Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Bernie Sanders is showing he's no different

Rate this topic


Mohamed1993

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Well, after hearing everyone smear Russia, including the neocon republicans and the democrats, despite there being very little evidence of Russia influencing the results of the election, Bernie Sanders has effectively become a mouthpiece for the neocon/corporatist warhawks. Forget the fact that Hillary had gotten huge sums of money from the gulf states and from Zionists to lobby for Saudi and Israel. Not once did we hear any criticism of this from Bernie Sanders, but now that he's ready to prop up this cold war rhetoric. It just goes to show you, he would've been a massive disappointment as president, eventually they all have to tow the line and he is showing he would've done it too.

http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/bernie-sanders-congress-investigate-donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Development Team

What is wrong with Bernie Sanders calling for an investigation?

Quote

“The American people need to know the depths of the relationship between the Trump campaign, Trump business interests and President Trump himself, with Russia.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, wolverine said:

What is wrong with Bernie Sanders calling for an investigation?

What's wrong is it's hypocritical. There's little evidence Russia hacked the election, and even if they did, the fact that he didn't throughout his campaign address how the Democratic Party, the corporations, the big banks and the Zionist lobby all tried to work against him and influence the election, makes him sound like your typical corporate democrat shill, shifting people's attention to Russia whilst ignoring the issues Americans face on a day to day basis. Where was he when the Saudis and the Israelis were buying off Hillary, why didn't he say anything then calling for an investigation of that? Why did he endorse her despite knowing all the shady traitorous acts she carried out? Or does it only matter when a republican is involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

His whole campaign was based on Hilary being bought out.  Some of his foreign policy positions were not good but that does not mean he is some corporate sellout.  He was more critical of Israel than any mainstream politician at that stage has been.  Even with Trump he has supported him on some of his policies such as on the TTP,  so he isn't someone that will just all out knock someone because they are republican.

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, King said:

His whole campaign was based on Hilary being bought out.  Some of his foreign policy positions were not good but that does not mean he is some corporate sellout.  He was more critical of Israel than any mainstream politician at that stage has been.  Even with Trump he has supported him on some of his policies such as on the TTP,  so he isn't someone that will just all out knock someone because they are republican.

Bro, why then is he focused so much on Russia? Russia even if they interfered (which I haven't seen any evidence for) has played such a minor role in US politics, whereas countries like Israel and KSA get to hijack American politics each election cycle, and no one says anything. Tom Cotton got a million dollars from AIPAC to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, a deal which Israel was not party to. I would expect Bernie, as a honest person which I thought he was, to address this. When we have AIPAC officials calling for false flags to start war with Iran, and no one says anything about it, it really undermines their credibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Bro, why then is he focused so much on Russia? Russia even if they interfered (which I haven't seen any evidence for) has played such a minor role in US politics, whereas countries like Israel and KSA get to hijack American politics each election cycle, and no one says anything. Tom Cotton got a million dollars from AIPAC to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, a deal which Israel was not party to. I would expect Bernie, as a honest person which I thought he was, to address this. When we have AIPAC officials calling for false flags to start war with Iran, and no one says anything about it, it really undermines their credibility. 

He obviously does not like Trump, so he will utilize what he can to undermine him. I don't think Bernie is obsessed with Russia, it is just that any evidence of Russian coordination with Trump would mean the end of Trump. He is calling for an investigation into the facilitation and not just Russia in isolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Just out of curiosity, im going to poke at this one.

Where did you get this information?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/senator-tom-cotton-received-nearly-1-mil-to-oppose-iran-deal/212632/. The website has previously been smeared as pro-Assad/pro-Iran/pro-Putin, so I'm not sure it will convince you. There are other links that provide this information too though. At the very least they should've done an investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I see this quite often, especially here on SC.  People will spend plenty of time criticizing the media, talking about its biases and the falsehoods it may spread.  But then they use that same bias form of media to justify their position.

I think people sometimes tend to listen to the voices they want to hear, as opposed to really seeking out the truth in more objective ways.

That or, they may read something and then have a sort of knee jerk reaction to it. Then, even if they discover that the news they read is false, they still maintain that initial feeling that it gave them.

