General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf she's elected I fear she'll bomb something immediately to prove she's Tough Enough
flame away
snooper2
(30,151 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,315 posts)Your thoughts are not our problem. You don't appear to have arrived at them by any form of reasoning. Perhaps you fell asleep while listening to Bill O'Reilly, and that's how it got into your head. The only explanation so far, anyway.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)but I've wanted to say that (the OP) for months. I feel she is a somewhat cravenly opportunistic corporatist poli and given her sorry/not sorry IWR vote and subsequent verbal acrobatics about it plus her I'm a toughguy stance on recent Mideast developments, I DO FEAR she will attack something early on in her first term just to make a point. Hopefully prior to her winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Don't like my opinion? HIDE IT.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I did a google image search for ook muriel and this was the first hit-
HUH?
Muriel Sarkany stopt met muurklimmen: Ook outdoor nog doelen
?maxheight=460&maxwidth=629&format=jpg
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Just "look at me I can be controversial!1!" flame bait.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Notice the meticulous choreographing of every detail: The thin, dark-skinned ambassador made to look "extra Africa;" the pathos inspiring backstory of beleaguered women in foreign lands; the room of white, male generals all popping to attention when the female president walks into the room; the US officer of African descent standing-by to attend to the needs of the mission; the swaggering dismissive stride of the Davis' character; the general explaining matter-of-factly the death soon to be visited upon his countrymen; the ambassador stammering and dumbstruck by the message of sexual liberality.
Stirring stuff!
It's all so -- perfect. Hopefully future presidents -- whether female or male -- will avoid the need for such ostentatious displays of war-making power. I think we could all live without that (pun intended). I see no need to single out a particular (potential) candidate, let alone based on gender, when it is something they all fall prey to.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MineralMan
(146,307 posts)What's your point? DU has many members who can't vote in the United States.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Are you going to stalk me now?
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)I don't stalk anybody. I read GD on DU. Sometimes I reply to posts in GD. That's what DU is about. If you post in busy threads, I'm sure I'll see those posts. I may reply to some of them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to L0oniX (Reply #21)
SidDithers This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #18)
ChisolmTrailDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Are you demanding an answer to your rhetorical question? Well, I don't do that. Sorry.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Since you self-deleted your question, this ends my participation in this subthread.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)to get me suspended.
Just so you know, that's my method for now.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)I never alert on any reply to me. It's a matter of ethics. Instead, I reply to the reply. In fact, I rarely alert on anything except serious personal attacks on other DUers. So, you needn't worry about alerts from me if you reply to me.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)here would like like to do to me what others did to nadin.
My question was directed at you, no one else. So, since you already read it and responded, there was no reason for me to take the chance one of my ... fans ... would themselves alert on it.
I think your contribution here is valuable and we'll have our differences. I just feel you dumb down and condescend in the process. And I don't like that. So, I mentioned it. You read it. You reponded. I deleted. No big deal.
As you see in that other thread, I can agree with you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)And therefore irrelevent to DU!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Those that do can have the blame.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Are you really going to admit that?
Admins are you listening?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)HYPOTHETICAL EXTRAPOLATION also, too!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You are not a Democrat.....you may have voted for them in the past.....but if you don't commit to whomever your fellow Democrats chose for their candidate...YOU are Independent not a Democrat. Its that simple.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We don't need Hillary. We need Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren has common sense and has not been in D.C. and on Wall Street so long that her head is full of the propaganda of wealthy people.
Hillary did not do the research before voting yes on the Iraq War Resolution.
My congressman did do the research and voted no on it. Goes to show the problem with Hillary Clinton. She does not make the best decisions. Neither did Bill on a number of things including GATT and NAFTA. The TPP negotiations took place in great part when Hillary was in the State Department.
Do you actually like the War in Iraq, GATT, NAFTA and the TPP?
Because if you do, I can understand that you disagree with those of us who do not want Hillary to be president. But if you don't then please explain whether you support Hillary and those trade agreements and if you do, why.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because anyone who says they WON'T vote for whomever wins the primary just.....isn't...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in the US. The only times I missed were the years I lived overseas. I am a Democrat.
My parents were Democrats. My mother still is and I most definitely am. I am a strong supporter of my Democratic Representative. I will never vote for Dianne Feinstein again. I support Barbara Boxer. I support my local Democratic candidates.
But I have seen too much. I will not support another corporate Democrat. They stole the party from working people. They looked on as unions were destroyed. They blame the Koch Brrothers and the Republicans. But it was the inaction on the part of Democrats, their acquiescence to the values and ideas of the Extreme Right that destroyed the unions in this country.
And now we see the Obama administration, especially the Education Department aiming their rhetoric toward teachers' unions and other public employee unions.
I am not from Wisconsin. But Obama and Hillary were noticeably absent from the valiant struggle of the public employees of that state to maintain their union rights.
No. I will never again vote for a candidate who answers to and favors the right-wing corporate agenda. Never. California is not a swing state. If Hillary can't win here without my vote, she can't win the nation.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The fact remains if you aren't committed to voting for the winner of the Primary.....then you are not really Democrat....YOU are an Independent.....no matter what happened in the past.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bernie Sanders depending on which of them runs in the Democratic Primary in California.
I will vote this November for my Democratic representative. The California senators are not up for election.
There is neither a litmus nor a loyalty test in the Democratic Party. I am a registered Democrat.
We don't have a Pope in the Democratic Party, no Pope who can excommunicate those who do not follow Democratic doctrine.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democrats elect....then you are not a Democrat. You are ipso facto an Independent.....
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)office.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Simple as that!
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Are we talking about Hillary? We should bring up this concern to her during the primary if she runs. I would not like that at all.
We are doing a primary still, i hope? I like them.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I see why republicans hate us. Our primaries are real, theirs is like watching bad fake wrestling.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)But they also have a Roman Gladiator feel to them - only they use words to bludgeon each other. It's kind of fun watching their shrill accusations.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sounds just like the last republican primary.
Faux pas
(14,673 posts)ABH.
trumad
(41,692 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Hillary: Maybe, doubtful though. She's more contemplative than that.
Warren: Unlikely. Her best bet to take the nomination is to run as the "domestic fixer". Bombing something is exactly opposite the campaign she needs to run.
Minnie Mouse: Yes. Fuck Yes. Oh God, Yes! This is why I don't trust rodents. Beady eyes, small hearts.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)She is a pretty broad term. She could be any woman elected.
And elected could be elected to any office?
You must be more specific to really get flamed here!
spanone
(135,831 posts)CincyDem
(6,358 posts)If Sarah Palin is elected, she will bomb anything that doesn't have a cross atop it. That'll show everyone that she's Tough Enough.
You did mean SP when you said "she" didn't you ???
riqster
(13,986 posts)Yupyupyup.
FSogol
(45,484 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Just because Warren has absolutely no foreign policy experience, I don't think that she'd start bombing anyone just to show how tough she can be.
This OP is a pile of dreck.
Sid
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)That is to say that I've never heard her say that she won't.
Why won't she deny it?
FSogol
(45,484 posts)The first of her potential victims weighs in.
Oh, the humanity!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)objection to her, say it. Don't play into the asinine sexist crap that everyone will be throwing. You hurt yourself by doing that.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)yeah ouch I hurt myself by expressing a valid fear and guess what? Y'all are doing nothing to defuse it. Nothing. You got nothing, I guess.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)to allay some sexist terror of the scary, irrational woman? Well then, you are correct. I have nothing for you there.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)She'll bomb during a hot flash. Those women you just can't trust them with the nuclear keys. Cause ya know hormones make us all unstable nut jobs.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)people of all ages, male or female.
I loved reading that.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I've never heard that before. Well nor have I spent a lot of time contemplating menopause since it's a ways away for me.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Thatcher's popularity during her first years in office waned amid recession and high unemployment until the 1982 Falklands War brought a resurgence of support, resulting in her re-election in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
hack89
(39,171 posts)TeamPooka
(24,225 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I fear she's going to unleash an Ebola epidemic against America to retaliate against people who can't stop their own hyperbolic idiocy from getting out of hand.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and supported all the military adventures of Reagan and Bush 41 that's no reason to assume she'd be a mass murderer just to make a point.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)So I agree, and I don't think it's an unfounded fear. K&R
bigtree
(85,996 posts). . . sexist dribble. Warren should feel as secure as any man in that position; maybe more.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Not someone like Hillary
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)and he had to sell some stocks to pay his college bills. Oh, the humanity!
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)CanonRay
(14,101 posts)without worrying about what someone might do years in the future. Haven't we got enough shit for you to deal with? Worry about who a Republican President would appoint to the SCOTUS...that'll keep you up at night.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't believe that of any person who is a Democrat.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)so you have that going for ya
treestar
(82,383 posts)all you have is a "belief" also.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Who is the true patriot, Hillary Clinton or Edward Snowden? The question comes up because Clinton has gone all out in attacking Snowden as a means of burnishing her hawkish credentials, eliciting Glenn Greenwalds comment that she is like a neocon, practically.
On Friday in England, Clinton boasted that two years ago she had favored a proposal by a top British general to train 100,000 moderate rebels to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria, but President Obama had turned her down. The American Thatcher? In that same interview with The Guardian she also managed to get in yet another shot against Snowden for taking refuge in Russia apparently under Putins protection, unless, she taunted, he wishes to return knowing he would be held accountable.
Accountable for telling the truth that Clinton concealed during her tenure as secretary of state in the Obama administration? Did she approve of the systematic spying on the American people as well as on others around the world, including the leaders of Germany and Brazil, or did she first learn of all this from the Snowden revelations?
On Saturday, a carefully vetted four-month investigation by The Washington Post based on material made available by Snowden revealed that while Clinton was in the government, the NSA had collected a vast trove of often intimate Internet correspondence and photos of innocent Americans, including many users of Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other leading Internet companies. The Post reported many files described as useless by the [NSA] analysts but nonetheless retained ... have a voyeuristic quality. They tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes.
(snip)
EC
(12,287 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)you're talking about. Pronouns needs an objects.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)why. Probably just me. Oh well. We don't really need clarity, let's just assume. Sorry for being the bad guy here.
ecstatic
(32,701 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)an accused rapist, the Anti-Hillary crap is getting really deep here today. I'm going to need to put my galoshes on.
TBF
(32,060 posts)must be the topic of the day on FAUX news.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)12:41 PM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:16 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
If she's elected I fear she'll bomb something immediately to prove she's Tough Enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025210848
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Great, start a post with the words "flame away" and not even idientify who you are talking about. This is flamebait, and it keeps the discuorse here at a low point.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:41 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter may be right; however, I don't think the post should be censored.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Weirdly sexist in addition to being obvious flamebait. Hide it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The posting does lack essential information, it is an incomplete sentence in this context and the meaning that CAN be derived is sexist in my view. It is still an opinion even if it is unclear whom the message is about. Leaving it up is fair because it shows the inability of the poster to express themselves coherently.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Who is the flame bait?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Flame bait indeed.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Rather the imaginative prophecy you've created.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)To harvest it for the GMOs!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Sounds like an episode of Battle Star Galactica.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)But, it still remains popular for ambitious politicians like the candidate in question.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)... I doubt "she" would start bombing a country just to prove "she"'s tough. However, I don't trust her judgement... "she" seems more inclined to make a knee-jerk reaction based on political expediency than a measured thoughtful response to a delicate situation.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)She strikes me as being almost Scoop Jackson-esque. She also seems to be more interested in nation or democracy building in chaotic areas of the world, judging by the "Arab Spring" efforts which occurred on her watch as Sec. of State. Those actions seem not to be working out as hoped.
If she is the nominee, I will vote for her because whoever the pubs put up will probably want to bomb half the world back to the stone age. And of course, Hillary would be much better on social issues.
But . . . I'd really like to look at some other candidates, including Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders.
kiva
(4,373 posts)I was afraid he'd order that all Muslims in the United States be arrested and executed to prove he was Christian Enough...oh wait, no I wasn't.