2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton Sheds Progressive Façade with Bold Rightward Lurch
11/19/2015
by Sarah Lazare
Common Dreams
"I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and progressive commitment," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the Democratic debate in October. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
From her call for a major air and ground war against ISIS to her attack on single-payer, observers note that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is rapidly shedding her "progressive" façade as she grows increasingly confident she has the Democratic nomination locked down (an assumption which, evidence shows, is debatable).
This trend comes despite her declaration during the first Democratic debate in October, after being pressed by the CNN moderator: "I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to progressive experience and progressive commitment."
Growing more hawkish by the day
In case there was any doubt, Clinton's much-anticipated foreign policy speech on Thursday makes it clear she plans to run on her hawkish credentials.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Clinton called for a "new phase" in the fight against the Islamic State (referred to as ISIS or IS), including a major intensification in a bombing campaign; "ground forces actually taking back more territory;" an "intelligence surge;" and no-fly zones over Syria. "Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS," she said, in an implicit criticism of President Barack Obama as being too tepid on military interventionand a signal that she intends to tack far to his right.
Since working under Obama's White Househardly the image of restraintthat's exactly what Clinton has been doing. As Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss recently pointed out last year, Clinton used her secretary of state role to consistently advocate escalation of military force, from Afghanistan to Libya to Syria, making her the pro-war wing of the Obama administration.
Clinton has only moved further in the militarist direction after exiting the administration, expressing skepticism of the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, escalating her rhetoric towards Russia, and proclaiming an "unbreakable bond" with the widely-reviled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Clinton has stated publicly that she believes that her vote in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong and has been pressed on this issue during the campaign, including during Saturday's Democratic debate, where she admitted: "I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now."
But as many others have pointed out, in the years since Clinton cast her vote in favor of the Iraq War, she appears to have learned nothing. "If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination," Vox's Zack Beauchamp warned in April, "she'll be the most hawkish Democratic nominee since the Iraq War began."......
........Speaking in Dallas on Tuesday, Clinton launched an unbridled attack on Bernie Sanders' plan for a single-payer, publicly-funded, universal healthcare program. "I dont see how you can be serious about raising working and middle class families' incomes if you also want to slap new taxes on themno matter what the taxes will pay for," she said.
Her statements were followed up by those of top Clinton aides speaking to media outlets. "If you are truly concerned about raising incomes for middle-class families, the last thing you should do is cut their take-home pay right off the bat by raising their taxes," spokesperson Brian Fallon told Politico.
The push captured the ire of single-payer advocates, including National Nurses United. "Any politician that refuses to finance guaranteed healthcare has abandoned my patients, and I will never abandon my patients," said NNU Co-President Jean Ross, RN.
According to Slate staff writer Jim Newell, Clinton is "essentially red-baiting about Bernie Sanders Wacky Taxes in her dismissal of a policy that, on paper, draws plenty of support among Democratic voters."
Newell argued that Clinton, in fact, is going further than many in her own party by "appropriating one of the rights central talking points against government-funded universal health insurance: Think of the taxes!
Shes not just saying that a single-payer system is a political nonstarter with conservatives. Shes reciting the actual conservative talking point that would make a single-payer system a political nonstarter."...........
..........Also on Saturday, Clintondespite her vows to tackle Wall Streetreiterated her opposition to the Glass Steagall Act, which was repealed by her husband in 1999 and would break up big banks by splitting investment and commercial banking. Her position, in fact, is popular with Wall Street, but increasingly unpopular with those demanding economic equality and accountability for the financial institutions behind the 2008 financial crisis.
"The big six banks in this country have 43 percent more deposits, 81 percent more assets and three times the amount of cash they had before the financial crisis," author and Demos fellow Nomi Prins said last month. "A major reason America has such an inequality problem is that it has a highly concentrated, establishment-supported casino banking system that disperses capital toward more risky endeavors than infrastructure building and small and mid-size business support."
Meanwhile, Walmart workers on Wednesday took their demands for $15 an hour to the Brooklyn headquarters of Clinton, who refused their request for all candidates to address their demands at last week's debates...........
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/19/clinton-sheds-progressive-facade-bold-rightward-lurch
(This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Bold for emphasis is my own)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)she's decided to go for the insane, RIGHT WING WARMONGER vote. That's fitting.
Except the GOP/TEABAGGERS hate her with a burning passion - good luck with that strategy!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I can't imagine a more screwed up presidential election.
Idiocracy is here.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Warmongering during the Primary? That's just insane. I think her internal polling shows she doesn't have the Progressive vote, so she's decided to go for the warmongering RW vote instead. Which is absolutely crazy logic since they HAAAAAATE her.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Politically motivated republicans can't STAND her.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)It's a really dumb strategy! Last I heard, the true Liberals /Progressives are anti-war, so she doesn't have those votes. Third Way/NeoLiberals and the warmongering neocons will vote for her and that's it. IOW, the 1%.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)She's trying too hard to be all things to all people.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Go Bernie!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Volaris
(10,270 posts)among their own voter base by election day??
None of the Real Crazies really WANT to vote for another Bush or Kasich, and the Wall Street Class (the Party Establishment) over there know full well that Trump or Cruz cannot be the Party standard-bearer, so....
But honestly, if she trying to build 51% out the people pissed off about a series of Split Decisions, that seems like a wholly unnecessary amount of pandering she's going to have to do just to put her hand on that Bible..
