2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIn 2006, Bernie Sanders Voted In Support Of An Immigration Conspiracy Theory
For Sanders, the amendment is another in a string of past votes that arent quite in line with the exact progressive priorities of 2015. Much like past positions on guns that the senator has had to navigate this year, his immigration positions have at times posed some challenges with the new Democratic base and the partys priorities. He voted against the 2007 immigration bill backed by most Democrats on Capitol Hill and Latino groups (as well as the Bush administration then in the White House) but opposed by many in Sanderss organized labor base. Sanders supported the comprehensive immigration bill that failed in Congress in 2013. Immigration is now a central part of his campaign last month he released a detailed proposal includes most of what immigration advocates are seeking this cycle.
And just as with guns Sanders advocated for things like assault weapons bans while also voting against some Democratic-backed legislation he supported many of the key goals of immigration advocates in 2007 such as the pathway to citizenship. But in the end, Sanders voted against the overall immigration bill.
The 2006 vote is a bit different. The amendment was meant to protect the Minutemen, and only concerned the southern border of the United States. A short floor debate over the amendment took place on June 6, 2006. Republican backers of the amendment spoke of the total lawlessness of people coming illegally over the border at night and how the Minutmen definitely not politically correct in Washington, D.C., Kingston, the Republican sponsor said filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
*
One thing that is nice about a guy like that, hes really philosophically true. Hes kind of like Ron Paul, you couldnt get him off his belief system, Kingston said. He was pretty true to what he believed in. He would kind of jump in and out of various issues he wasnt just a dependable liberal yes vote any more than a Ron Paul would be a dependable conservative no vote.
*
Still, the amendment vote wasnt a very important part of that debate. It got very little press coverage when it passed. The Southern Poverty Law Center condemned it in one piece, with top SPLC official Mark Potok saying it sounds like another paranoid conspiracy theory of the Minutemen in one California newspaper. Most other stories mentioned it near the bottom of stories about legislative wrangling between the Republican House and the Democratically-controlled Senate. Even the most fervent supporters of the Minutemen at the time didnt find memories of it close to hand.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.koPzN9DRN
The more I learn about Bernie the less I like him.
djean111
(14,255 posts)more about her, I don't like her for candidate AT ALL.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... the right wing attack machine.
djean111
(14,255 posts)She said what she said, she did what she did. All out there.
We all feel differently about issues. You should accept that, instead of flinging that fatuous RW attack thingy.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)They are pretty damn good at what they do. I just never thought actual liberals would buy into it.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Really? That's pretty sad.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)'bye.
Response to MaggieD (Reply #6)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that have floated around the last two decades, I feel much better supporting her.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Couldn't happen to a more deserving poster. Enjoy your time off!
artislife
(9,497 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Until feb 24 or so
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Dec 10, 2015, 09:21 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Glad to see you will be on vacation from DU from now until after the Nevada caucus!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=890960
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Call outs and taunting duers is a violation of tos.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 10, 2015, 09:25 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A rather gentle tease imho, but it does seem to cross the line to violate tos.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Unexceptional snark in another unexceptionally nasty thread.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)otherwise.
Cha
(297,723 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)I will miss calling out her lies and hypocrisy.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Fri Dec 11, 2015, 08:23 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Lol! Truth, that us funny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=892999
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
MaggieD is a long time Du'er that has greatly contributed to both DU and the Democratic party and progressive ideas. Right now, there is a battle from two camp with candidates we are fighting for. That does not make MaggieD any less a Democrat or a member of DU. Sanders supporter weigh about 85% of DU. Than can easily get hides on good standing members. That is what happened to MaggieD. She is still a member in good standing and it is against TOS to post hurtful personal attacks like these on DU. Further, MaggieD has been silenced and can not even stand up for herself or respond. Please hide. This is not right.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 11, 2015, 08:31 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I weeps.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, but I agree with the post. I read DU every day, and the hidden poster's contributions are often questionable. Leave it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the Alerter. Hide this garbage.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is only one reason Maggie gets frequent time outs, and it has nothing to do with her alleged "support" of Hillary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is fine to call posters who intentionally post lies, liars, in my opinion.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)with juries and why no one trusts them to be fair. It's mob rule, not justice.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)a message board. They gets hides, not because boogey man mob rule, but because they are jerks. It is that simple.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)poster you were rude to impact their vote. Being a juror is not about whether they agree or disagree with your post, it's about whether your post violated community standards.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)and the Polls show it, for years.
Interesting discrepancy
RandySF
(59,264 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)How many Americans died from this vote? How many Iraqis died from this vote? When you find a number of the deaths and destruction resulting from this vote get back to me I'll wait
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)different candidates sea* since you seem to feel they are much the same. Who did Hillary protect with her vote?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am bowing out of this thread. So, Autumn*, figure whatever you like.
Lol.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)And actually important detail.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)You were the one who compared it to the Iraq war vote.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Matariki
(18,775 posts)Lost lives seems like something people in congress ought to keep in mind when casting votes. Particularly mass casualties in wars founded on (what should have been obvious) lies.
Versus a vote to not provide intelligence on United States citizens to a foreign government. Which is how that vote was framed.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Sanders yeah vote on the Iraq Liberation Act? How many wars were started within the five years after his yeah vote on the Iraq Liberation Act? How many times did Bush reference the Iraq Liberation Act as justification for his power?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)shock and awe on Iraq and the American people after that vote. This is a separate conversation about the IWR vote brought up by another poster.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)for the use of military force.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You just can't be serious.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Yeah, it called for regime change using flowers.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)From the text of the ILA: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Section 4(a)(2) says: "The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)On May 30, 2009, Raul Flores, Jr., 29, and his daughter, Brisenia Ylianna Flores,[1] 9, of Arivaca, Arizona, were murdered at home during a robbery by Shawna Forde, Jason Eugene Bush, and Albert Gaxiola, who were convicted of the murders.[2]
Both Raul Flores and his daughter, Brisenia, were born in the United States and were thus American citizens as is Gina Gonzalez, the victims' wife and mother who survived the attack.[3]
Brisenia was a third-grade student at the Sopori Elementary School in Amado, Arizona at the time of her death.[4]
During the trial, jurors were told that Forde and her accomplices gained entry to the Flores home by claiming they were officials looking for fugitives and that the suspects had the expectation of finding money and drugs that could be sold to finance Forde's militia group, the "Minutemen American Defense", which patrolled Arizona's border with Mexico. When they found no drugs, the intruders took jewelry but, prosecutors said, not before fatally shooting the child and her father.[5]
Gina Marie Gonzalez, 31, wife of Raul Flores and mother of Brisenia, in the home during the attack was shot three times. She survived because she pretended to be dead. When the assailants left the home, Gonzalez called 911 emergency services and armed herself with her husband's handgun. While Gonzalez was on the phone, the assailants re-entered the home; Gonzalez fired the gun, wounding Bush. The killers then fled. Gonzalez identified two men, one white, the other Latino, and a white woman as the attackers. Gonzales said Bush, who is white, had murdered her daughter and husband.
An early exchange within the 911 call was recorded as follows:
Gonzalez: "They shot me and I pretended like I was dead. My daughter was crying. They shot her, too.
Operator: "Are they still there, the people who, that shot them?"
Gonzalez: "They're coming back in! They're coming back in!" (Gunfire.)[6]
Autumn
(45,120 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Are you joking?
Yes, during a robbery, while committing a crime.
No matter how you want to spin it, there people were CRIMINALS, MURDERERS.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Of course there are CRIMINALS, and MURDERERS but that bill did not give them permission or the go ahead to murder anyone during a robbery.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 10, 2015, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Really, are you defending this vote? This is a militant, racist group of vigilantes.
Do you approve that they were protected?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)From Daly Kos:
Any guesses to which way Bernie Sanders, then a member of the US House, voted? That's right, he voted YES to pass this amendment (vote tally from Congressional record).
Now, to be sure, the amendment passed with 293 votes, including those of 69 Democrats. But none of them is claiming the mantle of a progressive savior pushing the party to the Left. Some of those Democrats were too afraid to vote otherwise given Bush's victory in 2004, and others were too conservative. But Bernie Sanders and his supporters tell us that he is a profile in courage and the liberal hope in the race.
-cut-
This is the great hope of liberals? This is the man liberals think should be our answer to gun violence's devastating impact on America's communities of color and to the racist right wing militia movement in our country?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)him to be the great hope of liberals, I just prefer him a 1000 times more than I do Hillary. Anyway, this conversation is going in circles and I'm going out to dinner so I'm done here.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Quit smearing.
merrily
(45,251 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Response to lunamagica (Reply #63)
Autumn This message was self-deleted by its author.
treestar
(82,383 posts)on the inconsistency there. They make Hillary 100% responsible for the War in Iraq, so Bernie is 100% in support of the minutemen's crazy argument.
Cha
(297,723 posts)suppose to be perfect.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to Autumn (Reply #9)
Post removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)So tiresome
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)As to the meme of the day about (several posts simultaneous on the same damn subject) I don't know the specifics of his voite on that. I might disagree with Sanders reasons for that. Maybe not.
But on balance, and overall Sanders is just as supportive of the same overall immigration goals as Clinton, O'Malley and other Democrats.
The differences are on certain specific aspects....Most notably,. he didn't want to encourage employers to exploit special "guest-worker" visas as a form of domestic outsourcing by replacing American workers with foreign "guest workers."....One can agree or disagree with his position on the but it does NOT mean he is anti immigrant or against positive immigration reform.
Crap like this is deliberately using individual trees to obscure the forest.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Forests and trees.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)post about who also voted for this and those who did not even bother to cast a vote at all. So how is this a discussion at all? Seems more like shit flinging and evasion to me.
kath
(10,565 posts)MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)anti-immigrant - depends on the economic situation
pro-gun - depends on the group he is talking to
racist - no
hates women - no
believes cute kittens should be deported - we will need to check into the economic consequences, same as he does with immigrants.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)pro-gun - It is not a question of pro gun or anti gun. That's simplistic nonsense. Both Sanders and Clinton are in favor of sensible gun control....Remember when Clinton was being Annie Oakley when she thought that was politically expedient. Even now, she would say that she is in favor of law-abiding, sane people having the right to own guns. There are shades of diffeerence in some specific aspects, and in current rhetoric -- but not much
racist - no
hates women - no
believes cute kittens should be deported - Cute kittens are a threat to the Internet. They must be stopped.
kath
(10,565 posts)and writes with a totally different style? I have been wondering what's up with that..
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...are you really talking about an adult on this forum like this?
That isn't even politics; it's just meanness.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But then, I haven't been around much either. Good to see you.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...this new progressiveness from many here in defense of Sanders comes with an amazing intolerance of dissent and disagreement with the politician they're supporting.
demmiblue
(36,898 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Like, you know, safe-harbor to gun manufacturers, funding for F-35s , Brady Bill opposition, no path to citizenship for immigrants and repeated funding of wars and stuff..
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)votes. I do not cotton to people getting a hide simply because they show a candidates vote. This site and article seems ot be pure enough to make it on Du. I do think we should be aware of votes. It does not have to be the end of the world, and there might be reasons for votes. I am certainly capable at looking at the grey in a decision to vote any one way.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But, that is not the point. I wrote that because twice the OP on this issue has been hidden, in the past. One OP was hidden just last night. Hence, feeling the need to post it myself. Because yes, surely we can post about one of Sanders votes.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I won't defend personal insults...but criticism and insults is a murkly area to define.
One reason Sanders supports (including myself) get riled up about posts like this is because they distort his overall record and values and goals.
It implies because he made a bad vote (for reasons I do not know) on a trivial issue he is a right wing anti immigrant bigot, like Tom Tracedo or something. When overall he has been as supportive -- and in some ways more supportive of -- the rights of immigrants and the goal of meaningful reform as Clinton or anyone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)If he consistently voted like a Republican on immigration issues, for the same reasons as Republcans, you'd have a point,. But he doesn't.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)getting into it. I would like to hear his explanation if you come across anything. I do know how to listen. It just is not trivial in my view, and based on the bigger picture, that I see.
Cha
(297,723 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Speaking the truth about....certain unnameable candidates...can get you a hide real fast here on the Bernie Underground
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Additionally, when presented with a yes or no vote on an Immigration Conspiracy Theory, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz did not even bother to cast a vote. She sat it out. That's how important she felt it was. Same for Maxine Waters of CA, CA being a border State specifically mentioned in the amendment, Waters being a champion of human rights, still Maxine did not cast a vote. Why would that be, why would 76 Democrats vote yes and key Democrats from the entire spectrum of the Party abstain from voting at all if it was really "In Support Of An Immigration Conspiracy Theory"?
If it was what you claim it was, don't you think Debbie should have cast a vote? How about Maxine? What do you think of the 76 Democrats who voted for it? Are you willing to condemn them all right here and now, as you are Bernie Sanders?
riversedge
(70,310 posts)voted for the resolution along with other Democrats. yup
William769
(55,148 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Maxine Waters did the same, cast no vote. 76 Democrats voted for it, including many progressive Democrats. If the OP's characterization of the amendment was accurate, the 76 'Voted In Support Of An Immigration Conspiracy Theory' while Debbie and Maxine looked at such a conspiracy theory and felt it was not even worth voting against. That is very hard to believe.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Isn't that special?
Bless your heart.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)vote for this if it was the horror you claim? Why did Maxine Waters join DWS in not voting one way or the other? How could they be apathetic about such a thing?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Edited to add:
Characterizing Sanders' vote as a vote in support of a conspiracy theory is very dishonest. There is no indication at all that Sanders had any particular opinion on whether Mexican officials were being tipped off by US officials about the location of Minuteman patrols. The vote was simply a vote against such a policy being implemented.
That being said, I would have voted NO. The Minutemen group is horrible and I would tip off Mexican officials about their whereabouts if I had the opportunity to do so. I wouldn't lift a finger to help the minutemen in any way. So I agree that Sanders' vote was a bad one.
But I still think that Sanders is way better on immigration than Clinton. His plan is incredibly good--way better than Obama's. He and Clinton agree on a lot, but Clinton has said some vile shit about immigrants and has voted for fences and, last time I checked anyways, still favored punishing undocumented immigrants for illegally crossing borders. She doesn't seem to get that if someone needs to illegally cross a border to feed his or her family, a decent person will illegally cross a border. People shouldn't be punished for behavior that isn't wrong.
artislife
(9,497 posts)My brother and his girlfriend work in immigration on the helpful side in the LA area. His girlfriend has spent the last few years helping border children, as she is an immigration lawyer working for a nonprofit.
They are both staunch Bernie supporters.
They are both well educated in immigration, they are boomers and yet they are not supporting H at all.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Some day I hope to do more myself in defense of immigrant rights. I am deeply concerned about these issues.
I think Sanders' vote was a mistake, but he is the one I trust most on immigration issues.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)Clinton and Sanders' plans are quite similar. All three contain similar elements, which makes me very happy. Now, whoever is the next president will need to push that reform through congress...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I agree that there is a lot of overlap, though.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You want to order and to preach at others, you refuse to discuss. You characterize and editorialize but when presented with facts you refuse to place them in context. A aggressive manipulation of the truth is never, ever ethical.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am not obligated to converse.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I note that you are blasting away at Debbie and Maxine and 76 yes voting Democrats in order to take a swipe at Bernie.
It's the same thing your now on time out pal Maggie was doing with the Crime Bill 'Bernie voted for Mass incarceration' she kept saying. Well he did vote for the crime bill, along with the vast majority of Democrats in the House, 2/3 of the Black Caucus, while just 2 Senate Democrats voted no, the rest like Bernie voted Yes, Ted Kennedy, Biden, Boxer, Kerry, they all 'Voted for Mass Incarceration' because that was Democratic legislation, promoted by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and numerous Democratic leaders very strongly.
So no you are not obligated to conduct the discussion you asked to start but I will not stand aside while you smear Democrats tabloid style for the sake of what you think is a momentary win. It's daft. 'Mass incarceration' and 'voted for hate groups' is nasty, Republican style stuff. Note, those who engage in it keep getting time outs because the community rejects that sort of crap.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...what you're affectionately calling the 'community' is a cliquish majority of Sanders supporters who have used the jury system as a political cudgel.
Nice that you can now use that as some sort of demerit for the targets of that opportunistic abuse of the system, chiding seabeyond. It's as if you're trying to provoke her into one of those hides that you're presenting as some sort of integrity marker.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This characterization in lieu of discussion tactic is demonstrative of your inability to counter the facts offered.
I assume if you had a point to make you would make it. I think taking vile shots at 76 Democrats is what Republicans do. I think taking pot shots at other Democratic posters who offer facts about the subject matter is another thing Republicans do.
Jesus said that it is the fruit a tree bears that tells us what that tree is.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...celebrating the hides and banning of good folks supporting Hillary by a cliquish majority of Sanders-supporting jury members, and playing the victim when confronted about it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)That racist Minutemen militia resulted in the murder of two American citizens, including a nine-year old On May 30, 2009, Raul Flores, Jr., 29, and his daughter, Brisenia Ylianna Flores. Horrific murders.
There was absolutely no justification for that YEA vote.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)without a risk for a hide. This is not an attempt to get people to vote for or not vote for another. I do think though, that all candidate's votes should at least be open for conversation. I saw a hide on a previous OP, which made no sense to me.
On a personal note, I cannot understand why any Democrat would vote for the minutemen. Nothing about them is acceptable in my book.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)on OP so that it will be hidden. Maybe they should form another group: "Progressives for censorship"
The funny thing in a pathetic way is that it seems that they really believe that their covering stuff up on DU will keep it from spreading
around. Ridiculous!
The Latin Times picked up the story. Univision and Telemundo are soon to follow. This, combined with his immigration vote won't endear him to Hispanic voters. In this case, the more they know about Sanders, the less there is to like.
There is just not way that they can justify this vote. No way. They are a militant vigilante racist organization. They are murderers.
And Sanders voted to protect them.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Who's called for children of immigrants to be sent back ?
Number23
(24,544 posts)Even though the TOS of this web site make very clear how people should treat both.
I'm not sure how I felt about this OP but the behavior within this thread is absolutely unhinged.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ah ha. , Lol.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)If anybody wants to know what I think they can send me a private message.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)...made in defense of Sanders on this thread.
It's like dealing with a clique in a junior high school cafeteria.
seabeyond is a strong advocate for progressive ISSUES on this board. Somehow, the politics of defending politicians in this election won't recognize and respect that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)trying the hardest to pretend that it's actually Clinton supporters that are the root of all the hateful idiocy that blankets this board right now. Like you said, a junior high school clique. And a really low caliber junior high school at that judging by the incredibly poor quality of the attacks and the lack of wits they expose.
These same folks are also the ones that bray the loudest whenever others say this exact behavior is as a massive turn off for many to an exceptional, extraordinary candidate who deserves so much better, or are called out yet again in article after article written about how counter productive far too many Sanders supporters are. I will be so damn glad when the primaries are over.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LexVegas
(6,101 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)The purpose of this post is what? To throw bullshit at a wall and see what sticks?
Pathetic. But entertaining!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)No. Would it have impacted anything at all? No.
Does it look bad? Yes. But in the end there was and is no long term impact from this vote.
However, I notice that you are attempting to use this admittedly crappy vote as a counter balance to Clinton's IWR vote that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. That is bullshit.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He argued that we were still at war with Iraq going on old UN resolutions.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Right.
He needed bipartisan legal cover for an invasion and Clinton, among others, gave it to him.
What he 'argued' is irrelevant. He was a lying sack of shit and anyone with any knowledge of him knew it.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Particularly as it results to torture.
But you're right, he was lying, and Kerry, Clinton and our current VP Biden, knew it, and went for political expiedency.
But they did not "enable" Bush to go to war. He was going to war anyway. That vote was irrelevant. Say it didn't pass or the three politicians we don't want to have voted for it said no (Biden, Kerry, Clinton). He was going in anyway.
If you can give Sanders a pass on this vote (I don't see a problem with the vote) then it should be just as easy to give Kerry, Biden, and Clinton a pass on their vote. It's easy. Take a breath, realize the irrelevancy.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)The IWR vote was not irrelevant no matter how you want to spin it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)now voting for the Iraq War was a good thing, just like now supporting DOMA was a good thing. People make these arguments and you and I both know that they know the arguments are just fucking stupidly dishonest and pathetically obviously so, and they make them anyway. Are they snickering to themselves while typing?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as other things in the bill, or support a dead aircraft was expedient.
It is called politics in all the glory and ugliness and to pretend one is above the others is not factually correct.
So one persons unbelievable is another's equally believable.
Sanders has voted for and supported bush's earlier 2002-2003 middle east escalation in all ways, but that one vote, yet, we are expected to not recognize that. Yes, unbelievable.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The purpose of the Iraq War bill was to go to war in iraq. The purpose of the DOMA legislation was to explicitly deny equality to gay people.
Make honest arguments, honestly support your candidate, honestly attack the other candidates, that is all good. You are better than this and you know it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we chose to process votes from politicians we support. There is nothing wrong in my post. I know exactly what was happening with the Iraq vote, right before the election and a lot of our Democrats up for reelection where their vote would affect a win or a loss at a time we need every Democrat in congress to do their best putting the brakes on Bushco. And the Buscho administration using that to their advantage. I recognized exactly what was happening and the manipulation. I also recognize the manipulation in conversation with those votes today by Sanders and his supporters as he has voted for everything previous and after to fall in line with the rest, while criticizing the Democrats for that one vote, as he sat safely in his seat.
At anytime I will take you on the high road of our politicians every step of the way, being merely politicians and not caricatures of heroes ignoring the raw realities.
But then, this OP is about Sanders supporting minutemen. That counts too. I want to know why, just as we have listened to Clinton's reasoning's along with the other Democrats. I at least will be more fair and balanced in my listening to the reasons.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I didn't say it was a good thing. You are putting words in my post.
I said the vote was not an enabling vote. That Bush was going in anyway.
Next time you want to accuse me of some bullshit falsehoods, please be brave enough to reply directly to me rather than someone else. Talk about snickering.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Just like DOMA protected the gays from a constitutional amendment. I agree that your claim was a flat out lie.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But his lying to the congress is a treasonous offense.
You aren't thinking. Putting bullshit words in my post and doing the bare minimum to shit on another poster.
And to think I thought you were sincere about zappaman regarding the WillyT post, seems your snide attitude, character judging, is simply reserved for people arbitrarily.
Cha
(297,723 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Hillary supporters I don't have on Ignore. You're entertainment value is just too good.
Carry on.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)LOL TRY HARDER