The Iraq War was a horrific mistake. Therefore, we should:

[DanTex]

A) Do everything in our power to make sure something like this doesn't happen again, which means keeping Republicans out of the White House, or
B) Do everything in our power to punish the Democrats in the Senate who voted for it, including those who have clearly stated that it is a mistake, by thwarting their political ambitions.

I'm pretty sure I know which choice Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan would like us to make.


Oh, follow-up question. The Reagan years were disastrous for this country in ways that we are still suffering from. Should we:
A) Do everything in our power to make sure something like this doesn't happen again, which means keeping Republicans out of the White House, or
B) Do everything in our power to punish the Democrats who voted for him (twice, even), including those who have clearly stated that it is a mistake, by thwarting their political ambitions.

I'm gonna go with A and A. Curious to see where everyone else stands. Do we care about what actually happens in the world? Or just about what happens to a politician that we personally despise?

[marym625]

1. How about we back democratic politicians that follow democratic platform?

Those that don't have to apologize for being part of the reason for an illegal war? Those that are not in bed with big banks?

Silly notion to just back an actual liberal, huh?

[DanTex]

4. Sure, in the primaries, vote for who you feel is the best candidate.

But let's not play games with the GE, how about. The stakes are way too high, as the Iraq War demonstrates, for any "both parties are the same" silliness.

[MelungeonWoman]

9. Ha! It's not even primary season yet!

You can't seriously think The Dems are going to nominate someone who voted the war, do you? That's not going to happen.

Think about it. Hilary came in second last time. She hasn't gotten any fresher since then. Give up the dream, dude. It's over.

[DanTex]

11. Well, they did in 2004. And Clinton is way ahead in all the polls.

But maybe you're right. The point is, whoever wins the primaries, it is of the utmost importance to make sure they also win the GE. Whether it's Hillary or Warren or Sanders or Webb or whoever, that fact doesn't change.

[MelungeonWoman]

17. They did in 2004. And then lost the GE.

There were valuable lessons learned. It's a different world now.

[DanTex]

19. We'll see. Let's just agree that supporting the Dem in the GE is critical.

[MelungeonWoman]

20. As always!

[L0oniX]

51. Did the poles vote to attack Iraq?

[sabrina 1]

61. I think it's far more important to focus on Congress and fill it with Dems who actual

believe in Democratic ideals and are not going to be controlled by Corporate 'persons'.

Also as happened so successfully in the mid terms, focus on Local elections and again, get MORE FDR type New Deal issues on ballots, which happened in the Mid Terms so successfully and start building the party up from the bottom.

To keep on handing it over to the Third Way, most of whom despise the Left anyhow, is going to continue the Democratic party march to the Right.

[DanTex]

62. I agree on that for sure.

Focus on local and state elections. All the blue states should have two progressive senators. That's not the case right now, by a lot.

[marym625]

10. Sorry, but as time goes by, they are more difficult to find differences.

If we stick to our platform, our morals, in the primary and stop pushing for anything else, we won't have to worry about it in the GE.

[DanTex]

16. Really? Have you even looked at what they stand for? At all?

On foreign policy, on economic policy, on social policy, it's night and day. The only issue where you might have a point is free trade, but even there, the Republicans are way more in the pocket of the Chamber of Congress and groups like that.

You don't think the Koch Brothers are spending billions on the elections just for fun, do you? Obviously, they see the differences very clearly in terms of dollars for them and their cronies.

The last time people seriously pushed the "no difference" line was 2000. Then came the Iraq War. Tell me we don't need another Iraq War before people come to their senses and realize that the differences are hugely consequential.

[marym625]

26. Have you ever looked?

You do know that the Koch money is being infused on both sides, don't you? Have you ever looked?

You do know that hc's main adviser is the same guy that threatened Elizabeth Warren, don't you? That he's the author of the End Game Memo.

I am flabbergasted that at this point in the process there is so much push for a woman who is a warmonger and in bed with the banks instead of a push for one of the actual Democrats that have put their hat in the ring or are considering it.

Sorry, but as time goes on the "mainstream" Democrats are more like Republicans from just a little over a decade ago than they are like liberal Democrats

[DanTex]

29. Absolutely. Like I said, there's a huge gap on pretty much every issue except for free trade.

If you think Koch money is somehow equally distributed on both sides, you are out of your mind. They Koch's fully support the GOP and have made no secret about it.

The "end game memo". Conspiracy theories now? I don't particularly like Larry Summers, but to pretend he's anything like say Paul Ryan is just willful ignorance. For example, he supports raising the minimum wage. I'm sure you don't care about that because you don't make minimum wage. But for people who do, it's a big deal, and I'm pretty sure that extra money is a lot more important to them than a purity test.

It's true that the party has been moving right (although Obama is certainly more liberal than Bill Clinton was). Heck, some prominent liberals like Elizabeth Warren were actually Republicans in the 80s and 90s. Not just "would have been" but "actually were". But that's no reason to sacrifice the lives and the well-being of millions of people by allowing a Republican to take the White House. The Republicans have also moved to the right. They aren't the party of Elizabeth Warren anymore. They are truly frightening and dangerous.

[marym625]

36. WOW!

Yeah, you're not worth debating with. You are either too uninformed or willfully ignorant. Either way, not going to waste my time.

[DanTex]

40. LOL. That's a dodge.

You seriously can't tell the difference between someone who wants to raise the minimum wage, and someone who doesn't think there should be a minimum wage because Ayn Rand was opposed to it? Between someone who supports a tax on carbon emissions and someone who thinks global warming is a hoax?

Why as soon as we get to specifics, you run and hide? Seems to me you spend so much energy on what you don't like about Democrats, you are barely aware of what Republicans are actually advocating. And that's dangerous.

[marym625]

46. no. sorry dude

I would talk specifics with you if you actually knew or cared about facts. I don't run from actual debate.

And as far as a Democrats go, anyone pushing for Hillary and already talking about voting for the lesser of two evils instead of pushing for an actual Democrat to be the nominee is the one that is suspect.

[DanTex]

49. So talk specifics. Where does Larry Summers stand on minimum wage? How about the GOP?

Or, I'll let you pick the issues. Find me the issues where Larry Summers's current position is worse than that of any of the GOP candidates or advisors. Or where Hillary is worse than Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan.

You won't be able to. That's why you're dodging. I know why you won't talk specifics: because we both know you're wrong.

Do you even know who the Republican equivalents of Larry Summers are? Or what they are saying? Do you even care? Does policy matter to you at all?

[ProfessorGAC]

30. So, What You're Saying Is, We've Already Lost

I get that from your posts. Dems are like republicans from a decade ago (with which is strongly disagree), so we should just concede all control to the Repubs unless Bernie Sanders is the nominee?

Look, i wish Sanders was electable in the GE. I'd vote for him. But, remember there are still a large segment of non-aligned voters who still here words like Socialism and Communism and puke on themselves.

There is a practicum in politics and simply raising the white flag doesn't make it better. It makes it worse.

[marym625]

37. HELL NO!

I am not saying anything close to that. I'm saying let's work together and back someone that actually stands for liberal, Democratic values and stop the push for Clinton and already talking about having to vote for the lesser of two evils

[ProfessorGAC]

47. Well, You'll Find Not One Post From Me. . .

. . . that supports Clinton as the nominee. Not one.

But, there is an electability issue that needs to be addressed and just because you define that as lesser of two evils doesn't mean that definition is corrcct. Strictly a matter of opinion.

[marym625]

75. I'm not the one defining it as such

Yes, of course we need someone that is electable. Right now, we don't even know who is running for sure, except the few that have thrown their hat in the ring. When we know, we need to make sure that the person we choose is both a true Democrat and electable

[ProfessorGAC]

77. That Said, We Completely Agree

[marym625]

83. +1

[jakeXT]

7. I believe they are filtered out so you don't have to vote for them

In 1992, Agran unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party nomination for President. Agran was generally ignored by the media during his candidacy, a topic heavily covered in the 1995 documentary Spin. The media did not report his polling numbers even as he met or exceeded the support of other candidates such as Jerry Brown. Party officials excluded him from most debates on various grounds, even having him arrested when he interrupted to ask to participate. Even when he managed to join the other candidates in a forum, his ideas went unreported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Agran

If elected, Agran said he would move to cut the defense budget by half immediately.

