2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSince Hillary supporters appear to be quite confident right now, perhaps I could finally get
an answer to a question I've been asking for months:
How do you rationalize away her war-mongering?
It's not one or two bad decisions. It's a clear pattern of militancy throughout her career in office.
As far as I can tell, the woman has never met a US war or intervention she didn't like, often with disastrous results. She's basically a Republican in terms of foreign policy.
Honestly, in terms of domestic politics, I don't have any major problems with Hillary. But her foreign policy sickens me.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Or it is just children and women and men overseas, where ya don't have to see them. And, when it happens, just laugh merrily and say Oopsie!
Baobab
(4,667 posts)I think most Hillarians simply don't know these things are happening or they choose to tune it out.
just like they choose to believe that Hillary cares about them when all the evidence is she doesnt. She's whispering sweet nothings to them to lull them into approving her and a theft of democratic rule of law via multiple predatory trade deals- Having fast track for five years, an infinite amount of damage can be done- with TiSA , TTIP and its friends - locking down the entire future for the foreseeable future, maybe many generations in a way that virtually nothing, certainly not future elected politicians could ever change.
See what I mean in here:
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)...thread killer.
dchill
(38,493 posts)brooklynite
(94,572 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)dchill
(38,493 posts)Weak sauce.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)There's nothing devious about that.
Before long we'll be hearing again about his "gun problem" and the NRA and his D- rating.
Complex issues are just that. Not just up or down, except for those lacking the ability to understand distinctions and weigh several measures at the same time.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Like I said, complex issues don't reduce easily into one liners or up/down.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Because he voted for some MIC jobs for his state? Not quite the same as going whole hog for invading and destroying other coutnries.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)that post is the evidence
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Voted to remove Sadaam in 98 Liberation of Iraq.
Voted for 1.8 billion in military aid and assistance for Israel
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Such complete disregard for life and civility!
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)His voting record speaks volumes but is, as expected , ignored by his ardent supporters who turn a blind eye when ever Bernie's votes get people killed. What else is new?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Damn! The hypocrisy is so f**king funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)+100
Marr
(20,317 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)for that to be possible- but then she blink at the half a million Iraqi children that perished as a result of the the no fly zone and oil for food programs her husband initiated when she was co-presidenting with him
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Those are the cogent arguments the Hill Shills make that Bernie supports wars.
Lots of evidence there.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to hit your head with your hand, because people expect a smidgen of honesty in the argument?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Instead, we were left to simply guess at to the nature of the rationalization that post #2 is expressing agreement with.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Sanders supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism. Sanders has supported Israels aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. Sanders supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. And Sanders has stated that he too would use drones.
This is Sanders record which is sittin right next to the rest of the Democrats, as he presents himself as a pacifist, though that simply is not true. Using it as a weapon and tool to attack Clinton. Though, his supporters ignore the fact that he is as hawkish except all but one vote.
stone space
(6,498 posts)...which specific rationalization is being supported in post #2.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)iwth daring to support Clinton because of her military positions, WE are aware of Sanders military positions being consistent with the rest of them, yet you all ignore it and use to as a tool or weapon to vilify Clinton.
My question is, what is so challenging for you to process this, demanding more of an explanation?
stone space
(6,498 posts)iwth daring to support Clinton because of her military positions, WE are aware of Sanders military positions being consistent with the rest of them, yet you all ignore it and use to as a tool or weapon to vilify Clinton.
I did say that I am likely to disagree with whatever rationalization is being supported, but I can't be certain, since I don't know what it is.
Your other accusations seem a bit off base to me.
I haven't even mentioned Clinton.
I just asked what rationalization is being supported in post #2, that's all.
I don't understand why it is such a big secret, and why I am being accused here of saying things that I haven't said.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Why not actually address getting your answer, instead of continually asking the same question.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Nor even the author of post #2.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)I don't understand what the secrecy is all about.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)and then it is shown your candidate has more votes and is as hawkish as Dick Cheney!
stone space
(6,498 posts)There was no rationalization given, and no link to a specific rationalization.
