2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOhhhh now Hillary is the big bad wolf..
laughing so hard I can hardly breathe
My hand to God.. those who were here when President Obama first ran for President.. will remember the absolute never ending beat down on his supporters.. by .. I forget..they had a nickname.. whole group.. went out and started forums against President Obama and his supporters.. well needless to say.. it was brutal. It was amazing..
Now we are looking at 2016..and here we go again..absolute, never ending beat down on Hillary and her running in 2016 ..
Did anyone see this coming???..
There is one thing in common with both of these scenarios.. I will let you figure it out..
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)spend billions and billions republicans America needs the stimulu$.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You need to do a little homework.
Start here: https://www.readyforhillary.com/
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)And I supported her until now President Obama won the nomination.
I remember the beatings. It wasn't nice.
But now I think it's time to focus on 2014 and the mid terms.
I will gladly voice my support for her after the 2014 elections are in the bag.
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Lets get through that one first before anointing anyone for 2016. I truly admire Hillary, but I'd much rather see someone else. She's carrying a shitload of baggage.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)It comes from the reliable few that don't let up. Every other day if not every day a negative post appears
from these trolls.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they seem to think its going to push Warren to run....as if.
cali
(114,904 posts)they're the corporate conservative third way sellout "dems".
peacebird
(14,195 posts)She would reliably look out for their interests over those of regular folks. She is actually for the TPP?
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...because in the 2008 Primary, she actually got more than half of the votes.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I merely stated the obvious, that the DLC would love having her on the ticket.
cali
(114,904 posts)I was one of the President's biggest supporters in 2008- and before. I was a less enthusiastic supporter of his in 2012.
I've always opposed corporateHillary.
We beat her in 2008.
We'll do the same in 2016.
have a nice retirement, Hillary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)laugh all you want...but she has the biggest lead in the run up to the election ever seen...much less this far out.
I think you will be laughing out of the other side of your face....and of course proclaiming that you ALWAYS supported Hillary a little bit!
cali
(114,904 posts)Never. Ever.
Yes, I'll vote for her if she's the nominee- puking all the way.
And you remind me sooo much of what people were saying back in 2007.
We'll see.
What a shame it will be if dems nominate her.
Pro-fracking
pro-pipeline
pro-TPP
She's anathema to democratic economic ideals
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)like choice and marriage equality.
Economic issues are the most important issues.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)the middle class is eroding.
these are facts, not your childish refusal to deal with them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)YOU seem to think that economics is the ONLY issue...and I say Bullfeathers.
I have women's issues to think about...thanks for your lack of concern.
cali
(114,904 posts)try some other bullshit attack.
as for you, you've made it crystal clear exactly what you are.
No thanks.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry you made THAT crystal clear...
Because you said ALL the candidates are okay on "social issues"...so those should be sidelined because of economics..
and I say bullcrap!
Because if you play around and get your wish and split the Democratic vote....Women's and Marriage issues...become a HUGE deal.
cali
(114,904 posts)and who's talking about splitting the dem vote? I'm talking about defeating that corporate piece of work, hillary, in the primaries.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)it WILL be issue number one! All you have to do is see the hundreds of Bills they have put up against them...
cali
(114,904 posts)if, if, if. if.
here's what my mother would say to you:
If ifs and ands were pots and pans and all the sea were ink
and all the trees were bread and cheese
whatever would there be to drink?
you're so easy, you're fun to... engage.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Republicans WILL focus on Roe V Wade...
Or where have you been under a rock?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)What sort of person would think Economic issues are not as imprtant as social ones, I know, the "I'm all right jack, keep your hands off my stack" social level. Sad thing is, those people do allright till wall street decides their jobs need to be outsourced. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If both would be spouses are broke thanks to Hillary;'s friends on Wall Street.
