Hillary supporters, how can you justify this?

[tecelote]

War.

I am so sickened by our killing of innocent lives in the name of the American people.

Bernie's view is one Americans can be proud of.

“We live in a difficult and dangerous world, and there are no easy or magical solutions. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will defend this nation, its people, and America’s vital strategic interests, but I will do it responsibly. America must defend freedom at home and abroad, but we must seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to military action. While force must always be an option, war must be a last resort, not the first option."

Here are our current American priorities plain and simple:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

One big reason I support Bernie's revolution.

[Maedhros]

1. War is only bad when Republicans are in the White House.[n/t]

[AllTooEasy]

27. Bernie just said NOTHING

He said the same thing that everyone else says "Diplomacy first, War as a last resort, blah, blah, blah". When Bernie's diplomatic efforts fail, he will bomb people (the guilty intentionally and the innocent unintentionally) just like everyone else.

...and please don't tell me that his diplomatic efforts will be flawless. Every nation's leader only controls %50 of the diplomatic effort. The other side must desire war avoidance too. There are some asshole leaders out there who just want to fight and subject others. Unfortunately, one of those assholes was W between 2000-2008.

I want to know how far a candidate will go with diplomacy. Specifically how much or how little he/she is willing to give up to avoid war. Bernie didn't express any of that...just like everyone else.

[Maedhros]

32. Well, I expect Bernie would not go on television and gloat "We came, we saw, he died."

That alone puts him head-and-shoulders above Hillary.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. lol, no comparison. Bernie is the real deal!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[840high]

79. Absolutely - he is a gentle man.

[grahamhgreen]

42. "how little he/she is willing to give up to avoid war"? You must agree fighting the Iraq war cost us

trillions, whereas as AVOIDING war would have cost us nothing.

Right?

You do understand that?

In other words, avoiding war in Iraq would have cost us nothing, going to war has cost immeasurably in life, treasure, and ethical stature.

Agreed?

[tecelote]

49. Absolutely!

Cost should have nothing to do with war. But, it does and your response puts the cost of war in to perspective.

"... avoiding war in Iraq would have cost us nothing, going to war has cost immeasurably in life, treasure, and ethical stature."

Amen.

[RichVRichV]

67. There are often options between diplomacy and war.

Sanctions are often another option for one.

[mhatrw]

83. I keep waiting for Clinton to make a speech like this.

[dreamnightwind]

90. I believe it's wrong to conflate the positions

Bernie is not just another corporate-owned politician saying whatever gets him elected. It's what we're used to, but that's not what he is.

The wars, and most of the many "actions" our military and paramilitary is involved with all over the world, are corporate resource grabs, or done to establish a stable business environment. The multinationalists USE the American taxpayer to fund these wars, while offshoring our jobs.

Bernie is not with that program, there is a substantive diffference here, regardless of how little difference you or someone else can find in the words uttered by him or by the corporate candidates we usually have to vote for.

Maybe you get that, maybe not, I couldn't see itt in your post so wanted to make the point. Regards.

[artislife]

99. Projection? It certainly not based on fact. nt

[LiberalArkie]

29. War is good when either party is in. Think of the dividends on the MIC stock. Think of

all the insider (senators and reps) information they get. Even if we had complete public funding of elections and absolutely banned lobbyist, we would still have all the war profiteering in congress.

[tecelote]

105. War certainly does pay high dividends.

"Even if we had complete public funding of elections and absolutely banned lobbyist, we would still have all the war profiteering in congress."

As you're pointing out. This is the real reason we have gone to war and until war profiteering ends, we'll always be at war.

Even Bernie or Martin will not be able to stop it but at least we can begin a conversation about peace and possibly even move in a better direction.

[sabrina 1]

107. Yes, that is the sad fact we have learned siince Bush left the WH.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. OK, #mistakesweremade

But #didimentionimawoman?

[Fawke Em]

34. LOL!!!

[tex-wyo-dem]

45. ...

👍!

