Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie voted to confirm Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. (Original Post) Dawson Leery Feb 2016 OP
Secretary of State works for the President Paulie Feb 2016 #1
He supported Obama RobertEarl Feb 2016 #2
Just like he made one by suggesting someone should have primaried Obama in 2012? moriah Feb 2016 #66
That was no mistake RobertEarl Feb 2016 #74
The last time we did it was in 1980. moriah Feb 2016 #85
Almost as strange as all the posts from Bernie's supporters saying she should be the next SCOTUS Lucinda Feb 2016 #3
No! She's too corporate for that job. DamnYankeeInHouston Feb 2016 #28
Are there a lot of those? I haven't seen any. Jester Messiah Feb 2016 #33
They happened when Scalia's death was announced. n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #40
I didn't see any. I can't imagine that to happen. Maybe you have a few examples? nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #44
I'll help you out since I'm such a nice guy. TexasTowelie Feb 2016 #79
LOL. Are you series? The first one is a Clinton supporter. The second one looks suspicious. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #80
You asked for links TexasTowelie Feb 2016 #81
Seems to me that you are on the wrong side of this class war. Tell me you aren't. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #83
Rhett, TexasTowelie Feb 2016 #84
Maybe it is personal. I have personally seen people kicked out of their homes, lose retirements, rhett o rick Feb 2016 #90
Rhett, TexasTowelie Feb 2016 #103
I have never said that my, "candidate is the solution to all problems in the world (or even in this rhett o rick Feb 2016 #104
He lives in poverty BainsBane Feb 2016 #87
It isn't rocket science that there is a class war and that in the last 30 years the 99% rhett o rick Feb 2016 #92
Your side raised money from Goldman Sachs BainsBane Feb 2016 #100
That article is a great example of shoddy journalism by the Clinton/Corp-Media. rhett o rick Feb 2016 #106
Who's saying that? Fawke Em Feb 2016 #38
Happened when Scalia's death was announced. n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #41
Bullshit. 99Forever Feb 2016 #50
Such unwarranted nastiness. Read post 79. One from each camp. Hekate Feb 2016 #86
Oh my! 99Forever Feb 2016 #88
Blame Bernie First! Octafish Feb 2016 #91
I think the couple of those I saw were tongue in cheek. Autumn Feb 2016 #96
Well, he probably was not impressed with her tenure as SOS. Punkingal Feb 2016 #4
Very fair criticism in my opinion... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #5
How is that a fair criticism? malletgirl02 Feb 2016 #16
I can see that side of the argument too... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #21
He was allowing Obama to chose the SOS that he wanted. CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #19
Confirmationgate! Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #31
Can you imagine if he had voted against her? The poutrage would be huuuuuge. farleftlib Feb 2016 #101
Yes, the poutrage would have been huuuuuuge Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #102
Are you new to politics? What good would it have done to refuse to confirm her? rhett o rick Feb 2016 #48
I'm not new to politics... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #59
He as being politically pragmatic Empowerer Feb 2016 #95
And if he'd voted against her you'd be griping "Not a team player!" Armstead Feb 2016 #6
That's valid too... TTUBatfan2008 Feb 2016 #12
An open mind is different than a rigid one that changes opinions opportunistically Armstead Feb 2016 #26
As a loyal Democrat would do, he voted for the President's choice. What's wrong with that? Kip Humphrey Feb 2016 #7
He wasn't a Dem when he voted for her though. n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #30
He was caucusing with them. He didn't need to unnecessarily piss them off. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #51
