PDA

View Full Version : Data-driven analysis of Ms. Clinton's record.



Keith Wilson
01-30-2016, 06:38 PM
There has been a fair amount of criticism of Ms. Clinton as too conservative; she's been compared to an Eisenhower Republican at best (not too bad a thing, IMHO) or at worst, a hired lackey of the plutocrats. I have claimed, to no great effect, that her record does not justify this at all, Well, fivethirtyeight appears to agree with me. There are standard ways of quantifying a politicians's position on a left-right scale, and guess what? Ms Clinton is a lot farther left, based on her voting record, her public statements, and even her fundraising than many people claim (particularly enthusiastic Sanderistas). One may certainly prefer a candidate who's farther left, but many of the claims made about her are objectively nonsense. The original is here (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/), with lots of links to the details of the analysis.


2016 ELECTION
4:54 PM MAY 19, 2015
Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
By HARRY ENTEN

A bunch of reporters have recently discovered a shocking truth: Hillary Clinton is liberal! (I heard a rumor that Columbo has been helping with the investigation.)

We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposÚs as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats. In her final term in the Senate, she was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.

There have been a few issues on which Hillary Clinton has taken more centrist positions. She, of course, voted for the Iraq War (she now says that was a mistake). Clinton has been mostly pro-free trade (although she hasn’t said much of anything on the Trans-Pacific Partnership). And she has been against marijuana legalization, and seemingly remains so.

When Clinton has shifted left, she has usually done so with her party and — on the issues she’s highlighted in the 2016 campaign so far — the country. Some examples:

Gay marriage was something that split Democrats almost right down the middle in 2008, with 50 percent in favor per the Pew Research Center. Just 39 percent of the population overall supported same-sex marriage back then. Clinton flipped her position in early 2013, just about when the polls were showing that 51 percent of Americans and around two-thirds of Democrats were in favor of gay marriage. In late 2007, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Americans and Democrats were in the same place then on civil unions, which Clinton supported, as they are now on gay marriage. In other words, Clinton’s moved left — along with everyone else.

Immigration is a little trickier because so much depends on how a poll is worded, but most of the polls with neutrally worded questions seem to show support for Clinton’s position. A May 2015 CBS News survey shows 57 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship (an all-time high in that survey), compared with 29 percent who want those here illegally deported and 11 percent who want them to have legal status but not citizenship. Among Democrats, 71 percent want a path to citizenship.

On criminal justice reform, which has drawn considerable national attention recently, Clinton called in late April for rolling back mandatory minimum sentencing laws, a position that has more support than it used to. A 2006 survey from Princeton Survey Research Associates International found that 54 percent of Americans and 55 percent of Democrats thought judges should have leeway in sentencing nonviolent offenders, instead of having to abide by the sentencing laws. In a November 2014 Public Religion Research Institute poll, 77 percent of Americans, including 83 percent of Democrats, wanted mandatory minimum sentences eliminated for nonviolent offenders.

Clinton isn’t tacking to the center; she’s simply staying on the left.

In 2008, while Clinton had trouble with her position on Iraq, Democrats didn’t view her as out of step ideologically overall. In February 2008, just 12 percent of Democrats and people who lean Democratic said Clinton was too conservative (the same as Obama). Likewise, Pew Research Center found the same percentages of Democrats, as well as the same percentages of all Americans, thought Clinton and Obama were liberal in January and April of 2008.

The fact that Clinton was seen as just as liberal as Obama is probably the reason she did as well with liberals in the 2008 primary as she did overall. According to exit polls, Clinton received, on average, 46 percent of the vote from those who identified as liberal and 45 percent from those who identified as very liberal. Overall, she received 48 percent of the vote, according to exit polls.

Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War. But unless your name is Jeb Bush, the Iraq War just isn’t as important to a presidential candidacy in 2016 as it was in 2008, when it was the second-most-important issue in the Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama on the other big issues, including the longtime liberal cause of health care.

Overall, the “liberal Clinton” isn’t a new phenomenon. Given her support for liberal positions in the past and the support that liberals have given her, it shouldn’t be surprising that Clinton is staking out liberal positions to start the 2016 campaign.

David G
01-30-2016, 06:40 PM
Stop Making Sense.

