Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave a speech Wednesday in which she 1) re-affirmed her support for the Iran nuclear agreement and 2) asserted that as President, she would be very aggressive in enforcing the agreement and in challenging Iran on other fronts.
Where the hell are people's ethics these days. This article comes with the headline Sanders should...
...and then never mentions Sanders. What the hell crap is that? Progressives simply can't support a candidate to win. I guess they are permanently defeated. Permanently the complaining losers never the victors who could actually change things. To use Sanders name as the headline is so pathetic. Progressives - especially professional progressives suffer from low self esteem as it seems this author didn't expect anyone to read his piece unless he used a subterfuge to draw them in.
This was depressing.
Maybe people are free to choose. Like those people who decided the fix was in with Obama back in 2007? The attacks on the doubters then were almost exactly like they are now defending Bernie. No substance, just insults.
Great point. Already we're hearing from Sen. Bennett, Sen. Wyden, Sen. Menendez, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Cardin; using some " committeespeak " sleight of hand to scuttle the deal; making it impossible for Iran not to violate it; a pretext used against Iraq, too. And, in interviews in local media saying, " We know Iran will violate the terms of this deal so, of course, we must " increase " military aid to Israel and sell them more advanced bombs and other weaponry so when the provocation occurs Israel will be able to retaliate, effectively. " The AIPAC lobby, including " Chicken Hawkin' Hillary " and these Senators, will never settle for not bombing Iran if allowed to stay in office. Sen. Wyden invoking the Holocaust is a new low since Iran has zero nuclear weapons, has not tried to make them, and Israel has 280 or so. Sen. Sanders must not campaign with these " Israeli Firster " Senators unless they back off.
Your false equivalency is astounding. Obama is for the treaty and so is Sanders. Why don't you talk about how " conflicted and sad " you are over parts of Joe Liberman's dog being sent back to him from the taxidermist. P.S. Hillary lost in 2008 for the same reason she'll lose in 2015; nobody trusts her to do what she says. Her husband was a " parsifier extroadinaire " and she is just like him. That's a nice way of saying she's full of it.
Joe Lieberman had his dog stuffed?
Please explain how my comment refers to the Iran treaty. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you. Hillary is definitely full of something. Hillary will win or lose depending on whether the Party wants her to, of course.
OMG! Hillary is as bad as any of the neocons!!
I can't wait to see the pages and pages of posts in this thread from Greens who oppose her foreign policy!!!
The dog stuffed remark was/is in reference to a very famous ( bad ) joke Rabbi Joe told on national TV in 2000. You know, before endless war and war profiteering in the 21st Century.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Could it be that the author is listing the reasons why Senator Sanders should challenge Clinton on Iran/Syria?
Oh where did he say that? I am not disputing the points raised in the article just the unethical title. In fact I seriously can't even conceive of how an editor let that slide.
When it comes to empire or imperialism the neoliberals and the neocons are the left and right brain of the mercenary class fighting the same cause.
I no longer make such distinctions at least in my mind. I see it as the Oligarchy's minions vs. Humanity's billions.
Those voting need to understand the two major parties are chasing the same result from two directions and will bring the country to the same disaster. One world hegemony through economic manipulation the other world hegemony through war.
Oh hell - Greens have been opposing Hillary for ages - that's old news - and, as a matter of fact, re FP, they have certainly been more critical than Sanders has been ....
Hillary Clinton has embraced a hawkish approach to foreign policy as her brand. I found her recent comments less inflammatory than her call, during the last electoral campaign, to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel.
Bernie Sanders has done a good job in promoting a wider scale questioning of the plutocratic status quo. So far, however, he has not taken the opportunity to call US excessive militarism into question.
I may not be up to date on all of Sanders' positions. I did, however, check out his website https://berniesanders.com/issues/ and others such as http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/ . From what I have seen, Sanders does not go far enough to promoting an anti-military / pro-peace platform. I'd like to see progressives influence Sanders to call for:
Closure of Guantanamo Bay and all other US military detention centers.
An end to US military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.
An end to the US drone killing program.
An end to the use of computer algorithms in kill selection (signature strikes).
An end to the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS).
A reduction (to zero) of US nuclear weapons.
A reduction in military aid (particularly to countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who are engaged in war crimes).
An overall reduction in US military spending. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
I bet you think Bernie can't win so he might as well serve as a sounding board for progressive issues to influence the debate between Hillary and Jeb (probably)?
You seem unconcerned with a strategy to win. You expect a loss actually and therefore Bernie is merely like is Jill Stein... not really a candidate but only useful to get issues raised.
You advise a strategy to lose! BTW I agree with every point you raise and I think Bernie does too at least to some extent but that isn't how winning an election works. You are advising him to win election if only progressives were voting. Thus a strategy to lose. Bernie cannot just pander to any one group exclusively. He may want to cut the military budget but if you notice he wants to use the money to provide free public college educations.
That is a strategy ... a progressive strategy to win. Cutting the military budget works for progressives but that isn't enough for other people.
> I bet you think Bernie can't win
> You seem unconcerned with a strategy to win.
> You expect a loss actually
> You advise a strategy to lose!
Putting words into somebody's mouth and issuing/insinuating ad hominem attacks is an offensive manifestation of verbal bullying people into silence. Such conduct is not consistent with the understanding of progressive discourse of issues on their merit.
What is with people that they can't debate like normal anymore. Okay if you want to object to my saying I bet you think Bernie can't win then ask yourself if that isn't the way people talk in real life conversation? It is just conversation. You mean to tell me that if I criticize something you say that you can't respond? That you can't refute it or speak?
Moreover this mind numbing loss of the rhetorical is anti-intellectual. Do you really think I was speaking literally? Secondly where did I ever insult you? Meanwhile you ignore that I said that I agree with everything you say yet somehow I am bullying you into silence because I engaged you in debate? I framed things in the rhetorical not the literal. I was not suggesting that you said these things literally.
Ah! I think I just realized something. Let me guess (is that permissible to you?) My guess is that you are a Green Party person)
So you feel bullied into silence do you? Lol...
Yet, in a field with people much further to the right than Bernie, you spend time attacking him and not them.
Why is that?