Page 7 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 370
Thanks Tree497Thanks

Thread: Always a Dem until 2016

  1. #61
    Wawa Skittletits BDBoop's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    42,892
    Thanks
    38044

    From
    Sometimes I get cranky
    This is kind of a painful thread to read.
    Thanks from Devil505, Minotaur and OHjulie

  2. #62
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,955
    Thanks
    17177

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Frecks1710 View Post
    By the way, I am being sincere. I will open my mind and tread very carefully in 20
    That is all anyone can ask for. Politics happens to be the addiction that keeps us all together on this board so I appreciate that you stood up and expressed where you are. You are ok in my books even if we disagree somewhere down the road.
    Thanks from Wonderer

  3. #63
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,455
    Thanks
    1985

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Frecks1710 View Post
    I would like your opinion...civilly, of course. I have been a registered Dem and always voted that way. Then this past election I left the party. For the very first time! I was just so unhappy with Hillary...I didn't want any part of her or her Foundation. I had hoped for "a refreshing change." I am not sure just how refreshing that change has been! Surely, there are many mistakes, but I do not feel POTUS or the Republicans are ALL wrong as the left believes. I do know a lot of people did the same exact thing I did. In fact, I think the percentage of disgruntled, disappointed, frustrated Dems helped to bring Trump into office. I am seriously wondering just how the Democratic party can win myself back and the others? I still have the same values I always have had. I am truly not a Republican; but neither am I on the far left. I would like to hear your response.
    I've never been a Democrat, but can't imagine why Hillary Clinton would drive someone from the party who was there previously. She's such an unremarkable, middle-of-the-road politician, by Democratic standards. Other than her gender, she's practically an amalgam of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, in terms of policy positions. She's also entirely typical for a Democrat in terms of temperament, and she was highly experienced, hard working, informed, and articulate. And considering she was investigated by the GOP and a hostile press corps for a quarter century without them finding any evidence of significant wrong-doing, she also appears to be unusually clean for a major politician. So, of all the politicians that might have driven someone from the Democratic Party, I find it particularly strange that it would be her.

    As for her Foundation, what was your issue with that? Although the Clintons are too far to the right for me, and I have a huge issue with Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote, the Foundation is actually something that makes me respect the Clintons far more than I otherwise would.

    Think about how it must have looked back when they first set up that Foundation. They knew full well what the Republicans and the corporate press were like: that even if the Clintons did their very best to make the Foundation clean as a whistle, with highly respected independent directors from across the world of non-profits and business, plus an independent auditor, those who irrationally hate the Clintons would still inevitably hold every misstep by the Foundation against the Clintons, personally. If the charity managed to botch a tax return, or spent money in a way that, in retrospect, was wasteful, or took money from any source that wasn't utterly pure, the usual suspects would pretend it was proof that the Clintons were crooked.... because, for those usual suspects, EVERYTHING is proof that the Clintons are crooked. Viewed from that perspective, back when they were first considering the Foundation, it would have been safer just not to do it, right? Give their enemies as little ammunition as possible.

    If, at that time, they'd decided not to get into charity work that way, I could hardly have blamed them. They could have lived the high life..... maybe get themselves appointed to the board of a hot tech company the way Gore did with Apple and walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars. Or just spend their time giving speeches to the highest bidder, the way most ex-politicians do, rather than spend time and effort fund-raising for charitable causes. That would have been the easy way out. But, it also would have meant giving up their ability to help move vast amounts of money from plutocrats to desperately poor people who needed it, the way the Clinton Foundation ended up doing. And so, knowing full well that it would be treated as a political and personal vulnerability for them, they nevertheless did the morally correct thing and threw themselves into that charitable work. Whatever my problems with the Clintons, I have nothing but the deepest respect for that decision. They knowingly increased the degree of political difficulty for Hillary Clinton's eventual run for president, all in order to make life better for some of the world's most vulnerable people. How many politicians would have the character to make that decision?

    The disgusting fact is that not only did the Clinton Foundation become a political liability for Hillary Clinton, as expected, but it did so to a far greater degree than the PATENTLY CORRUPT Trump Foundation did for Trump. Consider the contrasts between the two:

    (1) The Clinton Foundation spent its money primarily on matters concerning third-world poverty and illness. The Trump Foundation spent its money on things like charity auctions to furnish Trump's business with sports memorabilia, portraits of Trump, etc. Even when it was used for charity, it was often used so Trump could use other people's money (contributors to the foundation) to pay off a charitable promise by himself, so he'd get his name in the news for a donation without actually having to pay a dime.

