Come on, people. We're Democrats.

[Binkie The Clown]

I really want to see Bernie go all the way, but if he doesn't make the cut, I'd be perfectly fine with Hillary. Not my first choice, but my best choice, if it comes to that.

I worry when I see fellow Democrats tearing down a fellow Democrat and getting into silly fights over who is or is not a "real" Democrat. Let's pull together and acknowledge that after the primary is over, we will all support the Democratic candidate no matter who it is.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Yes .. Issues issues issues, not personal attacks nt

[modestybl]

30. However, Hillary is representing her DONOR's interests, not ours...

She will shamelessly flip on her longstanding positions to run after Bernie, then just as shamelessly pivot back to where her donors are comfortable. I really if she isn't a bigger threat to SS and Medicare than the Donald...

[lewebley3]

44. Hillary has never flip on being a Dem in 30 years: She is a public Ser

Hillary long stand position has been caring and sharing
politics in the real world. We know were the Clinton's on
SS, they strengthened SS when they were in office. They
taxes the rich, they tried to tax the big oil.

[modestybl]

73. Hillary has represented Wall Street her entire time in the Senate...

... as Elizabeth Warren explains how Hillary got corrupted...

[lewebley3]

75. Hillary has represented the American people: Your attack on her:

Is just that a Sanders supporters attack nothing more

[JackInGreen]

77. So you'd introduce Warren

To a bus grill?

[modestybl]

80. What kind of twisted thinking brings THAT image up?

Again, Warren gets to the heart of what is wrong, not just with the Democratic Party, but with D. C. in general ... and you have nothing to say but to bring up a violent image.

[JackInGreen]

81. Wait wait

Only hillary supporters can say that someone's being thrown under a bus when? Ok...

[lewebley3]

83. Warren is just one Senator: She is okay: But their are better

[modestybl]

79. I notice that you can absolutely not argue the substance of Warren's comments...

This isn't insinuation or twisting words or deceptive editing ... or outright lying ... this is WHAT HAPPENED. And it goes right to the core of what we AS DEMOCRATS are supposed to be about. The problem for our party is that a large portion of the leadership has decided to go against FDR type populism and get cozy with Wall Street... among other things. If we can't speak out against the system being rigged against the middle class and poor, and the Third Way, DLC Dems that have made it possible, what the hell is the point of DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?

[lewebley3]

82. I don't care for Warren: Though I think she is to be a respected Dem

I don't think bashing other Dem's is okay: Dem's are not
getting cozy with Wall St. that is your attack and your
opinion. Hillary is the heir to FDR, she will bring the country
together.

You give way to much credit the to this "Third Way":
under Clinton's we had one of the most successful
economies

Its the Bush and the GOP that have destroyed this
country: DLC is now over 25 years old, they
haven't been factor in a long time.

Only Sanders supporters are using this idea of the Third Way

[modestybl]

86. The economy did well as a result of the tax overhaul of 1993...

...back when WJC was listening to Reich and Stiglitz.. what happened in the second term, when WJC listened to Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, he supported the laws and changes to regulation that eventually lead to the financial debacle of 2008...

There are very stark and important differences in the policies of Sanders and HRC, and that is exactly what primary contests are supposed to be about ... not about bogus insinuations of misogyny. And the money has a lot to do with that. HRC has a donor class that she is dependent on - and they expect a return on their "investment" multifold. It is absolutely fair game to press HRC on just how far she is willing to go to satisfy her donor base at the expense of the rest of us...

[lewebley3]

87. Bush and the GOP were in charge 2000 to 2008

You cannot visit the sins of Bush and GOP on Clinton's,
they had a successful administration.
Reich, is man that has lived and career off of the Clinton's,
I don't think much of him.

Sanders has been a good talker, he sat doing nothing until he
was 73 years in a one party state. He let HRC and other
Dem's carry his water. He is not an impressive leader in
America.

[modestybl]

88. I am not talking about Bushco..

... but since you brought it up, HRCs Iraq war vote enabled that horrible act. She also voted for a bankruptcy bill that was for the benefit of the CC companies at the expense of the middle and working classes.

