was "just right."

So what TWM is saying: "It takes a Republican to know a Republican?" A former Republican can reveal what a Candidate who ran as a Dem but governed favoring Republicans Couldn't Do?

Or, I'm reading you very wrong...and should just take a break from DU. And, Elizabeth knows what Repubs do and she figures its TIME FOR A BREAK?

Is that what you are finding "Interesting?" I'm usually up on getting "TWM"s posts..but, this one is a bit confusing.

I understand the cynicism/curiosity.....on the other hand..the GOP "used" to be more Way more worker friendly, way less wall street/big bank friendly...they, by majority were, by todays standards further left than our own Dem leadership is today, imo...
That said..she watched her party sink when the extreme rw "christian" conservatives hit...Is she simply recognizing the disease of greed invade the Dem party and sounding the alarm or is she "up to something"? Or is she simply doing her job in that she's trying to protect her constituents and the rest of us. I know I've learned a lot from her and I hold great respect for her...anything else? I just don't know.

I trust the hell out of Sanders..I'm thinking they sound like each other right now.

No?

Just think: he was born in New York, but he's a Senator from Vermont.

Doesn't necessarily mean he's working with Warren to destroy the Democratic Party, but... can we really take that chance?

Regards,

TWM

at all about either of them.

But, since we're talking about a Dem party split...perhaps a separation between the corporate wing and the populist wing wouldn't be all that bad.

The corporatists in both parties clearly do not act like their respective bases are all that important to them as it is.

Maybe I'm naïve but I gotta say..the Dem party split, imo...is already well under way and has been for awhile now and neither Sanders nor Warren played a part in that..it was the growing anger, frustration and overall job performance of those Dems we elected.....caves, capitulations, bi-partisan bs when legislation was so toxic out of the gate to begin with, there was no room for reasonable compromise(s) to make it better.

Republicon. I switched parties a couple of times while trying to figure out which party want war less than the other back in the late 60's.

As far as splitting the Party, who is responsible, the one that adheres to Democratic Principles or the one that abandons Democratic Principles when the mood strikes?

I am tempted to report TWM to the hosts and would if you didn't out rank me (pun intended).

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Former Republican, huh?

Questioning authority?

A true Democrat is flexible. Very, very flexible. Like Silly Putty.

"Silly Putty"? I kinda like that. Wonder if it's been used here. Hmm. Make a great handpuppet name.

who can tell the difference, right?

Really, there's just one list, with different levels of user privileges, and everyone is on that list.

But I stink at figuring those things out.

over someone who's been faking it for 40.

Kochs.

Now I know the Kochs aren't all bad and did great work with the DLC, but They will run a fifty state strategy to help him defeat Clinton (who as we all know is the only sensible person for the job of POTUS) and this knowledge must be spread far and wide.

There is already talk about it around here, where there is smoke there is fire, mark my words, Sanders is the new Koch!

I figure I am on ignore because that seems to how you handle things, but I'm not willing to let your false accusation slide.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Not that I am making that argument but this line of reasoning could come to bear, and I am really frightened by the prospect and consequences of a Hillary presidency.

How bad can a Hillary presidency be? It will help the Republicans, not hurt them.

Because a Hillary presidency will mobilize the Right and grow their numbers in Congress AND possibly lead to a strong case for a Republican POTUS following her reign. We do NOT want a republican congress AND President.

Also, I think she ruins the Democratic Party brand.

We're already deeply disappointed in the way unions and the working class have been largely abandoned, and Clinton doesn't seem particularly interested in moving us back to the left.

Thus, a George Pataki type populist Repbulican, for example, might have a shot of pulling away votes from Democrats who don't like Clinton.

But if Warren was the nominee, she would clearly keep those votes.

Why take chances?

She needs to step down, someone needs to step up.