General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMineralMan
(146,325 posts)Maybe.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which was the reason he is and was, especially during the Bush years when the illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, began, a spokesperson, someone who had a voice and one of the few with the courage to use at that time, for the Left who shared his outrage over Bush's foreign policies and wars for oil and profit.
He is a man of conscience, they are rare these days, although I do see more of them emerging, thankfully.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Did you hear that our troops are out of Iraq, now?
MinervaX
(169 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)They were there when Obama took office. Now they're not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I haven't heard about any accountability for the war criminals who destroyed Iraq and killed so many of its people, have you?
And really, some people are good at snark, and some are not. I don't think it suits your style. Just my opinion of course.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)It keeps you nice and busy, and that's always good. Idle hands, as they say...
Do you actually believe that it is possible in the United States to charge a former President and his staff with war crimes? It is not possible to do that. No sane person would ever attempt such a thing. As much as I'd enjoy seeing GWB sitting on a witness stand in his own trial, I'm not naive enough to thing such a thing could ever take place.
Life is reality. Those who seek fantasy will generally be disappointed. No US President will be charged with any such thing, especially since Congress approved the terrible attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it wrong? Of course it was. But, wasting your time trying to imagine that such a thing will happen is as futile as thinking that replying to me on DU will affect my participation here. Neither will happen.
Am I not good at snark? That may well be. You have said so, and must think it to be true. Do you truly suppose I will modify my participation because you think I do not do snark well? I suppose you do, just as you suppose that it is even conceivable that a US President will be brought up on charges for military actions approved by Congress.
Well, dream on. And please, by all means, continue to share your negative opinion of me. My shoulders are broad, and can easily bear such a light weight, despite my advancing years.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No sane person would even consider allowing war criminals to go free. But it is not unusual for this happen, it happened in South America and elsewhere, but now decades later, some of those war criminals who escaped justice are finally getting what they deserve.
The problem is the victims never forget, nor do their loved or other people of conscience.
Nixon was not above the law. True he never was tried, but he he was disgraced and for a lot less than the Bush gang are responsible for.
So it is not a fantasy that US Officials can and should be held accountable for crimes. That is our system, unless you think everything this country claims to stand for is a fantasy.
When a country does not take care of its own criminals, other countries will. As of now, three countries are preparing to prosecute Bush era war criminals. It's a shame we did not do it ourselves.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)He could be Einstein for all I care, that doesn't make his stance or reasoning anymore acceptable. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. I learned something today, that he has always voted Third Party, he didn't vote for Obama in 2008, either. It sure puts his opinion on the Democratic Party under a whole different lens, and I will judge it accordingly now.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Anyone who questions the the team or it's leaders are to be shoved under the bus.
Back up a few years and every one of these people so eagerly slamming Hedges would've been (and for the most part, *were*) cheering him and calling him a 'national treasure'. But now the same policies they used to feel so comfortable bitching about are regularly endorsed by their idols, so obviously the principles have to go.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)who was nobody's fool, bless her heart.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)'Bless his heart,' was oft-applied to Mr. Bush Sr., our fearless leader at the time.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)for using 'bless her heart' on her.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)She'd have laughed, as she often did.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)What's the date for that?
I love your enthusiasm.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Sounds familiar around these parts.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Hell ... I'd be happy if the most disgruntled folks started a "Progressive 2016" group.
Who do they plan to run? They need to get busy.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)He would rear his ugly head every four years yelling about how Democrats=Republicans. And yet, he doesn't build a party. He is out for himself. He hasn't run a resilient campaign at the local/state levels, grooming candidates for those offices. He didn't help the Greens run viable candidates for congressional offices. He had done absolutely NOTHING to build the Green Party. The leaders finally caught wind of this, got smart, and kicked him out.
People like Hedges who talk a great game about how the political parties are the same has not done a damn thing to create a new progressive party. All they do is talk, talk, talk!
It gets real tired.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)You build a third party from the grassroots up, starting local.
Not being a spoiler in an election you haven't a hope in hell of winning.
Kinda obvious, that.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)But one won't just appear out of nowhere.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)exactly how much is that supposed to influence congress?
How many third party politicians have dedicated activists managed to get into the state houses? Or city halls?
If all these third party views are so all-fired popular with the masses, as is so often claimed, where are all the county, city, or state candidates that have managed to get elected?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)with that decision for the rest of my life. But I was very young and incredibly naive about the political process back then.
I've stated this many times, but it's one thing to be disappointed about "change" not coming quickly enough or about not agreeing with everything a candidate does. It's all together another thing to understand how the political process/governance works.
