I will not vote for HRC, and my mom says I'm handsome

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Me, me, me. Me, me, me.
I am so principled. I am so smart.
Me, me, me. Me, me, me.


Apres moi... Moi!

[pnwmom]

1. LOL. n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

2. This thread is worthless without pics.

[Cha]

63. You got

it..nobody's taking anybody's word for anything..especially not hillary's.

[ruggerson]

3. And I'm a LIBERAL dammit

so I will SHOOT myself before I win an election.

And you can't stop me.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Wassamatta? Your reactionary friends spooked you out of that term?

What are you, a "progressive"?

Mayhaps a "moderate"? Or just a "Clintonite"? The latter is the most applicable term for many, since being for either of them doesn't mean being for anything at all, it means being for someONE. Philosophically, other than evasiveness and attainment of power, it doesn't mean squat, dick or bupkus.

If winning was your metric, then you'd be supporting Edwards; he has the best polling for the general election and has had for quite some time.

Signed, a liberal.

[ruggerson]

86. I was referring to the mindset of the ideologue

not using the word as a pejorative. Reading comprehension not your forte?

Tread carefully, not everyone who objects to the monomaniacal lens of ideological purity is voting for Hillary in the primary.

[Totally Committed]

4. Congratulations with the few DU-ers here with a guaranteed bully pulpit

for emboldening DU-ers who look to demean those of us on the Left.

You know who you are, so again, thanks.

TC

[ruggerson]

6. There are plenty of people on the left TC

who aren't rigid, purist, no compromise idiots.

It has nothing to do with ideology.

It has to do with understanding the basic principle that politics is the art of the possible.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. And that voting is best understood as a political ACT, not a self-expressive ritual

[Totally Committed]

12. Wow.

That's really nasty... "rigid, purist, no compromise idiots".

Never in a million years would I have expected that from you.

TC

[ruggerson]

13. Not nearly as nasty as the crap here that's posted about good Democrats

every hour, every day, non stop drivel.

[Totally Committed]

14. So, you single me out to receive that hateful message on behalf of the rest of them?

Thanks.


TC

[ruggerson]

15. I wasn't referring to you specifically

it was a general comment on a mindset. Don't take it personally.

[bvar22]

88. PARTY above Values....

is Authoritarian Ideological Purity.

No Thank You, Locksteppers.

I WILL vote MY values.

[ShortnFiery]

35. Well, don't we all know that Mark Twain was part of the "join the bandwagon" type writers? Right?!?

:P :crazy: Whoa! Just when you think they can't get anymore twisted ... :silly:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

45. More research indicated. A complex man whose life was full of contradictory stances.

But with a brilliant sense of humour. (An underestimated trait!)

[ShortnFiery]

47. Yes, and it's that complexity that gives me pause about your thread.

Just an observation. ;)

[JohnnyLib2]

19. "art of the possible" --thanks for the very timely reminder.

When I was a (more radical/less experienced) college student, a wise elder Democrat hammered that point home. Soon after, her son was elected governor (D) and her lesson sank in even more. Big noises don't count for much without the achievements desired.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Being on the left has noting to do with it. Most leftists are sober, intelligent people...

What is being demeaned is transparent RW agitprop in the guise of "leftism"

I'm to the left of most DUers, but I don't see what being on the left has to do with continual posting of solipsistic flamebait bragging about a desire to reduce the electoral prospects of Democrats in the name of narcissism.

[Trajan]

10. Excellent description ......

Welcome to DU .....

[Cameron27]

18. Nicely said

K&R

[Mythsaje]

20. Oh, right, because those of us on the left have PRECISELY

the same issues with Hillary as do those on the right.

Thanks for explaining this.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. The point is that a lot of the silliest bashing threads are actually from RW types

not leftists adopting RW arguments, but honest to god disruptors having some fun at DU.

There are profound progressive reasons for disliking Clinton and for arguing strongly against her nomination.

"Republicans hate her" is not one of them.

