Hillary or Bernie?

[joe92]

Are you saying that the abhorrent acts of 17 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Germany and Sweden?

I know I'm not. A crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, no matter where and by whom it is committed.

Are you saying the abhorrent acts of 19 individuals completely and fully justifies the acts committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? (WRT 9/11)

That's what you've been arguing.

One was done on an individual's initiative. The other was done on the backing a global organization. One was condemned by their home country as soon as it came to light, the other was praised by their home country.

To put it a different way: The goal of the American military is not to do what was done in Abu-Gharib. The goal of Al-Qaeda was to do what was done on 9/11. Thus, I'm comfortable blaming considerably more than 19 individuals for 9/11, while I'm willing to limit blame to the 17 individuals involved at Abu-Gharib.

There are strong differences here, some of which I've outlined.

Abu Ghraib, the torture camp (torture, which got re-branded Enhanced Interrogation Techniques), was just one of many war crimes the US has committed in the name of fighting terror. The fight against terror has just created more terror and I hope that in the not so distant future the west won't be so stupid as to commit these atrocities any more.

Destruction of a football stadium. This is not a war crime but is indicative of why the US/West is disliked and what breeds more terrorists. This football stadium was rarely used by ISIS at the time of the air strike. Not a single terrorist was killed, but a multi million pound stadium, not cheap by Iraqi standards, was destroyed. It did not need to be destroyed and now the community of Ramadi no longer has a football stadium and won't for a long time as the government cannot afford to build a new one. It would have been far, far, far better to recapture the stadium than destroy it.

I think you are completely right when you say that you must defend yourself against terrorists. That you must provide support and help your allies. It is both honourable and just to think like that. But the way it has been done over the past few decades has led to the destabilisation of functioning countries across the world. All that does it breed more contempt towards to the US and increase the likelihood of more attacks. Especially when one flaunts the moral angle at the same time as supporting the House of Saud.

[joe92]

Universal health care is probably my #1 issue, the current system in the US is ridiculous. I've seen first hand the difference you have between a universal system (France) and the US system - it's crazy that despite being the richest country in the world, we think that healthcare is something that shouldn't be for everyone. Bernie is the only one with the right position there - since none of the others want a single payer system, at least not as campaign goals (I'm sure Hillary wants that, and who knows about Trump, but it's not what they're pushing for now)

Universal healthcare is one of the reasons I like Bernie the most. Free tuition is hard to achieve. Universal healthcare is not as hard but the benefits are staggering. It saddening to see Cameron slowly destroying our NHS. Watching him sell the plasma bank rights to Mitt Romney's hedge fund, remove the single line in our convoluted and mental "constitution" which says the country has a legal responsibility to provide free healthcare for all, and privatise yet more services of one of the greatest achievements in British history is depressing. Especially considering his billboard posters at the 2010 election:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-ima ... 32cf64bc0b

[musashisamurai]

It really depends on your perspective.

People are angry at Hillary for deleting her emails.

Of course, many other people delete their emails and register them as private, as well as other politicians, but it was never shined upon by the media – the media always takes bad things and shows them, but never shows the good things. For example, for every nuclear power station that is damaged, there are thousands that are producing electricity for a huge number of families.

Some people support Hillary as the main Democrat candidate.

As a former US dweller moved to Britain, I personally haven't really decided. I think it is about time to have a girl as President, but I'm not sure if Hillary is the one.

After all, that would restore Bill Clinton as First Man, and he was impeached...

WHEREAS–– on the Republican Side of things...

Trump is stupid, but he clearly resembles Adolf Hitler in his policies and I don't want history to repeat itself there.

Cruz is bad, I don't really know much about him however

Really, I don't want a Republican to win. I would rather have a Democrat to win President, but I'm not sure which one.

He wasn't technically impeached (at least by the Senate), though he did commit perjury. Actually they both have, but thats neither here nor there.

