THE HARD CHOICE
Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)
In 2001 our country was attacked and the Republicons were using the attack and the fear they helped generate to implement their economic and neoconic agendas.
This is when we needed the other political party to stand up and provide the balance of power that our democracy so desperately needed.
Fueled by the fear propaganda of the Right Wing, much of the public wanted revenge and Cheney knew just how to get it. Let's invade Iraq. The intelligence (?) they brought forward was so pathetic our major allies were shaking their heads and publicly debunking it all. Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq didn't have the capability to attack us, Iraq wasn't sponsoring or harboring terrorists. The terrorists that attacked us weren't from Iraq and weren't trained in Iraq, but Cheney, thru his puppet, George Bush (Goofy) continued to push for invasion.
Faced with the hard choice of standing up to Cheney and Bush and a great deal of public opinion (influenced by the Corp-Media), the true Democrats voted against the war.
Hillary Clinton instead, didn't oppose the War, she didn't make the hard choice of doing the right thing. She not only didn't oppose the War, fully aware of the consequences, she actually helped Cheney sell the War, giving a speech with wording almost identical to a speech given by Cheney's puppet George. She would later say that Bush fooled her, that she trusted him, when many were screaming that he couldn't be trusted. She didn't think he would invade. And after the invasion, was she upset that she was fooled? Nope, she defended the decision to go to war for almost 12 years. At one point stating that it provided a great business opportunity, and the Iraqi's should appreciate that we were bringing them freedom.
After about 12 years she decided to change her tune and revise her story. In her book, ironically titled, Hard Choices he said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/
Really? She thought she acted in good faith? She won't even say she acted in good faith, because she hadn't acted in good faith any more than Dick Cheney acted in good faith. And she admits she got it wrong. Be interesting to find out what she thinks she got wrong.
Some of her faithful want to forgive this mistake, to forget the mistake. The devotion is so great they don't seem to care that she might make a similar mistake in the future. The level of loyalty boggles my mind. Her followers don't care that it was the worst mistake made by our country in decades maybe a century. The mistake cost as many as a million lives, ruined five times that. The mistake arguably cost us what little we had left of freedom and liberty by accepting the Patriot Act, domestic spying, torture and indefinite detention and setting precedence for preemptive invasions. Trillions of dollars moved from the 99% to the 1% that Clinton and her huuge wealth, is such a major part of. War for profits is now part of the business model of the Corptocracy we now live in.
Those of us that value freedom, liberty, peace, and an equitable distribution of wealth don't have a hard choice in this primary. I hope we don't have a hard choice in the General.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)While you are on the subject, when is Bernie going to admit to being wrong about supporting communist and socialist regimes? the GOP would have afield day with hi over that. Just because you weren't around when the world faced communism everyday, does not diminish the fact that people over 55 did and remember it quite well. Oh, "equitable distribution of wealth" is an odd term for free college tuition and free healthcare. Work for it like the rest of us have.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)terrible judgement:
championing DOMA and NAFTA before "evolving"
TTIP
$12 dollars /hr
private email server
the beat goes on.....
treestar
(82,383 posts)So Kerry - we should not have voted for him in 2004 by that logic.
fbc
(1,668 posts)How long do the rest of us have to pay for the gullibility of people who are now over 55?
cannabis_flower
(3,845 posts)I'm over 55 and I wasn't fooled. I was against Afghanistan, Iraq, the Patriot Act. In fact, I voted for Al Gore in 2000, Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 primary and Kerry in the general and Obama in 2008.
mudstump
(348 posts)As the build-up to the Iraq war was coming to a head I was deeply disappointed in most of the democratic leadership. As always it seems, they were weak and exhibited little backbone. Their weakness and the utter pathetic strategy of the DNC has cost us the mid-terms twice. This is a no-brainer. Democratic ideals are popular and the dems just can't seem to find a way to tout those ideals and accomplishments....instead they adopt right-wing talking points about cutting social security, medicare, deficit reduction and more. Heck, the dems should use what these republican governor's policies have done to states like Kansas as perfect examples of how republicans have failed miserably at governing. They should drive the point home until everyone equates republican governance with failure.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)against the invasion of Iraq, but our Senators and Congressmen didn't listen, they were blinded by red, white and blue and all the profits that war would bring.
