If you're a Bernie supporter, are you willing to vote for Hillary?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Yes and when historians disagree, the response should be to present the contrast evidence and weigh them. Instead you just “I lived through it, so take my word for it”. And of course, “people who live through” an event have disagreeing interpretations-go ask Michael Dukakis about Bush Sr.

You’re not helping your cause invoking someone else who never served in the military. I have history too, but I also have the perspective of having been there and seen it. You do not. You seem to think that book-learning is the be-all, end-all, and that’s your right. Doesn’t make it any less false.

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
And what I’m saying is that whatever Bush did including who he appointed had very little to do with American victory in Desert Storm as opposed to underlying structural factors that gave us overwhelming superiority in conventional warfare. Hell, the Iraq War of 2003 demonstrates this pretty well-we wiped the floor with Hussein’s army in a matter of weeks, it was the subsequent occupation that was the problem.
[/QUOTE]

Dubyah had at least as much technological superiority, yet he and his advisors bogged us down in a war that cost us roughly 25 times the military casualties and an estimated 100 times the civilian casualties of Desert Storm. Hopefully you get that the occupation was part of the war.

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
As I pointed out then, there was lots of continuity between Bush 41 and Bush 43 national security appointees.

Most obviously Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defence under Bush 41 and then Vice President under his son.

Secretary of State James Baker under Bush 41 continued to advise Bush 43 on Iraq War related matters.

Condolezza Rice who would go on to become National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State for George W. Bush, started out as Director of Soviet and Eastern European Affairs as well as Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Leading Iraq War advocate Paul Wolfowitz served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under Bush 41.

Need I go on?
[/QUOTE]

This ^ is really pretty much academic. The outcome of one plan, under 41, was a successful war that completed its objectives. He was responsible for it, and thus derives the credit for it. He was the one who did the ‘buck stops here’ decision-making on it.

The outcome of the other was slight success for much greater costs, not just in deaths and money. 43 was responsible for that, and he gets the rightful criticism for it.

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
I never said anything about your beliefs. I said simply that the same Republican base that supported Trump also by and large supported Bush Sr. in 1988 and 1992.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Because that’s not what you said:

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Then why were you a Republican and still praise Reagan and Bush Sr.?
[/QUOTE]

That was your entre into the discussion. Nothing before that. That clearly goes to my beliefs. Nevermind that the only things I’ve ever said about Reagan on this board were that I voted for him in 1984, and then in response here that the last time I praised him he was in office. Nor does it mention anything about the base. That was a later waffle you threw in to try to justify this original statement. I praised 41 for the clear and simple reason that he undertook a military action which was necessary, which was completed successfully at relatively far less cost, and was ended once the goal had been achieved. Not the only reason I ‘praise’ him, but it’s the chief one. 41 was a good President. 43 was not.

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
I wouldn’t care if you simply were an ex-Republican since I was too. However, you continue to defend conservative Republican Presidents like George HW Bush.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not voting for 41 anymore. I am also an independent. I can praise someone personally without approving of his party’s policies. As a matter of fact, it was specifically those policies that led to my dissociating myself from the GOP in the first place.

Yours must have been a relatively recent conversion. I haven’t been a Republican for, once again, longer than you’ve been alive.

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Plus as you yourself said:
[QUOTE=Johnny Ace]
Whether or not you agree with all of the policies of your party, you are tacitly approving of them by associating yourself with them. And there are, to my view, some very backward and anti-democratic (little ‘d’) policies included in that ideology.

My comment was exaggerated for comic effect. I don’t paint every Republican with the same brush, but I also don’t absolve you of responsibility for the more irrational views of your party-mates as long as you vote with them, whatever you think of them.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

Emphasis mine.

Hence I no longer vote Republican, unless there happens to be a particular issue that I can vote on which I agree with. So far that hasn’t happened.

You keep trying to point out some hypocrisy in me that isn’t there, for your own personal reasons. I can probably guess what they are, but whatever. Your arguments are not compelling.

