All you fools supporting Sanders were probably supporting Nader in 2000

[woolldog]

How'd that turn out for the country? If Nader doesn't siphon away votes from Gore, Gore wins Florida and the Presidency. Millions of lives, trillions of dollars down the drain, hundreds of extreme right wing judges appointed and the extreme left hasn't learned a damn thing since then.

Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat that can win in 2016. We are better off rallying around her early.

[djean111]

1. Oh, go fool yourself.

[marym625]

5. Does a fool need to fool themselves?

Or is it even possible? The poster of the OP is ridiculously ignorant of facts

[smokey nj]

83. Only when the bear is Catholic and the Pope shits in the woods.

[marym625]

89. LMAO!

Good one!

[FourScore]

112. First of all - NADER RAN AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE.

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

How else do you think it drew votes AWAY from Gore in the general? Only 1 person/party can run in a general election for President.

Secondly - Gore WON the election, as proven by a consortium of major newspaper (NYT's, WaPo and others) who went to FL and counted the votes. Bush was merely selected.

[SusanCalvin]

211. Yep.

Nader was a side issue, and was NOT why Gore "lost."

[former9thward]

235. You are correct in your first point but wrong in the second.

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote


A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

The Florida Recount of 2000

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/

[FourScore]

247. Wow! That's some selective editing. Here's the entire explanation (Gore won!)

The myth that Bush would have won had the recount proceeded dates back to a recount conducted by a consortium of newspapers that examined the ballots. The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.” But the newspapers decided that this was not how the counties would have actually tabulated the votes. By the variable standards they would have used, the papers reported, Bush would have prevailed. Thus the national news reported a slew of headlines asserting that Bush would have prevailed.

The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

The newspapers’ error has to be understood in the context of the time. After Bush prevailed in the recount, there was massive pressure to retroactively justify the processes that led to his victory, in the general spirit of restoring confidence in the system. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, that pressure intensified to the point where it was commonly opined that the newspapers ought to entirely cancel the recount (scheduled to come out in November 2001, at the height of the rally-around-Bush moment). In that atmosphere, the newspapers grasped for an interpretation that would both reassure most Americans of what they wanted to believe and avoid placing themselves in opposition to a powerful and bipartisan rallying around Bush that was then at its apogee.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

Al Gore, not George Bush, should be sitting in the White House today as the newly elected president of the United States, two new independent probes of the disputed Florida election contest have confirmed.

The first survey, conducted on behalf of the Washington Post, shows that Mr Gore had a nearly three-to-one majority among 56,000 Florida voters whose November 7 ballot papers were discounted because they contained more than one punched hole.

The second and separate survey, conducted on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, shows that Mr Gore had a majority of 682 votes among the discounted "dimpled" ballots in Palm Beach county.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

Even your own links make some reference to this.

[former9thward]

270. Selective editing?

I did not edit anything. I copy and pasted the newspaper statements. You said the newspaper consortium declared Gore the winner. That is false. They did the opposite. You thought you could put that statement into a post and no one would check. The idea that newspapers lied about this to "restore confidence in the system" is laughable and CT land. Those newspapers all editorially supported Gore.

[woolldog]

272. Thank you for your factchecking. nt

[marym625]

306. You need to fact check

Especially before posting something like this.

And what is posing as fact in the reply you replied to, is not

[marym625]

305. That's opinion

And it's not correct.

I am actually pretty shocked.

Please do some more research. I will link a couple. Things but I am not rehashing all the arguments from 2000. The fact is that the election was stolen.

There are two documentaries, one is free, and a book in these links. There are many more sources.

http://www.gregpalast.com/vultures-and-vote-rustlers-watch-the-trailer-get-the-film/

http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

http://www.diggers.org/freecitynews/_disc1/0000001e.htm


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/06/uselections2000.usa

http://www.documentary24.com/presidential-election-2000-how-bush-stole-the-white-house--161/

http://www.gregpalast.com/ballotbandits/

I hope you read and watch. As I said, I am not going to rehash an almost 15 year old argument when the facts speak for themselves

[former9thward]

392. Its not an opinion.

All of the sites you posted are agenda griven websites.

[marym625]

393. wow!

Whatever. I'm sure you read and watched everything already.

Any agenda of those sites is truth.

[Exilednight]

436. I have one question...,

What makes you believe that anyone who voted for Nader would have voted at all if Nader had not run?

Nader, as a percentage of votes received by a candidate, had the largest percentage of first time voters. I had voted in the three previous elections, but had every intention of sitting it out until Nader decided to run. Gore was going to win my state regardless.

[former9thward]

439. I have no idea who Nader voters would have voted for if he was not on the ballot.

I voted for Nader but my state at the time (IL) was going for Gore anyway. As far as FL is concerned people conveniently forget that Pat Buchanan was on the ballot also. If he had not been on the ballot most of his votes would have gone to Bush.

[FourScore]

440. LOL! YOU'RE calling The Guardian "agenda driven"? A simple search of your DU posts shows

who and what is "agenda driven".

No journal, but TONS of posts setting off a shit storm.

[former9thward]

441. Having a journal is a DU requirement now?

Did not know that. Please list the posts that do not pass your standards.

[cui bono]

473. Since when is reporting the truth considered an "agenda"?

The Guardian is agenda driven?

Greg Palast is agenda driven?

[former9thward]

480. So the NYT and Washington Post, etc.

all of whom editorially supported Gore, lied about the results? They recounted all the ballots and declared Bush had won. I posted the links. All these newspapers got together in a conspiracy to lie? Not one reporter was willing to tell the "truth"? Did the Guardian recount the ballots? Nope. Did Palast recount the ballots? Nope.

[cui bono]

483. iirc, the NYT stated that Gore won after all the ballots had been counted.

It wasn't immediate. There must be a link to it in the other poster's response to you.

So you still think the Guardian has an agenda? And Greg Palast? What are those agendas?

[former9thward]

484. No they said the opposite.

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

They counted the ballots. Did the Guardian or Palast?

[cui bono]

486. The NYT didn't count the ballots a consortium did.

And you left this out from the article at your link:

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

And that doesn't even count the disenfranchised voters. Thousands of names purged before elections.

It was election fraud that lost Florida, not Nader.

[Stargleamer]

398. Nevetheless, you were quite wrong

as the NYT mag article clearly states, Al Gore would have been President had the overvotes and undervotes been properly examined, as they should have been and would have been for legitimate votes, those that clearly indicate the intent of the voter.

Also, Bernie's not running as a 3rd party candidate, unlike Nader.

[former9thward]

438. No, the New York Times said Bush had won.

They were part of the newspaper group that recounted the ballots. I posted their link.

[FourScore]

442. How's the pay in your line of work? n/t

[former9thward]

443. Good, how is yours?

[Stargleamer]

448. His quote was from a subsequent article in 2012.. .

in The New York Magazine not the New York Times. I erred in putting referring to it at the NYT Magazine which is a separate entity. In any case, if both overvotes and undervotes were considered for legitimate votes, Al Gore would have won.

I do agree that Nader should not have run in Florida, and maybe not even nationwide.

[Major Hogwash]

403. That changes nothing.

Which is why 99% of us have moved on.

Actually, it is probably closer to 99.99999% because there are only about 4 or 5 individuals here at DU still yammering on about 2000!

[FourScore]

437. Why are you in this thread then? The OP is about the 2000 election.

If you think allowing false narratives to thrive here on DU in the guise of "moving on" is preferable to challenging the false narrative, then that is just sad. It's just so...FoxNews-like.

But seriously, why even join the discussion if you and 99.999999% have moved on?

[Major Hogwash]

461. To point out how hopeless your argument is.

It mattered at one time, then it didn't.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

238. YEP!

[marym625]

2. You are calling the wrong people fools

You only need look in the mirror.

You obviously know nothing of the facts from the 2000 presidential election or how it was stolen.

[woolldog]

17. sorry but someone needs to be the voice of reason.

the only reason the election was capable of being stolen was because of Nader siphoning away Gore votes in Florida. That's a fact, ma'am.

You mean well, but Sanders has no chance and will hurt the party.

[marym625]

25. no, the reason the election was stolen

Was hundreds of thousands of votes never counted, a shady election official and a Supreme Court decision that never should have been made or accepted.

Your argument is complete and total bullshit.

Additionally, Sanders is running in the Democratic primary. So even if your ignorant argument held water, which it does not, it has zero to do with this election.

Get a clue

[woolldog]

51. I understand Sanders is only running for the primary.

But its the same mentality. There's a complete lack of pragmatism on the far left. It's why we lost in 2000 because people voted with their hearts instead of their heads, and it's the same issue with Clinton and Sanders. Sanders cannot win a general election. Therefore there is no point in him running in the primary and forcing Clinton to go on the record on controversial issues and move left before she's running against a Republican. It's stupid and will hurt all of us. This is just a vanity run by Sanders.

[MrMickeysMom]

59. So, THAT'S why we "lost" in 2000? Really, now...

Where have YOU been, wool? How old were you in 2000? If you were only a teen, then you're forgiven.

But, you have a little history to review to understand what the SCOTUS stepped in and did. If you want to be mad, then maybe you should direct this at the Senate who approved the balance of that radical court.

Get your head back on!

[Gothmog]

206. I was very involved in 2000 and SCOTUS only had a chance to step in due to Nader's stupidity

I was very involved in 2000. If the Florida election was not so close, then the SCOTUS could not step in and steal the election. Nader put the Florida election into doubt by (a) taking money from Karl Rove and the GOP and (b) pushing the lie that there were was no difference between bush and Al Gore.

[stone space]

430. In Florida in 2000, the average Black Man had 3/5's of a vote, ...

...to the nearest fifth, due to their votes being stolen via felony disenfranchisement.

The 2000 Presidential Election was stolen by disenfranchisement.

Voters were threatened with prison terms if they tried to vote.

[MrMickeysMom]

467. I'm more likely to put the blame there...

This Nader association gets us totally away from what happened not only in Florida, but particularly what happened there, NOT due to Ralph Nader.

[marym625]

67. jesus christ on a cheese sandwich!

Where the fuck do you live? You cannot be serious with this.

Your reasons are too ridiculous to even address any further. Do your homework. Post again when you know something more than Hillary talking points.

[barbtries]

76. we didn't lose in 2000. nt

[woolldog]

90. yes, yes we did:

[barbtries]

97. disagree.

the presidency was given to bush. it was wrong. it was not the will of the electorate. he didn't win it, and gore did not lose except at the supreme court.

[woolldog]

115. The only reason the SC got to rule on it was because it was so close.

The only reason it was so close was because of Nader.

[Jackpine Radical]

163. RThe reason it appeared to be so close was because of all the stolen votes.

Jews for Buchanan.

Butterfly ballots.

Hanging chads.

Brooks Brothers rioters.

Jesus.

[marym625]

173. and don't forget 100s of thousands of votes not counted

From 53% black voters.

Additionally, hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters who couldn't vote.

God damn I can't believe anyone is blaming Nadar!

[Jackpine Radical]

189. Yeah. I omitted the "Felons List" too.

[marym625]

194. Sabrina1 got them

Isn't it just amazing what some people actually believe?

[Cal Carpenter]

279. See, there is apparently some parallel universe fantasy land wherein

everyone who voted Nader 'would have' voted for Gore had Nader not run. A surprising number of DUers seem to reside there.

[marym625]

285. Fantasy lands can be fun

When you are a child. Not such a great idea when you are an adult.

Yes, there are

[davidpdx]

412. Well the OP is acting like a child

so I guess he/she will be stuck there.

[markpkessinger]

407. And if Gore had managed even to carry his home state . . .

. . . the margin would have been sufficient to avoid winding up in the courts. Sorry, much as I like Al Gore, he was NOT a good candidate!

[Gothmog]

208. Al Gore lost because Nader's stupidity and making the election in Florida to be close enough

The only way that the SCOTUS as able to rule for Bush in bush v. Gore was due to the fact that Nader cost Gore enough votes to make the election close

[sabrina 1]

123. Bernie is running to win. And we intend to help him do that. Nader had ZERO to do with the

theft of the 2000 election, and those who still try to push that falsehood, are defending the thieves who corrupted the electoral system in this country. Why would you want to defend them?


Five felons on the SC stole that election for Bush when all their other dirty tricks failed to stop Gore from winning, which he did.

[marym625]

193. +1000

And don't forget about brother Jeb and Kathryn Harris. Even typing her name makes me cringe

[Pooka Fey]

423. +1000

[freedom fighter jh]

138. Why can Sanders not win a general election?

Sanders gets lots of votes from Republicans in Vermont. Why not around the country?

When people find out what Sanders is about, they love him, regardless of party.

[Ms. Toad]

142. So we should just crown her queen.

That's not how a democracy works.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. I trust HRC is politically adroit enough to navigate through these waters.

