General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Hillary Bashing"
...must be a bunch of trolls conspiring to mess up our pretty little pasture here at DU.
Or...
Her vote on the PATRIOT Act. Her Vote on the Iraq War Resolution. Her labors as SecState to bring about the Keystone XL pipeline.
Encompass the fact that people have legitimate grievances. Her judgment has been shown to be profoundly questionable on historically-important pivot-points regarding personal freedom, war, and the environment.
Not that those are important or anything.
:headdesk:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
clarice
(5,504 posts)mckara
(1,708 posts)
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)
calimary
(81,194 posts)Or mike pence?
How 'bout governor OOPS?
jeb bush? DAYUM! How he'd LOVE to rehabilitate the family name...
The darling of the "I ain't no scientist but..." crowd - marco rubio?
I know, I know - ted CRUUUUUUUUZ!!!!
Hey, there's always chris christie. How he danced! (When cornered about his refusal to meet with the Sandy Hook parents or even merely to hear their concerns, much less sign the gun-violence mitigation bill they favored.
Or hey, what the hell, bring back romney. You just KNOW The exiled queen ann still longs to be the Alpha Female of the nation. After all, it's HER turn!
Although sarah palin, I'm sure, thinks that SHE'S the one entitled to rule, especially since it was surely "stolen" from her last time... (Sob! - after all, they didn't even let her make a speech on Election Night when mccain lost to that-black-guy-who-should-only-be-in-the-Oval-Office-because-he's-the-janitor. Cuz we all know SHE OWNS the women's vote...
Sigh...
Hillary is not perfect, but I'm DAMNED if I'm gonna go with a lesser light among the Dems, who isn't a sure bet as she seems to be. I want the White House to stay FIRMLY in the BLUE column. If she's our best bet, then so be it. And I would still suggest that people stop breaking their arms around here trying to tear her up into little pieces. You want our best shot at keeping the White House that damaged?
Totally agree with everything you said. Too much democrat bashing on here. Democrats need to win...
reddread
(6,896 posts)no hypotheticals necessary.
abakan
(1,819 posts)Joe Biden is my preference over Hillary. If she is nominated I will vote for her, and hope my fears are unfounded. I think, like McCain, she has never met a war she didn't like.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Biden DELIVERED Clarence Thomas, not just the 5th of 5, but the ultimate insult to Thurgood Marshall's civil rights legacy.
I appreciate your opposition to warmongers, but I beg you to look deeper into what these people are capable of, with the
cynical sophistry of a "no" vote, Joe Biden bitch slapped every woman and every person of color in this country.
We MUST root through the trash being purveyed, and find the real facts of history, so we cannot be played and played again.
Life is short, and they know that and use it like the final solution.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)As do I. Ideological purity would be wonderful, but the stakes are also very high. I'm not sure some in that crowd fully understand the consequences of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in the WH. Either that, or they are clueless or living in a dreamland etc.
While I wish Hillary would have got it right with the IWR and other things, I'm not going to judge her completely on past mistakes like the OP does. People change. They learn. They grow. I was not what I was at 18 now in my 40s etc. Most rational people take that into account.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and Hillary is shitting in some tall grass with the likes of Martin O'Malley, Elizabeth Warren, and Julian Castro.
She is far from the best candidate that we have. After the "we were flat broke" comments, she screwed her own self.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Stellar
(5,644 posts)are saying. There must be some truth in it and I'll have to look harder. 
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)Hillary is the repugs wet dream!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)woman in this entire country that can't be bought off or is not ignorant enough to see through all the BS of what Hillary was handed and accepted in the Iraq march towards war?
I see plenty of such women here on DU. The country must have many more. Surely one of these must be presidential material.
lululu
(301 posts)Can't work with Congress: healthcare debacle in Bill's term.
Incompetent S of S: ask the ordinary people in Egypt and Libya if they're better off and safer now than before she orchestrated those messes for Israel.
Dubious credentials for women: that rape case that got blocked in another thread. No ethical person should have concealed the fact that the underwear evidence was missing and gotten a gang rapist of a twelve year old off with a year's sentence.
Warmonger: never met a war she didn't like.
Omaha Steve
(99,573 posts)Maybe three or four I'd be happier to have the nomination. One is female, so this isn't a male bias.
OS
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,580 posts)Thank you!
K&R
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)
JI7
(89,244 posts)claiming she will bomb to try to appear tough.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Not really "most" of the threads about her.
JI7
(89,244 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Clowns are, I suppose, figures of amusement to those with rudimentary senses of humour.
Rodeo clowns are tough as nails folks attract the attention of bulls to prevent thrown riders from being stomped into toothpaste.
It's stupid to act as if a 'rodeo clown' just means 'a clown'.
pscot
(21,024 posts)this wasn't her first rodeo.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And of course Clinton will bomb to look tough. They all will. Hell, wasn't that the argument somewere making last September, regarding Syria? "Assad made us look weak! we need to bomb him to show that we're not!"
And the rodeo clown comment? it wasn't derogatory. Watch this video of rodeo clowns at work
The professional name is "rodeo bullfighter." These are the men (and women? i don't know.) who put themselves in between the bull and the rider, when the rider is bucked off. They take the bull's hits, distract the bull, keep it off the rider. The comparison to a rodeo clown was the idea that Clinton is acting as "decoy" taking hits from the Republicans, and sparing the actual candidate from getting those slings and arrows. It WASN'T derogatory.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Her relationship with Republicans and Democrats was compared to the relationship between a rodeo clown, bulls, and bull riders. The OP stated that she courageously stands up to the Republicans and distracts them to the benefit of her fellow Democrats. I think (hope) that many of the people who responded in that thread didn't read past the subject line. The OP was clearly pro-Clinton.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I just wish the "hang on Hillary's every word" and "make every story about her" could be relegating to the Hillary group or politics forum.
She is not an elected official, she is not (yet) even a candidate. There is no reason that GD should be inundated with dozens of Hillary posts everyday.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not only a candidate, but the chosen one.
antigop
(12,778 posts)and outsourcing...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html
Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."
The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.
and there's the TPP...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
We're sick and tired of seeing our jobs outsourced or replaced by h-1b visaholders.
There is no STEM shortage....
She co-founded the Senate India caucus with John Cornyn, for crying out loud.
Response to antigop (Reply #6)
antigop This message was self-deleted by its author.
lululu
(301 posts)They are so misused. I worked in IT some years ago, and sat in at a meeting where the higher ups were laughing about bringing in people on H1-Bs and (illegally) paying them less. H1-Bs are also supposed to only be used if the person is so highly qualified that there is no U.S. person available who can do the job.