Don't get me wrong, I WILL support the Democratic Nominee for President. But I don't have to approve of how it gets done, and she isn't our nominee YET.
Peace and Solidarity, fellow Democrats=)
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Right, except all the women that will vote for her because she has a vagina.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)I don't know what she's thinking! And doing this during the Primary? I think she wants to lose because Teabaggers/GOP aren't voting for a Clinton.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)They watch her far more closely than we do and Republicans, in my experience, are deeply suspicious of anything they regard as "inauthenticity".
Moderates and independents actually make up the bulk of the US electorate, but they aren't swayed by rhetoric, she doesn't mean anything to them. If she's looking for people from that cloud of disinterested participants she needs to be very careful. One good strike from the right could dislodge her completely.
She's busy triangulating on everybody's ass.
Be very quiet, she's hunting rabids.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We keep offering our most conservative politicians, and then our party heads complain that the left doesn't show up, and act confused that the right doesn't jump for them.
The only organization that is more consistently out-of-touch with reality than the DNC is PETA... and only by a little.
dogknob
(2,431 posts)... is the way to control the country.
That and owning the MSM.
Let the people take out their frustration on a Dem President who can't do anything real with a recalcitrant Congress.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)course with a nuclear-armed Russian Federation. (Think Cuban Missile Crisis at supersonic speeds, rather than the relatively slow nautical speeds). Wonder whether HRC has been listening to those crazed Russo-phobes Brzezinski, Nuland and Kagan.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I'd say she's been listening to them quite a bit. She sounds just like them.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...for her as well? Because that's what it would take to elect her if she goes full neocon.
The Democratic base will not support her. Forget about the Republicans. They despise her. All of the warmongering fools on the Republican side are Fox News viewing, conservative crazies. They'd never vote for her. Why would they, when their own Republican nominee will be a warmonger and agree with them on being anti-choice, anti-gay, and pro-NRA?
I don't think independents will be attracted by a warmongering stance. Many were attracted to Obama because of his anti-war views and "no" vote on the Iraq war. Being a war hawk is only attractive to a certain political animal--and those nut jobs are on the right. Being a neocon isn't exactly bait for the Independents and moderates.
She's narrowing her potential supporters with these hawkish views.
So strange.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It really often seems that Trump is mostly out to make a republican win impossible.
Triangulation is all about exploiting opportunity.
The question of whether she's really corralled the democratic left remains unanswered until primaries and caucuses provide meaningful results.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Only 11% of the electorate is actually willing to vote for either party.
40% of the electorate will vote for "their" party or they will stay home. This is where you will find those disaffected Republicans.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)NOT for a Clinton, it doesn't. They are hated with a burning passion by the GOP/TEABAGGERS. Even her warmongering isn't going to bring them to her - no way in hell. The Benghazi! Hearings, email/server investigations are just a small taste of things to come. There's already an investigation into the Clinton Foundation's dodgy bookkeeping practices. They aren't going to stop there. The GOP hate the Clintons and want to run them out if town.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The republican base -isn't- all tea-jahadists. Considering how intensely radical the republican primary has become, there doesn't seem to be a home for moderate, dare I say, sensible republicans who still want government.
The historic pattern of presidential pursuit is to run to your own party's base to win the nomination and then run toward the middle during the GE hoping to peel off the more moderate voters in the opposing party.
Seems like any moderate r's would already be feeling like they don't have a pick on their side. And HRC seems ready to abandon the left as her campaign thinks they've got a lock on it. In more ways than one.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)That is not a very old pattern - started in the 90s by the Clinton campaign. And has not proved itself very successful. The black voter won it for President Obama but since then we have lost the House, the Senate and many Governor's seats.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I remember Dukakis doing it and the DLC pretty much abhorred Dukakis and flogged him to make the DLC look like dem knights in shining armor.
But even if it did begin in the mid-90s that's 20 years and 6 campaigns ago. When I was at aTm doing something once was a -pattern- and doing it twice was a -tradition-.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)first campaign. So you might be right that they gave it a run earlier. They lost then to.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...that Hillary believes she's got a lock on the left in the Dem party, as you said.
Bernie Sanders is polling at 31 percent in Iowa. This is the state where the campaigns are the most active. Ads are running, events are happening.
Sanders is behind Clinton by 20: Obama was behind Clinton by 15, at this point in the 2008 Primary.
This looks like a redux of 2008, with the Left abandoning her today (as they did in 2008). It appears that she's accepting that the progressives will support Sanders so she's abandoning even trying to get their votes. So she's running for the center now.
She knows VERY WELL from 2008, that trying to Run left is not a winning formula for her campaign. She lost the 08 nomination with that strategy.
It appears, to me anyway, that she is abandoning the left.
I don't know though. I can't imagine that this would be successful!
This is weird!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Sanders explains how to tell if a policy's hurting you and how to stop supporting those policies with your vote
same thing at Bob Jones: everyone else who's ever spoken there just doughfaced themselves onto the "Values Voters," Sanders lays out how to examine whether one's truly acting Christian and adds some economic considerations to US religious expression; many were shocked that they weren't being pandered to for the first time in decades, that there WAS an honest pol who didn't just repeat everything that the audience believed back at them, but gives HIS positions and puts all the positions in a bigger context--he brought theology to the table
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)We really need him now.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I don't even think she's genuinely passionate about this. I think it's opportunism because of the recent attacks and so she's using the fear card just like a Repug would.
If everything were peaceful, she'd be in tie-dye and holding up two fingers.
She seems more interested in herself than the country. THAT'S very GOP!
Can you imagine if there were more debates ...when people wanted to watch them?
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)until after the nomination, win or lose, to sprint back to the right.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Guess she's feeling extremely confident.
She does seem to be the most powerful person in DC these days. Pity she's a conservative. How great for our country if she was actually progressive.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...her corporate donors (especially the defense contractors) know that she has to run to the left to be competitive in the primary.
And her corporate donors know, as do the Progressives in our party, that talk is cheap and meaningless--and that she doesn't mean a word of it.
So...I also wonder why she is doing this.
I'm trying to keep it simple and apply Occam's Razor...I got nothing.
I'm very curious about this.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)curiosity killed the cat. I kid.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...nine lives.
But then again, I die every day (several times actually) the more I follow Hillary Clinton trumpeting her neocon ways.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)the Republican nomination.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)it would be a nice change to face off against a sane republican.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...she's not at that level of craziness.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)When Republicans want to protect their rich donors from progressive taxation (more taxes on the rich) they tell the public that low-and-middle income workers will have their taxes increased.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)is going to use that.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)A vote for Hillary is a vote against your own self interest.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Cause they're not 'real people' just 'collateral damage' in the 'war on Terra!'
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You need to reel in your hysteria a bit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While I could argue that your statement might be true for one's Democratic primary vote; but, it is patently false, if she should be the Democratic nominee in the G/E.
In fact, I would argue that any non-vote for HRC in the G/E is a vote against your own self-interest.
Would you agree?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Because Hillary is not the change we need.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And, while this:
Is debate ... I do not understand the myopia that allows one to even consider a non-vote for HRC in the G/E, should she be the Democratic nominee.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)"We came, we saw, he died" will never get my vote.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)while the rest of the electorate, and hopefully, DU can understand that a HRC presidency will look very different, and have very different effects, than a presidency of ANY of the republican candidates.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Do you NOT have a choice to make about the NEW alternatives that present, i.e., HRC (or O'Malley) vs. whomever the republicans advance?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)As stated before, many times, I will vote for Bernie.
I will never vote for "we came, we saw, he died"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's your vote to do what you will with.
But after the primaries, and before posting comments regarding the G/E, I would strong recommend reading the ToS.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)at which point I will change my party affiliation to independent and leave DU as the party will have irrevocably left me.
I have been a solid Dem voter and worker for 40 years. I will have absolutely NO regrets writing Bernie in for the general.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...and I often see Hillary supporters painting Bernie supporters into a corner--almost bullying them into the whole, "Oh, really? But will you vote for her during the general election?"
I think this is really manipulative. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.
I appreciate that you posted your plans. I'm not saying you did anything wrong.
Just pointing out that I think this is a way that some Hillary Clinton supporters bully others into eventually admitting that they'll be voting for her. A tactic which attempts to position her as the "inevitable one" who will eventually be the nominee. She isn't inevitable. She wasn't in 2008, as her campaign suggested, and she isn't in 2015.
It's an irrelevant question right now--because we're dealing with the primary. And again, no Bernie supporter should feel pressured to answer such a question. How a person votes is private.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh stop with this news of the future!
No one has to decide this now.
Stop pretending Sanders' supporters have a tough decision now. They don't.
I'll decide when the time comes who I'm gonna vote for in the general.... and it's none of your business.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)they will not vote for HRC (and presumably O'Malley, since the language sometimes gets sloppy), should Bernie not be the Democratic nominee.
And, ...
Why are you takes my posts so personally? If it doesn't apply to you (And I've been, pretty specific as to whom I am posing the question to), then just ignore it!
I'm noticing a character trait here, among SOME Bernie supporters ...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh stop acting like I said such a thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)"Stop pretending Sanders' supporters have a tough decision now. They don't. "
I'm not interested in predictions of the future.... nor loyalty oaths....
Go clutch your pearls and stop harassing voters.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and stop working so hard to have yourself in the class of (non) voters of whom I am addressing.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)..."posting the question" to Bernie any supporter who directly say (or indirectly indicate) that they won't vote for Hillary in the general election?
Bottom line, how a person will vote--a year from now--is none of your business.
You shouldn't be "posting the question" to anyone, frankly.
I personally think it's a form of bullying.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While I don't think I will affect how someone will vote, it really is my business, since I will have to live with their decision.
I personally think it's a form of bullying.
While I'm sorry you feel that way ... I really don't care; this is a discussion board. If you see me as a bully ...
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...and insisting that your neighbors tell you how they will vote.
I'm just saying that it really is none of your business.
A person's vote is sacred.
If a person tells you, that's one thing. Loads of discussion can arise from that.
However, no one should be asking.
And I don't see you as a bully. I think the behavior (pushing people to reveal how they will vote) is bullying behavior.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The people I am addressing have already declared, loudly and frequently, that they will not vote for anyone other than Bernie in the G/E.
I'm not "pushing people to reveal how they will vote" ... I'm questioning the wisdom of their public statements.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)It's too terrible to think about
For me at keasr, I take the attitude of "I'll deal with that if/when it happens" , and im hoping it doesnt (I'm an optimist)
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Bingo.