Paul Pless
01-30-2016, 06:52 PM
Gay marriage
Immigration
On criminal justice reform

where's her historical stance, her voting record been on banking and financial market reform, bailout for wall street, the military - spending on it and its use, trade including the tpp?

keith you've fallen for seriously cherry picked data - she will say or do anything to get elected - worse flipflopper than mitt romney, and as far as her record goes she has less experience in elected office than did obama when he assumed the presidency

elf
01-30-2016, 06:55 PM
Follower, not leader. Are any of those flips more than convenient? Would she stay in those places if the "Party"'s idea of what its members believed moved to the right? Would she have the balls to not change her position?

Many who prefer Mr. Sanders do not believe that Mrs. Clinton is anything but a finger-to-the-wind candidate. Just as she moves to the "left" when it seems the loudest constituencies have moved to the left, she does not give people confidence that she won't move somewhere else when the polls tell her to follow the mob.

The fact remains that neither Democratic candidate will come into office with many chits to cash in. While Mr. Trump won't either, Rubio might have a few more than Clinton, actually, having cooperated with his current party's leaders for a few election cycles. Cruz will come in with a few too, not much different in character than Rubio's, but from a smaller source.

And the fact remains that would be very useful to the next inhabitant of the White House.

Depending on one's idea of what needs to be done, they could make a big difference.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2016, 06:59 PM
Paul, I'm not the one who's cherry-picking the data, you are. Go to the original article and follow the links. They analyse every vote she ever cast in the Senate, a whole lot of her public statements, and her fundraising sources. Look at the numbers. Her record is considerably farther left than one would think; I was surprised.

You don't have to vote for her, but she knows as much about being president as anyone who's ever run for the office. The more I listen to Sanders, the better she looks.

L.W. Baxter
01-30-2016, 07:01 PM
Many who prefer Mr. Sanders do not believe that Mrs. Clinton is anything but a finger-to-the-wind candidate.

And some of us who prefer Mrs. Clinton do not believe that Mr. Sanders knows which way the wind blows.

Paul Pless
01-30-2016, 07:10 PM
but she knows as much about being president as anyone who's ever run for the office.yeah, sure, that's not why i don't like her. . .

elf
01-30-2016, 07:17 PM
And some of us who prefer Mrs. Clinton do not believe that Mr. Sanders knows which way the wind blows.
Oh he knows all right. He just doesn't believe it's blowing in an acceptable direction over the long haul.

And many agree with him.

Paul Pless
01-30-2016, 07:21 PM
Oh he knows all right. He just doesn't believe it's blowing in an acceptable direction over the long haul.

And many agree with him.Sander's thoughts on foreign policy, an area with which the president has almost complete control, are enough alone for me to support him enthusiastically. Our nation's adventures in the Middle East have ranged from merely erroneous to disastrous for over four decades. He's the only candidate that I trust to begin rolling that back. Certainly Hillary is no warmonger as most of the right wing candidates are, but she's not gonna roll things back either.

Keith Wilson
01-30-2016, 07:22 PM
I don't know whether I like her either. I rather admire her, and I think she'd do good things for the country as president, but like her? Probably not. OTOH, I'm picking a president, not a friend. Obama I like.

Paul Pless
01-30-2016, 07:28 PM
i use the word like as in like her as a candidate

i too 'like' obama as an upstanding moral and honarable man, even though i think he's been a rather lackluster president

SullivanB
01-31-2016, 09:22 AM
I don't know whether I like her either. I rather admire her, and I think she'd do good things for the country as president, but like her? Probably not. OTOH, I'm picking a president, not a friend. Obama I like.

What good things do you think she'll do for the country as president?

John Smith
01-31-2016, 09:31 AM
where's her historical stance, her voting record been on banking and financial market reform, bailout for wall street, the military - spending on it and its use, trade including the tpp?

keith you've fallen for seriously cherry picked data - she will say or do anything to get elected - worse flipflopper than mitt romney, and as far as her record goes she has less experience in elected office than did obama when he assumed the presidency

Why don't you show us her record in that area rather than simply implying it's a bad record?

John Smith
01-31-2016, 09:37 AM
Oh he knows all right. He just doesn't believe it's blowing in an acceptable direction over the long haul.

And many agree with him.

I actually agree with him as to his goals. The problem is NONE of his goals are achievable in the next 8 years. He promises to deliver, not fight for, single payer healthcare, something I'm all for. However, we have a congress full of Republicans, who have majorities at this time, who want to repeal the ACA and privatize everything; schools, post office, SS, and Medicare. Unless/until Democrats have substantial majorities (filibusterproof) this can't get done. Neither can breaking up the banks. Overturning Citizens United requires a change in the Court.