Are we expected to make guesses?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yes, folks, this statement was actually made as a serious opinion.
[font size=4 color=darkred]Bernie Sanders is as hawkish as Dick Cheney.[/font]
Let that sink in. Yes, a Hillary Clinton supporter *really* said that.
I have to wonder how it is possible to have a reasonable conversation at this point. What do you say to such an assertion? I can only see that headed in the direction of "No, he isn't because (list of reasons backed up by evidence, links, etc.)" "YES HE IS! (no citation)."
This is the time when I urge all of you to not beat your head against the brick wall. That's exactly what the goal is, to waste your time making intelligent arguments while they run off and say such things in other threads to frustrate and in effect silence other people.
I'll leave it to the guy who says it best:
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I'm not going to bother with someone that makes the statement that Bernie Sanders is as hawkish as Dick Cheney. I'd put you on ignore, but you are absolutely hilarious.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)voted for. Sitting on tv stating he too would continue drone. The man is no different but we have him as a pacifist.
So, One group recognizes, the other group ignores and uses as a tool and weapon to attack another.
I agree.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)his record. He doesn't have anything, his agenda has been rejected, his over and over speeches are tired, and now he has moved the goal post further by demanding Hillary get the required number of delegates without the SD's. I hope the end results has her over the required count by pledged delegates, probably will be another move of the goal post, probably delete the Southern states and then on to only counting the states he won.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)participant. Hypocrisy at best. Ridiculous in argument. They go every which way so they do not have to acknowledge the fact Sanders voted to that one vote, and voted all others after that vote, including a slow withdrawal from Iraq.
stone space
(6,498 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)But my question wasn't really about the record of any specific candidate for office.
My question was about which specific rationalization you were expressing agreement with in post #2.
I'm quite likely to disagree with whatever your specific rationalization is, by the way.
But I can't say for sure unless you tell me what your specific rationalization is.
It's not a secret, is it?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I have not heard Sanders "rationalize" his voting to expand the troops in Afghanistan, he may not have a good reason.
stone space
(6,498 posts)All I have done is to ask what specific rationalization you are expressing agreement with in post #2.
As I said, I am likely to disagree with it, whatever it is, but unless you are willing to divulge the rationalization you are supporting, I have no real way of knowing.
Is there a reason why you don't want to tell me?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)you can research this, I don't care what he used to rationalize his war mongering.
stone space
(6,498 posts)you can research this, I don't care what he used to rationalize his war mongering.
Bernie isn't here to give his own rationalizations, and even if he were, how would I know which ones you are agreeing with in your post #2 and which ones you might not agree with.
Is it a secret?
Is there some reason why you refuse to tell me?
If you don't want your own rationalization known, then why did you even bring it up?
I don't understand your desire for secrecy here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Oh, BTW your quote was not in my post #2
Here is my post in #2
In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.
can you rationalize why you quoted the wrong post?
stone space
(6,498 posts)Does the author of the OP speak for you?
Without clicking back, I'm guessing that I quoted from the post I was replying to, just like I am doing here with your post.
In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.
can you rationalize why you quoted the wrong post?
Your own post and your own rationalizations is the one I am asking you about.
What makes you think that I quoted from the wrong post?
I can't click back to be sure with the edit screen open. Did I not quote from the post I was replying to?
It's possible. Sometimes I make mistakes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Rationalization, you think?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In the same manner you rationalize Sanders war mongering.
Go back and ask the OP what did the poster intend to rationalize and you will have your answer. It is simple, however, I would not post an OP asking for rationalizing Hillary's "warmongering" without rationalizing Sanders "warmongering".
stone space
(6,498 posts)Is there some reason why you don't want to speak for yourself, here?
The author of the OP could put any words into your mouth that he or she wants to.
Is that what you want?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have been given in this subthread, repeatedly?
stone space
(6,498 posts)It appears to be a rather closely held secret.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)along with the rest leading up to, and all after. And supports every military spending, continuing to build the wasteful F35, will continue with the drone program.