[Faux pas]

3. Kicketty Kickin'

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Greatest Page for this important story. n/t

[NCTraveler]

5. If moral superiority is what you are looking for...

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

O'Malley is your guy. I consider Sanders and Clinton to be very good people but I don't think either can claim to carry the mantle in this area.

"Bernie's view is one Americans can be proud of."

I agree.

[tecelote]

13. You got me there. There is a lot I like about Martin.

And, I am in support of Martin and Bernie. Honestly, undecided but happy to have these choices for once.

[NCTraveler]

20. I think the democrats have an amazing field.

If we don't let ourselves get sidetracked, I think this could be one of the best campaign seasons we have seen as far as getting people involved and listening to the message.

[ion_theory]

61. This is one of the things I am worried about...

Regardless of who gets the nomination, I hope most of us who are somehow involved in these campaigns remain so after the convention. By this I mean everyone from local community organizer to DU users talking about real issues. I'm a Bernie guy, but could still see myself voting for O'Malley and eventually Hillary, if she's the only option TBH. I will still be pushing just as hard for the candidate and I hope most others feel the same. After watching another Repug crazies debate last night, we are in serious trouble if anyone on the stage becomes POTUS.

[JaneyVee]

6. That's why I'm voting for a diplomat.

And not the guy who can't even get diplomacy in the senate. Hence, Sharrod Brown.

[MineralMan]

9. Oh, hello, there.

I believe I heard Bernie Sanders say he supported the continued use of drones and that he supports the pork-laden F-35.

It's a mess of contradictions, this primary campaign, isn't it.

And one candidate was our chief diplomat in the current administration, too.

What's a Jill to do?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

108. His policy on drones:

he breaks with the administration on the liberal use of drones.

So is it true that Bernie supports the F-35?

Yes and no. The idea that Bernie supports the F-35 program stems from his positive reception to part of the F-35 fleet being stationed in Vermont.

Nonetheless, Bernie is highly concerned “about cost overruns on the plane.” In June 2014, Bernie called the F-35 program “incredibly wasteful.” Ultimately, however, Bernie realizes that the plane is going to be a reality, and concluded that “as long as the F-35 is deployed anywhere, I believe we should strive to protect the Vermont Air National Guard’s mission and maintain hundreds of jobs here in Vermont.”

While members of Congress have received over $8 million collectively from the F-35’s manufacturer since 2001, Bernie has not accepted any Lockheed Martin contributions.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/

[Fawke Em]

35. Diplomat?

https://www.thenation.com/article/good-riddance-warmonger-hillary-clinton/

I guess in the new dictionary, diplomat is synonymous with warmonger.

[bvf]

39. Funny, that.

Apparently you regard the senator's endorsement so highly that you couldn't be bothered to get his name right.

Perhaps you should apologize.

The "diplomat" thing was worth a giggle, though.

[tex-wyo-dem]

48. The "diplomat" that voted to...

Kill, maim and displace millions, destabilize an entire region, create ISIS and assure never ending war...nice work, "diplomat"!

[rhett o rick]

104. Was she being "diplomatic" when she stabbed her Party in the back and switched sides to help

her good friend George Bush kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's? She gave Bush her integrity.

[bvar22]

7. I couldn't sleep...

..knowing I had signed the death warrant for MILLIONS, and displacement for many MILLIONS more completely innocent people. I wouldn't last long before adding one more to the count.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Didn't Bernie say he supports keeping troops in Afghanistan? nt

[MineralMan]

10. Why, yes, he did, along with drones and

the F-35. I guess not everyone is paying attention.

[JDPriestly]

51. Bernie differentiates between wars of defense, wars to end ethnic cleansing

and wars of choice otherwise known as wars of aggression.

The War in Iraq was a war of aggression or choice.

The War in Afghanistan was a war of defense against the Islamic extremists including Al Qaeda that were operating AGAINST THE UNITED STATES from Afghanistan.

Bernie is right. He decides whether to support a war based on principles, not just based on bloodthirst.

He did not support the War in Iraq or vote for the Iraq War Resolution because he questioned how we could govern the country after invading it and what we we do if there were an insurrection.

