2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhich matters more?
Bernie having a not-totally perfect(but still strong) record on guns? Or HRC's IWR vote and her continued refusal to apologize for it?
A case can be made that a lot of lives were lost either way, after all.
21 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Bernie's position on guns | |
2 (10%) |
|
HRC's position on the war | |
19 (90%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
jfern
(5,204 posts)considering that he has a D- rating from the NRA, and every other governor, representative, and senator from Vermont since at least 1991 has at least a C rating, some with with an A. And some of those people endorsed Hillary.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Some would argue that lax gun laws have led to more American deaths than the Iraq war.
Which is true.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Do their deaths(all for nothing, as it turns out) matter less because they were Arabs or Kurds?
delrem
(9,688 posts)It goes deep.
Hillary Clinton is known to be a "hawk".
She isn't known to be all that understanding.
She is known for being imperious.
But that isn't necessarily a good thing.
msongs
(67,193 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Then there's Libya. And Syria.
Her accomplishments. AKA "Friends Of X".
You want someone that wrong to lead the USA for the next 8 years?
reddread
(6,896 posts)would you elect or re-elect the architect of Vietnam?
it is a mistake she cant wait to repeat.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I guess the people polled - ya know, the ones who keep her in the front-runner position - don't think her IWR vote is a deal-breaker.
But you keep on keepin' on. That dead horse can always use another beatin' - because maybe someday it will get up and walk again, if you hit it just one more time.
jfern
(5,204 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)They said she was leading in the polls, so she should be dumped before it was too late?
Who said that, and when?
jfern
(5,204 posts)So naturally people were saying it was sure thing she'd get the nomination and that her Iraq war vote (plus her then recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment allowing Bush to go to war with Iran) didn't matter.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The OP is about HRC's IWR vote.
She didn't lose the 2008 nomination to Obama based on that vote - because she wouldn't have come that close to beating him out for the nomination if voters felt it was a deal-breaker.
And voters obviously don't think it's a deal-breaker now, because she's far ahead of Bernie - despite his having voted against it.
The IWR vote is a non-issue - which has now been proven, twice.
And yet some people keep floggin' what's left of that dead horse's corpse, all the while pretending that it matters to the average voter - which it apparently doesn't.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And her Kyl-Lieberman vote in September 2007 didn't help either. And as I was alluding to, the polls are closer today than they were 8 years ago.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)HRC had millions of staunch supporters - just as she has now - who apparently didn't think her Iraq vote was a deal-breaker.
If the average voter thought it WAS a deal-breaker, she wouldn't have had the support she did, and Obama could have secured the nomination simply by harping on that fact. But he didn't, because he knew it was pointless to do so.
If you think HRC's vote made a difference in 2008, given how many supporters she had right up until the moment she conceded to Obama, you are apparently very new to politics.
jfern
(5,204 posts)of a close election than a not so close election? Because that doesn't make any sense.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is that Hillary had millions of supporters in 2008 who apparently DIDN'T withhold their support based on her Iraq vote.
Hillary currently has millions of supporters who apparently DON'T withhold their support based on that vote.
Ergo, it would seem abundantly clear that HRC's Iraq vote is NOT keeping the majority of Dems from supporting her candidacy, then or now.
As far as voters are concerned, it's a non-issue. If it WERE an issue, she wouldn't be the front-runner right now, would she?
jfern
(5,204 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)withhold a vote for her and not him.
I was against the IWR but that can't be a deciding factor for me for the primary since I already voted for someone who voted for the IWR.
jfern
(5,204 posts)And I certainly didn't vote for Kerry in the primary.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)That Iraq vote is so important, such a game-changer, will doom her candidacy - but people don't remember it.
That doesn't sound like it was very important, does it - being so easy to forget at all?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)cpompilo
(323 posts)irrational then as now.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I was an Obama Girl all through the primaries, and took issue with a lot of things being touted about Hillary. But no one was promoting the idea that she should be the nominee based solely on the fact that she's a woman. And no one is doing that now.
reddread
(6,896 posts)and nobody is at fault but themselves.
kind of sweet poetry, actually.
too bad about all those dead Iraqis though.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)She's ahead in all of the polls, and her numbers are going up.
If that means "doomed", then yes - she will be doomed to become the next president.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What's done is done. All those killed by the war or guns are dead and can't be brought back to life.
Which of those two will embroil us in MORE foreign wars more quickly and thoroughly? How much difference in those killed in gun violence domestically will there be in the policies they've stated they support now?
from what I can see, with Bernie's current positions on gun control, there's not going to be any real difference in domestic gun deaths between either administration. But Hillary keeps rattling sabers and trying to prove she's 'tough enough' by wanting to throw the lives of our soldiers away in more foreign fights, while Bernie has suggested he'd scale down the machismo that kills.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)hillary wants to focus on the future, her future contains way more preventable death than bernie's
nailed it!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Voting to go to war based on lies is just plain evil. Millions have suffered and continue to suffer because of it.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Gun control is not going to solve the problem of why we kill each other, especially since police and military will be still armed and allowed to shoot us.
Team Hillary has spent this entire cycle attempting to make Sanders look worse than their candidate, and in the process has highlighted just how bad she is on all of these issues.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, gun control can't prevent violence. It can perhaps control how many people die by the gun and that's a good thing. But, we ignore the underlying causes of violence at our peril.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Her zealous sable-rattling toward Iran is unsettling. I consider her as bad or worse than the GOP on foreign policy. I cannot in good conscience and will not vote for her.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)Reading this turned my stomach
easier for who?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251695497
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)She voted to send thousands to their death yet she manages to weasel out of it when challenged
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)That war started the destabilization of the ME, and it
continues to do so now.With the Sunies in power in
Iraq we would not have ISIS now. Leaving a vacuum
in Libya caused more problems, pushing Assad to the
side started another problem.
If people don't remember those votes they should
realize what that war started and continues to do.