Economic freedom and Social freedom are NOT, not will they ever be, separate.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)poor people don't marry? Is this really your position?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and that people cannot have civil liberty if they are too poor to pay for living becqause a bunch of wall street wonks control the basic needs of life, and are busy selling this country to China.
broiles
(1,367 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)broiles
(1,367 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)LMAO!
Pisces
(5,599 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts) cali
(114,904 posts)but he's not running.
duh.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Better start soon, hon.
cali
(114,904 posts)sweetums.
I'll be supporting anyone to the left of that corporate piece of.. work.
She's the worst dem I can think of as a the nominee.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I would love to have options because right now as it stands, dear, I ain't got shit.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Obama was carried on the media's shoulders as some sort of wunderkind. Warren will not have that advantage. It'll be hard enough to keep the WH in 2016. This is the same mind set as that of those who kept ranting about the Blue Dogs in Congress. Well, they got their way, plenty of them lost their seats in 2010. Who replaced them? Republicans that's who, welcome to the Tea Party era. Thanks a lot.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Wisdom and some Excedrin. It's going to be a looooong three years (if I last that long around here). It may not be worth the aggravation. There'll be too much to do to worry about the haters.
Thank you, sweets!!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Beacool
(30,250 posts)
polichick
(37,152 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and stretch back 30 years to her Wal-Mart Monsanto days.
polichick
(37,152 posts)by choosing Rahm, filling the administration with fellow corporate tools, hosting Billy Tauzin and other lobbyists at the WH over and over again as they worked on the ACA, etc., etc., etc.
In a way, Obama pisses me off even more than HRC because he used a lot of populist language in the 2008 campaign and really tainted things for young voters.
To hell with both of them and the Trojan horses they rode in on!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that he claimed to be against the individual mandate while she supported it and he claimed to be very much in favor of a strong public option component 'any bill I sign must contain a public option to help control costs'.
Once elected, his positions reverted to her positions, mandates good and 'I never ran on a public option' was his last comment about it. Any bill I sign, never ran on it.
No other actual differences existed between the two. He once mentioned he favored raising the FICA cap. Never to be mentioned again of course, he how harps on cutting the CPI as solution to all things the individual mandate did not solve already.
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)Do you want to win elections or just whine about some of what goes on politically that offends your sensibilities. You can push Dems to change policies for the better... can you say that about Reps? Please, give me the strategy... what do you do in the face of Citizen's United? Do you really think in this environment that a populist movement without funding can carry the day? Be realistic. Who do you think is more likely to overturn Citizen's United (granted it will take a lot of hard work, but doable), restore voting rights, improve the economy (you are aware that it is Reps that always run up debt and Dems who pay it off), work toward fairness for all, etc. etc? Let me think, does that sound like a Dem or a Rep?
Sorry you don't get everything you want or what it takes to get the right things done. I am more interested in winning for change for the better, not the crash and burn economy that only ends up making the rich richer since they are the only with money to invest in a bad downturn and voila massive returns when the economy turns around. How do you think we got here doing this over and over again since they fooled the people in the 80's? Because, IMO, people like you did not show up and vote. Politics is a lot harder than the simplistic points you are upset about. Also, for the most part not true... I do not hear "harping" and I do not believe he favors CPI over FICA caps... you seem to be extrapolating your point of view.
polichick
(37,152 posts)the reason Dems lost the House - in which case, I'd blame the con artists.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and then we blame YOU!
polichick
(37,152 posts)since "our" con artists are more likeable than their con artists.
We may have to hit rock bottom before enough people get it - sometimes that's what it takes.
(btw I couldn't care less who you blame.)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because THAT is the part your "team" fails to understand. You are not in a majority....at least I recognize I am not.
polichick
(37,152 posts)It's my job to vote - and I won't be voting for another corporate tool, even one with a D after his or her name. Sometimes that D is for DECEPTION.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because it is not enough....
polichick
(37,152 posts)On edit, make that the whole world!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have to get a majority to agree....and the majority wants Hillary. It's that simple. We either get some movement to the left...OR we get more movement to the right....
