International Let's get ready to Rumble. Battle for DNC soul underway. Bernie stands up for Omar over Israel

[ferrisjso]

Hmm.

Say I was a centrist Conservative who does not much care for Donald Trump's nationalism.

I am looking for a candidate who is moderate on issues of abortion, personal freedom, gun control, religious tolerance, somewhat limited government, and the pursuit rather than political promise of happiness.

Which candidate is for me? I am worried my question is a bit rhetorical.

Does that speak ill of the moderate or of the extreme views of the candidates?

The party should not appeal to this sort of person. They tried this in 2016 with Hillary.

 

[ferrisjso]

Is Isrial one of the only countries in the those parts where gays are safe? Seems like that should be part of the conversation amongst other things.

https://www.newsweek.com/prominent-hamas-commander-was-executed-after-accusations-gay-sex-432343





WORLD
HAMAS EXECUTES PROMINENT COMMANDER AFTER ACCUSATIONS OF GAY SEX
BY JACK MOORE ON 3/2/16 AT 8:23 AM

WORLDPALESTINIAN TERRITORIESHAMAS
The armed wing of Palestinian militant group Hamas executed one of the group’s leading commanders after allegations surfaced of gay sex and theft, it has been revealed.

Members of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades shot Mahmoud Ishtiwi, 34, three times in the chest after they had detained him for a year, The New York Timesreported on Tuesday.

Hamas announced that the man in charge of a number of the group’s tunnels used for smuggling and surprise attacks had been executed for moral turpitude, a Hamas term for homosexuality.

Ishtiwi’s family, Hamas loyalists, broke rank to condemn his execution, saying that “what happened was part of an internal settling of scores.” They said that he was set up by the militant group and was tortured into making false confessions.

A Hamas investigation alleged that Ishtiwi had hidden money designated for his unit’s weapons, before an unnamed man claimed to have had sex with him, providing details about their meetings. The investigation concluded that the money Ishtiwi had stolen had been used to pay the man for sexual relations or to bribe him to keep Ishtiwi’s secret.

You know critiquing Israel's majority coalition does not mean every aspect of their society is bad? Defending Hamas from being considered a terrorist organization does not mean they are wonderful people. Honestly as Sam Harris points out that division is mainstream in the Islamic world.

Critique of Israel in terms of values comes from them being pro ethno state and a theocracy. Things that are antiethical towards what America is all about. In terms of their behavior towards the Palestineans whether they be to the North in Lebanese refugee camps to the east in targeted villages or to the south in besieged Gaza, their behavior is very closely in line with how we treated the Natives in the Jackson administration but that doesn't mean we shouldn't speak out or prevent the rest of the world from speaking out the way that they have.

 

[VivaRevolution]

There's some fantastic irony here and another shout out to one of my favorite and most honorable Jewish sources.

Bernie Sanders: Still Progressive Except for Palestine

Excerpt:
...Sanders doesn’t respect international law. Only a few relative points, among many, will be included herein:

• International Law: Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited. The Israeli government has moved over half a million Israelis onto Palestinian land, and government officials, up to and including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have stated that not one will ever by removed.
• International Law: The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory. Palestinian farmers must apply to the Israeli government to farm their own lands and harvest their own crops. Such permission is often granted only after the time for planting is long past, or after the crops have rotted in the field. Palestinians are given far harsher penalties for any crimes committed than are committed by their Israeli counterparts. Palestinians living the West Bank cannot visit the Gaza Strip, and vice versa.
• International Law: Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period. Even considering the occupation as beginning in 1967, that is now 52 years. By no interpretation can that be seen as temporary.
• International Law: The destruction or seizure of enemy (occupied) property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities. Tens of thousands of Palestinian homes have been arbitrarily bulldozed, with little advance notice and no recompense.
• International Law: To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation. “…[T]he United Nations predicts (Gaza) will be uninhabitable by next year, partly due to the severe shortage of water”. Women often have to give birth at checkpoints, because Israeli soldiers will not allow them to pass. Newborns in need of critical care have died at checkpoints.

Lastly, let us all remember that the occupation of Palestine by Israel has been declared illegal...

Is it possible that Sanders doesn't get this?

Dude, he is the only high profile politician in the US that regularly stands up to Israel.

I mean I guess you could vote for Trump, who is literally bibi's bitch.

