Trump and Sanders win in Dem’s blind spot
Clinton may agree with Sanders on 95% of the issues, but it is the 5% of the time that she is on the side of the financial industry and not the people that voters still want to talk about.
Sanders is a one issue candidate, and it has always been within Clinton’s power to eliminate Sanders from the race by co-opting his message on the rigged economy. That she hasn’t done it suggests to me that she can’t bring herself to do it.
And if you don’t think she is vulnerable on that issue, here is Trump from last night:
She doesn’t understand trade. Her husband signed, perhaps in the history of the world, teh single worst trade deal ever done. It’s called NAFTA and I was witness to the carnage over the last six weeks or so especially. Now I’ve known Syracuse, and I’ve known Poughkeepsie and Ive known all of the different places that I’ve visited. In New York and Pennsylvania and then Maryland which treated me so great and the people are incredible. And all of the different states.. Connecticut…and Ive witnessed what its done Really first hand. and it has been indeed carnage, and we are going to change it around.
We’re not going to let Carrier and all of these companies just think that they can move, go to another country, make their product sell it back to us, and we get only one thing. We get Unemployment. Not gonna happen anymore folks. Not gonna happen. We are going to bring back our jobs and we are going to keep our job. We are not going to let companies leave. Now if they want to go to a different state? Good luck. Compete. But when they start going to different countries, and in many cases countries that devalue their currency and make it impossible for our companies to compete… that’s not gonna happen. Not gonna happen. And if they want to do it anyway, there will be consequences. And they will be very very serious consequences.
When Trump wins the votes of American works, he will not have stolen them. He will have been given them by 30 years of Democratic stupidity and callousness.
Hillary has already gone as far to the left as her donors are comfortable with.
That rings true. For obvious reasons, the people who have rigged the economy don’t think should be a big campaign issue.
Hey look -> a gay person needs a wedding cake.
Let them eat cake!
Making fun of gay issues? Come on, guys. And you wonder why Bernie struggles with certain voters – perhaps it’s comments like these.
Clinton is gambling that this will go away as an issue and that whatever remains of “American workers” will continue to believe the glittering Free Trade promises of 1993.
Trump will argue that the promises of 1993 have turned out to be bullshit, and plans on making it an issue.
Bernie stands no chance with voters whose prosperity depends on the rigged economy. He’s going for the rest of us.
Pandora – That’s your takeaway? Oh my. We deserve to lose.
“Making fun of gay issues? Come on, guys. ”
Denying that Democrats are usjng gay issues to redirect the discussion away from the rigged economy? Come on guys and girls.
Gay rights aren’t complete but the back of the opposition is broken. The battle for economic justice still lies before us, and we need everyone to put their shoulder to the wheel.
Access to goods and services impacts a person’s economy. And this has never been about wedding cakes – that’s just the way Republicans get their foot in the door to deny gays and minorities access to other things – If an individual business/owner has a right to not make a gay person a wedding cake then they have the right to deny them access to pharmacies, housing, jobs, etc..
I really don’t understand why social issues are being dismissed. Surely there’s room for them in the rigged system message – after all, minority groups know far better than us how badly the system is rigged.
(Added bonus: many straight, white people nod along with the wedding cake example – “what’s the big deal about a cake!” – and miss the end game.)
Pssst…pandora… jason and I both understand it’s not about cake. Carry on.
What Puck said.
Jason, you may edit your article. Many typos. Normally I would do it myself, but it is a anti-Hillary piece, so f*ck that.
It isn’t anti-Hillary. It is pro-truth.
Surely there’s room for them in the rigged system message – after all, minority groups know far better than us how badly the system is rigged.
This.
And I’ll add that minority groups are accustomed to living with the system as it is rigged. A rigged economy is interestingly a priority now that plenty of middle and working class white people are being hit with it. Because only *some* people are supposed to be targets of the rigged system.
The effort to carve out a space for economic bigotry is one more front in actually rigging the system. And they want to do this in a way that lets minorities know that they are being specifically targeted. I get that this doesn’t mean much to most of the folks here, but you might wrap your minds around the fact that because the system was allowed to be so rigged against minorities that it as easier for the 1% to come back to get what they could from white folks too.
I think he means the title should be “Dems'” but I think “Dem’s” works just fine in this case. Changing to the plural possessive would be an editorial change.
Bernie is arguing that we should all have a bigger piece of the pie, while Cassandra just wants to make sure the crumbs are divided evenly.
That line is so figgin tired.
You guys know damn well that being staunchly for one issue doesn’t make you against another. Also, your coy implications that anyone who advocates for economic fairness is a closet homophobe or sexist, or any of the other baseless charges you’ve lobbed at the movement over the past few months is disgusting.
It is clear the intention was never to include the Sanders supporters, but to cow and brow-beat them into submission with accusations of being “anti……”.
And it makes sense. You see all of them as young and uniformed (lookin at you, LE) You sneer down your nose at people who would DARE to question the party line… even when your presumed nominee begins trying to court the GOD DAMN COAL INDUSTRY…. THAT, BTW lost her my vote. Delaware will be safe, there is no way im voting for someone who wants to continue killing our planet. There wont be any women or gays to advocate for if we kill ourselves, so if you’re going to accuse me of putting environmental issues before social ones, i’ll happily accept that.
It is transparent and it is immensely insulting. Further, your failure to see how important that issue is to SO MANY PEOPLE is exactly why we’re going to end up with President Trump.
“A rigged economy is interestingly a priority now that plenty of middle and working class white people are being hit with it. Because only *some* people are supposed to be targets of the rigged system.
True enough. And if that’s what it takes to get this on the agenda, at least it is on the agenda.
… because the system was allowed to be so rigged against minorities that it as easier for the 1% to come back to get what they could from white folks too.
Again. Exactly. Why isn’t Clinton seeing this? there would be no Sanders if Clinton had campaigned on 100th of Cassandra’s insight here.
So… using wedding cakes was a joke, sorta like… Hey look, a woman needs reproductive care? Or, hey look, a black man was killed by a cop?
Look, I understand you guys don’t feel this way, but when you write things like this (things which you’ll never experience) it sends a message that I don’t believe you want to send. This has been the biggest disconnect in the Sanders’ campaign. Not sure why you’d want to reinforce that. Why you’d pit people against one another by basically saying “My issues is the most important. Your issue is merely a distraction from my issue.” You’re better than that.
Being unable to argue the economic issues from the left, the Clinton camp is reduced to picking over comments for imagined hints of bigotry.
Pandora, that is exactly what it looks like you are saying….. just that economic fairness and ability to earn a decent living are less important than __________. You know i agree that civil and reproductive rights are under assault. You don’t have to waste any keystrokes on me arguing that. What it appears you will never accept, is that economic fairness has been under assault for 30 years. Where social issues are in a 2 steps forward, one step back pattern, economic equality has been taking steps back for decades. It is time to focus on that IN A-friggin-DDITION to the social issues.
And if you are going to argue about how something is presented… even if you know (because you said so) it probably wasnt meant to come across that way, and never actually address the topic, we’re all screwed.
…unable to argue the economic issues from the left, the Clinton camp is reduced to picking over comments for imagined hints of bigotry.
Exactly correct. I can only image the deafening silence this thread would have provoked if I didn’t have the gall to crack a joke.
A joke with a large grain of truth.
I think it was grossly premature to declare the “DL Civil War” over…
Ben, please show me where I’ve ever said income inequality wasn’t as important as other issues. Not kidding. Show me where I’ve said that. I’ve said that I wish Bernie would expand his platform to link social issues with income inequality – I’ve been saying that for months. I’ve asked for inclusion. That’s it. I have never said that social issues are more important that economic issues, but I’ll wait for you to show me where I’ve said this.