I support anybody who wants to run in our primaries as long as he or she is committed to supporting the winner of it in a general election.

[Cal33]

248. Yes. That's the only sensible thing for Democrats to do. Have our differences in the

beginning, when it's safe to do so, but unite again at the end. That is sticking together!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

250. I am in L A... I expect she will do very well here...

Folks will be surprised how well she performs with Latinos...I talk to them a lot and she is very popular with them.

[KingCharlemagne]

324. The nomination is usally sewn up long before the CA primary. Would be really cool though

if it came down to a head-to-head Sanders-Clinton prizefight in CA. Man, that would just be the most awesome event in the history of American democracy since I've been alive (1959).

ETA: Well, second most cool after Watergate. That will be hard to top!

[Buns_of_Fire]

203. "forcing Clinton to go on the record..."

You say that like it's a bad thing. ALL candidates, on both sides, should be "on the record."

Perhaps you like surprises a lot more than I do. Granted, they have their place, but not in an election for national office. Most of the surprises that come out of that scenario are usually not of the pleasant kind.

Either a candidate has the courage of their convictions or they don't. And if they don't, I'm perfectly happy to let someone else vote for them -- but it ain't gonna be me.

[Cal33]

253. That attitude of yours could very well also mean helping the GOP cheaters to win. They

have always been cheating - and nationwide - in the past 40 years. You really sound like
you're willing to slice your own throat.

I'm not particularly fond of Hillary either, but I'd rather have her keeping the Democratic
Party half dead until the next Progressive Democrat comes along, than have a GOP
president kill democracy in our country altogether. Don't you see that is exactly what
you would be doing?

[DebJ]

394. +1000!!! AND isn't part of the purpose of the primary to

have a discussion of the issues and to format a platform based upon voter's preferences?

There is more to the Presidential campaign than just picking a winner.

You know, I don't have money to support any candidates this cycle. But the more I read on DU, the more I think I'm going
to try to sell some old stuff I need to dispose of rather than give it away, just so I can give up some Bernie Bucks. Whether
he will win or can win is not the point right now.... only time will reveal that.... how many thought Obama had zero chance
early on? The point is WE NEED THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE ISSUES.

[Warren DeMontague]

313. "Forcing Clinton to go on the record on controversial issues" - aha.

Your problem, i think, is that you have bought into this beltway conventional bullshit wisdom which says that actual brave leadership is BAD.

It's the same genuis thinking that led Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to run a 1990s "tough on drugs" script when confronted about medical marijuana.

News Flash: The world has changed. It is a new century. The American People WANT real leadership.

If someone is afraid to go on the record about "controversial issues", THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

[markpkessinger]

406. Amen, Warren!

Couldn't have said it better!

[stone space]

427. Excuse me, but how can Sanders force Clinton to do anything?

Therefore there is no point in him running in the primary and forcing Clinton to go on the record on controversial issues and move left before she's running against a Republican. It's stupid and will hurt all of us.

Are you assuming that Clinton has no mind of her own?

And how is anybody hurt by Clinton going on record with her political views in an election?

Don't we all want to hear the views of the candidates?

[CherokeeDem]

165. The reason so many votes could be manipulated...

in Florida was due to the margin being so close. The Nader vote in Florida did impact the election. Had the percentage been wider between Gore and Bush, it would have been impossible to steal enough votes to change the outcome.

[marym625]

168. no. wrong. But thanks for playing

[CherokeeDem]

207. Were you in Florida during the 2000 election?

I was. I was Chairperson for the largest coordinated campaign office for Gore in Miami-Dade County.... on the DEC, and directly involved in the recount.

If the margin had not been as close as it was, the Republicans could not have manipulated the vote.

Believe what you choose... but it is you who is wrong.

By the way.... I'm not playing.... this is too serious for play and for snotty comments.

[marym625]

214. I didn't have to be in Florida to know what happened.

Good for you for being involved. That's awesome.

We're on a post that is complete bullshit. I have put the reasons that it is just that in multiple replies. So my "snotty comment" was due to the fact I didn't feel like repeating myself, again.

You can believe what you want but Nader being in the election or not, what was done to steal the election was illegal and wrong. You don't excuse it by blaming Nader.

So, believe what you choose... but it is you who is wrong. 

[CherokeeDem]

281. I know exactly what happened....

You are clearly missing the point.....

Stop calling me wrong... you can disagree with me all you wish, but the "you're wrong' comments are unnecessary. I was with the attorneys who fought the case... I know what happened. If you can not understand the math involved, I'm sorry. Had Gore won a few more percentage points, the Republicans could not have pulled off what they did. Yes, they did steal the election but since you know everything you tell me how they pulled it off. Do you know???

[Pooka Fey]

287. OMG You were there! I can't help thinking where we'd be today

if Gore and the American people weren't cheated in 2000. And the entire world has paid the price of that election theft.

When I think about all that has happened since 2001.


I keep bringing up the election thefts in FL in 2000 and OH in 2004. This issue, of election fraud, has to be faced.

[CherokeeDem]

307. It was the most unbelievable time of my life...

From the Gore rally on Miami Beach on Election Eve until after the Supreme Court Decision... I don't think I slept. I should write it all down while I still remember all the details but then, I doubt I'll ever forget a moment of it.

I can tell you this... remember when the Supreme Court stopped the counting abruptly that Saturday afternoon? The most brilliant young attorney I've ever met was arguing in court for votes to be released in Jacksonville. These were ballots where Gore had been punched in and written in on the same ballot. These were legal ballots in Florida... intent of the voter the key issue. Questions being asked by the judge indicated he was about to rule the ballots counted.... before he could, the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

Those ballots to my knowlege are likely still stored in Jacksonville.... there were thousands of them.

It was a horrible time....

[Pooka Fey]

414. My experience of observing the 2007 presidential election in FR

OMG WOW. I'm just letting that sink in for a moment.

When you're a presidential candidate in a close race, it sure helps to have your brother as governor of the state that will decide the outcome, to pull the right strings and such. I won't even start in on Papa Bush. I'm an American with French residency. Every time somebody tells me "Well you Americans elected Bush TWICE", I always correct that factual error.

I've watched my husband vote in France. French voters have to register before elections, and on election day they go to their polling place - elections are always held on Sunday. The voter signs in, and is given a white envelope of 4x6 cards with one candidate's name printed on a corresponding card, and a blue envelope in which to place their choice.

You go into a private booth to select your choice. There is nothing to mark. You select the card with your candidate's name, place it in the blue envelope, seal it, and then go to place your vote into a large plexiglass box while 2 election observers watch you put it in. The cards that are not selected - I honestly don't remember what happens to them, I think they just go in trash.

You then sign out of the polling place, and you're done. It all goes very quickly - no lines. All votes are hand counted at the end of the day with a very strict observation by the municipality. Some voters register a "protest" vote, that is they don't place a choice in the blue envelope. This used to be counted, but not anymore. If the vote card is mangled, or marked, or if there are 2 cards in the envelope, the vote is invalidated.

Of course, this system only works because on the presidential election day, a voter only votes for president - there are no other ballot measures to decide. The advantage is that there is very little chance of election shenanigans, no machines to break down, no lines, and the voting continues even if there is a power outage. It is critical that we Americans reform our voting system.

Your perspective and first hand knowledge of FL 2000 would make a rip-roaring book. If you ever decide to write it down, I bet a publisher would jump on that. I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

[marym625]

288. Oh my lord!

You just said it. They stole the election.

If someone leaves their door wide open, they may be more likely to be robbed. But if they're robbed, they're still robbed because someone went in and robbed them.

And if all the votes that J. Bush hadn't disenfranchised, prior to the fiasco that then happened, had been counted, and if hundreds of thousands of voters hadn't been disenfranchised and unable to vote, it wouldn't have been as close.

There were too many variables to blame it on Nader.

[CherokeeDem]

303. I never said they didn't steal the election....

I said they were able to steal the election because the percentage was so minor between Gore and Bush that if Nader had not been in the race those votes would likely go to Gore, increase his percentage and make it more difficult for the Repubs to steal enough votes.

Believe me, I know all about the disenfranchisement of voters. My phone rang 24 hours a day with upset voters. I can tell you the day the Repubs decided to steal it... it was an early voting day when hundreds of members of the black community in Miami marched to the government center to vote early. That crowd scared the shit out of the Repubs and the plot began....

I frankly don't care if you believe anything I say... Nader was as much to blame as the Republicans and I despise him for it.

[marym625]

311. I believe everything you say

I have not doubted anything at all. I just won't blame Nader for the Republican thievery.

As you said, they decided to steal the election on an early voting day. It wouldn't have mattered if there were a ton of votes for Nader or not. They stopped the count when it felt appropriate for them and Bush had a false lead.

[KingCharlemagne]

330. Rubbish. More Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader. So trying to pin 2000 on Nader rather

than blaming Gore himself for his shittily-run campaign is sniveling after the fact and belies history.

[CherokeeDem]

341. Not Rubbish.....

Shitty campaign or not.... Gore won.... Nader affected the outcome.... and the Republicans stole the election.

Check your history... no sniveling here....

[Pooka Fey]

416. +1000

[eridani]

345. So, what did your local party do about all the Dem voters voting for Bush? n/t

[Pooka Fey]

421. Even dumb people are free to choose their candidate in a democracy, that's how it works

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

It sounds like you're blaming the FL Democratic party and the people that worked for Al Gore for the terrible election 2000 outcome - if so, this post is not helpful - to put it as politely as possible.

Let's not tear ourselves up over past bad outcomes, let's work together to build a better future.

[eridani]

471. I'm saying why more angst over Dems who voted for Nader compared to--

--the much larger number of Dems who voted for Bush?

[CherokeeDem]

428. Seriously?

We did what any political party would do during a primary.... we worked hard to get our candidate elected. To blame the local party for those who decided to vote against their self-interest is disingenuous.

There are times when I think I experienced another election in 2000 from some on this board. Gore's campaign stumbled on occasion, but he won that election. I have stated before I blame the Republicans and Nader.

You blame whomever you choose...

[eridani]

470. And the small number of Dems who voted for Nader--

--trumps the much larger number of Dems who voted for Bush?

[CherokeeDem]

479. I would love to see the statistics

giving the number of Democrats in Florida who defected and voted for Bush. There may be some registered Dems in the northern part of the state who did, but to my knowledge it was not a significant number in Miami-Dade.

Once again... there were numerous factors leading to the decision in 2000 and the votes for Nader did not single-handedly cost Gore the election. The votes he siphoned away, however, contributed to the situation and made it easier for the theft to occur.

I have stated I find Nader partially to blame. I believe his motives to run in 2000, unlike Bernie Sanders now, ws ego-driven and he relished the role of spoiler. While I question whether Sanders can win, I believe he entered this race to guarantee issues that need to be discussed are brought to the table.

[eridani]

487. Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

12.8 Dems voted for Bush for every Dem that voted for Nader. If you insist on including Nader as a factor, he belongs at the very bottom of the list.

[Jamastiene]

48. Actually, it was Pat Buchanan that siphoned a lot of the votes in Florida.

Or have you forgotten the Butterfly Ballot? Even HE said something about it. He knew he should not have gotten that many votes in some of the strongly minority precincts.

That election was stolen AND it was a general election AND Nader was running in an entirely different party. This is the primaries we are talking about for 2016. It isn't going to be Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton and some Republican. It's the primaries; a completely different set of circumstances. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[L0oniX]

53. Don't worry. He'll only hurt Hillary by telling the truth to power.

[notadmblnd]

88. Sanders will not siphon votes away from HRC

since both are running as Dems (Nader was the green party nominee and that is how he siphoned votes) so only one of them will be the Democratic nominee. Your statement is ridiculous.

[woolldog]

96. he will weaken our only viable candidate.

whether it happens in the primary on in the general is irrelevant. the effect will be the same.

[notadmblnd]

98. Bullshit. One or the other will be the nominee

I plan on voting for which ever Dem that happens to be.

[LiberalArkie]

108. Bernie may be able to move HRC some to the left, But I doubt it.

Both her and Bill were bought and paid for a long time ago when he was AG of Arkansas.

[jwirr]

239. Exactly how is he going to weaken her?

[AtomicKitten]

309. If a primary would weaken her, she's not viable. This isn't the Special Olympics.

[DebJ]

396. BINGO!!!!! BEST rebuttal! n/t

[smirkymonkey]

434. +1000

[Chan790]

323. If Hillary Clinton is our only viable candidate...

we're not an electable party. That's not even a smear against Hillary though I am always good for those too...a party with a bench that shallow deserves to be laughed off the stage and pelted with shoes. Fortunately, despite what you think, it is not at-all true...we have a deeper bench than that with more than a few candidates that could viably contest in a general-election for the Presidency.

[DebJ]

395. Our candidate should be representative of our ideals and have the balls

to work for those ideals. Positive responses to Bernie will hopefully give Hillary the balls to do the same.

I'm an old fart, almost 60, but if I was a young person, I would like both what Bernie has to say,
AND the fact that he speaks honestly, and not with a forked tongue. The BS factor turns a lot
of young people away from politics.

My mind isn't made up yet, because I NEED the debates and other feedback before I decide.

But man talk like this makes me want to throw money I don't have at Bernie.

We need real debate, not platitudes and secrecy.

And compared to the Clown Car on the other side............

[markpkessinger]

405. How, exactly, will he weaken Hillary?

If he doesn't win the nomination, then in the general election, those who supported him in the primary will vote for Hillary. What else could we do?

Sorry, but if Hillary is the nominee, and she loses to ANY of the occupants of the Republican clown car, it will be because of Hillary, and no one else.

[Cal33]

267. You are forgetting something: There are Democrats (including here at DU) who openly state that

they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election, simply because they think so poorly of
her. If the general election should be close, even the relatively few Democrats who deliberately
stay away from voting for this reason could make a big difference and help the Republicans win.

I believe that nobody can do more damage to this country than another GOP president. The
GOP is doing its best to turn this nation into a dictatorship. We are already more than half-way
there!

But that wouldn't be Sanders' fault. If Sanders should lose to Hillary in the primaries, he would
most likely urge his supporters to vote for her in the general election. He knows how dangerous
it would be for us to have another Republican president in 2016!

[notadmblnd]

269. No, there's simply not enough of them

they've alienated immigrants, women, people of color along with glbt. Young people unless affluent, are mostly liberal. I think lots of conservatives, especially older (55-65) white men will like Sanders too.

The republicans throwing their hats in the ring, look like a bunch of clowns. I don't see the current car full winning squat.

[Cal33]

275. You're right. The GOP has nobody of presidential caliber to offer. Those intending to

run, indeed, are a bunch of clowns. But, wasn't GWB, Jr. unworthy of being president?
How did he win? Yes, election fraud on a huge scale, help from the Supreme Court,
lies from the 90% Republican-owned news media ..... and there's no lack of ignorant
dummies around.

One can never be too sure.

[notadmblnd]

286. Ah, but you must remember, the SC decided that one.

[Cal33]

411. Yes, that's what I said. And the same Supreme Court is still around this time.

[Change has come]

389. How many DUers won't vote for Clinton?

Two? Ten? I don't understand this fearfulness.

[SMC22307]

447. One? The same DUer who stayed home to eat waffles,

rather than voting for Landrieu, costing her the election. I think that's how the story goes...

[Voice for Peace]

110. Bernie is not running as an independent so he will not siphon votes.

rest assured. Enjoy Bernie. People are listening to him.

[Ms. Toad]

140. While I agree with your assessment of Nader's influence on the election,

Sanders is not running as a third party candidate, nor is this the general election. That makes your analogy pretty silly.

[Chan790]

322. Hillary is out of touch with the base...and will also hurt the party.

She's only worth voting for if Sanders moves her to a respectably not-centrist position...but I'm not supporting Bernie to move Clinton, I'm supporting Bernie because he's the candidate I want.

Forcing Hillary Clinton off the political stage permanently and into retirement is just chicken gravy and taters.

[eridani]

344. What about the hundreds of thousands of Dems voting for Bush?

They had nothing to do with it?

[sabrina 1]

383. Well, you are certainly not that voice .Gore Won The Election. The SC stole it for Bush

when all the other criminal attempts to steal it STILL could not overcome the Democrat.

Nader has zero to do with it.

Why are you covering for the SC felons who stole that election?

And if you're trying to get support for Hillary, I have a feeling if she finds out, she will ask to please, go support someone else.

[Ken Burch]

388. It can't hurt the primary to have a real debate in the contest for the nomnation

It can't help the party to make the primaries and convention into passion-free zone.

HRC is just another candidate-she gets no vote other Dems can't get.

[Ken Burch]

469. You're not being the voice of reason...you're being the sneer of snark

The project should be to get the people who've gone to third-parties over or back over to supporting this one.

The Democrats never needed to make the massive and traumatic rightward swing that caused the Nader phenomenon. We never needed to say "Go Cheney yourself" to leftwards people-we just needed to get better at fighting GOP attack politics.

With his "rapid response team" approach, El Perro Grande would've won solidly in '92 without throwing workers, involuntary non-workers, progressives and peace activists under the bus at all. He didn't have to run as The Great Capitulator. And there was no justification for Gore making the situation worse by running a largely "stay the course" campaign in 2000.

The Nader campaigns were the inevitable result of the DLC takeover-and the party's strategy of doing nothing creative or constructive in response, but simply attacking the people who backed Nader for what was largely a despair-based choice was never going to be effective in preventing Naderism.

If we want the loyalty of everyone in the non-conservative side of politics, we have to be loyal to the vast majority of progressive people, to make sure they always feel welcome and that they are always treated with respect.

Employing retroactive McCarthyism against former Nader supporters if they happen to be among Bernie's supporters(many if not most are too young to have participated in any of Nader's campaigns, btw), and modern-day McCarthyism by unjustly tying Bernie's campaign to Ralph's long-past efforts) serves no good purpose. We need dialogue, not disses.

You should focus on making a positive case for YOUR candidate.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. ...

[onecaliberal]

55. ^^That^^

[chknltl]

260. Yep, +1. nuff said

[smokey nj]

4. Someone didn't get the updated talking points.

[Jackpine Radical]

192. To be fair, though,

Hillary's email system doesn't seem to be working right, so the points weren't distributed to everyone.

[smokey nj]

197. .......

[Agschmid]

6. OP Fail.

This is a democracy not a cheerocracy. - Bring it On.

[gwheezie]

7. oh dear

Is this working for you?

[tridim]

8. PUMA is back.

Oh, yay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. And it is just May 2, 2015

Impressive

[cali]

93. ......

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Please delete your stupid and divisive post. n/t

[Agschmid]

26. This

[kestrel91316]

205. What Grumpy said.

[sufrommich]

10. Nader ran in the democratic primary?

There is no comparison and your OP is dumb.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. BTW...Bernie is running for the Democratic nomination...

Nader wasn't.

Apples and oranges.

[struggle4progress]

12. I really don't blame Nader for 2000. I think he became understandably bitter with age,

and I think he was idiotic to claim there's no difference between Ds and Rs. But I don't hold Nader responsible for the 2000 craziness

[Cheese Sandwich]

13. Ironic rec - A post so bad it's actually great for laughs

:salute:

[LiberalAndProud]

39. Oh hell. Why not? -nt

[Dragonfli]

243. Its good in the way a really low budget B movie can be, The "plan 9" of posts

[99th_Monkey]

14. Nader & Sanders are two very different situations. Not comparable at all.

HINT:Bernie's running in the PRIMARY Election, not the General Election.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. You left out the Dirty Hippie, Commie, and Red, parts of your post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Is this satire or a genuinely held belief? (nt)

[SusanCalvin]

212. That's what I was wondering.

That logo looks like 1984.

[Dragonfli]

245. I was thinking it looked more like N Korea /nt

[SusanCalvin]

273. You're right.

Very totalitarian, anyway. Hard to believe an actual supporter would pick that, but the world is full of curious things.

[cali]

18. only a fool would make such a stupid assumption

No way I supported Nader. Never have, never will.


fail, honeypie.

and grab a clue, Sanders is running in the Dem primary and has said over and over that he will not play the role of spoiler.

Unlike your candidate he has NEVER had any honesty issues or problems holding to his word.

Oh, and she's got a record of losing. We have to hope that she can do better if she's the nominee.

[woolldog]

68. wait a minute, honeypie

do you believe that Sanders can beat Hillary in the primary or not?

If you do believe that he can beat Hillary then he absolutely can be a "spoiler".

If you don't believe that he can beat Hillary, then he shouldn't be running, and it begs the question of why you are supporting a candidate that you admit is unelectable.

[cali]

82. I doubt it. so what, sweetpea?

and if she loses to Bernie, than that demonstrates she isn't fit to be the nominee. and sorry, but I support him because I think his ideas desperately need a broader audience and a wider debate.. the likes of you want a fucking coronation for HRC. That's just anti-democratic and dumb.

And if by some chance he beats HRC, he's obviously NOT A SPOILER. He's simply the winning candidate and the nominee.

This is pretty basic stuff.

[woolldog]

113. because, honeybun,

Hillary is in a weird position. She's not the best candidate, I admit, in terms of political savvy and retail political skills. But she is our only chance of winning.

The 2016 political winds do not favor democrats. I suspect if you look at the polling, Hillary does a lot better than the generic democrat on a presidential ballot:

She has the Clinton name brand and she is female/offers the prospect of an historic moment for the country. That is why she will win and why we need to protect her Let's not weaken our only viable candidate .

[cali]

120. that's opinion, not fact, cupcake.

I disagree about the political winds vis a vis the WH race.

Protect her? Like she's some delicate little flower? how sexist.

[woolldog]

155. she needs to be protected,

because she's not a very good politician.

We can agree to disagree on the political winds. Should be interesting to see what the polling (generic dem vs. the rep field and clinton v. rep field) looks like. That will tell us a lot about which one of us is right.

[cali]

170. I believe that a contested primary will strengthen her

and one that is uncontested will leave her unprepared for the GE. She needs to be in debates and mixing it up prior to facing the eventual repub nominee.

I agree she's not a natural politician, but I think she has her strengths. Oh, and I don't think it would be good for the dem party or its image if we ran an uncontested primary. In any case, it's academic.

I also think she has a strong campaign team, headed as it is, by Robby Mook.

[Babel_17]

283. A bold viewpoint

she needs to be protected,
because she's not a very good politician.

Were a Sanders supporter to float that proposition ...

[Chan790]

325. "she needs to be protected...because she's not a very good politician."

If you really believe that, then you shouldn't support her...and I daresay I sincerely doubt she'd want your support.

Running a candidate for President that needs to be protected from challenge and scrutiny is a recipe to get their ass handed to you by some self-assured halfwit like Ted Cruz.

I may despite Hillary Clinton but I'm pretty certain she doesn't need to be protected...and having worked with Sec. Clinton on a handful of public and humanitarian initiatives when she was my Senator, I suspect she'd be deeply offended by your assertion.

[DebJ]

397. How does a poor politician negotiate with world leaders and with Congress?

You are unselling me on Hillary with every message you type.

And my mind is not made up.

[B2G]

166. I'm getting hungry.

[HappyMe]

191. lol! Yeah.

I have some lemon quickbread here if you like.

[B2G]

199. How did you know lemon is my favorite??

[peacebird]

91. I believe Bernie will beat Hillary in the primary. I fail to see how that makes him a spoiler....

[woolldog]

100. Because he has no chance in hell of winning a general election.

That's how.

[peacebird]

109. Silly wabbit, wool over your eyes. I personally feel HRC has no chance in the general.

She is too polarizing.

[MissDeeds]

179. +1000 n/t

[cascadiance]

225. Harry Truman would feel closely aligned with Bernie Sander's ideology than Hillary and said this...

... many years back.

...
I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
...

Americans want real CHANGE to restore this country back to its democratic roots with a stronger middle class. They don't want fake Democrats any more, that only selectively try to champion a few of the Democratic Parties positions and avoid working on issues that allow the 1% to control it and our country. They thought that Obama's more nebulous "Hope and Change" campaign might give them that when given a choice between someone that made it sound like they wanted to keep the economic status quo in place.

Bernie will give them a real choice to get out and vote for. Republicans will have more motivation to vote if Hillary is the nominee.

[Exilednight]

101. Please learn the proper use of "begs the question".

It's hard to take someone serious when they can't even provide evidence to make their case, and makes it even harder when they misuse idioms.

[woolldog]

104. nothing wrong with the way I used the phrase.

thanks for playing tho. come back again.

[Exilednight]

111. You're THAT kid. I get it now.

[woolldog]

141. Oh god

I was using the phrase in a colloquial, not a formal logic, type of way.



I was a philosophy major, btw, and scored a near perfect score on the logic/analytical portion of the graduate record examination, when it still had one. So don't lecture me about logic.

[Exilednight]

160. Then you should know how to properly use the

Phrase "begs the question".

Begging the question means assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where someone includes the conclusion they are attempting to prove in the initial premise of their argument—often in an indirect way that conceals it.


You're whole argument is based on fallacy after fallacy without a shred of evidence to back it up.

If I were you, I'd ask for a refund from your university.

[woolldog]

184. ...

If it bothers you so much then change the word "begs" to the word "raises."