You dont have to justify that claim Mohammad, I dont think a credible source for that claim exists (i doubt it is true). But i really dont care, just wanted to make the point.

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I figured that is where you picked it up.  If a website is considered bias/media, why use it to justify a position?

You say that...there are other links that provide this information, where are those?

I have found accuracy in a lot of their news articles, they did a particularly good job in exposing Hillary Clinton, her ties to Saudi Arabia, big oil and campaign of terrorism against Shia Muslims. The founder is a Shia herself, which would obviously mean her views on Iran, Russia and Syria would be vastly different from the corporate mainstream media, leaving her open to criticism. This has happened to a lot of journalists actually including Abby Martin, who has talked at great length of the obsession with Putin and ignoring the US role of interfering in foreign elections, she has also been smeared as a Putin agent. The problem is when I read what someone who opposes a journalist is saying, I look for more than just baseless claims, and often it is just that rather than arguing the actual facts. Labelling someone a conspiracy theorist or a pro-Russian agent does no good, unless you refute actual claims made. The smearing of mintpress was a result of them reporting an alternative story to the one that was told on the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta in 2013, to which Obama had threatened military action. They reported on allegations that rebels funded by Saudi Arabia had been responsible for the attack, and they may have helped convince people that attacking Syria wasn't a good idea, which would be a setback for corporate media, who have shareholders that include some of the defence contractors who would benefit from war. A study done by MIT later also agreed with the assessment that the rebels had been responsible.

Anyway here is the original source; http://ahtribune.com/politics/341-senator-tom-cotton-oppose-iran-deal.html. Another link, apparently there is a video recording; http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/republican-congressman-took-million-dollar-bribe-from-israel-to-sabotage-obamas-iran-deal/23464/. Here's another http://addictinginfo.org/2016/01/04/tom-cotton-accepted-1-million-from-israel-to-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I see this quite often, especially here on SC.  People will spend plenty of time criticizing the media, talking about its biases and the falsehoods it may spread.  But then they use that same bias form of media to justify their position.

I think people sometimes tend to listen to the voices they want to hear, as opposed to really seeking out the truth in more objective ways.

That or, they may read something and then have a sort of knee jerk reaction to it. Then, even if they discover that the news they read is false, they still maintain that initial feeling that it gave them.

You dont have to justify that claim Mohammad, I dont think a credible source for that claim exists (i doubt it is true). But i really dont care, just wanted to make the point.

Well it sounds like you have a bias already in claiming you doubt its true, so you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Well it sounds like you have a bias already in claiming you doubt its true, so you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of. 

I do have bias, but I am also not the one making the claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iCambrian said:

I see this quite often, especially here on SC.  People will spend plenty of time criticizing the media, talking about its biases and the falsehoods it may spread.  But then they use that same bias form of media to justify their position.

I think people sometimes tend to listen to the voices they want to hear, as opposed to really seeking out the truth in more objective ways.

That or, they may read something and then have a sort of knee jerk reaction to it. Then, even if they discover that the news they read is false, they still maintain that initial feeling that it gave them.

You dont have to justify that claim Mohammad, I dont think a credible source for that claim exists (i doubt it is true). But i really dont care, just wanted to make the point.

Just want to say that you, @Islandsandmirrors, and he ever legendary @Gaius I. Caesar are my favorite SCers at the moment.

I feel like there is a bias here toward Russia because Russia backs Assad, and Assad is friendly with Iran.  To me, Assad and Putin are both criminals with no regard for human life, only holding onto power in Assad's case, and a drive to rebuild Imperial Russia in Putin's case.  Neither are good men.  Clearly there was enough Russian influence in the election to warrant an investigation; of course this attorney general (confederate hobbit) will never investigate, and I doubt thay Lyin' Ryan or Mitch McConnell (fun fact- my mom's maiden name is McConnell; I investigated to make sure I am NOT related to that fascist... Alhamdulillah I am not) will appoint an independent commission to investigate.

Anyway... we are in the collective mess we are because people are able to seek out "news sources" that feed their confirmation bias.  There should be no liberal or conservative news.  There should just be the news.

Senator Sanders is the only member of the US Congress who has been consistent and demonstrated consistent integrity and supported just causes throughout his career and I think he is absolutely right to call for an investigation into ANY foreign influence in the election here. 