I view this as a loaf of bread. He's trying to eat the entire loaf at one time. If we want single payer, for example, we need to start a coordinated effort to explain to the people how their lives will be better with such a system. This means fighting right wing media, the American ego, and those who love Medicare but don't want socialized medicine.

It is, however, IMO, how to start the process.

Paul Pless
01-31-2016, 09:41 AM
Why don't you show us her record in that area rather than simply implying it's a bad record?She voted for war in Iraq, Yeah maybe she was lied to; but Sanders didn't vote for it. Not only that he spoke out agianst it actively and even without access to intel he questioned the validity of the reports of WMD's from the Bush White House and the CIA.

She supported military intervention in Libya, supports ongoing military intervention in Afghanistan, supports military intervention in Iraq, supports ongoing military intervention in Syria.

Sanders does not. What has a half century of military intervention and support of dictatorial repressive regimes in the Mideast gotten us? What's that definition of insanity again??

Like I said, his stance on military adventurism in the Mideast is enough for me alone.

Jim Mahan
01-31-2016, 09:51 AM
...many of the claims made about her are objectively nonsense.

Every bit of her reputation amoung people who listen only to soundbites is due to people listening only to soundbites.

As far as liking her as much as I like Obama, read the article by the reporter that actually read all the pointlessly controversial emails. Come away with an impression, based on detailed documentation for her years as SOS, that she is genuinely and authentically as concerned with citizens as with the country. I don't blame her at all for campaigning hard or for being flexible on important issues. It is exactly what I want in a president. The only reason it sounds bad, is that she has so consistently tarred for things that have zero basis in truth but that are constantly in the news, thanks to suit-wearing organisms that should have remained buried in painted caves in France.

The first woman president is going to be welcome surprise to all but those smooth-brained mouth-breathers that want to investigate Benghazi one more time and vote to repeal the ACA, what, sixty-some times.

Jim Mahan
01-31-2016, 09:53 AM
It's amazing to watch how irrational, normally rational people are, in the face of this election. Keith, I would have never expected you to post propaganda. I have such high regard for you, Keith, that it must be something else you're afraid of. It's not that Sanders can't win the election either . . . . what is it?

Project much?

Jim Mahan
01-31-2016, 09:54 AM
It's english. Ask Keith.

Norman Bernstein
01-31-2016, 09:55 AM
...and as far as her record goes she has less experience in elected office than did obama when he assumed the presidency

Sorry, my friend, but that's an absurd and unsupportable statement. Eight years as FLOTUS, and we can presume that a great deal of knowledge about the White House and how the executive office operates had to have rubbed off... followed by several years as a senator, and four years as Secretary of State....

Objectively, a GREAT deal more direct experience than Obama had.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2016, 09:58 AM
Mike, what I posted was not propaganda. Follow the links in the original article, and you can see how they did the analysis. It's as objective as anything in politics gets. I posted it because those farther left seem to have have invented an imaginary Hillary Clinton that is only slightly connected with the record of the real person. You are under no obligation to support her; one can make a reasonable case for Mr. Sanders. But the demonization of Ms. Clinton is starting to seriously bother me, whether on the right or the Sanderite left. Criticize her if you like, but base it on reality, not that hired lackey of the plutocrats who exists only in your mind. Perhaps it's the inevitable fate of the first person with two X chromosomes who has a serious shot at the presidency. Perhaps the left wing of the Democratic party is becoming infected with the same virus of ideological purity that has eaten the brain of much of the right; I don't know. Or I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I'll take it one step further. While I'll happily vote for Mr Sanders if he's the candidate, as he's light-years better than any Republican alternative, I will not support him at the caucuses. The closer I look, the less I admire him. As far as I can tell, he's an an uncompromising humorless impractical ideologue, with many good ideas but not the slightest idea how to really accomplish them, and Ms. Clinton's positions are closer to what I would do if I were in charge. His 'political revolution'' is a lovely fantasy, the equivalent of Paul Ryan's 'magic asterisk' when balancing the budget, the term in the equation that states "here a miracle occurs", something that simply won't happen in America in 2016.

John Smith
01-31-2016, 10:01 AM
She voted for war in Iraq, Yeah maybe she was lied to; but Sanders didn't vote for it. Not only that he spoke out agianst it actively and even without access to intel he questioned the validity of the reports of WMD's from the Bush White House and the CIA.

She supported military intervention in Libya, supports ongoing military intervention in Afghanistan, supports military intervention in Iraq, supports ongoing military intervention in Syria.

Sanders does not. What has a half century of military intervention and support of dictatorial repressive regimes in the Mideast gotten us? What's that definition of insanity again??

Like I said, his stance on military adventurism in the Mideast is enough for me alone.

Where I disagree with this is that no one actually voted for the war in Iraq.

This from Hillary's floor speech

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies[with inspectors], disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.You will note below that this resolution did, in fact, lead to Saddam complying with the inspectors, and it was absolutely not necessary to use the military at all to insure he had no WMD's. If you remember your history of those days, and recall how we got "freedom fries", it would help. It was when Bush yanked the inspectors and changed the mission from disarming Saddam to removing him, that the UN withdrew its support. We got angry at France; freedom fries came to be.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

and this from Hans Blix

"HANS BLIX, Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said that since UNMOVIC’s twelfth quarterly report had been finalized 10 days ago, a number of relevant events had taken place. Since 27 November 2002, when inspections in Iraq had resumed, relatively few difficulties had been faced relating to process, notably, prompt access to sites. That might well be due to the strong outside pressure. Some practical matters had been resolved at meetings in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones had been overcome. Inspectors were now able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

I am, and have been, under the opinion that we would have invaded Iraq without that resolution. As to some of the other things you mention, we can only guess at where we'd be if other decisions had been made.

For the record, I opposed both wars, but I supported that resolution because I hoped it would avoid the war in Iraq, and, in fact, it should have avoided that war.

When she supported actions as SoS, was she not supporting her president and his policies? Where does the old buck stop? And what is it all the GOP candidates want to do over there?

Norman Bernstein
01-31-2016, 10:02 AM
As far as I can tell, he's an an uncompromising humorless impractical ideologue, with many good ideas but not the slightest idea how to really accomplish them.

I don't think he's 'humorless'... but the rest of the statement is fair. If we all seriously doubt that Donald Trump would build a wall on the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay for it, we ought to be equally doubtful that Sanders can magically institute universal single payer health insurance.

ALL politicians make outrageous promises. Smart voters simply know how to filter and weight those promises.

Paul Pless
01-31-2016, 10:02 AM
Sorry, my friend, but that's an absurd and unsupportable statement.the article below, details her voting record, that's what i was referring to

you'll note in post #7 i agree that she has more experience relevant to the office than anyone else does

Norman Bernstein
01-31-2016, 10:05 AM
the article below, details her voting record, that's what i was referring to..

...and what I was responding to was your statement that "...and as far as her record goes she has less experience in elected office than did obama when he assumed the presidency.."

How someone votes on the issues, has nothing to do with experience. You may disagree with her votes (and so do I) but you cannot deny her experience.

Paul Pless
01-31-2016, 10:07 AM
...and what I was responding to was your statement that "...and as far as her record goes she has less experience in elected office than did obama when he assumed the presidency.."

How someone votes on the issues, has nothing to do with experience. You may disagree with her votes (and so do I) but you cannot deny her experience.

the entire premise of the article by fivethirtyeight is based upon her voting record,

John Smith
01-31-2016, 10:08 AM
the article below, details her voting record, that's what i was referring to

you'll note in post #7 i agree that she has more experience relevant to the office than anyone else does

Would you agree that one's experience includes the mistakes one has made? I think a question all those who've been in such positions ought to be asked would be one about what decisions they've made that they'd like to have decided differently.

Would you agree that life often presents a situation wherein one has several options, and none are 'good'?

Norman Bernstein
01-31-2016, 10:09 AM
the entire premise of the article by fivethirtyeight is based upon her voting record,

Then a fair statement would be, "I oppose her for her voting record, while admitting that she's the most experienced candidate."

How's that? :)

Paul Pless
01-31-2016, 10:11 AM
Then a fair statement would be, "I oppose her for her voting record, while admitting that she's the most experienced candidate."

How's that? :)that's what i said!!!

John Smith
01-31-2016, 10:17 AM
I spent a few minutes googling actual Clinton votes that pertain to Wall Street. Pretty much just got campaign stuff, as Sanders ads and campaign statements.

Didn't feel like putting more effort into it, but I am curious as to when she was in the senate and what votes came up that involved Wall Street.

This, too, is somewhat speculative. Many opposed the Wall Street bailout, but no one KNOWS where we'd be today without it.

Jim Mahan
01-31-2016, 10:18 AM
If Hillary had not had been the target of unrelenting, but wholly unsubstantiated, smear campaigns from the you-know-who's, there would be nearly zero reason to doubt her sincerity, her dedication, her humanity, her statesmanship, her voting record, and on and on. Take Elizabeth Warren, who doesn't have any such artificial smear baggage, and magically (for the sake of the argument) endow her with Hillary's actual accomplishments and experience, and she would be alone on the stage at the Dem convention, no one could touch her, least of all anyone from the so-called conservative sociopaths. If she hadn't been married to a Democrat who got his plumbing wet, she would already have been president, and Barack Obama would be looking at a second try for the office.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2016, 10:24 AM
The article proposes that she moved with her party on the larger social issues. You may be okay with this, I am not.Fair enough. Yes, I am OK with this. I have done the same myself.


Given her past political leanings when she was young,I'm sorry, being a young Republican as a teenager doesn't count. If you're not embarrassed by what you thought at age 18, you had a boring adolescence. That's a very silly line of attack.

The country has shifted very fast on same-sex marriage. No, Ms. Clinton did not lead on this issue. OK, so what? Yes, her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was a mistake. She admits that; I'm sorry if you don't think her admission is good enough. A lot of other people thought like she did at the time, including me. We were wrong.

And the central point here is this: I do not think changing one's ideas for the better over time is a sign of lack of character at all, rather the opposite. You may disagree.

Again, I can understand why one would prefer Mr. Sanders. But I agree 100% with Jim; the amount of complete bullsh!t that's been flung at Ms. Clinton, initially from the right, and now starting on the Sanderite left, is way, way, WAY out of proportion. I think it has a fair amount to do with being female; our culture isn't really used to powerful women, and tends to react weirdly.

John Smith
01-31-2016, 10:24 AM
The article proposes that she moved with her party on the larger social issues. You may be okay with this, I am not. Especially given the fact that Sanders presents someone who has held these beliefs for decades longer than her, and did not simply adopt the stances because the tide changed. That is character, something Clinton does not possess nearly to the same degree.

IMO the article says that "Clinton isn’t tacking to the center; she’s simply staying on the left." This is complete BS. Given her past political leanings when she was young, given her stance on gay marriage as recently as ten years ago, given her vote for war and now flippant excuse for voting for it, I'd say shes a tree in the wind and has not proven to be liberal in the least.

You are entitled. I think your logic may work for you, but it is kind of narrow. One could make a very strong argument that the very things you hold against Hillary are the things that make it more likely she'll move us in the direction Sanders wants to go. At the same time, Sanders' inability to 'compromise' his positions is the very reason, IMO, he'll not get any movement in that direction

I remember vividly when Bill was president and those who constantly criticized him. If he made a decision that was popular, he was accused of putting his finger in the wind. If he made a decision that was not popular, he was accused of ignoring the people.

Both Clinton and Sanders have pledged to nominate justices who support a woman's right to choose and would support overturning Citizens United. Both want to raise minimum wage. Both want to get to universal healthcare.

IMO, Clinton's experience makes her more likely to make progress in these areas.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 10:29 AM
i use the word like as in like her as a candidate

i too 'like' obama as an upstanding moral and honarable man, even though i think he's been a rather lackluster president What can he do, use more vetos. That's a complaint from the republicans in the making Paul. How much can any president do alone?

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 10:35 AM
I think you missed the elephant in the room. The other side will not work with her, period. They hate her as much as they hate Obama. Join the real world, she won't get anything done. Sanders is not likely to either but what he represents and for how he can excite the base, he is far far more likely to be good for this country than Clinton.The excuse republicians will use, she's female! The underlying excuse was Obama was black. And the beat goes on.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2016, 10:35 AM
who voted for the single most destructive thing any country has done since WW2, the Iraq war.Excuse me? Any country since WWII?? Not to defend the Iraq war in the least, but - the Vietnam War? The Great Leap Forward? The Cultural Revolution? The Cambodian genocides? The Korean War? The civil wars in the Congo? One could easily come up with a dozen worse things.

George Jung
01-31-2016, 10:40 AM
Funny thing - President Clinton may make some RWW's pine for the good ol' days - when Obama was President!

Irony, eh?

David G
01-31-2016, 10:41 AM
I like each of the two main Dem candidates for different reasons, and also have misgivings about each.

And it doesn't matter.

What matters is that either of them would be vastly preferable to any of the gang of goons the Reps are offering up.

