Bernie and Cruz win.
my issue with Clinton that she is a major neocon on foreign policy. The NY Times article on the Libya invasion was a real eye-opener. I knew she was hawkish, but I hadn't realized until then that more than anyone else in the Obama Administration, she had been a driving force in convincing Obama to launch military invasions.
In many ways, her foreign policy and military policies will be indistinguishable from Bush and Cheney. If she's the Democratic nominee, she'll have my vote because she isn't as horrifying as any of the major Republicans. But her foreign policy is very likely going to make the U.S. even less safe, and prove to be a boon for ISIS and al Qaeda recruiters (as would that of any Republican). That's a depressing thought -- that the "war on terror" is going to go on escalating for another decade, with our military bigfooting around the world killing more people without any regard for the strategic outcomes.
ml1 said:
my issue with Clinton that she is a major neocon on foreign policy. The NY Times article on the Libya invasion was a real eye-opener. I knew she was hawkish, but I hadn't realized until then that more than anyone else in the Obama Administration, she had been a driving force in convincing Obama to launch military invasions.
In many ways, her foreign policy and military policies will be indistinguishable from Bush and Cheney. If she's the Democratic nominee, she'll have my vote because she isn't as horrifying as any of the major Republicans. But her foreign policy is very likely going to make the U.S. even less safe, and prove to be a boon for ISIS and al Qaeda recruiters (as would that of any Republican). That's a depressing thought -- that the "war on terror" is going to go on escalating for another decade, with our military bigfooting around the world killing more people without any regard for the strategic outcomes.
Exactly.
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
jeffhandy said:
springgreen2 said:
@jeffhandy: That's exactly it. What the heck are we left with and where are we going if she wins?
Well for one thing, we will get a better SCOTUS than Cruz or Trump will give us, so I won't complain. I just want more and I don't care if it comes from her or Bernie.
Appointments to SCOTUS are the only thing we can be sure of being different if there is a Democratic or Republican President.
springgreen2 said:
I think it's Hillary and the pro-Hillary forces who have absolutely nothing to offer in the way of goals, or plans, or problem-solving. What do they stand for? Bernie's goal is to restructure the economy and the social order. Too much for your narrow view? Don't vote for him.
Assuming almost all who post on here live in New Jersey our votes in the Primary in late June will probably not matter.
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
You've got to be kidding. By far, the vast majority of opposition to Obama on MOL in 2008 was not from liberal Democratic voters on MOL. It was from a small group of once-prolific right wing posters, most of whom don't even post here any longer.
dave23 - As I and others have demonstrated, Bernie answered the Daily News just fine. It was the Daily News and the rest of the media who jumped all over him. Before this they were ignoring him. Now that he's winning, they are looking to discredit him. Hillary took the Daily News spin and turned it into a fundraising opportunity. Might get her a few bucks and/or votes, but it's still not Bernie who is the problem.
mjh said:
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
You've got to be kidding. By far, the vast majority of opposition to Obama on MOL in 2008 was not from liberal Democratic voters on MOL. It was from a small group of once-prolific right wing posters, most of whom don't even post here any longer.
My impression then was there was some fear among Democrats that Obama would not drive a hard enough bargain with the Palestinians.
LOST said:
Assuming almost all who post on here live in New Jersey our votes in the Primary in late June will probably not matter.
Exactly. Which is why I'm happy to say that I support the Democratic candidate for POTUS, whomever that may be. I don't see any value in demonizing Bernie or Hillary - I frankly think they both have strengths and weaknesses. I have no problem with people supporting their candidate or saying why they support their candidate, but I really think the circular firing squad mentality with some Democrats is utterly stupid. Bernie is not stupid or incompetent and Hillary is not a right-wing She-Devil.
I'll spend my energy helping to make sure we beat the Republican opponent.
LOST said:
Assuming almost all who post on here live in New Jersey our votes in the Primary in late June will probably not matter.
It will if we re-register as republicans. We got 6 days to do it.
springgreen2 said:
mjh said:
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
You've got to be kidding. By far, the vast majority of opposition to Obama on MOL in 2008 was not from liberal Democratic voters on MOL. It was from a small group of once-prolific right wing posters, most of whom don't even post here any longer.
My impression then was there was some fear among Democrats that Obama would not drive a hard enough bargain with the Palestinians.
What I remember are particularly vicious anti-Clinton pro-Obama posts by Tulip, or whatever she was calling herself at the time.
You just need to register without a party. Then you can declare for a party at the polling place (then reregister again with no party). That is what I always do. Keeps your primary options open.
LOST said:
springgreen2 said:
mjh said:
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
You've got to be kidding. By far, the vast majority of opposition to Obama on MOL in 2008 was not from liberal Democratic voters on MOL. It was from a small group of once-prolific right wing posters, most of whom don't even post here any longer.
My impression then was there was some fear among Democrats that Obama would not drive a hard enough bargain with the Palestinians.
