dagblog - Comments for "Bernie's best . . . but"

Sanders support of gun

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 14:02:38 +0000

Sanders support of gun manufacturers is equaled by his support of weapons manufacturers, if they are located in Vermont. As Mayor Sanders called the police on protestors objecting to a Burlington GEVplant manufacturing Gating guns that would be shipped to kill Socialists in Central America.

Sanders supported the building of the F-35 fighter jet, even though is was worse than the 40-year old F-16. Sanders got Lockheed to build a research center in Burlington, and made sure that 18 of the unnecessary jets were stationed in Vermont's Air National Guard base.

Sanders has not been vetted, but his full record will begin to trickle out.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-th...

Fantasy football again, eh?

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:46:49 +0000

In reply to 1) Thanks so much for the

Fantasy football again, eh?

"We don't know what would have happened if she had spoken out against it early and often but as the former first lady, one of the most respected women in America, and a US Senator from the Empire State, she had a lot more gravitas than the junior Senator from Vermont. Maybe, just maybe, her opposition would have made a difference. " - Hal

They ignored former VP Gore. Colin Powell was more respected and he lied. They were hoping Dems up for re-election would refuse so the GOP could trounce them in the election 3 weeks later. Bernie wasnt jr senator, he was congressman with very little risk. Have a read.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_...

I'm pretty relaxed to put it

Flavius — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:41:22 +0000

In reply to 1) Thanks so much for the

I'm pretty relaxed to put it mildly about her violation of security regulations. Among those of my friends, even the most right wing ones,who've been in the military the charge of downloading classified information was ground for eye rolling. The security regulations at best ( which is seldom the case, the services to borrow a phrase "would classify a ham sandwich") are a tool not an end in themselves.

If you think the work load of the Secretary of State is such that of course she should be able to use her time at home to work , if the regulations prevent that the solution's easy : change the regulations.

At the end of "Desert Storm". as he was about to board his flight home "Stormin Norman " bent over and picked up a handful of Iraqi soil. Someone said " regulations won't allow him to take that in to the US". . The reply was " you tell him". .

Seemed about right to me.

Once Sanders got elected to

rmrd0000 — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:28:04 +0000

In reply to On this issue as on so many

Once Sanders got elected to Congress, he faced no significant opposition at election time. It really didn't matter how he voted because he was in a protected seat.He faced no political backlash. He now has to Bernie-splain his stance on guns, for example. Since he is protected politically, he can criticize other politicians who need to seek funding for campaigns, The Democratic Party is corrupt because it accepts corporate funds. He is pure from the standpoint of corporate funds, but has to plan on how other Democrats are supposed to pay for campaigns. He offers no funding to downstream Democrats, because Democrats are tainted. So we will have a morally pure guy with a protected seat, telling both Democrats and Republicans that they are a bunch of corrupt people. What could go wrong?

1) Thanks so much for the

HSG — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:43:19 +0000

In reply to I 'll make a statement rather

Flavius -

1) Thanks so much for the compliments. I do the best I can.

2) I do believe Clinton bears some responsibility for the Cheney/Bush war on Iraq. We don't know what would have happened if she had spoken out against it early and often but as the former first lady, one of the most respected women in America, and a US Senator from the Empire State, she had a lot more gravitas than the junior Senator from Vermont. Maybe, just maybe, her opposition would have made a difference. I remember back in 2002 when this vote was transpiring how my hopes that Democrats would reject Bush's rush to war were dashed.

3) Contrary to your assertion. I am very troubled by Clinton's failure to come clean about her vote for the war and to acknowledge error. While I was disappointed that many Dems voted with Bush/Cheney, I understood at the time why. I was conflicted myself. Saddam really was a pretty bad guy and the claims that he had stockpiles of poison gas and a viable nuclear weapons program seemed credible - the New York Times was reporting this on its front page for chrissakes! So, I was prepared to cut Clinton some slack for her obviously wrong (in hindsight) vote if she admitted her mistake. She didn't. This has proven especially problematic because she remains an unreconstructed hawk despite the disastrous results of American military adventures since 2003.

4) To bolster my claim that Hillary's refusal to admit error is a significant reason that I so strongly support Bernie Sanders, I refer you to the first post I wrote concerning her use of a private email server. I noted she clearly violated the governing federal regulations but I would have been more than willing to cut her slack if she just had admitted she was wrong in the first place. But she just couldn't do it.

5) As Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

On this issue as on so many

HSG — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:13:56 +0000

In reply to You dont mention successful

On this issue as on so many others, Sanders was right and Clinton was wrong.

I can't say now that I knew,

kyle flynn — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:09:11 +0000

In reply to You dont mention successful

I can't say now that I knew, or even thought then that SH didn't have WMD. I just didn't care. Tell me, so what if he did? He was a rotten mf for sure, but he was no threat to the U.S. Zero. And we knew that. Something like 40% of D's voted no. They were willing to take some "risk." I don't remember crickets. I remember loud, clear opposition.

I generally agree with most

kyle flynn — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:54:48 +0000

In reply to But you miss an important

I generally agree with most of this, tho "reality-driven" wanders a bit into eye of the beholder territory, and "saying" and "giving" aren't quite the same thing. As the wise like to say, we'll see. But yeah.

But you miss an important

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:37:37 +0000

In reply to I agree with just about

But you miss an important point - Hillary is realjty-driven. She's not re-running 2008. She was rejected even though I think she was shown to be more credible than Obama. That horse has left the stable. Now she's focused on extending Obama, not repudiating him, not blandly continuing him. But elections have consequences as does the last 8 years of political development. 8 years ago the folks who support Bernie now supported Obama. And then they have the chutzpah to claim Hillary would have been worse instead of recognizing the limitations of their choice. Demkcrats as a whole are supporting Hillary's approach more than Bernie's. That's democracy - she's giving Democratic voters largely what they want so she's winning. You can't please everyone, but a large majority is good. Obviously the Nader fringe is not the core of the party, even if that vibe has infected the caucus process. Hillary is still acknowledging many of the issues that make Sanders popular, and that type of co-option is good and a natural part of election. (It's more natural than Gore's tilt towards Bradley)

You dont mention successful

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:24:13 +0000

In reply to This is deja vu all over

You dont mention successful inspections, you dont mention cooperation with the UN, you ignore that Hans Blix thought until Jan 2003 Hussein had WMDs. Sure, everyone thought Bush was a bullshitter. But how much risk to take with Hussein in a post-9/11 world? A lot of crickets.