I don't see it as anything to worry about now. It's merely a "gotcha" at this point.
Mainly because you can just reverse the names and ask the same useless question.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)seen the middle and working classes decimated to assure Goldman-Sachs and corporations make bigger and bigger profits.
How naive to think that the billionaires investing millions and hundreds of millions in her campaign, her foundation, and her personal wealth, don't want a return on their money. A big return. She does a bad job of pretending to care about the People first. Her first allegiance is to those that are buying her the presidency. We might see some social changes, but the wealth gap and the poverty rates are going to climb.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)should HRC gain the Democratic nomination, do you think she would be the better alternative than whomever the republicans advance?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to fight off the corruption of big money dominating our government. The middle and working classes are falling farther and farther behind. I volunteer at a food bank and the numbers of clients are up and donations down. We need a change. A Goldman-Sachs sponsored President won't help us. We also provide sever weather sheltering for the homeless. This can not go on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Do you think you will get any of that by NOT voting for the Democratic Primary winner?
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #196)
tex-wyo-dem This message was self-deleted by its author.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)More news of the future, I see.
What of O'Malley wins! OMG!!!!!!
Can we do the primaries 1st? She hasn't won.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)At this point, I really can't say if Hillary would be that much different, or even what she stands for or what she is. She changes positions so often with such ease that I really and honestly don't know. For all I know, we could have another GWB on our hands.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I am confident that a HRC presidency will be very, and positively, different from ANY of that brought by the gop.
Honestly!
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)I don't trust her....at all. I see her lips moving and hear words coming out of her mouth, but it has zero impact, zero meaning to me, and often make me retch because I know she doesn't mean what she's saying and lying.
She was at the bottom of my list in '08 for the very same reason.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Really? If you think a HRC presidency will look like a republican presidency ... I just don't know what to say.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)And perhaps some socially progressive bones, but the rest of it, straight out republican.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and an economic, fiscal, environmental, foreign affairs, and domestic policy agenda that are diametrically opposed to the republican economic agenda ... but, other than that, yeah, straight out republican.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)She's for fracking, supported kxl, supported artic drilling, has a tepid at best plan for combatting climate change, is an aggressive warhawk (MIC BFF) who supported the IWR, patriot act, against a living wage of $15/hr, does not support tuition free state funded colleges, does not support single payer, supports "no new taxes", supported NAFTA and supports the TPP (both horrible policies for labor and the environment), supports same ole Neo-liberal approach to globalization, did not support LBGT rights until relatively recently when it became politically acceptable, is Wall Street's BFF and does not support reistating GS, etc etc etc
Other than that, her policies are "diametrically opposed" to republicans.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)though "diametrically opposed" may be a exaggeration, is fallacious.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)to go off the cliff of sanity on the belief that Hillary is better than the alternatives.
Hillary would be the tool of Deception, Theft and War. She's said so, repeatedly. I believe her, and I won't be part of confirming her to that course.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)'Frowning fascism, or smiling fascism, take yer pick!"
When did it become acceptable to Democrats for their Presidential candidates to hold war & military policy positions and records akin to George W Bush & John McCain?
Demeter
(85,373 posts)just as much as the GOP, but in OUR party! Making fascism and eternal war acceptable to the weak-minded and amoral.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Fully aware of the fact there is a good chance it will cost the Dems the general election. It's the stupidest thing I have ever seen out of a Democratic candidate.
Watch her poll numbers start to dive now that she has turned Republican.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Their little blame game won't work.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Not a productive stance, and not one being embraced by HRC supporters with respect to Sanders.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)some seem to that the world ends, at the end of the Democratic primary.
While that might end what appears to be the sunset of their mission ... for the rest of us, at that point we are presented with different choices.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter, and think he is by far the best choice, but I would certainly have no problem voting for O'Malley, or Biden if he were running. I can think of dozens of Dems I think could make good presidents that i would vote for.
I just don't trust Hillary, at all. Something about her just gives me a very bad feeling.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Would you agree?
(Edit - I changed the phrase from "only ethical" to "best ethical" within a minute of my initial post, but it looks like 1SBM pounced on it pretty quick and responded to the original title. I wonder if he would agree with "best ethical", and if not, why not.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In fact, I see that as a rather silly statement.
TheBlackAdder
(28,186 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)peacebird, at the start of this subthread, made it clear that Sanders was the ONLY choice. Android changed the language, so... it seems that muddled semantics, in this case, was a team effort.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the commenter went back and edited his/her post AFTER I replied.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It seems there was no malice or intent to deceive on Android's part, but the initially invisible edit created a stir.
Thumbs up to Android for explaining.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)despite the "pounced on" language, that makes the edit explanation less sincere.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)his/her post ... after I replied.
Apology accepted.
Luciferous
(6,078 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)You are a much much better poster than that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I very short post I responded to, said ONLY ethical choice. The OP went back and edited the post, after I replied.
Have I re-established my much, much better poster status?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not anymore.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)How simply can we put that for you?
If you're so "strong", then answer the question.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How about going back and read the post's edit history? ... HOW ABOUT GOING BACK AND READ THE POST'S EDIT HISTORY? ...
Then, man/woman the F up and apologize!
And, Oh yeah... I'm plenty strong and I did answer the question ... BOTH of them!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)which would have been more than ONE HOUR before I and many others responded. You had more than enough time to edit your response. These things happen. No need to get your knickers in a twist and start cursing.
