MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Bernie Sanders Says Hillary Clinton Is Unqualified to be President
By rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 11:25am |Bernie Sanders told supporters that Hillary's stances on the Iraq war, TPP, and accepting corporate funds makes her unqualified to be President.
Joe Scarborough give Hillary multiple opportunities to say that Bernie was unqualified, but she refused to take the bait.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/04/how-badly-did-hillary-clinton-slap-ber...
URL:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-clinton-not-qualified-to-be-president-221666
- Add new comment
- 15805 reads
Comments
Sanders is increasingly vying with Trump and Cruz for ludicrous statements, along with delusional policy fantasies of what they will accomplish.
Sanders is nuts. Not a choice to guide the ship of state. His administration, plans and (what there is of) his sanity would likely crash within 3-6 months.
Sanders is almost sure never to never get elected. The GOP won't even need swiftboats, a decaying raft full of hammers and sickles will do.
by NCD on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 1:16pm
So you think Sanders is crazy for suggesting that any or all of the following should disqualify Clinton: 1) Voting for the war on Iraq. 2) Helping a giant Swiss bank shelter its depositors assets from taxation banks in return for million dollar paydays. 3) Pushing for the Panama "free trade" deal despite being warned it will lead to an explosion of money laundering by multi-millionaires and billionaires.
If you don't think those actions are disqualifying, how would you characterize them? Savvy? Well-considered? Intelligent? Caring?
by HSG on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:00pm
Hal, the factor you continue to overlook is Sanders. Sanders has ot faced continuous, strong political opposition. He looks strong because he could stand in the Senate and say whatever crap he wanted to say and face no pushback. That is very different than taking on the GOP directly.Sanders coping skills are what are in question.
Additionally, Sanders has flaws when it comes to gun and weapons manufacturers.Sanders has ridiculed the fundraising methods of his Democratic colleagues. It is difficult to see how he is going to mend fences in Congress. The best thing that can be said about Sanders is that he is OK in the Senate but out of his depth as President.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/02/democrats_need_to_accept_a_hard_truth_ab...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:25pm
I'm not thrilled with his "gun record," or whatever you want to call it, but it's low on my list of priorities. Let's face it, 'merica has a fucked up relationship with the guns. Tell me tho, how is it a problem in the general election? Are Trump or Cruz or fill in the blank coming after him on that issue? That'll be the day. Between Clinton and Sanders, on the other hand, call it a wash with take your pick. Go Mariners.
by kyle flynn on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 8:43pm
My contention is that he is flawed on guns and is not creating a structure to accomplish his core goals.Sanders is a wasted vote.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 9:14pm
Bummer. I already voted. Now what am I sposed ta do?
by kyle flynn on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 9:29pm
Vote Hillary in the General.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 10:47pm
I just might. Or maybe I'll vote for my values. Either way Clinton wins Washington by 10 points. Go Blue.
by kyle flynn on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 10:06am
We all vote our values. I happen to think that Sanders is selling vaporware.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 10:56am
Hmmm, my values are laziness, perversity, antagonism and disgust. Under those terms, I'd be voting Trump.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:00am
So you think Sanders is crazy for suggesting that any or all of the following should disqualify Clinton: 1) Voting for the war on Iraq.
You posted that you worked hard for Kerry. Please explain why his vote for the Iraq war didn't disqualify him. He not only voted for the war but defended his vote and said he would do it again.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:40pm
1) I did not write that Clinton is unqualified because of (a) her vote for the disastrous War on Iraq, (b) her repeated failures to admit error, (c) the tens of millions she and Bill have raised from banks, or (d) the shady Panama deal. I wrote that it is not crazy to make the suggestion.
2) As long as a candidate meets the requirements as set out in the Constitution, that candidate is de jure qualified, so whether a natural-born American citizen who's over 35 years old isn't qualified has to be a subjective rather than objective question.
3) Elections are always choices. So, whether a Constitutionally-qualified candidate is subjectively qualified depends on the alternatives. Given the obvious contrasts between Clinton and Sanders, she is unqualified compared to him. She is not unqualified compared to the Republican candidates. If Elizabeth Warren were running in the Democratic primaries, I might argue Sanders' votes against commonsense gun control laws disqualify him compared to Warren.
