2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLet's Compare Senator Sanders and H. Clinton on some key issues.
Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:56 PM - Edit history (1)
I got this from facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206645970260799&set=gm.1641009246178047&type=1&relevant_count=1
What are my obligations for giving appropriate copyright credit?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have concerns about his electability and whether he is really presidential material.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)almost word for word.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That is how I feel about Hillary 
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
ejbr
(5,856 posts)Response to ejbr (Reply #85)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Anyone, I don't care how low you can go!
They are lower than whale feces.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)If both Sanders and Clinton have higher favorability numbers then why would you go with the one that is clearly less progressive?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I often ask why settle for second best. Clinton is good, but Bernie is better. Things go better with Bernie!
Kinda reminds me of an old jingle.
senz
(11,945 posts)No matter how long you live, there's always gonna be another first.
klook
(12,158 posts)under the sea.
senz
(11,945 posts)Thanks! 
Sorry, somehow I replied to my comment rather than yours. Don't know how that happened. 
(btw, I like your Krazy Kat avatar.)
klook
(12,158 posts)When threads get a few levels deep, the post listing doesn't reflect that. There are only a few levels of indentation. So the fact that our little sub-thread looks like it's all at the same level indicates we've gotten way deep into the (sea)weeds. 
But, while we're here...I love Krazy Kat and think George Herriman was a total genius. And many days an avatar that shows a masochist getting happily hit in the head with a brick seems all too appropriate for DU!
I like your FDR avatar, too. 
See ya in the funny papers, as the saying goes.
eridani
(51,907 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Didn't you say that you didn't think that Bernie is a real Democrat, because he has never supported Democrats?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He is not a member of the party but we know where his heart is.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A lot of people supported going into Afghanistan after 9-11, myself included. I dont think we thought it would take over a decade to get Osama Bin Ladin, for one.
Also we were smart enough to understand the difference between invading the country where our attackers were hding, and invading a country which had nothing to do with it.
Apparently some people in the senate at the time, widely touted for their superior intellect to this day, weren't smart enough to make that distinction.
Or else they just did what was politically expedient, which isnt terribly honorable.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Afghanistan was where OBL was hiding out, supposedly; until
Bush told US forces to stand down and let him escape into
Pakistan that is.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Funny, how no matter what Sanders does, its still a problem.
I suspect the real problem is, ITS NOT HIS TURN!!! 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to shout "OH, see .. Bernie VOTED FOR WAR!" is a ridiculous 'gotcha' stunt.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and the many progressives declaring he "lost my vote." So I'm assuming you were not of that camp.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)but you knew that.
Nice try though.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)As a side note I didn't support going in full bore, I thought the job of capturing or killing Bin Laden could have been done surgically with around 200 troops and helicopters. One day and done. Would have been worth a try.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I make a pretty big distinction between the initial Afghanistan vote, and the IWR. Dont you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Come on, I know you're brighter than that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Damn. You should see what I do when I compliment people.
Anyway, on one end i guess you have "supports all wars, regardless of whether they are a good idea or not", at the other you have "opposes all wars regardless of whether they are a good idea or not", and in the middle you have "makes rational, smart, and educated decisions about military action".
Sanders' record puts him in the middle, which is where I would want a president to be.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)YMMV, of course.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)were made apparent, a few times.
Unbroken Chain, yes. Box of Rain, by all means.
Eyes of the World.... mmmmm, not so much.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Let Bruce sing!
merrily
(45,251 posts)authorizing combat in Afghanistan, which Hillary also did, and advocating for the war in Iraq, which Hillary did and Sanders did not.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It still goes without saying that, if Bernie had had his way, we would never have gone into Iraq-and NO significant number of oeople who still think we were right to be in that war would even consider voting anything but Republican in 2016.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Poor choice of words on your part.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But by all means, keep trying it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)not at all. It would be interesting to look for the responses of those now supporting this for Bernie, because he did it, back when President Obama "escalated" the war in Afghanistan. I remember plenty of condemnation for it from the progressives. Curious to see if it was the same people defending it now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The Afghanistan War does not = the Iraq War.
Saying there is a difference between invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq does not = supporting the Afghan invasion.
The Afghan invasion does not = surging in Afghanistan years after the invasion.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #22)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry, Ken, I dont think that is correct. We went into Afghanistan almost immediately after 9-11 IIRC. The IWR and Iraq invasion were later.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We invaded Afghanistan, then we invaded Iraq.
If you were talking about the "surge" in each country, that was Iraq first, then Afghanistan. But we already had troops in both countries.
staggerleem
(469 posts)... I'll take the opportunity to point out that those who have died no longer think.
Perhaps, Justin, your argument should be "The FAMILIES of the deceased don't think so."
And, on another subject, whoever that band was that played in Santa Clara & Chicago in late June/early July, they WERE NOT the Grateful Dead!
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's easy to vote no when you know your vote doesn't make a difference. It's harder to vote no when you're looking for a little pork to bring back home.
And he sure is defensive about that Flying Lemon, the F-35, the worst plane in the history of military avaiation--so he's clearly not a peacemaker. That clunker plane will be gracing the skies over Burlington, defending America from the Canadians....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)how many posts have we seen about how evil it is to use drones?
MADem
(135,425 posts)
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)but I bet some are.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)international realists such as then Senator Clinton. He hates the game, not the players.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Lockheed Martin's "Crappiest Aircraft EVER!" and Sandia Labs (you remember them, they invent all of our nuclear weapons).
Surely you DO understand that a continuing resolution ensures that the "American soldiers" will get paid and "funded on their foreign adventures" don't you? Using them as an excuse to vote for shit legislation is a canard. Further, the DOD has the ability, through end strength manipulation, to "rob Peter to pay Paul" as it were, so if additional funds are needed at Installation A, well, maybe those repairs to the gym and pool at Installation B will be deferred. There's no need to vote for a BAAAAAAAD appropriation if one doesn't want to. The funding remains at the previous year's level; there are no new monies authorized for additional adventures, but the ones on the table are paid for, AND the SECDEF can move money around if needs must.