H-1Bs are at home outsourcing.
Hillary started out as a Republican, she changed affiliations because of Bill's career, but I do not believe she has changed her beliefs one iota, except that she'll do whatever seems most advantageous to her career regardless of the ethics involved.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)And anyone who supports that can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.
There are PLENTY of well-qualified American tech workers--the only "problem" is that they expect to make enough money to, like, live within 50 miles of Silicon Valley!
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which shows the end game of what corporate America likely wants to do with the H-1B program where guest workers were massively screwed then.
http://www.workingimmigrants.com/2006/08/new_orleans_suit_over_h2b_gues.html
And lawsuits up to just a year ago from that time also involve Indians being brought over as cheap and exploited labor after Katrina...
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/archive/2013/06/28/multiple-trafficking-rico-civil-rights-violations-lawsuits-filed-on-behalf-of-h-2b-visa-workers.aspx
Those who support @HOME outsourcing should be voted out of office, if not prosecuted like Nagin was, when he was actually complaining about the "influx of Mexican workers" (referring to the many guest workers brought in at that time).
antigop
(12,778 posts)Joining Tata Consultancy's chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.
The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York's depressed upstate region.
But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.
Now, as Clinton runs for president, that signal is echoing loudly.
Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.
But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.
...
Like many businesses and economists, Clinton says that the United States benefits by admitting high-tech workers from abroad. She backs proposals to increase the number of temporary visas for skilled foreigners.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)Only a shortage of companies willing to pay commensurate wages for work. Nothing new in the industry:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
lexx21
(321 posts)that we were "proud" to bolster the economy of India when he made a state visit there. My head still hasn't stopped spinning.
Unfortunately we are presented with two sides of the same coin and no REAL choice as to who will be president. At this point we can either choose a "liberal", and I do use that term very loosely, who will tow the corporate line when it comes to outsourcing, or a flaming tea bagger who will tow the corporate line when it comes to outsourcing.
I worked at a company recently (I'm an IT worker and most of my jobs are contract) where ALL of the SAP developers were H1-B visa holders. So there is no one in the US that knows how to write code for SAP? Really? The sad fact is that they make good buck compared to what they would make back home and companies hire them over American workers because they can get the H1-B workers cheaper.
H1-B visa issuance needs to be cut out as does the loopholes for offshore jobs. When I was working for IBM, most of the people that I supported were either in South America or India. I supported absolutely NO ONE here in the US. Then they took my department and sent it to India. Go figure.
I am not here trying to bash Obama. I voted for the guy. I like the fact that he got the ACA passed and when the bail out happened in his first term that he held the companies feet to the fire when it came to using the money. However.....and this is a HUGE however....... nothing has been done as far as curbing corporate tax evasion or forcing companies to stop offshoring jobs.
If you want the economy to be better, hire the people. It's simple. Congress won't pass anything? Fine, then you veto every bill that comes across your desk until they do. Fight fire with fire.
Rant over.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)Damn, you are gonna be in so much trouble now. 
antigop
(12,778 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)...bring it on.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)There comes a time when you shit or get off the pot. And that time is now. I't sure as fuck isn't bashing when you recognize that we as a country need and deserve something more that what we are given. Once again I'm happy to be on your side.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I won't say she is good for the nation because I believe she would be a terrible mistake.
Yes, Republicans are worse. But that should not be the basis for picking a Democratic candidate for president.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)I admire her for her work she has done and I enjoy reading her books in fact I own them all and have ordered her new book. That being said, I do not support her for President. She is not what we need to get us out of this mess we are in. Her time has come and gone and it hurts me to say that. I had always hoped I would live long enough to see a woman President and my hope was that it would be her. Another eight years of the same will do us all in.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)God knows men have damaged the nation for long enough. Time for a woman.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)I don't believe Clinton is it. We have better choices!
Clinton is by far the wrong choice. We know where she stands.
swilton
(5,069 posts)after all just look at Margaret Thatcher and her legacy - along with Ronald Reagan in charge of writing the epitaph for the middle class.
Granny M
(1,395 posts)As much as I would love to see a good female President, it has to be the right woman. Policies are more important than gender.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)I don't see how we help ANYONE by lowering our standards because the candidate in question is a woman.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)I don't believe there is any other leader out there who could have done better for our country than Obama. You're right that another 8 years of a Congress whose sole purpose is to deny the President any positive results for our citizens would do us in. When the Speaker of House states that success is defined by how much legislation the House can reject or repeal then Houston we have a problem.
The Dems need to find a way to educate, inform, and saturate the media with facts about the do nothing congress that Obama has had to deal with from Day 1 in this election cycle.
If you don't like Hillary then campaign against her for your preference in the Primary. If she wins the Primary then ALL Dems need to get behind her 100%.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)shit from because I never said that.
sunnystarr
(2,638 posts)"I do not support her for President. She is not what we need to get us out of this mess we are in. Her time has come and gone and it hurts me to say that."
However, I should have said if you don't "support" her instead of saying "like" her.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)"The Dems need to find a way to educate, inform, and saturate the media with facts about the do nothing congress that Obama has had to deal with from Day 1 in this election cycle."
They don't need to "find a way", they just need to do it. They've chosen not to, because they're still trying to reach out---and because many of us are more willing to accept mediocrity in high-profile Democrats when we're convinced that the big, bad Republicans just can't be beat.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Showed her to me as a person who was totally in control of her power...and had lost her ability to understand that her gleeful response was not what many of us expected in a "World Leader" after the Bush years or those of us who lived through the Vietnam era who have wounds and scars for those friends and family we lost and the fight back against that war and the aftermath of not paying for it we still live with...as we fight more wars.
This would seem very bizarre if it was Sarah Palin who was cackling over this.....and DU would have been "Up in Arms!" I find it frightening in a Democratic President or one who served as SOS for the USA...and married to former President. It's quite chilling.....
---------------
Clinton on Qaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died"
By Corbett B. Daly
October 21, 2011 "CBS" - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shared a laugh with a television news reporter moments after hearing deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had been killed.
"We came, we saw, he died," she joked when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death by an aide in between formal interviews.
Clinton was in Tripoli earlier this week for talks with leaders of Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC).
The reporter asked if Qaddafi's death had anything to do with her surprise visit to show support for the Libyan people.
"No," she replied, before rolling her eyes and saying "I'm sure it did" with a chuckle.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29472.htm
swilton
(5,069 posts)this analogous diplomatic gem where she makes the comparison of Putin's annexation of the Crimea to Hitler's annexations of Eastern Europe. Very insensitive to the great losses Russia sustained (27 million to 400,000 for the US) in WWII.
lululu
(301 posts)and the country was stable and moving towards more freedom under the son's influence. Oh, and yes, women had access to free education and modern jobs. Healthcare was free.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)I will not vote for her.
I will leave this site before I vote for another Clinton.
Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #114)
sammy27932003 This message was self-deleted by its author.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)because her popularity is described as so strong that a primary would be a waste of money......hope they don't get away with this....
We can't change long-held election processes, and a primary would prove that her supporters are right (I mean "correct," not "right" as opposed to "left"
.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There are just too many of us with valid Hillary doubts. Personally, the more I think about it, the more awful she seems.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not easy to climb out of this....
Autumn
(45,042 posts)he's in a world of shit.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)read the National Intelligence Estimate, it was clear to her that the danger from Iraq was incredible.
Wait... what? She never read the NIE before avocating to send other people's kids into war?
Wow.
merrily
(45,251 posts)politically.
She's told about three or four stories about that vote, the last of which is simply that she was wrong.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Yikes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I didn't read the NIE because I took Bush's word for it?
Is that why NY sent you to Congress? Is that why America paid you? To take Dimson's word? ON A WAR?
It was the wrong vote? Imagine being the mom or dad or spouse or kid of someone who died or got maimed and hearing either of those explanations?
There were two more variations between the first explanation and the last, but they are not leaping to mind at the moment.
Yeah, if she's the nominee, no Republican is going to bring up any of the above are they? They won't bring it up in the same way that a Dem might, but she will get sliced and diced about it, just like Kerry did--and that was by the guys who started the war, too.
A Republican who wasn't involved in the war decision will do worse by her than Obama did.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)was a known liar and I counted on the Democrats to at least put up a good fight. I was never more disappointed in my life. I expected it from the Republicans.
Mistakes like H. Clinton made have consequences. Thousands of deaths and most likely the end to the American Empire.
If you dont want a Republican victory in 2016, then don't nominate H. Clinton.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She was my senator and I was pissed about her war vote. After my cousin was killed I again sent my protest to Hillary and Schumer.
My issue is people saying she won't help democrats this fall or that Ready for Hillary won't.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5212282
That thread recieved almost no traffic from those who said Ready for Hillary would not help. Where are they, why the silence?
TBF
(32,041 posts)It makes things crystal clear.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)No opinion, though, on what the long-term ramifications might be...
JI7
(89,244 posts)on issues. they would be even if she wasn't working. i mostly work with them on issues like the environment and other local issues.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I, perhaps incorrectly, thought 'Ready for Hillary' was a superpac, in which case she can't legally have any direct control over what they do or do not do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hekate
(90,633 posts)What baffles me is the intense bitching here about how much money she's received for her speeches.
I've sarcastically said more than once that only Bushes are allowed to do that and that Democrats should speak for free and volunteer to set up before the event and put the chairs away afterward -- but for some reason nobody has yet bothered to reply.
How is that even relevant, except as a crabs-in-a-bucket issue?
*Still haven't filled in my 2016 ballot.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hopefully a more balanced picture of her gets painted here.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)The polarizing really gets to me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"...has strategically distributed more than $175,000 to 33 state Democratic parties and national Democratic organizations."
It's good to see that "Ready for Hillary" is working toward 2014. It's a waste of energy to focus on 2016 right now.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
corkhead
(6,119 posts)I pray we don't end up with the same result
Hekate
(90,633 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This is not one of those times.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)You approved of the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War vote? You're a fan of the Keystone XL pipeline?
Please explain why.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Massive amounts of false evidence was presented by the administration to the Senate at the time. So much so that the real evidence of the truth of the matter was so drowned out, it was difficult for many Senators to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act and the AUMF. In fact, only one Senator voted against the USA Patriot Act in 2001, Russ Feingold. We all saw where that ended up doing to his seat.
Not a single Senator voted against the AUMF. Even somebody I believe you once supported, John Kerry, voted in favor of both, so obviously the issues you personally have with Clinton go beyond those two votes
I do not approve of the votes in favor and did not at the time, but it has no bearing on my choice to support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States in 2016. Not a single whit.
As far as the Keystone XL goes, it was her job to move the decision making process along. I'd say she did a marvelous job as we currently don't have approval for Keystone XL.
Your mileage varies and that's your choice, but none of those issues mean a damned thing in two years as far as I'm concerned.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)In all, a majority of Congressional Democrats got it right.
Clinton, Kerry and Biden are among those who got it wrong.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 23 )
Vote Number: 281 Vote Date: September 14, 2001, 10:44 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 98
NAYs 0
Not Voting 2
Roll Call Vote results 98-0
The Iraq war vote almost two years later was a formality intended to screw Democrats in the mid terms (which it did). Bush already had the authorization to use military force under this law.
Bush got wide latitude to do whatever he wanted in the wake of 9/11, and every last voting Senator except Russ Feingold on the issue of the USA PATRIOT Act gave him that latitude.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You seriously think that?
Really?
Wow!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Bush could basically do whatever the fuck he wanted under that law.
The AUMF passed in 2002 was nothing but bullshit intended to make Democrats look bad in the midterms, and it had the desired effect (Tom Daschle lost, for fuck's sake).
Bush still had broad authorization and could have gone into Iraq under the initial AUMF because he could go after any nation he claimed harbored terrorists under that law.
The week after 9/11 was one fucked up time when the US Congress basically handed over every last bit of power they had in war making to George Bush (with Dick Cheney's hand up his ass controlling all the moves).
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)because the 2001 AUMF against Afghanistan made the 2002 vote a fraud?
Are you thinking Hillary voted to invade Iraq as a protest vote against the powerlessness that she voted herself into with the 2001 vote?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)She wasn't up for re-election in 2002.
She just didn't want to have the vote held against her in a presidential race. She calculated on the wrong side.
Pure politics.
GeorgeGist
(25,318 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Reality, and all that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)for countering the propaganda, the 98-0 post you responded to was in response to Will Pitt's question about the Iraq war vote, so there is no excuse for the 98-0 post, misleading at best.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I understand that nationalistic posturing and emotional jingoism were the automatic response of politicians scrambling to COA and maintain a fairly unified party front in the face of the fear and anger that dumped the natural disdain for GWB into the toilet. I understand that the majority of the nation, most Democrats included, were totally caught up in that fear and anger, and that the thinking part of their brains didn't return until it was too late.