This: “A joke with a large grain of truth” is the dismissive attitude I’m referring to. But if you agree with that, puck, go ahead and make jokes using my examples above.
And I’ve had no problem discussing income inequality – and let me say it again: It’s vitally important. Why certain people feel the need to dismiss social issues in order to promote their issue baffles me – after all, the people advancing social issues are the ones who actually do the work. Seems to me that alienating them doesn’t help the issue you claim to care so much about.
“Why certain people feel the need to dismiss social issues”
Why do you insist on equating support for Sanders with “dismissing social issues?”
You havent said it. But your reflexive response to the economy being brought up…. that is accusing the up-bringer of being dismissive of social issues…. makes it appear (you’re willing to talk about how things appear rather than how they are) that you dont consider it a problem. Im proud of the gains made over the last 3 decades in social equality. I’m ashamed of states like Kansas and Texas and NC (pretty much all the time, but especially the past few years).
HOWEVER…. everyone being equally screwed is not equality. That is where we are heading. A beautiful rainbow of people unable to go anywhere economically, while a very very few hold all the resources. Is THAT the equality you want? Of course not.
Exactly correct. I can only image the deafening silence this thread would have provoked if I didn’t have the gall to crack a joke.
Which is, of course, bullshit worthy of Donald Trump. And most of us are in the position of presuming that he is mostly lying.
Clinton has been campaigning on the economy — she isn’t complaining about the system as much as she is talking about how she might be able to address the problem. And of course, we know how productive complaining vs rolling up your sleeves is.
“Access to goods and services impacts a person’s economy.”
The economy impacts a person’s access to goods and services to a far greater degree than any law can today.
The whole point of this thread has been hijacked by a bunch of thin skinned and tiresome bullshit.
If anyone wants to challenge the original premise: Clinton will be weak on the rigged economy, and Trump knows it.. comment away. Otherwise I’m done with this red herring promoting bullshit.
Clinton supporters refuse to engage on the issue at hand, and we’ve had these stupid threads go on for far too long.
Peace out.
We agree on the issue of income inequality. We don’t agree that it’s Trump’s trump card and we don’t agree that Clinton is weak – she actually has a plan. The general is NOT the primary. And if you really wanted to discuss this topic you wouldn’t have made the gay wedding cake joke.
@Ben Okay. I haven’t said it. Got it. Thanks. And I’ve brought up social issues when the commenter has dismissed them. I’ve reacted, not been pro-active on the conversation surrounding social issues. There’s a difference.
I would say, you have reacted as if the commenter has dismissed them, when all they did was argue that the need to address economic inequality is currently the biggest issue facing the most amount of people. That reaction leads to people getting defensive, and they get hyperbolic and end up coming across to more people as dismissive, but are actually just trying (in vain) to defend their original position. This is why we cant have a real discussion, everyone assumes everyone else is the worst.
Clinton supporters refuse to engage on the issue at hand, and we’ve had these stupid threads go on for far too long.
It isn’t Clinton supporters who hijacked this thread. But I think we can see who is thin-skinned here.
“Making fun of gay issues? Come on, guys.”
What an asshole. They weren’t “making fun” of it. They were pointing out that emotional junkies like you are suckers for these stories, and they make you think that, as you sit in your upper-middle-class home, you’re actually a progressive.
“And you wonder why Bernie struggles with certain voters – perhaps it’s comments like these.”
Or perhaps it’s voters like you.
“if you really wanted to discuss this topic you wouldn’t have made the gay wedding cake joke.”
Asshole.
Okay, let’s clarify. What does the comment, “Hey look -> a gay person needs a wedding cake.” mean? To me it read like… the real issue is income inequality, but we can avoid that topic by pointing out that gay people can’t buy a wedding cake. It came across as people are easily distracted from important issues by shiny social issue objects.
If someone has a different take, let me know.