If he truly hates the game, he should not vote FOR the game--or get in bed with the Military - Industrial (Congressional) players, like Lockheed - Martin or Sandia Labs. He's a hypocrite if he does so and then pretends to affect a peacenik persona. He's selling a con, IF he's doing that, and marks are buying it.
Or maybe, just maybe, his actual position is being misrepresented for poliltical purposes. The draft board was right to deny him conscientious objector status, since he has voted for at least one war (Afghanistan). It's not like that sort of misrepresentation could never, ever happen, especially here 
.... maybe, just maybe, he's willing to compromise any principles he might have if the deal is good for his six hundred and twenty five thousand constituents scattered across the rural state of VT.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)How dare he support the troops sent into wars not of their choosing by voting to pay for their needs while over there.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They spend their paychecks in the states, and add to the tax base. Their accoutrements, everything from beans to bullets to crappy airplanes that blow up on the runway, are pork, too. You can't be interested in the military budget process even slightly and not understand this.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)It's kind of the job of the government to spend on it's citizens needs, especially the soldiers employed by it. By the definition you're providing everything the government does is pork.
Or are you against all military spending? Not sure where you're going with this. I doubt you're going to find many citizens, including Bernie and Hillary supporters, who are for 0% military spending. Most Bernie supporters I've seen just want to see a drastic reduction down to past peace time levels that match other countries military spending (and the peace to go along with that spending).
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not "invitations," as many boot camp drill instructors will tell their young charges.
When a person receives ORDERS to go to Camp Shithole in Texas, or North Dakota, or Vermont, or where ever, they don't have a choice. They are there until Uncle Sam moves them on, or they've fulfilled their enlistment contract. This is why Congressmen fight like hell to preserve THEIR installations from the BRAC ax (BRAC-Base Realignment and Closure). Those paychecks are spent in local businesses, the children go to local schools (and the federal government pays an offset to the school districts for each military family member attending those schools), some of the families live in the town, and either rent or buy homes, adding to the tax base--it's an economic boon to have a base in a community, and servicemembers who spend their money there.
Bernie applied to be a CO during the Vietnam War. They weren't giving that out like candy back then, you basically had to be a lifelong Quaker or Amish to get out of going, but they called it right with him. He's plainly not against all wars, but to listen to some of his supporters you'd think he was the 2nd coming of Ali with the way he's touted as the "Peacenik" candidate. I think that's a very false characterization--he likes the wars HE likes; he doesn't like the wars some other people like. He likes the weapons HE likes (and now we find out he likes DRONES, too?) and he doesn't like the weapons some other people like.
It's all about as clear as mud, IMO. These 'enormous differences' between the candidates? I'm just not seeing them..and all the hot-breathed insistence that there are major differences just doesn't resonate with me.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Of course they're ordered to go places. It's the fact that the government requires them to be in harms way without a say in the matter that makes the government have a responsibility to provide for them, both during service and after.
And most everything the government spends on has an economic boon, such as infrastructure and snap. That's not limited to soldiers or the military. When the government opens some agency branch in a town, those jobs spur economic growth, just like military bases do. None of this changes the fact that the government should be spending whatever it takes to provide for our soldiers and veterans. I personally think we spend way too much on the MiC and to little on soldiers and the VA.
As for your other paragraphs, which are on the topic at hand, Bernie is not a pacifist. I've seen nothing that says he will dismiss the use of force out of hand. He's also not a hawk. He won't just vote for every war option thrown in front of him obviously. He takes a nuanced, pragmatic view, weighing pros and cons, and justness of each potential conflict. He has also stated he considers war a last resort (the very fact it's a resort at all means he doesn't dismiss it as an option), preferring to use other means to resolve issues first.
Nothing about his views on this should be considered radical or extreme. They're all very logical, reasoned views. While Bernie has supported some wars, he also has a record of opposing wars. Everything in life is shades of grey. The difference between Bernie and Hillary on wars is how hawkish they are. At least on record Bernie has leaned more dove than hawk, whereas Hillary has been rather hawkish. That doesn't mean it will always be that way. But records are one of the few factual points of reference we have to base our decisions on.
Based on records if you want someone who will always attack our "enemies" head on you're probably looking for a Republican (probably doesn't matter which). If you want someone who can reason things out with a tendency towards use of force then Hillary is probably the best bet. If you want someone who will avoid conflict unless deemed no other reasonable choice then you're probably best going with Bernie.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Personnel who spend money in the surrounding towns, and JOBS for the local citizenry doing everything from working in the mess hall to operating the bowling alley to cutting the grass to operating the MWR instrumentalities. They'll even hire administrative and technical personnel from the local community to keep things running if deployment happens.
That is why legislators like bases. They're cash cows.
That is the point I am making. If you think, though, that many of the service personnel on those bases would move to those states/communities if they had a choice, you're very much mistaken. The ones that do move there, and put down roots, are devastated when they lose their connection to their service, particularly if they settle in the area close to retirement and then the base is shuttered. When bases leave, communities collapse. Fort Ord's closure left a massive hole in the Monterey region. Limestone and Caribou ME have never recovered from the loss of Loring. No one who runs a community and is accountable to the citizens for their tax burden wants to see a base leave. Taxes go up, and quality of life goes down.
Bernie's purported dovishness is a device he uses to appeal to his 630K constituents, who aren't really paying attention to the way that he suddenly shut up about Lockheed Martin's terrible-awful cheating ways, and found a way to love them when they threw that ghastly plane at his state. Money talks. It's the same with all of 'em, and has been since WW1, in actual fact.
