No democrat should have voted for that bill and should have put their foot down until, at teh very least, the Russian sanctions and Iranian Sanctions were split off into two separate bills.
And then not vote for the fucking Iranian sanctions that just lead to further destabilization of the nuclear agreement.
I think it is possible to separate "the nuclear agreement" from "literally all the other things". I also think it's a bit silly to parse this and Warren's other votes as neoliberal imperialist warmongering, as if there is no daylight between "we don't want you building long range missiles" and "WE WILL GLASS YOU AND TAKE YOUR OIL RAARRRR".
Like, nuance is a thing that is useful at times.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
+8
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
My expectations, at the start of the election, were that a Sanders presidency would not meaningfully prevent the coming crises, but delay and possibly mitigate them. That was my best case scenario. It assumed Democratic voters are mostly good people, and the horror they veil in pragmatism is not actually what they want.
I'm still going to vote for Bernie, but I'm on my best behavior around Democrats. I hide my stickers and do not wear my shirt. While initially fearful of being killed by a Trump supporter, I no longer view blue neighborhoods as any safer. The things I have seen this election have caused me to delay certain plans, but a look at my finances show that I never had the means to do those things anyway.
My hope for your future is contrasted by the knowledge that there is no future, absent supernatural causation and a just universe, where you get what they truly deserve and I live. My desire to grant America a reprieve from consequences is purely mercenary, as it would purchase my happiness. If Bernie wins or not, America is still evil, and if the alternative is that the horror this nation has done to humanity leaves it the last country standing, 'twould be better for him to lose.
TL:DR, I learned that many Democrats I thought were good people aren't! Bernie's gonna win though, and silly geeses like you are going to be happy about it.
That's my contact with reality. Now shove it up your ass.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
+6
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
We could talk about what Biden got up to on the Foreign Relations Committee tho
Styrofoam Sammich on
+3
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
I think Sammich means the job upgrade type, not the marketing sense of the word; at least that was my initial mix up on first read
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
He's had several serious committee seats and chaired the VA Committee. This is a really fucking weird argument man. Yeah sure Biden might have been wrong all the time and a major contributor to the murder of thousands of Iraqis and American servicemembers but he was also in a position of authority on these issues while Sanders was not.
No democrat should have voted for that bill and should have put their foot down until, at teh very least, the Russian sanctions and Iranian Sanctions were split off into two separate bills.
And then not vote for the fucking Iranian sanctions that just lead to further destabilization of the nuclear agreement.
I think it is possible to separate "the nuclear agreement" from "literally all the other things". I also think it's a bit silly to parse this and Warren's other votes as neoliberal imperialist warmongering, as if there is no daylight between "we don't want you building long range missiles" and "WE WILL GLASS YOU AND TAKE YOUR OIL RAARRRR".
Like, nuance is a thing that is useful at times.
I don’t think it’s... whatever that second thing you’re describing is
I do think it’s part of a repeat pattern of behavior where given the party’s view of how the world works, the GOP is able to play them into decision making that is ultimately destabilizing for the regions in question and ultimately serves to shore up conditions that make the GOP’s foreign policy easier to execute.
I think sanders, more so than the rest of the Democratic caucus, understood how Iranian sanctions would be perceived by a belligerent administration like Trump’s, one which had been chomping at the bit to undo the Iran deal, and was staffed by multiple pro-Iran War flaks
Or maybe your own foreign policy desires simply don't match up with what the electorate or either party are interested in.
To be clear, my foreign policy desire here is “don’t start destructive, pointless wars that accomplish nothing but dead civilians and soldiers, wounded on both sides, devastated families and plant the seeds for future violence and retribution”
You realize that right? That my position that you’re so blasé about not “matching up” to reality is “stop creating and reinforcing endless cycles of violence in the Middle East.”
+6
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
He's had several serious committee seats and chaired the VA Committee. This is a really fucking weird argument man. Yeah sure Biden might have been wrong all the time and a major contributor to the murder of thousands of Iraqis and American servicemembers but he was also in a position of authority on these issues while Sanders was not.
This makes Biden worse.
Cite needed there.
