Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread

POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44545
PAGE 22 of 30

Quote:

---

But what can Hillary do about it? I’d say nothing she does will get your vote or change her unfavorable numbers.

---

You're absolutely right. 40 years of being a corrupt politician is not about to be erased any time before November. And then, there was this

WTH???




--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

But what can Hillary do about it? I’d say nothing she does will get your vote or change her unfavorable numbers.

---

You're absolutely right. 40 years of being a corrupt politician is not about to be erased any time before November. And then, there was this

WTH???

---

I checked. Hillary had nothing to do with Muammar Gaddafi’s killing.

It figures she’d be insinuating that she had some involvement. But she did nothing. She was useless. It’s Obama. And his contribution? Going along with the decision of 9 other nations on the UN Security Council approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

The closest Hillary got to doing something worth writing about was one month after the Libyan Civil War started, which Hillary had nothing to do with starting. Sarkozy, who was also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_%282011%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

It is typical Hillary: dithering and indecisive. Once Gaddafi is dead, she wants some credit. Except she deserves nothing for starting the Civil War or killing Gaddafi or the chaos that followed or Benghazi. She did nothing. She is irrelevant, but she pretends to be important, all of which is very sad and even ironic that Hillary is blamed for the mess that is Libya today.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I probably should post this in the Hillary thread, but so as to not lose track of the discussion, I'll put it here.

But what can Hillary do about it? I’d say nothing she does will get your vote or change her unfavorable numbers.

---

I think Hillary COULD have changed this if she'd moved earlier. She may still be able to. (Though the percent of Bernie voters who say they will not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee has gone up from 25% to 33%, and that doesn't bode well for a potential turnaround.)


Here's my thinking overall.

The positive things about Hillary's initial positions were mostly about women's rights and gay rights and immigrant's rights.

But her biggest NEGATIVE to me is her history of war-mongering, and the fact that she's doing the bidding of AIPAC and the neo-cons - if indeed she's not a neo-con herself. Though since neo-con politicians tend to not announce that they're part of the group, her official status as a neo-con is hard to determine. (The State Department has a long and illustrious history of being run by the neo-con deep state rather than by the president's office, starting with Bush deux and Afghanistan, and through the current CIA missions in Syria. And those neo-con CIA missions in Syria ironically have ended up fighting the US military in Syria. Because the military IS run from the president's office, and the president is not pleased with the CIA fostering ISIS. But that whole "schizophrenic foreign policy thing" where one branch of the US government is fighting another branch of the US government on foreign soil is a discussion for another time.)

Starting with Afghanistan, every single one of those neo-con efforts has ended up as a major clusterfuck, with previously stable countries left in literal smoking ruins across the globe. And those countries that we so stupidly destroyed that also have nearby terrorist organizations have now become major sources of global, exported terror. As Europe knows too well. (And put this in the predictions thread - thanks to Hillary's valiant efforts around the globe we here in the US aren't done with foreign terrorism on home soil, either. But that's also another discussion for another time.)

So, with Afghanistan and Iraq as object lessons in how neo-con missions can go so very wrong, what did Hillary learn? Well, she enthusiastically backed every neo-con action during her time as Secretary of State. Libya. Ukraine. Syria. And the results? Smoking ruins? Check. Smoking ruins? Check. Smoking ruins? Check. What do I surmise that she DID she learn? Assuming smoking-ruins-clusterfucks were not her goal, apparently she learned nothing.

Initially I backed Bernie because his PLATFORM AND HISTORY were overall superior to Hillary's.

But as time has gone on my focus ON HILLARY has sharpened. What has HILLARY learned from history? What has HILLARY learned from her own failures? What has HILLARY learned on the campaign trail from Bernie's popularity? And the answer appears to be - next to nothing.

Yes, she's made some concessions around the edges. She now says she's for a federal minimum wage of $12.00 per hour. It doesn't match Bernie's $15.00 per hour minimum wage, and certainly doesn't match her own rhetoric that a person who works full time should not be living in poverty. But what the hell. At least she's now said SOMEthing about the minimum wage, where she was silent before. And she's said that people should be able to graduate from college without a burdensome debt. What's burdensome? She's failed to reveal what she means. Nor has she provided anything specific. But what the hell. She's now said SOMEthing about it, where she was silent before. And there are a few o

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

So, with Afghanistan and Iraq as object lessons in how neo-con missions can go so very wrong, what did Hillary learn? Well, she enthusiastically backed every neo-con action during her time as Secretary of State. Libya. Ukraine. Syria. And the results? Smoking ruins? Check. Smoking ruins? Check. Smoking ruins? Check. What do I surmise that she DID she learn? Assuming smoking-ruins-clusterfucks were not her goal, apparently she learned nothing.

---

The burning necklace of tires, representing these failed nations, ought to go around Obama's neck, rather than Hillary's. He is more guilty. Bernie has not attacked Obama fiercely about those failures. You, on the other hand, have used the most inflammatory rhetoric. It is always the supporters who go too far. Maybe too far for Bernie to support your position. I bet Bernie will endorse Hillary. I'll know for sure after the convention whether I bet correctly.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I thought I made it clear, in many ways over many sentences, that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't Hillary's failures. I said, over and over ... and over, they were impersonal object lessons from history from which she could and should have learned - but failed to do so. But if you want to apportion blame, Iraq and Afghanistan go around Bush's neck.

But the decision to bomb Libya is on Hillary. She was charged with investigating the US course, she was convinced the US should bomb, and she made the recommendation; and to her discredit, nothing since then has convinced her otherwise. Not the smoking ruins, the civilian deaths, the instability, the warlordism, and the exported terrorism. Libya is HER failure, and she SHOULD have learned from it, but didn't.

On to Ukraine. Hillary hired Nuland, a neocon. Maybe you can convince me that Hillary was oblivious to what Nuland was doing all those years in preparation for the coup. But a mere 12 months after Hillary left office, there's Nuland, in on the coup, and picking who the US wants as the next PM. Either Nuland was working on Hillary's left-over project during that time, or Kerry as Nuland's motivating factor was a very, very busy boy, setting up the contacts, making the overtures, deciding the who and when and how, and funneling US support and direction, over those 12 months. I'd put my money on Hillary.

On to Syria. The US was smuggling arms out of Libya (the US Embassy annex in Benghazi to be precise) through Turkey to armed groups of no particular denomination in Syria. The only qualifying criteria was you had to be anti-Assad. The 'how' you intended to get rid of him wasn't important. That too is on Hillary. unless you want to claim she was either unaware of the arms smuggling out of her embassy, or unable to protest it then or now.

Add to that her AIPAC speech which offers Israel endless US support, no questions asked; and her private speech which does nothing to deescalate tensions with Russia - both of which I've posted on Firefly, and which are undeniable facts - and you have the picture of a dangerous and deluded politician, unable to learn from history, from her own mistakes, or from the campaign trail's feedback. And if her OWN RECORD and her OWN SPEECHES are inflammatory, oops. Too bad for her.



I have to say, your denial of facts is impressive.

PS - when I go into the voting booth it will be me, punching those punch-outs for my own reasons. There will be no strings attaching me to Bernie, with him manipulating my movements as if I'm some marionette. IF he, or you, or somebody, happens to come up with some cogent reason as to why Hillary is preferable, I'll consider it. Until then, deescalating tensions with Russia and backing away from our provocative policies towards Russia will be MY primary considerations. Because the alternative, which Hillary is hell bent on pursuing, is dangerous.

And just to show you I'm not either misunderstanding or misrepresenting her position towards Russia, here's her official neo-con crock of shit directly from her website

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/?webSyncID=749
d5162-1dd1-9d79-9925-cb2049b7b464&sessionGUID=507d26b9-812a-7dc2-94b7-40882982b014

Standing up to Putin. Hillary has gone toe-to-toe with Putin before, and she'll do it again. She'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our European allies and help them decrease dependence on Russian oil. With our partners, Hillary will confine, contain, and deter Russian aggressions in Europe and beyond, and increase the costs to Putin for his actions.

---

---

---

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I thought I made it clear, in many ways over many sentences, that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't Hillary's failures. I said, over and over ... and over, they were impersonal object lessons from history from which she could and should have learned - but failed to do so. But if you want to apportion blame, Iraq and Afghanistan go around Bush's neck.

---

That would make the Vietnam War all JFK’s fault. Or, since he first sent military, is Eisenhower to blame for the Nixon era Vietnam War? No, on second thought, Nixon is to blame for Nixon’s Vietnam. Want to shift some blame to Kissinger? He was there, but the War was all Nixon, all the time. Nixon needed Kissinger to sit down with N Vietnam, but only because Paris is hours away from Washington and Nixon had to delegate. Somebody has stay in America and teargas those hippies and that was Nixon’s delightful form of recreation.

Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are Obama’s. Not Bush’s. Ukraine, Syria, Libya? That is all Obama, not Hillary. Hillary may dream that she was Kissinger to Obama’s Nixon, but she is about as Machiavellian as a divorce lawyer. I never expected Hillary to learn anything from her job as Secretary of State other than how dry her skin gets while spending two thousand hours a year on a jet plane. She was just Obama's mouthpiece, just another lawyer serving her client's desires. Does a divorce lawyer decide who divorces who? No. Did Hillary decide where Obama would next go to war? No.

Obama has plenty of his own foreign policy sins that Bernie could call down hellfire upon him, should Bernie wish to. But Bernie has not. Why not? Obama is popular with Bernie supporters. But if it makes you feel better, blame Hillary for Obama’s foreign policy.

Bernie has said nothing about drone strikes and Obama’s love of the phrases “collateral damage” and “wedding party”, which makes the Pentagon’s targeting sound competent and pinpoint accurate. I’m guessing Bernie does not want to offend some of his supporters who are also comfortable with Obama. It’s better for Bernie to blame all foreign policy on Hillary.
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/01/d-c-elite-hated-larry-wilmores-dro
ne-joke-last-night-but-loved-obamas-in-2010/

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I thought I made it clear, in many ways over many sentences, that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't Hillary's failures. I said, over and over ... and over, they were impersonal object lessons from history from which she could and should have learned - but failed to do so. But if you want to apportion blame, Iraq and Afghanistan go around Bush's neck.

---

You did make that pellucidly clear.

Quote:

---

That would make the Vietnam War all JFK’s fault. Or, since he first sent military, is Eisenhower to blame for the Nixon era Vietnam War? No, on second thought, Nixon is to blame for Nixon’s Vietnam. Want to shift some blame to Kissinger? He was there, but the War was all Nixon, all the time. Nixon needed Kissinger to sit down with N Vietnam, but only because Paris is hours away from Washington and Nixon had to delegate. Somebody has stay in America and teargas those hippies and that was Nixon’s delightful form of recreation. Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are Obama’s.

---

Who started these wars will full scale "shock and awe" attacks? Who attempted to put a satrap (Bremmer) in power? Who killed up to a million people? Obama?

Obama isn't about shock and awe, or massive numbers boots on the ground. He's more about drone attacks. So you can look at Sudan, Yemen, and Pakistan as Obama's babies.

Quote:

---

Not Bush’s. Ukraine, Syria, Libya? That is all Obama, not Hillary. Hillary may dream that she was Kissinger to Obama’s Nixon, but she is about as Machiavellian as a divorce lawyer. I never expected Hillary to learn anything from her job as Secretary of State other than how dry her skin gets while spending two thousand hours a year on a jet plane.

---

Wow, then you have low expectations of the woman you expect to be President!

And you are entirely mistaken. USA Embassies are joined at the hip with the CIA. Our embassies are CIA listening posts, if nothing else, and at times centers of action. Secretaries of State know this. So do our more "experienced" Ambassadors, like Christopher Stevens, the one in Libya who was directing the arms shipments to Syria.

Quote:

---

Obama has plenty of his own foreign policy sins that Bernie could call down hellfire upon him, should Bernie wish to. But Bernie has not. Why not? Obama is popular with Bernie supporters. But if it makes you feel better, blame Hillary for Obama’s foreign policy.

---

I have often thought that some of Hillary's activities were a downright surprise to Obama. That's why the USA can have CIA fighting the Pentagon, or make war in Syria and make peace in Iran. Some policies, when put together, try cancel each other out.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"Did Hillary decide where Obama would next go to war? No."

So, I suppose Jimmy Carter was responsible for Ronnie Reagan telling Ayatollah Khomeini to keep the Iranian hostages till after the election? Because after all, Carter was President and everything was under his direct control. At least, your reasoming would say so. Or is that just a really, really naive assumption you're making?

Libya

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.ht
ml
The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.

Ukraine
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-american
s-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev

Libyan arms to Syria
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-
heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12
Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban
Memos recovered from Benghazi compound divulge covert effort

---

---

---

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Au contraire, Irving...far from it.

Say, isn't there a conservative motto "Thou shalt not tell the States
what to do." Each state has their own agenda, and that's the way it should be -
Founding Fathers and all that rubbish - nor would any self-respecting New Yorker
strive to fix someone else's problems; you broke it, you fix it.

I was actually extolling the virtues of New York as an independent beacon of the
modern-day political pioneer steeped in patriotic tradition. The mentality that
currently exists and pervades the political landscape is one that they would
have been proud of. In other words, we no need no stinking states (or Feds for
that matter) to tell us what to do. Nor would we be so presumptuous to impose
our beliefs and systems on others. What works for New York, may not work for
Kansas and vice versa. No, leave us alone, thank you very much.

Let us figure out our own mess and don't be so quick to pass judgment; there are some states that really suck at this whole voting thing....so, move over Arizona,
North Carolina, Texas, etc. you are not the only ones that need fixing. You're
not the only ones with crooked state senators, incompetent greedy governors,
inept officials and dick-less police chiefs. It is an American right of passage
to have a fucked up voting process that totally ignores the rights and will of
the people. It's the American way.

I'm shinygoodguy and I approve this message.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

That's how we do in NY!!!!!

---

Indeed [/snark]

Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Quote:

---

For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’”

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME