What's the difference between the general election Hillary naysayers and the religious rightwing?

The religious rightwingers held a little enclave and announced, stomping their feet, that they wouldn't vote for Giuliani if he was nominated. They will bolt the party and vote for some third party fundie loon.

There are some here (and presumably not here) who are very vocally throwing temper tantrums and telling us they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. They will bolt and vote third party.

Are these two groups not just flip sides of the same juvenile, egomaniacal coin?

and HRC fanatics using intimidation tactics?

explain the neocon intimidation tactics and the pro-Clinton intimidation tactics and tell us what you think the similarities are.

Or do you just like throwing the word "neo-con" around?

If you don't support HRC, you're with the GOP.

If you don't support the war, you aren't patriotic

If you don't support HRC, you aren't a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive

All starts to blur together.

Then, there are the money source similarities.

Rupert seems to love Hillary.

the inverse of those is used here regularly?

If you DO support Clinton you're a right-winger? A neocon?

You're seeing only what you want to see.

And something like "Rupert seems to love Hillary" with no further explanation is a smear-by-association worthy of Bill O'Reilly.

But suggesting it is so is a rather interesting and predictable move.

Rupert love Hillary = more corporatist rule. The mega-corporations used the neocon's blind ambition for their own purposes. The tactic works for them. Why would they stop?

LOL....

equating liking Clinton with being a "neo-con".

And you did it in the post just above! You're being willfully blind.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

By the way, you did just what I said SOME SUPPORTERS do - distort, try to intimidate, try to misstate, try to label any dissenters.

That behavior by HRC SUPPORTERS is what raises red flags.

I have not said Hillary behaves like a neocon, I said some of her supporters use the same tactics as the neocons.

And you proved my point most glaringly. Especially by accusing me, a dissenter, as being willfully blind. Add the neocon tactic of PROJECTION to the list of tactics some HRC SUPPORTERS employ in the effort to STIFLE discussion and dissent.

that some of her detractors behave the same way you complain about. And your posts here demonstrate that.

Personally, I hope those who say this will reconsider if she becomes the nominee. But many here don't support her and don't want to have to support her. It's not that complicated.

BTW, I don't support her. But if she's nominated, she'll get my vote if not my enthusiasm.

You're much more sensible than I am, so I take this as high praise.
:pals:

I hope to heck I have someone closer to my viewpoints to vote for in the GE....

BUT if I don't I still want a Democrat to win so she will then and only then get my vote.

I'm talking about the lack of enthusiasm. It's somewhat akin to the dynamic of some of the more sanctimonious of the Kerry supporters in '04. Some of us warned that he'd have a hard row to hoe because of his extreme caution, seeming intellectualism and dryness and were resoundingly dismissed as worrywarts. The steamroller was rather evident in the late summer of '03 and he was the seeming choice of the party. As Dean grew and grew, many thought he was in the driver's seat, although many of us didn't. Once Iowa happened, the triumphalism and inevitability chorusing was used by the more strident of the faction (which was proportionately rather large on this board) and they denied those of us who worried about the electability.

After cramming him down our throats, we were often derided after the disaster of November for not having worked hard enough.

It's the same dynamic: although voicing legitimate concerns backed up by endless polls and anecdotal evidence, we're being told to be quiet and accept it. The problem is this: while some of us were luke warm on Kerry, many of us are downright cold on Clinton, and if she's defeated in the general, these same strident triumphalists who demanded that their bandwagon be given right of way will shriek with betrayal that we didn't take a loan out on our house, quit our job and canvass 24 hours a day for someone we have a hard time even debating for with a straight face.

And so it goes...

The only difference is that for various reasons they feel that neither of the major parties fits their outlook, so they are going to exercise their Constitutional right and vote for the person that they choose. What, you have something against people exercising their Constitutional rights that you see fit to hurl epithets and insults? Do you do this against other people exercising other Constitutional rights?

It is the right of any voter to vote for anybody they choose. They don't owe their vote to anybody or organization. In fact it is up to said organizations and candidates to earn peoples' votes. This assumption that people with certain views and political outlooks automatically owe their vote to one party or the other is not only ridiculous on the face of it, but it is downright unConstitutional and frankly unpatriotic to try and limit citizens in that manner.

I am arguing that it is silly, juvenile, narcissistic and possessive of a wild misunderstanding of the two party system in America, for people on a Democratic site to howl that they are going to vote third party.

I am in no way arguing their constitutional right to do so.

Capiche?

You're using insulting and inaccurate language to do so, calling out people as "silly, juvenile, narcissistic" if they refuse to go along with your lockstep view of the world. If you're going to be a partisan bully boy, at least have the courage, honesty and decency to own up to it.

if you don't like it, oh well. Stop reading it. But don't mischaracterize what I'm writing, because then you're being intellectually dishonest.

Why are you trying to stifle the rights of myself and others to speak as freely as you, and to exercise our Constitutional rights of free speech and free voting?

Please don't try and play innocent when you've got a record all over these boards of trying to bully everybody into lockstep before any primary has been voted. Geez, you could at least have the decency to wait until Hillary had it sewn up, but nooooooo.

I'm not even voting for her in the primary, bucko. So, kaboom, there goes your theory. But it amazes me that supposedly astute people who come onto a DEMOCRATIC political forum actually say they won't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee in the general.

As for "bullying," and "stifling rights" truly, use that bullshit on someone else.

:shrug:

Frankly I don't give a damn who you're voting for, after all, it is your right to vote for who you wish. But you are trying to bully and berate that right away from other people. That my friend is wrong, I don't care who they're voting for. If you don't like people having that sort of freedom, then I suggest that you find a one party paradise, like oh, say China. But frankly I've had it with you and all the other bully boys around on the DU boards, trying to beat people into some sort of lockstep before the primaries have even commenced.

How's that for fucking feeling?

by misusing it and throwing it around, hiding behind some kind of faux victimization over people actually TYPING things which you disagree with. Oh, the humanity! He just TYPED at me, mommy. Make him stop!

Please. Grow the fuck up. This is a political discussion board and everyone has a right to their opinion and mine is that people who CLAIM to be progressives and Democrats but won't vote for the eventual Democratic nominee are fucked up, juvenile, selfish little pricks that want to condemn this country to four more years of HELL.

If you don't like being called on your tactics, don't use them. Oh, and as far as that faux victimization thing goes, stop projecting, you're just making yourself look foolish.

Have a good evening, I'm off to bed. But hey, make sure you get in your last little insult. It is, after all, soooo mature:eyes:

n/t

Where have we seen that tactic before?
:think:

The cry baby Ayatollahs of the false "christians" just want to dictate who the next GOP pupp-resident will be.

(apt description) also are fearful of losing power within their own party. If a Giuliani wins the nomination, they are shown to be the fraudulent wizard behind the curtain, whose so called "power" turned out to be a heap of ash.

Similarly, our "I won't vote for Hillary" friends are fearful of being shut of the political process entirely. What they don't see is that if they get half a loaf or three quarters of one, it's infinitely better than having another four years of a Republican.

anti-choice voter, I wouldn't vote for Giuliani. Why should they? Those folks aren't really Republicans; they are one issue abortion fanatics. They might have voted Republican in every presidential election of their adult life, but that's only because the Republican presidential candidate has been more anti-choice than the Democratic candidate for decades. If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, where are those one-issue voters to go? I don't respect their views, and I generally don't respect one-issue voters, but at least I respect their unwillingness to compromise their single principle and their unwillingness to be taken for granted by the Republicans.

I have met plenty of Republicans who might skip the vote if it's Romney or Giuliani vs. Obama or Edwards even though they'd definitely vote fpr Romney or Giuliani if we nominate Hillary because their distaste for Hillary is so strong, but I haven't met any Democrats who won't vote for Hillary (although they may do so unenthusiastically and won't give time or money to the campaign).

:shrug: seems pretty substantial to me.

There are a LOT of progressives that have major problems with all sorts of aspects about the Clintons and their policies.

And- whether Hillary supporters like it or not- many of these people will NOT vote for her- for good reason- and no amount of bullying or petty posts like this are likely to change their minds.

The worst problem here though is not simply the fact that Hillary will likely lose a general election- but she'll bring out every right wing loon out there- while at the same time alienating the base, which is going to cost us all on the state and local level.

Not that the Clintons have ever cared about that fact. Not in the past- and not today.

Is there anything that can't be reduced to black and white, moranic thinking here anymore?

Us, They, Them, Those Groups over there....

Keep it up, you cute 'lil fuzzball you!