is issues-based

If you mean the team that pops up every 4 years demanding solidarity and pretending they didn't spend the last 4 years denigrating us and forcing terrible neoliberal policies *in our name* then no, I'm not going to take one for that team and rubberstamp their hawkish foreign policy and slavish devotion to the 1%. I'll just grab my blanket and pillow and join you under the bus while there's still a little leg room

[Aerows]

351. "Pretending they didn't spend the last 4 years denigrating us

and forcing terrible neoliberal policies *in our name*"

Precisely. Well said, Catherina.

[murielm99]

91. There is not underwhelming enthusiasm for her.

She leads every poll. And don't talk to me about Internet "polls." They are bogus.

[redstateblues]

112. In the DU fever swamp

Hillary is equivalent to any of the Republicans. It's group madness. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination maybe Nader will run. It would give some of the rejectionists here someone to vote for that they can feel good about.

[rynestonecowboy]

145. Not trying to be disrespectful but

if you look at the polls you refer to, you will see that Sanders is behind in places that don't know enough about him. New Hampshire and Iowa looked similar in the polls until Sanders started to get noticed. The enthusiasm can be measured by many other variables that helped BHO get elected in 2008. Sanders absolutley wipes the floor with HRC when it comes to social media outreach, you can claim she has just as many twitter followers or facebook likes but if you take a look at the data about half of her twitter followers are fake accounts bought for support and the same but not to such an extreme when it comes to facebook. Right, those are just platforms that only the non voting millennials care about, ok. Seriously look at his FEC filling and notice how many more small donations Sanders has, its just not a few, its a boatload. You will see him rise in the polls, maybe not this week or this month, but this will be a repeat of 2008.

[jeff47]

164. Saying "I'll vote for her" on a poll is not enthusiasm.

It's a nearly zero-effort answer to a question from a pollster.

[cui bono]

9. If people would just vote in the primary for the person who best represents the PEOPLE

we would have Sanders for president.

Unfortunately, people are playing politics as a sporting event and trying to figure out who will win rather than vote for who should win. It's playing not to lose rather than playing to win. It goes against everything one should do if they want to be successful.

Clinton is supposed to represent the safe vote according to her supporters, because they think she can win the general and Bernie can't. I think it is the exact opposite.

Plus, in a democracy you are supposed to vote for who best represents your interests. It's clear that person is Bernie. He is not only fighting for the rights of people on policy issues, he is fighting for our very democracy and democratic process. No other candidate is doing that.

Voting for anyone other than Bernie is putting our democracy in jeopardy at best, throwing it out the window at worst.

[Cassiopeia]

67. I agree.

Bernie can motivate all walks of life, Clinton fragments us.

Bernie is the safe pick for the GE.

[rynestonecowboy]

160. Very well said.

People should be more concerned with taking back our democracy. We are nearing a point of no return.

[Fawke Em]

172. LOL! Over on the Book of Faces, my Democratic state rep

just posted that her right-wing brother plans to vote for Bernie Sanders.

The irony.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. I think a large chunk of the electorate on the left is where you are.

Maybe not for quite the same reasons, but a lot of folks are simply fed up with being forced to go to the general with 'lesser evil' candidates, candidates who may or may not even promise to do good things, then end up reinforcing the status quo that is driving so many into poverty and keeping so many others marginalized. The status quo simply isn't sustainable. It never was, but there used to be a lot more folks who could ignore that fact and fantasize that they had achieved 'the American Dream', when in reality they were only temporarily advantaged over so many others with whom they are now closer to equal, mainly by virtue of having lost wealth, having lost rights that were already being denied to so many others. We need a country that values every person, and that allows every person the basic room to simply live, without fear of homelessness or starvation. Not one that speaks lies about 'everyone having equal opportunities'. Lies because we are not born equal, and those born poor, those born gay or bi or trans, those born with darker skin tones never have 'equal opportunity' and never will under the rule of people who tell lies about 'equal opportunity'.

[Catherina]

15. +1000. What you said

Already many people on the Left are overlooking big disagreements with Bernie's Foreign Policy to support America's working class. I don't think most will move a single inch more right than Bernie.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. Yup, I'm less than thrilled with Bernie's foreign policy stances.

But I'm also rational enough to know none of the other candidates with even the slightest chance of winning are any better there.

[Catherina]

183. I'll go further. Even as bad as it is, it's miles better than anyone else's up there.

I don't see Bernie destroying an entire country the vicious way we destroyed Libya and, I better stop right there.

[truedelphi]

128. Thanks for your comment.

I was out tabling on a local issue last year, and again and again, I heard people say that the day they started losing total hope for our way of life was with the promotion of the lie: "Lesser of two evils."

What the fuck does that meme even mean? That the party that supposedly represents the worker has indeed sold us out, but we should vote for them anyway, but for what reason?

We are now supposed to vote for Sellouts out of our sheer gratitude that back when when people were more involved in politics (Because big money wasn't yet the prevalent part of the picture) that we did end child labor, have a forty day work week, on which a family could survive with only one bread winner, food was still healthy enough to eat without IBS medicines, houses were affordable and for every dollar of profit made in the USA, over 90 cents went to the local community. (Now over 49 cents out of every dollar of profit generated in the USA goes to Big Bankers and Financial people.)

Hillary did not get it between 1992 and 2013 and the fct tht lies are pouring out of her precious little mouth with each passing minute does not mean a thing, for me and so many whose lives have been destroyed by the policies of this Neo Con "Feminist." (Not that she did it single handedly, but she joined with far too many A-holes who all brought about wars and wars and wars, and declining role in the economy with our jobs moving overseas.

[SusanCalvin]

179. ^THIS^

I weep for my childhood in the good years, and the fact that others are not getting the same.

Yeah, there were a lot of issues in the 30s - 70s. It was still moving in the right direction.

[Agnosticsherbet]

12. We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote.

Vote for your ideal candidate in the primary.