If they ever decided to situate the body armor, body bag and uniform manufacturing elements of the MIC in VT, Bernie's attitude would no doubt adjust accordingly.
Again, money talks--so do employed constituents. It's no accident that Liz Warren is VERY friendly to those people at Raytheon (and, for the record, they don't make plush toys there), and has visited them on a number of occasions. She understands that happy constituents are employed constituents.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)It's a boon for where the base is and a potential drain on economies elsewhere (via reduced workforce).
If you really want to talk about economic loss to an area then we can look at free trade and loss of industrial jobs oversees. Those jobs aren't simply shifting to another area but instead are leaving the country. And yet politicians keep voting for free trade deals. So much for it all being about the pork.
Now that we've completely jumped the tangent rails, I still don't see what any of this has to do with voting for war apropriations. Those funds are directed to combat zones seperate from normal military spending.
And how you can equate pushing for the storage of war planes in a politicians state to mean a politician is pro-war, when that politician has voted against multiple wars, is beyond me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You seriously think the military is the first choice for those who have other options? That 18 year old kid who joins is one less kid mooching off mom and smoking weed in the basement.
If anything, the act of joining the military takes the strain off of the community from which the service member comes.
Talk to a recruiter if you don't understand this dynamic. There's a reason why recruiters in high unemployment areas are goaled for numbers, and recruiters in low unemployment areas are goaled for upper level mental group ASVAB scores or specialty accessions (priests, musicians, nuclear power candidates).
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)That war was fought poorly - to put it mildly. And perhaps Bernie should have kjown that the Bush crowd woupd make a disaster of it. But we were attacked by people given safe harbor by the Afghan government.
But it seems like you're stating that voting for any war is bad?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As you can see in the ops chart it names all the wars by name except it says Afghanistan surge.
Very telling on the author of that chars part.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)circa 2010? Those are completely separate. Just trying to clarify.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)One vote for one war does not matter than a lot of votes against a lot of other wars.
Your candidate, by contrast, has been an unquestioning supporter of every American use of force since 1975. She wasn't even against Reagan's indefensible Central American interventions(including Contra aid).
merrily
(45,251 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's pretty obvious that there's a "lean" there and both the issues and the specifics have been tailored to make people think that one of these things is better than the other.
Of course, if there was a slot for "Prosecuted/advanced women's rights issues on a global scale." or "Served as the most senior member of a Presidential cabinet," or "Knows almost every world leader on a first name basis" there would be one candidate who gets the "check plus" and one who gets the "minus zero."
Might even the "score" slightly.
It all depends on what you care about, I guess.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Since it was felt Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in a cave there. However, Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11-2110 was an offending vote to me. Why would anyone have voted for that one?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sanders voted to fund the iraw war. Why?
think
(11,641 posts)Between 2003 and 2011, the United States Congress tried to pass ten different bills to fund the Iraq War, one per year. Bernie voted against six, and voted for these four:
2006: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery
2007: Department of Defense Appropriations Act
2008: Supplemental Appropriations Act
2011: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
Why did Bernie vote in favor of those four bills?
First, it may help to explain why he had voted against the other six. The Bush administration, backed by a Republican-controlled Congress, made a habit of funding its occupation of Iraq on an emergency basis in order to minimize congressional scrutiny, circumvent legal limits on the federal government’s debt ceiling, and understate the true cost of the war.
The first time Bernie voted for an Iraq war spending bill was in 2006, when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The second time, in 2007, he did so because he managed to insert an amendment into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The third time was when the 2008 legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Bernie co-sponsored — and which the Bush administration opposed — that guaranteed full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools. Finally, in 2011, he voted for another spending bill, with the understanding that it would fund the conclusion to the war in Iraq as President Obama removed U.S. troops from the country.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-iraq/#iraq-war-spending-bills-to-aid-veterans-and-vermonters
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)think
(11,641 posts)and making sure funding was made available to get our troops OUT or Iraq under Obama.
He voted against funding 6 other times. Score it however you want. But to take it out of context and dismiss the reasons behind the votes and the fact he voted against funding it 6 times is somewhat disingenuous.
That's my best reasoning for his votes. Votes that helped our men & women who were forced to fight that war and to help get funding to one of America's largest natural disasters in modern times.
Perhaps you'd like to give your reasoning for this speech:
Full text:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2667891
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
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. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, 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.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the Iraq War Resolution, and that is how we were to govern Iraq after invading it and taking it over.
Hillary missed the big problem.
Lots and lots of convoluted thinking and language about the history of Iraq-American relations, chatter about the United Nations, all kinds of irrelevant garbage in that speech. And she missed the big problem: how would we govern Iraq after taking it over?
We didn't even have enough people in the right positions who speak Arabic in this country to govern a tiny island of Middle Easterners.
Prior to her time as Secretary of State, did Hillary ever actually live in a foreign country in which people spoke some language other than English?
I'm not talking about a few months or weeks traveling or as a tourist.
I am talking about living in a place in which people speak something other than English?
Obama did. (as a child in Indonesia.)
Bernie did. (several months on a kibbutz in Israel).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Wikipedia does not mention any period in which Hillary actually lived abroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
I realize that she has had lots of experience as Secretary of State and First Lady in terms of meeting with people in foreign countries.
But I suspect that she has no visceral appreciation of what it is like to LIVE in a different culture or country.
I think Bernie's insightful question about how we would govern Iraq after invading was due to his having lived in a different country although for a short time.
I believe that the George H.W. Bush administration also questioned the wisdom of deposing Saddam Hussein because of the difficult question about how to govern in Iraq after Hussein.
Hillary's vote on the IWR was not just wrong. It illustrates that she has less relevant life experience than Bernie when it comes to making decisions about foreign and national security policy.