So, to quote you (for the benefit of a jury), I suggest you man the F up and apologize to me for your foul language.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You just got caught out there when the OP changed his/her post. But lack the integrity to admit it.
Not going to happen!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But no ... I don't consider Bernie is the best ethical choice, either.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You can only 'vote against your best interests' by voting FOR someone.
If your best interests are not served by any candidate, then not voting for any of them is not 'voting against your best interests'.
I will vote for the best of all candidates on offer in the general, whether or not I feel they have any chance of winning the general.
Thus I will be voting for 'my best interests' even though a bunch of other people vote to elect someone else.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)She will hold the status quo (slow death) versus her Republican opponents who will sink our country in a single term (suicide).
I'll vote for Hillary but only if we fail to save our country first.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)That's sort of like those boiling frogs, isn't it?
The boiling frog is an anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to threats that occur gradually, such as climate change. - Or the death of the middle class
Maybe what the US needs is to be dropped into a boiling pot of water; that way they just might be suddenly awakened to what reality really is, and start protesting by the 10's of millions for change.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I prefer a quick death to a slow painful death, but I don't plan on dying. I plan to fight and survive. If Clinton is elected it will be at least eight years before we will have another shot at a progressive president. I'm certain if a republican wins it will be only one term. The question is can America survive one term of republican rule? I hope Bernie wins the nomination so I don't have to make that choice. Things are about to get really interesting!
zazen
(2,978 posts)i really, really, really don't want to have to vote for Clinton.
It says something that the only way I could do so is if the alternative is promoting unapologetic thuggish fascism. Not much of a "choice."
Too bad our primary is dominated by "party insiders," since in several polls Sanders has greater support among all voters than Clinton.
Hillary is bought and paid for. The oligarchy is going to get what it paid for come hell or high water.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)To do in the GE, should HRC be our party's nominee.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,510 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Let's get rid of anyone to the left of Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ford.
Consign those damn librals to the outer circles of Hell.
(Pardon my hyperbolie, but unless the Democrats want to really narrowcast, it has to be more welcoming to someone besides conservative "centrists." )
brooklynite
(94,510 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)She needs a long rest to bring her morals back into balance...perhaps playing with her grandchild will ground her.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Why don't they retire to some One Percent enclave and give the rest of the world a chance at peace?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)It's not because the Clinton's have spent a lifetime serving corporations and billionaires in government.
You see it's $80 million worth of god's blessings. Let's not question god's decision on this one.
http://time.com/2851938/hillary-clinton-dead-broke-obviously-blessed/
safeinOhio
(32,674 posts)decent medical care for the middle class, but can find the funds, twice as much, for wars of choice?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)seriously. Among other copious amounts of hyperbolic poppycock.
This isn't a "progressive" article. this is garbage.
Mmmmm, mmm. How I do love the taste of propaganda and outright lies against the Democratic Front runner (and only actual Democrat) firs thing in the morning. It does soften the bitterness of my coffee.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Could go towards healthcare for Americans? (& schools too & maybe food stamps)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/pentagon-budget_n_3915277.html
Neoliberalism is destroying US.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Pentagon budget??
Unlike you, I'll follow your topic. I think a very large part of that budget... more than either candidate is proposing could go away to improve social programs.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)see there are other ways to help fund it.
And a small hike in taxes would be a hell of lot better than these high monthly payments & ridiculously high deductibles & no real choice in healthcare providers.
And god forbid we're in an accident & taken unconscious to a hospital that isn't in our network. This has bankrupted many good people....one of countless problems with our current healthcare/insurance system....
I don't want a republican in office for so many reasons, including this. And I just wish our "front runner" wasn't one of them.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)health care would lower the total cost of health care for the whole Country? Do you really think that the tax increase, if any, would be higher than the offset of lowering of cost for the entire Country? Can you see that there would probably be a lowering of cost of health care for the middle class and the entire Country thus a net savings for most?
One persons tax is another persons health insurance, deductible, and co-pays.
You have to think beyond the right wing talking points. Speaking of right wing talking points, I thought Bernie supporters were the only ones that used them? Another Hillary supporter talking point destroyed by Hillary herself.
arikara
(5,562 posts)People pay through the nose for private plans, co-pays and more but talk about raising taxes a bit to cover all that and hysteria ensues.
People have totally lost the power to reason beyond r/w talking points hammered on them by media.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Brainwashed. By the media.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Why do the hillarians copy and paste Fox news talking points here?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)No one has proposed a large tax increase on the middle class without an even larger tax increase on the upper class. It is a straw man Hillary throws in there to attack Sanders.
That's very much like the RepubliCONS. When someone mentions taxing the uber rich and all their stolen loot, they turn the argument into taxing the middle class. That's how RepubliCONS get so many to vote against their own best interest. They lump the rich man's goal in with the middle class.
No Hillary it is NOT about taxing the middle class it's about taxing those elite uber rich frinds of yours the 1%, oh wait she's one of the elite so she doesn't want to pay any taxes either.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Bring about fifty bucks a year
What middle.class? The neo libs and neocons like Hillary have destroyed the middle.class.
This is just trying to get people to believe their poverty is the middle-class so as to keep us more.divided.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I'll let all those other non existant middle class people in my neighborhood know that According to Bernie's followers we no longer exist.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)You still believe there is a middle class
fasttense
(17,301 posts)You are Probably one the smallest and poorest middle class America has seen in decades.
But the middle class does NOT exist in large enough numbers to make a tax increase on your group to be significant enough to be helpful. If you are needing funding, you go to the group with all the money. And it ain't the middle class.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--is not "raising taxes." Anyone who prefers a $900/month 'premium" to a $200,month "tax" should not be running around outside without adult supervision.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Same goes for anyone who believes all of her lies
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Of all the potential outcomes of the 2016 House or Senate races, there isn't a single one that will allow any of Sanders vision to come to pass.
you're throwing your hopes and dreams on a toothless, de-clawed old tiger that only has his good sounding roar left in him.
Yeah.. we support the candidate who can and has gotten things done. You support the candidate that's been a US politician for decades now, and of the HUNDREDS of bills he's either sponsored or co-sponsored, only 3 have passed to become an actual law.. but that's going to be the great president?
zalinda
(5,621 posts)She didn't stay in the Senate long enough to get anything done. And, she was First Lady or the Governors wife, which really didn't give her much power, unless you want to take away Bill Clinton's legacy.
If you want to count her non-political life, then you have to put her up against Trump.
The only thing she has done while in government employee, with great success is promote war. And she is now again promoting war, her best and only move, which will destroy this country.
People respect Bernie and have worked with him. He doesn't toot his own horn like Hillary. He got a Veterans section in an omnibus bill, that funded veterans clinics, in a Republican majority bill. She voted for war in a Republican bill.
Z
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)I can throw in the ones both before and after that period if you'd like.. it's extremely accomplished.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)being the first one ever elected to the Senate, she:
1. As the Senator from New York was instrumental in securing more than $21 Billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
2. Was a leader in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services for first responders. The bill was finalized, and passed by her successor Kirsten Gillibrand.. you know.. when she actually joined the executive branch as the Secretary of State.. What's Mr. Burns executive experience again?
3. Was a central and driving force in the bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses during the renewal fo the patriot act.
OHHH, wait, let me guess.. now that I burst this bubble of yours, you'll want specific legislation?
1. Ran the Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act to a successful passage.
2. As Senator, Hillary Clinton fought to pass the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, helping to cultivate awareness of the issues in Congress. She introduced the Legal Immigrant Childrens Health Improvement Act, which would give states the option to provide federally funded Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women. She also wrote the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act to meet the growing demand for English language courses and other job skills.
3. Hillary wrote a law as Senator providing grants to state and local governments to pay for respite care services for family caregivers, which allows expanded funding for temporary breaks for caregivers of sick or disabled people.
Or were you possibly referring to her "establishment" ties to working on Senatorial committees?
Committee on the Budget (2001-2003)
Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009)
Subcommittee on Airland
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001-2009)
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water[3]
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2007-2008)[4]
Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chairwoman, 2007-2009)
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001-2009)
Subcommittee on Children and Families
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Special Committee on Aging.
She was also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe[6] (2001-2009).
And this is just her 2 terms in the Senate! That's not even TOUCHING on her accomplishments during her executive time as SoS, or her time with the Justice department prior to her period as FLOTUS.
So fryguy, go ahead, give me Mr. Burns big list?
frylock
(34,825 posts)first EVER ex-FLOTUS to have her own post presidency political career? Don't care. What bills did Hillary sponsor that got through Congress?
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)and you proved it lovely.
They were listed right there for you love. in her 8 years in the Senate, she got exactly 3 bills through congress (that she actually sponsored or co-sponsored). That's the exact same number your old man got in 21 years in Congress. You REALLY want to talk actual accomplishments?? Really?? Because if you want to go that route those 3 bills is all Burnie has for actual Success. Hillary on the other hand also has Executive experience and successes as Secretary of State. From her work in the Department of Justice, and YES, she was one of the most active and influential FLOTUS in the history of the country.
Your old has-been politician ain't got nothing but pretty words and blowhard windbag promises.
You got nuttin.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Charming.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Still got nothing Fry? Go ahead. 2 posts that shows what Hillary brings.. where's Bernie's? You got anything? At all? Something that shows him being successful and getting actual things done?? Any time now mate. You called me on it, I brought it.
Go ahead, sell me on Sanders. What has he actually done???
frylock
(34,825 posts)Your hateful, ageist bullshit is there for all to see.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)What's Mr. Burns done?? You got anything more than great speeches?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Go wallow in your hatred.
TacoD
(581 posts)On Fri Nov 20, 2015, 04:05 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Thank you! I was pretty sure you had nothing to come back with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=832611
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Your old man? I presume calling Hillary an old lady is now acceptable?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 20, 2015, 04:24 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This sub thread is getting out of hand, but what is needed is for everyone to calm down NOT to ban someone. A note to behave would be better then any ban.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The OP hit this obnoxious poster bad enough to incur vicious, foul insults worthy of the Hide Award.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am a fervent Bernie supporter and I don't find this to be alert-worthy. I don't agree with Amimnoch at all, but this rush to alert on DU has to stop.
