What will happen at the Democratic Convention?

[grunion]

I want you to know I agree with 95 percent of this. I was a Bernie supporter too. But it was never ever out of hate for Hillary. That was the one thing that bothered me about many of the young people involved with supporting Bernie. You couldn't help but being inspired by these young kids passion and energy. Sadly it seemed as though that their passion was fueled not only for Bernie and his proposals, but a misguided hate for Hillary that they ginned up.

Politics can easily make us cynical. It's hard to get excited about compromise. I desperately want to see these same kids learn that they made a difference. That THEY moved the needle. This is not a small thing. They should be proud. But the Bernie or busters lack the proper perspective. Tearing down the ten stories of a building you built because now you're being told it won't be the 20 story building you first envisioned is childish.

I don't want to see them waste their work and leave politics disillusioned because we need THEM in office in 4, 8 or 16 years.

Progress usually comes in small increments. Sometimes politicians like Hillary knowing this don't push hard enough. They need to be reminded that more can be done and that they will be supported in taking on that challenge.

But it's wrong to look at Hillary and not see that she is fighting for 95 percent of what Bernie supporters are.

Thanks, I don't agree with you entirely but you make good points. I am of the generation that protested LBJ (despite the possibility that maybe 75% of what he stood for I was pretty good with) - there were deeper moral issues involved. We loved RFK (and then Eugene McCarthy) in 1968 when Humphrey stole the nomination, and I could not bring myself to support him. My dislike for subsequent Democratic candidates was so strong that until Obama I could not bring myself to vote for another (with the possible exception of Mondale, if I recall correctly - I thought the Ferarro VP pick was a real sign that he would be different.) I found Bill Clinton's trade policies, welfare reform, and financial deregulation so abhorrent, not to mention foreign policy that he drove me further away. Hillary comes from that same tradition of "moderate" Democrats (somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon actually) that take the left for granted as they move to the right in the general election.

Of course in this election there is a sick narcissistic fascist running against her so it is urgent that I support the "moderate." Plus the fact that she's a woman makes me feel a bit better about it. But I picked that Bernie Sanders quote above because I think it is true. Based upon what we saw there might actually be the beginnings of something sustainable in place.

 

[The Big Dog]

I can't be the only one giggling at this parade of neo-cons being foisted on this thread, can I?

DICK CHENEY's PRESS SECRETARY! What, Emperor Palpatine not available or something?

cluebat: But perhaps it is bad when your convention doubles as Viagra for old Bush administration fanatics/employees. This is not the type of company the Democratic party has tended or wanted to keep, nor should it. The Bush administration is recognized by the broad left as a purely shameful period in this country’s history. That those who worked inside it, or celebrated said work from the outside, have even positive twinges of feeling about the direction of Democratic party should be openly alarming.

Hell Hillary's bloodlust vote for war is a positive now!

FANTASTIC!

Perhaps the last place you’d expect to find John Stubbs or Ricardo Reyes, two former George W. Bush administration officials and ardent Republicans who retired from politics years ago, is at the Democratic National Convention in 2016.
“If you’d told me five years ago this is where I’d be today…” said Reyes, breaking into a laugh. He glanced across the kitchen table at Stubbs, who shrugged ruefully.

“Look, if the Republicans had nominated anyone else, we’d be voting for them,” Stubbs said.

Trump, is dangerous, not only to the free-market values of traditional Republicanism, but also to the security and integrity of the United States.

And the only reasonable alternative, is Hillary Clinton."

 

[The Big Dog]

As a proud former member of the Military, I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton can put the leash on our problems!

-@Lynndie England

Some content of the post may be satirical

 

[timhau]

Here is a word cloud of Trump's speech, vs one of Hillary's speech.

TRUMP:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/19580579b69f46ece3.jpg[/qimg]

CLINTON:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/19580579b6a4e2155e.jpg[/qimg]

Glancing over these, and dividing them into the main words (1) vs the next main words (2) I see:

Trump:
1) Going America* one country

Yes, but how many people and how many leaders?

 

[Garrison]

You see lifelong Republicans coming out to support Clinton and instead of seeing that as a damning indictment of the Republican party's nominee you think its a stick to beat Clinton with? Do you think these guys magically woke up one morning and decided they just love Hilary Clinton so much? Or is it more likely that faced with a buffoonish candidate who is on trial for fraud and advocates a foreign power stealing US secrets they bit the bullet.