HRC wants for us to believe that she was deeply involved in policy as FLOTUS, but wants us to ignore Glass-Steagall repeal, welfare reform, zero-tolerance, etc, all of which she is on record supporting.

Sanders, on the other hand, has been RIGHT on issues of fundamental concern for the country: War, Wall Street, jobs, veterans, Patriot Act, and the middle class in particular: He also has been the most effective lawmaker in Congress...

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

[lewebley3]

93. Hillary is not responsible for the Iraqi war: Bush and the GOP are responsible

They, are also responsible the economy crashing, 911, and
Katrina.

Hillary voted for the use of force, the same force Clinton had
but didn't use to attack Iraqi

Don't visit the sins of the Bush Admis and GOP: That dog won't
hunt.

If you are going blame Hillary , you have to blame most Americans
who wanted to go to war.

[modestybl]

95. Hillary and Dems are responsible for enabling and supporting Bushco.

... HRC had a chance to LEAD... and she did lead the Dem effort that justified that war... she referred (and still does) to the "intelligence" that she claimed she and Bill saw when THEY were in the WH... of course most of the Dems and the rest of us who could get online and research knew that to be crap... and Sanders politely called her out on that in the first debate.

The circus over in the House distracted from the REAL questions of the Libya policy, like, what did they anticipate would happen with another invasion of and Arab country and overthrow of their leader? Libya is in chaos and on the verge of civil war. HRC was one of the more hawkish members of the Obama admin, did she not learn ANYTHING from the Iraq debacle? Apparently not.

The TPP is turning out to be a worse travesty than even its detractors imagined: as SoS she presided over the majority of the meetings where it was hammered out... not only her abysmal judgement (or compliance with the wishes of her then past and future donors), but her fundamental dishonesty with recent statements may now be on display.

Part of the blame for the rampant experiment in laissez faire capitalism that ended in ruins in 2008 can be laid at the feet of the WJC admin. when Bill was listening to Larry Summers and Robert Rubin (no longer Reich and Stieglitz), in signing legislation that overturned Glass-Stegall and deregulated derivatives. HRC wants to take credit for being an engaged, policy-involved FLOTUS, so can't run away from that important section of her C.V. ...

[lewebley3]

96. Then Nader supporters are responsible for Bush: Thus responsible for the War

Again the sin for the war is a Bush and GOP choice

[modestybl]

97. News Flash: Nader isn't running... can't support HRC, can you? ...

... on there merits of her own extensive and public record. Yes, Dems enabled that war, gave Bushco. bipartisan cover for their criminal acts...

This is why the trust factor for HRC is so LOW... we all know what and who Sanders fights for, but the only consistent principle HRC stands for is the unshakeable belief that she should be POTUS.

[lewebley3]

98. Nader's people are Sanders supporters, they are ones that put Bush in the office

Sanders people are ideologues that would trade pure ideas, for
the White House, which would put the GOP in charge, like they
did to Bush. The GOP will is planning to take this country
to war with Iran: everything must be done to stop them,
which means team work for the Dem's. ( Sanders people
are dividers).

There is no trust factor with HRC, that is a Sanders attack gotten from
the GOP who have been trying to sell this attack for months.


Luckily smart Dem's know Hillary is someone they can trust, because
they have had years to get to know her.

[modestybl]

99. People HAVE seen HRC for years... and her negatives persist...

Can you, with a straight face, say that a person who presided over the TPP for most of the meetings and 29 out of 30 sections written has the interests of the middle and working classes front and center?

Bullcrap. This was 512 multinationals at the table giving their list of demands... no labor, no environmentalists, no health and safety specialists.

Follow the money. Go to open secrets.org and find out who her top contributors are and have been. They are all expecting a big return on their invest.

She voted for the Iraq War. She voted for a terrible bankruptcy law. She opposes the reinstitution of Glass-Stegall, she opposes breaking up the banks. She sees nothing fundamentally wrong with our system, just a few tweaks, throw a few bones to suffering Americans, and continue the business protecting her REAL constituents.

[lewebley3]

101. Hillary has high positives, that is why she is leading:

Hillary presiding over meetings for TPP was her, job, which
to carry out Obama's policies.
Secretary of states don't have foreign or trade policies,
they rep only the President of US policies(Hillary was loyal
employee).
We only have one President at a time, so yes with a strait
face I can say Hillary rep's the Presidents policies. Obama
is very much interested in TPP he says for the middle
class (I think he is wrong):
Hillary's Presidency is another matter, she has come out
against the TPP, without stepping on Obama. ( Hillary is smart)
Hillary is not responsible for the Iraqi war: Bush and GOP are:
Bush and GOP crashed the economy. Hillary does think things
are fundamentally wrong, that is why she is running.

Don't visit the sins of the GOP on to Hillary

[modestybl]

100. How ignorant to claim Nader=Sanders...

Really, the HRC people cannot defend her on her history or positions. Sanders is not running as a third candidate (do you really WANT him to?) Now you make up some bullcrap about Sanders supporters that you can defend either...

[Art_from_Ark]

90. No, Clinton was president in 2000

And the tech bubble started popping early that year.

[lewebley3]

92. Clinton had one of the most successful Admist. in History

Raise taxes on the rich: and left office with surplus,
middle class was being rebuilt.

[99th_Monkey]

45. Donors <-- An important issue, as in Citizens United

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 08:09 PM - Edit history (3)

And WHO can be believed when they say they "oppose" CU, and who cannot be taken seriously, due to their use of Super-PACs

This is totally fair game under rubric of discussing issues voters care about

[MineralMan]

2. I'm with you on that!

[NCTraveler]

3. I'm there with you. Good luck to Sanders. He is a great person with a great message.

A solid ally and I have a lot of respect for him. While I support Hillary today, I will #bernwithbernie if Sanders comes out of the primary victorious.

[Rose Siding]

4. kickin' that

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. There are a lot of people on this site who loudly proclaim they aren't Democrats, as is their right.

As long as they don't actively canvas against them on DU after a nominee is chosen.

[riderinthestorm]

6. +10 million!!!! Nt

[Ernesto]

7. I'm with Binkie on this one!........n-t

[whatchamacallit]

8. Were it that simple...

At this point there are too many disparities within the party for voting by label.

[randys1]

28. Translation, you cant vote for Hillary?

[whatchamacallit]

34. I can

and likely will if it comes to that, but more and more of us are rejecting the sancity of democrats dogma. The quality of democratic politicians varies depending on your principles and beliefs.

[workinclasszero]

9. I have never had a problem saying

if Bernie Sanders won the primaries I would vote for and support him.

Many, many Bernie fans promise to never vote for or support Hillary if she wins.

Make of that what you will.

[AzDar]

39. Because Bernie is not just pretending to be a Progressive. Hillary shamelessly IS.

It's really not that complex...

[leftynyc]

47. So if she is the nominee

We wont be seeing you around here on the election threads? The purpose of this site isn't that complex either.

[AzDar]

56. You may, and you may not. Last time I checked, this site wasn't called Hillary Underground.

[leftynyc]

61. If she's the Democratic nominee

it may as well have that name. Bullshit from detractors during an election season is very much frowned upon and could get you banned.

[AzDar]

68. 'If' being the operative word. I'd issue the same warning to you, Chief, re: Bernie being the

nominee... but frankly, I find it creepy and sounding like something Debbie Wasserman-Schultz might say.

[leftynyc]

74. I don't need the warning

I've already posted (over and over and over again) that I will vote for whoever has the D behind their name. I'm fine with any of our candidates. You don't like the rules of this board, take it up with the moderators.

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. because THIS doesn't look like the record of ANY Progressive I have ever seen before...

http://ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm


OHHH Wait WUT???


http://ontheissues.org/elizabeth_warren.htm

[TBF]

10. I agree and I assume you'll all be voting for Bernie. nt

[saturnsring]

12. if he wins the general, of course be happy to same with hillary

[saturnsring]

11. no group should be posting negative articles about either candidate leave that for the freepers

and kkkarl rove

[108vcd]

13. Am I a Democrat?

No, I am a liberal progressive who has votes Democrat sometimes based on the nominee

[The Wielding Truth]

15. Yes you are a Democrat, but you can vote Democratically or for a Democrat.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Loyalty Oaths are sooo..1950s.

But, there is always an attempt to resurrect them every election.

[Nitram]

18. Your "loyalty oath" claptrap is such a tired retort to reminders that Democrats are...

...better for the country than Republicans. And just a straw man argument from people who won't vote for anybody of their candidate loses. They'll pout and take their ball home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I'll be voting. But, I still don't recognize loyalty oaths.

And, I consider "Not as bad" a strawman argument and claptrap.

[Nitram]

21. Tell me who demanded that you sign a loyalty oath, and I'll the concede point.

Until then, claptrap it is, and loyalty oaths on DU are a straw man argument.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Really? Calling for party unity, party loyalty, aren't loyalty oaths?

Perhaps we're not reading the same OP. The one that contains threats of terrible consequences if we don't vote for the Democrat. Does not pledging to vote for a candidate sound like an oath to you?

[Nitram]

23. Nope, that's just encouraging people to vote for a Democrat. No loyalty oath required or expected.

Pointing out the truly terrible consequences of electing a Republican is not equivalent to demanding a loyalty oath. No one has asked a single Bernie supporter to pledge to vote for Clinton. When Bernistas encourage others to vote for Bernie, is that asking for a loyalty oath? Take a deep breath and sit down for a minute.

[randys1]

29. This approach of some of them, the "loyalty oath", is easily seen thru.

The most liberal, far left human being possible will ALWAYS vote for the least harm while working to revolutionize the system from within.

[Bobbie Jo]

42. This. nt

[HassleCat]

16. I will vote for her, but...

I am nt "perfectly fine" with Clinton. I will pretend I am.

[jkbRN]

25. I second this

[FSogol]

17. K & R. n/t

[Renew Deal]

20. Most Democrats agree with you.

[brooklynite]

24. Some folks here appear proud to say they're not...

[whatchamacallit]

27. Not all democratic politicians are equal to all democrats

Your ability to relate and support a democrat depends on where you sit on the party's left-right spectrum.

[frylock]

51. Are you suggesting that people should be ashamed to not be a member of your party?

[Live and Learn]

26. I'll be voting issues not labels. nt

[daleanime]

31. The more I see how desperately some try to shove her down our throats.....

the less I believe that. Not a single vote has been cast, but we are reminded constantly that she alread has over a third of the delegates she'll need.

Yea, democracy......

[Phlem]

35. yep.

Also one is actually liberal while the other is Republican light.

Hmmm.... choices, choices.

[daleanime]

36. I know.....

it be nice if we were allowed some.

[restorefreedom]

72. and the more determined i become

to vote my conscience not what some tell me i "have" to do

[frylock]

32. My voter registration says 'Decline to state'

[pinebox]

62. Amen

You said it!

[zalinda]

37. But you cannot depend on Democrats

to elect a President, you must have Independents as well. Independents are notorious for swaying elections, like Reagan or Bush (I'd have a beer with him). Trying this loyalty vote crap over and over is getting old. Let's see, this OP has come up at least 3 or 4 times a week, maybe more, for 6 months now. When will Hillary supporters give it a rest? She is unlikable and untrustworthy. If she goes up against Trump, she loses, period. The low information voters will vote for the TV star before they will vote for Hillary.

If the Democratic party wants loyalty votes they should try to put up candidates that we would want to be loyal to. Hillary is not one of them.

Z

[Phlem]

38. +1

Spot on.

[demwing]

71. Hear, hear! Give us something to hold our loyalty

Not a candidate that represents the wealthiest of us over the poorest and the middle class.
Not a party head that supports Republicans over liberals.

Ah hell...I'm wasting my time. Those that are open to this message already know what I'm talking about, and the vast majority of those that reject that message either can't get it or just don't want to see it.

I knew the game was rigged, I just never expected that there were DUers who were complicit in the rigging.

[dembotoz]

40. any dem would HAVE to be better than a presdent trump or carson

should not have to state the fricken obvious.....

[geardaddy]

41. I'm pulling for Bernie, but will vote for whoever the nominee is...

And will vote for Democratic candidates down-ticket.

[byronius]

43. Thanks for this post.

I sure do love Bernie. I'm okay with Hillary. I'd be really happy with a dual ticket of these individuals in any order.