We see Nader every few years or so. Even after becoming a pariah of the Greens, one would think that he would use that grassroots energy that he has amassed over the years to built a Nader Party or some kind of progressive "third way," if you will. He doesn't do this. Election after election...even in off-year elections, Nader doesn't run any candidates at the local/state level.
Look, the Democrats have been demolished at the local/state levels because Republicans have been able to dominate local and state offices, as well as judgeships. It's like they don't even care about the presidency; they are squarely focused at the local and state levels where they have been able to do the most damage.
The Democratic Party had better wise up and get smart quick!
Yeah, be angry at Obama. I get it. I totally understand this as a former Green Party independent.
However, understand the art of politics and governance and get active in local politics if you can't support congressional Democrats or the president.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I worked for him, went out door to door, phone banking, etc.
I learned something during that election. There truly are not enough people supporting those 'out there' policies.
If there were, there WOULD be a third-party underground, and it would be taking off. Instead we've got RacistRandianNutjobs-R-Us and... well that's really the most popular third-party type candidate there is... and that seems to say a lot.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)MuseRider
(34,115 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)for the status quo.
Time for some Dave Chappelle:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=11915
one_voice
(20,043 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)...him for not being a Democrat. The Green Party can have him.
Hedges always votes third party. He did not vote for Obama in 2008. He makes this declaration every election as if it's new.
ONLY NADER IS RIGHT ON THE ISSUES
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.teamemail110308.1.htm
Ralph Nader Is Tired of Running for President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002179101
The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably and with devastating consequences.
There's no difference between Gore and Bush...and we got the Iraq war.
There's no difference between Kerry and Bush (evidently, the death and destruction of the Iraq war wasn't difference enough)...and we got the economic collapse.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)If anyone is keeping it real here, you are.
Many seem to forget that little nugget about his false equation that gave us Bush, and the very policies they now SO abhor. Yet they're willing to do it ALL over again.
Un-friggin-believable.
much happier than Hedges because I don't believe that allowing Republicans to win is change for the better.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many human beings and which show no sign of stopping. Someone who has been at the scenes of many of those crimes himself, Chris Hedges' perspective is a lot different than that of those who simply care about 'winning'.
We need thousands more like him if things are ever to change in this world. Maybe we are finally getting there.
He was one of the most popular writers during the Bush years, one of the few early on, who, when the cowardly MSM refused to even talk the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan, did so and the left cheered his every word, as they should.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Are you really arguing that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute genocide? Because I don't think very many other people are arguing that.
They aren't good things, for sure. I'm glad we're out of Iraq and I think it's long past time to call it a day in Afghanistan. But I just don't see how those wars constitute genocide.
And let me pre-empt you if you're going to argue that the sectarian cleansing in Iraq constitutes genocide, because the basis for that conflict is not ethno-linguistic identity (you could make that case if you brought the Kurds in, of course).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)leaves little doubt.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.
Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraqs physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.
The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/05/21/genocide-in-iraq
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Call it murder, slaughter, whatever, the problem is, the dead cannot be brought back and few voices were raised over the past decade in an attempt to stop it, so I have and always will have the utmost respect for those who tried, at least. Hedges is on the right side of history, and has been for a long time on these issues. It's sad to see the 'left' abandoning what they use to believe in not so long ago. But people like him, who has been eye-witness to these murders/slaughters/genocides, take your pick, is still saying what he was saying when he used to be a hero of the left. He hasn't changed. Funny isn't it, the fact that on progressive forums during the Bush era you would never have seen a negative comment about Chris Hedges.
RZM
(8,556 posts)First off, I haven't read the piece in question here. From what I can tell from the response, he has argued for a third party of some kind. I'm not all that invested in the 'third party/Greenwald/Nader/progressive opposition wars' here on DU, other than noting that it might end in tears once the Republicans have a nominee. If Hedges wants to argue for a third party, that's his business and I don't really care. I plan on voting Dem no matter what for the foreseable future.
And 'Muslims' are not an ethnic group, of course. There are Muslims all over the world, including hundreds of milions outside of the Middle East, which as you know isn't a homogeneous region in the first place.
But words do matter here. That's all I was saying.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Better yet, I would like names. Genocide, Collateral Damage, 'what's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
This is just 1 little boy, and he is one of the lucky ones. He survived, at least up that point, sadly we do not keep track of these children whose countries we invade. So we don't really know and we don't really care, as a nation. But they do, his family, his loved ones. They really are human beings no different to us.