Sadly, the experiment of 1787 failed in 2017 when they handed power to a tyrant who is far more dangerous than George III. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
47 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I do have bias, but I am also not the one making the claim.

What's biased to you will not necessarily be biased to me or to other people though. If every time I was to share something, I would have to quote media that was "objective", some wouldn't find that objective either because there's pretty much very little consensus amongst people on this issue. I wouldn't have thought this issue would be contested though, given how many of the US members of congress are head over heels in love with Netanyahu, so much so that they allowed him as part of his political campaign to come to the US, give a speech to congress on a deal that had nothing to do with him and undermine the US president. Which other head of state would be offered this privilege? I don't think many if any at all. This after members of the Israeli lobby had called for false-flag operations to start a war, and after Netanyahu had promised taking out Saddam would be a huge success. Frankly the fact that people even pay attention to him is indicative of how much clout he has over the congressmen, and it should be no surprise that this clout is due to lobbying and money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, reisiger said:

Just want to say that you, @Islandsandmirrors, and he ever legendary @Gaius I. Caesar are my favorite SCers at the moment.

I feel like there is a bias here toward Russia because Russia backs Assad, and Assad is friendly with Iran.  To me, Assad and Putin are both criminals with no regard for human life, only holding onto power in Assad's case, and a drive to rebuild Imperial Russia in Putin's case.  Neither are good men.  Clearly there was enough Russian influence in the election to warrant an investigation; of course this attorney general (confederate hobbit) will never investigate, and I doubt thay Lyin' Ryan or Mitch McConnell (fun fact- my mom's maiden name is McConnell; I investigated to make sure I am NOT related to that fascist... Alhamdulillah I am not) will appoint an independent commission to investigate.

Anyway... we are in the collective mess we are because people are able to seek out "news sources" that feed their confirmation bias.  There should be no liberal or conservative news.  There should just be the news.

Senator Sanders is the only member of the US Congress who has been consistent and demonstrated consistent integrity and supported just causes throughout his career and I think he is absolutely right to call for an investigation into ANY foreign influence in the election here. 

Sadly, the experiment of 1787 failed in 2017 when they handed power to a tyrant who is far more dangerous than George III. 

You still don't address why Russia is smeared but US allies Saudi Arabia and Israel are able to lobby politicians to work in their own interests and against the interests of the American people? Somehow acts of treason, when US allies are concerned get overlooked and what is focused on is just Russia, Iran and in some cases China. 

Why doesn't Sanders talk about the corrupting influence of the Israeli lobby? Why doesn't he address Saudi Arabia's ties to terrorism when he talked about using them in a coalition to fight ISIS, when they are the very ones funding it? You want to investigate Russia, go ahead, but be consistent. Senator Tom Cotton met with Netanyahu in private in what would be considered an act of treason to undermine the US president at the time (Obama), yet not a word from the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong- Israeli and Saudi influence are a problem.  no doubt.  Boehner inviting naziyahu to address congress was insanity.  The thing is that the Americans won't move unless there is a clear and present danger that has been demonstrated.  Sadly, the Israeli and Saudi issues are things that aren't universally agreed to be a problem.  Congressional Republicans would block any anti-Israel action. 

In democracy, majorities matter more than truth.

Oddly enough, I heard a speech with the Aga Khan where he said that democracy does not automatically equal good governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

^^Reisiger if this was shown on mainstream media, and then the idea that Israel still has a huge influence in influencing US elections and the lobby group advocating these kinds of policies is still powerful and not banned, the whole perception of Israel would shift drastically.  

I feel like whatever you think of Russia, this obsession with them is only a means to take people's attention away from the very real domestic issues America faces. Even during the election campaign, I felt like the whole thing was a freaking circus, they hardly reported on policy issues on concerns Americans face, it became just a story of oh Trump said this about women and muslims (and don't get me wrong, he is an awful human being) but I'd rather have heard genuine debate about policy and Hillary Clinton's past and the inconsistency between her words and actions. But identity politics took over much of the corporate media and the fact that she was female and had nicer rhetoric seemed to be enough to make her their favourite candidate. 

32 minutes ago, reisiger said:

To me, Assad and Putin are both criminals with no regard for human life, only holding onto power in Assad's case, and a drive to rebuild Imperial Russia in Putin's case.