4) Despite the fact that both Kerry and Clinton voted for the War on Iraq, there are a number of differences justifying (in my mind anyway) my support for Kerry in the 2004 general election and my opposition to Clinton in the 2016 primaries. (A) I did not volunteer for Kerry until it was clear the anti-war candidate Howard Dean was not competitive. (B) The Iraq War was only a year-old when I started to campaign for Kerry and he had already started to pull back from his previously enunciated support for it. (C) Kerry was going up against the man who made the operative decision to in invade and occupy Iraq. (D) Despite his wrong-headed Iraq vote, Kerry's pro-peace credentials were far stronger than Clinton's are now.
Okay, I have patiently responded to your legitimate question about my support for John Kerry in 2004, now can you answer mine. You apparently think it's crazy to call Clinton's (a) pro-war vote and (b) her long and tight relationship with the financial services sector as disqualifying. What word or phrase do you think fairly characterizes them?
by HSG on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 11:57am
Hal, there's always a reason why women who do exactly the same as a man or better are passed up for promotions and get lower pay. Tons of reasons.
People say Hillary was calculating with her vote, but Bush was calculating by putting them on the spot weeks before a disastrous election with a rogue dictator and guarantees that were broken, and every Democratic politician was calculating about their response, yay or nay. Yet 14 years later, it's only the female minority junior senator that's been hurt, none of the men, including the handful who ran for president.
And while men get forgiveness sooner or later, women wear it forever. Hell, Hillary's still attacked for her husband's affair more than he is as if we dont know that physiologically men are more likely to be reckless horndogs whatever their wives might do or not.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 1:29am
Was every woman passed over for a promotion in favor of a man treated unfairly or are there times when the man is truly the better candidate?
You write: "it's only the female minority junior senator that's been hurt, none of the men, including the handful who ran for president." It beggars my belief that you claim the former Secretary of State and one of the most influential people in the world is the "only" one hurt by votes for the War on Iraq. What about the thousands of Americans killed, were they hurt? How about the half a million Iraqis who lost their lives, were they hurt? How about the millions who were dislocated and the American taxpayer, I'd argue they were all hurt far more. What do you think?
I get that your real argument is narrower albeit very inartfully stated. You contend Clinton's pro-war vote hurt her but men who voted for the war weren't hurt. Even this far less ambitious assertion is easily debunked. John Kerry might have done better in 2004 but for his pro-war vote. President Obama was elected in 2008 in significant part because he did not vote for the war. Clinton has a very significant, perhaps uncatchable, lead in the pledged delegate count as I write even though she was the only Democratic candidate who voted for the War.
The Republican front-runner has attacked those who decided to invade Iraq. Republican voters certainly did not reward Jeb Bush for defending W's record. So, many candidates have been harmed because they wrongly supported the disastrous war early on. Clinton has weathered the storm better than any of them even though her support was more full-throated and she has remained as unapologetically hawkish as ever.
There are very important differences between Kerry in 2004 and Clinton 2016. Much more importantly, there are crucial differences between Sanders and Clinton right now. You are free to ignore them in service of your insistence that the real victim of mistake, after miscalcuation, after craven compromise, after blatant untruth is a $100 millionaire utterly insulated from the problems she created or helped created..
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:19am
Obama wasnt in Congress in 2002, though it's obvious he would have voted yes had he been. "John Kerry might have done better" - for fuck's sake, he blew away Dean, the antiwar candidate, in 1 primary on his home turf. He won the nomination. It didnt hurt him against Bush. There was little to no protest about Kerry's vote for war (inspections) 2years after the fact (nor Edwards'), unlike Hillary the dragon lady 6 years and 14 years later. What protest was there in 2008 or August 2015 against pro-war Biden? 0. Zilch.
And you've already said youve forgiven Kerry because he seemed more apologetic, even though as Secretary of State he's carrying out the same hawkish policies you complain about Hillary pushing, as is Biden as VP. And Kerry is insulated by his $100 million fortune too tthanks to his spouse, that you dont mention. So which is it, he doesnt have tits or he's not a Clinton? Or both?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:38am
I never said I forgave Kerry for anything. That said, Kerry has not been nearly as hawkish a Secretary of State as Clinton. He and Obama resisted Clinton's and Panetta's push to put boots on the ground in Syria and her call for a "no-fly zone". Kerry finalized the Iran deal and did not trash Iran after it was signed the way Clinton did.
Kerry has not ever (to my knowledge) called for a military solution to a Middle East dictator the way Clinton cajoled Obama into disastrous regime change in Libya. Kerry never told AIPAC we should have an even closer relationship with Israel than the one we have now under President Obama.
