General Discussion

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)

77. What are you talking about?

Tue Aug 26, 2014, 02:10 PM

Aug 2014

What part of THE HOUSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPREME COURT NOMINEES is too difficult for you to grasp? What part of elections have consequences and the supreme court is the biggest one is too difficult for you to understand? And you're wrong - Thomas serves the interests of the President that nominated him and his supporters quite nicely. So do the rest of the con judges. They don't support YOUR interests which is very much the point of getting a Democratic president. I'm getting the feeling you seriously don't understand the process involved OR the history.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A bit of advice for those who do not want Hillary Clinton to win the nomination [View all] MohRokTah Aug 2014 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Aug 2014 #1

So you'll give a vote to the GOP over 1 issue? Even though you probably agree with the Democratic FSogol Aug 2014 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Aug 2014 #19

By writing Jimmy Carter, you are voting for Paul Ryan or whatever miserable asshat the GOP nominates FSogol Aug 2014 #22

Not that "no-vote-is-a-vote-for-the-republican" silliness again. Vattel Aug 2014 #88

in a solidly blue OR red state - at least in presidential elections - hifiguy Aug 2014 #36

Jimmy Carter is a 3rd party candidate? Write in votes are a vote for the GOP. FSogol Aug 2014 #43

How??? rjj621 Aug 2014 #58

When you do not vote for Democrats, Republicans win. FSogol Aug 2014 #60

There is this thing called the Electoral College. hifiguy Aug 2014 #69

Specialized case. There are many purple states out there and many states where the status quo is FSogol Aug 2014 #70

i agree with you completely in that respect hifiguy Aug 2014 #73

Thanks for that. I've always lived in purple VA and every single vote is precious here. FSogol Aug 2014 #74

Yup! hifiguy Aug 2014 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Aug 2014 #112

I'm sure Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz will be much nicer to the Palestinians. n/t FSogol Aug 2014 #113

I live in CT, and I do the same bigwillq Aug 2014 #66

Exactly the way I see it. hifiguy Aug 2014 #68

You might not want to mention that around here too much, especially going into elections MohRokTah Aug 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author ann--- Aug 2014 #20

Jimmy Carter is not a candidate for any office. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #27

The poster didn't advocate that anyone else vote for Jimmy Carter. Fawke Em Aug 2014 #30

ooga booga GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #37

OK, we'll put you down for 1/2 vote for Hillary rock Aug 2014 #21

At this point in time, Jimmy Carter is my candidate too. Purveyor Aug 2014 #52

Then you must hate ACA...cuz if cons can, they will destroy it as well as BaggersRDumb Aug 2014 #101

Well yes, I agree. Xyzse Aug 2014 #2

I'm a O'Malley supporter too. Hope he announces quickly after the midterms. n/t FSogol Aug 2014 #5

I like O'Malley. If he can secure the right people he could become a contender. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #13

Edwards became succcessul in the 2008 election by announcing late 2006. eom MohRokTah Aug 2014 #6

Yep.... Xyzse Aug 2014 #7

You fight retail politics by demanding that these moneybags can ONLY win on the merits and truth of ancianita Aug 2014 #8

Ya can't sell it if you can't afford to sell it. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #11

Well, then representative politics for The People hasn't got a chance. We shouldn't fool ourselves. ancianita Aug 2014 #78

The winning candidate in 2016 wil have to be capable of raising $1 billion. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #80

So Hillary will benefit from what's wrong with US politics? NightWatcher Aug 2014 #9

Every buck counts. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #10

advice. Autumn Aug 2014 #12

Thanks. eom MohRokTah Aug 2014 #15

Don't expect to see serious movement from the potential contenders until bullwinkle428 Aug 2014 #14

I expect the first announcement to come in December. eom MohRokTah Aug 2014 #16

There isn't a single candidate to oppose Hillary. MineralMan Aug 2014 #17

Just curious. Laelth Aug 2014 #33

It's just my intuition, based on what she has said and done. MineralMan Aug 2014 #39

I only hope they will be contenders!!!! mylye2222 Aug 2014 #18

You're right, she'll get plenty of Corporate funding. But not a dime from me. NYC_SKP Aug 2014 #23

But surely the DNC has a backup plan, yes? leftstreet Aug 2014 #24

What I hope is that the DNC is focused entirely on 2014 right now. MineralMan Aug 2014 #25

You should see some jockeying from potential 2016 candidates in this election. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #40

I suppose so. We'll see. MineralMan Aug 2014 #42

The support for the candidates is really more of the money game. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #44