Paul Pless
01-31-2016, 10:43 AM
What matters is that either of them would be vastly preferable to any of the gang of goons the Reps are offering up.fairy enuf

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 10:45 AM
I like each of the two main Dem candidates for different reasons, and also have misgivings about each.

And it doesn't matter.

What matters is that either of them would be vastly preferable to any of the gang of goons the Reps are offering up.Misgivings are normal. I'd be more worried if people didn't David.

Keith Wilson
01-31-2016, 11:39 AM
Including the Syrian civil war and ISIS as a direct result of the invasion if Iraq is dubious at best - not to defend it at all, you understand, but that's getting too far into alternate history.

FWIW, the Great Leap Forward killed about 45 million, best estimates, the Cultural Revolution about 30 million.


What matters is that either of them would be vastly preferable to any of the gang of goons the Reps are offering up.Exactly. Any differences between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are utterly trivial by comparison.

L.W. Baxter
01-31-2016, 11:57 AM
I like this thread.

LeeG
01-31-2016, 12:11 PM
She voted for war in Iraq, Yeah maybe she was lied to; but Sanders didn't vote for it. Not only that he spoke out agianst it actively and even without access to intel he questioned the validity of the reports of WMD's from the Bush White House and the CIA.

She supported military intervention in Libya, supports ongoing military intervention in Afghanistan, supports military intervention in Iraq, supports ongoing military intervention in Syria.

Sanders does not. What has a half century of military intervention and support of dictatorial repressive regimes in the Mideast gotten us? What's that definition of insanity again??

Like I said, his stance on military adventurism in the Mideast is enough for me alone.

My concern as well. Past outcomes from military adventurism don't seem to figure into the calculus of initiating the next one regardless of the party in power.
The MIC is part of the fabric of the country. The jobs, open ended credit card of the gov't, overseas sales, different kinds of bases popping up and now the US samurai class SOCOM/CIA continuing the GWOT. What politician can reorient nation priorities to investing in the general welfare, infrastructure and education when we're down to our last 2000 Hellfire missiles and we just gotta spend $10billion/yr on nonsense weapon systems? Pouring our national wealth into the MIC seems to make it's use inevitable.

LeeG
01-31-2016, 12:13 PM
I like each of the two main Dem candidates for different reasons, and also have misgivings about each.

And it doesn't matter.

What matters is that either of them would be vastly preferable to any of the gang of goons the Reps are offering up.

Then there's that

skaraborgcraft
01-31-2016, 01:24 PM
I too 'like' obama as an upstanding moral and honarable man, even though i think he's been a rather lackluster president

You say this about a man who signs off on drone strikes that has killed thousands of innocent people?

oznabrag
01-31-2016, 01:43 PM
You say this about a man who signs off on drone strikes that has killed thousands of innocent people?

Can you show me a war where thousands of innocent people DIDN'T die?

I'm pretty sure that went out of fashion a couple centuries back.

LeeG
01-31-2016, 01:46 PM
I stand corrected. Forgive my hype. I've been digging and the Korean War was quite costly too.

Regardless, to deny the impact of the Iraq war and to give Clinton a pass, given that the information was just as readily available to Sanders as her and given that even a layman like myself predicted that it would be a disaster for many reasons seen and for many unseen, gives me pause. We know Sanders was against the war and his reasoning turned out to be on the mark. We don't know if she "actually" regrets the vote, we never will. We know she made it without much resistance. Sanders resisted and questioned . . . well, don't take my word for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0deh6rQfiEg

At 1:15 he asks "why it is so important to vote this week..." Because all the ducks were being lined up in a row for a foregone decision to invade and the shelf life on their disinformation was going to expire the longer the invasion is put off.
That's what's so bizarre about this, Congress had about 72 hours to read a SUMMARY of the 2002 NIE with the 92 page classified version available to just a few.
The 2002 NIE was a rush job at Congresses insistence in Aug 2002 , I paraphrase, "hey, it looks like we're already moving 10,000's of soldiers and ****loads of weapons to the Gulf, maybe we should see the intel if we're going to vote on war?"
So while Tenet puts together a report for his boss, I mean Congress, that's been sprinkled with Chalabi and OSP crap Cheney has been channeling leaked and cherry picked intel through his minions to Judith Miller in the NYT which Rice could then quote to fertilize the fear.

And a year goes by with an election coming up with every criticism against the administration spun to be not supporting the troops and the mission. It's like the country had the biggest case of denial possible.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/us-intelligence-on-wmds-in-iraq/

One senator, Bob Graham of Florida, then chairman of the intelligence committee, has said that reading the full, classified 2002 NIE led him to vote against the war resolution. He had urged his colleagues to read the entire 92-page classified report prior to the vote. Graham said in a National Public Radio interview in June 2007 that he found the report to be "pocked with dissent, conditions, [and] minority opinions on a variety of critical issues."

........

In 2007 the Washington, D.C., newspaper The Hill surveyed current and former senators and reported that 22 of those who were serving in 2002 sent word they had read the full report. Since it would be embarrassing now to admit not reading it before voting on such an important matter, we suspect that number is inflated. But whether the true number is six or 22, it’s clear that only a small minority of the 100-member Senate read this important intelligence summary in full.
Among those who later admitted to not reading the full report were Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd, and Republican Sens. Sam Brownback and John McCain. All of them voted in favor of the war resolution, and all later ran for their respective party’s 2008 presidential nomination.

SullivanB
01-31-2016, 02:17 PM
In part:

Any differences between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are utterly trivial by comparison.

While I suspect that the overwhelming majority of folks supporting the Sanders candidacy would agree that a Clinton presidency must be thought superior to anything the Republicans might offer, it's a fundamental mistake to assume that they see Clinton and Sanders as "essentially" the same. That's just not the case. Its that they see the Clintons as an extension of the corrupt Democratic Party establishment that's abandoned the working man and woman starting no later than with the Clinton administration and continuing to this day. And in Sanders, at least on many of the things that matter most to them, they see the near polar opposite of what the Clintons and the other Party elites represent.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong, here; I'm merely pointing out that those other Dems, the millions of them so enthusiastically supporting Sanders, perceive the differences between the two candidates as anything but trivial.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 02:25 PM
Sully because I haven't totally made up my mind, of the two, who actually accomplish the most. I had a dream once. AND agreed in '08 with Obama!

oznabrag
01-31-2016, 02:32 PM
While I suspect that the overwhelming majority of folks supporting the Sanders candidacy would agree that a Clinton presidency must be thought superior to anything the Republicans might offer, it's a fundamental mistake to assume that they see Clinton and Sanders as "essentially" the same. That's just not the case. Its that they see the Clintons as an extension of the corrupt Democratic Party establishment that's abandoned the working man and woman starting no later than with the Clinton administration and continuing to this day. And in Sanders, at least on many of the things that matter most to them, they see the near polar opposite of what the Clintons and the other Party elites represent.

I'm not arguing that they're right or wrong, here; I'm merely pointing out that those other Dems, the millions of them so enthusiastically supporting Sanders, perceive the differences between the two candidates as anything but trivial.

Whatever.

If Sanders is going to be elected, he is going to need the votes of every one of the present Clinton supporters, and THEN SOME.

You fling poo at Hilly on Bernie's behalf, you alienate the present Hilly voter, you jeopardize the goal of putting a sane person in the White House.

It is so simple, even a cave man should get it.

Bernie certainly gets it.

Curtism
01-31-2016, 02:56 PM
Since Regan we've had four years of Bush senior, eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush junior followed by eight years of that Irishman, 'Clinton light'. If you're satisfied or content with the direction our country has gone over the last 30 years and pleased with the progress, or lack thereof, and feel we should simply stay the course, then by all means, Hillary is your man.

Many of us (particularly on the lower end of the economic spectrum) aren't quite so enamored with the change we're supposed to believe in and feel that the solution is not more of the same. It's time for someone new.

skaraborgcraft
01-31-2016, 03:04 PM
Can you show me a war where thousands of innocent people DIDN'T die?

I'm pretty sure that went out of fashion a couple centuries back.

Exactly what "war" is the US engaged in and against whom? It seems your military attitude is its "ok" to kill up to 50 innocent civilians in order to achieve an objective. ....thats moral and upstanding? And you wonder why there is a growing threat? Seems no one has grasped the concept of doing more harm than good, but i expect that was the plan all along....

oznabrag
01-31-2016, 03:09 PM
Meh. I don't think any body would let that get in the way of blocking any of the Republican crowd from being elected. Personally, I think this threat is a deflection on the part of the establishment to keep honest criticism from being addressed and I won't stand for it. Hillary would be better than any Republican but, Sanders has been, is, and will be, better than Clinton.

So now I'm a threatening member of the establishment?

You don't seem to grasp the fact that presidential elections in this country hinge on a 5-10% 'undecided' factor.

oznabrag
01-31-2016, 03:11 PM
Exactly what "war" is the US engaged in and against whom? It seems your military attitude is its "ok" to kill up to 50 innocent civilians in order to achieve an objective. ....thats moral and upstanding? And you wonder why there is a growing threat? Seems no one has grasped the concept of doing more harm than good, but i expect that was the plan all along....

Buddy, I'm afraid you're not making sense.

SullivanB
01-31-2016, 03:29 PM
Since Regan we've had four years of Bush senior, eight years of Clinton, eight years of Bush junior followed by eight years of that Irishman, 'Clinton light'. If you're satisfied or content with the direction our country has gone over the last 30 years and pleased with the progress, or lack thereof, and feel we should simply stay the course, then by all means, Hillary is your man.

Many of us (particularly on the lower end of the economic spectrum) aren't quite so enamored with the change we're supposed to believe in and feel that the solution is not more of the same. It's time for someone new.

Well said, indeed, for you've succinctly identified what I see as the basic distinction between what the two candidates represent.

skaraborgcraft
01-31-2016, 03:30 PM
Buddy, I'm afraid you're not making sense.

You said innocent people always get killed in war. Im asking you what country or countries is the USA at war with. If we take this one step at a time, we might get to the crux....

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 03:32 PM
Im asking you what country or countries is the USA at war with.

Is this satire, please tell me it is.

LeeG
01-31-2016, 03:35 PM
And Clinton gave away the farm as seen below, she had the same info, and lack of info that Sanders had:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSu0zXCR9sE

Tell me which one will fight for the people and which one will just roll over and give into the MIC. Tell me which one you'd trust with your young men's lives.

It's pretty damn obvious.

skuthorp
01-31-2016, 03:37 PM
The USA is permanently 'at war' with something or somebody. Proxy wars of course, a traditional world war with a major state would see MAD on the grand scale and amongst the first to die would be the politicians and industrialists that started it. They may be venal and unprincipled, but they are not insane.
Their money is of no use if they, and their society is dead.

skaraborgcraft
01-31-2016, 03:53 PM
Im asking you what country or countries is the USA at war with.

Is this satire, please tell me it is.

Afraid not. I am not unfamiliar with "collateral damage", and its is part of war. My point is, has the US declared war against Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia? I must have missed that in the newspaper.

There is a difference between a war, and civilian deaths caused by a targeted killing campaign; which is what Obama signs off on.

It seems as long as its happening outside of your own borders, its not an issue, hence no moral outrage on what is basically murder of innocent people. Must be that exceptional thing again huh?

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 04:33 PM
Civilians are killed in war, no one nitpicks, in the way. civilian, terrorists or soldiers.Sign off? If that means trying to put an end to what Bushy and company maybe yes.

skaraborgcraft
01-31-2016, 05:08 PM
Civilians are killed in war, no one nitpicks, in the way. civilian, terrorists or soldiers.Sign off? If that means trying to put an end to what Bushy and company maybe yes.

You use the word war again. Has war been declared against those countries?
Obama "signs off" on every targeted killing list, hence we go back to how moral is that knowing you have killed thousands of civillians living in countries who you have NOT declared war with. Obama has signed off on more drone operations than Bush & Co, so despite the promise of things must change......things have got worse. Im sure a lot of Americans thought Obama was the change that was needed, but it seems its buisness as usual, no matter what party is in the House.

So the fact that more civilians in Somalia have been killed than terrorists, led me to question those who think Obamas moral integrity is good, must surely agree with what he does is right?

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 05:11 PM
Was war declared in Korea, VN or most any "war" since WW2?

oznabrag
01-31-2016, 05:16 PM
You use the word war again. Has war been declared against those countries?
Obama "signs off" on every targeted killing list, hence we go back to how moral is that knowing you have killed thousands of civillians living in countries who you have NOT declared war with. Obama has signed off on more drone operations than Bush & Co, so despite the promise of things must change......things have got worse. Im sure a lot of Americans thought Obama was the change that was needed, but it seems its buisness as usual, no matter what party is in the House.

So the fact that more civilians in Somalia have been killed than terrorists, led me to question those who think Obamas moral integrity is good, must surely agree with what he does is right?

SO old-fashioned.

S.V. Airlie
01-31-2016, 05:23 PM
Who started the current, undeclared" wars, both of them. Try blaming the guilty party.If anything, they've been republicans. And the candidates (republican) are doing it again.