2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSorry Clinton - you are no Progressive....
Actions matter - saying you are a progressive does not make it so...
Senator Sanders is a real progressive, a liberal, a statesman, and what America needs.
I know this because Senator Sanders has been one for decades.
And you are simply a 1 percent'r... a weather vane to get elected.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)a centrist in progressive clothing
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Happy birthday Mr. Kerry! 
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)TeaBaggers.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)OK, if you say so. 
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)However, Clinton's push toward the future is very typical of
both Clinton's.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) lewebley3
(3,412 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I keep on hearing this...what are the qualifications to be President....
You might want to check the Constitution..
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Don't worry - I have not read anybody describing her 'qualifications'...!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bush's wishes to invade Iraq. She isn't progressive on SS or Medicare or fracking or the TPP or the NSA/CIA domestic spying or the Patriot Act or the XL pipeling or Arctic drilling. Saying you favor same sex marriage (today), isn't enough to qualify.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You are just a Sanders supporter, Hillary career didn't start when Sander's decided to run for Presidency:
many book have been written about her progressive work. Sanders people are not going to
be able to wish away Hillary qualifications
Everything you listed were only issue in the last few years of Obama term,
we only have one President at time.
Sanders supporters don't live in the real world and are not realistic, and they are not
the only progressives.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that has enrichened the 1% at the expense of the 99%. We have 16 million children living in poverty and another 16 million living in low income homes. How high do those number have to get before some finally figure out that voting for a billionaire sponsored candidate isn't going to help the 99%. HRC says she will but she is beholden to those that give her money.
dflprincess
(29,341 posts)And she really wasn't looking out for those (mainly women) who collect spousal or child support as that bill puts obligations to credit card companies ahead of support.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Her stands on environmental issues is not progressive, nor on Free Trade Agreements, nor on Foreign Policy, nor on the Iraq War, nor the Patriot Act and domestic spying, nor fracking. Those times she is "progressive" are for things that don't "tax" her billionaire friends. Quid pro quo.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)country, our troops, and the Iraq people, and chose to side with the lying Republcons in the worst decision, the worst disaster for our country in a long time. She clearly wasn't progressive at that time.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)You Sanders people seem to forget like
Jeb Bush does: the sins of George W Bush and
company. Bush was put in Charge because of
Nader voters, and now Sanders supporters if
they have their way will put Trump in charge.
Hillary voted on the use of force, not on war;
that question was never put to test for a reason,
Bush wanted that power to himself, which
he used by himself. (Cheney had already decided
the questions). Also New Yorker not the same as
Vermont people. New York is not one party liberal
rule. Hillary's people in New York were in favor
of force, Hillary repped her voters.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was a blank check for the war that Cheney had been talking about for years. She is responsible for her vote, she is responsible for not trying to keep the Republicons in check. She gave a speech trying to convince others to follow her lead and help the Republicons. In any case she showed her true colors and they weren't progressive.
Bush was put in charge because the Democratic Elite chose to run Gore and the people were not happy with the Clinton/Gore Admin.
Bush was put in charge because Florida was allowed to manipulate the vote count and no one cared.
Bush was put in charge because the SCOTUS went beyond their Constitutional duties and no one cared. No one spoke up.
Nader is a scapegoat used by those that don't want to admit that it is the system that's fracked-up. Nader did nothing illegal.
Trump may get put in charge because the Democratic Elite (and their oligarchy masters) would rather see Trump win the general than let a progressive win the primary. Goldman-Sachs had the audacity to tell everyone that the oligarchy didn't care whether Bush or Clinton were president.
Vote against the oligarchy of the billionaires, vote for Sen Sanders.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)moabfan
(48 posts)Symone Sanders on line 1....
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Is this new to you?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)You did.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)He went after Clinton on the issues and outright said that he'll govern for the interests of all people and not make decisions based on political expedience.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Fearless
(18,458 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)When she spoke to Goldman-Sachs for $200,000 a pop, did she give them a progressive speech? Can't see it. Was she a progressive when she asked George Bush if he needed help selling his war? Or when she voted for the Patriot Act?
betsuni
(29,075 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)betsuni
(29,075 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)So there's that.
betsuni
(29,075 posts)So there's that.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Google is your helpful friend.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)betsuni
(29,075 posts)Not a friend.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
betsuni
(29,075 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I wouldn't know you from a load of bricks.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Lieralism is really the only valid form of response to bumper-sticker philosophies... though no doubt, there'a an under-educated village-dullard somewhere who criticizes an absurdity predicated on little more than another absurdity.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)So there's that.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)1. A piece of shocking incompetence and failure of judgment if she actually trusted Cheney 'n' the Chimp, when the transparency of their lies was so obvious to so many tens of millions of people around the world.
Or
2. It was an absolutely craven, gutless and cowardly piece of political ass-covering.
There are no other choices, and both are automatic disqualifiers with regard to the presidency.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)according to voteview..
Just behind Senators like Leahy, Mikulski, Feingold and ahead of Kerry, Durbin, Harkin. That's progressive enough for me.
Or is progressive something different from being liberal??
http://voteview.com/SENATE_SORT110.HTM
kristopher
(29,798 posts)... and let us know what the picture looks like.
