General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat troubles me most about a Hillary Clinton Presidency, is foreign policy
I don't want to get into why she so often sounds neo-con hawkish; it's enough that she does. Her corporate bent is disturbing and it's not unrelated to her hawkishness.
Oh, and yes, I know that 2014 is important and obviously imminent, but 1) I don't see anything wrong with discussing 2016. It's hardly unusual for DUers to discuss a presidential election that's 2.5 years off. 2) There's not much worth discussing as far as congressional elections in my state this year. When we get closer to November, I'll do what I always do- phone bank. And I am interested in what's happening in other states this year. Anyway, back to Hillary: I believe she'll get us into a war and that prospect is one I find horrifying. All of you devoted Hillary supporters may be right, she may be elected President, and yes she'd be better than a republican who will almost certainly get us into another way, but that's about as damned by faint praise as you can get.
I don't want to see another war. We've been at war most of my life.
Hillary Clinton Tacks Right of Obama on Foreign Policy
Hillary Clinton has begun laying out foreign-policy positions that sound a more hard-line note on Iran, Russia and other global trouble spots than is coming from President Barack Obama, underscoring how she might differentiate herself from the administration she served, should she run for president.
<snip>
Mrs. Clinton, speaking to the American Jewish Congress in New York, said that she was "personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver" on the nuclear deal reached last year.
<snip>
She added that the deal was a "development worth testing," though she hinted that military action should remain a consideration if the agreement collapses. "Let's be clear. Every option does remain on the table," she said.
In previous appearances recently, Mrs. Clinton drew parallels between the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine and Adolf Hitler before the Second World War.
<snip>
Speaking in California earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Putin's claim that his moves in Ukraine were meant to protect ethnic Russians echoed Hitler's argument in the 1930s that he wanted to protect Germans living outside of the country.
Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., said Mrs. Clinton and her husband are much admired in Israel. However, he said, "Israelis don't like world leaders being compared to Hitler. Whatever else Putin has done, he's not putting six million people in an oven."
Rosa Brooks, who worked in the Pentagon during Mr. Obama's first term and now teaches law at Georgetown University, said that Mrs. Clinton's remarks on Russia and Iran seem aimed at "positioning" herself for a possible presidential bid. She said the comments are at variance with the "sober-minded" views Mrs. Clinton expressed when she served in the administration.
<snip>
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304026304579453720053676130?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304026304579453720053676130.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)We've been down that road already.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Beacool
(30,254 posts)What she said is what many people are thinking. Do you really think that the rulers of Iran are acting in good faith? It's a wait and see game. In my personal opinion, Iran is just buying time to get the West off their backs.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I suppose the American people did the same by electing Barack Obama for two terms. I support Obama's stance, not Clinton's.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Negotiations first, then we'll see.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)To my knowledge, Obama hasn't publicly voiced his "personal skepticism".
If you want to guarantee that the Iranisns complete their nukes, take a hawkish stance. As I've said, we've been down that road before, we know the outcome - Ahmadinejad or worse.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)if Iran seeks nuclear weapons, it is in order to get the West off their backs.
In my opinion, we care about their oil. As in Iraq: remember the place we invaded because of nonexistent WMD? Even though we knew there weren't any and our inspectors said as much? If we cared about nuclear weapons we would have behaved differently, as we did in North Korea.
Iran is right to be very wary of the West. We booted their democratically-elected president and installed the Shah. We encouraged and supplied Iraq during their mutual war. We called Iran part of the Axis of Evil (as if they were pals with Iraq) and then invaded one of the other members of that "group"--the only one that we knew didn't have the weapons. In fact, we recently invaded two countries that just happen to border both sides of Iran. BTW, Iran has no history of invading others, unlike us.
I'd be concerned too. And I think we would all be far better off to try to work this out without fighting another effing war.