Wouldn't they need him more than he'd need them though? n/t Lucinda Feb 2016 #52
He supported Obama's choice. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #8
Senators give presidents wide latitude in such appointments cali Feb 2016 #9
He had a chance to oppose Hillary as he saw her unfit. Dawson Leery Feb 2016 #15
He has never said she was unfit. cali Feb 2016 #24
Oy. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #10
Mental illness is creeping in Doctor_J Feb 2016 #32
That was before she blew up Libya CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #11
Great post, CoffeeCat. nt. polly7 Feb 2016 #97
It was the President's nominee. Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #13
That was before... cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2016 #23
Well...... authentic?!?!!? sigh uponit7771 Feb 2016 #17
I concede this was a definite Bernie mistake. EndElectoral Feb 2016 #18
They are running against each other but they are not enemies gollygee Feb 2016 #20
Maybe he and other senators gave her the benefit of the doubt? loyalsister Feb 2016 #22
What's your point? TheProgressive Feb 2016 #25
In theory it should throw bernie under the bus treestar Feb 2016 #43
Oh, okay. frylock Feb 2016 #62
non substantive response treestar Feb 2016 #71
To a non-substantive post. frylock Feb 2016 #72
This message was self-deleted by its author JonLeibowitz Feb 2016 #77
I think the point is... Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #45
Many of us had hopes for Clinton's term but…. doxyluv13 Feb 2016 #27
Typical politician KingFlorez Feb 2016 #29
what is strange about that? bowens43 Feb 2016 #34
Because, while her Iraq War vote was horrible, she'd deemed it a mistake. Fawke Em Feb 2016 #35
+1. nt. polly7 Feb 2016 #98
Strange indeed.. asuhornets Feb 2016 #36
She really should. frylock Feb 2016 #63
Sanders in every debate.. asuhornets Feb 2016 #64
It's really just a statement of fact. frylock Feb 2016 #67
Keep trying Kall Feb 2016 #37
I certainly don't trust her. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #39
Bernie supported Obama & Bernie thought Hillary HAD LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT REGIME CHANGE amborin Feb 2016 #42
Ridiculous attack malletgirl02 Feb 2016 #46
Bernie makes one mistake, but when compared to Hillary voting for the Iraq War which B Calm Feb 2016 #47
Well, like now, she had a good resume nichomachus Feb 2016 #49
Good point underpants Feb 2016 #53
And if he voted against her you would have started about 20 threads howling about that! m-lekktor Feb 2016 #54
And Clinton, Like Sanders, Voted for Obama... TWICE. SDJay Feb 2016 #55
He gave President Obama his selection Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #56
The stench of desperation pours over Camp Weathervane. 99Forever Feb 2016 #57
Damn you're good! Game. Set. Match! RufusTFirefly Feb 2016 #58
LOL +1 B Calm Feb 2016 #68
GOTCHA! fail. frylock Feb 2016 #60
It's simple Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #61
I guess Hillary trusts Condoleezza Rice's judgement. RichVRichV Feb 2016 #65
And don't forget who sponsored Condi. Another neo-con masquerading as a Democrat RufusTFirefly Feb 2016 #75
Good work! You finally found something very bad that he did! JackRiddler Feb 2016 #69
The first analysis was predicting that she would be effective. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2016 #70
I agree with you, Hillary shouldn't have been confirmed. nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #73
And she was a good SoS. HassleCat Feb 2016 #76
Hahahahahaha BRILLIANT! Firebrand Gary Feb 2016 #78
Good point! k&r DesertRat Feb 2016 #82
OMG! What was he thinking? How can we trust him now? :-P NurseJackie Feb 2016 #89
Wasn't his fault she continued Bush II's idiocy. Octafish Feb 2016 #93
By that implicit logic, Admiral Loinpresser Feb 2016 #94
And the "proof", as they say, was in the pudding. cherokeeprogressive Feb 2016 #99
Maybe he didn't want to judge her based on one vote? TCJ70 Feb 2016 #105

moriah

(8,311 posts)
66. Just like he made one by suggesting someone should have primaried Obama in 2012?
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:49 PM
Feb 2016

Given how he voted against the Brady Bill because his constituents wanted him to, I more than suspect it was a triangulation move given he got a higher percentage of votes than Obama did.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
74. That was no mistake
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:58 PM
Feb 2016

It would have been good for the country to have a challenge to the president. Bernie is all about what's good for the country and our democracy.

moriah

(8,311 posts)
85. The last time we did it was in 1980.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:35 AM
Feb 2016

In 1968, someone primariee Lyndon Johnson and he didn't do well, another Kennedy got shot, police were brutal to the protesters at the Convention, we still ended up nominating the sitting vice-president, and lost to Tricky Dicky.

In 1976, Reagan primaried Ford, and we got Carter.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy primaried Carter, and we got Reagan.

So unless your goal is to get the sitting President defeated, don't encourage a primary challenge. I mean, sure, it would have been awesome for someone to have primaried Bush. Not Obama.


Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
3. Almost as strange as all the posts from Bernie's supporters saying she should be the next SCOTUS
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:16 PM
Feb 2016

Not honest enough to be POTUS, but lets put her on the bench to change policy for generations...

 

Jester Messiah

(4,711 posts)
33. Are there a lot of those? I haven't seen any.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:52 PM
Feb 2016

I wouldn't want her on the court; I wouldn't trust her ruling on issues like Citizens United.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
80. LOL. Are you series? The first one is a Clinton supporter. The second one looks suspicious.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:13 PM
Feb 2016

But nice try.

TexasTowelie

(112,394 posts)
81. You asked for links
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:07 PM
Feb 2016

and I gave them to you so I was serious. BTW, Mr. Berryhill supports Bernie which was why I immediately recalled that OP and his use of sarcasm. The other one I found with a search with the word Clinton in the title.

I also know that I've read several replies within threads that make the same argument, but I limited my search for thread titles with the word Clinton and did not include other search terms such as Hillary or HRC.

However, I'm LOL that you aren't paying attention. Either that or it's a nice try acting oblivious to what happens here.

TexasTowelie

(112,394 posts)
84. Rhett,
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:46 AM
Feb 2016

You are making this far too personal. You asked for links and I supplied them to you. Now you decided to make an unfounded accusation to suggest that I am on the wrong side of a class war when in reality I lived for nearly two years in poverty hoping that I will qualify for disability. I don't see any difference between the candidates as to their stances on providing the social programs such as SSDI.

As a matter of fact, this is the first time that I've heard anyone suggest that the Democratic primary is a class war. Those type of statements will most likely cause your candidate to lose votes in both the primary and general election.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
90. Maybe it is personal. I have personally seen people kicked out of their homes, lose retirements,
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:02 AM
Feb 2016

lose jobs, etc.
Did you know that in the USofA that 6 infants die before the age of 1 year out of ever 1,000 live births? Worse than all other modern countries. 38 countries take care of their infants better than this country. I find that immoral. Did you know that 16,000,000 American children live in poverty and another 16,000,000 live in low income homes? We are speaking of 32 millions of our children. How can't that be personal? Many of our seniors are struggling to get by and SS and Medicare cuts may be on the way. The healthcare for the 99% in the USofA is the worst of the modern countries. Our college students are being strapped with huge debts. These are all collateral damage from the super-wealthy greed that puts profits over lives.

While the 99% struggles with these problems that are literally killing us, the 1% is wallowing in enormous wealth. Their wealth has tripled in the last 30 years while we have stagnated or slid backwards. You must recognize how desperate this situation is.

You must recognize that it's a class war and the 99% are losing badly. So who wants to fix this? Sen Sanders is very outspoken and proposes great changes and wants the 1% to start paying their fair share. Clinton on the other hand, a strong 1%'er (actually her and Bill have made the top 0.1% with wealth they've accumulated from appreciative corporations and billionaires), is nowhere near as strong a proponent of stopping the great wealth redistribution from the 99% to her friends in the 1%. She may say she wants to help the poor but she will never ask her super-wealthy friends to pay a dime. She wants the 99% to pay for helping the 99%.

I think it's naive to pretend that the 30 to 50 millions of dollars that billionaires and corporations have given Clinton personally doesn't influence her. Not to mention the 100 to 150 millions given to her husband. She is not on the same side as Sen Sanders and the 99% in this class war.

TexasTowelie

(112,394 posts)
103. Rhett,
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 08:28 AM
Feb 2016

While you have personally seen distressing circumstances I have personally experienced many distressing situations that I will refrain from discussing for the sake of brevity. Reciting platitudes and statistics to bolster your candidate is a fallacy, but if it makes you feel better then I'm not going to stop you. Likewise, stating that I'm choosing (or anyone else is choosing) to be on the wrong side of class warfare doesn't hold water and is an example of binary thinking.