    (2) The Clinton Foundation was staffed almost entirely by people with complete independence from the Clintons. That included top execs from both the business world and from other large non-profits. The three Clintons who were involved were just a minority of members of the Board, and they filled none of the key positions overseeing day-to-day business. They were basically just there to help with charitable fund-raising. By comparison, the entirety of the Trump Foundation's board consisted of immediate Trump family members, and the day-to-day operations were managed by Trump family members and employees of the Trump Organization. Thus, there were no strong, independent voices to speak up when Trump essentially laundered money through the charity for his own benefit.

    (3) The Clinton Foundation, although having the usual clerical errors and honest missteps you'd be able to find if you looked closely enough at any large organization, doesn't seem to have been involved in any willfully criminal behavior. By comparison, the Trump Foundation used non-profit money, illegally, to buy a law enforcement officer in Florida who was looking into the Trump University fraud.

    (4) The Clinton Foundation was independently audited, every year, making it all the harder for the Clintons to have done anything illegal with it, even if they had been in control of its everyday operations. By comparison, the Trump Foundation didn't get legally required audits, so that its criminal conduct wouldn't be detected.

    Isn't it fascinating that with the Clinton Foundation having been so above-board, and the Trump Foundation having been so clearly crooked, there were probably ten media reports hand-wringing about the Clinton Foundation for every one dealing with Trump?

    Anyway, you ask what the Democratic party can do to win you back. I suppose only you can answer that. For my own part, I don't think it matters. The Democratic Party doesn't need you, or me for that matter, to be a member. But what AMERICA needs is for us to vote in an informed and conscientious way. In 2016, if you were in a competitive state, that meant voting for Clinton, because the alternative was a monster. If you didn't see that then, I don't know what could open your eyes today. I suspect that if you were in a competitive state and didn't vote Clinton, the reason is that you're highly susceptible to conservative propaganda, and you heard enough misleading slurs about Hillary Clinton that eventually you internalized them. And, if so, I think there's a damned good chance you'll do the same in 2020 when it comes to the Democratic candidate, regardless of who that ends up being. I'd love to be able to help you immunize yourself against being manipulated that way again, but having never fallen for that manipulation myself, I'd be a bit like a lifelong tea-totaler offering recommendations for how to get off the sauce.

  4. #64
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,455
    Thanks
    1985

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I'm not a fan of extremists of any stripe. I don't think that the Democratic Party can do anything to attract voters who are fascinated by conspiracy theories without becoming what the Republican Party already is.
    Well said.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer and OHjulie

  5. #65
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    64,046
    Thanks
    20727

    From
    Mass and Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    That is an excellent question as well as topic for discussion. In my opinion , too many people worry about labels regarding ones politics. Liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats should be embraced not shunned. The problem boils down to each party thinking they are right and having all the answers. With common ground and reasonable discourse nothing but rhetoric, polarization is the norm for the current political climate. I have always been a member of the Democratic Party. My only shift was embracing more conservative positions than liberal ones. (When I was younger those positions were reversed) I found the Blue Dogs to be closest to what I agree with, but along the same lines of reasoning, they did not have all the answers either. That said, I voted third party because I could not support either major candidate.

    My two cents here...
    Your 2 cents is always worth a dollar my friend.
    This is a good topic because I've known Frecks since we were teens and she truly has been a Dem all these years.(her parents even worked for the local Dem party back in the day)
    She therefore represents many voters who simply lost their way in 2016......imo. (hopefully we can get her and them back)
    She isn't a phony that claims untrue things but I feel she's more politicly naive than most of us grizzled forum denizens and fell for Trump's simple BS that so many others fell for.
    He's been a conman all his life and still is......but now he has the full wait of the corrupt/un-American GOP behind him due to their fear of him.

    Frecks is relatively new here and I vouch for her honesty....FWIW.
    Last edited by Devil505; 11th June 2018 at 05:58 AM.
    Thanks from bajisima, Jets, Frecks1710 and 1 others

  6. #66
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,955
    Thanks
    17177

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    It wont. People are less and less loyal to a given party. They are no longer afraid to throw out a third party vote. That wont change and in fact I bet it will grow stronger as people like The Rock and Mark Cuban say if they decide to run it will be as an indie, not affiliated with either party. There is no longer that stigma there used to be with voting third party. Younger people are more worldly and want more than two parties. While that wont happen anytime soon, they wont be timid to throw a vote for the Green party or whomever they favor. The old days where everyone fit nicely into two parties is no longer with us. States are seeing it locally, more candidates coming in from other parties. We have 5 parties in our state legislature now, other states as well.
    Party was never the issue and it wasn't the issue in the last election. What you have been witnessing is the age old struggle that reveals the mirror to society. None of this is new. That society allowed a genuine nutcase to win is not about Trump.
    Thanks from BDBoop

  7. #67
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27568

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    Your 2 cents is always worth a dollar my friend.
    This is a good topic because I've known Frecks since we were teens and she truly has been a Dem all these years.
    She isn't a phony that claims untrue things but I feel she's more politicly naive than most of us grizzled forum denizens and fell for Trump's simple BS that so many others fell for.
    He's been a conman all his life and still is......but now he has the full wait of the corrupt/un-American GOP behind him due to their fear of him.

    Frecks is relatively new here and I vouch for her honesty....FWIW.
    I know many in real life just like her. Its nice that you vouch for her since so many pile on when people "break rank" and vote differently. I also think she is more "normal" than the rest of us and speaks more to the real life voter. We here on the forums are wonky and pay more detail to political stories. The average voter does not. They watch a debate or two if that and decide right before they vote.
    Thanks from Frecks1710 and Wonderer

  8. #68
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,955
    Thanks
    17177

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I've never been a Democrat, but can't imagine why Hillary Clinton would drive someone from the party who was there previously. She's such an unremarkable, middle-of-the-road politician, by Democratic standards. Other than her gender, she's practically an amalgam of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, in terms of policy positions. She's also entirely typical for a Democrat in terms of temperament, and she was highly experienced, hard working, informed, and articulate. And considering she was investigated by the GOP and a hostile press corps for a quarter century without them finding any evidence of significant wrong-doing, she also appears to be unusually clean for a major politician. So, of all the politicians that might have driven someone from the Democratic Party, I find it particularly strange that it would be her.

    As for her Foundation, what was your issue with that? Although the Clintons are too far to the right for me, and I have a huge issue with Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote, the Foundation is actually something that makes me respect the Clintons far more than I otherwise would.

    Think about how it must have looked back when they first set up that Foundation. They knew full well what the Republicans and the corporate press were like: that even if the Clintons did their very best to make the Foundation clean as a whistle, with highly respected independent directors from across the world of non-profits and business, plus an independent auditor, those who irrationally hate the Clintons would still inevitably hold every misstep by the Foundation against the Clintons, personally. If the charity managed to botch a tax return, or spent money in a way that, in retrospect, was wasteful, or took money from any source that wasn't utterly pure, the usual suspects would pretend it was proof that the Clintons were crooked.... because, for those usual suspects, EVERYTHING is proof that the Clintons are crooked. Viewed from that perspective, back when they were first considering the Foundation, it would have been safer just not to do it, right? Give their enemies as little ammunition as possible.

    If, at that time, they'd decided not to get into charity work that way, I could hardly have blamed them. They could have lived the high life..... maybe get themselves appointed to the board of a hot tech company the way Gore did with Apple and walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars. Or just spend their time giving speeches to the highest bidder, the way most ex-politicians do, rather than spend time and effort fund-raising for charitable causes. That would have been the easy way out. But, it also would have meant giving up their ability to help move vast amounts of money from plutocrats to desperately poor people who needed it, the way the Clinton Foundation ended up doing. And so, knowing full well that it would be treated as a political and personal vulnerability for them, they nevertheless did the morally correct thing and threw themselves into that charitable work. Whatever my problems with the Clintons, I have nothing but the deepest respect for that decision. They knowingly increased the degree of political difficulty for Hillary Clinton's eventual run for president, all in order to make life better for some of the world's most vulnerable people. How many politicians would have the character to make that decision?

    The disgusting fact is that not only did the Clinton Foundation become a political liability for Hillary Clinton, as expected, but it did so to a far greater degree than the PATENTLY CORRUPT Trump Foundation did for Trump. Consider the contrasts between the two:

    (1) The Clinton Foundation spent its money primarily on matters concerning third-world poverty and illness. The Trump Foundation spent its money on things like charity auctions to furnish Trump's business with sports memorabilia, portraits of Trump, etc. Even when it was used for charity, it was often used so Trump could use other people's money (contributors to the foundation) to pay off a charitable promise by himself, so he'd get his name in the news for a donation without actually having to pay a dime.

