HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Number of posts: 9,688

Journal Archives

Why would he?

I would no more jettison West than I would Obama, or Lewis, or any other person - Steinem, any of the people who have impressed me. I take all of their statements in context, because I was taught to. And as I was taught, I obey.

I listen to all of the arguments.

I want to make a better world.

It means that she's most "moderate" and "centered", as part of a marketing campaign.

Of course the most "moderate" and "centered" candidate will be the most "electable".

That's all you really need to know about the meaning of the terms.

As people understand that a positive future is possible if Hillary loses to Sanders,

Sanders will win.

That isn't horse race politics that I'm talking about.
I'm talking about electability.

We were given to understand that nobody except Hillary Rodham Clinton was "electable".
That no alternative was possible, and that she would be the least of evils that the Republicans would offer.
By being bipartisan, centrist, she could and would work with Republicans to get things done, and Sanders certainly couldn't do that.

A slam dunk, she figured.

People supported Obama because he was Obama.

I am still very enamored of Obama - I think he's a good man, a smart man, and he has a wonderful uplifting family.
He and his family impress me more than the Kennedy's.

To be sure, the day started with a dash of cold water.
He didn't have the support of his own party!!
He had majorities that allowed themselves to be filibustered to death.
So nothing, not a damn thing, went through.

That is not on Obama. That's on the Democratic party. He had to deal with it.

His one and only mistake was to take Hillary Clinton on board as SOS.
Her fucking private email server hid her work from HIM.
She put him out of the loop.
Grok that, why don't you?

She's a wonder worker, that one.

Question not addressed to me, but I wouldn't.

But so what? I wouldn't hide most of the stuff that's hidden on DU.
I think people on all sides of all issues and supporters of all candidates misuse the jury system. Nevertheless, I do think it's a damn good system.

What you are missing here - or evading, I don't know if you're just unable to see it - is that this is a classic exercise in swiftboating, right up there in similitude with the swiftboating of Kerry. To be sure, the swiftboating of Kerry was much more serious, being used by the Republicans in a GE to win, reelecting a war mongering chickenhawk. Just remembering it makes my blood boil! BOIL, Skinner. I so hate it, I so hate that kind of politics and hate it hate it hate it when it wins. Yet that's exactly what's happening here with Capehart, Matthews, and the swiftboating DU trolls who're pushing the meme that Bernie Sanders is a fake. A liar about his commitment to social justice.

I never saw the post you refer to. But given this context I can understand a hide like that, esp. if the context were a gloating poster pushing the swiftboating ratfucking meme.

The ratfucking on this issue is intolerable. This has been going on for 8 months now. It's just now going into overdrive, what with Hillary Clinton's recent 3 page memo and the flood of money.

Most unpleasant is, that it means that there will never be a "discussion".

There will never be any listening.

All it will be is dirt.

People want to discuss fact? The response will be trigger words woven into paragraphs, according to Rovian memes.

This will of course set the tone of the GE, and will set the tone of US politics for the next 8 years, in every case as modified by the Republican masters.

Oh cry me a river, from your sad eyes.

I like to see the flow.

When David Brock and co. put out a disgusting meme,

I think we should shut it down.

If that means that we DO have to discuss the intersection of "social justice" and "economic justice", so be it. If that means that we DO have to "follow the money", so be it.

I think we should fight for justice on every level.

I don't think we should ever give in to some argument that in the end we're all the same.
Working with Republicans is one thing. Working to enable the highest ideals of the progressive wing of the Democratic party is a totally different thing.

Those who would sacrifice everything in order to ensure a "bipartisan, moderate, centrist, third-way" win are nothing other than Republican "centrists" who play the same rigged game.

Well then, it certainly served its purpose!

Talking about flames...

You know what I liked about sitting around a campfire when I was a kid? Toasting marshmallows. Getting them to that point right before they catch on fire, then eating them.

A thing we did a few times was gather all the families together for a campfire at the lake, then we'd get out the wax milk cartons we'd saved and go down to the shore and light the spouts on fire and set them down in the water, and they'd all float out to the center of the lake.

Sanders just wants all people to have medical care as a right. As would be guaranteed with a universal single payer plan.
He wants all children to have higher education as a right.
This doesn't mean that the rich won't be allowed to employ private doctors, above and beyond universal coverage. But it does mean that a very high bar can be set with respect to expected coverage. It also means that expected coverage can be expanded via community clinics, when given a strong nucleus of care-givers working to a common purpose. It takes the matter of life and death out of the hands of a private insurance industry and puts it in the hands of the people, right down to community level outreach.
Likewise for education. There always has been and there always will be very elite private tutors for those who can pay.

I don't think Sanders wants to take anything away from anybody, except from those who want to pay absolutely no taxes for the betterment of the people. Just taxes for war, then? For corruption? Maybe taxation has to be modified only a very little, if taxes were better distributed. Maybe taxes should be purposed LESS toward the military and continued war, which only provides ground for war profiteering?

Ah, I still remember the olden days, setting those lit milk cartons down to float away.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »