Support NeoGAF

[danm999]

Not work together to create a democratic state, or even to help Syria, but to take on ISIS, as it poses a threat to both nations. They essentially don't have a choice. They have to deal with this growing problem, whether together or not. But the US can certainly attempt to broker relations.

What occurs in the aftermath is a separate consideration, but the situation certainly cannot be left as is, I think both would agree on that.

You are vastly overstating the threat ISIS poses to both Saudi Arabia and especially Iran at present.

They will not act against ISIS unless there is a benefit for them, and given they're regional enemies each attempting to spread their influence via a series of proxy wars in the Middle East (check out what's going on in Yemen at the moment) the idea they'll play nice is not feasible.

 

[Lemaitre]

I don't know why you can't get this but;
Knowledge and Experience help prepare you for an unknown future.

That you posit that it does not is baffling and amusing.

Your false equation is more puzzling quite honestly.

General knowledge about the global events of today preparing one for unforseen events of the future is what we were talking about.

You brought up licensure which is learning specific/tangible actions in order to use an automobile or airplane. In one situation not having the knowledge can get you killed (crash) and in the other not knowing it can....what exactly?

Knowing the complexity of our relationship with Russia won't help us with some unpredictable event that's years off and on no one's radar.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Absolutely. And on this subject, I didn't hear a question about drone strikes, the ignoring of horrific collateral damage, and the questionable practice of naming all combat age males killed in these strikes as enemy casualties. Was one asked? I would assume that Hillary would continue the expansion of these, as we've seen under Obama?

Because as nasty as it sounds, no one cares about foreigners dying. When coffins start coming back in the stars and stripes people sing a different tune very quickly.

 

[Psychoward]

Absolutely. And on this subject, I didn't hear a question about drone strikes, the ignoring of horrific collateral damage, and the questionable practice of naming all combat age males killed in these strikes as enemy casualties. Was one asked? I would assume that Hillary would continue the expansion of these, as we've seen under Obama?

Yes, from what I've read on the subject she's very pro-drone, moreso than Obama.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think that's the correct lens through which to view Russia's actions. We're talking about the future right, and what Russia is likely to do. Hillary and others have said it. There's worry about the Baltic states and other countries.

My point is we can't only look at Russia's distasteful tactics here. We have to look at what they're trying to do. And it seems that they're simply trying to retain a portion of their former ally.

If that's the case, the threat is limited to Ukraine and there's little reason to think Russia has designs on other countries.

Russia probably sees their actions as defensive, and as maintaining the balance of power with the West. If not, then Putin certainly seems to have slow walked his plans for Continental domination so far. What's taking the guy so long?

Also, let's keep in mind that Western sanctions have been totally ineffective. So not only has the US jeopardized US-Russian relations, they've done it while totally failing to deter Russia's actions there. When are Western leaders going to be held to account for their failure to deter this supposedly expansionist Russia?

The non-interventionists are not in charge. The neocons and liberal hawks, as far as i can tell, are still calling the shots. Yet they produce nothing but failure. You'd think with the amount of security threats they've identified in the world they'd get one of them right. But nothing.

What do you think they are doing now? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35476180
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/europe/eastern-europe-us-military.html

No really knows what Putin as in plans for other nations, but the Russian military has violated airspace, kidnapped an Estonia that was part of the military in their own country, used threatening language, I think used naval ships as posturing, military buildup on borders of other countries, constantly lied about Ukraine, etc. It really doesn't matter though, what matters is that many people feel threatened. Russia isn't going to invaded now because the US as a military presence there, but they have conducted some form of tactics that isn't conventional warfare http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32741688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd3dM2IuMc8.

 

[BowieZ]

I don't know why you can't get this but;
Knowledge and Experience help prepare you for an unknown future.

That you posit that it does not is baffling and amusing.

That you don't understand that shallow knowledge and bad experience (along with myopic judgment) can help prepare you poorly for an unknown future is actually what's baffling and amusing.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Drones are ultimately a result of partisan politics. It's a terrible choice but the alternative is American soldier deaths in supposedly dangerous territory which can be seen as just as "bad".

I'm not sure what the better solution is here.

Probably, yea.

So do we just never tax Wall Street then, or even try? Just curious.

Because if you're already giving up before even trying...

No, but it's certainly an idea for later. I do like that he's bringing up the idea now though. This political climate is still too polarized for such an idea (and as mentioned above, SCOTUS needs to be more liberal), but having someone popular bring it up now means it could be brought up again later as time passes on.

 

[cheezcake]

I support Bernie, but Hilldawg's has excellent debate skills (irregardless if you agree with her or not),

I think she's an excellent politician. These things aren't a good way to gauge actual debate skills as they're not even close to a proper formal debate. If Clinton gave these same responses in a formal debate she'd likely get destroyed by the opposition pointing out every time she attempts to deflect and misdirect a question. Bernie wouldn't fair better, he'd just get scored poorly when he resorts to his stump speech in response to every question.

 

[BowieZ]

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

 

[Dragmire]

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

Sanders supporters are the American people and his support is swelling. That the establishment is afraid of him is not a new story.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Sanders supporters are the American people and his support is swelling. That the establishment is afraid of him is not a new story.

The establishment is afraid of him because he is splitting the democratic establishment in a period where the republicans are on the verge of sweeping every level of government.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

Claire McCaskill is literally the most liberal person that can be elected from Missouri, a state that Obama lost by 10 points. Thinking like this will ensure that the Democrats remain a minority party for decades.

 

[magnifico]

This is more than a campaign for president, Sanders is leading a political movement.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This is more than a campaign for president, Sanders is leading a political movement.

Wasn't enough in Iowa.

 

[Dragmire]

I think she's an excellent politician. These things aren't a good way to gauge actual debate skills as they're not even close to a proper formal debate. If Clinton gave these same responses in a formal debate she'd likely get destroyed by the opposition pointing out every time she attempts to deflect and misdirect a question. Bernie wouldn't fair better, he'd just get scored poorly when he resorts to his stump speech in response to every question.

Agreed. And was I the only one that thought she kept stammering and speaking on the defensive, at times being offensive to redirect the discussion? I thought this was her worst debate. She got style points in the early debates from the media, and somehow avoided criticism for some pretty incorrect statements (invoking LGBT rights twice last time to address equality when she only recently came around on gay marriage and supported DOMA, etc). But now that the discussion is more about policy and history and Sanders has refused to take the bait (even from her) to attack Clinton, she is not doing as well.

 

[rex]

What do you think they are doing now? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35476180
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/europe/eastern-europe-us-military.html

No really knows what Putin as in plans for other nations, but the Russian military has violated airspace, kidnapped an Estonia that was part of the military in their own country, used threatening language, I think used naval ships as posturing, military buildup on borders of other countries, constantly lied about Ukraine, etc. It really doesn't matter though, what matters is that many people feel threatened. Russia isn't going to invaded now because the US as a military presence there, but they have conducted some form of tactics that isn't conventional warfare http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32741688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd3dM2IuMc8.

But none of that helps Ukraine or the people caught in this pointlessly destructive war.

I understand that now the US and its allies will implement all of these actions in reaction to Ukraine, but that just underscores how little they're actually doing to help end the violence that's happening right now, or to mollify Russia's concerns about its own security.

As you point out, no one knows what Putin will do. It's the $64,000 question. But the list of charges as it were against Putin is extremely minor in the grand scheme of things.

The US has spent 15 years believing that the risks of doing something, anything, weigh less than the risks of doing nothing. The US has interpreted its adversaries' actions in the worst possible light, and always as some first step towards larger and more nefarious goals. The US has brought about its own worst nightmares in an effort to head them off.

This is the core problem with Hillary. She's extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. But she buys into all of these assumptions about Iran and Russia and whoever else and those assumptions are very questionable. And the president does it a lot too to be fair. And Sanders as well. But less so than Clinton, I think (see his answer tonight on Iran).

Violations of airspace. Kidnappings in the Baltics. This is not exactly the makings of a new Soviet empire. That's not to say that these aren't problems. But let's keep them in perspective, and understand both the limitations of Western responses to Russia as well as the fact that Russia may itself feel threatened, rightly or wrongly, by the Western powers.

I think the US should strive for good relations with Russia. To the extent it can, it should be pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine in order to stave off further loss of life. Ukraine's loss of territorial integrity, I'm sorry, it's not that critical. If one believes it portends further depredations, then it might make sense to oppose Russia on this issue.

But that seems to me to be nothing but one of those suspicious assumptions that always comes down in favor of assuming the absolute worst intentions in an opponent with very little evidence backing it up.

 

[Elfforkusu]

I don't know why you can't get this but;
Knowledge and Experience help prepare you for an unknown future.

That you posit that it does not is baffling and amusing.

So I should've voted for McCain in '08?

 

[Ogrekiller]

This is more than a campaign for president, Sanders is leading a political movement.

That is at least 4 years premature.

Baby boomers are still very much alive, in power, and willing to turn out reliably to vote.

History will prove him right but his sense of timing could not be any worse, depending on how soon the GOP gets their act together.

 

[cheezcake]

Forget about republicans who won't negotiate with anyone, Bernie is increasingly being hated by Democrats in congress for his constant criticism of their progressiveness


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...sanders-senate-democrats-218751#ixzz3zGOMODc8

It's a worrying disconnect when the distribution of opinions among your representatives so poorly match the distribution of opinions among their constituency.

 

[magnifico]

Wasn't enough in Iowa.

That was a caucus where many of that base was at work or at class, had no access to a ballot box and had to physically be there to raise their hands in a 2 hour window where mostly retired people participate in. Let's see how he does in an actual primary with all-day and early voting access.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is more than a campaign for president, Sanders is leading a political movement.

Sadly, no. Is this political movement recruiting and supporting candidates for House, senate, and state races? No. Is it trying to organize workers to join a union? No. Is it mobilizing to demonstrate and pressure politicians on issues? No.

Bernie's "political movement" begins and ends with electing Bernie Sanders.

 

[Suikoguy]

So I should've voted for McCain in '08?

Yes, if that was all that mattered.
Then again, McCain changed that election.

 

[Plasticine]

Claire McCaskill is literally the most liberal person that can be elected from Missouri, a state that Obama lost by 10 points. Thinking like this will ensure that the Democrats remain a minority party for decades.

You don't understand. When Bernie is elected, he'll signal a political revolution that will flip the conservative states into progressive wonderlands that will elect people just as liberal as Bernie. Claire McCaskill will get primaried out because she wasn't pure enough and a pure progressive will take her place.

Spoiler

In reality, Bernie gets curb stomped in the general and the Republicans take complete control of the government.

 

[boiled goose]

What a debate. Fiery start. Boring middle. Ok end.

It is amazing how much Bernie has influenced the Democratic primary. The entire first portion of the weight loss about campaign finance reform. It was all about Hillary having to defend her record regarding her donations. Would people be talking about this if bernie wasn't in the race? Of course not. Im this sense has already made a humongous impact in American politics.

Hillary was playing a bit dirty which is unfortunate.

She also said something terribly damaging in my opinion that bernie do not really capitalize on. She said people in Wall Street make smart investments. Well in that case it seems that donating to her is a smart investment. Not influenced? My ass.


Foreign policy was boring and pretty bland to be honest. It is clear that Hillary has a lot more experience and feels more comfortable talking about this topic. However Sanders point about judgement regarding Iraq is a fair one. I still haven't turned Hillary really explain why she voted for war. To me it is actually a bad sign. In makes her seem like she does what the establishment want and does not stand up for principles.

