2016 Postmortem

erronis

(22,437 posts)

10. Totally agree. And that's why we should prefer candidates that have a human side, a conscience.

Thu Sep 10, 2015, 12:04 PM

Sep 2015

From some unverified internet source:
A conscience: an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

Of course, Bill, Hillary, and most politicians will define the "rightness/wrongness" as per the current state-of-affairs. Today, I'm your friend. Tomorrow, ciao.

Generally I'll trust people with a more feminine outlook than the others. I know about Golda and Angela, but I think that compared to the saber/trumpet aspects of the malish characters, I'd pin my hopes on the XX side.

Between Bernie and Hillary - I'm not going to make a pronouncement about who has more balls/testosterone. In the current DU environment I'd get shunned. However, I like people that don't rattle sabers, who want discussions, and who seek solutions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When HRC was SoS one of her foreign policy advisors was famed neocon [View all] cali Sep 2015 OP

Makes sense since HRC is the leading neocon in the Democratic Party. leveymg Sep 2015 #1

Appears that way...see Post #14 below..n/t KoKo Sep 2015 #17

A number of career foreign policy aparachiks are committed neocons. They serve GOP and Dems alike, leveymg Sep 2015 #35

Another big reason for us to do whatever it takes to prevent Clinton from Zorra Sep 2015 #2

Birds of a feather. eom NorthCarolina Sep 2015 #3

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Sep 2015 #4

I think the Iraq War went rather well Armstead Sep 2015 #5

She also referred to meeting with this noted peacenik to get his views LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #6

this is one area i cut hillary a lot of slack. mopinko Sep 2015 #7

I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse cali Sep 2015 #8

Totally agree. And that's why we should prefer candidates that have a human side, a conscience. erronis Sep 2015 #10

"I think that's a very weak and completely repugnant excuse" asjr Sep 2015 #13

I did not put words in her mouth. I addressed why I don't cut HRC the excuse cali Sep 2015 #22

And when someone expresses their "feelings" zeemike Sep 2015 #23

Cali did not attack the poster passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #34

well asjr LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #46

I see by your number of posts you have asjr Sep 2015 #48

Post count...okay n/t. LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #98

I will not excuse a neoconservative foriegn Ed Suspicious Sep 2015 #9

Agreed 100% hifiguy Sep 2015 #26

That may be true but that is damned scary. What is jwirr Sep 2015 #12

George HW Bush had that "wimp" perception to deal with by killing people. arcane1 Sep 2015 #53

"I don't want to be seen as weak, so let's take a chance on killing Zorra Sep 2015 #16

I have seen this rationale from Hillary apologists several times now LondonReign2 Sep 2015 #20

persona = politics ish of the hammer Sep 2015 #24

A lot of male Democrats did also. Ever since Viet Nam and being called soft. LiberalArkie Sep 2015 #28

In other words, she voted for the war to advance her career. arcane1 Sep 2015 #52

Since when is being a warmonger a sign of strength? CoffeeCat Sep 2015 #101

i'm not equating those things, but people do. mopinko Sep 2015 #102

Uh huh, yeah, got it. Darb Sep 2015 #11

so you're on board with an aggressively I interventionist foreign policy? cali Sep 2015 #15

No, however, I am against guilt by association, or even by consult. Darb Sep 2015 #18

it's hardly just association. it's her record cali Sep 2015 #21

What? Darb Sep 2015 #37

careful! you are being baited into getting a hide.... bettyellen Sep 2015 #44

"Aggressively interventionist foreign policy"? Where do you get THAT from? George II Sep 2015 #89

Robert Kagan & his NeoCon Wife Victoria Nuland who served Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and SOS Hillary KoKo Sep 2015 #14

KoKo, thanks so much for this info. summerschild Sep 2015 #25

Clearly you're just an irrational hater who hates Obama's race and Clinton's gender. arcane1 Sep 2015 #54

The vast universe of my ignorance is now a teeny bit smaller. Thanks KoKo. Scuba Sep 2015 #99

Once again I bail out of Hillary's boat on the way to the primaries. summerschild Sep 2015 #19

...! KoKo Sep 2015 #100

During Obama's first term... wyldwolf Sep 2015 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Sep 2015 #30

HAHAHA! Love it! LeftOfWest Sep 2015 #47

Hahahahahahahahaha dorkzilla Sep 2015 #31

tongue halfway in cheek for sure wyldwolf Sep 2015 #32

And the piling on continues.... George II Sep 2015 #29

uh oh. wyldwolf Sep 2015 #33

According to wiki passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #38

He wasn't hired at the same time as the appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State. George II Sep 2015 #39

I tried to research it (google) and I couldn't find who and when he was hired passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #40

I think the responsibility to check his background belongs to the OP. She's the one who threw out.. George II Sep 2015 #41

If she has better access than I do, then yes, she could do that passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #43

Sorry, I haven't presented his resume here as being what it is in the OP..... George II Sep 2015 #50

I'm sorry, but passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #55

And kudos to you too, passiveporcupine. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #60

She got a hide for the OP passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #65

No, for a post in another thread. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #66

I missed that passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #72

It is being done by both sides. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #76

I don't understand why this is allowed passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #78

There's no easy solution. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #79

Be careful passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #81

Aw, right back atcha, pp! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #82

No kidding, I have three now, and just survived another jury verdict arcane1 Sep 2015 #83

I own up to mine too, lol! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #84

I have two recent hides, both ridiculous. Vattel Sep 2015 #94

Did the alerter lie about your posts? beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #95

I am being more careful now. Vattel Sep 2015 #96

"until you can legitimize your position, her statement stands" George II Sep 2015 #97

Clinton did hire him, for a 2-year term in 2011 arcane1 Sep 2015 #61

Post 56, post 56, post 56. George II Sep 2015 #91

And she selected him to work on her Foreign Affairs Policy Board arcane1 Sep 2015 #92

Maybe now it's time for YOU to go read "Post 56" - have a great evening. George II Sep 2015 #93

See post 56. This poster's claim is pure made-up bullshit. arcane1 Sep 2015 #57

No it isn't. Do you know when Kagan started working for the State Department? It wasn't during... George II Sep 2015 #64

December, 2011. Unless you have a link to refute my link direct from the State Department. arcane1 Sep 2015 #67

The Obama administration was not his first stint at State, the first was under Reagan and George Bluenorthwest Sep 2015 #70

Somehow I don't think that fact will bolster their argument arcane1 Sep 2015 #75

Like I asked rhetorically earlier, I'll say it outright now - you don't know how..... George II Sep 2015 #85

I DO know, and I've led you to the post several times proving it. Here it is again to ignore: arcane1 Sep 2015 #86

Simply NOT true - Kagan has been working for the State Department for more than 30 years! He.... George II Sep 2015 #88

Please point out exactly what is incorrect in the State.gov article. arcane1 Sep 2015 #90

"This is an pointless discussion." beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #87

State.gov: "Secretary Clinton selected a distinguished, diverse, and bipartisan membership..." arcane1 Sep 2015 #56

WELL DONE!!! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #59

Thanks, they make it too easy sometimes. arcane1 Sep 2015 #62

It was, and then they came after me. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #63

And my post goes ignored while other posts get replies telling me I'm ignorant. arcane1 Sep 2015 #68

You don't know what you're talk...SQUIRRELL!!! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #69

Oh my! passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #73

Many neocons on that list. AtomicKitten Sep 2015 #107

it's we report, you decide. SouthernProgressive Sep 2015 #49

It's truly sad that here, on DEMOCRATIC Underground, that this tactic is used. George II Sep 2015 #51

What's being omitted in this case? arcane1 Sep 2015 #58

If you follow the whole thread, you will see passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #74

the shit does keep piling up... Agony Sep 2015 #71

Yawn trumad Sep 2015 #36

Wake up. There's a warmonger advising a leading presidential candidate. DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #77

Who happened to be John McCain's adviser in 2008. arcane1 Sep 2015 #80

Maybe some Democrats believe that having neocons in high level positions Zorra Sep 2015 #103

I'm not too crazy about it, personally. Old Iran/Contra people aren't welcome either. arcane1 Sep 2015 #104

The difference between neocon and neolib? Puzzledtraveller Sep 2015 #42

She evolved from Kissinger to Kagan. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #45

Why didn't we invaded something then? JoePhilly Sep 2015 #105

I guess it isn't only Clinton supporters who have questionable hides. n/t demmiblue Sep 2015 #106