I understand it, but I didn't then, and don't now, like it, agree with it, or stand behind it. Nobody gets a pass from me. Including John Kerry, who was, for me, a hold-my-nose vote in '04. And yes, the issues I have with Clinton go beyond that. I could make a big long list, but they would boil down to just one thing: she's a neo-liberal, and everything on my list is connected to that.
She lost my respect very early on, though. The very first time I heard her name or saw her speak, back on 60 minutes in '92, where she explained so eloquently why she wasn't standing by her man for his supposedly erstwhile cheating while she very blatantly did just that.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)That narrative would make perfect sense, if not for the democratic party congress persons and senators who were not taken in by the bogus "evidence" and who did not suffer any political consequences for doing so-- both reasons cited by Clinton, Kerry, etc for their votes. Your assertion that no senators voted against the IWR is just simply wrong, as was pointed out in the other response. Here is the list of senators who voted NAY:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
Also, one republican and one independent senator: Sen. Chafee (R-RI) and Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).
Although your selective memory only referenced the senate, it is worth remembering that MOST democratic Representatives voted against the IWR (126 nays) and six republicans did too, as did independent Bernie Sanders from VT.
Finally, I take issue with your assertion that the IWR makes no difference in two years. The war against Iraq was a crime against humanity, for which the perpetrators and those who abetted them have never been held accountable. It will "mean a damned thing" until that accounting is completed, or until its authors burn in hell.
on edit: Oh, I see what you did. You tried to deflect the discussion by referencing the Afghanistan AUMF. I, and I presume the OP, are talking about the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, H.J.Res. 114.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)was wrong, she voted for something that was evil. I am also sick of them hanging with bushes.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)On one hand you're saying that you didn't approve of the AUMF; that you were presumably NOT convinced by the "Massive amounts of false evidence" right? But on the other you're defending someone who either couldn't see through it like the rest of us could, or was so weak-willed as to vote along with everyone else despite knowing how wrong it was. Either of those scenarios reveals a politician that I cannot trust with the power of the presidency.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So there we are.
She has my support, 100%.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Did you think that needed clarifying?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There will be candidates, both Democratic and Republican, who are anti-war and anti-Iraq War.
No one - not the media, not the voter, not the other candidates- will buy into that pretzel logic you just garbled about her vote.
Yeah, that's why the majority of Democrats nationwide hate her and don't want her to be the nominee.
OOPS, exactly the opposite of that is true.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Even more inevitable than before.
Her vote for bush's illegal war will matter. You pretzel logic will not even be offered by her, or any serious person.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There's going to be a lot of pouting by purists come the convention.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)WooHOO!!!!
Just like last time!!
cali
(114,904 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)It was a war of choice, a war of clearly false evidence, and a war she CHOSE to not only support, but advocate for.
Sen. Clinton does not get to rewrite history unless we help her to do so.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)that we were being lied to and who were beyond furious at all those who voted for war.
arikara
(5,562 posts)the evidence was not convincing at all. Millions of us all over the world took to the streets over it. Any representative that voted in favour was / is either stupid or complicit.
And I don't think HIllary is stupid.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"Massive amounts of false evidence was presented by the administration to the Senate at the time." Oh plez, massive amounts?
Evidence that everyone with a brain saw through. Is it your argument that Bush fooled her? He sure as hell didnt fool those of us on the left. The evidence was garbage.
Interesting that the "massive" amounts of evidence all proved to be false, but Bush gave Tenet a medal of freedom.
H. Clinton gave Bush permission to invade a sovereign nation and kill tens of thousands of Iraq children and you want to give her a pass? The IWAR is probably the straw that broke our empire.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I have sadly watched DU devolve into this black-and-white mindset, where every statement is immediately taken to mean adherence to some extreme position that was never stated, nor even implied.
"I don't find Snowden credible." Oh, so you're fine with the NSA spying on US citizens?
"I like Woody Allen movies." Oh, so pedophilia is okay with you?
"I think the vast majority of cops are decent people." Oh, so you think police brutality should be ignored?
There was nothing in MohRokTah's reply that even remotely indicated that she approved of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War vote, or that she is a "fan" of the Keystone XL pipeline. And yet you immediately jumped to that conclusion, and then asked her to "explain why" she has taken a position she clearly did not express.
With a lot of the people now posting here, this mindless sort of black-and-white thinking is not at all surprising.
But I had honestly thought you were above that kind of knee-jerk reaction, this totally baseless rush to assume that when someone says A, what they really mean is Z.
Apparently, you're not.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)the very things Will called out as problems in his post? And didn't MohrakTah disagree?
What am I missing here?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)She did NOT say, "I approved of the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War vote, and I'm a fan of the Keystone XL pipeline." And yet, that is exactly what Will read into those two simple sentences.
Not to worry, Manny. I wouldn't expect you, of all people, to understand that saying, "I don't agree with your post," does not mean, "I agree with everything Hillary has ever said or done."
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That those actions were wrong, but not profoundly important?
The Iraq War Resolution itself was the most profoundly important vote in decades.
cali
(114,904 posts)Let's review:
MohrokTah wrote:
"I agree with you on much of what you post. This is not one of those times." CLEARLY to anyone with basic reading comprehension that means that the poster agrees with much of what Will posts on DU, but not with the contents of this OP.
And after piously lecturing about the black/white state of DU, you nastily snark at a DUer in a very black/white manner.
Ah well, Ms Greggs, as EM Forster said "only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy."
Where did I say otherwise? My entire point was that someone saying they don't agree with this particular OP of Will's does not translate to a blanket statement that they approved of all of Hillary's actions as cited in this particular OP.
You might want to check your own reading skills.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)doesnt mean I approve of those things. But then again it doesnt mean I dont either.
Funny that those here that never commit themselves on these issues plus others like fracking, and the TPP/TISA, etc. say it doesn't mean they approve. Actually the silence does say they approve.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that supporting someone's potential candidacy (like Hillary's) is not a blanket approval of everything she's ever said, or every decision she's ever made?
(That's a rhetorical question, BTW - because obviously you don't understand that.)
The idea that if someone doesn't post in threads about fracking, the TPP, etc., doesn't mean that their "silence is approval". And that is so ridiculous a notion, I can't believe that even you would seriously promote it.
Probably the biggest reason some posters do not weigh-in on certain topics is because they feel they don't know enough about the details of that topic to make a useful contribution to the discussion. Unfortunately, some people consistently weigh-in on topics they obviously know nothing about, only to make complete fools of themselves, much to the detriment of the discussion as a whole.
Might I suggest that you ask the Admins to "pin" your admonition to the top of discussion threads that YOU think are important, because I'm sure everyone here is more than willing to defer to your better judgment on what should be opined on - lest they be taken as "approving" of things they might not approve of by failing to post in a "Rhett o Rick Mandated" thread?
I hope those here who are interested in your opinions (however many there may be) will be monitoring your own participation in various threads from here on. This way we'll all know that if you fail to post in every thread on the topics of torture, sexism, racism, animal cruelty, bullying, voter surpression, misogyny, consumer fraud, police brutality, gerrymandering of districts, anti-union activity, any and all anti-democratic court decisions, anti-abortion activities, anti-acces to contraception efforts, and every anti-Democratic statement made by any and all Republicans, we can assume that by your silence in those threads, your approval of same can be taken as a given and duly noted.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... you should "no" (sic) better than to let your mouth write cheques that your ass can't cash.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a "politically liberal"??
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is a far-left liberal Democrat who DOESN'T believe that failure to post in "Rhett o Rick Mandated" DU threads has any bearing on what I (or anyone else) approves or disapproves of.
What I call myself is a Party-first voter who votes FOR the (D) over the (R) in every instance, because the (R) stands for everything I abhor.
What I call myself is a realist who knows that NO politician is going to agree with my personal views 100% of the time.
What I call myself is moderately well-informed voter who doesn't pretend to know EVERYTHING, while feeling free to speak out as though I did.
What I call myself is a Democrat - and, as such, I align myself with every other Democrat - from the conservative centrist DEMOCRAT to the extreme far left DEMOCRAT - because we are ALL Democrats, and despite our differences as to how to accomplish our goals, our goals are THE SAME.
What I call myself is a member of a party that has a vision of what CAN BE, instead of a vision of what CAN'T BE - as dictated by those whose "can't be" views are applauded here as not only acceptable, but inevitable.
What I call myself is a person with a big, bold, capital (D) behind my name. And if you have a problem with that, I invite you to try to knock it off my shoulder.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I believe in Democratic principles that support the People. I wont support Democrats that sell us out to corporations.
I believe that those that won't take a stand on issues like the TPP, fracking, XL Pipeline and Patriot Act, dont because those issues are supported by the Giant D. I believe strongly in the important social issues but I believe that if we allow the NSA/CIA to become too powerful, all our gains can be wiped clean.
Furthermore, if we don't stop the continuing widening of the wealth gap, we may end up being able to smoke pot in the soup lines.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is that most people know the difference between supporting their Party and "worshipping at the altar of the Giant D".
Apparently, you don't know the difference.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't support all Democrats because some of them don't support Democratic Principles. It's very easy to put the (D) behind your name, it's quite another thing to adhere to Democratic Principles.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Seriously, Nance?
Answer the questions, please. Why should I support someone who has been wrong on the three major issues of our time?
And please spare me the whole "But the Republicans are bad" thing.
I've known you and respected you a long, long time. You're better than that.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Obviously you are free to support or not support anyone of your choosing, based on whatever criteria you deem important.
What I did take exception to was your immediate assumption that a poster saying "I don't agree with your post" translates into "I approved of the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War vote, and I'm a fan of the Keystone XL pipeline."
There is far too much "so what you're REALLY saying" on DU these days, and far too little
attempt to address what people have said, instead of what someone wants to have read into what they've said.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It was a question, a logical one in response to a blanket statement of support with no content. This is a political discussion board. A follow-up question to ask someone to expand on their support, and mentioning some of the most critical issues relevant to that support or lack of it, is entirely appropriate, in fact it's what this place is supposed to be all about. He never claimed the poster was ok with those issues, he asked the poster if he/she was ok with them, how can anyone have a problem with that?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The reply said, "I do not agree with your post."
You have translated that into "a blanket statement of support".
The questions Will posed in response assumed the poster to have approved of the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War vote, and that she was a "fan" of the Keystone XL pipeline. The follow-up - "Can you explain why?" - only makes sense if those assumptions were made.
You'll note that in my own reply to Will, I specifically referenced MohRokTa's post. And yet he made the assumption that I was taking issue with his OP, and responded accordingly.
There is a lot of "talking" going on here at DU. The problem is that there is very little "listening".
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I need not have translated it that way. What I meant was the poster disagreed with Will's OP without saying why. As such, follow-up from Will was entirely appropriate.
You're also right that the "can you explain why" part of his post implied assumptions. A very minor point that, one that did not negate the legitimacy or appropriateness of his questions, he would have done better to leave out the "can you explain why", although it is reasonable to wonder why someone would offer their support of Hillary in the face of the issues Will mentions in the OP.
Hardly deserving of a call-out IMHO, I actually think discussion of the issues Will raised in his response is important, especially when someone just says they disagree with the OP without responding to the points in it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and well-reasoned reply.
My "call out", if it can be deemed as such, was a reaction to the fact that too many here are responding to what they "assume" someone to mean, instead of actually reading what has been said.
Case in point:
About three weeks ago, two DUers got into a knock-down-drag-out subthread argument that got so vicious, it only ended when one of them (or perhaps both) got banned from the thread entirely. It was obvious at first glance that these two combatants were 100% in agreement with each other on the topic they were discussing.
However, the problem arose because each was responding to what they assumed the other was saying, instead of what was actually stated.
It went along the lines of: You're right. Anyone who doesn't see what's happening is an idiot," followed by, "So I'm an IDIOT? I don't SEE what's happening, meaning you think I turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior?"
It went on like that until the name-calling got so vicious, alerts were sent and one or both were thrown out of the discussion.
Like I said, there's a lot of "talking" on DU, and very little "listening".
I still wonder if those two DUers see each other as mortal enemies - when in truth they were on the same page all along.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and see it plenty here at DU, not good. I once watched two hummingbirds have a mid-air battle, they were so intensely fighting that they each fell from the air to the ground, still holding on and fighting. Your case in point (which I did not see when it happened) reminded me of that story.
Seems to me though that you are guilty of this yourself. I don't think Will actually said the things you say he said, I think you didn't hear him, instead you heard something you wanted to hear. He was soliciting opinion on issues, wanting the poster to weigh in on what he (and I) views as critical issues Hillary was/is wrong on. All you have on your side of this argument is his last line, "please explain why", it's just not enough, you're technically correct about the wording but he was trying to draw the poster into a discussion of issues, not trying to say the poster said those things which he asked as questions.
NealK
(1,862 posts)Well, people change. And not always for the best.
