2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans
Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is even more of a war hawk than her Republican counterparts, the U.S. newspaper of record says in a new report. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk, a long-form article published this week in the New York Times Magazine, details how Clintons hyper-hawkish foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone, based on what one of her aides calls a textbook view of American exceptionalism.
Clintons extreme belligerence will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election, the Times explains, noting neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.
In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
chillfactor
(7,584 posts)and garbage like this will not be allowed......YEAH!
w4rma
(31,700 posts)No. You don't get to censor progressive criticism.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)this place is off the rails
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH!
I suggest you go to ATA and Announcements and read what Skinner actually wrote about this, especially the "Some people are going to be disappointed" part.
Two more days and no more "Two more days...YEAH!" posts. YEAH!
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Mail Message
On Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
YEAH!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2201082
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Post is unnecessarily and near spam.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is absolutely 100% harmless and certainly not deserving of a Hide.
Ridiculous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't even understand the alert on this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)On Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
YEAH!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2201082
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Post is unnecessarily and near spam.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is absolutely 100% harmless and certainly not deserving of a Hide.
Ridiculous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: ridiculous alert
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't even understand the alert on this.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Why is it bad that factual things are shown against your candidate? Are you afraid that the world will find out what she is about? You can come out of the DU bubble now.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)you can always go to Hillary's website if you only want to read the positive/edited and approved messages.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Of course, instead of going into Tick Tock mode, you could have followed the radical course of presenting a reasoned argument in opposition to the conclusion reached by the Times.
You still have time to do so.
Response to Vattel (Original post)
Post removed
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Incidentally the Ben Norton piece in the OP is from April and seems to be intended to prop up Sanders' sagging campaign. The difficulty remains that Bernie didn't run on foreign policy and never bothered to spell one out. Which is a problem when you're running for US president. Another problem is that the US isn't the only player in NATO and during the Obama admin the US not been the driver in ME regime change operations, whatever Hillary might have advised.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Anyway the OP raises the same question we talked about earlier, namely, is it fair to say that Bernie is better on FP than Hillary, "better" meaning less belligerent? And the answer remains, that wasn't his focus and he never thought seriously about it which is problematic and made Hillary the better candidate.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)From the FAR right, at that.
The right wing article is still_one's "evidence" for calling the OP's position one of a terrorist apologist.
Note that still_one apologized for posting it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7928787
Thanks for the OP, Vattel.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)#1 reason why I don't want her anywhere near the White House. k/r
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)MaeScott
(878 posts)splat
(2,294 posts)Hit piece from April is way off base. She worked for McGovern, fer chrissake.
She's done what she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she wants to do.
Give her a chance to do so without crying in your beer.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)If not, how do you know "working for McGovern" wasn't just one of the things she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she has amply demonstrated that she wants to do -- namely, go warring?? That's not something I want to "give her a chance" to do.
I don't know why her backing McGovern 44 years ago is more significant than a 2-month-old article detailing her hawkishness "throughout her career," fer chrissake!
It's this kind of blindness that makes me weep. If you have reasons to call this a "hit piece," other than you just want the truth hidden, let's hear them. I guess you can't cry "RW source!" on Salon or the NY Times? The NY Times endorsed her, so I don't think THEY consider it a "hit piece," but a factual article. Hell, they may think it's a positive piece on her
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)And let me point something out to you in case you missed it:
"She's done what she thought she needed to do to get into a position to do what she wants to do."
That one sentence very nicely sums up why some people are not "rallying behind" her. You see it as a selling point, other people see it as toxicity.
Give her a chance to do what she wants to do?
Maybe that works for you. Take a good look at what you're saying here, step outside of yourself for a moment, and consider what those words are actually communicating to people who don't think the way that you do.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sorry, facts do matter and so does history. Stop trying to rewrite it.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Facts are facts. Just like policies are policies. I make my support/non-support decisions based on policies, not the team colors. And with a Clinton/Trump election coming up I expect to spend the next four to eight years advocating either anti-war policies or anti-racism policies depending on the winner of the election.
Not an appetizing prospect and I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but Clinton's history and Trump's speeches doesn't make me think I will be.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I'll let you figure it out.
winstars
(4,220 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)Read what he wrote in ATA and Announcements. But really...two more days...and Skinner will still be running this show, and it's not what a lot of people are expecting. The gate will not come slamming down, there won't be mass purgings, and the site will not be 100% Clinton, 24/7. Helping her succeed...as Skinner puts it...does not mean censoring anyone who discusses actual issues that may prevent her from doing so if not addressed.
But really...2 more days.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Seriously?
That sounds like Skinner's "allowable constructive criticism"?
That kind of headline will attract more support from Democrats, independents, even disenchanted Republicans?
There may not be "a purge" but we will have some standards, won't we?
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)and positions she would attract more votes from Democrats, independents, even disenchanted Republicans?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Aren't we ending the ceaseless argument about this?
We are going to hear this crap from Trump and the Republicans. Is it your position to say Trump is right?
Not here!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)betsuni
(25,615 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And the lower- and middle-classes will continue to be cannon fodder. Be proud, Democrats.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)BootinUp
(47,186 posts)Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)But on the issues of militarism and foreign policy I'll take Hillary in a heartbeat over Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and every one of the ass clowns who vied for this year's Republican nomination (with the exception of Rand Paul, who is totally unacceptable on many other issues).
Republican ideology, if it ever had a modicum of prudence in matters of military restraint, has morphed to the point where any hesitation to use military force or to berate the Democrats for lack thereof has become blasphemy to core dogma.
Although Donald Trump most likely has no ideology other than the worship of Donald Trump, he is a loose cannon who should not get within 10 locked doors of the nuclear codes.
I'm all for Bernie Sanders, but the notion that voters should fear Hillary Clinton more than Donald Trump or the Republican Party is the kind of BS which alerts the nostrils to watch where you step.
SCantiGOP
(13,873 posts)Two more days
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Later, declare Peace with Honor, add cemetery plots, build another monument and look for the next bogeyman.
Works every time.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)outed HRC as a war candidate who endorses overturning democratically elected leaders in the name of neo liberal privatization, or stealing resources from the public domain. It is the goal of these people and they are fighting tooth and nail to obtain it internationally. They don't care if they slay democracy, and the TTIP will bring it on.
I came, I saw, and 'I conquered.' -Julius Caesar