Again, it's easy to cast stones when you weren't responsible for the outcome. Obama and Biden were willing to get their hands dirty in foreign policy while Sanders was safe and sound on committees where he didn't have to worry about the possibility of getting blood on his hands.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
He's had several serious committee seats and chaired the VA Committee. This is a really fucking weird argument man. Yeah sure Biden might have been wrong all the time and a major contributor to the murder of thousands of Iraqis and American servicemembers but he was also in a position of authority on these issues while Sanders was not.
This makes Biden worse.
Cite needed there.
Again, it's easy to cast stones when you weren't responsible for the outcome. Obama and Biden were willing to get their hands dirty in foreign policy while Sanders was safe and sound on committees where he didn't have to worry about the possibility of getting blood on his hands.
This whole "who are you to judge" thing is toxic. Also VP doesn't make foreign policy decisions.
Biden and Sanders had the same choice on Iraq. Sanders made the right one. Biden did not. The least consequences he could suffer is that he doesn't keep getting higher offices.
How is Biden absolved because other people were fucking idiots too?
Part of me WANTS Sanders to win simply so I can see what he does when his ideology hits the wall of reality- or how his supporters response to it.
Actual accelerationism
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
He's had several serious committee seats and chaired the VA Committee. This is a really fucking weird argument man. Yeah sure Biden might have been wrong all the time and a major contributor to the murder of thousands of Iraqis and American servicemembers but he was also in a position of authority on these issues while Sanders was not.
This makes Biden worse.
Cite needed there.
Again, it's easy to cast stones when you weren't responsible for the outcome. Obama and Biden were willing to get their hands dirty in foreign policy while Sanders was safe and sound on committees where he didn't have to worry about the possibility of getting blood on his hands.
You realize this is basically “hard choices” rhetoric, right?
A destructive mode of rationalising institutionalised violence because someone had to do the nasty work that keeps the world safe?
Like what the fuck does “safe and sound on committees” even mean in this context? None of these people are in a battlefield, and even many of the strikes we carry out on regular basis are carried out via remote operated air strikes instead of physical presence in the combat zone*
Also no, legislators hold culpability for their policy decisions in the legislature; that’s why one of the things Biden is getting criticised for is his Iraq War vote, when he was in the senate
Also Quarter, we live in a representative democracy. This isn’t “throwing stones.” These people are supposed to be representing our will as citizens of a democracy. We have Not simply every right but a civic duty under the principles of democracy to criticise them when we believe them to be astray in representing and carrying out that will.
*though even this isn’t without scarring, as the incidents of PTSD among drone operators will attest.
Lanz on
+9
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
He wasn't involved cause the majority of other senators disagreed with him. And they were wrong.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Remember when Bernie played fair-weather friend to Obama and wanted him primaried, but couldn't be goddamn bothered to do anything but throw stones from the sidelines?
Here's a choice quote, but there's plenty of good stuff there-
I don’t know of anybody in mind, but I’m sure that there are smart people out there who can do it. Here’s the point: If you’re asking me, do I think at the end of the day that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2012? I do. But do I believe that it is a good idea for our democracy, and for the Democratic Party — and I speak, by the way, as an independent — that people start asking the president some hard questions about why he said one thing during his previous campaign and then is doing another thing today on Social Security, on Medicare? I think it is important that that discussion take place.
Bernie couldn't even be bothered to identify as a Democrat while talking shit about the man toppled Clinton superdelegates and all, and then went on to win re-election by 5 million votes, so you'll forgive me for not taking the "Bernie was always right" narrative to heart.
Stop using “purity” as a goddamn sarcastic pejorative in a discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party’s leadership?
Not supporting repeated wars and acts of war in the Middle East isn’t fucking “purity,” it’s not “virtue signalling” or whatever other right wing paradigm bullshit you want to throw at it to make it seem foolish and naive.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Biden is directly responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 183,348 - 461,000 Iraqis. Sanders was one of very few that saw the war for what it was and acted correctly.
There is an atmosphere I have sensed developing over the past several years where the party is slowly, but surely, developing a culture wherein the Reagan “Eleventh Commandment” becomes adopted. That “Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow [party member]”
And god help us if we do, because that is honestly one of the things that hastened the toxicity of the GOP to the state it’s in now. If our candidates cannot criticize each other, If we cannot argue that a mistake has been made, then the party will become as lost as the GOP.
The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election.[1] East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office.[1] Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice.[1]
It is vital to the health of the party, as with any democratic institution, to be open to debate and criticism. It is, yes, exhausting, and I can understand the impulse to want to unify instead of allow for impassioned criticism, especially when our factions have stark divides between us in this tent (and especially here on the forums). But it is a necessary thing if we are to avoid falling into the quagmire of authoritarianism and hierarchical deference that constitutes so much of the GOP. To say nothing of how vital it is if we are to become better tomorrow than we are today.
Somehow it is the act of a prissy frou frou intellectual to say we're ruled by murderous dipshits who don't care how many people die in their wars.
painfulPleasance on
+2
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Biden is directly responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 183,348 - 461,000 Iraqis. Sanders was one of very few that saw the war for what it was and acted correctly.
That's not a remotely fair accusation and you know it, come on Samm.
Has Bernie ever been in a position where his controversial votes would have cost him?
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Biden is directly responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 183,348 - 461,000 Iraqis. Sanders was one of very few that saw the war for what it was and acted correctly.
That's not a remotely fair accusation and you know it, come on Samm.
Has Bernie ever been in a position where his controversial votes would have cost him?
Is it any less fair than Campaign-Era Obama using the legacy of the war vote as a grounds of critique?
Mr. Obama responded at a town-hall-style meeting in Monaca, Pa.
“The truth is, the judgment of Hillary Clinton and John McCain gave George Bush a blank check for war,” Mr. Obama said. “With all due respect, I’m not about to allow Senator Clinton to get away with saying that was just about speeches. Because of that vote, we have fought a war that has cost us thousands of lives, cost us over a trillion dollars.”
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Biden is directly responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 183,348 - 461,000 Iraqis. Sanders was one of very few that saw the war for what it was and acted correctly.
That's not a remotely fair accusation and you know it, come on Samm.
Has Bernie ever been in a position where his controversial votes would have cost him?
That's what governing is. Direct responsibility. Senators are directly responsible for their actions. As a Senator, Biden, with others chose to start a war that murdered countless people. He'll never suffer any real punishment for that choice but he could at least suffer a career one.
Don't know if this is going to move poll numbers, but Sanders is really setting the rhythm on this issue. Warren looks like she's aspiring to be his VP by following the pace that he's setting. And everybody else is just counterattacking with procedural pablum, like anybody cares about Congressional approval, is just another power that they meekly ceded to the Executive in fear of not wanting to take an actual position.
I forget if we’ve commented on this already, but reading back up on 2008, it is interesting to note the historic parallels; Clinton was very much in the same position Biden is in now it seems regarding support and views on electability:
Stop using “purity” as a goddamn sarcastic pejorative in a discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party’s leadership?
Not supporting repeated wars and acts of war in the Middle East isn’t fucking “purity,” it’s not “virtue signalling” or whatever other right wing paradigm bullshit you want to throw at it to make it seem foolish and naive.
I use it as a pejorative for people that haven't had to worry that their votes or stances would cost them on the world stage, while simultaneously criticizing people who have done so.
Bernie hasn't had to drone-strike anyone... yet. But he's said he's open to it, and you can bet he'll likely have to do it, and that's BEFORE we consider the post-Trump hell world he would inherit. If that day comes, will your support waver, or will you concede that not everything is clear cut, and that sometimes everything is fucked up, and that sometimes doing the best you can sometimes isn't going to be enough?
Don't know if this is going to move poll numbers, but Sanders is really setting the rhythm on this issue. Warren looks like she's aspiring to be his VP by following the pace that he's setting. And everybody else is just counterattacking with procedural pablum, like anybody cares about Congressional approval, is just another power that they meekly ceded to the Executive in fear of not wanting to take an actual position.
I doubt the last woman in the race is looking to subordinate herself to someone at this point.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Stop using “purity” as a goddamn sarcastic pejorative in a discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party’s leadership?
Not supporting repeated wars and acts of war in the Middle East isn’t fucking “purity,” it’s not “virtue signalling” or whatever other right wing paradigm bullshit you want to throw at it to make it seem foolish and naive.
I use it as a pejorative for people that haven't had to worry that their votes or stances would cost them on the world stage, while simultaneously criticizing people who have done so.
Bernie hasn't had to drone-strike anyone... yet. But he's said he's open to it, and you can bet he'll likely have to do it, and that's BEFORE we consider the post-Trump hell world he would inherit. If that day comes, will your support waver, or will you concede that not everything is clear cut, and that sometimes everything is fucked up, and that sometimes doing the best you can sometimes isn't going to be enough?
What does this mean re: Sanders? Do you remember what politics were like in 2003? Opposing the Iraq War ended careers left right and center.
Don't know if this is going to move poll numbers, but Sanders is really setting the rhythm on this issue. Warren looks like she's aspiring to be his VP by following the pace that he's setting. And everybody else is just counterattacking with procedural pablum, like anybody cares about Congressional approval, is just another power that they meekly ceded to the Executive in fear of not wanting to take an actual position.
I doubt the last woman in the race is looking to subordinate herself to someone at this point.
Of course she isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that Sanders is the one setting the pace and she's running to catch up. Note that I spoke about how it looks, rather than Warren's actual intentions.
0
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
There is an atmosphere I have sensed developing over the past several years where the party is slowly, but surely, developing a culture wherein the Reagan “Eleventh Commandment” becomes adopted. That “Thou shalt not speak ill of your fellow [party member]”
And god help us if we do, because that is honestly one of the things that hastened the toxicity of the GOP to the state it’s in now. If our candidates cannot criticize each other, If we cannot argue that a mistake has been made, then the party will become as lost as the GOP.
The goal was to prevent a repetition of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election.[1] East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office.[1] Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice.[1]
It is vital to the health of the party, as with any democratic institution, to be open to debate and criticism. It is, yes, exhausting, and I can understand the impulse to want to unify instead of allow for impassioned criticism, especially when our factions have stark divides between us in this tent (and especially here on the forums). But it is a necessary thing if we are to avoid falling into the quagmire of authoritarianism and hierarchical deference that constitutes so much of the GOP. To say nothing of how vital it is if we are to become better tomorrow than we are today.
I think it's really in the general that it's most frowned upon. There's nothing wrong with being critical of policy at this point, but it's dangerous to paint the entire party as the ultimate bad guy. No matter who gets the nomination it just ends up ground you need to gain back, and I think many people have lost their taste for that. It shouldn't be the case for this stage of the election cycle that no one can have a discussion about the policies of the various Democratic party candidates. I truly feel, however, that alongside "my chosen candidate is the best and will save the world" rhetoric part of the conversation needs to be about figuring out what's at least okay about the others in case that person doesn't make it.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Or maybe your own foreign policy desires simply don't match up with what the electorate or either party are interested in.
To be clear, my foreign policy desire here is “don’t start destructive, pointless wars that accomplish nothing but dead civilians and soldiers, wounded on both sides, devastated families and plant the seeds for future violence and retribution”
You realize that right? That my position that you’re so blasé about not “matching up” to reality is “stop creating and reinforcing endless cycles of violence in the Middle East.”
I mean, that's how you view it. How others view what you are talking about is very different.
And that doesn't actually change anything I said anyway.
Posts
I think it is possible to separate "the nuclear agreement" from "literally all the other things". I also think it's a bit silly to parse this and Warren's other votes as neoliberal imperialist warmongering, as if there is no daylight between "we don't want you building long range missiles" and "WE WILL GLASS YOU AND TAKE YOUR OIL RAARRRR".
Like, nuance is a thing that is useful at times.
He should be absolved because he recognized it was a mistake and has stated that repeatedly. What would you like him to do, exactly, castigate himself with a whip?
Also, accelerrationism would be me wanting Sanders to fail. I dont, but it would give me pleasure to see his absolutist rhetoric collide with the political realities inherent in being POTUS. Doubly so for his more naieve supporters that seem to think he's not going to drone strike the fuck out of people just like that evil neoliberal shill Obama.
Id like him to not be promoted, at the fucking least.
You get that like 99% of the thread wants not-Biden, right? Disagreeing on your take on things isn't promotion.
