HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » A Hillary Clinton Coronat...

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:46 AM

A Hillary Clinton Coronation Will Pave the Way for a Scott Walker Presidency


http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/17/a-hillary-clinton-coronation-will-pave-the-way-for-a-scott-walker-presidency/

While Clinton has been marketed as a progressive, and while her campaign announcement video has clearly tried to brand her as a woman of the people, she has a long record as a hawkish, Wall Street-friendly, fossil fuel-supporting proponent of the security state who embodies crony capitalism and an out-of-touch establishment. So far, major media outlets have ignored the left’s criticism of Clinton’s record in favor of pushing a narrative of a popular candidate catering to middle-class voters (with a decidedly milquetoast economic populist agenda).

In one of two paid speeches to Goldman Sachs that brought HRC a cool $400,000, she was introduced by one of the bankers emceeing the event as “someone who could bring us out of the wilderness.” During the speech, which has not yet been made available to the public, she is purported to have made remarks criticizing politicians who bash Wall Street as “unproductive” and “foolish.” As Zaid Jilani reported in Alternet, Clinton also gave a paid speech to the Biotechnology Industry Organization in which she simultaneously praised genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in food and advocated cutting corporate taxes, which already make up a record-low percentage of overall U.S. tax revenue. In case voters are still unclear on HRC’s position on GMOs, the Ready for Hillary PAC picked a Monsanto lobbyist as one of the leaders of her Iowa campaign team.

Hillary Clinton is also vilified among environmentalists around the country and the world for her support of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in which jets of water are injected with hundreds of chemicals into the ground to break up natural gas deposits, and often lead to natural gas contaminating local water supplies. In the U.S., fracking is one of the industries chiefly responsible for California’s water crisis by burning through 70 million gallons of water last year alone. This Mother Jones report explores how, as President Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton aggressively introduced fracking to Eastern European countries. Many of these fracking projects were handled by companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which made millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

76 replies, 4877 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 76 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Hillary Clinton Coronation Will Pave the Way for a Scott Walker Presidency (Original post)
eridani Apr 2015 OP
Scootaloo Apr 2015 #1
Demeter Apr 2015 #11
L0oniX Apr 2015 #21
merrily Apr 2015 #30
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #22
CrispyQ Apr 2015 #26
delrem Apr 2015 #68
jomin41 Apr 2015 #2
CrispyQ Apr 2015 #27
marym625 Apr 2015 #3
eridani Apr 2015 #4
marym625 Apr 2015 #5
Katashi_itto Apr 2015 #6
elzenmahn Apr 2015 #7
TBF Apr 2015 #9
marym625 Apr 2015 #57
Katashi_itto Apr 2015 #10
marym625 Apr 2015 #58
marym625 Apr 2015 #56
elzenmahn Apr 2015 #60
marym625 Apr 2015 #61
marym625 Apr 2015 #55
merrily Apr 2015 #76
merrily Apr 2015 #31
marym625 Apr 2015 #59
whereisjustice Apr 2015 #8
Demeter Apr 2015 #18
merrily Apr 2015 #32
brush Apr 2015 #12
the_sly_pig Apr 2015 #13
merrily Apr 2015 #33
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #14
mopinko Apr 2015 #20
merrily Apr 2015 #43
BrainDrain Apr 2015 #47
Downtown Hound Apr 2015 #48
Thekaspervote Apr 2015 #15
Historic NY Apr 2015 #16
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #24
malthaussen Apr 2015 #17
sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #25
malthaussen Apr 2015 #29
SheilaT Apr 2015 #19
CrispyQ Apr 2015 #28
SheilaT Apr 2015 #40
merrily Apr 2015 #45
aspirant Apr 2015 #23
merrily Apr 2015 #35
SheilaT Apr 2015 #41
aspirant Apr 2015 #42
MisterP Apr 2015 #50
still_one Apr 2015 #34
merrily Apr 2015 #36
still_one Apr 2015 #38
merrily Apr 2015 #39
still_one Apr 2015 #46
merrily Apr 2015 #53
still_one Apr 2015 #63
aspirant Apr 2015 #44
merrily Apr 2015 #37
Downtown Hound Apr 2015 #49
longship Apr 2015 #51
sadoldgirl Apr 2015 #52
Major Hogwash Apr 2015 #54
dembotoz Apr 2015 #69
HERVEPA Apr 2015 #62
eridani Apr 2015 #64
HERVEPA Apr 2015 #65
eridani Apr 2015 #67
HERVEPA Apr 2015 #70
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #66
HERVEPA Apr 2015 #71
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #72
HERVEPA Apr 2015 #73
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #74
merrily Apr 2015 #75

Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:49 AM

1. I was unaware there were corporate taxes left to cut

 

I mean between the amazingly low rates, the loopholes, and the subsidies, we're already paying them taxes, essentially, so, what else is there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:53 AM

11. Bailouts. Lots and lots of subsidy from the public purse

 

Bankruptcy lawyers are hitting gold, this year...

Bankruptcies Suddenly Soar Across Corporate America, Worst First Quarter Since 2009 by Wolf Richter


http://wolfstreet.com/2015/04/16/bankruptcies-soar-across-corporate-america-not-just-oil/

PRIVATIZE THE GAINS, SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES....IT'S THE AMERICAN CORPORATE WAY!


(See our daily expose of the worst that the economic actors have to offer on the Stock Market Watch and the Weekend Economists threads, here at DU, and in the Economy Group in general)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 10:04 AM

21. Maybe they want to be paid for just existing too.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:34 AM

30. I think WalMart has managed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 10:31 AM

22. That's what the TPP's for.

To move us ever more firmly into private companies being paid out of the public purse, for governments having the gall to actually try to create legislation to protect the environment or workers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM

26. Didn't GE get a tax refund recently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 23, 2015, 03:51 AM

68. Perhaps it'll be something on the lines of obliging the taxpayer to do the cleanups.

That's the case already, by default, even though the toxic industries don't pay the taxes required to support it.

Something in a TPP, for instance, that makes gov'ts beware of enacting environmental regulations and responsibilities, to fix this problem, lest they get sued for endangering profits.

Something like that isn't outside the realm of science-fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 07:33 AM

2. Old news...

She's had an exorcism. All good now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jomin41 (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:18 AM

27. DUzy!



Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:02 AM

3. When was the speech?

I knew about the speeches but I had the impression they were not that recent. I only skimmed the article but I didn't see a date.

Thanks for the post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:05 AM

4. 2013--there's a post in GD with quotes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:08 AM

5. ok. thanks

I will check them out. Haven't really looked at too much in GD of late.

No matter what happens, I just can't believe we would elect someone that doesn't even have a college education and has run his State into the ground.

What am I saying? I guess I live in a dream land

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:19 AM

6. Unfortunately, but it very likely Walker will have a great shot at president.

 

The media is controlled. Hillary is... uninspiring, to put it nicely. Walker can outspend Hillary with the Koch coffers. Yeah it doesn't look good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:22 AM

7. I'm afraid that I have to agree with you...

...I've said in previous posts that he's well-banked and well-backed. He's also relatively young, and with the right media handling, can potentially appeal to younger voters if he pivots sufficiently to their more "libertarian" beliefs (re: pot, the war on drugs, etc.).

Don't take him lightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:32 AM

9. That guy is not to be underestimated -

the fact that he was able to hoodwink the residents of a formerly progressive state like Wisconsin should give all pause. We know Hillary is beatable - many of us worked for Obama for that reason (we knew HE could win - we weren't sure about her). I hold the same view now on that as I did in 2008. We'd be smart to put up someone with less baggage but unfortunately the party seems hell-bent on running her. Bad move imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:40 PM

57. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:35 AM

10. Just under two years out and it feels like we are watching a slow motion train wreck.

 

Hopefully we are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:41 PM

58. Unfortunately,

The only thing in slow motion is actual wrecking. The wreck already happened

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:39 PM

56. Can I take him with some alka seltzer?

I hope you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #56)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:33 PM

60. I hope I'm wrong, too!

But that's up to US.

GOTV!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elzenmahn (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:34 PM

61. Most definitely

We need to use social media like it was used in the 2008 election. Even smarter than at that time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:38 PM

55. But look at the money Romney received

And he lost. But, Walker isn't running against the likes of President Obama. Best orator so far this century

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Katashi_itto (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 05:56 AM

76. Barney Frank said tonight on Bravo Clubhouse

that Scott Walker might be the nominee because he has no negatives.

That was a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:36 AM

31. I know Dimson had a legacy college education, but it was clear his brain was mush. Re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 08:44 PM

59. part of the plan

In dumbing down America.

It was true decades ago that a person could have just a high school education and still be well educated. Now, even with a college education, many don't learn as much as used to be taught in high school

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:22 AM

8. But I'm told if we over look the indiscretion, lack of ethics, elitism and hypocrisy - she can win!

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:41 AM

18. Either way WE lose

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:37 AM

32. Not only that, but she's the only one who can win the general--and she's sure to win it!!11!!

she has this one sewn up six ways to Sunday! Just like 2008!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 08:55 AM

12. Come on people, Walker will self-destruct on the campaign trail

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The guy compares how he handled unions to handling ISIS — not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

He's this election cycle's Rick Perry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:01 AM

13. Hillary is not my first choice....

But honestly, it seems the country is being turned into an Idiocracy by a war on education. As such, we will certainly reap what we sew. I don't believe Hillary will make or break anything that happens. I do seem to remember that Hillary tried to enact national health care in the 1990's. I credit her with that.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

If we end up with Skank Wanker in four years then I guess due to unthinking idiots we will get what we deserve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to the_sly_pig (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:39 AM

33. Hillary AND Bill tried to enact Heritage Foundation Care--and failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:14 AM

14. I am surprised...

 

that your post hasn't been banned by the DU purity jury, or purged for being anti-HRC.

I truly hope this kind of truth gets out more.....

Thanks and kicked and rec;ed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:46 AM

20. rilly?

what on earth could bring you to that conclusion? anti-hill posts are half the feed here. i dont see them being locked.
argued forcefully, yes. locked? get off it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:08 PM

43. This is the Populist Reform Group, not GD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:52 PM

47. mine was....

 

rilly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BrainDrain (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:58 PM

48. Oh right, because there are no anti-Hillary posts at all on DU

All of them get banned on the spot and you poor, noble, truth tellers must go underground and form your own resistance.

I swear, the martyrdom of the anti-Hillary crowd gets truly laughable sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:18 AM

15. I don't care how many posts you have that's bs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:39 AM

16. Wait weren't the Republicans decrying here for showing Gasland....

and promoting anti-fracking. Of course at State she would have been promoting the Obama administrations policies not her own........but please proceed.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/02/hillary-clinton-says-fracking-carries-risks-in-conservation-speech

http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-hillary-clinton-fracking-propaganda/2D4EA567-7912-41AA-AFC7-FD6EABA58752.html

http://dailysignal.com/2012/03/23/house-members-ask-sec-clinton-not-to-showcase-fracking-propaganda/

Thirty-two members of the House of Representatives have asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to remove a factually inaccurate environmentalist documentary from the list of featured films at a State Department event showcasing “contemporary American society and culture.”

The documentary, Gasland, spread hysteria about the natural gas mining technique hydraulic fracturing, using numerous factual misstatements, exaggerations, and misrepresentations. Its inclusion in State’s event was first reported by Scribe last month.

The 32 House members accuse State of pursuing a “radical environmental agenda,” as evinced by its inclusion of Gasland in the event, and its role in blocking the Keystone XL pipeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:09 AM

24. Did she remove it? Good that it was made available. But the test of a strong leader is what they do

when they are challenged. If she did not, that is in her favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:41 AM

17. And nuclear war, too.

Oh, and probably sexual dysfunction. The power of a presidential nominee is awesome.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:16 AM

25. We would like to keep this forum focused on the issues. Snide and snark add nothing to real

discussion.

This OP says that Hillary Clinton supports Fracking. However in a post in this thread, that claim is disputed, and with links, which is always a good thing.

The links seem to say that she has stated that Fracking can be risky. They also say that while she was at the State Dept, the documentary Gasland was available for viewing. That she was asked by over 30 members of Congress to remove it as it was causing 'hysteria' and harming the Natural Gas Industry.

This seems to contradict the OP, at least on the Fracking Issue.

What I do not know yet, is whether or not she complied with the request from the Pro-Fossil Fuel members of Congress.

Do YOU know what happened after that request was made?

I am hoping she did not comply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:30 AM

29. You must forget the Reagan ads in 1980...

... that claimed a vote for Carter was a vote for nuclear war. Do you really think Walker has a hope in hell of election? That would assign to the Koch brothers influence even their money would have a hard time buying. As I recall, early in the last election every new Republican nominee took first place in the polls after his announcement, but Romney was chosen anyway. I am thinking much the same thing will happen with Walker, who does not have the kind of national rep a presidential nominee needs. Much of course can still happen. Much as I dislike Hillary, though, I think it is hyperbole to declare that nominating her will ensure a GOP victory. Especially when the statement is made in April of 2015.

As for Gasland, so far as a quick survey of Google can reveal, the State Department endorsed the film. It doesn't much matter if they did or not, so long as they ignore the message.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:46 AM

19. But, but, Hillary's a Progressive!

 

Didn't the former leader of Acorn assure us of that?

I am genuinely horrified at the thought of Hillary Clinton as President, only a little less horrified than I am of any of the possible Republicans in that office.

And it really is much too early to assume who the Republican nominee. Just as I hope it's too early to crown Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:25 AM

28. I know three republican women who said they will vote for her.

I'm kind of friends with one of them. "You should be happy!" she said when she saw my expression. Why would I be happy that the democratic party is putting up a candidate that republicans like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:01 PM

40. Very interesting point.

 

I also think there is an enormous overestimation of a pent-up longing for a woman President. By and large, women do NOT cross party lines to vote for other women. If they did, Wendy Davis would be Governor of Texas, and Alison Grimes would be Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:10 PM

45. Some women are afrain they may not live to see a female President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 10:41 AM

23. If we're the fringe Left

and insignificant in elections, why is HRC trying to become one of us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:42 AM

35. She isn't. She saw how popular Warren is and tried to sound like Warren. At least for the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:03 PM

41. Absolutely. She's trying to stake out a "Progressive" stance

 

to get by Warren, and once that's accomplished she'll go back to being the corporatist war party Hillary we all know and love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:06 PM

42. Restate, sorry

If the fringe Left is insignificant, according to some DU'ers, why is HRC trying to become a Pretend Populist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:14 PM

50. yeah--are we damn hippie spoilers she rightly ignores, or is she the One True Prog?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:40 AM

34. Really? The polls seem to disagree with that assessment. That isn't me pushing one candidate or

another, that is what poll after poll indicates. I will be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:44 AM

36. And you can't think of a single reason why the polls are that way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:50 AM

38. Are the polls inaccurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:51 AM

39. Answering a question with a question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:18 PM

46. Ironic since you did the same thing with me first

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 03:43 AM

53. Untrue. I replied to your STATEMENT with a question and you are still ducking my question.

Your reply 34 was to eridani, not to me. In your reply 34, you stated--not asked, stated--

The polls seem to disagree with that assessment. That isn't me pushing one candidate or

another, that is what poll after poll indicates.


To that statement, not question, my Reply 36 was:

And you can't think of a single reason why the polls are that way?


Your "reply" to my question in #38 was:

Are the polls inaccurate?





So, no, I did not reply too your question with a question first. You were the only one who did that. And there is no irony whatever.

However, you did reply to my question with a question and you still have not answered the question in my Reply 36.

Do you think people can't read the thread?

Clearly, though, I'd be silly to expect either an apology from you for your untruth or an answer to my question.

BTW. This is not GD or the Hillary Group. In this group, we're supposed to be able to discuss non-reform candidates without these kinds of battles from Hillary's supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 04:52 PM

63. I was wrong. Sorry for the error. As for the question why I think the polls are a

certain way, my answer would be they represent a snapshot it time. That can change if taken at another time, but if enough polls are taken with periodic frequency a trend may emerge which is indicative of sentiment.

As to your pointing out that I was in a non-reform candidate group, I absolutely screwed up on that one also. I really thought it was GD. I have inadvertently done this before with another group, and whether you believe or not I really would not have gone in a special group forum to advocate for or against someone outside of that group. I do apologize for that also.

Incidentally, though my posts may indicate I am a Hillary supporter, the fact is I haven't decided, and won't until I see what challengers appear in the Democratic primary, and where they are on various issues.