Third Party, Collateral Damage/Genocide whatever, Chris Hedges has seen these dead children in conflicts around the world, maybe he knows more than we do. Maybe our party loyalty is not such a good thing after all, at least not for the dead. But we can't talk about these things, discuss them, try to find a better way because 'there's an election coming'.
No one has been held accountable in this country for the murders/deaths/collateral damage/torture etc. of so many, many human beings. I care about how history will view how the American people reacted to these horrors perpetrated by their government against innocent people, that they at least acknowledged them. I would like to be on the right side of history when it is finally written. So all I can do is say how I feel about it, and all Chris Hedges can do is what he is doing.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Nice to see you, I hope all is well with you! And you're welcome.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The Iraq war didn't just start in 2003, it had been going on since 1990; though war isn't really an accurate word for it since the killing was almost all one sided.
Now this is beyond a doubt genocide:
We also bombed Iraq throughout the 90's, murdering scores of Iraqis.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the war-mongers needed an enemy. Saddam was the most available one at the time. So the US turned on their brutal ally and made him into a monster. They fabricated a phony story about Iraqi soldiers murdering babies in incubators, and off to mass-murder we went.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Not only were all those children killed by the sanctions, generations are being born now in Iraq deformed because of the use of chemical weapons by the 'allied forces'.
Genocide. I remember when the UN argued over Rwanda and whether or not the word Genocide could be applied. Had it been, some action could have been taken to stop it. But by the time they got around to calling it 'genocide' the genocide had reached nearly one million deaths.
And we seem to be getting ready for more war and more death and destruction.
Failing doesn't deter the war machine either. The failure in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the latest failure, Libya which is now on the brink of civil war with tens of thousands of civilians locked up and all sides opposed to our puppet government there. Another tragedy of Western foreign policy. A country that had such a high living standard, has now been destroyed with violence a part of their daily lives.
Sometimes I think the world is run by madmen, and women of course.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)If you'd just quit focusing on the results, and pay all your attention to the rhetoric, why, you'd understand Political Reality in no time at all! As an added bonus, you'd get to be in the club that always shows up to slap each other on the back for being so brave and courageous as to ignore events and concentrate on fine-sounding words.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I remember some of the names of those children. They were hard to find, because we here in the US are not allowed to see those bodies or know their names, but a few brave journalists, and they were brave, humanized some of our 'collateral damage' at risk to themselves sometimes.
They were witnesses to the fact that human beings had died, and I thank them for that.
One I will never forget, named Ali, one of the first victims of our 'shock and awe' lost his entire family on the first night of bombing, while here in the US, the cheering was deafening. I don't know where he is now, grown up and in his late teens or early twenties, an innocent victim. Just one of so, so many.
Our foreign policies need to be changed. The killing needs to stop. I haven't changed, Hedges hasn't changed, but something has.
Pisces
(5,602 posts)3rd party is a vote for a War with Iran.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Maybe one day people will wake up and understand our winner-take-all system.
Hedges was a Naderite. Realistically speaking, what would Nader have done with a Republican controlled congress? Yes, we even have one NOW.
Nader would have been a lame duck from the get go, and then you'd see Democrats unify with Republicans in Congress to oppose everything and anything he wanted to do and nothing would happen. The old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" would've been on full display and what good would that do any of us?
Erose999
(5,624 posts)Blue Dogs and GOP moderates. There's this giant bloc of centrist "heaven forbid we offend the Tea Party" mediocrity going on. Nothing is getting done.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)Maybe there's something more important than the 24 hours news cycle and winning the horse race.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)_ed_
(1,734 posts)Because I was directly responding to the point that Hedges isn't helping Obama beat the GOP. My point was that there are more important things than elections, that there are more important things than "winning" the 24 hour news cycle.
That's not a straw man.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Think it's nothing more than "winning the horse race" to someone whose civil rights or Social Security safety net is on the line?
_ed_
(1,734 posts)What about people who will live or die as a result of Obama's drone strikes on American citizens?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)_ed_
(1,734 posts)It's easier than dealing with what he actually says, I suppose.
Uncle Joe
(58,405 posts)Thanks for the thread, whatchamacallit.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)nowhere in my post was that done. Sorry.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It doesn't change the fact that Hedges isn't a DUer and that it doesn't say shit about posting positive comments about him.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)and any other asshole who thinks there is no difference between Obama and the clowns on the right.
_ed_
(1,734 posts).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but it's a matter of degrees...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Like Nobel-prize winning/asshole Chirs Hedges is?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Hardly.
Chris Hedges: "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"
So, are you also advocating voting 3rd party in this election?