And by the way, both Hillary and Bernie could both be called 'old'. I don't think this fits into the category of ageism when the candidates are roughly the same age.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Par for the course for primary season on DU.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Toughen up, alerter. There is nothing wrong with this post. Sanders gets called a lot worse every day. So does Clinton.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why not? A jury left "pampered princess" for me the other day, in reference to Hillary. Clean up your own mess first.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Cha
(297,167 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)n/t
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)the general election.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)It's a good sign though, let the voters have a true comparison of candidates in the primary.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Bullshit. Is the "center" parroting GOP talking points? Reinforcing the lies about healthcare that the GOP promulgates?
"Beware of those nasty universal health care advocates. Those Commies want to set up a Socialist health care system and steal your money to pay for it."
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)One problem many liberals have is they believe the best about even the vilest of people. Stay reality based or we'll never get out of this mess
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Think of the taxes? Think of the premiums.
You want too get sick... think of what the taxes and the country will be like when Trump, Cruz, Carson Rubio is the president. Let the primaries speak for themselves. If you don't want Clinton in, then vote for Sanders in your primary, then either vote for the democrat nominee, don't vote at all or vote for the GOP......simple.
U of M Dem
(154 posts)For the non sequitur.
Very succinct and simplified description of the voting options that exist (which is convincing of absolutely nothing). BTW you missed voting 3rd party!
rtracey
(2,062 posts)hmmm thanks for the condescending outlook. I have been basically banned from some Sanders groups for asking questions that they feel offensive, such as, if Sanders loses, with you vote for Clinton, the GOP, or stay home......yeah I got an earful on that one.... so my main point is why not see what happens in some of the first primaries before we declare a winner....
Now I understand. I agree regarding declaring winners... that we won't know until we know.
I have been banned in the HRC group for calling out a bold faced lie, so I at least get the frustration.
Are you asking how people will vote in that "what if" scenario for your own curiosity, to poll others, to be provocative or for some other reason?
In case you were curious I can honestly say that I don't know what I will do if HRC is the Democratic candidate in the general. I just know I would be very disappointed.
no poll, just curious. I have found many have not answered the question. So I usually pose it this way.... who would you rather be president. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz..... etc..... I usually get an answer then. rt
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Wake up before it's too late.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)I used to like Hillary & Bill Clinton in the early 90's. They fought for universal healthcare. I admired them for that.
In the very late 90's I noticed a change. They became corporatists. "If you can't beat them, join them." Each passing year I've noticed Hillary has gotten worse. Her Wall Street ties, her pro-war positions. She looks out first and foremost for the rich and powerful. Ordinary Americans are down low on the totem pole.
Hillary & Bill are now members of "The Big Club", and we ain't in it.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The way you have it is redundant.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)It's a trap, and Clinton walked into it!
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... but typical of Sanders supporters.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)but typical of people with no principles
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Sanders is trailing HRC badly in the polls. He needs to turn that around. The only way he can win is to convince current HRC supporters that he's worth the risk (and he is a huge risk with his socialism moniker).
Do you think the best way to lure HRC supporters is to, on a daily basis, tell us what stupid, sellout, 1%-loving assholes we are? Is that your concept of a winning strategy?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You're the one who has to justify that to yourself.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Thanks for playing.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)If you prefer not to be seen as something, stop being it, rather than whining about others observing that you exhibit those behaviors.
Logical
(22,457 posts)U of M Dem
(154 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Lessons from Clintons 'third way'
Obviously people aren't learning the lessons.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)And, yeah -- they are falling on deaf ears because not everyone's pendulum swings that far to the left.
U of M Dem
(154 posts)based classical conditioning continues to work on our voting public. That is exactly why we need to educate , speak our truth , and wake the sleeping giant of disaffected populace that have been disinterested and disengaged in politics. The other half of the voting aged populous are hurting for change and feel that they have no agency in their sociopolitical reality. That would be a political revolution and I would be proud to be a part of it. Bernie is a change facilitator, a motivated and capable populace will bring that change to fruition. The more the establishment resists, the more motivation will manifest and be evoked in the downtrodden.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Certainly won't be my last one as this inevitability progresses.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Because we just haven't moved far enough to the right.
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)not as protest but with every intention of getting him elected to the presidency. Sanders is my candidate because I believe he is our best hope for the change America needs. Bernie convinced me of that ( I was holding out hope for Warren.) Nothing I've heard has changed my mind. Bernie Sanders will win the nomination in the only poll that counts.
I'm an old lady. I've thought long and hard about this election. A woman president in my lifetime would be a dream come true, but, at this point, an honest liberal is far more important to save us from corporations and ourselves.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I thought when you learned not to do something bad you don't continue doing it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And this is some insane stuff.
At a time in history when we most need the opposite of what our "front runner" will bring as a president, on almost every level, this is what the DNC is trying to force upon US.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)and its shocking!
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)I figured she would wait at least until she got the nomination. IMO, disgusting show of RW thought.
Ino
(3,366 posts)and laughs
PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)Thanks for posting. Had heard this referenced several times, but it was the first time I had seen this clip. There's a cognitive dissonance with talking about death while at the same time laughing. Dehumanizing enemies is common in the military, but it sucks seeing people talk about death and following it up with laughter. It's about character.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Response to RiverLover (Original post)
olddots This message was self-deleted by its author.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)claim Hillary is liberal/progressive. Never mind how obvious her lurch to the right is.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)This reinforces my decision.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ideologically
closeupready
(29,503 posts)she is affiliated with. All she wants is power.
