Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PufPuf23

(8,954 posts)
55. Many members of the Democratic party would like to influence the Democratic party platform
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 05:54 PM
Jun 2016

and the presumptive nominee to reflect on past actions and policies and find a new approach.

Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an adaptable and evolving individual who pays attention to public opinion.

One would hope for two outcomes:

1) The reflection on the recent past regards foreign interventions would evolve to where less aggressive and violent methods would be indicated in a general sense.

2) In the case of child soldiers, waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act would not be a tool used by Hillary Clinton as a Democratic POTUS.

Both these outcomes are on the agenda of anti-war liberals within the Democratic party.

If no one says anything, there is little reason for Hillary Clinton and other political leaders to stop waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act.

Child Soldier Protection Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Soldiers_Protection_Act

The Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA) is a United States federal statute signed into law by President George W. Bush on 3 October 2008.[1][2] The law criminalizes leading a military force which recruits child soldiers. The law's definition of child soldiers includes "any person under 18 years of age who takes a direct part in hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces."

The law was also intended to prevent arms trade by the United States with suspected countries, although the president may waive this rule in the national interest. President Barack Obama most recently waived the application of this rule on 28 September 2013 to Chad, South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.[3]

-------------------------------------

Are you for continued waivers of the Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA)?

Where is a better place to voice this opinion than at DU?

How would you voice such an opinion?

Time's running out ... tick-tock! The countdown has begun ... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #1
It's running out on your side too. Enjoy it while you can. And Lee Fang is NOT a rwer! jillan Jun 2016 #3
It's called push-back. Cut out the shitty attacks and smears on our party's candidate ... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #5
You always contribute hostility. 840high Jun 2016 #9
Thank goodness she does not live in my state. I would be afraid to have someone so hostile be jillan Jun 2016 #10
heehee - I've thought the 840high Jun 2016 #20
Many members of the Democratic party would like to influence the Democratic party platform PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #55
A typically silly comment that ignores the substance of the post. guillaumeb Jun 2016 #32
It's an attempt to justify attacks and smears. This shit stops on June 16th. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #41
And it should stop on June 16. guillaumeb Jun 2016 #45
Do you believe that DUers should be helping them? Giving them a forum? NurseJackie Jun 2016 #48
If there is any truth to the charges raised here and elsewhere, guillaumeb Jun 2016 #53
This shit ends on the 16th. NurseJackie Jun 2016 #65
Such thoughtful introspection. libdem4life Jun 2016 #72
Ignore them on this site...and they are not posted so they can be refuted but as an attack Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #73
Your post "assumes" that you can determine my motivation. guillaumeb Jun 2016 #86
It is not that hard Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #89
Are you certain that you are responding to what I said, guillaumeb Jun 2016 #94
Giving them a forum? Are you kidding me? You think they are libdem4life Jun 2016 #75
Well put. guillaumeb Jun 2016 #87
Read the update, Nanc. This has zero to do with Clinton's 2008 PAC. Your later response tells me floriduck Jun 2016 #46
My name isn't Nanc. (Did you intend to reply to someone else?) NurseJackie Jun 2016 #49
So sorry Jackie. But my reply was definitely directed at you, not Nancy. Hope you found the floriduck Jun 2016 #78
You have until the 16th... NurseJackie Jun 2016 #82
Conservative Janet Parshall Glamrock Jun 2016 #67
One minute...wow...such reflexes. It is hubris that will do far libdem4life Jun 2016 #70
Lee Fang is one of the most progressive journalists out there. How can anyone call him a RWer? jillan Jun 2016 #2
Anyone who doesn't fawn over Hillary is part of the RW conspiracy. Matt_in_STL Jun 2016 #4
Oh, now.. kadaholo Jun 2016 #6
And the new rules do not call for an echo chamber... Miles Archer Jun 2016 #57
Nah, it's more of Andy823 Jun 2016 #15
But nothing to say about the actual substance of the post? guillaumeb Jun 2016 #33
+ 1000 We've seen it here hundreds of times. senz Jun 2016 #21
As I understand it, ANY criticism of Hillary is a "right wing smear" and ANY site that djean111 Jun 2016 #12
THIS^^^^^^ THIS THIS ^^^THIS THIS^^^^ AntiBank Jun 2016 #19
^^^ Absolutely ^^^ senz Jun 2016 #22
Mother Jones, Huffington Post, The Young Turks... Miles Archer Jun 2016 #56
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #36
that time when Hillary was president bigtree Jun 2016 #7
But it's a libertarian one frazzled Jun 2016 #8
Exactly. randome Jun 2016 #37
We do have some people who don't like the Intercept because of Glen Greenwald. Autumn Jun 2016 #11
Greenwald? Really??? I don't always agree with him but how can any true Democrat not appreciate jillan Jun 2016 #14
Any more, for myself, "they" have moved to the right; I have not and will not. n/t djean111 Jun 2016 #31
What he said ^^^^ Old Codger Jun 2016 #51
I'll never understand homophobia. senz Jun 2016 #24
I find it somewhat amusing that your chosen link went to "Unofficial Sources" TwilightZone Jun 2016 #13
What? The link went to an article written by a journalist for the Intercept. jillan Jun 2016 #17
Look on the left side of the linked page. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #18
FOUR MORE DAYS DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #16
Yes, your cozy echo chamber awaits you. senz Jun 2016 #25
;-). I knew I could count on ya, dsb. ;-)) floriduck Jun 2016 #42
At least you can say I don't camouflage my true feelings. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #43
Nope. Make sure you read the child soldier article I was trying to link to. See my update. floriduck Jun 2016 #47
Yeah Folks at DU that don't agree with you should be PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #58
Thank you for misinterpreting what I said.. That seems to be the m.o. of you and your cohorts. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #59
You are the individual that posted folks should be "punched in the face". PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #60
Whether or not someone has been a Democrat since Thomas Jefferson's days is of no moment. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #62
Does my post #55 in this thread meet your approval? PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #63
It has nothing to do with my approval or disapproval. I have no delusions of grandeur. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #64
For Hillary Clinton to campaign, "There will be no waivers of the Child Soldier Protection Act" PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #66
Enjoy the echo chamber that's coming up. All Done Jun 2016 #76
It's not right-wing, but it has an agenda OKNancy Jun 2016 #23
The Intercept is anti corrupt establishment. senz Jun 2016 #27
LOL - but they love them some Putin/Russia.... OKNancy Jun 2016 #34
Many of the Bernie supporters now listen to a Russian radio station. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #74
Pretty soon we'll be allowed to only link to articles in Homes & Gardens and Car and Driver. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #26
There are greener pastures, my friend. senz Jun 2016 #28
I like pastures. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #29
Me too. senz Jun 2016 #30
The daily magic show continues even without the internet. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #38
Yep and it hits deeper, resonates on more levels. senz Jun 2016 #52
People can link to whatever they want, annavictorious Jun 2016 #35
It's a Libertarian publication... SidDithers Jun 2016 #39
Wasn't familiar with The Intercept at all, but that explaisn a lot. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #40
The RW conspiracy felix_numinous Jun 2016 #44
And, I am not the Tooth Fairy..... blue neen Jun 2016 #50
"Unofficial sources" Fox News "some people say" leftofcool Jun 2016 #54
KICK Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #61
I hope they will not be allowed. I woud hide them if I were on a jury. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #69
Let's try this one more time Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #68
Attacks from the left which do nothing but help Trump should also be banned. You should delete this. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #71
Relax 86. I am bringing up news about the Democratic presumptive nominee. She's not my choice floriduck Jun 2016 #77
You are attacking the Democratic nominee, and you won't fool anyone. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #80
you think this is so hillarious. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #81
Youll have this place all to yourself, come June 16th. Until then, I have just as much right to floriduck Jun 2016 #85
Well June 16th can't come soon enough. Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #91
South Sudan is a Promising Tourist Destination On the Road Jun 2016 #79
Its scary how history taints a candidate swhisper1 Jun 2016 #83
After Thursday, any publication that publishes any criticism of Hillary, no matter how mild ... Scuba Jun 2016 #84
But that doesn't mean people hav e to stop posting material from those sources. CorkySt.Clair Jun 2016 #88
Yes it is Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #90
Second guessing, revisionist horseshit that Darb Jun 2016 #92
It's a refreshing alternative to the paid for media MaeScott Jun 2016 #93
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Intercept is not a ri...»Reply #55