ALL right along with the other Dems.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It would be crazy to stop production of the F-35 just as it is being completed. Only a loon like Trump would (and has) proposed that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I get the man is a politician, and I get why he has voted as he does. And still I would support the man. I am not the one trying to make a pacifist of the man, or suggesting he is anything but a politician, giving money to his state thru Lockheed/Martins failed F35, known for years of its failure. Not simply now that it is near completion. So, this would be you rationalizing, right?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)First, the F-35 was already a done deal when he supported bringing some of its contracts to Vermont. Second, it is not failed. It will be our next generation fighter. Third, I am not trying to represent Sanders as a pacifist. I am suggesting that his record and his positions are way less hawkish than Clinton's. That should be obvious.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)in the 90's and Sanders is ahead of Clinton.
But for it to merely be "less" hawkish and then watch months of this board of Sanders supporters use it as a weapon to bash Clinton and her supporters, also repeatedly tell us we are into women and children being killed is highly offensive. Not a vote has gone by he didn't vote for, but one. He voted the one leading up to that vote and everything after that one vote. He has the blood on his hands too. Hypocrisy at its worst.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)She supported Bush's invasion as indicated by her response to code pink prior to the war and her endorsement of Bush's ultimatum to Hussein on the eve of the war. She also aped all of his talking points about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear programs, harboring Al Qaeda. Sanders forcefully argued against invading and correctly predicted the bad consequences of doing so. Clinton also pushed hard for violent regime change in Libya, and she seems to have no objection to Obama's unconstitutional use of American force there. She even called it smart power at its best! Unlike Sanders, she refuses to call the Israeli bombing of Gaza disproportionate or to criticize Israel at all for policies that fail to respect the rights of innocent bystanders in war. She also sought to arm rebels in Syria and has supported violent regime change there. She has also fought to preserve cluster bombs. She also wants a no fly zone in Syria even though she cannot say how that can be done without risking confrontation with Russia. Her saber-rattling pertaining to Iran also does not bode well for peace.
Anyone who thinks Clinton isn't far more hawkish than Clinton is, well, obviously wrong.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sanders, being a politician, was able to sit in safety of his seat. All the rest is suppositions. I will wait for her to make decisions before frying her on them.
And no, not so obvious, per Sanders votes, he is right there with her, in actual votes.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)to go to war if he believed Iraq posed a threat to the US. And her support for the ultimatum to Hussein suggested she was wanted an invasion because there was no way Hussein was going to abdicate power. Sanders voted for wars that were quite arguably justified--at least at the outset. Clinton also supported those wars of course. And please don't make me add the obvious points about his votes for funding. Check out his website on that point please.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to pretend otherwise.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The ILA explicitly stated that it was not an authorization for the use of American military force.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Senator Sanders: "What part of the F-35? What are my options as a Senator? if I said no to the F-35 coming to Burlington, for Vermont National Guard where would it go?... South Carolina?
My choice as a Senator, this is not a debate 20 years ago when we saw the F-35, which was very, very costly and is a huge cost overall. Its the debate that the F-35 is here, it goes to South Carolina, or Florida, or in the state of Vermont. And I wanted it to come to the state of Vermont. Now in terms of the military spending in general, thats another broader issue. Are we spending too much? Yes, we are. Have there been, more well back up for a minute we are spending too much, we should cut it.
The F-35, you have to in politics, its not and people do this I dont mean to be critical, but you gotta look at where somebody is at the moment. If the debate is if somebody comes to you and says Look, Im thinking about building this super plane deal, its gonna cost huge sums of money, what do you think? Thats, and maybe say no, no I think thats a good idea, maybe well go with the F-16. So then I responded. Are you about to say something?
Josh: "No."
Sen. Sanders continues: Thats where, in the real world, if the plan is built, and it is the plan that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and of NATO, and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont, North Carolina-not North Carolina, South Carolina, or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator? Do you want it to go to South Carolina? Youre not saving anybody any money. So you have to look at these things in a, and it becomes complicated, and good friends can disagree on that. But my view is that given the reality of the damn plane, Id rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And thats what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. Thats it.