Just to be clear about this: My problems at this point are with you, pandora, not Hillary. Your phony hand-wringing over “why can’t every issue be important?” is the stance of a person who’s playing dumb or is dumb. We’ve hashed this out for months now, and you still don’t get it and clearly never will. I apologize for losing my temper so often, but your obtuseness about this is maddening.
You keep mistaking state-level anti-LGBT laws as something a presidential election will/should affect.
Have you heard Hillary Clinton say anything about getting the cops under control? I haven’t. I’ve heard her express empathy for blacks, but I haven’t seen her buck the power structure for them. You want to know what affects a person’s “personal economy”? Having a criminal record he doesn’t deserve. Haven’t heard her say a thing about it.
You’re right, it wasn’t on Bernie’s radar, but it’s not on hers, either. If a candidate was giving the full-throated Bernie treatment to the BLM movement, I’d be for that candidate ahead of Hillary, too. She does not think this system is fundamentally broken. She intends to just tinker around the edges (making sure the crumbs are distributed equally).
Add that to all the personality drawbacks and you have the second-most-hated presidential candidate of all time. Her good fortune is that she’ll run against the most-hated one.
When each party nominates its most disliked candidate, you can’t pretend there’s nothing wrong with the system.
“It came across as people are easily distracted from important issues by shiny social issue objects.”
If the shoe fits…
Excuse me, but it certainly was a Hillary supporter who hijacked the thread by objecting to the wedding cake line.
This thread was hijacked by the person who made this line available to be objected to:
Hey look -> a gay person needs a wedding cake.
The easiest way to keep a thread on track is to keep your own comments on track. Which still isn’t a guarantee, because people on the internets talk about stuff.
Can we stop changing the subject? Here’s the point: Trump can and will effectively demagogue Clinton over the issues of trade, jobs, and her corporate ties at the expense of the common man. His only possible path to victory is the rust-belt strategy. If Clinton can’t bring herself to speak for those dispossessed workers and families, and so far she hasn’t, she could be vulnerable.
Those dismissing the Indiana results are in la-la land. Especially those who say that Clinton is being nice to Bernie, that’s why he won. He won b/c his message of economic unfairness resonates with the types of voters that Clinton will need in the fall. I think it’s the first time I’ve ever heard that Hillary’s problem is that she’s just too darn nice.
Which brings me to the phoniest meme of this election cycle: That Clinton is safer b/c she’s been treated unfairly and, as such, has been fully vetted whereas just you wait until they get ahold of Bernie Sanders.
Her corporate ties and, ESPECIALLY her vulnerabilities on how the trade and economic issues have impacted American families, have not been fully vetted. Trump is gonna exploit the shit out of them. So far, she has not been strong in response, witness her apologia to that coal miner.
He’s gonna pound her and pound her on that. If she responds with those lawyerly platitudes, she just might lose.
As to Bernie getting out, say, I have an idea. How about if Hillary and her team negotiate with him on stuff like the platform and real influence within the Party? Perhaps run some veep names by him? Maybe he’d acquiesce. But why should he leave when, even AFTER laying off much of his staff, he still defeated Clinton in a heartland state and has more victories in the offing? D voters in Indiana pretty much know that Clinton will be the nominee. Yet they rejected her. If that doesn’t sound a warning, then you’re not listening.
You can either talk about that, or keep changing the subject to gay wedding cake, or whatever swerve you choose, to get away from discussing the main issue here. But Clinton supporters and their campaign had better face it, or it could be a nerve-wracking election night.
NIce victim-blaming there, Cassandra. It was an aside. Because pandora went after it doesn’t make it bait.
Hyper-sensitivity is one of the things fueling the Trump phenomenon. And pandora jumping on that comment was a sterling example of absurd hypersensitivity.
The fact that you think it was worth going after makes me doubt your own well-earned reputation here for calm deliberation.
What El Somnambulo said all mother fucking day.
If you actually agree with El Som’s comment then why are you attacking the Dem nominee? What is the end game? And if it’s what El Som says, putting his ideas in the platform, that’s more than fine with me. Look at me agreeing with you guys again!
And the idea that Bernie would survive Trump’s attacks is laughable. The worst thing for Bernie is that he’s been ignored… it’s also his best thing.
Hyper-sensitivity? Says the straight, white guy who loves calling names. I’ve said, many times, that I completely understand why young people and white men like Bernie. Why don’t you guys ever address his problems with certain demographics? Why do you not acknowledge that he has vulnerabilities that Trump would gleefully exploit – Easily. In fact, the only attack of Trumps that fell flat was his attack on Carly. Something to consider.
Because I’ve already agreed with you that Bernie is not a good candidate. I have acknowledged that he was wrong not to have joined with BLM in challenging the police state America in general, and minority communities particularly, and that had he done so he might have done better. I’m comfortable with Clinton as the nominee. I just don’t like her, and don’t expect ever to do so.
As I said, the problem at this point is your calling out every stray negative comment. We’ve had the priorities discussion for months, and I don’t think you really believe that being able to get a wedding cake with two brides or two grooms on top is more important in the grand scheme of things than preventing another disastrous pro-corporate “trade” agreement. Remember, we’re not talking about letting them get married. We’re talking about the freaking CAKE!
One of the reasons Hillary will supposedly be able to get things done is that she DOES have influence in corporate boardrooms. How she uses that access will determine which group — those who trust her or those who don’t — was right.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A FREAKING CAKE! That’s the Republican’s talking point, and one that concerns me when I see Dems parroting it.
The identifiable minorities posting on this thread support Hillary. They seem to feel that the issues of income inequality are embedded in the issues that get collected up as “social issues,” those things that impact minorities disproportionally because of institutional racism, sexism, etc.
If the question is, “Will Hillary address those issues,specifically, in the general.” My answer is “good god, I hope so.” But part of the task in the primary is showcasing your differences with your opponent. If Hillary suddenly switched to income inequality right now, she runs the risk of having people say, “See? She’s following Bernie. He’s the guy with the vision.” After getting the nomination, though, she can gracefully say, “if there’s one thing we have all learned from Bernie’s inspiring candidacy, it’s that America is deeply concerned about income inequality. We are indebted to him for bringing that issue to the fore, and I can pledge to you now, going forward, that every policy, every proposal, every problem that my campaign, and with your help, presidency, faces will be evaluated for justice, justice along racial lines, justice along gender equality, and justice along the economic divide that disenfranchises so many of our population. The American Dream of a better life for our children and our children’s children is within our grasp, join me to make it a reality.”
They were not parroting it, they were parodying it. And no, I don’t even remember who made the initial comment, and don’t care.
And that’s it? Out of all I said, all you want to talk about is the cake again?
So basically The Cake Service Industry is going to drive our GDP to new heights once Hills in office. How grand
The Clinton Supporters of 2008 are as out of touch now as they were then. It’s why a black guy…yes…a black guy was able to move ahead of her and win. What was once a sure thing for her is now not. She’s going to get slaughtered in debates. She can lie with the best of them, but Trump is on another level.
@DV: Don’t leave out the Little Plastic People on Top of the Cake industry.
You guys can’t leave the GOP cake talking point alone. Please stop complaining about how susceptible “low information voters” are.
Anonymous, I agreed with your points until you threw the cake argument in. 😉
Their symbolism can’t be understimated, that and the fact they are made in China thanks to NAFTA
If the point sticks, it sticks. Regardless of where it came from. Just because you think you see through it doesn’t mean you are missing the point because you have Hillary Blinders on
So because you can’t joke about it, we shouldn’t? You really think this is insensitive? Sheesh!
We’re not buying into the GOP position. We’re using it as a chew toy.
Actually, to be serious for a moment, NAFTA has nothing to with China. It just put Mexico on competitive footing with China as a low-wage destination for American corporations.
