Tomorrow means nothing. We will still be able to praise Senator Sanders...

[Cooley Hurd]

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

...and go forth with his message. We won't be able to attack the presumptive nominee, granted, but why would we want to at this point?

We should save those attacks for the biggest danger to our democracy AND our very way-of-life... the Orange One!

Oh, and to those profile-peepers, my favorite group is NOT "Hillary Clinton". I posted there yesterday begging them to stop driving voters away from their candidate, the presumptive nominee (which changed my "favorite group" status). Since then, I've been attacked by both Senator Sanders AND Secretary Clinton supporters.

And, since a few Senator Sanders' supporters said to me that Hillary is as dangerous as Trump, I ask, *REALLY*???? It's.not.even.close.

Let's continue to move Senator Sanders and his message forward, and leave the inter-partisanship and hate behind.

On edit: *Phew!* My favorite group switched back to "Bernie Sanders".

[RoccoR5955]

1. But if you say ANYTHING

that is not TOTALLY pro-Hilliary, will get you banned.
That could be thought, by the myriad of Hillbots here as even things that are pro-Bernie.
I've had it, myself.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Nope. That will not be the case...

We will certainly be able to praise Senator Sanders AND, as long as it's constructive and not rude, criticize Secretary Clinton.

The TOS has been violated repeatedly since the beginning of the primaries, and the Admins have turned a blind eye. Tomorrow, they will go back to enforcing the TOS.

No one will be banned as long as the criticism of the presumptive nominee is constructive, and the TOS is not violated.

[pangaia]

5. That will not stop you know who from alerting and voting to hide.

[Cooley Hurd]

10. The jury system changes tomorrow...

From what I've gathered, jurors will have to pick a specific TOS violation. And no more crappy comments.

[pangaia]

11. I'll believe it when I see it. Hope you are right, I guess.

Or, on the other hand, what difference does it make.

[Cooley Hurd]

12. I hope I'm right, too...

[senz]

23. I hope you'll be coming over

to jpr, pangaia. We need more musicians over there!

[swhisper1]

27. no, you dont have to support her, you just cannot bash her. She will self destruct at our cost

we shall just support downticket dems and that is not against the rules

[CBGLuthier]

3. Tomorrow also means that those of us who can no longer afford to pay have no voice in the jury proc

Which is why TODAY is my last day. Fuck that undemocratic bullshit. I have been here for a decade and a half and paid when I could afford it. DU can stuff it as of tomorrow. I hope to get banned today.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. Man, I hope you reconsider...

On edit: You and I have been here the same amount of time, so we both remember the Deaniac/Clarkie wars, and the Hillbot/Obamabot (can't recall the actual colloquial name given to Obama supporters) wars four years later. We're vets!

We were spared such contentiousness in 2012, and, yes, this cycle has been BRUTAL! But, we're STILL here!

[gordianot]

4. Be careful going near a Democratic Convention.

The ghost of Richard Daley is stalking, and appears to me has support among the living.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. There's no reason for that to happen...

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. What if she says or does something stupid, offensive, evil or just plain idiotic?

>>> We won't be able to attack the presumptive nominee, granted, but why would we want to at this point? >>>>

[Cooley Hurd]

9. Then we can constructively criticize her.

That's not going to change.

[Autumn]

13. In that case we should probably keep our mouths shut or suck it up and deal with the hides.

[Cooley Hurd]

14. My brother, a businessman (I'm a tech) said it best about a rival business owner:

"Oh, those guys? They're good, but we're better!"

That's what tomorrow and beyond will be about.

[Autumn]

15. That might work for business but it doesn't work for politics anymore. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

16. At this point, sadly, it's moot...

...but it is what it is and we have to be pragmatic moving forward. Normally, I'm not a pragmatist first, but Drumpf has changed that.

[Autumn]

17. Well that's good that you have made that decision for yourself. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

19. Of course it is good that I've made that decision...

I don't want MY life to fundamentally change for the worse because of a Drumpf presidency.

One thing I'm sure of, is that it won't fundamentally change for the worse with a Clinton presidency.

However, I will be sad that my life will NOT fundamentally change for the BETTER because the best candidate in my lifetime, Senator Sanders, was denied the nomination by the mechanizations of the DNC.

[HereSince1628]

18. Fear is not a plank in a party platform,

[Cooley Hurd]

20. I fear nothing...

...except the chance that Drumpf gets anywhere near the WH. That SHOULD be a common fear for us all.