I can understand why someone wouldn't support Clinton but I cannot understand it when the reasons given are magnified tenfold in Trump. Liar, crook, cozy with the rich, even if all that were true of Clinton, Trump is worse on every count.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Kaine and Unable

Think that one up all by yourself, didja?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

As a proud former member of the Military, I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton can put the leash on our problems!

-@Lynndie England

[COLOR="Horse shirts "]Some content of the post may be satirical[/COLOR]

I changed your color.
I suggest you not carry this further. As a former member of the military twice, I find offensive that you would make up statements and attribute it to someone else to score Facebook quality gotcha points.

 

[The Big Dog]

You see lifelong Republicans coming out to support Clinton and instead of seeing that as a damning indictment of the Republican party's nominee you think its a stick to beat Clinton with? Do you think these guys magically woke up one morning and decided they just love Hilary Clinton so much? Or is it more likely that faced with a buffoonish candidate who is on trial for fraud and advocates a foreign power stealing US secrets they bit the bullet.

I can understand why someone wouldn't support Clinton but I cannot understand it when the reasons given are magnified tenfold in Trump. Liar, crook, cozy with the rich, even if all that were true of Clinton, Trump is worse on every count.

Lolz, and if Dick Cheney's press secretary told you that it was raining outside you'd go check, unless of course it was blowing smoke about Hillary.

Shillaries are now excited about what Dick Cheney's press secretary has to say!!

Living the dream!

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks, I don't agree with you entirely but you make good points. I am of the generation that protested LBJ (despite the possibility that maybe 75% of what he stood for I was pretty good with) - there were deeper moral issues involved. We loved RFK (and then Eugene McCarthy) in 1968 when Humphrey stole the nomination, and I could not bring myself to support him. My dislike for subsequent Democratic candidates was so strong that until Obama I could not bring myself to vote for another (with the possible exception of Mondale, if I recall correctly - I thought the Ferarro VP pick was a real sign that he would be different.) I found Bill Clinton's trade policies, welfare reform, and financial deregulation so abhorrent, not to mention foreign policy that he drove me further away. Hillary comes from that same tradition of "moderate" Democrats (somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon actually) that take the left for granted as they move to the right in the general election.

Of course in this election there is a sick narcissistic fascist running against her so it is urgent that I support the "moderate." Plus the fact that she's a woman makes me feel a bit better about it. But I picked that Bernie Sanders quote above because I think it is true. Based upon what we saw there might actually be the beginnings of something sustainable in place.

I'm also on board with 95 percent of this.

I have more mixed feelings about LBJ than any President in history. If you could get around the Vietnam war, he would easily be my 2nd favorite President of the last century. (But you can't get around Vietnam) I cried for a week when Bobby was killed. I think he would have walked away with the nomination. But even Bobby God bless him wouldn't have made the Dems win in 68. The Civil Rights Act and George Wallace and Southern Democrats splitting even flipping parties assured of that.

I can surely appreciate anyone who saw the disaster of Chicago of 68 being disillusioned. But the choice for the President in the GE has always been a binary choice and I'm confident that it will be always unless we incorporate a version of most popular multiple selection voting.

 

[Shalamar]

Lolz, and if Dick Cheney's press secretary told you that it was raining outside you'd go check, unless of course it was blowing smoke about Hillary.

Shillaries are now excited about what Dick Cheney's press secretary has to say!!

Living the dream!

Strawman.

This is not what is happening. Democrats and Liberals are SURPRISED that Many republicans are actually coming out in favor of Hillary Clinton. They aren't suddenly favorable towards these people, but reacting by the shear oddness of the situation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I changed your color.
I suggest you not carry this further. As a former member of the military twice, I find offensive that you would make up statements and attribute it to someone else to score Facebook quality gotcha points.

Suggestion noted, and quite firmly rejected.

-Hillary is the base of our human pyramid of power!

@Specialist Charles Graner

 

[Fudbucker]

I wonder how much Clinton's hawkishness is due to the political reality that a woman running for office has to present herself as "tough" to be taken seriously. She doesn't strike me as someone who's particularly gung-ho about militaristic interventions.

 

[acbytesla]

Doug Elmets, former Reagan spokesman — "I could live with four years of Hillary Clinton before I could ever live with one day of Donald Trump as president."

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder how much Clinton's hawkishness is due to the political reality that a woman running for office has to present herself as "tough" to be taken seriously. She doesn't strike me as someone who's particularly gung-ho about militaristic interventions.

Iraq and Libya come to mind?

 

[Fudbucker]

Iraq and Libya come to mind?

Yes, and I wonder how much of that was due to Clinton not wanting to "look weak". Women running for office in this country really don't play by the same set of rules as men. They've been vastly underrepresented in all branches of government and while many other countries have had women leaders, Clinton would be our first, obviously.

 

[acbytesla]

Jim Cicconi, former Reagan and George H.W. Bush aide — "Hillary Clinton is experienced, qualified and will make a fine president. The alternative, I fear, would set our nation on a very dark path.”

 

[grunion]

Yes, and I wonder how much of that was due to Clinton not wanting to "look weak". Women running for office in this country really don't play by the same set of rules as men. They've been vastly underrepresented in all branches of government and while many other countries have had women leaders, Clinton would be our first, obviously.

It's not as if this is her first rodeo - as we are so constantly reminded she has considerable experience advocating the use of the US military as a means of global policy enforcement.

Link:

...(T)wo things can be said about her tenure at the State Department: first, that in fact she accomplished very little; and second, that both before her appointment and during her service, she consistently came down on the hawkish side of debates inside the administration, from Afghanistan to Libya and Syria. She’s also taken a more hawkish line than Obama on Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia.

... And, while it’s wrong (and really silly) to call Clinton a neoconservative, she’s more of—how to put it?—a “right-wing realist” on foreign policy, who often backed military intervention as a first or second resort, while others in the White House—especially Obama’s national security staff and Vice President Biden’s own aides, were far more reluctant to employ the troops.

...(J)ust before the November 2012 election—after Gates had left the administration and was replaced by Leon Panetta—Clinton joined Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and the military in proposing that the United States go to war in Syria. (That the United States didn’t act more aggressively in Syria back then was entirely due to President Obama’s decision to resist Clinton and the other hawks.)

And, more famously, Clinton—joined by several other administration officials, including Samantha Power and Susan Rice—pushed hard, and successfully, for the United States to go to war in Libya. For Republicans who’ve endlessly waved the bloody flag of Benghazi, Clinton’s hawkish view on Libya contradicts much of the nonsense they go on about. But for progressives, it’s an ugly blot on Clinton’s résumé. Not only did the war in Libya go far to inflame Russian nationalism, it also created a terrible vacuum in North Africa, toppling Muammar Qaddafi but leaving hundreds of armed militias in his stead, creating chaos and anarchy. (And, because the war against Qaddafi followed the Libyan leader’s decision to forgo a nuclear arms program, it also sent the wrong message to Iran, namely, give up your nuclear program and we’ll attack you anyway.)

The linked article contains several more examples of Hillary's militarism and proclivity for destabilizing and nation-building (and thus what we can reasonably expect from a Hillary Clinton administration), if you're interested. You can psychologize away as "overcompensating to not look weak" but we only have her record upon which to judge her.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's not as if this is her first rodeo - as we are so constantly reminded she has considerable experience using the US military as a means of global policy enforcement.

Link:









The linked article contains several more examples of Hillary's militarism (and what we can reasonably expect from a Hillary Clinton administration), if you're interested.

You're preaching to the choir. Clinton's actions make her practically a neo-con. But it just doesn't feel authentic to me. I think it's a facade she feels she has to construct in order to be taken seriously as a CiC. I'm not posting about what she's done, but what her true motives are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, and I wonder how much of that was due to Clinton not wanting to "look weak". Women running for office in this country really don't play by the same set of rules as men. They've been vastly underrepresented in all branches of government and while many other countries have had women leaders, Clinton would be our first, obviously.

A plurality of democrats don't oppose military conflict. I don't see the fact that Clinton is like them is that relevant.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're preaching to the choir. Clinton's actions make her practically a neo-con. But it just doesn't feel authentic to me. I think it's a facade she feels she has to construct in order to be taken seriously as a CiC. I'm not posting about what she's done, but what her true motives are.

This might come as a surprise, but I am not a big fan of Hillary and even i think that is a wee bit sexist.

Women can have an egomaniac thirst for power and bloodlust as much as any man.

Exhibit a: Hillary Clinton