All permanent U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Europe and Japan, a savings of $100 million a year; the foreign military-aid budget would be slashed by $10 billion a year, and all nuclear weapons testing and many costly weapons programs would be canceled.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920301&slug=1478506

[marym625]

13. Good point.

Something we need to make sure doesn't happen again. If we can rally, strongly, we should be able to over come this. It will mean we have to be relentless so those that are good democratic candidates can't be ignored.

[dissentient]

2. The logic behind not wanting to support a candidate who voted for the Iraq war

is that, if they made such a monumental mistake in the first place, who is to say they might not do it again.

Just wanted to point out the logical basis because the OP seems to miss it.

[DanTex]

5. Right, but anyone who thinks that Hillary would actually have concocted the Iraq

War and sold it under false pretenses has truly lost their minds. As has anyone who thinks that Hillary is just as likely to do that in the future as a Republican.

They've lost their minds just as much as someone who thinks that if Elizabeth Warren were president, she'd decide to implement Reaganomics.

[Orsino]

32. Those who really concoct the wars will still wield enormous power in 2017.

(GWB may or may not have been one of these.)

We have to work on our go-along-to-get-along president-apparent, or she will let them concoct more wars.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Why would someone have lost their mind for thinking an accessory COULD possibly

concoct a thing like they knowingly assisted with? Particularly a person who is into arming militants, pushing plots to destabilize countries, and supports and cackles about invading a country that of course didn't attack us and destabilizing it?

It is just such a stretch!

Guess what? She is an open neolib, stupid and dangerous shit is what they are out to do and the biggest difference between a neolib and a neocon is the bullshit story they use to justify the exact same outcomes.

Your "defense" as fiercely as you have presented is totally nonsense dependent on partisan good will and is an effort to prevail on the trust and best hopes of the audience not facts, a coherent narrative, or even a loosely believable story.

[DanTex]

69. Because "an accessory" as you put it is not the person who concocts and deliberately lies

people into war. Voting "yes" is miles away from actually coming up with the idea and arm-twisting congress and the media into accepting it. Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama did anything remotely comparable to what Bush did in the run-up to Iraq. And all the presidential hopefuls in 2003 voted yes, for political reasons. I imagine that back in 2004 you were telling everyone that Kerry was no different than Bush because he voted for the war also.

Is it possible that she would? Sure, but only in the "anything's possible" sense, under which Warren or even Sanders might lose their mind and do the same thing.

I dunno, I feel a lot safer with someone who voted yes and then later said it was a mistake, than with the same people who did the lying and manipulating in the first place and are completely unapologetic about it.

[TheKentuckian]

87. Later like only after it cost her the gig she feels entitled to and then only quietly and barely.

There is nothing to feel better about she isn't Bill Clinton or Al Gore or Barack Obama (who she jumped to the right on regarding Syria just a little while ago) she is Hillary Clinton who has consistently been more of a bellicose warmonger than both Clinton and Gore put together over their entire careers and even out paces the too hawkish Obama.

She hasn't learned a damn thing and following her regarding Libya, South America, Syria yeah, it does seem she is more than capable of such a leap to me and has on about every possible opportunity shown the same dangerous reasoning.

Stop the wild rationalizations and let us join together to make sure we put someone on that ballot who we can reasonably expect better from instead of shitting our own bed and this doesn't even consider that she is banker loving free trader.
This would be a really foolish choice.

[DanTex]

88. You've got to be kidding if you think her policies towards Syria and Libya are remotely comparable

to what Bush did in Iraq. Actually, her role as Secretary of State is another good example of her not being anywhere close to as warmongering as Bush and the neo-cons. That was a full-on illegal invasion of another nation sold under false pretenses with fabricated evidence to the American people and the UN. Please, get some perspective.

[TheKentuckian]

89. Libya isn't a chaotic and failed state that is a terrorist hotbed now?

Pumping weaponry and actively trying to destabilize Syria isn't stupid and dangerous?

[DanTex]

93. Umm, did we massively invade Libya in violation of international law?

I don't seem to remember the images of American troops in tanks rolling across the Libyan desert.

Please don't tell me you think Hillary Clinton is now responsible for the Libyan Civil War. What else can we pin on her? Maybe the snowstorms in Boston?

[TheKentuckian]

95. You are consistently refusing to respond to questions posed to you instead opting for spin

Are you denying Clinton supported intervention?

Yes, she was involved with pushing the civil war too, funneling weapons and support to the rebels and yes we were dropping bombs.
Full on invasion or not, we see lies to sell a military action to stupidly further destabilize the region with the easily predicted outcomes right in our faces.

You are behaving like an ill person, you keep stridently defending shit that I believe you yourself believe are wrong not on their merits but rather pretending to by framing it against even worse (that they also vigorously supported) and then pretending it is good judgment and the type of decision making we want to encourage and see more of.

You have been huffily tap dancing around for days and have yet to make a case for the policy orientation or decisions in and of themselves because not only because you can't but don't believe there are any yourself but instead want to rationalize why Clinton is acceptable which you also haven't actually argued either but rather how you prefer her over a TeaPubliKlan and you know what? I agree she is better (though more dangerous as warmongering Democrats have a significant dampening effect on anti-war efforts so if one is out of control then it is even more difficult to resist), just still unacceptable and as such I will not endorse her wrong headed positions.

[DanTex]

97. She supported airstrikes and a no-fly zone in accordance with a UN resolution, yes.

I didn't realize that you are incapable of differentiating between air support as part of a broad international coalition (France actually flew the most missions in Libya) with the explicit objective of protecting civilians, and Iraq, which was a pre-emptive war with the objective of regime change, sold under false pretenses, involving hardly any other countries, and including huge numbers of ground troops which stayed there for years.

That was a surprise. I don't come across this kind of misunderstanding very often.

The Civil War in Libya started before the US or anyone else got involved. Does any of this sound familiar? Maybe Obama can be blamed for inspiring the civil war and indeed the whole Arab Spring and its aftermath with his lofty rhetoric. The FOX News crowd sure does, and so it won't surprise me if you agree also. But beyond that, trying to pin this on Hillary or even Obama is just plain stupid.

Anyway, obviously I can tell you were opposed to the no-fly zone, and the UN Resolution, and the air campaign. I guess you think that without that, the civil war would have turned out just great. Or maybe you think that the UN air campaign traveled backwards in time and retroactively started the civil war that was already going on when they got there. And I am also quite certain that if the UN hadn't intervened, you would be blaming Hillary and Obama for sitting around and watching Gadafi massacre people.

[TheKentuckian]

92. Are you really defending these policies?

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Because People Never Learn From Their Mistakes.

That would be the logical extension of your post that you seem to miss.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Just because they hypothetically could doesn't mean they have. Clinton seems a more

dedicated interventionist now than she was then.

She couldn't wait to get to Obama's right on arming "moderates" in Syria (aka fucking stupid).

Her position and reaction on Libya are both frightening (also fucking stupid).

She was leading the charge on destabilizing governments in South America (aka stupid and clearly indicative of this person's ideology).

She isn't looking to dial back any of the shitload of operations we have going in all kinds of countries now (aka stupid).

So, what was learned? Tepidly, quietly, and in hedging fashion admitting that she wouldn't make the vote again with the benefit of hindsight (but only after losing an election years later after the facts were out in no small part because of it).

Sound like an abused spouse fresh off an asswhipping talking about how the partner "can change" because people can change.

Like I said, as far as I can tell if she has changed it is seemingly for the worse. Unreformed and unrepentant other than calculating that it had adverse effects on winning a race she felt entitled to win, there is no indication of a new leaf being turned. She is a bellicose hack in the Kissinger mold not a born again crusader for peace and paragon of restraint.

[sendero]

3. Stop electing....

.... FAKE Democrats.

FAKE Democrats are WORSE than Republicans because they are destroying the Democratic brand by making it mean nothing. It used to mean something and it can again but not if we keep electing FAKE Democrats.

[DanTex]

6. Worse than Republicans, huh. So you'd rather see another Iraq War and financial

crisis, and more right-wingers on the Supreme Court, than a Democrat you think is "fake".

Evidently you don't think the Iraq War was really that bad after all, if you think it's less important than a purity test.

[JoePhilly]

12. We need more wars, and another BIGGER financial collapse.

See, after that happens, and the country is in ruins, THEN, and only then, will the people rise up and force America to become the Socialist Utopia so many on DU long for.

I think that's the kind of logic some around here put forward.

[Taitertots]

18. Did the people accused of being Fake Democrats vote against...

The Iraq war or the policies that caused the financial crisis.


YOU don't think the Iraq war was that bad if you want to keep electing people that support unending war.

[DanTex]

21. Some of them even voted for Reagan. Twice. And then Bush I.

I think the Reagan years were horrible, but I'm not ready to punish Elizabeth Warren for doing that, and risk a repeat of those years, just for some kind of purity test.

[sendero]

22. Keep trotting out weak..

... tea arguments, sudden death is better than death by a thousand cuts from your own "friends".

[DanTex]

23. It's a very strong argument actually. Unless you think the Iraq War and financial crisis and

everything else Bush wrought are "no big deal." In which case, I can see where you are coming from.

[Taitertots]

35. It's weak because DINO supported policies caused...

The financial crisis and the Iraq war.

Your position appears to be: Elect DINOs or you will end up with the policies that DINOs are supporting.

[DanTex]

38. The Iraq war, no, the financial crisis, partly.

The Iraq war caused by dishonest neocon extremists. Notice that nothing like the IWR happened under Bill Clinton, the quintessential DINO.

Deregulation of the banks was a terrible idea, and contributed to the crisis, but you can be sure that the economic policy of Republicans is far worse than that of Democrats, even centrist ones. Obama passed the most significant financial regulations is decades. He wants to raise the minimum wage. Etc. Republicans literally get their economic policy from Ayn Rand novels. They want to privatize social security and further deregulate, even after the financial crisis. Bush's economic policy was much worse than Clinton's, starting with the huge tax cut for the wealthy.

It's actually kind of shocking that people even entertain the notion that there's no difference between the two parties.

[L0oniX]

52. Since you will vote for Hillary I guess you want another Iraq War.

[DanTex]

53. Exactly the opposite. I want to avoid another Iraq War, which means avoiding a Republican

president. If Hillary is the nominee, and she loses because bourgeois progressives sit out the election, the next Iraq War will be on their hands.

[L0oniX]

54. ...by voting for Hillary who voted for the Iraq war? Ok.

[DanTex]

56. Yes. Because I care more about the actual risks of another war than sticking it to Hillary.

I assume you're a fan of Warren. I guess that means you want to return to Reaganomics, which she supported for a decade.

Or maybe we can start having an intelligent conversation. But, if you really think Hillary is just as likely as Bush or Cruz to start another pointless war, then that's going to be difficult.

[L0oniX]

57. OMG

[DanTex]

60. Not sure what to make of that. If you have some logic to contribute, I'd love to hear it.

[Taitertots]

70. What are you basing the likelihood of war on?

Let's assess the likelihood of the next catastrophe by looking at who supported the last one.

[DanTex]

71. On her stated positions, and on her actions, and the actions of other Dems who hold similar

views across the board. Yes, let's assess the risk by looking at the past. Who do you think is more likely:
1) The Republicans who orchestrated it and lied and manipulated the public into supporting it.
2) A Democrat who voted for it, and then changed her mind and said it was a mistake.

I'd like an actual answer here, though I don't expect one, because we both know what the answer is, but admitting it would undercut your whole argument.

[Taitertots]

79. I judge people based on their actions

Not speeches after making a horrific decisions.

Both groups voted for war. The risk is exactly the same.

[DanTex]

80. Well, thanks for the frank answer.

As you know, both groups didn't just "vote for war". One did that, while the other actually orchestrated and lied and twisted arms to get the war. But if you can't see the difference between the two, then I see how you arrive at your conclusion.

[Taitertots]

82. I see the difference, it is just not as important as you want it to be

Votes take the nation to war. "Arm twisting" and gum flapping are just politics.

So should I concern myself with what people say they want to do or what they actually do in real life.

[HereSince1628]

15. I'm not sure they are fake dems, I think this is what the top of the party has become

It's largely made up of professional politicians who test the wind direction, move closer to positions of opponents and/or positions that contributed to wins by other politicians in previous elections. And they don't do it just to get votes. They also do it to win campaign contributions, because you know...the prevailing perception of reality is the biggest pile of money always wins.

To do that a politician CANNOT be chained to any ideology.

Overtime, any long serving democrat will seem to be for policies from all over the landscape, and not infrequently, reversing themselves on previous positions. The strategy of pragmatically tacking toward the polling (or the big money) generates an impression of lack commitment to principle and presence of flip-flopping mostly because it requires it.

It's a practice that minimizes differences with opponents, and requires greater loyalty from the base as the lack of difference makes the similarities look greater, and less appealing to the base.

I suspect that's thte source of a lot of the anxiety in threads emerging from supporters of such candidates....

WILL YOU VOTE FOR ________ IF THAT PERSON IS THE NOMINEE?

WE MUST HAVE PARTY UNITY TO WIN!

etc

[RiverLover]

27. + an astronomically HUGE #

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/02/22/progressive-hammer-wed-rather-hammer-hillarys-nail/

[Fred Sanders]

8. What makes my skin crawl is how many Democrats knew Bush/Cheney were lying, but voted yes.

[marym625]

14. Thank you

And they all knew. We knew so there's absolutely no way they didn't.

[L0oniX]

58. Like this person?

[Fred Sanders]

73. As caught up in the war fever as many else were, it was a national viral infection of fear and lies.

[L0oniX]

84. If I wasn't caught up in the lies then she has no excuse. Many of us common people knew it was lies.

Making excuses for ignorant rich people in power is kinda...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. You need to keep posting that Hillary speech to remind people here how EASILY she is duped.

[Fred Sanders]

86. The whole country was duped, remember? And Clinton has admitted her error, not that some care.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. I do give Hillary a modicum of credit for admitting her horrendous error; just not sure if her shakey explanation is credible.

[frylock]

96. no, the whole country was NOT duped..

i see you joined DU 10 years after the many spirited debates regarding IWR.

[Caretha]

98. Fuck no the whole country wasn't duped

There were mass protests.

Where were you?

Did you vote for Bush Jr the first time? Were you duped then too?

[leveymg]

24. I just love false choices

and lack of principles.

[DanTex]

25. Yes, "false". The Iraq War and financial crisis were just illusions. Republicans aren't all

that bad after all. And even if they were, purity tests are much more important than the lives of innocent people. After all, I'm not going to be fighting the war anyway. The consequences of the election are someone else's problem!

[think]

28. Many of Hillary Clinton's top donors are on Bernie Sanders list

of large companies that practice "legalized tax fraud":

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/_cache/files/1b714994-7903-4a80-bb5e-47b6544d515d/legalized-tax-fraud.pdf


Hillary Clinton's top donors:

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I

[on point]

33. C. Make sure DINO's know the price when they betray American people

[DanTex]

34. Retribution is great, but at what cost? Is it worth another Republican administration just to

put Hillary in her place?

[Autumn]

39. My great grandson smeared red and black finger paint on my living room carpet.

I really blame his Mom, she had gone to the bathroom and she wasn't watching him. I was thinking of giving him an ice cream cone but somehow I think that rewarding his behavior is wrong and at his age he will always have access to finger paint.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. I'm not "punishing" Democrats. I'm voting against pro-war candidates of both parties.

Hillary didn't just vote for the IWR. She spoke out for the war.

[DanTex]

42. Just what the GOP wants you to do. They loved it in 2000, and they love it still.

So-called "progressives" who abstain from the GE because they don't like Hillary are making another Iraq War more likely. The way to prevent things like that is to prevent Republicans from getting into office. It's not very complicated.

It's actually a very bourgeois outlook. You're not going to be fighting in the next Iraq War. You probably don't make minimum wage. Maybe you won't rely on social security when you retire. So the fact that letting a Republican into office will put all these and many more things at risk, causing immense harm and suffering, doesn't make that much difference to you personally. The purity test is more important than the policy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Isn't demanding that we all vote for Hillary a "purity" test?

I'm not abstaining. I'll be voting.

The "policy" that she pursued and supported killed between one hundred and one million people.

She supported it out of political expediency or stupidity. In either case, it makes her unfit for political office.

[DanTex]

44. In the GE, it's a sanity test most of all.

In the primaries, vote for whoever, or even don't vote. But not voting Dem in the GE isn't about purity, it's about whether or not you care the slightest bit about the future of the country and the world. The stakes are too high to play personal vendetta games.

[Octafish]

45. How about ARREST THOSE RESPONSIBLE?

At least investigate the liars and warmongers and traitors.

[TheKentuckian]

48. The answer to both questions is to do everything possible to prevent a repeat.

Period not comma.

It isn't a question of which wrongheaded fool to embrace but that we need to shop amongst those with better wisdom and a less feckless disposition.

It isn't about punishment the connection to which is absurd and is puffed up with a grandiose sense of entitlement. Not voting for globetrotting millionaires is not a form of punishment. The votes are not their property that is being confiscated as sentence for a crime and to connect the two is a sign of greatly distorted vision.

In any event, at minimum before such folks are ever considered for the people's trust we need these folks to have seriously turned over a new leaf and as far as Clinton goes she has been more frightening and bellicose SINCE than she was even at the time of her Iraq vote not less.

Turd Way pols may be individually better than a TeaPubliKlan but those differences don't add up to acceptable or even on a significantly different direction. In fact, no small amount of the difference is just the result of the other guys marching right like the devil was driving them with a whip of fire and they just can't make up the ground quickly enough but will be "moving to the middle" as quickly as their constituencies can be herded over.

What these banker fellating, military blunder instigating, deregulation pushing, free trading, austerity preaching, education privatizing, constitution disdaining, interventionist, nest fouling, wage killing backstabbers need is to be sat the fuck down as fools until they give up their stupid and dangerous ideologies and they catch up with reality.

Get this into your dome, there is no argument, rationalization, or threat that is going to sell a right wing party no matter how batshit the other idiots push it. No more "meeting in the middle". No more "bipartisanship". No more phony ass "chess". No more seeking "compromise".

NO MORE BULLSHIT!

If anyone is being punished it isn't jet setting, millionaires on the cocktail circuit but rather those who insist on screwing everyone over promoting those fools and that means we get punished too, in many cases suffering the brunt of your willfully earned comeuppance but apparently that is what it will take to get some off of fucking stupid and no it doesn't matter what motivates the stupid be it fear, political calculations, self interest, ideology, cowardice, ignorance, going with the herd, or whatever.

[L0oniX]

50. Hillary disagrees....

[Bluenorthwest]

55. It's not punishing anyone to not want them as President. That' silly. And of course past actions

of all people are valid concerns when those people ask for the keys to the country. This is a primary cycle, and I do not wish to select either of the two you are offering.
I've never, ever heard Warren say any of her decades of Republican votes and advocacy were a mistake, much less clearly state that voting for Reagan was a mistake. I'd like her better if he had said that, but your assertion is not supported by the facts.

My choice for nominee is never the nominee. I always vote for the nominee. As I will in that distant November of next freaking year. But first, like it or not, comes the Primary.

[DanTex]

59. In the primary cycle, knock yourself out. Personally I like Warren.

But you're right, I don't think she's acknowledged that being a Republican was a mistake, I think she kinda went with "the party moved away from me" line. If anything, that makes the hypocrisy of the anti-Hillary people even more stark.

The thing is, regardless of who comes out of the primary, they are going to be much better than a GOPer. The difference between Hillary and Warren is much smaller than between Warren and say Ted Cruz.

[guillaumeb]

63. a cynical response would be:

A Republican would of course look for yet another country to invade to show how America never backs down from a challenge and is willing to defend freedom wherever it is threatened. (Yes, we know the war would be about geopolitics and/or resources)

A Democrat might take us into yet another foolish war to show that Democrats love America just as much as Republicans. (Love of country being defined as a willingness to waste young lives in service of the Empire)

Am I:
1) too cynical?
2) Not cynical enough?

[DanTex]

64. You are the correct amount of cynical.

But it does mean that a Democrat is less likely to drag us into an Iraq War than a Republican. We have to remember, getting into Iraq wasn't really an easy thing. It required a lot of lying and arm-twisting, and a truly bone-headed neo-con philosophy. And also botching the post-war so badly was a product of the ideological certainty that Iraq could be turned into an Ayn Rand paradise.

There is definitely the risk of a Democrat, and Hillary in particular, waging war to prove that Dems can kill people too. In fact, I think her IWR vote was more about the politics than actually thinking it was a good idea. All of the presidential hopefuls at the time voted yes for that reason.

But I really don't see Hillary or anyone else on the Dem side going what Bush and Co did just to start a pointless war.

[guillaumeb]

65. absolutely no disagreement

I cannot even imagine an Ayn Rand Paradise as being Paradise to any but the sociopaths among us.

One disagreement, or perhaps a qualifier:
For the GOP, the war was not pointless, even if they lied about the point to the American people. The war was about geopolitics and control of access to the oil that China needs.

Looking at what the US does in the world, many actions are taken solely with geostrategic considerations in mind. Whether control of resources, see Iraq and also the move into Africa, or establishing bases around the world for power projection. Think of the 700 plus bases around the world and think Ukraine right now. Yet another forward operating base to use against Russia.

[JEB]

67. Start by holding our very own WAR CRIMINALS to account.

[Dems to Win]

72. Option C: Nominate a Democrat who can WIN

I'm a yellow dog Democrat, I will growl a bit and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. But my gut is telling me she will lose.

I know, in my real life, a normally reliable Democratic voter in a swing state who absolutely will not vote for Hillary due to her Iraq War vote. Period. End of statement. If the Democrats don't put forward a nominee who can get my friend's vote, I don't see a way they can win the GE.

Polls show that a large majority of Democrats oppose the Iraq War and believe it was an enormous mistake for our country. It would be a lot easier to get all of them to the polls to vote for someone who opposed that war from day one, like Obama.

If Dems want to win, we'll need a candidate who can fire up enthusiasm and bring lots of voters to the polls. My gut is telling me that Hillary's not that candidate.

[Motown_Johnny]

74. c) Do everything we can to make sure something like this...

...doesn't happen again, which means electing Democrats who have better judgement than those who made impassioned speeches urging other to vote for the war.



Do I need to define the word "everything" for you? We need to do EVERYTHING we can to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. Not just the easy stuff. That isn't good enough.

[obxhead]

76. Straw man argument.

An argument that assumes Hillary is the nominated dem and we should sit down and eat our fucking peas.

No, there is a primary and I will fight tooth and nail against a war mongerering, bank loving, trade deal humping politician every day of that primary race.

After the primary its going to take one fuck all republican to get me to actively support another Clinton.

[DanTex]

78. The term for that isn't "straw man".

The OP is about the difference between flawed Democrats, versus Republicans. Yes, it's about Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, who at this point are the likeliest people to get the Dem nomination. The odds heavily favor Hillary, but for either of the two, we're going to be in a situation with a Dem who has made some highly questionable decisions in the past, versus a Republican.

The point is, the flawed Democrat is 1000 times better. Obviously.

[obxhead]

91. I disagree

Hillary may, at most, be ever so slightly better. I say that not really expecting it. Bill wasn't a sunny progressive, at best he was a moderate Republican.

Hillary is extreme right. Nearly everything she has ever fought for proves it.

So, if given a choice between two candidates I will not choose the lesser of two evils separated only by minute degrees. At some point you must just say it must get worse before it gets better.

Hillary will not make things better, not even a little bit. I will not support her, nor will I encourage others to do so.

We have options. True Democrats should seek them out and rally behind them instead of caving in to the corporations that demand we vote their way and support the next extreme right Republican with a D label.

[uhnope]

85. A. GWB turned me into a fervent anybody-but-GOP-in-WH voter and activist

[Rex]

94. Nice but actually it was a war crime. Yeah, mistake is a nice way of saying it and I am sure some

appreciate you doing that. However, our invasion of Iraq and torture of it's people is a war crime.

So what can we do to fix this issue so other WH administrations never do it again?

A)Ignore the problem and pretend everything is okay as long as we don't think or talk about it.
B)Congress could write some laws to punish those that commit war crimes in the name of the country.
C)Someone could be an adult and decide on their own that morally it is wrong to commit a war crime.
D)Do nothing about it and wait for it to happen again.

Sadly too many people want to just do A and D, even here on DU.

And it seems the reality of what WILL happen is A and D. Sad, but predictable.