Now, while I admit Hillary isn't the first to hide emails, you gotta remember, she was the only one with a FOIA request for them. Furthermore, she was the only one with a private server-something you only set up for a purpose. Definitely not for convenience-I've done it before! It let her control where the emails were, rather than let them get archived (and ironically, they'd be gone now). No, my two complaints are avoiding the FOIA requests, and failing miserably at it-furthermore, while some (or much) of the classified info wasn't really classified at the time*, there were documents and requests for classified documents without headers. Thats illegal-Jack Sullivan or Huma Abedin could end up in prison for this. Abedin also broke some State Department laws with her job there too, but that should be a separate matter.
*Agencies that collect intel determine its classification at the time of collection or report. Meaning, anyone with access would know its classified when they got it-the "reclassified" thing is that was sent in conversation, not in an "official" header or something. That said, the non-disclosure agreements they sign explicitly say this and that intel may not be marked but should be treated as such.
PS: Per State guidelines, because she used her personal email, she or a representative would go through the emails with her successor (or representative). They would put work-related ones in one file, and she would keep the rest. Had she never used the server, the emails would have been erased from the system long before the campaign (they get erased automatically), while given that Obama wouldn't want anything bad to happen to a high ranking official in his administration, she'd have been okay. I really don't get why she went through with the system-its like planning a murder, meticulously making sure every detail is right and no one will know its you, and then introducing yourself to everyone in a mile-radius.


Anyways, the Dems have the opposite problem of the Rethuglicans: too few candidates. On one hand, we have a candidate who mostly connects with an aging demographics and is running because its "her turn." On the other hand, we have the token progressive in the race-I'd say Bernie's getting many votes simply because he's running against Hillary. He also has the most important trait Hillary lacks: integrity, honesty, and above all, consistency. Hillary's two or three decades in the spotlight and her many changing positions are all now well-documented. Theres a fifteen minute long video on Youtube, for example, of clips of Hillary contradicting herself. For example, "I'm a moderate" followed by "I'm a progressive" or "I've always been pro-gay rights." In the digital age, all of these along with the Clinton's long history are very easily found and read. She also has the same problem Sanders has to a lesser extent-both want to praise Obama, despite criticizing him in the past heavily (Hillary, Sanders lesser), criticizing recent actions (both, ie TPP), and calling for change (Sanders).

The biggest difference in their campaigns, i think, is how they are running. Not financially, SuperPAC vs massive online grassroots fundraising, essentially Kickstarter in some ways, but philosophically. Hillary is campaigning on "We can't change Washington, and Republicans will block everything, so I'll work in the system and won't rock the boat. Get some stuff, baby steps really." Bernie is saying "If we the people pull together, we can change Washington. Rally behind other candidates in the House and Senate (more than the half the House could change), and then we'll do the biggest things ever. And if we can't get all of Congress, well, its better to aim high and negotiate than to give up beforehand."

FTR, I voted Bernie. His campaign reform pledge, with him actually not using a PAC, made me like him on first thought; his economic policies are pretty good, and even if its hard passing it, his health care plan is pretty expansive. While Obamacare did get coverage to millions, its made insurance companies richer and didn't do anything to really reform the industry. And people said that couldn't be passed either. Lastly, his consistency really makes me like him-I (as a Bostonian) didn't like Mitt Romney for the same reason as Hillary Clinton: they "evolve" as they say, or as I think, you don't know what you're actually voting them to do. They could change their views the next day, and my vote is meaningless. I also think Sanders is a stronger candidate, especially since his movement represents the future of the Democratic Party. Clinton's firewall of supporters is (partly) in red states she won't win, while Sanders is more likely to pick up Independent voters (hence why his polls are better in matchups). Furthermore, that email scandal-if the FBI recommends something, she is screwed even if Obama blocks it. Plus, if Hillary is having trouble beating a "radical Jewish Socialist" who won't use any of her baggage on her, how on Earth will be beat any Republican candidate?