NealK
(1,862 posts)there's a shift in the cultists that can be felt, although I'm sure that not all of them are going down that road but some of them already defend Hillary tooth and nails and everything she does, did or will do is absolute perfection. She can't do no wrong. It's déjà vu all over again.
Autumn
(45,042 posts)There seem to be a shift in the force and as an author you are heads and shoulders above the rest.
arikara
(5,562 posts)Plus she advocates for GMOs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251369629
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts). o O ( ... are they still here ... ??? ... )
NealK
(1,862 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)But I still say CNN is LOC
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)She even supports the destructive TPP and similar trade deals.
Fuck that noise.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I'm done with the lesser of two evils mentality. Fix the country, don't merely participate in the "choice" to watch it burn either slow or fast. That's no choice at all.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...that she will never seek public office again. Then I'll just bash her record. Hillary Clinton sucks.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But on security, intelligence and defense issues, as well as trade deals and corporate snuggliness, she's far from perfect.
dirtydickcheney
(242 posts)She's worked hard to make sure that abomination passes.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It's one thing for supporters to excuse her PAST mistakes, but like you said TPP is an abomination in the here and now.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 09:29 AM - Edit history (1)
what other choice will we have? I will hold my nose when pulling the lever for the Democratic Party ticket. BUT PULL I WILL. I don't like or approve of bluedog democrats nor third way democrats, but unless there is a huge makeover of the democratic party, its ideology of appeasing the RW while cowering in the corner and it's drift to RC, nothing us little 99%ers can do.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)but if she's the nominee I see little choice but to vote for her. Being pessimistic by nature, I suppose choosing the lesser of two evils comes rather easily to me.
sellitman
(11,606 posts)I'd love to see a hard fought primary. I'd like a real Liberal go after her and possibly turn the party left.
That being said if she winds up with the nomination I will have no choice but to support her the best I can.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)not without regret, to most americans. it's the only choice we have had in many an election cycle, nationally and locally.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)There is no question about it, it has been abominable. I don't think she believes in anything beyond personal political and financial gain.
rocktivity
(44,573 posts)she was six years ago.
If you don't know your history, you're doomed to repeat it.
rocktivity
StevieM
(10,500 posts)She was polling in the mid 30s, while Obama entered about 20 percent. The reason she was labeled inevitable is because she went out in 2007 and built up a huge lead.
And then she lost it. Which could happen again. But either way, it is a very different situation then in the 08 primaries.
I think she will probably win the nomination and probably win the general election. And I think the idiots across the isle will nominate Mike Huckabee. But we shall see.
randys1
(16,286 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)the utterly insane GOP?
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Is because Ms. Clinton is as far left as the owners of the MSM dare to contemplate. She represents the grand compromise; a woman President for the progressives, the DLC operative (representative?) for the corporations.
Myself, I have no problem with a woman as President (or the next 45+ Presidents for that matter). If Ms. Clinton is the best choice, I have some reservations. I wish she has a better environmental record for example.
I do know this, it is too early to select the Democratic candidate of the 2016 Presidential election. It is extremely bad policy to allow those with well known vested interests to make selections for us.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)that's always the new response: bring up the servitude to Wall Street and Big Insurance, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, SOFA, the Surge, they'll just forget everything you said 2 seconds ago and squeak "but he's turning things around the best he can"
heaven05
(18,124 posts)since you DID NOT include the fact that every positive initiative has been either filibustered ad infinitum, voted down or compromised down to almost ineffective. This POTUS has tried to reach across the aisle countless times and all the rabid dogs on the RW side could do was try to bite that hand off. I call your response, total BS!
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Her ties to job outsourcing trade agreements, her ties to taxing the poor at the benefit of the rich.
Yeah, I'll keep bashing. We don't need Clinton part 2. We've seen this play and we get fucked at the end of it.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If in 2014 the Senate should go decisively to the Rs (horrible thought!), would HC be still wanting to run in 1016? If so, why???
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- You can't speak ill of The Royalty you know......
K&R
bigtree
(85,986 posts). . . pretending . . . anything goes now, right?
If not then have the integrity to say so. Don't just pretend the bashing of Hillary is all legitimate and fact-based.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Run, Bernie, run! (as a Dem, of course )
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)it is not working very well. I wonder if the continued bashing is because there is not creditable experience of others.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)People don't want Hillary to be President because they don't like her policies.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)It is unreasonable to say she cannot be judged on, and held to account on the basis of, that record.
mopinko
(70,071 posts)and it isnt like you get an even semi-reasoned conversation, you get decades old, moldy talking point, and fly specking.
the woman has done a lot as a part of this administration that i bet half the people on this thread cant even rattle off, let alone discuss intelligently.
and it is big time important shit, from my humble, feminist, kid loving, tree hugging, parent lifting, food growing, old hippy pov, thank you very much.
but no.
it's all hot button and arglebargel even at the mention of her name.
and if the same thing didnt happen at the mention of 90% of the elected members of the democratic party, you could maybe hold the point.
but either side of the aisle, when all you can do is belch a bunch of crap, and cant write 2 intelligent sentences, you got nothing. go home.
certain honorable adversaries here exempted. sometimes.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)Honestly not an attack like so many on DU attempt, a simple honest curiosity...?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I assume even the majority of those criticizing her on DU will do the same. What choice do we have?
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)WillPitt will then write a piece about how great Hillary is and will defend her record using many of the same valid points raised by MohRokTah.
It will then get 300 recs or so.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'll suck it up and vote for her. I'll do the same no matter who wins the nomination.
That said, I'll work my ass off to make sure it is someone with stronger principles than Hillary.
frylock
(34,825 posts)maybe you have something from 1930 to tarnish WP with.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)String Fiesta
(13 posts)Mainstream America would not like a progressive candidate as president. They are deathly afraid of Liberals and anyone who might be associated with a Liberal. Many support voter ID laws to keep people from voting. They talk about wanting to choke Democrats, call us parasites, and so on. Those examples don't exactly represent mainstream America, but the fact remains there is a very prevalent anti-Liberal sentimentality in America today. They consider Hillary to be too Liberal.
So, I'm afraid a centrist third-wayer may be our only option, and if that's correct we need to make extra sure we vote, and not refrain from voting as some sort of silent protest. On election day one's ideology matters not, only one's vote.
Not saying anyone has to like it. I don't. But tough shit I think may be the case for us. There are too many forces at work and progressives represent a very small portion of those forces.
Yes, Liberal preferences are popular, but the word "Liberal" is not.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Liberals aren't going to support Hillary unless they absolutely have to if she wins the nomination. I'll support her, but it will be half-hearted as hell, and will include me just pulling the lever for her. I'm tired of third way Democrats. What the heck is the point when you are voting for a Republican that calls themselves a Democrat?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Welcome to DU.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)also see she is a shitty candidate. I love Hillary, but I'm afraid that Hillary doesn't return that love to the millions of Americans she would need to vote for her.
Veilex
(1,555 posts)I'm hoping we get a reasonable alternative to Hillary for nomination.
Either Warren or Sanders would be perfect. I'd beat feet and go door to door for either of them.
I don't want to get stuck with the choice of corporate loving corruption or a republican.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)It ain't easy being in the spotlight!
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)that took the form and tone of your OP. I largely agree with the substance of your arguments regarding Hillary's policy positions and ethical outlook. However, I might object to "Hillary Bashing" if it took a less reasonable tone. Just because.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)She seriously believes that America is a conservative country and acts accordingly - the very embodiment of abject moral relativism and preemptive surrender.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)We will have two clear candidates to chose from in 2016:
1. A candidate who will continue to defer to corporate influence, continue an aggressive military posture, continue to militarize our local police agencies, spend more on citizen surveillance, focus on privatizing education and other public services, spend less on jobs, continue the trade agreements and tax breaks for the wealthy so that income disparity continues on its current trajectory, but generally does not support both the LBGT community and a woman's right to have an abortion.
or
2. A candidate who will continue to defer to corporate influence, continue an aggressive military posture, continue to militarize our local police agencies, spend more on citizen surveillance, focus on privatizing education and other public services, spend less on jobs, continue the trade agreements and tax breaks for the wealthy so that income disparity continues on its current trajectory, but generally does support both the LBGT community and a woman's right to have an abortion.
I think it's outstanding of our political establishment to tolerate such amazing diversity of thought.
We are a land of the brave, aren't we?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We'll see how it goes.
Maybe some folks want an echo chamber of support for the inevitable (for the second time, didn't work out so well in 2008) candidate.
arikara
(5,562 posts)curious.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I can post the comment and the results once I get the PM of results.
IIRC, some claim of flamebait, undemocratic to compare blah blah blah...
I'm not a supporter of the Clintons, and she's not the candidate, so I voted to leave it.
Even if she was the candidate heaven help us, truth is truth.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)DU will be feeling the urge to purge ...again ...as if it isn't bad enough now. Either my trash thread is blocking a lot or this place has really slowed down.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Mail Message
On Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
the choice is simple
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5214464
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Simplistic and a false equivalence. Repubs don't = Dems. Alerting for a jury review.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 8, 2014, 09:43 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That sort of thing is common here. I'm not hiding it simply because the person is new.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Perhaps it is false equivalence, but I fail to see a standards violation. I don't think this would even be an issue if the poster didn't only have 2 posts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think it's an excellent post. This person should be welcomed for their thoughtful contribution rather than chased off by a hide. The problem here is with the alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Until the primaries are over, this is acceptable *though snarky* discussion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I fail to see the reason for the outrage.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster doesn't say that dems = republicans. As the poster makes clear, there are definite differences in their support (or lack thereof) for the LGBT community and for a woman's right to choose.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
arikara
(5,562 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)dumb alert
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)TeamPooka
(24,218 posts)You couldn't ID a troll if it was sitting on your laptop.
Cha
(297,123 posts)arikara
(5,562 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)leftstreet
(36,103 posts)Welcome to DU
TeamPooka
(24,218 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)for speaking the truth. HRC is a centrist loser.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)We now have time to support a candidate. Let's get this out in the open, decide what a leader is in these times, and move to support that candidate.
It's not going to be HRC. If you're paying attention, DU, you should already have arrived at this conclusion.
K&R
Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #135)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Response to Scuba (Reply #183)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)'Course, Hillary's also said she's not running but no one's treating that statement as irreversible.
Response to winter is coming (Reply #215)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)It's not going to be HRC."
I'm saying that I want to support someone who has enough wisdom and vision to stop Wall Street and the MIC. The last real leader was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Maybe it's someone else. However, Hillary Rodham Clinton does not fall into that category and frankly, neither does Joe Biden.
One of the things we can do here as an informed group of Democrats is to remove the boundaries that are commensurate with the DLC or Wall Street, which is a subset of WS.
By the way, who said Bernie Sanders won't be running? He may not be raising money to run, but if you notice, all the money in the world isn't pulling an electorate to back any candidate unless you are in the Koch's back pocket.
Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #267)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)… to tell you about the Bay of Pigs, starting with rogue elements within Eisenhower's experience, who he knew would be hell bent on taking the United States into territories we'd regret forever, a la the MIC. Eisenhower's last address was more than a warning of "beware". His own experience with the Dulles brothers and the history that folled is what I'd want to share (not in this forum… you have to go to one of the worst decisions of DU-3 to do that - the stupidly named, "creative speculation" area to be allowed to carry on that conversation.) Oh, and don't step on the trolls there. It hurts.
All said, JFK paid dearly and a nation doesn't give a shit what it really takes to stand up to these monsters. Bobby understood and they're both dead.
We've come way past the point where the people who post here should see what we are faced with in this next election.
Choose column A …. Choose column B and if this includes a square peg like Bernie Sanders fitting in the round hole of the Democratic party, then we'd better understand what we might stand for. After all, two incredibly dynamic figures from 50 years ago were so feared, they were removed.
We'd better decide who stands for us and then stands a chance. I'm glad we had this conversation!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)If Hillary gets the nomination, I will write in the candidate of my choice in the general election. Never again will I stoop to the "better than the alternative" BS. Better than is not good enough. Hillary is not my kind of Democrat - not by a long shot.
K&R
dsc
(52,155 posts)he did the first two outright and hasn't lifted a finger to reverse the third which he could well do. fancy that.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Kerry has had a rocky start. It could be argued Hillary had a rocky ending as SoS but even then she handled it with dignity and grace despite the right attacking her.
dsc
(52,155 posts)it is a hard job right now thanks to the Middle East, but I do get tired of people saying it is perfectly OK for male politicians such as Biden and Kerry to do these things but then turn around and harange Clinton for the same behavior.
Cha
(297,123 posts)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The PATRIOT Act was voted against by one Senator.
Obama campaigned on Keystone.
