HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Q: Why is Bernie backing ...

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:09 AM

Q: Why is Bernie backing a candidate who is opposed to the Iran nuclear deal?? ...

A: Butthurt ...

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is incompetent at running the DNC. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is in the pocket of payday lenders. In short, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the fucking worst.

Except for maybe her primary opponent:

Much of Canova’s campaign literature emphasizes his opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran, a position shared by many in the district’s large and active Jewish population. Wasserman Schultz backed the deal.

“She’s Jewish; I’m not. But I’ve had a Jewish stepdad for 40 years, and I was a volunteer on a kibbutz. . . . And she voted for the Iran agreement,” he said. “Either she got duped by [Obama deputy national security adviser] Ben Rhodes or she was in on it.”
In other words, against Wasserman-Schultz Bernie Sanders is backing a guy who attacks her from the right on one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of the day. I have no love whatsoever for Wasserman-Schultz but this almost makes me want to donate to her campaign. Fucking brilliant.


Of course this isn't really about Canova; it's about Sanders' grudge against Wasserman-Schultz. It isn't about 'principle' any more than his jihad against Barney Frank is; it's about payback. But what's also at work here is his lack of interest in foreign policy--something he might want to get over if he's going to keep endorsing people for Federal office.


http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/05/with-progressives-like-these.html

62 replies, 6025 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Q: Why is Bernie backing a candidate who is opposed to the Iran nuclear deal?? ... (Original post)
salinsky Jun 2016 OP
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #1
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #3
salinsky Jun 2016 #6
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #58
Tortmaster Jun 2016 #11
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #50
Tortmaster Jun 2016 #51
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #54
Tortmaster Jun 2016 #59
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #60
Tortmaster Jun 2016 #61
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #62
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #2
salinsky Jun 2016 #4
Tortmaster Jun 2016 #5
Uponthegears Jun 2016 #7
salinsky Jun 2016 #8
Uponthegears Jun 2016 #10
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #13
Uponthegears Jun 2016 #17
salinsky Jun 2016 #22
Uponthegears Jun 2016 #23
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #25
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #27
JRLeft Jun 2016 #55
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #16
Uponthegears Jun 2016 #20
Orsino Jun 2016 #9
salinsky Jun 2016 #12
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #14
thesquanderer Jun 2016 #31
Armstead Jun 2016 #15
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #18
merrily Jun 2016 #30
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #33
merrily Jun 2016 #37
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #39
merrily Jun 2016 #40
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #43
merrily Jun 2016 #45
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #46
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #19
Tarc Jun 2016 #24
merrily Jun 2016 #28
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #32
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #34
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #36
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #41
merrily Jun 2016 #44
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #47
salinsky Jun 2016 #21
tk2kewl Jun 2016 #26
onenote Jun 2016 #57
LexVegas Jun 2016 #29
Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #35
Recursion Jun 2016 #38
Nanjeanne Jun 2016 #42
Eric J in MN Jun 2016 #48
RandySF Jun 2016 #53
CanadaexPat Jun 2016 #49
EndElectoral Jun 2016 #52
Jim Lane Jun 2016 #56

Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:15 AM

1. because his campaign is about settling personal scores with people inside the DNC

 

such as Dan Malloy, Barney Frank, and DWS, more than it is about issues at this point.

that's how populist campaigns based on anger and grievance usually wind up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:20 AM

3. Can you imagine what a guy with that mind set

would do with presidential power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:26 AM

6. I can hardly believe how petty he is ...

... and yes, he certainly is not presidential material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:10 PM

58. That is the Truth...

He is vindictive and just plain angry and mean...holds grudges for years too...as Barney could tell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:28 AM

11. It must be especially galling ...

... for Senator Sanders to have been pantsed by The New York Daily News over his embarrassing lack of knowledge about Dodd-Frank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tortmaster (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:52 AM

50. The NYT agrees with Sanders' assessment and interpretation of the NYDN interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:58 AM

51. Whenever somebody attempts to whitewash ...

... that disqualifying embarrassment of an interview, I like to link to it:

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2588306

It's that bad. We really dodged a bullet here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tortmaster (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:07 AM

54. No, you are entirely mistaken

Bernie Sanders probably knows more about breaking up banks than his critics give him credit for.

The Daily News on Monday published an interview with him that led some commentators to say he didn’t know how to break up the country’s biggest banks. Downsizing the largest financial institutions is one of Mr. Sanders’s signature policies, so it would indeed raise questions about his candidacy if he had little idea of how to do it.

In the interview, with The Daily News’s editorial board, Mr. Sanders does appear to get tangled up in some details and lacks clarity. Breaking up the banks would involve arcane and complex regulatory moves that can trip up any banking policy wonk, let alone a presidential candidate. But, taken as a whole, Mr. Sanders’s answers seem to make sense. Crucially, his answers mostly track with a reasonably straightforward breakup plan that he introduced to Congress last year.

...

Mr. Sanders is mostly cogent here. This is more or less how a breakup would work under his legislation. Doing what he outlines here would be far easier if Congress passed his breakup bill, or something like it. Mr. Sanders is on shaky ground if he thinks it would be easy to slash the size of the banks with Dodd-Frank alone. But, taking the interview as a whole, as well as his past positions, that does not appear to be the path he favors.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/upshot/yes-bernie-sanders-knows-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?_r=0

Or the Huffington Post:
As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

Daily News: Okay. Well, let’s assume that you’re correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?

Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.

Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?

Sanders: Well, I don’t know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.

Daily News: How? How does a president turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the treasury turn to any of those banks and say, “Now you must do X, Y and Z?”

Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.

Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?

This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.

...

This wasn’t an interview about policy details. It was about who the media has decided is presidential and who isn’t, who is serious and who isn’t. The Daily News and much of the rest of the media don’t think Sanders is qualified to be president, and that’s the motivation for an interview meant to expose what the media have already decided is true.

(To be clear, I have my own view, that Sanders has shown himself to be a lousy manager of his staff on Capitol Hill over the years, which doesn’t bode well for a presidency, and has not shown much interest in organizing, or ability to organize coalitions within the House or the Senate to advance his agenda, outside of his audit-the-Fed legislation, and some improvements to Obamacare. That’s troubling, but it’s different than deciding he’s not serious and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.)

Candidates the media deem to be serious do not get these policy pop quizzes, because it is believed (accurately) that they can hire experienced advisers who can work out the details. But if they were pressed, there’s no doubt a studied reporter could make them look silly.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5

ETA: Economist Dean Baker agrees as well: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/reporters-who-haven-t-noticed-that-paul-ryan-has-called-for-eliminating-most-of-federal-government-go-nuts-over-bernie-sanders-lack-of-specifics

Thanks for playing, though. That meme just needs to be put to bed though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #54)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 07:30 AM

59. Let the good folks read the interview.

Rather than the after-spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tortmaster (Reply #59)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 08:41 AM

60. Thanks for the unsolicited advice but I'll do what I please.

Since not everybody necessarily understands Dodd-frank it helps to provide analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #60)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 09:49 AM

61. "Not everybody" includes ...

... Senator Sanders.

But, hey, it didn't matter for the Primary. He had lost that well before New York. What we're arguing about here is whether Democrats in the future will prize intelligence and depth or dance to the tune of empty-suited Pied Pipers.

Will we be lazy? Or, will we do our homework?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tortmaster (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 3, 2016, 11:07 AM

62. The NYT literally just said he knew the authority that Dodd-Frank gave him. Lol!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:16 AM

2. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Did Tim Canova just imply Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't a "good Jew" ?

As a Jew, I don't know if I'm a good one or not, but I'm offended.


It reminds me of when Rudy Boschwitz , a Jewish Republican, was running against Paul Wellstone, a Jewish Democrat for a seat in the United States Senate and he implied Wellstone wasn't a "good Jew" because his wife was a Christian and he was a moderate on Israel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:24 AM

4. He suggests she was either duped or she was malicious ...

... so she's either a stupid Jew or an evil Jew.

Pretty sick.

Why am I not surprised that Bernie can get behind this guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:24 AM

5. If you are against the Iran Deal, ...

... you are fucked in the head. But, hey, Payday loans! Amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:26 AM

7. Strange that the focus of this OP

 

is on whether Tim Canova is pandering to a particular voting bloc instead of whether his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is good policy?

Let's hear whether you Bernie bashers support or oppose the deal?

As for this Bernie supporter, Tim Canova is dead wrong on this issue. Not only is the Iran nuclear deal a good one, it is a step toward the day when this country no longer tries to tilt the scale in a regional conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:27 AM

8. Support ... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:28 AM

10. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:31 AM

13. I doubt anybody on this board opposes the deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:35 AM

17. +1 again

 

BUT do you really think that no one who posts in GDP opposes (okay, that's an absolute, I mean, "that a number of people who post in GDP oppose" the Iran nuclear deal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:38 AM

22. Perhaps some paid trolls ... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:39 AM

23. Did you not read the part

 

about me having to do too many +1's?