After the elections the fight will continue.
ReRe
(10,775 posts)On a cold cold cold January day in 2003 in Washington D.C. Somewhere I physically should not have been. But I was there. I would not have missed that opportunity to march against that atrocity that HRC voted in favor of. I remember Colin Powell swinging that vial of Cream of Tarter at the UN. I knew he was lying through his teeth. I knew all of them were lying.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yet they don't even seem in the least bit shamed. They should be apologizing to the nation every day for being so inept and corrupt.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ohio primary rolled around.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)the red scare was bullshit then and it's bullshit now, Tailgunner Joe.
jmowreader
(51,438 posts)ish of the hammer
(444 posts)resources, what used to be provided by the government is now fee based because the rich are not taxed as much
as they were. but Tailgunner Joe was a bloviating drunk then and nothing has come along to redeem his memory, and
Reagan still imposed tuition at California colleges.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)jmowreader
(51,438 posts)If you want better-than-European social services, you need to be prepared for higher-than-European taxes.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)and higher wages, wait... am I echoing someone?
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)thanks to the tax loopholes for the rich and the corporations they own; tax cuts and loopholes supported by both repubs and dems.
if you're not a millionaire, why vote like one?
ReRe
(10,775 posts)Do you think the world has changed for the good? Or that it has changed for the bad and we might as well get used to it? What do you MEAN by that statement? What? Please explain that statement.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)young. I did not have to borrow the equivalent of $30,000 to $50,000 to go to college, and jobs for students were plentiful and paid a decent minimum wage.
None of that is true today.
And for-profit health insurance is very expensive. Even with Obamacare, the co-pays can be prohibitive for many families.
Right now we have extreme disparity in wealth. We did not have that when you and I were young, when we were growing up.
If you don't like the idea of "equitable distribution of wealth" what would you suggest in order to cure the extreme disparity of wealth that we have now.
Of course, people who live in small towns in the Midwest or even most cities in the Midwest do not know how extreme the disparity of wealth really is. So maybe that is why this seems irrelevant to some.
Seriously, how do you think we should deal with the extreme disparity of wealth in our country if not through the rather mild redistribution of wealth programs that Bernie is suggesting? Should we just let the disparity of wealth increase until we have a feudal system? Have you read about Thomas Piiketty's research?
https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=Thomas+piketty
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)an entire region and making the nation poor.
klook
(12,884 posts)is "communism" in the American vernacular. Meanwhile the world's largest communist nation owns over $1 trillion of U.S. Debt.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)I do remember the cold war . Socialism did go extreme into communism, and all that remains is the suppression of Russia, China and N Korea. The Socialist countries have found the common good/ democratic mix that is the envy of the world. I assure you the US has fallen in the eyes of the world, now in the grips of vulture capitalism, ugly and in decay. We are a young country going thru puberty, making big mistakes that effect world peace and like Bernie, who experimented with followings like all young men do, we move on, beliefs changing, but a mixture of ones experiences.
It is not a risk to follow Bernie's policies, as they have been proven to work in many other countries.
If we open our eyes, you will see that capitalism, taken to the extreme has huge give-aways, free stuff, only to the 1%, corporations, and banks. They dont pay taxes, laws are made to ease their burdens and obstacles, and they sit around the table playing war games with our kids, our wealth and our dark side.
This is my objection to both Clintons
Scalded Nun
(1,331 posts)She never sounds sincere.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)This country was following a lot of them in the fifties, affordable tuition, strong unions veteran benefits and taxing the rich to name a few.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)japple
(10,317 posts)so many of HRC followers never notice or won't admit to.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:45 PM - Edit history (2)
This place is crawling with unfounded ignorant babble and apparently there was a big fucking dump in April and May.
You're going with that? Mkay, well up to this point I havn't heard a fucking mouse whisker from the GOP about Bernie being Communist and he actually has GOP support, more importantly without compromising his principles.
Clue: If you equate Bernie's socialism to communism your biased ignorant rhetoric is showing. Not even fucking close.
