Democrats, Can We Agree?
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
Elizabeth Warren is now taking part in the sit-in. Where's Bernie? (Rhetorical question.)
I think he's waiting for Hillary (nothing prevents a former Senator from sitting in)
Hillary is in North Carolina hosting an event. Bernie seems to be in DC.
imonlysleeping said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
Elizabeth Warren is now taking part in the sit-in. Where's Bernie? (Rhetorical question.)
I think he's waiting for Hillary (nothing prevents a former Senator from sitting in)
Hillary is in North Carolina hosting an event. Bernie seems to be in DC.
Yes, Bernie is in DC. On the House floor.
Parallels:
House Democrats shout down Speaker for refusing to allow them to vote.
Bernie's Nevada delegates shout down Nevada Democratic Party Chair for refusing to allow a vote on the convention's rules.
And another state Democratic Party denying Bernie supporters the right to vote:
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/06/sanders-supporters-wont-recognize-cuomo-as-delegation-leader-103147
More parallels:
Jewish Republican PAC wants the Party to declare the West Bank as an indigenous part of the Jewish Homeland
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-pac-presses-republicans-to-call-west-bank-jewish-homeland/
Crazy, huh? Unfortunately denial on this issue is not exclusive to Republicans.
On the Democratic platform committee, Hillary supporters are fighting attempts by Bernie supporters to include the word "occupation" in reference to the West Bank.
http://www.jta.org/2016/06/10/news-opinion/politics/democrats-tussle-over-inclusion-of-occupation-in-party-platform
nan said:
mjh said:
hoops said:
tjohn said:
hoops said:
is that I can't think this fully true. Its my belief that she will not fight for these things, but will trade away tough legislation for watered down versions that do nothing or not enough and give up in that negotiation far more than she gets.
Tough legislation along the lines of what Sanders wants simply will not pass. Zero chance.
but thats not the subject of this post. I was talking about Clinton and my thoughts about what she will do once elected.
Fact is, unless we get a dem controlled congress, nothing is getting accomplished except maybe some supremes being confirmed.
Republican light is where I think Clinton falls. All thinking about her being progressive and in touch with issues that will make any difference in our lives I think are false. My hope for her presidential years would be that she leads a quiet administration, but realistically I can't help but think with her team of old Bill Clintonistas, that we are in for more bad deals that further exacerbate the income inequality and further worsen the lives of the least amongst us, while keeping our middle class struggling to find their balance.
Someone tell me something optimistic.
I will! It is not 1994. Bill Clinton is not going to be President. We've moved to the left and HRC has a very progressive proposed policy agenda.
She said she was going to put "Bill in charge of the economy" so he is basically going to be President, at least part of the time. Also, what progressive policy agenda other than a woman's right to choose? She's more like a moderate Republican. She is not a Progressive. She's not even pretending to be one right now.
This is silly.
On women's issues, immigration, gun control, social security, immigration, raising minimum wage, increasing taxation at highest levels, healthcare, etc she is decidedly a full Democrat.
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
dave said:
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
You are welcome to dislike her, but it's absurd to call her a Republican.
dave said:
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
There's a very big difference between airstrikes and an invasion.
I'm skeptical of getting further involved in Syria, but Clinton is certainly not calling for a US invasion there.
Woot said:
dave said:
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
You are welcome to dislike her, but it's absurd to call her a Republican.
I called her republican light, since that is where her positions will end up. In my opinion her opinions are shaped not by her convictions but her ambitions.
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
Elizabeth Warren is now taking part in the sit-in. Where's Bernie? (Rhetorical question.)
I think he's waiting for Hillary (nothing prevents a former Senator from sitting in)
Hillary is in North Carolina hosting an event. Bernie seems to be in DC.
Yes, Bernie is in DC. On the House floor.
And then he left right after the photo op. but now will take full credit for this event.
hoops said:
Woot said:
dave said:
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
You are welcome to dislike her, but it's absurd to call her a Republican.
I called her republican light, since that is where her positions will end up. In my opinion her opinions are shaped not by her convictions but her ambitions.
What would Sanders foreign policy look like? If we scale back our military adventures - and I think we should - which of our current allies to we leave swinging in the wind? For example, when we withdrew from Vietnam, we abandoned the Montagnards who had been very good allies.
Should we stop butting heads with China in the South China Sea? Should we cutdown on our presence in South Korea? Should we leave Taiwan to work things out with China on their own? Should we leave Ukraine to the tender mercy of Russia?
tjohn said:
hoops said:
Woot said:
dave said:
Clinton wasn't on board with half of those items in meaningful ways before Bernie forced her to adopt them. She's already pivoting back to the right, doubling down on invading Syria and confronting Russia there.