I'm not sure what your opinions on Chomsky are, but he is a critic of Assad and the Iranian government, so I hope he would be an objective enough source for you. Even he in this video claims Russia's support of Assad is not about imperialism and that if you were to rank evil, US/Britain would be far above anyone else, including Russia. The journalist is really irritating in this video, he keeps interrupting him, so bear with him. Do you see why the hypocrisy irritates me? Its like when America influences other country's elections and overthrows their governments no one bats an eye, suddenly Russia supposedly interfered in one election and its suddenly a huge deal. i understand that it threatens democracy, but frankly the bigger threat to democracy is the corporate lobbyists and foreign interest groups that have huge sway on vetting candidates. When Bernie endorsed Hillary, he basically decided to let that particular threat to American democracy slide. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

^^Reisiger if this was shown on mainstream media, and then the idea that Israel still has a huge influence in influencing US elections and the lobby group advocating these kinds of policies is still powerful and not banned, the whole perception of Israel would shift drastically.  

I feel like whatever you think of Russia, this obsession with them is only a means to take people's attention away from the very real domestic issues America faces. Even during the election campaign, I felt like the whole thing was a freaking circus, they hardly reported on policy issues on concerns Americans face, it became just a story of oh Trump said this about women and muslims (and don't get me wrong, he is an awful human being) but I'd rather have heard genuine debate about policy and Hillary Clinton's past and the inconsistency between her words and actions. But identity politics took over much of the corporate media and the fact that she was female and had nicer rhetoric seemed to be enough to make her their favourite candidate. 

I'm not sure what your opinions on Chomsky are, but he is a critic of Assad and the Iranian government, so I hope he would be an objective enough source for you. Even he in this video claims Russia's support of Assad is not about imperialism and that if you were to rank evil, US/Britain would be far above anyone else, including Russia. The journalist is really irritating in this video, he keeps interrupting him, so bear with him. Do you see why the hypocrisy irritates me? Its like when America influences other country's elections and overthrows their governments no one bats an eye, suddenly Russia supposedly interfered in one election and its suddenly a huge deal. i understand that it threatens democracy, but frankly the bigger threat to democracy is the corporate lobbyists and foreign interest groups that have huge sway on vetting candidates. When Bernie endorsed Hillary, he basically decided to let that particular threat to American democracy slide. 

 

eh... sorry brother- I have to watch those after work.  Videos are blocked here.  I will though for sure.  I suggest looking into Senator Sanders, though.  He is the only elected official in this country that I think actually is honest.  Not perfect, but honest.

Chomsky is brilliant, and I've been a fan of his since Manufacturing Consent.  Howard Zinn was brilliant though.   People's History of the United States is the most honest history book I think I've ever read.  It is amazing. 

Anyway, I don't want to appear discourteous by not responding to the videos- got about 10 hours before I'm home again though.  ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
55 minutes ago, reisiger said:

eh... sorry brother- I have to watch those after work.  Videos are blocked here.  I will though for sure.  I suggest looking into Senator Sanders, though.  He is the only elected official in this country that I think actually is honest.  Not perfect, but honest.

Chomsky is brilliant, and I've been a fan of his since Manufacturing Consent.  Howard Zinn was brilliant though.   People's History of the United States is the most honest history book I think I've ever read.  It is amazing. 

Anyway, I don't want to appear discourteous by not responding to the videos- got about 10 hours before I'm home again though.  ugh.

I liked sanders during the campaign, though I had some concerns on his voting record on foreign policy issues in particular. On Israel/Palestine, I was really disappointed in him in 2014 when Israel was bombing Gazan schools, hospitals, shelters, children on a beach, he defended Israel's right to respond to Hamas rockets (by bombing civilians). 

I wasn't sure if he would follow through on the sympathy he had for the Palestinians during his campaign after watching that video.

There are certain people on YouTube who have criticized his record, though I suppose you can criticise anyone, however it's difficult for me to argue with anything they say; 

This too;

For me the biggest disappointment was when he endorsed Clinton, though you could say well he had to and it was symbolic, to me it was endorsing all her corruption and her shady ties to big oil, banks, defense contractors, gulf dictatorships etc. I think he would've done well to try and maybe run as an independent since he already had media coverage from the primaries. His views were left of the Democratic Party anyway, when he chose to be loyal to the party than to his values, i was pretty disappointed.