[PhillyGuy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Well, there is some backfiring.

I don’t expect random assignment of students to different types of sex education, but I do expect the author to compare before and after abstinence sex education was initiated. Instead, your link is providing a new, bizarrely convoluted, explanation for why the South is the way it has always been.

Also, you are cherry-picking one study, while my link was a literature review.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Johnny_Ace

You’re not helping your cause invoking someone else who never served in the military. I have history too, but I also have the perspective of having been there and seen it. You do not. You seem to think that book-learning is the be-all, end-all, and that’s your right. Doesn’t make it any less false.

So given this and your previous statements, I’m to assume you served in the military during the Persian Gulf War? And I’ve never asserted that book-learning was the be-all and end-all but I do find it amusing it you suddenly adopt an anti-intellectual tone when you constantly virtue-signal about the “ignorance” of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on socioeconomic issues despite them presumably having much more personal experience dealing with them then you do. Also even if your service gives you special insight into Bush’s foreign policy, that doesn’t mean much since I never criticized him on the Gulf War but rather on other grounds. Stalin certainly was responsible for far more splendid military victories against worse odds, but that doesn’t absolve him of his crimes.

Dubyah had at least as much technological superiority, yet he and his advisors bogged us down in a war that cost us roughly 25 times the military casualties and an estimated 100 times the civilian casualties of Desert Storm. Hopefully you get that the occupation was part of the war.

Yes, what I’m saying is that the difference between the two wars is solely attributable to the fact that one resulted in occupation of Iraq and one did not due to the differing historical contexts in which the wars happened, not anything uniquely wise about Bush 41’s appointments or strategy.

This ^ is really pretty much academic. The outcome of one plan, under 41, was a successful war that completed its objectives. He was responsible for it, and thus derives the credit for it. He was the one who did the ‘buck stops here’ decision-making on it.

The outcome of the other was slight success for much greater costs, not just in deaths and money. 43 was responsible for that, and he gets the rightful criticism for it.

Except you explicitly talked about Bush’s appointees:

However, in case you forgot, it was he who appointed them. Meanwhile Dubyah and his ‘handpicked’ cronies involved us needlessly in an extremely costly war with no endgame, for no good reason.

Bush’s “handpicked cronies” were also his papa’s “handpicked cronies”.

Really? Because that’s not what you said:

That was your entre into the discussion. Nothing before that. That clearly goes to my beliefs. Nevermind that the only things I’ve ever said about Reagan on this board were that I voted for him in 1984, and then in response here that the last time I praised him he was in office. Nor does it mention anything about the base. That was a later waffle you threw in to try to justify this original statement. I praised 41 for the clear and simple reason that he undertook a military action which was necessary, which was completed successfully at relatively far less cost, and was ended once the goal had been achieved. Not the only reason I ‘praise’ him, but it’s the chief one. 41 was a good President. 43 was not.

Fine, but my main point still stands. Neither George HW Bush nor Donald Trump could have won their party’s nomination without the support of their base. Not to mean it’s silly to praise a President on the basis of a military operation that anybody in the Oval Office would have taken (considering as it was a blatant violation of the principle against outright wars of conquest in the postwar international order and the threat it posed to Middle Eastern oil supplies)-note that people don’t praise Bush 43 for the Afghan War or Obama for killing Bin Laden since both are similarly something any President would have done.

I’m not voting for 41 anymore. I am also an independent. I can praise someone personally without approving of his party’s policies. As a matter of fact, it was specifically those policies that led to my dissociating myself from the GOP in the first place.

Yours must have been a relatively recent conversion. I haven’t been a Republican for, once again, longer than you’ve been alive.

As usual you make snide comments about my age to avoid addressing my points. And yes while you can praise someone of a given party without approving that party’s policies (hence why I praise TRUMP), the difference is that Bush Sr. was very much representative of the Republican Party’s policies.

Emphasis mine.