You don't know the 1st thing. So getting the rich to pay an equal share, getting corporation to pay their fair share and shutting down corporate tax loopholes, fighting against the TPP, having a stronger chance against TRUMP, and the fucking list goes on and on,...........those are all bad socialist things?
Really?
So your for 1% and corporate socialism but not for people because according to you we're all not doing this:
What an absolutely thoughtless comment and how very Republican of you.
The rightwing nerve, you understand that you have no fucking idea what other people are going through, right?
you know the GOP is famous for calling people lazy even when they're living on the streets. And if your not starving and living on the streets, you have all the means at your disposal to help yourself and everyone around you because it's just that black and white?
Are you a fucking Mind reading, all knowing, mystic?
bearssoapbox
(1,408 posts)I don't usually answer those type of replies because it doesn't do any good since they can't, or won't, differentiate the differences.
It's gotten old explaining it to people for the past 20-30-40 yrs.
So I want to THANK YOU for taking the time and effort to do it.
ReRe
(10,775 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)red baiting shows ignorance
pnwmom
(109,554 posts)socialist/commie/hippie/pinko because they're hoping against hope that he will be the nominee.
And then they will have their field day. Till then, they are just biting their tongues and crossing their fingers and praying that Bernie beats Hillary so they won't have to face her.
murielm99
(31,433 posts)They don't bother to vet him because they know he is unimportant. They don't need to spend the time and money on oppo research for someone who will not be the nominee.
Also, he is doing their work for them, bashing Hillary and unleashing his gremlins on social media and at campaign events. The more time he and his minions spend doing this, the more time the repubbies have to unite and work against us.
Go Bernie! Yes, go back to Vermont and back to your back bench.
basselope
(2,565 posts)There were a lot of paranoid people who feared communism the same way some lemmings fear "Islam"
Further, most people who have it didn't "work for it." MOST of them have it given to them.
Finally, her admission that she was wrong is meaningless since she made the exact same mistake in Libya.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Just like she "tries" to tell the truth
https://m.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)You are rather callous and lacking empathy.
If you can't afford college, you can't get a good job with health benefits, and without good health benefits your are literally doomed. So who among us do you think is undeserving of free healthcare because, in your view, they didn't "work for it"? Seriously, you really don't have to be this mean. People die from lack of healthcare in America, is that ok with you?
And so you know where I am coming from I am well over 55.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)ACTING!!!!!!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)In the carefully negotiated statement, the bank board praised Mr. Wolfowitz for his two years of service, particularly for his work in arranging debt relief and pressing for more assistance to poor countries, especially in Africa. They also cited Mr. Wolfowitzs work in combating corruption, his signature issue.
Mr. Bush surprised them by selecting Mr. Wolfowitz, then a deputy secretary of defense and an architect of the Iraq war. Leaders of Germany and France objected but decided not to make a fight over the choice and risk reopening wounds from their opposition to the war two years earlier.
Mr. Wolfowitzs after-tax salary was $391,440 beginning July 1, 2005. (Weisman, 2007)
ashcroft_goldsmith_comey_and_philbin_to_pjl1
October 29, 2007
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Arlen Specter
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Protecting carriers who allegedly responded to the government's call for assistance in the wake of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001 and during the continuing threat of further attacks is simply the right thing to do. When corporations are asked to assist the intelligence community based on a program authorized by the President himself and based on assurances that the program has been determined to be lawful at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, they should be able to rely on those representations and accept the determinations of the Government as to the legality of their actions. The common law has long recognized immunity for private citizens who respond to a call for assistance from a public officer in the course of his duty. The salutary purpose of such a rule is to recognize that private persons should be encouraged to offer assistance to a public officer in a crisis and should not be held accountable if it later turns out that the public officer made a mistake. That principle surely applies here, especially given the limited nature of the immunity contemplated in the bill, which would apply only where carriers were told that a program was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.
Failing to provide immunity to the carriers will produce perverse incentives that risk damage to our national security. If carriers now named in lawsuits are not protected for any actions they allegedly may have taken in good faith reliance on representations from the Government, both telecommunications carriers and other corporations in the future will think twice before assisting any agency of the intelligence community seeking information. In the fight against terrorism, information private companies have - particularly in the telecommunications field - is a vital resource to the Nation. If immunity is not provided, it is likely that, in the future, the private sector will not provide assistance swiftly and willingly, and critical time in obtaining information will be lost. We wholeheartedly agree with the assessment of the report accompanying the bill from SSCI: "The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation." S. Rep. 110-209, at 11.