She has all the wealth and fame she could possibly ask for. Power is the only thing she doesn't yet have.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She is a say anything to get elected politician. No more, no less.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)She is simply transparent.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)People are jittery and the more terrorists attacks there are between now and election day, the more people will consider a Republican. Trump's polls went up since the terrorist attack in Paris. People perceive Republicans to be tougher on terrorism and crime.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Then we are not allies.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The Bernistas creating their own reality.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)If you disagree with that why don't you specifically address the points made in the article rather than just coming back with a snarky reply?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Stating those positions is not a move in any direction.
On edit:
You have your list of what you call progressive such as single payer.
No description of what that entails other than other countries do it.
Someone comes along and says, maybe we should take a closer look at that and it is a lurch to the right.
You would have to be for single payer to lurch away from it. Get it.?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Thanks.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)But as usual his ideas are not as developed, so Clinton looks worse by comparison because she has a more developed proposal. What do you think Bernie means by ME countries have to put some "skin in the game"? Clinton didn't say anything about using US troops. The only difference is that Clinton would consider a no-fly zone.
Clinton says she is against lower and middle class tax increases and that is a rightward lurch??? Bullshit.
Sanders has NOTHING on his campaign website about single payer. He is running away from it because calling for trillions in new taxes is a non-starter for a presidential candidate. And if you believe differently you are very politically naïve.
So nothing about Bernie's rightward lurches???? What a hypocrite.
As usual ... another anti-Clinton post long on bluster, bold text, and indignation yet very short on substance. This is getting to be a habit for you folks.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)To my mind, it is clear that the United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime, and to create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot and should not do it alone," he said.
Sanders also called for the creation of an organization similar to NATO, focused on confronting today's security threats.
But, he added that "the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam."
"Countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations with the strong support of their global partners," he added.
http://mashable.com/2015/11/19/sanders-clinton-syria-isis/#4erIta2bMmqg
Sanders pointed specifically to counties like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates -- "countries of enormous wealth and resources" -- to join the coalition.
"Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them," he added. "As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need."
The use of military force from the United States, according to Sanders, should be left as "a last resort, not a first resort." He reminded his Washington, D.C. audience that "ill-conceived military decisions" like the invasion of Iraq, can cause "far-reaching devastation."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-details-isis-strategy-defines-democratic-socialism/
God speed President Sanders.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are authorized under current law,
If these guys in the region think that ISIS is such a great threat, they gotta put some skin in the game.
From this link
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)terrorists who hate US? ISIS exists because of US! The whole thing is crazy. We need someone sane in the WH.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But for some reason you didn't read what she is quoted as saying in the OP article.
Maybe this one will get you to see what's right in front of you~
Pssssssst: Hillary and Her GOP Rivals Have Pretty Much the Same Plan to Deal With ISIS
Persondem
(1,936 posts)When leaders refer to boots on the ground they mean regular troops. Special forces go lots of places that regular troops do not go. Big difference. And since Obama is already sending in SpecFor she is just advocating for their continued use. Special ops allows for more accurate air strikes, gathering more precise intel and much more.
NOT the same as regular troops.
As this article says ...
" ... the phrase has become a shorthand for combat operations, engagements where the U.S. soldiers are actively shooting at people who are definitely shooting back."
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, RiverLover.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Peace to you, RiverLover.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)And if past performance is any indication, what will happen again is that these vital and crucial 'terrorism fighting powers' will be used almost exclusively by the DEA and local law enforcement to track and arrest people for smoking marijuana.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)We have said it all along. With Hillary you will get war. Some here don't seem to mind that.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I got a buttload of oceanfront property for sale in Kansas.
Any takers? (Cash only)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)wants, and they are going TO DO EVERYTHING they can to make sure she is WHO will be the nominee! I do not understand why what we've done for so many years ALREADY and that hasn't worked is what we're supposed to vote for again!
I'm so frustrated, infuriated and disgusted by the way our country is becoming known for WAR, and allowing ourselves to be RULED by Wall Street and all the other OLIGARCHS!
Say what you will, I AM very afraid!
azmom
(5,208 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Sanders is talking about raising taxes on the rich to finance universal health care not the middle class.
This is fear mongering and disingenuous.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)seafan
(9,387 posts)... quote in this CommonDreams piece is incorrectly attributed to Clinton:
That quote is actually part of a statement by Sanders.
A very hard-hitting piece, this is.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Disgruntled because they know they have nothing but wack-a-doodle running for president. Although I do think Rubio has some intelligence. Trump is just a megalomaniac who appeals to the xenophobes and bigots.
wouldsman
(94 posts)If primaries are an attempt to discover just what the soul of the party is all about, considering that Hillary is currently leading, and that party insiders back her, then this is the soul of the Democratic Party?
I need to go do some soul searching.
No more foolish wars that my children will have to pay the price for.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)At least within its leadership. The media is assisting. Our only hope is that grassroots is strong enough, effective enough, to get the truth out about all the GOOD Bernie offers US. We are the change we wish to see.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I always say!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)LS_Editor
(893 posts)This piece of satire makes a pretty good point about how much elections matter, especially to young American voters. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is more similar to Dick Cheney's than Barack Obama's, and that is not good for Americans.
Hillary Drafting Young Donors for 2017 ISIS Ground War
+
More at link.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)So she is trying to appeal to right-wingers by going right-wing.
Wrong way street, Hillary Clinton. That street will take you in the wrong direction. You will regret it.