Jump to content

Why Bernie Sanders Still Can — And Should — Win The Nomination


beourbud

Recommended Posts

hillary has been right in the middle of that libya, syria nonsense right there with obama.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

Defeating ISIS. ISIS and the foreign terrorist fighters it recruits pose a serious threat to America and our allies. We will confront and defeat them in a way that builds greater stability across the region, without miring our troops in another misguided ground war. Hillary will empower our partners to defeat terrorism and the ideologies that drive it, including through our ongoing partnership to build Iraqi military and governing capacity, our commitment to Afghanistan’s democracy and security, and by supporting efforts to restore stability to Libya and Yemen.

 

 

Standing up to Putin. Hillary has gone toe-to-toe with Putin before, and she'll do it again. She'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies and help them decrease dependence on Russian oil. With our partners, Hillary will confine, contain, and deter Russian aggressions in Europe and beyond, and increase the costs to Putin for his actions.

how are you going to defeat isis without a ground war? magic i guess.

she wants to fight isis (thats iraq and syria) , plus afghanistan, libya and yemen. thats 5 countries to war with.

 

5 countries of war. we dont even have clean water or safe bridges in michigan and hillary wants us to be in 5 different wars ?

 

 

why would anyone fight RUSSIA? do you want another cold war? or a serious war with russia? are you insane?

 

i think russia has won every proxy war we've ever been a part of. cuba? vietnam? bosnia? kosovo? afghanistan? crimea? yeah its time to stop proxy warring.

 

do you know why i bring up proxy wars? who do you think will be funding the rebels in each of these countries (iraq, libya, syria, yemen, afghanistan)? russia. the same russia that funded the rebels in the past. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.

 

hillary has changed her website and got rid of afghanistan, yemen and libya.

 

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

 

now she wants to fight russia AND china

 

the two largest countries on the planet, with the largest armies and resources and populations. the two great superpowers.

 

Countries like Russia and China often work against us.

??????????? words cannot describe how stupid this sentence is.

every president, including nixon (who met with mao), works with china and russia to try to stablize the region (aka north korea). we work with china ALL THE TIME. why would a presidential candidate claim china works against us? publically?

 

Stand up to Vladimir Putin. Hillary has gone toe-to-toe with Putin before, and she’ll do it again. She’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies and push back on and deter Russian aggression in Europe and beyond, and increase the costs to Putin for his actions.

 

Hold China accountable. Hillary will work with allies to promote strong rules of the road and institutions in Asia, and press China to play by the rules—including in cyberspace, on currency, human rights, trade, territorial disputes, and climate change—and hold it accountable if it does not, while working with China where it is in our interest.

 

Hillary has laid out a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS by: taking out ISIS’s stronghold in Iraq and Syria

so russia, china, iraq and syria.

 

yeah thats smart.

 

she moved some other things to this page

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/combating-terrorism/

 

We have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and America to and from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

this sounds like what trump said, stop allowing terrorists to come to america on state dept visas.

 

Targeting efforts to deal with ISIS affiliates from Libya to Afghanistan

i dont know what this sentence means. hillary will "deal" with ISIS affiliates?

 

to get from libya to afghanistan, you have to cross egypt, israel, jordan, iraq and iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, ya think your political views might be influencing your thought processes?  That is pretty slanted logic there.  I haven't followed this thread but I'm guessing you don't like Hillary.

 

It seems that our ISIS policy has been to force the hand of the adjacent countries to get more involved.  IMO, we could go in there militarily and wipe clean the current ISIS territories but THEN WHAT?  That is the key, we don't want to get mired down there occupying these lands AFTER we win militarily.  It is painful to stand back and watch this mess unfold but we should resist going in there.  IMO, if at all possible, we should wait for the neighboring countries/powers to fight ISIS so that they can then occupy and deal with the post military transition.

 

I hear this constant drumbeat of blame for Obama/Hillary's handling of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria.  Those countries are in various states of chaos, I would not argue that.  I would like to know however, what Obama should have done differently that would have lead to stable nations.  I guess what I am saying is that there was no policy that would have made these areas into old style normal nations.  If you recall, Obama ran on a policy (and won) to get us out of the mid-east wars and he has attempted to do that.  What would you have done differently, given the state of affairs when Obama became president?

 

And, if you don't think that on many levels Russia and China work against US interests, you need to read a bit more.  I didn't see where she advocated for war with these countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wash: in my original may post i compared hillary , trump and bernie.

 

wash: i think we both agree we shouldnt be rushing into wars. bernies policy said the same.

 

the above post was merely an update to my may post. seems weird to me that hillary would change her policy so much in a month. at least in my opinion. up to you to decide what to do with that information.

 

i dont like hillary and i dont like trump. i'll probably vote for dr jill stein in the green party this go around and let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

to answer your question about stability in these countries, there is nothing usa can do to make stability in any country. nothing. completely leaving the country would help them to find their own government. right after they battle a 3000 year old civil war. us being there does nothing to make the country secure.

 

you know we are still in iraq and afghanistan, right? obama ran for president saying he would end the war in IRAQ. well... here we are 8 years later.

 

http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/21/the-u-s-military-has-a-lot-more-people-in-iraq-than-it-has-been-saying/

Number of U.S. Troops in Iraq Keeps Creeping Upward

Nearly 5,000 there, readying for fight to retake ISIS stronghold of Mosul

 

 

hillary says she wants to take out iraq and syria (ISIS) , we can agree?

 

just how many more wars do you want?

 

there is no implicit china/russia war threat on hillary clinton's website, but , like i said in my post, it seems stupid to use them as boogeymen.

 

as for what obama/clinton did for syria and libya? well, if you can tell me what news source you will accept , i will try to find the facts and explain where they went wrong. just pick any newspaper and i'll focus articles from it. i've been in enough internet arguments to know that some people hate some news sources haha.

 

 

i personally have no idea which one of them did what in syria and libya. i think one of them supported the rebels with weapons , while the other supported and used air strikes. i could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wash: in my original may post i compared hillary , trump and bernie.

 

wash: i think we both agree we shouldnt be rushing into wars. bernies policy said the same.

 

the above post was merely an update to my may post. seems weird to me that hillary would change her policy so much in a month. at least in my opinion. up to you to decide what to do with that information.

 

i dont like hillary and i dont like trump. i'll probably vote for dr jill stein in the green party this go around and let the chips fall where they may.

 

 

to answer your question about stability in these countries, there is nothing usa can do to make stability in any country. nothing. completely leaving the country would help them to find their own government. right after they battle a 3000 year old civil war. us being there does nothing to make the country secure.

 

you know we are still in iraq and afghanistan, right? obama ran for president saying he would end the war in IRAQ. well... here we are 8 years later.

 

http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/21/the-u-s-military-has-a-lot-more-people-in-iraq-than-it-has-been-saying/

Number of U.S. Troops in Iraq Keeps Creeping Upward

Nearly 5,000 there, readying for fight to retake ISIS stronghold of Mosul

 

 

hillary says she wants to take out iraq and syria (ISIS) , we can agree?

 

just how many more wars do you want?

 

there is no implicit china/russia war threat on hillary clinton's website, but , like i said in my post, it seems stupid to use them as boogeymen.

 

as for what obama/clinton did for syria and libya? well, if you can tell me what news source you will accept , i will try to find the facts and explain where they went wrong. just pick any newspaper and i'll focus articles from it. i've been in enough internet arguments to know that some people hate some news sources haha.

 

 

i personally have no idea which one of them did what in syria and libya. i think one of them supported the rebels with weapons , while the other supported and used air strikes. i could be wrong.

 

I appreciate you trying to find sources of my choice.  That is uncommonly accommodating of you....lol.  I would rather your opinion though on what would have worked in these countries versus where we failed.

 

My point was that we have tried at least 4 different methods of dealing with these countries in disarray.  We have taken out the governing power and tried occupation, we have tried supporting 'rebels', we have stayed back (Libya) and let other forces lead, and everywhere we have tried to prop up fledgling new leaders.  Without massive occupying/peacekeeping forces, none of these courses have succeeded and the American people and military are very weary of these never ending wars.

 

Before getting involved in these countries in the mideast we need to ask ourselves, not can we militarily handle a particular foe, but do we want to commit forces to that country for at least a decade.  If the answer is 'No', then we should reconsider potential involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

our country supports rebels often, empowers them, makes them into leaders, arms them, trains them,  financially backs them, trades with them and sometimes goes to war with them afterwards I've heard. cwazy wabbits and their smoke and mirrors

 

People refuse to understand that much of the mess in the Middle East (and elsewhere!) and hatred for the USA and Europe is a direct result of interventionist policies that installed and supported brutal dictators, assassinated opposition leaders, etc. This volatile region is run by a myriad of tribal warlords, many of them using religious interpretations to justify horrendous and indiscriminate brutality, and of course nobody knows how things would have turned out otherwise. But the USA shares much of the blame for the instabilities there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW1 and the fall of the Ottoman empire.

 

We drew lines in the sand(literally) and made promises we didn't or couldn't keep.

And those lines drawn in the sand divided up the spoils of war, lumping incompatible groups together under what amounted to colonial rule for the profit of the victors rather than for the purposes of stability....no homeland for the Kurds, Israel formed from territory where a country never existed before, and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those lines drawn in the sand divided up the spoils of war, lumping incompatible groups together under what amounted to colonial rule for the profit of the victors rather than for the purposes of stability....no homeland for the Kurds, Israel formed from territory where a country never existed before, and on and on.

 

Israel existed as a discrete political entity 2000 years ago during the time of the Hashmonean Kingdom (and I'm ignoring earlier Judean & Israelite monarchies.) Eventually it got conquered and divied up by the Greeks & Romans & Moslems & Christians & Turks etc. But it is simply incorrect to say that it was "formed from territory where a country never existed before".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is where I do get p'd off about this Benghazi crud.

 

There was a video and it caused protests and attacks on many embassies in the middle east during that exact time period. A huge one in Egypt just before this happened in Benghazi was bad enough they removed all but vital personnel. 

 

So, any idiot could have immediately assumed this was likely a similar issue happening in Benghazi. 

 

Since then, literally days after, it was discovered this attack in Benghazi wasn't directly attributed to the protests occurring/just occurred in several countries. It was an attack of opportunism that may have indirectly gained inspiration from other embassy attacks in the middle east, but was not "caused' by the video.

 

You can rip on Hillary all day and I can help all day, but not on this one.  It truly is nonsense. Our embassies and the people working at them get attacked all the time, several times a year.  It is a very dangerous job in many parts of the world. They deserve more credit than they get. But to single out Benghazi is silly and completely blind to the reality of daily diplomatic dangers.

 

Not a Trump fan, voting Johnson, and I can certainly understand why many see her as the sane choice.  That said, the timeline of emails immediately afterward showed Hillary making two very different sets of statements to two different audiences.  She made no mention of the video in internal discussions, only those facing the public.

Edited by westmich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel existed as a discrete political entity 2000 years ago during the time of the Hashmonean Kingdom (and I'm ignoring earlier Judean & Israelite monarchies.) Eventually it got conquered and divied up by the Greeks & Romans & Moslems & Christians & Turks etc. But it is simply incorrect to say that it was "formed from territory where a country never existed before".

 

The point is that the area of land that Jews believe was given to them by God through a covenant with Abraham in no way compares to the modern borders of Israel.  The borders of present-day Israel in no way compare to what the Jews believe to be their land back to ancient times.  The Jews were promised by God land that included present-day Israel and also parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey.  Muslims don't recognize this divine gift.  So the formation of present-day Israel made Jews mad because they still haven't gotten what they feel they were given by God, and the Muslims are mad because they don't believe that God ever gave the Jews anything.   This is similar to the belief in the US of "manifest destiny" - that God wanted the US to own the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. 

 

I was referring to modern history in my earlier post - not ancient history.  How would people here in the US feel if suddenly a large chunk of land was taken from private owners whose families have lived there for generations and the land was then given to native Americans?  These folks would feel the same way as those who lost property rights when present-day Israel was formed.  That's the whole point.

 

This sort of attempt to draw political boundaries based on ancient history is far different than restoring territories to pre-war status.  For example, Iraq invaded Kuwait and got pushed back out.  Kuwait retained its previous boundaries and so did Iraq.  The UN forces didn't occupy portions of Iraq and then given those occupied territories to the countries who assisted with removing Saddam.  When Saddam's regime was toppled in Iraq, the US didn't take land from Iraq and establish a Kurdish homeland.  After WWII, Germany was still Germany, Italy was still Italy, and Japan was still Japan.  France, Belgium, etc. retained their pre-war boundaries.

 

The point is that every square inch of the earth has been claimed by more than one group at some point in history, and any redrawing of political boundaries following a war will leave many people feeling like they got the shaft.  I'm not siding for or against any government, simply pointing out the fact that redrawing boundaries will always cause some sort of instability.  Understanding that boundaries will be redrawn well into the future, such decisions must be made for the purpose of maximizing stability and minimizing hostility, rather that maximizing the benefit of the conqueror and their buddies.  The boundaries redrawn in the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman Empire were not done so with regard to political stability in the region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the area of land that Jews believe was given to them by God through a covenant with Abraham in no way compares to the modern borders of Israel.  The borders of present-day Israel in no way compare to what the Jews believe to be their land back to ancient times.  The Jews were promised by God land that included present-day Israel and also parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey.  Muslims don't recognize this divine gift.  So the formation of present-day Israel made Jews mad because they still haven't gotten what they feel they were given by God, and the Muslims are mad because they don't believe that God ever gave the Jews anything.   This is similar to the belief in the US of "manifest destiny" - that God wanted the US to own the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans. 

 

I was referring to modern history in my earlier post - not ancient history.  How would people here in the US feel if suddenly a large chunk of land was taken from private owners whose families have lived there for generations and the land was then given to native Americans?  These folks would feel the same way as those who lost property rights when present-day Israel was formed.  That's the whole point.

 

This sort of attempt to draw political boundaries based on ancient history is far different than restoring territories to pre-war status.  For example, Iraq invaded Kuwait and got pushed back out.  Kuwait retained its previous boundaries and so did Iraq.  The UN forces didn't occupy portions of Iraq and then given those occupied territories to the countries who assisted with removing Saddam.  When Saddam's regime was toppled in Iraq, the US didn't take land from Iraq and establish a Kurdish homeland.  After WWII, Germany was still Germany, Italy was still Italy, and Japan was still Japan.  France, Belgium, etc. retained their pre-war boundaries.

 

The point is that every square inch of the earth has been claimed by more than one group at some point in history, and any redrawing of political boundaries following a war will leave many people feeling like they got the shaft.  I'm not siding for or against any government, simply pointing out the fact that redrawing boundaries will always cause some sort of instability.  Understanding that boundaries will be redrawn well into the future, such decisions must be made for the purpose of maximizing stability and minimizing hostility, rather that maximizing the benefit of the conqueror and their buddies.  The boundaries redrawn in the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman Empire were not done so with regard to political stability in the region.

 

I wasn't bringing up any biblical claims - to my mind it is a pointless basis for discussion - but just addressing the claim that Israel was formed from a country that never existed before. 

 

"How would people here in the US feel if suddenly a large chunk of land was taken from private owners whose families have lived there for generations and the land was then given to native Americans?"

 

You are right in that there are many aggrieved, displaced Arabs that resulted from the founding of Israel. But you are wrong when you over simplify by suggesting that the process was one of taking land from some and giving it to others. Some of that land was indeed unjustly acquired. But much, much more of it was legally purchased directly from Arab land owners at high prices in the early 20th century. And much of it was acquired when Arabs fled when Israel was attacked in 1948. 

 

That doesn't diminish the suffering of the modern Palestinian people. But I never hear a word spoken about the more than one million Jewish refugees that fled or were expelled from Arab countries during the same time frame when the Middle East was getting carved up based on political expediency. That's cuz nobody gives a shiit about Jewish refugees or their confiscated property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote for who ever you want but donate to the green or libertarian parties.  or both like I did.  i may or may not vote for Hillary depending on how she does here and if my vote is needed.  Considering Bernie and Trump won here she may need it here.  but I'm voicing my opinion by donating to both parties.  i expect people and the environment to be cared for and the policies to fit people not the people have to fit the policies and I value my personal freedom and individual liberties.  Seems like these "public servants" are very interested in what people are donating to and if you get the libertarian parties word out it may draw more R's from Trump.  Post their ads on socail media, they are drawing and we still have 3 months to avoid the Kang and Kodos scenerio.  Hopefully it would give us 4 choices in 2020 or make Hillary turn her bunny muffin around cause she'll be scared she'll loose it in 4 years.  then maybe they'll be confused and scared enough that they'll start working for the people again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote for whomever you like but let's not be naive about it. If you live in a swing state, taking a "not Hillary not Trump" approach may help put a racist, misogynistic, bullying, Putin-donkey-kissing, torture supporting, serial liar, fraudster, cheater of small business owners, constitutionally ignorant, megalomaniac, demagogue in office, and giving a thin-skinned man with a 5th grade vocabulary the nuclear codes. Not to mention putting other people like Pence & Christie in positions of power...

 

But your principles will remain intact so I guess you're fine with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat back on topic...this just in:

 

 

About A Third Of Bernie Sanders’s Supporters Still Aren’t Backing Hillary Clinton

 

Without third-party candidates, Clinton was already doing much better with Bernie’s fans. Still, the convention helped: She moved from 79 percent up to 91 percent among Sanders supporters in CNN’s polls, 68 percent to 75 percent per Marist, and 59 percent to 65 percent in YouGov’s surveys.
 

But the sizable portion of Sanders supporters defecting from Clinton when given other options could still be a problem for the Clinton campaign if the election tightens.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/about-a-third-of-bernie-sanders-supporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/

Edited by westmich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you take one of his vague stances as gospel and dismiss one of his firmer stances.

 

I understand your position of course.

hopefully trump will get more solid policies, but currently he is a huge wild card.

 

hillary has changed her policies too, just read my previous posts.

 

also you've seen Obama campaign on drug war marijuana, only to see that topic get Ducking laughed at, multiple times.

 

so ......... What to think anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...