Complaining about PC jokes = I can no longer make fun of groups I don’t belong to.
I blame the republican talking points for my error
“Complaining about PC jokes = I can no longer make fun of groups I don’t belong to.”
Since I am a Democrat, is it politically incorrect for me to make fun of Democrats? I need a ruling here.
“Complaining about PC jokes = I can no longer make fun of groups I don’t belong to.”
Oh, dear. Again with the obtuseness. “Oh look, a gay wedding cake” is not making fun of gays. It’s making fun of you.
Keep spinning and deflecting and name calling.
You want to make fun of Democrats? Fine. Go for it. Don’t use a minority group. It’s not that difficult.
“Oh look, a gay wedding cake” is not making fun of gays. It’s making fun of you.
I wish I had said that right off the bat.
People have waited 8 years for this, you can understand why they get so upset when you bring up how effing terribly unlikable the woman is. They have very little to defend her with, so the grand old fall back is to launch attacks at the Republicans. Knowing your candidate is basically a Mike Castle and Tom Carper. It’s a challenge, but these guys (err gals) have been tested when it comes to attacking the other side and ignoring the actual records of “their side”
You assume that I don’t think Bernie is terrible. Fair enough. Most Sanders’ supporters seem to think everyone loves Bernie and is only supporting Hillary because of pragmatism and if they just followed their hearts they’d vote for Bernie. That isn’t true, btw.
Some us aren’t voting for likable.
And even if you are laughing at the people who see the wedding cake issue as a leading edge of economic suppression and undermining of minorities, that still indicates that you don’t take this seriously. Which, of course, your own privilege gives you space for.
You are proving the very point the joke made in the first place.
she has the thinnest skin of them all, close second is Del Dem who has mommy issues and I forgive him for
“your own privilege gives you space for.”
I can’t help being white any more than you can help being black. The joke wasn’t even about gays — it was about people whose sensitivity is so sensitive that they can sense when someone, somewhere is offended by this joke, but since they aren’t here, I’ll be offended for them.
Just for the record, though it’s nothing I can prove, I know plenty of gays who would have agreed with the point of the comment — identity-politics is easily distracted.
The point was that all it takes to get you people on your high horses is the slightest whiff of lack of respect for any downtrodden group. If you think that doesn’t come off as highhandedness, guess again.
“Some us aren’t voting for likable.”
Me either, and I’ve said so. I’m not worried about her losing, either. I am worried about who she’ll listen to once she’s in office.
It’s not as if the joke was “oh, look, the cops shot another black kid.” BLM is important. Overhyped incidents of single cases of denied service are not.
You are proving the very point the joke made in the first place.
According to you. Because by my count there aren’t very many people laughing at this.
“Me either, and I’ve said so. I’m not worried about her losing, either. I am worried about who she’ll listen to once she’s in office.”
Now I’m laughing…
really? you’re worried?
I can’t help being white any more than you can help being black.
But you can help your privilege. Which continues to assume that just because you have a POV that it is somehow more important than those who belong to other groups.
it’s funny what get’s revealed (reviled) by the DL contributor’s. Every once in a while when you stoke the flames enough, you get such grand insights into their beliefs.
wow, just wow.
Yep, Cassandra. It’s like some white guys feel labeling themselves as Progressives gives them a pass on things they’re quick to call Republicans out on.
Agreed, Donviti. Wow.
“But you can help your privilege. Which continues to assume that just because you have a POV that it is somehow more important than those who belong to other groups.”
No, not more important. Broader. Another persecution complex sufferer here.
Yeah, DV. What you find is a persecution complex as wide as that river in Egypt.
is a liberal a progressive? Does being on a website named liberal mean you are one? or just unfairly labeled one?
it’s sort of like trying to say you’re a Ford when the grill logo is Chevy imo
Just so we are clear on this, in the context of this thread — which certainly WAS hijacked by the persecuted — Team Hillary wants to go to war over making jokes about wedding cakes. Yeah, that plays spectacularly well in an election about the economy.
