2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton camp courting more pro-war republicans while browbeating Sanders over party loyalty
LINK: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy.html (paragraph 10)
She can hardly (other than pretentiously, hypocritically, and disingenuously) hit Sanders about "party loyalty" when SHE is wooing REPUBLICANS to HER party.
Pfft.
It's not that Dem candidates or Dem Presidents shouldn't court Republicans to their cause or policies - that's required for the CiC.
The issue is one "Dem" berating another (a much more progressive Dem) over party loyalty whilst doing so. It's hypocritical, disingenuous, dishonest. IOW it's what we might expect from a Clinton.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)lets bring in as many moderate republicans as possible. We will NEVER have a ideological litmus test
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)we accept all points of views
choie
(4,102 posts)Who don't support Clinton..no loyalty oath my ass!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)Is ok with some? You have no problem with people who hurt this country from 2000-2008 as long as they are now called a (D)? Do you not care about any policy and just want to win at all costs even if you have to embrace people that want War so they can make money?
Thinking Sanders is a socialist is what a GOP person would think because they are Right Wing. Sanders polices are more Center-Left that full out socialist. Even the socialist parities in this country think he is too much to the Right to be considered a true raving socialist
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)countless times
I was 100% against the Iraq war and 100% for Afgan war ....and in general all wars should be avoided...but I have never been a single issue voter....The run up to the war and all the deceptions by the bush/cheney fills a book. Do I fault Hillary for her vote? Nope.....Do I hold accountable for the war...NOPE....that falls squarely on bush/cheney....and the nader voters who let bush win
Triana
(22,666 posts)You seriously do not know between a Marxist socialist and Democratic Socialism?
Wow - spoken just like a Republican. Amazing how the "socialist" talking point gets used here on DEMOCRATIC Underground.
Here. Let's have some schooling, shall we?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/do-you-know-the-difference-between-a-communist-and-a-socialist-a6708086.html
Get back to me after you engage a brain cell or two.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)?1446242373
Triana
(22,666 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)He hated what he stood for. So please, never attempt to steal what FDR did as a socialist cause.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)longer photographic. First up on my search confirms I haven't lost my marbles. That's Communist, the second boogeyman in any mccarthyites' vocabulary.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Bernie is a Stalin type socialist or if you are trying to separate the fact that FDR was a "Democratic Socialist", according to the policies he put forth and passed.. let's not pretend that Republicans didn't try to smear him as an evil socialist..
Bernie is a "DEMOCRAT" as well - if not he wouldn't be able to be running in the Democratic primary.. that is pretty simple
B Calm
(28,762 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)I guess that's why there are clowns and elephants everywhere.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)he had character and class
B Calm
(28,762 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)If that's "trashing" her maybe the problem isn't Sanders or the Truth -- but rather her record.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)berating hillary and her supporters and super delegates as in a negative context with term "corporatists" and the like, to berate her, her supporters and her super delegates....is trashing.....accusing the hillary of rigging the system...along with democratic establishment is trashing her....and us...when ever he lost....especially when its was the CLEAR INCOMPETENCE of his campaign that could find a way to research each states primary rules....to me the incompetence is appalling when you have spent $200 million dollars and can't even do simple google searchs
but this bernie sanders MO....its ALWAYS some else's fault....
always the establishment
always business
always the wealthy
always the system
ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS
we are lucky to have saved america from bernie
Triana
(22,666 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)a right winger.
This is why the income inequality gap will continue to widen under democrats.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)that Sanders or anyone for that matter examines those things about ANY candidate should be expected.
And it's not "trashing" - it's paying attention.
I wish more people would do so.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)To her and her followers, courting republicans and even agreeing with them on policy is not a contradiction to their "Democratic" values. They are being loyal to the party they have transformed the former Democratic party into. They view it as expanding the party. It is not hypocrisy on there part. It is honesty.
The reality is the Democratic party has assimilated a lot of republican economic and foreign policy ideas. The majority of Democrats seem fine with this. They aren't going to have problems seeking and getting support from republicans--they are kindred spirits.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)we will never have a ideological purity test...leave that to the conservatives....not all republican ideas are wrong and not all liberal ideas are right
demanding purity is just plain wrong and goes against our core values more than any thing else....if there are some that don't like well. its really their problem
Triana
(22,666 posts)Slamming other actual Democrats about "party loyalty" whilst courting Repubs is the issue.
