Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: All you fools supporting Sanders were probably supporting Nader in 2000 [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)196. Here's why I support Bernie Sanders...
He has INTEGRITY.
But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the heating-oil aid program for the poor. -- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone, April 29, 2015
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429?page=2
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429?page=2
Please compare with the bi-partisan PNAC crypto-fascist corporate interests bent on fracking Ukraine and making money off war four ways to Super Tuesday:
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Fri, Feb 7, 2014
By ORIENTAL REVIEW
What about apologizing to Ukraine, Mrs. Nuland?
Yesterdays leak of the flagrant telephone talk between the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt has already hit the international media headlines. In short, it turned out that the US officials were coordinating their actions on how to install a puppet government in Ukraine. They agreed to nominate Batkyvshchina Party leader Arseniy Yatseniuk as Deputy Prime Minister, to bench Udar Party leader Vitaly Klitschko from the game for a while and to discredit neo-Nazi Svoboda party chief Oleh Tiahnybok as Yanukovychs project. Then Mrs. Nuland informed the US Ambassador that the UN Secretary General, Under-Secretary for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman had already instructed Ban Ki-moon to send his special envoy to Kyiv this week to glue things together. Referring to the European role in managing Ukraines political crisis, she was matchlessly elegant: Fuck the EU.
In a short while, after nervious attempts to blame Russians in fabricating (!) the tape (State Department: this is a new low in Russian tradecraft), Mrs. Nuland made her apologies to the EU officials. Does it mean that the Washingtons repeatedly leaked genuine attitude towards the strategic Transatlantic partnership is more worthy of an apology than the direct and clear interference into the internal affairs of a sovereign state and violation of the US-Russia-UK agreement (1994 Budapest memorandum) on security assurances for Ukraine? Meanwhile this document inter alia reads as follows:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Back to the latest Mrs. Nulands diplomatic collapse which was made public, it was unlikely an unfortunate misspelling. Andrey Akulov from Strategic Culture Foundation has published a brilliant report (Bride at every wedding, Part I and Part II) a couple of days ago describing Mrs.Nulands blatant lack of professionalism and personal integrity. He described in details her involvement in misinforming the US President and nation on the circumstances of the assasination of the US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012 and her support of the unlawful US funding of a number of the Russian independent NGOs seeking to bring a color revolution to Russia.
CONTINUED w/LINKS...
http://orientalreview.org/2014/02/07/what-about-apologizing-to-ukraine-mrs-nuland/
Great video at the link, too.
Take PNAC, please.
Neocons and Liberals Together, Again
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security...
Tom Barry, last updated: February 02, 2005
The neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has signaled its intention to continue shaping the government's national security strategy with a new public letter stating that the "U.S. military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume." Rather than reining in the imperial scope of U.S. national security strategy as set forth by the first Bush administration, PNAC and the letter's signatories call for increasing the size of America's global fighting machine.
SNIP...
Liberal Hawks Fly with the Neocons
The recent PNAC letter to Congress was not the first time that PNAC or its associated front groups, such as the Coalition for the Liberation of Iraq, have included hawkish Democrats.
Two PNAC letters in March 2003 played to those Democrats who believed that the invasion was justified at least as much by humanitarian concerns as it was by the purported presence of weapons of mass destruction. PNAC and the neocon camp had managed to translate their military agenda of preemptive and preventive strikes into national security policy. With the invasion underway, they sought to preempt those hardliners and military officials who opted for a quick exit strategy in Iraq. In their March 19th letter, PNAC stated that Washington should plan to stay in Iraq for the long haul: "Everyone-those who have joined the coalition, those who have stood aside, those who opposed military action, and, most of all, the Iraqi people and their neighbors-must understand that we are committed to the rebuilding of Iraq and will provide the necessary resources and will remain for as long as it takes."
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings. A second post-Iraq war letter by PNAC on March 28 called for broader international support for reconstruction, including the involvement of NATO, and brought together the same Democrats with the prominent addition of another Brookings' foreign policy scholar, Michael O'Hanlon.
CONTINUED...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/Neocons_and_Liberals_Together_Again
That's from Rightweb. They're full of facts, for those who take the time to read and learn. One name to pay attention to is Victoria Nuland, our woman in Ukraine, who is married to PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan. Robert Kagan's brother is Frederick Kagan. Frederick Kagan's spouse is Kimberly Kagan.
Brilliant people, big ideas, etc. The thing is, that's a lot of PNAC and the PNAC approach to international relations means more wars without end for profits without cease, among other things detrimental to democracy, peace and justice.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
487 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
All you fools supporting Sanders were probably supporting Nader in 2000 [View all]
woolldog
May 2015
OP
Wow! That's some selective editing. Here's the entire explanation (Gore won!)
FourScore
May 2015
#247
I have no idea who Nader voters would have voted for if he was not on the ballot.
former9thward
May 2015
#439
LOL! YOU'RE calling The Guardian "agenda driven"? A simple search of your DU posts shows
FourScore
May 2015
#440
I was very involved in 2000 and SCOTUS only had a chance to step in due to Nader's stupidity
Gothmog
May 2015
#206
RThe reason it appeared to be so close was because of all the stolen votes.
Jackpine Radical
May 2015
#163
Al Gore lost because Nader's stupidity and making the election in Florida to be close enough
Gothmog
May 2015
#208
Bernie is running to win. And we intend to help him do that. Nader had ZERO to do with the
sabrina 1
May 2015
#123
I trust HRC is politically adroit enough to navigate through these waters.
DemocratSinceBirth
May 2015
#151
Yes. That's the only sensible thing for Democrats to do. Have our differences in the
Cal33
May 2015
#248
The nomination is usally sewn up long before the CA primary. Would be really cool though
KingCharlemagne
May 2015
#324
That attitude of yours could very well also mean helping the GOP cheaters to win. They
Cal33
May 2015
#253
"Forcing Clinton to go on the record on controversial issues" - aha.
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#313
Rubbish. More Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader. So trying to pin 2000 on Nader rather
KingCharlemagne
May 2015
#330
So, what did your local party do about all the Dem voters voting for Bush? n/t
eridani
May 2015
#345
Even dumb people are free to choose their candidate in a democracy, that's how it works
Pooka Fey
May 2015
#421
Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush
eridani
May 2015
#487
If a primary would weaken her, she's not viable. This isn't the Special Olympics.
AtomicKitten
May 2015
#309
You are forgetting something: There are Democrats (including here at DU) who openly state that
Cal33
May 2015
#267
You're right. The GOP has nobody of presidential caliber to offer. Those intending to
Cal33
May 2015
#275
Well, you are certainly not that voice .Gore Won The Election. The SC stole it for Bush
sabrina 1
May 2015
#383
It can't hurt the primary to have a real debate in the contest for the nomnation
Ken Burch
May 2015
#388
I really don't blame Nader for 2000. I think he became understandably bitter with age,
struggle4progress
May 2015
#12
Its good in the way a really low budget B movie can be, The "plan 9" of posts
Dragonfli
May 2015
#243
I believe Bernie will beat Hillary in the primary. I fail to see how that makes him a spoiler....
peacebird
May 2015
#91
Silly wabbit, wool over your eyes. I personally feel HRC has no chance in the general.
peacebird
May 2015
#109
Harry Truman would feel closely aligned with Bernie Sander's ideology than Hillary and said this...
cascadiance
May 2015
#225
IMHO before you decide to be a stickler for correct grammar in someone else's post,
truebluegreen
May 2015
#295
When people start posting their test scores to bolster their argument, puppies weep.
cyberswede
May 2015
#230
When people start posting their test scores, I seriously wonder about their "credentials".
Exilednight
May 2015
#233
Yes, Bernie most definitely can beat Hillary in the Primary. Are you trying to turn people against
sabrina 1
May 2015
#130
Actually, I think he's doing a pretty good job of convincing me to support Bernie.
DebJ
May 2015
#399
Since a jury didn't hide it, I'll guess it goes in my ever-enlarging trashcan full of crazy.
ScreamingMeemie
May 2015
#28
Having more than one strong Dem candidate will also mean the Clowns on the other side
DebJ
May 2015
#400
So not only do you not understand the political process, you don't understand the First
cui bono
May 2015
#64
That's some weak gruel for trash talk. Come back when you get something more inflammatory
KittyWampus
May 2015
#65
Total logic fail. The two are unrelated If no Nader, Gore wins Florida and presidency.
HERVEPA
May 2015
#380
wtf? that so does nothing for the discussion. it is factually wrong, not logical nor does it make
seabeyond
May 2015
#84
I can get over snark, but the dumb on this level is unforgivable. Read up on Election 2000 in FL.
Pooka Fey
May 2015
#99
"Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat that can win in 2016. We are better off rallying
workinclasszero
May 2015
#102
Bernie is running in the Democratic primary, not as a third party challenger like Nader.
AtomicKitten
May 2015
#156
You paint her as a champion of democracy when as she demonstrated in 2008
AtomicKitten
May 2015
#181
No. I said HRC stayed in the race because she believes in giving voters a choice.
KMOD
May 2015
#195
It certainly could not be more out of date - looks like it's from the 1990's.
Divernan
May 2015
#343
Something that looks like it is straight from the DPRK art department is "retro-chic"?
Throd
May 2015
#453
I'll bite, what is your case? You have asserted that a primary will destroy Clinton's chances
TheKentuckian
May 2015
#157
I don't think Sanders supporters are fools. I'd love to see his vision of a Scandinavian type
Hoyt
May 2015
#201
Not me. And by the way. Nade lost in the primary but then ran in the general pulling votes away
jwirr
May 2015
#231
I think you're right. Sanders certainly wouldn't do it, and Hillary wouldn't either. She would
Cal33
May 2015
#259
Primaries are EXACTLY the time to support the candidate that best suits your ideals.
Mayberry Machiavelli
May 2015
#255
Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well, anyone who doesn't vote like *I* do is a big ol' poopiehead!
Buns_of_Fire
May 2015
#257
I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - Only Fools Vote Against Their Best Economic Interest
cantbeserious
May 2015
#277
Pssst! Bernie and HRC are running in THE SAME PARTY! Nader was 3rd party spoiler.
Lil Missy
May 2015
#289
I knew it was coming. We are 1 inch away from "narcissist trying to stay relevant!" nt
Bonobo
May 2015
#292
I gave bernie money and am actively working to see him elected. Hillary boooo
boomer55
May 2015
#301
What a compelling message you have composed, here, to encourage support for Hillary Clinton!
Warren DeMontague
May 2015
#312
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the US Supreme Court stole the election in 2000
Agnosticsherbet
May 2015
#315
Well, perhaps only temporarily, but it would seem that the two camps are almost
Buns_of_Fire
May 2015
#316
Apparently a jury decided it's ok to call supporters of a Democratic candidate fools.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#317
Apparently it's ok to bad mouth Sen Sander's supporters. Where are the hosts?
rhett o rick
May 2015
#348
Is that what you want? Is that your justification? Do you think Sen Sanders
rhett o rick
May 2015
#350
Ok thanks. I want to keep things civil. I hope Sen Sanders supporters don't behave like this. nm
rhett o rick
May 2015
#355
I hear you but I don't want us getting into "handing butts back". We lose sight of the
rhett o rick
May 2015
#362
I try but as soon as I get in as host, I seem to get a lot of alerts on my posts.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#368
Nah, I should take the hide. I knowingly and with malice aforethought crossed
KingCharlemagne
May 2015
#337
That's not true. Bernie Sanders is nothing like freaking nader. Please don't be rude like some of
Cha
May 2015
#321
The OP is wrong on every point. Congratulations your post wins my load of lies award.
Vincardog
May 2015
#370
Here is exactly the way you portray yourself as a Hillary Clinton supporter......
davidpdx
May 2015
#377
Silly. Meta aimed at Sanders supporters and/or Hillary critics is not disruptive meta.
merrily
May 2015
#387
The alleged high road sure went downhill fast as soon as a populist challenger arrived.
merrily
May 2015
#379
Please define "the extreme left" with some well-defined characteristics. How can I ID them? n/t
xocet
May 2015
#384
Not even comparable to Nader. Bernie is running as a Democrat, Nader did not, and Nader's
still_one
May 2015
#429
OMG, and this steaming pile of a post appears more than a year and a half before the election.....
marmar
May 2015
#444
Wow. That's one of the more pointlessly insulting attack-posts I've seen in a while.
Orrex
May 2015
#446
I agree with you on principle, but there's no need to call fellow DUers "foolish".
Beacool
May 2015
#472
Bernie already said he would support Hillary if he loses. Your post is meaningless. nt
Quixote1818
May 2015
#474
I s'pose it's about that time when bumper-sticker wisdom and bubble-gum-wrapper philosophies
LanternWaste
May 2015
#481