It’s stunning how quickly you not only took your eye off the ball, but then maintained that you WERE following the ball.
You are as stuck in the past as the Republicans are. You, not Hillary herself, is what could cost the Democrats the election.
Republicans don’t make jokes about wedding cakes. They pass laws trying to allow people to deny service. They don’t think it’s a laughing matter, and neither do you. See what you’re doing there?
“by my count there aren’t very many people laughing at this”
At this point it’s not funny. You people are so out of touch you don’t even get the point of the comment, and at this point you’ve dug your heels in so far you’re knee-deep in the stupid — so deep I’m wondering if it’s just denial any more.
The line was a crack about how easily you self-righteous assholes lose sight of what’s important. You just keep proving it further with every comment.
No, not more important. Broader.
According to you. Because *you* are the decider, while the rest of us don’t get your retroactively classified jokes.
Textbook, folks. Textbook.
“Here’s something I try to do (and don’t always succeed at). When someone is telling me about something that upset/angered them I try not to remove the focus from their issue onto mine.”
– Some random person who says things on this website.
No, broader because it affects everyone. That’s just using the definition of words. I’m stating my opinion. You’re the one who’s attributing the notion that I’m saying it’s superior. When you state your opinion, does that imply it’s inferior, superior, what? I assume you’re stating an opinion.
You are demonstrating what’s meant by a persecution complex. You are insisting on being insulted by something that was not meant as the sort of insult you insist on taking it as. IT WAS AN INSULT TO YOUR OVERWEENING SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO DISPLAY. And yes, I meant to shout it, because as an American I assume that when you can’t understand me I should say it louder.
It wasn’t my joke. I’ve been trying to explain it to y’all, but you keep insisting on not getting it.
“Textbook, folks. Textbook.”
And you, madame, will still be an asshole in the morning.
Microaggressions!
Skin softener overdose?
And you, madame, will still be an asshole in the morning.
And you, sir, will still be the Chief Asshole. All the rest of us just seek to emulate you. Not very well, mind you, but we’re delighted for your leadership.
It continues to amaze Hillary Clinton Jack Markell Tom Carper and John Carney are pretty much the same person politically. Yet contributors to this blog regularly kill the Delaware guys especially on their economics yet continually give Hillary a pass. That’s why Trump will roast her in a debate she is soft on middle class economic issues
@A “…yet continually give Hillary a pass.”
Not buying it. She’s in a whole different category.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
And if you believe that, then this puts her just where she needs to be to both win and to pursue a liberal agenda.
Oh… And I can’t wait for the Clinton-Trump debasements…. Ohhh… I meant debates.
“most liberal member of Senate”
Can we stop with this please? Republicans had the Presidency and control of both houses (mostly) during her entire term. She never got to vote on a liberal bill. By that measure liberalism was defined as “voting against Republican bills.” A NO vote was a free vote, because the bill was going to pass anyway and your donors wouldn’t hold it against you. The one liberal victory was the defeat of Social Security privatization and that was with the help of Republicans.That was the bare minimum for being a Democrat and doesn’t get you on the liberal Mount Rushmore.
And the one vote where a liberal needed to be liberal, she screwed up (Iraq, and the Patriot Act). That index of liberalism doesn’t weight that vote against her, because she stuck her finger in the wind and voted with all the other dumbass Democrats on that.
She never got to vote on a liberal bill. By that measure liberalism was defined as “voting against Republican bills.”
Way to move the goal posts. It’s dishonest, but that seems to be the place you are most comfy here. No votes aren’t just votes of conscience in this instance. Think about it this way — while everyone wants her to be accountable for her husband’s NAFTA agreement, she gets no credit for voting against CAFTA. And for CAFTA she was actually in a governing position. If you dishonestly move the goal posts, then there are NO Democrats voting in a GOP held legislative body who can claim any sense of liberalism. Even though they are doing the thing that is in their governing power — voting against stuff that doesn’t make sense to them.
That was the Congress that passed the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war with Democratic votes. Being 11th most liberal was like being one of the taller midgets in the circus.
Midgets!
I get offensive remark bingo.
I still have spaces for the common terms for intellectually challenged, born in Mexico and here illegally, and professionally engaged is sex acts, but, with my free space for general condescension, I’ve got a row.
I assume I’ll pick up my prize at the voting booth, as usual.
When you use imagined bigotry to avoid the point, nobody wins.
Oh, you privileged privilege holder, you!
Indeed. Setting yourself (a person who does not live with any bigotry) up as the aribiter of what is real or imaginary bigotry for those who do have to live with said bigotry.
Textbook, folks. Textbook.
Do you have a link to this textbook you keep talking about?
Puck, there was apparently a common term used for Brazil nuts while I was growing up. I never heard it until I was an adult…because my mother would rather have died than use a racially offensive term.
So, people here can choose to use whatever terms or metaphors they want to…and I will continue to evaluate the use of them as denoting disrespect.
Doubling down on the vicariously imagined slights? please proceed, I want to see how far you are willing to go with this delusion. I’m sure you can get to the next level without breaking a sweat.
We’ve wandered into a course on Aggrieved Studies. It’s a tiresome subject, consisting as it does of nothing but policing people’s language for slights. It’s what they imagine “making a difference” is all about. Every time they say tut-tut, an aggrieved person wins a court case.
Brook blames the DL commenters for a racist term for a snack.
By the way, has everyone here met? Is that how we all know who has and hasnt received bigotry?
Brazil nuts are more than a snack. They are a boon to both indigenous peoples and the rain forest that produces them, as they do not require plantation conditions for commercial production.
Ah, my mistake. I allowed my privileged American upbringing to make me trivialize a vital staple of a beleaguered continent. I guess Brazil nuts are really the Boomer’s quinoa, huh?
Ben and Jerry thought so once:
http://www.benjerry.com/flavors/flavor-graveyard/rainforest-crunch
Just for the record, I don’t know any indigenous Amazonian peoples, but I’m with them all the way! Except for that poison arrows thing, that’s just rude.
@ES “Those dismissing the Indiana results are in la-la land. Especially those who say that Clinton is being nice to Bernie, that’s why he won. He won b/c his message of economic unfairness resonates…”
This is total BS. The ONLY reason that Sanders won in Indiana was that it was an open primary and thousands of conservatives crossed over to slap at Hillary.
This is EXACTLY that same thing that happened in Michigan. And then it’s “OH my look how all the polls were so wrong”… The polls were not wrong. Hillary won Indiana handily among those who are actual Democrats, just like in Michigan.
Sorry… A few thousand conservative ratfuckers voting for Sanders does NOT mean that they actually like his economic message.
It’s a tiresome subject, consisting as it does of nothing but policing people’s language for slights. It’s what they imagine “making a difference” is all about.
Interesting. Since the only aggrieved people here are those insisting on “educating” us on what constitutes a slight and what does not. Your grievance, of course,is that the only ones buying your bullshit are you. The people you seek to speak for aren’t having it, so trying to make fun of that is the next step. Seriously, it’s a treasure hunt for you– and at the end of the hunt you’ll all get your Make America Great Again hats.
Hope you are enjoying your resentments. You are the only ones who possibly could.
Speaking of campaign swag…. I would LOVE to get my hands of a Cruz Fiorina shirt. It’d make an excellent ironic costume in 4 years.
For $22 it’s all yours… http://www.redbubble.com/
Whatever gets you through the night, Liberal Elite. Just because you are fine with an industrial policy that shifts our manufacturing offshore, doesn’t mean that everyone is.
Its not OK that Sanders may have won Indiana with cross over votes but it was OK for Jack Markell to be the Democratic nominee in 08 with the help of Republicans crossing over