You are welcome to dislike her, but it's absurd to call her a Republican.
I called her republican light, since that is where her positions will end up. In my opinion her opinions are shaped not by her convictions but her ambitions.
What would Sanders foreign policy look like? If we scale back our military adventures - and I think we should - which of our current allies to we leave swinging in the wind? For example, when we withdrew from Vietnam, we abandoned the Montagnards who had been very good allies.
Should we stop butting heads with China in the South China Sea? Should we cutdown on our presence in South Korea? Should we leave Taiwan to work things out with China on their own? Should we leave Ukraine to the tender mercy of Russia?
We should learn that we are not the cops of the world. Our position, our esteem in the eyes of the rest of the World would take a giant leap if we would only learn this
author said:
We should learn that we are not the cops of the world. Our position, our esteem in the eyes of the rest of the World would take a giant leap if we would only learn this
Right, but what specifically would you do differently? Because part of not being the cops of the world means turning our back on human suffering in some cases. Or it means keeping quiet as the Russians slowly reassemble the Russian Empire.
Not every data point needs to be spun to fit your overly neat partisan narrative. It was good that he showed up. Why bash him just to score points when the reality is what he did was admirable and helpful? It isn't going to damage Hillary if you admit that Bernie is capable of doing the right thing.
unixiscool said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
Elizabeth Warren is now taking part in the sit-in. Where's Bernie? (Rhetorical question.)
I think he's waiting for Hillary (nothing prevents a former Senator from sitting in)
Hillary is in North Carolina hosting an event. Bernie seems to be in DC.
Yes, Bernie is in DC. On the House floor.
And then he left right after the photo op. but now will take full credit for this event.
Because the rhetoric is that he is STARTING a progressive movement, with no credit given to the people who have been working on it for many years.
imonlysleeping said:
Not every data point needs to be spun to fit your overly neat partisan narrative. It was good that he showed up. Why bash him just to score points when the reality is what he did was admirable and helpful? It isn't going to damage Hillary if you admit that Bernie is capable of doing the right thing.
unixiscool said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
paulsurovell said:
imonlysleeping said:
Elizabeth Warren is now taking part in the sit-in. Where's Bernie? (Rhetorical question.)
I think he's waiting for Hillary (nothing prevents a former Senator from sitting in)
Hillary is in North Carolina hosting an event. Bernie seems to be in DC.
Yes, Bernie is in DC. On the House floor.
And then he left right after the photo op. but now will take full credit for this event.
I don't think anyone, very much including Bernie Sanders, believes that Bernie Sanders invented the progressive movement. But he certainly has inspired a lot of people and has given a big shot in the arm to progressive values on the national stage. Don't really think that's debatable.
tjohn said:
author said:
We should learn that we are not the cops of the world. Our position, our esteem in the eyes of the rest of the World would take a giant leap if we would only learn this
Right, but what specifically would you do differently? Because part of not being the cops of the world means turning our back on human suffering in some cases. Or it means keeping quiet as the Russians slowly reassemble the Russian Empire.
Our actions have killed immense numbers of people in other countries in the name of alleviating their suffering. Where do you want to start? Vietnam which never was two countries. how many dead through our actions. Iraq, Syria, I could go way back to my college days when we invaded Grenada in order to rescue American medical students there. The same went for the Dominican Republic Of course the real reason was to prevent another possible Red regime but we will take any excuse we can get. Do you want to talk about the Gulf of Tonkin.............I can go as far back as Remember the Maine but we will continue using any excuse for our incursions................and we are not alleviating human suffering............we are adding to it.
And as far as the Russians are concerned..............there will always be an enemy, that is a given
author said:
Our actions have killed immense numbers of people in other countries in the name of alleviating their suffering. Where do you want to start? Vietnam which never was two countries. how many dead through our actions. Iraq, Syria, I could go way back to my college days when we invaded Grenada in order to rescue American medical students there. Of course the real reason was to prevent another possible Red regime but we will take any excuse we can get. Do you want to talk about the Gulf of Tonkin.............I can go as far back as Remember the Maine but we will continue using any excuse for our incursions................and we are not alleviating human suffering............we are adding to it.
And as far as the Russians are concerned..............there will always be an enemy, that is a given
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
imonlysleeping said:
I don't think anyone, very much including Bernie Sanders, believes that Bernie Sanders invented the progressive movement. But he certainly has inspired a lot of people and has given a big shot in the arm to progressive values on the national stage. Don't really think that's debatable.