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont
Vattel
(9,289 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)given that it was going to be built anyway. And explain why it wouldn't have been crazy not to finish building it. I guess you agree with Trump that we should spend billions on it and then cancel the program right as it was ready to go into production. I am glad neither Clinton nor Sanders is that dumb.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Why should he not run in the Democratic Party? Because he knows it makes him an hypocrite, (per his own words) until it benefits him as a politician. Super Pacs, sure.... but really not the same as Clinton's Super Pacs. Donation from fracking and oil, lets pretend it isn't happening. Wall Street, Bankers and Corps? Again, just pretend he isn't getting the money.
Hey, the reality? I do not care. I do care about lying and attacking when doing exactly the damn same. Maybe smaller scale, because well... fuck, Vermont is much much smaller. So that scale is way smaller. But Lockheed/Martin, same shit another day. I just do not pretend otherwise.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)FarPoint
(12,377 posts)Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State negotiated away from war. She kept us safe.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)'Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.'
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Foreign policy, currently he does not have a foreign policy.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)has to say.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Choose the parts of the position, failed on his foreign policy, wrong office to seek.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Of Saturday night roasting and people will start posting crazy theories about Obama being a closet repuke. This is what has happened to Hillary and there is plenty of material there since she has been in the national public eye for decades and targeted by republicans. I just shake my head at y'all..
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)See how it works? Shameful
B Calm
(28,762 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I'm testing love trumps hate today and I have no tolerance for your poking.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)you win!
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Role model?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)None donate to her campaign.
peace13
(11,076 posts)They were all raised in Middle class families.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)If you wish to be pedantic and focus on my use of the word "only" I'll plead hyperbole. My point stands.
.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Now that Skinner abandoned the 5-hide vacation rule, we can finally push back against the endless bullshit.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)You can always make a political arguement, just not be ugly or disrespectful doing it.
It is not really disputed that Hillary is Hawkish, just the extent.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Are you saying that 5 hides will send me on vacation? That was my obvious and clearly stated point.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)I just served on a jury where some Hillary supporter was even being a little snarky calling Bernie supporters "delusional," but they had an arguement on the issue at hand. The point of their post was not to be ugly, but a political point. We voted 1-6 the "leave it," including me.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)That got many a Clinton voter sent on vacation, me included, more than once.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)There are many more Bernie folk than Hillary supporters, thus the bias that causes so many bullshit hides. Then, they approve clear violations from their own. It's blatant naked politics, and that's why the Admins saw the need to write a new alert system that is not so easily abused. I can't wait for it to get here.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You could not insult without consequences. Yes, it is so much more civil now from your side now, lol
eridani
(51,907 posts)Note that the majority of Congressional Dems voted against it.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Look at our defense budget.
I don't think Hillary is a warmonger. She's just part of the US government, and this is what the US is. Democrats and Republicans are both militant in the US.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And Sanders continues to fund Lockheed Martin. He like the production of drones also,
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Xithras
(16,191 posts)It's only been a peaceful era if you swallow the "it's not really war if it's only guided bombs and cruise missiles" lie.
The United States has been actively involved in combat operations, somewhere in the world, every year since 1991. None of us can guess how people living a century from now will judge us, but it's hard to believe that the long eye of history will agree with any claims that this has been a "peaceful era".
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)words and actions are just the opposite so you can't really use that as an excuse for her. There has never been a war she doesn't like. It's HER not the government.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)You're right, there are a few people in the government who aren't as militant, and Bernie is certainly less so than Hillary, but this is still the average for the US rather than an outlying position. She's the norm. We are the ones who are outside the norm. (I voted for Bernie in my primary so I include myself.)
I don't understand calling the average position "warmonger." That word seems like it would be for an *unusually* hawkish position, but her position is the norm in the US. It's more accurate to say that Bernie is unusually anti-militant rather than that Hillary is a warmonger. Our country is a mess as far as this issue goes IMO.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Just because most others are the same, doesn't make the word have a different meaning.