The frothy-rage thing I keep seeing -- bizarre to me. I came of age in a red state, surrounded by virtual neo-nazis; to me, Barack Obama is without a doubt the most successful progressive president in our history. The vitriol directed at him on this site mirrors the vitriol directed at Hillary, and I find it baseless and counterproductive.

Citizens United is responsible for all of this. Bernie has successfully navigated this disastrous state of affairs with a great deal of honor and intelligence. Hillary's played it differently, a little more like Obama -- but I don't for a second believe that she is some sort of craven political hack who serves the 1%. That's bullshit.

None of us can possibly know how either of these individuals would function as president. Everything changes with the office. I think the primary back-and-forth is required, part of the process -- but the hysteria, the wringing of the hands, the absolute certainty of betrayal -- it's bullshit. None of us know. It's always a crapshoot.

I wish we weren't so susceptible to placing our private angst and emotional distress into this process. Bleah.

I know an older guy, very liberal, former fighter pilot who resigned over Kent State. Good artist. Has some issues. He hates Jerry Brown like the plague over a perceived personal slight from the eighties. He knows for a fact that Jerry Brown is wholly devoted to evil; so much so that he supported the Libertarian candidate, Neel Kashkari, in the last election.

And you know what? FUCK THAT. Fucking Neel Kashkari is a fucking right wing villain, and this friend of mind is a fucking lunatic for voting for him. That's not progressive; that's mental illness and poor judgment. Jerry Brown's a fucking saint compared to Neel Kashkari.

You do the best you can with what you've got. It's messy, and it's ugly, but it's life. Fucking Donald Trump is Death. Any Republican candidate is Death. I want Bernie, but if I can't have Bernie, I'll take the next-best option, and that is not sulking in the corner while the fucking WORLD BURNS.

Sorry. A little frustrated today with the vitriolic purist thing.

[Starry Messenger]

50. Great post!

[randome]

60. "...not sulking in the corner while the fucking WORLD BURNS."

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fearless]

46. And when the potential democratic candidate holds Republican views?

[grahamhgreen]

48. Agreed, but Hillary supporters refuse to engage on issues! Example:

Bernie opposes TPP because it supersedes US democracy and allows corporations to overturn US law in corporate courts.

Where does Hillary stand on this aspect of the TPP?

PS - I will not get an answer.

[randome]

54. It's a ridiculous question since it's been the norm for decades.

It's a slightly different version of arbitration but it's been in place for a long time. And how else would you arbitrate international trade issues if not in an international forum? You'd rather leave these issues for some 'Billy-Bob' judge in Mississippi who would outlaw abortion first chance he could?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[grahamhgreen]

67. Far from ridiculous, it's an assault on American Democracy itself. If we pass a law

banning GMO's, and Monsanto overturns our law in an international corporate court, what function does our democracy have?

And where does Hillary stand on this issue?

[Android3.14]

49. You have reason to worry

Hillary has zero credibility with an enormous number of people, including many-many Democrats. It's a sweet sentiment to think we are all Democrats and we should rally behind the winner of the primary process, but the truth is that one candidate has transformed this important phase of the Presidential election into something so vile that there are strong Democrats out there who will refuse to vote for Clinton because they believe her behavior is antithetical to Democratic values and basic fair play.

Ethical people will refuse to participate in the vile practice of going along in order to get along, and ultimately the real reason you should worry is because there are many-many ethical Democrats.

[randome]

52. 'Ethical' means you'd rather have no health care than ACA, then, I take it?

You know how Clinton is going to win? Because people will vote for her. You're basically saying that the majority of voters who actually vote for her are not ethical. That's not a very Zen way of going through life, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Android3.14]

70. I should have said unethical and/or uninformed

Anyone paying attention knows the truth of it.

[jwirr]

89. What Clinton is saying to us is that it does not matter that

she is a centrist because we are going to have to vote for her no matter what we believe. Oh, you can be sure we will because the centrists have left just enough of the safety net that we cannot afford to lose to the Rs who are going to take all of it.

But we do not have to like what she is doing to us.

