General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"I know Bernie can't win, but..."
(Moved from Bernie Sanders group... more appropriate in GD, I think.)
Um...
A few years back, we Liberals were called unrealistic "Firebaggers" and our ideas were called "#$%&ing retarded" by a Democratic White House.
Today, we have America's Third Way/DLC doyenne scrambling to make the case that she's as Liberal as a self-avowed Socialist!
They're not laughing anymore. They're scared. They should be.
Americans are sick to death of the lies, the wars, and the selling of our lives to the highest bidder. Look with your own eyes at how far things have come in just a few years.
Hillary Clinton me-tooing a self-avowed Socialist!
Support Bernie but think he can't win? Keep it to yourself. I think that Americans are ready for change, and this time maybe they'll get it.
Let's @#$%ing fight for this, like we mean it. And we'll only do that if we truly intend to win.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)There, I suppose that's a good enough reason to oppose her.
I know you agree.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Democratic voters have already rejected her once, and may do so again.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We shall see.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)"Damn," he said. I couldn't believe they would make all those same stupid mistakes AGAIN!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)People of good will may differ on strategy & all that, but the ultimate goals are pretty much the same.
staggerleem
(469 posts)Granted, at the time she was the first serious female Presidential candidate, but consider that black men were granted the right to vote 80 years before white women - misogyny may actually run deeper than racism in our culture.
Bernie, however, is decidedly not the first cranky old white guy to run for President. I don't know how well the whole "first socialist" thing is gonna play in Peoria, either.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)in 2008.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)This is a different situation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which is bigger today than ever, and a majority of Democrats. He probably won't get the Third Way wing of the party vote, but he could get some cross over votes from Modernt Republicans.
I think he has a great chance right now, the timing is right for someone who isn't tainted by Corporate money. His main hurdle will be getting past all that money to let the people hear him.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)approx 10% of registered voters, now registered as Independents. In 2008 Independents went for Obama. Plust that 10%.
The Independent vote is the largest registered voter demographic right now..
No one can win without that vote. I think it's probably pretty evenly split at this point as both parties are losing voters.
Moderate Republicans will be necessary also. And I have a feeling Bernie is going to work hard to get people who don't vote to register and support him. I know I will be trying to do that for him.
I think he has a great chance to win.
But we are going to see a huge campaign against him if it begins to look like he's a real threat to Wall St.
And sadly those smear campaigns do work on those who are not that involved in politics.
So he needs to get to the voters before they do and let them know they can expect dirty politics so they recognize it when they see it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)swing to Sanders.
Sorry, but that is my opinion (for the poster above who needs IMO attached).
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Like many unaffiliated voters I used to be a Democrat but left the party about 20 years ago when the party started taking it's well known turn to the right. I know many like myself who's principles won't allow them to support a party that is too far to the right. I may now have a reason to rejoin the Democratic party to vote for Bernie in the New York primary. But if it looks like it is all over but the crying I will remain unaffiliated.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in the years they have been tracking these statistics. It is currently, (Nov 2014) at 42%
Further delving by Gallop shows that left leaning Independents are now in the majority.
That is how Obama won the 2008 election. He went after the Independent vote, and got it.
However since then, disappointed at how right the country is going, in the two midterms, Independents refused to vote for Third Way candidates, but did vote for Progressives.
Partisan politics are having less and less effect on elections, Gallop shows. According to them, and this is great news for someone like Bernie, candidates who don't have a history of extreme partisan ties to either party, now have an edge in future elections.
Bernie took note of these statistics yesterday, when he pointed out the fact that fewer people are registering with either party now and that the Indy vote is the biggest voting bloc in the country right now.
Correction, Independent registration was at its highest in 2007, 46%.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Funny how times have changed, and so quickly. 
bvf
(6,604 posts)It's customary to append "IMO" to statements like yours, unless you have data to back them up, and you don't.
There are lots of people in this country who are completely fed up with our (basically) two-party system.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)up and post a citation if you have something that refutes my opinion.
bvf
(6,604 posts)that ask, "Are you really a Republican who identifies as an Independent because you're too ashamed to identify as the former?"
Neither are you.
GMAFB.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)In the unlikely event Sanders wins the nomination, you'll get a chance to test my opinion.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I'm just happy that Sanders has entered the race, and I plan to work for him.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)countries, but I don't think the majority of voters feel the same. Just my opinion, of course.
By the way, I'd love to be wrong. And that's a fact.
bullsnarfle
(254 posts)and I am down with Bernie. He is a welcome voice of sanity and reason in this damned asylum.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)...in the Primary. Most states don't allow non-Democrats to vote.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And Sen Sanders will pick up a lot of non-voters that are sick of the Clinton-Bush, Bush-Clinton Wall Street favorites.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,260 posts)And that's exactly as it SHOULD be.
(Just kidding. I know what you meant. 
)
staggerleem
(469 posts)He knows the stakes here - the next President will appoint at least 3 Supreme Court Justices. Unless we want the nation sold to the highest bidder, that President MUST be a Democrat!
So unless Bernie wins the primaries, and the Democratic nomination, don't expect him to run and split the Democratic vote. There's just too much riding on this election.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)With Independent voter registration now at 42% it is the largest voting bloc in the country. Something Bernie noted in his media interviews yesterday.
No one can win with just their base. They will need crossover votes, and according to Gallop, those votes are more likely to go someone who is less partisan and more for the people in general.
Obama got that vote in 2008. He talked often about representing all of the people, went to speak to people who were elected as Independents and promised his administration would not appoint 'only Democrats' to positions in his cabinet. When he mentioned 'Republicans' to prove he wasn't fixated on Dems, he was corrected by those representing Independent voters 'not just people from either of the two parties'.
I haven't seen any polling of Independents, which is odd considering what a large role they will play in the next election, as they did in 2008.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)they steal 4% of the national vote, so we have to have 5%
Bernie could win too, but it would take way more money than he has now
eloydude
(376 posts)I'm happy he's announcing, and he'll bring electricity once again to the Democratic Party, even apathetic or disenchanted true Democrats will have a choice that leans to the left.
Bernie is unapologetic about his issues and passionate, and I, for one, am proud to be a Democrat once again, because I have a choice that ideologically fits me the best.
Clinton will have a very hard time, because all of her support is soft, and I'm sorry to say, not deep enough to be reliable in any subject. Her loyalities are plain and clear, and it is not with the 99%'ers. Bernie is making it ALL ABOUT the 99%'ers and what better time than NOW to blast Clinton on that very subject - income inequality - and Clinton is already an hypocrite - Bernie isn't - he isn't rich, but understands the plight of the 99'ers for YEARS.
Bernie will run AND govern as a progressive, and BOY HOWDY, do we need a fucking real progressive - Bernie is simply it. We need change, and a LOT of it. If Bernie is the choice of the Democratic Party, we need to also to work on nominating progressives as a Democratic choice for all 50 state election slates, local AND federal.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #23)
NuclearDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
eloydude
(376 posts)And I'm being brutally honest. She'll just get my vote, and other votes with my mail-in ballot.
Since I'm perceiving her as able to raise the money all by herself, with her association to the 1% donor base, my finances will go elsewhere.
She isn't a very good campaigner, as proven in 2008, when the same issues occurred, and she was not able to get anyone else to the left interested in voting for her.
Bernie can not only empower the left, he'll also attract the disenchanted moderate right, the paleoconservatives, the independents.
He has the knack to be able to control the messaging, and has the ability to handle the right.
Bernie has the ability, and I trust him with my vote, my dollars, and my feet.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Welcome to du and enjoy the site,
eloydude
(376 posts)Bernie will win, and will change the minds of the Clinton supporters...
Bernie is the real deal, and believe me, he'll be firing on all 12 cylinders.....
Bernie is honest, and I greatly admire him for that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eloydude
(376 posts)Is it your blind loyality to the Clinton clan? A Democrat can open their mind and think logically and change their mind if necessary.
Oh boy. The big question is, WILL you vote for him if he does indeed collect enough delegates and superdelegates to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I will not support him in a primary.
I like Hillary and always have. I think she is presidential material and will be ready on day one.
eloydude
(376 posts)But it is your choice, after all.
I suggest keeping your mind open, and really listen to the debates. At one point, just close your eyes and listen to the debates. Think about who you really want in your heart.
If it's HRC, then so be it, but if it's someone else, then follow it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)before the first platform is released,
before any discussion of the issues,
before looking at what else the Democratic Party has to offer,
your mind is made up.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)Sorry - this is politics. I don't vote with my heart, I vote with my head. Because if the person who appeals to my heart loses, the result is far worse.
The easy response is "but if everyone voted the way they really feel, ******* would win". Perhaps so; but they don't. So I can't afford to.
There are very few progressive policies I object to philosophically, but I will oppose those that put electability at risk. I will vote for the most progressive candidate who can win. And nobody has explained to me how Bernie Sanders can win a national election.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You have all the right words but they are jumbled a little bit:
It should be:
The most progressive candidate who I will vote for can win.
That's all that is required, vote for them. Don't fall for this two party propaganda, that's just so they can keep themselves in power and still not deliver on what the voters really want. Don't fool yourself, both parties do it.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)Seriously, give me something more than a pat answer. I'm an informed voter and someone engaged in politics. I volunteered for plenty of campaigns where liberals lost because ordinary voters DIDN'T vote for them.
Your philosophy starts with the assumption that, if liberals vote for the most progressive candidate, there won't be more moderates and conservatives voting against the most progressive candidate, who MIGHT otherwise vote for a moderate candidate. Well, show me who they are and how your more progressive candidate appeals to them.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Most liberal ideas won, minimum wage, etc. while candidates that ran to the right, like Grimes( I'm more Mitch than Mitch) lost. Off the top of my head Claire McCaskil, I know a poor example but liberal compared to her rival. Then there is Warren and Grayson neither of which ran away from their core principles.
This and my experience shows that most liberals lose because they let the opponent control the message. Many act as the Republicans have trained them, that even the word liberal is a dirty word. When liberals wear their philosophy as a badge instead of as a burden and proudly defend their message they and liberalism win.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)...and then voted out a Democrat in favor of a Republican who supported it. People do NOT always vote for candidates who reflect their issue preferences.
The lament of "if only we'd run a REAL (ideology of your choice), we'd have won" has limited applicability (certainly has for the Tea Party). There are some States where liberals can do well and MANY States where they don't. FWIW, Claire McCaskill is PRECISELY the kind of Democrat people here complain about and threaten to Primary because she's not a "Real Democrat". Warren won in relatively liberal Massachusetts and probably would have been as unsuccessful as Grimes in Kentucky. And Grayson is in an gerrymandered Safe Democratic district.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,260 posts)"I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" ~Robert F. Kennedy
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I think we may have a why not coming in 2016.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)What counts is the voting pattern and where the funding is coming from... I mean, in terms of really knowing where the person stands.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)that a good solid debate, and you leave trending towards Sander's (a mite), would't lead you to question your support?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Anything is possible but I have my candidate.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)without even knowing all of the candidates that may become available.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)They think it is her destiny.... or something.
I find such an attitude to be antithetical to democracy.... especially so far away from even the primaries!... and it is disheartening to see Dems acting like Repugs... who think they deserve to rule.
bvf
(6,604 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)At this point....yeah!
But once things get whittled down and the viable players are more visible, then it's OK to ask people to get on board. I mean Hillary is not my fave choice, but she is of course the only choice if it's her vs any Repug.
One must vote for the SANE party.
eloydude
(376 posts)Before the Hunter scandal, and after he dropped out because of the scandal, I had to take a long look at both candidates and waited for the debates, and ultimately decided to join the Obama camp, unexciting as he was, but he seemed to be the winner.
I don't cling on people and stubbornly stay there. I take a long look at their policies and records, and decide if he's worthy of my time. Some aren't, but only a select few can hold my interest.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think Hillary has to prove herself like any other candidate.
Perhaps before make assumptions about me you should ask.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)oh please Justin!
I was banned, remember, from the Hillary fan boy group....
Why?
Did I criticize Hillary?.... at all?
No
I mildly ribbed the posters for their blubbering fawning by posting the famous "Leave Britney Alone!" youtube vid. But the Faithful, as usual, can't even take a mild joke. After being banned, you guys went on to attack me (now that I couldn't defend myself) and drone on about how it wasn't funny....making it even MORE HILARIOUS.
You're disingenuous beyond belief.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Read the sop next time.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What makes you think I won't support her.... when the time comes? I never said anything bad or unsupportive of Hillary.
It's for sycophants only.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)if I went in the Sanders group and posted the same video and told people they were slobbering all over Sanders, I would expect I would be removed from the group. I should be.
You screwed up and now you want to whine about it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Nonsense!
It's so far from the primary, much less the election, that there is no need to be so grave about it all. And it was hardly a devastating slap down. Your over-reaction just showed my mocking was on target. How are you sensitive guys gonna make it thru her grilling when the season really gets going?
You guys are gonna run out of steam before the primary even comes around you are all so uptight! A lot can happen between now and then.
And a lot has happened since the last time Hillary ran. Obama wasn't just a pace holder for her until next time, y'know.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)and then the election will be just like every one I participated in since 86- vote for the lesser of 2 evils. The only time I ever felt proud voting in my life was 08. It may be sappy, but I really thought things were going to change then, and felt a swell of emotion that day.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
rep the dems
(1,689 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)rep the dems
(1,689 posts)There was never a point at which there was a consensus that Hillary vs. that POS Mayor was a done deal. McCain had been the front runner in the early stages and Obama was taken seriously from the moment he officially declared (and before). I like Bernie but he has a much steeper hill to climb this time around. Just not a good comparison.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Tweety was all aflutter over Rudy at the time.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)rep the dems
(1,689 posts)And like I said, at one point McCain was the "favorite" in that race as well. Your one example doesn't mean the whole media had written off all the other candidates.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But it was the guy who stuffed ballot boxes who won.
He just happened to be rich too.
Pauldg47
(640 posts)
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)In Leave it to Beaver America, no one votes for women.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)No, it is that I don't think she is well-liked nor do I think she has the courage of really standing up for her convictions (actually that is being generous... I HOPE that she didn't stand with her convictions wrt the Iraw War for example. If those WERE her convictions, it was even worse.)
If she is, for example, desirous of reducing the great economic disparity in the country, she hasn't done a good job of convincing me she would stand up for the common person's interests vs. Wall Street interests.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Howard Dean easily could win but they went for John Kerry heck Wesley Clark was better. moment he stuck john edwards in there that was the end of that.
Now a Bernie Sanders ticket with hillary running as VP might make things interesting...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)on DU. 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
seltzerwater
(53 posts)is like not applying to college because you don't think you'll get in.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)brooklynite
(95,394 posts)You can apply to Harvard whether or not you can get in, AND you can apply to a safety school. In politics, you can vote for a candidate you can't see winning, OR you can vote for a candidate you're certain can. If the candidate you can't see winning loses, the result is a Republican who's far worse than the less appealing Democrat who COULD have won.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)How much of the media or many of us individuals would have predicted that minimum wage measures would pass in four red states in last election where Democratic candidates that didn't take risks to side with populist oriented stances to toe the line that their donors wanted them to would lose at the same time. The media would more likely "predict" the opposite, because they want to have things like minimum wage classified as a "far left" rather than a populist issue which isn't just supported by hard core leftists. They seek to provoke the inevitability of outcome as a mindset to get people to vote the way that corporatist oriented message makers want us to.
I think if you swallow the corporate media's position that Bernie only appeals to "far left" individuals that are more socialist in their sensibilities, you really don't understand that a lot of his support is and will even more come from those concerned with populist issues where the 1% are pushing positions that only ONE PERCENT of the population really want, if you push people in to really analyzing who benefits and who loses on those issues.
It is all about messaging. And I think many of us who want someone like Bernie are challenged, but will find alternative ways through the internet, etc. to get the message across, and I think ultimately will surprise many how much Bernie defies "conventional wisdom" and is a lot more "electable" than the media and other PTB want to give him credit for. They used to try to play those same games in Vermont, but Bernie has wound up being a powerful populist senator there, not pushing things like gun control there when gun crime isn't a big issue compared to the numbers of people that do things like hunting safely there, and many Republicans and independents see that he's not trying to push hard ideology in areas like that and work with what a majority of people in that state wanted.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Wouldn't winning the primaries automatically make that, or any, candidate the best one for the general election? If you can't win the majority of your own party how can anyone expect you to win the general? If your best candidate loses in the primaries then you settle for the winner of the primaries. Think of it as voting for Harvard in the primaries and settling for State in the general.
The only way the best candidate wins is if you vote for them.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)McGovern in 1972? Humphrey in 1968?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)someone else would have done better? You don't think they would have been better Presidents?
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)And whether or not they would have been better Presidents was irrelevant. I'd take a slightly less better Democrat over the Republican I got.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)how can they win a general election? Sadly winning elections is more than just ideals, a large part is showmanship, charisma, and looks, not to mention sadly, color and gender. The last two have diminished in importance but in the '70s and '80s I think they were very important. Geraldine Ferraro was considered a bold move for Mondale and it's doubtful she gained him any votes.
You're better than me, I can't even remember who ran in the primaries against Mondale.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But at this point in time, it is kinda like not applying for college while you're in elementary school.
It's simply too early to be completely decided.
But of course being so sure now means you don't have to actually pay attention to the primary or election. You can just dismiss or ban any criticism, not matter how light. Talk about early voting...
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
That honest pol?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Are you insinuating that Sen Sanders was shocked? If so, I would like to see your link.
As far as honesty, I would say he rates much higher on that scale than his opponent.
geretogo
(1,281 posts)point in 1930 I think we are all in for a real surprise .
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)every time (Harry Truman)
What really surprised me is that after Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy yesterday Hillary almost immediately responded by saying "I agree with Bernie" Now just how phony was that.
Here she is a Wall St puppet trying to pretend she is a progressive liberal all of a sudden. That in itself is reason enough to show that yes Hillary is a phony.
If Hillary agrees with Bernie than she would agree on campaign finance issue,but while she may say she is against Citizens United she goes ahead and cashes those Wall Street checks (the corporate mafia)
For all of you that support Hillary good, but I don't think she can win.
Lets see what happens in the Democratic Caucus in Iowa and if Bernie wins there and his campaign takes hold I wonder just how many voters will have second thoughts that .."hey maybe this guy can win"
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Republican Lite pretending to be a real Democrat. Hillary collects her money from one side and then wants to play on the opposite team and I'm not buying it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sen Sanders has to offer that she can't.
Sen Sanders is a candidate for the people. He has always fought for the people.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)silly post. I don't see ANYONE "scrambling".
I like Bernie, but posts like this hurt his chances.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)It's an honest opinion, not negativity. HRC receives a shit-ton of negative coverage, yet she fights on. I think Bernie can handle it. I'd be happy as heck if he won, but I'd be lying if I said I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,724 posts)Cruz can't win...Carson can't win...Fiorina can't win...Huckabee can't win...Santorum can't win... Walker can't win...
The only GOPers who have a realistic chance of becoming POTUS is Bush lll and Rubio... That's what history, the polls. and the current odds suggest...
One if candid could apply the same test to our party's candidates.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Oh, the irony.
Additionally, questioning Sanders' viability as a general election candidate isn't bashing. Calling Clinton "America's Third Way/DLC doyenne" most certainly is.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Who better qualifies?
Why is that an insult?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Y'know... calling attention to the elephant in the room and all that.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Not silly names.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Bernie's message is strong enough to stand on its own.
Andy823
(11,496 posts)It's simply to stir things up and keep them stirred up.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)that some, one, might be worried that Sanders actually could win.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Especially when his opponent became a shot drinking, bible thumping, good ol' boy who was dodging sniper fire in some far off country (Hillary supporters tend to forget that part).
Divernan
(15,480 posts)HRC's 2007 speech in Selma, Alabama featuring that accent & phrase was pure comedic gold, - like a Julia Dreyfuss performance in Veep
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Policy discussions are but a means to that end.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)demanding loyalty oaths to vote for her in the general election.
History didn't start today.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Does anyone know exactly what Bernie's up to or why? 
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)How do we know it's a lie and a talking point, rather than the truth?
Simple.
Because Third Way corporate politicians routinely LIE their way through campaigns pretending to be more liberal than they actually are. They mouth empty promises about fighting for a public option or putting on comfortable walking shoes for unions or taking on criminal banks. They *always* pivot leftward in their rhetoric during campaigns in order to win votes, because they know that voters are significantly to the left of the predatory corporate agenda they actually stand for.
Thus, we get the spectacle of Hillary now claiming to care about income inequality, even though she is intimately connected with, overwhelmingly backed and funded by, the predator class that drives obscene inequality in this nation. Claiming to care even while she supports H1B visas that destroy the jobs of Americans. Claiming to give a damn even though she is an author of perhaps the most predatory, antidemocratic "free trade" agreement in this nation's history, that will destroy American jobs, force Americans to compete with Third World workers, and cut the wages of fully NINETY PERCENT of working Americans:
Hillary pushes for increases in H1B visas and outsourcing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405669
Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761
And thus we get the insulting theater of Hillary now claiming to want to end mass incarceration in this nation, when her entire history and "co-presidency" relentlessly escalated imprisonment of Americans in this country:The Clinton Dynasty's Horrific Legacy: More Drug War, More Prisons
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/clinton-dynasty-horrific-legacy-more-drug-war-more-prisons
Corporate politicians lie and manipulate. The corporate MO by definition is to manipulate and advertise to win power and profit, not to represent anybody else. But this nation is SICK of government with a profit motive. We are SICK of the lies and the manipulation and the utter contempt we are shown by those who pretend to represent us.
Corporatists have poured untold dollars into narrowing the debate and propagandizing the public into believing that corporate "solutions" are the only possible solutions. Bernie threatens to shatter all that and speak the truth to the nation: that our system is deeply corrupt, and that vicious predatory corporate policies have been a CHOICE all along.
OUTSTANDING OP, MANNY. TO THE GREATEST PAGE, BECAUSE ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)
StarzGuy
(254 posts) GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Bernie is 'me-tooing' Hillary. Here's Bernie 'me-tooing' Hillary in 1993 on health care reform. 
:
But I also believe Bernie can win.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hillary and Bill put forward Heritage Foundation care and failed to do that successfully. Bernie puts forward single payer. Huge difference.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The Heritage plan was created in response to Clinton's attempt at health care reform. Bob Dole actually felt it important to have an alternative instead of just shouting "NO!!".
merrily
(45,251 posts)Sorry, I am not at top health today. Google Jackson's Hole Conservatives Nixon's Health care plan.
Also Heritage Foundation had a paper out in 1992. Billarycare came out in 1993.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They had to keep coming out with new plans as the "issues" changed. There were a lot of similarities like the individual mandate, but also some differences.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)on DU can accomplish
Nothing.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)the combined brainpower of every 3rd wayer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6600070
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I think Clinton supporters are being pretty supportive of sanders his run. The op is a lot of phoey, but manny's preference. This poster steps over the line basically calling duers who support Clinton brainless, stupid. Over the top. Disruptive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 30, 2015, 09:41 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Considering how eager you are to throw insults out in defense, looks like they've accomplished something.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think that reads a lot more into that post than is there...the alert is over the top.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is name calling. Please hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)HRC supporters.
Who would have thought?
Thank you for letting me know, I kind of assumed it would get alerted on.
Note to HRC supporters. I have no problems with you supporting HRC and I do not hate HRC. I DO have problems with anyone who was in favour of the Iraq War Resolution. I DO Have Problems with anyone who supports and tries to continue trickle-down Reaganesque economic policy’s. Do some Venn diagrams and figure out which is which because many appear to be missing the point.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)He said himself, he's not running to pull Clinton to the left, he's running to win. The myth that he can't win because he's not drowing in corporate ca$h or because he's not center-right enough is pure propaganda with the underlying message that only billionaires and career politicians know enough to select a candidate for you silly Prole. And this talking-point is being parroted on a "Democratic" forum. Don't buy into it.
If we want to keep the price of the Presidency (and every other office) one vote per person, not the going rate (estimated to be two billion dollars this go around), then WE have to find a way to make it happen. I am sick and tired of being told that centrism and and center-right are the ONLY way while children starve and people fall deeper into despair. It is a sparkly illusion and Bernie's run is the red pill.
Bernie can win. If he wins the primary, he wins the general.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)on both sides.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Is that how far we've fallen as a party?
Response to DJ13 (Reply #80)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bugenhagen
(151 posts)Do we still have superdelegates? Does the party apparatus still decide who gets into the debates? Add far as I know the answer to both questions is yes, and they push a lot of inertia towards establishment candidates.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... they sure as hell will. DEMOCRATIC primaries are for DEMOCRATS.
Marr
(20,317 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But he has to win the Democratic primary first. If he wins that, he will win the election against Jeb Bush.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)That's why I support Bernie. He doesn't have corporate baggage he needs to dance around every time he's asked a question.
I'm in it to win it!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But he ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION. No weird political speak. No lying when his lips moved. Now I'm comparing him to that careful, practice reserve you see from both political parties. That feeling that they're not telling the whole truth if they are telling the truth at all. That the purpose is to avoid a mine trap, not answer the question. That's why you get so much code speak. Bernie just comes out and says it. Even if he said something I didn't like, I would respect him because at the very least I knew he wasn't lying to me. It's made cynical old me giddy with enthusiasm again.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Who, as you know, won twice. If Bernie doesn't get stabbed in the back by the Party and the media, he can win. People are spontaneously organizing for him now all over the internet. That uptick you see of Dem registrations? That's Bernie. All those people who worked for Obama are now organizing new young people, Greens, libertarians, and Repulicans, getting them to register for the primaries. They don't have money, but they are willing to work. I am hoping Bernie knows how to take hold of all that enthusiasm and put it to work. It will be a tough fight.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)...but he also ran as a mainstream politician. He secured financial and political commitments before announcing, and raised large amounts of money. Bernie hasn't done the same to date, and I don't see him doing it in the future.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)What a very sad commentary on the state of this country.
And Obama's "financial and political commitments" have been showing all throughout his presidency. That's why people are so frustrated, dispirited, and downright angry. Those same people that worked their asses of for him and he promptly showed the finger are organizing now for Bernie.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)...but this is the political system we have to play in. We can't overturn CU in this election cycle.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I am pretty sure Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and I'll support her in the general election.
But as I said in an OP yesterday, if Bernie makes it as far as Ohio, I'll vote for him in the primaries here.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Telling people to just shut up.
We need a graphic...I love Bernie but many of his supporters make me want to vote for someone else.
StarzGuy
(254 posts)by the time the primary gets to Arizona the selection will all ready be made so my vote will be just a fun vote. If it's Clinton in the general I have no problem voting for her. Then, if a Repuke were to win the general I might consider moving to Canada or at least to a part of the country that still votes for progressive ideas.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)now that he's announced.
But it would be a long, uphill battle for him. He's -50 or more in most polls against HRC.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And that includes some who are in the Bernie Sanders Group.
I support Bernie, but {insert negative comment about Bernie here}. And never is a positive comment about Bernie or any other potential candidate made. Maybe some negative comments about them are made. Positive comments about Hillary, however, abound.
I am no fan of Hillary, but {insert comment favorable to Hillary here} And never is a negative comment about Hillary made, but positive comments about Hillary are. And never are positive comments about any other potential candidate made. But maybe some negative comments are.
I guess that is supposed to make what comes after the "but" seem more convincing?
"I am no fan of Dr. Phil," but he's right when he says just ignore everything before the "but."
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Thats where I'm at. I'm voting for Sanders in the Ohio primary. But I'm also being realistic about the political landscape and who is likely to win. It would be great if I turned out to be wrong but I don't think I will be at this time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It sure isn't positive. It will discourage donors, volunteers, even votes. For whatever reason, some people don't like even voting for someone they think is likely to lose. I don't why someone who wants Bernie to be President would reinforce anything negative.
Perhaps you mean you support Bernie staying in the Senate, but your support in this primary is really for Hillary? Fine. That is your right. But, let's be clear and honest: in the context of a primary discussion, that is supporting Hillary and opposing Bernie.
But, I appreciate your response. My comment did not especially refer to you as I don't remember seeing any of your posts on this subject before.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Bernie is against some really big odds. Its not a "negative" in regard to his capability, but perhaps it could be a less positive view of political reality.
Thats always subject to change though as well. I decided to support a guy in 2008 named Barack Obama that I never thought would win at that time, so keep that in mind.
merrily
(45,251 posts)both content and in the impact it has on others. If that is support, who needs it?
I still think Dr. Phil is correct: ignoring everything that precedes the "but" is the proper interpretation.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I'm just an anonymous person posting on the Internet.
" ignoring everything that precedes the "but" is the proper interpretation. "... thats total horse shit, theres nothing wrong with expressing a caveat or acknowledging something that is both important and contradictory to your favored position. You are essentially writing off any measure of critical thinking with that nonsense.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The only thing that comes BEFORE the "but" is not critical thinking but a statement like "I'm no fan of Hillary, but" or "I support Bernie" but. (See Reply 68)
Ignoring that does not write off critical thinking or ignore dissent from my opinions, all of which would follow the "but."
And, since you put this in terms of my favored position, which actually is supporting Bernie for President, I take it that you do not share it, which kind of proves what my Post 68 says.
Have a great night.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Doesn't look like you're on board.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)shallow. if you paid attention to * getting elected twice in a row you'd know this. of the many things you are many, dumb isn't one of them.
doesn't mean I don't support him fighting the good fight, though.
McKim
(2,412 posts)No more negative talk about Bernie. No more self marginalizing behavior from The Left, please.
Many good hearted people were fooled by Obama, then he gave away the store many times before he even came to the negotiating table.
Now near the elections Obama is making nice noises for us and throwing us some red meat. It has been a long time coming.
I will not be fooled again. I am voting for Bernie. We need to give Hilary the scare of her life. And we and so many poor people in this country who have been walked over for 30 years need this chance.
McKim
(2,412 posts)No more negative talk about Bernie. No more self marginalizing behavior from The Left, please.
Many good hearted people were fooled by Obama, then he gave away the store many times before he even came to the negotiating table.
Now near the elections Obama is making nice noises for us and throwing us some red meat. It has been a long time coming.
I will not be fooled again. I am voting for Bernie. We need to give Hilary the scare of her life. And we and so many poor people in this country who have been walked over for 30 years need this chance.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)You said Bernie could win. Therefore, it doesn't matter what happens to Hillary, right?
MineralMan
(146,393 posts)I know that I do, and I'll vote for him in the primary if his name is on my ballot. That said, I'm also an avid follower of electoral politics and understand how this stuff works. My experience says that Bernie Sanders will not even be in the picture at the national convention in 2016. I could be wrong, but I doubt it very, very much.
I'll go so far as to predict that he doesn't win a single primary election, pretty much like Dennis Kucinich, who I also like very much. Sanders will have many very vocal supporters at places like DU, but the primary voters won't behave as those supporters would like. I'll caucus for Senator Sanders in Minnesota. Our precinct caucuses are on Super Tuesday, March 1. I'll vote for him in our caucus straw poll. I'll caucus for him at our district conventions, too. I like him that much. Those district conventions are where the delegates to our state convention are selected. The state convention is where the delegates to the national convention are selected. Here's what I predict:
At our precinct caucuses, Hillary Clinton will get a large majority of the delegates to the district conventions. At the district conventions, Hillary Clinton will get a large majority of the delegates to the state convention. At the state convention, Hillary Clinton will get a large majority of delegates to the national convention.
Our primary election will be later in the year. By the time it comes around, I doubt very, very much that Bernie Sanders name will be on the ballot. I believe he will drop out of the race after the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses, having won no primaries or caucus majorities. He will then make his support for Hillary Clinton very clear as the primary season continues.
That's my prediction. It has nothing to do with how I feel about Senator Sanders and his positions. I support him and those positions. But I know Minnesota DFL politics. I also know California politics, having lived there up until 2004. Support for Hillary Clinton will lead her to having almost all delegates from both states at the Democratic national convention. If, as I predict, Senator Sanders wins no primary elections, he will have few or no delegates at that convention.
Those are the realities of how presidential candidates are selected in the Democratic Party. So, in November, 2016, I expect to see Hillary Clinton on the ballot as the official Democratic candidate. I will cast my vote for her, since I always vote for Democrats.
Might I be wrong? That's possible. If I am, and Senator Sanders is on that ballot, I will gladly and cheerfully vote for him. I will have campaigned for him, too, and canvassed for him in my precinct, along with for every other Democratic candidate. Will I be wrong? I doubt it very much, indeed.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... (And with a smile on my face) donate $100 dollars to YOUR favorite charity. So bookmark this, okay?
America is not going to elect a 73 year old socialist as president. Especially since he can't raise a billion dollars. (Thanks, Ralph!).
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Bernie JUST got done with a speech where he decried exactly the type of negative personal attacking you see here.
Every single post I see Manny, and a few of his (edit: Bernie's. Not Manny's. God help if that ego gets fueled any more) other supporters making, have NOTHING to do with Bernie or anything Bernie believes in. It's just non-stop personal attacks on Hillary.
"She's a third-way Democrat".
"She's a stooge for the 1%".
"She's a war-peddling liar"
"She's a me-too panderer".
If this is the type of supporters Bernie is going to muster, I don't think it matters if he can win or not. I think he'll quit in disgust.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Everything is about how awful Democrats are, and nothing about what Sanders has to offer. And still we see he uses the sig line of someone who isn't running, when there is no reason for a supposed progressive to hold out hope for a former Republican with someone like Sanders in the race. Sanders is more consistently leftist and pro-working American on every issue than Warren is. Yet the OP's message is to trash a handful of DUers who has raised some concerns about Sanders. No excitement whatsoever about Sanders. Instead, it's just another opportunity to trash Democrats, to make ordinary Americans the enemy. The question is why. Who benefits? Certainly not anyone who Sanders represents.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)trying to twist what sort of criticism is acceptable and relabel vital political criticism as out-of-bounds "personal attack."
"She's a third-way Democrat".
"She's a stooge for the 1%".
"She's a war-peddling liar"
"She's a me-too panderer".
Advocating a Third Way policy agenda, representing the One Percent rather than the 99 percent, defending the for-profit warmongering of the MIC, and pandering to voters by claiming she supports policies she has historically opposed are all legitimate and important points of criticism. How telling that you try to twist and smear them as unseemly "personal attacks."The attempt to discredit the terms, "authoritarian" and "Third Way" (or, "You called me a DOG!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3171893
I call this familiar Third Way tactic the attempt to turn elections from civic exercise into vapid social event. To detach party loyalty from candidates' actual policies and to insist on absurd rules about not criticizing their records, as though they were guests at a party rather than politicians applying for jobs as our representatives.
Just as our political discourse on TV has been perverted into personality gossip rather than a discussion of issues to find the candidate who best represents the interests of the people, we are now lectured on DU that it's not nice to say anything negative about a candidate....as though we were at a cocktail party or a social gathering rather than vetting applicants for a job that will exert power over the lives of millions of human beings.
We have a grave, systemic problem in this country. It is problem of filthy corporate money buying our elections and our political candidates. Hillary Clinton is the poster candidate for this problem. She is intimately tied to Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street, and her record promises more of the corporate looting and dismantling of democracy that have hollowed out the middle class in this nation and turned us from representative democratic nation into an authoritarian oligarchy with secret laws, secret courts, mass surveillance, militarized police, crushing of whistleblowing and dissent, endless war for profit, and systematic exploitation of the 99 percent for the profit of the One Percent.
This suggestion that calling out a predatory corporate record is "bashing," or that saying something negative about a candidate's record is somehow unseemly, as though we were at a social gathering where if you can't say something nice, you shouldn't say anything at all....This is a Third Way tactic to change the rules of politics. To silence strong, well-founded opposition to candidates whose associations and policies are malignant to ordinary Americans.
Hillary's record is that of a Third Way, corporate-purchased politician. It promises more looting and exploitation of the 99 percent, more bloody warmongering for profit, and more defense of an increasingly authoritarian, undemocratic police and surveillance state, where whistleblowers are not safe.
It is the civic duty of American citizens to speak honestly about the monied corruption in our system and to advocate against purchased candidates and for actual representatives of the people. We can't afford four more years of corporate predation.The Clinton Dynasty's Horrific Legacy: More Drug War, More Prisons
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/clinton-dynasty-horrific-legacy-more-drug-war-more-prisons
Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554
Hillary's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805
Hillary pushes for increases in H1B visas and outsourcing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6405669
Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761
Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank
How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647
Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441
On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar
Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29
The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257
Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136
Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279
Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343
Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285
How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611
Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071
Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575
Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986
Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9
The Warmongering Record of Hillary Clinton "I urged him to bomb..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026219783
Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136
Hillary defends Israel on Gaza carpet bombing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025274041
Hillary tacks right of Obama on foreign policy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024707589
Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519
NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645
Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898
Hillary Clinton Praises George W. Bush and the Art of Compromise
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026394878
Hillary Clinton's role in right-wing Honduran coup and aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29
Hillary Clinton's Horrifying Iraq War Vote Still Matters.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-vote-still-matters-9737
Secret recordings show US military and a Democratic congressman distrusted Hillary Clinton on Libya (lying, manipulating intelligence)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026157088
Hillary Clinton Blasts ‘Unfair’ World Reaction Over Gaza, Cites Anti-Semitism As Factor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025364869
Obama didn't go as far as Hillary now says she wanted to go in smashing Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251375376
Hand in Hand With Kissinger: A Review of Hillary Clinton’s Review
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016102317
Hillary Clinton Serves Us KISSINGER KOOL-AID
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025504036
MJ - Hillary Clinton Praises a Guy With Lots of Blood on His Hands
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025493748
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 07:30 AM - Edit history (1)
Manny isn't a political cause. Accusing someone of being Third Way because they don't like trashing Democratic candidates and Democratic voters 24/ 7 is intellectually dishonest. You throw around the term Third Way with no sense of its meaning, simply to insult people who disagree on anything. How is it that people who claim to be so leftist spend most of their time attacking ordinary working Americans rather than the powerful? How can you claim to be leftier than thou when you devote yourselves to demonizing the very same people that the GOP targets? I'm not seeing any signs of leftism here. I don't see critiques of capital. I see people who have a great deal of resentment toward ordinary working Americans, often less advantaged than themselves.
Then there is the fact you didn't even bother to read the poster's point but just posted the same links you always do regardless of the post in question. His post was favorable of Sanders. Yet that wasn't enough to satisfy you because the poster failed to express contempt for ordinary Democratic voters, the true enemy.
I hope to God Sanders doesn't let any of you near his campaign or he is sunk. Voters don't respond well to being insulted and treated with contempt, and that is all some of you ever do. Government for the upper 10 percent is not leftist. It isn't even left enough to be considered Third Way. It's just bourgeois elitism, and offers most of us nothing more than government for the .01 percent. If Sanders wins, it will be despite your crowd who appears to be doing everything in its power to alienate as many voters as possible.
It's looking increasingly to me that what some on DU are engaged in is the great and noble struggle of the upper 10 percent against the 1 percent, while the rest of us are the enemy.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)All of it. 
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)
None of that was coherent, none of it was responsive to the actual points made in my post, and it is an excellent example of the deliberate perversion of political conversation we are now fed as a matter of course: the replacement of coherent discussion of policies with incoherent emotional screeds and vague accusations of social impropriety.
What a perfect example of how our political discourse has been perverted by a propaganda machine that encourages emotional, disconnected responses rather than coherent, substantive, responsive discussion of issues. And the by-now predictable empty post of agreement with such incoherence is the cherry on top.
Thanks for that great example.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)I am a human being you continue to insult as inferior to yourself, with absolutely no justification.
That you are entirely unable to deal with anyone who disagrees with you even minimally without demonizing or dehumanzing them insults illustrates why you and others who behave like you are Sanders and left more generally's greatest liability. You have just insulted two people who speak favorably of Sanders, which tells me you care far less about the election than targeting other DUers and ordinary Democrats as the enemy.
Your response to me is a PERFECT example of the points I made. That you cannot even recognize me as human says everything.
stonecutter357
(12,703 posts) Dem2
(8,168 posts)I agree. Let's emphasize the positives of our candidate and let the chips fall where they may. If I want to listen to Democratic candidates being torn down or insulted, I can always find that on a conservative forum somewhere.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)but that requires people actually care about the outcome of the election or the country more than targeting other DUers.
I, for example, don't have a candidate. If I were to take DU Sanders supporters as reflective of him, I wouldn't in a million years be able to vote for him. If he wins, it will be despite them.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It's like listening to Chris Christie lecture people about good eating habits.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)that I don't go along with the class project at work here and have the nerve to think about my own rights and the concerns of anyone but the white upper-middle class. I should just accept how insignificant our lives and interests are compared to our betters. After all, we are just "social issues." Economic issues are about the folks who have money.
Marr
(20,317 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Bonus question: is there a generally-accepted political philosophy called "Third-way"?
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Bonus question: did you even bother watching it?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Bonus answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026594541
TekGryphon
(430 posts)You're no better than my crazy conservative Uncle on Facebook calling every Democrat he hears about "socialists".
Bernie wants to debate ISSUES with Hillary. He specifically said he doesn't want a bunch of name calling bullshit.
That's why I know you're not here to support Bernie. You're here to throw mud at Hillary, and Bernie is just a convenient excuse. Like a conservative who uses religion to excuse their bullshit.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)He hasn't come out for Sanders and refuses to say he will support him. He instead devotes himself to attacking the handful of DUers who exhibit signs of heresy. Note that he doesn't challenge the owner of the site, who has publically come out for Clinton.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)then I'm thinking this is not a discussion.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Is there a Third Way organization? Of course. What's your point?
Let me clue you in Manny. You're exactly the type of person Bernie Sanders despises. He spent an entire speech putting gutter-snipes like you on blast, and it's hilarious that you're trying to use him as an excuse to do the exact thing he said to stop doing.
You're ridiculous. Grow up.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)it seems like you know where my questions are going, and don't like that place.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts) BainsBane
(53,154 posts)then I'm thinking this is not a discussion."
That would be every single conversation I have ever tried to have with you. You can't even address something as straight-forward as what you think we should do to stop TPP, a subject you claim to care about.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)As to my "friends", I don't know who you mean and I'm not responsible for them.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Here are the current fellows and staff at the Third Way think tank. Tell me which ones are DUers.
http://www.thirdway.org/about
Where does it say poor people who make some 25 percent or less of what you do consititute the Third Way because they don't go along with the class interests of the upper 10-20 percent? Where does it say being born anything other than straight, white or male and daring to care about one's civil rights constitutes Third Way?
Where does it, like some intellectual giants on this site have insisted, say that Marx and Marxist theory are "Third Way"? Seriously. Karl Marx. You couldn't make this shit up.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You claim that someone can be called a Third-Way Democrat only if they are a member of the Third Way think tank? But not if they fundamentally embrace the same principles as the Third Way think tank espouses, that is, being mainstream on social issues and far right on economic issues?
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Marriage equality? Is that what pisses you off? Your point was concern some raised that they don't think Sanders can win. Where is that articulated on the website?
For the record, I find that argument about Sanders electability empty, as empty as some of the arguments you post, and I have made that point in those threads. Electability is determined in the course of the campaign. Yet what is notable about your OP is that you can only manage to attack Democrats, ordinary people, many of whom are less fortunate than yourself. For people who claim to care about oligarchs, you sure do spend a lot of time attacking ordinary Americans rather than the 1 percent.
You don't seem to be able to muster any excitement for Sanders, though I see after my prodding multiple times you finally added his sign line along with your former Republican fav. I wonder what will happen if it looks like Sanders actually can win. What will you do then?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)At this point, discussion is pointless; I appear to be having a discussion with myself with your monologue in the background.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)You denounce DUers as Third Way, and you just affirmed that in your last post. What does concern about Sanders electability have to do with the Third Way?
Point to evidence on the site where that is addressed. Why is it that you find it so difficult to answer basic questions?
And this:
They're not laughing anymore. They're scared. They should be. . . .
Support Bernie but think he can't win? Keep it to yourself
In that passage, Third Way isn't even the ideas and policies articulated by the Think Tank. Instead, you denounce a new turn to more liberal ideas and make allegations there are cryptic Third Wayers acting liberal. So here the concern isn't even policy. It's people, ordinary voters you target at the enemy for supporting a candidate you don't like,. In this thread you go on to even target those who do support Sanders but object to your negative tactics.
It has nothing to do with Sanders, Wall Street, or the 1 percent. It's all about targeting ordinary, working Democrats, the poor and elderly, people of color. There is nothing leftist about identifying people less privileged than yourself as the enemy. In fact, it's the opposite. How could that have any effect other than suppressing support for Sanders?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Imcan only conclude that you and I have a fundamentally different understanding of the English language.
Have a good night.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)and a transparent one. I edited my post to include text form your OP. This was the addition.
They're not laughing anymore. They're scared. They should be. . . .
Support Bernie but think he can't win? Keep it to yourself
In that passage, Third Way isn't even the ideas and policies articulated by the Think Tank. Instead, you denounce a new turn to more liberal ideas and make allegations there are cryptic Third Wayers acting liberal. So here the concern isn't even policy. It's people, ordinary voters you target at the enemy. They need to keep quiet, stay in their place, let their betters take care of the politics.
This crusade has nothing to do with Sanders, Wall Street, or the 1 percent. It's all about targeting ordinary, working Democrats, the poor and elderly, people of color. There is nothing leftist about identifying people less privileged than yourself as the enemy. In fact, it's the opposite.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)then disappearing when asked for evidence to support the thing you made up.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)If support for Clinton equates with Third Way, why would you continue to financially contribute to a site whose owner has publicly come out for Clinton. If you find that position so reprehensible, why have you not confronted him directly rather than attacking DUers who speak favorably of Sanders and may even support him? Why do you continue to generate clicks and therefore revenue for DU, whose owner, according to you, is Third Way? Doesn't that make you a financial contributor to the Third Way?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Let's resolve your question above, then we can move on to these issues, OK?
