2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat a sense of entitlement - "It's my turn"
Sorry but if that defines your purpose for running for the highest office in the land you have automatically disqualified yourself from consideration
and I don't care how snarky the comments your supporters can concoct.
An Election to the most powerful office in the World MUST consist of TRUE devotion to your fellow citizens the least of which would be the working class of this country - NOT just those MONIED enough to enrich your War Chest.
To preside over this country's population you must have an HONEST devotion to those the poorest to those the richest, regardless of color, gender, and religion. And by HONEST you don't merely state the most popular position by the latest poll results, but rather you have worked a life time to progress this agenda.
FUCK your TURN
I want a future for my kids
boston bean
(36,223 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)one's vote or the election.
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Our skirmishes are not changing anyone's minds .
I was tiring of hearing that line from Republicans, thanks for bringing it here.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)What a snide and mean opening to your response. I liked when the DU was a discussion board.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)I Googled that and got a Jill Clayburgh movie and a Diana Ross song...
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The concept of its being "your turn" has never been part of the Democratic Party primary process. If this concept did applied to Democrats, then how did Barack Obama get the nomination in 2008. Under your theory, it would have been Clinton's turn in 2008
Sanders is not polling well in most states because it is not his turn but because he is not a viable candidate in the general election. If you want to see Sanders expand his base, then explain how Sanders can win in the general election when the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars. Many Democrats will not support Sanders unless and until he shows that he can win in the general election. I like Sanders and according to the online quiz or test, Sanders is closer to my positions than Hillary Clinton. However, I live in the real world and will be supporting Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons including my belief that she will be able to compete in the general election
antigop
(12,778 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)for Sanders because they think he can not win the GE, actually voted for hi, he would win the primary AND the GE.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)She's been working her ass off in government for years now. She doesn't act like she expects it cause it's her turn. I've never seen her say that.
That YOU throw out a straw man, an invented pile of nonsense like "it's my turn" when she doesn't say that or act that way shows how prejudiced you are against a candidate based on your own MISCONCEPTIONS.
I don't want Hillary but acknowledge she's worked hard, is highly qualified and will probably win the nomination.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)I have a right wing neighbor who thinks Trump is incredible. He has said similar things about Clinton. When your supposed "allies" sound like the crazy right then we have entered stupid space.
God, get this damn primary over so the anti Hillary and anti Bernie s**t will cease. I have no idea how posters think this crap up.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)quickesst
(6,283 posts)...dreamed up by some of Bernie's supporters, along with "it's her turn", the "coronation" etc, none of which has ever been said by Hillary or her supporters, well, unless it was to point out the dishonesty of their use.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)classof56
(5,376 posts)Nope, don't have a link, but I clearly remember her saying "It's our turn!" rather petulantly during an interview I was watching. I've never-ever heard or seen Hillary say that, but like you, would appreciate a link if someone can post it. Meanwhile, Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
Blessings.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... the anger phase of grief.
Lashing out with wild accusations.
Or maybe its just the stress of Thanksgiving.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The passive aggressive sexism isn't at all surprising. Hillary has accomplished 10x what Bernie has, but it doesn't matter and still isn't good enough. This is the story of America.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Ideas, beliefs, and position on the issues matter to me FAR more than someone's "accomplishments."
Hillary's tenure in the Senate also wasn't that stellar. She based her votes on popular opinion at the time because she wanted to use the office as a stepping stone to the presidency. She voted for the Iraq war because it was popular back then. Now she's against it because the war isn't popular. She was against gay marriage back then because it was popular to be against it. Now it's not.
Her whole life has been a carefully calculated attempt to win the White House. Any candidate that thinks that way...male or female...scares me.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)While the administration was insisting they would go to the U.N. first -- while she was representing the state that was hit by the 9/11 attacks. But according to you, that's a black and white, easy decision. Uh huh.
In the meantime, principled pacifist Bernie Sanders continues to vote for the Lockheed Martin money pit that is the F-35 fighter jet because... politicians compromise. Just like how Bernie didn't vote for the AUMF, but did vote to fund the war.
Which is just another way of voting for the war, right? Also:
In 2006 he supported the failed Iran Freedom Support Act, which called for the overthrow the Iranian government through US "soft power" coup attempts and a color revolution facilitated by the infamous National Endowment For Democracy.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Halburton - when she used her position of Secretary of State to go pimping Fracking all across Europe
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Oh, IMO, is that ever the truth!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Jackilope
(819 posts)... the ramming and jamming of "in your face" of HRC as the "inevitable" candidate by media, DNC, and supporters of HRC on the group.
Yeah! She is gonna flop on the TPP and it smells and is ugly. We are gonna lose jobs, but accept this huge, awful, smelly fish.
Yeah, Wall St. loves HRC and thinks it is cute that she says "Cut that out", knowing she really doesn't mean it. Now take this fish!
Polls indicate that our Corporate Fish is in the lead! Democratic Socialism we can't and won't consider, now accept this big, smelly Corporate Fish! Don't try to fight it or counter with with legitimate concerns .... the GOP has bigger, smellier, vile fish. Whatcha gonna do about that? ::shoves fish closer to face::
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)EOM
Jackilope
(819 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Some times a cylindrical object is just a cylindrical object. And some times a fan of DSB is a fan of DSB is just a fan of DSB. What am I wearing, lol?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Question came up when a certain Hedge Fund Manager bought 60 year old Rights to a drug so he could jack up the price 4000%. I thought patent rights only lasted 30 years
The BIGGER question being - will the TPP lock the US into increased drug prices for generations to come ...
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...it's pretty obvious someone is fulfilling a deal.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Gore1FL
(21,152 posts)Otherwise they wouldn't be running.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)a sense of purpose to resuscitate the Working Class in this country
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)a revolution. Yes, he feels entitled.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)It's fine to like Bernie better for whatever reason you choose.
None of us are in any kind of position to assert Hillary doesn't care about the poor, sick, young, old, take your pick.
We may not like her solutions, but to assert we know her motives is not cool.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/fmr-obama-campaign-manager-its-hillarys-turn_836452.html
Feb 2, 2015--President Obama's former campaign manager, Jim Messina, said today that it was Hillary Clinton's "turn" to be the next president of the United States:
"We want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States," Messina told an MSNBC host. "It's her turn and her time. I think she would be the right leader for this country moving forward. We're going to do whatever it takes to make sure she's the president of the United States."
Its Never Anyones Turn to Be President
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/it-s-never-anyone-s-turn-be-president_978588.html
The Scrapbooks faith in the younger generation has just spiked upwards. A reader emails us an editorial from the Zephyr, student paper of the Brearley School, the very liberal prep school on Manhattans Upper East Side. A tip of The Scrapbooks homburg to author and editor in chief Claire Kozak for the cogently argued and gracefully written piece, which we reproduce here:
However, Hillary Clintons popularity seems to be based on her identity as a woman. Since she announced her candidacy in a video where she claimed to be the voice of the everyday American, she has answered very few questions on substantial issues. Shes spoken about a small number of key issues including campaign reform and immigrationtopics where her opinion will be popular among the Democratic community. But mainly, her selling point is speaking for the American people. This might be a noble cause, but it is a campaign strategy that doesnt tell us much about her plans. And yet, she continues an unusually smooth and silent glide towards the White House. In early February, President Obamas former campaign manager Jim Messina voiced the phrase that many have now made their own, Its Hillarys Turn.
This phrase has a complicated history. In past years, it has actually referred to the political tradition of the vice president or vice presidential candidate becoming the partys nominee. However, the phrase has been appropriated by many of Hillarys fans to signify her rightful claim to the oval office because its time for a woman president.
But the fact is, its never anyones turn to be president. The presidency is one of the most complex and demanding positions in the world, and when someone is chosen to lead the United States of America, it should be because they are the most qualified person for the job. Gender, race, socio-economic status, or religion should not factor into a presidential election.
Margaret Thatcher did not become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom because of her gender. She earned the votes of the British people with the clarity of her positions. She made it very clear what her policies were, and she won that office three times. Benazir Bhutto did not serve two terms as the Prime Minister of Pakistan because she was a womanshe led her country because voters thought she was the most equipped person to do so at the time. Golda Meir was elected as the fourth Prime Minister of Israel because of her politics and previous experience as the Minister of International Affairs. All of these women leaders were highly qualified and clear in their positions.
If anyone deserves to be president, it should be because of his or her policies, promises, plans for the country, and political record. It shouldnt be because the government needs to diversify. Feminism and gender equality are relevant and highly important issues, without a doubt. But we cannot elect a woman president just because it is time for a woman to be president.
And when we do elect a female president, it should be because she is the most qualified person for the job, because she has won the hearts and minds of the American people with her promises and positions on national and international issues. As of now, Mrs. Clinton has barely campaigned. She has steered clear of major issues like Americas war on terror or her plans for the conflict in the Middle East, focusing instead on the feel-good notion of representing Americans. She has spoken only on issues of little substance, and has avoided controversial and personal topics that need to be addressed.
So, Mrs. Clinton, start answering questions. Start telling us your policies, instead of making general statements about how you want to be the voice of the American people. Show us why you are the most qualified person for the job. Once you can do that, you might get my vote. But you need to earn it, first.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5131QS8FW5L._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Hillarys-Turn-Improbable-Victorious-Campaign/dp/0684873028
Every secretary of state, were told, is going to be different from those who came before, but traditional demands inevitably take precedence...New secretaries of state always seek to portray their tenure as a bold departure from the immediate past. The secretarys staff and the State Department press corps both have an interest in creating a striking image for the new occupant of our nations most prestigious Cabinet position. The secretarys aides are eager to attract attention and positive coverage for their boss. The reporters must deal with editors, producers, and audiences interested in novelty. Yet both parties face a hurdle: The job of secretary of state is, by its very nature, one whose daily staples are diplomacy, bureaucracy, and (usually) continuity. Novelty, in other words, can be hard to come by. Given this problem, one standard approach has been to emphasize how different the secretary is from his or her predecessor.
Madeleine Albright, Bill Clintons secretary of state, established herself not merely as the first woman to be secretary of state but as someone blunter and more colorful than her predecessor, the gray, ever-circumspect Warren Christopher. After Colin Powell replaced Albright, his supporters boosted his image by pointing to his broader knowledge of military and security affairs: He already had served as both national security adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After Powell, who discovered that the key decisions on war with Iraq seemed to be made in his absence, it was said of Condoleezza Rice that it was nice to have a secretary of state who enjoyed a close relationship with the President.
Enter Hillary Clinton. Over the past decades, many politicians have run the Pentagon, most of them former members of Congress (Mel Laird, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Les Aspin, Bill Cohen, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel)no doubt because one of the principal tasks for any secretary of defense is to win congressional approval of the defense budget. Politicians have run the CIA as well: George H.W. Bush, Porter Goss, Panetta. But in 2009 Clinton became the first elected politician in nearly three decades to serve as secretary of state (and the last two before her, Ed Muskie in the Carter Administration and Christian Herter in the Eisenhower years, were only replacement secretaries who filled in at the tail end of their Administrations).
Clinton wasnt close to the President. When she started the job, she had little experience in diplomacy. Almost inevitably, Clinton, her staff, and the reporters covering her turned her profile as politician into the defining feature of her role as secretary of state. As she crisscrossed the globe, Clinton hosted town meetings, met with civic groups, gave speeches, held press conferences, and sat for interview after interview. In truth, some of her predecessors had undertaken such activities, too; the concept of public diplomacy has taken on ever-greater importance in foreign policy over the past two decades. But its fair to say that none of her predecessors did as many public events as Clinton.
After all the sound and fury, what should we make of Clintons tenure as secretary of state? How much difference did all of her globe-trotting and public events make for American foreign policy? What did she accomplish in concrete terms?
Kim Ghattass new book, The Secretary: A Journey with Hillary Clinton from Beirut to the Heart of American Power, presents itself as an effort to answer these questions: MORE
The Secretary: A Journey With Hillary Clinton From Beirut to the Heart of American Power By Kim Ghattas Times Books 2013 368 pages $27
peacebird
(14,195 posts)GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Author James Mann, who the New York times described his book Rise of the Vulcans about Bush foreign policy advisers:
The New York Times
The NYT describes him as level headed. To you he is either a flunkie or a running dog.
Jim Messina, National Chief of Staff in 2008, Campaign Manager in 2012 to President Obama is again either a flunkie or a running dog.
Their crime? Expressing an opinion you don't like.
You should delete your post as well.
The problem with some of you Sanders folks is you are so reflexive when hearing anything you don't like, you lash out with no thought for how an objective observer might see your posts.
It's false to make the claim Hillary says or thinks it's her turn. It is equally repulsive to denigrate two accomplished people who may use the term "her turn". For all we know they see "her turn" as meaning a continuation of Obama's agenda.
Your look isn't good. Running dog? Flunkie? I think not. That little bug in support of a Sanders write in campaign via Loonix isn't a good look either.
Try being positive about Bernie. It's a better strategy. You can see a few ideas in my journal if you are interested.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Beaverhausen
(24,472 posts)yardwork
(61,712 posts)Isn't that what Mao called the U.S.?
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Putin?
Renew Deal
(81,876 posts)Nice. Explains where you're coming from.
Beaverhausen
(24,472 posts)Yes it's a lie. She never said its her turn.
Never. Said. It.
If anyone's running because it's their turn it's Bernie Sanders. He's been plotting and scheming for it for over 30 years.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)If we were picking a CEO, she would highly qualified.
And, yes, that is a double entendre.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)If that's the kind of CEO you are thinking about...
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)I really get frustrated when half-informed people make these pronouncements.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)I don't subscribe to captive in-house press
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clintons wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium Ones chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Integrity Matters
wolfie001
(2,270 posts)Between the gerrymandering and letting scum like Tom DeLay off the hook. But, let's have the repuke hacks investigate every penny spent by the Clinton Foundation. Just think of the wingnuts' heads exploding when she wins!
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)With her bare hands!
If that's the kind of CEO you are thinking about.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Try the Offbeat group
ToxMarz
(2,169 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)It was weak, very weak. That's why it got no traction.
Besides, you didn't get the post.
lame54
(35,326 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but it NEVER happened.
Sad that people have to make stuff up to soothe themselves.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)It has nothing to do with "turns." It's nobody's "turn." It's an election. The people will decide whose "turn" it is to be President.
In 2008, they decided it was Obama's "turn." Hillary Clinton is running again. If enough people vote for her, then it will be her "turn."
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Typical BernieBro claptrap.
WE WILL NOT SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Keep digging!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)For one thing, I think she's smarter than that.
But DWS isn't (smarter than that). Good thing is, I don't think the thumb on the scale is working.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)... is highly unethical.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)I thought starting a war on ginned up evidence was highly unethical.
But it's using quotes incorrectly that's the real problem.
Response to MattSh (Reply #74)
BlueCheese This message was self-deleted by its author.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)EOM
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It brought us your op.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)..."the chosen one", "inevitable",blah, blah, blah. Terms dreamed up by the Bernie crowd in the hope, ala fox news style, that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it. Fortunately there aren't many fox news fans here.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)...as long as you let your emotions cloud your judgement of the Clinton campaign, it increases the already high likelihood of her winning.