Since I am a mathematician I recognize the limitations of binary thinking which is present in the 99% vs. the 1% argument. Please don't limit yourself to such a dichotomy. My personal experience factors into that viewpoint since I'm probably in the bottom 1% of income earners at this point in my life, but also because I have friends that are closer to the top 1% and I certainly do view them with disdain.

I simply disagree with your opinion that your candidate is the solution to all problems in the world (or even in this country). From a personal perspective I can easily argue how some of Bernie's solutions could end up harming me and the immorality of it, but I won't bother since discussing it with you would be pointless.

Get back to me when you can discuss personal hardships that you experienced rather than observed. I find that people who struggled through adversity have more insight than those that are dogmatically rigid.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
104. I have never said that my, "candidate is the solution to all problems in the world (or even in this
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:56 PM
Feb 2016

country)"
I have never made that claim and I don't believe it.

It's a fact that the political establishment has decimated the 99% in the last 30 years. We desperately need change. I hope you can agree with those two sentences. I don't think for a second that H. Clinton will work for the change we need. She is a very well engaged in the Wealthy 1%. While she may try to fix some of the problems in the 99% she will only ask that we in the 99% pay for those changes. You are looking to the Establishment to fix the problems that they have made. Clinton has been made a very wealthy women and in fact her and Bill have jumped into the top 0.1% from honorarium from those that have decimated the 99%. She isn't about to ask them to start paying their fair share.

I have no delusions that Sanders will fix everything, but we must start somewhere.

BainsBane

(53,056 posts)
87. He lives in poverty
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:19 AM
Feb 2016

He doesn't have the weatlh to be on your side of the class war. The upper 10-20% is not exploited by poor people like Texas Towelie or like the family I grew up in. Despite that, you time and time again make those comments to the poor, disenfranchised and oppressed, angry that they dare to consider anything but the upper middle class' anger at th 1%. I can't even count how many times I've seen you do just that. No matter how many times you are told you are addressing poor or LGBT people, you never apologize but instead continue insulting the very same people., knowing full well what their economic situation is. As far as I can tell, most of your time here is spent waging war on those less fortunate than youself. We all might wish to have the kind of money that would enable us to be on your side of the class war, but unfortunately most of us cannot.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
92. It isn't rocket science that there is a class war and that in the last 30 years the 99%
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:11 AM
Feb 2016

has been devastated by the 1% that controls our government. They do such by buying politicians that provide them favorable laws and regulations that are literally killing our children and others in the 99%.

It should be obvious that Sen Sanders and Clinton are on opposite sides of this class war. And my side of this class war is with Sen Sanders and the 99%. The other side is Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street. My side is fighting to save those infants and children dying in poverty while Goldman-Sachs is fighting for higher profits.

BainsBane

(53,056 posts)
100. Your side raised money from Goldman Sachs
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:00 PM
Feb 2016

Citigroup and the rest of the big banks. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
Your side is currently benefiting from millions in dark money and super pac spending. That you claim that any political choice other than promoting your chosen member of the political elite amounts to siding with the banks and the rich is preposterous.

Your side grants immunity for gun corporations, billions in profit generated by killing people in communities like mine. Your side grants up to a trillion in corporate welfare for Lockheed-Martin, while pretending that corporate accountability extends only to Wall Street, all while having raised hundreds of thousands from those same banks.


Nearly every union, prominent person of color, civil rights activist and social justice advocate has endorsed Clinton. Sanders is in turn supported by Hollywood and a good section of the white middle and upper middle class, but far less so by the poor and people of color, who support Clinton. Your side in turn has harassed and insulted anyone who dares to think for themselves, who dares to care about their own lives. Let's not pretend you are concerned about the poor. Your actions speak volumes. You treat poor people like Texas Towelie and others barely getting by as the enemy. That shows in no uncertain terms you are waging war against them. They are your enemy because they refuse to prioritize your accumulation of wealth above their own survival. You are the one, after all, who insisted to me that foodstamps was enough for the poor, the same foodstamps supported by ever DLCer.


The last thirty years has not in fact seen an increase in poverty. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/23/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-poverty-us-all-time-high/ Poverty is now lower than during the days you long to return to. The one group that fares worse are white men. That is the war you are engaged in, the war to ensure the white male bourgeoisie regains what it sees as its rightful position atop the capitalist world order, a world order built around the death and economic exploitation of the vast majority around the world and in the US for the comfort of people like you.

For you, political discussion is limited to bumper sticker slogans, slogans that do not hold up to any scrutiny. You display no interest in getting beyond the word of memes and soundbites. Because of that you turn to insults. Yet you don't wage your war on bankers and the 1 percent, do you? In fact, you count some of them as your allies (like a recently banned 1 percenter and others who boast of their four digit checks to Bernie or wardrobe of couture gowns). Instead, you target poor people like Texas Towelie or people who are LGBT and lower-middle class like hrmjustin. Your political discourse is limited to insulting people in precisely the ways you have done in this thread, insults that are ludicrous considering your own class privilege and the poverty and oppression of those you target.

A politician is not a cause. That you think your reverence for a single member of the political elite justifies your treating members of the subaltern with contempt shows that your goal is not at all what you claim. You are engaged in a war every single day, but it's not against the banks or the 1 percent. It's against those less fortunate than yourself who don't believe your favorite politician's slogans.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
106. That article is a great example of shoddy journalism by the Clinton/Corp-Media.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 03:33 PM
Feb 2016

First of all the worst thing the article accuses Sanders of it helping many others raise money for Democratic Senators.

Secondly, while Clinton accepts 30 to 50,000,000 dollars for her personal wealth (Goldman-Sachs $650,000), you try to equate that with the DSCC accepting money from banks like Goldman-Sachs.

Thirdly, the article says that Sen Sanders' name was on the list of invited guests. That doesn't prove he even attended. The article does say that some unnamed person saw him there.

Even if he did participate in helping raise money for Democratic Senators, he didn't pocket any of the money like Clinton does.

Fourthly, he openly wants to make the Wealthy, banksters, and Wall Street billionaires pay their fair share. That's a far cry from Clinton telling Goldman-Sachs that banks were being picked on too much.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
38. Who's saying that?
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:02 PM
Feb 2016

I wouldn't support that.

Besides, she wouldn't pass his one litmus test: she wouldn't want to rule against Citizens United. It's made her a lot of money.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
50. Bullshit.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:18 PM
Feb 2016

I have yet to hear ONE ACTUAL Sanders supporter express even faint interest in having ANY Clinton on the court.

Prove me wrong. Post a link.

I fucking dare you.

Hekate

(90,784 posts)
86. Such unwarranted nastiness. Read post 79. One from each camp.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 03:52 AM
Feb 2016

To QUOTE you verbatim: "I fucking dare you."

I saw others, cleverly indicating that nominating HRC for the SCOTUS would be a two-fer for the Bernie side, because it would take her out of the POTUS race and she would also fail to be confirmed by the Senate. I was impressed, so impressed. But if you want to read it, you can do the search yourself. To quote Mr. Rogers, "I know you can." Such a nice man, Fred Rogers, an example to us all in these fraught times.

JURY: I am quoting 99forever's words back at him verbatim.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
4. Well, he probably was not impressed with her tenure as SOS.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:17 PM
Feb 2016

Maybe he gave her the benefit of the doubt about Iraq vote up to then.

malletgirl02

(1,523 posts)
16. How is that a fair criticism?
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:21 PM
Feb 2016

If Sanders didn't vote for confirmation the OP would be criticizing sanders for not being a team player.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
21. I can see that side of the argument too...
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:25 PM
Feb 2016

Both sides like to play things for their benefit. On one hand Sanders is a "revolutionary," on the other hand he supports Obama 90% of the time. On one hand the Clintons say Sanders is not a loyal Democrat, on the other hand they attack him when he votes in favor of Obama policies (including Hillary's appointment). Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
19. He was allowing Obama to chose the SOS that he wanted.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:24 PM
Feb 2016

Nothing more, nothing less.

"I know! Let's make a great big deal out of a whole lot of nothing," --said the Hillary campaign for the 2,365th time this week.

YAY!

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
101. Can you imagine if he had voted against her? The poutrage would be huuuuuge.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:05 PM
Feb 2016

They're trying to do the same thing with Obama's next pick for SCOTUS. Somehow, in their twisted little brains, if Obama's pick isn't confirmed it's because Bernie didn't fight hard enough.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
102. Yes, the poutrage would have been huuuuuuge
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 06:13 AM
Feb 2016

They love to attack him from both sides.

"Bernie doesn't raise money for Democrats!"
"Bernie attended a lavish fundraiser for Democrats on Martha's Vineyard! Hypocrite!"




 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
48. Are you new to politics? What good would it have done to refuse to confirm her?
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:18 PM
Feb 2016

There was no chance that Obama was going to nominate someone progressive.

If I happen to vote for Clinton in the General, it won't be because I like her positions on most issues. And I will be critical later. Holding our elected officials accountable is very Democratic.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
59. I'm not new to politics...
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:34 PM
Feb 2016

If she was going to be confirmed anyway, then that makes it even easier to take a stand and vote against her if he really felt she was unqualified. Now, the flip side is also true that if he did this then her campaign would claim he was trying to undermine Democrats. Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.

TTUBatfan2008

(3,623 posts)
12. That's valid too...
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:21 PM
Feb 2016

I can understand both sides of the argument and both sides try to play it both ways for their benefit.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. Senators give presidents wide latitude in such appointments
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:20 PM
Feb 2016

Surprised you're so uninformed. Only 2 repubs voted against her. Guess what? No Republican is supporting her.

Lame. Deeply inane. Bulloney.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
11. That was before she blew up Libya
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:21 PM
Feb 2016

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

and ransacked Syria.

That was also before she went full neocon and handpicked Robert Kagan as one of her foreign-policy advisers. Oh that Robert Kagan, what a great guy! He founded the PNAC movement, which morphed into the sociopathic neocon movement. I always knew that the Republicans loved the neocon warmongers. I was devastated to learn that Hillary invited them into the clubhouse.

Then, when I saw what she did to Libya, I knew that Hillary was a full-blown neocon--and it made sense that she would select Kagan. The PNAC manifesto lists Libya as one of the countries that the neocons want to dominate. And how do they secure those countries for exploitation? By destabilizing them and creating chaos.

Oh Hillary. Someone needs to kick you to the curb for doing this to our party. Hopefully we're in the process of doing that now, in this primary process.

cannabis_flower

(3,765 posts)
14. That was before...
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:21 PM
Feb 2016

she was actually Secretary of State. Do you think maybe her experience has something to do with that?

Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #14)

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
20. They are running against each other but they are not enemies
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:24 PM
Feb 2016

Their supporters here are acting like it, but they are OK with each other and will both vote for whoever wins the primaries.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
22. Maybe he and other senators gave her the benefit of the doubt?
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:27 PM
Feb 2016

I think she proved them, and a whole lot of citizens (myself included) wrong during her tenure. She is every bit as war hungry as her promotion of the Iraq war suggests.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
43. In theory it should throw bernie under the bus
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:13 PM
Feb 2016

with many of his supporters. Especially since he would have known her IWR vote at that time. He's not pure enough for his supporters if he supported her for anything, especially SOS, after that.

Response to frylock (Reply #72)

doxyluv13

(247 posts)
27. Many of us had hopes for Clinton's term but….
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 07:35 PM
Feb 2016

…she doubled down of "regime change" even when the predictable result was bloody chaos.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
35. Because, while her Iraq War vote was horrible, she'd deemed it a mistake.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:00 PM
Feb 2016

He took her word for it and thought she'd maybe learned not to be such a war hawk and become better at foreign policy as a result.

Sadly, she didn't learn her lesson and we got Libya, Syria, Honduras and Haiti.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
63. She really should.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:42 PM
Feb 2016

Senator Sanders, how can we possibly trust your judgement if you voted to confirm such a terrible SoS?

asuhornets

(2,405 posts)
64. Sanders in every debate..
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:45 PM
Feb 2016

has stated she has more foreign policy than all candidates. which is a remarkable compliment.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
67. It's really just a statement of fact.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:49 PM
Feb 2016

We've been through this. The only two presidents elect with foreign policy experience to match Hillary's is Nixon and GHW Bush. Did you vote for Poppy Bush over Bill Clinton because he had more foreign policy experience?

amborin

(16,631 posts)
42. Bernie supported Obama & Bernie thought Hillary HAD LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT REGIME CHANGE
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:12 PM
Feb 2016

based on the fiasco in Iraq that she voted for.

The whole world learned that regime change in the Middle East leads to DISASTER

Everyone gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt, thinking she had seen and realized the disaster that followed.

BUT, NO! Hillary DID NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HER IRAQ VOTE.

She FAILED to see what the world learned and sees: REGIME CHANGE IS A FAILED NEO-CON AGENDA that LEADS TO CHAOS, unending bloodshed, and the strengthening of anti-US terror groups

SHE PROCEEDED TO CAUSE CHAOS IN LIBYA AND SYRIA....

malletgirl02

(1,523 posts)
46. Ridiculous attack
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:16 PM
Feb 2016

If Bernie Sanders did vote fo her confirmation, you would be attacking him for not voting for her.

 

B Calm

(28,762 posts)
47. Bernie makes one mistake, but when compared to Hillary voting for the Iraq War which
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:17 PM
Feb 2016

one screwed up more?

nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
49. Well, like now, she had a good resume
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:18 PM
Feb 2016

I'm sure he thought then she could do the job. Turns out she was terrible at it.

I've hired people who looked good on paper, but just couldn't perform.

SDJay

(1,089 posts)
55. And Clinton, Like Sanders, Voted for Obama... TWICE.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:24 PM
Feb 2016

I see what you're doing here... It's aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll coming together nicely, isn't it?

[IMG][/IMG]

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
58. Damn you're good! Game. Set. Match!
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:33 PM
Feb 2016

Now I can vote for a tone-deaf, pandering, disingenuous, Wall Street loving, warmonger with complete piece of mind!

Phew!

RichVRichV

(885 posts)
65. I guess Hillary trusts Condoleezza Rice's judgement.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:48 PM
Feb 2016

After all she voted to confirm her as Secretary of State. I guess if Rice were running Hillary would be supporting her according to your logic.


In reality presidents have wide latitude to pick their cabinets. Senate confirmation is just a check and balance. If there's not an overriding reason to reject, then it's usually approved. That does not mean it's an endorsement. Otherwise there were never be cross party votes for cabinet positions.

 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
69. Good work! You finally found something very bad that he did!
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:50 PM
Feb 2016

How could he let such a person into such an important office? And look at what a terrible job she did, destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine. Sanders is responsible for all that and that's why we need to vote for his opponent, erm, whatsername?

ChairmanAgnostic

(28,017 posts)
70. The first analysis was predicting that she would be effective.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:52 PM
Feb 2016

The second was based on her performance.
Don't conflict the two. Was she a promising SecState? Yes. Did her decisions and policies work out? Not so well.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
76. And she was a good SoS.
Mon Feb 15, 2016, 09:05 PM
Feb 2016

According to the people I know who worked in the State Department. Some of them support her for president, and others don't

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
93. Wasn't his fault she continued Bush II's idiocy.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:14 AM
Feb 2016

Iraq...Honduras...Venezuela...Libya...Syria...Turkey...

Bernie expected, you know, Democracy.

Admiral Loinpresser

(3,859 posts)
94. By that implicit logic,
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:14 AM
Feb 2016

the president should not have nominated her because he contested her seemingly inevitable presidential candidacy in 2007. The whole thread is sophomoric in nature.

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)
105. Maybe he didn't want to judge her based on one vote?
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:59 PM
Feb 2016

I mean, now he's got all kinds of evidence to form an actual opinion on her foreign policy judgement.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie voted to confirm H...