Anyone with morals cannot vote 4 Hillary after reading

[_theldsthinker]

Nevertheless, I am still convinced that she is a significantly lesser evil than either Trump or Cruz

I am not so sure about that, Hillary sometimes seems anxious to go to war in Iran. She "Will Not Hesitate to Take Military Action’ If Iran Attempts to Get Nuclear Weapon"

It is sad that she is willing to invade a country even before it get's a nuclear weapon. It won't be the end of the world if Iran makes a nuclear weapon, they have to test it first, that will take years. I don't think she will be different than Bush. Perhaps she is better than Cruz, but she is still hawkish and will do nothing to fix the income gap. How can she? She takes big money from the rich.

[_The CCC]

Nevertheless, I am still convinced that she is a significantly lesser evil than either Trump or Cruz

I am not so sure about that, Hillary sometimes seems anxious to go to war in Iran. She "Will Not Hesitate to Take Military Action’ If Iran Attempts to Get Nuclear Weapon"

It is sad that she is willing to invade a country even before it get's a nuclear weapon. It won't be the end of the world if Iran makes a nuclear weapon, they have to test it first, that will take years. I don't think she will be different than Bush. Perhaps she is better than Cruz, but she is still hawkish and will do nothing to fix the income gap. How can she? She takes big money from the rich.

The stated position of the US, England, France, Germany, Russia, and China is that if sanctions don't work then Iran will be compelled through the force of arms to give them up.

Just look at how destabilizing it is with North Korea having Nukes.

[_theldsthinker]

The stated position of the US, England, France, Germany, Russia, and China is that if sanctions don't work then Iran will be compelled through the force of arms to give them up.

Just look at how destabilizing it is with North Korea having Nukes.

but under Hillary Clinton we will do it alone. How about "Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to 'intensify and broaden' efforts to fight ISIS"
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/19/polit ... is-speech/

A policy which will be very expensive, cause civilian deaths, and will accomplish nothing.

Intensifying the airstrikes will be a disaster because ISIS is located where the innocent civilians are at. So intensifying airstrikes will kill a lot of civilians. NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE POSITION OF KILLING THE FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS.

[_subgenius]

quick question, is the thread title suggesting that morality should be linked to voting?

if the answer is "yes"...then pray tell...what "morality" is to be linked?

[_theldsthinker]

quick question, is the thread title suggesting that morality should be linked to voting?

if the answer is "yes"...then pray tell...what "morality" is to be linked?

How can you vote for someone that refused to read an important DNI report before voting for war? that's f*Celestial Kingdom up!

[_Some Schmo]

Bernie and Hillary both had the same information going into their Iraq war vote, and Bernie voted against it. Clearly, Bernie's judgment is better.

I'm have yet to be convinced Hillary is the lesser of any two evils. She has a record of pro-military action. Trump only talks about it, and I think we know what his word is worth. The dude wouldn't even condemn the Palestinians because he's already considering a negotiation with them (well... according to what he says. We all know what his word is worth).

[_MeDotOrg]

The senate passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 98-2. (Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening were the 'No' votes for you trivia fans). The House Passed the Resolution 416-0.

The Spanish American War was launched on the pretext of the bombing of the Maine. From The History Channel:

In 1976, a team of American naval investigators concluded that the Maine explosion was likely caused by a fire that ignited its ammunition stocks, not by a Spanish mine or act of sabotage.

And some Military actions have been initiated without the benefit of Congressional vote, perhaps most notably the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in in 1953. This, probably more than any other act in our history, did more to make the modern fundamentalist Islamic State a reality.

We have many examples of disastrous US military and foreign policy decisions with and without Congressional input. But ultimately I have to agree with you: If you're going to go to war, as the initialism suggests:

RTFM*

*Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. - Sun Tzu

[_EAllusion]

How can you vote for someone that refused to read an important DNI report before voting for war? that's f*Celestial Kingdom up!

Very few politicians read the legislation and its associated documents they are voting on before they are voting on it. This is routine because the material is usually too complex for their schedule (and abilities in plenty of cases) to allow. What you typically hope for is they hired qualified staffers to read the material for them and explain it to them in such a way that they understand it and any debateable nuances inside. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it does not.