[tkmorris]

28. An accusation utterly lacking any evidence

You seem to have a mission. Good luck with it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. I maintain that the sudden concern with picking a candidate that Republicans don't dislike is

completely at odds with the admirable defiance DU has shown toward RW agendas for years and years.

When a flood of low posters show up all at once "concerned" about the awesome power of the RW base, and our need to appease the RW base, it's damned odd.

[rufus dog]

66. I posted one this morning that I can not support her

And was flamed by the HRC supporters, which is fair enough. I made my mind up this morning that I can't support her. It has nothing to do with the RW base. I want someone who will take them on and shut them the hell up, not play politics with them.

[rufus dog]

64. Uh I am not a RW

And I don't like her, I don't like her becuase I am far to the left of her and don't trust her. That is nothing against people that support her, that is my viewpoint of her and valid based upon her record and her husbands record.

By the way, I am a liberal too! Something most of the Candidates are afraid to say!

[Sparkly]

31. I agree the "left" posturing is meaningless.

I too am to the left of most (way out there on those quiz/diagram things) but it's too often confused with other traits and held up as an argument -- a badge of merit, a fashion label, a measurement of passion and commitment, or something... "Left" is separate from opinions about the METHODS of getting where we want to go.

[ShortnFiery]

32. How *very* ironic that you choose to have Mark Twain as your avatar.

:crazy: He'd be with us "Nutcase Leftists!"

Wow! What's UP is DOWN in the world of "win at all costs" for the good ole' DLC? ;)

[opihimoimoi]

5. I will not vote RED....Meism Gone Wild......the whole Party is Fucked

[emilyg]

9. LOL.

[ruggerson]

11. Kick. Everyone needs to read this. Over and over.

[TwilightZone]

16. And all of my friends and acquaintences agree with me on every issue.

So, since they all agree with me on absolutely everything, why doesn't everyone else?

[Mojorabbit]

17. Is she divides us

this much, it does give me pause on how the rest of the country will view her when it comes to the crunch.

[PatSeg]

21. You are interjecting reason into the debate

How can that be helpful? :sarcasm:

[MGKrebs]

58. It is not necessary to make that leap of logic.

There are several possible phenomena at work here:

- The internet in general (including DU) is going through an adolescence in which people are getting comfortable having their own soapbox all the time, but we haven't fully established the criteria for credibility or responsibility yet. So, people feel little inhibition posting mean, nasty, baseless, and sometimes stupid stuff. After all, this is anonymous.

- Blogs and discussion forums as a virtual reality game- To some, perhaps political discussion is a competitive endeavor, similar to HALO or whatever else is on the XBox these days. Kill, destroy, dominate, win at any cost.

- DU may also be going through it's own adolescence in which the original builders are now outnumbered (or at least out-shouted) by the next generation. The newer folks may have less of a sense of being responsible for the success of the site. Somebody else built it, somebody else maintains it, but it's here for me and if it goes away, I'll just find another place.

- DU is a very small and narrow microcosm indicative of pretty much nothing else. Specific things that happen on DU can make their way into wider exposure, but I suspect trying to extrapolate a mood or a poll of DUers has almost no correlation in the "rest of the country". I say that with a bit of ennui because if every DUer were to join and be active in their local Dem party, I would think that it wouldn't be too long before the Party behaved a little differently.

- I think the strongly held opinions of Hillary here are few in number, they are just very loud. I mean really, how many are there? I think there are only less than 15 members who consistently post and defend pro-Hillary content, and maybe only 25 or certainly no more than 50 who consistently post negative stuff or challenge the supporters.

[Mojorabbit]

85. I hope you are right

I know that my republican BIL erupts with almost a visceral hate when her name is brought up which surprises me as he is otherwise fairly mellow. She is not my first choice by far but I will have to vote for her if she wins the nomination. It seems that most either like her alot or dislike her with a venom from what I have seen in real life.

[BelgianMadCow]

22. Flamebait. Divisive. A specialisation perhaps?

Your OPs are all in GDP and I counted about 5 of them, only one not about Hillary in the positive sense, and several mocking a big part of DU.

When your posts then strike me, repeatedly, as divisive, I wonder about your agenda.

The Hillary supporters would be wise to watch a bit before piling on and thereby igniting the flamefest the OP wants.

But that is just imho.

[ruggerson]

23. Everything the anti-Democratic crowd disagrees with is labeled "flamebait"

it's their way of trying to silence the discussion.

I know it's been said, but there are participants on DU who are just the flip side of of the coin of Freeperland. Same tactics, same obsessive adherence to rigid ideology, same ego driven agenda.

Sad.

[BelgianMadCow]

37. I hope I am not in that category - just my honest call

I came across your name in many of the results of the search I mentioned.
I see you're a longtime donating member, so I am not gonna question your motives at ALL.

This was just my honest call because I was "struck" as I mentioned.

The LAST thing I want to do is throw fuel on the fire.

On the other hand, I DO think it is the election of a lifetime. That requires strong debate.
Many threads do not contribute to that at all. This, for me, was one.

:hi:

[ruggerson]

43. And I respect your opinion

the folks I have a hard time with are the ones unable to listen to reason.

And I agree with you - this election requires honest, sometimes brutal discussion and a lively examination of beliefs, but it also requires an honest evaluation of our country's electoral process, such as it is, and what is strategically necessary for our side to prevail.

Hopefully, when the dust settles, we will all be surprised at how good we feel about our nominee, whomever it is, and he/she will head into the fall buttressed by our overwhelmingly enthusiastic fervor.

[BelgianMadCow]

53. "strategically necessary for our side to prevail"

What constitutes prevailing to you?

At some points in life, and a point in history, you have to make a stand and not think strategically, but do what you think is right without any calculation. I think you are at that point. And that is my really humble opinion, I am an outsider.

[cali]

27. If you think this is flamebait

hit alert. And I don't notice too many people saying that the constant refrain of "hillbot" for anyone who supports her is divisive.

It's primary season. Rough and tumble time on DU.



Standard Disclaimer: I am not a HIllary supporter.

[BelgianMadCow]

29. I did hit alert, yes

And did not mention Hillbot - I try to not descend to that level.
I questioned motives.

What is a Hillbot? Someone who forever and always supports Hillary, no matter what, I guess?

There could also be cunning operatives of the opposition here, no?

[cali]

33. I'd be very surprised if this was locked as flambait.

I suspect you're destined to be disappointed. And I didn't say you used such an appellation. The point I'm trying to make is that people from the anti-Hillary camp are plenty nasty and snarky themselves.

[BelgianMadCow]

61. If that was your point, I grant it

Nastiness abounds.

[ruggerson]

30. But you will be

:) just kidding.

One of the interesting things about all anti-Hillary garbage is to see how it prods some people into defending her who aren't even supporting her in the primary. I know, early on, my worries about her were that she wasn't a good campaigner and that she wasn't electable (I knew I had no policy concerns with her). Both those fears have been allayed by watching her in action.

[Cameron27]

38. I know this is true:

"One of the interesting things about all anti-Hillary garbage is to see how it prods some people into defending her who aren't even supporting her in the primary."

[BelgianMadCow]

40. so are you calling my post anti-Hillary garbage?

nice choice of words edit : if that is the case

[Cameron27]

46. I wasn't talking about you,

sorry, I wasn't referring to anything posted in this thread.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. When I talk with my friends it's about how horrible she is, but we all know we will

pull the lever for her if she's nominated, so we are free to Hill-bash. I have NEVER liked her.

I have, however, come to respect her potential as a general election candidate.

And I cannot abide this crap about how Bill Clinton was just another republican.

[ShortnFiery]

42. "we will pull the lever for her if she's nominated" Why? Is Party more important than Country? n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. Depends on the country and the party, as always.

If you will not pull the lever for her if she happens to be nominated that's your business.

[ShortnFiery]

50. I will not because the realization of neo-liberalism is as horrific as that of neo-conservatism.

In either case, Corporations rule and the middle class is gutted. :shrug:

No, my country is more important than party. There are no viable choices but I'll be damned if I'll vote in a democrat as President whom I know will destroy our middle class ... if it must, let it be under a republican President - Better to ensure an overwhelming majority within The Congress instead to completely take over when we throw the republican bums out - lock, stock and barrel. ;)

[cali]

68. Whatever. If you can't see the difference between Clinton

and Rudi or Thompson or Mitt, you're simply blind.

[BelgianMadCow]

70. Of course there are differences

and important ones at that. But are they big enough? Depends on your perspective I think.

[cali]

72. You said it: "and important ones at that".

Yes, of course everything depends on the prism through which one views things through, but I think that careful examination would lead a reasonable person to realize that a republican in the WH for another 4-8 years is a very, very bad idea.

[BelgianMadCow]

75. but consider also then that the dems (small d),

should they all write in the same name or slogan, would send a VERY clear message.

The logic is always "move to the center", and often with success one should add. However, the people who don't want to vote for the nominee likely do so because of strong beliefs, often "principled".
I also think this part of the electorate has grown considerably.

You could also team up with them (now, not after the primaries, I agree on your timing), and it would be a surefire victory (as well).

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. You will notice that they tend to be against wild denunciation of Clinton as

a genral election candidate, not in support of her as an ideal Dem. If Obama beats her, that's cool. I will vote for Biden, who has little chance. I dislike Edwards. Richardson is okay, but somehow lacking. Kuccinich is a good standard-bearer for some ideals, but not a very sensible national candiate.

It's a sad state when objecting to scurilous attacks on someone is equated with support for the person. I have the same attitude towards scurilous attacks on Obama also. (Like the flag pin bullshit) There are simply far fewer scurilous attacks on Obama.

What you will notice is that I have little interest in attacking any of the Dems running, and the posters I attack are, for the most part, people who are pretty clearly not interested in a Dem victory in '08.

I am an old guy and have been a Democrat for all my life. When I see someone say "Emily's List endorses War-Mongers and Imperialists" I have to question whether that person really cares much about the Democratic party's prospects.

[ShortnFiery]

44. I care first and foremost to stop the war-mongers. No votes for neo-liberal DLCers.

:shrug:

[BelgianMadCow]

49. your OP contained MUCH less nuance

And how do you define "people pretty clearly not interested in a Dem victory"?

Because, if you meant to point to people who say they will not vote HRC even if she's the nominee...

I can understand why people, at a certain point in history, want to make a STAND, regardless.
If you really think the two parties are largely a different-colored front for the same corporation, which is the very DEFINITION of fascism, then at some point you want to stop being the "enabler".

Because history may judge you.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

52. Do you know who else history judges?

People who took a stand and sat out the 1932 election in Germany becaus Hitler's opponants were hopelessly corrupt blowhards.

There is no cleverness or virtue in determining that any given politician is disgusting. They all are.

[ShortnFiery]

54. But IMO we are voting for Evil vs. Less Evil - at some point you just have to say, "No more EVIL!"

I prefer to focus on the Congress because none of the Viable Presidential Candidates are much different. IMO, Democrat or Republican, they all SERVE the Corporations first and foremost. :(

[BelgianMadCow]

59. First to mention Hitler loses

:P

They still could have followed their OWN belief out of which a countermovement could grow.
I don't see why you have to mention "the corrupt blowhards". They must not be relevant.

PS : I don't see either how I determined that a certain politician is disgusting. And not all politicians are disgusting either. Some actually have a dream and a vision.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. All fair points. Time will unravel all of this.

[cali]

73. I agree. Not all politicians are disgusting.

I certainly don't think that of any of my Congressional reps, but I do think that most politicians running for president have a strong streak of disgusting.

[BelgianMadCow]

76. To be equally honest,

several of the candidates have a streak of disgusting. Very few seam REALLY sincere as well, but that may have to do with the imbalanced weight given to soundbite-TV appearances.

[sufrommich]

84. A vote for Clinton

is now a vote for fascism?This is exactly the type of hyperbole that causes others to question the intension's of some of the anti Clinton posters here.She's a Democrat, like the other candidates. None interested in turning America into a fascist state.

[BelgianMadCow]

87. I I did not say that. People can have good reasons to support HRC

About who exactly tries to turn America into a new kind of fascist state : follow the money. One will not end with any Dem presidential candidate.

[sufrommich]

83. Loved that last paragraph. Great post !nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Who let the Frenchie in?

[depakid]

26. Ironically- that sort of looks like reverse projection

LOL.

[incapsulated]

51. You are rapidly becoming my favorite poster

:toast:

I don't know what I love more, your posts or the clueless, humor-impaired responses.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. It is difficult to have a mental model of an electorate without a good sense of humour, which is

why many morally admirable people are clueless about politics.

DUers are among the most virtuous bunch of people I've ever seen, but some are amazingly literal.

I love 'em all.

[ShortnFiery]

56. "I love 'em all."

Now that's a mouthful. :shrug:

[incapsulated]

57. I used to be a regular here...

And left (no pun intended)for a while. Half my posts are deleted now because the moderator either has no sense of humor or no tolerance for unpopular sentiment. I don't know how to post in "DU Mode" anymore. Nor do I care to.

I don't love DU anymore. But I do find it amusing. Especially since I'm no longer involved in primary wars, thank christ.

;)

[ShortnFiery]

60. I'm right behind you incapsulated - the hell if I'll lay down for my corporate masters.

I no longer fit here at DU "join the HRC bandwagon crowd" ... not anymore :( :hi:

[BelgianMadCow]

67. SO do you concede that you lost in the previous subthread?

I see no comeback on my implied questions.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

71. I'm not even sure I understand the disagreement.

The only issue is the 2008 general election, not the primaries. I consider failure to work for the election of the Dem nominee in 2008 (whoever that may be) objectively evil.

To me, it seems beyond reasonable argument so I'm not in a good position to argue it reasonably.

[BelgianMadCow]

74. If you are saying not voting Dem is objectively evil,

then you must mean that the people who opposed the rise of Hitler and maybe died for it were "objectively" evil? You started it :-)

Okay, thinking the US is at that point is a stretch. It is not thinkable that the media are concentrated propaganda, politics is big business, and dissenters will be arrested and put in concentration camps.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

78. No, those who failed to oppose him because they sought a greater good--the Nader voters of the era

The National Socialists were never a majority, but the other zillion parties did not offer an effective coalition. To much purity going on. The various fascist parties in Europe benefited greatly from the endless infighting of communists, socialists and liberals.

Purity of political motives can play out as objectively evil. That's all.

[BelgianMadCow]

81. I think we have to agree to disagree

I was not talking about the opposition, but the choice the people who went along made.

I don't think purity can "play out" as objectively evil. The "playing out" of any choice is always uncertain. That makes it no longer objectively evil. It may have evil consequences, indeed. As may other choices.

I hope you prove my questioning of you to be uncalled for. In that case, I apologize.

But have the last word, I don't want to make your thread into a "flamefest" if it wasn't :D.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Too funny - I'd post the mirror opposite ... sans humor.

Yet, we both feel as if we "don't fit" at DU?

Could it be that a certain candidate is umm... polarizing? :wow: ;)

[incapsulated]

69. Actually...

I think the anti-Hillary vitriol is absurd on DU. I don't support her but I don't oppose her like she was a republican scumbag either.

But you know, this is the primaries on DU. It was the same last time, all out war. I swear I had PTSD after it all, lol. It just doesn't seem possible to have a rational debate during the primaries.

[sniffa]

77. this immature POS thread is stiLL open

after 4 hours. this shouLd have been Locked Long ago as fLamebait.

i wouLd have Locked it for being unfunny. my comedy has standards.

[incapsulated]

79. Yay!

Let's lock all threads you consider unfunny or pointless.

AND REPORT THEM TO THE AUTHORITIES!!

:toast:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

80. First they came for the "unfunny"...

[BelgianMadCow]

82. The immaturity was what made me react

plus, noticing the same thing I thought about yesterday.