I got tricked into voting for John Kerry in 2004 because I read a transcript of his 1971 winter soldier testimony. People change.
In the 1980s I was in several civil disobedience actions fighting Reagan’s wars against the Contras and Nicaragua. I cannot believe that Hillary could now be condemning us for these acts that we considered patriotic even though we faced imprisonment and loss of our jobs. If Hillary wins the nomination, I will write in Bernie Sanders but there is no way now that I would ever consider voting for Hillary. Would almost rather see Trump get in. At least we would get the president we deserve.
Too blunt for what? Not too blunt for me, since I agree with you. Probably too blunt for winning the hearts and minds of embarrassing morons. Seems about average bluntness for casual Internet discourse.
I’m female by the way, so I’m allowed to despise Hillary Clinton without being accused of sexism. There is no part of me that’s even a little bit sorry for not voting for her because she could be the first uterine-American president.
Just regarding a “side issue” in this discussion – that of “human rights:” Who wants to define this? According to the UN’s UDHR, food and shelter are fundamental human rights – even for the jobless poor. America disagrees. When was the last time you heard liberals call for restoring basic human rights for our poor? Right. Now take a look at our prisons. We now have a prison system that makes the old Soviet gulag look puny in comparison, we know that many are falsely convicted, and we know that human rights abuses aren’t unusual.
Face it, Americans today just aren’t into human rights.
Succinct, and I share these sentiments.
She is a gross hypocrite and completely untrustworthy. There is so much blood on the streets of various nations, that she is at least in part, responsible for, that it is beyond belief.
Umm, hate to bring it up, but anyone know the odds in Vegas of Bernie being Wellstoned now that HRC is unraveling?
De acuerdo, feel the Bern!
You might try New Zealand. My nephew moved there right after the Iraq war invasion and says it is one of the best moves he ever made. I have never been there but if Bernie gets thrown under the bus by HRC or is assassinated, I have my passport ready.
I write from the land of humanity. If you can see only a comparison in JFK, let me gently say that despite his fame, he was of the least in world affairs.
This cogently relates to "America’, which is a laughably self-admiring identity. Only a clown would be proud of such a name and have a consequent claim to validity in proportion to the laughs he inspires.
My advice is that ‘Americans’ stop worshipping self in the name of such as Kennedy, Reagan, God, Marylin Monroe, Democracy,Rambo, NASA, the Rule of Law, or Justice. or Human Rights, or again ‘America’ and so on—and on----- for so long------and long all in Capital Letters!.
Get real ‘America’!
You are a simply silly identity. Humanity need no longer look at any more evidence in support of this.
Your self worship in the name of any and all of the above has murdered too many people to allow you to assert your human validity any more.
You will have to pay.
He is the best candidate since JFK…though we did have George McGovern who might have done good things.
I (think) the bar for getting into NZ is high, financially. Unless you have lots of moola, you might have a pretty hard time getting in…at least to stay. Good choice though! (But you do have family there! Could be just the ticket!)
Hugo Chavez was a true hero to the World’s people!
No at all, the deluded masses are, well lost in the land of denial!
You are correct. It is very,very difficult for the average person to become a citizen of New Zealand. You have to be very wealthy, be very high skilled in something they want, or have good connections, so definitely not for everyone.
I agree entirely but it’s odd that you use JFK as a standard of presidential quality, given that JFK did his best to assassinate and/or overthrow Castro.
Never the truth from the zionist mouth organ, The NYT.
not true, James Douglas, " JFK and the Unspeakable"
Here we see vintage Clinton, moralizing based on pure hubris, flaunting her lack of positive foreign policy experience, and trying to avoid real argument by casting the bad guy lens on her opponents from the start. If Sanders’s more compassionate foreign policy views are considered dated liberalism, then it’s probably no coincidence that I used to be liberal. Compassionate approaches are important, not just for human reasons, but for the practical reason that wars are much more easily entered than withdrawn from.
We should be concerned about the very real danger of Clinton’s deeply undereducated foreign policy team finding itself on the job again. Whatever people think they are capable of, they consistently seem to miss (or underestimate) that inconvenient human trait that people will always humanize their own particular set of circumstances. So they swoop in with grand hawkish plans which have little more beneficial effect than to insult the people who they’re dealing with.
Clinton can always say that if someone has a problem with her hawkishness, then there’s a lot more of that on the Republican side. But this is less an exoneration of Clinton than a recognition of the unfortunate commonality of self-flagellating hawkish thinking. In the case of the Republicans, the pretense is ostensibly national security. But if strict, harsh measures are used as a deterrent against militant extremists, those measures will be very effective in deterring those who are uncomfortable with strict, harsh measures, i.e. not militant extremists.
Clinton could point to her efforts to oppose dictators (from Saddam to Assad) as a sign that she’s on the right side of the argument. But whenever she doubles down on her hawkish approach to those dictators, she’s overlooking the fact that people actually living under a dictatorship will invert their notions of “democracy” and “dictatorship.” To them, a democracy represents a false choice between a couple of bogus candidates, like for instance Clinton or Trump, while a dictator is someone who’s particularly skilled at focusing on non-divisive issues. Does anyone else recognize how forcing a false narrative that the people are unified against their dictators would potentially harm American interests?
The Clintons could point to the Kosovo intervention if they want to boast about the last time hawkish policies were effective. Although I’m inclined to chalk it up to the Serbs being the first to realize the uselessness of hawkishness, and keeping quiet about it until America figured it out for itself. Considering the number of spectacular foreign policy blunders which Kosovo has inspired, I’m tempted to say that Serbia may have been the one on the right side of history in that story.
Finally, Clinton could point to the way Sanders has misrepresented South American democracies, or supported militarism of his own, as a way of saying that he’s no saint either. Although for his part, he can claim that unlike her, he isn’t completely sold out to Kissinger-style tactics. If he beats her in the end, I’d like to think it’ll be because he opposes her on this very important issue.