Have a nice one, Will.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)too much to risk, time to insist on much better than what we've been getting.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It is the is the edict and so it is written 
Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Hillary is not "cool". And for some folks, politics is about being cool, trendy. For those folks, the right candidate is like the right accessory--he or she is meant to make YOU look better. Not to alleviate the suffering of the poor or to help children grow up safe or end hunger.
LBJ was not "cool" either. And the Vietnam war sucked a rat's ass and all the young men I knew in 1968 were scared shitless of being drafted. But he was a hero for the legislation he helped passed. And we still have that legislation.
We need another workhorse in the White House. So what if she wears pantsuits and has thick ankles?
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #164)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)rid of them. Otherwise you see them pop right back up even when you think they are done in for.
It's really kind of scary 
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Why not focus on the Republican's who are pulling their bullshit trashing Democrats and fucking up our country for years to come. You haven't posted on this site in a while that ive seen of and your first post back is a post bashing a fellow Democrat, really?
Rick Perry is accusing the President of encouraging illegal immigration, Sarah Palin is comparing the President to someone who beats his wife, John Boehner is launching a lawsuit against the President, The Republican's just announced they will be holding their 2016 convention in Cleveland, Ohio which in itself could cost us the election, yet here you come on here, on a site where alot of people look-up to and respect you, including myself, and you have the nerve to bash a fucking Democrat? Seriously?
Maybe you should stay gone awhile longer because to me your opinion no longer means shit because you are no better than a Republican if you trash a Democrat, no matter who it is....
Scuba
(53,475 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to L0oniX (Reply #224)
Post removed
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)
I wonder if Skinner will get in trouble for the Bernie Sanders post....
L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)She talks to the press at least twice a week
and makes comments which are looked at.
If she didn't talk to the press so much you wouldn't see so many
Hillary threads.
Now for the nation article.....
http://www.thenation.com/article/180564/nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=email_nation&utm_campaign=Email%20Nation%20%28NEW%29%20-%20Headline%20Nation%20Feed%2020140708&newsletter=email_nation
Some won't like this but it tells it like it is
I agree with Will.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)She's going to surprise you if she decides to run. I'm not sure if she will at this point. Something is off about her pre-campaign mode. It seems more like testing the waters rather than balloon trials.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)So I won't be surprised by the things she says when running
But I know her and Bill's history which is enough.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)That's not enough for you? That'd be wonderful for me. The country is moving left.
santroy79
(193 posts)If I could pick the President it would be B Sanders or Warren but I cant and Hilary can & will win. I want to see the first women President & she will still keep most Dem policy's in place. I will take what I can get because Republicans are crazy & if they get all 3 branches were in serious trouble
TBF
(32,041 posts)IronLionZion
(45,411 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If we can't come up with a better candidate than Hillary we are lost as a Party.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)But I am not naive enough to not expect some trolling also on a Democratic board. The goal of the latter is to increase the disgust of as many Democratic activists as possible toward a leading candidate to become the next Democratic nominee for President in the hopes of depressing Democratic organizing and turn out for November 2016.
But hell yes there is plenty of legitimate opposition to Hillary becoming the Democratic nominee among thousands of regular DU posters for the reasons you cited among others.
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)1) another DLC/Third Way sellout?
2) a weakling, too scared to buck the political establishment?
3) a dupe, far less politically saavy than you are?
4) perhaps, just perhaps, a little MORE politically saavy than you, and able to take account of Hillary's full record and the realities and implications of the 2016 election?
thats my favorite. please repost often.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Most here have never even met the woman, let alone had a meaningful conversation with her. Yet, you are all so quick to criticize and pass judgment.
j/k
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)just like every Dem was not an Obama-bot. Ditto. Ditto.
I'm a woman, a feminist, chair of my local Dem Party and detest both Clintons for being wh***'s to Wall Street.
And I'd admit that she is right now the best qualified woman to be President, but that doesn't mean I will blindly follow her.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)More time is spent bashing Hillary than is spent attacking Republicas.
The over the top reaction of so many over a possible Hillary nomination would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
This place has become as disengaged from the reality on the ground as the folks at Free Republic. They think that Palin, Cruz or any other T.P. loony has a realistic chance to become president. Here I read about Sanders, a Socialist in his mid 70s and Warren, a one issue politician who barely won her Senate seat in a very blue state.
Vote or don't vote for Hillary, I don't give a flying fig. I only know that due to SCOTUS, come 2016 I will vote for a block of cheese if that's the nominee.
TBF
(32,041 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)pretty much have the same impact on our water supply.
How convenient.
rock
(13,218 posts) closeupready
(29,503 posts)Who cares about all that other stuff? I mean, I tried to care about Iraqis, I really did; I just couldn't make myself care.
reddread
(6,896 posts)at least she and her faithless husband didnt make us all "dead broke" and instigate a foreclosure crisis.
Oh, uh,
never mind.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I think is Republican trolls that are bashing Hillary calling themselves libs.
Republican seek to divide us.
Hillary is a winner, made for the job of Presidency, Liberals who would bash
her are only helping Repubs.
Support your whom you want, do no attack a Democrat whom has given her
life and money to helping this country. Most American barely brother to vote.
Hillary has put her whole life on the line for us.
The people support bashing her are people who supported Dennis Kurrcnch,
he was good man, but a looser, and if had we supported him. Obama would
never been President.
Liberals need grow up, and understand princpals are not enough, we need a good polticann!
Lincoln said the "rule is always you must win." Hillary can do that!! Warren, Sanders,
need to become either Majority leaders, or Chairmen of important committees, when Hillary is President.
reddread
(6,896 posts)anyone stopping you?
Scott6113
(56 posts)I'm holding my nose too. But the issues get won on issue advocacy, not with candidates. They just spout a winning formula on the stump. What makes it a winning formula is focus group and poll information, affected by, again, issue advocacy.
Politicians do not care about the issues. They care about winning.
If you are a true believer in any of them you're bound for disappointment.
librechik
(30,674 posts)the following months may shock you.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)This could be a big slugfest amongst many, or over almost instantly.
supercats
(429 posts)She is a corporatist, backed by wall street money. On top of that she is hawkier than Obama. Why vote for her? She doesn't stand up for or represent the 99%. Even if it's between her and Ted Cruz or Rand Paul I still won't vote for her. I will vote green party or something. Even if the republican wins, we'll be better off than if she wins because she won't move the needle to the liberal side in anything that really matters, the economy, trade, jobs, etc. etc. If the republican beats her we have a real chance for a true revolution from the 99% so then it's worth it.
Iggo
(47,547 posts)Response to supercats (Reply #261)
lostincalifornia This message was self-deleted by its author.