IOW:
The hypocrisy is the issue.
The disingenuousness is the issue.
The dishonesty is the issue.
Address THAT. Please stick to the subject and stop trying to create distractions from it.
think
(11,641 posts)It's goal is to profit off of the Democratic party.
By JIM NEWELL - TUESDAY, AUG 11, 2015 07:00 AM CDT
The New Democrats want to spread their message of fulfilling big business's wish list. That'll sell!
~Snip~
The floors all yours, New Democrats. What policy ideas would sharpen House Democrats appeal to moderate voters?
Trade deals. When Obama needed support from his own party to pass landmark trade legislation, he turned to the New Democrat Coalition. The group mustered just enough votes 28 in total to clear fast-track trade authority through Congress, despite opposition from the partys left, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
Dynamic scoring. Reps. John Delaney of Maryland and Scott Peters of California introduced a dynamic scoring bill an issue normally favored by Republicans that would encourage budget scorekeepers to score tax cuts favorably to reevaluate how Congress spends money on infrastructure, research and education.
Reforming Dodd-Frank. Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes is one of the most outspoken advocates for reforming the Dodd-Frank financial regulations bill. [Jim Himes seems like a nice fellow and has a good-by-congressmen-standards Twitter account. He is also owned by the banks.]
Corporate tax reform. Lawmakers in the coalition repeatedly stressed that reevaluating how the U.S. taxes corporate profits from overseas operations could be an area of compromise between the moderate Democrats and Republicans.
OK OK, I think I see the problem here. This article and the quotes within it frame New Democrats proposal as geared toward appealing to voters. You know, voters! Humans who visit polling stations and cast their ballots for either Democratic or Republican candidates...
Read more:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/third_way_dems_new_war_on_elizabeth_warren_progressives_why_their_centrist_pitch_is_a_political_loser/
Triana
(22,666 posts)Hillary is a 1960s Republican. Perhaps Nixon in a pantsuit.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)not after a lifetime of ranting on democrats...and many sanders followers are no way ever been democrats on any level as we see the demands of ideological purity coming from many of them
Triana
(22,666 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)that will be the best choice we have
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)You don't seem to understand, that ship has sailed, most of what you and I believe to be Democratic core values are no longer operative. The Democratic party as it stands now is mainly loyal to the new program. Those of us "stuck in the past" aren't.
bigtree
(85,918 posts)...and we haven't forgotten Sanders' diversion to fundie Liberty University in the middle of our Democratic primary to appeal to some of the nation's most conservative voters.
Hillary's been drawing the most Democrats in this primary, Sanders the most republicans.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Read the OP again.
Carefully.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)too big a problem with war. This election it looks like we might well have a choice to vote for either a "Republican" who knows nothing whatsoever about governing and a Democrat who has the reputation for being the most pro-war candidate to run in decades. Interesting how it's "worked out" like that. Looks like party distinctions are for suckers. The people who run the show know that the distinction between Republican and Democrat is no longer where it's at. Lucky for them that enough voters haven't figured that out yet.
I wonder if America will eventually become like the old Soviet Union and have only one party and one candidate for whom to vote. That would certainly make the corporate oligarchs happy.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Money's corrupted both parties; the most pro-war "Democrat" on the rolls practically PICKED her opponent what with the Clinton's insinuating to Trump that he should run, and now they're painting it as "if you don't vote for us and only us, you're helping Trump" and using Inner Party math to justify that 0 - 0 somehow equals 1 for Trump.
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it."
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I guess that equals 1 for Clinton.
If Clinton does not persuade progressives, leftists, and democratic socialists to vote for her that is her fault ultimately which in large part will be due to her choices and the election results will reflect her past actions and current campaign. Period.
If she loses to Trump then just how awful is she really? And, the fact that Trump is already beating her in a number of recent polls hugely underscores how pathetically weak she is as a candidate for the Democratic Party. What a nightmare.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)In NYT, warmongers crow:
The Pitfalls of Peace
The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
Thank you for an outstanding OP, Triana. Most important information.
Triana
(22,666 posts)want more of OUR money for THEIR offshore untaxed coffers.
Hillary is their means of getting it.
