It's pretty simple. Hillary voted for the Patriot Act. Sanders voted against it.

[Bonobo]

Of course there are many other reasons.

But that one is VERY important to me.

It is a question of judgment and I think that vote, in particular, along with the AUMF in Iraq, says VOLUMES about the differences between the two candidates.

ON EDIT: Hillary voted for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act in 2006, as well. While Sanders continued to vote against it.

It is true that in 2001, only Feingold voted against the Patriot Act in the senate, but in 2006, the following senators voted AGAINST the re-authorization. Hillary was not one of them.
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

[cali]

1. she was Secretary of state but I trust bernie's judgment

on foreign relations, defense, etc., about 100x more than hers.

[pandr32]

54. Really?

I would love to hear your reasons why. That is a pretty bold thing to say.

[daleanime]

62. It maybe because Hillary has never meet a war.....

she wasn't for.

[BeanMusical]

65. +1000

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Soooo true. And you hafta love the response of Hillary's supporters to her warmongering ways...<crickets>

[pandr32]

86. You do know...

...that that is a silly reply, right?

[daleanime]

87. But is it wrong?

[BeanMusical]

113. Nope.

[cali]

84. sure, she was either duped by bushco or voted for the IWR

for political reasons. As Pat Leahy told his peers, voting for it was handing Bush a blank check to go to war. And, no it doesn't matter that some of her constituents were for it. She supported that vote for many years, long after there was clear evidence how disastrous, the war was. She lobbied Obama hard for military intervention in Syria. She led the disastrous Libya misadventures. She supported the Honduran military coup.

There's more, but any of the above illustrates her poor judgment.

[pandr32]

88. She was duped, as were many

And has gone on to say she regrets it. Sanders, by the way, after voting against went on to vote to fully fund it and has doubled down on his support of the ridiculously expensive and wasteful F-35.

[bahrbearian]

100. Vote "Dupped" for President

[cali]

101. well that doesn't speak well of her or any of the others.

And again she supported that obscene war for nearly a.decade. btw, Sanders didn't vote for every spending bill; and you get, I trust, how complex those bills are. Sanders voted for some of the spending bills, because troops were already there, and leaving them out to dry isn't something he'd do.

I agree with you about the F-35. It disgusts me that he's supporting it.

What is Hillary's position on it?

In any case, the laundry list of grave errors of judgment made by Hillary is far longer than that of Bernie's.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. None of them were "duped". They all knew the whole thing was bullshit but voted for it anyway

because they were afraid to take a stand that was politically dangerous. Disingenuous, duplicitous, sure. Duped, not really.

[awoke_in_2003]

130. + 1000. nt

[beam me up scottie]

126. So because he voted to support the troops she sent to Iraq he's at fault too?

Bullshit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. I know you asked someone else this question...

But I'd say Libya and Syria for starters. They're both messes and they both have her handprints all over them.

[Vattel]

2. But some Sanders supporters believe conspiracy theories.

Just kidding. Great post. There are so many real reasons to favor Sanders and so many faux reasons to favor Clinton.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. YES!!! And EVERYONE knows it - even Hillary's supporters. And we all know it's over...

say hello to President Sanders!!!

[SonderWoman]

3. And Bernie voted against the Brady bill and against closing GITMO.

And yes on F-35s. 33,000 people a year die from guns.

[Jester Messiah]

6. If we're banning stuff...

32,719 died in car crashes in 2013. What's Hillary's plan to ban these outrageous death machines??

[SonderWoman]

8. Guess what? You can sue auto makers, not gun makers.

Thanks to Bernie, the gun industry is off the hook. Nice NRA talking point. You should know better.

[Jester Messiah]

9. So if someone drives their car into yours...

your instinct is to sue the auto maker? I don't think Bernie is the problem in this conversation...

[SonderWoman]

10. The NSA doesn't kill people, guns do.

And Bernie voted to protect the gun industry.

[Jester Messiah]

16. Falling back on slogans and dogma?

The truth is, criminals are the problem. A corollary to that is that additional laws do not deter people who have already decided to break the law. Laying restrictions on law-abiding people serves no good end. Bernie is in the right on this.

[SonderWoman]

31. Slogans and dogma, from a person who uses NRA talking points.

Hilarious.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

[Jester Messiah]

41. So to counter my supposed use of others' words...

you throw up a link to... others' words. Hilarious indeed!

[SonderWoman]

58. Yes. It's obvious you had no idea what you're talking about, so...

I wasn't going to try to explain it. That was easier.

[beam me up scottie]

124. You didn't "try to explain it" because you don't understand it.

It's obvious someone doesn't know what they're talking about...

[Fred Sanders]

36. We do not need any kind of propaganda about Sanders either, or the great "concern".

Sanders hates the NRA like any other good progressive must.

Jumped in to keep up the fiction there are hordes of Clinton folks doing the same?

How transparent.

[sabrina 1]

38. The Patriot Act violates the US Constitution. Every single elected official and military member

takes an oath of office. They swear to do only ONE thing, indicating how important that one thing is to the people of this country 'to defend and protect the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. Bernie Sanders took that oath seriously.

Ask to vote away the Constitutional Rights of the people of the US, Sanders and Barbara Lee said 'NO'.

It was a shameful display of cowardice to see so many of those who swore to do the opposite, simply sign away our rights.

The huge importance of protecting RIGHTS in this country is evident by the fact that doing so is the only thing those elected to serve this country are asked to do.

Bernie Sanders demonstrated the kind of judgement necessary when at that time, to vote against the Patriot Act was viewed as bordering on treason thanks to the propaganda the country was awash in, that is necessary in a leader who will take his oath of office seriously.

[RoccoR5955]

74. That is why he has such a low rating with the NRA, huh?

That don't fly in my book.
Perhaps you don't know the whole story as to WHY Bernie voted against that bill.
I have a clue for you, DuckDuckGo.com is your friend here.

[dsc]

121. it depends

if the auto maker in question designed a car that went 100 mph, had dealers built next to a place with a whole bunch of people whose licences had been suspended for reckless driving, saw sales of said car skyrocket and sat back and collected the cash, I just might think such a manufacturer should be on the list of people to be sued.

[Vattel]

25. One can sue gunmakers just as one can sue automakers.

If a gun or a car is defective and one is harmed as a direct result of the defect, one can sue to recover damages. But one can't sue an automaker just because someone accidently or on purpose hits someone with their car. So why should one be able to sue a gun maker when someone accidently or on purpose shoots someone with their gun?

[SonderWoman]

33. Here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

[Jester Messiah]

43. Have you any words of your own on the matter?

Or have you completely surrendered the thinking to others?

[SonderWoman]

60. From the person who uses NRA talking points.

Hilarious.

[Jester Messiah]

120. That's what you keep saying, but...

if it's true, it's entirely coincidental. My views are my own.

[cali]

52. reading is fundamental.

[cali]

50. buzzt. fail. you can use gun makers in

precisely the same way as car manufacturers.

[SonderWoman]

61. Go ahead. Keep defending that vote.

And his F-35s, and no to closing GITMO, etc. 33,000 a year die from guns.

[cali]

63. never defended it. or his vote against the Brady bill.

Just pointing out your lack of knowledge on the issue.

[SonderWoman]

66. You're talking about Brady bill, I've moved on to the PLCAA.

The NRAs baby.

[ibegurpard]

67. Which does not stop anyone from suing

A gun manufacturer for a defective gun.

[cali]

76. sigh. yes,it's the PLCCA that you don't understand

[pocoloco]

72. 2 million abused women a year!

1600 die from domestic violence. 6000 suicides by women, and it's hard to
imagine abuse played didn't play a part in many.

How have restraining orders worked out?

Self defense is a human right and yet you would disarm the victim.

[chknltl]

4. Although i am reccomending this...

...many in Congress were both fooled and caught up in all of the 'patriotism' following 9-11. The hard road was to make the tougher decisions and arguably she sid not. Bernie Sanders is but one example of Congress who chose the hard road. Jim McDermott (Dem. Wa.) got labelled Baghdad Jim for trying to warn us against the second Gulf War. He was proved right but could have lost his job for it. McDermott has provided much for our Vets since then, especially with his continued efforts in the area of educating all of us about depleted uranium and its effects on us and the citizenry of Iraq.

[davidpdx]

5. Oh you Hillary basher!

Hope things are good over there across the pond in Japan.

[Fred Sanders]

7. It is pretty simple...TODAY there are Fascist's everywhere trying to seize power, and irrelevant whining about the past is going to be

part of the problem.

Get your head out of the sand and take a look at the OTHER party and the fascist media if you really need to be outraged at something every other hour.

Keep it up attacking Democrats while the Republicans and the fucked up media take over the country, OK?

Sling mud at each other, Democrats...keeps the Republicans safe from harm while you is all busy being "outraged" with your own Party and cleaning up the mess.

Thanks for the help!

Ridiculous....

[LondonReign2]

11. Identifying a policy difference as a reason to vote for one candidate

over another is "slinging mud" and "attacking Democrats", eh?

It's highly amusing that Clinton supporters try furiously to avoid any policy discussions or comparisons and instead try to quash discussion of them by pretending they are "attacks".

[Fred Sanders]

13. It is not about Supporter versus Supporter, it is about Us versus.....THEM, get it?

There will be nothing to win if the creeping fascism is allowed to go by unchallenged while Democrats are all ablaze with righteous indignation for "their" candidate and and setting up opposing firing squads.....most of if not all of these DU firing squads are pointed at Clinton, not Sanders....but you already knew that.

Take a hint from Sanderss himself - cut it out...you all are looking more and more foolish every day.

[Bonobo]

27. Fred, this forum is to discuss issues and the Primaries.

Unlike some people here, I am keeping my OP's to criticism and discussion of the politicians and NOT a Meta-fest about the supporters.

I think that is appropriate.

[retrowire]

34. this is the definition of deflection

"stop focusing on Hillary and her flaws! look at the republicans!"

we know the Republicans stink, that's why we're on a democratic website.

since we're on a democratic website we KNOW we're not voting for team red so that's why it's more beneficial to focus on our own team alright? through this criticism and dissection we are best suited to know whom of ours should play the court and who should sit the bench.

so please, stop begging people to leave Hillary alone. we don't choose the best players by not scrutinizing them. it's called making informed decisions.

[LondonReign2]

42. Amazingly, all your indignant finger-wagging isn't going to stop discussions about policy

You'll note that this is the Primaries board, it is where you discuss the differences between the Democratic candidates and why you want to vote for one over another.

Review the clip of Sanders talking to reporters yesterday; he himself pointed out several differences in policy between himself and Clinton.

Sorry buddy, your ridiculous attempt to shut down a policy discussion by characterizing it as an attack is weak sauce.

[Fred Sanders]

45. Stop discussion? On the contrary, aren't we all having a discussion now??

Changing hearts and minds, isn't that what it is all about, never mind policy?

[LondonReign2]

55. We aren't so much as having a discussion as one person is trying to hijack a thread

in a desperate attempt to avoid discussing issues that reflect poorly on his candidate. Its a classic technique used on the internet to disrupt.

But let's avoid that, shall we? Let's talk Iraq war votes, which candidates support TPP, what the candidates have said (or refused to say) about Keystone, what the candidates propose for a minimum wage, their policies on banks, taxes, systematic racism.....let's discuss it all.

[leftofcool]

59. Foolish or not, some people would rather focus on slamming Hillary than the real problem.

[Fred Sanders]

17. Sure...not an attack...the coverup is always worse, but more revealing, than the offence. Comment away!

[LondonReign2]

23. wut?

[Ken Burch]

12. Nobody is slinging mud.

And the Patriot Act is not trivial.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Why do you think missing the point is a good comment?

[Bonobo]

18. I'm sorry but her vote to increase the power of the surveillance state is NOT irrelevant and frankly

the fact that you would even SAY that is pretty shocking.

Irrelevant?

How could you possibly think it is irrelevant?

[Ken Burch]

30. HRC is not an anti-fascist candidate.

You can't claim to oppose fascism if you backed the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Not, at the very least, without publicly apologizing for those things and all past support of "tough on crime"measures.

All a HRC vote can ever be is just-barely-not-as-bad-as-fascism.