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)This is the question I asked of you, and as usually you dodge it. Why do you find it so difficult to engage in any discussion beyond a brief bit of sarcasm in an OP? How is it that you can't even discuss any issues?
Now, this was the original question: Why do you financially contribute to the Third Way by posting on this site, generating clicks, and donating to its owner? If support for Clinton equates with Third Way, that makes you a financial contributor to both her campaign and the Third Way. Yet not only do you and the rest of the crowd that has such contempt for ordinary Democratic votes who disagree with you on even minor points (not even about something as limited in importance as a presidential candidate). Or, most importantly, refuse to abandon all of their rights and economic interests in order to carry on the great and noble fights of the upper 10-20 percent vs. the 1 percent, because really that is what passes for economic justice among people who show not only don't care about the poor and the majority of Americans but actively treat them with hostility and contempt.
Yes, I get that for you all the only true leftist are those devoted to the white middle- and upper-middle class who only recently experienced economic decline. If we mention that inequality and poverty has characterized this country from its inception, that is denounced as centrist. If we point out that the years that some around here long for where ones characterized by tremendous inequality and poverty, you all get pissed off because, really, those people don't count. You all work furiously to create an in-crowd of people just like you in every way, while disregarding and actively insulting everyone else. Now, for you the division is success. That is precisely what you want, but some of your fan club actually wants true leftist reform, only they behave in ways that undermine the necessary solidarity to make that possible. You all even attack Sanders supporters, like the person who said Sanders had asked for a positive rather than a negative campaign. It's not about the presidency or the country. It's about your little clique, your fan club that never questions you on anything and makes it easy for you to do these parody OPs without engaging in any substantive discussions of issues.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I understand that to be a question. Perhaps I should have paid more attention in English.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)This was the post you responded to when saying you would address a different question:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6602224
Now, let's have your answer. Why are you financially contributing to a site owned by someone whom you clearly see as Third Way?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Nice.
BainsBane
(53,154 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Marking this post because I would love to see a coherent and honest response. The evasion and backpedaling going on here is just stunning. You pegged this one perfectly.
I'll just park it right here if you don't mind...
btw...thank you. So tired of this disingenuous nonsense.
eta: just as I suspected, *crickets*.
vlakitti
(401 posts)Glad you posted that.
I can't imagine myself writing a sentence like this:
"Hillary Clinton me-tooing a self-avowed Socialist! "
But you did. Can you imagine anyone anywhere reading that comment without laughing?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Thanks.
Support Bernie but think he can't win? Keep it to yourself. I think that Americans are ready for change, and this time maybe they'll get it.
Let's @#$%ing fight for this, like we mean it. And we'll only do that if we truly intend to win."
^This^
I can only quote:
"Americans are sick to death of the lies, the wars, and the selling of our lives to the highest bidder.
Look with your own eyes at how far things have come in just a few years.
Support Bernie but think he can't win? Keep it to yourself. I think that Americans are ready for change,
and this time maybe they'll get it.
Let's @#$%ing fight for this, like we mean it. And we'll only do that if we truly intend to win."
F' Yeah.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) demwing
(16,916 posts)Sanders threw himself against a giant wall made of solid gold bricks. He can't tear down the wall by himself. If you've got $1 to your name, send him 50 cents, the return on the investment is so high it can't be calculated.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)NEVER COUNT HIM OUT! His name IS NOT Ralph Nadar! I'm in with Bernie, donated today... win or lose, I see Hillary talking about issues he's BEEN talking about, so I think she's taking him seriously!
Yeah, attack us, but I like his grit and willingness to talk about issues that NEED to be talked about! He doesn't need to follow any script, he knows what he believed so it's much easier to see what he believes. I don't know what will happen, but NOTHING will happen if we don't help him out with our support!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If we are commanding people to keep things to themselves, let's start there.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's not like the Hillary critics have been shy about voicing criticisms.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Both the primaries AND the general.
I am equally certain that Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton might win the primary, but cannot win the general.
michaz
(1,352 posts)Waiting to see exactly where Sanders, Clinton and anyone else that "throws their hat in the ring" stands on the issues makes sense to me. Just thinking that where anyone "stood" a number of years ago is where they still stand today makes no sense to me. Things change and so does "where these people stood" prior. I am going to wait and see what they are saying now and decide after that.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)that it won't permit someone like him to win.
I still believe Bernie should run and run to win. If we can help him get his message out, I think it will resonate with many Americans. And it is up to us who support him to do that. The corporate-owned media sure isn't going to provide a forum for that.
For example, CBS This Morning in its opening segment today had nothing from Bernie's announcement yesterday...but they did have a very brief clip saying how he was once a folk singer and showed him singing something during an interview and laughing. That was in stark contrast with the levity of his announcement. It reminded me of that movie Bob Roberts where the media always showed Roberts' opponent in the most foolish or unflattering way possible.
I think social and alternative media outlets might help to get what he's actually saying out there, but it's going to be a huge uphill fight.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Way to go, Manny!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It all depends on whether enough of us get aboard that different train.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Myself included. So underrepresented here. This is getting to be a joke.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026592890
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)...rather than abstract comments like "He speaks to the concerns of the working class", take a minute and think about the realities of politics (because that's what his staff will have to do). You need to win a majority of delegates to the convention. Most states will be someone less liberal than Vermont. Almost all will be larger, many requiring an investment in paid media because of the difficulties of retail politics.
We start with Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina/Nevade, and then 8 States including Texas, Virginia and South Carolina. What's Bernie's path to victory?
Nay
(12,051 posts)happen, and are probably hoping for one, since the system is so broken and co-opted that even asking "how Bernie can win" is simply silly. If we look at it rationally, he can't win. There's too much arrayed against him. It will require a black swan event -- one that is a complete surprise resulting from a groundswell of emotion and anger from the populace. We may get it this time or we may not, but there's no way to predict/quantify/describe EXACTLY how Bernie can or cannot win 1 1/2 years before the election.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)What that translates to is: let's wait and see. Real campaigns don't work that way. Unless you envision unlimited finances and volunteers, you have to pick States to contest and States to skip. You have to pay staff who are working for more than a year and you need to raise the money to pay them. Leaving things up to "anything can happen" is a pretty lazy way to go about campaigning.
Nay
(12,051 posts)not be able to run a balls-out, billion-dollar campaign because he doesn't have, and may not be able to get, the money. Other than sending him some money and working for his campaign, there's not much any individual can do to change this dynamic so, in effect, we out here ARE just going to have to "wait and see." HE can't just "wait and see" of course. He's got to craft some sort of campaign. But I think something else will have to happen for him to actually win. It's impossible to determine what that will be.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Can you be specific?
As to divisiveness... what, specifically, am I saying that Bernie doesn't?
TBF
(32,239 posts)he could be our next FDR. He has that potential. I've already donated to him - I want him to know he has support so he announces officially.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)Bernie CAN WIN if we we elect him (hopefully). We need this.
Greybnk48
(10,191 posts)The corporatists better be afraid because I'm sure I'm not the only one ready to back Bernie as far as he can go! Yesterday's interview on the Ed Show did it for me. Ed showed interviews and video of Bernie saying the exact same thing he's saying now from when he was just starting out as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. He's no phony or B'esser, he's the real deal and I'm backing him.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They need to be getting the ground forces in place starting NOW, to get as many potential caucus-goers as possible behind Bernie.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)stonecutter357
(12,703 posts) RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I entirely disagree, but I've been quite vocal in opposition to HRC as well.
The only genuine problem, in the end, with Sanders' candidacy is his age. In the end, that will be the Republicans' only reasonable argument against a Sanders Presidency.
Everything else about him scares HRC and all of the Republicans tremendously. He is one extremely well-liked person for very good reasons, and both his principles and demeanor will result in a great deal of positive attention, even from some Republicans.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)Do you have any evidence that the Clinton campaign is "scared" of Bernie Sanders?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)to establish a formal, documented claim. I only have the experience of 44 years of life, the past 20 or so I have spent, to a not inconsiderable extent, observing American politics. I have several friends who can vouch for my resolute claim, made when Bill Clinton made his first appearance in a Democratic primary debate, that he was definitely going to be the next president. It was just obvious. So, no, I don't think members of the Hillary machine would every make a statement, on or off the record, that anyone is worried about Bernie Sanders. However, I am absolutely comfortable making and standing behind that claim.
They understand one very important element of the situation - he could win. Oddly enough, he can actually draw support from Republicans who are currently convinced that the loonies on the right are on their sides, once they realize that he actually represents what they're really interested in, just without the racism and homophobia.
The Clinton campaign didn't develop a game plan to counter his message, other than for Clinton to occasionally make careful statements indicating that she is in agreement with certain things he's said. There aren't many attractive options.
They are at this moment challenged by the implications of the considerable enthusiasm expressed by his supporters, compared to the rather more tepid support their candidate receives in general. She can't move to the right - the right hates her - and if she now moves to the left, she'll just be seen as pandering to Sanders' supporters, who are deeply skeptical of her 'progressive' credentials.
But you're quite right - I can't document these claims. Nonetheless, that's what's going on.
Cosmocat
(14,619 posts)Since WHEN did "reasonable" have anything to do with republican opposition to democratic candidates.
Al Gore was a intelligent, decent man with great experience and they vilified him. He lied about inventing the internet, don't you know?
John Kerry was a god darned vet of the vietnam war who was wounded in battle and received honors for his service. He was painted as weak as opposed to the TOUGH AND RESOLUTE halfwit son of privilege who got out of actual service in battle because of his family and hid in a mountain during 9-11.
Howard Dean was a decent, smart guy whose presidential campaign literally was destroyed over a genuine display of emotion.
Barrack Obama's principles and demeanor are incredible, and he was "well-liked" until the moment he over took Hillary as the presumptive democratic candidate.
You are living in an absolute fantasy land if you think Bernie Sanders will not have an endless array of complete garbage thrown his way until it sticks once republicans view him as a viable threat.
And THAT is the only reason he isn't smeared already, they don't view him as a threat. When they do, it will get real.
This whole line of thinking feeds into the republican/mass media meme that these people at fault for republicans being jackasses.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)than conventional right-wing smears.
Al Gore 'lost' because he was Bill Clinton's Vice President. The right-wing smear machine couldn't bring down Clinton, but the residue stuck to Gore, and being an intelligent, decent man was irrelevant. Also, he tried to play things just a little too safe.
Of course the right-wing machine will smear the hell out of Sanders - the problem is that he won't be playing anything safe. They haven't faced anything like him in a opposing candidate, ever. Not the modern right-wing smear machine. If the smear offensive is conducted as it has been in the past, it will, generally, and paradoxically, increase interest in his candidacy. The smear machine is as much about tainting the Democratic 'brand' as it is about specific attacks on individual candidates.
Sanders can't be smeared that way - every attempt at smearing him because he's a 'Socialist' will only increase his appeal. Here's a guy who has no problem with saying what he means, and all the prior socialist smears were made against candidates who believed that 'Socialist' was the worst thing that the party could be branded as. Sanders will openly say - yes, I've been a socialist, and here's what that really means.
This is not going to play out like past elections.
I hope it will play out this way.
It runs counter to everything we have seen in my life, and counts on a level of non-stupidity from the american public I can't fathom, but keep the faith.
Cosmocat
(14,619 posts)is anything about your candidate ...
Your post by sentence is:
Poor me ...
Hillary bashing ...
Saying "they" are scared ...
A statement of your and MY anger that most likely is not reflective of where the rest of the country is ...
Hillary bashing ...
Telling a good portion of the Sanders supporters to shut up ...
Begging the question ... Do you REALLY want Bernie Sanders to win?
If so, you have a really odd way of helping him.
zappaman
(20,606 posts) 
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)With every dollar invested in Wall St essentially a vote against representation for the least among us. The battle can only be won by those determined to fight not just for themselves, but for the future of all beings.
The battle will be lost by those who side with Wall St over Main St.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)your name just got moved back to the bottom of the pony list.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Look for a ton of GOP money to pour into Sander's chest from "mom and pop" donors.
Look for the MSM to anoint him the "real Democrat"---while also reminding Republicans that their best chance of a 2016 victory is to split the Dem vote by backing a "Clinton is the same as____, I'm votong for Bernie" campaign a la Ralph Nader in 2000.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)except when it has.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)
the shit is hitting the fan...there's no wait involved, time to get a real progressive in office and end the personhood of the death machine.
Ernest Partridge
(135 posts)To be sure, Bernie will not get the nomination.
But he will be in the debates, raising the issues that Hillary avoids.
He will put the plutocrats' feet to the fire.
He will attract an astonishing number of votes in the primaries, and might even win some.
And that is a win.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)He has ran against other party regulars in the past and won. In his last election he won by a huge margin.
I feel that once people find out about Bernie, and hear what he has to say about the issues that THEY care about, you will see him win the Democratic nomination, and in November win the General election in a manner that has not been seen in the US since 1984 (only not for the RepubliCONs).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)be more confident. But they seem like they are concerned as well they should be. Funny how some of them have spoken out against Citizens United but it looks like they are changing their minds now that it looks like it will help their candidate.
Clinton will definitely have the upper hand with her name recognition, the Corp-Media, and Wall Street money behind her, but don't underestimate the power of the people. Sen Sanders may be just the spark to ignite the Populist Movement into full swing.
This primary election is going to be a battle between the 1% and the 99%.
Duval
(4,280 posts)because he is the one we NEED! The 50 State strategy is a good one and we're getting ready to GOOOOO!! I think we can do this, if we can withstand the "corporate" media, and keep plugging our message as much as possible. Senator Sanders thinks he has a good chance or he wouldn't be doing this. And this website helped put Sanders in a very good position.
Yes, Manny Goldstein, we need to be Positive!
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)that any major Democrat will win the general election. So that being said why not support the real thing in Bernie Sanders?
Paka
(2,760 posts)If we fight the good fight to win, we can win. It's that simple. The country needs Bernie.
brooklynite
(95,394 posts)Good to know.
Agony
(2,605 posts)I make my assumptions with a clean heart, crystal clear eyes and exquisite framing.
Upward and to the Left!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Who knew sending millions of jobs to Asia, decades of endless war, letting the rich run over the middle class and below while embracing a police state complete with dragnet citizen surveillance would come to this?
I mean, who knew?
Just bad luck for her I guess.
trof
(54,256 posts)
Stainless
(718 posts)Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren will not allow Corporations and the super rich to take total control. Wake up America and vote for candidates who will represent your best interests!
raven mad
(4,940 posts)LOL! And we did it TWICE!!!
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Nothing is more important than preventing a woman who has tirelessly advocated for women's issues from winning the Democratic Party's nomination - much less, from becoming President.
No one needs to make a case for HRC being a liberal. Her record proves that she is. Just because she doesn't meet YOUR narrow and self-contradictory definition, doesn't mean that she isn't.
Also, "as liberal as a socialist"-you do know realize that liberalism and socialism are really not the same thing, yes?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)and lead to even more disparity.
You do realize liberal and corporate-owned, 3rd way, neo-liberal are not really the same thing, yes?
Bernie is what we used to call a Democrat.
Hillary? More like a genetically engineered candidate programmed to triangulate around the most politically convenient opportunity of the moment.
You can't fight for women's rights within a broken framework for justice. Until Hillary is willing to challenge the Wall Street class who pervert the meaning of right and wrong, she's not worthy of the nomination.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)democrat2thecore
(3,572 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and don't bring up false accusations at the last minute that are not provable. You can't trust all candidates like you do Bernie.