Sure. Still, people like Hillary have already proven that they MineralMan Aug 2014 #48

Yeah, her candidate support will be much more strategic. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #59

O'Malley's struggle is going to be name recognition. MineralMan Aug 2014 #61

Absolutely! MohRokTah Aug 2014 #64

let's get past the mid terms and then worry about 2016. neverforget Aug 2014 #26

This ^ ^ ^ ^ Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Aug 2014 #50

Walmart will be among her biggest donors gyroscope Aug 2014 #28

I respectfully disagree. Laelth Aug 2014 #29

You'll not see that. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #41

You Mean Raise Cash From The 1% That Will Then Expect Favors To Crush The 99% cantbeserious Aug 2014 #31

Well, at least you're honest. vi5 Aug 2014 #32

No matter who wins on our side, America will be fine and the world will stay very much intact. conservaphobe Aug 2014 #34

You don't understand obviously. Hillary, or any other candidate who is Corporate Funded sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #35

The Supreme Court is in the balance in 2016 leftynyc Aug 2014 #45

Heard that before also. Vote for the SC. Remember, the SC nominee cannot get past sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #49

They don't have to get past Congress leftynyc Aug 2014 #53

Congress = House and Senate. I remember how many Democrats voted for Bush's nominees. sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #57

I don't think you understand leftynyc Aug 2014 #63

No, I DO understand and you post only makes my point more strongly. sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #72

What are you talking about? leftynyc Aug 2014 #77

What part of Congress is made up of two houses do YOU not understand? And 11 DEMOCRATS sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #90

Since I'm the one who leftynyc Aug 2014 #91

Since you're the only one in this discussion who thinks there is only one issue people sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #92

Sigh leftynyc Aug 2014 #94

If you don't understand that a Congress (both houses) that actually represents the people sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #95

People can scream leftynyc Aug 2014 #96

Thank you! It never ceases to amaze me how naive some Progressives are BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #67

If that is the case then it is important to trust the person to appoint good judges TheKentuckian Aug 2014 #97

Whatever leftynyc Aug 2014 #98

If what happened when they DIDNT vote in 2010 didnt teach them, nothing will BaggersRDumb Aug 2014 #103

Agree leftynyc Aug 2014 #108

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2014 #38

Tell me why she's the best candidate out there Bettie Aug 2014 #46

That's precisely what I'm saying. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #47

So 'she's the best candidate because Corporations love her'. Lol, is this some kind of joke? sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #51

No. No joke. It's reality. BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #71

Gore WON the 2000 election. The SC stole it for Bush. Let's stop changing the facts about that sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #75

Yes. It was an act of treason, and yes, I know Gore won. But Bush became president BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #81

'When we have filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate'. Why didn't we do it, first thing, in Jan sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #93

It's debatable who, what, and why our side didn't turn out in 2010. There is no conclusive BlueCaliDem Aug 2014 #99

You're jumping ahead from Jan 2009 to a few years later AFTER they let the moment pass, then sabrina 1 Aug 2014 #100

It is depressing to me that the 'ideal' candidate is Bettie Aug 2014 #104

That's the way it is. If you can show me another potential candidate who can raise... MohRokTah Aug 2014 #105

See, I get that she can raise the money Bettie Aug 2014 #106

This is only the presidency. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #107

In other words, the system sucks :( arcane1 Aug 2014 #54

I can't deny that. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #55

The system sucks, AND Hillary is a beneficiary and representaive of what sucks about it. morningfog Aug 2014 #56

Show me ONE OTHER Democrat capable of raising $1 billion for the 2016 election. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #62

Money is all that matters apparently. morningfog Aug 2014 #65

I'm not sure cash matters as much as it used to Man from Pickens Aug 2014 #79

National politics vs. local politics. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #82

In the past Man from Pickens Aug 2014 #83

In the past, you could always overcome money on the House level. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #84

The problem over making money-raising from corporations a prerequisite for a nominee Man from Pickens Aug 2014 #87

I can't disagree with that, but there are no other alternatives for the national level. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #89

Better advice is wait until if/when she announces she's a candidate. mulsh Aug 2014 #85

Really, it's advice to anybody who wants to win the nomination in 2016. MohRokTah Aug 2014 #86

Vermin Supreme Recursion Aug 2014 #110

I dont like dynasties or corp Dems, but since we really only have two choices, corp Dem who leans BaggersRDumb Aug 2014 #102

Wasn't this the argument in 2008? Recursion Aug 2014 #109

Obama was capable of outraising Clinton in 2008 MohRokTah Aug 2014 #111