2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe myth that Hillary is a conservative.
[img][/img]
I do not believe Senator Sanders is a progressive, but I do believe that he's a socialist.
Hillary seems the most progressive to me.
Also why aren't we hearing more about Sanders' vote to dump Vermont's Radioactive nuclear waste in a Latino community in Texas?
Or his support of the F-35 program?
When asked about it, this was his response.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="
The fact that all of this stuff has been swept under the rug by the media and especially the Right's propaganda machine, is even more supportive of the theory that the Right is salivating at having to face a Socialist in the General Election.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Especially here.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Any Democrat can be made to look like a liberal, and when nuanced stated positions are ignored, hell, they can be Che Guevara.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Who are you kidding? Ex-Im primarily helps Boeing.
Clinton isn't a conservative - she's a neocon. They're the same on corporatism and war, but the latter will make as many false promises on social issues as necessary to pose as an electable moderate.
Arneoker
(375 posts)Then what would someone with a record that is same as 93% of hers, like Bernie Sanders, be?
Yes they have some real differences. But up against the Republicans, especially that nutjob Trumpo, they aren't all that much
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)They couldn't be more different on the things that actually matter.
pengu
(462 posts)That 7% is things like Iraq, the Patriot Act, the 2001 bankruptcy bill, free trade, and other disgusting shit.
Who cares how many highways and post offices they agreed to name.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)and Sanders are generally on domestic issues.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)character assassination industry tear Bernie apart.
And Hillary is a battle-scarred warrior they have never been able to take down. Most people have become bored and irritated with the usual attacks. Only the fools and nasties who love to hate her greedily suck them up, and there's nothing to be done about them. I actually feel about as good as I can about her taking the right on yet again. It is going to be incredibly nasty, though.
Native
(5,942 posts)....Brock.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)She;s a weak candidate and we need Sanders to beat Trump.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I may have to steal that!
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Hillogical is brilliant!
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Wow.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Its being framed here as a negative for Bernie, yet he voted against it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Right after Sanders stumped for Schumlin Jane was appointed to the Vermont Commission dealing with the nuclear waste. It was a blatant payback for help on the trail. Some of that cronyism Sanders rails against.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)She gets a very small stipend for being an alternate, I can't find the specific figure but it's not enough to be worth mentioning.
Otherwise there is no personal benefit from serving on a commission with the rather humdrum job of managing the logistics of solid waste disposal. If the Sanders operated a hauling firm or something, it might be called corruption.
More importantly, as I pointed out then, this is in no way nefarious. Is Mrs. Sanders precluded from ever dong public service because her husband is a Senator?
Criticizing "cronyism" and using connections and "favoritism" is a VERY slippery slope for the Clintons as an issue. A couple who have earned a combined $190 million (depending on source) after a career of "public service" and getting big bucks for short speeches by Corporations and the Banksters before another run for the WH, and all of the entanglements of the Clinton Foundation.......
And, no I'm not going to get into another back-and-forth over it. Just suggesting some perspective might be helpful in this.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You really just highlighted that while not attempting to do so.
The Clintons often hook up those in their circle. Never said they didn't. You are arguing that cronyism is justifiable, the scale is what matters. Of course Sanders cronyism is on a smaller scale, he has played small ball his whole career.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What do they gain from her being an alternate on a relatively obscure state board with a very focused purpose?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)My apologies. When I hit update your post was there. I didn't change my direction.
Benefits: political relationships. As you yourself mentioned monetary. Access to socialites and the more powerful. Influence.
Cronyism isn't just monetary. Never has been.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes politics is about relationships and interaction. That's the nature of it, and the grease that allows the wheels to turn. But that fact is not the same as bad cronyism or political corruption.
There is no unseemly benefit for the Sanders in this. He doesn't need an entree to establish political relationships by having his wife serve on an obscure board.
He has been a formidable political leader in Vermont since the early 90's. He was the state's only Congressman for decades -- usually elected by huge margins. He is now one of their Senators, also elected by a huge margin.
He is also, as you may have noticed, his own person and somewhat cantankerous. If he campaigned for Schumlin, it was because he thought he was the best person for the job -- not because he would benefit politically from having his wife serve on some unsexy board.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Look at the timeline. And Sanders has made deals with the "establishment" early in his career an often. I know you are educated about Sanders and are well aware of it. His first five years in public service and the deals he made with the party knocks your argument out of the water.
I don't see it as awful. It's what career politicians do. Clinton does it on a much larger scale. To the point I do occasionally take issue with it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The system operates in a certain way. That can be good or bad. The devil is always in the details.