If You can show Bernie supporters that Hillary's progressive nature extends well into to economic sphere you might make some progress. However, my sense is that her progressive record is mostly on social issues and virtually not at all on the economic justice side of the coin.
This shouldn't be news to anyone paying attention since it is the foundational principle of the 3rd Way Democrats.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)sorry.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)When most Dems land on the center of the political spectrum, being one of the more liberal among them does not a liberal make.
Would you say that the 13th most moderate Tea Partier is moderate? Nope.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)So comparing them to other Democrats seems legit... no?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)in that crowd doesn't mean much. Just as being #13 most moderate out of the Tea Party isn't saying much since even that person isn't moderate.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)perhaps not to the Socialist wing of the party.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)you're not. Because as I said, it makes no sense.
Go ahead and try anther insult. Maybe it will land this time.
Fact is the party has moved so far to the right there is virtually no left to it any more. The people are way more liberal than the Dem Party. Obama is a self-described moderate Republican and Hillary is pretty much just like him. She is nowhere near liberal and she is no progressive.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Get lost with your ignorant ugly comments. 
cui bono
(19,926 posts)that's too funny.
You doubled down! Gotta love it.
At least you let the facts stand and didn't use that tired old 'socialist' meme again.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Im done with you.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Odd that you didn't find that tired old meme pathetic enough not to use it.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) 
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Yet he ran as a Centrist and has described himself as a moderate Republican.
Voting liberal in the Senate. alone, is not an indication of a liberal President. Not by a longshot.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Healthcare, gay rights and Iranian nuke treaty are monumental progressive victories that Obama's presidency will be remembered for.
So there's that.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)something I don't think any other President has ever accomplished. When the economy collapsed in 2008 under the weight of Shrubya, it eventually lost HALF of its value (from approx 16,000 to approx 8,000). In my estimation, that makes him a huge protector of business and Wall Street over Main Street. Also, it's worth noting that 90 percent of the monumental gains during his administration were split amongst the One-Percenters.
So I'm not sure Obama will be remembered as much of a progressive. The "right" does consider healthcare reform to be a liberal issue, but Obama never put the public option on the table, nor did he allow consideration of the savings created by going to single payer insurance.
Nor did Obama use the bully pulpit to promote many liberal ideas. He even caved on important matters (and horrible ideas) such as the chained CPI and his beloved TPP.
But he did suffer a miraculous transformation in his support of gay rights; only months before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality. So there's that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)herself "moderate and center".
Progressives are not hanging back in the center being moderate. They're out making progress, leading us AWAY from Republicans. Not trying to find common ground with stupidity.
betsuni
(29,075 posts)A person calling themselves TheProgressive announces that Clinton is a 1%er weather vane and, like, totally not progressive. So what. I don't like sports, I think (especially) that American football is boring -- saying that doesn't make it true. But I know this. I don't expect everybody to ... oh, never mind.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)See, you said it, AND it's true! 
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Political descriptions/labels mean something. Liberal and progressive are actual political terms, as are conservative and libertarian. It's not opinion that made those terms mean something, it's policy positions.
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)... I, I think I love you, Cui........
Clarity AND rational thought.....I DO love you!
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)self styled progressives. It literally has become tortured and hackneyed.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Put that in your "progressive" pipe and smoke it.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)One check mark on the list doesn't make you a progressive.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)2014.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Thanks for reminding me that she's been running a campaign for 7 years.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I can't fully see your graph on my phone. Too small, words are blurry. Only vaguely see icons and colors.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MattSh
(3,714 posts)Especially when the facts state that she does.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Apparently it doesn't fit the narrative.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts) SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Fearless
(18,458 posts)But not sorry.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)How many times do you want me to prove you wrong?
Fearless
(18,458 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)That's now twice, and you're wrong about BLM as well, so make it 3x.
Or how about this one:
As mayor of Burlington, he criticized the Reagan administration’s support of military action against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Yet when peace activists in the 1980s staged protests attempting to shut down General Electric’s Burlington plant, which was manufacturing weapons, Sanders did not support it, citing concernfor the factory’s employees. During one protest, “ Sanders ordered the arrests of the demonstrators even though some of the guns were being shipped to the Salvadoran government for use against the Nicaraguans,” according to then-Vermont reporter Jim Condon, who is now a Democratic legislator in the state.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Here's a hint, any source with the headlines "Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week" is a socialist rag and has no place being promoted on DU.
Disgusting.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Edited: I thought you were referring to bottom quote. Link is to Bernie's former political party website.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And then you linked to libertyunionparty.org which is even worse.
31. You said I was lying about Bernie arresting protesters...
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
That's now twice, and you're wrong about BLM as well, so make it 3x.
Or how about this one:
As mayor of Burlington, he criticized the Reagan administration’s support of military action against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Yet when peace activists in the 1980s staged protests attempting to shut down General Electric’s Burlington plant, which was manufacturing weapons, Sanders did not support it, citing concernfor the factory’s employees. During one protest, “ Sanders ordered the arrests of the demonstrators even though some of the guns were being shipped to the Salvadoran government for use against the Nicaraguans,” according to then-Vermont reporter Jim Condon, who is now a Democratic legislator in the state.
Pathetic.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Serious question. It's a link to Liberty Union from 1999. Also, I updated my above post to clear up some confusion.
Here's the source, buddy: http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-bernie-sanders-conflicting-policies-guns-energy-defense-immigration-2139958
Not wsws.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You linked to Stormfront once and your post got hidden, obviously you learned from that experience.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about with wsws.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That claim is also posted on wsws and is constantly touted by other anti-Bernie fanatics.
IBT was just quoting Condon so it still doesn't prove the absurd claim that he "ordered the arrests" of protesters at GE.
Find something else besides libertyunion.org and a reporter who never proved the claim either.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Perhaps Sirota plagiarized?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Try to find a legitimate source for your claim or quit pretending you proved it.
senz
(11,945 posts)you expect an honest answer?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How are you my friend?
senz
(11,945 posts)They're not trying to convince us, they just want untruths out there to confuse any undecided viewers. I admire you for being willing to spend time on certain individuals. It's getting so I can tell who's just "doing a job."
I'm doing good and hope you are, too. It's always nice to see you on these boards. I think the "other side"sort of fears you -- and ignores me. 
Oh well. 
So I just try to get a little truth out there to counterbalance the lies. You don't have to respond to anything I'm saying here and probably shouldn't.
Anyway, take care, bmus. You're one of the best.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's not worth getting down into the muck with most of GDP anymore, they're not going to convince anyone and I'm tired of being alert stalked.
If they want to hate me for posting facts, let them, but good luck getting them hidden.
You take care too, keep fighting the good fight and be glad you're not a target.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)For serious protesters, getting arrested is a goal and badge of honor. Civil disobedience involves breaking unjust laws or minor violations of local ordinances in order to call attention to an issue. Arrests make for media coverage.
Making an entitled "how dare you arrest me" entitled claim just makes protesters look foolish if they are intentionally violating laws, ordinances, or ignoring legal processes (ie. permits which are required to maintain peace and protect protesters).
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The source of those claims is laughable, imo.
senz
(11,945 posts)So you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.
delrem
(9,688 posts)when supporters promoting Hillary Clinton's campaign suggest or claim outright that Sanders and Sanders' supporters are racist, misogynist, sexist white supremacists. I think you should have caught on by now - but never fear, there will be months more of David Brock's online only campaign coordinated PAC activity and they're just warming up. So we'll all learn, and learn, and learn, just how fucking low she will go.
senz
(11,945 posts)but in reality, they want anything but. Which is a good reason to keep giving them facts. The way she's trying to win this just shows what kind of people she and her supporters are. I feel good being even a tiny bit associated with Bernie.
But we're not going to let them drag us down or make us lose it.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)He gets the BLM movement in ways Hillary does not. Her only relationship to it is deciding how she can use it or avoid it in the name of political expediency.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, as long as someone mentioned it.
Clinton was against gay marriage until 2013. that's not very progressive. Neither was voting to go into Iraq.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's not very progressive either, imagine if Bernie had said that.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She might not be the first or even the second but when it comes to progressive causes she's bound to come around after everyone else does.
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)I listened to the hearings, and the Rachel interview. At one point in the interview, she stated that she would govern from the center-left and from the center-right, arguing with the "extremists" on either side, and then something was said that came out muddled. This, plus all the business about reaching across the aisles. Obama tried that during his first term. We all know how well that worked. To think that she can really work with people who hate her so intensely, is just so much wishful thinking. Rethuglicans do not act rationally, at least not, today's Repubs.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree, the Republicans are going to try to obstruct whichever Dem candidate wins the White House, we need someone who won't back down.
And who was she talking about when she referred to the extremists on our side?
I thought she said she was a progressive?
Bohunk68
(1,455 posts)Was she saying that Bernistas are extremists? Yesterday, I was helping at our Food Pantry, most of the clients were gone, and just half a dozen of us sat there and discussed this. I was the only male, there was my pastor, and four other wimmin there. We are in the country and Lutheran. We were all Dems, a rarity in a room here. Most of us support Bernie, we think that he has it right. While all of us will vote for Hillary, should she be our nominee, we really like the original, Bernie. Hillary has been saying things lately that sound more Bernielike, but I wonder if she really feels that?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She's only veering left because of Bernie, if she wins the nomination she'll swerve back to the right.
And yes, to me it sounds like she was taking a shot at Bernie's supporters.
The same people she wants to vote for her if she wins the nomination.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)..... but right now there's definitely a freaky and scary unevenness to this in America.
It needs to be addressed directly.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And just saying the words isn't going to cut it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)She is to the left of third way progressives.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You know I like you, but I can't just let a new (and meaningless) meme like "Third Way Progressive" get born without kicking back.
The Third Way is a thing. It is a real thing and not just a rhetorical exercise.
Your trying to make it into a theme reminds me of the bullshit "trickle down" atttacks used on Bernie Sanders. It is the co-opting of an actual term and turning it against the people who most embody the principals of fighting against it.
In my mind that makes it a Rovian attack.
I can't let that one slide.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Burn the house down for everyone. I'm sure they'll remember your point.
Ignorance is bliss.
And no I am not a caucasian white male, I was born in the Philippines and abused most of my life says my PTSD.
Fucking hell.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)No one's stopping you. Would it help if I gave you the match and gasoline?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Meanwhile I'm going to take care of my family despite what you do.
Buh By.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I have to take care of my little girl and my wife, I'm as inclusive as I can be but when you start working against my family's best interest......it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to figure that one out.
Godspeed.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)and have made that perfectly clear. Go ahead and express yourself but I'm supposed to feel........whatever with you? Sorry.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Buh by.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)"Well, no THIRD WAY PROGRESSIVE, that's for certain.
She is to the left of third way progressives."
and someone challenged you on it.
There is no such thing as a third way progressive. All you've attempted to do is muddy the waters.
"She is to the left of third way progressives." Ingested any psychedelics lately? My god that is grade school.
So a .......whatever. I've lived with an abusive Republican, you think your going to do any better with the things you spew?
I don't think so.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Do you think I cannot take whatever comes my way? I stand firm and I smith words. Yep. I created a definition and I call it Third Way Progressives, it is my right to smith words as I please.
I submitted it, don't trip.
No I do not ingest psychedelics at this time in my life. I just said I have CHILDREN!
That insinuation is insulting and rude.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Hypocrite much?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)It is a deliberate attempt to redefine existing definitions to turn lies into truth and truth into lies.
I support your effort to stand up against it.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)to give consideration to the labels tossed around and how they are used. I also concur with her analysis in how the terms are used. There is a blind spot born of certitude amongst "progressives." When people are unwilling to engage in introspection, then the language must be adjusted to fit.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Everyone knows there is no such think as third way p... I'm not even going to put those words together any more. Let the poster who keeps trying to make it a thing look like an idiot and don't even bother responding lest other people start thinking it really means something or is working and start using it as well.
It's an impossible term by definition. It's just another irrational hate-filled smear mongering attack on Sanders and his supporters.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)"Third Way Progressives" (and boy is that phrase an oxymoron)?
I've got most of the Hillarious on ignore, so this is the first time I've seen either, actually.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 25, 2015, 08:57 AM - Edit history (1)
Not noticing the unwelcoming environment towards blacks. Not being proactive and explaining what he expects as far as decorum is concerned. I remember the tea party complaining that they were all broad brushed by one guy with a witch doctor poster. If we can say they were a certain way because of how some people acted towards blacks, how can we not weed out the phonies and bad actors in our grassroots, or at the very least call it out and call for a welcoming environment?
That is my main concern. I had a gentlemen today when I complained of blacks and women receiving crusts while he gets a piece of the pie say "the crust is the best part!" trying to convince me that it was acceptable for me to get an unfair share, while he recieves more, because I should be satisfied with crusts, cause they taste better then a whole piece of the pie. This is how they talk to me. Another told me I was a shit eater. Many call me race baiter. To me, that is right on social justice and left on THEIR economics. They refuse to discuss equality for black and women and native americans calling it divisive. That is why instead of third way democrats, I call them Third Way Progressives, progressive on economics, completely ignoring the equality aspect and regusing to dicuss the fact that white men will get more benefits until we work on fixing inequality.
I have watched them since Netroots, and this is my definition and term. One even sent me a letter calling me race baiter. Many flat out call me racist and pile on and on and on. Many hides come from nasty posts written to me, some quite quite nasty. I have examined their behaivior and this is who the are. Read the posts written to me. Read the hidden ones. Watch how people ignore bad behaiviour in their own white spaces to focus on tearing me down and insulting me. Read the posts to me just on my threads and the others I posted on since I have been back. Then come tell me they treat me just like they treat you and each other. Let me know what you find.
betsuni
(29,075 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)We need to put this in the urban dictionary. I feel too dumb to accomplish it though.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What I see in your post is a belief that Sanders and followers are sucky on racial justice beyond possibly just rhetoric, but that still doesn't get me to how Clinton is a progressive. And I'm even more confused in that if I'm reading your note right, you're calling someone ELSE 'Third Way Progressives'?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I am ambivalent. But have I witnessed this from her side? No. Did you read the posts?
I am saying she is right of him on economics and he is not this social justice warrior who has been doing all these grand things for fifty years, so calm down. He is just the flip side of her and I am to both of their lefts on every damn thing so I have no idea why people imbue him with god like leftist perfection when he does not even hit on the things I want like giving back land to the Native American tribes and giving them another chamber of congress with voting rights that have weight in the senate just as much as a regular vote and it should not be contingent on how high there population is but be a set number and they can also run for regular senate seats. We never see them because we refuse to bring them up like maybe they do not exist but they do. And their voice is limited and nobody discusses it so no, one is not better than the other. Neither will get anything done but only one notices diversity. It is not him. She may pay lip service, but he is stuck in books and doesn't notice people or change much. She hires us and goes around campaigning for black politicians and we need that. I do not really see that he campaigns for us and cannot find anything so if you do please show me.
He is also a pessimist which I hate.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)suggests that she is to the left of him on social justice and he is to the left of her on economic justice to me. Perhaps we think of the words 'flip side' in different ways.
I am calm, I don't post angry or agitated. (Well, ok, I'm burnt out emotionally, but that's pretty much the same as 'calm'.) Do I regard sanders as 'leftist perfectionism'? Of course not, and neither do 95% of the folks who support his current run. Most of us will be happy to tell you exactly where he falls short for us, and if you point out another place he falls short, such as repatriation of Native lands, we'll probably agree with you. There's no need to caricature us in the same way you feel you're being caricaturized, to imbue us with anger or agitation or delusional thinking, or to say we think he's a 'god'. That's as stupid as anything people are accusing you of.
And so does he, even if his staff is a few percentage points less black than hers. The 'Black Kos' group over on Daily Kos ran the numbers on the campaign hires a while back, and the ratio was something like 33% to 25%. Not exactly a major difference in terms of who hires more, but yes, Clinton was slightly ahead on diversity. And Sanders campaigned for Jesse Jackson, iirc, who, last I checked, was still considered black. Here's a video of him doing so from right on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251511116
Now admittedly that was 1988, and I know how people only want 'what have you done for me lately', but it certainly kills any claim that Sanders 'Does not campaign for black politicians' while Clinton does.
Is he a pessimist? His campaign messages have been pretty positive. Yes, he acknowledges that we face hard problems, but he also proposes ways to ameliorate those problems. The world is not a happy and sunshiney place, as you probably know better than most. Acknowledging that does not make one a pessimist. It's just the first step in actually getting to grips with those problems, rather than simply ignoring them.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is shocking for someone who is supposed to be to her left on social justice. Social Justice is not just votes or positions on policy, it is stumping for african americans and others in your job as a politician to help magnify their voices. Words are Wind. What has he done to maginify our voives and help us recieve representation in government, which is the part of government he works for? He has not DONE more, but his words on paper look better. She fund raises and hives stump speeches and kisses babies for them even if she know they will lose. She does in deed what ge does with words. It sounds good, to you guys. I am skeptical. Even more so beacause of the first post I wrote to you.
Plus I was using the generic you since we don't really have a good form to address the generic you except 'one'.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So I've mentioned one. What's the cutoff? What number of black politicians would he have to stump for for you to give him the same regard you give her? What's her number? I don't know the name of even one black politician she's stumped for, but I'll accpet your word that they exist.
I really think a major difference between the two is that Hillary makes the most of every possible photo-op. She does every single thing she can to have herself being 'seen' to be doing 'good things'. Because doing so makes her more likely to achieve her own goal of bwing the first female President. Bernie didn't spend his entire career trying to get in the public eye, to make himself 'more electable'. He went in and plugged away at what he thought would help people.
I don't think Bernie is really all that much better on racial issues than Hillary. I think either of them will continue to need pushed on actually doing more than 'words' in making a positive change in the lives of black Americans. But I do know which of them helped shape policies that left millions of black Americans in jail, and which one of them used racist dogwhistles in prior campaigns. And it wasn't Bernie in either case.
(ETA - http://www.salon.com/2015/04/13/the_clinton_dynastys_horrific_legacy_how_tough_on_crime_politics_built_the_worlds_largest_prison/ just one of many articles and videos on the Clinton legacy in creating mass black American male incarceration, and Hillary's role in pushing it.)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I know that. Political expediency. No saint. Just as guilty except, he knew. Better than she did, he knew the implications, spoke on it, and voted it in. He went against principle just like she does. He does his quietly. Hers is in public. This campaign all of the racist dog whistles have come from the grass roots, and not her grass roots or salons. Period. This time was worse. Hillary and Obama split the black vote. Bernie? No. Not happnin.
If black folks get excited enough to google him they see the articles, read them and read the comments section to see what people really think. It ain't pretty. Often I wonder why conservatives are nicer to me online and in person. I had a lady with crazy abourtion stickers give me free tickets to the Van Gogh exhibit here in town the other day. No preaching. Just decided I wanted to go. They are nice to me everywhere I go. Never call me names even if they know my politics. Hillary peeps too. Nice.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't think black people will be any better off under a Hillary or Trump administration.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Flip side. They are both about equal to me looking rightwards at them.
He has no coalition. Not a people person.
I lived through bush, was born under Reagan, Hillary is better. Bernie. Sigh. His time was this summer.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Where?
In Clinton's campaign? Because there certainly isn't any of that in Sanders'.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Many black journalists have written articles addressing the fact that many blacks have reported harassment from self described Sander's fans. It is so unfortunate. I also recieved mail. Very pathetic person sent a note describing him/herself as a bernie duer and feels free as a caucasian to call a black woman (myself) a 'race baiter' and tells me of outnumbering me(which is certanly true, we blacks are often reminded of our place and lack of numbers, and therefore worth), and that I better shut up or else, ALERTS!!! I have recieved a few on perfectly innocuous posts since returning and there was a nasty one that called me shit eater hidden, another telling me I faked the letter ( apparently there are no unhinged people? I just wondered why not use email? Snail mail? Nobody my age uses snail mail, I thought it was a check! 
)
I watched Charles Blow recieve the treatment, it was sad. And John Lewis, a CIVIL RIGHTS LIVING LEGEND, got nasty messages on his facebook. I do not think he has posted since, or his staff. Very sad.
Many pretend these things mean nothing and that we need to ignore it or pretend not to notice or blame trolls. Often they refuse to even discuss or address the issues instead preffering to last out and project their own biases or bad thoughts onto another, an innocent who is not in their head. But let one guy at a tea party have an Obama witch Doctor sign and they are all racists, op after op pointing it out. I wonder if we are hypocrits. I worry that we are and it will come to a head if we do not pay attention to optics. How things look. How things many oppressed minorities feel without lashing out and ganging up on them and pretending we were right to do so instead of refkecting and apologizing for the harm we have done themC
See ya!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well... that's not Sanders himself, now is it?
All you have to do is look at his record.
So are these "self described Sander's fans" a majority? How many black journalists? Can you name 3 of them? links? Were these journalists for Sanders or against him and how trustworthy are they?
"Many pretend these things mean nothing and that we need to ignore it or pretend not to notice "
Names?
That "some people say" routine is soooo Fox News.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Many people will just not want to go through that just to 'feel the bern'.
This is why I wrote Bernie Sanders and the Peter Principle. I do not see leadership on addressing concerns in a timely manner. Concerns are laughed off and those concerned are ridiculed beyond belief, forcing them to seek another group to join that accepts them.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And they are?
And did he just brush them off?
This "Sanders doesn't like black people" meme was started way back in June by the GOP. I can't believe anyone is still beating that dead horse.
"Concerns are laughed off "
Please post the video where Sanders laughed off BLM.
or...stop making up shit!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)being so nasty about BLM.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Not really. I just noticed what most african americans noticed. You listen to what his mouth says, I look at how he acts. How many blacks he hires. How many hear what I hear. How many are not impressed and why. He is very pessimistic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's not going to work. You might as well be calling someone an anarcho-fascist or a Free-Market Communist. Sorry.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)People should have kept me on their side.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
tishaLA
(14,775 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Only just back from her timeout, and she's already threatening people and trying to cause trouble.
When will she ever learn?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 26, 2015, 02:00 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I say to the alerter that brave has every right to voice her opinion without you trying to teach her a lesson.
"Threatening people".. she's not threatening me.. who is she threatening? You? Because you want her gone again? That's too bad for you that she speaks out and you call it "causing trouble".
Causing trouble, because she has a different opinion than yours. I never saw such a lot of so called "progs" who tried to shut down discussion. Only believe in free speech when it comes to you.
She should go sit in a corner and let only you speak.. because, of course, you would never be causing any trouble, would you?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: More unnecessary alert-stalking of an African American poster. There is literally NOTHING here that merits an alert.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: When will she learn what, alerter? To stay in her place? To act lady-like; be seen and not heard? To remain silent and keep smiling when someone is taking verbal swings at her? To defer to her betters? To be less uppity? To be more "white" and "polite?"
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing there, alerter. At least not in this post.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cha
(319,067 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Record. It was beautiful.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)...just like her husband.
Hillary Clinton is campaigning just like Bill Clinton - Talks the Progressive Talk, then tacks straight to the Right.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Believe what she is saying.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)your supporting Bernie and you need some reason to do so, so making shit up about Hillary gives you that reason.
Sticks and stones ........................... you know.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)But the fact remains that Clinton is no Progressive despite her saying she is...
moobu2
(4,822 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You have a need to say that as a reason to support Bernie.
I have no reason to make shit up about Bernie to help me support Hillary.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Then the Hillary Clinton bashing will have to stop...or HillaryHaters will have to get reeeeaaally creative.
Robbins
(5,066 posts)we bernie supporters will leave eather permeantly or till after she loses the GE.
However it isn't over yet.
what dems say is mild compared to what others will say In GE.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Say it ain't so!
Robbins
(5,066 posts)leaving DU till after she loses is only choice.
ALRIGHTY THEN
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Yet I read on just about every liberal blog from Sanders supporters that Hillary Clinton supporters are the ones who won't vote for Sanders in the off-chance that he wins the Democratic nom. And you are another.
Bookmarking for future reference.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)I will never ever ever EVER vote for Clinton!
Skittles
(171,704 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There are many groups and forums I haven't visited on this site yet. I will be around and keep busy. I will vote my conscience and will not give the Hillary supporters that would like us Bernie supporters to just shut up the satisfaction of going away or getting myself banned.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the Democrat the vast majority of the American people have chosen as their nominee.
eridani
(51,907 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)If so, Bernie Sanders is the captain of the cheerleading squad. Anyone who believes Sanders is anti-war or a pacifist has listened too much to his fire and brimstone rally speeches, but not heard him say he's NOT a pacifist, and hasn't looked at his actual voting record.
As for Hillary Clinton's record on bankruptcy reform, it's far more complicated than your platitude implies.
In the late 1990’s, as first lady, Mrs. Clinton became deeply involved in the issue, her first real foray into legislation since the collapse of her health-care effort in 1994. She sought a private tutorial on the subject, worked behind the scenes with members of Congress, wrote public newspaper columns and spoke out against it.
Her concern was that the bill would hurt women and children. The law then required that if a divorced man filed for bankruptcy, he had to pay off his alimony and child-support obligations first. The bill gave equal status to credit card companies and other lenders who were seeking to recoup money.
President Clinton pocket-vetoed the bill at the end of his term, after Mrs. Clinton had been elected to the Senate. Congress had left town and did not have the chance to try to override the veto.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/
eridani
(51,907 posts)Which would NOT have been used in Iraq without a bunch of war hawks backing Bush and Cheney.
And is wasn't just her vote--she went out of the way to publicly encourage others to vote for it.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)is anything more than a 1%er wallowing in corporate cash...
You may now attack my ideas...
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Creating myths that are lies is all part of the agenda for that crew.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The old saw:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
It's just part of the process of actual change....real change, not campaign bullshit rhetoric.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Seems he will need the DNC behind him.
Bernblu
(441 posts)Hillary supporters who say that they believe she's a progressive are just blowing smoke in our eyes or are hopelessly naive. I would respect Hillary more if she owned up to being a third way Democrat centrist and defended her true positions. At least than we could have a genuine debate. She is reminding me more and more of Mitt Romney with her kaleidoscope of policy position changes and fudges.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Y'know, love makes a Subaru a Subaru.
Hillary™ has the name recognition, so like Coke, she can claim to be the "real thing". It's called "retentive advertising".
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And yes, I do trust Clinton's ability to move in whatever direction her head is currently pointing.
However, for myself? Simply moving around for the sake of moving around isn't meaningful. it's what kindergartners do when they have an extra juice box at lunch. Nah, moving forward isn't nearly as important as moving toward.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:34 AM - Edit history (1)
Compared to a Socialist maybe not.
SunSeeker
(58,278 posts) Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Clinton is, indeed, more of a progressive than Menendez, Schumer, Byrd, Feinstein, Lieberman, Landrieu, and Bayh!
Which is a lot like winning a beauty contest against Quasimodo, the Elephant Man, the kid from "Deliverance," and Ted Cruz.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)She is purely a neoliberal and an oligarch, 100%.
Progressives are not warmongers, nor do we do the bidding of the banksters and the corporate pigs.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)entire nation. That was a Progressive action. She didn't succeed, of course, but she tried.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses," he said in 1974.
The 1974 effort gained some traction in Congress but faltered as Nixon became consumed by scandal.
"Had it not been for his destruction as a result of the Watergate affair, legislation might well have passed during his presidency," said Princeton University health care historian Paul Starr, the author of Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle over Health Care Reform.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Tea Partier of today -- and Nixon was bad enough! These present-day guys are totally
without conscience.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...decades ago, does not a progressive make.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The progressive position is single payer.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)who cost this country $12.8 TRILLION - OUR tax dollars! (Hillary's husband abolished Glass-Steagall, BTW)
GMOs and MONSANTO
PRISONS FOR PROFITS
CORPORATE TAX LOOPHOLES
CORPORATE OWNED MSM ( Hillary's husband abolished the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE, BTW)
THE IWR
THE PATRIOT ACT - which has turned this country into a police state and MILITARIZED OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS
THE BANKRUPTCY BILL - which disproportionately affects women and children
THE DLC - Which Hillary and her husband helped start, BTW.
Hillary isn't even close to being a Progressive. She's RIGHT OF CENTER and would fit just fine in that other party.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)If there are any.
Then we will compare their voting records to HRC.
We will find HRC's votes align more with Sanders than any republican.
Bernie supporter here, Sanders is based in facts, not hyperbole. Yes she is too conservative to me but Bernie seems to recognize HRC as a colleague and ally despite their policy differences.
It is great when he elucidates the policy differences. I can't speak for him but I am pretty sure we will never hear him imply or say HRC is the same as a Republican
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)She's not even close to being a Progressive and everything I listed that she has done and supports isn't even close to LIBERAL either, so.....what's that leave us?
Also, this is my opinion based on Hillary's past votes and current positions - until the wind shifts. I think we're still entitled to our opinions, unless that changed also when Hillary's Oligarchs took over.
Bernie can say what he says as a candidate, and as a supporter, I'll say what I think and feel. I know for a fact, Bernie supports Free Speech.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)She's progressive on some issues and conservative on many others. Bernie is the candidate who most shares my views in this primary. It was Edwards in 08.
Of course you can say what you think and feel. As I can say that I feel it is hyperbolic to say she is the same as a Republican. Both she and Bernie support things that are an anathema to Republicans.
TBF
(36,665 posts)she has won ONE election while Bernie has won 14 elections. FWIW.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) 99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)well at least she's consistently duplicitous.
senz
(11,945 posts)I love her total shamelessness.
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” ―H. L. Mencken
I'll bet Bill quotes that to her every evening.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Ideas.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)She already can point to having described herself as a moderate.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The app doesn't change, but can be made to appear different depending which skin is the most useful at the moment.
edit to add: Did anyone else catch the southern accent she slipped into during her Alabama speech? I remember Obama did the same thing in the '08 campaign. Can't stand that kind of thing, be who you are.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Could not let that slide as neither Bill or Hillary Clinton are Progressives...
I consider progressives much like the founders of our country and the framers of our Constitution,
but of course, much more today...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
Ford_Prefect
(8,610 posts)Amen, brother Bob.
Warpy
(114,614 posts)I always tell people to tune out the rhetoric during election seasons. After all, Stupid sounded like more of a Democrat than Gore did back in 2000 and that was one reason the election was close enough to steal. Gore just wouldn't stand up to his handlers and let fly.
After her performance on Thursday, I will feel less terrible if she's the nominee, it's obvious she will stand up to those hosers. I wonder how much of us could have taken 11 hours of badgering without letting them have it right back. She's no liberal but she's a consummate professional who knows how to deal with assholes.
I will, however, give Sanders my primary vote. Those Third Way turds need to be shown that Main Street isn't going to put up with their bullshit much longer.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Is there such a thing as neoprogressive ???
still_one
(98,883 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Like...Iraq war, TPP, and Keystone XL....
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She just flip-flops, depending on the event.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can understand the mental convenience of ignoring everything but the seven percent. It requires much less rational thought and plays off inherent bias... though I also understand the irrational excuses made otherwise.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)profound.... Nice try...
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...and Elizabeth Warren thinks she's "terrific", so there's another vote of confidence.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)And 'terrific' does not equal 'progressive'...
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...but suffice it to say he had no concerns about Clinton and he shares my concerns about Sanders' electability.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...about the dinner or the conversation?
You should know my reputation, so what point would I have making things up? I know I won't convince anyone; just putting facts on the table.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)A person can say anything - right?
And you are...?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I'm a deep-pockets funder of the Party, the Party's election Committees and our competitive candidates. I've had dinner with Bernie at a DSCC retreat, a small group dinner with VP Biden, lunch with Elizabeth Warren, and recently, dinner with Feingold. I've also been hosting staff from the Clinton Campaign HQ in my house. Just ask around.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)No offense, sounds like you are a 3rd way (so called) Democrat who, of course,
would say anything to elect Clinton. Clinton says anything too!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...I don't hide my identity in my profile, so feel free to check my FEC records.
As to the second point, you seem to be falling into the trap of assuming all 1%ers (yes, I am one) MUST be conservative, and everyone in the 99% must be liberal. That's a dangerously biased attitude. We've been happy to support Elizabeth Warren (who seems to like Clinton as well), Sherrod Brown (btw - his daughter Liz, former ODP Director is running for Columbus City Council) and Alan Grayson when they were running in races WHERE THEY COULD WIN. That's why I was having dinner with Russ Feingold, our most likely pickup. And that's my fundamental issue with Bernie. If he could snap his fingers and give us Single Payer (and raise my taxes to pay for it) I'd be delighted. But I don't see a path for him to win a General Election against a $1-2 B funded Republican (actually, I don't seem a path for him to win the Primary, when he's only ahead in one State and will have to find a way to campaign in 10 Super Tuesday States in the South and West at the beginning of March), and even if he did, he can't unilaterally deliver everything his supporters seem to dream about. That's why I'm prepared to accept incremental changes, as frustrating as that may be, instead of risking political capital on "all or nothing" goals.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)There is no way Clinton will win the General - Republicans hate Clinton.
Sanders, on the other hand, will get enough Democratic and republican votes to win
the presidency.
Clinton is basically a republican and you are supporting her? There has to be more to it for you...
We await the future on this... In the mean time, my post that Clinton is no Progressive is very true.
Thanks for posting...
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Clinton is "basically a Republican" and "Republicans hate Clinton".
I could point to all the posts that show what her ideology maps as, or how closely her Senate votes matched Sanders, but we both know it wouldn't matter.
I agree that there's visceral hatred of Clinton...just not from the Right.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Yes, republicans do 'hate' Clinton and Clinton is basically a republican. The term 'cognitive dissonance' isn't applicable
for my post as we are dealing with other people. I know you were not referring to me...
As far as ideology - let me present an analogy. Human and ape DNA are 96% similar. That 4 percent difference is significant - don't you agree. My analogy points out that, sure, Sanders and Clinton's votes have some similarities, however, the differences that Sanders has shows he is a statesperson and Clinton is a corporatist.
Finally, the word 'hate' is a word used by the Right. Democrats don't 'hate' in my opinion. So your last sentence
is incorrect - republicans do hate Clinton, however Democrats who prefer Sanders do not 'hate' Clinton. Its called a preference.
Get it?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...rather than get none of it if the Republicans win.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I pretend to have an absolute knowledge of what a Progressive is and is not to better validate my candidate, too. I suppose when the best we have are bumper sticker philosophies and circular arguments, it greatly assists our argument to rely on definitions we change as convenience suits us...
elana i am
(814 posts)my hunch tells me that polls are meaningless this election. that mainstream press is completely and utterly missing the big story. i feel like the entirety of the democratic party elite is either just completely oblivious to or outright fucking dismissive of progressives altogether. there's a progressive populist movement afoot in this country, yet sanders has exactly 2 congressional endorsements. that is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. there are no words for how disappointing and pathetic that is.
save for bernie sanders himself, keith ellison and raul grijalva, democrats are not progressives. not a one of them. they don't deserve the title. that's all i'm gonna say about that.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Darth Cheney probably considers himself to be a progressive for still breathing .Is Hillry a liberal ?