Going back to earlier, on what other candidates could have or should have ran-I think Elizabeth Warren would have crushed the election, and I hope Warren 2020 is a thing. Joe Biden, although the death of his son is tragic, would have made anither fine candidate (a debate between him and Trump would be classic) but I can see why he didn't, and I wish him the best of luck. If he was at all interested in politics, Joe Kennedy Sr (used to be in Congress, now provides oil and heating to Americans without it, with some help from Venezuela) (his son is a Congressman, and I can see a future candidate in him), I could vote for. Others include John Kerry, Deval Patrick, Robert Reich and Al Gore all of whom are pretty happy where they are now though.

I guess the lack of candidates though shows the party's strength in rallying behind Hillary-she's spent the last 8 years prepping this, and basically campaigning for 3 years.

[Crunkus_old]

One was condemned by their home country as soon as it came to light, the other was praised by their home country.

It's worth nothing both the word condemned and praised in this sentence are somewhat problematic as they are used here, which ultimately detracts from the distinction you are looking to make. It's not reasonable to say this sort of behaviour is uniformly condemned. A leading presidential candidate recently cited a fictitious story of a general coating his bullets in pig's blood when executing Muslim prisoners as a way to illustrate that he feels the US needs to go further in deterring anti-US acts. He said this because he was appealing to a large portion of the country that very much wants to hear what they feel be spoken out loud by someone in a position of power. Similarly, the concept that the "home country" for whomever you are speaking of felt unilaterally such an action was good for anyone is inaccurate.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of people doing plenty of bad things for what they think are justified reasons...or just because they are too angry too care about the consequences. The only real separator is whether the action is actually well thought out enough to have a shot at accomplishing what you seek to accomplish. Wherever you want to place the starting line, the US doesn't appear to have accomplished a great deal and there have definitely been a laundry list of concrete costs. However justified you might think they were, and however right about that you might be. The same can be said of Al-Qaeda, unless you think their aim was to destabilize and initiate serious nation-affecting costs to a much larger power both at home and abroad while funneling resources to them from those that wanted to support an organization capable of doing just that for whatever reason you want to name. Then I guess, you know, Mission actually accomplished...and maybe we should behave appropriately instead of what gets us votes and makes people feel justified. But let's be clear, the mission wasn't accomplished by the initial act...but by the bungling, predictable, and short-sighted nature of the reactions it provoked. Maybe it takes a try before we act more appropriately the NEXT time. Perhaps the entire fiasco should be best viewed as a gimmie for the US. If that's the case though...how the heck is the current political climate so ridiculously impractical on the issue and the language only escalating? If someone running for office says deterrence...that's a testable claim. If they are in the next breath claiming the same basic behaviour will only strengthen our resolve...perhaps it's worth asking if the same isn't obviously true for others.

We get it, there are people who mean us harm. This is to say they mean they mean harm to something larger than us and may simply look at us as necessary causalities or generally complicit in whatever negative behaviour they are upset about. But we should give our heads a shake if we proceed from there under the illusion that those two sentences are not equally applicable to people on both sides. We've been offering "deterrence" as justification for bad policy at home and abroad for a long time in the US...but I think the US is culturally delayed at considering what that word means beyond "lashing out against what we don't like".

[Keirador]

The biggest difference in their campaigns, i think, is how they are running. Not financially, SuperPAC vs massive online grassroots fundraising, essentially Kickstarter in some ways, but philosophically. Hillary is campaigning on "We can't change Washington, and Republicans will block everything, so I'll work in the system and won't rock the boat. Get some stuff, baby steps really." Bernie is saying "If we the people pull together, we can change Washington. Rally behind other candidates in the House and Senate (more than the half the House could change), and then we'll do the biggest things ever. And if we can't get all of Congress, well, its better to aim high and negotiate than to give up beforehand." .