Anyway, lots of videos for you to watch bro :p. I'm also at work, but I can watch videos while I work, no ban here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, but on the endorsement matter; he was very nuanced with that.  He simply said that a trump presidency would be a disaster (fact) and that we must not have that.  He supported her, but did not endorse her.  In fact the result of their meetings was the most left wing platform ever for the Dems.  I think that we need to break this 2 party mess.  Washington warned against it; it isn't sanctioned in the constitution, etc.

As for Israel... Sanders was pretty silent on the issue as a whole.  That was disappointing to me too, but I don't think he is pro Israel. I can't see him going to jail for civil rights protests here and supporting Zionist apartheid at the same time, but I agree that it was disappointing.

Look further into it- he never endorsed Clinton directly.  The Democrats screwed him though, and screwed us all.  I won't lay it all on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but the party seemed intent on handing Clinton the nomination.  I called out my senator at a town hall over his support of Clinton over Sanders despite RI Democrats voting for Sanders overwhelmingly.

I still wouldn't be surprised if trump is the dajjal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, reisiger said:

Good points, but on the endorsement matter; he was very nuanced with that.  He simply said that a trump presidency would be a disaster (fact) and that we must not have that.  He supported her, but did not endorse her.  In fact the result of their meetings was the most left wing platform ever for the Dems.  I think that we need to break this 2 party mess.  Washington warned against it; it isn't sanctioned in the constitution, etc.

As for Israel... Sanders was pretty silent on the issue as a whole.  That was disappointing to me too, but I don't think he is pro Israel. I can't see him going to jail for civil rights protests here and supporting Zionist apartheid at the same time, but I agree that it was disappointing.

Look further into it- he never endorsed Clinton directly.  The Democrats screwed him though, and screwed us all.  I won't lay it all on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, but the party seemed intent on handing Clinton the nomination.  I called out my senator at a town hall over his support of Clinton over Sanders despite RI Democrats voting for Sanders overwhelmingly.

I still wouldn't be surprised if trump is the dajjal

Curious did you vote for Hillary or Stein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

^^Reisiger if this was shown on mainstream media, and then the idea that Israel still has a huge influence in influencing US elections and the lobby group advocating these kinds of policies is still powerful and not banned, the whole perception of Israel would shift drastically.  

I feel like whatever you think of Russia, this obsession with them is only a means to take people's attention away from the very real domestic issues America faces. Even during the election campaign, I felt like the whole thing was a freaking circus, they hardly reported on policy issues on concerns Americans face, it became just a story of oh Trump said this about women and muslims (and don't get me wrong, he is an awful human being) but I'd rather have heard genuine debate about policy and Hillary Clinton's past and the inconsistency between her words and actions. But identity politics took over much of the corporate media and the fact that she was female and had nicer rhetoric seemed to be enough to make her their favourite candidate. 

I'm not sure what your opinions on Chomsky are, but he is a critic of Assad and the Iranian government, so I hope he would be an objective enough source for you. Even he in this video claims Russia's support of Assad is not about imperialism and that if you were to rank evil, US/Britain would be far above anyone else, including Russia. The journalist is really irritating in this video, he keeps interrupting him, so bear with him. Do you see why the hypocrisy irritates me? Its like when America influences other country's elections and overthrows their governments no one bats an eye, suddenly Russia supposedly interfered in one election and its suddenly a huge deal. i understand that it threatens democracy, but frankly the bigger threat to democracy is the corporate lobbyists and foreign interest groups that have huge sway on vetting candidates. When Bernie endorsed Hillary, he basically decided to let that particular threat to American democracy slide. 

 

Chomsky has had a lot of positive things to say about Sanders and rightly so.  It was a very positive development, unprecedented in US history.  Just because you do not agree with some of his policies does not make him some corporate zionist sell out.  Bernie endorsed Hillary to help her defeat Trump, as he and many others felt that as evil as Hilary was, some of her key policies were better than Trump.  This includes Chomsky btw, who would have preferred Clinton over Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, King said:

Chomsky has had a lot of positive things to say about Sanders and rightly so.  It was a very positive development, unprecedented in US history.  Just because you do not agree with some of his policies does not make him some corporate zionist sell out.  Bernie endorsed Hillary to help her defeat Trump, as he and many others felt that as evil as Hilary was, some of her key policies were better than Trump.  This includes Chomsky btw, who would have preferred Clinton over Trump.

How much would he have caved in office? People were hopeful about Obama and he didn't deliver much unfortunately. And there are signs that he would have caved into the pressure. And about this lesser of two evils argument, its the case every 4 years man, how long before you actually stand up for the greater good and reject this premise of lesser evil? Sanders could've said you know what? I'm going to run as an independent, I have the media coverage, I am a known quantity, maybe he wouldn't have won and would've cost Hillary, but really even if I am to accept that she had few better policies, her negatives were so bad, that it made the difference marginal and highly insignificant in my view. Trump won anyway, even without Bernie being a candidate. You have to take these risks sometimes when you're an outsider.

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

How much would he have caved in office? People were hopeful about Obama and he didn't deliver much unfortunately. And there are signs that he would have caved into the pressure. And about this lesser of two evils argument, its the case every 4 years man, how long before you actually stand up for the greater good and reject this premise of lesser evil? Sanders could've said you know what? I'm going to run as an independent, I have the media coverage, I am a known quantity, maybe he wouldn't have won and would've cost Hillary, but really even if I am to accept that she had few better policies, her negatives were so bad, that it made the difference marginal and highly insignificant in my view. Trump won anyway, even without Bernie being a candidate. You have to take these risks sometimes when you're an outsider.

Sanders and Obama are very different.  Obama was just some young dude with hopeful rhetoric, nothing concrete, no real examination of what is wrong.  Obama was also heavily backed by large financial institutions.  He was more like Justin Trudeau in Canada, saying fluffy things but very little substance underneath.

As far as Trump vs Hilary is concerned, it just depends on how you look at things.  On serious issues of climate change and corporate taxes etc, Trump is not marginally worse, he is a lot worse.  This is not to say Hilary would have come close to doing anything substantial, but Trump has completely gone in the opposite direction.  Why do you think the stock market had a bonanza when he got elected?

The lesser or two evils strategy is just basic moral common sense.  I do not see how it is controversial.  If you only have 2 choices you have to pick the less worse of the two options, you can do so while still being heavily critical.  There are just too many lives at stake to not pick the lesser of two evils and let the worse guy win.  I personally despise Clinton more than Trump but climate change is a very serious issue, the republicans do not even admit anything is going on. Democrats are backed by the rich but the Republicans even more so.  The whole Sanders movement goes far beyond Sanders, it was backed by a lot of frustrated more left leaning working class people, so it must be mobilized into a more substantial force in the coming years.


As to how much Sanders would have caved? No one knows, I do not think he would have made a substantial difference especially in one term, but with enough popular working class support, he could have achieved a whole lot more than Obama.

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
40 minutes ago, King said:

The lesser or two evils strategy is just basic moral common sense.  I do not see how it is controversial.  If you only have 2 choices you have to pick the less worse of the two options, you can do so while still being heavily critical.  There are just too many lives at stake to not pick the lesser of two evils and let the worse guy win.  I personally despise Clinton more than Trump but climate change is a very serious issue, the republicans do not even admit anything is going on. Democrats are backed by the rich but the Republicans even more so.  The whole Sanders movement goes far beyond Sanders, it was backed by a lot of frustrated more left leaning working class people, so it must be mobilized into a more substantial force in the coming years.

I'll use the argument of George Galloway, one of my most respected politicians here, if Clinton pushed further on the no-fly zone policy in Syria, it would lead to a direct conflict with Russia, which means a nuclear war, and every other issue would be irrelevant. And you may think I'm exaggerating, look at videos of her laughing at Gadaffi's murder, her claims to obliterate Iran, she is absolutely nuts, I don't think she would hesitate to risk world war 3 if it meant her pockets got filled. She supported every single intervention, and yes maybe Trump is the same, but when you have someone threatening military action against Russia when a baseless claim was made in the campaign about a cyberattack, it is chilling indeed. She may be better on climate change, and corporate welfare, but the fact that if she pushed through on her other policies, that she made public over and over again, there wouldn't be nothing to discuss, WW3 would wipe us all out.