Bernie's foreign and war policy is principled and well reasoned. Hillary's is, as with so much of her policy, so many of her stands on the issues, based on what is currently popular, what is the trend. She sticks her finger in the air and decides from which direction the wind is blowing. That's what determines Hillary's policy stands. I do not understand how anyone can support Hillary over Bernie.

Hillary just does not have Bernie's wisdom, his foresight or his intelligence.

I do not understand this.

[arcane1]

55. "Keeping drones as an option" = "continuing the exact same policy" to dishonest people n/t

[Skidmore]

72. People killed under a

Sander's presidency will be no less dead than people killed under any other president. How will Sanders employing drones be more palatable than anyone else? How do invasions become more palatable? The logic doesn't hold.

As for wisdom and foresight, come back to me when he has a plan for his campaign.

[mcar]

88. Interesting question

Wonder what the answer is.

[sheshe2]

94. Crickets

[RichVRichV]

59. No one expects a perfect candidate. We're mostly just looking for one that looks out for our

interests, and intends to improve our lives. As a Bernie supporter let me give you my views on the subjects (which won't be the same as all other Bernie supporters):


On Afghanistan - I'm not a fan of leaving troops there. I think we've spent enough time, money, and blood on that country. I was very happy when Iraq gave us an out. However I do recognize the mess there is largely of our making, so there is a sense of responsibility in how it turns out. But I feel we're just delaying the inevitable by staying there. I very begrudgingly defer on this to Obama as he has much more information on what's going on there than I do.


On F-35 spending - I'm against the boondoggle. It's a perfect example of how our military is wasting our money. I recognize Bernie probably voted for the original funding for them. I also recognize this was probably in a comprehensive military spending bill (take all of it or don't pay for the military). I also recognize that virtually all politicians in Washington vote for these (including Bernie and Hillary). I'm against the current military spending bills in general as I feel we should be at peace time levels with military spending sufficient only to counter Russia and China (as they're our only real military threats). I also feel we should quit destabilizing countries for influence gain. A dictator who doesn't slaughter his people and isn't a threat to us is a better option than something like ISIS taking over, or perpetual war in impoverished countries. I'm for promoting Democracy around the world, but believe it should be done through peaceful means over time.


On Bernie pushing for F-35 storage in Vermont - I have no issues at all with this one. Once military hardware is built it has to be stored somewhere. It doesn't magically disappear until it's needed. I see him pushing for that as nothing more than creating/maintaining jobs for his constituents. It's pure pork. I don't have much of a problem with pork (within reason). Yes most of it goes to the rich (what doesn't?), but it also creates local jobs and usually infrastructure. I'm probably in the minority on that one.


On Drones - I have no problem with the military using drones. That's like having a problem with the military using tanks. It's just a tool in their arsenal. One we would be remiss to not explore as an option. What I do have an issue with is how we use drones. I don't believe drones should be flown anywhere that normal jets won't be flown. I don't believe we should fly drones over other countries without their permission or a declaration of war. I don't believe we should use drones to assassinate people (high priority targets or otherwise) as I don't believe our government should be in the business of assassinating people (If they're that important and we know where they are then go capture them and put them on trial for their crimes).




These are strictly the views of a single Bernie supporter. They may or may not match other Bernie supporters views. None of us are looking for perfection, just improving our lives.

[redstateblues]

103. Bernie would only use drones for good

and not for bad like our President ;o)

[Major Hogwash]

106. LOL!!

Bernie agreed with Obama, and you don't think anyone knows that?!

[upaloopa]

11. A President in defense of our country goes to war

I was in Vietnam and because of it I hate war. But I am not so naive to think mankind has advanced to the point that war is no longer necessary.
Also your definition of Hillary is bull shit so no answer is needed to your question.
I am sick of ego centric, narcissistic questions like yours.

[tecelote]

12. So, the beat goes on.

[Comrade Grumpy]

74. I didn't realize Libya and Syria were attacking us.

Hillary advocated successfully for knocking off Ghaddafi, based on a pack of lies. And then she chortled at his death.

