Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:33 AM Oct 2015

Which 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%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Which matters more? (Original Post) Ken Burch Oct 2015 OP
It's really crazy how much Bernie has been attacked on guns jfern Oct 2015 #1
Depends Cali_Democrat Oct 2015 #2
At least 500,000 Iraqis(by most estimates)died in that war, some say over a million. Ken Burch Oct 2015 #3
Yes. Something is truly fucked, when I think "USA and GUNS". delrem Oct 2015 #9
new day same smear. she has said her vote was wrong, multiple times. nt msongs Oct 2015 #4
That she finally said it was wrong, doesn't erase the horror. delrem Oct 2015 #10
thats one hell of a BIG "wrong" reddread Oct 2015 #20
She's the frontrunner. NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #5
They were saying the same thing about her 8 years ago jfern Oct 2015 #6
They said what eight years ago? NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #7
She was up 27 points at this time 8 years ago jfern Oct 2015 #8
Try to stay on topic. NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #11
Of course it made the difference in 2008 jfern Oct 2015 #12
Were you actually around in 2008? NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #13
Are you saying that something would be less likely to change the outcome jfern Oct 2015 #14
What I am saying ... NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #15
I bet a lot don't remember that vote jfern Oct 2015 #16
Or maybe since millions voted for Kerry who also voted for the IWR that it would be hypocritical to seaglass Oct 2015 #17
Hillary has more of a record of being a hawk than Kerry jfern Oct 2015 #25
Oh, I see. NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #33
Your reply doesn't make any sense. n/t NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #29
I was here in 2008 & the "Hillary because... woman" cadre was just as strong & cpompilo Oct 2015 #27
No such thing. NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #28
she is doomed. reddread Oct 2015 #21
She's the frontrunner. NanceGreggs Oct 2015 #31
Option 3: Both of their positions going forward. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2015 #18
excellent points! restorefreedom Oct 2015 #24
Hillary's IWR vote (nt) bigwillq Oct 2015 #19
Not even close. 99Forever Oct 2015 #22
The IWR resolution vote was treasonous Hydra Oct 2015 #23
War is preventable Kalidurga Oct 2015 #26
By far, Hillary's vote to invade Iraq. The repercussions are still resonating. AtomicKitten Oct 2015 #30
It's not just the Iraq war it's her stand on any war. Iran, Russia Autumn Oct 2015 #32
The war vote bothered me in 2008 and it does now Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2015 #34
the IWR is extremely important in light of the presence. sadoldgirl Oct 2015 #35

jfern

(5,204 posts)
1. It's really crazy how much Bernie has been attacked on guns
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:36 AM
Oct 2015

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)
2. Depends
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:38 AM
Oct 2015

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)
3. At least 500,000 Iraqis(by most estimates)died in that war, some say over a million.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:41 AM
Oct 2015

Do their deaths(all for nothing, as it turns out) matter less because they were Arabs or Kurds?

delrem

(9,688 posts)
9. Yes. Something is truly fucked, when I think "USA and GUNS".
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:51 AM
Oct 2015

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.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
10. That she finally said it was wrong, doesn't erase the horror.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:58 AM
Oct 2015

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)
20. thats one hell of a BIG "wrong"
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:01 AM
Oct 2015

would you elect or re-elect the architect of Vietnam?
it is a mistake she cant wait to repeat.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
5. She's the frontrunner.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:29 AM
Oct 2015

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.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
7. They said what eight years ago?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:38 AM
Oct 2015

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)
8. She was up 27 points at this time 8 years ago
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 03:40 AM
Oct 2015

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)
11. Try to stay on topic.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:00 AM
Oct 2015

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)
12. Of course it made the difference in 2008
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:03 AM
Oct 2015

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)
13. Were you actually around in 2008?
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:17 AM
Oct 2015

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)
14. Are you saying that something would be less likely to change the outcome
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:19 AM
Oct 2015

of a close election than a not so close election? Because that doesn't make any sense.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
15. What I am saying ...
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:30 AM
Oct 2015

... 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?



seaglass

(8,170 posts)
17. Or maybe since millions voted for Kerry who also voted for the IWR that it would be hypocritical to
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 07:20 AM
Oct 2015

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)
25. Hillary has more of a record of being a hawk than Kerry
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:34 PM
Oct 2015

And I certainly didn't vote for Kerry in the primary.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
33. Oh, I see.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:31 PM
Oct 2015

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)
28. No such thing.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:24 PM
Oct 2015

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)
21. she is doomed.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:02 AM
Oct 2015

and nobody is at fault but themselves.
kind of sweet poetry, actually.
too bad about all those dead Iraqis though.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
31. She's the frontrunner.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:29 PM
Oct 2015

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)
18. Option 3: Both of their positions going forward.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 07:37 AM
Oct 2015

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)
24. excellent points!
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:37 AM
Oct 2015

hillary wants to focus on the future, her future contains way more preventable death than bernie's

nailed it!




99Forever

(14,524 posts)
22. Not even close.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:08 AM
Oct 2015

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)
23. The IWR resolution vote was treasonous
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:12 AM
Oct 2015

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)
26. War is preventable
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:50 PM
Oct 2015

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)
30. By far, Hillary's vote to invade Iraq. The repercussions are still resonating.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:26 PM
Oct 2015

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)
32. It's not just the Iraq war it's her stand on any war. Iran, Russia
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:30 PM
Oct 2015

Reading this turned my stomach

She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:


easier for who?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251695497

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
34. The war vote bothered me in 2008 and it does now
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:34 PM
Oct 2015

She voted to send thousands to their death yet she manages to weasel out of it when challenged

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
35. the IWR is extremely important in light of the presence.
Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:56 PM
Oct 2015

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Which matters more?