Relationships and favors, etc. can simply help the wheels to turn....The problem is when that congeals into a corrupt system, where cronyism becomes too entrenched and -- more importantly -- when it twists the operations into outcomes to close it off, and that benefits certain segments unfairly and in ways that harm the majority.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)socially liberal. To paraphrase Thomas Frank, we're all Kansas now. The Party that overseas the distribution of wealth to the top 10% is held hostage by wage issues. It was a brilliant coup!
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)different on social issues
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)DAMN IT, TRIVIAL!!
Which candidate voted with ALL the Republicans AND AGAINST OBAMA in support of cluster bombs?
Which candidate has HENRY KISSINGER as a mentor for foreign policy advice?
Which candidate, having Henry Kissinger as a mentor, took actions in favor of the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Honduras?
Which candidate sought to export FRACKING (GLOBAL WARMING INDUCING FRACKING) to Europe?
Which candidate voted to give George W. Bush the right to invade Iraq? REPEAT: GEORGE W. BUSH!!
Which candidate calls 78 million Iranians "enemies"?
Which candidate WILL REFUSE TO BREAK UP THE TOO BIG TO FAIL BANKS SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES PAYING HER OFF?
Which candidate was firmly against GAY MARRIAGE for years, and only changed her position when she thought it might cost her the presidency?
Which candidate LIES WITH A FREQUENCY THAT WOULD MAKE RICHARD NIXON PROUD?
Which candidate actually voted with the Republicans for the Patriot Act, and which candidate voted against the Patriot Act?
Which candidate sat on the WalMart Board of Directors and DID NOTHING TO PROMOTE UNIONIZATION WITHIN THAT COMPANY FOR SIX LONG YEARS? Indeed, actually praised the company & had stock in the company!!!
Which candidate declared that Republican John McCain had more relevant experience than did Democrat Barack Obama?
Which candidate was a "Goldwater Girl" as a teenager, THEN AS AN ADULT DECADES LATER DECLARES SHE WAS "PROUD TO HAVE BEEN A GOLDWATER GIRL"? (NOT ASHAMED, MIND YOU, BUT PROUD, GOLDWATER HAVING STRONGLY OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION)
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)the candidate who does not have a foreign policy
the candidate who did not know Dodd Frank would break up failing banks
the candidate who was for Civil Unions and later evolved for gay marriage
the candidate who ran as a Liberty Union candidate
the candidate who did not become a Democrat until a year ago
What board of directors has Sanders served on
the same candidate who voted five times against the Brady Bill after the NRA had donated $18,000 to defeat his opponent (influenced)
This same candidate who has been in congress for twenty five years and still thinks of himself as an outsider
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Here, learn something: https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/
Whoever Bernie's foreign policy advisor is, we can say with certainty that he does not choose to be guided by the guy on the right:
[link:http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/|Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clintons Tutor in War and Peace
] "Last night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands."
Ouch! That's got to sting, doesn't it, Thinkingabout? Stings real bad.
Deal with it.
Response to Herman4747 (Reply #49)
Thinkingabout This message was self-deleted by its author.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)is trivial? No, don't think so.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Maybe you missed those words.
You have undoubtedly missed this too:
Bernie Sanders NRA report card: D-minus is most recent grade
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...getting foreign policy advice from the guy on the right:
?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1
Yet she does.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)A candidate running for President of the US in a global world who has not displayed an understanding of foreign affairs, he would be very lucky to have someone with the foreign affairs to even talk to him about a subject he is lacking. And to think Sanders has been in Congress for twenty five years making decisions and is not able to display his foreign policy, he isn't interested in being the president, he doesn't want the responsibility of the position.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...about foreign policy, BUT BEING GUIDED BY HIM!
In 2012, as Honduras descended into social and political chaos in the wake of a US-sanctioned military coup
When Clinton was secretary of state the U.S. helped overthrow Honduras' elected government.
Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti
Kissinger pressed Nixon to overthrow the democratically elected Allende government
****************************************
Bernie is willing to cooperate with other countries, in such matters as the fight against global warming, the fight against the Islamic State, and (possibly) the resettling of refugees. He simply does not want the United States to be the world's sole police.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Proper knowledge. Whatever you want to post it would have been a good move to have gotten good strong counsel about foreign policy, he did not.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)if for the sake of argument we maintain your contention is true, then I think we both can agree that it is better to have no foreign policy at all, than to have a wicked foreign policy.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)What's up with that?
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)governments?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Every one of those points lacks any context, and thus bends reality.
It's so fucking wrong it's not even worth the time to provide that context, because provides of propaganda just want to put shit out there with no interest in refutation.
Response to StayFrosty (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Broward
(1,976 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)When she takes a progressive issue she argues so passively for that issue. It makes her seem insincere. If she means to bring jobs back to the United States then argue aggressive manner and give solutions in that argument.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)How about her hawkishness, big banking buddies, etc.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)How about protecting Big Gun manufacturers from lawsuits from grieving families who's loved ones were gunned down with their murderous weapons?
How about voting against the Brady bill 5 times?
How about helping the MIC waste billions on the F-35 boondoggle?
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Republican Party votes.
If you accept that definition, Hillary is a liberal. Of course, that is not the definition of liberalism.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)that you or I would take on the website, but is based mainly on votes for or against partisan legislation.
This essentially redefines ideology as party loyalty. No one disputes that Hillary voted regularly with the Democrats.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)when in fact I'm a left leaning moderate.
And what does it say that Sanders represents the things that are important to me better than Hillary?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But don't tell me she is not a hardcore liberal, that is pure hogwash.
That's as stupid as me claiming Sanders is a religious right dominionist!
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)The military, war, Wall Street, banks, corporate cronies - No WAY is she liberal.
But you just keep thinking that and if you agree with her on those issues, then you'll be happy. If you don't, well - you'll be a bit surprised.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But any democrat is better than any republican and that's the bottom line for me.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)But you just don't know it.
apcalc
(4,463 posts)Or a neo-con is deluded, or seriously misinformed.
There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for that claim.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)For that matter, if there's a sine qua non of neoconservatism today, it's that question.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)similar agreement if she were at the helm.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'd do some soul-searching, if I were you.
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Israeli opposition to the agreement. Hillary rarely defies Netanyahu; Obama regularly does. On what basis do you think Hillary would originate an agreement with Iran that Israel opposes?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Saying you don't believe someone is progressive but you do believe he or she is a socialist is like saying you don't believe Nyquist is a mammal but you do believe he is a horse.
In America, Hillary is more progressive than the mid-point if you were to list all elected officials from most progressive to least progressive. If you were to list all elected officials from all NATO countries, she would be less progressive than the mid-point. Sanders would be well to her left on such lists.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)And a little bird landed on Bernie's lectern, so must be a liberal!
QC
(26,371 posts)That other 7% is pretty important.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)1. S.1348: Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa). Provides: (1) that the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall determine H-2C eligibility; (2) for a three-year admission with one additional three-year extension; (3) issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children; (4) for U.S. worker protection; (5) for implementation of an alien employment management system; and (6) establishment of a Temporary Worker Task Force.
Authorizes cancellation of removal and adjustment to conditional permanent resident status of certain alien students who are long-term U.S. residents.
Sets forth the conditions for a six-year conditional permanent resident status.
States that English is the national language of the United States. Requires the government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States.
2. Most of the undocumented immigrants in this country overstay their visa allotted time. Half a million people did that in 2015. WTF would want to expand visas? Oh wait...
3. Ex-Im has categorized large multinationals like Bechtel as small businesses. How the hell is this actually beneficial to small businesses?
4. AKA the Bush Tax cuts! They should have expired but instead they were passed along with cuts to Social Security and Medicare. I know for a fact Sanders didn't vote for that shit.
5. Pro Gun Bernie! Pro Gun Bernie! Pro Gun Bernie! Pro Gun Bernie! /Sarc off
6. You know who else signed that into law? Obama. And you know what else that law says? The weapon has to be unloaded and it has to ride in a special compartment. Once again from the top: Pro Gun Bernie! Pro Gun Bernie!
7. The article in question is a statement from Tim Murphy who said that Sanders wants to legalize all drugs. But of course there is no evidence that Sanders has pushed such a message along his time in politics, let alone his campaign.
8. You know who else voted for that Bill? Hillary's husband. And three states also agreed to do it including Texas.
9. Utter Rubbish. The real quote is, "What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help." Read the interview: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
10. We're off the deep end here and quite frankly, not worth going over. I should have stopped at #9.
So how exactly is HRC a progressive?
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)and its working!
jamese777
(546 posts)the American Conservative Union (the sponsors of CPAC) gave Hillary Clinton a lifetime (8 years in the Senate) rating of 8.13 out of 100 for her votes on issues of primary concern to conservatives.
In the year 2007, her ACU rating was 0.
http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=2008&chamber=13&state1=45&sortable=1