Both did well in parts. Both had weak points.

The winner to me was progressives.

 

[onipex]

Sadly, no. Is this political movement recruiting and supporting candidates for House, senate, and state races? No. Is it trying to organize workers to join a union? No. Is it mobilizing to demonstrate and pressure politicians on issues? No.

Bernie's "political movement" begins and ends with electing Bernie Sanders.

That is exactly how I feel about this and is the main reason I haven't supported him. All Bernie is doing is feeding into the anger that people already have with the system. It's the same thing Trump is doing and the main difference for me is I agree with Bernie. There no political revolution, because he isn't starting one. What he has is a great campaign slogan and a platform that most on the left are going to agree with. Him calling it a revolution is just his "yes we can" line.

 

[Abinash117]

But none of that helps Ukraine or the people caught in this pointlessly destructive war.

I understand that now the US and its allies will implement all of these actions in reaction to Ukraine, but that just underscores how little they're actually doing to help end the violence that's happening right now, or to mollify Russia's concerns about its own security.

As you point out, no one knows what Putin will do. It's the $64,000 question. But the list of charges as it were against Putin is extremely minor in the grand scheme of things.

The US has spent 15 years believing that the risks of doing something, anything, weigh less than the risks of doing nothing. The US has interpreted its adversaries' actions in the worst possible light, and always as some first step towards larger and more nefarious goals. The US has brought about its own worst nightmares in an effort to head them off.

This is the core problem with Hillary. She's extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. But she buys into all of these assumptions about Iran and Russia and whoever else and those assumptions are very questionable. And the president does it a lot too to be fair. And Sanders as well. But less so than Clinton, I think (see his answer tonight on Iran).

Violations of airspace. Kidnappings in the Baltics. This is not exactly the makings of a new Soviet empire. That's not to say that these aren't problems. But let's keep them in perspective, and understand both the limitations of Western responses to Russia as well as the fact that Russia may itself feel threatened, rightly or wrongly, by the Western powers.

I think the US should strive for good relations with Russia. To the extent it can, it should be pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine in order to stave off further loss of life. Ukraine's loss of territorial integrity, I'm sorry, it's not that critical. If one believes it portends further depredations, then it might make sense to oppose Russia on this issue.

But that seems to me to be nothing but one of those suspicious assumptions that always comes down in favor of assuming the absolute worst intentions in an opponent with very little evidence backing it up.

You can't afford to do nothing. Simply put because it will set something dangerous precedent down the line and Russia's actions threaten the nations it borders and in which case NATO. There isn't no assumptions being made with anyone these are the very real feelings that many European feel and the US, with all the actions and evidence of what Russia is doing they have very little reason to act nice. Usually you do not act nice to some that is literal going against your interest and is threatening you on your border. There is no " Let's talk with Russia to stop" because Russia has no reason to listen or are stopping would hamper their goals .

You do not negotiate to countries with no power or actual threats you can dish out because they have no reason to stop if you are weak. I do not think that ever happened in history and as sure as hell not happened recently. The Iranian deal only happen because Iran was weakened with the sanctions, that is a fact. Otherwise what would be the reason to stop their nuclear program when nothing is threatening them? You need a position of power to make anyone stop doing anything. The point of the sanctions is to pressure them with implementing the deal in Ukraine, but the peace deal has not been done completely so the sanctions will stay in place. The Russian economy will still be in pressure because of that until the deal is completed. You are talking from a position of ignorance of what is going on in the ground in Ukraine and is what is actually happening between the west and Russia. Russia has ambitions that is not something that some European nations don;t want to see realized and Russia has done nothing to reassure that feeling it made it worse. They also have no reason to believe Russia. Asking nicely hardly ever solved anything and you will be struggling to prove that worked ever in foreign conflicts or disputes .

