Personally, I think if we vote the same people back into office

[MannyGoldstein]

we'll get better results than we got before.

No, really

Good night.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. What's that definition about "insanity," again?!?!

[Man from Pickens]

28. voting for Hillary Clinton and expecting to get Democratic policies out of that

didn't Einstein complain about her?

[brooklynite]

38. Democratic policies like progressive taxation, a social safety net, civil rights...

...all of which she on record supporting and has voted for?

[Man from Pickens]

51. We don't have any of those things

Progressive taxation? You seen the tax rate wealthy individuals and corporations pay?

Social safety net? You seen what a person gets on food stamps these days? Or the COLA adjustment to SS? Or the state of pensions?

Civil rights? Like in Ferguson?

Clinton is either silent on these issues or on the wrong side of them.

[brooklynite]

54. Clinton voted against the Bush tax cuts...she voted for the elimination of the Bush tax cuts

She's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-SS and Medicare privatization...

As for Ferguson:

At her speech at the Nexenta OpenSDx Summit in San Francisco, she said “we cannot ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system.” And then she did what few of her prominent fellow white Democrats have done in the context of Ferguson–she acknowledged the well-known statistics that show that blacks get treated differently than whites when it comes to everything from traffic stops to sentencing. But rather than just listing the statistics, she got personal by asking whites to put themselves in the shoes of black Americans:

Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers instead of the other way around. If white offenders received prison sentences ten percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes. If a third of all white men – just look at this room and take one-third – went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans in so many of the communities in which they live.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/29/hillary-clinton-was-surprisingly-bold-on-ferguson/

Since no candidate is going to deliver 100% of what you want, I assume you think they're all Republican light?

[raven mad]

55. LOL!

That was the first thought that hit my poor, beleaguered brain as well, blkmusicmachine!

[Thinkingabout]

2. Electing Democrats would be a good start. No more trashing Democrats

Such as Landrieu in Louisiana and a far RW was elected in her place.

[sabrina 1]

8. That's for sure, Dems who adhere to Dem principles. Just provide them and voters will

elect them.

They DID elect Progressive Dems in two Mid Terms now, so it's obvious when voters have someone to vote FOR they will.

[ND-Dem]

3. oh i agree.

[Fumesucker]

4. Practice makes perfect...

[zappaman]

5. I'd vote for Obama again!

Would you?

[obxhead]

36. nope

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. Pelosi and Reid PROVE your point!

Clearly, voting the same people
in time after time provides
better results!

No sense looking backwards!
We need to look forward!

[merrily]

7. The Catch 22 is the lack of better alternatives.

I live in Boston. I could vote for Godzilla and it would not make a bit of difference to anyone but me. But, if I lived in a purple district/city/county, my only hopes would be better Democrats or changing the entire system--ballot access, bought and paid for media, debate rules, the whole nine yards.

Neither of those things is going to happen in one or two election cycles. One has to be in it for the long haul and committed to part with time, money and effort.

I will never vote for any Republican or any rightist third party and I can't take the Greens seriously, at least not on the national level. (Shadow cabinet?) On the local level, they don't even run many people; and I live in Jill Stein's state.

So, while I don't necessarily disagree with you, I don't necessarily have any great solutions for 2016, either.

[geek tragedy]

9. Didn't Ted Kennedy's opponents make that claim? nt

[merrily]

10. All "change" candidates make similar claims.

Thing is, Ted Kennedy did a lot for Massachusetts and for individual constituents. When he died, almost everyone had some story to tell of how Kennedy had helped him or her. And the money, health care, etc. he brought to the state were formidable.

Did he have faults? You bet. He admitted some of them himself, like holding up national health care. But, he made real, positive differences in the lives of Massachusetts citizens. So, his opponents could call for change as much as they wanted. No one bought.

[KMOD]

11. reç because it made me laugh

but then I felt bad about laughing, because it's so true.

[NanceGreggs]

12. Personally ...

... I think if people keep rec'ing the same tired same old/same old from some posters, the results will be the same as they always are.

[KMOD]

13. Oh, c'mon

this was a tame thread that all should agree with.

All of you should let your bygones be bygones. So much (and no I'm not pointing at you, lest another spat break out) seems to be personal.

Manny's point in this thread, is pretty universal I would think.

[NanceGreggs]

14. Manny's "point" ...

... is always the same. He just keeps trying to find ways to make it seem "different".

[KMOD]

16. I disagree.

You all have to get past your grievances you've had for years.

It seems like many of you hold grudges based on past conversations and can never more past them.

Yes, I have seen posts from both sides that seem to want to antagonize the other side.

Yet this is a very tame thread, that I find it hard to believe anyone could disagree with the message.

Can't you just judge this thread for what it's worth? For the here and now?

[NanceGreggs]

17. Uh, actually, no ...

... I can't.

The OP's "message" is invariably the same message.

[KMOD]

18. OK, I can't force any of you to see eye to eye

It's too bad, because deep down, you all want the same thing.

We all want the same thing.

You are all just to busy fighting to even realize it.

[NanceGreggs]

21. I'm not "busy" fighting anything on this site.

It's pointless.

And to say that everyone here "wants the same thing" is incredibly naive.

[KMOD]

24. OK

I'm naïve.

[grasswire]

32. but at least you're not bitter

that's refreshing.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. Right

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Prose so trenchant, yet redolent of trenchfoot

Rarely have I been cut down to size with such skill.

[emulatorloo]

15. Fuck off, Karl Rove

Karl Rove is a lying mother-fucker, stop being his tool.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

23. JURY:

On Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Fuck off, Karl Rove
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6384400

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

name calling sucks and should not be tolerated here, it's a crappy debate technique

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:46 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter: No. It's tolerated all of the time here at DU. It may (or may not) be a "crappy debate technique," but it is not against the TOS.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't know if this is a joke or not, and although it will likely get hidden, Manny's schtick is so wearying that I vote leave.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Tool not cool

[Maedhros]

35. Look - a child.

/ignore.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. ...

[lovemydog]

19. The only democrats you profess to like

are either dead or not running for anything. Good night.

[NanceGreggs]

22. ...

[SidDithers]

49. /thread...nt

Sid

[liberal_at_heart]

20. Keep giving them hell Manny.

[KMOD]

25. Lame, and not helpful

just sayin'

[liberal_at_heart]

26. oh well.

[KMOD]

27. I still love you though.

[spanone]

29. i wish, but Obama's not running.

[DonCoquixote]

30. That is exactly why the game is rigged

because the Rich want the same results.

[still_one]

31. Manny, why don't you run for public office? You can start at the local level and move up

[RobertEarl]

33. mild anarchy?

The idea that no one is guaranteed office -- like a monarchy -- means we have a mild form of anarchy, meaning we replace our rulers at our will.

If we will, and they count the votes as cast.

But what we have now is a system gliding along on the same people in office year after year after year. It's practically guaranteed that once in office you have it for as long as you want.

And now it - democracy-- is pretty well non-existent with the same old rulers.

[DeSwiss]

34. K&R

- Then this should be your motto Manny. It'll cover a multitude of sins over a much longer period of time....

[Martin Eden]

37. Which Office?

... and which "same" people?

(wouldn't want to misconstrue your OP)

[Bluenorthwest]

39. So you are saying that anyone currently holding office should not be considered?

When did you make such a drastic change in your point of view?

[maxrandb]

41. You're damn right

if we vote these crazy ass tea-bagging nutjobs back into office, we will definitely get the same results.

Vote Democratic Party straight down the line!

There is at least one major and profound difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

When Dems have the majority, our "whackjobs" are locked up in the attic like a crazy aunt. When Repukes have control, their "whackjobs" get Committee Chairmanships.

[DanTex]

43. Let's hope we get another Dem. Because otherwise things will be much worse.

[TheNutcracker]

44. Personally, I think that is who both parties put on the ticket. Corporate candidates!

[MineralMan]

45. So, you think my district shouldn't re-elect Betty McCollum?

Really? Sounds like you're over-generalizing here. How about Keith Ellison's district in Minnesota? Or Bernie Sander? Should we throw them all out?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to give your suggestion a pass.

[Blue_Adept]

46. Damn straight!

No way in hell am I voting for Elizabeth Warren again in '16!

[B Calm]

47. So you want term limits?

[NCTraveler]

48. I kind of like Sanders, Warren, Boxer, Pelosi, and the like.

I don't like some others, mostly all republicans. Thankfully, your thoughts don't work at the executive level as we will be guaranteed a new president in the upcoming elections. I personally think we should vote the same people who show success right back into office.

[Spazito]

52. Absolutely!

Just think if the American voters hadn't voted for FDR FOUR times, things would certainly have been different and the results may well have been worse and not better!

Really.

[MisterP]

53. that'll learn 'em! and if you complain, you're at fault if an R passes a policy that the D endorsed!