2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie voted to confirm Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Yet Bernie does not trust Hillary's judgement on such matters.
Strange how that is.....
Paulie
(8,462 posts)Being President is what this primary is about.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But yeah Bernie made a mistake then.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Given how he voted against the Brady Bill because his constituents wanted him to, I more than suspect it was a triangulation move given he got a higher percentage of votes than Obama did.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It would have been good for the country to have a challenge to the president. Bernie is all about what's good for the country and our democracy.
moriah
(8,311 posts)In 1968, someone primariee Lyndon Johnson and he didn't do well, another Kennedy got shot, police were brutal to the protesters at the Convention, we still ended up nominating the sitting vice-president, and lost to Tricky Dicky.
In 1976, Reagan primaried Ford, and we got Carter.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy primaried Carter, and we got Reagan.
So unless your goal is to get the sitting President defeated, don't encourage a primary challenge. I mean, sure, it would have been awesome for someone to have primaried Bush. Not Obama.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Not honest enough to be POTUS, but lets put her on the bench to change policy for generations...
DamnYankeeInHouston
(1,365 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I wouldn't want her on the court; I wouldn't trust her ruling on issues like Citizens United.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But nice try.
TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)and I gave them to you so I was serious. BTW, Mr. Berryhill supports Bernie which was why I immediately recalled that OP and his use of sarcasm. The other one I found with a search with the word Clinton in the title.
I also know that I've read several replies within threads that make the same argument, but I limited my search for thread titles with the word Clinton and did not include other search terms such as Hillary or HRC.
However, I'm LOL that you aren't paying attention. Either that or it's a nice try acting oblivious to what happens here.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)You are making this far too personal. You asked for links and I supplied them to you. Now you decided to make an unfounded accusation to suggest that I am on the wrong side of a class war when in reality I lived for nearly two years in poverty hoping that I will qualify for disability. I don't see any difference between the candidates as to their stances on providing the social programs such as SSDI.
As a matter of fact, this is the first time that I've heard anyone suggest that the Democratic primary is a class war. Those type of statements will most likely cause your candidate to lose votes in both the primary and general election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lose jobs, etc.
Did you know that in the USofA that 6 infants die before the age of 1 year out of ever 1,000 live births? Worse than all other modern countries. 38 countries take care of their infants better than this country. I find that immoral. Did you know that 16,000,000 American children live in poverty and another 16,000,000 live in low income homes? We are speaking of 32 millions of our children. How can't that be personal? Many of our seniors are struggling to get by and SS and Medicare cuts may be on the way. The healthcare for the 99% in the USofA is the worst of the modern countries. Our college students are being strapped with huge debts. These are all collateral damage from the super-wealthy greed that puts profits over lives.
While the 99% struggles with these problems that are literally killing us, the 1% is wallowing in enormous wealth. Their wealth has tripled in the last 30 years while we have stagnated or slid backwards. You must recognize how desperate this situation is.
You must recognize that it's a class war and the 99% are losing badly. So who wants to fix this? Sen Sanders is very outspoken and proposes great changes and wants the 1% to start paying their fair share. Clinton on the other hand, a strong 1%'er (actually her and Bill have made the top 0.1% with wealth they've accumulated from appreciative corporations and billionaires), is nowhere near as strong a proponent of stopping the great wealth redistribution from the 99% to her friends in the 1%. She may say she wants to help the poor but she will never ask her super-wealthy friends to pay a dime. She wants the 99% to pay for helping the 99%.
I think it's naive to pretend that the 30 to 50 millions of dollars that billionaires and corporations have given Clinton personally doesn't influence her. Not to mention the 100 to 150 millions given to her husband. She is not on the same side as Sen Sanders and the 99% in this class war.
TexasTowelie
(112,422 posts)While you have personally seen distressing circumstances I have personally experienced many distressing situations that I will refrain from discussing for the sake of brevity. Reciting platitudes and statistics to bolster your candidate is a fallacy, but if it makes you feel better then I'm not going to stop you. Likewise, stating that I'm choosing (or anyone else is choosing) to be on the wrong side of class warfare doesn't hold water and is an example of binary thinking.
Since I am a mathematician I recognize the limitations of binary thinking which is present in the 99% vs. the 1% argument. Please don't limit yourself to such a dichotomy. My personal experience factors into that viewpoint since I'm probably in the bottom 1% of income earners at this point in my life, but also because I have friends that are closer to the top 1% and I certainly do view them with disdain.
I simply disagree with your opinion that your candidate is the solution to all problems in the world (or even in this country). From a personal perspective I can easily argue how some of Bernie's solutions could end up harming me and the immorality of it, but I won't bother since discussing it with you would be pointless.
Get back to me when you can discuss personal hardships that you experienced rather than observed. I find that people who struggled through adversity have more insight than those that are dogmatically rigid.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)country)"
I have never made that claim and I don't believe it.
It's a fact that the political establishment has decimated the 99% in the last 30 years. We desperately need change. I hope you can agree with those two sentences. I don't think for a second that H. Clinton will work for the change we need. She is a very well engaged in the Wealthy 1%. While she may try to fix some of the problems in the 99% she will only ask that we in the 99% pay for those changes. You are looking to the Establishment to fix the problems that they have made. Clinton has been made a very wealthy women and in fact her and Bill have jumped into the top 0.1% from honorarium from those that have decimated the 99%. She isn't about to ask them to start paying their fair share.
I have no delusions that Sanders will fix everything, but we must start somewhere.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)He doesn't have the weatlh to be on your side of the class war. The upper 10-20% is not exploited by poor people like Texas Towelie or like the family I grew up in. Despite that, you time and time again make those comments to the poor, disenfranchised and oppressed, angry that they dare to consider anything but the upper middle class' anger at th 1%. I can't even count how many times I've seen you do just that. No matter how many times you are told you are addressing poor or LGBT people, you never apologize but instead continue insulting the very same people., knowing full well what their economic situation is. As far as I can tell, most of your time here is spent waging war on those less fortunate than youself. We all might wish to have the kind of money that would enable us to be on your side of the class war, but unfortunately most of us cannot.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has been devastated by the 1% that controls our government. They do such by buying politicians that provide them favorable laws and regulations that are literally killing our children and others in the 99%.
It should be obvious that Sen Sanders and Clinton are on opposite sides of this class war. And my side of this class war is with Sen Sanders and the 99%. The other side is Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street. My side is fighting to save those infants and children dying in poverty while Goldman-Sachs is fighting for higher profits.
BainsBane
(53,066 posts)Citigroup and the rest of the big banks. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
Your side is currently benefiting from millions in dark money and super pac spending. That you claim that any political choice other than promoting your chosen member of the political elite amounts to siding with the banks and the rich is preposterous.
Your side grants immunity for gun corporations, billions in profit generated by killing people in communities like mine. Your side grants up to a trillion in corporate welfare for Lockheed-Martin, while pretending that corporate accountability extends only to Wall Street, all while having raised hundreds of thousands from those same banks.
Nearly every union, prominent person of color, civil rights activist and social justice advocate has endorsed Clinton. Sanders is in turn supported by Hollywood and a good section of the white middle and upper middle class, but far less so by the poor and people of color, who support Clinton. Your side in turn has harassed and insulted anyone who dares to think for themselves, who dares to care about their own lives. Let's not pretend you are concerned about the poor. Your actions speak volumes. You treat poor people like Texas Towelie and others barely getting by as the enemy. That shows in no uncertain terms you are waging war against them. They are your enemy because they refuse to prioritize your accumulation of wealth above their own survival. You are the one, after all, who insisted to me that foodstamps was enough for the poor, the same foodstamps supported by ever DLCer.
The last thirty years has not in fact seen an increase in poverty. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/23/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-poverty-us-all-time-high/ Poverty is now lower than during the days you long to return to. The one group that fares worse are white men. That is the war you are engaged in, the war to ensure the white male bourgeoisie regains what it sees as its rightful position atop the capitalist world order, a world order built around the death and economic exploitation of the vast majority around the world and in the US for the comfort of people like you.
For you, political discussion is limited to bumper sticker slogans, slogans that do not hold up to any scrutiny. You display no interest in getting beyond the word of memes and soundbites. Because of that you turn to insults. Yet you don't wage your war on bankers and the 1 percent, do you? In fact, you count some of them as your allies (like a recently banned 1 percenter and others who boast of their four digit checks to Bernie or wardrobe of couture gowns). Instead, you target poor people like Texas Towelie or people who are LGBT and lower-middle class like hrmjustin. Your political discourse is limited to insulting people in precisely the ways you have done in this thread, insults that are ludicrous considering your own class privilege and the poverty and oppression of those you target.