Like saying every one of them eats meat except one guy. Since all the others eat meat,. meat eating is the "norm" as you said. By your logic you'd say that you can't call them meat eaters, because meat eating is the norm. Makes no sense.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I can't say yours is wrong because I like your logic, but to let you know my perspective, I'll share my version of your scenario. Instead of comparing it to "meat eater" I'd compare it to "ethical eater." Some people think you have to be a vegan to be an ethical eater, but others feel like you can eat meat and dairy in some circumstances and be an ethical eater. Others think that any eating of animal products regardless of how they're raised or slaughtered is ethical.
Almost everyone would agree with some specific war, depending on the circumstances. Very few people would agree with any war at all, no matter the circumstances or specifics - and it's those people I would call "Warmongers." Hillary is more hawkish than Bernie, no doubt there, but I don't think she would agree with any war, no matter the circumstances.
I don't see it as being as black and white. When I think of my voting history, I've always voted from among the people practically available, so pretty much everyone has been more hawkish than I am. I remember when my senator, Debbie Stabenow, voted for the torture bill. That night, her campaign called and asked me for another contribution to her campaign, and I said no, and I explained why I wouldn't give her any more money. I stopped giving her money at that point, but I realize that I've voted for a great number of people who are more hawkish than I am. Maybe every single person I've ever voted for (except Bernie and one or two others in local elections.) What do I do with that? All of a sudden decide I won't vote for Hillary over Trump because she is more hawkish than I am? I can label everyone a "warmonger" to make myself feel like it's a more obvious decision, but it's much more complicated than that. I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, and this is one of the reasons, but it doesn't look like he'll be going on to the general election. My choice will be between two people who are to the right of me, but one who is just to the right of me, and really no more to the right than a great number of the people I've voted for in my adult life, and one who is a fascist and way to the right. And who would love to go to war with the entire Islamic world and God knows who else.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Here's the definition
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
That is what Hillary does for EVERY war. That makes her a warmonger.
The definition has nothing to do with anything else or anyone else. It is about WAR and ADVOCATING for war. That is Hillary.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She's agreed with a majority of people when she did agree with wars, and so she's agreed with the wars we've entered. But she doesn't always vote for war.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)pull something outta your ass and present that as fact too.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Easily impressed with the big words are you... how silly is that?
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Definitely has a cadence and rhythm--pleasing to the ear! LOL!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I just love pretentious people.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Kissenger boy.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Well, at least it makes no sense to a rational mind.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Can you tell me?
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)The Federal level NICS check depends on state level databases to begin with.
If you claim the states can't handle it, then you saying the Feds can't either.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Or with the fact that she will do nothing about campaign finance reform? I have major problems with her on both foreign and domestic policy.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Many other domestic issues too. Fracking and other fossil fuel interests, the drug war and mass incarceration, not supporting U.S. workers but favoring outsourcing and H1-B insourcing, on and on.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)It is because of the trillions of dollars we spend on war that the Democrats cave on cuts to social services and won't fight for things like Medicare for All or tuition free college.
hereforthevoting
(241 posts)Oh, nothing of circumstance cited anyway?
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)1. Reinstitute the draft. No deferments for college students or rich kids. You get drafted, you serve. Make the military look more like the rest of the country.
2. Do a 180 on the policy of not showing flag draped coffins. Mandatory government press release on every U.S. soldier killed in action, including a picture and biography.
djean111
(14,255 posts)cared what we think, any more. They really do not. Demonstrations? The police have been systematically militarized. I believe you will see military-grade things used on protesters at the conventions. And I believe they are looking forward to using them.
A draft, for this government, the MIC, and Wall Street? More expendable bodies to throw at more things, more money to be made.
LOTS more dead bodies. That's all that would happen. Remember when the Vietnam protests stopped us from more and more killing? No, because it didn't.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Then we're even further gone than I think we are. I don't discount the possibility that you're right. My point about the draft is to put some kids of limousine liberals and politicians in the military and perhaps they would quit viewing them as expendable.
Protests eventually got us out of Vietnam, though not nearly quickly enough.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Also - the children of the rich and connected will always be safe. Jobs in offices, officers safely removed from actual battle situations.