What I remember are particularly vicious anti-Clinton pro-Obama posts by Tulip, or whatever she was calling herself at the time.
And vicious attacks on Tulip, which, as soon as she criticizes Hillary, start up again!
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
I've been an Obama advocate on MOL since 2008 and haven't found it tough at all. (Edited for typo.)
nan said:
dave23 - As I and others have demonstrated, Bernie answered the Daily News just fine. It was the Daily News and the rest of the media who jumped all over him. Before this they were ignoring him. Now that he's winning, they are looking to discredit him. Hillary took the Daily News spin and turned it into a fundraising opportunity. Might get her a few bucks and/or votes, but it's still not Bernie who is the problem.
I guess it depends on how you define "winning." He's won the recent primaries but still trails in the delegates. So I'd say Hillary is winning.
I'm sure Hillary did turn it into a fundraising opportunity. That's politics for ya. Even Bernie raises money.
This exchange doesn't exactly pump me about his foreign policy credentials. One gets the sense that he hasn't given it much thought:
Daily News: Okay, while we were sitting here, I double-checked the facts. It's the miracle of the iPhone. My recollection was correct. It was about 2,300, I believe, killed, and 10,000 wounded. President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he's got the right policy there?
Sanders: I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that drones are a modern weapon. When used effectively, when taking out ISIS or terrorist leaders, that's pretty impressive. When bombing wedding parties of innocent people and killing dozens of them, that is, needless to say, not effective and enormously counterproductive. So whatever the mechanism, whoever is in control of that policy, it has to be refined so that we are killing the people we want to kill and not innocent collateral damage.
Daily News: Okay. American Special Forces recently killed a top ISIS commander, after they'd hoped to capture him. They felt, from what the news reports were, that they had no choice at that. What would you do with a captured ISIS commander?
Sanders: Imprison him.
Daily News: Where?
Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo...
Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do?
Sanders: Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot. I suppose, somewhere near the locale where that person was captured. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.
I dont see anything wrong with the Sanders answer to those questions. In fact I like those answers.
hoops said:
I dont see anything wrong with the Sanders answer to those questions. In fact I like those answers.
He hasn't really thought about drone warfare or what to do with captives in the permanent war on terror.
dave23 said:
hoops said:
I dont see anything wrong with the Sanders answer to those questions. In fact I like those answers.
He hasn't really thought about drone warfare or what to do with captives in the permanent war on terror.
I don't read his answers that way.
Daily News: Okay, while we were sitting here, I double-checked the facts. It's the miracle of the iPhone. My recollection was correct. It was about 2,300, I believe, killed, and 10,000 wounded. President Obama has taken the authority for drone attacks away from the CIA and given it to the U.S. military. Some say that that has caused difficulties in zeroing in on terrorists, their ISIS leaders. Do you believe that he's got the right policy there?
Sanders: I don't know the answer to that. (The question here was whether the authority for drone attacks should have been taken from the CIA and given to the military.) What I do know is that drones are a modern weapon. When used effectively, when taking out ISIS or terrorist leaders, that's pretty impressive. When bombing wedding parties of innocent people and killing dozens of them, that is, needless to say, not effective and enormously counterproductive. So whatever the mechanism, whoever is in control of that policy, it has to be refined so that we are killing the people we want to kill and not innocent collateral damage.
His answer is properly saying that use of drones is good when it works and tragic when it doesn't and he says we have to REFINE it so we do not kill innocents.
Daily News: Okay. American Special Forces recently killed a top ISIS commander, after they'd hoped to capture him. They felt, from what the news reports were, that they had no choice at that. What would you do with a captured ISIS commander?
Sanders: Imprison him.
Daily News: Where?
Sanders: And try to get as much information out of him. If the question leads us to Guantanamo...
Daily News: Well, no, separate and apart from Guantanamo, it could be there, it could be anywhere. Where would a President Sanders imprison, interrogate? What would you do?
Sanders: Actually I haven't thought about it a whole lot. I suppose, somewhere near the locale where that person was captured. The best location where that individual would be safely secured in a way that we can get information out of him.
the answer about what to do with terrorist captives is what he is saying he hasn't done much thinking about, yet his answer is rational, considered and practical.
Do you know what time it is?
springgreen2 said:
Bernie is a visionary. Hillary is a status quo defender. You ask yourself which is more necessary for our time?
It's Godwin time. Wanna know some other visionaries? Chairman Mao, Uncle Joe and Adolf Hitler.
hoops said:
I dont see anything wrong with the Sanders answer to those questions. In fact I like those answers.
^^^^^^^^
This attack on Bernie smacks of desperation on the part of latter-day neo-con hawks like Andrea Mitchell who saw it appropriate to mock Sanders just before his victory speech. He had to.wait for the turgid Ted Cruz victory speech, then he had to endure Mitchell's giggles. Hillary's nervous laughter today during Cuomo's interview of her on CNN were so infantile that it was a total.turnoff.