Yes Kerry is extremely rich but I do not reflexively criticize candidates because they are rich, although I do view great wealth as a negative in candidates. Clinton has gotten rich by taking enormous sums from the actors most responsible for our world's biggest problems and has greased the skids for them on many occasions. The rich and powerful are also financing her campaign. Kerry got rich by marrying a ketchup heir.
Finally, you claim Obama would have voted for the war if he had been in Congress. Perhaps. Truth is we'll never know and you certainly haven't provided any evidence in support of this claim. Obama did speak out against the Authorization of Force in 2002 at an anti-Iraq War rally in Chicago. Among his other remarks was this gem:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469
PP - you're trying really hard to paint me into a corner as a sexist pig but you must see how easily your arguments are countered and therefore how weak they really are. Under these circumstances, don't you think it's time you reconsider your views and change them?
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 4:46pm
When did Clinton push for boots on the ground in Syria? You mean "supports the decision by President Barack Obama to deploy a small number of special operations forces to northern Syria to work with local ground forces in the fight against Islamic State militants." which might not even be enthusiastic about this small move, but still keeping Obama's back, but far from ISIS lines.
What is the problem with a no-fly zone? what do you propose to do about ISIS?
Look at Obama's foreign policy and his approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Iran... he hasn't been a dove by any means, even though he did avoid going full-scale into Syria. No way he would have voted against the 2002 AUMF as a Senator.
Marrying into oodles of cash is okay, but working for it isn't. Otay.... Washington is full of people giving speeches for cash, but there's only 1 couple getting dinged for doing it, with all sorts of ludicrous corruption innuendo around it. Running a charity? Must be a scam. Etc., etc.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 5:14pm
"We should have no illusions about how difficult the mission before us really is … but if we press forward on both sides of the border, in the air on the ground and as well as diplomatically, I do believe we can crush Isis’s enclave of terror,” she added."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/19/hillary-clinton-isis-stra...
Wasn't too tough to find online. Again, PP, do you ever stop to say to yourself - "gee I've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Hal but he consistently and very quickly proves me wrong, so maybe I really am wrong?" With all due respect, PP, isn't it time you change your many so-very-wrong opinions?
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 6:43pm
Disingenuous. Most do not conflate a limited number of special forces with boots on the ground. Even in your link Hillary calls for continued and increased, " use of special forces, but rules out return to mass deployment of US troops."
I support a slightly more active US role in Syria than Obama. Do you think the special forces used by Obama is too much, just right, or too little?
by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:04pm
Talk about disingenuous. PP's argument was that there's no difference between Kerry's and Clinton's foreign policy views so I must be sexist since I supported Kerry in 04 and oppose Clinton now. I demonstrated, as you just acknowledged, that Clinton and Kerry are dissimilar on foreign policy.
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:57pm
You're dah man, Hal, teh awesome, firm grip on the fner details. I'm through - you've got all the airtight answers and I'm so humiliated and wrong. Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 12:46am
Agatha Christie, The Murder on the Links
by HSG on Sun, 04/10/2016 - 10:26am
Hal, you've ignored 95% of what I've written, and are great at recycling what's been disproven before, the zombie argument, night of the living dead.
In this case, tell me whose troops she's talking about on "both sides of the border" vs. who "in the air"? Ah fuck it. The worst thing is you don't even care about fixing any problems - you just want a mezzanine agenda.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:29pm
Look - I thought I'd start responding to your posts again. You seemed interested in listening and perhaps being challenged rather than simply spouting pro-Clinton propaganda. Obviously, I was wrong.
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 7:56pm
The idea that Kerry was more apologetic of his Iraq AMF vote is incorrect. Kerry not only didn't apologize he gave a full throated defense of that vote.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq,
The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."
by ocean-kat on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 2:33pm
I did not write that Kerry seemed more apologetic about his pro-War on Iraq vote. That was PP's blatant mis-characterization of what I did write.
by HSG on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 5:08pm
Hal, this was a stupid, senseless remark on Sanders part. One can't be disqualified from becoming president. It's not a swim race. One can be unqualified, as in lacking sufficient credentials or experience, but Clinton certainly has the creds and experience. You can argue that Clinton would be a bad president, but that does not mean that she isn't qualified to be president.
In addition to being senseless, it's also a politically stupid thing for Sanders to say because the Republicans will certainly throw his words in her face during the general election, and it's bound to antagonize people whose support he needs if wants to win this thing. It didn't even accomplish its intended effect because instead of encouraging anyone to question Hillary's qualifications, it injured Bernie's reputation and distracted people from the issues.
Bernie seems to have realized his mistake and is trying to walk it back. I think you'd do well to do the same.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 1:52pm
Thanks Mike. I'm actually comfortable with the position I set out earlier today in 4 enumerated points here. I think it's pretty close to what you write. If Bernie's peroration against Hillary gets voters to focus on her actual record and the gobs of money she raises, then good. If people decide he's a loose cannon and ignore his arguments, then he made a mistake.
by HSG on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 9:27pm
Bernie's human and he's a principled guy who is getting tired and it's crunch time. Like I said, I love the guy and voted for him as a resident of Vermont. Bernie's comments were a mistake, and helps confirm my belief that he is not prepared to face the Republican attack machine. More than anything, I hate to see this fine man chewed up by this process.
by Oxy Mora on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 11:45am
So you think Sanders is crazy for suggesting that any or all of the following should disqualify Clinton: 1) Voting for the war on Iraq and refusing for 11 years to admit you were wrong. 2) Helping a giant Swiss bank shelter its depositors' assets from taxation in return for a $1.5 million payday. 3) Pushing for the Panama "free trade" deal despite being warned it will lead to an explosion of money laundering by multi-millionaires and billionaires.
If you don't think those actions are disqualifying, how would you characterize them? Savvy? Well-considered? Intelligent? Caring?
by HSG on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:01pm
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/2/1408141/-Setting-the-Record-Straigh...
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:27pm
Again, crickets. Throw shit against wall, hope it sticks, when rebutted ignore.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:21am
Jeff Weaver is this primary season's Mark Penn.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:16pm
Here is Weaver blaming Hillary for ISIS!?
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/04/watch-bernie-sanders-campaign-manager-...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:36pm
To me, it appears that Hillary finally decided to play "3-dimensional chess" and sneakily lured Bernie into a trap. The trap being that now the media will feel obligated to ask questions at the next debate about Hillary's qualifications, and she'll get to slam a home run from a carefully crafted and well-prepared answer. Sorry, I love Bernie, but I think he walked into this one.
by MrSmith1 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 2:33pm
Actually the media was setting the trap for Hillary - 3 times they asked and she demurred.
In 2008 they asked her 5 times in a row if she thiught Obama was Christian, and she answered yes 5 times, but the 5th she added "as far as I know" - what made the headline? "Hillary doubts Obama's a Christian" or "Hillary reefuses to defend Obama as Christian".
There's a reason she doesnt trust the press. In this case, why should she give them a soundbite endorsing her opponent as "qualified"? That qualification *is* up to voters, aside from breathing, 35, US-born. Trump has no political experience, Carson wasnt even very charismatic and believed in grain pyramids. There's an audience for everything.
But Sanders played the Laszlo role very well in telling her she wasnt qualified, quite loud. Even his apologia came out a bit dickish, "even on her worst day, Hillary's better than..." He's a bit tonedeaf to how he phrases things, and in a year of "blood coming out of wherever", people are a bit more attuned to subtexts, unlike 2008.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 1:12am
Here is an article suggesting that Sanders set out on a quest to find the mind that he seems to have lost.
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not-qua...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:00pm
Factcheck
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:10pm
Funny
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:23pm
In related, PBS asks the 2 candidates for advice on fundraising. (I don't see the term "moneybomb" used, but should be) and Michelle Obama appears to be launching some new health and/or exercise craze. We guess.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:28pm
Bernie has to shut PBS down because they collect funding from corporations.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:34pm
Speaking of shut down, Hillary's campaign has run out of money, taken to riding the subway:
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:37pm
Safest subway train in NYC
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 3:55pm
They were a better news source before they did.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 4:47pm
They were a better news source
that almost no one watched and the few that did didn't want to pay for. People need to realize that if they truly want better news sources they have to watch them and pay for them. tnstaafl.
edit to add: There's no such thing as a free lunch. I thought tnstaafl was a well known acronym but perhaps it's not as common as I thought.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 7:11pm
Tmbtbidnctftnprpbncbitcs.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 6:15pm
And that's what makes Dag the site it is.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 6:44pm
Watch your tnstaafl mouth, er, fingers.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 6:51pm
ATWMDTSII.
by quinn esq on Thu, 04/07/2016 - 8:17pm
Fighting words where I come from. Good thing we're not where I come from. Hxthulphbt.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/08/2016 - 8:24am