BTW, what if they did get nuclear weapons? One, or half a dozen? We still have 1500. Do you think they don't know there are people over here that are crazy enough to bomb their country into glass if they ever used one? Look at how we overreacted to a bunch of guys with box cutters. They might be "extremists" who practice a different religion but they are not insane.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)I would rather prefer to have Elizabeth Senator Warren as the Democratic Presidential candidate - if my dreams would come true.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)The single most important issue for 2016 is the Supreme Court IMO. In those 8 years from 2016 - 2024, two aging liberal Justices will probably need to be replaced and probably 2 of 3 conservative Justices ( Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) will probably be in need of replacement. Due to the changing demographics, the wing nuts, particularly the religious right, know that they will not be able to impose their will upon us through the Legislative Branch. Their hopes lie with the Judicial Branch.
I admire both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren but I don't believe they offer us a the best chance to win a national election. I think a women's mentality is quite different than that of a man with regards to matters of war. Hillary will have the challenge from the misogynist Right that a women isn't "tough enough". It's incumbent upon her to get out ahead of that issue.
It's all about the Judicial Branch folks. They will decide what direction this country goes in the future. We can't afford more decisions like Citizen's United and the striking down of major sections of the Voting Rights Act. We can't afford to splinter like the Right has. The stakes are just too damn high.
cali
(114,904 posts)but I couldn't disagree with you more about the "women are different when it comes to war" stuff.
Nor do I trust Hillary with judicial appointments. not at all. she is a corporate creature.
Sh voted for the IWR our of sheer political opportunism or hawkishness that took precedence over FACTS.
I wouldn't dream of voting for her in the primary. I think she'll be a fucking disaster as a president- not as bad as a repuke, but man...
yes, I'll hold my noise and vote for her if she's the nominee.
I
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you want to discuss future Supreme Court appointments, start another thread.
You not only derail the thread onto a different topic from the OP, you also then twist Cali's words. In a polite response to you, Cali already specifically said he/she'd vote for HC in the general election if HC were the Dem. candidate.
If you have any opinions on Clinton's recent comments on foreign policy, please contribute them to this thread.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Cali began the thread with this statement:
I don't want to get into why she so often sounds neo-con hawkish; it's enough that she does. Her corporate bent is disturbing and it's not unrelated to her hawkishness.
Now to the matter of her foreign policy. You can't convince me that Hillary would have done Iraq. She's not that stupid. Every candidate goes before Jewish-American groups like AIPAC and talks a tough game. Google Senator Obama's 2008 AIPAC appearance and you will see a similar posture. That's how the game is played.
Hillary was historically correct with regards to Hitler's justifications for invading Czechoslovakia and Poland. Like Putin, Hitler's original justification was the safety of German born citizens living in those countries. It's only the misuse of "Hitler" and "Nazi" example by others that has made such an analogy a "hot button" issue.
No one can know what any Presidential candidate would do when confronted with an international crisis. It's folly to think you do. What we do know is that the Republicans will try to frame a female candidate as being weak on defense issues and they'll wrap Benghazi in for good measure. She must position herself to combat these charges. Like Senator Obama, she must appeal to the Jewish-American community for obvious reasons. And like Senator Obama, you should take that with a grain of salt.
cali
(114,904 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)so complicated that you can't grasp it?
Lame. Try and exercise a few grey cells.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)that we will not be successful getting ahead of the American people. I like Sanders and Warren but they are currently unelectable in a national election. Absolutism rarely trumps realism.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)
11 Bravo
(23,928 posts)If she says it again, this time really s-l-o-w-l-y, will it sink in?
asjr
(10,479 posts)they are gods and can rule the country.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Some on here think in terms of "absolutes". Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Every international situation is unique unto itself. There were many Democrats that voted for the Iraq war. The media did not scrutinize the justifications for that war. The lack of a draft rendered the average American's viewpoint on the proposition of an Iraq war complacent at best. It was the perfect storm. Two years after 9/11 America was a different place than the one from which these Monday-morning quarterbacks speak. IMO, it is unwise and inaccurate to take the Iraq situation and extrapolate a framework on which Hillary would deal with future international situations.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)8 years of Wall Street-Clinton. We need someone that is willing to speak out, loud for the lower classes and maybe the ambivalent among us will wake up. If we run our Wall Streeter vs. the R's Wall Streeter, the public will stay home again. Ralph Nader made a big mistake when he said both parties are the same. One Party is corrupt and the other is corrupter. When I criticize the Democratic Party, I am only speaking of the Party Machine not the grassroots. We in the grassroots have to take a stand against those the Party Machine pushes on us.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)No it isn't. To the average woman/mom/wife/sister sure. If there were referendums of the public on wars, I am positive there would be much less heartache in the world.
But to a career politician, and especially a woman who keeps this idiotic 'tough' word in the forefront, war is something they have to prove that their 'tough as a maaaaaaan, and that is stinkin' dangerous and downright stupid.
Think Maragaret Thatcher. She was a horrible person that one can consider 'tough', after all she is the Iron Lady, but she was an uncaring asshole that made a lot of lives miserable because of her philosophy of 'pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' claptrap.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)A latter day roman emperor...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)What's wrong with her? She sometimes says the freaking Dumbest things. It's like there's a connection up there between her ears that is unplugged or missing.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)What not one of those videos show, is the question that preceded her response. She was responding to the CBS reporter's question as to whether Hillary's visit to Syria three days earlier was the impetus needed by the rebels to find Qaddafi. The question was ridiculous, that's why she responded with sarcasm. Hillary's trip had nothing to do with his capture.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I know this sounds trivial but it is symbolic...she sponsored a flag burning bill.
It was as if she was sending a message that she was a Conservative flag waver, when I thought she was a liberal.
yellowwoodII
(616 posts)I couldn't vote for Hillary Clinton with any enthusiasm. I remember that she voted for the Iraq War, and nothing I've heard from her makes me think that she would hesitate to get us into further wars.
90-percent
(6,834 posts)That makes her forever unfit to hold an elected office higher than dog catcher, in my opinion.
Plus she has the public record that is an excellent resume to be appointed an honorary member of the BFEE.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton is a sad political dynasty for the USA. We are a better people than that! But only if more of use shed our MSM brainwashing and turn to the internet for actual news and facts.
While we can, as the rapidly approaching end of net neutrality will kill that, also.
If not for the internet, we would already be living in a full blown totalitarian fascist police state. And it could be easily argued we are already there!
-90% Jimmy
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I cannot vote for her under any circumstances. No matter how repulsive the Republican opponent.
Hillary supports job killing trade deals. She would never consent to reining in Wall Street or the military/intelligence industrial complex. She would protect the insurance stranglehold on our health care. I know what she is, she's a corporatist all the way. Corporatist is a polite name, actually.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's not the right decision for me, but I understand perfectly why you feel you can't vote for her.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Thank goodness, for the sake of the nation, that you are in a minority among Democrats.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)just like in '08. She was the winner then before the race even started.
Once real contenders step into the ring, the numbers will change accordingly, just like in '08.
I think she has an even less chance this go round than last. Last time it was everything and the kitchen sink dumbtalk to win when she and her team realized it wasn't going to be a cakewalk. So she said some off the chart things, like Obama being less qualified to be Pres than her good friend McCain. It's on the record now and will be revisited when it comes primary time and it will not be good for her, at all.
But I do hope she runs. I want to see the final nail in that hope that Clintons will rule once again. Chelsea is not of that cloth, I doubt so very much she wants anything to do with that business so when Hillary loses, it will be the last hurrah.
Of course they will still continue do their shadow work through the foundation and go on photo happy ops to Haiti and the likes, and smile at how great they are to the slave labour there making fancy clothes at slave factories, for the Clintons superior rich friends to wear and to make money off of that sweat and misery of others.
Beacool
(30,254 posts) Whisp
(24,096 posts)
I have not heard you address a real concern of what some of Hillary's negatives are. It's always blah blah to you. Sort of reminds me of this Larson cartoon.
Ginger only hears what she wants to and recognizes, everything else as blah blah.Beacool
(30,254 posts)It's always the same bunch doing the hand wringing and tearing at their vestments over a potential Hillary run. It's as bad as on RW sites and almost as virulent.
So, after a while, it's better for one's sanity to turn off the naysayers.
If Hillary runs, I'll help her campaign with everything I got. If she doesn't, then I'll decide who I will support. In the meantime, I'm already past being bored with all the negativity on this site.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Go ahead and vote for her. I will work against her every chance I get.
She is unfit to call herself a Democrat. Hell, maybe you can get her to switch parties and become a Republican.
that's just about all we need to say here.
that acronym has not played well in obama's tenure, either.
but with hillary, the dynasty thing also disturbs me mightily; what could be less american than bush clinton *hiccup clinton/bush race??
egads.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Politics should not be like American Idol but people are stupid and empty. There's too much horse shit like "it's her turn" or "time for a woman to be POTUS". I think we need better reasons to vote for someone.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Apparently the shame of Godwins Law only applies to internet message boards
John Kerry) said that Assad ‘has now joined the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein’ in deploying chemical weapons against his population and that ‘the case remains the same’ for a U.S. response. Kerry echoed Obama in saying the world cannot stand by and watch Assad use chemical weapons."
...Kerry said Obama has the right to take action against Syria, with or without Congress' approval.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408405/Assad-joined-Hitler-Hussein-John-Kerry-says-Syrian-president-used-deadly-sarin-nerve-gas-Damascus-attack.html
In 1990, we were told that Saddam Hussein was the new Hitler, when he invaded Kuwait, which triggered the first gulf War.
The Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic was dubbed the new Hitler in 1999, during the Kosovo war.
In 2002-3, Saddam Hussein became the new Hitler for a second time, as George Bush and Tony Blair banged the drum for their illegal war against Iraq.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/ukraine-the-anti-war-movement-and-why-the-main-enemy-is-at-home
“He actually means it,” Graham said of Gadhafi. “Hitler meant it. He means it.”
http://www.salon.com/2011/07/06/lindsey_graham_gadhafi_hitler/
The so called "leaders" of the US keep pointing their fingers at others whilst their own government has ~900 military bases around the world and has started numerous wars since WW2.
What's up with all that?
without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
1 Prior to Cold War
1.1 Russia
2 During the Cold War
2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986
3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present
3.11 Ukraine 2013–2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
The people of the US not only tolerate the above in their name they watch as projection is used to lie about and portray others as that which they themselves are guilty of.
It's disgusting.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)you posted this.
I figured I'd get castigated for saying what I did, but you've stated exactly what I was alluding to. Thank you.
And here we are in Ukraine...supporting a bunch of anti-Semites. But I guess it's all right, as long as they're "our" anti-Semites.
Holy mother of God! The hypocrisy of the US of A knows no bounds.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...to Putin to Hitler is ridiculous.
Kerry, on the other hand, righfully stated that Assad, like Hilter and Saddam, deployed "chemical weapons against his population."
"Apparently the shame of Godwins Law only applies to internet message boards "
Yeah, "shame" on the Internet.
He did apologize:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/05/925827/-Glenn-Greenwald-Apologizes,-and--
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Putin's reasons for annexing Crimea were the same ones that Hitler had for annexing in 1938 the region of Czechoslovakia known as Sudetenland. Most experts think that Putin won't stop with Crimea and would like to annex other territories that belonged to the old Soviet Union, and are now independent nations.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and welcome to DU.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)For anyone who has taken the time to research what Libya was really about.
Libya, a country with the highest human development index of any country on the African continent, now doesn't even have what you could call a functioning central government.
But Gaddafi was a monster, don'tcha know. And we've moved on to bigger and better things, i.e. Ukraine, etc., in our march toward Full Spectrum Dominance.
She knew better.
cali
(114,904 posts)Beacool
(30,254 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)
Gaddafi WAS a monster.
cali
(114,904 posts)monsters more often than not.
Libyans are fAR FUCKING WORSE OFF today because of what the U.S. did.
but as far as I can see, you don't care.
Adorers disturb the hell out of me.
They're dangerous.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)It does not contribute anything to the conversation, other than bad manners.
cali
(114,904 posts)I contribute far more than you do when it comes to information. You provide adoration. go for it. as for what you think of me, that's your business and not something of great concern to me. When you have something to say that isn't based on partisanship or adoration of hillary, it might be of interest to me.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)What a load of crap one reads on this site.
Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Because it won't matter WHO we elect President if the republicans control the House and Senate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Glitterati
(3,182 posts)Because we're still having a discussion which will do nothing but divide DUers.
A very premature discussion at that.
I haven't even considered which Democrat I would vote for in 2016 because I don't even have a clue who IS running.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)The coup in Honduras was my final straw with her. After a whole litany of other outrages.
She was promoted from a Walton Family stooge to a Koch Family stooge. She's as fraudulent as the day is long on June 21st.
If she's the nominee, it will be the first presidential election I sit out since 1972.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)The gall of lying and laughing about something like that and then when caught, saying, O sorry, i misspoke.
Gawd, how does one misspeak a whole event?
And the fact Chelsea was in on the lie bothers me too. Did she volunteer, was it her idea to 'help mom'.
That unfortunate event spoke to me about what the Clintons really are like. All of them.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)But yeah, remain at home in 2016. Might as well give the Republicans the whole enchilada. They will probably win the Senate this year anyway.
2banon
(7,321 posts)I truly hope/wish we'd have a candidate who would be truly representative of democratic party electorate rather than the party bosses & Wall Street.. regardless of gender.
My previous notions of how a Woman in the office would flip the American Exceptionalism (read Imperialism and the warfare state) paradigm has been proven naive at best, but more accurately, delusional. It appears to me that any woman in that office would be compelled (pressured) to foist up existing foreign polices beyond the status quo, more like on steroids, just prove HER security bona fides/credibility.
On a side note (dare I mention this?) it occurs to me we might ought to seek a candidate who isn't married or has children, removing potential threats by various and nefarious actors pushing certain agendas which may be in conflict and opposition with the President's campaign goals and policies supported by the people. I have been compelled to consider that this scenario might have been a possibility with regards to President Obama's term in office.
It would explain a lot.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a brain could see thru the lies. Ms. Clinton is very intelligent and not fooled by the very clumsy attempt. At the time I was counting on Democrats to stand up for reason. Instead 29 Democratic Senators groveled before King Bush and gave him authority to go to war. The result may never be cleansed from our collective souls. How many tens of thousands of innocent children were brutally killed. Thousands of our soldiers lives were taken or ruined. It was a tool the 1% used to transfer trillions of the wealth from the lower classes to themselves. Why did these 29 Senators abandon their principles and their constituents and betray us? If you have an answer better than political expediency let me know. We knew Bush was lying and we relied on Democrats to at least speak out.
In any event I made a pledge then that I would never support those that betrayed their principles, their constituents, their country, their troops, the innocent people of Iraq, even if I am offered candy or a Supreme Court Justice. One has to hold to their principles at some point.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Had the American population rose up and demonstrated against the Iraq war, then the Democrats would have had political cover. The American people did not rise up in opposition to that war. On the heels of 9/11 and the absence of a draft made it all to easy for the American people to sit on their hands. Extremists, be they on the Right or Left simply refuse to accept the fact that our government is a cumulative mirror image of it's people. America didn't have a problem entering the Iraq war and the politicians simply reacted in kind.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)our government is a mirror image of it's people. Even if it was, the Democratic representatives in Congress did not reflect what their constituents wanted. Most Democrats opposed allowing an idiot like Bush to take us to war. Besides the fact that the representatives didnt follow what their constituents wanted, in a representative government, we elect representatives that are supposed to do the right thing in line with our Party platform. These Congress-people ignored the millions protesting around the world, and voted to support a Boy-King because of political expediency.
For whatever excuse you may come up with, these Democrats betrayed us all.
You may call my attitude "absolutism", I call it sticking to my principles (principles that apparently 29 Democratic Senators didnt have).
Forgive and forget? Maybe you. I cant forgive Bush/Cheney and all those that supported the Iraq War.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Where was the overwhelming outcry by the people with regards to the Iraq war ? Geez, I must have missed it. Perhaps the far Left was against the war but not moderate Democrats. The lack of a draft coupled with the post 9/11 backdrop made it all to easy. That history you cannot revise.
Here's a March 2003 Pew Research survey showing that the decision to go into Iraq enjoyed a 72% support rating of the American people. Her vote was a mirror image of popular opinion;
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Los Angeles, Seattle, etc. but were all ignored by Congress. Millions around the world protested. Most polls showed closer to 50% approval before the invasion and most of those only agreed if the invasion was approved by the UN. Of those 50% most were Republicans.
I am flabbergasted by your defense of those that supported the Iraq War.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)72% polled in March 2003 supported the Iraq invasion. Don't worry about Hillary or anyone else with regards to international intervention. Rather, push to have the draft re-instituted and then the American people will have "skin in the game" again. Only 1% of our population are directly affected by war. The other 99% sit on their butts watching it on television like it's nothing more than a video game. The American people cannot absolve themselves of their responsibilities.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)but maybe not - all the tv assholes were lying their pathetic heads off about how the war was a good thing and to get behind the President because dang, he's our CiC (even Dan Rather, the pathetic shit that I will never forgive for doing that).
And unfortunately, a lot of people are as stupid as Hillary and Rather and all the rest of the yappers. Anti war voices were scarce and far between during that time. Phil Donahue got fired for questioning the war.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)This is the most ass backwards defense of the Iraq war I've read so far.
As for the draft, how did that work out in Vietnam? It didn't. The rich and powerful still avoided military service. Your argument is nonsense.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)supported the war in March 2003. You want to place that albatross around Hillary's neck to the exclusion of the American people as a whole. You're typical. You offer criticism without solutions. A Democratic Senator's vote 2 years after 9/11 has absolutely no bearing on a President's initiative to war.
Great, while the entire Right wing of this country will be attacking her for being a woman, weak on defense, unable to take that 3 a.m. phone call, you geniuses on the Left fringe will simultaneously be trying to frame the same woman as a warmonger. Gee, I can hardly wait.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Luckily we had a President (JFK) who was willing to do what's right and not just act on popular opinion.
If the President's only job is to govern based on popular opinion and polls, then it shouldn't matter who is elected. Your argument is bullshit.
cali
(114,904 posts)read some of those speeches.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Yes 21 Democrat Senators voted against but 29 Democrat Senators voted for the resolution. The last time I checked 29 of 50 represents a majority of Democrats voting for the resolution. A note: it's fine with me if you choose to reply to me with a rude and insulting post as long as you don't whine when I return the favor. Refusing to take what one dishes out seems to be the MO for posters like you.
cali
(114,904 posts)and those who valued their own political ambitions over the lives of millions, voted for it. Statesmen and stateswomen voted against that fucking blank check to W.
Oh, and honey, I can take whatever you wish to dish. no problem. go for it.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Electing her is the same as putting the likes of Goldman and Walmart in the White House.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Money controls politics or haven't you heard ?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Hillary Clinton good.....enough 2016!
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Money in politics trumps everything else. The next President will have to raise in excess of $1 billion directly and $1 - $3 billion in outside PAC money. I don't care what candidate you're talking about. You can't raise that kind of money and not owe anybody. It's naive to think you can change the behavior of a particular candidate without addressing the systematic flaws that said candidate must operate within to be elected.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)If they're all tainted and we can't expect better from one politician than another, what's the point of voting?
Your going to tie yourself in knots trying to find excuses. 
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)As long as money continues to flow towards politicians in unprecedented amounts, then it is just an exercise of picking the lesser of the two evils. You tie yourself into knots by hoping you can wish reality away. Nothing will change politically in this country until the people change first. The average American has become disengaged and intellectually lazy. I don't like that and you don't like that, but, until that changes you won't see the impetus for any major reforms. If the 2008 financial collapse didn't motivate the people, then what will ?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Maybe a populist left leaning movement is what the people need to be woken up? Sometimes it takes a president with guts to do the right thing regardless of what popular opinion is.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)What do we know for sure given the two most recent Presidential elections ? We know the country is divided. Right wingers will vote Republican. Left wingers will vote Democrat. Recent elections have turned on who wins the middle 10 - 15%. In the last 2 elections, the Republican strategy has been to skew Right, they didn't win the middle and, therefore, lost two consecutive times. What I think I'm hearing from some here is that you wish to copy that strategy in 2016. I'm saying that if we choose a candidate that skews too far to the Left, then we'll be the ones losing the middle and, therefore, the election.
I wish it were different. I'd love to see a Bernie Sanders in the White House. I think the Republicans would shut him down just like they're doing to Obama but the symbolism would be great just the same. But, like single payor, I am convinced that it's just not politically attainable in this current political environment. We're on the same team and same page, we just differ on strategy.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The status quo will be intact.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)You expect the very politicians that benefit from the system to change the system. Change must come from the bottom-up. And the truth of the matter is, unlike those of us motivated on these sites, the average American doesn't care to be bothered. Until that changes, the status quo is all that's available to us.
TBF
(32,160 posts)because the presidency is an administrative position. Obama keeps saying "make me do it". Some people don't like that because it is going to take work on their behalf. If you could go to the voting booth and find a lever that says "immediate taxation of anyone making over 1 million a year - 90%" and "no tax breaks for large corporations" we would all pull those levers. Unfortunately they don't exist.
Change in a democracy is not only voting but more importantly advocating with our speeches, writing, marches and strikes.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)It seems as though many are comfortable with the status quo. They say that it's better to elect a Democrat as President as opposed to a Republican, but when the Democrat is only slightly better than a Republican, well, nothing is going to change.
I'm sure if Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, or Bernie Sanders got the nomination, things would drastically change. But that won't happen because people say they're "unelectable".
TBF
(32,160 posts)speeches, writing that is widely disseminated, marches, strikes.
Those are the keys.
Do you know why FDR passed the new deal? He was forced to by socialists gaining % at the polls. He was threatened by that. We need to make some noise.
People like this guy motivated people:
Eugene V. Debs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Election are won by those who win the 10 - 15% in the middle. The last 2 Presidential elections have seen the Right losing that fight for the middle by skewing too far right. So you think it's a good idea to copy that Right wing strategy and field a candidate that skews farther to the left so that we risk losing that all important middle and the Republicans will win in 2016. No thank you.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)You jump the gun quick.
Kild the Radio Star
(30 posts)Talking tough on Iran at the American Jewish Congress is not exactly gutsy.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Hillary (if she runs) will make her case; her opponents will make their case. There should be some interesting debates. Personally I am leaning towards Hillary, but let's see what happens. That's what primaries are for.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Her advantage at this point is that she has everyone's attention every time she opens her mouth so she can take our pulse at leisure. She can also take the pulse of the pundits and journalists who write about her.
She'll be quite well prepared.
I've grown weary of the Bushes and the Clintons. They've been unceasingly in our lives for 20 years.
But if she's the nominee I'll vote for her if only to thwart the Republicans.
alp227
(32,082 posts)then Archive.is will generate a URL in this case: http://archive.is/79piQ
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)and the economic policies the Third-Way supports. That's what bothers me the most.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Rubbing elbows with daddy bush, playing golf with Larry Summers and Bob Rubin. Raking in the dough with his fake foundation.
I've really had more than enough of him.
OTOH, maybe he can get a blow job and keep us all laughing at him.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)What a nonsensical and crass comment, re: your last sentence.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Her quote was "I have nothing to be sorry for". Really? How about 5,000 dead American Soldiers and between 100,000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and more than $1,000,000,000,000 squandered for nothing.
That alone should be enough reason for her to never be considered a "Democrat" then you also have to remember that she is a complete lapdog to wall street, big banks, and corporations. She might occasionally talk the talk, but she certainly isn't a Democrat when it comes to actions.
I really really really despise Hillary Clinton. I don't trust at all that she has the best interest of the middle class or America in her heart as is clearly illustrated by the one example of her vote for the war on Iraq. It was nothing more than a politically expedient position for her to take and either she has no morals or is quick to discard them when her own personal gain is on the line. Again, I don't trust Hillary Clinton at all.
cali
(114,904 posts)well, except reproductive rights.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and I would help with that pressure.
Sending others kids to maim and death and suffering while yours is cuddly safe in some fancy condo is despicable whether it's a Pug or a Dem or a Libertarian or anyone.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The protection of power and influence, assets and asses demands a stern foreign policy.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Like Obama, she is also a huge fan of the bloated executive powers that presidents now routinely claim. That along with the hawkishness are enough to make me want someone else.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)oh yeah, she's part of The Family. 
That and her hawkishness were the big reasons I strongly preferred Obama in the '08 primaries.
