Skip to main content

View Diary: McCutcheon v. FEC proves the need for Democratic presidents (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  unless you're trying to make the case (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, edrie

    that hillary would appoint people like roberts, alito, thomas, scalia and kennedy rather than people like breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor or kagan, you have added nothing to the conversation.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:03:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If Hillary is the best we can do we are in dire (0+ / 0-)

      straits indeed. Whatever she may or may not do regarding the court, I doubt she'll be moving in a progressive directions on Wall Street, war and peace, globalization, unemployment, the social safety net and so on.

      The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

      by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:15:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  blah blah blah (0+ / 0-)

        try addressing the content of the post, mmmkay?

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're the blatherer who linked Hillary with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisePiper

          the court with campaign financing, not me. I'm just following your lead.

          The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

          by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:19:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as i said (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bear83, edrie
            unless you're trying to make the case that hillary would appoint people like roberts, alito, thomas, scalia and kennedy rather than people like breyer, ginsburg, sotomayor or kagan, you have added nothing to the conversation.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:20:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So narrowly limiting the focus of the discussion (0+ / 0-)

              renders it largely irrelevant to the great mass of voters and apathetic non-voters that need to be mobilized.

              The frog jumped/ into the old pond/ plop! (Basho)

              by Wolf10 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:25:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Repeatedly block quoting your own (0+ / 0-)

              words within a single comment thread appears to be the new version of YELLING IN BOLD CAPS.

              Look, I get it. You're all in for Hillary, and where she stands on some of the gravest issues the nation faces doesn't really appear on your radar. She's less evil, and likely to appoint less evil Justices. And that, apparently, is good enough for you.

              Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

              by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:27:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  i know this is hard (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bear83, edrie

                but i'm not all in for anyone. but mccutcheon proves why we need democratic presidents. which was the point of the post.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 02:47:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cut the "i know this is hard" crap. (0+ / 0-)

                  Without naming her, you made an explicit case for supporting HRC, the presumptive nominee, based on the "think of the Supreme Court" argument.

                  That rationale naturally spawns a larger discussion of what damage a Clinton presidency might entail - a discussion you're attempting to derail.

                  You're not "all in" for Hillary? I look forward to you employing your high profile Front Pager voice to calls for identifying, encouraging and promoting a populist alternative to HRC.

                  Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                  by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:29:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry. Meant to say "implicit." (0+ / 0-)

                    (But it bordered on explicit.)

                    Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                    by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:36:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  i know this is hard (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bear83

                    but this is about any democratic president, including obama and bill clinton, and it's about one over-riding reason for keeping democrats in the oval office. as for populist alternatives, at this point there are none on any horizon. as a political writer, in any venue, i am reality-based. i'm not all in for hillary, but you seem to be all out against her. thanks for playing.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 03:41:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, you are correct. (0+ / 0-)

                      I am very much opposed to HRC. While no one candidate could faithfully represent all of my beliefs and wants, nor would I withhold my vote for their inability to do so, there DO exist certain key lines that, in my view, must never be crossed.

                      One was voting for the AUMF, knowing full well Bush would use that authorization to slaughter thousands of human beings to further his geo-political wet dream. When I'm standing in the voting booth, weighing the prospect of more conservative appointments to the SCOTUS vs. being complicit in electing someone who cynically chose to burnish her "tough enough" creds with the blood of innocents, I'll be passing on both. "The Dem candidate will kill fewer non-combatants than the "Repub" candidate" is not a winning argument for me.

                      Obama is apparently OK with TPP's price tag of thousands of preventable deaths, due to projected increase in drug costs in impoverished nations. Does it make a difference to you if HRC supports TPP as well?

                      by WisePiper on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:09:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  yes (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        edrie

                        and who cares about cases like citizens or mccutcheon or the supreme court. but at least you'll have even more to complain about under a republican president.

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:29:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Your logic gave us Bush 43 (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        freakofsociety

                        Gore was too far to the right so a lot of folks voted for Nader.

                        As a result we got Citizens United and McCutcheon.

                        And that will result in a lot more deaths of innocents than you will get from Gore, Obama, or Clinton in a thousand terms.

                        It is the Nader voters with blood on their hands.  

                        •  They don't care about that... (0+ / 0-)

                          Don't bother.

                          I love president Obama!!!

                          by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:47:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Sure you _must_ know (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          brightlights, AlexDrew

                          after thirteen years that Mr. Gore could not win either his putative state of Tennessee or his boss's home state of Arkansas. Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore. These are verifiable, incontrovertible facts that do not rely on "rox/sux arguments" and do not place blood on anyone's hands.

                          The only person who lost the election for Mr. Gore was...Mr. Gore. Period. After more than dozen years, isn't it time to admit that?

                          •  And Nader helped (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Laurence Lewis

                            Fracture the party regardless...

                            I love president Obama!!!

                            by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:55:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nader not running (4+ / 0-)

                            and Gore easily carries FL and NH. End of story. No Iraq war. No trillion dollar deficits. Two good SC appointments. Citizens United and McCutcheon go away losers.

                            I can't understand how the Nader apologists don't see this.

                          •  Usually because (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            freakofsociety, charliehall2

                            they argue Nader voters would never have voted for Gore.

                            But even if 75% of them didn't, Gore still wouldn't have won Florida and New Hampshire.

                            If 95% of Nader voters didn't vote, and only 5% went to Gore, he still would have won (without any controversy) Florida.

                          •  actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maltheopia, charliehall2

                            the tennessee of 2000 was a far different state than the one that elected liberals like gore and sasser. in case you haven't noticed, tennessee, like all the border states, and bucking the overall national trend, has been growing redder. the gore-lost-his-home-state always was a dishonest argument.

                            beyond that, the reality is that after promising his longtime supporters not to undermine gore, nader did exactly that. he created a fasle equivalency between gore and bush. he campaigned in states gore shouldn't have had to worry about, forcing gore to waste time and money in states he otherwise would have won easily.

                            and please show me verifiable proof of this:

                            Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 11:16:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That one was a shameless lie (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Laurence Lewis
                            Additionally, more Democrats in FL voted for Bush than for Gore.
                            It would effectively mean that MORE Republicans voted for Gore than Bush, given that there were only 500+ votes separating the two.  

                            Nader creeps always use the lame "Gore didn't even win his own state Tennessee" as if Tennessee was/is a liberal state.   Even if things worked out great for Christie, nobody would expect him to carry New Jersey, regardless of whether he could win the presidency or not.   The Tennessee argument shows how far removed from reality the Naderites are.  

                          •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            or, given that republicans overwhelmingly favored bush, it would mean every florida independent voted for gore- probably a dozen or two times each...

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Apr 06, 2014 at 09:28:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Because as the president (0+ / 0-)

            She has the power to nominate Supreme Court judges? What do you not understand about the importance of this?

            I love president Obama!!!

            by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:54:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Lol (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry you suxxers are so hilarious.

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Sat Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site