I do appreciate you pointing out the group I was posting in was NOT GD.

Thanks, and sorry for the delayed response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:09 PM

44. Polls are

probabilities, estimates, guesses and are unverifiable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:46 AM

37. I don't know about Walker. It will pave the way for more disaffection.

Maybe a third party down the road, but definitely more disaffection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 01:59 PM

49. Bullshit. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:55 PM

51. Balderdash!

Pure and simple. This is balderdash.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

And no. I am not a Hillary supporter. I am merely one who can smell balderdash from a mile away.

I have no dog in this (apparent) hunt. I am a mere Democratic partisan who sees both the most fervent Hillary supporters and Hillary haters -- the latter is only verb appropriate in this context -- both acting like two year olds here on DU.

It is over 18 months until the next presidential election. I am baffled by the apparent urgency of something which will not be resolved in such a time frame. And also by the venom being hurled towards good DUers both for or against a putative future president. Some are even posting that they wouldn't vote for Hillary in the general election! Well, such opinions would get you banned on the DU of past days.

This is Democratic Underground, not Third Way Underground, and not Liberal Underground.

Play nicely, people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 05:10 PM

52. I am not so sure about Walker, but watch Rubio,

there might be an attraction for the Hispanics for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #52)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 03:54 AM

54. Walker is getting Koch Bros. money.

If Hillary is really going to try to raise $2.5 billion dollars for her campaign, the Koch Bros will match that and even donate more than that to get Walker in to the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 24, 2015, 09:12 AM

69. maybe no . seems wanker said stupid stuff to glen beck and Koch's r backing away

Seems he forgot that red meat base is not always the same as corporate elite
He is not that bright so the confusion on his part is justified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 02:19 PM

62. Are you missing where the large percentage of liberal Dmocrats like her.

 

And will vote for her in the general if she gets the nomination.
I prefer someone more liberal, but to assume she won't win because of positions that 90& of the electorate are unfamiliar with makes no sense.
DU is not representative of the electorate, or the Democratic Party, or even liberal Democrats as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 04:59 PM

64. So you are all cheery happy that most people pay little attention to public policy

Yay alienation! We obviously need more of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 05:13 PM

65. There is absolutely nothing in my post that says I am happy about that.

 

I am stating what I believe to be true, not that I am happy about it.
And here I believe you display what I think is a large problem today.
You made an assumption that was totally unsupported by what I said.
Lack of critical reading or analytical thinking skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #65)

Thu Apr 23, 2015, 01:27 AM

67. The reason that most voters are not like DU is that they don't care that much about public policy

That is the major difference. Were you suggesting that there are other reasons of significance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Reply #67)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:51 PM

70. Nope. Never suggested that there were other reasons.

 

Your subject line is correct I believe. That doesn't mean I like it. It just its what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 22, 2015, 08:01 PM

66. Once again, the field isn't set. And those "liberals" you say favor her are self proclaimed liberal

 

Anyone can claim to be liberal. Some Clinton supporters here claim to be liberal. No liberal would approve of her economic plans, her foreign policy stands, and her closeness with Wall Street. No liberal could overlook her "mistake" in 2002 and the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #66)

Wed Apr 29, 2015, 11:53 PM

71. Thank you for defining liberal.

 

You are not the only one who gets to define it however.
For the record, she doesn't thrill me and I would prefer Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #71)

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 12:04 AM

72. So if you disagree, go ahead and explain. How would a liberal embrace HRC's

 

participation with the Republicons in promulgating the Bush lies? IMO that alone disqualifies her as being "liberal". If you disagree, explain why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #72)

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 12:21 AM

73. On social issues she has a very liberal record. That's one way.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #73)

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 12:32 AM

74. That doesn't override her hawkish foreign policy record or her close ties to Wall Street.

 

She is typical Third Way. Liberal for social equality but not for economic equality. And a neocon foreign policy record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eridani (Original post)

Thu Apr 30, 2015, 05:09 AM

75. The banksters think THEY are in the wildnerness? After the trillions they raked in during

the mortgage derivative bubble, the bailout, the settlement, and the Fed all but paying them to borrow all these years?

They got me at "wilderness." l have to recover before I can post about the rest of the stuff in OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread