General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFine. I'll say it. I won't vote for HIllary if she's the nominee.
and yeah, I'll gladly leave DU for the duration.
I think she's a despicable opportunist, dishonest, a big supporter of the military industrial complex and much more. Almost all of it counter to the democratic ideals I believe in. I couldn't vote for her and remain true to my beliefs. And yes, I do think the Supreme Court is important, but I cannot support Hillary.
End of story.
Response to cali (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)"I'm gonna sign up as a troll on DU, and.. support the democrats!!!"
silly isn't it?
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and I cannot vote for her either.
Can't help wondering what she has promised all the powerful supporters she has. Do they agree with her views, or are there promises of good jobs and even better new laws and trade agreements? Hope we never find out.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)JI7
(89,283 posts)supporting him .
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)To the left of Obama even.
TBF
(32,118 posts)but I'd vote for her over many others. She at least will look out for civil rights issues.
randys1
(16,286 posts)the alternative to WHOEVER the dem is, is a teaparty or lying hypocrite ass like Rand Paul or a mainstream repub like , well I cant think of one who could get the nomination
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)It is the Republican cupboard that is barer than Cruz' closet of integrity.
question everything
(47,568 posts)They will gain more confidence if she is not the nominee.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)I honestly hope that she does not.
I honestly do not like her, not only because of the bad experiences I had when I met her years ago.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I never thought that the "Tell Hillary you want her to run in 2016" pleas I started noticing on the internet in around 2011 had nothing to do with her. And the current book tour is a classic. So is her sudddenly showing "her softer side," which many say is what won her New Hampshire, which had been slated to go to Obama, before she broke into tears after a woman asked her how she managed to do it "all."
I mean, I sure hope you are right, but, on my ouija board, everything points to a run.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)ie for 4 yrs had people saying Palin's running in 2012. nope she didn't
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)She had just signed another book deal, Bill had other deals in the works, including his foundation (which was seeded incredibly soon after he left. Almost too soon. Like a payoff.).
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,124 posts)We need an honest candidate whose allegiance is to the little guy on Main Street, not the "fat cats" on Wall Street.
cali
(114,904 posts)who he is as a person. He can and did piss me off as governor, but he had integrity. I don't see a shred of that in Hillary.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)over. I saw a Dean sign nailed to a telephone pole so I went back at night and grabbed it...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Nominate her and you will lose the support of the left. Dont blame us. We want change. Real change, not Obama change. No more better of evil extortion. At some point we must draw the line and fight for our liberties, our freedoms and our economy.
JI7
(89,283 posts)they are very much the same .
btw, she already has the liberal support .
OLDMADAM
(82 posts)I wasn't only a Dean supporter but a volunteer in his office, devoting months and donating more than I could afford, by a lot.. When he lost in Wisconsin, I picked up my stuff, and moved it to John Kerry's office, and gave it my all.. I believed in Dean, and still worked for his successor..
I will work for any candidate we pick, no matter who it is, and I don't think we know who that may be yet, perhaps someone none of us would even think of.. One sure thing, I will be there with bells on, all in..
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)I didn't think John Kerry could win. Howard Dean won our room.. then discovered nobody had been to a pep rally before and the Howard Dean yeah was seen as anger for whatever reason..
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I mean if they put up another milquetoast like Romney, that's one thing, but what if they put up a full throated tea-partier like say Rick Scott down here in Florida?
Bryant
JI7
(89,283 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If Hillary is the candidate I'll likely vote for her, although I am not enthusiastic about the prospect - but I would be more eager to vote for her if the Republican were Rick Scott or Rand Paul, compared to Romney.
Bryant
defacto7
(13,485 posts)is someone manipulatable and passive so the "deciders" can easily maneuver without resistance. That's why they wanted Romney.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is the time to let the party know that we want someone we can vote FOR, not just 'it's this candidate or a teabagger'.
question everything
(47,568 posts)More right wing Supreme Court that further erode rights
More warrior happy presidents that destroy countries and lives
More "drop dead" attitude of reducing and eliminating any safety net, clean environment, decent jobs, health care and retirement.
But, hey, you can sit smugly and be happy with your vote.
Just curious: where, exactly will you be sitting? Are you so rich so that you can live anyplace and anywhere that you want? Or will you, like millions others, will live in poverty, old and sick, with no government programs to help you?
But, hey, you voted your "principal" destroying not only your lives, but the lives of millions across the globe.
Now I understand what being liberal means to folks like you and the OP.
merrily
(45,251 posts)mystifying. I didn't recall that he was a liberal.
question everything
(47,568 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Who'da thought.
Take it up with dear Hillary if she can't convince people to vote for her. Poor poverty stricken millionaire that she is.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,398 posts)question everything
(47,568 posts)There has been a thread about whether posts should be in English only. The compromise, I think, was that if it is not in English, a translation should be provided.
So can you please translate into English ^^^?
Thank you
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,398 posts)Another version of a thumbs up.
question everything
(47,568 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The president and/or the rest of the DLC/Turd Way have
1. Proposed cutting SS benefits (the safety net)
2. Endorsed Fracking (clean environment)
3. Strongly endorsed the TPP (decent jobs)
4. Privatized/profitized healthcare
5. See 1.
I don't agree with cali's decision, but you're daft if you think the DC Dems are working for the little people vs. the corporations
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Hope everyone who sits out of the election is happy when the teapublican president and his minions destroy social security, Medicaid/medicare, food assistance, EPA any and all environmental laws,etc and gives those billions/trillions to the 1% and the MIC for more endless wars of empire!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)
I feel your pain but I will probably concede and vote for her in the General election though certainly NOT in the primaries. Only because the likely alternative outcome is so regressive and in my view outright dangerous.
. . . just lowered the value of your input.
. . . but hey, those Bush years weren't all that bad, huh?
. . . oh, yeah, this makes those croc tears you were shedding in that hit piece of a thread yesterday over Clinton's statement look phoney as hell. Hope you get the attention you're craving . . . and more.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)question everything
(47,568 posts)Did not want to get in the middle of that thread from yesterday but am happy to hitch my wagon.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
merrily
(45,251 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I think the leaders of the Party might have a different view.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Hillary if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
There is nothing in that which even implies YOUR contention. I am simply commenting that if someone won't vote for the Democratic nominee they might as well not be part of the Democratic party because they are irrelevant, just like Ralph Nader has become
merrily
(45,251 posts)to vote for one candidate in one election. And, we should only all be as "irrelevant" as Nader. Ever read his wiki?
Logical
(22,457 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)party such as greens since the OP cannot see a difference between a Hillary candidacy verses a republican nominee
rug
(82,333 posts)"a despicable opportunist, dishonest, a big supporter of the military industrial complex and much more."
It's virtually a job requirement.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But I think that if in 2016 Hillary and Ted Cruz are running neck and neck, you will do the right thing.
question everything
(47,568 posts)and miserable wars and continuing loss of so many people.
calimary
(81,565 posts)Sooooo.... the answer then is, sit back and dig in your heels and stick out your chin and say NO to Hillary, and that's one more vote for some asshole republi-CON. How does the White House back in enemy hands sound? What chance will we have THEN???
I wish there was more of a choice, but we don't have one. There are only two parties. And that's THAT. Any third-party wishes will just evaporate into spoiler-land and give the BAD GUYS the win instead of ours.
I won't EVER insist on the perfect when the good will still keep the TRULY bad guys OUT of the White House.
Or don't you care that much about who picks Supreme Court justices? You're REALLY that willing to risk it? SERIOUSLY??????
Sorry - hate to come down so harshly, but that's what we're dealing with now. Pure resolute idealism will get us some republi-CON in the White House.
And let's see a show of hands - who voted for nader in 2000? Who thought there wasn't any difference between the parties? Who thought it was more important to "send a message"!???? Yeah? Guess what THAT message wound up being? "Congratulations, President-elect bush."
question everything
(47,568 posts)I am 100% with you. Certainly the Supreme Court - see my post 115, below.
My comment about Nader was a response to the earlier comment that the OP will change her mind once Hillary is the nominee.
calimary
(81,565 posts)And I hope the OP will change her mind once Hillary is (expected to be) the nominee. NOTHING's a sure thing. Granted. But I just think - at THIS particular point, with THIS particular climate and THIS particular set of circumstances, she's the one. And I want to see her kick the snot out of the GOP.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's as simple as that. If Clinton-Sachs is nominated dont blame the election outcome on the left.