Not sure what you're talking about. He asked what I want of Biden re his abysmal foreign policy.
I want him to retire. Its better than a lot of people will get as a result of choices he made.
It's easy to throw stones from a position where you haven't been in charge to make the call that will affect the lives of millions.
You know part of the reason Bernie's record doesn't get critiqued? Because he hasn't accomplished much of anything but talk, talk, talk from the sidelines.
My expectations, at the start of the election, were that a Sanders presidency would not meaningfully prevent the coming crises, but delay and possibly mitigate them. That was my best case scenario. It assumed Democratic voters are mostly good people, and the horror they veil in pragmatism is not actually what they want.
I'm still going to vote for Bernie, but I'm on my best behavior around Democrats. I hide my stickers and do not wear my shirt. While initially fearful of being killed by a Trump supporter, I no longer view blue neighborhoods as any safer. The things I have seen this election have caused me to delay certain plans, but a look at my finances show that I never had the means to do those things anyway.
My hope for your future is contrasted by the knowledge that there is no future, absent supernatural causation and a just universe, where you get what they truly deserve and I live. My desire to grant America a reprieve from consequences is purely mercenary, as it would purchase my happiness. If Bernie wins or not, America is still evil, and if the alternative is that the horror this nation has done to humanity leaves it the last country standing, 'twould be better for him to lose.
TL:DR, I learned that many Democrats I thought were good people aren't! Bernie's gonna win though, and silly geeses like you are going to be happy about it.
That's my contact with reality. Now shove it up your ass.
They were both Senators my man.
Sanders has never so much as been on a foreign relations committee, let alone chaired it.
Ok. Hes also, as a high ranking member of the US government been right on a lot of disasterous policy decisions that Biden was not.
We could talk about what Biden got up to on the Foreign Relations Committee tho
A high-ranking member that's been in Congress for 30 years and was right about everything... but was conveniently NEVER involved in crafting foreign policy.
I think Sammich means the job upgrade type, not the marketing sense of the word; at least that was my initial mix up on first read
PSN: jrrl_absent
He's had several serious committee seats and chaired the VA Committee. This is a really fucking weird argument man. Yeah sure Biden might have been wrong all the time and a major contributor to the murder of thousands of Iraqis and American servicemembers but he was also in a position of authority on these issues while Sanders was not.
This makes Biden worse.
I don’t think it’s... whatever that second thing you’re describing is
I do think it’s part of a repeat pattern of behavior where given the party’s view of how the world works, the GOP is able to play them into decision making that is ultimately destabilizing for the regions in question and ultimately serves to shore up conditions that make the GOP’s foreign policy easier to execute.
I think sanders, more so than the rest of the Democratic caucus, understood how Iranian sanctions would be perceived by a belligerent administration like Trump’s, one which had been chomping at the bit to undo the Iran deal, and was staffed by multiple pro-Iran War flaks
To be clear, my foreign policy desire here is “don’t start destructive, pointless wars that accomplish nothing but dead civilians and soldiers, wounded on both sides, devastated families and plant the seeds for future violence and retribution”
You realize that right? That my position that you’re so blasé about not “matching up” to reality is “stop creating and reinforcing endless cycles of violence in the Middle East.”
Cite needed there.
Again, it's easy to cast stones when you weren't responsible for the outcome. Obama and Biden were willing to get their hands dirty in foreign policy while Sanders was safe and sound on committees where he didn't have to worry about the possibility of getting blood on his hands.
This whole "who are you to judge" thing is toxic. Also VP doesn't make foreign policy decisions.
Biden and Sanders had the same choice on Iraq. Sanders made the right one. Biden did not. The least consequences he could suffer is that he doesn't keep getting higher offices.
You realize this is basically “hard choices” rhetoric, right?
A destructive mode of rationalising institutionalised violence because someone had to do the nasty work that keeps the world safe?