[Autumn]

21. Trump is a joke. He will drop out soon. Probably Sept, you don't roll out a new product in Aug.

[HereSince1628]

22. This is getting sort of ridiculous. The Constitution was written to limit power and

to set up competing centers of power within government by people who really understood how to think about tyrants and tyrannical dictators.

Trump is really the worst prepared candidate of a major party in maybe 170 years. He has no real understanding of the role and limits of the presidency.

If he were to be elected he'd be forced to depend on advisors. Who will advance the names of those advisors? Mostly the poohbahs that already guide the republican party.

Getting another group of neocons could be bad, but really we would face that with a Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich...well frankly with ALL of them.

And because of the way the Constitution was designed an executive can't do too much without enabling cooperation from Congress. Trump can nominate but can't get people onto the Supreme Court without help from the Senate. Trump can't build a wall without the House voting to grant him funds to build it.

Fear isn't a plank in a party platform

Historically Fear, as in the crack of a bull whip, is used by herdsmen to drive animals, including humans in a direction desired by the herdsmen. Wherever it is employed in politics we must consider the motivation of those driving us into a thoughtless rush.

Fear in politics is a meme to drive people who can be made fearful.

Even in the worst of times, facing challenges to our existence, we have nothing to fear except fear itself.

[senz]

26. Some of us fear both front runners

with good reason in each case.

The American people need and deserve better.

[nc4bo]

29. Seems like every election year they find a new ooga booga to scare

the bejesus out of voters with.

[HereSince1628]

31. I would like to know what it is people are afraid a president Trump could do by himself

that couldn't be checked by one or both houses of Congress or an injunction from the courts/lawsuit or perhaps a combination of that.

Our system is set up to be difficult for tyranny, indeed getting anything done at all seems a challenge to overcome obstruction. Moreover, it seems the people usually prefer it that way.

To do most of what people talk about as scaring them requires cooperation of other branches of government and/or a nation sitting on their ass letting him do such.

[eridani]

33. Executive orders do not depend on Congress.

Plus all kinds of administrative decisions, like deciding to NOT go after marijuana businesses in WA and CO, despite the fact that the justice dept could have decided to do that at any time

[HereSince1628]

34. But EOs can be challenged in court and limited by laws

Generally speaking, executive orders can be challenged in court, and they can also be met with laws that restrict the presidents ability to act on a particular issue.

Regarding your example, I don't think that an effort by a president Trump to enforce existing federal law, like a drug law, would make him extra dangerous and extremely scary as Trump has been painted.

I'm pretty sure the case against Trump doesn't rest on pot, even if it's scheduling more and more seems in err and ending the collateral social damage of the drug war on it is broadly desireable.

Regulatory rulings, unlike laws are determined by executive branch agencies which does give the executive more latitude, but regulations can still be challenged. If Congress wished it could specify exceptions for pot under the Controlled Substance Act for medicinal and or recreational uses. Changes to the schedule for pot classification including its potential medicinal uses can also be addressed under regulatory review process with input from citizens, industries and technical experts of other agencies.

[djean111]

24. Nah. Sorry.

Off to JPR I will go.

And it is not her supporters which prevent me from supporting her - it is her past deeds and her stances on issues I care about, like war and fracking and the TPP, etc. I will not be getting okay with that stuff.

I think I have most of her supporters, her group, "Bernie but" crap, and any OP headline with her name in it on full ignore or trash.

So - bye!

[lbp]

32. Totally Understand

Plus, am I wrong to not be thrilled by a candidate being investigated by the FBI? If there were any respect for the voters, HRC and Obama would push to get the investigation completed before the GE. You know, so the public knows who they are voting for (aka vetting). Oh well, maybe 2024 will be the year for progressives.

[senz]

25. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate the intense protectiveness of Hill supporters.

There was a thread about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017365793

And within it, my little comment, with which a lot of people agreed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=366513

They cannot tolerate any criticism, much less news items about her history and current legal problems.

I don't think they're going to change.

[magical thyme]

30. Trump is more likely to be isolationist than start ME wars

or proxy wars with Putin. He's a business man; not a neocon warhawk. Personally, I'd rather build a wall than bomb people to smithereens.

Being in the real estate business, he's also probably a natural enemy of Wall St. Real Estate hates Wall St. Especially after what they did to the RE industry in the last decade or two.

His fraud robbed thousands of people of millions of dollars. Not entire countries of billions.