America is sick of the status quo and Clinton-Sachs represents 8 more years of Wall Street/Goldman-Sachs rape of the lower classes.
calimary
(81,565 posts)Just my totally amateur and subjective opinion here, as objective as I still try to be. My apologies!
But love her or hate her, Hillary's got way too much going for her and momentum. Anybody else in there from our side might make it awfully tempting for a jeb bush or somebody perceived to be "hmmm, a republi-CON I think I could live with" to make a run for it. And a jeb bush would have a whole lot more momentum and funding than anybody on our side. Not Biden, whom I just love. And not Bernie Sanders - much as I like, admire, and agree with him.
She's got the big, solid, steady and realistic numbers and I suspect there are two separate categories of voters whose hearts she's already won: First, those who voted for her in 2008 and thought - THEN - that it was time for a woman president and she was fully capable of running for that. Now they might feel as though their time has finally arrived (and perhaps, a wee bit, that they're owed?). And second, those who wish to take part in making history yet again. That's one of MANY things that motivated people to turn out in 2008 and turn out for Barack Obama: the chance to vote for the First African American President of the United States. It's hard to find an event more momentous in American history than that - and it's a once-in-a-lifetime thing. It's one of those events, political, historical, and cultural alike, in which people will remember where they were when they heard he'd been declared the winner. While the whites-only club has had to open its doors much wider, there's still one other closed door to break through: the men-only club. With Hillary running, I think that will add an extra current of wind at her campaign's back (assuming she runs of course, and this is only my opinion). Frankly, I hope it does. Women have faced so much obstruction - seemingly more by the day - that I think this statement needs to be made. And no one can argue that she's not qualified.
There are few other possibilities with an objectively realistic chance to win. It becomes a lot less difficult to work for keeping the White House true blue than if a less clout-worthy Dem had to carry the party standard. Unfortunately, the GOP becomes more competitive without the Hillary gorilla in the room. It's a lower mountain for them to climb, and there are people on their end who are, unfortunately, viewed as somewhat tolerable in a national campaign.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to the oligarch controlled party choices. Clinton-Sachs will give us 8 more years of Wall Street control.
840high
(17,196 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... as they were trained to do in the 1990's. And as the left learns more about her hawkishness, Wall Street and WalMart ties, they will become disenchanted.
I'm convinced only a true populist like Warren can win in 2016. If you want a Republican in the White House then run Hillary. Hell, even if she should win we'll get Republican policies.
kjones
(1,053 posts)Democracy is by definition an exercise in compromise, whether there are two parties or a thousand.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I am guessing that you would have been against the American Revolution, telling the patriots, "Democracy is by definition an exercise in compromise, " There are lots of things that you don't compromise like liberty and freedoms. We've seen our elected representatives compromise us into this huge hole we are in. At some point you stand and fight.
kjones
(1,053 posts)It's not a strawman, it's an observation.
I think the founders and patriots of the revolution understood compromise very well. How else would they have stitched those colonies together?
Here, let me help you
Try not to live up to your name. Doom, gloom, and absolutes only
work in church.
---
More generally to all - Bernie doesn't absolutely match up with everything for me either (no one would, except myself, but I'm not running). I'd vote for him in a second though were he the nominee, regardless of any nits I could pick. Apparently, many here don't share my willing, open-mindedness and overarching sense of community that makes me amiable to compromises. Unfortunately, it is a loss to us all.
I mean, come on, didn't we used to make fun of republican purity tests?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)party." I didn't say that nor has anyone said that. You made that up to promote your argument. That's a strawman.
And again you mislead. My claim wasn't that the founders never compromised, my claim is that they knew when to compromise and when to fight. We are getting to the point of fighting. How many American children are going to have to slip into poverty before you decide that the status quo isn't cutting it. Goldman-Sachs is after more profits and don't cared if more children die in poverty.
It you have two candidates running. One that everyone seems to agree they will support should he get the nomination, and the other that won't get all Democrats to support her. Why would you choose her?
merrily
(45,251 posts)And Clinton, while Teflon for himself, may have affected Gore's failure to get a strong vote in many states, including his own. First time I ever heard any candidate for President announce on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, promising to restore honor to the Oval Office, no less, before I heard of his candidacy from national TV.
Not to mention Florida's (deliberately?) confusing ballot and the SCOTUS. But, sure, I get how convenient it is to blame Gore's loss solely on those who voted to the left.
question everything
(47,568 posts)Yes, it was the Florid final count, well after the Supreme Court intervene, that the final counts did favor Bush. I don't remember how much the Nader votes and, yes, the system was confusing but I think that had it not been for Nader in FL, Gore would have won.
And Gore's problem was - or an impossible dilemma - that he could not bask in the achievement of Clinton.
This was before 9/11, when all we cared was domestic issues, and the economy expanded, many had good paying jobs... but he had to distance himself.
This, of course, is why in most recent years, only papa Bush went from V.P to president, and he lasted only one term. Dukakis may have not been the best candidate and many did not think about how draconian the Supreme Court could be.
Every administration has its own share of scandals, incompetency, some would say illegal activity.. you name it. So why be tied to it?
I admit, in 2004 I was Edwards supporter, and I urged him - had a chance to shake his hand before he dropped - not to be Kerry's running mate because V.P.s do not become presidents. At least, not directly. Nixon had to spend some time in exile (politically, that is.)
And some say that Hillary, too, if she is the nominee, will have to tiptoe to distance herself from the bad things of Obama while taking pride of the good things. This may have been one reason why she chose to hold the post for only one term.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If it was ultimately shown that Gore won the Florida count, despite Nader, the confusing ballot and everything else, then he won the electoral vote, too. The only place he lost was in the SCOTUS.
Depends on how you see things. If we are talking the budget, the tax increases Reagan signed and the one to which Poppy agreed00the one that may have brought Perot in, had taken effect. There was no war. And Clinton ended "welfare as we know it." So, yes, he got to balance the budget. Him and the ones who put out a contract on America.
And Gore's problem was - or an impossible dilemma - that he could not bask in the achievement of Clinton.
BTW, exactly what prevented Gore from getting credit for the above? He sure got the splashback from all the negative Clinton stuff.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)So when someone supports health care over for-profit mandates, for example, that person is abiding by the TOS.
Most of Obama's and HRC's ideology are in conflict with that portion of the TOS in fact.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I believe DU supported PRESIDENT Barack Obama....
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or ignored it. If the president's policies, like Race To The Bottom, are right-wing in nature, then anyone who takes either side is in violation of the TOS. If you support RTTB, you are in violation of the part that says we are to support progressive policies. If I am against RTTB, then I am in violation of the part that says we should support everything the president does. The Turd Way's adoption of Republican ideologies presents a paradox, and you shouldn't be bashing those to choose to support traditional Dem ideas instead of the Turd Way's.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)not the Progressive Candidate of Your Choice Underground!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You are the one who introduced the TOS to this subthread. Part of it says we should support progressive policies. Thus my support of UHC instead of Heritage Care, public schools and teachers unions instead of RTTB, repeal of NAFTA instead of putting it on steroids, repeal of capital punishment, closure of Gitmo, and end to drone murder, while putting me at odds with the president, does not
1. make me a non-Democrat, or
2. Put me in violation of the TOS
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Anyone who breaks out the "friendly TOS reminder" automatically loses the argument.
G_j
(40,372 posts)but not correct
LWolf
(46,179 posts)the updated TOS; some things were changed after the election of Obama and the move to DU3.
For example, DU used to self-identify as a "left-wing" discussion board. That was changed to "politically liberal." Frankly, that excludes a large segment of the Democratic Party; those who are NOT "politically liberal."
And while DU always put partisanship before issues, it was once much more balanced than it is today.
Still, the TOS says, simply put, that one cannot campaign against a running Democrat in a general election. Since there hasn't been a primary, and there are no formally announced primary candidates, let alone a Democratic nominee, there is no prohibition to saying that HRC isn't worthy of one's vote. She's not currently running for anything.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"Democratic principles" is *not* a synonym for "liberal principles" or similar.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)party principal - enshrined it in the platform - Male Dominance would be a Democratic Principle?
Bryant
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)shawn703
(2,702 posts)By definition it would become a big "D" Democratic principle.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... then we must never have had any principles.
Same is true with the policies of the DLC/Third Way folks have taken over control of much of our party. They push policies supporting Wall Street, corporate America and the MIC. If those are now "Democratic Party principles" then count me out.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some Democrats betray their principles and their Party, not to mention their country, when they turned their backs on the Party and chose to support George Bush's war where possibly a million innocent people were brutally killed. Some Democrats helped promulgate the lies of Bush/Cheney. I always vote Democratic, but I don't blindly support all Democrats even though that certainly would be easier.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You will find even more support in not voting for Hillary and crap like "she's a despicable opportunist, dishonest" etc. over at freerepublic. If you decide to leave, you will find similar rhetoric there.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Tends to happen fast with things that never made any sense to begin with.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Are you one that believes in trickle-down?
If you want a Republican in the WH, nominate Ms. Wall Street. We need change and she represents the status quo.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"If you want a Republican in the WH, nominate Ms. Wall Street." I will wait until the primaries to decide who to vote for. Like Ms. Warren, I think Hillary is fabulous. Not as big on Regan as she was but we all have our faults. Would love to vote for Warren in the primaries, but I'm pretty sure she is just going to back Clinton.
You response was very scattered. Contained things that really can't be attached to me. Hope I covered what I could. By the way, love Warren, and Warren loves Hillary.
If you want a republican in the WH, vote Nader over Gore and hold to your principals. It is dumb fucks with this mentality that helped to elect Bush. Nothing but brain dead. But why would you wait until the primaries when you can spout a bunch of bullshit republican support now.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't the repuke. Can you imagine a Prez McCain, Veep Palin, Prez R$, Prez Huckabee......
iandhr
(6,852 posts)If those people didn't exist in FL Bush's shenanigans would not have been enough to make a difference.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Lets have Palin pick Ted Nugent for a seat on the bench.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The very best reason to not sit out an election with a hissy fit.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)LOL!
Oh, I crack myself up.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)53,000 people voted for Nader bush "won" by 537.
frylock
(34,825 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)can you really imagine Vermont going republican? And yes, I think there's a difference. don't presume ever to tell me what I think, dear.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)But heck, it was more important to get rid of those evil Blue Dog Democrats in red districts. Now most of their seats are taken by T.P. members. Doesn't it just warm your heart?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)that enabled them to implement a frighteningly gerrymandered House of Representatives for the next decade. That allowed them to get their butts kicked in 2012 and still hold onto the House.
Hi Bea!! How have you been?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)How have you been? Not much happening around my way.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)I can snuggle inside this bankie.
Thank you, sweetie. With all the mud being flung around here, I sure can use it.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)shit happens when you fail to deliver on hope and change.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)They "couldn't vote for Al Gore in FL". They were wacko left wing purists who needed a candidate who was 100% with there ideals or 0%. 70% wasn't enough.
People like you are willing to sit out and allow an anti gay anti choice republican get elected.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)Progressive pragmatists do.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)The time to take a stand such as the OP is in the primary.
In the election, vote for the Democrat. Even if you don't like them. If you don't like them, then vote against them in the next primary.
This is how the insane Republicans took over the Republican party. We can use the same tactic to turn the Democratic party to the left.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)we actually end up with a Democrat or a populist, preferably a Democratic populist as our nominee. There is a fair contingent of Democratic voters who feel like the OP, and much of the swing center, not a good way to start the election cycle.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And we should be helping "outsiders" run in primary elections.
Don't like your primary choices? Run. You don't have to win to change the party's direction.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Give you some scraps and make you piss scared you will lose your scraps. That way, you won't stand up and demand a seat at the table.
cali
(114,904 posts)Vermont is not FL.
I have voted for the dem candidate in every election since 1972.
progressoid
(50,011 posts)Butterfly ballots, purged voters, oh, and the Supreme Court.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)They will stomp their feet, pout and refuse to eat their porridge. They would rather have a Bagger in the WH just so they can point a self righteous finger and proclaim, "See, we told you so."
morningfog
(18,115 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)voter disenfranchisement, and the supreme court is what got bush "elected."
mike_c
(36,281 posts)No way in hell.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)already, though. Once the 2016 primaries are over and a candidate is selected at the Democratic National Convention, I'll know for whom I will be voting. If Hillary Clinton is that candidate, I will vote for her. If someone else is, I will vote for that person. In the primary elections and during the caucus and convention system in my state, I will caucus for and vote for the declared candidate I believe will do the best job and who will be the most progressive candidate for President. If that candidate does not get the nomination, though, I will vote for the one who does.
I am a Democrat. I vote for Democrats. The alternative is unthinkable. You apparently feel otherwise. We all have one vote in the General Election. Right now, there's one of those coming up in November of this year. I have election activism to do before then. After that election, I'll begin thinking about 2016. I'm hoping to help Minnesota pick up two new Democratic seats in the House of Representatives. That seems to me to be a better use of my time than yammering about unannounced presidential candidates for the 2016 election
TeamPooka
(24,286 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)crazylikafox
(2,763 posts)question everything
(47,568 posts)Gothmog
(145,800 posts)Right now I am focused on turning Texas blue and Wendy Davis and Leticia van de Putte. Van de Putte in particular needs to win given that her opponent is Dan Patrick who is a really nasty human being.
I will support the party's nominee in 2016. From a selfish standpoint, I think that Hillary Clinton could put Texas in play and I would love to watch a true battleground POTUS election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bowed down at George Bush's feet and took the coward's way out. She failed Democrats, she failed Iraqis, she failed our troops, she failed the world when she abandoned Democratic principles and gave war powers to the Republicans. If we had wanted Republican rule we would have voted for them. Democrats voted for her and she walked hand in hand with the Republicans and killed a million innocent Iraqis. How many Iraqi children died?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)saltpoint
(50,986 posts)First in the mid terms.
Then in the general.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)That's pretty special. Not everyone can be that, you know.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)So, she's got that going for her.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Maybe the DNC will get the message and force-feed us a better candidate?
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)It always does. It's a little early to start declaring our votes in 2016, it seems to me.
Primary voters, in their minorities, will decide who runs in 2016. Maybe focusing on those would be the best thing. But they're off in the distance, and nobody will even declare until after the November 2014 elections. I can wait. There's work to do for election activists. Won't you join us?
GOTV 2014 and Beyond!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Wall Streets eye, you may lose the left. So if you dont want a Republican in the WH, DO NOT NOMINATE Hillary Clinton-Sachs. If you do, it's all on you. Dont try to blame the left. Fair warning.
You'll just be lumped into the pool of "non-voters" and ignored. Instead, they'll turn further right to peel off some more former Republicans.
IOW, exactly what has happened when people tried this tactic for the last 40 years.
CAG
(1,820 posts)like-minded democrats to not vote for the democratic nominee in 2016.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)is you become moot. No Democrat will bother to work for your vote. Instead, they'll try to peel off some more from the middle. Resulting in the Democratic party turning further to the right.
To turn the party to the left, you need to take a stand in the primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the general election. Repeat every single year. That will cause the party to turn to the left in order to win those primaries, instead of turning right to win general elections.
It's how the insane took over the Republican party. We can use the same tactic to turn the Democratic party back to the left.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Logic Fail. Voting for corporate Dems makes the party more corporate. I would think even a Teabagger could figure that out. Or are you an adherent of the doctrine that renewing the Bush/Obama Billionaires' Tax Cut was an example of the president kicking the GOP's ass in 12-D chess?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You vote for the candidate you like best in the primary. You vote for the Democrat in the general. Even if they're a conservative Democrat. In the next primary, you vote for the candidate you like best. In the next general, you vote for the Democrat.
Repeat, and the party turns left. Just like the same strategy turned the Republicans insane.
Or you could keep pretending the post says something different so you can ramp up outrage at your imaginary enemies.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Sheesh.
"Or you could keep pretending the post says something different so you can ramp up outrage at your imaginary enemies."
This mode of attack is getting ridiculous. Talk about "logic fail." Good fucking grief.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supported by the plutocratic-oligarchs, the right-wing crazies and the conservative Democrats. Win-win for the oligarchs and many just play the game. At some point we need to break away from the control of the oligarchs and elect a progressive. Continued support of the oligarch choices like Clinton-Sachs will only play into the hands of the oligarch rulers. Clinton-Sachs will not fight for the 99% and we all know it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Why, just look at what happened in Cantor's primary......oh wait.
If you don't have a good candidate in the primary, run. You don't have to win to change the direction of the party. Lots of crazy right-wingers lost in Republican primaries, but the overall party turned crazy to fend off the threat. We can do the same thing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)We don't need a populist to be handed down from on high. We have us, and we can run.
frylock
(34,825 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)who voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 because they were so devastated that Obama won the primary.
Fortunately it made no difference, I am in a Red State. Sometimes these votes are symbolic only to ourselves.
I, on the other hand, am truly a Democrat, with clichéd moral relativism, and if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her.
Even though she is the proverbial "yellow dog."
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)anti-choice, pro war, and chose an idiot for his VP, that doesn't say much for their critical thinking skills
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)personal contempt for these people. They sent money to Hillary, had yard signs, bumper stickers, etc. Our State voted for Hillary (I can't recall--is she white?). Looked at Obama as the usurper! When these people told me, I was astounded.
Except, it didn't matter anyway. This State went McCain and Romney. I vote for Obama twice, and did it make a difference? Not really.
Just to me.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I have had since coming to Democratic Underground!
Thank you.
Kingofalldems
(38,503 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)This remains "Democrat seeking Democrats" lonely hearts club. And my secret.
Down here, you scratch a "Democrat" deep enough and you find a fiscal and social conservative buried under the intellectual dishonesty.
Plus, most of these Hillary fans down here seem to enjoy shopping on the internet, not blogging. Male and female, not a sexist comment, please. The males like to cruise Bass Pro and Duluth Trading Company. Just a personal observation of those I know who thoughtlessly jump party!
hamsterjill
(15,224 posts)I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in 2016 just like I did in 2008 because I truly do not believe that both parties are the same. As bad as the Democrats get, I don't think they get as bad and as CRAZY as the Republicans.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Iggo
(47,586 posts)They're the ones that got mad and voted for the other side 'cause Ms Clinton didn't turn out to be as inevitable as they thought she was.
It'll be fun to watch them sing the unity song if she's the national election candidate this time.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Been a while! Yes, they are coming back.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Lots and lots.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Or something.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Vince Foster was murdered? Or is this just an attempt to smear him as a right winger for thinking that Hillary Clinton is a middle of the road wall street democrat who's not that committed to progressive principles?
Bryant
question everything
(47,568 posts)or something...
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I didn't in 2008, I won't the next time around too and what I have heard from her thus far sounds very much like what she rolled into Iowa with last time around. Breaking glass ceilings is not the be-all and end-all sometimes. I don't hear anything from her that says anything more than she considers it her due to be at the top of the political heap, and she hasn't even announced yet.
OregonBlue
(7,755 posts)for a Dem but she's still a Dem and still believes government can solve problems, not that government is the problem.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I realize that politics is the art of the possible, but shouldn't we live in a country where the candidates are chosen by the People instead of being hand-picked by corporations?
In 2004, for example, something like 90 percent of Democratic delegates opposed the illegal Iraq invasion, and yet the appointed candidate favored it.
Something's really, really wrong here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)General elections are for stopping Republicans.
It would be nice if this were not the case, but the Republicans have wandered off into insanity.
OregonBlue
(7,755 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I've heard she really needs the money.
mountain grammy
(26,663 posts)but lets get through 2014. We're at a real crossroads right now.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)for Democrats.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)6. Oh, I agree with you that the SCOTUS is vitally important
but I couldn't disagree with you more about the "women are different when it comes to war" stuff.
Nor do I trust Hillary with judicial appointments. not at all. she is a corporate creature.
Sh voted for the IWR our of sheer political opportunism or hawkishness that took precedence over FACTS.
I wouldn't dream of voting for her in the primary. I think she'll be a fucking disaster as a president- not as bad as a repuke, but man...
yes, I'll hold my noise and vote for her if she's the nominee.
I
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4713257
question everything
(47,568 posts)Shows how much credibility she will have from now on. Assuming she'll stick around.
cali
(114,904 posts)and honey, I'm hard to chase off. I'm busy as hell, but I enjoy posting here and have done so for a decade.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What last shred of credibility you had left was lost when you started to defend right winger Michele Catalano only to see it backfire in your face.
Hat tip to Creek Dog for killing this thread...
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, I was wrong about her and said so.
YOU are wrong about just about everything with your conservative filter.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Many of whom are conspicuously unable to spell "principle".
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lieu of honest discussion. Alerting, hiding, locking and killing threads are not substitutes for honest liberal discussion.
And then of course the, "You never had any credibility" ad hominem attack.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Too many value their posting privileges over their principles, and won't be honest about their intentions.
Sid
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and has nothing to do with this strategy being an utter failure for the last 40 years.
Meanwhile, the insane have used a different strategy to take over the Republican party during that same timeframe - vote for the "best" in the primary, vote for the party in the general.
Let's see....keep going with a strategy that's failed for 4 decades, or one that's worked for 4 decades.....decisions decisions.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)wealthy Reich Wingers.
The formula cannot be replicated on our side. Big money and party insiders aren't so interested in moving the spectrum left as their "opposite" numbers on the other side.
I sure as hell didn't see a former Democratic Speaker pushing Occupy nor have millions been spent trying to promote their ideas and desires nor do I see the corporate media flogging such along.
The situations are not even loosely comparable, your "tactics" are a pacifier not a call to action.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Big money is far less relevant in a primary election. The people who bother to show up at the primary are far more engaged, so policy is far more important than TV commercials.
Only because you already gave up. "We've already lost and can never recover" isn't a call to action either. But it's great for pretending you don't have a role in fixing it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)It'd be so damn peaceful around here.
But I suspect they'll skirt the jury system and won't make their intentions known.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)now you did it!
lumpy
(13,704 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)It's the END of the story?
Or is it-
The NEVERENDING STORY!
(isn't he cute! (no not Atreyu))
IronLionZion
(45,615 posts)riseabove
(70 posts)And not ashamed of it. I'll walk with my head high!
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)Hillary supporter but this gives me hope for the future.
If she does run I may now have to toss a few bucks that way.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The thought of Ted Cruz or Fat Bastard or Walker driving the bus is too frightening. Yes, she's a Turd Way corporatist, but she's not a sociopath like every single Repuke. I have less than 20 years left and I plan to do my best to live them in a sane nation.
BOG/HCG - I'll still bitch every time she supports a Republican policy, either explicitly or implicitly
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)but if she wins the nomiation, I'll sing her praises and vote for her.
That is called politics.
And doing things that are distasteful though necessary is called being a "grown up".
undeterred
(34,658 posts)We'll see if we can come up with someone more to your liking.
TeamPooka
(24,286 posts)Which means your opinions are worthless to me now.
Sure, tell me they are the same.
Then you're lying to me and yourself.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)T'sall.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)she can vote for 10-12 other Dems on the CA ballot in 2016. Stop with the purity tests. That's why the country moves more toward fascism every day regardless who's in office.
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)vote for her.
randys1
(16,286 posts)they return us back to 1958 and your sister dies from an illegal abortion or your Black friend becomes homeless because open discrimination is not only legal but encouraged
What then?
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Glad youre not from a battle state.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,766 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Vermont is a safe state too though.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,766 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)both sets of my grandparents lived there. I spent my early childhood there til I was 10, but I live in VT
question everything
(47,568 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)samsingh
(17,602 posts)and I believe a smart, genuine person who can defeat any gop-thug opponent.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)because it's nobody's business here but mine. But let me say this:
I have voted before for the "lesser of two evils" in situations where I felt the compromise was justified...in other words, when "evil" was merely a metaphor for policies I didn't care for but could justify supporting compared to the alternative.
Recently, both major corporate parties have moved well beyond policies that are simply bad to policies that are nothing short of traitorous to this country and its Constitution. And "lesser of two evils" has become a deliberate, serially abused tactic for pushing through policies that aggressively violate both our Constitution and the will of most Americans.
Mass surveillance; brutal, militarized targeting of protesters; persecution of whistleblowers; criminalization of investigative journalism to suppress dissent; handing of our free media to corporations; propaganda machines, disinformation, and smear campaigns targeted at Americans; indefinite detention; "Kill Lists"; private prisons; and "trade deals" that will cede national sovereignty over issues as important as workers' protections and environmental protections to profit-driven multinational corporations over the will of the voting public...
These aren't just bad policies. They are the deliberate murder of our Constitution and our Democratic Republic. They put into place the infrastructure for fascism.
I cannot support any candidates, whether they CALL themselves Democrats or Republicans or something else, who enable this continued purchase and subversion of our country from democratic representation to corporatism and nascent fascism.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Right on!
Raksha
(7,167 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)But it would be a mistake.
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)And we'll miss you during the general election.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)mackerel
(4,412 posts)boston bean
(36,224 posts)LOL
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I don't know what would be more fun, if watching RW or LW heads explode.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Going to a book signing.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Make sure that you get there early. The line will be long and they only give so many wrist bands.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)So I am guaranteed to meet her and have her sign my book. I saw her in 2008, too. She signed It Takes a Village for me.
It might have been living history. I'll have to check tomorrow.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Let us know how it went.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Long live Wall Street, long live Goldman-Sach.
DFW
(54,480 posts)Even though Obama was President, Citizens United became law due to a right wing dominated Supreme Court.
It will only get repealed by a progressive-dominated Supreme Court.
ANY Republican will nominate more Scalias and Alitos.
ANY Democrat will nominate more Kagans and Sotomayors.
That, and upholding Roe V. Wade, is what is most important to me, and that's how I'll be voting.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I could no more support Hillary than I could support Margaret Thatcher. When you think about it, what would be the difference? Is there one?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)What about Rand Paul? Or Mike Huckabee?
Do you think Hillary is a global warming denier? Or opposed to a minimum wage increase? Or that she wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Or appoint Scalia-type judges to the Supreme Court? Or that she wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare?
Scott6113
(56 posts)I would never say that without knowing the alternative. Would you prefer Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz? How about Louie Gohmert? Is there a point at which you'd hold your nose and pull the lever?
Any abstention strengthens the other party.
H2O Man
(73,668 posts)While I do not have any strong feelings about who I'd like to see, or not to see, as the Democratic Party's nominee in 2016, I do tend to read other people's opinions on this forum.
I'm fully comfortable with every individual making up her/his own mind. I am not prone to attacking anyone for having different choices than my own. If the United States as a nation decided to allow me, alone, to decide presidential elections, however, I would willingly accept that responsibility. Until then, everyone has the right and responsibility to decide for themselves who they will vote for.
What I find interesting is the rather narrow range of responses to your post. A few people feel the same way. A few hope that, if Clinton is nominated, you might decide to vote for her. Yet most respond with anger and hostility. That should be far more troubling to anyone who believes in the democratic process, than a single voter expressing contempt for a potential candidate.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)But she'll get my vote in the General Election.
For all of her faults, she a fucking political messiah compared to whatever human shit stain the GOP will place on the ballot.
The prospects of another Republican Administration in my lifetime is just to fucking depressing for me to even contemplate not voting Democratic.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)It always has been and it always will be.
People had problems with Carter in '80, and there was a big protest vote for Ted Kennedy.
I honestly don't remember anymore what the problem was with Carter. I had always liked him; he recognized the new Sandinista gov in Nicaragua unhesitatingly, and after that, as far as I was concerned, he was golden. I desperately wanted to see the US finally break from the recurring pattern of backing Pinochets.
Reagan got in. Ask Central America what that meant.
Gore v Nader is of course more familiar.
That one brought us The Drooling Idiot. Just today, ISIS took Mosul in Iraq and a nice big stash of Humvees and Blackhawks. That's what 2000 got us.
Once in a lifetime, IF you're lucky, you'll get an FDR. The rest of the time it's take what's on offer, and accept that you'll have to fight for what you really want. The US is never going to be France, Germany, or any other social democracy.
It'll never even be Canada, even under a Harper (who seems to be doing his best to imitate Reagan, for some reason).
That's just a fact.
Blaukraut
(5,695 posts)question everything
(47,568 posts)for several generations.
"Our" justices are older than "theirs." While Scalia and Kennedy may retire, Thoma, Roberts and Alito are quite young.
I don't know if you have kids. If yes, be sure to show them the legacy you are leaving to them.
But, then, perhaps, you do not.
this reminded me of my kids, way back when I tried to convince them veggies were better than ice cream:
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
I will vote for her-and if I could- more than once simply because I would like to tell God at the Golden Gates that I voted for a black man twice and a women for the President of the US and not some other churned out product of a sick political party with no concern of the people they are to serve and the nation they are to nourish and pass on to our children.
I keep thinking of Ross Peroit and Ralph Nadar doing all that damage to their parties. And if Hillary loses by 1 vote, I am really, REALLY going to be pissed off at you.
brush
(53,968 posts)she's still better than any repug. You know that. AND REMEMBER THE SUPREME COURT that's as important no matter who's on the Dem ticket. If the repugs get to replace Ginsburg or Scalia it's all over for the middle class, for voting rights, for reigning in the corporations, for women, for immigration, for gays and thus, the country.
So please hold your nose if it comes to that. Think of more than yourself.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)yep, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. But she MUST be the last one standing.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)My particular concerns are LGBT and women's rights. She is really good on those issues.
I guess I'll pull this out again. It's from her time in the Senate
100% NARAL, planned parenthood and NOW rating. Pro choice on all votes
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage - supports full marriage equality
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment
Supports arts education and the Nat. Endowment for the arts
Pro- public education ( based on her voting record)
Voted NO on drilling in ANWR
Scored 100% by the Humane Society
Rated 0% by the Christian Coalition
went against Bill and does not support NAFTA
voted against CAFTA
supports same day voter registration - against voter id laws
supported verified paper ballot for every electronic voting machine
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence
pro stem cell research
believes in climate change
Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
has voted yes on all minimum wage increases
voted No on Alito and Roberts for the Supreme court
100% rating by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - Positions
100% rating by Alliance for Retired Americans
100% rating by the NEA ( National Education Association )
100% rating by the NAACP
A= rating by United To End Genocide - Positions on Darfur
LOL - new one: F- rating by Gun Owners of America - Positions on Gun Rights
Lifetime AFL-CIO score = 94%
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)....then there is nothing there worth saving or supporting anymore.
I will NOT help the Democratic Party become even MORE conservative.
Hillary was the only candidate MORE Conservative than Obama in the 2008 Primaries,
and I have seen nothing since then to indicate that she has had a Democratic Awakening.
(No. I didn't buy that phoney Iraq Vote was a mistake thing,
and if YOU did, you should be ashamed)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But I can tell you that all the people I knew who voted for Nader in 2000 fell into two categories:
1) Ignorant and naive college students who do not yet know the real world.
2) Spoiled little trust fund brats, limousine liberals, Chardonnay socialists; people who did not have to suffer through a Bush Administration and live through he consequences because they were privileged. Notice that Nader did very poorly with minorities, gays and poor people.
I'm not saying you fit into either category, but that was what I saw back then.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I live in Vermont which is totally a sure bet for the dem candidate.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)You live in Vermont so you have the luxury of doing what you want.
If you lived in Florida or Ohio though I hope your attitude would be different.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I thought it was the supreme court that elected shrub. Didn't Gore have the popular votes?
deurbano
(2,896 posts)but I wouldn't want a repeat of what happened in Florida (and New Hampshire) in 2000.
Remember the trading votes thing? A Gore voter in a non-swing state would vote for Nader in exchange for a Gore vote from a swing state Nader voter (who wanted to register opposition to the Democratic candidate, but also didn't want Bush to actually win). I'm not sure how much of that actually happened, though...
I never vote for Feinstein, but that would change if she were in danger of losing to a Republican. And, I wrote Clinton after welfare "reform" to say I would never vote for him again... but then the alternative was Dole, so.
broadcaster75201
(387 posts)n/t
Still, it seemed somehow apropos. Enjoy......
[center][font size=2 color=darkblue]To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them?
To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
~Hamlet Act 3, Sc. 1[/font][/center]
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)Who feels a strong need to voice their negative opinion, it's time to use the "Ignore" option. I'm very grateful that DU has this. I've learned lately (maybe too late) that it's really important not to let the naysayers bring you down to their level of cynicism. Positive people are the ones who are going to make a difference in this world.
I'll gladly vote for Hillary Clinton. She is better than anyone rumored to be in the running right now. If someone better comes along, I will vote for them. I've been around long enough to have seen that cutting off your nose to spite your face, or sticking to an ideal most of the people do not share, and refusing to compromise or bend a little gets you exactly jack shit in this life. It's give and take, and sometimes you have to choose between what is right in front of you instead of some yet unrealized ideal that is limited to floating inside of your head.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)just like I voted for Obama (who was not my favorite). It's much better than the alternative.
