General Discussion

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)

2. Why can't she respond? It seems like a simple enough question. THIS is why we need to let

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:42 PM

Jun 2014

our party know NOW that we want candidates we can support, candidates who represent the values of the voters they are asking to support them.

Telling the party, as I've seen some do here 'I will vote for whoever you tell us to vote for' is, to be blunt, ASKING them not to consider the people AT ALL.

NOW is the time to tell them the exact opposite of that. 'We expect our party to provide us with candidates who will answer questions about policies frankly and openly. You cannot take our votes for granted, no matter what you are hearing from a few people claiming to represent all of us'.

The very idea of telling a political party you will vote for whoever they decide you should vote for is so defeatist it is incomprehensible to me.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Of course. Hillary Clinton keeps coy on Keystone [View all] cali Jun 2014 OP

Rachel Maddow Says Politico Is �Effectively� The Romney Campaign�s �Campaign Newsletter� onehandle Jun 2014 #1

So did Hillary answer the question or not? n/t sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #3

How dare you not chase off in the deflected direction! Iggo Jun 2014 #6

The old 'look over there' routine never worked on me, since I was around five or so. sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #7

Why can't she respond? It seems like a simple enough question. THIS is why we need to let sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #2

that shouldn't be allowed to stand bigtree Jun 2014 #4

Tricky issue for Democratic candidates. Unions on one side, environmentalists on the other. Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #5

I don't see any 'tickiness' at all. When something is wrong it's wrong, period. sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #10

Whoops.... "trickiness". Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #12

Perhaps we should be developing alternative energy, which is GOING TO HAPPEN anyhow sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #13

Is it really an axiom that our country must allow the transport of toxic materials Dragonfli Jun 2014 #16

Hear, hear! Canada can build their OWN pipelines and refineries on CANADIAN soil. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #18

Is this an issue which will be resolved before the election time? Thinkingabout Jun 2014 #8

Politico did a pretty bad job explaining her reasons. WaPo did much better Demit Jun 2014 #9

Did she answer the question or not? Does she support it or not? That is all we want to know. sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #11

Why don't you read the link for yourself? Demit Jun 2014 #23

Completely reasonable political position -- ie not taking a position on a hot potato issue karynnj Jun 2014 #17

Her fingerprints are all over Keystone tularetom Jun 2014 #14

Yup, Hillary can run, but won't be able to hide forever on this issue. InAbLuEsTaTe Jun 2014 #30

Hedging her bets, but could that hurt her this time? karynnj Jun 2014 #15

She will keep silent, until, as many others, the issue will suite her agenda. mylye2222 Jun 2014 #26

Will she be "no comment" on TPP also? HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #19

Hillary Clinton On Her Personal View On Keystone XL: "I Can't Respond" - WP Ichingcarpenter Jun 2014 #20

LOL! Sheldon Cooper Jun 2014 #21

Hillary is a known commodity n2doc Jun 2014 #22

She'll have to check with her handlers and the polls to see where she stands. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #24

"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment" MisterP Jun 2014 #25

Such bravery! LittleBlue Jun 2014 #27

Does our current President have a clear position on the pipeline? NCTraveler Jun 2014 #28

Obama is the one in the hot seat because his own State Department put him there tularetom Jun 2014 #31

I like that answer. joshcryer Jun 2014 #29