Vote for a better government in the general

You either count with a majority that will do some good or you count for the majority that opposes everything.

Republicans know that.
.
It is against the intrests of thee 99% to allow Republicans to be elected.

Show me a government that has a chance of being elected that is not the Democratic Party.

I don't vote out of party loyalty, I vote for the best candidate listed on the ballot. I never hold my nose.

[SusanCalvin]

117. And as they are gerrymandered and their votes are suppressed. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

129. Gerrymandering can be fixed by getting out enmass and voting

People who don't vote don't care.

In any election there will be a candidate who is a little better. It can take effort o find who is better.

[SusanCalvin]

132. So many things can be fixed that way. Let's hope it happens. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

137. Hope foesn't fix anything. People need to be responsible. nt

[SusanCalvin]

139. Yes. I meant I hope a sufficient number of people will be responsible. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

142. If people don't vote,

They don't care who gets elected.

I will work diligently to find people who care and get them to them polls.

[SusanCalvin]

147. And to support candidates financially and otherwise,

And to run for office if at all possible. Voting is just the start.

[NuclearDem]

14. Fine, vote how you want.

But just remember, the last time a Republican held the White House, we had 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Roberts, Alito, the acceleration of Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs, and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

[Vincardog]

51. The choice we face now is Bernie or someone else for our candidate/ the best chance the republicans

Have of wining he White House is if they run against Hillary.

She energizes their base and demoralizes ours.

If the democratic party machine forces he on us they are giving the GOP the biggest gift imaginable.

[SusanCalvin]

92. I think this is a very good point. Go Bernie! nt

[Vincardog]

95. TU

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. Earn this damn vote or lose it. nt

[Enthusiast]

73. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[SusanCalvin]

97. Except we can't afford that.

If there is no other option, vote for the best of a bad lot, but vote!

http://m.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

103. Thing is, it's not necessarily a 'we'.

Some folks can 'afford' to go on under Clinton. Others can no more afford a Clinton presidency than they can afford a Trump presidency.

So it's meaningless to those folks whether it's Trump or Clinton.

[SusanCalvin]

114. Lord, that's a sad situation.

[F4lconF16]

119. Yeah, it really is.

Time for us to come together. Building our local communities is the only way we're going to have a hope. We'll need to support each other when the time inevitably comes. I'm thankful my area is like that.

[SusanCalvin]

125. We need to build our local communities because

When the $@#! hits the fan it will be all we have.

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Man! I can't wait until the primaries are over.

[ronnykmarshall]

70. Me too ....

[TexasTowelie]

21. Please vote your conscience in the primaries, but remember the Terms of Service:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[SusanCalvin]

26. Thank you.

I'm looking for a Heinlein quote on party politics that I can't find offhand, but he believed in party politics and party loyalty, for basically the same reason as trade unions - power in unified numbers.

Nevertheless, I think the current corporate Dem party kinda stinks. Just not as bad as the Rs.

[murielm99]

94. Heinlein was very right-wing.

Quotes from him are not welcome here.

[SusanCalvin]

106. NOPE.

I have two (well three) words for you .

EPIC.

Heinlein was active in Upton Sinclair's socialist End Poverty in California movement in the early 1930s. When Sinclair gained the Democratic nomination for Governor of California in 1934, Heinlein worked actively in the campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein


Upton Sinclair.

You know,

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=upton%20sinclair%20the%20jungle&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CBwQFjAAahUKEwisyo_2ls3IAhVBzWMKHU5mBVM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThe_Jungle&usg=AFQjCNEsHcgn2ZRXhaTW9ftc20F12P9q8A&bvm=bv.105454873,d.cGc

Smile when you tell me what's "not welcome here."

[murielm99]

209. Google is your friend.

Heinlein was a right winger. And don't you tell me to smile. It is sexist and insulting.

[SusanCalvin]

254. Google is your friend as well.

His positions were quite a bit more complex than just "right-winger."

The (mangled) quote? Insulting, possibly (as was "not welcome&quot . Sexist, no.

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/05/when-you-call-me-that-smile.html

[murielm99]

341. Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican.

She changed her mind and became a Democrat and quite an opponent of corruption in our banking system.

Are you going to go back and quote things she said before she changed? Are the repubbies going to do that? I don't think so.

Heinlein started out as a New Dealer. He became a crazy right-winger. His work reflected that. I stand by what I said. Quotes from him are not welcome here. Crazy right wing BS is not welcome here. I don't care what he said before. He changed his mind.

What is wrong with you?

[SusanCalvin]

352. I put off looking at this for quite a while.

Because I am not crazy about confrontations.

What is wrong with YOU?

Do you find that offputting and unconducive to further discussion? Well, I do you.

I rest my case except to ask how familiar you are with RAHs canon. I can quote you chapter, line, and verse. Put up or shut up. I may or may not be here to listen, depending on, I admit, my whim.

"Not welcome here," you say. You and what army?

[murielm99]

354. I had you on ignore, and took you off.

My mistake. Goodbye.

[SusanCalvin]

355. I am happy to say I don't care!

Last edited Sun Oct 25, 2015, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And I had you mixed up with another poster. So happy to rectify my error, and apologies to that other poster. (Not that I said anything to them - just apologizing for the mixup in my mind. I'm straitened out now.)

You seem like a jerk. Just MHO.

If that gets me a hide, well that will be the first. There's a first time for everything.

[restorefreedom]

30. no one can command a vote

our only caution is not come ON DU in a general and advocate for a non dem running against a dem.

our votes belong to us

and not only can we vote for who we want, outside DU we can advocate for whoever we want

DU DOES NOT OWN, COMMAND, OR REQUIRE A DEM VOTE TO POST ON DU!!!

we just can't advocate or campaign for non dems

lets just be clear about that and lets please not try and contort the TOS to insinuate that we have to vote dem in the general (or any election for that matter)

cuz it isn't true.

[TexasTowelie]

50. I said nothing to that effect and everyone can choose who to vote for in the general election

or not at all. However, the author of this OP (who is also a friend) previously posted a thread indicating that he would vote for a third party candidate if Clinton is the nominee. That is why I posted the reminder of the TOS.

[restorefreedom]

61. you only posted the tos

i realize that. but the wording of the tos, along with a very enthusiastic poster could lead one to believe that we have to vote dem. its happened before.

didn't mean to suggest you were being bossy. i was attempting to request that no one on du should do that.

[TexasTowelie]

72. It's okay.

One of the reasons that I posted the TOS is because the author is one of the youngest members of DU and he was not old enough to vote in the previous presidential election. Sometimes the details of the TOS and the SOP of forums and groups get overlooked when creating a DU account so it was a friendly reminder (at least I hope he sees it that way). The author of the OP is an articulate man and I would hate for him to PPR'ed inadvertently.

[restorefreedom]

78. its not bad to get a reminder now and then, esp with many new posters. nt

[uhnope]

141. yeah I once got a post hid for saying as much so go figure nt

[840high]

219. Thank you.

[liberal_at_heart]

41. Funny how we're allowed to gripe about them once they are already in office, but not when it is

time to either re-elect them or vote them out. For a truly strong democracy, it should be the other way around. I understand the purpose of this website. I just don't always agree it is the best way to strengthen our democracy which is looking more and more like an oligarchy every day. I was a Democrat for 20 years. I am now an Independent. I probably shouldn't even be on this website anymore. I guess it is hard to let go of the community you have been a part of for so long. I would love to see more liberal Democrats such as Sanders and Warren, so that I could vote Democratic. I have no idea what I'll be faced with when it comes to Congressional choices. I will not vote for what I consider corporatist Democrats that is for sure. That may mean I need to look into other options such as voting third party. As some have said it is better than not voting at all although I'm sure some party loyalists would disagree with that not that I care. I know once the primary is over I will have to censor what I say. While I don't think censorship strengthens a democracy I understand this is a private website and its creators can create any kind of rules they like. But at the same time, I take comfort knowing that voting my conscience is much more important than being able to comment on a message board especially when they're are plenty of other websites out there where I can say exactly what I want to say.

[F4lconF16]

77. Ah, the "friendly" TOS reminder.

Though from you, for once, I believe it is said in sincerity.

I will leave this site after the primaries if Sanders does not win. The vitriol here will be immense.

Maybe I could trash everything and stick to the groups, but I doubt it. It will probably be time to leave.

[Maedhros]

215. Yep. [n/t]

[Bread and Circus]

200. That sounds fair and makes but.... where does DU draw the line?

How much can a Democrat at any level running for office get away with before the DU administration would wash their hands of them?

I am asking at what point does candidate behavior become inexcusable or does a capital (D) after their name absolve all sins?

Is this site about winning elections only or does it serve as a site where principle and core values are held as bedrock?

Been here for 10 years or so... on and off. Always wondered these things.

The phrase "four legs good, two legs bad" has always struck a chord with me as a way NOT to think.

[TheFarS1de]

24. Always vote by what you hold dear .

The party line is yet another failed attempt to homogenize us all into either slot A or slot B . The Dem's are loosing the battle in terms of defining what the actual difference is between the two , other than paying lip service and continuing on with business as usual .

Do not let the party take your views for granted . If they won't listen then all they will end up doing is hanging themselves in the long run .

[FarPoint]

31. The real power lies in the Party collective.

Need a majority to control House and Senate.... Individual candidate voting is going rogue ...ending yp powerless.

[SusanCalvin]

37. Exactly. And I want to change the party. nt

[FarPoint]

49. I suggest...

You run for office.

[SusanCalvin]

52. I would actually like to in theory,

but I'm afraid I'm not emotionally suited. It would tear me up beyond practical usefulness and I know it, especially in the political environment as it is.

So I have to be satisfied with being grateful to and supporting people like Bernie.

[RandySF]

35. The consequences of Republican rule do not apply evenly to everyone.

As a white male, I would probably be fine in the long run. But what happens to LGBT protections that SCOTUS has not already ruled on? What happens to women's health, especially reproductive health? What happens when the Justice Department stop investigating police civil rights violations? And these are consequences that just come off the top of my head.

I wish there was a way to safely throw people to the Republican wolves so people like you can sit home on Election Day and feel good about it, but there isn't. So I hope we all think long and hard about an America where the Tea Party controls all three branches of government.

[SusanCalvin]

44. Sad but true. nt

[JoePhilly]

55. + 1000

The OP is a great example of the "we have to destroy the country to save it" mindset.

He thinks it is his version of Utopia that arises from the ashes.

[Enthusiast]

79. What happens to working people when they have to compete with workers in Vietnam?

What happens to the disabled and seniors after we are subjected to Chained CPI or worse?

[haikugal]

138. Thank You..

It seems to me that if you really cared about ALL the people you'd vote for the most liberal candidate and avoid the corporatist at all costs.

[Enthusiast]

143. Yes. My plan is to avoid the corporatist at all costs. Enough is enough!

[haikugal]

148. Because .. Fuck this shit!

Enough is enough!

[Enthusiast]

151. Exactly!

[SusanCalvin]

182. FUCK CORPORATIONS!

And I don't cuss.

How about government (we the people) controls corporations, not vice versa.

[SammyWinstonJack]

286. +1000000

[F4lconF16]

80. Did you not read the OP?

I said all of that.

I'm fucked too, my friends are, my family...we are all on the edge already.

And we are diverse as hell, too.

[RandySF]

89. You're more than welcome to f--- yourself.

You can even f--- your friends and family if you want. But I am not going to let millions of Americans get f---ed over by a temper tantrum.

[F4lconF16]

102. Temper tantrum.

I wonder why I bother, sometimes.

It's a good thing I use this site as a sounding board, with little investment in it. People here don't want discussion, I've found.

[SusanCalvin]

136. It is very good for that purpose. nt

[haikugal]

140. Consider the source.... nt

[rynestonecowboy]

155. Seriously,

I've been away from DU for awhile but where did all these arrogant? elitist? omnipotent?, whatever you want to call it, HRC supporters come from? This fight between Sanders and Clinton Supporters is so destructive and makes everyone look like a jack*ss. It's good to have debate but some of these comments just make me shake my head.

[JaneyVee]

39. Democratic Underground.

Why bother posting here if you aren't concerned with electing Democrats?

[F4lconF16]

82. Ah, because I learn a lot.

And because it gives me a place to sound out my opinions before talking to "real" people.

People like you have taught me lots. Thanks.

[Tipperary]

225. FYI, someone took offense to your post:

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:09 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not even sure why this was alerted on. Furthermore, the alerter decided not to fill us in on that reason.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Gratuitous personal insult.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's nothing hide worthy here, especially since the alerter can't even state a reason for this alert. My assumption is that F4lconF16's is using the term "real" people as opposed to virtual people he meets on the Internet. There are no personal attacks here except possibly in a passive/aggressive way, but we've all seen far worse. Let it stand.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm only voting to hide because I understand the context, the context being that his response is directed at a core function of the DU TOS. As such, what he's saying is technically breaking the rules.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Absolutely nothing wrong with this post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: really?

[beam me up scottie]

231. What a ridiculous alert, I guess they wanted the op locked out of his own thread.

Thanks for posting the results.

[Tipperary]

270. I thought it was ridiculous too.

I have seen some very silly alerts in my short time here.

[Broward]

45. Thank you for posting.

Until we oust the corporate Dems from the Party, we don't stand a chance. Too many refuse to see, acknowledge or care that the Third Wayers have soiled the Democratic Party and are a big part of this country's problems. We are not on the same side and the Republican bogeyman only goes so far. Most of these Third Wayers are Repubs anyway. It's long past time that they go back to from where they came.

[SusanCalvin]

48. YES! OUT WITH THE CORPORATE DEMS! nt

[cantbeserious]

57. ^^^ This ^^^ - The DNC DLC Third Wayers Have To Go - Else The People Will Perish

eom

[SusanCalvin]

187. May I ask if you take your handle from the county?

I'm an election reform "nut."

[Broward]

210. Yes, but I no longer live there.

[SusanCalvin]

46. It's a means of control or a means of power to the people.

I want it changed to be the latter.

[JoePhilly]

53. You should start ...

... LiberalUtopiaUnderground.

A place where like minded folks can discuss how great it will be after Democrats let the GOP win and destroy the country to the point at which the people will rise up, and a new Liberal Utopia will rise from the ashes.

The Teaparty has a similar vision.

Except in their version of Utopia, its not a liberal nation that arises, but a Chrsto-fascist one.

[Enthusiast]

93. Why shouldn't the American people expect representation? It isn't utopia to expect democracy.

A majority of citizens polled support gay marriage, legal marijuana, higher taxes on the wealthy, preserving social security and medicare, addressing climate change, reining in military spending and holding Wall Street accountable.

[AOR]

101. And you sir should start a forum...

called InDefenseOfPoliticalCowardiceUnderground

A place where like minded reactionary philistines and defenders of the staus quo can discuss business as usual while bleating and mewling about "incremental pragmatism" like docile lambs being led to slaughter.

[JoePhilly]

259. Did you call me a "philistine"???

Thanks, that was hilarious.

[joshcryer]

233. Nader tried that.

Some people thought Obama was the savior.

Short of revolution that sort of thing just doesn't work.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. The Democratic Party has never demanded loyalty. You are thinking of the GOP.

Gotta wonder why you seem to think that the Democrats demand party loyalty. Guessing you are new to politics. Or maybe just new to Democratic politics. I am a life long (as in 50 plus year, union, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights and every other kind of rights) Democrat, and I have never ever seen the party's so called leadership pull any of the strings which the GOP pulls in their party. The Democratic Party expands. It includes. It opens up. It is highly personality driven and highly driven by the base. This kind of top down leadership that you think you see is a characteristic of Republicans.

Plus, fascism will never gain a foot hold in the US as long as 25% of the public can be counted upon to take a loud, contrary view to anything just because they can. And no one even has to pay them to do it. Imagine that!

[F4lconF16]

88. Might want to open your eyes.

The Democrats have always been the establishment party, and probably always will be. Their progress has largely depended only on large movements outside the system forcing them to do the right thing. They do not have a pretty history.

Obama is a war criminal and should be prosecuted. Being a Democrat does not magically confer on you any sense of decency.

[SusanCalvin]

127. You're kidding, right?

If nothing else, if they don't demand loyalty they are not a political party in any meaningful sense.

[m-lekktor]

68. The DEM party is just a lesser evil to me, too many right wingers in the party

who don't think they are right wing. you see them post here daily! "how does bernie plan to pay for that program erp derp" and all the hippie punching, and mocking of lefties via caricature. who needs fucking republicans when you have "democrats" like this.

[Enthusiast]

96. +1 an entire shit load.

[haikugal]

146. All too true....

[SusanCalvin]

188. Really. nt

[BainsBane]

69. Perhaps you should have read the terms of service of this site

before you signed up. There is a massive hint in the name, Democratic Underground. I realize that means nothing here anymore given the fact the Democratic party has moved to the left quite recently and so-called "progressives" hearken back to the past, defend drones when in the "right hands," advance NRA positions on gun control and immunity for the corporate gun industry, scapegoat the mentally ill, attack movements for black Lives. By all means, support the candidate who gives $800 Billion in corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 and votes to enable the Minutemen to police the borders. Far be in from me to stand in the way of such firmly held principles.

It's unfortunate that you haven't bothered to examine Clinton's policy positions, since they do none of what you suggest. I have found in general the loathing for Clinton involves completely ignoring her policies and voting record and instead projecting on her a load of shit. You blame Hillary Clinton for the police state, why? Because her husband was president when those policies were enacted? How is it that the fact that Bernie voted for both of the crime bills not enter into your thinking? What kind of political worldview allows someone to fault a woman because of her husband's actions yet claim someone who voted for those policies is the only possible cure? I don't see how that makes any sense, but it is widespread in certain circles.

And if you truly think a vote for the leader of the capitalist state challenges capitalism, that's just sad. I thought you said you knew better than that?

Emotion and projection, in my opinion, is a poor basis for voting. I actually think policies the candidates actually propose matter. I think voting records matter. Both candidates have been in the Senate, and their voting records and relative success in advancing legislation can be examined online through Senate records. If you took the time to actually look at them, I don't believe they would hold up to this GOP created meme that you have bought into. I understand actual policy and votes in congress matter less to some than rhetoric. I don't share that view, particularly when fact checking demonstrates statements to be false.

Everyone is entitled, of course, to base their vote on any reason or emotion they want. When I see them making claims that the Senate record shows to be false, however, I am going to speak out.

I also believe it a bit disingenuous to pretend the awful Hillary Clinton drove you to not voting for the Democrats, when you disclosed to me some time ago that you have never been a Democrat but instead believe in working outside the system. Again, that is entirely your prerogative, but when you pretend it is the doing of the likely Democratic nominee, I will say something.

Lastly, polls demonstrate that Sanders supporters are predominantly white, male, and average $80k+ a year. That, I submit, is not an accident. Those voters see him as representative of their interests in ways that Americans of color, women, and voters of lower incomes do not. And I absolutely reject the notion that people of color, the working class, and the poor are too ignorant to know their own interests.

[F4lconF16]

100. It's nothing personal.

Though I have personal reasons not to vote for her as I posted a few weeks ago, I wouldn't because of her policies and her ties to the establishment. I don't hold her entirely responsible, but she certainly has done her part. She didn't drive me away from Democrats, but she did drive me away from her.

I'm only going to address one part of your statement, because the rest will just be a waste of our time:

And if you truly think a vote for the leader of the capitalist state challenges capitalism, that's just sad. I thought you said you knew better than that.

True. I don't. But I do think he might be able to provide an opening for those of us who do want to to be heard. I have been able to use Sanders to engage people who otherwise would not have talked about socialism. His value lies not in confronting all of the problem, but, I think, enough. We need a basic redirection right now; revolution is nowhere near.

Lecture me about her and his policies all you want, but if you cannot see Clinton is a tool of the establishment, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you. Sanders isn't great, either. His reality is quite different from his image. But at least with him, I can talk to people about why he doesn't go far enough (hey look, that opening for leftists again). With Clinton, most of the time, she's headed in the wrong direction entirely, and I spend my time fighting against liberal vs. neoliberalism, when the discussion needs to be liberal vs. leftist.

Oh, and please don't insinuate I look down on the working classes, women, and PoC. That's straight up bullshit. Your smears have almost convinced me to ignore you entirely. I don't know why you feel the need to attack, constantly. Your posts at hcsupporters were just nasty. Sad, because I used to look forward reading your posts.

[BainsBane]

202. It's the presidency. What is more establishment than the presidency?

I expect nothing else. Meanwhile, we have Sanders leading the great and noble struggle of the upper 20 percent vs. the 1 percent through proposals for a flat tax. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/
This is his second tax proposal that benefits the upper-middle class.

Sanders is full of rhetoric but lacking substance. He makes one empty promise after another (I will overturn Citizens United as soon as I'm elected; I will pass a law for public financing of elections. Neither of which are within the purview of the president, and SCOTUS holds the power in regard to both. Then his outright BS insisting "I don't have a super pac," playing to the ignorance of the public on campaign finance. There are in fact Super Pacs for him as well as PACS he authorizes, while no candidate "has" or "takes money" from Super Pacs). I don't see that he offers anything, and in fact many of his views are outright conservative, not just those I mentioned in my OP (support for corporate welfare for the MIC, scapegoating the mentally ill, immunity for gun corporations, voting against the Brady Bill, voting for the Minutemen and blaming Mexican immigrants for youth unemployment) but now proposing flat taxes,which are regressive. Those are all steps backward.

Why the hell shouldn't employers pay for family leave? Why do the working poor have to pay for family leave and the education of the upper-middle class, when their own kids attend shit schools that don't prepare them for college? There is nothing socialist about Sanders, and one socialist group after another has denounced him. He is a populist, in the tradition of W J. Bryan and the Longs. That ain't socialist, and it ain't about the people.

I am NOT insinuating you look down on anyone. My point was about the oft repeated comments, not by you, of people who say black folks only support Clinton because they are uninformed or suffering from stockholm syndrome. The same people who declared Black Lives Matter a Koch conspiracy, who relentlessly harass black activists, or anyone who says anything critical of Sanders or shows any pleasantness toward Clinton. Some are people who call women w...es. and c...ts, or defend the use of those terms. That is who you have decided to ally yourself with. You don't like the company Clinton keeps. I don't like the company Sanders keeps. I'll take Clinton's company over them anyday.

It's not your vote in the primary I object to. I respect anyone's right to support any candidate they want, regardless of what I think of the candidate. But it's your statement you will not vote for Clinton in the context of a lecture against party unity, which clearly means the general election. In all likelihood, your choice will be between Clinton and Trump/Bush/Rubio, etc, one of those characters. Any suggestion that Clinton is anyway like them is wholly absurd.

Isn't this your first presidential election as a voter? Mine was 1980. I saw Ronald Reagan elected that year, when I voted for the conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter because he was the nominee. I only became a Democrat in 2001, however. Previously I had often voted for Democrats but also third party candidates (never Republicans). George W Bush dashed my adolescent notions that the two parties were anyway the same. After voting for Nader in Florida, in Palm Beach county on the butterfly ballot, I wised up. Now I'm supporting the Democratic Party because I don't want to go back to the fucking 19th century. Seriously. The difference between the two parties has never been greater in this country. History shows as much.

[Doctor_J]

118. The republicans created a meme that Clinton is too conservative?

Why do you continue to post the lie that republicans have talked us into disliking Mrs Clinton's neocon voting pattern? I have examined both candidates voting records and platforms. Despite Clinton's recent flips on a number of issues, she's still far right of Sanders, and I'm not going to give her a vote just because she's a female, or because she has the backing of Jamie dimon and CNN.

[Bonobo]

158. "Emotion and projection, in my opinion, is a poor basis for voting. "

Says the person who said she changed from Sanders to Clinton because she didn't like how the Sanders supporters on DU acted.

[SusanCalvin]

191. Yeah, I have my issues with some Sanders supporters.

Only way that would turn me away from him is if *he* endorsed *them*.

[840high]

81. +100 - that's why I became an independent.

[TBF]

86. Bernie represents me & I am voting for him - period. nt

[Doctor_J]

104. It's the only way we can help get the country back on track. continuing to vote

for "moderate republican" representation is really self destructive. I'm done with it

[Tarc]

107. This forum is not for you, then.

[SusanCalvin]

133. I don't agree. I want to get our party out of the clutches of the corporatists. nt

[rynestonecowboy]

149. Then....

I've been gone from here for too long. I haven't been active here in a very long time but after reading so many comments from so many posts that are so far from what the democratic underground used to be I feel like I need to find where all the sane adults have gone. This was once a site that supported President Obama for the nomination and GE but then also criticized him when he did not act as liberal as we thought and wished he had yet still supported him. It seems that now that the DU has become a forum of fall in line democrats. We should be criticizing and praising all the votes and positions of Bernie and Hillary because one of them will be our nominee and then it is our job to hold their feet to the fire. This is how politics is suppose to work.

[Le Taz Hot]

150. So, who the hell died and made you DU sheriff?

I've been here 15 years, am not a Democrat and I agree 100% with the OP.

[Tarc]

168. "...am not a Democrat..."

And another one.

[Le Taz Hot]

178. Another one what?

A whole lot of DUers aren't Democrats. Review the TOS again, there, Ace.

[Tarc]

186. If you're not here to support the party

then you're here to support a cult of personality, which I'm sure even Sen. Sanders would tell you isn't in our collective interests.

[SusanCalvin]

197. Kidding, right?

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

The party needs to represent us.

[Le Taz Hot]

221. Oh, FFS.

Nothing worse than a blind partisan.

[jeff47]

298. The color of a politician's jersey is much less important than their policies.

At least, to a large percentage of us.

You, on the other hand, appear to believe the jersey is more important that policies.

[Maedhros]

303. Go to the BOG and hillarysupporters.com for "cult of personality."

And I'll go to my "ignore list" and add you.

[Tarc]

312. Hands over ears, pretending there's no disagreeing voices

is about what I excpect from some Sanders people at this point.

[AzDar]

109. K & R

[brush]

135. We got you the first of many times you posted this

Yet you're on a site to get Democrats elected.

[SusanCalvin]

184. No, it's a site for discussion amongst Democrats. Theoretically. nt

[brush]

199. Better research that. The purpose of this site is to get Dems elected . . .

not post over and over and over again that you'll only vote for a certain candidate in the primary but won't support the party's nominee if it's not your preferred candidate.

[SusanCalvin]

205. If I thought that I'd be outta here.

It's prohibited to post against the Democratic nominee. No other restrictions that I am aware of.

[brush]

206. Pls research it. This site was founded . . .

To get Democrats elected.

Maybe you haven't noticed, that poster that posted the OP about loyalty oaths, has posted that same OP at least eight times today. That's extreme. We get it. He's not going to vote for the Dem nominee unless it's who he wants.

[SusanCalvin]

208. Gotcha. Needs to expand its purpose. nt

[A Little Weird]

152. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not but I can understand your argument

I've felt the same many times but when I get to the voting booth, I usually go ahead and pick the lesser of two evils. But I can also see the futility of doing that if it just encourages the party to keep serving up candidates I can't support. Getting people to pay attention and participate in the political discourse is imperative but I don't know how to do it.

[haikugal]

153. K&R!

Well done, thanks!

[forsaken mortal]

157. Bernie voter here also.

I don't want another Wall Street puppet in the White House. Hillary would likely be good for advancing civil rights, but Bernie would probably fight to advance them further and would certainly have better economic policies in mind.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

161. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson

[BootinUp]

171. The primary can't be over soon enough for me

Here we have just another ridiculous OP that claims a wide gap in actual position between two candidates that just had one of the most cordial primary debates in recent American history. In other words, the wide gap in actual positions/beliefs is a complete fabrication. Period.

[brooklynite]

173. As long as you're willing to accept the alternative...

...I'm not.

[F4lconF16]

194. I can't take the alternative.

But I also can't survive more of the same.

I don't have gobs of money keeping me from being homeless. Or from running out of food. Or from not paying bills. Or from not being able to replace things my livelihood depends on, like a broken bike part, or a phone.

I have very little furniture at my house. My carpets look like shit because I can't afford a vaccuum. I pick up pennies off the street so I can do laundry. I can't buy bulk foods. I can't afford working internet. I ran out of toothpaste and my girlfriend gave me hers when she came over last night.

I am dirt poor. I have no money. I can save all I want and something comes up, every time.

I budget like mad, and I'm very good at keeping to it. I scrimp, and cut corners, and look for deals and free food anywhere I go. It doesn't matter. All it takes is a pothole I don't see and bam, I'm out a hundred bucks or more. Thank goddess I have health insurance for a year or two more.