    (2) The Clinton Foundation was staffed almost entirely by people with complete independence from the Clintons. That included top execs from both the business world and from other large non-profits. The three Clintons who were involved were just a minority of members of the Board, and they filled none of the key positions overseeing day-to-day business. They were basically just there to help with charitable fund-raising. By comparison, the entirety of the Trump Foundation's board consisted of immediate Trump family members, and the day-to-day operations were managed by Trump family members and employees of the Trump Organization. Thus, there were no strong, independent voices to speak up when Trump essentially laundered money through the charity for his own benefit.

    (3) The Clinton Foundation, although having the usual clerical errors and honest missteps you'd be able to find if you looked closely enough at any large organization, doesn't seem to have been involved in any willfully criminal behavior. By comparison, the Trump Foundation used non-profit money, illegally, to buy a law enforcement officer in Florida who was looking into the Trump University fraud.

    (4) The Clinton Foundation was independently audited, every year, making it all the harder for the Clintons to have done anything illegal with it, even if they had been in control of its everyday operations. By comparison, the Trump Foundation didn't get legally required audits, so that its criminal conduct wouldn't be detected.

    Isn't it fascinating that with the Clinton Foundation having been so above-board, and the Trump Foundation having been so clearly crooked, there were probably ten media reports hand-wringing about the Clinton Foundation for every one dealing with Trump?

    Anyway, you ask what the Democratic party can do to win you back. I suppose only you can answer that. For my own part, I don't think it matters. The Democratic Party doesn't need you, or me for that matter, to be a member. But what AMERICA needs is for us to vote in an informed and conscientious way. In 2016, if you were in a competitive state, that meant voting for Clinton, because the alternative was a monster. If you didn't see that then, I don't know what could open your eyes today. I suspect that if you were in a competitive state and didn't vote Clinton, the reason is that you're highly susceptible to conservative propaganda, and you heard enough misleading slurs about Hillary Clinton that eventually you internalized them. And, if so, I think there's a damned good chance you'll do the same in 2020 when it comes to the Democratic candidate, regardless of who that ends up being. I'd love to be able to help you immunize yourself against being manipulated that way again, but having never fallen for that manipulation myself, I'd be a bit like a lifelong tea-totaler offering recommendations for how to get off the sauce.
    This!

    Thank you.
    Thanks from Arkady

  9. #69
    Wawa Skittletits BDBoop's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    42,892
    Thanks
    38044

    From
    Sometimes I get cranky
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I've never been a Democrat, but can't imagine why Hillary Clinton would drive someone from the party who was there previously. She's such an unremarkable, middle-of-the-road politician, by Democratic standards. Other than her gender, she's practically an amalgam of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, in terms of policy positions. She's also entirely typical for a Democrat in terms of temperament, and she was highly experienced, hard working, informed, and articulate. And considering she was investigated by the GOP and a hostile press corps for a quarter century without them finding any evidence of significant wrong-doing, she also appears to be unusually clean for a major politician. So, of all the politicians that might have driven someone from the Democratic Party, I find it particularly strange that it would be her.

    As for her Foundation, what was your issue with that? Although the Clintons are too far to the right for me, and I have a huge issue with Hillary Clinton's Iraq War vote, the Foundation is actually something that makes me respect the Clintons far more than I otherwise would.

    Think about how it must have looked back when they first set up that Foundation. They knew full well what the Republicans and the corporate press were like: that even if the Clintons did their very best to make the Foundation clean as a whistle, with highly respected independent directors from across the world of non-profits and business, plus an independent auditor, those who irrationally hate the Clintons would still inevitably hold every misstep by the Foundation against the Clintons, personally. If the charity managed to botch a tax return, or spent money in a way that, in retrospect, was wasteful, or took money from any source that wasn't utterly pure, the usual suspects would pretend it was proof that the Clintons were crooked.... because, for those usual suspects, EVERYTHING is proof that the Clintons are crooked. Viewed from that perspective, back when they were first considering the Foundation, it would have been safer just not to do it, right? Give their enemies as little ammunition as possible.

    If, at that time, they'd decided not to get into charity work that way, I could hardly have blamed them. They could have lived the high life..... maybe get themselves appointed to the board of a hot tech company the way Gore did with Apple and walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars. Or just spend their time giving speeches to the highest bidder, the way most ex-politicians do, rather than spend time and effort fund-raising for charitable causes. That would have been the easy way out. But, it also would have meant giving up their ability to help move vast amounts of money from plutocrats to desperately poor people who needed it, the way the Clinton Foundation ended up doing. And so, knowing full well that it would be treated as a political and personal vulnerability for them, they nevertheless did the morally correct thing and threw themselves into that charitable work. Whatever my problems with the Clintons, I have nothing but the deepest respect for that decision. They knowingly increased the degree of political difficulty for Hillary Clinton's eventual run for president, all in order to make life better for some of the world's most vulnerable people. How many politicians would have the character to make that decision?

    The disgusting fact is that not only did the Clinton Foundation become a political liability for Hillary Clinton, as expected, but it did so to a far greater degree than the PATENTLY CORRUPT Trump Foundation did for Trump. Consider the contrasts between the two:

    (1) The Clinton Foundation spent its money primarily on matters concerning third-world poverty and illness. The Trump Foundation spent its money on things like charity auctions to furnish Trump's business with sports memorabilia, portraits of Trump, etc. Even when it was used for charity, it was often used so Trump could use other people's money (contributors to the foundation) to pay off a charitable promise by himself, so he'd get his name in the news for a donation without actually having to pay a dime.

    (2) The Clinton Foundation was staffed almost entirely by people with complete independence from the Clintons. That included top execs from both the business world and from other large non-profits. The three Clintons who were involved were just a minority of members of the Board, and they filled none of the key positions overseeing day-to-day business. They were basically just there to help with charitable fund-raising. By comparison, the entirety of the Trump Foundation's board consisted of immediate Trump family members, and the day-to-day operations were managed by Trump family members and employees of the Trump Organization. Thus, there were no strong, independent voices to speak up when Trump essentially laundered money through the charity for his own benefit.

    (3) The Clinton Foundation, although having the usual clerical errors and honest missteps you'd be able to find if you looked closely enough at any large organization, doesn't seem to have been involved in any willfully criminal behavior. By comparison, the Trump Foundation used non-profit money, illegally, to buy a law enforcement officer in Florida who was looking into the Trump University fraud.

    (4) The Clinton Foundation was independently audited, every year, making it all the harder for the Clintons to have done anything illegal with it, even if they had been in control of its everyday operations. By comparison, the Trump Foundation didn't get legally required audits, so that its criminal conduct wouldn't be detected.

    Isn't it fascinating that with the Clinton Foundation having been so above-board, and the Trump Foundation having been so clearly crooked, there were probably ten media reports hand-wringing about the Clinton Foundation for every one dealing with Trump?

    Anyway, you ask what the Democratic party can do to win you back. I suppose only you can answer that. For my own part, I don't think it matters. The Democratic Party doesn't need you, or me for that matter, to be a member. But what AMERICA needs is for us to vote in an informed and conscientious way. In 2016, if you were in a competitive state, that meant voting for Clinton, because the alternative was a monster. If you didn't see that then, I don't know what could open your eyes today. I suspect that if you were in a competitive state and didn't vote Clinton, the reason is that you're highly susceptible to conservative propaganda, and you heard enough misleading slurs about Hillary Clinton that eventually you internalized them. And, if so, I think there's a damned good chance you'll do the same in 2020 when it comes to the Democratic candidate, regardless of who that ends up being. I'd love to be able to help you immunize yourself against being manipulated that way again, but having never fallen for that manipulation myself, I'd be a bit like a lifelong tea-totaler offering recommendations for how to get off the sauce.
    I am enamored of your mind.

    Thank you for this post.
    Thanks from Arkady

  10. #70
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    45,490
    Thanks
    27568

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    Party was never the issue and it wasn't the issue in the last election. What you have been witnessing is the age old struggle that reveals the mirror to society. None of this is new. That society allowed a genuine nutcase to win is not about Trump.
    It is though in a way. There were 7 states as I recall that a third party got more votes than the difference between HRC and Trump. Had those voters went with one of the two parties, the results would change. But the choices were viewed so negatively that the choice was made. Getting those people back into a party could be difficult if neither side changes. They viewed both candidates as toxic and could again.
    Thanks from Frecks1710 and Wonderer

Page 7 of 37 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gop: Rip 2016
    By Friday13 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 25th February 2016, 10:07 PM
  2. Who then in 2016?
    By Bourne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17th June 2015, 12:01 AM
  3. 2016
    By Bassman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 4th November 2012, 11:42 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed