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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: FIVE REASONS WHY THE AFSCME AND SEIU SHOULD HAVE ENDORSED SANDERS OVER CLINTON link added [View all]Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)56. Bogus points.
1. She may win the nomination, but she's going to lose the general election. She WILL lose Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and, probably, Colorado. Without Ohio and Florida, she's done.
2. Qualifications are subjective. I don't find someone who takes advice from neocons on foreign policy all that qualified. Hillary does. Ask Robert Kagan.
I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy, Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obamas more realist approach could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table if elected president. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue, he added, its something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.
I also don't find someone who listens to Wall Street all that qualified on economic policy. Wall Street's success rarely translates into success for the average working person.
3. If you consider, "adopting some of the GOP's foreign and economic policy" (see above) as "fighting back," then, yes, she's done far more of that than Bernie.
4. Coalition building is only effective if, at some point, you get what your side wants. Seems she only adopt the policies of the other side - but, then again, that may very well be what she wants.
5. I prefer the people have the political power and not one individual. This election, to her, is all about her. It's not about all of us.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 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
FIVE REASONS WHY THE AFSCME AND SEIU SHOULD HAVE ENDORSED SANDERS OVER CLINTON link added [View all]
Omaha Steve
Dec 2015
OP
When We Stand Together - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go
cantbeserious
Dec 2015
#2
So you're saying the Union members were too stupid to make an informed recommendation?
brooklynite
Dec 2015
#3
I wasn't asked anything by AFSCME even though I was an AFSCME PEOPLE PAC donor often
Omaha Steve
Dec 2015
#13
The umbrella organization AFC-CIO asked all member unions to wait until after the Feb conference
Omaha Steve
Dec 2015
#24
I still remember the Teamsters endorsing Reagan in '84, even after his Air Traffic Controllers mess
EndElectoral
Dec 2015
#37
maybe they can rampage into an Episcopal Church and beat up students passing by?
MisterP
Dec 2015
#51
Since you are familiar with unions then you know unions endorse candidates
Thinkingabout
Dec 2015
#28