Just saw an utterly reprehensible post in GD-P

I heard some Hillary supporters speaking a few days ago and they sounded like a bunch of Dick cheneys

They think that they are the majority of the Democratic party. I don't think most of them care much about foreign policy and they must be fairly well-off to support her.

What I find sad is that I never seem to hear any arguments in favor of her that have to do with policy; it's all about electability and her supposed greater chance of making "incremental change." What they fail to explain is how exactly she is more likely to get a Republican controlled Congress to work with her than Bernie is. The Republican establishment don't want to see any Democrat succeed, that is why they refused to cooperate with Obama from day one of his presidency.

There is a refusal to face reality on the part of her supporters that seems irrational to me. I know that if, by some miracle, Bernie is elected, he will face opposition at every turn, but that is why he is asking for the public to support him beyond election day.

What frightens me the most is global warming. We can no longer shilly-shally around about this; we are nearing the point of no return in maintaining a livable planet. Bernie takes this very seriously; Hillary doesn't, in fact she has barely spoken about it.

All in all, the onus is on Hillary and her supporters to state WHY she is the better candidate in terms of policy, and I haven't heard that yet. Am I missing something?

I'm going to have to steal it.

But it's just as apt now as it was then.

being dumb.

And they want nothing to do with us

They suck at their attempts to "blend in".

It usually starts off with a "I used to be a Bernie supporter, but over the course of the last few months, I've had a change of heart, and decided to switch my support from Bernie to Hillary."*

*I actually stole this from a real post that was written today by someone. It was adorable.

I think I've seen that too..... several times!

I don't think these people ever understood much to begin when supporting her establishment foreign policy. The others are just plants in my view. They are not progressive in anything for obvious reasons.

is like fucking for virginity." That's the precise telegram I sent Nixon in 1971!

well on the way to 400 on ignore!

I glance in there and all I see is this, looking back at me

I totally agree.

You know, cuz he's such a lovely guy who did wonders for humanity.

Consequences of Kissinger's Policy
by Donald Neff
Kissinger's policy was prohibitively costly to the United States. By making Israel the military superpower of the region, the Kissinger policy also led to tragic events. These included Israel's bloody 1982 invasion of Lebanon, an action based on its new arrogance of power stemming from US-supplied weaponry. Even graver, however, was the fact that Israel was allowed by Washington to continue its occupation and settlement of Jordanian and Syrian land. This occurred during the same period that the United States became Israel's major patron and supporter starting in the 1970s under President Richard M. Nixon and Kissinger.

The dramatic increase of US aid while Israel violated official US policy against military occupation was a declaration to the world that where the Jewish state was concerned politics outweighed principle. These events led to the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. Yigal Amir, the murderer, was one of the Jewish fanatics who emerged during the long occupation and were dedicated to retaining the occupied territories. Had Kissinger, like Ike, driven Israel off the occupied land, Amir's motive for the assassination would never have existed. The occupation would not have lasted nearly three decades and the extremist cult devoted to keeping the land that began growing strong in Israel in the 1970s would not have come into being.

As a final irony, Kissinger to this day is considered a great statesman for his Sinai agreement, while the Suez crisis and Ike's brave actions are barely remembered. David Halberstam did not even bother mentioning the 1956 crisis in his recent bestselling book The Fifties, dedicated to the major events of that decade. That is more than a sad commentary on the relative merits of the policies pursued by the two men. It is a stunning reminder of how strong Zionist influence is in the America media when it comes to molding perceptions of US policy in the Middle East.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/donald-neff-foreign-correspondent-and-author-dies-at-84/2015/05/14/67aa9e4a-fa47-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html

Most of them don't care about her foreign policy stance, only that she was SOS for 4 years. It's essentially saying she had the highest diplomatic job in the US and her performance or policy stances don't matter. You'd expect to hear that from a Republican right?''

They are also short-sighted on fiscal issues like wealth inequality and whether the 1% continue to get richer and of course can give money hand over fist to campaigns (pointing the finger directly at Clinton on that one). It seems like the only issues they care about are social issues. While social issues are important, NOTHING will get done without addressing some of the other issues. Creating better jobs IS a social issue, limiting campaign contractions IS a social issue, etc., etc.

If they want war they need to put their money where their mouths are. Quit being chickenhawks. They think it's funny to send other people to fight die and suffer for their god damn enrichment. Fuck! These people are NOT democrats.

Them, and every other chickenshit chickenhawk democrat with kids. If they want to invade and rob other nations of their resources in the name of "interventionism", they can jump out of the planes themselves.

How It works is they send the Berniebros to war.

"That was a dove of peace, saying no more wars"

So the question becomes, how do we make that desire as reprehensible as possible?

one of the originating thinkers and adherents around what Hillary in 1970 termed "Globalism".