[lovemydog]

55. You just reminded me of this great song.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. I think Skinner should start

I think Skinner should start permabanning for loyalty oath OPs. Loyalty oath posts are all DU is anymore.

[randome]

58. A plea for unity is not a loyalty post. And the name of the site is DEMOCRATICUnderground.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lyric]

65. I think he should ban anyone who professes that they won't vote for our nominee.

[PowerToThePeople]

69. Your post is zero percent democratic.

If our nominee is HRC, you will be unable to claim her as "our" nominee, per my definition. I guess you must use definition #2.

our
ˈou(ə )r,är/
determiner
possesive pronoun: our

1.
belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified.
"Jo and I had our hair cut"
belonging to or associated with people in general.
"when we hear a sound, our brains identify the source quickly"
2.
used by a writer, editor, or monarch to refer to something belonging to or associated with himself or herself.

[Babel_17]

59. But when Secretary Clinton decided to go negative?

Your post is fine but it ignored that, and thus doesn't ring totally true.

P.S. And let's not forget about David Brock. Haven't heard of him being reprimanded.

[99Forever]

63. You're perfectly fine with Clinton. I'm not

I don't vote for noeliberal or neocons.

[Autumn]

64. Actually I'm not. I only re registered as a democrat to caucus for Bernie in the primary.

After the primary is over I go back to Unaffiliated.

[HereSince1628]

66. I'm not sure what a democrat is anymore

The party is currently led by a president who is a self-professed model of a moderate republican

The big-financials friendly right of the party seems to try to follow that lead, albeit with somewhat less moderation.

The left of the party is represented by an independent leaning into the vacuum of the enthusiasm gap once occupied by liberal politicians.

Because, we actually perpetuate what options we get to vote for with the support that shows up as the votes we cast, we should vote being conscious of that. I trust everyone to vote in an informed way, and for the candidates who represents what they most want.

[artislife]

76. What is the point of being issued based then?

[cwydro]

78. Good post!

And good luck!

[MPeters]

84. Establishment politics = nothing changes

Bernie is the only one who will try to return this plutocracy back into a democracy. Hillary will not bc she's part of the establishment. If we ever want to see a representative democracy again, Bernie is the only one who will give it a fair try. That said, we can't afford more conservatives on the SCOTUS to add more plutocratic obstacles like citizens united and mccutcheon. So, I'll never turn my back on Bernie, but I'll vote Hilary in the general.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. I no longer have any idea what "Democrats" means.

But if all this is to you is a team sport, then yes, technically we are all on the same "team". Yay Team!

[McCamy Taylor]

91. I agree. But vowing to support the party over one individual can get you banned

in some groups right now. Not that I am not interested in being a member of any group that would ban someone for supporting the party first.

[LWolf]

94. I assume

that somebody, somewhere along the line, suggested that they wouldn't vote for HRC in the general. That's a pretty standard primary thing.

So is the line of people scolding, cajoling, demanding, reminding, threatening, etc., etc., that people need to get in line after the convention. That's also a pretty standard thing.

To be honest, I find it all tiresome, and a great distraction from the actual issues that should be under discussion.

That's how I choose candidates in the primary and in the general. On issues.

The status-quo camp, a bit stung by the popularity of the populist, is bringing everything they've got, including the monolithic party structure, to bear to make sure that the other side knows they can't win.

The grass-roots for change camp isn't giving ground, although they know what they are up against.

I generally see the tiresome distraction of "support for the nominee" to be just another version of bullying. From one camp it's an effort to bully people into shutting the fuck up and getting in line.

From the other it's using what they've got; a threat to the status quo.

I'm a Democrat. That doesn't mean that I toe ANYONE'S line. I think the party is better, and stronger, when dissent isn't silenced or crushed by the status-quo. And my vote is earned, not owed. AND I don't give a flying fuck who is offended by that. It's my right as a citizen to hold my government and my party accountable for their positions and record on issues, and to vote my conscience. I WILL go toe-to-toe with anyone who wants to erode that right.

I also know that both sides, if you remove the bombast, the hyperbole, and the efforts to intimidate, have a point. I'll acknowledge both points, if this stupid distraction can just be retired so we can focus on actual issues.