In case you were wondering, I AM NOT A FREEPER.

[JDPriestly]

I'm not a FREEPER. I'm 71. I remember Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern and all the good liberals. I read history and am reminded of the work the two Roosevelts did to clean up our government.

And that's the kind of Democrat I am. I believe in clean government. I believe in Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, public schools, high taxes on high incomes, racial equaltiy for all, welfare for struggling mothers and fathers (yes, I do), free pre-school education, fair wages for all working people and not just in the US, and all kinds of programs and initiatives that require us to work together.

I am as far from a Republican as anyone could possibly be. I have children. Like all human children they were born with four skills -- crying, wiggling, sucking and eliminating human waste. They couldn't see. They couldn't walk. They couldn't talk. They were completely dependent on me and their father and the good doctors and nurses in the hospitals. Anyone who has ever had a baby cannot seriously think that human society can survive, that human babies can survive, in a libertarian paradise or anything close to it.

We humans are social animals. No one of us can make it on his or her own. Any person who thinks he is better than someone else has not taken a good look at him- or herself. We really are equal.. We are born equally helpless. And every bit of self-reliance and every skill we develop, we learn from other people and from our environment.

I am the furtherest thing from a FREEPER that there could be. I am a DEMOCRAT.

Thanks, Manny for giving me the chance to say this and make it very clear.

When Hillary Clinton wrote that "It Takes a Village," she was right on. Unfortunately, she has turned to Wall Street, Walmart, Pete Peterson, etc. for the financial support to buy the election. And, unforunately, her husband signed bill after bill that undermines the ground on which our villages are built. NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Welfare "Reform," just to name a few. I do not think she should be the Democratic candidate.

If we want more of Walmart, Pete Peterson, if we want less of Medicare, Social Security, if we want low wages compared to the CEO wages, if want more corporate sequestering of profits overseas, if we want more wars, if we want more private and charter schools, if we want a society in which our very youngest and very oldest are on their own, then we can keep going in the direction in which we are headed. And Hillary Clinton, although not the worst, will, not through her will but through acquiescence to the corruption that engulfs her, lead us there.

But I say it is time to pause, to check our moral compasses and decide to follow a path that leads to a better life for us all of humans, starting with all of us Americans -- a life in which, without losing our individuality and individual freedom, we work together to improve the chances for the survival of the human race. That means listening to experts on the environment and making sure that we all benefit from the new, exciting technologies that we are developing. It means forming alliances with others in the world who believe in religious tolerance and freedom of ideas and speech. We need a new voice in the White House with a great deal of courage to forge down this path. We need a president with the ability to use the bully pulpit the president has to improve the world.

Obama has been doing what he could. But to carry his legacy further than he could, we need someone with a really bold, new approach who is not caught up in defending some family or other legacy, someone who dares to challenge Americans to create a more just society.

The Republicans have no candidate. Scott Walker is not very bright. He can't think for himself (that's why he depends so much on ALEC), and it shows when he has to think on his feet. Jeb Bush is another defender of a family legacy and a loser to boot -- utterly boring as was Mitt Romney. Rand Paul is an immature whiner. You can hear it in his voice. And no, that isn't his southern accent. That is the sound of the baby crying inside of him.

This is the time for Democrats to pick the best candidate possible. The time to tear down the weak slate the Republicans are offering will come later.

We need to allow more Democrats to put their hats in the ring. If Hillary wins in a contested race, she will be the stronger for it. But to hand her the nomination without testing her against other candidates is a big mistake. And I personally, for the many reasons I have stated on DU, do not want her in the White House. Two terms for the Clintons was enough. Three terms for the Bushes was far, far, far too much.

[malaise]

1. Nice rant

Rec

[roguevalley]

34. I just got called a right winger and I am a radical

left wing democrat who remembers the same people. Apparently if you disagree with the meme ongoing ad infinitum you are Satan. It is very displeasing to an old die hard, union officer, rights rep in unions, state officer of unions, flames blowing in the wind leftie who strictly believes in the 99%'s right to flourish, the unity of All are one and fuck the republicans.

Yet I am a right winger.

Dumb is everywhere.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

39. If you think it was me then you completely misunderstood my post, completely

[roguevalley]

43. given that you included the last part in your

post there is nothing really for me to draw but that in conclusion. Given that, I am not here to fight. I would say however that you reread that statement and understand how the conclusion I reached was reasonable. I am a DEM with a capital D and have been for more years than most on this board. I am UNION with a capital U and paid a huge price for being active. Just so you know. Good day.

[Warpy]

42. Ha! Join the club, it's a big one

I hope the admins start an "Election 2016" forum for all the Hillary threads. I'm trashing them in GD, it's just easier that way for now.

As it stands, I won't support her in the primary, I think we not only can do better, we absolutely need to do better. I don't know who "better" might be as yet, the party has been good at tapping obscure governors no one outside their state has heard of. It can happen again.

However, I'll vote for whatever stiff the party offers us in November 2016 because anything else is unthinkable.

ETA: I don't know if it's because people are screwing off work, but it seems that most of the Hillary threads are concentrated during working hours Monday-Friday.

[Aerows]

55. I'd like to speak out as the founding member

of the Warpy Fan Club, because you just said exactly what needed to be said, and I'd like to know where to send your internets because you won them today.

[Enthusiast]

224. +1

[Flatpicker]

168. In what way?

I think we not only can do better, we absolutely need to do better.

Better as in more progressive, or better as in able to win against whomever the R's throw at us?

End of the day, I see Hillary as standing still where we are vs going backwards with a Jeb or Ryan, or Paul.
I don't like her, but I don't like the R's alternative either.

[cui bono]

186. What difference does it make if you win and all you get is Republican lite?

Or not so lite. That isn't a win, that's settling for the lesser of two evils.

Certainly we can't concede the primary at this early stage, that's simply ludicrous. And I would submit that better as in more progressive equals better as in more able to win against the R's. The people are starving for real representation and Hillary ain't the one who's going to bring it.

[rhett o rick]

242. We are the frog in the pot. Some of us want to get the Frack out of the pot

even if we risk our necks (or legs). Others, the best of evils crowd, are willing to stay in the pot as long as the temp is turned up slowly. H. Clinton may make some gains with social issues but those will evaporate in minutes if we lose our democracy.

[NYC_SKP]

247. HRC.

Those social issues are sooooo fucking easy, they're the lowest hanging fruit and any good dem would support them.

Right now she's speaking to womens' issues abroad, while the family foundation took millions from countries that treat their women abysmally.

I just can't stand it. I can't stand how gullible we are.

[cui bono]

255. You got that right.

But is it really gullibility? I'm not so sure...

[staggerleem]

253. Here's the difference -

Four to eight years of a Scott Walker, a Paul Ryan, a Rand Paul or a Chris Christie will be MUCH harder to recover from than an equal amount of time of a "Repub-lite" Hillary Presidency.

I'll grant that Hillary will do very little to push the nation leftwards, but she'll do far less than any of the above-named, or any of their cronies, to push us farther to the right.

Given that the Koch's billions WILL BE heavily involved in this election, you don't think they're gonna spend ALL that sweet green on getting REPUBLICANS to vote their way, do you? Hardly, bono ... those votes are already in the bag! That cash will be directed at winning over the Independent and Democratic voters. If a Bernie Sanders or a Liz Warren is able give Hillary a good primary battle, I would not be at all surprised to see Ms. Clinton benefiting from Koch largesse, just so NEITHER party's candidate is a real progressive.

And even if all they can accomplish is making sure that whoever the Republican candidate might be, that person runs against Hillary, they've essentially won (although they won't be satisfied.) They'd do BETTER with a right-wing puppet as POTUS, but they'll certainly continue to do as well as they are now under Clinton II.

[cui bono]

254. But that's just playing their game.

We need to break the cycle of putting up with whatever TPTB want, taking what they allow us to have. You can't keep playing not to lose because then you never win.

Koch brothers spent very heavily to win against Sen Sanders and guess what? They lost it all. Because Bernie is a man of the people. He speaks to them every day. He goes out and actually meets them. And he walks the walk when he is voting and speaking on the floor of the Senate.

Until we stop playing to lose we are just playing TPTB's game. This is NOT a team sport. Just because Dems win does NOT mean the people win. Not any more.

This defeatist attitude on places like DU is exactly what got us into this mess. I do not accept that we HAVE to go with Hillary. We most absolutely do not. We need to give the people what they want.

Perhaps we need another R presidency to get to that point where the pragmatic centrists/Third Wayers understand that we are not getting real Dems any more to lead this party. A corporate Dem is just Republican lite, and that's not good enough to keep the people afloat. We've seen that is the case already with the last two Dem presidencies.

[sabrina 1]

305. And that is how they keep the whole corrupt system going. Fear! because up to now, it has worked

for Wall St. Only allow two candidates who are guaranteed to protect their interests to get close to the final race, fund both of them heavily, smear and character destroy anyone else who looks like they have a chance but can't be counted on to protect the interests of the BIG DONORS.

To keep up the pretense that the people have any say anymore, tell the voters how 'different' they are and if they don't for their team, 'this will happen'. Btw they tell Republicans the same thing.

With this game, they move both parties further and further to the RIGHT.


To break their system into smithereens, Dems voters have to say 'no' to THEIR choice of candidates, and make it clear that they won't change their minds, they're on to the game.

Now is the time to do that.

But we have people playing right into their hands every time. 'Well, I don't like the candidate, but if s/he is the nominee, I'm going to vote for him/her.

Why would they change the rules when every time, they WORK, for THEM?

Voters need to develop their own strategy and stop following THEIR rules.

Otherwise before long, they won't even have to pretend anymore.

[AngryOldDem]

216. "I'll vote for whatever stiff the party offers us"

Because the alternative is most likely just as bad or worse.

What a sad commentary on the whole busted political system. So much for the "best and the brightest."

Glad to know I'm not the only one out here who feels this way.

(Just to be clear...good post.)

