2 Super 2 Tuesday |OT| I'm Really Feeling (The Bern) (3/15, 3/22, 3/26 Contests)
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
She voted in FAVOR of the Iraq War Resolution, which turned out to be an insanely huge debacle, and ultimately led to the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers. This is one of the major reasons I voted for Obama over Hillary back in 2008. Not to mention that the war was obviously based on a lie. I don't want a trigger-happy president in office who will just lie in order to take over another country.
Well, if you believe that, you don't have a choice anyway.
Wafflecakes
Member
If only we had a psychic such as yourself to tell us back then.
Pretending that it was cut and dried is a gross deception.
I used to think my brother had a choice to not die in Iraq. I no longer think that is true.
I mean you completely missed the point of my post. If he doesn't want a trigger happy president, well he doesn't have a choice, because Bernie isn't going to be the nom.
He votes for Hillary, or Trump/Cruz ect. Or votes for nobody ...
I think I read Hillary was anti war back when Bill was in office? I mean she is obviously the least likely to be war happy ...
Not voting for her over this issue and potentially letting someone in far worse (on said issue) is silly.
lol are we really doing this? Are we really defending all of the BS (aka LIES) Bush used to prop up his war position?
No we're saying that the senators and congressmen/women who voted for the Iraq war were also lied to.
And if you really think Hillary is even in the same universe as Bush when it comes to hawkishness you're deluding yourself. Hillary will not start another war in the middle east. The ones that are still ongoing are reason enough.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Scrutinizing the black voting bloc isn't a racist "dog whistle" because you disagree with it and labeling it as such is about the laziest deflection possible. The motivations of every bloc are scrutinized and Hillary's positions on a variety of issues have been and still are very harmful to minority communities. Despite her positions, she is overwhelmingly supported by the minority community and people have a right to ask why that is. You can disagree with their reasoning but you and people like you need to stop with this bullshit habit of labeling every perceived criticism of black voting habits as proof positive of some nefarious racist subtext from closeted bigots. This community has become entirely too comfortable with casually labeling people and their motivations as racist without a second's hesitation.
Given your apparent distaste for even entertaining the notion that some black voters could be "low information", is it your belief that the black voting bloc is somehow the first group of voters in history that is perfectly educated on all candidates, cognizant of all issues, and impervious to manipulation?
Democratic. It's perfectly OK to assert that poor, white Republican voters are voting against their interests as you'll see that done to great acclaim quite often here.
Saying that voters of color must be poorly informed or they'd vote for Sanders is not the same as asking why voters of color vote for Hillary.
Frankly, even that is pretty dumb. You have the right to ask all kinds of dumb questions, but if you're not actually interested in doing your own legwork, you have no real reason to expect an answer.
This is a really poor strawman argument as well. Nobody is suggesting that voters of color are perfect, just that they're no more "low information" than any other voters. Suggesting that the reason you don't win a demographic is that they're ignorant is straightforwardly arrogant, and moreover, when used against voters of color, a dog whistle. It's not something we made up -- people have been arguing that black people are too stupid to deserve the vote for literally the entire history of this country. Frankly, that shouldn't need explanation, and I'm a little disappointed that you would pretend it does.
I have rarely seen it done around here. Generally when I do see it, I complain about it, much in the same manner that people complain when others make the same suggestion about everybody that doesn't vote for Bernie.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
There have been several posters on this very board who have outright stated that blacks were voting against their interests because Sanders didn't pull numbers. You may not have kept up or cared, but we remember.
You think you read!?! How about you go and fucking read what she has to say about iran and the 60000 American troops it's going to take to secure a no fly zone in Syria.
What does least likely exactly mean in warmonger speak? Hundreds dead not thousands?
Shameful at the amount of democrats patting themselves on the back for being progressive while they shrug their shoulders to sending kids off to die in a country for no good fucking reason other then for their own peace of mind for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Nobody's shrugging their shoulders, and suggesting that the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is "peace of mind" is frankly far more self-absorbed than anything anybody has posted about the Middle East.
Karsticles
Member
Even at the age of 20, I knew it was cut and dry.
It's one thing to be lied to. It's quite another to be presented flimsy, dubious information (by an war-hungry Republican) and not bat an eye.
This was information used to go to war. They weren't trying to find out who took ass pics on the copy machine. If you can't take time out of your day to question, scrutinize, and examine something that could potentially risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers, then you are dangerously irresponsible and I want nothing to do with you.
And this is assuming that she didn't already know.
The rest of the world figured out he was lying, and we were under no obligation to scrutinize anything. Her alleged ignorance is not an excuse.
She OK'd 1 stupid, needless war. This isn't a 3 strikes and you're out deal. 1 was quite enough for me.
On Libya? Yeah I read it. Libya/=/Iraq. The situations were completely different. And yeah Libya turned out pretty bad, but if the US did nothing, it would have turned out like Syria. I'm not sure which you would rather have but Libya now looks a hell of a lot better than Syria now.
I'm not saying we did nothing wrong, but it's erroneous to say because Clinton acted one way in Libya, then ground troops will be deployed in the middle east or something.
I've tried this many times. People don't listen. They assume everybody who supports Bernie is an unbridled shitbag. It's kind of offensive, but hey, what are you gonna do. It ain't worth trying anymore. They'll get over it and calm down eventually.
Clinton wanted to go into Syria, and Libya. She got one of her two wishes. Nor am I saying Libya is Iraq; those are your words, not mine.
But the notion that Clinton wouldn't start a war/intervention in another Middle Eastern country is false, and contradicted by accounts in the administration and reports. She would've if she had her way.
Well it's no big deal now that we keep electing politicians who vote for war. If it's not for piece of mind, then please tell me why we are still electing those who voted for Iraq? It's obvious that the soldiers who died in Iraq don't really fucking matter to the people who reelect the politicians that voted for the war, that goes for Republicans and Democrats.
What do we call democrats who don't give a shit about war now? Progressive
I don't think the presence of superdelegates and a crowded race would have made a Democrat Trump unviable a lot earlier. A major premise for Republican nominations was that "The Party Decides", based on endorsements of the Republican establishment. In a crowded race, if the "establishment" vote was split and an outsider was winning the most, I think the system would have been disrupted just the same. The ease of raising money online has meant candidates can be viable (in terms of supporting a campaign with money) without needing establishment support.
I don't think a "last minute changing of the rules" versus an "institutional antidemocratic establishment" rule would make a difference.
Constant and perpetual negative press by the Republican party is paying dividends. She's not perfect, but the GOP has somehow convinced the world that she's the devil despite possibly being the most respected woman in the free world.
I wanted Bernie and if somehow against all odds he became the nominee, I'd be ecstatic. But Hillary is a great choice, and doesn't deserve 90% of the hate spewed her way.
I'm not going to debate the semantics of the Iraq war. It's important to remember that:
A) this was right after 9/11 and Hillary was a senator from NY.
B) the rest of the world didn't figure out he was lying. They refused to pass the security council resolution because of a lack of evidence, not because they figured out he was lying.
C)The evidence of Bushes lies didn't fully become clear until two years after the fact.
It's easy to say one should have or should not have voted for the Iraqi invasion in hindsight. It's a lot harder to put yourself in the moment and say the same thing. Hillary wasn't the only democrat to vote for the war, over half the democratic senators did as well.
Furthermore voting for a war isn't the same thing as being the one that is lying about the war. Is it a stain in her record? YES. Do I wish that she had not voted yea? YES. Does that make her a bloodthirsty warhawk that will put troops on the ground in a foreign county as president. NO.
And the most important thing is by not voting for Hillary, you are either directly (if you vot for Trump), or indirectly (if you don't vote) supporting someone who made it a campaign promise to commit war crimes when he becomes president.
Ok, then, but the fact is Bernie (and many others) voted against the war. He had the sight to see what would happen, and wouldn't you rather want someone who actually thinks about things like war before committing to some really reactionary decisions? Seriously, its a goddamn war, no "whoopsies", and Clinton voted for it.
And none of this about supporting war crimes stuff, because I can turn that kind of logic on its head and say "if you vote for Clinton or don't vote for Sanders you are directly or indirectly supporting the disenfranchisement of the lower and middle classes."
Primethius
Banned
Is Tesseract some sort of joke account that I've missed out on?
Don't want to put people on ignore mistakenly.
Don't want to put people on ignore mistakenly.
Tesseract
Banned
Sure. While I disagree with some of Sanders near isolationist policy, and his dumb plan to fight ISIS with a coilition of Arab nations, on this issue Sanders was 100% right. But one vote a decade ago is not the make or break as far as me supporting a candidate or not.
And even though I supported Sanders on the issue, it doesn't cause me to want to vomit when I think about voting for clinton.
But this conversation isn't going anywhere. I just wanted to know why he hated Clinton so much, and he has a reason, as much as I disagree with it.
Gahh I've posted too much. If anyone responds I'll respond in about an hour with a larger post.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
I've done my legwork. Unlike many people here, I remember the politics of the 90's and all of the shameless pandering that the Clintons did to attract racist Republicans in Congress in order to build political capital for other endeavors. I remember the unequal treatment in criminal sentencing and I remember the extreme spike in minority imprisonment due to that unequal treatment. I remember welfare reform and the hugely destructive impact that it had on already-disadvantaged communities.
Since we're being frank, let me just say that your third paragraph has zero logical consistency. You acknowledge that black voters are just as susceptible to subversive tactics or misinformation yet continue on to say that anyone who questions their motivation for supporting a candidate is perpetuating a racist dog whistle. Claiming that something is a strawman, crafting one of your own, and then doing exactly what I claimed you would do isn't a good way of making your case. I never claimed that black voters were any more or less informed as other voting blocs: I merely asserted the reality that low-information black voters exist and that questioning the impact of that reality in the primary doesn't make you a closet racist. That said, I believe asserting that all of the voters who chose Clinton over Sanders due to being low-information can be reasonably classified as a dog whistle.
I'm perfectly aware that there are any number of reasons why black voters would support Hillary over Bernie even if they were aware of his record and most of them are largely pragmatic. I'm personally at a point at my life where I want to see a candidate fight for everything that progressives claim to want across the board: universal healthcare, universal education, mandatory living wages, an end to corporate welfare, an end to the private prison industry, an end to the Drug War, and so on. I'd rather someone go for the moonshot and lose than stand on a chair and remark at how far we'd come. There is never going to be a safe time to try it and I do not believe that the middle and lower-income demographics of this country can survive another three decades of what we've seen for the past three.
BudokaiMR2
Member
It's Bernie after he combines with AlphaGo to create a liberal hive mind that also has a penchant for board games.
It's the concept of another Bernie-like far left candidate coming along in future elections, because let's face it, an 82-year-old man will not be running in 2024.
Tesseract is a national treasure, that's what he is.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
The merciless mocking of Bernie supporters has to stop. We need them in the general.
Making them feel like they aren't welcome in the party anymore helps no one.
Making them feel like they aren't welcome in the party anymore helps no one.
They only get mocked when they post bullshit. Not just for the sake of it.
His fourth dimensional brain sees Sanders winning, but only in certain timelines.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Who's being mocked other than those knee deep in revisionist history, veiled racism/classism, or posts devoid of reason?
I understand the concept, but people seem to be throwing around Bernie 2.0 like it is a sure thing to come around after Hillary (like immediately after her term ends).
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
Those aren't the only cases in which they're mocked. I've seen some vile unprovoked reactions when they were just asking about delegate math.
HillGAF's mythical creation aimed at assuaging BernieGAF that Clinton is socialist America's secret savior.
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
It's looking like that's the future of the party. The biggest roadblock (the obstructionist legislature) should be gone by the end of Hillary's term if liberal people are responsible and vote.
This is silly. Anyone who wants the left to move more towards democratic socialism has it in their interest for a Bernie 2.0 to appear in eight years.
I don't need to, because once again you miss the point entirely. There is no way Hillary is worse on this issue than Republicans. How do you even know I'm pro war/sending troops to Libya?
Bernie will not be the nominee. That guy abstaining from voting which could lead to a worse warmonger in charge makes no sense. THAT was my point.
If you bothered to read.
Oh you.jpg
You're just making excuses for her. The fact remains that she OK'd a war -- a war based on BS information that everyone was saying was untrue. I'm not going to waste my time and go point-by-point with you (something Hillary should have done before she sent troops to Iraq) just because you want to fight tooth and nail on something that everyone else is in agreement on. If you knew anything about this issue, you would already know that the "facts" were dubious (aka LIES) when they were made. Anyone who had an Internet connection (or access to CNN/MSNBC) knew it.
Not really. As the primaries show, and many NeoGAFers are keen to point out, there's nothing particularly indicating that a Bernie-ish platform is the future of the Democratic party's platform in particular (cue info graph showing Americans' favorability of atheists and socialists here). Otherwise, he'd have been more competitive and won a bigger share of the primates thus far and people wouldn't be so dismissive of the ideas behind his campaign. You can't have it both ways.
All we've learned so far is that the future of the Democratic party is in staunch opposition to the current Republican party. This is pretty much coming down to an election against Trump than for much of anything.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
"everyone" at the time was for the war, alot of people were upset, she voted yes to it because the people wanted it.
nitekrawlwer
Member
Many of them are quick to deride the party themselves and view the Democrat's hard work as nothing more than "political games". Despite healthcare, affordable college having been on the agenda for years. They don't want to associate themselves with the party. Not the other way around.
Not listening to logic and math is worthy of derision be it on the left or the right.
If this isn't proof you have a clear ignorance of the nuanced history of what lead up to the Iraq war and why BOTH the public and congress voted for it, then I don't know what will.
- Status