If shit doesn't get better, I am going to be on the edge. If it gets worse, I am done for.

My roommate is in the same boat. So is my boss. So are my neighbors. So are some of my friends.

I don't expect you to understand. You will be just fine, no matter what happens to people like me. We never recovered from '08. We don't have stocks, we have jobs. And there's not a lot out there--and even fewer you can live on.

More of the same is not good enough. For a lot of us, it genuinely doesn't matter who is president. Homeless is homeless. Poor is poor. We can vote D all we want, but it won't do us any good. Certainly didn't the last time.

Again, I don't expect you to understand. Like Clinton, you probably think you can make $400,000 a speech and have any kind of clue what the rest of us go through.

You can't. You simply can't.

So don't you dare judge us for what we have to do.

[brooklynite]

195. My point is that if your candidate can't win a national election...

(and I know respected progressives who agree on that point) the alternative is far worse.

[SusanCalvin]

203. I love you. In the Heinlein sense.

Love is the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.

[840high]

218. I understand. Hugs.

[Gothmog]

177. If you are comfortable giving control of the SCOTUS to the GOP for a generation that is your right

The issue of the control of the SCOTUS will be an issue. Clinton, Sanders and O'Mally have each promised to impose a litimus test with respect to Citizens United for any future appointments. The key issue is making sure that a Democrat wins in 2016

Rick Perry may be an idiot and has since dropped out but he raised this issue a while back and all GOP operatives are aware of this issue and will be pushing it http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

But over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reported over the weekend on a South Carolina event, where former Gov. Rick Perry (R) highlighted a central national issue that doesn’t generally get as much attention.

“Something I want you all to think about is that the next president of the United States, whoever that individual may be, could choose up to three, maybe even four members of the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now this isn’t about who’s going to be the president of the United States for just the next four years. This could be about individuals who have an impact on you, your children, and even our grandchildren. That’s the weight of what this election is really about.”

“That, I will suggest to you, is the real question we need to be asking ourselves,” he continued. “What would those justices look like if, let’s be theoretical here and say, if it were Hillary Clinton versus Rick Perry? And if that won’t make you go work, if I do decide to get into the race, then I don’t know what will.”

Whatever one might think of Perry or his skills as a potential president, that’s actually an excellent summary of an underappreciated issue. ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser, whom I wouldn’t describe as a Perry proponent, said the Texas Republican made “last week’s single most incisive statement about the 2016 election.”

This chart makes clear why control of the SCOTUS is ups for grabs

?itok=RU4tfAN1

The results of the last three decision days at the SCOTUS demonstrates why control of the SCOTUS is critical. If the GOP wins the White House in 2016, the GOP will get to select three to five SCOTUS nominees and these nominees will control the direction of the court for a generation

I live in Texas where we are dealing with the effects of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. In 2014, the GOP was able to depress the vote by 5.8% to 12.8% and steal the election. If the GOP gets to control the SCOTUS, we can kiss the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade goodbye.

Everyone should vote the way that they see fit but without control of the POTUS, we will see the SCOTUS become an arm of the RNC for a generation. I would hate to see us lose the right to privacy and the right to make a choice under Roe. v Wade

[SusanCalvin]

207. Yes, but. Some nominees have greatly surprised their appointer. nt

[GoneFishin]

193. I won't vote for anyone who does not represent me. The slogan "we suck less" does not work

for me.

I will never vote Republican. And I will vote on down ticket races. But I will not vote for a corporatist who takes my vote for granted and ignores my needs under the presumption that I have nowhere else to go.

[brooklynite]

198. As long as you're willing to accept the possibility of the "we suck more" guy getting elected

[GoneFishin]

201. I am supporting the guy who is least like the "we suck more" guy. I think concerned people should

support him more if they really dislike the "we suck more" guy.

[merrily]

204. Loyalty is a two-way street. If it goes only one way, it's a dead end.

Ok, too corny.

If it goes only one way, it's not loyalty at all. It's something else entirely.

[Tikki]

212. I have never studied an issue and then found a Republican who can represent me...maybe it's......

where I live and all.

Tikki

[BeanMusical]

217. Kick and R

Very good post.

[Betty Karlson]

220. And so the PUMA returns. It's bigger this time:

it's now rooted in ideology, not disappointment.

[beam me up scottie]

224. I admire you for standing up for what you believe in.

Ignore the bullies who say you don't care about anyone else, it's obvious from everything you've ever posted here that they couldn't be more wrong.

Hang in there, F4lconF16, we need more young people like you.

[joshcryer]

235. You're the kind of voter the Republican party needs.

Congratulations. The person who doesn't vote for their interests is just as bad as the same kind of person who votes against their interests. And unequivocally the Democrat will be better than the Republican. If Sanders loses the nomination and throws his support to Clinton all of his supposed "supporters" who continue these vows of no vote were never supporters to begin with. Period.

[dreamnightwind]

243. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this thoughtful OP

Best of luck to you in your struggles, I am going through much the same, only different.

I tend to look at these things from a system level rather than a personal one, and the radicalizing issue for me is climate change, which would benefit by electing someone who doesn't believe in ramping the capitalist beast up to warp speed but who prioritizes living in harmony with people and ecosystems. Sanders isn't perfect on this issue, but he's a bold step in the right direction and isn't bound by campaign funding to support anyone from the fossil fuel extraction and transportation industries.

You articulately discussed many other important reasons for changing our political direction, they're important and I don't mean to diminish them in any way, just adding my own focus to the discussion, I think climate change is the defining challenge of our time.

Bernie's our best choice on most every issue, at least among serious candidates running national campaigns. And our society is heading down a very dark road, with fascist elements supported by a surveillance, police, and military machine historically unprecendented, as we ravage our environment while a few uber-rich people make plans for their personal prosperity as everything around them collapses. It's obvious which candidates are on which side of those issues, and noone should pretend otherwise.

