2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumExcellent article on Bernie!
Bernie Sanders has just stepped into the boxing match known as the Democratic primary bouncing up and down, punching his gloves together, with his head held high. Bernie is ready for a knock-down, drag-out fight against the establishment. Waiting in the other corner is a political titan, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary has done it all: she was First Lady, a United States Senator, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008, and most recently, was handpicked by Barack Obama to serve as the Secretary of State. And moreover, Hillarys political positions arent that far off from what Bernie is propagating. However, there lies one key difference: Bernies political foresight makes Nostradamus look like a Medieval street prophet.
How so? Bernie has the upper hand on Hillary with regard to a few hot button issues: the War in Iraq, the financial crisis, and pro-LGBT positions. Lets start with the War in Iraq, a conflict that Bernie opposed from the outset.
I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country?
http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2015/06/bernard-bernie-sanders-the-political-foresight-champion.html
.
Agony
(2,605 posts)and the ensuing cronyism.
from your article
" In sum, Bernie Sanders calls out trickle-down economics, wealth inequality, hedging, Federal Reserve bailouts, economic cronyism, and has hinted at these policies culminating in an unsustainable system that would contribute to financial turmoil. "
I'll stick with the guy sans family hedge fund, thank you...
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
...this course is fraught with danger.
...a unilateral attack...on the present facts is not a good option.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world".
DemByDefault
(40 posts)Clinton knew what she was voting for. Anyone who didn't know Bush was going to attack Iraq was an idiot.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)For years all we heard was Bush lied us into war, now he wasn't lying?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)or, more importantly, how they responded to the lies?
senz
(11,945 posts)Bush's transparent lies were about WMD. That was his rationale.
It was obvious -- to anyone -- that shortly after 9/11 the Bush administration was hell-bent on invading and occupying Iraq. Hillary knew that. She's not stupid.
cali
(114,904 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world".
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But to give it to these mad men just this time to see what happens...and we can always repeal it later.
Talk means nothing...actions are what counts.
senz
(11,945 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)So did Jeffords in case you try to claim another Vermont politician supported it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sanders: "This will have unintended consequences. We can't afford it, and it is a mistake. We should not do it."
Clinton: This is not a good idea. But we should support the Bush administration because, golly gee, maybe saying we are ready to do war that will bring the United Nations around to maybe telling us not to do it, or maybe helping us out.....I don't know, golly, gee maybe..hmmmmmwagh..........I don't know. 9-11..... Bush is still popular. Elections, donltt want offend patriotic conservative voters.......Oh hell. Okay I don't want to do it but I'm voting yes."
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)It kinda shreds your credibility when you just make shit up: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world".
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You thoughtfully provided the actual quote. I responded with "Sounds like this to me"
That's exactly what it sounds like (and sounded like at the time) to me. My opinion in response.
You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation. But that's why I didn't use "actual quotes." It is ( and was) my opinion of her logic. Your mileage may vary.
SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)You're blinded by your hate for her. Reality says it soundes nothing like you portrayed it to sound.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't "hate" Clinton. I kinda like her as a person (not that i know her but what I see in public eye), and I admire many of her achievements, and to a certain point agree with her on many specific issues.
But I don't think she should be the Democratic presidential candidate for a number of very specific reasons.Some of it iss certain characteristics she has.
But more important, for the general reason that she represents interest groups and a faction of the Democratic Party, and an approach to campaigning and governing, that I strongly disagree with. I believe that approach has done serious damage to the nation, and aided the GOP. That transcends my feeling towards her as a person.
We obviously disagree on those issues. Fine. That's life and politics. But your facile and all-purpose "Clinton hating" meme is total bullshit. It's high-school level crap. It's condescending.
It just shows that you "worship Hillary" and "hate Bernie" and are blinded by your "hate" of anyone who does not see things exactly as you do. See how asinine that sounds?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)It has to do with perception of the newspeak that Clinton, and others used, and still use today to avoid issues.
Bernie is a straight talker. No newspeak from him at all.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that they "hate" someone running against their "ordained" candidate. Then there's the meme that Bernie is not "really a Democrat."
I guess that those who think that Bernie is not a real Democrat are not going to support him when he wins the nomination.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The world according to Hillary supporters.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)You could take Hillary's statement two ways:
1). The political "hedging your bets" motive as you describe.
2). Some poorly thought out "strategy" that Hillary and potentially others thought would work.
I guess I'm more of an optimist, but given Hillary's evasiveness on topics like Keystone and others I can see why you would see the motive as pure politics.
Even if you accept the nuance, Bernie still wins this issue....so there is that.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)stop that! you're getting in the way of my black and white world!
Bernie still wins on this issue though, even if you accept the nuance.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Years later, Iraq has become a breeding ground for radical jihadists seeking to construct a Muslim caliphate. Thanks to George Dumbya Bush, and his pro-defense inner circle, the Middle East has reached a dangerous crossroads, one between moderate Muslims, and those who seek to distort the Koran to fit their morally backwards religious objectives, such as, oh, you know, banning the breeding of pigeons, as they fly over head and expose their genitals to unsuspecting civilians. Apparently, Middle Eastern pigeons are as well-endowed as Ron Jeremy, or, breeders supplement their diets with Cialis
But back to my point, Bernies astute argument also sheds light on Americas future role in post-invasion Iraqthe underlying inferences being: 1) how long will the conflict last, 2) the level of engagement required, and 3) the role to which the US will play in dictating domestic Iraqi affairs. Factors the Bush Administration, Republicans, and duped Democrats refused or naively disregarded. Bernies cautious calculations and tamed foreign policy objectives demonstrate his lucid political foresight.
And so much more.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)The general election.
Really?
His crowds are protest votes?
Bernie for President
Vote for Bernie or Wall Street
Bernie can't lose.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)His judgment far surpasses that of his primary rival.
He's a gem, and this is his time.
senz
(11,945 posts)Drat.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Uncle Joe
(59,959 posts)Thanks for the thread, peacebird.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We had eight years of absolutely no concern about unintended consequences. Look what it did to us.