Most members of our military leadership probably have more experience living in other cultures than does Hillary, probably more than does Bernie too. But Hillary in spite of her opportunities for travel and contact with people in other countries, lacks that essential experience of actually living in a different country or culture. In this age that experience is pretty vital for an American leader in my opinion.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Just ask Kerry.
Bringing up those things in a misguided effort to support Hillary is not a strong suit. You're not likely to take that advice, but it's good advice.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)The time to politically oppose the war is before the troops are sent. Once they're there you support them until you can get them out. Not sure what's difficult to get here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)veterans in other states...?
I'd love to see what "non-Vermont pork" was in those other bills, that he couldn't see his way clear to vote for.
Sounds to me that the way to gain Bernie's vote was to put some sweetness in it for Vermont, then he hits the YEA button. He will abrogate principle if his state gets a taste.
Many legislators ask for a little 'consideration' in exchange for their vote--it just kind of makes this whole "peacenik" persona he touts look less and less valid.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)How's your memory on these things? I know the spelling's not very good. The question on Iraq...
That's the question you might wonder about with HRC's vote.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)These are various spending bills which included external funding items like Katrina in them.
HE VOTED AGAINST THE ACTION TO GO TO WAR. SHE VOTED FOR IT. That might mean something to you, if you even thought about it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Bush told US forces to stand down and let him escape into
Pakistan that is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)If you hold Hillary responsible for her war votes then he shoukd be held responsible for his.
Just as she has to be held to account so must he.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)which isn't very far, but, yes ... Bernie would probably agree with you, as do I.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You're just looking for excuses for supporting the far-less-progressive candidate. HRC doesn't give a damn about your cause-if she did, she could never have supported DADT or DOMA, both of which were intended to stop LGBTQ people from ever gaining liberation and both of which were regarded as devastating defeats by vrtually all LGBTQ people at the time.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The problem with Sanders supporters here is you can dish it out but not take it.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to distract from their own candidates' abysmal "progressive record" of FAIL
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lol i don't have to distract shit. I know he is more progressive and there are things she has voted for I disagree with.
I know she is not perfect but my point is neither is he. You guys should stop treating him like a saint.
I amm not trying to convince you of anything.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I have never (and I don't use that word often) claimed Bernie is a perfect progressive.
I don't like his less-than perfect record on gun control, and I'd rather he completely
dis-continued the drone program, rather than just being more selective in the targeting.
So you don't need to waste any more time convincing me of something I already know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Look, I respect you, but it's just silly to argue that it was worse for Bernie to support intervention in Afghanistan than for HRC to back Bush unquestioningly in Iraq the whole time and to still, to this day, refuse to apologize for it. Or to argue that Bernie's support of that invalidates his solidly antiwar position on everything else.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You're going on and on bud, beating a dead horse over and over. Give us something of substance please. Why are YOU supporting HRC? Honest question, what draws you to her and why do you feel she's a better candidate than Bernie? Tell us.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)Is that what you want?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Hillary, on the other hand, not so often.
senz
(11,945 posts)As I'm sure you know, hrmjustin. But it appears you wish to mislead. 
PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)justice.
I actually feel good about that, that he voted for Afghanistan, and I'll tell you why. It tells me he isn't TOO much of a pacifist, and if he feels there is a compelling reason for boots on the ground, he'll put them there.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)PatrickforO
(14,578 posts)is that he thinks things through, and he won't get carried away as president and cast American into another stupid war like the Republicans want to do with Iran.
Do you understand my point? Because just saying that he bears responsibility for his vote doesn't do anything to convince me that the vote was thoughtless or erroneous. Remember, too, that we went into Afghanistan PRIOR to our unilateral invasion of Iraq. I suspect if Bush had invaded Iraq prior to Afghanistan, Bernie would have voted against both, because then Bush would have showed his true colors by then.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)You seem to be saying "Sending the troops to war was kinda bad, but actually feeding our troops in that war zone is awful! Gotcha!"
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Are you making all wars equivalent here?
Are you saying that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were equally justified?
Are you actually defending Bush??!!!???
jfern
(5,204 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Would she do such a thing? It would be nice to hear how she would stand on something like that.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/79194/20150321/war-tax-sen-bernie-sanders-wants-to-force-lawmakers-to-pay-for-wars-they-propose.htm
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope she does.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)who is correct on ALL of the issues. We will have to settle for a candidate who is correct on most issues.
Life isn't unicorns and rainbows, you know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Reter
(2,188 posts)Almost everyone did. I even supported that one at the time, and I hate war.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Your argument is beginning to look just a tad ... silly.
senz
(11,945 posts)All but one member of Congress voted in favor of it. It was THREE DAYS after 9/11.
H J Res 64 - Authorization for Use of Military Force https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/7933#.Vd9Kxf-FNaQ
But he voted NO on invading Iraq.
Hillary Clinton voted YES on invading Iraq.
Sorry, but you got nothin'.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)He voted for the bombing in Kosovo -- a genocide in progress.
Bernie has made very clear that he can support military action when required meaning among other things, when we are attacked and to prevent genocide.
Bernie is not a pacifist.
He is one of the few in Congress who AT THE TIME BEFORE THE WAR asked how we would govern Iraq after we invaded.
Bernie is rational, not emotional, in his foreign policy and national security approach. I agree with Bernie on his votes on national security.
Bernie is serious about trying to find alternatives to war. That is not just a slogan for him.
merrily
(45,251 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
for Bernie
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)It is not sufficient to side step issues. Bernie takes them head on and is very brave.
HappyPlace
(568 posts)These are among the additional items that could be added to the list.
Thanks!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....they're highly subjective and in some cases in correct.
madokie
(51,076 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)with some links or something.
Thanks.
George II
(67,782 posts)...on them to show they're true.