Hillary advocated unsuccessfully for us to get deeply involved in the Syrian clusterfuck. Thankfully, Obama listened to cooler heads.

Hillary voted for the Iraq war--and let's not play games here--when everyone knew it was bullshit and when everyone knew their votes were a green light for Bush.

You hate war, you say? But you like warmongers?

[upaloopa]

75. You have a very little window of knowledge

about the world situation. I would not put my security in your hands.

[Scootaloo]

77. And were you defending your country?

I don't mean it as a slight, I know you probably didn't volunteer to go over there. But Vietnam.. .Was that for our nation's defense?

Was Cambodia or Laos threatening us that we had to light them up like a bonfire?
How about Grenada/ or panama? Or any of hte other nations in the caribbean and Central America? Defnding our country?
Was out engagmenet in Afghanistan for "defense"? How about when we held hands with saddam Hussei nas he gassed Tehran and Kurdistan? Was that in defense?
When we turned around and destroyed Iraq the first time, was that defending our coutnry?
How about Somalia? Was Poppy's shitty christmas presenr to clinton a "defend our nation" deal?
Well, what about our involvement in haiti?
Former Yugoslavia? Were we in some imminent danger there that didn't threaten us from Rwanda?
Afghanistan (again) - national defense?
Iraq - Third time's a charm, national defense this time?
Yemen? Libya? Syria? These rumblings about Iran. that's all defense too, right?

The United States has not been on the defensive side of a war since Japan surrendered, upaloopa.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Gothmog]

15. How can you justify giving control of SCOTUS to the GOP for a generation?

The issue of the control of the SCOTUS is a critical issue and we can not afford to give the GOP control of the SCOTUS for a generation.

Rick Perry may be an idiot but he raised this issue a while back and all GOP operatives are aware of this issue and will be pushing it http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

But over at Bloomberg Politics, Sahil Kapur reported over the weekend on a South Carolina event, where former Gov. Rick Perry (R) highlighted a central national issue that doesn’t generally get as much attention.

“Something I want you all to think about is that the next president of the United States, whoever that individual may be, could choose up to three, maybe even four members of the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now this isn’t about who’s going to be the president of the United States for just the next four years. This could be about individuals who have an impact on you, your children, and even our grandchildren. That’s the weight of what this election is really about.”

“That, I will suggest to you, is the real question we need to be asking ourselves,” he continued. “What would those justices look like if, let’s be theoretical here and say, if it were Hillary Clinton versus Rick Perry? And if that won’t make you go work, if I do decide to get into the race, then I don’t know what will.”

Whatever one might think of Perry or his skills as a potential president, that’s actually an excellent summary of an underappreciated issue. ThinkProgress’ Ian Millhiser, whom I wouldn’t describe as a Perry proponent, said the Texas Republican made “last week’s single most incisive statement about the 2016 election.”

This chart makes clear why control of the SCOTUS is ups for grabs

?itok=RU4tfAN1

The results of the last three decision days at the SCOTUS demonstrates why control of the SCOTUS is critical. If the GOP wins the White House in 2016, the GOP will get to select three to five SCOTUS nominees and these nominees will control the direction of the court for a generation

I keep asking for somoneone to explain how Sanders would be a viable candidate in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. I live in Texas where we are dealing with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the SCOTUS. If the GOP gets to appoint three to five SCOTUS justices, then we can say goodbye to the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade.

[Fawke Em]

37. A. Don't give me a corporate warmonger in the general, but if you do, then

B. It won't matter in my state. I can vote for my dog because my state is solid red.

I'm free to vote my conscience.

[Sheepshank]

22. I just wanted you to know, someone read your well articulated response

...and it makes all sorts of sense to me..

Unfortunately it won't fit the Bernie Brain Trust Plan...so you may not even get many reads, let alone a response.

[sheshe2]

24. Thank you, Mister.

Well said.

[passiveporcupine]

30. Here you go

[tecelote]

31. I do appreciate your well thought out response.

I disagree with your take on Bernie but, I do agree that all candidates should discuss this more.

War. It's just a necessary evil does not sit well with me and I want to hear more discussion. We are perpetuating war and we are the evil force. It's a sin.

Hey, Hillary has a lot to be proud of and I think she is a great American.

However, I think she is entrenched and I'm looking for change. She certainly can lead but in the same direction we are going.

I will proudly vote for her if Bernie or Martin fail to win the nomination.

Until then, I'm supporting a new peaceful American revolution.

[grahamhgreen]

47. His plan is to make the Sauds and the locals fight the fight that is in their own backyard. Sound OK

?

[grahamhgreen]

84. One could say the same thing about our current plan - "degrade and defeat ISIS", a plan that is not

working.

Bernie does not (unfortunately) intend to leave. What he's saying is that the local countries should have skin in the game:

"SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: Well, Candy, I think the main point being made is of course ISIS is a brutal, awful, dangerous army and they have got to be defeated. But, Candy, this is not just an American problem. This is an international crisis. This is a regional crisis. And I think the people of America are getting sick and tired of the world and the region, Saudi Arabia and the other countries saying hey, we don't have to do anything about it. The American taxpayer, the American soldiers will do all the work for us.

Most people don't know is that Saudi Arabia is the fourth largest defense spender in the world, more than the U.K., more than France. They have an army which is probably seven times larger than ISIS. They have a major air force. Their country is run by a royal family worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

CROWLEY: Sure. But they have shown no sign at all that they want to go in and neither have the Jordanians although they seem a little more interested or the Turks. And so I'm just wondering since everyone agrees there needs to be ground forces of some sort that are effective, whether if those Arab nations don't step forward as you want them to do and come in on the ground, does the U.S. then pull out its air strikes? I mean, how would -- how do you handle that?

SANDERS: Well, here's -- the question that question that we have got to ask is why are the nations in the region not more actively involved? Why don't they see this as a crisis situation?

Here's the danger, Candy. If the Middle East people perceive this is the United States versus ISIS, the West versus East, Christianity versus Islam, we're going to lose that war. This is a war for the soul of Islam and the Muslim nations must be deeply involved. And to the degree that developed countries are involved, it should be the U.K., France, Germany, other countries as well."

[Spazito]

73. Well said n/t

[BootinUp]

17. JUSTIFY WHAT?

[tecelote]

23. Being a hawk.

There are other issues but I really respect Hillary. However, I am bothered by the fact that she has a record of supporting military action.

But, hey, I wish Bernie and Martin would come out stronger against killing innocent people in the war on terrorism. However, they are better here.

I'm a proud dove. We're nearly extinct, you know?

[BootinUp]

26. In my opinion

Hillary would fall in between Hawks and Doves. A Hawk never saw a war he couldn't support. That's not Hillary. i believe she would use military power very similarly to how her husband did. Sparingly and only when it was justified.

[Dont call me Shirley]

18. There's gonna be a revolution, yeah you know, we all want to change the unequal systems to

systems which are fair and work for the greater benefit of us all. That's Bernie!

The Bernolution!

[leftofcool]

19. Justify what? Being a diplomat?

[tecelote]

25. No.

[Fawke Em]

38. She's about as diplomatic as Netanyahu. eom

[840high]

81. Surely not Hillary.

[bravenak]

28. How can Bernie supporters justify him voting for Mass Incarceration?

[tecelote]

33. Tell me about it.

I thought Hillary was accepting donations from the private prison industry. I was unaware of Bernie's involvement.

I agree, this is another big issue. The prison industry and the war on drugs have ruined so many lives.

Educate me on Bernie vs Hillary here.

[bravenak]

41. They both are terrible on it. Both made bad choices for expediency's sake.

She supported it, he voted for it. To me it's a toss up but at the very keast she did not have a vote so could not actually participate. The more I learn the more I see them as about the same. She is moving left on economics, so that's good. He is figuring out the results of his vote and that is good. I'll vote Clinton but I think I love O'malley a bit. Or maybe he's just cute, idk, I just like him.

[tecelote]

43. I like O'Malley.

I knew little about him until the debates and he has been impressing me ever since.

He worries me though. Bernie has the energy. No one can deny that. Will O'Malley pull from Bernie's supporters? It a ways away, maybe it could be the other way around. But, Bernie and Martin share supporters which may split revolution voters while Hillary voters will only vote for the status quo. They are afraid of both Bernie and Martin.

[bravenak]

46. I do not think there will be any major shift in support without a major event.

What Obama did was unprecedented... He was at this time building up endorsements and delegates. Neither Bernie nor O'malley seem to be able to draw tge type slow and steady to the finish support. Also, us black folks were holding out until we thought that he had a chance. He has a large resevior waiting for him.

[tecelote]

56. That does worry me. Bernie is building such energy though.

Maybe the system is just against them.

BTW - Clinton/O'Malley - a world above any Republican. I'd be proud to vote this ticket.

[bravenak]

58. I think it is the way the system is set up.

The coalition has to be broad and deep. He has energy but it is limited to certain groups who feel his message. Others find it a bit pessimistic. Also. Delegates, endirsements. They realky do help get a bigger coalition. I could vote for whoever wins happily.

[PBass]

36. Bernie Sanders is not a pacifist. He said so himself.

"I am not a pacifist," he said when questioned about his decision to register as a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War. "I supported the war in Afghanistan."

He added that he supported the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo and President Barack Obama's air strikes in Syria.

(end quote)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/what-happens-in-vegas/2015/10/sanders-i-am-not-a-pacifist-214744#ixzz3pzmvBrA5

[tecelote]

40. Yes. He's not perfect.

[grahamhgreen]

44. I am not a pacifist, but these wars are stupid.

[Broward]

50. Well, you must have missed her standout performance at the Benghazi hearings.

She hit it out of the park. She's a fighter. Forget her warmongering corporatist ways. They're irrelevant now.

[Gman]

53. Why do Hillary supporters have to justify this?

What an effed up OP.

[Walk away]

85. Because Bernie is losing and his supporters are running out of things to....

cheer themselves up so.....they are now resorting to calling out Hillary supporters. I'm surprised the OP wasn't in caps. Yelling like Bernie!!!!

[Thinkingabout]

54. He has voted for military action more than once. As far as the dipomatic solutions he voted against

The IWR which was to allow the inspections to be completed in Iraq so I am conflicted on his stand before using military action.

[RichVRichV]

78. I think you're confused.

The IWR, or Iraq War Resolution, was the authorization for military action against Iraq passed by congress. A vote for it could not construed as a vote for peace.

[TheKentuckian]

87. Wilfully and intentionally confused though rather than actually befuddled.

[Thinkingabout]

95. Bernie Sanders is the same person who has been a member of Congress since 1991.

Maybe a little history research will reveal I am not confused, he has voted more than one time for military action, has said he would take military action and would use drones. If you do not like his stand on this contact Sanders about your dislike, we don't rewrite history or change votes.

[RichVRichV]

97. Where did that come from?

Everyone here knows Bernie has voted for military action before. That's not news.


What does that have to do with your claim that the IWR "was to allow the inspections to be completed in Iraq" and that him voting against it was a vote against diplomacy?


The IWR was authorization to use force against Iraq. It is what directly allowed the Bush administration to invade Iraq. It authorized our war of aggression against them.

[BlueMTexpat]

57. I don't really think that I have to justify anything

to you about my support for Hillary.

No one sane is PRO-war. If you want to continue to use Hillary's pro-IWR against her, fine. But it's a losing argument. She's come a long way since those days and has tremendous respect around the globe, as well as in the US. All round, she is the most comprehensively qualified individual to be President. That is not just my opinion. It is a fact.

You might want to justify why you continue to post anti-Hillary screed on a Democratic website.

[Broward]

60. IWR, no biggie. Let bygones be bygones.

[BlueMTexpat]

62. She was hardly the only Dem

to vote that way. Even Dems with LOTS more experience in government with foreign policy at the time, such as Joe Biden and John Kerry, voted for it.