A politician is not a cause. That you think your reverence for a single member of the political elite justifies your treating members of the subaltern with contempt shows that your goal is not at all what you claim. You are engaged in a war every single day, but it's not against the banks or the 1 percent. It's against those less fortunate than yourself who don't believe your favorite politician's slogans.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)First of all the worst thing the article accuses Sanders of it helping many others raise money for Democratic Senators.
Secondly, while Clinton accepts 30 to 50,000,000 dollars for her personal wealth (Goldman-Sachs $650,000), you try to equate that with the DSCC accepting money from banks like Goldman-Sachs.
Thirdly, the article says that Sen Sanders' name was on the list of invited guests. That doesn't prove he even attended. The article does say that some unnamed person saw him there.
Even if he did participate in helping raise money for Democratic Senators, he didn't pocket any of the money like Clinton does.
Fourthly, he openly wants to make the Wealthy, banksters, and Wall Street billionaires pay their fair share. That's a far cry from Clinton telling Goldman-Sachs that banks were being picked on too much.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I wouldn't support that.
Besides, she wouldn't pass his one litmus test: she wouldn't want to rule against Citizens United. It's made her a lot of money.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I have yet to hear ONE ACTUAL Sanders supporter express even faint interest in having ANY Clinton on the court.
Prove me wrong. Post a link.
I fucking dare you.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)To QUOTE you verbatim: "I fucking dare you."
I saw others, cleverly indicating that nominating HRC for the SCOTUS would be a two-fer for the Bernie side, because it would take her out of the POTUS race and she would also fail to be confirmed by the Senate. I was impressed, so impressed. But if you want to read it, you can do the search yourself. To quote Mr. Rogers, "I know you can." Such a nice man, Fred Rogers, an example to us all in these fraught times.
JURY: I am quoting 99forever's words back at him verbatim.
Somebody didn't agree with you on the internet!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)Maybe he gave her the benefit of the doubt about Iraq vote up to then.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Cannot have it both ways and Sanders has done his share of that.
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)If Sanders didn't vote for confirmation the OP would be criticizing sanders for not being a team player.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Both sides like to play things for their benefit. On one hand Sanders is a "revolutionary," on the other hand he supports Obama 90% of the time. On one hand the Clintons say Sanders is not a loyal Democrat, on the other hand they attack him when he votes in favor of Obama policies (including Hillary's appointment). Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Nothing more, nothing less.
"I know! Let's make a great big deal out of a whole lot of nothing," --said the Hillary campaign for the 2,365th time this week.
YAY!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Ranks right up there with Photogate, Logogate, and Churchgate!
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)They're trying to do the same thing with Obama's next pick for SCOTUS. Somehow, in their twisted little brains, if Obama's pick isn't confirmed it's because Bernie didn't fight hard enough.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)They love to attack him from both sides.
"Bernie doesn't raise money for Democrats!"
"Bernie attended a lavish fundraiser for Democrats on Martha's Vineyard! Hypocrite!"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There was no chance that Obama was going to nominate someone progressive.
If I happen to vote for Clinton in the General, it won't be because I like her positions on most issues. And I will be critical later. Holding our elected officials accountable is very Democratic.
TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)If she was going to be confirmed anyway, then that makes it even easier to take a stand and vote against her if he really felt she was unqualified. Now, the flip side is also true that if he did this then her campaign would claim he was trying to undermine Democrats. Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Something he apparently never does - except when he does...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)I can understand both sides of the argument and both sides try to play it both ways for their benefit.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Lucinda
(31,170 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Got a problem with that?
cali
(114,904 posts)Surprised you're so uninformed. Only 2 repubs voted against her. Guess what? No Republican is supporting her.
Lame. Deeply inane. Bulloney.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Berns has no case against Hillary.
cali
(114,904 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)
and ransacked Syria.
That was also before she went full neocon and handpicked Robert Kagan as one of her foreign-policy advisers. Oh that Robert Kagan, what a great guy! He founded the PNAC movement, which morphed into the sociopathic neocon movement. I always knew that the Republicans loved the neocon warmongers. I was devastated to learn that Hillary invited them into the clubhouse.