Hence I no longer vote Republican, unless there happens to be a particular issue that I can vote on which I agree with. So far that hasn’t happened.

You keep trying to point out some hypocrisy in me that isn’t there, for your own personal reasons. I can probably guess what they are, but whatever. Your arguments are not compelling.

Which are?

[DSeid]

@PhillyGuy

I don’t expect random assignment of students to different types of sex education, but I do expect the author to compare before and after abstinence sex education was initiated. Instead, your link is providing a new, bizarrely convoluted, explanation for why the South is the way it has always been.

Also, you are cherry-picking one study, while my link was a literature review.

Huh?

FWIW LHOD’s article was a comprehensive literature review and yours more some bullet points. But can’t say I saw too much in that literature review and your cite that contradicted each other: the conclusion of each is that “abstinence only” is mostly ineffective and comprehensive sex education including about contraception, STDs and their prevention is associated with with more decreased pregnancy and STD rates. Interestingly enough, both comprehensive and abstinence only results in teens delaying onset of sexual activity but abstinence only no better.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@PhillyGuy

I don’t expect random assignment of students to different types of sex education, but I do expect the author to compare before and after abstinence sex education was initiated. Instead, your link is providing a new, bizarrely convoluted, explanation for why the South is the way it has always been.

Also, you are cherry-picking one study, while my link was a literature review.

That’s…quite an unusual take. I can’t tell if you actually read the cite or not, and I’m not sure whether it’d be better if you’d read it or not before posting that.

[foolsguinea]

@Knorf

Calling Hillary Clinton a Republican is laughable and ridiculous.

It is interesting to me that many Bernie Bros seem to outright ignore or play down Hillary’s strengths as a progressive champion of women’s civil rights.

Are you using “champion” to mean “beneficiary”? Yes, Hillary is feminist in that she benefits from feminism.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

So given this and your previous statements, I’m to assume you served in the military during the Persian Gulf War? And I’ve never asserted that book-learning was the be-all and end-all but I do find it amusing it you suddenly adopt an anti-intellectual tone when you constantly virtue-signal about the “ignorance” of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on socioeconomic issues despite them presumably having much more personal experience dealing with them then you do. Also even if your service gives you special insight into Bush’s foreign policy, that doesn’t mean much since I never criticized him on the Gulf War but rather on other grounds. Stalin certainly was responsible for far more splendid military victories against worse odds, but that doesn’t absolve him of his crimes.

Actually, I served before the Gulf War, during the Reagan administration. USNA class of '86. During which course of instruction I had a far more intimate view of military operations than you have, or likely ever will.

Why am I reminded of the Monty Python Arguments skit? Sorry, but claiming that experience and practical application are more important than book learning is not being anti-intellectual.

Trump has no experience dealing with socioeconomic issues whatsoever. He runs his business (and, shall we say, not in a particularly admirable nor beneficial way for anyone but himself). Bernie, at least, was governor of a state. However, you wouldn’t know it from his own lack of knowledge on the impact of the economic policies he’s promoting. That aside, I don’t remember ever calling Bernie ignorant on socioeconomics.

You didn’t criticize Bush Sr. over the Gulf War. No, you just basically said that any monkey could have done it. And then there’s the implication that he has committed crimes. Please expand on that using specifics.

Yes, what I’m saying is that the difference between the two wars is solely attributable to the fact that one resulted in occupation of Iraq and one did not due to the differing historical contexts in which the wars happened, not anything uniquely wise about Bush 41’s appointments or strategy.

Really? Let’s start with the tissue of mischaracterizations used to promote Gulf War II in the first place. 41’s mandate from the UN was based on events which had actually, provably, happened. His war was the example of how to use military intervention in a measured and approved way. It prevented the unlawful annexation of one nation’s territory by another.

43 pushed for war regardless of any proven facts. He chose to take down Saddam. That was the only objective that he completed, and it was shown later that he had no justification for doing so. He didn’t make the world any safer, he didn’t stop terrorism; as a matter of fact, he gave even more justification for terrorist organizations to use, and a new battleground for them to attack the Great Satan. His war was the example of the US stamping its boots because it could, at ludicrously high cost. It didn’t need to happen, and as a result it destabilized an already shaky region. The US and the world would have been far better off if Gulf War II had never happened. Iraq was a quagmire that 43 chose to create, with no exit strategy.

Except you explicitly talked about Bush’s appointees:

Bush’s “handpicked cronies” were also his papa’s “handpicked cronies”.

Of the four examples you mentioned, only one was directly involved in both wars. Condi wasn’t even dealing with the same region. You then cite Baker as an advisor and Wolfowitz as an advocate? Even if I were to grant that they were all involved equally in both wars (which I don’t), the fact remains that GW I was planned and executed well, and GW II was not.

Fine, but my main point still stands. Neither George HW Bush nor Donald Trump could have won their party’s nomination without the support of their base. Not to mean it’s silly to praise a President on the basis of a military operation that anybody in the Oval Office would have taken (considering as it was a blatant violation of the principle against outright wars of conquest in the postwar international order and the threat it posed to Middle Eastern oil supplies)-note that people don’t praise Bush 43 for the Afghan War or Obama for killing Bin Laden since both are similarly something any President would have done.

Exactly what connection are you trying to draw between motivation and application? Probably, any President but the most dovish or isolationist would have approved GW I under the circumstances. Does that mean 41 gets no credit? He had approval power over the conduct of the war as well as the decision to go in the first place.

That last part is pure speculation. 43 had evidence from the intelligence agencies: that there was no proof of WMD’s, that the theoretical ‘yellowcake buy’ from Niger was a forgery, and that connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were tenuous at best. The human rights claims were rejected by human rights organizations because they didn’t warrant military intervention. He and the rest had all kinds of indicators against invading Iraq. Every President would not have invaded given the weight of counterarguments to intervention.

As usual you make snide comments about my age to avoid addressing my points. And yes while you can praise someone of a given party without approving that party’s policies (hence why I praise TRUMP), the difference is that Bush Sr. was very much representative of the Republican Party’s policies.

Well, you wanted to compare my renouncing the Republican party over 20 years ago to yours. How long ago was that? How long have you had to decide and examine what your political affiliations and beliefs are? How long have you had for them to change?

How was Bush ‘very much representative?’ Specifically what GOP policies are you talking about?

Which are?

Two likely ones that I can think of. First, you want to win your point however you can. Second, you don’t like me, not that I give a damn. TFB.

[foolsguinea]

@asahi

She needs the appearance of authenticity in the eyes of voters.

Ah, yes, fake that authenticity, get some of that reform!

Look, some of us tried to warn you. Bernie tried to warn you. But apparently you have all but made this bed.

Trump is hated, and a loose cannon. Hillary is not trusted, and probably despised. Her net approval is a little better. Maybe she can win.

But if i see two unelectable candidates, I suspect neither of them will be elected. It’s getting to be time to look to someone to swoop in like Ross Perot, honestly.

[BrainGlutton]

@foolsguinea

But if i see two unelectable candidates, I suspect neither of them will be elected. It’s getting to be time to look to someone to swoop in like Ross Perot, honestly.

Bit late for that, isn’t it?

[JKellyMap]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

FTR, I actually do like Hillary Clinton and fully intend to vote for her come November. However, even this thread demonstrates the wrongheaded arguments many of her supporters are making in order to persuade Sanders supporters (of course many of them also make very bad arguments) to vote for Clinton. I’ll support Clinton in the general because I think she’s pretty good and getting better on the issues- I support her plans to build on the the gains of the New Deal, Great Society, and the Obama administration through measures such as giving the government the power to negotiate on pharmaceutical prices, a public option for the ACA, raising the minimum wage, paid maternity and sick leave, keeping Social Security and Medicare. As a liberal internationalist, I also like her foreign policy approach better then Sanders’s. The other main reason I intend to support her is because I think she is tough and in many ways a Democratic Richard Nixon who has been a target of great hatred but always proven their detractors wrong by amassing new political coalitions to steamroll her opponents. While I certainly don’t approve of the shady behaviour of the Nixon administration, I do harbour some hopes of Clinton remembering all the slander and libel her right-wing enemies have heaped on her for the past 25 years. Certainly there are lots of names who deserve to be on her Enemies List and she can do plenty of more or less legal harm and humiliation to their careers.

By contrast, the wrong way to go about advocating for Clinton is prominent on display here as well as some of the SJW corners of Twitter (people like Arthur Chu, Sady Doyle, Imani Gandy, and the like come to mind) and blogs such as Shakesville. Here the approach is essentially to blackmail Sanders supporters by saying they must vote for Clinton if TRUMP is not to win regardless of what they feel about the issues. The other main argument they take, which shows their culturally left-bourgeoisie tendencies, is that Clinton is somewhat the “real” or “more” progressive candidate because she’ll be the first woman President, has the support of blacks, has the support of homosexuals, is more “intersectional” rather then “narrowly focused” on socioeconomic issues, and so forth. An important element of this is tying Sanders to the antics and abuses of his “Bernie Bro” supporters (who granted do exist and probably deserve to be shot) before going on to denigrate the Sanders coalition as a whole by deeming it motivated by misogyny and racism due to the disproportionate support he gets from working-class whites (and often they engage in typical bourgeoisie virtue-signalling moralism against the WWC as a whole as “racist”, “stupid”, “inbred” etc.)

The other wrongheaded approach to Clinton support is by the neocon intelligentsia, the pundit class, and similarly useless people who run her as some sort of a vanilla “national unity” candidate whose main virtue is not being “divisive” or following the “wisdom” of the Very Serious People on foreign policy, trade, immigration, and other issues. Unfortunately there is some evidence Clinton herself is trying to appeal to these dysgenics by suggesting she might nominate a businessman as her running mate. At any rate, the problem again is that such a bland campaign that’s basically “Clinton’s the Unity Candidate Let’s be positive and not attack anyone :)” has no real narrative and thus excites nobody (except for maybe David Brooks and the residents of Fairfield County, CT), making it highly vulnerable to a polarizing candidate who nonetheless runs on a compelling ideology. Due to all the polls predicting victory, Thomas Dewey essentially took the strategy of speaking only in platitudes to avoid offending anyone even as Harry Truman ran a populist, give 'em Hell campaign and as a result Dewey got crushed by Truman despite a three-way split in the Democratic Party. Clinton must run as both ideologue and pragmatist just as FDR and Nixon did, if she wants to assure the victory of her campaign and not simply rely on demographics.

Excellent analysis, IMHO – worth a bump (hope nobody minds).

[octopus]

@Johnny_Ace

That last part is pure speculation. 43 had evidence from the intelligence agencies: that there was no proof of WMD’s, that the theoretical ‘yellowcake buy’ from Niger was a forgery, and that connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda were tenuous at best. The human rights claims were rejected by human rights organizations because they didn’t warrant military intervention. He and the rest had all kinds of indicators against invading Iraq. Every President would not have invaded given the weight of counterarguments to intervention.

The Kurds didn’t gas themselves.

Chemical weapon use is proof that chemical weapons existed. Now Saddam was in a terrible position of trying to maintain power by signaling he had weapons to maintain regional status and also hoping that US intelligence was good enough to see he was mostly complying to avoid an ass-whooping.

But on the subject of Iraq and quagmire, how sure are we that stated goals and real, long-term goals are the same?

[octopus]

@foolsguinea

Ah, yes, fake that authenticity, get some of that reform!

Look, some of us tried to warn you. Bernie tried to warn you. But apparently you have all but made this bed.

Trump is hated, and a loose cannon. Hillary is not trusted, and probably despised. Her net approval is a little better. Maybe she can win.

But if i see two unelectable candidates, I suspect neither of them will be elected. It’s getting to be time to look to someone to swoop in like Ross Perot, honestly.

The return of the chart master?!? Imagine what wonders he could provide with a subscription to Office 365. You got me excited!

[BrainGlutton]

@octopus

But on the subject of Iraq and quagmire, how sure are we that stated goals and real, long-term goals are the same?

Actually, as to “real, long-term goals,” there was some division within the Bush Admin. But no later administration is bound to any version of their goals, is it?

[septimus]

@octopus

The Kurds didn’t gas themselves.

Chemical weapon use is proof that chemical weapons existed. Now Saddam was in a terrible position of trying to maintain power by signaling he had weapons to maintain regional status and also hoping that US intelligence was good enough to see he was mostly complying to avoid an ass-whooping.

But on the subject of Iraq and quagmire, how sure are we that stated goals and real, long-term goals are the same?

Rehashing the Cheney-Bush War against Saddam one.more.time is not what we need, but these comments are too confused and to overlook.

First: Are you referring to the Kurd gassing in 1988?? Even before Dubya’s Daddy attacked?? Fourteen years before the Cheney-Bush lies??? The gassing that came at a time when Rumsfeld et al were covertly helping Saddam fight his enemies? :smack:

But what does the final sentence in your quote mean? I can’t fathom it except to guess you are claiming (correctly) that the fear of WMD’s had nothing to do with the ill-begotten Cheney-Bush War. But if I got that much right, why did you mention the gassing in the first place?

[Johnny_Ace]

@octopus

The Kurds didn’t gas themselves.

Chemical weapon use is proof that chemical weapons existed. Now Saddam was in a terrible position of trying to maintain power by signaling he had weapons to maintain regional status and also hoping that US intelligence was good enough to see he was mostly complying to avoid an ass-whooping.

But on the subject of Iraq and quagmire, how sure are we that stated goals and real, long-term goals are the same?

Use of chemical weapons 15 years before the fact is not even close to proof that Iraq had them at the time of GWII. They decay. And, as was proven afterwards, Iraq didn’t have any active chemical weapons.

What long-term goals? Occupying Iraq indefinitely for what, taking over their oil reserves? Drawing the terrorists there to divert them from other targets (which, btw, didn’t work)?

[BigAppleBucky]

@Critical1

. . . . I think Clinton does far more harm that Trump could ever dream of. I think electing yet another flip flopping . . .

Clinton flip/flopping? No one. No one ever. Ever, has flip/flopped as much as Trump. Heck, he flip/flops within the same day sometimes. Shoots his big mouth off and when his advisers tell him he has once again sounded stupid, he “walks it back”.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Knorf

If you’re a Bernie Sanders supporter, are you willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, should she prevail as the ultimate Democratic nominee for President?

Poll coming.

I’m a Sanders supporter, and I’m not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

However, that has nothing to do with my support for Sanders. I made up my mind that I would never vote for her again after her vote in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. I didn’t vote for her in her subsequent primary run for re-election to the Senate, or in that general election, or in her primary run for president.

[nearwildheaven]

We may not have an option.

I wasn’t this worried about the future in 9/11.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Saintly_Loser

I’m a Sanders supporter, and I’m not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Username/Post combo :).

[Sherrerd]

@Saintly_Loser

I’m a Sanders supporter, and I’m not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
However, that has nothing to do with my support for Sanders. I made up my mind that I would never vote for her again after her vote in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. I didn’t vote for her in her subsequent primary run for re-election to the Senate, or in that general election, or in her primary run for president.

Who did you vote for in 2004?

Who did you vote for in 2008 and in 2012?

You say you’re a Sanders supporter. Did you vote for the Democratic Presidential tickets in any of those elections (2004, 2008, 2012)…?

… Because of course, each of those Democratic tickets contained at least one person who voted as Hillary Clinton did on the 2002 Iraq Resolution.