In any event, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:44 AM

25. I am wary of speaking in absolutes but I doubt many here oppose the deal...

I have reservations over whether it will work. We have seen this movie before in North Korea. However and it is a huge however, the president put his prestige and the prestige of the nation on the line, and therefore it was incumbent upon us to support him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:05 AM

27. there are a few opponents of the deal, and I would say 3/4 support Clinton

 

Not saying as in 75%, but rather three support Clinton and one (supposedly) supports Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:09 AM

55. It could have been better, but it's pretty solid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:34 AM

16. I supported that deal very, very, very strongly and pissed on the shoes of

 

any Democrat who opposed it.

do a site search for my user handle and Chuck Schumer if you don't believe me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:37 AM

20. Okay, I am having to do too many +1's

 

I am proud of all of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:27 AM

9. Dumb.

Maybe Canova is just better than DWS on a lot of other issues?

I weould find it hard to believe in a progressive position that somehow opposes the Iran deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:30 AM

12. Maybe ...

... but being dead wrong on "one of the most consequential foreign policy issues of the day" is pretty damning, and might a good reason to distance oneself ...

... at least, if you want to be considered presidential material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:32 AM

14. He should have never made religion an issue...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:19 AM

31. Right, you often support people you don't agree with 100%. The thing about the Iran deal though...

...is that it's something of a non-issue, in that it already passed. So while it may not be admirable, the fact is, one can pander by speaking against it, without any real-world consequence. That is, if elected, he would not have the opportunity to vote against it anyway, there will be no opportunity for anyone to hold him to it. In effect, he can take any position he thinks will get him more votes, without worrying about acting on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:32 AM

15. Clinton is not exactly a big advocate for the Iran deal

 

But setting that aside....Your criticism of Sanders for supporting him is inane.

Sure he and Sanders have disagreements. But they also have many agreements.

Your complaints seem to contradict the "purity" claims that are always being made. So Sanders is only supposed to support people who support him 100 percent on everything? Wouldn't that the "purity test" you accuse him of?

Nice little Catch 22 you have going on there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:36 AM

18. Canova made her religion an issue. Pardon my French but that is really fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:17 AM

30. Except when the Hillary campaign does it to Sanders with dog whistles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:21 AM

33. I need to see an example...

As a Jewish person I am really fucking offended that Tim Canova arrogates to himself the right to decide who are "good Jews" and who aren't, based on their positions on political issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:27 AM

37. How about when Hillary announces at her events that she is a Christian, then waits a few

seconds before saying "I'm a Methodist."

How about when her friend Rehm insists over Sanders denials that he has dual citizenship.

How about when campaign surrogates went on Sunday talk shows and talked about surveys showing that Americans won't vote for an agnostic for President?

No dog whistles about religion in any of that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:31 AM

39. She is a Christian...

If somebody asked me my religion it's a bit more complicated. My mom was Jewish. My father was Christian. Since Judaism is a matrilineal religion I am Jewish. I actually consider myself a Jewish-Christian.

Any way, if you want to defend Tim Canova calling DWS a "bad Jew" that's your prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:33 AM

40. Um, no one asked her. It was part of her stump speech.

In fact, I think she opened with that.

Any way, if you want to defend Tim Canova calling DWS a "bad Jew" that's your prerogative.


This is a dishonest and disgusting mischaracterization of my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #40)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:40 AM

43. I need to see the text...



This thread is a discussion of Tim Canova making an in issue of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Judaism.



Any way, if you want to defend Tim Canova calling DWS a "bad Jew" that's your prerogative.


This is a dishonest and disgusting mischaracterization of my post.



Instead of joining all good people in holding his contemptible and odious actions out for censure and opprobrium you point to the alleged bad acts of others.

My remarks stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:48 AM

45. Oh, please, as if showing you the text would matter to you and your remark was bs.

What I pointed out was YOUR double standards and you pretended I said something else entirely, a kind of tactic not entirely unusual. Doubling down on it doesn't make it any less dishonest or disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #45)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:56 AM

46. This is a discussion of the grossly inappropriate behavior of Mr. Canova.

If X has a cadaver is his freezer and the police arrive should X tell the police they should look in his neighbor's freezer because he might have a cadaver there too?

Just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:36 AM

19. Sanders is supporting "Not Debbie Wasserman Schultz"

 

who just happens to be Tim Canova in this case.

It's about the intra-party feud (conceding ad argumentum that Sanders is a member of the party).