That you have a problem with me using the word begs instead of raises, shows how insubstantial your criticism is, imo. The phrase has a much broader usage now than its roots in informal logic. I chose to use it in its common everyday usage. You chose to be a pedant. Good for you, but don't think anyone is impressed.

I'm quite happy with the universities I attended, so I won't be asking for a refund.

Edit: and really judging someone based on how they use or misuse English idioms is idiotic. You ever consider that some people's first language might not be English? are they not worth listening to because they don't grasp all the idioms that a native speaker does. do you also consider kids who are from rough areas and don't speak proper English to be hopeless, unintelligent and not worth listening to because their English is filled with solecisms?

You, sir, are a pedant and a snob, and likely have no reason to be either.

Edit2: and as long as we're criticizing each other's use of language, your original post should read "It's hard to take someone seriously...." Learn to use adverbs properly before you go around critiquing people's English.

[Exilednight]

202. You're funny. Making accusations when your OP is nothing

More than judgement of others based on their beliefs.

People, no matter what their background, is worth listening to as long as they can present their argument, issue, problem, solution in a way that is logical and understandable.

Yours is neither. Yours was not a spelling error or basic grammar error (after all you say you have a degree in philosophy) but rather a misguided attempt to speak with authority.

There was a kid like you in every class I took. Always trying to prove how smart they think they are, but never understanding how little they know. I can see why Hillary is your candidate.

[woolldog]

217. ...

"People, no matter what their background, is worth listening to as long as they can present their argument, issue, problem, solution in a way that is logical and understandable."

People, no matter their background, are worth listening to.

"Yours is neither. Yours was not a spelling error or basic grammar error (after all you say you have a degree in philosophy) but rather a misguided attempt to speak with authority."

No it was an attempt to communicate with cali in a discussion. And she understood exactly what I was saying, took no offense, and we had a productive exchange. You argued that I was not worth "taking serious" [sic] because I, according to you, misused an English idiom, never considering that I might not be a native English speaker. That is such an Anglo-centered pov embedded in that argument, it's offensive. Also you are quite simply wrong in arguing that the phrase begs the question is limited in use to the way it is used in logic and philosophy. It has a common every day usage that conveys the same meaning as the phrase "raises the question."

[truebluegreen]

295. IMHO before you decide to be a stickler for correct grammar in someone else's post,

you should make sure your own communiques are error free.

Just off the top: the construction (#17, #115) "the reason was because" is incorrect. The use of "because" instead of "that" (or nothing) is redundant. Also, the election was not "capable" of being stolen; nefarious persons were capable of stealing it. I guess you could say the election was vulnerable to it (for a wide variety of reasons). "...its [sic]the same mentality....&quot #51) is also incorrect but probably just a typo since you get it right most of the time.


thanks for playing tho. come back again.

[woolldog]

297. I'm not a stickler for that kind of nonsense.

He is. That's the point, which, not surprisingly, flew over your head.

[truebluegreen]

300. I stand corrected.

You are a stickler for other kinds of nonsense. In fact, you insist on it.

[cyberswede]

230. When people start posting their test scores to bolster their argument, puppies weep.

[Exilednight]

233. When people start posting their test scores, I seriously wonder about their "credentials".

[sabrina 1]

130. Yes, Bernie most definitely can beat Hillary in the Primary. Are you trying to turn people against

Hillary? Who do YOU think will win the GE?

[Marr]

216. You don't seem to know what "spoiler" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

If he's running as a Democrat, he can't be a spoiler. If he beats Hillary in the primary, he's the legitmate party nominee-- whether you like that or not doesn't matter.

I expect you're now going to tell me that you minored in Political Science and got a gold star on your George Washington report.

[woolldog]

220. He most certainly can be a spoiler

by weakening Hillary for the General Election, the same way Romney was weakened in his primary battle in 2008.

He can also be a spoiler by winning. I don't think that's likely though.

[Marr]

222. Take it up with the english language.

A spoiler is a third party candidate who splits the vote that would've gone to a single candidate. That is what the phrase means. You're mistaken.

I hope for your sake that you're trolling.

[woolldog]

226. Maybe you should?

spoil·er
ˈspoilər/
noun
noun: spoiler; plural noun: spoilers

1. a person or thing that spoils something.

* * *

If Sanders weakens Hillary during the primary, and damages her chances of winning in the General, he will be acting as a spoiler.

[Marr]

234. Good for you! Here's another word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignoramus?s=t

I'll keep adding new ones for you if you promise to study hard.

[woolldog]

242. says the guy who doesn't understand that a spoiler is

a person or thing that spoils something.

[Marr]

246. Keep digging.

Look, I realize you're trolling here, so I'm going to stop bumping this embarrassingly stupid thread now. Enjoy the rest of your day and try not to eat any more glue.

[DebJ]

399. Actually, I think he's doing a pretty good job of convincing me to support Bernie.

If his 'reasoning' is the reason to support Hillary, that's rather frightening and tragic.

Personally, Hillary has both very strong positives, and very strong negatives for me.

I liked Hillary so much before she got her campaign going in 2008 that it was hard at first for me to decide between
Hillary and Obama. Then she did so many things that made me cringe at first, and then I got so angry by the end of
her campaign I thought Oh no I could never support her ever again.... but frankly, I don't remember what those things
were now, just that they were late in the campaign, and absolutely so horrible I was really shocked. Because before
that nonsense, I really liked her, too.

But I need to be reminded of the good reasons I supported her. Strong, good, sound, policy, factual reasons based
on her actual history of accomplishments.

Not adoration. Not a groupie fan club type of thing. And not a 'no one else can win' opinion.

[Adsos Letter]

262. !

Sorry for butting in (and kicking this thread) but that was hilarious!

Very well played.

[Babel_17]

278. Here's the specific, political, definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

The spoiler effect is the effect of vote splitting between candidates or ballot questions[n 1] with similar ideologies. One spoiler candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate with similar politics thereby causing a strong opponent of both or several to win. The minor candidate causing this effect is referred to as a spoiler[n 2]. However, short of any electoral fraud, this presents no grounds for a legal challenge.

Now, imo, if we use the term more loosely then I can see there being a hypothetical concern of Sanders being a spoiler. Hypothetically, some might fear that while running he would smear the character of Clinton, instead of challenging her on the issues.

Good thing for those who might actually have worried about that, Sanders specifically made clear he was running on the issues (he was going to run a very honorable campaign, in other words).

We're Democrats, and our Democratic Party thrives on free and open discussion. These are elections, not coronations, and not successions. Envying the possession of a monarchy, and a royal family, is something I leave to those Republicans who go in for that sort of thing.

I consider our party the political descendant of those great Americans who didn't fear to challenge the power of the few over the many. Speak up, and speak the truth; it's often revolutionary, and it's something that Senator Sanders is thankfully bringing to the primaries .... and, hopefully, the general election.

[woolldog]

338. where did I say anything about a "spoiler effect"?

Surely you're bright enough to realize that that's not the only way someone can act as a spoiler.

Sanders had no chance. NONE in a general election. NONE. If he doesn't have a chance in the general, then what's the point of all this? It's pure vanity on his part and on the part of his supporters.

[1939]

282. Horrors

Forcing Hillary to take a firm stand on Democratic and progressive issues will hurt her in the general election? You mean that people won't vote for a candidate who stands for Democratic positions?

[Babel_17]

457. Damage, like a flower?

Sanders running his honorable campaign can't damage anyone worth nominating. It's just the opposite; lacking an honorable primary opponent sets up our nominee to be devoured by the GOP candidate.
Anyone looking out for HRC should applaud the chance for her to show her stuff.
Unless there is a hope she'll run unopposed in the general elections, if only she gets to run unopposed in the primaries.
If that is the hope then, yes, I'll acknowledge the consistency in the argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

227. Woolldog iz seriuz fillosffy mayjer! Woolldog knos lojik!

How dare u sujjest woolldog cant uze werds propperly!!!

[woolldog]

229. ...

I admit, I laughed.

[NuclearDem]

19. Sanders is running as a Democrat, not an independent.

There are questions to be asked about his electability in the general, but comparing him to Nader--especially after he has said he absolutely will not run as a third party spoiler--is ridiculous.

[KoKo]

137. EXACTLY! Poster should Delete...There's no comparison...

I liked Ralph Nader and saw the difference he made in starting and expanding the Consumer Protection movement. But, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Nader didn't cost Gore the election. It was the Florida defective Punch Card Voting Machines and the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the Florida Recount (overuling Florida's own Court's Ruling) and awarded the Presidency to Bush II.

[LuvLoogie]

20. I think you just crapped your pants.

And you have problems with basic logic.

[LondonReign2]

271. Careful now

Despite ample evidence to the contrary, OP is a self-proclaimed expert logician.

[sharp_stick]

21. This is helpful

well done.... really...

[bowens43]

22. Better to lose with Bernie then win with hillary .

The so call Dems who support people like hillary havent learned a damn thing

[sufrommich]

33. No,it's not.

That's as dumb as the OP.

[Agschmid]

148. Agree.

The party needs to hold the White House.

[workinclasszero]

63. President Cruz applauds you

and thanks you for sending this country back to the stone ages complete with our very own sharia religious laws and a packed right wing SCOTUS for a generation!

[Starry Messenger]

122. Why do you hate the poor? nt.

[NuclearDem]

164. No, it's not.

[mylye2222]

23. Oh. Here comes the "traitor " name calling

Let's talk about how Clinton Camp stabbed Democratic Nominee John Kerry in 2004 and therfore gave a hand to the Bush Reich only in the purpose to Hillary 2008. .

[FarPoint]

24. That's a great OP headline.

Makes me smile....

[woolldog]

188. Thank you.

I'm glad someone here appreciates me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. You alerted on a post that has already been alerted.

I'll try to be faster next time.

[Agschmid]

152. I got the same thing.

[HERVEPA]

376. And I

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. Since a jury didn't hide it, I'll guess it goes in my ever-enlarging trashcan full of crazy.

[Agschmid]

61. Nah stay and watch the FAIL.

[TransitJohn]

29. Lulz

Feel better?

[H2O Man]

30. Please stop

[gollygee]

31. You understand how primaries work, right?

No comparison between someone running against HRC as a dem in the primary to someone running as an independant in the general election.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. Let the primary wars begin.

At least it's a break from the Hillary pro or con posts.

Having said that, I'd like to point out to the OP that a primary challenge isn't the same thing as an independent presidential campaign. Weak sauce.

[woolldog]

85. the effect will be the same however:

weakening the only viable candidate we have and who we need to win

[LiberalAndProud]

92. Nonsense, woolldog.

Our primary battles in 2008 only served to energize the voting public and got our candidate elected. Leaving Hillary to be coronated will guarantee that voter turnout will favor the Republicans.

[woolldog]

153. Hillary lost in 2008! And Obama is not Hillary!

He is a much better campaigner than her. So it's not surprising that the competition didn't weaken him. I don't think it's correct to assume that competition will have the same positive effect on her chances than it had on Obama. She's an entirely different (less able) type of candidate than Obama and the 2016 political winds aren't nearly as favorable for Dems as they were in 2008.

[LiberalAndProud]

159. Seriously?

Are you seriously arguing that your candidate is too weak to withstand a primary challenge?

Your confidence is underwhelming. In fact, if you are correct, she really shouldn't be our candidate.

[cali]

107. oh bullshit. you realize that Martin O'Malley is almost certainly getting in and

he's already attacked her more harshly than Bernie will. Are you seriously suggesting that no one should contest her in a primary?

Really?

Wowzer.

[LiberalAndProud]

121. Funny.

I was going to say bullshit, too, but replaced it with "nonsense."

In any case, the idea is pure bunkum.

[cali]

126. bullshit, bumkum, nonsense, codswallop, garbage- they all work fine.

[Chan790]

329. This.

Martin is a friend, I worked for his campaign for Mayor of Baltimore...M. O'M is a political knife-fighter, the kind of person that relishes the bloodsport of politics. It's a foregone conclusion that he's going to savage Sec. Clinton in the primary...the question is if her support can withstand the onslaught. I honestly don't think it can...but is Woolldog is that concerned that Sanders is going to weaken a singularly viable Clinton...he must be terrified of someone like Martin O'Malley who is going to come out with both barrels singularly working to establish his own candidacy by utterly destroying Clinton's electability.

[Agschmid]

339. Thats just not true.

[DebJ]

400. Having more than one strong Dem candidate will also mean the Clowns on the other side

will have to split their time in who to try to take down. Supporting multiple Dem candidates
makes it less practical for the Repukes to only beat on Hillary during the primary season.

[Xyzse]

34. Chill... If Bernie wants to run, let the guy do so.

What's the problem with letting primaries sort things out? This is the type of thing that hurts candidates. Both directions since it fosters animosity.

I'm happy as a clam right now. I have three candidates I can live with winning.