 

[boiled goose]

That is exactly how I feel about this and is the main reason I haven't supported him. All Bernie is doing is feeding into the anger that people already have with the system. It's the same thing Trump is doing and the main difference for me is I agree with Bernie. There no political revolution, because he isn't starting one. What he has is a great campaign slogan and a platform that most on the left are going to agree with. Him calling it a revolution is just his "yes we can" line.

This may in fact ultimately be the case but to say it at this point is unfair imo. We dont know what a person like Bernie does from the white house and bully pulpit.

Obama wanted a legacy of compromise. Bernie wants a legacy of participation and real representation.

 

[Ogrekiller]

This may in fact ultimately be the case but to say it at this point is unfair imo. We dont know what a person like Bernie does from the white house and bully pulpit.

Obama wanted a legacy of compromise. Bernie wants a legacy of participation and real representation.

But his actions are hardly indicative of that so far.

Not endorsing other democrats as an independent.
Not raising any money for down ballot candidates.
Not building a structure that really outlasts him if he were to leave.
He's using the democratic platform as a springboard for advancing his platform yet he has done very little to integrate himself into the party.

He talks big but he has not demonstrated any form of building his revolution while he was acting as senator. Even if his legacy remains it is tarnished by the fact he constantly shows disdain for the very establishment he is seeking the nomination for.

 

[Officerrob]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

What a great idea, lets put up a "true progressive" that would get absolutely smoked in Missouri.

 

[Dicer]

So, I wasn't able to only catch bits and pieces, who won?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

So, I wasn't able to only catch bits and pieces, who won?

Bernie fans will say Bernie, Hillary fans will say Hillary.

 

[...Scatter...]

I think Hillary did a great job. She's smart as hell.

 

[eBay Huckster]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

so do you read your own posts, or do you actually believe it'd be worthwhile to boot out someone who's a reliable vote X% of the time in favor of someone who will be a reliable vote 0% of the time (where X is a number substantially higher than 0)?

 

[Dicer]

Bernie fans will say Bernie, Hillary fans will say Hillary.

I can take a L for Bern if it's warranted...

 

[boiled goose]

So, I wasn't able to only catch bits and pieces, who won?

Short summary.

First part shape by Bernie. What is progressive? Money in politics affecting Hillary? Hillary fighting back hard. Heated

Middle part. Foreign policy snorefest. Hillary more experienced but Iraq.

Third party. Silly controversies like emails and Bernie things.

I don't think either won but Bernie certainly framed the debate

 

[Alcander]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

An absolutely terrible idea.

 

[Dicer]

Short summary.

First part shape by Bernie. What is progressive? Money in politics affecting Hillary? Hillary fighting back hard. Heated

Middle part. Foreign policy snorefest. Hillary more experienced but Iraq.

Third party. Silly controversies like emails and Bernie things.

I don't think either won but Bernie certainly framed the debate

Thank you, try to watch it tomorrow between snow,defrosting a fridge and other hilarity...

 

[rex]

You can't afford to do nothing. Simply put because it will set something dangerous precedent down the line and Russia's actions threaten the nations it borders and in which case NATO. There isn't no assumptions being made with anyone these are the very real feelings that many European feel and the US, with all the actions and evidence of what Russia is doing they have very little reason to act nice. Usually you do not act nice to some that is literal going against your interest and is threatening you on your border. There is no " Let's talk with Russia to stop" because Russia has no reason to listen or are stopping would hamper their goals .

You do not negotiate to countries with no power or actual threats you can dish out because they have no reason to stop if you are weak. I do not think that ever happened in history and as sure as hell not happened recently. The Iranian deal only happen because Iran was weakened with the sanctions, that is a fact. Otherwise what would be the reason to stop their nuclear program when nothing is threatening them? You need a position of power to make anyone stop doing anything. The point of the sanctions is to pressure them with implementing the deal in Ukraine, but the peace deal has not been done completely so the sanctions will stay in place. The Russian economy will still be in pressure because of that until the deal is completed. You are talking from a position of ignorance of what is going on in the ground in Ukraine and is what is actually happening between the west and Russia. Russia has ambitions that is not something that some European nations don;t want to see realized and Russia has done nothing to reassure that feeling it made it worse. They also have no reason to believe Russia. Asking nicely hardly ever solved anything and you will be struggling to prove that worked ever in foreign conflicts or disputes .

I haven't seen any evidence for Russian ambitions beyond Ukraine, assuming we're talking about them invading other European countries. That's a threat that may only exist in the imaginations of people predisposed to fearing and hating Russia.

As for the sanctions, again, they've been totally ineffective. The sanctions aren't my chosen policy. It's the policy of those who believe, apparently, as you do.

I'm not sure why they get a pass for trying, but failing, to protect Ukraine, and, based on your assumptions, thereby endangering countries beyond it. And the same goes for a lot of the other things you've listed. Sanctions have been in place for a long time now. When can we expect them to produce results?

I do find it telling that those who fear Russia the most do not allow at all for the possibility that perhaps Russia is as scared of the US as the US is of them, and that a mutual ratcheting down of tensions may be the best way to serve the interests of all sides and promote peace.

About the countries near Russia. I understand why they would be afraid. But we need to recognize that the US is the big player here. It is the strongest country on the face of the earth and it's not even close. It's up to the US, as the sole superpower to assuage Russia, not the other way around. And in turn, perhaps, Russia will roll back its own aggressive actions.

Or, we could continue to try what's already proven to be a failed policy of cajoling Russia through military buildups and sanctions.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Bernie fans will say Bernie, Hillary fans will say Hillary.

This man knows what's up. Although we all know Bernie won.

 

[Paskil]

This man knows what's up. Although we all know Bernie won.

Quoted quote is self-fulfilling.

 

[ErasureAcer]

An absolutely terrible idea.

I will donate $200 to Claire McCaskill's progressive challenger. Wonderful idea.

 

[kirblar]

Clinton needs to get a message/slogan/simple platform in place for the general election. She's coasting without one now. She can get away with "We need to defeat the GOP" now, but she needs more than that in the general. Kerry showed the issues with relying solely on that as your attack.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Sadly, no. Is this political movement recruiting and supporting candidates for House, senate, and state races? No. Is it trying to organize workers to join a union? No. Is it mobilizing to demonstrate and pressure politicians on issues? No.

Bernie's "political movement" begins and ends with electing Bernie Sanders.

GrassRootsSelect

 

[Damaniel]

I want to vote for president of the united states, not president of the world.

I think im ok with a lack of focus on foreign policy for a change.

Just because you don't want to focus on it doesn't mean it won't happen. Foreign policy encompasses far more than war - it includes diplomatic relations, law and treaties, and yes, even economic issues. Isolationism isn't the answer - that's what libertarians want, not progressives.

Also, the whole money in politics thing doesn't particularly bother me. Look at Jeb! and Right to Rise. $100M+ on one candidate, and it got him 2% or 3% of the vote. The Kochs have pushed millions and millions of dollars into Presidential races (and even some downticket races) and didn't get nearly the return that you'd expect. For all the SuperPAC money being tossed around, it doesn't actually seem to be doing all that much good. Not to say that we shouldn't do something about it, but it's not the essential pressing issue that Bernie supporters want it to be. In fact, I can think of a lot more issues more important: Supreme Court nominees, climate change, access to reproductive services, systemic racism - a lot of things that don't involve 'money in politics' or 'income inequality'.

The Hillary hater projection is just absolutely Rovian - it's as if Bernie's most vocal supporters found a huge archive of mid-90's Rush Limbaugh episodes and started parroting them as if they were the truth. That's what Republicans do - it's sad to see alleged Democrats doing the same.

 

[Horns]

Bernie supporters are making Reddit unbearable these days.I like the guy but his supporters make him sound like he walks on water there.

 

[Alcander]

I will donate $200 to Claire McCaskill's progressive challenger. Wonderful idea.

Haha alright. Good luck electing someone "more progressive" than mccaskill in MO. This type of thinking is just as bad as the tea party is on the right. Yeesh.

 

[rex]

Foreign policy was boring and pretty bland to be honest. It is clear that Hillary has a lot more experience and feels more comfortable talking about this topic. However Sanders point about judgement regarding Iraq is a fair one. I still haven't turned Hillary really explain why she voted for war. To me it is actually a bad sign. In makes her seem like she does what the establishment want and does not stand up for principles.

Yea I don't think Hillary really understands why she was wrong to support that war. She's said it was wrong, which is nice. She's blaming it on W, which is kind of pathetic.

But she doesn't understand the fundamental lesson which is that removing these strongmen ensures instability and promotes sectarianism and terrorism.

This is precisely the point where experience is left behind and judgment is required. Because, how do we balance all of these competing concerns in the middle east. Anti-terrorism. Democracy Promotion. Protection of Allies. Protection of Energy. These things clash to a significant degree and there's no attempt to grapple with it. For her, and many others, it was full steam ahead with doing the same thing to Libya. They don't learn. They don't understand.

I've been very impressed with Tulsi Gabbard recently as someone who gets it when it comes to this stuff. Very clearheaded about the various risks of all of this stuff.

 

[ivysaur12]

McCaskill is hopefully first in line to be booted via his revolution. She's a stubborn, conservative hawk.

There is literally no one more liberal than Claire McCaskill you could elect to the Senate from Missouri. Just like there is literally no one more liberal than Heidi Heitkamp you could elect to the Senate from North Dakota.

Have you guys heard of Christine O'Donnell? Richard Mourdock?

THIS IS HOW YOU LOSE ELECTIONS.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Clinton needs to get a message/slogan/simple platform in place for the general election. She's coasting without one now. She can get away with "We need to defeat the GOP" now, but she needs more than that in the general. Kerry showed the issues with relying solely on that as your attack.

There are so many "I was for it before I was against it" with Hillary. No one will trust her after their ad campaign just like Kerry.

The lady is a chameleon who does in fact drastically change her measage to whom she is addressing. I might donate to the SuperPac that runs the ad pointing out she's a total con artist. Wake up America.

Bernie said it best. You can't be both a moderate and a progressive. Hell, some of her stances are straight up conservative...in which she talks like one too, see welfare queens in the 90s. Running those comments will drastically lower Democratic turnout. She can not be trusted!!!

Hillary should be allowed in the White House on a tour. She should not be residing there.

Clinton doesnt have a national message. She just said in the debate tonight she is not up for contentious debates on issues of importance. She is not a leader. She has no plan just like the Cylons...so say we all.

 

[SamVimes]

Just because you don't want to focus on it doesn't mean it won't happen. Foreign policy encompasses far more than war - it includes diplomatic relations, law and treaties, and yes, even economic issues. Isolationism isn't the answer - that's what libertarians want, not progressives.

Also, the whole money in politics thing doesn't particularly bother me. Look at Jeb! and Right to Rise. $100M+ on one candidate, and it got him 2% or 3% of the vote. The Kochs have pushed millions and millions of dollars into Presidential races (and even some downticket races) and didn't get nearly the return that you'd expect. For all the SuperPAC money being tossed around, it doesn't actually seem to be doing all that much good. Not to say that we shouldn't do something about it, but it's not the essential pressing issue that Bernie supporters want it to be. In fact, I can think of a lot more issues more important: Supreme Court nominees, climate change, access to reproductive services, systemic racism - a lot of things that don't involve 'money in politics' or 'income inequality'.

So money in politics has nothing to do with climate change legislation? The problem with money in politics is that it affects almost every other issue in a negative way.