But Hillary certainly was among the most junior Senators and she was, after all, the junior Senator from the state most traumatized by the events of 9-11. Do you even remember that era? I do. All too well.

Should she have done it? No, IMO. But it's done - and Dubya's war preps were supported by high percentages of the US population at the time. I remember that well because I was one of those who spoke out loudly and often to everyone I knew at the time against the terrible folly of going to war in Iraq. I was told that I was a traitor by some in my own family and some "friends" ceased speaking to me altogether. Others cast slurs on my character.

Remember how the Dixie Chicks were treated? That experience was replicated in many micro-environments - just not as well publicized because those treated that way did not have high profiles. I was one of them.

Like the Dixie Chicks, I have since been vindicated. But I will never forget.

[Thinkingabout]

96. As stated in post #40, "he's not perfect", dont expect Hillary to be perfect either.

[Maedhros]

89. She's come a long way?

She doubled-down on getting her war on with the Libyan debacle. Yet another Muslim country destroyed as a result of propaganda and lies - and then she went on television and gloated over it, just like Bush.

No, she's the same as she was.

This is why I consider Hillary supporters to be my political opponents. They are willing to rationalize any amount of death and suffering wrought by our military when a Democrat is responsible for it, because to criticize the war is to criticize the politicians behind it - and not criticizing Democrats is more important than stopping war.

[olddots]

92. anti Hillary screed ???????????????????????

Anti Hillary truth. Deal with it !00

[Dr Hobbitstein]

63. I don't have to justify shit to you.

My vote is my vote. You're not planning on supporting Hillary in the primary? Fine. I am. End of conversation.

Posting bullshit OPs like this is divisive to an already divided community of political junkies.

[tecelote]

65. You just justified shit to me.

[SunSeeker]

64. How does Sanders justify his votes in favor of funding wars?

He is particularly a fan of that expensive boondoggle, the F-35. Why?

[tecelote]

68. Look to post #59

By RichVRichV

[SunSeeker]

70. So jobs in Vermont is his justification?

You're saying Sanders looks at war spending as a jobs program. That and his many war votes (Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.) does not exactly make him a pacifist.

Pretty hypocritical of OP to attack Hillary on this.

[RichVRichV]

80. You act like politicians don't partake in pork.

They all do it. Military pork spending is like any other pork spending. Once built, those planes were going to be stored somewhere. As a representative either you get it for your constituents or someone else does for theirs.

I'm against war on principle and even I can recognize that. I'm amazed you can't differentiate between the two. I even talked about how I was against him and all of Washington on voting for bloated military budgets.


And no one ever said Bernie was a pacifist, including himself. The biggest difference between Bernie and Hillary on foreign affairs is that one voted for a war of aggression and the other voted against it. How important that vote is depends on the views of each individual.

[SunSeeker]

101. Every war we engaged in since WWII was a "war of aggression."

Vietnam never attacked us. Serbia never attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. Afghanistan never attacked us.

[George II]

66. Then why did Sanders' repeatedly vote to fund the war, including support....

.....for his own little corner of the war machine (F-35/Lockheed Martin)?

[tecelote]

69. Look to post #59

by RichVRichV

[SunSeeker]

102. Got it. Sanders is being hypocritical.

War is good when it comes to giving his Vermont base jobs, but bad if Hillary votes for the funding/authorization. However, we're talking about the same wars.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Obama says he would have voted against the war and yet he voted for funding. Do you think that

we can conclude then that he's full of shit when he says he opposed the war or that not funding troops you have already deployed is reprehensible and that hostilities should be ceased not soldiers endangered?
Or is it different for Bernie?

[George II]

86. Irrelevant - this is about Clinton and Sanders. Post a new OP about Obama if you want.

[Scootaloo]

76. Because, well, uhm, seem, that is... LOOK! WHITE DUDES WEARING FEDORAS!

YARGRARGBLARGLARGH!

[okasha]

91. A question for those who blame Hillary

for the war in Iraq: Do you hold George McGovern equally responsible for the Vietnam War?

[brooklynite]

98. If Sanders doesn't pull out all foreign troops on day one...

...he's a warmonger, right?