Why should we ever settle for that? The country isn't THAT right-wing.

[sabrina 1]

48. What's ridiculous is to even suggest that during primary season, the time when the people

get to make sure they pick a leader who WILL NOT COMPROMISE with the 'other side' or 'reach across the aisle' to shake hands with the extremists in the Republican party, and the way to figure out who is least likely to do that is to LOOK AT THEIR RECORDS.

Sling mud at VOTERS for taking their duty as citizens seriously, and ensure that Republicans will continue to BULLY Dems, see the Patriot Act and the Iraq War eg, into cowering to their fear mongering.

YOU are free to be silent if you wish, WE did that for FAR TOO LONG and what did we get? We got the Constitution destroying Patriot Act, we got the Iraq War, we got a collapsed economy, oh yes, Bernie voted AGAINST bailing out the Wall St Criminals also.

So you owe the thanks you so kindly offer to voters who are now a lot less willing to overlook major issues like these than they were, to those who did not have the courage to stand up when it was needed, so we wouldn't lose' to Republicans.

Well we are losing to them, PRECISELY for doing what you want us to continue doing, compromising with the worst and most extreme party in the living memory of many voters.

So no thanks, we will continue to point out the differences in candidates. If that's inconvenient for some of the candidates, then maybe we need better candidates.

[Fred Sanders]

51. Spare me the clutching of rhetorical pearls. Folks at DU are not blind to the OP after OP....

Trump gets wall to wall coverage for his plan to turn America into a police state and folks are on DU talking about a 99 to 1 Senate vote 12 years ago to attack a Democratic leader?


Who does that help? It does not even help Sanders.....it erodes the entire Party....but maybe that is not unintentional?

"You are free to be silent if your wish". Thanks for the free Strawman!

Please do not drag strawmen into a debate.. They are ugly things to carry around in an argument.

[sabrina 1]

56. I don't wear pearls, not all women wear pearls. I notice you have not addressed the ISSUE

in the OP, you've gone through this thread without once addressing the ISSUE and attacking anyone who does. Why? I remember when this issue was a major issue on Democratic Forums, it was a reason to elect Democrats so we could finally restore the rights stolen by that anti-Consitutional Bush/Cheney effort to control this democracy, to silence anyone who spoke out against them, to USE 9/11 to emotionally manipulate the population and to force Congress, to bully them into being AFRAID to defend the Constitution.

Well, there were a few who could not be bullied and one of them is running for the WH, THAT is the one I support because I haven't changed MY MIND about what Bush/Cheney did to this country.

Why are you defending it? When did Dems decide that the Patriot Act is something we should not even TALK ABOUT?

[Fred Sanders]

57. Defending Bush/Cheney! That is one massive Strawman you got there! I do not play with them.

No one actually wears rhetorical pearls, FYI!

[sabrina 1]

69. Bernie Sanders is focusing on Republicans, he is the ONLY one naming names, exposing their

'policies' for what they are, Corporate Controlled anti-people legislation that has HARMED this country. Every speech he gives he ATTACKS their policies to resounding applause and standing ovations.

So your 'go after the other side' rhetoric is meaningless. That is precisely why people are flocking to his events, to hear someone, FINALLY, call out those Republicans who have so harmed this country.

AND he has the RECORD to show that he spent his entire political career trying to stop them, but without a whole lot of help from his colleagues.

There will be NO 'reaching across the aisle' for him to try to 'negotiate' with extremists who don't know the meaning of the word.

Hillary, otoh, has stated that she will engage in bi-partisanship. Now that ought to scare anyone who has been paying attention over the past number of years.

So your claim that no one is going after Republicans is specious, it is BECAUSE we want someone to go after them that we ARE looking at who is MOST LIKELY to do that.

And this primary season is the time to pick the most courageous candidate who right now is going after them and will eviscerate them in the GE.

So what exactly are you talking about re 'not going after Republicans'? Hillary? Bernie" Who in your opinion is most likely to do that, who IS doing it right now?

[Fred Sanders]

73. I do not think it it "primary season" yet because I have a calendar. The media has another. After the first debate, maybe.

After the Democratic Party first debate of 6 that is.

The focus in the summer of '15 must be on the Fascists and their fascist policies and the fascist war mongering fact- denying, personality obsessed mass media that attacks them both or ignores them.

Clogging up liberal comment and posting sites and liberal hearts and minds with internal warfare is playing into their hands.

I am not making any kind of new or complex proposal...someone else you might know implied the same very recently.

Sanders has made very, very clear that is what he wants....take a hint, please!?

[sabrina 1]

89. It doesn't matter what you think, this is Primary Season where voters get to decide

who will make the best choice to lead this country and for you to even imply that we all remain silent until DWS decides for us, that NOW it's time after the Third Way chooses THEIR candidate for us, no way is that going to happen.

As for your sly 'implication', I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are even suggesting the Sanders is working for Republicans, I don't think this is the forum for you, and that is putting it mildly frankly. Otoh, I could be misunderstanding you, if so please clarify whatever it is you are trying to say.

You call healthy, democratic practicies where THE PEOPLE discuss issues, discuss where those asking them for their votes, stand on issues that are important to them and to this country 'clogging up liberal forums' or whatever that was you stated above?

Seriously?? So what do you think the democratic process is? Just wait until we are TOLD who to vote for? And who would that be?

Good luck with that, we live in a Democracy and until someone makes it official that we do not, that is exactly how we will proceed, democratically deciding who the VOTERS want to represent them.

[Fred Sanders]

91. Of course it does not matter "what I think", no more than you or anyone else at DU!

How many times do I have to repeat the same thing?

Sanders is NOT my enemy! I like Sanders, not perfect, but no problem with him as
President. No one would be more delighted than me if that came to pass and Canadian-style or European style socialism swept the land..how much more clear can I be?

I still have faith in the Democratic Party to continue the progression of change began by Obama...and some folks grow impatient for more of a revolution, but there is one happening as we speak....I counsel patience over rashness, is all.

Can you say the same about Clinton?

There is only one thing and one thing only I mean to say, imply, suggest or hint at. One thing only.

If I am being inelegant and unclear or obtuse, forgive me, because perhaps I lack the proper directness. Others maybe can express how I feel better.

THIS is the prime enemy, in any season:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7100287

Do not gaze upon the picture too long, it burns!

I hope all folks at DU will eventually get the picture!

[BeanMusical]

92. Rhetorical or not, saying to a woman to stop clutching pearls is sexist.

[Fred Sanders]

94. You then completely do not understand rhetoric or rhetorical tools...although your vomit emoticon is effective!

No insult there!

[BeanMusical]

97. You obviously don't understand misogyny.

How about a rhetorical N word to an AA? Saying that it's rhetorical would make everything fine.

[Fred Sanders]

99. Please take your lack of wit, vomit symbols and strawmen elsewhere? Please?

Good day to you, your vomit emojis and your strawmen, sir!

[BeanMusical]

104. Take your vomit inducing sexist "rhetorical" attitude elsewhere.

Good day to you, your misogyny and lack of reading comprehension. (the vomit smiley was my reaction to what you said)

[Warren Stupidity]

105. No you get a free pass on misogynist bullshit

if you are making a rhetorical point. Everyone knows that. See for example nycskp.

[Fred Sanders]

106. The balls on some people, hey? - Would that be rhetorical or a swipe at all men? Funny sidetrack you guys

got going! I am in stitches!

Really, really, please do go on?

Because while we go onto the sidetrack, look at what is coming down the main tracks:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7100287

[Warren Stupidity]

107. I generally think self delete is the refuge of cowards.

But there are exceptions.

[Fred Sanders]

108. Ditto.

So if I self-delete you will call me a fearless hero? Promise?

I will think about that!

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Head.

[Fred Sanders]

110. No thanks, I do not need any head just now! Thanks for asking!!

[Broward]

90. Both parties have moved right on numerous issues over the past thirty years.

We should not exclusively focus on Republicans alone. It's critical to judge, criticize and pressure Dems as well to reverse this multi-decade shift to the right.

[Fred Sanders]

95. You want any chance of "moving on" by assisting the GOP and messed media in tearing down Clinton so the clown train can more

pull their wreck into the White House, and I refuse to take that chance....no problem, just a difference of perspective and opinion!

Moving on to this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7100287

[frylock]

116. You continue to conflate discussion of policies with tearing down of candidates.

[Armstead]

112. No it illustrates a reluctace to stand up to fascism

How the hell are we going to do anything against that GOP problem if we don't stand up to their bullying?

I remember the debates around the Patriot Act. A lot of people (Bernie among them) were warning that it was too broad and went way too far.

Thee arguments were not whether we should not do SOMETHING, but a warning against going too far. Voting for it was giving into the forces that you say we should be worrying about.

That does not give one confidence about a willingess to prevent the problems you say we should be worrying about in the futire, when push comes to shove.

And, BTW, the "fucked up medias" was greatly aided by the political interests represented by the Clintons in the Deregulation battles of 1996, when the Big Media Corporations were given unfettered power to take over the media with no restraints.

[Beta Male]

15. The Only Senator Who Voted Against TPA was Russ Feingold

Check it out.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Hang and burn all of them! Except Feingold.......but signal out Clinton for the hottest fire, for reasons we all know!

[Bonobo]

22. No need for hanging. But it is a relevant way to measure the distance between the two candidates. nt

[Fred Sanders]

26. The only thing relevant and obvious is the forwarding of GOP-like propaganda and the tactics of

half-truths to push an agenda.

[Bonobo]

29. There is no half-truth in my post and you are getting very close to a personal attack.

I have not attacked anyone personally and I would appreciate being given the same respect.

[Fred Sanders]

46. Did not take criticism of opinions and conclusions and implications as personal....it is not the same thing.

[Ken Burch]

37. The Republicans WANT HRC to be nominated.

They all think they can beat her in a landslide. None of them are scared of HRC as a candidate. Why would they be, when choosing means they get to drag us through all the Nineties shit again?

[Fred Sanders]

44. Yes of course...so their attacking Clinton relentlessly is just a ruse....you made me laugh!

[Ken Burch]

68. They attack her relentlessly because they hate women.

It doesn't mean they fear her as an opponent...it means they are sexist dinosaurs.

They'd do the same if the polls had her losing New York to Santorum.

They attacked Jesse Jackson relentlessly, too. And even McGovern.

[Fred Sanders]

71. The GOP hates the democracy that the Democratic Party loves. Their hate is focused on democracy.

They are not out to just destroy one person, they are out to destroy representative democracy.

[Ken Burch]

78. Also true. And we're all out to save it.

Nominating HRC is not the only way, and far from the best way, to do so.

[sabrina 1]

53. Where is the half truth in the OP?

[BeanMusical]

111. :crickets:

[Ken Burch]

32. What reasons would those be? n/t.

[Bonobo]

20. I'm aware of that.

If Bernie had been a senator, there would have been two.

[Fred Sanders]

21. If you were "aware" then why the focus on one person? No agenda there! Just pure "concern"?

[Bonobo]

24. If you like carrots, than how can you say you like pizza? nt

[Fred Sanders]

28. I will take that as an admission of guilt and having one agenda. Have a great make-believe day ignoring

the really fucked up Party, OK?

Once again, the GOP gift basket is in the mail.

[Bonobo]

35. I am posting about the candidates' voting records.

If that upsets you so much, I am sorry.

But there is nothing GOP-like in anything I have said here.

I am strongly in opposition of the, yes, fascistic, Patriot Act.

[Fred Sanders]

39. I am not doubting your sincere "concern" that "the record" is clear....good for you!

I am not upset! Never am with folks I have never met or know of...that is silly!

I am, however, "concerned" about anyone pointing rhetorical half-cocked arrows in the wrong direction - this is just an attempt to get folks to aim straight in the general direction of the enemy.

[Bonobo]

47. As I said, there is no half-truth here. Hillary voted for the Patriot Act and it's extension.

Bernie Sanders voted against both.

It actually means something and if you as concerned about fascism as you claim to be, you would also be in disagreement with her votes.

Do you ACTUALLY care about that? It doesn't seem so.

[LondonReign2]

49. It appears we are all in the wrong here but Fred. Fred, would you be so kind as to point

us to the appropriate forum in which to discuss the policy differences between the Democratic candidates?

Thank you in advance.

[Beta Male]

85. Sanders wasn't yet a Senator, either for the '01 original vote OR the '06 reauthorization

Thus, I am now seriously confused as to the purpose of this thread.

[Bonobo]

96. You're aware that the House votes on bills as well, right? nt

[Beta Male]

102. Yes, and I remember Congresswoman Barbara Lee

Again, I really must ask, what is the point of your OP?

[Bonobo]

103. It is stated VERY clearly in the OP. nt

[cantbeserious]

40. Agree Completely With Your Perspective - HRC Poor Judgement All Around

eom

[merrily]

64. So what if Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001?

Hillary is asking to be the America's First LEADER.

Feingold is a profile in courage. Hillary, not so much.

But, for me, the Iraq War is the biggest one; and Sanders voted against it, as did Chafee. Given that Chafee was a Republican at the time, his was perhaps even a more courageous vote than Sanders' vote against the war.

I don't agree with all of Sanders' votes, but he bas almost always been on the right side of history, be it equal rights, Iraq war, Patriot Act, Gramm, Leach, Bliley, jobs and so on.

[Demeter]

70. The list is longer than your arm--both lists, actually

Why yes for Bernie, and why Never Hillary.

But this country delights in taking simple factual decisions and confusing the populace so that Evil wins....

[TBF]

75. Iraq/Patriot Act -

this is not as big an issue for me as some others. The problem is that the previous administration lied to the people and Congress about WMD. Bush Cheney et al are to be held responsible for all consequences. Although it's good Bernie held to his principles, Congress was voting based on a deliberate lie by those in power.

But there are plenty of other reasons why Hillary is not the best choice as a candidate. Lots of baggage, completely bought and paid for by Wall Street, and I don't think her personality suits for this position. I like her for Supreme Court Justice, not for president. That's just me.

[Bonobo]

77. As I said, I have many other reasons as well including the closeness to Wall Street you allude to.

And in addition to all those, is the strong suspicion that she is too loose and flexible with her actions, choosing often to do the politically expedient thing.

[TBF]

83. Yup, she wants to be president

and she wants to be the first female president. But she is not a candidate like Bernie who has always been in the people's corner. She started as a corporate attorney at the Rose Law firm and served on Walmart's Board of Directors. I can't get past that event alone, much less some of the other associations she has made. All things being equal I'd rather have a female candidate, but this is not the woman I would choose for the job.

[Zorra]

79. Recommend. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. yup yup...that's all i need to know. Go Bernie!

[BeanMusical]

93. Kick and R

[azmom]

114. K&R

[pnwmom]

115. He voted to end liability for gun sellers and manufacturers. She didn't. n/t

[frylock]

117. you should start a thread about that.

[BeanMusical]

118. Kick and R

[brooklynite]

119. It was just as "simple" when Clinton ran in 2008...

...this doesn't seem to have had an impact on her popularity.

[beam me up scottie]

123. But Bernie Nut gunz!!1!

That's always the go-to whenever someone brings up Hillary's record.

It's their SQUIRREL! distraction.

Unfortunately for them we're not Golden Retrievers.

Facts matter.

[Oilwellian]

125. It's one of the important issues to me as well

There were far too many Dems who voted for this fascist, unconstitutional Bill. None of them deserve to be our next president.

[HFRN]

127. Hillary pushes for More H-1b visas, Sanders exposes the fraud

[jfern]

131. She really doesn't like working Americans

[Doctor_J]

128. to me it's just a symptom

She's just a get-along DC lifer who thinks whatever the lobbyists and money men tell her to think. She will never take on any fights that need fighting. For chrissakes, she even flip-flopped on gay marriage. Whichever way the wind's blowing inside DC, that the way she points.

NDAA
IWR
Gay marriage
TPP
XL Pipeline
PATRIOT Act
UHC

[Bonobo]

132. I agree, Dr. nt

[slipslidingaway]

129. No worries, we have Biden to save the day from the evil, and uncooperative Sanders, to save the day.

[reddread]

133. the NSA and SCOTUS may be the only votes that count

come election day.