It's a simple question.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)no. Wishing?...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)will you be voting 3rd party like Chris?
Chris Hedges: "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"
who's babbling now?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)so stop asking. Simple enough?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)that's an answer.
just so you know, I don't have a problem declaring my vote for Obama.
if you can't say the same, I wonder why you are here?
progressoid
(49,996 posts)a lot of us are here for more than just Obama's re-election. As it happens, the Democratic Party is about more than just one person.
Also, I'm pretty sure this ain't called PresidentObamaUnderground.com.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You?
ETA: to fix an unbelievable Freudian slip!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)abandon the privacy of the voting booth? You're not a hall monitor.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)that sums up nicely how I feel about it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)right?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Oh, yeah, let's play the game where we pretend we don't know what this is all about. Give me a fucking break.
Chris "I'm voting 3rd Party... again!" Hedges can fuck himself.
And he can take Ralph Nader along for the ride, too. Given all the money Nader has taken from Republicans over the years, they ought to be able to afford a real nice go-fuck-themselves vacation.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate".
So, um, it's pretty fucking obvious what this is all about, um, despite cute attempts at, um, pretend ignorance.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This thread is paying tribute to a man who used to be a hero to the left when he said almost the identical same things he is now saying. He voted third party then. I don't recall the outrage. He was respected for his opinions on major issues facing this country. And his choices regarding who he votes for, are his and have little to do with anyone else's.
Do you have any friends, family members who do not vote the way you would like them to? Most of us do, we still love them, that doesn't mean we are going to vote the way they vote, does it? Your post makes no sense frankly.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There's no connection between the OP and Hedges' statement "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate", which was posted on truthdig TODAY.
Again. Give me a fucking break.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to think I know what anyone else is 'thinking' frankly. I know Hedges has always been a champion of liberal causes. People read him because they are Liberals. The Right certainly has no time for him. They hate him, always have.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Then read your sig line and look in the mirror.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And I still think the cheering for him, today, seems to oddly coincide with his statement, today, that he's voting 3rd Party.
You cute retort aside, there's nothing inconsistent with my sig line. There are plenty of places on the internet for Nader retreads to gush over the idea of handing the White House to the GOP on 'principle'. It's not "censorship" to mention that DU just isn't one of them.
Actually, it's right there in the fucking rules, which seems to catch a small sub-group here by surprise, every 4 years, like god-damn clockwork.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)but it's pretty obvious.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)policy outcomes.
These people are delusional. As delusional and naive as I was back in 2000 when I supported Nader.
Never again!!
OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)throwing away his vote and helping the GOP... why, in no way does this mean they're endorsing a third party! it's not as if three years of this type of thing constitutes an obvious pattern... silly you!
just like when people like sirota fellate ron paul.. by gum.. it doesn't mean he's supporting him! just cause he's saying all those nice things....
ah fuck it...
got a candy heart i can borrrow Sid?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)addressing is NOT Chris Hedges, just fyi!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)
Post removed
_ed_
(1,734 posts)You make me laugh
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)His third-party support is "keeping it real"?
Sid
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)or otherwise brain damaged, intellectually challenged, befuddled, confused, cognitively handicapped, or delusional people in this world.
Yes, yes. Bless Chris Hedges.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)in which case, bless your heart.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)EFerrari
(163,986 posts)LMAO
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Then he helped Bush steal the 2000 election, and after that became a paid GOP stooge.
Sad, really.
progressoid
(49,996 posts)Gotta link to that or is it just hyperbole Monday?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How quickly we forget, but then there were never any consequences for the felonious five so this is what happens when allow criminals and traitors off the hook. We can blame perfectly innocent people for their crimes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"We" don't forget, quickly or otherwise. I remember the exact same bullshit false equivalencies between the parties being thrown around by Nader supporters in 2000.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)maybe made a bit easier, but Gore still won regardless of all that. That old 'Nader did it' meme died a long time ago. But it's a shame that people refused to place the blame for what was a huge crime against this country, where it belonged. I'm sure the Felonious Five were grateful for the distraction though.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)in 2004.
The guy is an inexcusable ass.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)People gravitate to those who they believe best represent them. Democrats party with Karl Rove at DC cocktail parties. They live in a bubble once they get to DC. Nader took a comparitively tiny amount of money from a Repub operative, airc.
Democrats take huge amounts of money from Wall Street. Do you think those Corps and Wall St execs are all Democrats?
Many of the same Big Business Donors who gave to Bush, gave to Obama. Do you attack Dems for doing this also? It's really irrelevant who they take money from because they all do it and they don't ask to see their Party affiliation.