Like what the fuck does “safe and sound on committees” even mean in this context? None of these people are in a battlefield, and even many of the strikes we carry out on regular basis are carried out via remote operated air strikes instead of physical presence in the combat zone*
Also no, legislators hold culpability for their policy decisions in the legislature; that’s why one of the things Biden is getting criticised for is his Iraq War vote, when he was in the senate
Also Quarter, we live in a representative democracy. This isn’t “throwing stones.” These people are supposed to be representing our will as citizens of a democracy. We have Not simply every right but a civic duty under the principles of democracy to criticise them when we believe them to be astray in representing and carrying out that will.
*though even this isn’t without scarring, as the incidents of PTSD among drone operators will attest.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Sanders didn't to sully his precious purity with work that might get his hands dirty.
Remember when Bernie played fair-weather friend to Obama and wanted him primaried, but couldn't be goddamn bothered to do anything but throw stones from the sidelines?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern
Here's a choice quote, but there's plenty of good stuff there-
Bernie couldn't even be bothered to identify as a Democrat while talking shit about the man toppled Clinton superdelegates and all, and then went on to win re-election by 5 million votes, so you'll forgive me for not taking the "Bernie was always right" narrative to heart.
please
Stop using “purity” as a goddamn sarcastic pejorative in a discussion about the direction of the Democratic Party’s leadership?
Not supporting repeated wars and acts of war in the Middle East isn’t fucking “purity,” it’s not “virtue signalling” or whatever other right wing paradigm bullshit you want to throw at it to make it seem foolish and naive.
Biden is directly responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 183,348 - 461,000 Iraqis. Sanders was one of very few that saw the war for what it was and acted correctly.
And god help us if we do, because that is honestly one of the things that hastened the toxicity of the GOP to the state it’s in now. If our candidates cannot criticize each other, If we cannot argue that a mistake has been made, then the party will become as lost as the GOP.
It is vital to the health of the party, as with any democratic institution, to be open to debate and criticism. It is, yes, exhausting, and I can understand the impulse to want to unify instead of allow for impassioned criticism, especially when our factions have stark divides between us in this tent (and especially here on the forums). But it is a necessary thing if we are to avoid falling into the quagmire of authoritarianism and hierarchical deference that constitutes so much of the GOP. To say nothing of how vital it is if we are to become better tomorrow than we are today.
That's not a remotely fair accusation and you know it, come on Samm.
Has Bernie ever been in a position where his controversial votes would have cost him?
Is it any less fair than Campaign-Era Obama using the legacy of the war vote as a grounds of critique?
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18war.html
It’s the same as back then, because that is the legacy of that war and the vote
That's what governing is. Direct responsibility. Senators are directly responsible for their actions. As a Senator, Biden, with others chose to start a war that murdered countless people. He'll never suffer any real punishment for that choice but he could at least suffer a career one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2008-clinton-obama-epic-duel-n1029626
I use it as a pejorative for people that haven't had to worry that their votes or stances would cost them on the world stage, while simultaneously criticizing people who have done so.
Bernie hasn't had to drone-strike anyone... yet. But he's said he's open to it, and you can bet he'll likely have to do it, and that's BEFORE we consider the post-Trump hell world he would inherit. If that day comes, will your support waver, or will you concede that not everything is clear cut, and that sometimes everything is fucked up, and that sometimes doing the best you can sometimes isn't going to be enough?
I doubt the last woman in the race is looking to subordinate herself to someone at this point.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
What does this mean re: Sanders? Do you remember what politics were like in 2003? Opposing the Iraq War ended careers left right and center.
Of course she isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that Sanders is the one setting the pace and she's running to catch up. Note that I spoke about how it looks, rather than Warren's actual intentions.
I think it's really in the general that it's most frowned upon. There's nothing wrong with being critical of policy at this point, but it's dangerous to paint the entire party as the ultimate bad guy. No matter who gets the nomination it just ends up ground you need to gain back, and I think many people have lost their taste for that. It shouldn't be the case for this stage of the election cycle that no one can have a discussion about the policies of the various Democratic party candidates. I truly feel, however, that alongside "my chosen candidate is the best and will save the world" rhetoric part of the conversation needs to be about figuring out what's at least okay about the others in case that person doesn't make it.
I am both curious, disgusted and dismissive about it
Wait did I miss Klobuchar dropping out?
I mean, that's how you view it. How others view what you are talking about is very different.
And that doesn't actually change anything I said anyway.