[freebrew]

232. +1000 nt

[steve2470]

233. I did auto-trash by Keyword on all threads with Clinton and Hillary in them

I've read all the arguments pro and con. I'm bored with it now.

[Warpy]

265. Most of them are rehashes of the 2008 Hillary War

I was done in 2008. I'm overdone now.

Her more rabid partisans need to know there is a phenomenon called overexposure.

That's when people get so sick of seeing someone in the news they want them to go away more than anything else.

[donco]

74. welcome to

the club.I am also an old Rep(Teamster) of a large mid-west local.Its been inferred,in no uncertain terms that i must be freeper mole sent to this site.

More than likely by someone that was in diapers,if they were then, whenI was a organizer under Harold Gibbons.

[malaise]

77. Many folks are totally confused re the narrative

I laugh a lot - it's our best option.

[Rex]

83. I'm going to play along with this one, is smacks of total desperation.

First time someone has been desperate enough to "go there"...smells like panic.

[sabrina 1]

196. That's exactly what a thought when I saw it. And if you have to go to those lengths for

your candidate, maybe you need a different candidate.

[DeSwiss]

88. East meets West....

[JDPriestly]

195. Thanks for posting. I think Ralph Nader is right about this possible alliance on specific

issues on which left and right bases agree.

[PatrynXX]

99. I have right wing views but mostly left wing views

I was an independent until 2004. Caucuses forced me to. Was for Wesley Clark then Howard Dead. John Kerry dead last. I still voted f him as he was still a liberal I didn't didn't think he could win..

most of my conservatism is in Religion and little else.

[RufusTFirefly]

117. I strongly oppose drones. Rand Paul opposes drones. Therefore, I am Rand Paul

That's what counts for logic around here.

These accusations that those of us on the left are Freepers or Freeper-enablers are designed to suck all the oxygen out of most meaningful discussions.

Thanks for your post, JDPriestly, and for your steadfast dedication to Democratic Party ideals.

[hopemountain]

134. yes, that is the gop teapublicans

new tactic.

[Blue_In_AK]

154. I hear ya, Rogue.

I just keep my mouth shut here mostly.

[marym625]

221. +1000

Yep. And I am disingenuous.

Been working on democratic campaigns since I was a little kid. Have been lucky enough to meet Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Tony Russo (Illinois) Jesse Jackson, Bobby Rush and the thrill of my life, President Obama. (Thank you, Dad and Liz)

But you disagree with some here, or call them out, and boom! You are a phony, freeper, etc. But try to get an answer from some on a serious question, forget about it.

Nye Bevan posted last night on wanting to have a real primary. To have actual debate prior to the GE. That post gave me hope.

[Javaman]

229. If you've been on here long enough, someone will undoubtedly accuse you of being a freep.

I look at it as a DU achievement LOL.

Cheers!

[Rex]

2. Woah! What brought this on!? I've never thought that about you, someone call you that?

Alert the shit out of them! You have one of the more level heads on this site IMO. Sorry you got attacked like that, report it.

[daredtowork]

7. I second that emotion!

Who called you a Freeper?!

Sorry, and I know exactly how you feel. It drives me nuts when I get called an "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-science" just because I think that insulting people and jamming needles into their arms is the wrong political approach to take.

[KellyW]

226. I have had exactly the same experience

I was called a CT for tell the story of why I refused a TB vaccine for my daughter (not required or recommended for her situation). And yesterday when I suggested that the M855 green tip ammo ban was not a good approach to gun control, I was told “The NRA/ILA, ALEC, and Rush Limbaugh agree with your thinking, and so do their right-wing supporters and apologists,” There are still good, thoughtful, discussions here, but the signal-to-noise ratio has gone way-up over the years.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. *This* steaming pile of excellence:

Day 5 visiting Free Republic. ugly...very ugly

[Rex]

14. SSShhh...we are supposed to be playing their game!

They want to play that way, what the hell I can do that too! It is strange how the center-right wing acts...ooh wait, not so strange. Two of their generals were sidelined in YOUR thread.

I think Manny you are driving the centrists here insane, look at the cheap ploy being used now. Doesn't that smack of desperation? Having to 'Go there', because all their other attempt and plans have utterly failed?

Just start using the term 'Center-right wing'...they seem to go bonkers over it! Which, I don't understand WHY...since Center-right hasn't bothered them in the least.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. D'oh, I didn't see wh posted the question

Damned portable devices, impossible to read and to type on.

And thanks for the tip... I've been meaning to start a campaign to get Center-right wing Democrats to go bonkers.

[Rex]

31. 'I've been meaning to start a campaign to get Center-right wing Democrats to go bonkers.'

LMAO! Nooooooooooooooo! Dude, just assimilate like the rest of us! I only hurts in the beginning...


You get cool hats and even a role to play! And you just thought it was all mindless droning all day! NO SIR! ;D

[m-lekktor]

25. that's some weasely garbage.

passive aggressive whining at it's finest and quite popular with the crowd who demands allegiance. some people should find hobbies that they are emotionally equipped to handle other than internet political discussion boards where opinions may differ. I can't imagine being that fucking smarmy just because somebody doesn't support a politician that I do.

[Rex]

35. It is not about that, it should be right?

That group is mad, because two of their loudest voices are now in Timeout. It explains the epic flameout thread imo.

[NightWatcher]

46. Jury results of alert

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:24 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I voted to leave it alone but it's clear my boy, trumad, has Manny shook!!!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is an entirely inappropriate post, to me, at least. Manny, what were you thinking? Sorry, this needs to be hidden.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Rex asked "What brought this on!?" and Manny answered with a link to the thread that brought this on. Is the alerter even reading before clicking "alert"?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, this entire thread is weird, but why did you feel the need to rush to the aid of another poster, especially if you're not quite sure what is going on there? Just leave it alone and let the affected parties sort it out (or have it locked) for themselves. This whole place has gotten out of hand recently with the sniping and such. It is hard to tell which side anyone is on anymore. In my opinion, this place has become a drag of late. Maybe after the primary and purge we can get back to normal around here.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Manny is a fucking pain in the ass with an over inflated ego. At some point he may actually admit he can be wrong. That being said, no need to hide.

[Number23]

73. LOL! Even the leave alone posts had some DAMN interesting and insightful comments

[MannyGoldstein]

137. *That* got a 3-4 decision?

Usually I get 1-6s, maybe an occasional 2-5 for something like that.

Maybe just dumb bad luck.

[PosterChild]

175. Kind of like handycapping the SCOTUS (nt)

[BubbaFett]

110. charlatans

[sabrina 1]

207. So, the theory is, I hope I'm getting this right, that if Freepers hate someone, we should love them

and vote blindly for them, simply because Freepers hate them?

Okay, Freepers hate Elizabeth Warren.

I guess I can go with that!

[cui bono]

258. And if you are against drone strikes you are a Paulbot because Rand is against them too!

I got called a Paulbot/Libertarian (they may not have used the term "Paulbot" but they were definitely trying to swiftboat me) for agreeing with him on that.

[sabrina 1]

269. What are you if you are STILL against the Iraq War?

I think it's great when a Republican sees that we were right all along.

I can't imagine why anyone would be upset when that happens.

Unless THEY think drones are okay?

[cui bono]

277. It's hard for some people to stay focused on ideals and principles I guess.

They are playing into the team mentality where no matter what "our" captain does, it's right, and no matter what the other team's captain/players do or believe, it's wrong. It's so simple for them, but the only way it can be that simple is with simple thinking. No room for nuance. Also, I don't know if it was like this with Clinton, but with Obama it really seems that way too many people just defend him blindly and feed us the sentiment of the Bush line, "you're either for us or against us". Oops, they are doing what they don't like us to do.

And funnily enough they don't even see they are doing the same thing in agreeing with Republicans in the case of the ACA, but they justify it because Obama got it passed. And now Obama gets a pass even though he passed a Republican health care plan. If you or I had said we should pass that plan we would have been labeled with some sort of insulting conservative name.

Even the NSA warrantless wiretapping. They claim it's fine because it's legal now. Okay, but it's only legal because Obama pushed for it to be legal. When BushCo did it no one liked it.

Hypocrisy. That's what it is. And it comes from a lack of critical thinking and subscribing to politics of personality over politics of substantive policy. And they brought the team mentality into the Dem Party and are simply being divisive. It really makes you wonder why they are doing it since it is only furthering the shift to the right. Is it on purpose?

[cyberswede]

3. Who on earth would ever think you're a Freeper?

[pintobean]

24. There must be some troll here

trying to stir shit.

[Spazito]

4. Huh?

"Thanks, Manny for giving me the chance to say this and make it very clear."

I thought Skinner, EarlG and Elad were the owners of DU ergo would be the ones giving you "the chance to say this and make it very clear".

Did the ownership of DU change???

[JI7]

8. that's some bizarre shit

but it's been that way for a while

[Spazito]

13. Bizarre is an understatement...

I'm pretty sure Skinner, EarlG and Elad would have let us know if they sold the site to someone called Manny!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I feel duped that I wasn't made aware ownership hasn't been changed./NT

[Spazito]

32. I just checked Announcements in case I missed the news...

Nada, nothing, bupkis there about a change of ownership. I am sure they would have posted something that important!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Did you go to who is?

Maybe the answer is there...

This board is comic gold.

[Number23]

12. Well, that's all I needed to see

[Spazito]

16. I know, right!

It is all at once!

[MannyGoldstein]

36. I own your mind

Now I own your favorite web site!

(Just kidding about the web site.)

[Rex]

50. To bad a troll didn't sign up and accuse you of being the Admin right?

You Sir, are no Sid!

[MannyGoldstein]

56. About a year ago, there was a subthread accusing me

of owning Conservative Cave. That was glorious.

[Rex]

66. Well you have some interesting detractors here.

Old Elm Tree interesting...

[MannyGoldstein]

139. I have damned fine detractors

Fine people, keeping the Proles from getting confused by too many choices. They become easily confused then upset.

[sabrina 1]

192. I think we have the same small group! Lol!

Actually, I was told that EVERYONE is on THEIR side.

[MannyGoldstein]

220. !!!

[Number23]

76. You don't even own your own divisiveness here, what makes you think you own anything else?

[zappaman]

82. !!!!

[Spazito]

98. Boom!!!

[sabrina 1]

194. Boom must be the new word of the week, no? Manny is terrific. He has a few detractors here but the

the vast majority of DUers know and agree with what he is about. And not just DUers, across the board he GETS what voters concerns are.

Was that applause for Manny btw?

[JDPriestly]

197. I'm clapping with hands and feet. Manny is the best.

[sabrina 1]

199. Me too, and it looks like a majority of DUers also.

For Third Way Manny!

[Spazito]

236. You seem to want to put the name "Manny" in all your posts to me...

Odd....quite odd. This is the second one just this morning to which I'm responding.

As to the rest of your post, well, it strikes me as gibberish so no response to it is needed.

[sabrina 1]

278. Only when you attempt to personally attack one of DU's most popular posters, and he is that popular

for good reason. He's a DEMOCRAT who still stand up for Democratic principles at a time when they are under attack.

[Spazito]

280. I attacked no one...

I posted an excerpt from an OP asking a question. I find hero worship quite odd, overall, especially for fictional characters or anonymous internet posters. I guess it seems others don't feel that way. Oh well, what ever floats one's boat I guess.

[sabrina 1]

293. I find hero worship disgusting, actually. Always did, of .anyone, not just of anonymous

posters on the internet, or anyone else.

You don't have to use words like 'others' when you clearly have a someone in mind. Just say the name of who are referring to, I can't read minds.

'Some' say, 'others' are this or that. Just say who you mean and then we can discuss whether or not that is what that person is engaging in.

Who are you referring to who supposedly hero worships 'anonymous posters on the internet'?

[Spazito]

300. This quote addresses your question the best...

"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." Matthew Henry

[sabrina 1]

301. No, it doesn't. So it was just hyperbole, a strawman, an intended

personal attack, that missed its target. Because the target was imaginary in the first place.

Thanks, that's what I thought anyhow, but I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

[Spazito]

302. LOL!

There are those who see "personal attacks" when there aren't any, they are only in their imagination. I am glad you and I have found something upon which we agree!

[sabrina 1]

303. That's what I just said. You got it!

[Spazito]

304. Awesome!!!!

[JI7]

144. yup

[hrmjustin]

151. Well said!

[sabrina 1]

210. How was that 'well said'? Could you explain it? Personally I saw it as a personal attack, but

I could have been wrong. Is there is a purpose to the constant personal attacks from a small group here? Is it supposed to help Dems win elections to attack and insult the people most likely to vote?

But maybe you can explain these tactics, most DUers don't seem to be getting what you are getting.

[hrmjustin]

241. Yesterday I got called out on something rightly.

It was completely fair and I apologized.

Here another poster is being called out and it is completely fair and it speaks for itself.

Doesn't mean anyone is bad here but that people have different opinions.

[Number23]

211. Looks like you've got something on your ankle...

I've noticed that lately you seem to have a bullseye on your back from certain quarters and everything you post draws some of the most INTERESTING responses. You can type "I agree" or "Well said!" and draw ire from a certain cadre here. I'm sure that got old real fast.

I've seen your new fans and all I can do is offer my most genuine and sincere condolences. You'll get through it though. The howls of laughter you'll emit reading their sputtering outraged responses will no doubt act as a balm to any fraying your nerves will receive.

[hrmjustin]

237. Recently I have had more arguments with some posters and that is fine.

I need to choose my battles better.


Thanks for noticing.

[sabrina 1]

288. Have you noticed how nasty a few people here have been to Progressives for several YEARS now?

If you have not, then please do not tell those who have been subjected to some of the most vile and vicious attacks simply because they have different views from this small group.

The attack above was not justified. It was a personal attack.

I asked you why you would join in on exactly what has caused so many Progressive Dems to leave DU.

Thank you for your response.

I could not disagree with you more.

[hrmjustin]

289. There have been attacks on Hillary supporters for years.

We are progressives too and we get attacked.

It is not a one way street here.

Sorry but when you post divisive stuff people will let you know.

We all get push back and have to accept it.

[sabrina 1]

290. What do you mean by 'divisive'? When a majority of people agree with something or someone

how is that divisive? If people feel they are being attacked, then post something to counter those attacks, that is not divisive. It is standing up for themselves.

I don't know what you mean by 'divisive'. This is a political forum, everyone isn't going to agree with you. That doesn't mean they are being divisive. It means they don't agree with you.

But there are some people here who contribute nothing but personal attacks and that is what makes DU suck.

There are lots of people here I don't agree with on everything, but they are not nasty, non-contributing members who are causing people to leave this forum.

There IS a difference. And if you want to align yourself with such a group, then I guess people will assume you support that kind if discourse.

[hrmjustin]

291. First of all i don't know what you wre talking about me lining up with a group.

I can think for myself you know.

And if you don't like what I have to say that is not my problem.

If he has a problem with my agreeing with the post above he can ask me about it himself.

And I think I contribute plenty on this site thank you very much!

GOOD NIGHT!

[sabrina 1]

292. I was not referring to you regarding not contributing anything.

I was referring to the well known group here whose only purpose appears to be attacking Democrats on this forum.

Good night to you!

[MannyGoldstein]

155. Like Harry Truman didn't own giving'em hell

Go nuts sometime: attack my facts rather than my person.

[sabrina 1]

200. That is NEVER going to happen. Lol!

Discuss issues? Is that more of your satire??

[msanthrope]

170. Perfect. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

177. Amen, sister.

[joshcryer]

198. TWM doesn't own anything...

...but the divisiveness that they feign.

On forums I run when people openly post with alter egos they get banned, instantly. This is true for most any forum. People publicly admitting to using alter egos, which are nothing but open trolls, are rarely immune. LoZ got banned here on DU for telling Skinner to his face that he was openly trolling.

[BlueCaliDem]

204. *mic drop* eom

[GusBob]

21. Wait wut???

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I'll drink to that

[greatauntoftriplets]

40. Huh?

WHERE DID SKINNER, EARLG AND ELAD GO???

[bravenak]

47. I'm sad too!!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

54. "Sad" isn't exactly the word I'd use....

"Devastated" fits better. I wonder when this happened?

[bravenak]

63. Nobody informed me.

I would expect at least a yellow banner announcing it like they did with DI. Do we all have to thank this guy when we post now? Skinner never made us do that.

[greatauntoftriplets]

70. Maybe they're trying to sneak it past us.

Skinner's very easy going so I just don't know now.

[bravenak]

75. I'd ask in ATA, but, I'm scared Manny will answer.

And who knows which Manny it will be.

[greatauntoftriplets]

81. I thought of that, too.

Skinner (or someone posting under that username) was in AtA as recently as Thursday.

[bravenak]

89. Thank God!

I feel comforted.

[greatauntoftriplets]

91. But, if it was a sudden coup, maybe it was in the last three days!

[bravenak]

101. So true!! This must be investigated fully! Anything could have happened to them.

[greatauntoftriplets]

106. Absolutely! Their children need them!!! (well, Skinner and EarlG, that is).

[bravenak]

112. 'Will somebody PLEASE think of the children!!!'

Very upsetting for those children. And their mothers. Without two incomes, why, the children may starve! DU should have gone to the surviving children if this Manny guy got rid of Skinner, Elad, and EarlG. This is a very sketchy situation.

[greatauntoftriplets]

116. And they're grade school age, too young to support their parents.

Poor poppets.

[bravenak]

118. It will be one bowl of gruel a day for the poor souls.

Just like Oliver Twist.

[greatauntoftriplets]

119. Please, Sir. I want some more.

[bravenak]

121. Thanks, Obama!!!

[greatauntoftriplets]

125. And Biden!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Maybe Manny is holding them hostage./NT

[greatauntoftriplets]

57. Oh no....ISIS?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Our friend, Manny, would just talk them to death./NT

[greatauntoftriplets]

67. ...

[Spazito]

53. I know!

Maybe Skinner, EarlG or Elad changed their name to "Manny"? Nah, I just don't see that happening. It is a mystery for sure!

[greatauntoftriplets]

58. Doesn't seem their style.

[Spazito]

68. I even googled 'who owns Democratic Underground'...

and wikipedia still has Skinner, EarlG and Elad listed, no Manny there but, maybe, it hasn't been updated yet?!?

[greatauntoftriplets]

71. You'd think he'd update it so fast our heads would spin.

[Spazito]

86. Yeah, that was my thought too...

that's why I checked!

[greatauntoftriplets]

87. Guess we better watch what we say now...

[Spazito]

93. It looks like it's all good, it was a cut and paste error...

I'm so relieved. Whew!

[greatauntoftriplets]

96. I hope they're not trying to give us a false sense of security...

then BOOM!

[Spazito]

103. Oh crap, you could be right!!!

Damn, excellent point!

[greatauntoftriplets]

107. The sky might be falling! The sky might be falling!!!

[Bobbie Jo]

141. Now?

Based upon what I've seen, someone has an itchy alert finger in that regard.

I think one of the jurors coined the term, "the protectorate."

[greatauntoftriplets]

142. LOL.

[msanthrope]

173. Ahem....nt

[Bobbie Jo]

174. Brilliant.

Thanks for that, btw....

Nicely done.

[JDPriestly]

79. My post was originally a response to one of Manny's posts. Sorry for the confusion.

But I do appreciate people who carry the discussion forward, who challenge the ideas we receive from whoever it is who has the arrogance to think they know enough to dictate to the rest of us what we should think, what ideas and politicians we should support. I speak for myself. Just because I do not always agree with everyone or even anyone else does not mean I am a Freeper. I am a very staunch and rather typical Democrat. I think I am mainstream. In California, I am a moderate Democrat. No conservative am I. But I do think we can do better than Hillary to lead our ticket in 2016.

[Spazito]

90. Whew, good to know it was a cut and paste error!

I am very glad to know the owners of the site remain the same!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. Me too... As a Gold Star member i want to know where my money is going./NT

[dissentient]

94. Don't worry, most people in the thread were smart enough to figure that out. It isn't exactly

rocket science, after all...

[Spazito]

115. These days, you just never know, better to check, right!

I like to check when something seems odd or bizarre, others might just assume without question. Each to their own for sure.

[cui bono]

189. You are also fantastic and usually completely right! And one of the most level headed on here.

[sabrina 1]

202. Clearly a lot of people on DU agree with you.

[sabrina 1]

311. Thank you for keeping the focus on issues JD

If a candidate is a good candidate they will not need trickery, attempts to emotionally manipulate voters, bullying, blaming of voters or any of the child like efforts to AVOID discussing what the candidate stands for that seem to be viewed as necessary for Hillary Clinton.

I wonder how SHE feels about all this. It certainly doesn't seem to advantageous in any way for HER.

By contrast, many of the other good Dems, Sherrod Brown eg, appears to be able to speak for himself, or Warren, who does a fantastic job of directly addressing issues which is why she has become a favorite Senator of Democrats.

[sabrina 1]

201. Try thinking of it this way. The Administrators give all of us the chance to say what we want to say

here. Then some DUers have a gift for saying things that appeal to Democrats, mostly regarding the kinds of issues that are important to them.

Manny happens to do that very well. So DUers then get to say what they want to say because of those DUers who speak for a majority of DUers.

It's sort of a chain of events.

I got what JD was saying right away.

[Spazito]

235. ROFL!

"So DUers then get to say what they want to say because of those DUers who speak for a majority of DUers."

You are joking, right?

There are no DUers who "speak for a majority of DUers". DUers speak for themselves and themselves only. Some DUers might agree with what someone posts, some DUers might disagree. It's sort of a chain of events.

Putting anyone on a false pedestal guarantees failure, you know, clay feet and all but, hey, if you need to do that, each to one's own....I guess.

[valerief]

5. Agreed. Dems should be Progressive, not Republican-Lite. nt

[Segami]

6. +1

[leveymg]

9. All the candidates should tithe their funds to the nominee. That way, may the best Dem win, not the

best funded Dem. If Hill were to do that, we will all be eternally grateful. She would move up 10 notches in history.

[ColesCountyDem]

11. Someone called you a freeper?

Jeez, Louise! Whoever did must either be a newbie, stupid, or both.

[sabrina 1]

15. There is no way that anyone could possibly think of you as a Freeper, JD. But I know why you posted

this.

There is an effort to equate those of us who opposed the massive crime that was the Iraq War, and who do not want someone who supported it, as the only choice Democrats have for the WH, to Freepers.

I personally don't understand why anyone cares what Freepers 'think' or say.

But the not so subtle attempt to equate Democrats of principle with Freepers shows that there are those who DO care what Freepers have to say.

Like you, I form my opinions based on what facts we know, not on what Freepers have to say.

And I cannot understand why any Democrat would do otherwise.

I do not want Hillary Clinton to run. I am afraid that if she does, a Republican will win.

Too many Democrats, in opposition to what Freepers thought by the way, will not forget the fact that when she was faced with one of the most critical decisions of her political career, she failed and as a result, the disaster that is Iraq is still ongoing, with more than a million human beings dead.

Such a person is likely to make another such terrible decision.

We have good Democrats who got it right the first time, THAT is what leadership requires.

So, I wouldn't worry about the effort to emotionally manipulate people to vote for someone they do not wish to vote for.

If they have to go that far, all I can say is, 'maybe you should change your mind about who you are supporting'.

[Aerows]

26. I agree heartily

This has gotten to be rather odd - you have to sign in blood some sort of treatise that you will never have a thought that goes against the "goal"?

Uh, I am human, have thoughts, think for myself, and if I disagree with someone, I simply disagree with them.

[sabrina 1]

52. Yes, and it's driving people away. I don't know who ever thought you could force people to

'think' the way you want them to think. Especially by using something as childish as 'Freepers think this way, now surely you don't want to think like that'? Totally disrespecting the intelligence of those who clearly DO think for themselves.

It's a terrible strategy, designed to fail, and worse, if it keeps up, drive away the very voters they need.

[Aerows]

69. I suppose the beatings will continue

until morale improves.

[fadedrose]

113. truly funny nt

[Aerows]

133. And rather not

because it is so accurate.

[sabrina 1]

190. Lol, that seems to be the plan!

[CreekDog]

225. Maybe, but I also think that the pro-Russia and pro-Putin posters are driving people away

It really isn't just one thing driving people away, but a few things.

[marlakay]

124. I so totally agree with you!

Anyone can say I am a not a solid democrat and I would just laugh...all who know me know I am totally liberal and progressive in my beliefs.

I didn't go for Hillary last time and I won't unless she is final choice this time and I agree with all who say we need another choice.

I totally agree as a woman I want a woman, just not her. She is headed to much to the right for me.

[corkhead]

17. "This is the time for Democrats to pick the best candidate possible."

"The time to tear down the weak slate the Republicans are offering will come later. "

Absolutely.

In November 2016 I will use my vote in the best way possible to ensure none of the Republican Clown Car passengers end up anywhere near the White house, which in all likelihood will be pulling the D lever, but in the mean time I am hoping for a heartily fought Democratic primary that includes at least one candidate that represents a more progressive vision for the future.

[Aerows]

18. You are most certainly not

and the day someone questions you as a very strong member of DU, they come under my scrutiny. Doesn't mean much, but when human beings that respond like human beings not drones deployed to foment dissent get questioned?

I will step up to the plate. We have a LOT of folks around here that have been here that are not "fomenters". Unfortunately, we have too many that are doing their best to be a disruptive presence.

We don't need to clean house so much as we need to start turning a dubious eye to those who would divide us by telling us we need to be yes or no on issues.

[BlueJazz]

20. Wonderful post.

[hrmjustin]

23. I never thought of you as a freeper.

[HereSince1628]

28. I nominate that as least needed disclaimer in DU history!!

I suppose that could be because we come from not too disparate places in time.

If I could wish, I'd choose as a candidate someone who would choose to aspire to someone like John Kenneth Galbraith.

I'd settle for a person who could explain the inherent national goodness of Keynesian economic thinking at least well enough to explain how paychecks and consumer demand contribute to investors deciding to invest to expand jobs and production for somewhat selfish purpose of enjoying the happiness of reasonable profits and life in a vital community.

I don't wish to say anyone is or isn't a democrat. Like Scotsmen, there probably are no true democrats.

What I would say is that clearly perceived problems faced should dictate the selection of the team assembled to solve them.

[JDPriestly]

92. Well Said:

"clearly perceived problems faced should dictate the selection of the team assembled to solve them."

We need a team that can solve the problems we are facing now, not one that was right to solve the problems in 1992.

We need some new ideas and new people at the helm of the Democratic Party.

There are lots of great people out there. We need to make way so that they can come forward.

A contest in which Hillary Clinton is our candidate is likely to become a contest focused on the past. We cannot afford that. We must look forward (as Obama so graciously said).

[Dragonfli]

29. I feel ya, you describe yourself as what has been a Democrat for most of my life

The kind of Democrat I am.

The tent suffered a rip in the right zipper panel that's all, so many Conservatives crawled in through it since Bill Clinton that the Pete Peterson loving, Larry Summers admiring "New Right Democrat" coalitions feel emboldened to try and mock long time Democrats out of the party, they would't know a Freeper if they were talking to one at a Third Way convention (which no doubt they would find in attendance).

Ignore their baseless accusations, it is all they have when their conservative policies fail year after year making it difficult to argue substance.

Don't let them get ya down.

[dflprincess]

162. In the last few days I was accused of being a Third Wayer

all because I said I didn't care about Hillary's emails (though I did reiterate that I am not a Clinton fan). My comment had more to do with a teaser for Meet the Press and Chuck Todd "taking on the issue".

I can only assume the person who does that is a) not familiar with anything else I have ever said on this board or b) does not understand the term Third Way; or c) as you said, is just trying to cause trouble with long time Democrats.

[Dragonfli]

184. That doesn't make you 3rd Way (not caring about security rules regarding State Dept. Email records)

That is just an opinion (or lack thereof) that people can agree or disagree with.

Third way is a political philosophy that attempts to consolidate right wing fiscal values and left wing social values in varying forms to achieve what they would describe as a moderate centrist position. Most proponents of this philosophy favor neoliberal positions on free trade, austerity, deregulation, and privatization, a good portion of them tend to be hawks as well but not all.

Third Way politicians are found in Europe as well as here, the ones specifically in the US make most of their views public on the thirdway.org website as well as policy think tanks such as PPI. If one wants to familiarize themselves with specific policy proposals of theirs one need only go to such places or one of their many satellite organizations such as "The New Democrat Coalition" to learn. We may need to start educating such uninformed posters about what these basic (to us) things mean.

I don't understand why anyone would call you that, I have seen your posts for years and would not consider any of your policy views to align with theirs.

Without seeing the post I could only guess that whomever called you that just assumed you were promoting a third way politician rather than reading what you wrote.

IMO the problem is that Hillary is an actual real Third Way politician by all accounts. If that were not true I doubt there would be this much commotion or guilt by association being deployed by such people.

[RiverLover]

33. Awesome post!! You make me proud to be a Democrat :)

Thank You JD, in all your magnificent, leftie, liberal glory!!!

If FDR himself could read this, he'd be cheering you on too.

[locks]

38. Great post, thanks

You speak for me and many of us JDP

[Octafish]

41. Well said; and it needed to be said.

Thank you, JDPriestly. You are the Freeper's nightmare.

[dissentient]

44. There does seem to be an asshole wing here, as well as a goose-stepping sheeple wing who

want everyone to pledge to vote for their favorite candidate. If you don't, then they will throw a temper tantrum like a child, and start the name calling.
My response is - Fuck 'em, bullies and morons can be easily dismissed. They always fail the logic and intelligence test. That is my attitude, anyhow. Bullies are all over the internet, and they all are cowards at heart.

[fadedrose]

123. ++++

[Rex]

299. Pay no attention to them, they are 'leaving' because they cannot control this place.

Even their old guard came out to try and look like their numbers are great. Pure desperation on there part...and the 'leaving' shit...hohohohoho like anyone would believe that!

Troll never 'leave' they just stay and bash liberals on a progressive website.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Courtesy of Juror #1

On Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

*This* steaming pile of excellence:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6333460

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This whole thread is weird but now this poster jumps in to take it from "weird" to "personal attack" and "call out of another poster when he could have just voiced his concerns in the thread that he's concerned about"

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 8, 2015, 04:24 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I voted to leave it alone but it's clear my boy, trumad, has Manny shook!!!
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is an entirely inappropriate post, to me, at least. Manny, what were you thinking? Sorry, this needs to be hidden.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Rex asked "What brought this on!?" and Manny answered with a link to the thread that brought this on. Is the alerter even reading before clicking "alert"?
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes, this entire thread is weird, but why did you feel the need to rush to the aid of another poster, especially if you're not quite sure what is going on there? Just leave it alone and let the affected parties sort it out (or have it locked) for themselves. This whole place has gotten out of hand recently with the sniping and such. It is hard to tell which side anyone is on anymore. In my opinion, this place has become a drag of late. Maybe after the primary and purge we can get back to normal around here.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Manny is a fucking pain in the ass with an over inflated ego. At some point he may actually admit he can be wrong. That being said, no need to hide.

Thank yo

[djean111]

62. I would like to thank Juror #1 for my laugh of the day - I sincerely truly

doubt that Manny was "shook". Such a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration from some folks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. My "Hide" bar is very high...

Manny-trumad is shaping up to be better than Mayweather-Pacquiao or Ali- Frazier for old timers.

[Oilwellian]

143. Trumad is no match for Manny

Anyone who has to resort to Freeperville for their material is knot two bryte.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. The world's most famous pornographer made an analogy about opinions and body parts...

The world's most famous pornographer made an analogy about opinions, body parts, and the nexus between the two but since this is the Sabbath I won't quote it verbatim.

[dissentient]

150. LOL. I don't know who "trumad" is, but I know who Manny is

and how popular his Op's are, he usually gets hundreds of recommendations every time he posts a thread. I would say that is no contest.

[msanthrope]

217. You don't know trumad. Only Sid surpasses him. nt

[Rex]

72. You can tell it is pure projection too?

Open books with a 48 font are harder to read imo.

[Half-Century Man]

48. I wonder about you being a freeper

as often as I wonder about which fish will conquer Mt. Everest first.

[Sienna86]

51. We need to work to get the best candidate we can.

Is HRC the best candidate we can get?

Total support for your post.

[I hate liars]

59. I'm 61 and I'm not a Freeper, either...

JDP: You stated your case eloquently, and I agree with it 100%. I don't recognize the liberal country I grew up in. Hillary is better than the worst alternatives in the GOP, but why should we settle for better than the worst, if it takes us further down the rathole?

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

[cui bono]

191. Yep. And welcome to DU!

[BumRushDaShow]

61. "We need a president with the ability to use the bully pulpit"

But on DU, "the bully pulpit = "JustWords™".

[Scuba]

65. Great post, great thread. Thanks JDPriestly. Just today I was accused of wanting Scott Walker ...

... to be President, the "logic" being that I don't think Hillary is far enough to the left so I must want Walker.

The favorite's fan base is becoming unhinged now that her character and history are being exposed.

[dissentient]

84. I have seen similar. Some of these fan club types just seem very confused

In their minds, Hillary has already run, and then won the nomination. Someone needs to tell them neither part is true yet.

[Doctor_J]

78. I am not a left-leaning independent either. I've voted straight D since 1978

but that is another epithet around DU used by those who favor corporate solutions to the country's problems. Unlike you, I detest Heritage Care and believe it to be the final nail in the coffin of the party of which I've been a spiritual member since 1960 and a voting member since 1978. I let my star lapse for the first time since stars became available. It's unrecognizable here these days.

The "sensible centrists" have killed the party. They have made it in their own preferred image with HRC and BHO leading the "triangulation", with the result that it's on its death bed. And, like all of those with no moral compass, their inclination is to, rather than fix it, either claim it's actually just fine or blame someone else for the situation. But, hey, posting 75 different OPs about the Selma march keeps one's name on the greatest page.

I only have fifteen years or so left, and will probably try to escape the US for most of those. The fight's been lost, but I can say I did my best.

[grasswire]

169. well said...

....although I wish you wouldn't "escape" but stay and do what you can. There is still work that can be done.

[Jamastiene]

80. You have to laugh them off.

When it comes down to it, it is best to laugh them off. When people with less than 100 posts call other DUers who have been here since practically the beginning a FReeper or troll, it's time to start laughing at them for the assholes they are.

[mother earth]

85. I echo all of your concerns & also have been a lifelong dem, and feel like you, enough is

enough with Clintons & Bushes. It's time to take this country left for real, progressive values & with a true progressive candidate.
K & R

[SixString]

95. DU Rec.

[stupidicus]

97. well said sir

as political creatures, I'd say we share an origin and outlook. and I couldn't agree more -- the bully pulpit has been underused for too long.

I've often wondered about the age diff role in the conflicts around here, and what the average age is in the two groups.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. Ma'am.

She's a ma'am. I think that's still an allowable word.

Someone let me know how the alert goes if I happen to survive, thanks.

[stupidicus]

128. thanks dude

a wrong assumption on my part for sure.

let it stay as a lesson for others...

[MannyGoldstein]

131. That's "dudess"

Just teasing!

[stupidicus]

146. lol

ya got me...

I had thought after posting that "surely not..."

[rhett o rick]

243. I think there is a function here that automatically alerts on all your posts.

[Divernan]

260. Have the Third Wayers marketed a "Manny Alert APP"?

I myself have a Manny Rec app. I'm grateful for DUers like Manny and JDPriestly who have the fortitude to keep up the good fight on DU.

[LiberalArkie]

100. I totally agree. But I don't think we need Hillary. I think there are some real young people out

there. I see that the Republicans are preening Asa Hutchinson (Arkansas Gov) to probably run in 2020. I believe he will be cast as "Moderate". The Republicans will put another throw-away candidate out there in 16 like the McCain/Romney. They were never supposed to win. The R's figured there was no way out of the financial disaster and did not want to be own it.

[Demeter]

102. JD, I've seen your excellent posts for a decade, I think

What moron is calling you a Freeper? I need to add to my Ignore List.

[dissentient]

105. Wow, already 77 rec's with a bullet and almost near the top of the greatest page...

Congrats.

I think you win DU for the day with this response.

[Cleita]

109. Never thought you were.

Hold tight to your beliefs no matter what the trolls throw at you.

[Hekate]

111. ?? Of course you're not a freeper. DU, especially GD, has gotten very very strange of late

Just shine it on.

[L0oniX]

114. I AM NOT A TROLL!

[elfin]

120. Yes, yes, yes

We do need a primary with substantive debate with thoughtful prospects to differentiate our choice from that of the programmed and Koch purchased opposition.

No primary forums = no attention to sanity, giving the wingers WAY more attention than they already receive.

[Thinkingabout]

122. Name calling happens too often, if you have something important to say do so

But the calling names lowers the status of the argument.

[democrank]

126. Ignore the foolishness and just stay true to your values.

I`m almost 70 and I`m not a Freeper either. I share your beliefs and concerns and I accept that there are right-wing Democrats, moderate Democrats, liberal/progressive Democrats. There are some Democrats who talk like Republicans and there are some Democrats who talk like old-fashioned Democrats. It`s a big tent and you`ll always find me over in the old-fashioned Democrat corner. I like it over here because I don`t have to talk like a Republican when it comes to issues like torture. I can happily support unions and same-sex marriage. I can say how much I respect teachers and hope for reform of our "justice" system. I`m proud to say I really fit in over here in the old-fashioned Democrat corner and my stress level is lower because I don`t have to constantly come up with reasons to support the corporate wing.

Like you, I`m hoping for fresh ideas and new ways of behaving that don`t require our candidates to genuflect before the Golden Dollar Shrine. I actually want to see candidates riding shotgun in a garbage truck, visiting the floor moppers on the midnight shift, talking to some children at a homeless shelter or visiting an unemployment line. Not for the photo ops....not in some well-choreographed pit stop on the way to a $10,000 dollar-a-plate dinner....but as a real, unscripted human being.

What irks me the most is this notion that our nominee has to move "left" to satisfy the base and get some money, then move "center-right" where the rest of the country is to get the votes. What`s wrong with our candidates telling us what they honestly stand for and sticking with it? Finding homes for children wandering the streets waiting for the shelter doors to open is "leftist" now? The right to marry the person you love is "leftist"? Collective bargaining rights for workers is "leftist"? Don`t be fooled. Corporate media has corrupted our message and we have too few people willing to uncorrupt it. That`s why I love to listen to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. For me, it`s not about one of them becoming our nominee, it`s about the sheer joy of listening to genuine truth tellers. They both know it takes a village, not a gated neighborhood.

[JDPriestly]

135. Thanks.

[grasswire]

172. well said nt

[840high]

127. k/r

[RufusTFirefly]

129. You're a Freeper! No, YOU'RE a Freeper!

[MannyGoldstein]

130. If you need to tell people you're not a Freeper...

then you're obviously a Freeper.

Regards,

TWM

[BeanMusical]

132. You sure are not.

And I really enjoy reading your posts. Anyone calling you a freeper or a troll is an idiot.

[bluedigger]

136. I wasn't, actually, but you lost me with your first point.

Being 71 is not a good defense.

[blackspade]

138. Who the fuck accused you of being a freeper?!

That makes no damn sense!

I 100% agree with your post. Carry on!

[obxhead]

140. Well said.

I'm done with the shared monarchy of the Bushintons.