The kind of score-settling people say the Clintons engage in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:43 AM

24. Simply running on an "I'm opposed to your party" platform rarely works out

A candidate has to give reason to vote for them, not just against the other candidate. Canova is the longest of longshots anyways, but this hamfisted attempt to bring DWS' religion into the argument is going to flop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:15 AM

28. Baloney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:20 AM

32. Really? You think he picked Tim "War with Iran" Canova because

 

of his sterling progressive credentials, and it's just an amazing coincidence that he happens to be running against Public Enemy #2 in Bernieland?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:23 AM

34. Look at Tulsi Gabbard's remarks on Muslims and lgbtq people.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:27 AM

36. IKR, Tulsi Gabbard goes from Islamaphobic nutter to MOST PROGRESSIVE WOMAN EVER

 

when she endorses Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:34 AM

41. I am learning in this thread it's okay to challenge candidate's religious cred too...

Oy vey!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:44 AM

44. Tim Canova, like Bernie, is eschewing PACS and corporate money and is far more liberal

than New Democrat Debbie. He was also an early supporter of Bernie; and has acted as a consultant for Bernie on some matters. Those are just off the top of my head, but are several reasons why Bernie might support Canova despite some differences--and DU has always preached not expecting a 100% match up, except, of course, when DU finds it inconvenient to single out an issue or two.

You, on the other hand, seem to be relying exclusively on your relatively newly (snort) found hatred of Bernie and your imaginary ability to read Bernie's mind. I get that objective reasons are no match for the emotional knee jerk or the supernatural, so I will not try any further to convince you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:02 AM

47. which is why he waited until the sour grapes phase of his campaign to endorse Canova. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:37 AM

21. In Biden speak, the Iran deal is a big f***ing deal ...

... so it should be consequential.

And, Hillary supported the Iran deal.

She demands accountability and verification ... rightly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 08:58 AM

26. Hillary's support of the Iran deal is paper thin

 

IF she becomes president look for her to use it as an excuse for war rather than an a tool for peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 01:19 PM

57. And yet she picked the lead negotiator of that deal to be on the platform committee

Doesn't sound like a paper thin position to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:16 AM

29. Sour grapes. Sore loser. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:24 AM

35. Sanders has admitted that he knows very little about foreign policy,

as he has been so busy running for president. Things like the Iran nuclear deal aren't really part of his focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:29 AM

38. Still better than DWS, even if he's dead wrong on this issue

That said, I know nothing about that district or it's polling; if she can hold it and Canova can't, this is cutting off our nose to spite our face. But if he can hold it, I'm all for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 09:34 AM

42. As far back as when Canova was an aide to Paul Tsongas and disagreed with him on

things like fed policy - Canova was standing up for progressive issues. You can read his letter to the NYT editors - written way back in 1983 here: http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/15/opinion/l-federal-reserve-in-need-of-change-at-the-top-102536.html and http://www.nytimes.com/1984/04/16/opinion/l-inflation-hinges-not-on-m-1-alone-127015.html. He also wrote an article for the Washington City Paper on the collapse of Continental Illinois — at the time the largest bank failure in American history and the birth of the phrase “too big to fail.” Canova argued that deregulation had destabilized American finance, and predicted a rash of upcoming bank failures that are today known as the Savings and Loan Crisis. Guess he had good judgement way back then too.

He has been teaching international trade law for many years and has been concerned and outspoken against the TPP. Again good judgement there.

He supported Occupy Wall Street back in 2011 when it certainly wasn't a mainstream position.

He is for expanding social security

He fought for getting ex-felons in NM the right to vote and worked with a Republican governor to make it happen.

I don't agree with his Iranian stance - but most of the district he is seeking to represent does, unfortunately.

Compared to Wasserman Schultz - I'll take the good stances with the bad . . . and stick with Canova.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:08 AM

48. Tim Canova is more liberal than DWS.

Highlighting one issue in which he's not doesn't change that.

Canova is for campaign finance reform; DWS changed DNC rules to accept lobbyist donations.

Canova is for medical marijuana; DWS is opposed.

https://timcanova.com/issues

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:04 AM

53. An issue of greater consequence than Bernie's ego

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:16 AM

49. You're saying Hillary wouldn't supportSchumer

for re-election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 10:59 AM

52. He's not backing Hillary yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Original post)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:52 PM

56. So I shouldn't support Clinton in the GE if there's even one issue where I disagree with her?

 

The obvious answer to your question is that Sanders isn't in complete agreement with either candidate so he supports the one whom he considers better (although imperfect).

That, of course, is the general approach that Clinton supporters are loudly urging on Sanders supporters if we have to face a Clinton versus Trump general election. To do anything else, we are told, would be to impose an unreasonable purity test.

Apparently a different standard applies when there's an opportunity to throw mud at Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread