http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024295375Ken Burch (32,359 posts)
Could there EVER be good reason to choose a DLC/THIRD WAY/BLUE DOG presidential nominee again?
Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2014, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Last time we did that, we got an eight year dead zone. We won in name, but in hindsight it's clear that we could have elected ANY Dem in 1992 if only we got behind that nominee 100%.
This is an important question, given who our corporate-anointed current frontrunner is, and what that candidate's nomination would mean dragging our party all the way back to.
Shouldn't we fight, from now on, on our core values and from below, for the people rather than above and for the ceo's?
Ben Birched poses the PIAPS question.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #5)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 07:13 PM
Star Member Ken Burch (32,359 posts)
8. Calling her "our best hope" implies that we are hopelessly in the minority
and that all we can do is settle for a junior partnership in a center-right coalition.
Occupy proved that progressives AREN'T the minority
Ben Birched answers his question. Hitlery is practically a RWinger!
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #9)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:33 PM
Star Member sabrina 1 (40,385 posts)
61. She voted for Bush's wars and supported them even after it was proven to her he had lied. If she did
not know he was lying back when every single Progressive knew it for sure, she showed such incredibly, fatally bad judgement that she should not even be considered for any position of power again. And if she DID know, then what does that say about her? You decide.
I will never support anyone who contributed to that horrific, deadly travesty that cost so many lives, ever.
You are free to keep pushing her, but if Dems want to win, they better start looking for a candidate that doesn't require Dems to hold their noses because that is not going to happen again
Gonna take my toys and sit home!
sponse to sabrina 1 (Reply #61)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:40 PM
Whisp (21,157 posts)
67. I rarely agree with you, but in this case you are 1000% correct.
Electing Hillary would be like taking your own poison. I find it hard to believe people swallow her lies so easily and forgive her her massive stupidities and piss poor judgement
Molé!
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #61)Wed Jan 8, 2014, 01:39 AM
cinnabonbon (152 posts)
93. This is the problem I have with Hillary, too
Cinnamolémolé
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 10:58 PM
Egalitarian Thug (11,362 posts)
51. What did he do that you liked? Throwing health care overboard in order to pursue his economic
plan of corporate rule? Rolling over and screwing gay military people over with the Orwellian DADT? How about the great humanitarian goal of eliminating inadequate assistance to the poorest of the poor
BJ screwed the gays instead of giving them a BJ.
Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #51)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:01 PM
Star Member hrmjustin (25,408 posts)
53. The economy did well under him.
But you make good points and yes he did things for political reasons instead of ideological reason.
Walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God. Ephesians 5:2
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #53)Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:18 PM
Egalitarian Thug (11,362 posts)
56. The economy boomed because a revolutionary technology exploded into the the
consumer market and was enhanced by the development of the world wide web and the web browser. Clinton took this literal paradigm shift and slit entrepreneur's throats in order to pay off and cement the parasite class' stranglehold.
Clinton's blatant corruption is the reason we pay ten times as much for the worst internet service among the
DUmmies want a commie not a socialist. Long thread. Funny stuff.