Then, when I saw what she did to Libya, I knew that Hillary was a full-blown neocon--and it made sense that she would select Kagan. The PNAC manifesto lists Libya as one of the countries that the neocons want to dominate. And how do they secure those countries for exploitation? By destabilizing them and creating chaos.
Oh Hillary. Someone needs to kick you to the curb for doing this to our party. Hopefully we're in the process of doing that now, in this primary process.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)If he had voted against her you would be complaining about that too.
cannabis_flower
(3,765 posts)she was actually Secretary of State. Do you think maybe her experience has something to do with that?
Response to cannabis_flower (Reply #14)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Their supporters here are acting like it, but they are OK with each other and will both vote for whoever wins the primaries.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I think she proved them, and a whole lot of citizens (myself included) wrong during her tenure. She is every bit as war hungry as her promotion of the Iraq war suggests.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)If any...?
treestar
(82,383 posts)with many of his supporters. Especially since he would have known her IWR vote at that time. He's not pure enough for his supporters if he supported her for anything, especially SOS, after that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Garbage in, garbage out.
Response to frylock (Reply #72)
JonLeibowitz This message was self-deleted by its author.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)doxyluv13
(247 posts)she doubled down of "regime change" even when the predictable result was bloody chaos.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Double standards and double talk.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)He took her word for it and thought she'd maybe learned not to be such a war hawk and become better at foreign policy as a result.
Sadly, she didn't learn her lesson and we got Libya, Syria, Honduras and Haiti.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)Hillary should bring that up in the next debate.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Senator Sanders, how can we possibly trust your judgement if you voted to confirm such a terrible SoS?
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)has stated she has more foreign policy than all candidates. which is a remarkable compliment.
frylock
(34,825 posts)We've been through this. The only two presidents elect with foreign policy experience to match Hillary's is Nixon and GHW Bush. Did you vote for Poppy Bush over Bill Clinton because he had more foreign policy experience?
Kall
(615 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)based on the fiasco in Iraq that she voted for.
The whole world learned that regime change in the Middle East leads to DISASTER
Everyone gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt, thinking she had seen and realized the disaster that followed.
BUT, NO! Hillary DID NOT LEARN ANYTHING FROM HER IRAQ VOTE.
She FAILED to see what the world learned and sees: REGIME CHANGE IS A FAILED NEO-CON AGENDA that LEADS TO CHAOS, unending bloodshed, and the strengthening of anti-US terror groups
SHE PROCEEDED TO CAUSE CHAOS IN LIBYA AND SYRIA....
malletgirl02
(1,523 posts)If Bernie Sanders did vote fo her confirmation, you would be attacking him for not voting for her.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)one screwed up more?
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)I'm sure he thought then she could do the job. Turns out she was terrible at it.
I've hired people who looked good on paper, but just couldn't perform.
underpants
(182,879 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)SDJay
(1,089 posts)I see what you're doing here... It's aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllll coming together nicely, isn't it?
[IMG][/IMG]
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)as in supported him. Funny you should complain about that
99Forever
(14,524 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Now I can vote for a tone-deaf, pandering, disingenuous, Wall Street loving, warmonger with complete piece of mind!
Phew!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)After all she voted to confirm her as Secretary of State. I guess if Rice were running Hillary would be supporting her according to your logic.
In reality presidents have wide latitude to pick their cabinets. Senate confirmation is just a check and balance. If there's not an overriding reason to reject, then it's usually approved. That does not mean it's an endorsement. Otherwise there were never be cross party votes for cabinet positions.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)How could he let such a person into such an important office? And look at what a terrible job she did, destroying Libya, Syria and Ukraine. Sanders is responsible for all that and that's why we need to vote for his opponent, erm, whatsername?
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)The second was based on her performance.
Don't conflict the two. Was she a promising SecState? Yes. Did her decisions and policies work out? Not so well.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)According to the people I know who worked in the State Department. Some of them support her for president, and others don't
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Iraq...Honduras...Venezuela...Libya...Syria...Turkey...
Bernie expected, you know, Democracy.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)the president should not have nominated her because he contested her seemingly inevitable presidential candidacy in 2007. The whole thread is sophomoric in nature.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)I mean, now he's got all kinds of evidence to form an actual opinion on her foreign policy judgement.