I agree with everything except the underlined. If Dems can't recapture both Houses, I think Hillary would be more effective than Bernie at fighting for incremental progress. I think their careers largely reflect this as well. Hillary has compromised and sacrificed progressive principles, but that's part of working within the system to get things done. When she was lobbying the legislature as First Lady, she tried and failed to get universal health care off the ground (HillaryCare), but was able to regroup and pass the State Children's Health Insurance Program through a GOP-controlled Congress. I didn't love it when Hillary opportunistically ran for the Senate in my state, New York, but she did represent her constituents. Yes, that includes pandering to Wall Street, but it also included bringing in billions to help rebuild NYC after 9/11, advocating on behalf of first responders, and more importantly, repeatedly introducing bills to address wage discrimination, pushing the Bush administration on the issue, and eventually co-sponsoring the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the passage of which she arguably presided over after Ted Kennedy took ill.

Bernie, not so much of this. I know he managed to introduce some amendments as a legislator that advanced some progressive causes on a small scale, though it's notable that this often had to do with advancing socialized medicine for. . . soldiers. Shoveling more money toward the military is hardly a tough sell. As a legislator I think it's hard to argue that Bernie has done much more than a generic Democrat in his years in office.

Where Bernie has really been transformational is actually as the Mayor of Burlington. He did a great job in Burlington, but he did it not by cooperating with the opposition, but by co-opting, threatening, or defeating his political opponents to the point where Bernie-ism because the dominant governing philosophy. He managed to significantly increase voter turnout in Burlington to the extent that publicly opposing him stopped being a political possibility.

And here's the thing. . . Bernie isn't proving he can pull the same feat of dominating the opposition that he pulled in Burlington. I realize he's doing better than expected against Clinton, but he's not really having the effect on voter turnout he needs to have to retake Congress. As far as I know, turnout has so far been consistently worse than turnout for Obama, and the Obama coalition couldn't keep the House. The primary is his opportunity to prove there's actually a "political revolution" in the making here. If he can't do it, if the best he can do is grind out a tight race against Clinton, then I'm for Clinton. He needs to blow her out of the water to prove he can retake the House.

FTR, I voted Bernie.

. . . as a Bostonian? How'd that happen? Massachusetts primary ain't for a while yet.

Going back to earlier, on what other candidates could have or should have ran-I think Elizabeth Warren would have crushed the election, and I hope Warren 2020 is a thing. Joe Biden, although the death of his son is tragic, would have made anither fine candidate (a debate between him and Trump would be classic) but I can see why he didn't, and I wish him the best of luck. If he was at all interested in politics, Joe Kennedy Sr (used to be in Congress, now provides oil and heating to Americans without it, with some help from Venezuela) (his son is a Congressman, and I can see a future candidate in him), I could vote for. Others include John Kerry, Deval Patrick, Robert Reich and Al Gore all of whom are pretty happy where they are now though.

Robert Reich the economist? Geeze, isn't he pretty far to the left of Bernie?

Deval Patrick I wish would continue in politics. He was a good governor and a good boss.

[musashisamurai]

If Dems can't recapture both Houses, I think Hillary would be more effective than Bernie at fighting for incremental progress.

The GOP hate Hillary almost as much-maybe more-than they hate Obama. I doubt either would get much done with a GOP controlled house, however, she offers no strategy to retake the House.

she tried and failed to get universal health care off the ground (HillaryCare), but was able to regroup and pass the State Children's Health Insurance Program through a GOP-controlled Congress.

Her (massive) failure with Hillarycare led to the Republicans taking Congress. Then again, and this is more a knock against Bill-he should not have chosen his wife to preside over the committee. Hillary herself said at the time she lacked the needed credentials. (I think much of, if not all, of Hillary's baggage btw, is Bill's fault.)

Yes, that includes pandering to Wall Street,

I mean, every Democrat and Republican does that, but she and Bill had done that before her Senate days, ie Glass-Steagall.

but it also included bringing in billions to help rebuild NYC after 9/11, advocating on behalf of first responders, and more importantly, repeatedly introducing bills to address wage discrimination, pushing the Bush administration on the issue, and eventually co-sponsoring the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the passage of which she arguably presided over after Ted Kennedy took ill.

Not to knock her efforts on these (since she claims to be the "behind the scenes" person and probably is), but the first responders bill was introduced/sponsored by all everyone from the NY delegation. I don't know much about the last act, other than a Google search tells me Mikulski introduced it. Again though, Hillary is a behind the scenes-her clout with the party elite, evidence by her super delegates pledges, is one example of this. Unlike Bernie, who would have to fight both parties, Hillary already rules the Democratic Party. While we might see brokered convention (Reid's prediction), Hillary has pretty much solidified the party around her with the exception of a few.

Bernie, not so much of this. I know he managed to introduce some amendments as a legislator that advanced some progressive causes on a small scale, though it's notable that this often had to do with advancing socialized medicine for. . . soldiers. Shoveling more money toward the military is hardly a tough sell. As a legislator I think it's hard to argue that Bernie has done much more than a generic Democrat in his years in office.

His legislation was passed with John McCain, a Republican, and had bipartisan. But as a navy brat, I can tell you its harder to pass stuff for vets than it is for buying hardware or deploying troops. At any rate, if you look at bills Bernie and Hillary have introduced (2,3) 4 of them renamed things (highways, post offices) while this was the only one that really "did" something. It was enough of an achievement the American Legion (or maybe the VFW?) honored him, and it was the biggest thing to leave the Veteran's Committee in years.

On that topic-I think Bernie's only real flaw in his legislative history was his delay to recognize what was wrong with the VA offices, because of his faith in the system.

And here's the thing. . . Bernie isn't proving he can pull the same feat of dominating the opposition that he pulled in Burlington. I realize he's doing better than expected against Clinton, but he's not really having the effect on voter turnout he needs to have to retake Congress. As far as I know, turnout has so far been consistently worse than turnout for Obama, and the Obama coalition couldn't keep the House. The primary is his opportunity to prove there's actually a "political revolution" in the making here. If he can't do it, if the best he can do is grind out a tight race against Clinton, then I'm for Clinton. He needs to blow her out of the water to prove he can retake the House.

I can see that, though Bernie is also becoming in many ways the future of the Dems, as boomers get old and die (for lack of a better word). I don't know if Hillary can get the turnout the Dems need either though-her head to head matchups don't look good, and many voters are going with "Well Bernie can't win" or "Better than Trump." See my post-the Dems could have used some more candidates.

. . . as a Bostonian? How'd that happen? Massachusetts primary ain't for a while yet.

Its next week, I believe. Absentee ballot. Away at college now, and soon to leave on a service trip to Florida. Mailed it a few days ago. Supposedly, Sanders has a lead here but idk-as a college student, I'm surrounded by one of his main demographics.

Robert Reich the economist? Geeze, isn't he pretty far to the left of Bernie?

Yes, and I admit he would do worse than Bernie or anyone else. But his connections to previous administrations can't be minimized, at least in labor, and he would also be able to raise many of the points Bernie has (income inequality, campaign finance reform, Wall Street reforms, etc). I don't think the Dems have anything to gain by going more right than they already have-anyone voting Republican is going to vote red, and if not, its because its Trump, notbecause they suddenly became Democrats.

Deval Patrick I wish would continue in politics. He was a good governor and a good boss.

And friends with Obama. I liked the man.

My favorite politician was actually Mayor Menino (Mayor of Boston for pretty much forever)-one of the few I've met, and was a pretty decent guy. Saw him walking down the street in the North End on morning, accidentally cut him off, then turned around and apologized (was looking on my phone for directions). Unfortunately, he doesn't have the qualifications, or desire to run-though that doesn't matter now anyways.

[Keirador]

Well, Mayor Menino is also dead, which would be a pretty tough challenge to overcome in campaigning for the Presidency.

[musashisamurai]

Well, Mayor Menino is also dead, which would be a pretty tough challenge to overcome in campaigning for the Presidency.

though that doesn't matter now anyways.

Because he's dead...figured that'd be pretty obvious.

Funny story, there were several Bostonians in 2008 that were joking with about running, because he was mayor of about the same number of people as Palin and for far longer. Then again, Palin wasn't qualified to be anywhere near government and too dumb that I worry for whoever voted her in Alaska.

Honestly McCain probably could have won by choosing nearly any other Republican.

[Keirador]

Oh, ha, I thought you meant because the primaries had started. I doubt Mayor Mumbles would really have shone on a national stage. Boston loved him in part because he was so. . . anti-charismatic, and Boston's a weird contrary place. Remember when he'd try to talk about sports?

Definitely agree the Dems needed more candidates, but honestly the bench looks a little shallow on that side. Every potential candidate has a few flaws.

A big problem was that Clinton basically cleared the field of several potential candidates, particularly from the mid-Atlantic states and the South. Andrew Cuomo and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Jay Nixon or Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Cory Booker of New Jersey would all be formidable contenders, but they all owe a lot of loyalty to the Clinton machine.

Elizabeth Warren is simultaneously old for the job and also inexperienced. John Kerry I suspect is a spent force, and at least as much a part of the "establishment" as Hillary. Deval Patrick probably comes closest to being my ideal candidate, though honestly he probably suffers a bit from being a black man looking to succeed a black male President, and Patrick has some scandals under his belt already. (Wow, Massachusetts is surprisingly well-represented in my personal shortlist.)

It's worth remembering, in thinking of how we got into this position, that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pretty personally popular. There wasn't a lot of rationale for somebody like Elizabeth Warren to run against Hillary when Hillary was an ideological ally with more experience, deeper pockets, and a lot of popular support.

[musashisamurai]

The lack of candidates outside the Clinton camp, I think, shows just how strong she is in the party. I mean, Bill shifted the entire party to the right, by a lot, in the post-Reagan era. A month ago, when Planned Parenthood's board of directors endorsed Hillary, the president was a former Clinton staffer.

So they pretty own the left-even a lot of Obama's people are Clintonites (is that a word?). DWS, the chairwoman of the DNC, was a chairwoman of Hillary's '08 campaign (Personally, I think she should have stepped down beforehand in the interest of fairness. If a referee went to baseball game wearing one team's jersey, the others would have a legitimate right to be worried before the game even started. A legitimate reason to question the referee's bias and motives, an ethics dilemma). Deval who is certainly an Obama person rather than in thenClinton camp* pretty much expressly ruled out ever being president. Probably watched all te stress his friend went through, or because being governor of Massachusetts after Romney and before, during, after the Recession is just as bad.


I think it's because there are so many liberals from Massachusetts-I mean, we've been the bastion of the Kennedys (who dominated the party for years, even after JFK). That said, I think Elizabeth Warren and so many other politicians wouldn't want to face Clinton's wrath. She IS just as paranoid as Nixon in some ways, and I would not want to be running for office after very publicly opposing her. I think Bernie decided his career would be over soon regardless, while Warren can always run afterwards in 2020/24. Heck, I think a Warren presidency is more probable than a Clinton one at this point. All she has to do is build on whatever is left of Bernies organization (now outfunding Hillary, and in some states, outnumbering her. He also was te first candidate in every Super Tuesday state, btw) and this grassroots style campaign is kinda getting legitimized. I think a few other candidates will try following Bernie's model later on.

If a Republican is elected, or if Hillary swings to far right (and 'betrays' the Dems, a lot of whom don't like her already), or te economy plummets in te next two years (statistically, we are due for another recession by about 2018. I don't think we've done enough to recover or prevent the next from killing us), all of which would strengthen Warren's position. The other scenario is a Sander's presidency, and since I have trouble seeing him as a two term presidency, I think Warren would end up his hand picked successor.

As said above, I think Joe Kennedy Jr. might end up running in te next 10-15 years tho it's early to call that. Partly because he's a Kennedy, and partly because I think with some experience he would do a good job. He'd certainly win over New England after all without trying.

*I don't know how much truth there is to the rumor that Obama and Clinton personally hate each other. I myself believe it's more like many of their staffers and aides haven't forgiven each other for what happened during '08 (i.e. that was why Sidney Blumenthal was refused hire, not his OUI or corruption) and that the two just are t nearly as close as Biden/Obama.