But, let's start with just this one - when did we go to war in Syria and Libya?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stands for. You don't post in them. In fact rarely do any Clinton supporters post in them except to post ad hominem attacks.
Why are Clinton supporters afraid to stand up for what she stands for? Here's a thread on fracking:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251561112
I don't see a single Clinton supporter standing up for her. Do you agree with her that fracking is great?
George II
(67,782 posts).....because they're generally in the Sanders Group and most Clinton supporters have been blocked from posting in that group.
It's a clever strategy - post pro-Sanders stuff (whether they're true or false) in the Sanders Group, rec the snot out of them so they bounce to the Home Page, and avoid the reality check.
So, when did we go to war in Syria or Libya?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I guess you are just used to ignoring them.
This one is on fracking. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251561112 Do you side with Clinton and Chevron vs. the 99%'s water supply?
Here are some that I posted, all in GD: P. I even labeled them "Issues" to catch the attention of Clinton supporters:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251563376
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251544850
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251547861
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251550330
And even if important issues are posted in the Sanders Group, that isn't an excuse to avoid discussing them in GD: P.
But let's face it, on which issues does H. Clinton look favorably? College tuition, fracking, the TPP, drilling in the Arctic, NSA domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, etc, etc.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)actually discussion issues.
If H.Clinton enthusiastically supports fracking, why won't her supporters back her and argue in her behalf? My guess is that they know that her stance is for oil companies and to hell with the 99%.
merrily
(45,251 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Your discomfort is noted
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Anything asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)a candidate that believes socialism can coexist in a capitalist system. I will probably support Mimi Soltysik then vote for the lackey that is presented to me in the general.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Isn't Social Security an example of that? Or for that matter, pretty much the entire New Deal?
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)that are raided and used for political football? Sure if you think so.
Z_California
(650 posts)Or are you for ending publicly funded fire and police departments, publicly funded highways, postal system, Social Security, Medicare, etc?
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Nice jump from A - bizarre.
Democratic Socialism is nothing more than hanging on to that belief you can be a good guy and still get a part of the capitalist pie.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)stock into a sweet or sour jesus. But hey some people have a sweet tooth I suppose.
staggerleem
(469 posts)... defining and protecting THE COMMONS!
merrily
(45,251 posts)But, sure, let's not vote for a guy like that against a candidate like Hillary.
Because LOTE voting makes sense only in the general.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)improve capitalism? One of the most bizarre thing I have read ever. People just don't want to give up on owning a slice of that pie I guess. Let's keep that dream alive. Maybe eventually the 1% will let us into their little club. or maybe grasshoppers will get machine guns and the birds will stop fucking with them. Both could happen I am sure.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Z_California
(650 posts)he is claiming to be for actual Karl Marx, state owns all the capital, socialism. My guess is it's one of many personalities.
(edited to correct name of website he quoted)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Ms. Rand thought that unrestricted capitalist like John Gault would grow capital and share it with those that helped earn it.
Herr Marx thought that an authoritarian group would lead the revolution then relinquish control of the government to the people.
Both failed to take into account human nature. The real John Gault will treat his employees like slaves and accumulate all the profits.
And the real authoritarian group that controls the revolution, keeps the power and runs the government like tyrants.
George II
(67,782 posts)MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)lines have been drawn and it is there the opposing sides will stand.
George II
(67,782 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Guess which side H.Clinton/Goldman-Sachs is on?
One side hates war and the other loves war.
One side hates NSA spying and the other welcomes it.
One side wants to control Wall Street abuses while the other is very tight with Goldman-Sachs.
One side wants to stop the so called Free Trade deals that will kill American jobs. H. Clinton supports such trade agreements.
There are two sides in this class war and H. Clinton, member of the 1%, is not on our side
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)and grasping for vague differences explanation. I look at both of their records and neither one is doing anything different by actions. One side hates certain wars and likes others. One side hates NSA spying yet gave a thumbs up on the all new freedom act. Which is just pretty much as the old patriot act.
One takes money from wall street the other side hasn't done anything to stop it. Which is still enabling in my book. I got news for you that might shatter your world. Neither side is really on "our side".
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Who?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What would you like to see happen?
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW, a number of statements in that article are demonstrably false, but let's not let that get in the way.
Not to mention; going back in time to show Bernie's a good guy is practically a crime, but going back to mayoralty in a deceptive attempt to show he's a bad guy is just fine.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)The extreme left wing or right wing cannot be consoled where Democratic Socialism is infused. Sanders record in local and national issues speak to what he has done and will do as our president.
These posters are selectively picking some stuff out of somewhere, but it does not reflect his record, which is in the direction we must go if we are to survive the unfettered capitalism that rubs up and cozies into the arms of fascism.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)These posters are selectively picking some stuff out of somewhere, but it does not reflect his record, which is in the direction we must go if we are to survive the unfettered capitalism that rubs up and cozies into the arms of fascism.
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)This morning I was only half-awake and was thinking the poster I originally responded to was attempting to defend his linked article.
Sorry for the confusion, MrMickeysMom.
Peace to you.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I'm glad I just read your TWO posts… I'm confused enough today to have gone along with your first one!!!
And, to you, UJ!
klook
(12,158 posts)hounds people for payment and destroys credit ratings and has executives and physicians associated with the hospital earning very large incomes — how in any common-sense understanding of the word can this institution be described as 'charitable'?"
- Sanders quote from the article.
Good question.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)and I have no say over what they insert or omit. Nice try though.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Sure she supported it much more recently but I have yet to seen a call for "gay marriage" by Bernie in the 80's.
Hell marriage wasn't even on the table then in some ways.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)She "evolved" once it was politically expedient to do so.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Most states got it because of federal courts.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)That is clearly a gay marriage stance. Earlier references are not as concrete, but do at least imply that, had the question specifically come up, he would have answered the same way. See
http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719
which refers to comments in 1983
and
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
which actually goes back to the 70s
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)made a comment even when asked, he gets the credit for supporting marriage equality way back in the 80's when that conversation was not even being had
supporters, and sanders himself can be proud that sanders has always stood for gay rights. that there should be pat on the back worthy enough.
taking it to supporting marriage equality always, simply because he stayed quiet, is not support.
merrily
(45,251 posts)issues, too. She spoke AGAINST it in the Senate and did not come out for it until 2013. It's hillarious that Hillary's supporters think they have a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue or war/surge votes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
Sorry if you don't get stating a position in the alternative. It's a common form of discourse.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Also, he voted AGAINST DOMA in 1996, while Hillary was still speaking out against equal marriage on the floor of the Senate in 2004 and didn't come out for equal marriage until 2013.
You're trying to make a case out of nothing. As I said in my prior post, bullshit walks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)How about ONE mention of equal marriage from Hillary before that? As a Hillary supporter, you should be very hesitant to flail around about a gay rights issue.
Bernie came out for equality for gays over 30 years ago and voted against DOMA in 1996. Hillary supported DOMA. Ask yourself why. Meanwhile, Hillary didn't make a statement in favor of equal marriage until 2013==nine years after she made a speech AGAINST equal marriage on the floor of the Senate of the United States. Ask yourself why.
Find me ONE statement from Bernie ever against equal marriage. EVER. You CAN'T. Ask yourself why.
As a Hillary supporter, you're trying to condemn Bernie on this issue based on his alleged silence? LMAO.
Bullshit walks.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating: "Marriage in the US shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Proponents support voting YES because:
The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.
Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.
Opponents support voting NO because:
This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.
From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.
Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill H J RES 88 ; vote number 2006-378 on Jul 18, 2006
...
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Marriage Protection Amendment - Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.
Reference: Constitutional Amendment sponsored by Rep Musgrave [R, CO-4]; Bill H.J.RES.106 ; vote number 2004-484 on Sep 30, 2004
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Civil_Rights.htm
He voted against banning same sex marriage.
Votes count sea, you still haven't proved your case.
Another epic fail for DUers who care more about swift boating Bernie than telling the truth.
aka Not Good Enough Bernie !!1!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're exploiting yet another important civil rights cause in your campaign against Bernie.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)However, he did not explicitly enumerate "marriage" until more recently.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)no record of something doesn't mean it did not and does not exist. By all indications, Bernie supported full civil rights for LGBT since at least the early 70's.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago
"All" means ALL:
predeterminer, determiner, & pronoun
1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
All means all. No caveats, no exceptions. Bernie did not say, "Let us abolish all laws dealing with homosexuality, except for any and all laws that prevent gays from marrying".
Now, some may use the stupid argument that there were no laws against same sex marriage at the time, but using that argument is lose and fail, in terms of reality. Lesbians and gays could not legally marry anywhere in the US at that time, and none did, unless maybe a few used a brilliant disguise and subterfuge .
And some may say, well, but he didn't say anything about gay marriage!! But that is meaningless with respect to claims that he did not support same sex marriage.
"Joe never said that he supported same sex marriage, therefore, he did not support same sex marriage" is nonsense.
Bernie is clearly an old school freedom loving liberal progressive. If you would have asked Bernie, in 1972, if he supported same sex marriage, I believe he would have replied, "Sure, why wouldn't I?"
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? ~ Robert F. Kennedy
“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people..." Bernie Sanders, 1985
All. Fucking A-L-L. He did not say, "we must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people, except for gays. Gays should be subject to certain forms of discrimination and inequality, and should not have the right to marry like heterosexual individuals can."
He said "all", as in "the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing".
The centuries spanning homophobic belief, profoundly institutionalized into the collective consciousness, that LGBT are inferior, pariah, and "not really the same as normal humans", can make it utterly incomprehensible to some, that a straight person back in the 1960's (when gay marriage was rarely spoken of) could actually have believed that LGBT were equal human beings, worthy of respect and full equal rights, including the right to be able to marry the adult of their choosing, just like heterosexuals have the right to do so.
Please understand, I'm not implying that this is at all true in your case, Agschmid.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Way to obliterate the lie that Bernie didn't support marriage equality until recently.
Bookmarking for the next time someone parrots the latest anti-Bernie talking point.
jschurchin
(1,456 posts)Bernie has my vote. The list can be a lot longer but we will just leave it at this.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Bernie supporters look at this list and think "Hell yeah!"
Hillary supporters look at the list and say "So what?"
I've noticed that for the most part Hillary supporters really don't care at all about policy. That isn't why they support her. Which explains why they are so ambivalent to her many center-right economic positions.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)MoveIt
(399 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First, the list is totally misleading, for example, it suggests that Glass-Steagall is the only thing that matters in terms of financial regulation. And also it cherry-picks certain issues and leaves out others (e.g. gun control). It's basically a silly piece of anti-Hillary propaganda. Hillary and Bernie agree on most things, and in areas where Bernie is further left, his policies aren't going to get through congress anyway.
And the list also omits the most important thing: Hillary can beat the GOP in the GE, and Bernie can't.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Which states that are "in play" do you think Hillary will carry, but Bernie can't?
For example, check this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251522986
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie's just too far left for most of the country. It's not just the fact that Hillary is polling better against the GOP. Once the GOP starts hitting him with adds about socialism, it will make swift-boating feel like a massage. Also, he can't compete financially with the GOP, which means he won't have the ammo to fire back.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)The solidly red states aren't going to vote for Bernie OR Hillary. The question is more one of states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm not conviced that Bernie can't win these states (while Hillary can), based on things like the post I linked to in my previous reply.
senz
(11,945 posts)Because he's talking to working Americans everywhere.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)See, isn't it fun to claim as fact things that neither of us can possibly know this far in advance? And then pin our entire argument on that piece of pure speculation? Great fun.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Thank you for this.
