I thought it odd when you pointed out that Hillary was thought of as a liar. While that perception was likely true, the fact that Trump was about 1000% bigger liar is astounding to consider.
Northam was received well at church last Sunday, per media reports. This is no excuse, of course, but I do think contextually he was guilty of good ‘ole boyism and should have just been up front about it. To me, that was the piece missing from his apology, which he made worse with the half-assed press conference.
The above being said, I personally have trouble with the automatic jumps to resignation calling, depending on the circumstances of course. I suspect all of us have things in our pasts we aren’t proud of, but those things don’t define who we are and have become either. Politicians are humans too and all of them have human faults.
But it makes sense to not vote for Warren because she’ll keep the American Empire going strong and so maybe you should vote for the only anti-interventionist running?
Or maybe a lot of CD progressives don’t mind a robust Imperialism as long as they get a little more progressive domestic policies?
Can you imagine the anti-war activist in the 60s chanting, “Hey Hey LBJ! How many good domestic policies did you pass today?”
I think you are spot on. That sums up the overall situation.
This is the problem with our system of government. If Virginia had a parliamentary system the governing party would lose a vote of confidence, the leadership would be changed, and a new election would be called.
But not in the good 'ole USA with a system designed by rich, white oligarchs with the purpose to keep rich white oligarchs in power.
It was designed from the top down.
Parliamentary systems evolved from the bottom up from pressure from the people over centuries until it became the system that it is now.
Agreed. Part of the problem, however, is that Warren is extremely more well-known than Gabbard,
and part of the reason for this is that Warren’s focus is on domestic financial issues, which is the type
of issue that can elevate a person to hero status; opposing military invtervention, is something that
most voters in this country ignore.
So far there are only two progressives running and maybe Sanders too if the reports he will declare soon are to be believed.
The rest of them are centrist, corporate, Imperialists who may pose as progressive on a few issues (until some oligarch’s talking head calls them on it, and then they back track as fast as possible.)
So maybe drop both the ‘progressives’ and ‘of riches’ from your statement and it might be true?
25 Democrats running would not be a circus but an embarrassment
Which is all the more reason for those who oppose the American Imperial Project to support Tulsi. The plutocrats’ propaganda arm are already doing their best to smear her as a Russian Bot nut case and/or ignore her. Those of us who hate the bloodshed done by the MIC need to rally around her as much as possible IMO.
I was going to sit out the Democratic Primary to continue my DemExit, but I’m thinking I have this anti-war Democrat in the race and it may be wiser to support her as I can.
I too prefer the parliamentary system. Then again, the dems are so hapless/corrupt that they are actually burning through three leaders in one crisis.
And of course, it’s all the fault of the hippies! We made two people wear blackface, another wear KKK robes, and someone else sexually assault two women. Then we got the Virginia NAACP and almost all of the d-party presidential candidates to call for their resignations.
Here we have the Identity Politics Centrists of the establishment Democratic Party being all about purging those not up to their criteria and the result is blaming us hippies for being the purity police and punching left.
I will forever hold out for Bernie…I wrote him in once and will do it again if I have too, no one holds a candle to Bernie, no one.
John Boehner as a running mate or something?
What is her foreign policy? Will she continue to support the monstrous U.S. global corporate-military empire and its many endless wars and bloated military budgets?
Will she support all efforts to mediate the destruction of the Climate Catastrophe?
Will she work to eliminate omnicidal nuclear weapons?
If Bernie Sanders runs, just hand him the job.
At least Senator Warren seems a bit more politically honest than the pack.
Great strategy- keep calling people who want progressive policies purity police. Warren was a Republican until the 90’s.
She will NOT fight for single payer Medicare for All. She will go along with a For-Profit system instead- http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/03/22/Elizabeth-Warren-Has-New-Plan-Improve-Health-Care-and-It-Isn-t-Medicare-All
She will not support justice for Palestinians- https://theintercept.com/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/?fbclid=IwAR3qyNkzGvY9NJI9oYESsNHT-qmUcOe6BYeG7e63Ty6dOBBVbLPl119VHXA
She did not do anything when the Indians in North Dakota were putting themselves on the line to stop the Dakota Access pipeline.
She did not support Sanders when it mattered, as Tulsi Gabbard did.
But yes, tell us we’re ‘purists’ because, once again, we won’t vote for the Republican lite candidate.
The establishment Dems are setting up another defeat as humiliating as the 2016 one.
Bernie has been my first choice for many years also. But writing him in and withholding your vote from a worse candidate is a big mistake, when it helps someone even worse win, as Bernie himself says.
Think about why Bernie was saying “vote for Hillary” and you were yelling back at him, “NO BERNIE! I WON’T DO AS YOU SUGGEST AND AM WRITING YOU IN!”
The people who did that think the issue is that all the criticisms they (and I) have of Hillary are correct. It’s not the issue. The issue was, simply, whether to have Hillary or trump.
Bernie knew the right answer. I knew the right (not as right as Hillary supporters like to think) answer. Some do not.
I said then and now, as Bernie did, fight for Bernie to be the nominee, but vote for for the nominee.
Now just to be clear, I’m not saying that as a general statement. In some theoretical case, the Democratic nominee might NOT be the better choice. But in 2016 and practically, they are.
Good point. It’s turning a positive into an attack.
I’m not saying that all criticism of ‘purists’ is wrong, but simply attacking it as ‘purist’ goes too far into attacking something good.
Some ‘purists’ to use the pejorative name DO make mistakes and do need to sometimes recognize when voting for someone ‘imperfect’ is the right thing.
But the way to make that point isn’t to attack them as ‘purists’.
It reminds me a little when I first saw the term ‘social justice warrior’. I assumed it was a compliment.
What the hell is wrong with a social justice warrior? Social Justice is a good thing and people who are supporting it are helping.
I was surprised to find it’s a pejorative for attacking a group for the much less important flaws or mistakes some make in the name of ‘social justice’.
So sure, if you refer to a manhole and someone punches you in the face and screams “it’s a PERSONHOLE you sexist pig”, that deserves criticism as ‘going too far’.
But the way to criticize that isn’t with a term like ‘social justice warrior’ that criticizes in the name ALL people fighting for social justice.
The way to criticize that excess is to point out why it’s wrong in s way that distinguishes it from the much more important good efforts for social justice.
And the way to criticize people who write in the far better Bernie rather than vote for Hillary is not to attack them for having the standards to prefer Bernie, but for the specific error in that.
I think the error in attacking them for having those standards comes from the attackers not understanding that it IS higher standards - for we Bernie supporters - to see why he’s better.
So to Bernie supporters, the issue is why to vote for someone worse, with more flaws - which I encouraged them to do. But to the attackers - the Hillary supporters - they see the ‘purists’ simply as people who were not only wrong about not supporting Hillary over trump, but were also wrong about supporting Bernie over Hillary, so to them broad, general attacks were just fine. They were really no better than trump supporters to those attackers. Opposing Hillary from the ‘right’ or the ‘left’ was equally bad to them, it was all opposing Hillary (you sexist pig).
It’s sad that we seem still not to have made any progress resolving these things in the party, and Bernie’s #1 obstacle to a run now is wrongly embittered Hillary supporters who make the same mistake the ‘Bernie purists’ made if they refused to vote for Hillary, in not supporting the Democratic nominee far better than the Republican, if it’s Bernie in this case. ‘Unity’ is a one-way street for them.
I’ve long felt that Warren is such a one-issue candidate, that whether she would be a good leader broadly is a very valid question.
But here’s the thing.
That one issue is SO important and critical to getting power for other issues, and she is SO good on it, and her character seems to stand out so well, that I’ve come to strongly support her anyway.
You’re responding to someone who would gladly vote for Joe Lieberman if he were running against Trump. Team blue, uber alles. Yay!