The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 +1 respect for Trump, never thought I'd say that, for calling bullshit on the Iraq invasion. Though I have no idea of the historical record of where Trump stood on invading Iraq back in 2002/3. So I reserve the right to give him a -2 if it turns out he was all gung-ho with going into Iraq at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Apparently Rubio is gunning for the presidency of Canada (Maybe the Canadian boarders here would like to tell us of his prospects?) Or his crack corporate campaign team flubbed big time. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marco-rubio%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cmorning-in-america%E2%80%9D-ad-opens-with-a-shot-of-the-wrong-country/ar-BBpzuaR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 hours ago, Kalbear said: It's not 'absolutely inaccurate'. What drivel. His final point was that if Iraq resists inspections or if evidence is found then the US should help enforce compliance. What do you think that entails? But sure, fine. Here's Obama's transcript on what he said, too. The takeaway for me is that Sanders had a lot of questions he wanted answered. He isn't saying "You want a fight, President Bush" like Obama did - he's asking for info. Asking for what's going to happen after, what the legal justification is, what the moral standing will be. Obama isn't doing that. The rhetoric is very different. It does not necessarily entail full scale invasion and overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime. At the beginning of the transcript Bernie clearly says he's not voting in favour of the war. He's giving a bunch of excellent reasons why he's voting against Bush, he's not actually asking for more information so that he might be convinced to change his vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 hours ago, Kalbear said: I'm failing to see the distinction that you're making. Sanders would like to have a bigger universal health care plan. That's true. That's more liberal than Obama. He would also like to have laxer gun restrictions. That's true. That's less liberal than Obama. Sanders voted for the war in Afghanistan every time it came up. He voted to extend it. He has never stated that he wouldn't. That's the same. Sanders voted for drone strikes and has stated he'd continue drone strikes. That's exactly the same. Sanders and Obama both voted to not go to war in Iraq. That's the same. Obama pledged to raise taxes on the rich to pay for his stuff. That's the same. Obama pledged to improve minority and LGBT rights in the workplace. That's more liberal (so far) than Sanders. I guess if universal health care is the only benchmark you care about then yes, Sanders is WAY WAY WAY more liberal. And i guess that's fair, but I don't see it as the only thing that makes a candidate liberal. It does make a lot of people seem to be very single-issue though. This is a bit glib, isn't it? If you wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy by 3% and I wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy by 30%, it's true that we both want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but it would be more than a bit misleading to characterize us as the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonesy Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The Nate Silver has spoken! http://usuncut.com/politics/nations-top-pollster-predicts-a-bernie-sanders-win-in-nevada/ Onward to South Carolina! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Contrary to popular belief, Sanders does actually have a decent track record at working with Republicans. Here's an article about him when he was first standing for Senate: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825 Sanders is the amendment king of the current House of Representative. Since the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, no other lawmaker – not Tom DeLay, not Nancy Pelosi – has passed more roll-call amendments (amendments that actually went to a vote on the floor) than Bernie Sanders. He accomplishes this on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions. As an independent. Clearly for as long as Bernie was not tarred with the Democratic brush Republicans would be happy to work with him on matters of mutual interest, or at least on matters of relative ambivalence to the Republicans. Now that Bernie flies the Democratic flag, and unashamedly uses the 's' word, the chances of him working effectively with a Republican congress are no better than Clinton's chances. Bernie might still be willing, but the Republicans won't be. That's what happens when Switzerland chooses a side. Instead of having neutral acquaintances you get a bunch of new friends and a bunch of new enemies. Bernie thinks he can do something meaningful as president. Either he'll find out he can't win against the Democratic machine and lose to Hillary, or he'll find out that his world view doesn't play with the voting public and he'll lose to the Republican candidate, or he'll find out can't actually achieve much as president and will lose to the Washington machine. Bernie's vision of change has about as much chance of succeeding as Obama's. It's a shame Bernie doesn't already realise this and decides he can be more effective outside the oval office than in it. Perhaps Al Gore should have a chat with him. I think despite the Iraq debacle Al Gore probably still thinks he's done more for the good of the world by not being president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Obama campaigned on a lot more than a 3% raise to the rich though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-candidacy-reveals-generational-schism-among-women/ar-BBpAhZE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic It is as if Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, based partly on revealing the power of female voters, has instead revealed something else: a generational schism that threatens to undermine it. Mrs. Clinton lost the women’s vote in New Hampshire by 11 percentage points. Broken down by age, the results were even more striking: She led by 19 points among women 65 and older, but trailed by a huge margin, 59 points, among millennial voters, ages 18 to 29. The responses to her campaign pitted mothers and daughters against one another, set off debates about what feminism is and provoked self-reflection among women of all ages, evident in dozens of interviews and impassioned responses to an online query about whether it is important to elect a woman as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Leap said: Well hold on, and first let me also say that I never thought I'd be defending Trump (and also mention my complete and utter lack of understanding of the situation wrt Iraq), but I'm sure Trump is far from the only person who believed they had WMDs then (whether or not that's a fair reason to invade), who later realised that actually the justification was more than a little sketchy. I think it's fair to call shenanigans on the people making the decisions back then if they /were/ in the know. But enough people called shenanigans back in 2002/3 and didn't buy Colin Powell's cartoon pictures of WMD laden trucks presented as evidence to the UN. There was actually reasonable evidence at the time that Saddam didn't have any WMD nor an active WMD programme. The IAEA thought that the evidence pointed towards no WMD. So anyone who was gung-ho about going into Iraq back in '02/3 is at least guilty of wilful ignorance, and therefore if they've changed their tune they don't get points for coming to a conclusion that millions of people arrived at back in '02/3. And they certainly don;t get points for making it part of their political campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: As an independent. Clearly for as long as Bernie was not tarred with the Democratic brush Republicans would be happy to work with him on matters of mutual interest, or at least on matters of relative ambivalence to the Republicans. Now that Bernie flies the Democratic flag, and unashamedly uses the 's' word, the chances of him working effectively with a Republican congress are no better than Clinton's chances. Bernie might still be willing, but the Republicans won't be. Except that Bernie called himself a socialist throughout his time in the House, and caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. Republicans know who (and what) he is - he was never at any point a neutral independent, or a Switzerland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-candidacy-reveals-generational-schism-among-women/ar-BBpAhZE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=msnclassic Quote It is as if Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, based partly on revealing the power of female voters, has instead revealed something else: a generational schism that threatens to undermine it. Mrs. Clinton lost the women’s vote in New Hampshire by 11 percentage points. Broken down by age, the results were even more striking: She led by 19 points among women 65 and older, but trailed by a huge margin, 59 points, among millennial voters, ages 18 to 29. The responses to her campaign pitted mothers and daughters against one another, set off debates about what feminism is and provoked self-reflection among women of all ages, evident in dozens of interviews and impassioned responses to an online query about whether it is important to elect a woman as president. It's an interesting question. If you do think it's about time that a woman be president, and you are on the left of the political spectrum there is a decent argument to be made that voting in a woman as president is more important than voting in someone who's leftist elements of his agenda are more appealing to you but unlikely to be actually implementable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 18 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Obama campaigned on a lot more than a 3% raise to the rich though. Is Sanders defining "the rich" more broadly than Pres. Obama allowing for a smaller tax increase on more people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Is Sanders defining "the rich" more broadly than Pres. Obama allowing for a smaller tax increase on more people? Not really. It didn't matter, as Obama's tax plans were never really even proposed officially. He lost what capital he had with the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 The second the invasion happened, the Bush Administration dropped talk of WMDs and started talking about "liberating" Iraq and "bringing freedom to its people." Which, of course, had not been mentioned at all in the lead-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Except that Bernie called himself a socialist throughout his time in the House, and caucused with the Democrats in the Senate. Republicans know who (and what) he is - he was never at any point a neutral independent, or a Switzerland. Except in the US political climate an independent socialist is preferable to work with on matters of convergent interest than a capitalist Democrat; but worse still is a socialist Democrat. The latter give aid and comfort to the enemy, the former does not. Bernie is now the enemy, before he wasn't. Switzerland isn't really Switzerland either. 2 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: The second the invasion happened, the Bush Administration dropped talk of WMDs and started talking about "liberating" Iraq and "bringing freedom to its people." Which, of course, had not been mentioned at all in the lead-up. Don't forget Tony Blair. He was the great enabler here, both before and after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Leap said: Well hold on, and first let me also say that I never thought I'd be defending Trump (and also mention my complete and utter lack of understanding of the situation wrt Iraq), but I'm sure Trump is far from the only person who believed they had WMDs then (whether or not that's a fair reason to invade), who later realised that actually the justification was more than a little sketchy. I think it's fair to call shenanigans on the people making the decisions back then if they /were/ in the know. No, no, no. It took willful ignorance. The NIE's own report said: 1) there no WMD's. 2) that like most leaders he undoubtedly would like to have them, but in the unlikely event Saddam ever acquired any, he would almost certainly not use them, and definitely not against the US, directly or indirectly. AQ et al were actually his enemies most of the time, wanted him out/dead, and he knew it. The NIE report was public record. You can still look it up and read it online, if you like. It's findings were not obscure; it was pretty big news at the time. The WH decided that the CIA wasn't giving them the answers they wanted, so they invented their own Intel department and finally came up with a story no one else, in either the US or international intelligence/diplomatic community credited. The CIA agreed with the rest of the world/disagreed with the WH. Moreover, in taking the decision to reject the UNSC ruling, the US was ironically breaking the very law/treaty it was saying Saddam's violation of was causi belli. It's really rare for something in diplomatic/political circles to be this black and white, but in Iraq it was. It was all there to see, out in the open. The entire world (except briefly the UK right around when Blair fired them up) disagreed. The entire world said that there was no evidence of WMD's in Iraq excepting the ones Saddam got from the US and used while a US ally. More, out in the open, was the WH overriding desire to go to war with Iraq w/e the reason. They kept inventing different arguments, which kept getting rejected. Like throwing spagetti against a wall, finally they hit in WMD's which moved the needle in America, alone, if you overlooked the facts. And those facts include this: Bob Woodward was actually in the WH during the period immediately following 9-11. He was writing a biography of Bush, essentially. And he was there, and wrote for the record, that Bush's first reaction was to demand that evidence be found for 9-11 being an Iraqi project. Because he wanted to invade. It was that clear. And this is not tin foil stuff. This is Bob Woodward, and the book in which he recounts this was on the WH recommended reading list. There is so much more, too...I could fill pages. The idea that it was 'bad Intel' or that it reasonably looked like X but turned out to be Y is revisionist bullshit. This was not an honest mistake, this was the US getting caught up in the 'with us or against us, Freedom Fries' etc. mentality in which the rest of the world saying you're wrong only serves to reinforce conviction. This was about jingoism and fear and racism and America Fuck Yeah, and was not about a sincere but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to do the right thing. America needs to be honest with itself about it's decisions...and this WAS a popular decision at the time, within the US. But not because the facts weren't available, but rather because Americans didn't want to know them, or didn't bother to look at them because, I mean, it's only another foreign invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 28 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: It's an interesting question. If you do think it's about time that a woman be president, and you are on the left of the political spectrum there is a decent argument to be made that voting in a woman as president is more important than voting in someone who's leftist elements of his agenda are more appealing to you but unlikely to be actually implementable. This is precisely the argument that young people reject. For example, at Clinton's alma mater: Quote Several patterns emerged in dozens of interviews with Wellesley students who support both candidates. No matter whom they support, students want to see a female President and admire Clinton as an icon. But both Sanders and Clinton supporters say that gender has little to do with their decision, and they resent the implication that it might. Young Sanders supporters buck against the notion that they “should” be supporting the female candidate, and Clinton supporters reject the idea that they’re only supporting her because she’s a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It looks like Rubio will get third again, then of course go on to claim victory. http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/south-carolina-trump-clinton-poll-219340 Poll: Trump, Clinton up big in South Carolina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 If Facebook 'likes' were votes, Sanders would be president. That says something: http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/heres-who-would-be-president-if-facebook-likes-were-votes/vi-BBpAvIN?ocid=msnclassic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: It's an interesting question. If you do think it's about time that a woman be president, and you are on the left of the political spectrum there is a decent argument to be made that voting in a woman as president is more important than voting in someone who's leftist elements of his agenda are more appealing to you but unlikely to be actually implementable. As a feminist and an actual female just past millenial age, I can say it is not. Hillary Clinton just isn't a very good feminist candidate, female or not. What I want more than a female president (but make no mistake, I want one) is a feminist president. I want a president who will make absolutely no compromise on abortion rights. Hillary Clinton has said she could compromise on late term abortion. I want a president who is and has always been pro welfare access for poor single mothers. Hillary Clinton has made statements about that I found very out of touch with the struggles involved with that. I want a president who doesn't try and sweep allegations of her husband's sexual assaults under the rug for him. And moreover, I do not want the first female president to be a former First Lady. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would have been a New York senator if she had never married Bill Clinton, and I believe even if she would have, I don't think that she'd be a national candidate yet. Her Senate record is just not impressive (it's also not liberal enough for my tastes but this is about feminism right now). I want the first female president to be a woman nobody can ever diminish by passing the credit to her husband, I want there to be no question that she is there on no merit but her own. That's why yes, I would rather wait until I can have an Elizabeth Warren or an Amy Klobuchar who have no head start from anyone, no advantage but their own hard work. I respect that Clinton has risen to the occasion when opportunities have been handed to her, but I don't want anything to have been handed to the first female president at all. Not by a husband, not by the media, not by the DNC, and for fucks sake not by feminists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.