[Autumn]

145. Something is wrong here. It was at 108 rec, I hit rec and it went up to 112 recs

I must be a Freeper who can add recs whenever I want. Never noticed that before. Must be why Manny's Ops get so many recs.

[dissentient]

147. lol. Or, your rec is worth 4 rec's of an average duer.

[Autumn]

149. Must be, or it's a gift given to only certain DUers.

[JDPriestly]

153. No. That means that between the time someone else recommended and you did, several

people recommended the thread. Happens to me very often. Probably because I recommend a lot of threads. I have even asked myself whether maybe I am exceeding my quota.

Anyway, thanks for reading my post.

There has been so much discussion about FREEPERS and Republicans taking over DU that I thought I should defend myself in advance of any specific accusation.

One way to silence new ideas is to accuse them of being the ideas of the "enemy." That's how it works in totalitarian societies. That is how new ideas, dissent if you will, is silenced.

We don't want to go that way on DU.

I will not, absolutely will not, censor or hide a post simply because I disagree with the political view it expresses. I like the concept that when we express ideas, we should be ready to defend them in an open discussion.

I learn from most of the posts on DU, but very often I have learned the most from posts with which I disagree.

That is because when I have to disagree with a post or defend an idea I have expressed in responding to a post with a different viewpoint, I develop my ability to think and to express myself.

Posts that accuse others of being Republicans, etc. are a waste of bandwidth unless they explain why that criticism is justified.

[Blue_In_AK]

152. In case I haven't told you this before,

I love you, JDPriestly.

[JDPriestly]

156. Thanks. I'm just sorry I can't thank all the DUers who have posted in my support here.

It would take all day.

Love all of you. And you too, Blue in AK.

[Revanchist]

157. Sure your not

[WillyT]

158. Not A Chance In Hell !!!

What doofus suggested THAT !!!

[madfloridian]

159. Agreed, but I am learning that I must be.

Hope it is not contagious.

[Thespian2]

160. Thank you

for saying what I think but could never express so well. I am an old man who has seen far too much misery, especially since the days of Saint Raygun.

[JohnnyRingo]

161. Jeb's campaign slogan: "Fool Me Three Times...".

Although I'm not nearly as confident that Ms Warren will come anywhere near hiring a campaign adviser, I too am a child of the 50s & 60s, and I seem to remember when even republicans put the welfare of the country above petty politics.

Like you, I'm also not a Hillary fan by quite a bit, but watching otherwise loyal democrats man the shovels along with mud slinging republicans is a bit irksome to me as a lifelong 2nd gen democrat. I don't recall seeing anything like that in my lifetime. Perhaps it's a phenomenon of the internet age.

Though experience tells me that people who predict a candidate this early date are always wrong, if it is indeed Ms Clinton I'll donate as much of my time and money as I can afford to her effort. Sometimes I wonder if many here will do the same though.

[dflprincess]

163. That thought has certainly never crossed my mind

and we know whoever said that knows it's not true. They're just casting "asparagus".

[Bonobo]

164. Nope, Freepers are generally stupid dorks that try to stifle debate.

Ooops.

[NYC Liberal]

165. I agree 100%. What you've eloquently stated is exactly why I support

Hillary Rodham Clinton. She is a great liberal Democrat and will make a great president. She has the support of some other very terrific progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Howard Dean, and I know President Obama also thinks highly of her. If we want a real liberal who fights for We The People, who has taken on the right time and time again, who champions the working class, who supports women's rights, who will continue the great work done by President Obama, then Hillary should be our candidate.

I wish all candidates in the primary well and I will support whomever our fellow Democrats choose. Hopefully that will be Hillary Clinton but we will see.

But I say it is time to pause, to check our moral compasses and decide to follow a path that leads to a better life for us all of humans, starting with all of us Americans -- a life in which, without losing our individuality and individual freedom, we work together to improve the chances for the survival of the human race. That means listening to experts on the environment and making sure that we all benefit from the new, exciting technologies that we are developing. It means forming alliances with others in the world who believe in religious tolerance and freedom of ideas and speech. We need a new voice in the White House with a great deal of courage to forge down this path. We need a president with the ability to use the bully pulpit the president has to improve the world.

This sums up exactly why I support Hillary Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

176. I don't see in Hillary what you see in her. Could you post speeches, etc. that support

your statement about her.

My mind is set for the moment. But I am never so set in my thinking that I cannot be persuaded to change my mind. I think that is part of being liberal.

I just don't see Hillary as the person who can put the liberal or progressive agenda into motion.

I would be delighted to be persuaded otherwise.

My choice is to draft Elizabeth Warren. There may be other good candidates out there, perhaps someone we haven't paid much attention to has the fire and the understanding to make a good candidate.

[NYC Liberal]

179. Here are some:

It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.

We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.

• Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  
• Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  
• Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
  
• Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
  
• Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  
• Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  
• Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
  
• Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  
• Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  
• Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  
• Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
  
• Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  
• Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
  
• Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
  
• Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
  
• Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
  
• Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
  
• Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.

• Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
  
• Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
  
• Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
  
• Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  
• Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  
• Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
  
• Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
  
• Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
  
• Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
  
• Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
  
• Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
  
• Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)

Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.

If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.

She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”

• Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  
• Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  
• Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  
• Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  
• Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  
• Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  
• Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  
• Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)

• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
  
• Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  
• Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
  
• Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
  
• Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
  
• Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
  
• Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
  
• Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
  
• Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
  
• Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
  
• Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
  
• Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)

Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.

I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.

VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

[JDPriestly]

281. And she supports the TPP, voted for the Iraq War, is married to

the man who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the Telecommunications Act which has resulted in extremely conservative dominance in our media, the "reform" of welfare which requires mothers of young children to go out and work at low-paying jobs if not other jobs can be found, NAFTA, increasing privatization of civil service jobs and did not successfully support increased membership in labor unions.

[redstatebluegirl]

166. Thank you so much!

I am so with you!

[onecent]

167. Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wow

K & R

[Aerows]

171. I took some time to think about this, my friend

and here is the conclusion I came to.

We have a strong community here, and anything that disrupts it is to the delight of those who seek to destroy our community.

Let it go. No one believes that, and you are a treasure. Anyone that thinks differently can answer to pretty much half of DU and we aren't to be underestimated.

Take faith in that we love you, and appreciate your contributions.

[hay rick]

178. K&R

[johnnyreb]

180. I agree.

[hrmjustin]

181. I apologize to you and other DUers for being apart of that thread.

If I want respect as a Hillary supporter respect must be given in return.

[BlueCaliDem]

205. I don't understand why that's such a hard concept for so many on DU?

And yet it is.

Good point, hrmjustin.

[hrmjustin]

239. Indeed!

[Number23]

212. Are you talking about trumad's thread as the "other" thread?

I said in that thread that I don't find those types of posts helpful.

But the admins' well documented slowness with dealing with divisive blatantly anti-Dem poo flingers is what's leading to that type of thing. A lot of people are unhappy with DU being a springboard for some of the most deranged, ignorant crap being thrown at Democrats from the "left" and are saying so.

I don't have a problem with this OP. It's a bit needlessly melodramatic but that's not a big deal. One of the few threads here in a while that's gotten as many recs as the weekly kitty thread.

[cui bono]

214. Do you think that the "centrists" fling poo?

I can give you some examples... ODS, Putin-lover, Paulbot, haters, etc... and that's not directed at a possible presidential candidate, but at DUers themselves. And now the "left" are freepers apparently.

I appreciate you saying you don't find that type of post helpful, but everything you said in your second paragraph is the same thing that people on the left feel. It's not as if the "centrists" are innocent.

Everyone on DU should stop the team mentality and personality mentality and just deal with the issues. Supposedly we all want the same thing, so let's figure out how to get it. There is a difference in what the "left" wants and the "centrists" want economically and in what constitutes government overreach, so let's just discuss that without it being about the people. And if someone doesn't have anything to say about the policies/issues, then they don't need to just name call and insult another DUer.

If we all stuck to discussing policy in a manner that one would use if you were having a conversation in real life with a colleague, we'd all be better for it.

[hrmjustin]

238. Yes I mean his thread.

[Number23]

263. I still think it's in response to some real anger that alot feel here

Soo many people have left DU and with excellent reason. Not tombstoned, left. Including a boatload of posters of color.

I don't blame the remaining Dems and Dem supporters standing up one bit.

[hrmjustin]

264. I don't either and I understand the anger but I feel i should have stepped back from it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

182. K, R, Bookmarking.

[whereisjustice]

183. I don't understand why people believe competition is good except in politics, Clinton vs. Bush...

like Burger King vs. Wendy's. Two franchises that don't give a shit about their customers or the quality of their product beyond what is needed to market their brand for the personal profit of a small number investors.

Either way, the general public is being served up crap on a platter.

[awoke_in_2003]

185. amen. nt

[emsimon33]

187. You are NOT alone

I have been a Democratic activist since I fist became aware of our political system and have volunteered for Democratic candidates since the age of 9.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON! And for the reasons you have mentioned. The problem with having a Democratic president is that Democrats are demonized if they disagree with him (or her). If a Republican president was supporting TPP and the other "trade" agreements, we would be marching in the streets.

I DO NOT TRUST HILLARY CLINTON. She is a Neoliberal and a Hawk.

I have heard more and more fierce Democrats, ones who volunteer, say they will neither work for or vote for Hillary Clinton. If the Democrat nominee loses the fierce activists, then that candidate will be in big trouble, no matter how much influence they have sold to billionaires, corporations, and Wall Street!

I am tired of "Democrats" are just as much whores as the Republicans.

[Joe Johns]

188. freep.com

The website of.....The Detroit Free Press. Check it out!

[cui bono]

193. JD, you are one of the best things about DU!

You are always level headed and informative and your posts are so well thought out and well reasoned.

Anyone who would call you a freeper has lost the plot entirely.

[hfojvt]

203. then why did you list Ike with all the Democrats?

Hmmmm.

Plus, you are like old enough to be my mom.

I always assumed you were a guy

[Art_from_Ark]

275. You realize that Ike was not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, right?

He was courted by both Democrats and Republicans to be their presidential candidate, eventually choosing, of course, the Republicans. But Ike was for several progressive policies, like being against forced segregation and supporting a living wage for workers, and he did warn us about the encroaching military-industrial complex.

And to his credit, Ike didn't have a particularly high opinion of his vice president, although he probably had to swallow his pride when his grandson married Tricky Dick's daughter Julie.

[JDPriestly]

282. Eisenhower was definitely a Republican. I wore my Stevenson

Last edited Tue Mar 10, 2015, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

pin proudly. But Eisenhower compared to today's Republicans looks like a Democrat. (Misstatement corrected on revision.) One of the big problems I have with Eisenhower's administration is his national security obsession. It is understandable considering his experiences in WWII, but he appointed the Dulles brothers to posts that I think they should not have been appointed to and oversaw an exaggerated response to the threat of Communism that may actually have strengthened the hold the communists had over Eastern Europe and the appeal Communism had in some parts of the world. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was moderate about the role of government in supporting a healthy economy. It was during his presidency that much of our network of interstate highways was built. I remember that clearly. I also remember community redevelopment programs during his time.

That's why I included him on the list. You are right that he was a Republican. But he was not the sort of rigid, right-wing Republican that dominates the Republican Party today.

Please do not misunderstand that I condemn all intelligence work by our government. Our government needs to know and analyze what is going on in the world. But I think that Truman and Eisenhower made mistakes in beginning our intelligence services. Of course, every president makes mistakes as do we all.

[Art_from_Ark]

294. Didn't you mean to say

that today's Republicans make Eisenhower look like a Democrat?

[JDPriestly]

295. Yes. Thanks. I'll edit my post.

[sabrina 1]

206. I'm still trying to figure out why we should care what Freepers think, or say, or do? How is that

in any way supposed to influence US?

I could not care less what Right Wingers think about anything. I am not and have never been influenced in any way by their opinions.

But I get the impression we are supposed to be getting some kind of message about how Freepers feel about our Dem candidates. I don't.

They do hate Elizabeth Warren! Should I care? My mind is made up by ME, not some bunch of far right morons.

[neverforget]

208. I work with enough right wing nutjobs to know what Freepers/conservatives/Republicans think.

I certainly don't need to be reminded of that here.

[akbacchus_BC]

209. Oh no, who would think you are a freeper? You have always

voiced your opinion and you are no freeper! I have always admired your opinion.

I do not post much as am in Canada and I have my own opinion of this sell out Harper. US politics is hard to understand and if you do not live in the US, it is hard to comment.

Please continue to opine your ideas no matter who goes against you.

[blkmusclmachine]

213. Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose.

[closeupready]

259. Yes, completely agree. But that's just what Republicans want.

Along with their financiers.

[AngryOldDem]

215. Huge K&R for your post.

Especially this:

We need to allow more Democrats to put their hats in the ring. If Hillary wins in a contested race, she will be the stronger for it. But to hand her the nomination without testing her against other candidates is a big mistake. And I personally, for the many reasons I have stated on DU, do not want her in the White House. Two terms for the Clintons was enough. Three terms for the Bushes was far, far, far too much.

This states my feelings EXACTLY. I'm tired of the "heir presumptive" attitude this country seems to have toward both the Clintons and the Bushes. Enough, already!

[marym625]

218. K&R!

Thank you for this post.

I truly do not understand the push for HRC to be the only candidate. I don't understand the lack of true debate. I don't understand how someone would not want a primary.

More so, I don't understand why it is, if someone here disagrees with someone else, the first accusation is freeper or RW. Just a cheap shot

[Enthusiast]

219. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations! It has them!

This is a wonderful post, JDPriestly. This is the sort of post we need more of.

I knew good and well that you were no Freeper. Your words are the words of honesty. This is clear to most of us.

Paid sockpuppets say nasty things. Their job is to mislead us and muddy the water. They use lies and subterfuge. They work on behalf of preserving the status quo.

[treestar]

222. I am getting sick of this blind

"Hillary is a tool of Wall Street" crap. What proof is there of that? I keep seeing this over and over and it's clearly meant as a "criticism" with no there, there. Hillary is a liberal. Quit pretending she is not. And this "wall street" accusation if it can be called that says nothing.

Are we supposed to live in a pre-Wall street Agrarian economy? Of course there is going to be a stock market and of course we want it to be healthy. And how is "Wall Street" monolithic? There are tons of businesses of all sizes. There are anti-trust laws to stop the bigger and more successful ones from cutting off all opportunity to others.

People who think flinging "Wall Street" is a negative to most voters are fooling themselves. Communists are not going to win any major seats or elections, if any.

the ones who play the victim to the hilt here all claim to be on the left, not the right.

[TBF]

227. ^ this right here really doesn't help

You may be a conservative dem - you may even call yourself "liberal".

But many of us DON'T care about the stock market. Or may care only so much as we've had to invest for our retirement given the reality that we live in a capitalistic society. It doesn't mean we like it. It doesn't mean we don't want a better life for our children.

As far as "anti-trust laws" do some research on Glass-Steagall and who it benefited when Bill Clinton repealed portions of it. HINT: it wasn't low income folks who benefited.

Instead of slamming the left why don't you prove to us that Hillary is "a liberal". Give us facts. Convince us.

The reason you're jamming her down our throats is that you're wrong, but I'm willing to give you the chance to prove otherwise.

And as far as socialists/communists winning seats we've done it on the west coast so I'm hopeful we can do more. After all, it's not like the major parties are addressing the needs of the majority of the people. More like serving the top 5% or so. Again, if you can prove me wrong go ahead - but I don't think you have the evidence to do so.

[treestar]

272. I am a liberal and I am sick of being told I am not

If you have retirement in it, FFS you want it to crash? How absurd! You only care if you have a good retirement? After that it can crash for all you care? Good grief. THAT's right wing. Your children won't have a better life if there's a Depression.

It is so stupid to wish the collapse of "Wall Street." That's wishing of us all to collapse and who would fund the social safety net then?

[TBF]

274. Personally I would like to see

A peaceful transition to a resource based economy. Unfortunately that's not likely to happen.

[rhett o rick]

244. HRC may be liberal for social issues but it ends there. nm

[JDPriestly]

250. Like many words and expressions in English, the meaning of the term "Wall Street"

as used in the phrase, "Occupy Wall Street" and in much of the media does not just refer to the buildings on Wall Street in which traders and brokers and hedge fund managers buy, sell, short and long stocks but also to the network of wealthy people and the concentration of wealth at the top of our economic order that pretty much, as you come close to admitting, controls our country, maybe our world and certainly the majority of our political leaders in both parties.

Wall Street is, as you point out, important in our society. That's why I want society to decide how it does its business. Read the latest reports on the questions about whether Goldman Sachs is passing its stress test. I'm sure that somehow it will get some drone in the government or the Fed to pass it through just to "save the economy" but the fact will remain that we need a government that oversees Wall Street, not a Wall Street that governs its overseers. We need honestly in our business community. We need fair pay for working people. We need a clean environment. We need to protect our planet and the people and other living creatures on it. Wall Street, those mostly concerned with money and making more and more of it for themselves do not have the balanced view of life that qualifies them to make a lot of the decisions they are making.

Hillary Clinton owes too much to too many rich people. Nothing wrong with rich people or being rich. It is just that our future should not be decided to the extent it is by people who have the narrow experience of a life of opulence, of plenty and who do not understand the complex challenges the rest of us face or the necessity of protecting our environment and insuring our well being and opportunities.

Hillary Clinton receives financial backing from the likes of Walmart and Goldman Sachs, no doubt Citibank, etc. We need a candidate who will be independent of those huge economic forces and be able to govern them as well as the rest of us.

I could go on and on, but I hope I have explained to you what the words "Wall Street" symbolize and why we need not to destroy Wall Street but to control it with our laws and make sure those laws help us build a better society instead of just enriching the most greedy among us.

[treestar]

273. The government does regulate the stock market

There is an entire agency devoted to it. I've never seen where Hillary is against any of that, like a real conservative or libertarian would be. Does Hillary ever say she wants to repeal the Anti-Trust acts or the various Securities Acts.

What rich people does Hillary owe, and how is she using her position for that purpose? No, she's not. She's got enough sense to do what is best for the economy. People disagreeing on that is fine, but not making her intentions corrupt because they say so. People aren't corrupt because we don't agree with them.

About any candidate is going to get financial backing from all sorts of people or businesses. That Hillary is especially unusual is absurd.

[JDPriestly]

283. Bill Clinton signed the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

That was a major contributing factor to the 2008 crash.

We have laws that are supposed to regulate our financial markets, but they are insufficient and have not been enforced well enough to insure that our economy is healthy and that wealth is dispersed in our society in a fair, effective way that primarily compensates work, not primarily gambling on the stock market.

[NYC_SKP]

256. Modern economic practices a la Clinton and Bush not sustainable.

Yes, we need a strong market and strong businesses, and we need diversity among them and more regulation and protection of small ones against large ones and domestic ones against global ones.

Bill Clinton threw that all away, he's a modernist short-term, "look at this wonderful economy" (until it inevitably tanks) kind of guy, Clinton is the same.

It's trickle down without using those exact words.

We need to undo the reforms seen under Clinton and Bush-- the economy might slow but slow and steady is better, right now the measure of a strong economy is growth, and growth by definition is unsustainable.

Clinton, thus, supports unsustainability.

Our children and grandchildren will suffer.

[whereisjustice]

287. Hillary is a tool of Wall Street. She's not a liberal. Here is her todo list

1. send US jobs to Mexico
2. send US jobs to Asia
3. Hire H1Bs from Asia
4. Give $300,000 speeches about how awful it is being a woman in America
5. Send even more jobs to India, China, Mexico because these are dirt cheap places where it REALLY is awful for women.
6. Ignore the police state, the Wall Street fraud, the disparity, poverty and injustice and racial prejudice rotting the US from the inside out.
7. Ignore failing infrastructure, bankrupt energy policy, global warming
8. Defend Israel against any reasonable criticism.
9. Avoid getting her hands dirty with real problems destroying working families and the lower classes.
10. After proving herself worthy to Wall Street, complete her ascension to the throne.

[tularetom]

223. Ignore them, they're desperate

People are starting to remember what they didn't like about the Clinton years and they don't want to go through that again.

And the Anointed One is seeing inevitability starting to slip away and panic is setting in. Apparently a whole crew of minions was dispatched to the weekend pundit circuit to whine about the vast right wing conspiracy.

And they're accusing anybody who points out that where there's smoke there often is fire of parroting republican memes.

That was one of the most righteous rants I've read in some time. It won't make ms Clinton anymore progressive but it will make progressives more careful about their choices.

[Diclotican]

228. JDPriestly

JDPriestly

I have never seen you as a right winger, or a frepper - rather the opposite - but then again I have not excactly got to know you as good as I could either I guess..

And hopefully it wil be a forcefull democratic leader who win the election next year - who is able to fight back the conservative madness who is inflicting so mutch pain and suffering not just in the US, but all over the world...

Diclotican

[abelenkpe]

230. It's unfortunate that you needed to explain that

Your position seems no different from Robert Reichs but is one attacked on this board as being right wing. What's happened to DU?

[steve2470]

231. I've never seen you as a freeper, only as a good progressive nt

[samsingh]

234. kick

[NYC_SKP]

240. "I do not think she should be the Democratic candidate." Hear, Hear!!!

You speak for me. Thank you.

[workinclasszero]

245. Senator Warren is not running

Senator Warren IS NOT RUNNING and will back Hillary Clinton 100% if she becomes the nominee.

[NYC_SKP]

246. Wrong. Warren only said she hopes that Hillary runs. Also, Hillary is not running.

Neither Warren nor Clinton have declared that they are running.

Thus, neither at this time are running.

If, however, Clinton decides to declare and go through with this self-indulgent act, it will be the end of democracy.

Either she'll lose because she's so weak, or she'll win and help the wealthy and entitled strengthen their grip on the rest of us.

Lose-lose.

[JDPriestly]

308. Bernie Sanders has been appearing on some TV shows and at the National Press Club

recently.

He does not have the style and veneer that most presidential candidates have. He doesn't have the slicked back hair and big grin of a Romney or a Ronald Reagan or the finesse of Obama, but boy, he sure can answer questions on just about any topic and with heart and amazing intelligence too. He knows history and can debate just about any fool on the TV.

I think he would make an amazingly good president.

I really like Elizabeth Warren, but if she really doesn't want to run, Bernie will have my support I think at this point.

He is the most thoughtful and knowledgeable of the candidates. And he is the one (for those who are religious, especially the Christian fundamentalists) with the strongest grounding in the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Bernie's commitment to his values and his ability to translate those values into policy choices just might win him a lot of conservative votes. I know that the cynical politicians, the Kochs, etc. will think that is an outlandish idea. But I grew up among Christian fundamentalists. I bet Bernie can quote the Bible with the best, and his values are definitely derived from whatever social or religious education he received as a child. Even if he was raised an atheist, I can hear the religion in everything he says.

[cui bono]

257. Link?

[KoKo]

248. No time to figure out what's going on...but Thanks for the well stated OP!

Always enjoy your well thought out posts here on DU.

[ChiciB1]

249. Hey There... Was Extremely Busy Over Weekend, Many TECH Problems!

Actually that I even decided to turn my PC on is a small miracle. Felt like every piece of "tech" equipment I own was in REVOLT. And not on subject, but it was because I was trying to "sync" my Beats Pill to iphone and Mac! Do I have any hair left???

Anyway JD, I KNOW you're no FREEPER, we think soooooo much alike and if for no other reason that I post, it's your last paragraph that is my VERY OWN words spoken many times too! Even O'Malley is to the left of Hillary, but if I'm not mistaken didn't Big Dog get rid of Glass/Stiegel??? And of course NAFTA that I was under the impression was going to be "fixed" in some way to benefit our country! Well we fell for that too!

And NOW I hear this AM that 47 Repuke Senators wrote Iran telling them NOT to support the Obama Administration's negotiations BECAUSE, he won't be in office forever and THEY, the Congress control treaties!

STOP THIS WRECK... I WANT OFF! I can't play the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton game again, but don't know what to do!!

OH and the REAL RAW REALITY this AM... FOX NEWS -- Most Trusted News Station as per Quinnipiac (sp)!



And a plethora of FOUR letter words!

[Maedhros]

251. Job One right now is wrestling control of the Party away from the corporatists.

That starts by rejecting the candidate that the leadership is trying to foist upon us via political coup de main.

The forces behind Hillary's candidacy will not give up without a fight, though. Hence the barrage of talking points, some a bit more pointed than others:

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
"SCOTUS appointments are all that matter."
"You want (random vile Republican) to win."
"You're repeating Republican talking points."

What it boils down to is that there are many liberals and progressives that have weighed the pros and cons of Hillary's candidacy and have decided that she would not be a good President. When the arguments put forth in favor of Hillary are rejected, some pro-Hillary folks resort to insults and name calling. It ain't no thing. It's just evidence that their arguments are hollow.

[JDPriestly]

284. +1000.

[Maedhros]

286. It's also worthwhile to note that for many people, "politics" is not about issues -

it's about people. Discussion of policy and ideals falls on deaf ears which only understand Us vs. Them. These are the people most likely to default to name-calling.

[Myrina]

252. Very well stated. Thank you.

[pansypoo53219]

261. democrats sold their souls to compete in the reagan twisted media landscape they are LOCKED IN.

the media plays by ONLY GOP rules of 'conventional wisDUMB and until that pendulum WHACKS the tivee GNEWZ back to sanity. hillary has to play by 'conventional' rules. Dean tried to break free, but he said media break up BEFORE the election + the gnewz had to destroy him.

WHY ELSE did the gnewz refuse to look TO THE CLINTON ECONOMY & RAISING taxes to FIX the crisis. REAGAN.and that nitwit grover.

[JonLP24]

266. I know of one known former Freeper that regularly posts here

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)

as far as that, I don't even have evidence regarding anybody else but it largely doesn't matter. I'm more interested in discussing the merits of policy & prefer honesty, it is lies I can't work with.

There are few DUers I notice with opinions that they are obviously further right than everyone who regularly gives their opinion and I couldn't care less if they are a Freeper it is the right wing views that bug me. My interests in politics have largely been focus on improving society which seems to be left behind in embracing whatever the status quo way to politically achieve something. What I mean is the policies I believe in are based in the belief is they are simply the right thing to do based on my understanding of them. If that brings me to the left & if I'm right than that means the truth is on our side which should be embraced. I don't ignore or overlook something that hurts Democrats, I prefer them to push the policies I believe are simply the right thing to do. The labels don't matter but I unexpectedly always become very partisan on election day. I can't control it, but I root heavily for blue seats. Every other day, I focus on policy.

[KoKo]

271. Recommend...! Policy....it so often gets lost....

In Participating in the Battle we Lose Why we Fought in the first place...

Which is the point...given the marketing and disinfo that are launched against more analytical discussion on the Internet these days.

Ahh....the PROMISE of the INTERNET. It didn't last long before it became "Cable News" with Commercials to sidetrack us and OPS from Special Interests to Sidetrack genuine Discussion.

We Will Survive....one way or the other but still sad to see.

[Eleanors38]

267. I hear you. Try being a lefty who supports 2A. You'll be called more!

[Utopian Leftist]

268. Thank you JDPriestly for posting on this board.

I often pause to read your comments and have learned many things because of doing so.

You are, as usual, so right on. Democrats have fallen into the battered wife syndrome where we are running back to the Devil we know, just because . . . well, hey, it's familiar to us. Right now we have the opportunity to choose any Democrat, any leftist even, to be President. So we run back to the Clintons? To someone (Hillary) who will share all of Obama's faults (his absolute deafness to the economic needs of the average working citizen, chief among them), whose platform was essentially exactly the same as Obama's? Really, Hillary Clinton is the best we can do? People, wake up! This coming decade may be our last chance to save the planet from economic and environmental collapse. We CANNOT afford another Republican-lite™ in Democrat's clothing.

[bvar22]

270. DURec for JD.

One of those who make DU a better place.




You will know them by their WORKS.

[peacebird]

276. I would never have thought of you as a freeper.

But then I have read and enjoyed your posts for many years.....

[MFM008]

279. I will support our nominee

no matter who it is.

[RobertEarl]

285. Only a freeper

Would go to freeperville and read that freeper crap.

And then come here and repost some of it.

You, JD are no freeper! You're actually one of the best of DU.

[Violet_Crumble]

296. I've never wondered that about you even though we strongly disagree on the I/P issue...

I don't even wonder if your misguided on that one issue, because in that case I know and don't wonder. But even with that disagreement I've always thought of you as someone I'd agree with pretty much 100% if I didn't read any of yr I/P related posts.

While there's a few DUers I've seen over the years who would fall into the Australian RW political camp (it's not as far right as in the US) if they were transplanted here, you'd still be sitting with me over on the left hand side of things

[JDPriestly]

297. Sorry. I'm tired. What is the I/P issue?

[Violet_Crumble]

298. Israel/Palestine...

Sorry about the casual use of acronyms

[JDPriestly]

310. Thanks. I have a different view on that because I lived in Europe for quite a number of years

and understand why the anti-semitism there makes Israel a necessity.

Somehow that situation has to be worked out peacefully.

[Ernesto]

306. I'm so NOT "wondering"

crickets...........

[ladyVet]

307. Thank you for posting this, JD.

It makes me sad to see how Hillary Clinton is suddenly the only way we'll win against the pukes. I don't believe it, and I suspect some big money is paid to get people to keep posting about her to convince us she's our only hope.

I'll have to see what the primaries do, who ends up winning. One thing I've decided for myself is that I'm no longer going to vote for the lesser of two evils. If all Hillary can show is that she's not as bad as a puke, then I'm going to vote Green party.

[hifiguy]

309. Kick and REC!!

Great rant, JD!