In the case of the Iraq War, I think many Democrats went along with it because they expected it to be popular, quick, and politically damaging if they opposed it. None of those things turned out to be the case. Clinton is a hawkish Dem. Sanders is a dovish one. That explains their votes. It's not necessarily the case that either better understood the situation on the ground. Both articulated the talking points of their respective sides at the time. it's hard to tease out depth of understanding from that.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, apparently today a whole lot of people didn't read your link because it looks like H-bomb is wrapping the nomination up.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

I heard an interesting comment on the Diane Rehm show today where a caller made the point about the backlash that comes when politicians sell hope they can't actually deliver on:

RONDA
But I just wanted to just mention a couple points about the reality of where we are. I think a lot of politicians as well as a lot of us as voters -- and today is Super Tuesday, so go vote -- is that we don't want to know the truth about where we are. I liked what the last person just said about the myth of the American dream. And I think a lot of politicians give false hope, let's say, about, you know, jobs coming back.

RONDA
I grew up in Alabama and Georgia, where there were a lot of cotton mills and towel mills and so on and so forth. But when I go back now, those buildings are still standing but they're either empty or they've been turned into lofts. And many of the people who used to work at the mills cannot even afford to live in the lofts. They're very, very nice. Their parents and grandparents put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into those buildings. But they'll never be able to live there.

RONDA
And I think that politicians, as well as we, as citizens, we need to be honest about the fact that the jobs are not coming back. We need to invest in our educational system from kindergarten on, so that we can all be a part of a global economy and stop giving this false hope. Because that's what makes people angry. All you've got to do is look at the background of some of the political candidates now and you see the angry people...

LAKSHMANAN
All right. Well, thank you so much Ronda. It sounds like Ronda should be running for office. She has a campaign platform there. Don't give false hope. Mill jobs aren't coming back. We need to invest in education and be part of a new economy. Steve, it kind of sounds like the tune that you're singing over at your institute.

GLICKMAN
Well, I think Ronda is exactly right, in that, she's -- what she's expressing, and in a place like Alabama or Georgia are two of the, I think, worst hit states that have recovered the slowest from the recession -- there really are two countries in the U.S. that are experiencing the economy in two totally different ways. And I think what's really frustrating for voters is the sense that both parties are sticking with business as usual. They're relying on their same kind of lowest-common-denominator economic policies.

GLICKMAN
On the left, you hear a lot about the minimum wage, as if that's going to be a game-changer for all these communities that face much more widespread issues than that. On the right, you often hear about tax cuts. Who is taking into account and talking to these voters and explaining that the economy now is different. There are parts of the -- we need to offer different types of solutions and we need them to be targeted to parts of the country that haven't recovered.

GLICKMAN
Not -- and what's really challenging about this is that these economies are all different. Local economies need different things. For some, manufacturing is the way to go. For some communities, they have to develop a stronger knowledge economy. For some, it's going to be skills. All of them can benefit from new forms of investment in industry.

...

ADAMY
...I want to come back to what Ronda of Texas was saying, about that the candidates were promising things that they can't deliver, and the voters don't seem to realize that. I think on the -- that may be more true on the Republican side. On the Democratic side, you saw this huge surge of support for -- unexpected surge of support for Bernie Sanders early on, as he was talking about things like offering all Americans free college, Bernie Sanders himself went for college for free in New York City way back in the day, offering a Medicare-like health care system for all Americans.

ADAMY
And what you heard was Hillary Clinton responding and saying, you know, that sounds great, but it's not realistic. I think to the extent that you are seeing Hillary Clinton really start to more clearly eclipse him as the candidate that's best poised to capture the Democratic nomination, I think to some extent, voters may be wondering about how feasible some of his promises are. I mean, in Super Tuesday today, we may see Bernie Sanders, you know, he's expected to capture Vermont. There are one or two other states, Massachusetts and Minnesota, where he's expected to be competitive.

ADAMY
But I think after today, you're going to see her emerge as, you know, the very clear -- the very clear person who's poised to capture the nomination, and voters will be signaling that some of these things that he promised may not be feasible.

...

WESSEL
Right. You know, I was struck by something that Ronda said that -- and she made a lot of good points, but she said...

LAKSHMANAN
That's our caller from Texas.

WESSEL
Right. She said that she condemned candidates who offer false hope. And I think that's definitely true. False hope might be something, like Janet says, where a candidate says we're going to have free college education and free health care and free paid leave, and you're not going to have to pay more in taxes.

LAKSHMANAN
Right.

WESSEL
Or it might be just a simple, simple slogan from Donald Trump, who says I'm going to make America great again, trust me, I know how to do that, and there doesn't seem to be anything underneath it. But I think that -- I do hope that we can give people some reasonable hope. What are things that we could do that will prevent us from having this conversation 10 years from now? It's going to be hard. I don't think there is any single thing that will work.

The idea that morality politics is important to this primary, at least, is off. I think we're seeing a show down between pragmatism and ideology and the two parties are choosing different paths.