I am not trying to shoot down your idea so much as saying that - I am 70. I have seen this roll out before. The rich always get richer, the poor get poorer, and the rich and connected are insulated. And the poor people die.
I think we are pretty far gone, really. Partly because this country is so big, so many people are disconnected from other people, and the media makes sure we are uninformed. And the MIC is giving weapons and training to police departments for a reason. Right now, a lot of police seem to think it is okay to shoot and kill at will.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)What little hope I held that we could dig out of this mess is pretty much gone with Bernie's candidacy. I'm almost 59, and am about to head back into tuning out politics like I have since the middle of 2009 or so when I realized Obama was more of the same.
My post on reinstating the draft and publicizing U.S. soldiers who lose their lives at war was just a comment, not a serious proposal. I know it will never happen and even if it did the well connected would keep their kids out of harm's way while sending others in their place.
If the people most harmed by our two party corrupt corporate system won't go to the polls and vote their own interest then we're going to keep getting the status quo.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)1. Reinstitute the draft. No deferments for college students or rich kids. You get drafted, you serve. Make the military look more like the rest of the country.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You guys build strawmen, knock them over, and then declare victory.
If Hillary, or Obama, were war-mongers, we'd have at least 300k-400k troops on the ground all over the middle east engaged in direct invasion and occupation.
The mistake you guys make (over and over) is to believe that any use of our military, regardless of the size, duration, or purpose, equals war.
btw ... Bernie plans to continue Obama's drone program. I find it interesting that Bernie supporters continue to rationalize that fact.
randome
(34,845 posts)It used to be the main cudgel to use against Obama but not against Sanders.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)"Bernie will do it better."
What ever that means.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)She's clearly a hawk on military policy, for instance, calling for no-fly zones in Syria is very hawkish and bound to lead us into conflict with Russia. She wants to put new sanctions on Iran. She seems happy to promote regime change and upheaval in other countries. She's pro-oppression, she's pro-Netanyahu, for god's sake.
No, she's not Hitler. But she's clearly pro-war. I've never heard her talk about the true cost of war or calling for reining in our completely bloated military.
In my book, war-monger is a reasonable charge.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/04/21/new-york-time-magazine-looks-at-how-hillary-clinton-became-a-warmonger/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/hillary-clinton-really-loves-military-intervention
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/as_reckless_as_george_w_bush_hillary_clinton_helped_create_disorder_in_iraq_libya_syria_and_scarier_doesnt_seem_to_understand_how/?source=newsletter
She's clearly a WARHAWK, and even worse, she's an unapologetic one, who seems to have learned nothing from the past 15 years.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I've spent the last 7 or so years listening to the same folks who call Obama that term now saying it of Hillary.
Its the same folks who thought Obama promised to pull troops out of Afghanistan when he actually ran on increasing the number of troops there.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)yet no one calls him a warmonger, because he opposed the one war we all agree was a terrible idea. The fact of the matter is that we're expected to intervene in places where no one else can. Right or wrong, that's the way the world works right now. Pulling back and letting the world go to rot doesn't serve our interests either.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Buncha hypocrites.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)She knew that the "justifications" were bullshit all along.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)Bettie
(16,109 posts)and her chosen constituents.
Why should she have to explain that? It is all economics, she and those she works for profit.
Who cares if some of the peons die? They don't matter anyway.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Prove she has profited from war
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)....mistakes will be made...but that is better than doing nothing at times
bjo59
(1,166 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts).
Response to pdsimdars (Reply #91)
potisok This message was self-deleted by its author.
LuvLoogie
(7,003 posts)So I don't know if that answers your push poll?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)And it's one that really bothers me.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Can you rationalize the war here at home. You know, the war with thousands dying every year from gun violence and the gun manufacturers cannot be sued over their involvement. Seven time more people die by gun violence here in the US each year than the US troop lives lost in Iraq totaled. Bernie chose to side with the gun manufacturers.
Oh, the Secretary of State does not set US policy. That is the job of the President and the Secretary of State has to act on the wishes of their employer. How can you not know that?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Edwards and Kerry. 7 out of 10 long time DU posters who say that Clinton's vote is the absolute one reason they cannot support her, can be found rationalizing Edwards' or Kerry's vote back in the day.
apnu
(8,756 posts)She's not whom I would like for President, but she has my support because Trump, Cruz, Kasich is worse.
While I am a Progressive, I am not a single issue voter. I know she's willing to use America's military might as a part of foreign policy. But I also know Hillary's liberal bona fides are solid despite her support of Barry Goldwater before I was born (I'm 42, btw). I know people can and do change over time and I don't have a problem with candidates who change positions. I do have a problem if their positions change for the worse, but I don't object to change because its change.
Also Hillary will not put a conservative on the SCotUS, she will not continue the war on women either. Those are very important points for me and so I will sleep well voting for Hillary Clinton if we can achieve progress for women.
There is more to the Presidency and more to Hillary Clinton than her handful of war votes. As for her being SoS, the bucks stops with Obama, not Hillary Clinton.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)oh well
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Sometimes war is necessary. I'd prefer a president who recognizes that reality over a pacifist any day.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I and millions of other people have had enough of US wars, thank you very much.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)or that Bernie supports war too. Or that Bernie supports guns, so he's just as bad.
I guess, these positions are to be expected, but it would be nice to see a Hillary supporter really come to terms with her truly awful foreign policy record.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Your problem and that of the others here is regardless of Bernie's position, you put Hillary next to him and if she doesnt measure up, and she often doesnt, you then say there is NO voting for her, that Hillary must be like Bernie or you will stay home or vote 3rd party.
I dont know if you personally have made that promise, but many have.
Politics doesnt work that way.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)"How do you rationalize away her war-mongering?"
That but also her support for:
Fracking / Off shore / Artic drilling.
Patriot Act + its reauthorization
TPP
Death Penalty
TARP
Leaving the SS cap in place.
SOPA
Private Prisons
Keystone (switched in 2013)
Her opposition to:
A Carbon Tax
Reinstating Glass-Steagall
Gay Marriage (switched in 2010)
Universal Healthcare
Vattel
(9,289 posts)They fall into two basic categories:
1. Sanders is a warmonger too.
2. Clinton is not a warmonger.
The first is an absurdly false equivalency. The second clearly contradicts the record.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That will not happen.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)can you name any?
Or are you suggesting that supporting any war is war mongering?
She has in fact supported wars that were supported by 98% plus of the government. But she was hardly the one leading the way.
If only people who are against all wars are qualified in your view, then I'd suggest that your candidates are not going to be sufficient to protect us and our allies.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... your assessment that HRC is a "warmonger", which she's not, I would say that while you may disagree with her foreign policy, at least she has one.
Bernie, on the other hand, has sputtered and stuttered every time he's been asked about foreign affairs - he clearly doesn't have a clue.
When asked how he would deal with foreign leaders like Putin, Bernie's response was that when he was mayor of Burlington, he dealt with all kinds of people. Yeah, that's what you want in a president - someone who thinks dealing with the local zoning commission is exactly like dealing with international heads of state.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)I think she's a go-alonger. She seems to go with the prevailing opinion and/or corporate driven agenda, whichever she calculates will help her most.
I dont believe she has any true principles, just money and power.
If peace was popular in the US, and there was profit in it, she'd be a dove, not a doubt in my mind.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Too bad there's so many in the Federal govt who love war.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)eg, I don't think she's particularly pro-gun or anti-gun. She's whatever she needs to be for the moment, as evidenced by her anti gun stance this year, and "Annie Oakley" in 2008, and her reputation for "evolving".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Same kind of question. And you will get the same answer you would give.
We disagree with your frame. We don't think she is a warmonger.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)HRC's vote flied in the face of UN recommendations to the contrary about WMD's. Her vote allowed GW to make up his mind about when and if to attack. Her vote was a part of the initiation of the war.
Sanders votes were to fund existing troops already deployed in the field. Would you have not funded the troops already over there leaving them defenseless?
It baffles me that people don't see the difference.