Continuing the progressive movement, continuing the revolution, I don't think those words were ever uttered by Bernire Sanders or his supporters.
tjohn said:
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
One thing I would say is that the notion of launching military invasions or air strikes as "humanitarian" efforts needs to be seriously examined. Both Iraq and Libya were sold to many Americans as necessary to curtail brutal human rights abuses. But the result was that particularly in Iraq, we multiplied the human misery by about 10,000%. The idea that military interventions solve humanitarian crises has been wrong time after time, and instead has often made those crises worse and spread the misery even wider.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
One thing I would say is that the notion of launching military invasions or air strikes as "humanitarian" efforts needs to be seriously examined. Both Iraq and Libya were sold to many Americans as necessary to curtail brutal human rights abuses. But the result was that particularly in Iraq, we multiplied the human misery by about 10,000%. The idea that military interventions solve humanitarian crises has been wrong time after time, and instead has often made those crises worse and spread the misery even wider.
This is a great response and I'd like to add to it, if I may. The way we finance campaigns leads to abuses in our foreign policy. We need to recognize this and reform it because the way to run a business and the way to run a nation and world need to have different rule sets.
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
One thing I would say is that the notion of launching military invasions or air strikes as "humanitarian" efforts needs to be seriously examined. Both Iraq and Libya were sold to many Americans as necessary to curtail brutal human rights abuses. But the result was that particularly in Iraq, we multiplied the human misery by about 10,000%. The idea that military interventions solve humanitarian crises has been wrong time after time, and instead has often made those crises worse and spread the misery even wider.
And to this I would add that our method of trying to manage conflicts increases suffering. In Syria, for example, we have contributed to making the civil war last longer than it needed to. In war, the most humane thing you can do is bring it to an end as fast as possible.
dave said:
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
One thing I would say is that the notion of launching military invasions or air strikes as "humanitarian" efforts needs to be seriously examined. Both Iraq and Libya were sold to many Americans as necessary to curtail brutal human rights abuses. But the result was that particularly in Iraq, we multiplied the human misery by about 10,000%. The idea that military interventions solve humanitarian crises has been wrong time after time, and instead has often made those crises worse and spread the misery even wider.
This is a great response and I'd like to add to it, if I may. The way we finance campaigns leads to abuses in our foreign policy. We need to recognize this and reform it because the way to run a business and the way to run a nation and world need to have different rule sets.
I don't quite understand your point about campaign finance and its role in our foreign policy. I have always thought that Vietnam, for example, was compounded by the Democrats not wanting to appear to be soft on Communism.
There are some situations in which doing something and doing nothing are both bad options. Which is worse? Impossible to know unless you do both, which isn't an option. Anyone who claims to be certain about the right course here is delusional or blinded by partisanship.
tjohn said:
dave said:
ml1 said:
tjohn said:
Very good job of stating the obvious. Now, it is 2016. What do we do differently starting now? Saying that we have been wrong in the past tells us very little about how to move forward.
One thing I would say is that the notion of launching military invasions or air strikes as "humanitarian" efforts needs to be seriously examined. Both Iraq and Libya were sold to many Americans as necessary to curtail brutal human rights abuses. But the result was that particularly in Iraq, we multiplied the human misery by about 10,000%. The idea that military interventions solve humanitarian crises has been wrong time after time, and instead has often made those crises worse and spread the misery even wider.
This is a great response and I'd like to add to it, if I may. The way we finance campaigns leads to abuses in our foreign policy. We need to recognize this and reform it because the way to run a business and the way to run a nation and world need to have different rule sets.
I don't quite understand your point about campaign finance and its role in our foreign policy. I have always thought that Vietnam, for example, was compounded by the Democrats not wanting to appear to be soft on Communism.
I don't think we war based on ideology these days. It's all about $$$$. Carlisle Group, Haliburton, etc. They paid for war, they got war. Clinton has already promised more, but with far higher stakes.
imonlysleeping said:
There are some situations in which doing something and doing nothing are both bad options. Which is worse? Impossible to know unless you do both, which isn't an option. Anyone who claims to be certain about the right course here is delusional or blinded by partisanship.
there are options between doing nothing and intervening militarily. And it pretty much stands to reason that bombing the crap out the population and the country's infrastructure is very likely to cause a great deal of displacement and human misery.
ml1 said:
imonlysleeping said:
There are some situations in which doing something and doing nothing are both bad options. Which is worse? Impossible to know unless you do both, which isn't an option. Anyone who claims to be certain about the right course here is delusional or blinded by partisanship.
there are options between doing nothing and intervening militarily. And it pretty much stands to reason that bombing the crap out the population and the country's infrastructure is very likely to cause a great deal of displacement and human misery.
There is already a gigantic amount of displacement and human misery caused by us NOT intervening. How do you know which is worse?
That must be some suspenseful watching - probably a bit like game 7 between Golden State and Cleveland.