 

[japman40]

The comparisons between Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and anti-Semitism becoming more tolerated and expressed in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn is valid, but the influence of Muslim voters is not comparable. Tlaib and Omar make up two districts known for Islamic communities. Democrats are tolerating extremist Islamic doctrine like Israel has no right to exist for the support of two districts. Maybe a handful more with a significant number of Muslim voters. Not surprising tho that they feel stuck and reluctant to attack them since how much the Democrats and media celebrated their "diverse" new members of Congress. Not for their abilities or beliefs, but simply their race, gender and religion.

Neither have ever said that israel has no right to exist, stop making up bullshit. There criticism of AIPAC and the right wing israel government isn't anti semitic. Lot of jews including Bernie agree with them. They've also criticized saudia arabia, does that make them islamaphobe too?

They have Track record for standing up to human rights, I see no issue with that.

 

[InternetHero]

The party should not appeal to this sort of person. They tried this in 2016 with Hillary.

Let us put aside the distinct possibility that Hillary was the non plus ultra of political corruption, decadence, and ruthless drudgery substituted in place of talent.

How many social issues was she moderate on from a mainstream American perspective? 2016 Hillary "evolved" quite a bit from 2008 Hillary, as did her base.

Why would such a moderate, of whom there are many, vote for a cadre of loony radicals, besides the "not Trump" choice?

It might be better to have a candidate who is the "lesser" of evils, rather than one who is the braying personification of the social justice left.

Better for the country, better for discourse and compromise, better to wipe away the orange stains and hope/change maximalist politics of the past 11-odd years.

Not to worry, I do not think it will happen either.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Let us put aside the distinct possibility that Hillary was the non plus ultra of political corruption, decadence, and ruthless drudgery substituted in place of talent.

How many social issues was she moderate on from a mainstream American perspective? 2016 Hillary "evolved" quite a bit from 2008 Hillary, as did her base.

Why would such a moderate, of whom there are many, vote for a cadre of loony radicals, besides the "not Trump" choice?

It might be better to have a candidate who is the "lesser" of evils, rather than one who is the braying personification of the social justice left.

Better for the country, better for discourse and compromise, better to wipe away the orange stains and hope/change maximalist politics of the past 11-odd years.

Not to worry, I do not think it will happen either.

Lol. I just read a story from a Clinton aide that said the Democratic party doesn't need a cis male leader right now.

I don't think you understand where the crazy SJW stuff is coming from.

Let me tell you that Kamala Harris will beat that ID politics drum 10 times louder than Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Trump was number 2 also though and Romney was the consistent number 2 as well. Obama was third I think at this point behind Hillary and Edwards? The winner usually is someone among the top and we can scream Trump came out of nowhere I mean he was seen as a joke but he was polling near the top right from day one(if he hadn't he probably doesn't get media attention and gets his ass kicked) in the beginning that was the story. Losers historically also do very well the next time out, usually more in Republican primaries than Dem ones but then again in Dem ones you don't have as many people historically give it a second shot.

The specific result of the early poll doesn't mean the nominee isn't on the poll historically speaking they probably are on the poll at this point. I also do not think we are going to hit 20 candidates and we mostly have the candidates we're going to get. I only expect a handful of new faces. After Biden and/or Beto gets in I don't see too many people who are going to hop in.

In Republican tradition Jeb was a pretty safe pick. Look how his brother got in. If Trump didn't come in the race he probably does much better cause he wouldn't have been emasculated the way he was.

Nobody knew who Obama even was and then he mollywhooped Hillary.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Nobody knew who Obama even was and then he mollywhooped Hillary.

Not really. He didn't have the name recognition of Hillary, but he wasn't an unknown like Bernie.

I think Obama had about 30% name recognition, as opposed to about 8% for Bernie.

 

[grizzard2bid]

Not really. He didn't have the name recognition of Hillary, but he wasn't an unknown like Bernie.

I think Obama had about 30% name recognition, as opposed to about 8% for Bernie.

Point being that in the 08 primary a year out, Obama was polling at 0.1%

 

[ferrisjso]

Nobody knew who Obama even was and then he mollywhooped Hillary.

Not exactly. He had some hype. He was a star for being keynote at the Democratic National Convention. I remember vaguely it was Hillary, Edwards and Obama as the three frontrunners. Slowly Obama took second and he didn't overtake Hillary(who won the popular vote in 08) but had a situation where Super Tuesday favored him and he built an insurmountable lead. Hillary learned from this and part of her people rigging 2016 was making sure Hillary was the one who built that lead from Super Tuesday with a bunch of southern states.

Let us put aside the distinct possibility that Hillary was the non plus ultra of political corruption, decadence, and ruthless drudgery substituted in place of talent.

How many social issues was she moderate on from a mainstream American perspective? 2016 Hillary "evolved" quite a bit from 2008 Hillary, as did her base.

Why would such a moderate, of whom there are many, vote for a cadre of loony radicals, besides the "not Trump" choice?

It might be better to have a candidate who is the "lesser" of evils, rather than one who is the braying personification of the social justice left.

Better for the country, better for discourse and compromise, better to wipe away the orange stains and hope/change maximalist politics of the past 11-odd years.

Not to worry, I do not think it will happen either.

Well with social issues she was actually super conservative on a lot of them. It was her supporters who were super liberal, when your main political issue is identity politics you're not going to ask a lot of questions beyond that. On economic issues they matched and were mostly centrists or center right. I have no evidence to suggest Hillary's economic understanding of the world changed from when she was a Goldwater girl. But per the social issues here you go.

Criminal justice and the superpredators comment
Supporting a candidate for President who was against the Civil Right Act in 1964
Laughing at the girl she admitted she knew her client raped
Being anti gay marriage right before it was declared constitutional(funny how there's a double standard with Tulsi there though she changed her mind earlier)
Super religious

Of course she's got a better case in terms of being socially liberal, than in terms of economics or foreign policy where she's a rabid right winger by international standards. Her social liberal credentials are still seriously lacking regardless except if you count breaking the glass ceiling an issue. Obama, a guy the left considers to be a centrist establishment politician was able to successfully run to her left for a reason.

Well liberals don't see Obama as maximilialist, we see his rhetoric as that and his policies especially when he had real power as being super tame. ObamaCare for example put a liberal face on a conservative policy and gives conservatives the idea that the conservative policy is somehow "socialism". This in the eyes of many on the left is more damaging than an actual Republican victory cause when the Republicans do pro corporate policies we at least don't identify them with liberals.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Point being that in the 08 primary a year out, Obama was polling at 0.1%

Not quite that bad, but your general point is correct. Obama was a heavy underdog.

My point is simply that while Obama was an underdog, in comparison to Bernie in 2016, or Gabbard in 2020, he was a weight class above.

 

[InternetHero]

Lol. I just read a story from a Clinton aide that said the Democratic party doesn't need a cis male leader right now.

I don't think you understand where the crazy SJW stuff is coming from.

Let me tell you that Kamala Harris will beat that ID politics drum 10 times louder than Bernie, Warren, or Gabbard.

It comes from the evolution of the Revolution.

The capital R is intentional.

 

[InternetHero]

Not exactly. He had some hype. He was a star for being keynote at the Democratic National Convention. I remember vaguely it was Hillary, Edwards and Obama as the three frontrunners. Slowly Obama took second and he didn't overtake Hillary(who won the popular vote in 08) but had a situation where Super Tuesday favored him and he built an insurmountable lead. Hillary learned from this and part of her people rigging 2016 was making sure Hillary was the one who built that lead from Super Tuesday with a bunch of southern states.


Well with social issues she was actually super conservative on a lot of them. It was her supporters who were super liberal, when your main political issue is identity politics you're not going to ask a lot of questions beyond that. On economic issues they matched and were mostly centrists or center right. I have no evidence to suggest Hillary's economic understanding of the world changed from when she was a Goldwater girl. But per the social issues here you go.

Criminal justice and the superpredators comment
Supporting a candidate for President who was against the Civil Right Act in 1964
Laughing at the girl she admitted she knew her client raped
Being anti gay marriage right before it was declared constitutional(funny how there's a double standard with Tulsi there though she changed her mind earlier)
Super religious

Of course she's got a better case in terms of being socially liberal, than in terms of economics or foreign policy where she's a rabid right winger by international standards. Her social liberal credentials are still seriously lacking regardless except if you count breaking the glass ceiling an issue. Obama, a guy the left considers to be a centrist establishment politician was able to successfully run to her left for a reason.

Well liberals don't see Obama as maximilialist, we see his rhetoric as that and his policies especially when he had real power as being super tame. ObamaCare for example put a liberal face on a conservative policy and gives conservatives the idea that the conservative policy is somehow "socialism". This in the eyes of many on the left is more damaging than an actual Republican victory cause when the Republicans do pro corporate policies we at least don't identify them with liberals.

Has there been some sort of ultra-partisan attempt somewhere to paint Hillary Clinton as a reactionary Conservative?

She wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky for goodness sake. (Although as fast as the fringes of the left changes it's collective mind, the tolerated tradtion does become the verboten very quickly.)

To answer the policy questions:

- The "superpredators" is a comment, not a Conservative policy. The other evidence includes laughter and posing. What of substance?

The only one that is listed is gay marriage, of which opposition to was popular, until after around 2012 it became despicable intolerance. Where is the moderation on any deep social issue? In terms of liberty (guns, personal freedoms persay), taxation, life/death (abortion,) immigration, welfare (2016), and so on.

She was hawkish, overly hawkish per my opinion. Not that that is social but part of her "tough" persona as Madam Secretary.

Not to cast stones, so to speak, but on policy she does not have much to offer the center right, or possibly the right. She, and now indeed, most of the candidates are in the thrall of the social left.

I disagree with you entirely about Obama being tame with his attempts to skirt the Constitutional order. (An argument for another day perhaps.) However, the right responded with The Donald, his Dukeness, so many on the right are being cynical about all that, others are outright hypocrites and frauds who have bought into the maxim of "winning."

That is not supposed to be Conservatism, so, all the more distressing.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Totally.

 

[ferrisjso]

Has there been some sort of ultra-partisan attempt somewhere to paint Hillary Clinton as a reactionary Conservative?

She wrote her thesis on Saul Alinsky for goodness sake. (Although as fast as the fringes of the left changes it's collective mind, the tolerated tradtion does become the verboten very quickly.)

To answer the policy questions:

- The "superpredators" is a comment, not a Conservative policy. The other evidence includes laughter and posing. What of substance?

The only one that is listed is gay marriage, of which opposition to was popular, until after around 2012 it became despicable intolerance. Where is the moderation on any deep social issue? In terms of liberty (guns, personal freedoms persay), taxation, life/death (abortion,) immigration, welfare (2016), and so on.

She was hawkish, overly hawkish per my opinion. Not that that is social but part of her "tough" persona as Madam Secretary.

Not to cast stones, so to speak, but on policy she does not have much to offer the center right, or possibly the right. She, and now indeed, most of the candidates are in the thrall of the social left.

I disagree with you entirely about Obama being tame with his attempts to skirt the Constitutional order. (An argument for another day perhaps.) However, the right responded with The Donald, his Dukeness, so many on the right are being cynical about all that, others are outright hypocrites and frauds who have bought into the maxim of "winning."

That is not supposed to be Conservatism, so, all the more distressing.

Well Hillary was first lady while people pretend that's a job when wanting to build up her resume "as the most qualified candidate ever", now those comments don't matter. The superpredator comments were concurrent with her husbands very substantive policy putting those sentiments "bringing them to heel" into policy. Hillary supported the broken windows strategy, harshly punishing non violent crimes in order to deter serious crime. Being harsh on crime is a Republican policy. Might be changing this generation seems to be anti "law and order" on a somewhat bipartisan basis, but traditionally being tough on crime is a conservative or Republican role(Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions types who think weed is the devil blah blah). This logic also is true on various conservative economic iniatives of her husband, NAFTA, welfare reform and her own advocacy for a health care plan that was very much center right.

Hawkish she's the most conservative of any policy area. We can go on all day about that. The difference between her and Kerry's State Departments was night and day. Kerry's was still bad but I mean Hillary's preceding term made him look like the best Secretary of State ever or something.

Hillary's mantra is liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues. That's basically the pitch libertarians keep making to liberals.

I'd flip that around and say where are the liberal positions there? I listed she supported welfare reform. I don't think opposing welfare is moderate in any way shape or form, think it's a hard right policy and any scaling back of a welfare state that is already seen as a joke is super right wing. But that scaleback was presided over by Hillary's husband. Her only liberal substantive achievement in Congress was CHIP.

Hillary is to the right of every single declared candidate.

The "response" is quite complicated. Trump did win, but he did terribly in that election compared to other Republican Presidents. He was hardly a response to anything cause the people Obama beat got a larger share of the public to support them. Smallest percentage of the popular vote for a major party candidate since Perot was splitting the vote. Hillary was just that awful a candidate. Trump was a deeply flawed candidate in 2016 any other Democrat could have beaten. In 2020 with the advantages of incumbency he will be far more difficult to defeat.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well Hillary was first lady while people pretend that's a job when wanting to build up her resume "as the most qualified candidate ever", now those comments don't matter. The superpredator comments were concurrent with her husbands very substantive policy putting those sentiments "bringing them to heel" into policy. Hillary supported the broken windows strategy, harshly punishing non violent crimes in order to deter serious crime. Being harsh on crime is a Republican policy. Might be changing this generation seems to be anti "law and order" on a somewhat bipartisan basis, but traditionally being tough on crime is a conservative or Republican role(Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions types who think weed is the devil blah blah). This logic also is true on various conservative economic iniatives of her husband, NAFTA, welfare reform and her own advocacy for a health care plan that was very much center right.

Hawkish she's the most conservative of any policy area. We can go on all day about that. The difference between her and Kerry's State Departments was night and day. Kerry's was still bad but I mean Hillary's preceding term made him look like the best Secretary of State ever or something.

Hillary's mantra is liberal on social issues, conservative on economic issues. That's basically the pitch libertarians keep making to liberals.

I'd flip that around and say where are the liberal positions there? I listed she supported welfare reform. I don't think opposing welfare is moderate in any way shape or form, think it's a hard right policy and any scaling back of a welfare state that is already seen as a joke is super right wing. But that scaleback was presided over by Hillary's husband. Her only liberal substantive achievement in Congress was CHIP.

Hillary is to the right of every single declared candidate.

The "response" is quite complicated. Trump did win, but he did terribly in that election compared to other Republican Presidents. He was hardly a response to anything cause the people Obama beat got a larger share of the public to support them. Smallest percentage of the popular vote for a major party candidate since Perot was splitting the vote. Hillary was just that awful a candidate. Trump was a deeply flawed candidate in 2016 any other Democrat could have beaten. In 2020 with the advantages of incumbency he will be far more difficult to defeat.

I think the one thing Trump should get credit for, is turning out millions of people who had never voted, or stopped voting.

That is what propelled him through the Republican primary, and I think it tipped the scales in the general as well.

I don't think we talk enough about why half of people aren't voting. We see it here all the time, where people say none of this matters, and they have tuned the non-sense out.

I think the legitimacy problem of our political party's is a bit under reported. I mean it has to be, if somehow Donald Trump seemed more legitimate to millions of Americans.

 

[abiG]

Dude, he is the only high profile politician in the US that regularly stands up to Israel.

I mean I guess you could vote for Trump, who is literally bibi's bitch.

In a Chomsky kinda way, though. Can the man honestly be that ignorant of international law?

Or........

 

[fishNjits]

Not entirely. America is a secular Republic, and I think supporting theocratic shitholes like Israel is counter to our values, as is letting foreign nations lobby congress for anything they want, including speech restrictions in said nation's chambers of representation.

Time to hit the dictionary bro and look up theocracy. Unlike say Iran, Israel isn’t ruled by a priestly class that claims divine guidance.

Israel has an official religion, but so does England for example.

 

[abiG]

Time to hit the dictionary bro and look up theocracy. Unlike say Iran, Israel isn’t ruled by a priestly class that claims divine guidance.

Israel has an official religion, but so does England for example.

It's law, monkey:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/middleeast/israel-law-jews-arabic.html

 

[glenwo2]

I think the one thing Trump should get credit for, is turning out millions of people who had never voted, or stopped voting.

That is what propelled him through the Republican primary, and I think it tipped the scales in the general as well.

I don't think we talk enough about why half of people aren't voting. We see it here all the time, where people say none of this matters, and they have tuned the non-sense out.

I think the legitimacy problem of our political party's is a bit under reported. I mean it has to be, if somehow Donald Trump seemed more legitimate to millions of Americans.

What's this "OUR" stuff?

I thought you weren't on either side.