BERNIE!!!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)This must have really brought out the haters.
Of 70 replies right now, there are only 10 showing for me...meaning that the other 60 are people I have blocked.
That's hilarious!
Go Bernie!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts) Duppers
(28,125 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)This board should be all about Hillary Vs. Bernie supporters!
Please self-delete!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)his supporters make me want to vote Republican."
Uncle Joe
(58,370 posts)Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Wonder why these charts never have gun control on them?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)That's one of the things you've been trying to tell us...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)a chance of getting through congress. This chart cherry-picks a few issues where they differ (and conveniently leaves out gun control). But even there it's misleading. Financial reform is much broader than Glass Steagal. Climate change is much broader than a carbon tax. Hillary is just as firmly opposed to Citizens United as Bernie. Etc.
senz
(11,945 posts)Nothing wrong with knowing what they are, is there? Nothing wrong with well-informed voters, is there?
As for gun ownership, Bernie is for responsible gun ownership by sane, non-criminals who want guns for hunting/ sport or who think they need them for protection. That's a fair trade-off asaic -- and I personally don't own (or like) guns.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As far as guns, Bernie voted against the Brady Bill, and also in favor of gun industry immunity. So there's that.
Neither candidate is perfect. Bernie is further left on many issues, but the difference between the two is mostly in things that have no chance of getting passed anyway.
senz
(11,945 posts)Small "d" before you jump all over that.
As for guns, as a Vermonter, Bernie represents his constituents and believes states should make their own gun laws, so he voted against a national waiting period (Brady bill) but upheld state waiting periods. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) also voted against the Brady bill. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean got a high grade from the NRA. Bernie's efforts have gotten him "C-" to "F" from the NRA. He's hardly a gun nut.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You can't have it both ways. If you want to live in reality, both are progressives with a strong yet imperfect record. If you want to live in fantasyland then Hillary is an authoritarian corporatist and Bernie is a gun nut communist.
senz
(11,945 posts)That's from the OP chart. In addition, she's secretive, vindictive toward anyone disloyal, talks down to people, elicits sycophantic behavior from underlings, doesn't behave as though the American people deserve information. These are authoritarian traits.
I don't see how any Democrat could want that in a president.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I guess you can come to whatever conclusion you want.
senz
(11,945 posts)She can't hide from that. And you can't make it go away. She is who she is; it's out there.
I'm getting the impression, DanTex, that you don't care about her stand on the issues. I'm getting the impression that you don't care what she would do to the nation if she were elected president. Since these are of prime importance to me, I can't quite understand why you support her. All I can come up with is that it's either emotional or financial -- i.e., duped or paid.
Arguing with you is beginning to feel like a pointless game of no real substance. I'd ask you to examine your motives but don't really don't want to go that deep into your psyche.
Have a nice day.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you actually cared about policy, you wouldn't be basing your judgements on a chart that tries to reduce complex issues to one or two words in order to try and make Hillary look bad.
As with most Hillary bashers, I don't think it's really about policy at all with you.
senz
(11,945 posts)What I've seen of her character, especially during the 2008 campaign, has been a huge turnoff. She lacks vision, mission, largeness of heart, concern for the American people, honesty, openness/transparency, egalitarianism, greater interest in others than in herself, and especially: good faith. I just don't trust her, don't hold her in esteem. I don't think a Clinton presidency would be good for the nation. At best, she would execute her duties in a rote, programmed manner (just as she conducts her campaign), trying to balance public opinion with the prerogatives of her big-money supporters.
The country is in crisis, and what she has to offer is just not good enough.
Although I will give you this: she is better (barely, but better) than a Republican. And if she wins, it will be for that reason -- which doesn't say much for her as a candidate.
So I can't understand your enthusiasm.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think Bernie has a chance agains the GOP. I also don't think Bernie has much chance in the primaries, which means that Clinton is going to be the nominee. So all this over-the-top Hillary bashing (e.g. the chart in the OP) is counterproductive, not to mention misleading.
I think Clinton will govern about the same as Obama did, which is fine with me. Obama has been a transformational president, the best since LBJ at least, maybe since FDR. If Clinton preserves everything that Obama accomplished, and continues pushing more progressive policies, which all indications are she will, that will be good. Plus there's the Supreme Court.
Bernie is better on some policy areas, I'll grant you that. But he's not a viable GE candidate, and even if he became president, none of what he proposes will go anywhere in congress.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Everything else associated with finance is too minor to matter.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/opinion/paul-krugman-dodd-frank-financial-reform-is-working.html
Glass Steagall is mostly a red herring. It certainly wouldn't have stopped the financial crisis. Those banks that collapsed were already pure investment banks. All that nasty stuff you've read about Goldman Sachs? Goldman Sachs was a pure investment bank at the time. Those AAA-rated mortgage-backed-securities? Nothing whatsoever to do with Glass Steagall.
Separating commercial and investment backing might be a good idea, but it's certainly not the heart of the matter.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stand on climate change? Don't strip mining tar sands and fracking have a negative impact on climate change?
Don't reinstate Glass-Steagall because, " Financial reform is much broader than Glass Steagal." So what is she proposing?
"Hillary is just as firmly opposed to Citizens United" but she is willing to use it to her advantage. She is more than willing to let the billionaires buy the WH for her. If she was really against it, she would not accept the money from the billionaires that look at it as an investment.
She supports fracking because it benefits the oil companies and they love her for it. To hell with the peons that see their drinking water contaminated. Profits rule.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Here's an article about her climate platform, in case you're interested in anything other than just bashing her. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html
Hillary has also called, for example, for ending fracking on public lands.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-fracking_55a7fdc8e4b04740a3df4b75
Of course, Hillary also understands that natural gas burns cleaner than coal, and is a valuable intermediate step while at the same time moving towards a renewable energy economy. This is probably too complicated for the average Hillary-basher to understand, though.
On financial regulation, for one, she recently backed the revolving-door bill to prevent regulatory capture. And more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/wall-street-revolving-door_b_8064504.html?1441031416
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-20/hillary-clinton-previews-plans-to-get-tough-on-wall-street-raise-capital-gains-taxes
She has made it clear that she will only appoint anti-CU justices. The reason she has SuperPACs supporting her is because she understands that in order to get any of this done, you actually have to win the election first. Bernie, who has no chance of winning, doesn't have to worry about that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)She has been a long time supporter of fracking even though people (the 99%) have been protesting. Gas may burn cleaner but look at the damage done by fracking. Where is Chevron going to dump those billion gallons of contaminated drinking water?
You can't have it both ways. If Sanders can't win and the Republicons don't have a chance against her, why is she lowering herself to take the money from the billionaires? It comes with strings you know. Your "she's only taking the money because she needs it to win" is a very poor rationalization.
"She has made it clear that she will only appoint anti-CU justices. " Of course that would be after she used CU to her advantage. Easy to be against it after you no longer need it.
Interesting that the non-progressives are pointing out how she is against the revolving door for government regulators, but when progressives spoke out against Holder doing just that, non-progressive defended the revolving door.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)On fracking, I really don't know enough about the actual risks to say how bad Hillary's stance on this is -- also I don't think she's made her position clear. It's easy to just say "no fracking", but the fact is, until we're getting our energy from renewable sources, we're burning fossil fuels, and coal is pretty much the worst one.
On CU, she needs SuperPACs not to compete with Bernie, but with the GOP. I didn't say the GOP doesn't have a chance. They have a good chance. It's gonna be close. And they are going to have more money than the Dems, thanks to the Koch brothers and others. Winning the election is key, and I'm glad that Hillary has fundraising capacity to be able to do it. This doesn't make her pro-CU. You don't have to like the rules in order to play by them. I don't doubt her commitment to overturning CU at all. Even if she was purely self-interested, CU favors the GOP, so she would be better off without it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)support it. Good for corporate profits which are more important than drinking water for the 99%.
Fracking is a serious issue, so I am surprised you aren't familiar with its environmental damage. H. Clinton's stand on fracking is crystal clear. As Sec of State she used tax-dollars to lobby foreign governments along with oil companies to use the fracking method. All the while the peoples (the 99%) were protesting the lose of their drinking water. Billions of gallons of good drink water is ruined forever. Where are the oil companies going to “store” the contaminated water? Not in the backyard of the 1% you can bet. See this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.html
We will never get renewable energy if we continue subsidizing the oil companies and allowing them to use environmentally dangerous methods to extract gas, oil and coal.
Are you saying that the Republicon nominee is expected to raise more than between 1 billion and 2 billion dollars? Like to see that link.
Winning elections is important, but I hope you don't think it justifies selling ones soul. Wall Street is killing us and that has to stop. I don't for a minute think H. Clinton agrees.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I say the votes they DIFFER on are votes that Matter MOST
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And Sanders supporters are just mean!
senz
(11,945 posts)But, yeah.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts) 
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)It's relevant because Obama endorsed it publicly (again) in 2012.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)the complete and indiscriminate release of every private State Department communication between our diplomats and diplomats for foreign governments was extraordinarily damaging to the United States and her friends and allies. Some of the diplomatic releases were valuable, but a goodly part of it served no real purpose other than unnecessarily damaging trust and reputations in the diplomatic services of both the United States and it's friends and allies.
Diplomacy is a necessary and important function of a state. Some measure of personal trust and personal relationships will always be a part of diplomacy. Transparency is essential in a democracy, but there must also be some space for diplomatic officials to develop personal relationships.
Hillary doesn't get a free pass, but I will allow her to write-down some part of her anger over Snowden.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Anyone can clearly see who is the better public interest' s advocate.
#FeelTheBern
moobu2
(4,822 posts)And if (God forbid) he is elected POTUS, he wont make any progress then either.
senz
(11,945 posts)Sorry you are so vehemently opposed to a truly liberal POTUS. Good luck with your corporate rulers.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I just watched Bernie and Hillary explaining why they were going to vote against or for that war, from 2002.
Hillary was so, so wrong on so many things at that time. Bernie was as right as he could have been.
Hearing HRC say she trusted Dubya to do the right thing made me question her more than anything. We want that kind of character and fact judgement in the WH?
marym625
(17,997 posts)This meme left out the "No Child Left Behind" vote that has helped in the dumbing down of America. Sanders, No. Clinton, Yes.
K&R.
You should always give credit when you can.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Never question authority. And they have the nerve to call themselves liberals. Liberals would never bow down to and never question authority.
Let's take the fracking issues. The big oil companies make big profits from fracking, but the people suffer with their drinking water contaminated. H. Clinton makes no bones about supporting Chevron and to hell with the people. And yet some people calling themselves Democrats choose Chevron over the 99%. Why? They need the authoritarian leadership of H. Clinton and are willing to forsake Democratic principles.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Liberal, FDR/Kennedy democrats, question authority, free thinkers. My father was in politics and was loved by nearly everyone and knew everyone in the Illinois Democratic party. Couldn't have been luckier.
How anyone can support someone that supports big oil is beyond me. You can explain it forever and I just won't understand. Just can't wrap my head around it.
But you did a great job trying.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)after narcotics, and more.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)considering those she's unwilling to state her position on. Of course, we know why that is...a large part of her party supports Sanders on her "undecideds" He's already stated his position for years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)all know what she stands for and it isn't the 99%.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)It is a bit of a boilerplate and a little simplified, but it is a fair representation of their relative positions.