The answer that drones are great when they work as designed but not great when they don't is not a good answer. Neither is the answer that he hasn't thought about who should have authority over drone strikes.
His answer to the terrorist captives is the opposite of considered. He hasn't thought about it.
dave23 said:
The answer that drones are great when they work as designed but not great when they don't is not a good answer. Neither is the answer that he hasn't thought about who should have authority over drone strikes.
His answer to the terrorist captives is the opposite of considered. He hasn't thought about it.
He's thinking about how to use the money now used to bomb innocents to hell to build up the infrastructure of the homeland. Have you driven in downtown Philly or Boston recently? The streets are collapsing! That's a tragedy! He's thinking about that!
Of course, if Sanders wins and doesn't have a supportive Congress, we will be positively nostalgic for the days of the racist-tinged gridlock of the Obama years.
A visionary without a political movement is going to accomplish precisely nothing.
tjohn said:
Of course, if Sanders wins and doesn't have a supportive Congress, we will be positively nostalgic for the days of the racist-tinged gridlock of the Obama years.
A visionary without a political movement is going to accomplish precisely nothing.
So what's a status quo war hawk defense-monger with no domestic platform at all except "jobs" going to do?
And BTW, Sanders millions of movement followers aren't going away, no matter what!
springgreen2 said:
tjohn said:
Of course, if Sanders wins and doesn't have a supportive Congress, we will be positively nostalgic for the days of the racist-tinged gridlock of the Obama years.
A visionary without a political movement is going to accomplish precisely nothing.
So what's a status quo war hawk defense-monger with no domestic platform at all except "jobs" going to do?
And BTW, Sanders millions of movement followers aren't going away, no matter what!
If they don't influence congressional elections, they aren't a movement. They are just mosquitoes.
The Tea Party is a movement.
springgreen2 said:
dave23 said:
The answer that drones are great when they work as designed but not great when they don't is not a good answer. Neither is the answer that he hasn't thought about who should have authority over drone strikes.
His answer to the terrorist captives is the opposite of considered. He hasn't thought about it.
He's thinking about how to use the money now used to bomb innocents to hell to build up the infrastructure of the homeland. Have you driven in downtown Philly or Boston recently? The streets are collapsing! That's a tragedy! He's thinking about that!
dave23 brings up valid concerns and he is fully aware of our infrastructure needs. the conversation is civil and important, the differences between Clinton and Sanders should be explored and highlighted. Sanders is certainly not nearly as completely tuned in to international issues as he is to domestic, he is not as deep a thinker, or as bright as our current president so speaking about his weaknesses is exactly what we should be doing.
springgreen2 said:
dave23 said:
The answer that drones are great when they work as designed but not great when they don't is not a good answer. Neither is the answer that he hasn't thought about who should have authority over drone strikes.
His answer to the terrorist captives is the opposite of considered. He hasn't thought about it.
He's thinking about how to use the money now used to bomb innocents to hell to build up the infrastructure of the homeland. Have you driven in downtown Philly or Boston recently? The streets are collapsing! That's a tragedy! He's thinking about that!
He basically said: Bombing terrorist good, bombing little kid soccer game bad.
Yes. Yes I agree. We should definitely refine the process so we're not killing innocent people. How? I don't know. But I'm not running for dog catcher, let alone president.
There's nothing about infrastructure there - there's nothing about infrastructure on his official platform.
I just heard Clinton saying that Gun manufactures should be held accountable when their product is used illegally. When asked how this would be done she talked about Sanders being in the pocket of the NRA. Quite the non-answer with no detail. Why hasn't she thought this through? Why didn't she have a detailed plan?
Kind of sounds stupid doesn't it? I wouldn't expect her to have a plan but it is a nice thing to work towards.
Chill out Clinton zealots, you are hurting her not helping. Support her, don't demonize those who are striving for many of the same things.
springgreen2 said:
LOST said:
springgreen2 said:
mjh said:
springgreen2 said:
And @dave23, The Obama reference is to the fact that it in 2008 and 2012 it was tough to be an Obama advocate on MOL, until he hired Hillary, actually, and even then.
You've got to be kidding. By far, the vast majority of opposition to Obama on MOL in 2008 was not from liberal Democratic voters on MOL. It was from a small group of once-prolific right wing posters, most of whom don't even post here any longer.
My impression then was there was some fear among Democrats that Obama would not drive a hard enough bargain with the Palestinians.
What I remember are particularly vicious anti-Clinton pro-Obama posts by Tulip, or whatever she was calling herself at the time.
And vicious attacks on Tulip, which, as soon as she criticizes Hillary, start up again!
Oh!
jeffhandy said:
I just heard Clinton saying that Gun manufactures should be held accountable when their product is used illegally.
Should they?
They are making a legal product. Should an auto maker be liable if someone uses a vehicle to purposely kill someone.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info -
2007 Honda Fit $4,400
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I don't get the Obama reference.