- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 34,159
- Reaction score
- 37,637
- Location
- With Yo Mama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Indeed, whatever might be the problem? The problem is that she is a DINO (Democrat in Name Only). The problem is that she, along with her husband, trashed the core values of the Democratic Party in the 1990s and threw the American workers under the proverbial bus. They essentially became more Republican than Republicans. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue while campaigning in Kentucky, but she offered up her husband as the person who would carry the flag on the economy once she is in office. Really?
An example is in order. We know she decided that she was against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after she was for it. Is her plan to turn the issue over to the godfather of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? Is there any question in anyone's mind that a candidate who has wrapped herself in the cloak of the incumbent president (whose team negotiated the TPP), will not, upon victory, become "pragmatic"? It's unlikely she will continue to oppose what Sanders has described as "part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system."
Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.
This is a piece well worth reading.
Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.
Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.
This is a piece well worth reading.
Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.
OK, and retarded opinion piece that calls Clinton a DINO deserves to be mocked and shamed for extreme retardation. That is such a painfully stupid comment that I am shocked and ashamed that some one actually pays him to write for them. It really reflects badly that some people actually agree with him...
Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.
This is a piece well worth reading.
Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.
I don't know. I always thought the terms DINO and RINO should be worn as badges of honor. I mean, by definition Bernie is a DINO.
Maybe Hillary wouldn't be considered a Democrat a few decades ago, but she definitely is the embodiment of them today.
In the end, she's a bought-and-paid-for Corporate Politician. And that's why some Sander's supporters will back him to the bigger end. I do think a good number will swallow their pride and the party line, backing Hillary when she grabs the nomination.
Some won't though because I think that fundamentally Sander's supporters are anti-establishment and Hillary represents the Establishment.
Me too!:2wave: Me, for one.
She may not be a DINO per the present political frame of reference/context, but she definitely would be not long ago, effectively representing a moderate Republican that happens to be more liberal on social issues.
Progressive in name only is perhaps more accurate, as she is a consummate neoliberal.
Most democrats seem to think she better represents their views than Sanders. And calling her a "neoliberal" is retarded. She is nothing at all like a neoliberal.
Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.
This is a piece well worth reading.
Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.
Most democrats seem to think she better represents their views than Sanders. And calling her a "neoliberal" is retarded. She is nothing at all like a neoliberal.
The whole RINO, DINO thing is just deflection. The real fundamental is that the Republocrat party is the Corporate, status-quo party of big brother, big war policies. Hillary is certainly of this ilk. I wouldn't say she was a DINO, id say she is the exact embodiment of Party Politician.
In the end, she's a bought-and-paid-for Corporate Politician. And that's why some Sander's supporters will back him to the bigger end. I do think a good number will swallow their pride and the party line, backing Hillary when she grabs the nomination.
Some won't though because I think that fundamentally Sander's supporters are anti-establishment and Hillary represents the Establishment.
Right. What indeed is a Republican these days? What is a Democrat? They are not what they once were. Many people feel the designations no longer have real meaning. Thus RINO and DINO are ironically the majority of partisans from their respective parties.
The Democratic and Republican Parties are in truth closely related factions carrying the water for the oligarchy. I like the term "Corpgov", though I cannot take credit for it. IMHO voting for mainstream party picked Republican and/or Democratic candidates is nothing more than voting for Corpgov. No way Corpgov is going to allow power and wealth in any appreciable amount to the People.
And Sanders is poised to be another spoiler like Nader that sets back the progressive movement another generation. When will you guys learn to stop acting like Republicans and take things too far. The American people are not ready to elect a Socialist and your foolishness better not cost the Dems this election or Sanders movement will be done just like Naders was.
And Sanders is poised to be another spoiler like Nader that sets back the progressive movement another generation. When will you guys learn to stop acting like Republicans and take things too far. The American people are not ready to elect a Socialist and your foolishness better not cost the Dems this election or Sanders movement will be done just like Naders was.
OK, and retarded opinion piece that calls Clinton a DINO deserves to be mocked and shamed for extreme retardation. That is such a painfully stupid comment that I am shocked and ashamed that some one actually pays him to write for them. It really reflects badly that some people actually agree with him...
DINO...RINO these are terms used by pundits and politicians to force someone into their way of philosophical thinking. Conservatives mistakenly thought they were the base of the GOP hence the RINO decree (the RINO decree was actually an accusation against a CINO - Conservative in name only). Are there DINOs where the name caller, the one attempting to change political philosophy and behavior, is actually a SINO? Socialist in name only? Is that Hillary?Right. What indeed is a Republican these days? What is a Democrat? They are not what they once were. Many people feel the designations no longer have real meaning. Thus RINO and DINO are ironically the majority of partisans from their respective parties.
The Democratic and Republican Parties are in truth closely related factions carrying the water for the oligarchy. I like the term "Corpgov", though I cannot take credit for it. IMHO voting for mainstream party picked Republican and/or Democratic candidates is nothing more than voting for Corpgov. No way Corpgov is going to allow power and wealth transfer in any appreciable amount to the People.
What is exactly meant by the definition of neo-liberal? From what I can find it seems centered on free-market or even laissez-faire economics. Hillary is a Corporatist, and corporatists are not Free Market folk.
We've been going ever further right since the days of Reagan, and this is happening in spite of true progressives, not because of them. Campaign finance is the fundamental problem, not us, and we will not be intimidated by you treacherous neoliberal red Democrats any longer. Enough is enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?