[HappyMe]

35. LOL!

Wow.


Sorry fool, but I am supporting Bernie 100%.

And no, I didn't support or vote for Nader.

[arcane1]

36. The ignorance is strong with this one.

You might want to catch up on current events before embarrassing yourself like this.

[woolldog]

37. Thank you DU jury members

for supporting free speech.

[cui bono]

64. So not only do you not understand the political process, you don't understand the First

Amendment either.

Does your mom know you're using her internets?

[woolldog]

128. I didn't say anything about the first amendment, now did I?

[cui bono]

347. I rest my case.

[woolldog]

357. you have no case...

if you think the concept of free speech is coextensive with the first amendment.

[cui bono]

358. Court has already adjourned.

[Matariki]

38. You understand what a Primary is?

I think you need to educate yourself before you call smarter people 'fools'.

[world wide wally]

40. The last thing we need right now is to go for each other's throats!

This is a primary.
We need to support whichever one wins or end up with Bush 3, Carnival Cruze, or Bobby fucking Jindhal!
Keep that in mind.

[haikugal]

41. Gore won Florida... Nice glamour shot Hillary! flamebait...

[sufrommich]

71. "Nice glamour shot Hillary!"

[haikugal]

240. Do you disagree? It is a glamour shot and she looks good.

[PeaceNikki]

42. What an arrogant and factually incorrect post.

[Zenlitened]

43. Um, you do realize this is the primary, don't you?

And not the general election?

[Cooley Hurd]

44. Appropriate given the OP:

[LWolf]

58. .

[onecaliberal]

45. All you people who keep voting for corporate candidates

Is part of why the country and dem party are fucked up.
I will vote for the candidate at the general.

Just for the record I didn't vote for Nader. Stop assuming facts not in evidence. It's sad that so many pay blind allegiance to that which is so destructive to what we are all supposedly trying to accomplish. We will all work together or go down alone in the end. Ppl like you will turn people OFF of your candidate.

[L0oniX]

46. ***

Hey ...has your op been alerted on yet?

[IDemo]

47. Calling Sanders supporters 'fools' would equal projection in your case

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Drale]

49. Im hoping for Bernie but if Hillary wins the Primary

I will support her.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. I think Sanders is who we ALL have been waiting for...

Live with your own choice, but don't try the tired and frankly too emotional argument about Nader because it's crap.

You might not want it so. Okay… that's fine. Just know that it takes more than you own feelings to see what is sweeping over the American voter now.

We have begun to see the path, and you don't like it. You're human… You're forgiven.

[LWolf]

52. Nope.

I managed to vote for Gore in 2000 in spite of his running mate.

I've also managed, for 15 years now, to be intelligent and principled enough to know better than to blame Nader voters for the 2000 selection, and to know better than to hate, attack, and blame people for exercising their right to vote their consciences, whether I agree with their vote or not.

[Zorra]

54. Bernie has a 100% rating from NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign.

He will be a great Democratic President.

[cui bono]

56. So you're saying you have zero knowledge of how politics works.

There's a thing called a primary. Look into it.

[Joe Turner]

57. Hillary will lock in the very evils of Bush Jr.

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 02:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't kid yourself. Yeah, Bush Jr. was an unmitigated disaster but evils like him are a case of chance and it can happen to either party. Third party candidates are a reoccurring reality. Ross Perot tilted the election to Bill Clinton but the real problem was Bush Sr. did not have a winning message. It's up to the major candidates to sell themselves and their positions to the public. Don't blame the challengers. The more competition the better.

[Agschmid]

60. OP FAIL.

Stop trying please.

[stage left]

62. 'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool

Than to speak and remove all doubt. And better to be a fool who stands for what he believes, than a wise man, wavering at the crossroads.





Oh, I voted for Gore. And I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

[KittyWampus]

65. That's some weak gruel for trash talk. Come back when you get something more inflammatory

and divisive.

[cyberswede]

66. This OP is embarrassing for you...and DU, frankly.

[smokey nj]

79. Actually I see a post that has united DU. I'm kind of sorry IT

isn't running for the nomination.

[cyberswede]

86. LOl - good point! wooldog is a uniter, not a divider!

...contrary to the intention of the OP, no doubt.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Did Nader run as a Democrat?

Is this the latest meme to fail right out of the starting blocks?

Doh!

[SheilaT]

72. Excuse me?

What's your evidence for that truly foolish statement?

[SMC22307]

73. Tell it to the 300,000+ registered Florida Democrats who voted for Bush.

George W. Fucking Bush.

Only 24,000 Florida Democrats voted for Nader.

[PDittie]

144. +300,000

"Siphoned votes", indeed. So tired of that drivel.

[barbtries]

74. all you fools.

well that was a well reasoned argument. in fact i never supported nader. but hell if you think i'm a fool for supporting bernie sanders for president, i guess i'll just switch and support hillary clinton now. it's such a good argument you make.

if you didn't catch it.

[Zenlitened]

75. Also, Al Gore cost Al Gore the election in 2000

He gave us one of the first big lessons on what a mistake it is to take liberals (or, The Extreme Left!!1) for granted while courting conservatives. A lesson many still refuse to learn.

[deutsey]

146. It always puzzles me when I see posts here like the OP

Totally clueless about the larger picture of what cost Gore the election. In addition to Gore's lackluster campaign and poor recount strategy, there was: Jeb Bush purging the voter rolls, confusing ballots, a Bush calling the election for GW on FOX, the Brookes Brothers "riot", the stopping of the recount, the Supreme Court (stacked with Reagan/Bush appointees) intervening.

Oh, but like a bunch of whiny Jan Bradys, it's Nader, Nader, Nader to some people here.

[cloudbase]

149. To this add he didn't even win his home state of Tennessee.

Had he done that, Florida would have been an afterthought.

[PDittie]

150. Precisely.

The SCOTUS is the #1 reason why Gore was not inaugurated president in 2000.

But the second most significant reason is that if he had won his home state of TN, or Clinton's home state of Arkansas (remember he distanced himself from Bill in the wake of the failed impeachment proceedings) then Florida would have been moot.

Even if he had lost those, he could have STILL won West Virginia -- where Robert Byrd begged him to campaign -- and Gore didn't.

[Sherman A1]

77. You are entitled to your opinion

And I along with everyone else are entitled to theirs. BTW we might recall that Al Gore also did not win his own state of TN. So was Nader a factor? Perhaps not.......

[HERVEPA]

380. Total logic fail. The two are unrelated If no Nader, Gore wins Florida and presidency.

What the fuck does Tennessee have to do with that? What the fuck is so hard to understand about that?

[Sherman A1]

401. Thank You for Your Opinion

because, your comments are simply that and nothing more than an opinion. They have nothing to do with the supposed logic with which you apparently seem to purport.

However, your rude presentation of that opinion does offer me the reasoning to add yet one more to my ignore list.

Buh, Bye.....

[HERVEPA]

413. Actually, I stated facts, not opinions.

[daleanime]

78. ......

[Motown_Johnny]

80. Bwahahahaha!!!!

What an obvious act of desperation.

Nader was a 3rd party candidate. Bernie will be (if he wins the primary) the Democratic nominee. He can't siphon off votes from the Democratic nominee when he is the Democratic nominee.


Hillary is a terrible candidate. She has only won 2 races in her entire life and those were in a deep blue state.

She imploded in '08 and is very likely to get desperate in the General (if she wins the primary) and say something even dumber than that she once dodged sniper bullets in Bosnia.

She is nowhere near the only Democrat who can win in 2016 and the very fact that you base your support on that falsehood shows that you are wrong on this subject.

[ladjf]

81. Sir, Nader is no Senator Sanders. nt

[seabeyond]

84. wtf? that so does nothing for the discussion. it is factually wrong, not logical nor does it make

sense. just stop

different parties, different people, different policies, different experiences. and i never thought much of nader, and never respected him or the supposed movement in lies.

maybe some, .... but then maybe some supporting clinton vote for reagan in '80. who really wants that argument.

[JustAnotherGen]

236. Thank you

I hope the Sanders supporters drag this thread until he deletes.

[JHB]

87. What elected office did Nader hold then?

None.

Nader was a gadfly in the general election, not someone running in the Democratic primary.

[Binkie The Clown]

94. LaLaLaLa

[Pooka Fey]

99. I can get over snark, but the dumb on this level is unforgivable. Read up on Election 2000 in FL.

Google it.

[workinclasszero]

102. "Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat that can win in 2016. We are better off rallying

around her early."

You are so right friend!

[matt819]

103. Not the same thing

Nader was a third party candidate who drew votes away from the Dems.

Sanders and others are going to go head to head with Hillary in the primary. Regardless of who wins the nomination, she/he will have the support - or should have the support - of everyone on this site as well as every Democratic in the country.

The question at that point is the extent to which that candidate can draw votes from the so-called independents or from Republicans who are truly fed up with the extremist, theocratic policies of their hijacked party. We can debate that all we like, though I think that would be pretty fruitless. By that point, it will be up the campaign of the nominee to make those arguments.

Or, more realistically, the issue will be more of a GOTV effort. Look, no dem is going to vote R, regardless of the nominee. The odds are equally strong that no R will vote D regardless of how crazy their nominee is. I mean, really, Using Bruce Jenner as an example, here's a transgender man outing himself as a republican. A party that thinks "his kind" are freaks, less than human, and he supports them. So, imho, it will more likely come down to who wins the GOTV effort.

[enough]

105. There's a big difference between a vote in a primary

and a vote in a general election.

Also, calling people "fools" doesn't do much to bring them around to your way of thinking.

[Maedhros]

106. Fools?

Kindly fuck off.

[moondust]

114. Must obey corpomedia and their pollsters.

Must obey corpomedia and their pollsters.
Must obey corpomedia and their pollsters.
Must obey corpomedia and their pollsters.
Must obey corpomedia and their pollsters.

[Puglover]

116. Hey your OP and the folks that rec it

represents your candidate of choice beautifully!

Congrats!

To their credit I see many of HRC's supporters think this OP is a huge bucket of slop as well.

[LiberalAndProud]

134. You do not appreciate the ironic rec?

The OP knew this was pure flame bait. I was just fanning the flames.

PS: I didn't vote for Nader. I look forward to caucusing for Bernie.

[Puglover]

143. :)

Sure of course. But it's a tad difficult to know which is ironic and which isn't. Or maybe they all are. They should be.

[KMOD]

117. Hillary Clinton disagrees with you

Don't you remember 2008? Many were asking her to drop out for the good of the party.

But she didn't. Why? Because she believes in democracy, she believes in giving voters choices.

And when it was all over, the party moved on just fine.

I will say this, and I currently am supporting HRC. If there is no choice on my ballot, I don't vote. Having Senator Sanders in the race, and hopefully more will join, keeps the issues that matter most to us, in the news, and discussed, and hopefully motivates people to come out and vote.

[AtomicKitten]

127. Sure, if by democracy you mean insisting disqualified votes be counted

... because rules are meant for chumps, not the Clintons.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/message-from-hillary-clinton/n12241

[KMOD]

147. So you agree with the OP, I guess.

I like to let voters, vote.

[AtomicKitten]

156. Bernie is running in the Democratic primary, not as a third party challenger like Nader.

The coronation has been cancelled due to an outbreak of democracy.

[KMOD]

161. Did you even read my post?

I said very clearly, if there is no choice on my ballot, I don't vote.

[AtomicKitten]

169. You suggested I agree with the OP which is horseshit.

[KMOD]

176. Are you just trying to argue?

My belief in democracy is letting voters decide. You thought that was for chumps.

The very idea of not having a primary, or not counting votes, is essentially the same thing.

[AtomicKitten]

181. You paint her as a champion of democracy when as she demonstrated in 2008

... she's simply a narcissistic poor sport.

[KMOD]

195. No. I said HRC stayed in the race because she believes in giving voters a choice.

Which I also very much agree with. I will not vote if my ballot has no choice.

You followed with an argument about vote counting.

I answered that I believe in counting votes. And that if you disagree with counting voters, votes, you are essentially making the same exact argument as the OP.

What's the difference to you, if there was no primary, or if we didn't count votes?

The effect to me is exactly the same.

I voted for Barack Obama in the NY primary. I'm glad I had a choice. Otherwise, I would not have voted. And I would have been equally upset if my vote didn't count.

[AtomicKitten]

402. Okay.

What I disagree with is your belief she stayed in the race long after it became numerically impossible for her to win to give voters a choice. My point is that voters had already made that choice and she wasn't having it.

Whatever. That was then and this is now. I think the presumption/expectation that she will win the primary is also concerning. Bernie's not in it as a stalking horse or to "toughen her up.". He's in it to win and as slim as his odds seem, 2008 taught us the impossible is sometimes possible.