Chairman
Republican National Committee
3 10 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
April 18, 2007
To date, the Committee has received none of the information referenced above. Although staff met with RNC counsel and has communicated with RNC counsel by phone and email, the RNC still has not identified the "roughly 50" White House officials who held RNC accounts. And despite several requests, the RNC has not provided any details about the number of RNC e-mails sent or received by White House officials. This is elementary information that should already have been provided to the Committee.
Instead of providing this information, the RNC counsel has proposed to limit the Committee's request by using narrow "search terms" to identify e-mails relevant to the Committee's investigation. On Monday, RNC counsel proposed eight search terms, such as "political briefing," "Hatch Act," and "2008." While the "search term" approach was offered in good faith by the RNC counsel, it presents some serious problems. For example, the search terms proposed by the RNC would not have located a January 19,2007, e-mail from an official in Karl Rove's office to an official at the General Services Administration transmitting a copy of Powerpoint slides prepared by the White House that list the top 20 Democratic targets in 2008. That e-mail read: "Please do not email this out or let people see it. It is a close hold and we're not supposed to be emailing it around."'
Using search terms to limit the number of documents to be produced risks overlooking potentially responsive documents. The volume of e-mails involved may make resort to search terms necessary. But before the Committee can assess whether a search-term approach is required in this case - and whether it is required for every White House official or only some of them - the Committee needs basic facts about the scope and nature of the e-mails preserved on RNC servers. The Committee staff reasonably requested a meeting tomorrow to discuss these issues, but this request was unreasonably rejected. In fact, the RNC counsel stated that no meeting would occur until the Committee agreed to limiting search terms. This is not an acceptable proposal.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1
As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."
Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside of the United States {to} commit or attempt to commit torture." Section 2340(1) defines torture as:
an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.
18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). As we outlined in our opinion on standards of conduct under Section 2340A, a violation of 2340A requires a showing that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to inflict severe pain or suffering; and (5) that the act inflicted severe pain or suffering.
Section 2340 is pain that is difficult for the individual to endure and is of an intensity akin to the pain accompanying serious physical injury.
We next consider whether the use of these techniques would inflict severe mental pain or suffering within the meaning of Section 2340. Section 2340 defines severe mental pain or suffering as "the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from" one of several predicate acts. 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2). Those predicate acts are: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that any of the preceding acts will be done to another person. See 18 U,S.C. § 2340(2XA}-{D), As we have explained, this list of predicate acts is exclusive, See Section 2340A Memorandum at 8. No other acts can support a charge under Section 2340A based on the infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. See id. Thus, if the methods that you have described do not either in and of themselves constitute one of these acts or as a course of conduct fulfill the predicate act requirement, the prohibition has not been violated. See id.
Specific Intent. To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture. As we previously opined, to have the required specific intent, an individual must expressly intend to cause such severe pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3 citing Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 267 (2000). We have further found that if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent. See id. at 4 citing South Atl. Lmtd. Ptrshp. of Tenn. v. Reise, 218 F.3d 518, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). A defendant acts in good faith when he has an honest belief that his actions will not result in severe pain or suffering. See id. citing Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991). Although an honest belief need not be reasonable, such a belief is easier to establish where there is a reasonable basis for it. See id. at 5. Good faith may be established by, among other things, the reliance of the advice of experts. See id at 8.
Furthermore, no specific intent to cause severe mental pain or suffering appears to be present. As we explained in our recent opinion, an individual must have the specific intent to cause prolonged mental harm in order to have the specific intent to inflict severe mental pain or suffering. See Section 2340A Memorandum at 3. Prolonged mental harm is substantial mental harm of a sustained duration, e.g~ harm lasting months or even years after the acts were inflicted upon the prisoner. As we indicated above, a good faith belief can negate this element. Accordingly, if an individual conducting the interrogation has a good faith belief that the procedures he will apply, separately or together, would not result in prolonged mental harm, that individual lacks the requisite specific intent. This conclusion concerning specific intent is further bolstered by the due diligence that has been conducted concerning the effects of these interrogation procedures.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/11/29/32970/kristol-medal-torture/
In his new Weekly Standard column, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol lays out a to-do list for President Bush before he leaves office. He urges Bush to deliver speeches reminding Americans of our successes fighting the war on terror. Kristol dreams, Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.
After urging Bush to fight the incoming administrations desire to close Guantanamo, Kristol concludes with this:
One last thing: Bush should consider pardoningand should at least be vociferously praisingeveryone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.
In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and warrantless wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal.
...except unlawful enemy combatants.
Winter, 2007
194 Mil. L. Rev. 66
A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE AND SECURITY: PROSECUTING SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED IN U.S. DETENTION FACILITIES ABROAD
MAJOR PATRICK D. PFLAUM
~snip~
In addition to the considerations set out in the Geneva Conventions, AR 190-8, and the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), there are three {*85} other important factors in determining an appropriate disposition of offenses. First, in the case of unlawful enemy combatants, one of the arguments for leniency--that misconduct is often driven by "honorable motives"--may not apply. n123 A number of those detained are alleged to have participated in some part of the War on Terror as unlawful combatants, and may be seeking to continue their unlawful activities. n124 A detainee's escape and subsequent reunion with hostile forces may have more consequence, considering the nature of the War on Terror. There are several documented cases of released detainees continuing hostile activities against U.S. or coalition forces. n125 Second, the leniency rationale for escape attempts does not necessarily apply either. n126 Considering that he was detained for conduct that is considered illegal under international law, an alien unlawful enemy combatant escaping from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is more akin to a prisoner escaping from a federal penitentiary, rather than a POW escaping from a POW camp. Again, a detainee's escape and continued aggression as an unlawful combatant may be of more consequence, considering the unconventional nature of the War on Terror. Third, it is logical that a disciplinary punishment, like the loss of a comfort item or a privilege, may have more of an impact on a detainee facing indefinite detention or serving a lengthy military commission sentence, rather than continued {*86} confinement adjudged as a judicial punishment. In deciding which punishment is appropriate, many considerations may often conflict.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)blindly follow and attack those that refuse to "sit down and shut up" and join the followers.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)corporatists.
If you don't like it, why don't you join the Socialist Worker's Party?
Ferchrissakes, Martha, it's sarcasm (except for the part about Hillary and the corporatists).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)reminds me of sally fields crying " You like me, you really like me!"
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)larkrake
(1,674 posts)I will always adore him
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Many have been active in the Democratic Party. Don't assume things, please.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)marble falls
(62,047 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)human lives? Maybe letting her imperialistic agenda get the best of her?
She didn't mistakenly trust George and Cheney. She didn't mistakenly believe the embarrassingly bogus intelligence.
I don't believe she thinks she made a mistake. It was a business decision and those corporations that profited have been very generous to her personal fortune.
marble falls
(62,047 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)kids often apologize after doing something wrong even with being told prior, as they get older it becomes technique for doing shit your not supposed to.
Also an old political trick mostly used by the GOP.
Yet a large part of the population can't wrap their grey matter around it.
KPN
(16,101 posts)Too bad so many are blinded by their blind faith and/or idolatry.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)Take a look at her book where she changed 96 pages, going from hard cover to paperback.
Iraq, good faith? What was the reason she destroyed Libya?
Z
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)was unforgivable to me. But the fact that we now have a Presidential candidate under FBI investigation ????? Well....that's unthinkable.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Honduras
Libya
Syria
?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)https://newrepublic.com/article/64828/hillarys-war
MH1
(18,147 posts)If you have to choose between Trump and Hillary in the general election, you'd consider that "a hard choice"?
As in "difficult decision?
Hint: vote straight Democrat. Then you don't have to actually push the button next to Hillary's name.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the consequences. That's the life. Don't bother me with issues because I will always vote for every Democrat that the Powers That Be put before me. I don't care that the system is manipulated to keep the same people (the Powers That Be) in power as long as I can vote Democrat. I don't care that millions can't vote because our system is the worst election system in the modern world.
Is it the blue pill?
PS: For some the hard decision won't be Hillary vs. Trump, but whether to participate in a system that is rigged. The Powers That Be will see that their person is elected in spite of how we vote.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)amen.
MH1
(18,147 posts)that was better for the country than the Democratic party presidential candidate?
If you can mention one in the last half-century, I definitely DON'T want whatever YOU'RE taking.
It's not a matter of not thinking about issues. (By the way, thanks for the insult, cowboy.) It's a matter of knowing when to fight which issues.
By the time you get to the GE it's too late to deal with all that other stuff you mention. In almost all cases, in the GE you have a binary choice. That's it. You want to work on that other stuff? (Which is important, by the way.) You have to work on that IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION. (And in other, non electoral ways ... but that's really hard work.)
Wake the eff up, smell the coffee, and figure out how the world works and how US elections work. If you want to be effective in making progressive change, you need to do that.
Or if you want to keep playing victim, then don't bother.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the hint that the Wealthy might just be manipulating us. Currently we have a political system that is supposed to be two viable parties that strengthen the system by having a strong debate between business interests and the People's interests. But one of the parties has been almost destroyed. So we really only have one choice and that's the corporate sponsored candidate. The progressives have been, not only left out entirely, but demonized. And for what? For wanting to help the People? Those that support the corporate agenda (Clinton) will try to mollify the Left by using pragmatism as their excuse to ignore those suffering. Now they will demand that they are not ignoring the 2.5 million homeless children, they will rationalize their support for Goldman-Sachs and the Koch Bros by saying that we must not ask for too much. They don't want the 2.5 million children to be homeless, they just won't go out of their way to help. Maybe the wealthy will send them some cake.
I am not the victim but I know victims and see them every day. At our foodbank we can afford to give out each family enough food for 3 or 4 days. Many people mistakenly think we feed them. We give them 3 or 4 days worth of food. We also operate a emergency shelter in the winter for the homeless. Maybe those that support the profits for Goldman-Sachs should come and tell the people that they are just being "pragmatic".
If I sound bitter I am. Not as much at the Capitalists (Clinton) but at those that somehow buy the message that supporting the Wealthy 1% will somehow trickle down. As the wealth gap grows wider and wider, the middle and working class have a harder and harder time of helping those struggling.
You do know that Goldman-Sachs has their eye on privatizing Social Security. Well just remember who you supported.
I get my vote and I won't vote for Trump or Clinton. Sorry, I have ethics and I won't have anything to apologize for later.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)If all its content is as good as yours, I might as well join.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)out the attacks from the non-progressive. Please join and contribute.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)little about the Left. They don't "get it out of their systems" and then kowtow, like those making suck demands. We are just getting this movement started. You can try to muffle us and censor us here but we won't sit down and shut up as long as the Big Money that you guys seem to revere so highly, has control of our government. I guess the Big Money makes you comfortable in spite of all the suffering they cause.
democrank
(11,250 posts)"Get it outta your system" is a rather callous way to respond to those of us who are still upset about the Iraq War vote. It reminds me of George Bush`s "now watch this drive" comment immediately after discussing terrorists, which was equally as callous.
I don`t know about your personal military service....like how much combat you`ve participated in or how many limbs you`ve lost, but many of us either have been in combat or have/had loved ones who have. I`d like to see what would have happened if you had said that, face to face, to a combat vet.
~GET IT OUTTA YOUR SYSTEM~
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)are still upset by the Iraq War vote.
You would be incorrect. It is advice to those who pretend to give a shit about anybody who actually suffered.
GeorgeGist
(25,426 posts)Democratic Mainstream; at least until the election is over.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)didn't bite. Hillary had to have been aware of their agenda.
I got into this with a guy on Facebook the other day who argued that "We were all lied to. Hillary too." Oh really? Anyone who knew anything about the neocons knew that once they were in power and had their "new Pearl Harbor," which would scare the shit out of the American people, they'd proceed to invade Iraq. It was never about "weapons of mass destruction." It was always from day one about oil and greed. Hell, the original name for the clusterfuck, Operation Iraqi Liberation, spelled it out. And Hillary went along.
Robert Kagan's current support for Hillary is telling. He must know she's a kindred spirit, sympathetic to the good old days of the New American Century. Trump is less predictable and all over the map.
Either way, it's shaping up to be a Sophie's Choice election. No good options.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)presumably she thought they were all picnickers
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)argument imaginable. She trusted ghouls like Cheney and Rumsfeld to tell the truth? If so, her judgment flat out sucks, and I'd go so far as to question her sanity. If she knew the reasons given were pure bullshit and voted for it anyway, that says she's evil -- willing to destabilize a country and kill hundreds of thousands for profit. Either way, this is a woman who should never be trusted to intelligently direct US foreign policy.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)he was too incompetent to be president
at least the GOP dumped him 1987-94, instead of running Nancy in 2004 ...
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)astrologist making policy decisions. Sad thing is the dumbasses who make up the bulk of the electorate would have voted for her.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)she even manipulated Reagan into warming up to Gorbachev while the other Birchers were running around yelling "Stalinist" and trying to invade Cuba
Nancy was CCed on everything important and nothing went past Ronnie's signature that I've read at the NARA part of the Library: Edith Wilson 2.0
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Uncle Joe
(60,130 posts)Thanks for the thread, rhett o rick.
NoMoreRepugs
(10,513 posts)unless all the whiners stay home and don't vote - then the reshaping of everything by the Repubs will make it all the more difficult for reform, election or the advancement of progressive Democratic ideals and candidates...
whole lot of people here need to grow a pair...(excuse the vulgarity ladies)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)and to back the most powerful and influential people, right or wrong.
It is HARD to go against the MIC, the Pentagon and alphabet and private industries invested in war and armed to the teeth and the most powerful people in the WORLD. It is HARD to stand up for human rights when the status quo continually reduces the value of life overseas and domestically. It is HARD to attempt to turn the tsunami size tides against going to yet another war for profit. It is HARD to stand against the banks, the big families, the secret organizations, the prison industrial complex, Big Pharma, Monsanto, Big Oil and lobbyists who are too invested in our government policies. It is HARD to stand up against corruption that threatens all life.
It is HARD to face climate change and all the work this country should be doing to prepare for it, to rebuild our infrastructure and work toward healing our lands from the soil up so it holds the most water. It is HARD to clean up the pollution we have created, and it is hard to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the messes we have created.
HARD CHOICES are NOT going along with the status quo--it is a cop out. .
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)A politician that conforms to the will of the people. That is Hillary Clinton.
She was also not the rogue Democrat in the US Senate that conformed to the overwhelming will of the people (72-73% supported that war). She was a Senator from New York, the state that was still reeling from the effects of the tragedy of 9/11 and the ridiculous mania that followed it. The people she represented was eating up having our rights being restricted, and to this day there's still a large number of dumbasses who believe that Iraq actually had something to do with 9/11.
Look at this list:
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
How many people, last year were hoping for Biden to jump in? Funny I don't recall anyone jumping on his vote.
I challenge anyone who has made claims that THIS is their main reason for not supporting Hillary to show me their post from 2004 when John Kerry was running for president condemning him for his Iraq war vote? Please do show me where I'm wrong.
Oh, 2004 is too long ago? How about any of you righteous crusaders of St. Bernard show me where your 2008 post condemning John Edwards vote is?
In 2003, 72-73% of Americans supported that fucking war, and 58% of sitting Democratic Party Senators were a "yes" on that vote. Yet Hillary is the only one anyone seems to have issue with... but sure, that's the "reason".
It's ridiculously touted that Bernie is some kind of righteous crusader for having voted against the war.. He was a representative of Vermont, he was no leader, and likely his own constituency supported his vote... Just like Hillary's supported hers. Had he been a Senator of New York at the time, and voted against the hugely popular measure at the time, THAT would have been revolutionary!
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)How disgusting is it that 38% of Americans STILL believe that the war was the right decision?!?!
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not a word about bad judgment or being warmongers.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)misguided "Patriots" and fox viewers were convinced Sadam worked with al queda supported the war, and kids who couldnt find a job joined.
I dont know where you got those numbers, but they are laughably wrong
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Gallop 2003:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx
Pew 2003-2008:
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
Poll Reveals Americans supporter Iraq war in 2003 far more than they admit today:
http://reason.com/poll/2014/10/16/poll-reveals-americans-supported-iraq-wa
USA Today: "By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm
Council on foreign relations:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/most-americans-support-war-iraq-shows-new-pewcfr-poll---commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051
Just because the facts don't fit your narrative doesn't change the facts.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)In fact, most are run by corporations. Everyone I knew were against it then and now. I would expect an immediate reactionary response, but shifting to Iraq from Afghanistan was not met well, unless half the population were Fox viewers, so we agree to disagree.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Fair enough, your opinion trumps overwhelming and varied evidence.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)it is not her vote, it is the speech trumpeting the urgency to go into Iraq, echoing the neo-cons chants . She believed every lie they told her, she does not think for herself, never has and I suspect she will be easily manipulated by the neos in Washington in the future as she has in the past
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Then perhaps you can show me your anti Kerry posts making the same calims during his campaign run? He also gave one hell of a floor speech supporting the resolution:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4398929/sen-kerry-iraq-war-authorization-speech-9oct02
Oh? Nothing from you condemning Kerry of 2004? How about Edwards of 2008? He also gave one strong case of a speech to support his yes vote:
So.. What was your argument again?
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Your argument was wrong.
Your assertion was wrong.
Your "she made a speech" failed to make any exceptional statement that seperates opposition to her vs opposition to other, prior presidential candidates that have ran since this infamous vote, so oversimplify it to being just about "this" primary.
Yep, my original post in this subthread stands. Thank you for illustrating and reinforcing my original point.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)invasion as a business oppurtunity and has zero empathy for the million that died and many times more whose lives were ruined.
For the record I didn't support Kerry or Edwards or any other turn coat bastard that groveled before Bush.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)1. She was wrong. Has admitted to it. So was the majority of Dem Senators. So was the vast majority of the country.
2. It matters because it frames the whole background of the event. It also exposes the hypocracy where there was almost no mention at all about John Kerry's vote in 2004, or John Edwards vote in his run in 2008. Two other POTUS candidates, who made the same wrong vote, who also made very imposing speeches before the Senate supporting that war, yet so much silence on their vote. Hmmm, I wonder.. What could be so different about those 2 candidates and Hillary? Very curious.
3. "Zero empathy" is a ridiculous assertion on your part, but that's your opinion and you're absolutely entitled to it. Of course I'm entitled to mine that yours is ridiculous.
4. With absolutely no snark intended, much respect to your consistancy in not supporting Kerry or Edwards. I am left with the lingering and original question though.. You've been very vocal (well at least in writing) about your disdain for Hillary, and the Iraq war vote has been one of your 2 biggest issues that I've read about.
Fair enough.
You've been a member since 2005. Perhaps you can drudge up even a single post you've made in all those years decrying the other 2 "yes" votes that have run for president? Just one? Surely if this is your conerstone issue of opposition, your passion and dedication to this cause can drum up a single post decrying Kerry for his vote, or Edwards during the 2008 campaign season for his?
At least that would make you one of the few truly consistent people on this issue.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I used to see mitigating circumstances that I thought helped explain it. Not so much anymore.
ReRe
(10,775 posts)You're right, rhett o rick. It was a seminal moment. It was the decision of her life and she completely and totally blew it. It was a moral decision. It was a decision of conscience. It was the decision of her life that defined her. Hillary does not have the gut conviction of a real Democrat. She goes along to get along, to get ahead.
And yet, because of doing what she did, she may become the President of the United States. I guess if you want something bad enough, it doesn't matter how you get it? Whaaaaat? I can NOT go along with that line of thinking. It does matter HOW you arrive at your goal in life. If you get there by hook or by crook. If you lie, cheat, steal, play the game and only think of yourself to get there.
Character does matter.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Cheney and rest of the blood thirsty Fascist savages didn't fool me. They didn't fool me even though the television was full of Pravda like propaganda. They didn't fool tens of millions of us.
Rockyj
(538 posts)that pushed and/or voted for the war in Iraq can sleep at night!
All the innocent lives lost, service men & women who died, and/or come back with PTSD, head injuries and maimed for life.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)human life. Every day 21 vets commit suicide. Thanks Hillary.
GeorgeGist
(25,426 posts)GOOD CHOICES.