The choice is yours whether you want to be helpful or harmful.
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)aren't you arguing against voting for the apparent Democratic Nominee?
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"To hell with both of them and the Trojan horses they rode in on! "
Or do you vote for what you consider a Trojan horse in the end?
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you call them both Trojan Horses....I presume that means you aren't voting for Hillary right?
That's your philosophy right? That they are traitors?
Or do you always call who you vote for that?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Truman called it right:
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman
[font size=4]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or any Democrat for that matter?
Using big text doesn't change that...
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I think that was a really weak move.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I blame corporate third way conservative dems shilling for Hillary.
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)at least for thinking people. The reason the house was lost was because people were afraid. People in general do not understand how economies work. It can take years for a policy to have an impact, both pro and con. People were losing homes, jobs, property values, retirement value and so on. They wanted someone like Obama but were more afraid of losing everything even though the steps he took did save the economy. They did not know that at the time. It is like the devil you know when you don't understand how things really work. Couple that with Citizen's United and that is why 2010 was lost. It was a long term strategy on the Reps part and if you are really a Dem, then you are the type that loses us elections by being so negative that people listen and get turned off. It is ok to work for change, it is different when you sabotage.
The reason FDR was so successful in reigning things in was because we were in the depths of a great depression when he took over, much like the 2010 chance the Reps got. They just don't know how to do anything but destroy so it doesn't last. It is hard to prove a counter factual. There were probably a few ways to go in putting into motion those things that kept us from the type of economy that the great depression wrought. The one he took was the safest, but the most unfair. Would you have taken the chance that another strategy might not work or the sure thing when millions of people rely on you? I may not like, but I understand.
It is easy to sit on a perch somewhere when you do not have the responsibility and the reality of situations. How to bend that curve for all situations that you believe in while the peanut gallery sits and boos. If you had perspective, you would realize where we were, not only economically, but socially when he took over and where we are now.
I am not defending corporations, they need to be downsized. First, the banks though since they are the ones that are most dangerous. I have a whole list, however we have to win elections in order to work on them. Dodd Frank, with the right regulators can get there. If the Reps take over and still don't have enough votes to overturn it, they will appoint weak regulators and then it is off to the races toward the next inevitable crash. With your attitude, I suggest you start saving big time.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I don't know how many young voters, who had voted for the first time in 2008, told me it was all bullshit after some of the moves Obama made (including filling the WH with corporate tools).
Which is not to say that there weren't other contributing factors.
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)It is like when occupy wall street first started. I cheered and supported them, all those young energetic people working for change. The counter to the incredibly narrow minded Tea Party. What did they do with that golden opportunity? They could not pick a platform. They disavowed every one who wanted to put one together. They wanted fairness for all without the work. It was such a disappointment. That is the problem with ideology. What I want the world to be and what it takes to make it that way are two different things. The difference between thinking for ego sake and understanding for practical sake.
Lots of young people think the idea of Libertarianism is appealing, but I doubt sincerely that they understand what it truly stands for. The way the economics is structured and the incredible disaster it would bring. There is a reason it has never successfully worked. I have talked to many young people who are still just fine with Obama. It is easy when you are young and invincible and think you know it all. For a living, I had to talk companies down all time from their hubris at disliking their current systems and wanting to throw the bums out without a plan. I am afraid, regardless of all your ideals, you just don't get what it takes to move from something you don't like to something you do. Plain and simple, it is a lot of work, a lot of strategic planning, the ability to overcome all the inevitable obstacles, and not just whine when it doesn't go the way you like.
So, now you got me real curious... who would you put in that could A) realistically win B) would live up to your lofty expectations with the caveat of actually getting it all done to your approval level?
polichick
(37,152 posts)it's time to hang it up - we only need one corporate whore party.
I'm sick of the idea that only corporate candidates can "realistically win" - that's mindless bullshit designed to keep 'em coming.
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)I'm afraid your life is going to be a terrible disappointment. You can't just hold your breath and have people beg you to start breathing again over and over... after a while they will just say go ahead. I explained how it works, not just how I want it to work. I do have some life experience in getting things done.
You want no more corporate whores... work your tail off for Movetoamend.org. It will be the biggest game changer toward what you want... and by the way, what I want. I support it. I write my congress people. Regardless, it is what it is in the mean time. Look, the second most thing you can do is to keep Dems in office so we can get rid of people like Scalia and Thomas and get people like Kagan and Sotomayer on the Supreme Court. They actually follow the constitution (for or against what you may or may not like) and they are not major activists or hang out with people that are obviously a conflict of interest. Hell, Thomas could be thrown out right now on legitimate grounds if things were different. I was rooting for Kagan and wrote letters. I wrote letters and signed petitions for Yellen for the Fed Reserve, although I am sure in your mind the fact that QE helped dramatically offset the fiscal drag the Reps are perpetrating on us, would be a bad thing since much of it helps inflate the market. Try to remember, many pension plans, 401K's (another big rip off), rely on the market to make them viable for retirement.
You want things different... work for change, don't just bitch. BTW, you never said who was your ideal candidate to get this done.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Lns.Lns
(99 posts)This person is mentally a child and never taught the discipline of meaningful dialogue. It is sort of like a "so are you but what am I" conversation. I really tried to get through, but I am wasting my time.
Thanks for the support though.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Lns.Lns
(99 posts)I give up - you are obviously just like a tea party person. There is no getting through to you and you have no answers that are worthy of the effort I was attempting in this conversation. It was a sincere effort to get you to understand, but you are just like a petulant child. I truly hope for your own peace of mind that someday you grow up and learn to cope and work for meaningful change.
polichick
(37,152 posts)suggests you know nothing about me or the work I've done in this party over several decades.
You need to be here for a while and pay attention so you can stop talking out of your ass.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)when Hillary is nominated because you claim she is a Trojan Horse like Pres. Barack Obama...
and that is not just a paraphrase...that is exactly what you said.
polichick
(37,152 posts)What I said is:
To hell with both of them and the Trojan horses they rode in on!
If HRC gets the nomination I won't be working for her campaign - possibly on other Dem campaigns though.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that would not be paraphrasing...that is EXACTLY what you said...
If Hillary gets the nomination...she will be the Democratic candidate...
She won't miss your help.
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)there is no difference...
You called them both Trojan Horse's. We Democrats beg to differ...
polichick
(37,152 posts)You use the word "exactly" rather loosely, meaning NOT exactly. lol
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)I am done with this conversation... but I do have to respond to the "ass" comment.
First, for someone who has been working "for decades" for the party you apparently haven't learned that language has a lot to do with winning people over to your way of thinking. Calling people names who don't agree with you is still childish.
As for the way you phrase things - such as about ignorance... may I suggest you read Freud who came up with transference and projection. I think it may apply here.
Next for your own edification about how to phrase and think about things - may I suggest a book called "Thinking fast and slow".
Lastly, if you are working for the party, heaven help us.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Just explained how you might get around talking out of your ass.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...and had the more progressive health care system.
Oh and she insisted on renegotiating NAFTA before Obama did and then decided it wasn't a big deal.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I also remember how they both voted on FISA.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Obama gleefully voted for it because it made him seem strong on security.
You can think him for the NSA security state we're now enjoying.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)like I tell you about Obama...underestimate at your own peril. And you are proving the OP's point!
ffr
(22,670 posts)I think Hillary can handle the heat. She's been through this process before. I'll back her if she's the nominee.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)They were smug using racism against African-Americans, figuring they had nothing to lose against a minority group that viewed them unfavorably anyway. They saw their tactics backfire when Obama was voted into office twice despite their efforts. Misogyny will be just as bad if not worse. Women are half the population and they lost our vote by 12 points in the last election. They just can't leave well enough alone. They're still calling women who use contraceptives "ho's" and "floozies," as can be seen by the twitter comments over Limbaugh's continued assaults against women who use them for birth control. I'm not worried. Keep it coming. Let the ugly out where women can see it and take it to the ballot.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I can understand political differences and preferring another candidate, that's fair. What I can't stand is the continuous efforts to portray the two most popular Democrats in the country as the enemy. The attacks are nasty, rude and disrespectful not only toward the Clintons, but also to other DU members who may disagree with them. The pile-on has gotten pretty vicious. It's also turning off fellow Democrats.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Don't recall you saying this when many here went after Obama, using vile language and attacking his supporters as cultists. In fact, I'm sure you quite enjoyed em.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)It's hard to say anything positive about Hillary around here without getting pounced on...just like in 2008.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Back then it was Obama's DU, not "Democratic" DU. Now they are doing it again. They are blinded by their dislike for both Clintons. They have lionized someone who will probably never run and vilified someone who hasn't even announced whether she's running.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)But, oh no...Dem's are never satisfied. Always have to have someone purer...just like the ReThugs. Everyone has to have their extremes.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)
Lns.Lns
(99 posts)almost every time I post here (granted not often). We do have to stick together and vote. If we aren't careful, we will end up like the Tea Party of the left and then when they say "both side" do it... they will be right.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)at times when he opens his mouth without thinking first.
Just sayin'.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)That's really how it's been recently - I'm not really enthusiastically voting for most democrats, instead it's really making the best of a bad situation. Obama is in bed with Wall Street, as is Hillary. It's the corporate wing, big bucks wing, of the democratic party, the Rahm Emmanual wing.
Hillary has been heard veering a little more left lately (trying to fend off Liz?) but...Obama talks a very good populist game in campaign mode as well. His actions once in power - center right on most things.
It was telling when word leaked out that Obama was upset that Elizabeth Warren dare ask hard questions of Wall Street Titans. Really?
We need a rebirth of real actual populist democrats or - a viable third party on the left. Unless you're fine with the democrats beholden to the Bankster crooks who almost crashed our whole economy once more - as they bankrupted people and pensions.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]
Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by Private Corporations.
My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to again support the Least of the Worst.
Let the chips fall where they may.
---bvar22
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)If you are making certain statements...expect them to be examined for what they mean.
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the apparent Democratic nominee or not?
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)because you got nothin' else.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Just cause you don't like having your words tossed back...
Show me HOW I twisted em? YOU said you were not going to vote for Hillary...duly noted
polichick
(37,152 posts)And kindly add the words you're "paraphrasing" from bvar22's posts on this thread.
(Talking out of your ass is not the same as paraphrasing.)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How about I throw that back at you....
Prove it...
polichick
(37,152 posts)Oh, except HRC - "the apparent Democratic nominee."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thats what paraphrasing means....
You aren't voting for her....so YOU got nothing...
at YOU
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)par·a·phrase
ˈparəˌfrāz/Submit
verb
1.
express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, esp. to achieve greater clarity.
"you can either quote or paraphrase literary texts"
synonyms: reword, rephrase, put/express in other words, rewrite, gloss More
noun
noun: paraphrase; plural noun: paraphrases
1.
a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.
synonyms: rewording, rephrasing, rewriting, rewrite, rendition, rendering, gloss More
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Which of the following do you oppose?
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]
Please be specific, and address what I have SAID,
and NOT a twisted fantasy of what you wish I had said.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you apparently don't feel the same...
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do I vote for Democrats? Always....
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but I will answer yours:
FDR said:
"*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;"
What is the TPP but an attempt to establish unfair competition from abroad?
FDR said:
"*The right to a good education. "
Supporting Charter Schools is NOT that.
FDR said:
"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;"
Outsourcing sure does not help that.
Let's face it, Hillary is the candidate that will allow rich people to enjoy civil liberty, but does not give one whit about the rest of the nation, which is why she will be opposed in the primary.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That determination will be based solely on how deep the person's liberalism is.
Dov Hikind is a democrat. Several crazy-ass Republicans have just jumped parties. Their registration is their business, but their politics is mine.
polichick
(37,152 posts)I'll be voting FOR something next time around.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the Democratic nominee on a DEMOCRATIC forum...because at this moment...it appears Hillary is the apparent nominee by anyone's imagination.
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Democratic nominee...and you are doing so on a Democratic forum...and expect to be taken seriously.
polichick
(37,152 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)or do you not pay any attention at all?
If not....why is this diary even necessary..."genius"?
cali
(114,904 posts)how did that work out for her?
And we can criticize her here.
The apparent nominee is utter nonsense.
Too bad for YOU.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)money is already pooring in..
too bad for YOU!
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)until she ___>LOST<_____
Funny, some people seem to take lessons form the GOP on how to deny the election results of 2008.
And money is supposed to buy an election? gee, Hillary had a lot of money last time, and she somehow managed to spend it poorly.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)including an 80 to 90 approval among Democrats across the board...
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)She is not now...Keep on crying in your coffee that she LOST 2008, and lost it because she was too weak to rein in Bill's Mouth.
If the Hillary forever folks put half the effort into congressional eelctions, we might have a chance, but then again, that might threaten many of the Blue Dogs that take shelter under the Clintons.
And Hillary herself will not escape a fact, a fact bvar22 make true whenever he quotes FDR, civil liberty without economic liberty is fragile at best.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)67% over all and 80% to 90% among Democratic voters....
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)a LOT can happen in three years? For on thing, 2014 is still in play, and if we blow that election, in part thanks to Bill slamming obamacare and feeding the GOP ego, then we will see the Tea party, and they will play the media like a harp! They will make sure that the goon squads pack districts with tea party people that wanted to have Hillary burnt at the stake ten years ago! And,if we lose 2014, governors will be in play to make sure turnout is low, by hook or crook.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)is to deny reality
In other words....at this moment....baring something unforeseen (and you can pray for that if you want) ...the nomination is Hillary's for the taking.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/09/hillary-clinton-is-the-most-formidable-presidential-frontrunner-in-modern-era/
Clinton’s numbers look a lot more like an incumbent. Bush was in the low 70s for 1992. Clinton was in the low 60s to low 70s for 1996. Obama mostly was in the low to mid 60s for 2012, even when matched up against Hillary Clinton....
<snip>
A peak under the hood should give Clinton more confidence. Her favorable rating among Democrats nationally per Quinnipiac is 90% compared to just 4% who viewed her unfavorably. That suggests that it isn’t just name recognition that is catapulting Clinton at this time.
<snip>
Importantly, there is no sign of anyone like Barack Obama contemplating a run. Clinton’s coalition of women, non-college educated whites, and Latinos was just beat out by Obama’s of African-Americans, college-eduated whites, and young voters. All Clinton needs to do is take a little bit of Obama’s 2008 base to ensure his nomination.
cali
(114,904 posts)Yes, she has broad support.
but that support is a mile wide and and an inch deep.
And we can tank her again- with help from her. Her arrogance- consider her two speeches to Goldman Sachs in October for a whopping $400,00- are just the kind of thing that hurt her.
And she wasn't an impressive candidate last time around. Shitty campaign.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Her support is ONLY an inch deep...???
I think I just dispelled that falsehood...
she has 80 to 90% favorability ratings across the board....I would hardly call that an "inch deep"..
cali
(114,904 posts)way to go with the silly ignorant assumptions about me.
And sorry, but her favorability, though still high, is dropping.
deja vu all over again,
we tanked her once. we can do it again, my dear vanilla.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)hmmmmmm
You didn't "tank her" and She didn't have the support then that she has now....those reports just said...she is even more formidable now!
cali
(114,904 posts)and I'm not one who's touted Snowden as a hero. I'm glad he leaked what he did. I'm glad that Greenwald facilitated it and that's it.
suppose that people like you who have a cult of personality mentality can't grasp that others don't engage in that.
I have plenty of posts criticizing Greenwald here and going back years.
And yes, democratic voters tanked hilly's presidential ambitions last time.
We'll do it again.
And get used to ops opposing her with majority support here at DU.
Real dems have no use for the corporate tool that she is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)good job...
cali
(114,904 posts)you're a corporate, conservative supporter.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)"abilities"
I love playing with you, 'nilla.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that's insane...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you really think those on DU wont? hahahahahahahahaahahah
Yeah good luck with that belief!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But, to my eyes, that letter says everything about where Clinton stands vis a vis the rest of the Democratic Party. In short, 2016 won't be 2008, where Clinton was a powerful but contentious figure in the party, and a well-organized challenger could capitalize on grassroots anger and establishment discontent to derail her path to the nomination. Now, Clinton is a wildly popular figure, with one of the highest statures in American politics. Among Democrats, 67 percent favor her for the nomination (compared to 4 percent for Warren) , and in an early poll of potential New Hampshire primary voters, she has the highest favorability ratings—near 80 percent—of any potential candidate. This is a far cry from 2006, where—at most—she had support from a plurality of Democrats.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/11/there-s-no-chance-that-elizabeth-warren-beats-hillary-clinton.html
barring something unforeseen (you are welcome to wish for that I suppose) it looks like Hillary IS the apparent nominee...
cali
(114,904 posts)Hilly has lots of warts and lots of skeletons. We'll be bringing them out again.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We already know what the warts and skeletons are and STILL she gets more support!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)she is the nominee.
cali
(114,904 posts)can you articulate why you support her- beyond that she's fine on social issues?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I think she will do just fine.
cali
(114,904 posts)what policy positions of hers do you support?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There are so many issues and I do not know what she thinks on everything.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And I respect those here who openly say they support her because they get shit on by some of the most vile posters on this forum (who happily should be PPR'd once they lose their collective shit when Hillary is nominated).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)that amaze me...probably because I'm new.
It is those that are so Very Vocally Vitriolic about Her, some bordering on hysteria, which seems to include this second group who warn us that we must not...must probably not even think, have opinions, let alone say, anything about the next presidential election ?????...prior to 2014.
How could they not, holding such negative angst, be ranting to the world...friends, family, co-workers, schools...about The Fatally Flawed One, who just happens to be The Only One, at present. And I'm also guessing they aren't waiting to make their anti voices heard until after 2014, that other PC meme here that drives me nuts.
These Anti-Her Democrats....they influence others who may be non-political deep thinkers or pundits. It matters. Many don't know a lot about politics...thus the low voting rate...but are easily influenced, even more so when race or gender are in the mix. They are easily led to vote against her, vote Republican or stay home.
I also hear so much about the sanctity of local races until after 2014. The national candidates heavily affect not only the votes, but the turnout in the down-ticket. If you have a Blah or a Wicked candidate...who wants to go knock doors, even if they are for a mayor or State Rep?
So, guess that's my little rant. Thanks for your info. Again...I just pray these others don't go unintentionally (hopefully) converting other people to the the nice, friendly Republicans or lower the voting percentage with stay-at-homers.
My Dad used to say..."If you can't find something nice to say about someone, then say nothing." Debate and holding different opinions is fine and very useful. Verbal bad-mouthing, not so much.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)If the website remains dysfunctional, and if not enough people sign up, it will be relentlessly used against every Democrat who is up for reelection next year.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Hillary will need people that cannot think,and easily blame anyone not like them. Sadly, she has us, the USA, realdy to fit that bill
Walk away
(9,494 posts)turn the primaries into a seething Hillary hate fest. This was constant in 2008. No Puma ever ripped apart President Obama the way his supporters insulted and spewed hatred on Hillary. It's almost laughable to accuse Hillary supporters of negativity when DU has been ripping her to shreds for years.
I have seen more DU love over Chris Christie than Hillary Clinton.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I have seen more DU love over Chris Christie than Hillary Clinton.
Pathetic, isn't it?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)attacking Hillary? Laughable!! Absolutely not!
It's the purists--the anti-Obama people who hate BOTH Hillary and Obama!!
Don't you turn this around on "Obama supporters". Just using that name in itself tells me all I need to know about you. You don't support the president yourself, which means you're part of the problem.
Democrats should support Democrats, just as we vow to support Hillary Clinton should she become the nominee, none of this PUMA bullshit that "Hillary supporters" came up with.
Stop the divisive talk because it does no good.
There should be no such thing as "Obama supporters" or "Hillary supporters".
Either you are a Democrat or you're not a Democrat. Either you support the Democratic Party or you don't.
Simple!
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Just look at what she and Bill have done for the people of Haiti:
The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haiti’s Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers’ Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
....
Elect Hillary, 'cause she cares.
cali
(114,904 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The group of supporters (whom will not be named) was rather large and attempted to smear Obama both during the primary, the general election, and after the election. In the real world there are two words for that: sore losers.
I see no concentrated effort to "beat down on Hillary and her running in 2016" (your words, not mine) like the aforementioned group that cooked up conspiracy theories. Those who have opposed her for logical reasons have had the word "hater" slapped on them even if they have provided constructive reasons why they oppose her. The get in line it's her turn meme didn't work in 2008 and won't work in 2012.
I've voiced my concern that we as a party have a wide range of candidates and that the nominee is not selected. Plenty of times I've said I will not vote for Clinton in the primary and stand by it. I'm willing (despite the claim that no other candidate can declare and raise money in time) to wait and see who actually runs. A novel concept isn't it?
So as for your scenarios, I'd be happy to tell you where to stick them.
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)did I scratch a scab off ..
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)With your conspiracy theories about how everyone is out to get Hillary Clinton. You were the one that brought up the comparison between how Obama was attacked and how she is being attacked. Except you can't back up what you are claiming. Too bad, so sad!
Peacetrain
(22,877 posts)Too lazy to check the links yourself.. there are plenty of attacks against Hillary. No conspiracy.. just the facts.. that is what has you in such a huff. Facts.. plain and simple. Now my suggestion is keep your posts civil..It really is a much better way to communicate on DU..
Edit to add.. God I have to love this.. after being called every name in the book because I supported President Obama.. here comes the troops to tear me down because guess what I will support who ever the Democratic nominee is..
And I would proudly vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee.. as I would if Elizabeth Warren actually decided she might like to run and won the primaries.. proudly vote for her.
I am a big ticket.. big party.. big goverment liberal.
chew on that
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The burden of proof is on you. I don't see websites dedicating to burning down Clinton's campaign. Again, the comparisons are weak.
That's about as civil as I'm going to get.
Response to Peacetrain (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
bunnies
(15,859 posts)three years in advance. Before he even announced. I, for one, am already sick of hearing it and Im sure Im not the only one. 
Hillary isn't getting any treatment this time that she didn't get in '08. Its not like anyone changed their mind about her since then.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)The media started with their usual crap quite early this time around. The Clintons keep repeating that we should concentrate on the midterm elections. I for one, keep saying that I have no idea whether she will run or not.
Having said that, it's quite tiresome to read the nasty stuff that has become a daily thing on this site. They want another person to run? Fine, they should extol that person's political virtues instead of posting thread after thread bashing a person who hasn't even announced yet whether she's running or not.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)That Hillary is already the nominee. Certainly not all of her supporters are doing that.
I agree with you though. Its going to insufferable around here if this stuff doesn't calm down. Theres no reason for us to be picking at each other. Especially in 2013.
