So-called Liberals...

FieldTheorist said:

Socialism is just a label, and it's --by my esteem anyways-- the statement that you're pointing in the direction of progress, a support of an unfettered democratic process, an unwavering support of personal and civil liberties, the belief that income inequality is immoral, and a lack of a denial that class warfare is real --and the serious commitment to further all of these beliefs and redress the grievances.

One relevant thing in particular in American process, where I see socialism as being particularly vital, is the damage dealt to the democratic process by the class warfare that's transpired over the last 40 years; socialists take this seriously. Liberals have only been recent converts to this, and by-and-large only tepidly. But I think a lot of Americans are beginning to understand that the most serious and direct threat to American democracy is campaign contributions to politicians by moneyed interests. If politicians are paid by the people, they will not represent the people. So until corporations can no longer fund campaigns and there's not a publicly financed elections, Americans will continue to participate in what is at best a sham form of democracy.



Well, my take on this may be slightly different then, but overall there would be a lot of agreement. I would agree that obeying the US constitution is important, and I think it's also important that we obey the treaties that we've signed --many of which we've signed and have explicitly broken. And I think that has lead to more damage, both internally and externally, along with making and upholding very bad trade agreements (e.g. tax havens, transporting jobs overseas). But we should take anti-torture laws as seriously as we take the Constitution.

Bipartisanship I'm less interested in, although it is important. In this regard, Sanders has more experience getting bills passed in the House of Reps (traditionally more conservative) than either O'Malley and Clinton, and he got a 2 billion dollar veterans' health bill passed last year. But I think we all have to admit that we cannot let the course of American politics and the terms of governance be dictated by the most reactionary 15% of the American populace. It's not democratic and it's not sensible.

But as far as foreign policy and "projecting power" is concerned, the United States has engaged in enough warfare for my taste. So I think we agree on this point, but I'd prefer to see the US take a more peaceful role in the world and act as a force for world solidarity, and not corporate interests, so I'm not even that interested in projecting a powerful image. If that was going to work with ISIS, Hamas, etc, we would have ended the war on terror a long time ago.


(I also think that we should stop funding terrorist-factories like Saudi Arabia and actually hold them responsible for their promotion of Wahhabism and terrorism, but we may never do so because of oil companies' interest in keeping the oil pipes flowing.)

Click to expand...

you make good points. Saudi Arabia gets a bad rap , but SA is really interested in stability.
Wahhabism isn't the same as salafi-jihad ( which is ISIL); there really isn't anything apocalyptic in Wahhabism
anymore then any other Islamic teachings.

Also Shi'a fundamentalism is just as dangerous,and the true threat to that region is Iranian expansionism now.
I mean I don't see the Saudis fomenting rebellion on Iran's borders, like Iran does in Yemen with the Houthis.
SA has it's own problems with ISIS, and Qatar was really the big funder of ISIS ( their banking system allows unfettered bundling with little disclosure)..

So I see no real need to change our "special relationship" with SA that goes back to FDR.

I don't mean US arrogance either, it's simply doing what we did in the ME before Iraq war. when Hussein invaded Kuwait -
Who stepped in and rolled him and created a real coalition? It was the US, and we didn't even pay for it -other countries did!
So when we act like that, we are a force for stability ; which along with killing ISIL is the 2 big things needed in the region..

Corporations are international and need regulating. So does so called "unfettered capitalism" - I have no problem with
banking/capitalism ,unless it gets to big/greedy.it then become rogue, and dangerous..

I'm not sure what would make DC less polarized, and more answerable to "we the people" - and with Citizens United -
i'm not sure if it's even possible to restrict campaign funding without a full public financing.
But any reforms are better then we have now,.

Bucky said:

Edit out the word courageous.

Put in the word dishonest or underhanded.

Click to expand...

Now that depends on who is defining Hillary Clinton doesn't it? I am a supporter of this very experienced female presidential Democratic candidate and obviously am on the opposite side of what you're espousing. If you're a critic of Hillary then it's expected you would think the worse of her. I'm so grateful I live in a country where one may freely express an opinion irrespective how repulsive the criticism.

Atiya said:

Now that depends on who is defining Hillary Clinton doesn't it? I am a supporter of this very experienced female presidential Democratic candidate and obviously am on the opposite side of what you're espousing. If you're a critic of Hillary then it's expected you would think the worse of her. I'm so grateful I live in a country where one may freely express an opinion irrespective how repulsive the criticism.

Click to expand...

Hillary is indeed a very "experienced" politician. Her tenure as first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State consists of experience to playing to the crow, failure, partisanship and corruption.

Her crowing legislative achievement was naming a highway after Tim Russert - that's it.

annata said:

you make good points. Saudi Arabia gets a bad rap , but SA is really interested in stability. Wahhabism isn't the same as salafi-jihad ( which is ISIL); there really isn't anything apocalyptic in Wahhabism anymore then any other Islamic teachings. [...] So I see no real need to change our "special relationship" with SA that goes back to FDR.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems like you were implying that Wahhabism isn't a leading cause of terrorism and that Saudi Arabia isn't a major source of Salafism, and neither of those are true to any reading that I've read on the subject (Which is not small). Yes, Salafism is bad but it and Wahhabism are part and parcel part of the same thing, even though their two different expressions of it (although not always, e.g. Osama bin Laden), which is militant, radical Islamism.

Firstly, Saudi Arabia is a huge proponent of international terrorism, it's a hotbed and the chief financial pusher and financier of Salafi/Wahhabi movements, and the biggest place where they get their money from is Western oil companies, particular the US oil companies. They have a state-sponsored support for Salafi jihadism --as well as support from powerful oil barons, a notable ex-oil baron from Saudi Arabia being none other than Osama bin Laden. So, we are in definite disagreement that this shouldn't "change our 'special relationship'" with Saudi Arabia. Saudis have financed and/or founded many militant Islamist groups, ranging for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a major terrorist group in Pakistan.

Secondly, Saudi Arabia is directly tied to financing of ISIS, which my link above discusses. But the relationship here between Saudi support of salafi jihadism and ISIS goes back well over three decades now. Osama bin Laden and other Saudis personally funded the Mujahideen (Well, again, alongside of Ronald Reagan who was not above using religious extremism and militant Islam to fight against the USSR), which directly became Taliban and al-Qaeda. And is it should be known, ISIS just a further off shoot from the Taliban and al-Qaeda that split up around 2014, after fighting against democratic government and the US invasion of Iraq since 2004.

The notion that the Saudis have not been the worst instigator of Wahhabism/Salafism isn't something that I think can be said to be born out in historical evidence, or current evidence for that matter. It's worth reading the history of Salafism and Wahhabism on Wikipedia and the sources, as well as the biographical page of Osama bin Laden and the Mujahideen on Wikipedia and the related sources. It's an eye opener, and it's impossible not to realize that --setting aside how our invasions have destabilized the region-- the US has been indirectly involved in supporting terrorism for decades now. And that's not to discuss the trade sanctions that have devastated various middle-eastern countries (e.g. Iraq) and have made them more, nor less, dependent upon their dictators (e.g. Sadam Hussein) to feed and clothe them.

As to the notion that the United States is a nice, peace-keeping country for the middle-east, I also can't see how that's a defensible position, given the history of our foreign policy in the middle-east. We've bombed and droned the middle-east for over a decade now, we've got involved multiple times in wars that have destabilized the region, on top of what has already been mentioned. And even before 2003, we regularly bombed vital infrastructure (including hospitals and medicine factories). A great example of this is the case of Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused an unknown number of Sudanese people to die of completely treatable illnesses; the Clinton administration claims it thought it was for al-Qaeda, but either way it's a pretty devastating bombing for that country (It's been argued that it was just retaliation for bombings in US embassies).

And this trend continues to this day, it is well worth reading up and googling how cavalierly and recklessly the US has used drone strikes against people who "might" be a terrorist and the colossal damage we've done. If none of that breeds anti-US sentiments and sympathy for terrorists, then I don't know what does.

I'm not saying that the US has never done good. I'm not even saying that we're always bad actors in the middle-east (Although people like Noam Chomsky and others have made arguments that we are, and I think the case is compelling), but I hope that we can agree that our default position on US imperialism should not be dialed to "The US probably has the best interests of the middle-east at heart."

(To clarify a quick point in my above post, I discussed Sudan, which I know is not literally a part of the Middle-East, but that discussion was referring to Muslim nations generally, so I'm referring to the historically Islamic regions of North Africa, the Middle-East, and South-East Asia, although geographically of course all of that is not the Middle-East.)

FieldTheorist said:

I'm sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but it seems like you were implying that Wahhabism isn't a leading cause of terrorism and that Saudi Arabia isn't a major source of Salafism, and neither of those are true to any reading that I've read on the subject (Which is not small). Yes, Salafism is bad but it and Wahhabism are part and parcel part of the same thing, even though their two different expressions of it (although not always, e.g. Osama bin Laden), which is militant, radical Islamism.

Firstly, Saudi Arabia is a huge proponent of international terrorism, it's a hotbed and the chief financial pusher and financier of Salafi/Wahhabi movements, and the biggest place where they get their money from is Western oil companies, particular the US oil companies. They have a state-sponsored support for Salafi jihadism --as well as support from powerful oil barons, a notable ex-oil baron from Saudi Arabia being none other than Osama bin Laden. So, we are in definite disagreement that this shouldn't "change our 'special relationship'" with Saudi Arabia. Saudis have financed and/or founded many militant Islamist groups, ranging for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, and the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a major terrorist group in Pakistan.

. And that's not to discuss the trade sanctions that have devastated various middle-eastern countries (e.g. Iraq) and have made them more, nor less, dependent upon their dictators (e.g. Sadam Hussein) to feed and clothe them.

As to the notion that the United States is a nice, peace-keeping country for the middle-east, I also can't see how that's a defensible position, given the history of our foreign policy in the middle-east. We've bombed and droned the middle-east for over a decade now, we've got involved multiple times in wars that have destabilized the region, on top of what has already been mentioned. And even before 2003, we regularly bombed vital infrastructure (including hospitals and medicine factories). A great example of this is the case of Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which caused an unknown number of Sudanese people to die of completely treatable illnesses; the Clinton administration claims it thought it was for al-Qaeda, but either way it's a pretty devastating bombing for that country (It's been argued that it was just retaliation for bombings in US embassies).

And this trend continues to this day, it is well worth reading up and googling how cavalierly and recklessly the US has used drone strikes against people who "might" be a terrorist and the colossal damage we've done. If none of that breeds anti-US sentiments and sympathy for terrorists, then I don't know what does.

I'm not saying that the US has never done good. I'm not even saying that we're always bad actors in the middle-east (Although people like Noam Chomsky and others have made arguments that we are, and I think the case is compelling), but I hope that we can agree that our default position on US imperialism should not be dialed to "The US probably has the best interests of the middle-east at heart."

Click to expand...

Article make sno distinction between wahhabism or salafi mixing in the same interpretations as all "fertile ground"of jihadi"ism"

But the 2009 secret December 2009 paper signed by Clinton is damning.
Though the article not breaking down funding by government / prince / individual.
That shows no desire to put the support in context; but still it is an extensive list. I'll look it over, and answer your post.
EDIT: I don't speak to many people who are at all interested in separating nationalized (Wahhabism) and salafi worldwide,
with or with out 'jihad' I'll like to go over SA's government fits into this.

Frank Apisa said:

I do not do "believing."

Obviously I am giving an opinion...and my opinion is that anyone self-identifying as a socialist HAS NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of winning the presidency.

There is a reason why liberals do not identify as liberals in these national contests...and that is because they realize that being liberal is a liability. Identifying as a socialist is a fatal one.

But I will say this: The Republicans are rooting for your view to prevail.


We'll see what happens. I am also convinced that the Democratic Party is smart enough not to put Sanders on the Ticket. I hope the day comes when putting a socialist on the ticket will not be political suicide.

Click to expand...

So, just to confirm, you believe he is unelectable because of the theory that his socialist label will make him untenable despite the practice of this evidently not being at all an obstacle to his popularity in the polls? Seems pretty dubious to me in all honesty.

Beyond that, which prominent Republicans are salivating for a Bernie win, other than those who genuinely like him aside from say Pat Buchanan?

In fact, many antagonistic Republicans rightfully prefer Hillary in light of his uniformly superior polling against the GOP (you can damn well bet that his recent polls have only reinforced this perspective), Hillary's legacy of exploitable scandal, deservedly poor honesty and favourability ratings, her divisiveness among the left due to her suspect campaign funding (~14% of Dems refuse to support her in the general), her inability to appeal to the Republicans and independents nearly as much, and the as of yet unresolved FBI probe.

Why Surprising Numbers of Republicans Vote for Bernie Sanders | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

Why Republicans Vote for Bernie | Thom Hartmann

The Republicans Who Support Bernie Sanders - The Atlantic

Newt Gingrich: GOP Should Fear Sanders, Not Hillary

To preempt the obvious question, the preponderance of Republican munitions are aimed at Hillary because A: she's currently the decisive Dem front runner, and B: she's a target of opportunity with more exploitable flaws and C: entrenched enmity about Hillary's character. The charge of 'socialism' clearly isn't the kiss of death it used to be.

Surrealistik said:

So, just to confirm, you believe he is unelectable because of the theory that his socialist label will make him untenable despite the practice of this evidently not being at all an obstacle to his popularity in the polls? Seems pretty dubious to me in all honesty.

Click to expand...

I do not do "believing."

If you want to write whatever you wrote without asking if I "believe"...do it and I will respond further. Otherwise my answer is, No, I do not believe he in unelectable for blah, blah, blah.

Shadowless said:

More like Reagan than FDR: I?m a millennial and I?ll never vote for Hillary Clinton - Salon.com

I enjoyed this article as it details how conservative Hillary Clinton actually is. I, as is the author, am a millennial voter who will NEVER vote for Clinton. As someone on the economic left, she is the antithesis to what we should be trying to accomplish. Those of you who say she is a better choice than a Republican, why are you satisfied with Republican lite? I will never understand those of you who use this flimsy argument. We have a real choice, his name is Bernie Sanders. He is the FDR of our time. He is not a radical inconsistent with American history, far from it. I understand Republicans and conservatives who dislike him, but those who call yourselves Democrats? Shame.

So....who will you be voting for if you've made up your mind?

eace

Click to expand...

I do not associate myself with either party, but I am very liberal. I would never vote for Clinton. She is as establishment elite as one can get.

Frank Apisa said:

I do not do "believing."

If you want to write whatever you wrote without asking if I "believe"...do it and I will respond further. Otherwise my answer is, No, I do not believe he in unelectable for blah, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

Pretend then that I wrote 'think', 'opine', whatever verb you prefer; personally I 'believe' you're getting way too hung up on semantic nonsense here.

Surrealistik said:

Pretend then that I wrote 'think', 'opine', whatever verb you prefer; personally I 'believe' you're getting way too hung up on semantic nonsense here.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may...

...I think the country is not NEARLY ready for a self-proclaimed socialist as president...and if Bernie Sanders is selected as the Democratic Party nominee...he will lose in a landslide, despite the wishful thinking of good folk like you, Surrealistik.

I regret that. I think our country would benefit greatly by a large dose of socialistic infusion into the capitalistic system.

But the country is not ready for it.

Okay?

Frank Aspisa: You seem to be falling prey to a self-inflicted argumentum ad nauseam fallacy,

annata said:

But the 2009 secret December 2009 paper signed by Clinton is damning.
Though the article not breaking down funding by government / prince / individual.
That shows no desire to put the support in context; but still it is an extensive list. I'll look it over, and answer your post.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

annata said:

Article make sno distinction between wahhabism or salafi mixing in the same interpretations as all "fertile ground"of jihadi"ism"

[...]

EDIT: I don't speak to many people who are at all interested in separating nationalized (Wahhabism) and salafi worldwide,
with or with out 'jihad' I'll like to go over SA's government fits into this.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I've missed something terribly important in my understanding of the philosophies of militant Islam, but would you mind providing a source speaks to the important distinctions between followers of Salafi jihadism and Wahhabism, or even that these are mutually exclusive worldviews? No doubt the philosophies are distinct entities; my request here is aimed at the practical differences which make these philosophies relevantly distinct in global terrorist activities. Also, just to be clear here, I'm referencing radical Wahhabism, not the isolatist Wahhabists.

FieldTheorist said:

Frank Aspisa: You seem to be falling prey to a self-inflicted argumentum ad nauseam fallacy,

Click to expand...

I was asked a question...and answered it.

Alyssa T. said:

If we were a lot closer to the election/caucus/primary where the poll is being conducted, I would put a bit more stock in it. A year out, without any candidates holding the nominations? No way.

Click to expand...

This is a key point.

If one examines exit polls, the economy (or economy and jobs) typically ranks as the issue of greatest importance to voters. There is an incredible amount of time between now and Election Day for changes to take place in the economy that could impact the outcome, even if one already knew who the general election candidates would be. Some economic shocks are not foreseeable from this far out, so there is a level of uncertainty, even as most of the evidence suggests a continuation of the moderate economic expansion that remains underway.