[F4lconF16]

279. Well said. Climate change has radicalized me, too. nt

[bowens43]

245. I agree, a (D) next to the name is not enough anymore.

I will NOT vote for someone I simply because they call themselves a Democrat. If I don't believe in the candidate they will NOT get my vote.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

248. Party Loyalty is BUNK we saw what happened last time when the 'loyal' third way, neo liberal,

corporate dems refused to vote for/support single payer, blackmailed the party to give their states extra goodies and just out right refused to support single payer unless it was watered down and had no teeth.

Never forgot we could have had Single payer but a handful of non liberal/non progressive democrats along with a POTUS who well face it was really not up for a single part fight for the people, intentionally f-ed it up and gave us the garbage we have today.

Quality ALWAYS win out over quantity, ALWAYS.

A vote for a neoliberal, thirdway, conservative, moderate dem is a vote for a REPUBLICAN PERIOD.

[stonecutter357]

249. I am voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton....

[Adrahil]

253. Fine. Why do you post on Democratic Underground....

...a site whose mission is to promote the election pf DEMOCRATS?

Seems you are at odds with the very mission of this site. Why not go to a site dedicated to prpgressive politics regardless of party affiliatin?

[LiberalElite]

255. K&R nt

[NCTraveler]

256. Party loyalty is a figment of your own imagination.

It is a construct created by LIV's to make them feel more important.

[DrewFlorida]

268. I completely disagree, Party Loyalty, is a means of keeping the republicans from overrunning...

the system anymore than they already have. Citizens United is a breach of the damn, which was caused by allowing a republican (George W) to be the "Decider" of Supreme Court Justices. For this reason alone it is of utmost importance for democrats to stick together. Yet there are many more important reasons.
Only a fool thinks he gains by making it easier for republicans to take control again.

[raouldukelives]

271. I wish voting were enough. It matters not in the long run.

Perhaps, not even in the short. We will continue down our current path, unabated, as long as people continue laboring for and investing in those assuring our demise.

A President alone cannot end the suffering of millions. The last time we stood solidly against people profiting from the exploitation, torture and subjugation of other humans it took a war. It also took good people of sound conscience who not only refused to profit from the ills of others, they actively opposed it.

If it existed today, and in many ways, it still does, most would own a share of the slave ships or the plantations and then vote for the continuing lesser of two evils.

[WillyT]

274. Most Excellent OP

& Rec !!!

[Faux pas]

284. Oh Bravo!

[geek75]

289. So sick of the Hillary bashing

She's not best but she is a hell of a lot better than any republican, especially Trump. I'm voting Bernie in the primary btw.

[Todays_Illusion]

299. This site is named Democratic Underground, not Third Way Lebertarian Underground.

No one worth less than $10 billion or more who has voted Republican since the stolen election of 1980 can claim they voted in their self interest.

[upaloopa]

300. Fine your taking yourself out of the race

Most likely you'll feel the need again before Nov 2016 to tell is again how you feel about the election.
So before then make a list of what you want a politician to do for you then next to that list make a list of all who ever promiced that in your life time.

[LostOne4Ever]

301. We all got to do what we think will do the most good

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Whether voting our conscience or voting pragmatically.

But just between you and me, I really hope we will both be voting for a successful Bernie Sanders democratic campaign in Nov 2016



Go Bernie go!!! [/font]

[saturnsring]

308. i personally believe...

&feature=player_detailpage

[Paper Roses]

309. Well said!

I may agree with your points but have not yet decided for whom I will vote. You have stated your position well. We all need to take under consideration the fact that we may see things in a different light.
The main factor is the need for change and we need someone who has the fortitude to make it happen.

[Babel_17]

314. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity"

I know people in similar straits and it doesn't feel like our party today is the one that found a new form while FDR was President.

The 1% wants control of it all, and they'll buy both parties, lock, stock, and barrel, if that's what it takes.

The one percent, on the march.

The Second Coming (Slouching towards Bethlehem)
W.B Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

http://www.mcabee.org/~lcm/lines/slouch.html

[greenman3610]

317. "Because there's not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush"

got it.

[lewebley3]

329. No there is a great deal of difference between Al Gore and Bush: You are uninformed!

[colsohlibgal]

326. How Can She Take On Wall Street?

She has taken boatloads of millions from the Banksters, she is going to bite the hand that feeds her? Not going to happen, people should remember Obama saying he was going after Wall Street. Never happened, quite the opposite.

Bernie consistently has called out Wall Street so it is totally believable he would keep going after them once in office, he has taken no Super Pac money unlike HRC.

[hifiguy]

332. Right on, and damn tootin'!

We genuine liberals have now been taken out into the schoolyard and pantsed in front of everyone by Bubba and by Obama. Had, snookered, cheated, chumped, suckered and flim-flammed.

NO. MORE.

[NurseJackie]

336. Fortunately, people who have this attitude …

… aren't as common in real life as they'd have people believe. I'm thoroughly convinced that people who say such things are fearful that their preferred candidate isn't likely to win the nomination. They're attention seekers who want comfort from other like-minded folks.

Or, they feel so helpless and unable to control (or influence) their desired outcome, so they're hoping to make OTHERS feel uncomfortable and doubtful too. It's the only control they have.

Face it, if people like this were TRULY confident that their preferred candidate had chance of being the nominee, they wouldn't bother trying to get people all riled up.

Instead, THEY would be the ones trying to explain the importance of keeping the GOP out of the White House.

These are just silly little games. I have no doubt that they're absolutely serious in their ultimate intent to not vote. Nothing will convince them otherwise, so why bother?

This type of behavior is simply their way of saying "hey! I'm important too! What about meeee?"

Best bet is just to ignore them. (Unless you are really feeling sympathetic, and you have the time to validate their insecurities and want to flatter them with the "your vote matters" speech.)