The problem IS the money. That any of them have to take handouts from Corporate American, most of whom are probably Republicans, is the problem.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)is based on the actual officials bearing no responsibility and many times that less accountability.
The other piece seems to be that if they call themselves or politicians "centrist" then they inherently are correct and any issues are because the "centrists" were not sufficiently clapped for.
Then of course is the "fact" that it is not the content of the policy that matters but the letter next to the name of the person that endorses it.
Filter those important axioms to live by a logic that states that the Republicans are evil incarnate that will scuttle the nation (with which I cannot disagree) while believing that assimilating their policies is tolerable or often seemingly desirable.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Did you know I actually thought we would never put party over principle? I really did, during the Bush years I used to watch the Repubs bend over backwards to excuse everything he did and was so grateful I was among people who stood for principles.
Edited to add, I did not think that politicians might not stray from principles, I just thought that we, democrats, would pressure them to stick to their principles and would never make excuses for them if they did not.
That was so, so naive I realize now
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)I thought we as a party, at least in general, had principles.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Well said.
Marr
(20,317 posts)For your sake, I hope others take it to heart.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Right back at'cha, Chief.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Chris Hedges: "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate."
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)So what?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)do you agree or disagree with him?
I don't and will vote Obama.
you?
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)Obama is gone.
For some of us, life doesn't revolve around the millionaire's theater that is our presidential elections.
nice dodge of the question.
but that's okay, your dodge speaks volumes.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That fact has nothing to do with his excellent work. He's more of an independent than I am. I still like much of what he has to say, his conclusions as to what to in elections do not need to match up.
See, I don't need to agree with 100% of what anyone says to agree with some of it. This is good news for the President, who opposes marriage equality and still expects our support, don't you think? So the attacking of a person for not agreeing with you on all things is not a smart political precedent if you ask me. Petty and short sighted.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)In this case...Chris Hedges: "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate" ...he is dead wrong and should be called out for it.
how is that short sighted?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Just because he votes Green doesn't make him an asshole.
I think it just means he can't post on DU.
It's just a disagreement about political tactics. Jeesh.
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)you and your ilk will be whining the loudest to get rid Mitt or Newt. Just like after Bush won, when all you people did was shit on Gore before the election.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)The Obama campaign was a thing of beauty, so this one won't be easy to steal.
(knock on wood)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This kind of off the wall comment is what is so dividing this party. I don't know where you were, but almost everyone I know on DU worked hard to get Gore, Kerry and Obama elected. We won on Gore, the SC stole it, and won again in 2008.
How dare you speak to people who have put so much work and effort into keeping the Democratic party in power when you know nothing at all about the people you are calling 'you people'.
I sure hope you do not represent this party because anyone on the fence, such as Independents eg, who are spoken to this way, will be lost.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It's like the "Gosh willikers, do you think Obama would be proud of you?" etc. etc.
Do you have any idea how stupid people would have to be to buy it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But slamming DUers used to be against the rules here, as you should know. Now, it's a free for all, which is fine by me, so long as it goes both ways.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It is also, perhaps incongruent to the metaphor, transparent.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to provide it.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)What a fucking idiot.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It would certainly make life easier. And that's what we want, right? No thinking required, if there is a D behind the name then they can do no wrong. This fight is between the 1% and the 99% and many D's support the 1%.
The system is corrupted and not just the R part. Occupy recognizes this. Approx 75% of Occupy'ers claim to be independents. I bet they arent disgruntled Republicans. Whether it's president Obama's fault or not, there hasnt been any improvement in the corruption in Washington the DC in the last three years.
Some say the ship of state would sink faster if the R's were in control. Others think it doesnt matter if you cant swim.
I dont advocate voting third party, but I understand it. It's a protest vote against a rotten system. It's kind like Occupy.
Rex
(65,616 posts)What the hell did I miss?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Chris Hedges: "In this years presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205710
Which caused "Fuck Chris Hedges"
Which caused "Bless Chris Hedges"
boppers
(16,588 posts)NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Take way the fact that a supreme court seat or 2 may soon be open and I'd vote for the Green Party as well. Obama would not pick anyone very left if at all but the R's would go as right as they could.
To me, the big D democratic party is now about where the republican party was pre Reagan, while the republicans have moved to the crazy train. Meanwhile the 90-99% have increasingly been last to the dinner table and only get the scraps the corporate piggies let us have. It's all been enabled by misinformed and uninformed voters who are too dimwitted to know they've been played like a gong to vote against their own self interest.