Sorry if my responses were snotty. The OP was really inappropriate and allowed to stand, and I reacted. Cheers.

[AtomicKitten]

118. Pfft.

I'd say IBTL but Skinner has made his position clear and that is this horseshit can and will continue.

[Liberal_in_LA]

119. ..

[polichick]

124. lol

[Starry Messenger]

125. This is silly, since the circumstances are totally different.

Primary vs. general.

[LiberalElite]

129. Was this really necessary? Feel better now? nt

Next time you feel out of sorts, look in the medicine cabinet.

[CharlotteVale]

131. You're wrong, I voted for Gore. Why are you insulting people?

[Stargleamer]

454. Welcome to DU, CharlotteVale!!

[CharlotteVale]

462. Thank you!

[Ms. Toad]

132. And were 10-1 supporting Nader in 2000

(As is the case in the current poll here?)

And no, for the record, I was not supporting Nader in 2000.

Just stop it with all the "Dems who don't support Clinton are {fill in your insult of the day} - sexist, mysogynist, Naderites, etc.

I just don't happen to think that she is an appropriate candidate for president for reasons I've articulated many times in both 2008 and currently. My reasons haven't changed, she hasn't changed (or more accurately she still changes with whatever political breeze is blowint). For that reason my opinion of her as the potential president of the United states is unlikely to change.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

133. My wife and I decided that so far we're supporting Hillary.

With that said, your OP is misguided and full of shit. Bernie is running as a Democrat in the primary. The only votes he will siphon away from Hillary are those who wish to vote for Bernie instead. After the primary, whoever wins it, will only face off against the Republican nominee. Bernie, if he loses the primary, will not be there to siphon votes.

Your comparisons to Nader are apples and batshit.

[cwydro]

135. Name calling is juvenile

and wins no one over to your point of view.

[Throd]

136. Could your graphic image be any more creepy and Soviet?

[Comrade Grumpy]

183. I was thinking Orwell's 1984.

[Go Vols]

186. First thing I thought of

was Chairman Mao.

[Divernan]

343. It certainly could not be more out of date - looks like it's from the 1990's.

I've been working/volunteering on Democratic campaigns at the national, state and local level since JFK. I have NEVER, not one single time, known a candidate to use non-current photos, i.e,. from the way back time machine.

Whose brilliant idea was that? Some 20-something whiz kid on her campaign staff? What next? James Carville with a head full of hair?

And speaking of hair, a word about hair styles for professional women - I'm a retired female attorney - about HRC's age, so have interacted professionally and socially with female lawyers, judges, doctors, CPAs, MBAs, bankers, politicians, etc., for decades. They find a good stylist, get a cut which is flattering without being distracting, and they stick with it.

Think Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Mikulski, Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Ladybird Johnson, Roslyn Carter. They each settled upon a basic hair style with which they were comfortable, and were psychologically secure enough to not be constantly changing. Women (and men) who have an important message to convey want their audience/listeners to focus on their message, not their appearance.

And yes, yes, yes - I am fully aware that a candidate's values and actions (not her campaign rhetoric) have far more significance than her level of security/self-confidence about her appearance. When it comes to values and actions, HRC is at the bottom of my list of preferred candidates - but in case she does end up winning the primary, I very much hope that some strong-willed campaign adviser can get her to stick to the same hair style for the entire campaign, and dress in dark, professional, business-style clothing - lose the whole wardrobe of pastels or brightly colored pants suits.

[Agschmid]

346. FFS...

You've been...

working/volunteering on Democratic campaigns at the national, state and local level since JFK.

yet can't tell an official sanctioned campaign add from an internet generated meme.

And then there are these nuggets...

And speaking of hair, a word about hair styles for professional women - I'm a retired female attorney - about HRC's age, so have interacted professionally and socially with female lawyers, judges, doctors, CPAs, MBAs, bankers, politicians, etc., for decades. They find a good stylist, get a cut which is flattering without being distracting, and they stick with it.

...

They each settled upon a basic hair style with which they were comfortable, and were psychologically secure enough to not be constantly changing. Women (and men) who have an important message to convey want their audience/listeners to focus on their message, not their appearance.

Then there is this gem so we all know you aren't being sexist...

And yes, yes, yes - I am fully aware that a candidate's values and actions (not her campaign rhetoric) have far more significance than her level of security/self-confidence about her appearance.

But yet you close with this...

I very much hope that some strong-willed campaign adviser can get her to stick to the same hair style for the entire campaign, and dress in dark, professional, business-style clothing - lose the whole wardrobe of pastels or brightly colored pants suits.

Am I still on DU? Can someone let me know...

[woolldog]

374. I like it.

It's retro-chic.

[Throd]

453. Something that looks like it is straight from the DPRK art department is "retro-chic"?

[AngryOldDem]

460. I thought the same thing. n/t

[deutsey]

139. Mein Fuehrer

I can walk!

[Kelvin Mace]

145. Obvious troll is obvious

[PDittie]

154. A terrible thread and some comments are even worse.

Looks like I'm going to have to start hiding a whole bunch of Clintonites.

[TheKentuckian]

157. I'll bite, what is your case? You have asserted that a primary will destroy Clinton's chances

but also she is the only viable candidate in our entire party.

Why?

[olddots]

158. see you around campus Skippy

[JustAnotherGen]

162. Note - I'm not supporting Sanders at this time

But calling people you may want to eventually vote for your candidate "fools" - don't be surprised when they sit home. I mean - what else would a "fool" do?

I disagree with the primary focus of the Sanders campaign but I'm not believing he or his supporters are fools.

The op was insulting.

[freshwest]

296. I am a Sanders supporter, but I probably won't talk about it.

Too many have trashed Obama, in ways that run as deep as a Tea Partier. And then went after HRC, with the same themes.

I like for her women's issues, and feel that without such emphasis, there will never be peace on this planet. But I have been open about my reticience, even strong dislike of HRC for years, but never took it to mania.

But whoever it takes to keep the White House out of the hands of the Koch brothers, I'm all for it. I'd like to see Sanders there, but if he doesn't win, Democrats, like HRC who lost in a vicious campaign against Obama, went out and campaigned hard for him.

I get where you are coming from and respect that. You have the same political expectations and principles that I do (read another post by you elsewhere).

I was feeling very joyful about Bernie's announcement, then like that quote 'The joy that I expected at this moment was nowhere to be found' fled the first day. It will never come back.

[JustAnotherGen]

408. Get your joy back!

I want a strong Primary! He's not going to crash and burn as Edwards did - no way. He's clean as a whistle. But he will get the issues of the struggling onto the platform in a tangible list of "to do". That's if he doesn't win. Edwards didn't win - but his platform of attacking poverty at least made it onto the Obama/Biden web page.

The amount of money he raised in one day?

He is on the board. Win or lose - he just shifted the dialogue.

[hootinholler]

167. OMG You're serious!

[wryter2000]

171. Uh, no

Bernie isn't going to run as an independent candidate if he doesn't win the nomination. He's running as a Democrat, and he's not issuing any of the "there's no difference between Gore and Bush" sort of nonsense.

I guess you might compare it to Ted Kennedy primary-ing Jimmy Carter, but even that comparison falls apart when you consider Carter was already president.

(Spoken as someone who'll be more than happy to vote for Hillary should she win the nomination.)

[rjsquirrel]

172. You're the fool

And I can't support your favorite oligarch.

[Scootaloo]

174. Wow. Bernie Sanders really has some people coming completely unhinged

Oh, and just so's you know. if it weren't for the TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Democrats who, being practical, sensible, pragmatic, moderate, and all those other words, voted for George W. Bush in Florida, there'd be no problem.

[hobbit709]

175. to put it simply and politely, "Up yours"

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I voted for Gore-didn't really want to but there was no choice.

And Nader did nothing to cost the election in 2000. That's just another line of BS.

you must be suffering from a lack of oxygen in that rarefied atmosphere on top of that equine.

[Go Vols]

177. Reminds me of a Chairman Mao picture

[MineralMan]

178. That's just silly.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

[rbnyc]

180. ...

[LynnTTT]

182. Not comprable

Nader was a third party candidate in the general election, and yes, you are right Gore probably would have won (and probably did anyway).
But Sanders is running as a Democrat. Hillary needs some competition- going to be pretty boring debates otherwise! I hope O'Malley and Chris van Hollen get in also. Either would be a great VP and the President in 4 or 8 years. Both young

[LynnTTT]

185. Anyone who would vote for Sanders will

ultimately vote for Hillary. She's not my first choice, but I have never voted for a Democrat since 1968!! Sure won't start now!

[liberal_at_heart]

187. straight to my ignore list.

[Rex]

190. ...

[Octafish]

196. Here's why I support Bernie Sanders...

He has INTEGRITY.

But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor. -- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 29, 2015

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429?page=2

Please compare with the bi-partisan PNAC crypto-fascist corporate interests bent on fracking Ukraine and making money off war four ways to Super Tuesday:

What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?

Fri, Feb 7, 2014
By ORIENTAL REVIEW

What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?

Yesterday’s leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Bat’kyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as “Yanukovych’s project”. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week “to glue things together”. Referring to the European role in managing Ukraine’s political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: “Fuck the EU”.

In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: “this is a new low in Russian tradecraft”), Mrs. Nuland made her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washington’s repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the “strategic Transatlantic partnership” is more worthy of an apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

Back to the latest Mrs. Nuland’s diplomatic collapse which was made public, it was unlikely an unfortunate misspelling. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago describing Mrs.Nuland’s blatant lack of professionalism and personal integrity. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian “independent” NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.

CONTINUED w/LINKS...

http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/07/what-about-apologizing-to-ukraine-mrs-nuland/

Great video at the link, too.

Take PNAC, please.

Neocons and Liberals Together, Again

The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security...

Tom Barry, last updated: February 02, 2005

The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter's signatories call for increasing the size of America's global fighting machine.

SNIP...

Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons

The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.

Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone-those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors-must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."

Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings' foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.

CONTINUED...

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Neocons_and_Liberals_Together_Again

That's from Rightweb. They're full of facts, for those who take the time to read and learn. One name to pay attention to is Victoria Nuland, our woman in Ukraine, who is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan. Robert Kagan's brother is Frederick Kagan. Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan.

Brilliant people, big ideas, etc. The thing is, that's a lot of PNAC and the PNAC approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to democracy, peace and justice.

[AgingAmerican]

198. And so the panic begins

[Marr]

223. +1, certainly seems that way.

I guess that's what happens when you assume something is 'inevitable' when it isn't.

[SomethingFishy]

200. ....

Now that was funny. Thanks!

BTW.. Gore did win Florida. Bush did not "win" shit. Get a clue.

[Hoyt]

201. I don't think Sanders supporters are fools. I'd love to see his vision of a Scandinavian type

society in my lifetime. But I also feel we have to win in 2016.Right now, I can't see Sanders doing that.

[kestrel91316]

204. I am supporting Bernie in the Democratic primary. You can go pound sand.

If Hilary wins the nomination, then I will support her.

To compare Bernie to Nader is beyond the pale. Nader was a third party candidate. Bernie is a Democrat.

[roody]

209. Many fewer people will see your posts after this error on your part.

[morningfog]

210. This flame bait shit again? Pathetic. You are giving bush cover.

Bush stole the fucking election. Gore won it. Nothing else matters.

This tire flame bait trolling bullshit is as dipshit as ever. Why so you support and legitimize Bush? Shame shame shame in you.


To be clear, I voted for Gore. I am pissed at only at Bush, Harris and the Court. Maybe a little upset that Gore didn't fight it longer or harder.

[Marr]

213. Hillary's number one campaign liability: Hillary fans. /nt

[smokey nj]

291. Indeed.

[Chan790]

336. ^^^Truth.

That's the absolute truth. Hillary would be a lot more bearable if some of her supporters weren't the epitome of jackassery.

(Not referring to anybody here of-course...I get enough of them in meatspace.)

[DanTex]

215. You're right about Nader, but wrong about Sanders.

He's running in the primaries, not as a spoiler 3rd party in the GE. And it's actually a good thing that he's running, for a few reasons. One of them is it will placate the would-be Naderites.

Sanders will lose the primary, then he will endorse Hillary. The would-be Naderites can then feel good about having supported a "pure" candidate, and will be more likely to vote and campaign for Hillary in the GE.

[ananda]

218. Sanders is running as a DEMOCRAT!

There is no comparison between him and Nader.

[HERVEPA]

221. Stupid stupid post

Bernie will not run in general if he loses to Hillary. He will support her.
Bernie is not an egomaniac like Nader.
Bernie is a pragmatist.
Bernie does not say the two parties are the same.
Bernie will not take Republican money as Nader did.
Your analytical abilities seem nil, or you are stirring up shit.

[earthside]

224. This post is a put-on.

It has all the rhetoric of a Bolshevik propaganda call.

[awoke_in_2003]

268. You may be right...

if not, I would like to suggest that the OP go do something that is anatomically impossible.

[fishwax]

228. lol

[jwirr]

231. Not me. And by the way. Nade lost in the primary but then ran in the general pulling votes away

from Gore. I believe that both Hillary and Bernie want us to beat the Rs and will never do that.

[Cal33]

259. I think you're right. Sanders certainly wouldn't do it, and Hillary wouldn't either. She would

look awfully foolish running as an Independent in the general elections, after having lost
in the primaries.

[jeff47]

237. A fool is someone who can't count. Such as yourself.

More registered Democrats in Florida voted for W than voted for Nader. Perhaps if Gore ran a better campaign, that wouldn't have happened and he would have won.

Who thinks that? Al Gore. He's repeatedly said he did a terrible job in 2000.

[woolldog]

249. None of that changes the fact that

Nader siphoned votes from Gore.

Gore may very well have done a terrible job, he may have lost his home state, more registered Democrats in Florida may have voted for W than voted for Nader, but even with all that, without Nader running, Gore wins.

[jeff47]

251. Yes, actually it does change it.

Because it demonstrates the problem wasn't Nader, it was Gore's shitty campaign. 300,000 Democrats voted for W. 24,000 voted for Nader.

Gore only had twelve times the problem getting Democrats to vote for him instead of the Republican.

but even with all that, without Nader running, Gore wins.

That is an extremely pathetic attempt at justifying your position. Next are you going to say "I'm not a scientist" or throw a snowball?

[Dragonfli]

241. .

The people are simply not as important.

[MuseRider]

244. Hey everybody! It is the VOICE OF REASON

Good grief.

If I wasn't so tired of this shit I would laugh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

252. These threads aren't helpful...

You also are giving HRC too little credit... She is politically adroit enough to navigate through the issues Bernie raises while maintaining her general election viability.

[shawn703]

254. Sounds like a butthurt Hillary '08 supporter to me.

She wasn't the only one who could win then, despite assertions to the contrary, and she's not the only one who can win now.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

255. Primaries are EXACTLY the time to support the candidate that best suits your ideals.

Nader third party general election is a completely different scenario than Sanders in Democratic Primary. Sanders' run is much more likely to be helpful than harmful in any way.

I don't see that Clinton is going to have a hard time or have to spend a ton of resources to defeat Sanders.

[whistler162]

256. For you it turned out okay obviously

Your man Bush won!

[Buns_of_Fire]

257. Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well, anyone who doesn't vote like *I* do is a big ol' poopiehead!

So there.

I'm sure my unassailable logic and rock-solid facts have now convinced any fencesitters to commit to MY candidate immediately. You're welcome, and I'm glad you've seen the light.

[chknltl]

258. Well that's an oppinion you might share with maybe 63 DUers...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6592890

[Oneironaut]

261. Sorry, but that "Hillary 2016" picture looks like something from "1984."

It has a creepy, dictator-ish vibe.

(I don't think Hillary is a "dictator" or a bad candidate, but that poster is creepy.)

[SMC22307]

314. But her hair looks faaabulous...

unlike Bernie's. Can't have a president with wild hair, you know.

[PowerToThePeople]

263. .

[LondonReign2]

264. I can virtually see the spittal flying

Now get off my lawn you hooligans!

[tiredtoo]

265. For the record

I am supporting Sanders and in 2000 I supported Gore. And you know how that turned out.

[Vinca]

266. That's why Bernie is running as a Democrat and not an Independent.

He's not a fool and he doesn't want to hand an election to the GOP. I think he can win the general if he can beat Hillary in the primary.

[Neoma]

274. Nope, I was too young to vote.

[MadrasT]

276. Nope. n/t

[cantbeserious]

277. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - Only Fools Vote Against Their Best Economic Interest

[valerief]

284. Teh stoooopid must hurt. Sanders is running on the Dem ticket. nt

[Lil Missy]

289. Pssst! Bernie and HRC are running in THE SAME PARTY! Nader was 3rd party spoiler.

Who's the fool?

[bravenak]

290. Oh god.

*sigh*

[Bonobo]

292. I knew it was coming. We are 1 inch away from "narcissist trying to stay relevant!" nt

[Omaha Steve]

293. IF I wanted D's to vote Hillary in the General election should she win...

I wouldn't insult any D's supporting any other candidate in the primary/caucus season. You need us and the independents in droves.

GET THE HINT?

OS

[99Forever]

294. That's stupidest fucking thing I have read all year.

Welcome to Ignored. Bub bye.

[get the red out]

298. Nope

Not me.

[DonCoquixote]

299. nader did not run as a democrat

Bernie is, even though he did not have to.

[boomer55]

301. I gave bernie money and am actively working to see him elected. Hillary boooo

thanks for reminding me to give more money to Bernie!

[doc03]

302. Sure he can't win but Hillary won't either so what

is there to get all huffy about.

[Warren DeMontague]

304. SHE'S INEVITABLE I TELLS YA

In fact, she is so inevitable it is absolutley vital that everyone acknowledge her inevitability, because if they dont, then maybe...




Anyway, pal, Sanders is running as a Democrat. I lost friendships over Ralph Fucking Nader in 2000, but you are talking here about someone who is contending in the DEMOCRATIC primary process which, as much as you might wish it was, IS NOT OVER YET.

As such, I think your OP is severely out of line.

[yuiyoshida]

308. Pardon me, if i say

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 09:51 PM - Edit history (1)

bull pucky!

[cherokeeprogressive]

310. Squirm.

It's the most entertaining thing I've seen all year.

[Warren DeMontague]

312. What a compelling message you have composed, here, to encourage support for Hillary Clinton!

Have you been contacted by the campaign, yet, to do voter outreach in any official capacity? I must say, you're a natural







.........

[Agnosticsherbet]

315. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the US Supreme Court stole the election in 2000

They had the help of the Republican Congressional aids who committed felonies when they stopped the recount.

There was some talk that George H. W. Bush's CIA contacts were also there, but it was never proved.

I have no use for Nader, but you are wrong on the facts.

[Buns_of_Fire]

316. Well, perhaps only temporarily, but it would seem that the two camps are almost

united in their reactions to this thread.

Perhaps that was the point of the OP. Gotta admit, it worked better than leading everyone in a rousing chorus of Kumbaya.

Just looking for a way to extract some lemonade, here...

[rhett o rick]

317. Apparently a jury decided it's ok to call supporters of a Democratic candidate fools.

I wonder if that works both ways.

[hrmjustin]

318. This thread got a lot of responses.

[rhett o rick]

348. Apparently it's ok to bad mouth Sen Sander's supporters. Where are the hosts?

I hope the Sen Sander's supports don't act like this.

[hrmjustin]

349. It certainly has been reciprocated bby Sanders supporters.

[rhett o rick]

350. Is that what you want? Is that your justification? Do you think Sen Sanders

supporters are fools?

[Agschmid]

351. No I know he doesn't.

If anything this thread sort of brought most of us together to ridicule the OP.

[Agschmid]

354. It's not a lost cause.

Keep going, it's not easy being a GD host. Remember it just takes one person to say no consensus and then it become a ridiculous fight.

[rhett o rick]

355. Ok thanks. I want to keep things civil. I hope Sen Sanders supporters don't behave like this. nm

[Agschmid]

359. Some will, some won't.

Nature of the beast.

You just have to do what you think is right. Sometimes the DU systems work, sometimes they don't. Either way this OP had their butt handed right back to them by most involved in the thread.

[rhett o rick]

362. I hear you but I don't want us getting into "handing butts back". We lose sight of the

important issues. I mean if this OP isn't "disruptive meta" then I don't know what is.

[Agschmid]

363. Without seeing the host conversation I can't judge what they did.

I'm signed up again to be a forum host, hopefully you can do the same.

[rhett o rick]

368. I try but as soon as I get in as host, I seem to get a lot of alerts on my posts.

One hide and you're out. Funny how that works.

[hrmjustin]

353. What are you talking about?

Justify what? I think I have been rather respectful to Sanders supporters personally.

Most have been respectful back. Not all though.


I don't know how you took my response rhett but it was not a call to arms but being honest.

[Agschmid]

360. Here is the deal, both "sides" dish it, both "sides" can take it.

However there should be as little of it as possible.

[hrmjustin]

366. Tell him that.

He had no problem with anti-Hillary post but now someone says something against Sanders he wants it shut down.


Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[hrmjustin]

364. With due respect Rhett...

...Get over it.

There has been many anti-Hillary posts on this site and you never complained about it.

Yet someone said something you didn't like about your guy and you want to shut it down.

I didn't justify this op but your response to me is to be frank ridiculous.

Go bother someone else sir.

[hrmjustin]

371. WHERE THE HELL DID I CALL SANDERS SUPPORTERS FOOLS ?

Link to it Rhett.

I have nothing but respect for the man and you are making a bullshit claim.

Put up or apologize.

[rhett o rick]

373. I apologize. I thought for sure you were defending the OP. nm

[hrmjustin]

375. Goodbye Rhett!

[Agschmid]

372. Don't think he did that?

[one_voice]

463. How did you feel when anyone that dared say...

Sanders wasn't a Dem was told to STFU? Oh yeah, that was left and got a shit ton of recs. I hate this double standard shit. Wrong is wrong.

[rhett o rick]

464. Do you have a link? nm

[one_voice]

465. First, I shouldn't have accused you of double standards...

for that I apologize.

Yes, here's the link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026591352

[rhett o rick]

466. I try to not have double standards but I am sure I slip.

Thanks for the link. It is a good example of "they did it so we can do it". I don't like that either way.

[Carolina]

319. The sign of desperation

already... name calling! So anyone who doesn't toe the line for HRC... is a fool. Really?

Well, let's see. Since you bring up the history of 2000, let's take a walk down memory lane of how Gore who actually won, blew it... because the vote should never have been close enough for Nader to be a spoiler. I voted for Gore, but cringed at the following blunders:

1. Choosing Liebermann for VP (some of us recognized him as a smarmy, self-serving POS even then)
2. Wanting to distance himself so much from Clinton that he didn't use the Big Dog on the campaign trail
3. Corollary to #2, not winning his home state or that of Bill's... TN and AR could have made Florida moot
4. Not insisting at the outset on a recount of the entire state of Florida rather than selective counties
5. Not allowing Democratic protesters to descend on Florida to counter the droves of Sore-Loserman repukes
6. Not supporting, or encouraging, former Senate colleagues (at least one) to stand with the Congressional Black caucus in its objection to certification of the electoral vote count, thereby allowing the fix to stand

Now, let's take another walk down memory lane regarding HRC:

She was inevitable in 2008, too. She was in it to win it. She was assured that her famous name and vast money war chest were sufficient, until Super Tuesday (March 5, 2008) proved that thinking wrong. Her campaign was in disarray and she resorted to kitchen sink tactics against Obama, even going so far as to praise McCain. Then, still not knowing when to quit despite running low on cash, she proceeded on to California because you never know, remember Bobby Kennedy. That was the straw for many, including the Democratic leadership which asked her to bow out in summer 2008. She gracelessly did so, on condition that Obama and the party pay off her campaign debt. Wow, what great leadership skills, what sound management! Screw up, squander a formidable campaign war chest on a 1992 style campaign, then demand that someone else bail her out... kinda like Wall Street which is quite appropriate.

In 2008, HRC also touted her 20 years of experience -- 12 as first lady of Arkansas and 8 as first lady of the US. But if she was, and is, to claim the Clinton legacy, then she has to assume the blame for that job sucking travesty NAFTA, for the Gramm-Bliley-Leech Act which overturned Glass-Steagall, for the Telecommunications Act which has produced the consolidated infotainment media of today, and for Welfare Deform which has deepened the abyss of poverty. BTW: imagine the ridicule HRC supporters would heap on Babs Bush if she ever made a similar 'experience' claim based on 4 years as 2nd lady of the US, 4 years as 1st lady of the US and 8 years as 1st mom!

Then there’s 2002, the start of HRC's first term in the Senate. How can anyone forget that IWR vote, that callous, finger-in-the-political-wind vote cast because of her POTUS aspirations. That vote makes her ultimately culpable for the death, debt, destruction and destabilization that war of choice has caused. Sure Bush would have gone to war anyway, but without the votes of such would be presidents as Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Dodd, it would truly have been BUSH’S war. Instead, HRC and the others were profiles in political cowardice displaying politically ambitious calculation, awful judgment, and a stunning lack of morality while providing the liars and thieves in the Bush White House bipartisan cover. Here at DU, we knew better than to believe the Bush cabal. Democrats like Edward Kennedy (a genuine liberal), Bob Graham (of FL who even now points correctly to the Saudis), Robert Byrd, and others not only cautioned their peers about such haste (casting votes just before the 2002 midterm elections) but warned, like canaries in the mine, about the long term consequences. Never forget Byrd’s poignant speech about the rush to war, the cost of war, the waste of war... It didn't take a classified report to see the facts. And those who think that vote is outdated, past history, something to be forgotten because HRC apologized for it, called it a mistake… should remember that there are no do-overs for votes that cost so much in terms of death and destruction.

Then, HRC is no friend of the common man. She pays handlers and marketing personnel to package her as the people’s champion, but it’s all smoke and mirrors because Wall Streeters (like Robert Reuben, Larry Summers, Lloyd Blankfein/Mr. Goldmann Sachs, et.al.) own her. She is the mistress of triangulation who helped create the DLC and who remains 3rd way to her very core. She is tone deaf and thin skinned (see that 2008 primary campaign, again) and lacks the natural political skills and charisma of Bill. On that note, I would even go so far as to say, she is no pave-the-way feminist. She is where she is today because of Bill.

After law school, she may have worked (ever so briefly) on the Nixon impeachment committee, but she was no heavy hitter, she didn’t pass the DC Bar, and she didn’t last long there. So what did she do? She ran off to Arkansas (to Arkansas… who goes there, who goes from Yale to DC to Hope Arkansas, if they are such a gifted and talented attorney… sorry Arkansans). She followed Bill because she recognized his innate talent and his rising star quality, and she latched on to him. She made it because of being Mrs. Clinton not because of being Hillary Rodham. Her only real lawyering was shilling for Walmart (a corporate lawyer for WALMART… so much for walking the talk of being the people’s champion) and at the Rose Law Firm, she relied heavily on Vince Foster!

So, spare me. Who's the FOOL?!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

326. To the jury:

Truth is an absolute defence against fucking sniveling guttersnipe idiots.

[KingCharlemagne]

328. LMFAO. Thanks for that. I needed it! - nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

332. Now watch, I'll get the hide.

And, if so, wear it proud as a Bernie button.

[woolldog]

335. I have no interest in hiding anyone's posts.

Flame away. The way you two choose to do so says more about you than me.

[KingCharlemagne]

337. Nah, I should take the hide. I knowingly and with malice aforethought crossed

the Rubicon. So I hope your jury reads this comment!

ETA: The 12 recs currently are cause for some concern, although I tend to see them as 'Recs' in the post-Seinfeldian sense.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

340. I didn't even know who the poor guy was except

that he wanted to send predator drones to kill
the PARENTS of the Boston Marathon bombers.
So, take an obvious troll with a grain of salt.

[Cha]

321. That's not true. Bernie Sanders is nothing like freaking nader. Please don't be rude like some of

the Bernie supporters who Rec the "nasty finger wagging STFU" thread .. by calling people "fools".

[sendero]

331. I don't give ....

.. a good god damn if HRC gets any votes. She is George Shrub Bush in a bra.

[quaker bill]

333. I was working for Al Gore

thank you very much.

[Politicalboi]

334. Gore won Florida

It was stolen by Bush brothers and the Supreme Idiots.

[GoneOffShore]

342. Thanks for your concern.

And that pic of Hillary harks back to the 1930's.

[KMOD]

356. Why oh why

won't this thread die.

[Logical]

367. LOL, i'm drunk too!!! Nt

[Vincardog]

370. The OP is wrong on every point. Congratulations your post wins my load of lies award.

[davidpdx]

377. Here is exactly the way you portray yourself as a Hillary Clinton supporter......

It is ignorant, obnoxious, and arrogant.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

378. CURIOUS: Anybody else alert on this OP as Disruptive Meta (SOP)?

[merrily]

387. Silly. Meta aimed at Sanders supporters and/or Hillary critics is not disruptive meta.

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

390. Things that make you go hmmm ...

[merrily]

379. The alleged high road sure went downhill fast as soon as a populist challenger arrived.

[Carolina]

419. Yep, low road

and name calling. Kinda like 2008 all over again.

I can't stand HRC (see my lengthy post up-thread), but her supporters just add fuel to my ire!

[merrily]

420. I think Hillary supporters have a right to criticize Sanders.

I am all for free speech values. But, I don't think they have a right to tell people to stop criticizing Hillary AND then criticize Sanders. At least, not without my commenting on the double standard/hypocrisy.

[2banon]

381. moronic gibberish not even good enough for compost.

[xocet]

384. Please define "the extreme left" with some well-defined characteristics. How can I ID them? n/t

[John Poet]

385. Congratulations! You win "Troll of the Day"

That's quite a shitstorm you've caused.

[Ken Burch]

386. I'd rethink your graphic there if I were you.

That photo makes HRC look like a Bond villain.

[Enthusiast]

391. Bernie will defeat Hillary because the voters will recognize authenticity.

We watched the faked up bullshit acting job. We are tired of it.

Hillary supporters, you're fucked.

[Carolina]

417. Bravo!

Authenticity versus packaging as the people's champion

[markpkessinger]

404. Bogus comparison . . .

Nader ran as a third party spoiler -- something Sanders is not doing. Sorry, but this process is why we have primaries.

[karynnj]

409. the fool here is one who equates the general election with the primaries

There is nothing wrong with having a primary. Though the odds are very high HRCwins, if she doesn't it calls into question that she could win a general election.

Consider she has most of the party and media support and far more money.

[Robbins]

410. Wrong

I voted for Gore in primary vs Bradley and over idiot in november 2000.

Unlike GOP dems don't believe in Cornations and it's their turn.

Bernie Sanders is running in democratic primary not on green party ticket.

[krispos42]

415. Horseshit

Unlike Nader, Bernie is running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. Bernie can't siphon votes away from Hillary in the general election because they won't BOTH be running in the general!

And for God's sake, can we at least pretend we have some say in this? Please?

[AngryOldDem]

418. I didn't.

In fact, I hated to see that guy in the race, period, because I knew he was going to split the vote that would ensure a Bush win.

And I resent the FUCK out of being told I'm being foolish because I am not falling in lockstep and thinking HRC is the best candidate the Democrats have ever had. I want an alternative, and I think Bernie is the one -- he walks the walk and talks the talk. If I just want to have one choice, and be told I have to vote for that choice or else I'm being a bad citizen, bad Democrat, bad human being, whatever -- then I'll just up and fucking move to a dictatorship.

As I and a lot of other people have said here during every election cycle, posting shit like this will NOT win people over to your side.

I have heard HRC say nothing that convinces me that she won't be more of the same. I'm truly sick of it.

[City Lights]

422. LOL, I hope you're not in charge of recruiting votes for HRC.

If so, you're gonna need to work on your people skills.

[IDemo]

424. A new "all you fools" meme for DU:

How about some "all you fools who seriously believe in climate change", or "all you fools who don't believe in creation science" threads?

There was a day long ago when crap like this wasn't permitted to stand here.

[sakabatou]

425. See, there's this thing called sweeping generalization...

[MH1]

426. I haven't decided who to support in the primary, but you're dead wrong

comparing Bernie Sanders' candidacy to Nader's.

And I'm one of the most virulently anti-Nader Democrats you will find. (after initially -ugh - supporting his candidacy)

If Sanders loses the Dem nom, then continues to run and get on the ballot as an Independent (is that actually possible?), then loudly proclaims that there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between the Democrat and Republican (or something similar) and actively works to defeat THE DEMOCRAT in the general election - THEN you can compare whatever supporters he has left at that point, to Nader supporters, and it will likely be an accurate comparison.

But now, it's dead wrong. The two situations are not at all alike.

[still_one]

429. Not even comparable to Nader. Bernie is running as a Democrat, Nader did not, and Nader's

entire goal was to be a spoiler. He succeeded.

Bernie has made it clear he will NOT be a spoiler. If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, we will vote for him. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, we will vote for her. It is as simple as that.

[Caretha]

431. Okay Okay Okay

I'll give this Flame bait thread a + 2, but no more than that.

You earned a 2 for the following reasons:

1 point for having no personal pride & showing all of DU how stupid your are

2nd point is earned for not running away from "Stupidist" Person Post of the Year, and continuing to let all of DU see stupidity at its finest

....also, please take Marrs' advice and put down the glue.

You're welcome

[brooklynite]

432. UNREC

...and I say that as a Hillary supporter. There is no reason to throw insults, either another candidate or his/her supporters.

[Agschmid]

450. Thanks!

[lunatica]

433. Dear Fool,

No. I didn't support Nader.

Sincerely,
me

[Autumn]

435. Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes

[marmar]

444. OMG, and this steaming pile of a post appears more than a year and a half before the election.....

....... it's only going to get worse.

[TheSarcastinator]

445. that picture of her looks like Evita Person

Your tactics are backfiring.

[deutsey]

449. Yeah, it's so over the top I can't help but wonder

if it's intended as some kind of Andy Kaufmanesque satire.

I doubt it is, though.

[Orrex]

446. Wow. That's one of the more pointlessly insulting attack-posts I've seen in a while.

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Disclaimer: I don't believe Sanders can win the general election nor even the nomination. However, I see no justification to label as "fools" those who believe in his viability. They are passionate and they are IMO incorrect, but their support is not foolish.


For several days I've been asking for someone to identify the worthless post in which some blowhard called Sanders supporters "fools." Thanks for stepping up to provide it.

[tazkcmo]

451. ?????

How do you siphon votes in a primary?

[orpupilofnature57]

478. Haa!!! Good question !!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

452. Sorry, for making you think outside your box, but no your

Wrong and that was a spoilers, a knowing Loser who didn't have a chance. Unfortunatly you Hillary Jihadists can't open you eyes to a better more representitive canidate, and if you can't be confident enough to convince us with reasons why, fuck off with all the reasons why not .

[RandiFan1290]

475. Jury

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

telling someone to fuck off is rude offensive and insulting

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 4, 2015, 05:40 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Good luck alerter and hopefully the jury pool has got its sense back.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Was telling a BUNCH of people to fuck off, not an individual. Was tempted to hide it for using "your" instead of "you're"..
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So called "hosts" or "admins" could have locked that meta garbage thread a long time ago. Instead they leave it up and continue to let the trolls slam liberals on this site.
If you don't like it blame the troll "hosts"

[orpupilofnature57]

476. I rest my case, and I apologize for my Rude remark,

Not the content, not to Hillary apologists and as one Juror #7 characterized " Troll Hosts " because the unfair communication here the last three weeks is " Over the top " . Sorry about the bad punctuation to Juror#6 . Over 12,000 posts this is the second time in a week I've been Kicked out or alerted on.
I'm not saying this is unfair censorship but it's no way to support a candidate, castigating anyone who isn't a Hillary supporter, or being dismissive of a viable candidate who proves their devotion to Democracy and the American people .

[Joe Turner]

455. Nervous huh?

I would be too if I was backing Hillary.

[Lunabell]

456. FOOL? LMAO

Sanders is running on the Democratic ticket. Not a 3rd party spoiler.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

458. DEFCON 1 false equivalence. You watch too much Fox News

be very afraid of Apocalypse Sanders the second coming of Nader.

EPIC FAIL of Fox News Proportions

[Blue_In_AK]

468. Dumb post.

We're talking about a primary here, not a spoiler in the general election.

That being said, yes, I did vote for Nader in 2000, but only because I knew Al Gore didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning in Alaska.

[Beacool]

472. I agree with you on principle, but there's no need to call fellow DUers "foolish".

Misguided, maybe, but foolish is condescending. Although, I agree that Sander's chances of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency, are remote.

[Quixote1818]

474. Bernie already said he would support Hillary if he loses. Your post is meaningless. nt

[RedstDem]

477. Gore had more votes after a statewide recount.

He had already seceded the election.
Your argument is therefore irrelevant.

Sorry bout that.

[LanternWaste]

481. I s'pose it's about that time when bumper-sticker wisdom and bubble-gum-wrapper philosophies

I s'pose it's about that time in the campaigning season when bumper-sticker wisdom and bubble-gum-wrapper philosophies will be taking the place of analysis and rational thought.

Your OP, the irrational responses and the petulant name-calling are indeed, representative of DU during the primaries... but not (thankfully) of the Democratic Party as a whole.

So yeah... keep blaming and finger-pointing. It's much easier to tear down a candidate than it is to support one... and convenience is often much more important than conviction.

[WI_DEM]

482. Didn't Bernie support Gore in 2000? Hasn't he been a consistent Dem vote in the U.S. Senate

even though he is an independent. Why is supporting Bernie in the Dem primary race equated with supporting Nader in 2000?

[IVoteDFL]

485. Why is Hillary the only Democrat who can win in 2016?

Do people seriously think that?

I will support her if she ends up being the Democratic nominee, but I'm not going to give any early support to a candidate I have so little faith in.