Hillary

[onebir]

[A] I don't see anything from Bernie to indicate a reduction in US militarism or oligarchy.
[B] I just want a candidate who is not an obvious warhawk or displaying psychopathic tendencies in public.

Doesn't Bernie manage B, if not clearly living up to A's - considerably tighter - standard?

Re A, while he may not have made clear pronouncements on those topics, he did lay into Hilary over getting advice from Kissenger.

(Though I wonder if this isn't mistaken; Kissenger was involved in terrible things the 60s & 70s, but IIRC has produced some remarkably sane op-eds on Ukraine and Syria recently. And may be the lesser of two evils, eg if the alternative acceptable foreign policy eminence grise is Brzezinski...)

[Dmitri]

Sounds pretty clear to me:

https://www.google.com/?client=ms-andro ... gbv//short

[Steve James]

Sorry, it's just amusing that people who praise Putin (especially for being stronger than Obama) criticize Hillary as a warhawk and bad person. It's not that she isn't those things. It's just that it's the kind of petty politics based on scandals, suspicions and innuendos. When Hillary was running against Obama, I recall many saying she (the warhawk) was the better choice. Whatever.

I was in Scotland when the terrorists brought the plane down. Qaddafy later admitted the part he played, and paid reparations. The bomber who was caught was even sent back to Libya, to the dismay of many, because he was allegedly on his deathbed. The facts around the matter are too clear for me to give Qaddafy a pass as a nice guy or nicer than Hillary. And, many Libyans hated Qaddafy.

I agree that dethroning dictators usually leads to upheaval. I agree that destabilizing nations is bad policy. So, I do care about what the candidate feels about those issues. The fact that someone voted for or against going into Iraq is significant. But, I get dizzy when candidates are condemned for be too warlike And too weak by the same critics whenever convenient.

And Republican supporters really need to shut up about Hillary's relation to Kissinger. He was their main man in foreign affairs and foreign intelligence, especially for Nixon and Reagan. So, attaching him to Hillary only works for Democrats. And, without Kissinger, is there an end to the Vietnam War or the opening of relations with China? I dunno.

[chud]

...

[Dmitri]

interesting article:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/watch-out-be ... fix-is-in/

some related data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... ates,_2016

[Steve James]

The superdelegate complaint is really a sham. Even though they could vote for whomever they want, they don't because they'd have to do it in public. I.e., at the convention, they'd have to tell all the represented delegates that their votes wouldn't count. Of course, it is came down to a statistical tie between Hillary and Bernie, then their decision on which way to vote would change.

At any rate, this happens because there's a party system where some voters decide to join in at the last minute and others do it as a profession. The same thing, or worse, is happening with Trump. Even if he wins the delegate count, the decision at the convention can be brokered if the party isn't satisfied with the choice.

Btw, none of this is unusual in US politics or specific to Hillary. There've been times when the party have refused members into the convention.

[Steve James]

Ya know what's fascinating from a "moral" point of view? It's the old question, "How do you know who's lying if they all say each other is a liar?" Let's grant that Hillary lies. But, how are the Republicans going to believe any of their top candidates?

[Dmitri]

People have believed (in) all sorts of really weird stuff since the beginning of time... most of the campaign lies are incredibly well-formed and meticulously prepared for mass consumption by teams of skilled and smart professionals. So, no surprise there, IMO...

[Steve James]

I've never seen an election where the candidates on the same side are claiming that each other are liars, and not just lying about being liars It's totally expected that candidates on opposing parties call each other liars. I should say that it's expected nowadays. It wasn't always the case, even if politicians have always lied.

And the tragedy is that people today accept it as the norm. That means that people must find it hard to believe in any candidate. It also nullifies any criticism of a candidate who lies. Nah, lying has to be considered a bad thing or society falls apart. That goes back to the Ten Commandments. But, see, the people who claim they believe the most in those rules are the first to say "all's fair in politics."

That's why I say that Sanders actually has a chance. Trump's appeal to many is that he's blunt and speaks his mind. But, it's not clear that his supporters care what he actually says. How can they when, 9 times out of 10, his answer to any question will be "huuge." Literally.

[chud]

Bernie says Hillary "not qualified":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

[aiasthewall]

I bet the Republican party wish they had a superdelegate system in place if Trump gets elected. As far as I understand it, that's it's main purpose: guarding against demagogues who would be a disaster if elected.

[chud]

...

[chud]

...

[onebir]

Washington Post Editorial Board: "Clinton's inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules" click

Makes you wonder who WaPo is rooting for. Can't be Trump... so Sanders? Or was the State Dept report so damning there was no way to spinimize it??

[Dmitri]

Trump of course has never displayed any willful disregard for the rules...

This is gonna be a fun election. I think I might end up writing in my dog's name.