Sanders? Not so much. He'd take our money but it would be used to pay for things for us. Like healthcare. Decent public schools. Free community college. Fixing our national infrastructure. Fighting climate change.
The MiC, PiC, Big Ag, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Big Oil & Gas and Wall St will take our money, hide it in untaxed offshore accounts and ask for more.
BIG difference. This is what this election is about.
People don't get it. People gonna get screwed.
AGAIN.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Jane poor financial decisions drove a college into bankruptcy....sanders has no chance on any level to incorporate effective change....he berates and belittles all those who disagree and his reputation for "not play well with others" is well deserved...
he pissed away $200 million in losing by substantial margins, this primary. Nothing to proud of and certainly is pretty indicative of major incompetence
Triana
(22,666 posts)to stay in the race until the convention.
He's obviously managing it just fine.
"Berates and belittles" - oh you mean he calls corporate parasites and oligarchs what they ARE?
Poor little innocent greedy entities. Bernie is SO mean to them!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Those who put profits ahead of people have no place in Washington. Yet, there they are.
Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse
by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM
Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:
"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."
It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.
SNIP...
Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.
CONTINUED with link to the audio...
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse
Since Jimmy Carter, we keep pulling the lever marked "Democrat" and out pop these freaking republican after freaking republican administrations.
Triana
(22,666 posts)But hell, many of them can't even read. Just look at this thread. They're all "well Hillary HAS to reach out to Republicans because she needs their votes!"
Yet, nowhere did I write that she didn't. Or that Sanders didn't. My OP wasn't about that at all. But that's what almost all of the knee-jerk responses here are about.
What I DID write was that she's a dishonest hypocrite for criticizing Sanders about his "party loyalty" while she does this.
It's a bullshit criticism of Sanders. It's hypocrisy. It's dishonest.
It's Clinton and her dishonesty and hypocrisy. Ohhhhh. But they don't want to address THAT. Nooooo.
So they keep on about something else. ANYTHING else but that. Even something I didn't write and specifically SAID my post was NOT about.
It's FASCINATING to watch the willful BLIND spots here where she's concerned.
And with that, willful BLIND spots where we're all concerned. Where the economy and economic justice and the middle class is concerned. They see NONE of it or how or why she's a problem and a continuation of past "Republican Lite" or "Centrist Democrat" policies that got us (the regular non-millionaire people) where we are today where our children have LESS of a future than we had and where our children will likely NOT (already ARE not) be better off than we were.
And still. Blind. Clueless. Rushing in with knee-jerk responses to something I didn't even write or say.
It's easy to see how we got here. And why we'll remain here.
Holy smokes. Pfft.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for the party's nominee is bad.
not sure why this is a mystery to some
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)....her HYPOCRISY and her DISHONESTY is.
Address that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)it's not sufficient to merely allege such behavior, even if you put them in ALL CAPS
There's nothing wrong with asking for Republican support by saying "Trump is cray cray, you can't get with that" as opposed to "vote for me, and I'll cut the capital gains tax"
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)all the rightwing based stuff posted here will come to an end.....sanders back to vermont
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)My OP clearly states that it's not her courting of GOP -- but slamming Sanders over "party loyalty" whilst she's at it.
Most replies to the OP jump in to defend her courting of the GOP when I CLEARLY stated that the issue is her hypocrisy about it.
Jeeze.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)are you having hard time finding too?
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)rarely if ever does hillary even say sanders or address sanders.....so saying hillary is saying this or that or demanding this or that of sanders is all just opinion....or what others are saying or doing
might be better if either links are posted that actually say with the OP title implies...or just post your opinion
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)If I wanted to support hawks and labor exploiting candidates I'd be a fucking Republican
B Calm
(28,762 posts)They're gonna have a big fight over this at the convention, and they fucking know it! They are afraid their sham is about to be exposed!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This is the same for both candidates.
Triana
(22,666 posts)The point is that Hillary does so whilst bashing Sanders about "party loyalty".
It's about her DISHONESTY and her HYPOCRISY in regards to doing so. It's OK for HER but she criticizes Sanders re: "loyalty"
Address that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Party loyalty, meaning that the Democrats should stand together to defeat Trump rather than sniping at each other.
The Democratic party, though, whoever the nominee ends up being, can still try to reach out to Republicans who don't want to vote for Trump (which Hillary is understandably doing).
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Her parents were Republican. So was she.