MFM008
(19,827 posts)yeah to Elizabeth Warren. All of them. There are no political heros. I just try to find the least loathsome.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)But here's the thing: If Hillary is that bad (and I agree with you, she is not the ideal Democrat and I share the same suspicions as you), why do Republicans and Conservatives want to stop her so much?
Maybe they don't mind her on economics and the military but they despise her on social issues?
Here's a hypothetical for you: What if Hillary chose Warren as her vice presidential running mate?
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and I for one consider would your "dis-endorsement" to be a badge of honor.
mikekohr
(2,312 posts)The other side is less numerous but FAR more monolithic (and idiotic) and motivated to vote.
"We can all hang together or all hang separately." -B. Franklin-
The RNC is tying the noose right now. What's your neck size?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)mopinko
(70,302 posts)take that to the bank.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)If a repub wins the Presidency over Hillary, good luck with that.
She's not my first choice, but if she's the nom I'm voting for her.
I am also on Medicaid and my comments above fit with my experience with the VT Medicaid program as well. I'm disabled due to an accident I had 2 1/2 years ago and I can't imagine where I'd be without it. I've had 3 surgeries. I was on crutches for 14 months and in a wheelchair for 6 weeks before I moved to crutches. I had terrific doctors and PT folks.
I'm grateful to these programs and grateful to you all who made it possible, through your taxes, for me to enroll in them.
Link: http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10024965981
cali
(114,904 posts)I expressed my gratitude for them. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE. dear.
and no, I'm not on food stamps anymore- as I made clear and no, I'm the fucking last person in the world to adopt an I've got mine attitude.
AND ONE MORE TIME: I live in Vermont. Vermont will go dem. After Hawaii and D.C. Obama got his largest margin here both elections.
so stop with the nonsense.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)If you can't take it, then don't dish it.
Do you think that those benefits you were able to use will be readily available for others in need if a Republican gets into the WH? These are not the Rockefeller Republicans of yore, they are hard core extremists who will do their best to destroy the nation's safety net.
I guess that doesn't bother you at all. You rather pout because your candidate of choice may not be the nominee, but don't seem to care too much if the likes of Cruz, Paul, Rubio, or anyone else in the Republican clown car, wins the WH.
cali
(114,904 posts)what part of Vermont is a safe dem state eludes the grasp of your mind? Do tell why this is such a difficult concept for you, honey.
hyperbole that borders on hysteria: good job from the chief DU hillary fan.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I've wasted enough time with you.
Ciao....
grasswire
(50,130 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I was pointing out that she benefitted from these programs and with a Repub President and Congress people that need them may not get them, as they sure as shit don't care about the poor and people struggling.
we can do it
(12,210 posts)not at all
NRaleighLiberal
(60,031 posts)to me, anyway. And this doesn't imply any opinion of Hillary by me - just take the statement as it is.
So, I will vote for Hillary or whichever Democrat runs on the ticket. Always have, always will, I suspect.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,501 posts)also, if Hillary is so terrible as a real DEM y do the Repugs hate her so??
Little Star
(17,055 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)that time!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I will only vote for the person who best expresses my positive vision of the future of this country. At this point, that ain't Clinton.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)my wallet says that is no choice. I'll have to say Hillary is the last Democrat I want as president. I feel you cali and agree.
glinda
(14,807 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)I totally agree with you.
Why go back to the same old people that got us into this current mess when there are a few really good choices that are not in the bankers pockets?
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)OH, NO!!!
NOT AT ALL.
(sorry for shouting).
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)but will never vote for a Republican for President, nor a third party candidate, and yes, I will always vote in a national, state and/or local election.
cali
(114,904 posts)and then exhausted, I took a nap. DU firestorm erupts in the meanwhile. copycat threads abound.
but, yes, I mean it. I think she's a really bad candidate.
peoli
(3,111 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 10:26 PM - Edit history (1)
things for all of and people like you are going to fuck all their efforts cause you have a petty bitch about the dem nominee. it;s people like yu that gave us the tealiban
in 2010. it's people like you that gave us voter id laws, the war on women , fracking , people like you gave the republicans the green light to rape america all because you and the people like you would rather hand them the country due to a short-sighted hissy fit. it's people like youthat make me want to quit the democratic party.
people bitch about dems not doing anything but then when they get the chnce to vote they dont but then they still expect dems to go out on a limb for them. it's sickening.
save your principles for a time when the other side isnt so bent on destroyiing everything we buillt
the supreme court is more important than your principles
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Very well said.
blue neen
(12,335 posts)I'd love to recommend this post!
Beacool
(30,253 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)whinny childish tantrum. I already said in this thread that I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton if necessary. But I respect the OP's position.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)in the Primary against Obama. I didn't think she, or the COUNTRY, was ready for that. Today? Yes, I would. The country is ready for her.
barbtries
(28,817 posts)i will vote for the democrat even if i'm choking back bile at the ballot box. i think you should too.
doc03
(35,432 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'm going 3rd party.
Hillary doesn't represent me or anyone I know.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)science proves that you are more likely to survive being stabbed in the back than stabbed in the front.
cali
(114,904 posts)I must confess, I find the huffing and puffing and righteous indignation over my op, quite funny.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democrats, Iraqis and the world, was she stabbing from the front or back.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...that we saw in 2007-2008 begins anew.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)see 8 more years of Wall Street corruption.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...that you are oh, so correct!
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I am in Florida, which is a purplish state. Too many wrong votes and boom, we just cast our electoral votes for Romney/Palin/Cruz/name your Republican idiot. Hillary or whoever the Dem candidate will be, needs every Dem vote in Florida, see: 2000 clusterfuck.
I respect your honesty.
Steve
cali
(114,904 posts)unimaginable to me.
thanks, steve
Eva
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)She would put the 99% ahead of her ambition.
Warren, FFS!
moriah
(8,311 posts)(though of course I do love you Cali and I hope that you don't leave DU)
It's only with the unity of the party that we will keep the WH for 12 or 16 years. 8 was pretty damn good, and we got those years partially because of Hillary supporters like me who didn't let bitterness get in the way of what we know is best for the country -- that any Democrat in the WH is better than any Republican being there.
Until we implement run-off voting, a Democrat staying at home or voting third party means a vote from a Republican wasn't countered.
Your vote, your choice, but I beg of you to reconsider your position for the good of the country.
cali
(114,904 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts).... I would have been justified in sitting out the election?
I didn't just vote for Obama, I did a lot of calling to battleground states. I donated what money I could. I'm glad I did, and I don't want to see us lose the ground we've gained by a Republican taking office.
Of course, I do have to say I think our main focus now as a party should be on the elections in November 2014, not 2016.
Take care hon, as I said, love ya lots even if we disagree on this issue.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What if she promises to roll back the Patriot Act, keep SS off the table, work for Single Payer..... Need I go on?
Dont judge her on her past history.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)That goes for anyone else who will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it be Hillary or someone else.
Thanks for letting us know your real agenda.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you. It's time for change from the status quo. You know that Clinton-Sachs doesnt give a crap about the 99%. So it's up to you. Cali has the guts to stand up for Democratic values and others here support the status quo and the death of the lower classes.
So what do you say? Wall Street/Clinton uber alas?
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I don't give a fig what a handful of people decide to do.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)middle class as long as you win. Clinton-Sachs is a Wall Street shill and you know it. And I dont believe your polls. Too convenient for Clinton, the oligarch's baby.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Not to mention the overwrought B.S. You don't believe the polls? Then reality is going to bite you in the a$$. BTW, the person in your sig, has no interest in running.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and ya. even just that would get my ass down there to vote.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)"What could my Nader vote possibly hurt?"
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)Pisces
(5,602 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)out our opinions and the OP has the right to express hers.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Who would you vote for? Write in?
I wish she had the biggest honest support, rather than "settling for the lesser of two evils", which is what we keep doing over and over and over. I wanted her to be that from the start. She was not.
I think the story of the Clintons as portrayed in "Primary Colors" reveals it. They had to do what they had to do to get to power so that that could do AT THAT TIME, what was right.
This never seems to happen, does it? You either become the person that "settles" for survival, or something else happens, like you get assassinated.
Too bad we're so broken, cali. Thanks for your honesty.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)How "progressive" of you.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Latest evidence of this mindless exercise was Eric Cantor's outcome.
It's become a sport where people post little "laughing my ass off" emoticons if they exercise their constitutional duty at the polls.
That isn't anything to laugh about. What's more likely something to cry about is the typical bullying posted here to "go along" when someone admits they won't settle anymore for a candidate like HRC.
How typical of you.
840high
(17,196 posts)d_b
(7,463 posts)I have enough blood on my hands, courtesy of President Drone. Not looking forward to the day when Hillary has to prove she's 'tough'--fuck that.
Zambero
(8,978 posts)If so, thanks a bunch for giving us Dubya in 2000. And if there's any way you can help hand off the entire country to Teabaggers in 2016, have at it!
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)There is nothing liberal about promoting the electoral prospects of the GOP. That is among the reasons a number of people say this online community is far more conservative than the people we know in our real lives. I wish I could say I was surprised at the popularity of this thread, but I'm not. When people spend their days moaning about how badly middle and upper-middle class white people are so oppressed by a small handful of people of color, they show their true colors.
Amazing that people claim a person of color speaking about her experiences being subject to racism sows division while significant numbers here actively work to defeat Democratic electoral prospects in favor of the GOP. I've said this before: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it thinks it's a swan.
cali
(114,904 posts)BainsBane
(53,112 posts)when we don't even yet have a primary race. You are not simply faced with a difficult and reluctant vote at the time of the general election. You are advocating for people to abandon the Democratic Party and thereby aid GOP electoral prospects. Do you really think all 90 people who rec'd this thread live in sold blue states? And if you think your vote inconsequential, why even bother to post this?
There is no reason to post something like this now other than to sow division.We have no primary contest. Clinton is not a candidate at the moment. Instead, we are in midterms. Yet nearly a hundred people are itching at the bit to cast their vote in ways that help the GOP maintain power. Make no mistake about it. If you refuse to vote Democratic, you are furthering the Republican's electoral prospects. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.
By adulthood, we all learn that actions have consequences. Mobilizing against the Democratic nominee and hence the party is to help secure a GOP victory. If that's what you and others want, so be it. As I said, I'm not even slightly surprised given the reactionary views on race and gender that have such currency around here. I have not seen such views from you personally, but your campaign gives cover to such people.
If people want a more progressive nominee, they need to get out and work for it. Take a lesson for the Tea Party. They don't sit around online and complain because the party doesn't deliver them a political messiah. They go out and work to get the candidates they want nominated. I see none of that here. Rather I see bashing of a hypothetical Democratic nominee, just at a time when we should be working to mobilize for the midterms. We get the candidates we deserve, and when people do nothing they deserve nothing.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm stating my opinion. It's simple; people should make up their own minds about issues.
JustAnotherGen
(32,001 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)I guess posting crap about our strongest candidate is OK, but calling them out on it is not.
Ahhh, censorship........
JustAnotherGen
(32,001 posts)Was calling all the people that rec'd the OP Republicans. The alerter also came across as being very 'familiar' with BB's posts at DU.
I'm not the only person obviously who doesn't see where she is calling people Republicans for liking the post or the OP for that matter.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)I hate censorship. It should only be used for a post that is truly outrageous. Around here it's used far too often when someone's delicate little toes get stepped on. That's not exactly "democratic". I have never alerted or placed anyone on ignore.
bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)I think she represents well the core principles of the party, and has the experience to do the jobs well. Those two things - principles and the ability to do the job - being the main reason to support anyone.
The anti-Hillary stance just seems like the kind of hate I've seen for Obama. It doesn't seem to be based on anything real, or more "gut" feelings than actual positions or policies. The problem with that is that those kinds of feelings are so easily manipulated. Most people don't really realize that they can be made to hate other people they haven't even met by a few clever tricks, but it is so.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)End of story.
cali
(114,904 posts)from DU. If they agree, then that's what they'll do- and so be it.
I'm a Democrat. I've been one for 40+ years. The only republican I've ever voted for is Jim Jeffords who was more liberal than the majority of his House and Senate compatriots on the D side.
I'm a progressive. I oppose corporatist dem politicians.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)One cannot refuse to vote for the only viable candidate running against a Republican and also call oneself Progressive as doing so stands against everything progressive and stands on the side of batshit right wing insanity.
To do what you claim you will do makes you a conservative Republican. The results of your actions will speak louder than your words and hollow claims to being progressive.
End of story.
cali
(114,904 posts)I live in Vermont. Do you grasp that VT will go dem? Obama (who I voted for twice) had his 3 largest win in Vermont, after D.C. and Hawaii, both election cycles.
It's utter bullshit to claim that I'm a conservative republican and despicable calumny- go look up that word.
End of fucking story, dear.
Oh, and don't forget to run to admin with your nonsense claim that I'm a "conservative repub"
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)We are political enemies.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Sadly that includes a lot of DU right now
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Every time I hear a purist on the Left I am faced with the fact that I MUST accept a bit more movement by the party to the right.
Democratic candidates can never afford to chase votes on the Left.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)we're giving you enough rope to hang yourselves, and we like to post pretty pictures of the prez eating ice cream, and....
Supporting fracking, Race To The Bottom, and TPP are what's causing the party to become the Republicans.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)PLEASE. May you and others like you STFU if HRC is nominated. PLEASE. DU won't ban or block you. We saw that in 2012. Please STFU. Let us political junkies enjoy the drama without the BS anti-Clinton sentiment here. Give us that. Let us have a few months of peace from the hateful, vile, bullshit slanders against the nominee. You'll have from 2016-2024 to shit on the Democrat.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)It will be the same people, the same overwrought handwringing, the same holier than thou platitudes, the same batshit paranoia, and the same melodramatic disappointment.
Lather, rinse, repeat.....
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Just, spare us, for that few months. I hope the OP and those like them will give us that.
We'll be here. We'll forge on. We'll continue fighting for the cause. But those those purists who in actuality don't do anything? Give us a fucking break. Let the OP abandon all hope and STFU. Let many more follow. We're going to get the job done.
cali
(114,904 posts)I will leave for the duration if she's the nominee. Or at the very least I won't say anything against her should she be the nominee.
But no I won't shut up for a second until that happens.
I hope more if not all of the haters leave for the duration if she is the nominee. I will have the peace I have not experienced here since pre-2003. DU will will be enjoyable, again, at last. Please live up to this promise.
As I assure you, barring a Clinton run, you will be gone. Gone, silenced. Giving us the peace of mind us political realists have longed for. Go on, ramble to your hearts content, but please, leave us in peace when your sad reality doesn't come to fruition. Just leave us alone. We want this, we desire this, let us have a few months peace. That's all we ask for. Your petulant rambling is like a bee buzzing incessantly in our ears. We only ask for some damn peace and quiet.
cali
(114,904 posts)and try not speaking for others. It's so weak.
I live up to my promises. You? Hmm. that's an interesting query.
I'll redouble my efforts to advocate for another dem candidate for President.
Don't like that? Good.
Oh, and no I'm not a hater. Opposition to a politician is not hate. You seem to have no problem expressing hate toward me. go look in the mirror if you want to see.....
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)You have two options. Either one is music to my ears. Please choose. Go away, or advocate against the nominee. I encourage the latter. It will make things all the more enjoyable because we'll be guaranteed one less detractor. MIRT or the admins will make sure of that.
Either way, if you live up to your promise to STFU or blow out as you potentially indicate here, that's one less bumble bee buzzing incessantly.
I can't wait. 2016 can't some soon enough.
cali
(114,904 posts)and as I said, I've got a long time before there's a dem nominee. so delightful for you. don't lose it entirely over my obviously too important to you posts.
I think it's amusing that you get so frothed out over a poster on a political discussion board. go check your blood pressure.
As for me, I've got a garden to tend, (go celery root) and other things to do.
Have fun stewing in your own anger and rage, josh.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Clinton, barring health issues, will be the nominee. See ya!
Rage? I am totally at bliss knowing at least one poster here will STFU ("leave DU for the duration" .
It brings me such contentment. I hope more follow suit.
cali
(114,904 posts)sorry you had to have that explained in plain English, josh.
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)Even better. Please, by all means, shit on Clinton, by all means. I advocate it. It'll spur many others to do the same. They will bring me such peace of mind, I encourage it.
"I'll gladly leave DU for the duration."
Doubt you'll try to advocate against a Clinton nomination, though.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and argue Clinton's stands on issues?
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I will refuse to shit on the Democratic nominee, especially if it is Clinton. I will vote for Clinton and will probably, by necessity, advocate for her beyond any candidate I have ever done so. I will canvas, GOTV, and caucus incessantly.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Considering that virtually every single one of your posts includes some sort of jab or snide remark about DU'ers.
Holier than thou? You may not want to go there.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)follow all my posts. I post in threads on the TPP, fracking, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, net neutrality, the XL Pipeline, etc., and I never see you there.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Obvious hypocrisy is obvious.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black........
Oh, the irony........
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And you are the third to give me the no answer. Do you support Clinton's stand on the TPP?
eridani
(51,907 posts)There is such a thing a strategic longterm thinking.
Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)in who will be on her foreign policy team.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Fortunately.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)I mean, how much energy during primary season will you expend on someone that will never get your vote?
Instead of adding to the toxicity of it all, how about spending time promoting the candidate you want to see win?
Instead of pissing over other Democrats with their choice, extol your choice.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stands on issues. Do you support her stand on the TPP, fracking, Patriot Act, indefinite detention, etc.
So back at yeah, "Instead of adding to the toxicity of it all, how about spending time promoting the candidate you want to see win? " Instead of the ad hominem attacks, tell us what Democratic issues she supports.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)If you read that into my post, that's your issue.
I'd rather see Cali spend hundreds of posts talking about someone she believes in rather than continually tearing someone else down. I have no horse in this race yet. A lot of potential candidates are just that.
I couldn't give one, two or three flying fucks about Clinton. But I'd rather see Cali redirect her energy - and that of other Democrats - towards talking about what they want and the candidates that represent their desires.
If that's an ad hominem attack - or an attack at all - then that's just fucking insane.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances.
She stands for Goldman Sachs, TPP and bloody interventions.
I find her and her despicable husband repulsive. Shame on the party
for embracing the sell out of the middle class.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Blocking torture photos, continuing to operate international prisons--holding people without allowing them to challenge their detention, continuation of the Thin-Thread/Prism and overall secret authoritative serveliance, going after the ones who exposed crimes w/ a determination not seen when it comes to war crimes/crimes by agencies and private contractors in international conflicts and the warrantless spying when cleaning this shit up should be priority. Transparent & lawful enforcement was what President Obama told voters.
I pretty much don't have any hope or realistic expectation will have a honest, straight forward, open President interested in ending the post-9/11 policies that have left a black mark on this country.
Hillary Clinton is someone I don't see being much worse. I imagine we would have doubled down on Afghanistan as well as expanding anywhere else we have forces. Probably would have continued Bush administration policies regarding detention, enforcement, and domestic surveliance.
I really don't see anyone that really jumps at me--Biden, if he runs, I see as another downgrade. Someone you know that won't be affected at all by big money are people like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, people like that I would like to see President.
I'd still probably vote Clinton depending on third-party candidates but social policy will be better than GOP alternative as well as not nearly as bad economically(reduced safety nets while more people make low income while increasing the share of the wealth w/ the top 1%).
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Then you HELP the Republican to win. You have no business whining about it.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)of Wall Street domination. Oh yeah, and NSA/CIA domination.
Eight more years of watching the middle and lower classes slide into oblivion. When will you draw the line? When will you recognize that the wealthy oligarchs are running this country?
Evergreen Emerald
(13,071 posts)this post is not honesty or courage. It is shortsightedness, and big on talking points and short on facts.
greenman3610
(3,947 posts)remember how that worked out?
lame54
(35,343 posts)Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)By not voting for the Democratic candidate you create a chance for the GOP on the ropes due to changing demographics to rule by judicial fiat. Consider that. Hillary will be as liberal as Congress is...help elect Democrats.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)continue a death of a thousand cuts at the hands of corporate democrats. So much for democracy...
brooklynite
(94,916 posts)I'd better drop Hillary and find a candidate that YOU'LL support (never mind that she has the support of about 2/3 of all Democrats (including "liberals" ; and I'd better do it soon since you apparently can't be bothered to do so (you didn't bother to tell us who you WOULD vote for, and you don't even have an Elizabeth Warren sticker in your sig line).
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I have no doubt!
This is crazy seeing a post like this on DU! WTF? x 100!!!!
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I'd still vote for whomever becomes the Democratic candidate.
Hell, I voted for Obama, and I distrusted him just about as much as I distrust Hillary. The difference between them for me was how fast they would be able to mobilize their cabinet.
I went for Hillary back then when it was just the two of them left, the two of them were at the bottom of who I wanted to win the primaries.
I worry about the Supreme Court, but yeah, I definitely understand how you feel and will not hold this against you.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)is some Tea Bagger like Cruz I will be forced to hold my nose and vote for her.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)Hillary was described as someone who about 50% of the population wouldn't vote for under any circumstance and I didn't want any more republican presidents.
Doubt she would have been much different than what we see from the Obama administration though.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)or for the next four years of our suffering if a republican is elected.
I don't want Hillary either, but I cannot stand by and watch a republican get elected and destroy the country, knowing that I did nothing to try to prevent it.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)electing a Republican. Sheesh. She is in Vermont, probably the safest state for the Democrats in the country. If as a protest she does not vote for Clinton it will make no difference whatsoever.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)planning to not vote against Jeb Bush if Clinton is the Dem candidate.
Back in 1999 and 2000, I was literally screaming at friends who were Democrats and told me they were not going to vote, or that they were going to vote for Nader. I knew all about Bush and knew what he would do to our country.
After a few years in Bush hell, I had several people say to me, remorsefully, "Oh, OMG, Zorra, you were right, I should have listened to you. We're fucked".
Yep.
I moved to Mexico in early 2001, and lived there until 2005.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)addressing the OP.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)trying to save LGBT gains in equality, and make my grandkids future a little better.
clarice
(5,504 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)But by not voting for the Dem nominee, you essentially vote for the Rep.
There is NO Dem nominee - NONE - that is as bad as any Rep. There is NO equivalence.
If you still don't understand that, then I am truly surprised at you.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)And giving one of those guys the keys to the Supreme Court nominations would be criminal. Use your brains.
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)...in fact, I hope she doesn't run. (Of course, she will.) I also hope we have a large pool of progressives running against her to choose from.
That being said, I'd vote for Mitt Romney if it came down to a choice between him, and say, a Ted Cruz. I will always vote for the candidate that will do the least harm to this country, because no matter how bad things get, they can always get worse. To Hell with standing on principle...
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)if a tussle over DU2 to DU3 didn't I doubt Hillary would.
But I'm not a conservative. She is. She's way too connected to the UAE and oil interests to be much use to the environmentalists , Bill was the same way. They both own the same stock that almost took over our ports that Bush Jr does. And voting Hillary looks back. I wanna look forward. A vote for Bush Jr was the same thing. a vote back.
the other thing was being in the Iowa Caucus her followers are severely arrogant. 2008 at UNI in Cedar Falls they were 5 minutes late and hardly anything was set up. By then I'd come in for Obama and 1/2 the room was there for Obama and was pushing John Edwards pictures out to other tables. Hillary came dead last behind Biden. They assumed she'd win easily. I don't need Mitt Romney again..
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and may get there if that proverbial last straw materializes.
You're entirely correct imo -- there should be a point for all of us where pragmatism can make the idea of having and holding "principals" rather meaningless and more an exercise in paying lip service to them or a violation of them, kinda the way so many rightwingers today do with the Bible (well, the New Testament anyway) and its content for example.
Sometimes I think things may have to get a lot worse before they can ever get better, and this decades long slow march rightward by faux dems/libs in DC may not be stopped or reversed in any other way but through a showing of disapproval in the manner you intend to pursue.
And as we all do or should know, the being taken for granted (as exemplified by many responders to this post) due to fear of rightwingnuttery and whatnot the good cop/bad cop game in DC has resulted in, inevitably has the same result in the voter/pol relationship that it does in out interpersonal ones when the benefits stemming from such a relationship are insufficient, except to the co-dependent/enabler types. That's why the dem enthusiasm erodes when what could or should have been crashes into what is.
I've thought since the creation of the Tea Party that it was all about an infusion of nuttery designed for and intended to push the already off center ideological dividing line in DC further rightward, and it's the fear of them you can read throughout this post that that gave the good cop/bad cop game new life and vigor it would have otherwise lacked.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Add some personal attacks, some dire predictions of the world ending because of you, some political bullying, some misguided attempts to explain in a patronizing manner how misguided and wrong you are, and plenty of reminders that you don't belong on DEMOCRATIC underground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I haven't read any of the almost 400 responses. I don't need to.
fwiw, I won't be casting a vote for HRC, myself.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)You are a person of your word.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)We figured as much, already.