 

46 minutes ago, King said:

As far as Trump vs Hilary is concerned, it just depends on how you look at things.  On serious issues of climate change and corporate taxes etc, Trump is not marginally worse, he is a lot worse.  This is not to say Hilary would have come close to doing anything substantial, but Trump has completely gone in the opposite direction.  Why do you think the stock market had a bonanza when he got elected?

 Wasn't wallstreet backing Hillary?

I will tell you I was glad Hillary lost, not because Trump won, but because I thought it would be a signal to the democratic party, a similar candidate will not cut it. Unfortunately with the election of Tom Perez as DNC chair, they seemed to have learnt nothing, not that I liked Ellison much better, as he pushed for no-fly zones in Syria, but he was better on domestic issues, Perez was more establishment. The fact that Bernie continues to hold on to this lost cause of a party says to me he isn't brave enough to break loose of the chains that are keeping him from speaking out the values he stands for, or at least claims to. Bernie recently turned down an offer to lead a new independent party, at what point do you say enough is enough, its time to ditch the democratic party and start a movement. Look new movements are not easy and the system is built to work against you, but you have to start from somewhere, how much longer will you continue to hang on to a party which does not care about the people. Bernie has an advantage, he is known because he campaigned as a democrat, if he agrees to head a new movement, he will get more support than the green party will because people know who he is. He just has to be brave enough to tell the democrats where to go. Sam Ronan, who I think was the most progressive of all the DNC candidates did not receive a single vote, that's how messed up the party is. People blame racism and xenophobia for Trump's victory, and while those are undeniable facts that led to his victory, the democratic party was a big factor, their push for identity politics, political correctness and ignoring the voices of the tired population is a bigger factor in my book. Sadly, they've learnt nothing and I think its time Bernie, if he really stands for justice, to make the tough decision to tell the democrats where to go. Its time to stop hanging on to this ship that's already sunk. This is what has me doubt that Sanders would've lived up to his campaign promises, he continues to hang onto the party, which clearly has of recent not served the interests of the average American and has consistently advocated neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Development Team
8 hours ago, reisiger said:

Sadly, the experiment of 1787 failed in 2017 when they handed power to a tyrant who is far more dangerous than George III. 

I agreed with everything you said but what's this right here? King George III wasn't really a tyrant, he was just heavy handed with taxes and wanted to recover losses from the French and Indian War and the wealthy as usual didn't want to pay taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kirtc said:

@reisiger fighting ISIS and takfiri terrorist does not equal war criminal... your misinformation sets back these forums

Please substantiate your statement.  Do you mean my statements about Putin and Assad? History will judge both to be.  You are correct about fighting DAESH not making one a war criminal.  What does that is disregard for the rules of the Geneva convention.  Things like using civilian areas to hide weapons, dropping chlorine barrel bombs on ... well anyone, prisons where dissidents are tortured, etc., targeting medical facilities, ordering your military to strike targets twice to ensure that the civil defense groups pulling people out of rubble.

If you'd like to discuss it more, then I will be glad to, but I ask that you not make cavalier blanket statements about what is misinformation and the impact it has on others.  My entire academic background leading to my under grad political science and graduate degrees in international relations, I believe does qualify me to voice a position on the matter, and to simply allege misinformation and its consequence, well OK that's your opinion and I respect your right to it.  Sorry.

As it happens, I am correct and I can prove it.  I get the sense that everyone here has a giant love of Assad and Putin because they stand up to the west.  An enemy of an enemy is not a friend.

I am interested in why you believe my point is wrong, but as for setting back these forums? Not possible.  Maybe we can have another 1000 threads about masturbation and mutah, or why if you don't beat yourself bloody every Muharram, your a mukasir with no love for Imam Hussayn (AS).  But frankly, I feel SC is lots of 15 year old keyboard warriors and I'm about a centimeter away from asking the admins to delete me again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
58 minutes ago, reisiger said:

As it happens, I am correct and I can prove it.  I get the sense that everyone here has a giant love of Assad and Putin because they stand up to the west.  An enemy of an enemy is not a friend.

 

You're making assumptions, so simply because I asked why the oohaing and aahing about Putin when there are bigger issues, I love Putin? Just because I report things left out of Western media, such as the regime change operation that the US planned in Syria since 2006, the reports from journalists about armed elements in what Western media reported to be peaceful protests and opposing rebels that have beheaded twelve-year old children and are deemed moderate, I am pro-Assad? Look, Assad is not an angel, and if today you allowed for elections and allowed for genuine democratic opposition against him with no external interference, I would support that 100%, unfortunately that's not what I think would've happened had he stepped down in 2011, and more so if he were to step down now. The muslim brotherhood was a large element of the protests in 2011, and there were armaments smuggled in from other countries. In fact now even many that rebelled in the beginning calling for democracy, are now siding with the government, not because they like the government but because they dislike the opposition, which is mostly Al Qaeda affiliated groups and ISIS.  

58 minutes ago, reisiger said:

Things like using civilian areas to hide weapons, dropping chlorine barrel bombs on ... well anyone, prisons where dissidents are tortured, etc., targeting medical facilities, ordering your military to strike targets twice to ensure that the civil defense groups pulling people out of rubble.

 

Some of this has been proven to be propaganda narrative that has been pushed by the Western media. There has been evidence of the white helmets filming propaganda videos, evidence of people the western media has been relying on as sources notably Bana Alabed, Bilal AbdulKarim etc have been found standing next to Al Qaeda fighters. There have also been studies like an MIT study showing that the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta which was widely claimed in the West as one carried out by Assad was carried out by the rebels, if you take into account the geography and the mathematics behind it. As far as targeting hospitals, I'll give you an example of a case that was propaganda; So the Al Quds hospital, which was alleged in April 2016, to be attacked by either the Syrians or the Russians, but then there was satellite imagery showing the hospital was not attacked and was in the same shape as before. In fact, photographs of some hospitals which were previously attacked by Al Nusra forces previously were portrayed as evidence to show that the Syrian and the Russian government had bombed (another) hospital (So the hospital would exist, but the wrong image would be shown). 

Let me be 100% clear, I do not give Assad a free pass on everything and I'm sure there's plenty of bad/awful things he's done, but unlike the West would have you believe, its not just him vs. the Syrians, its a complicated war, there have been fighters coming from over a 100 countries. Assad is doing what any other leader would do, which doesn't make him good, it just makes him just yet another brutal leader. Had there been protests calling for real democracy but hijacked by armed insurgents, and the US would retaliate, would anyone blame them? No one would question their acts, so I think the fact that Assad is demonized to the extent he is, is just stupid. He may be bad, but he's not an anomaly in that he is not unlike a lot of other leaders. That's all we're saying.  Often the argument made is well Assad has killed more people than the opposition, and while this may be true, but give the opposition the same type of weaponry and see what they do. People often ask what if Assad had just stepped down in 2011? Firstly, we know from egypt that the replacement MB government for mubarak was so unpopular it lasted a mere 2 years. Secondly, with the MB being the dominant opposition force, there's very little doubt this would have developed into some form of sectarian government and you could've forgotten about democracy. Third, what about the pro-government protestors, did they not count? There are today testimonies of people thanking the SAA for liberating them from terrorists, their voices like the voices of those who oppose the government count too. I hope we can have some democratic transition in Syria, but unfortunately the rebel groups' record of terrorism shows us that they are not the saviours Syria needs. What they need is to be left alone to decide their own fate, not someone tell impose their type of government on them. 

There is a need to be a little nuanced on these issues, without name-calling (Assad/Putin/Iranian agent). Instead we should be debating actual instances and facts, which is a much more valuable use of our time. Plenty of non-Shias find Assad to be the better option of all bad options, do they have a sectarian bias too? Its just that they know a secular police state is better than a jihadist terror state, which is probably what Syria will become if Assad goes, unfortunately. 

Edited by Mohamed1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, reisiger said:

Please substantiate your statement.  Do you mean my statements about Putin and Assad? History will judge both to be.  You are correct about fighting DAESH not making one a war criminal.  What does that is disregard for the rules of the Geneva convention.  Things like using civilian areas to hide weapons, dropping chlorine barrel bombs on ... well anyone, prisons where dissidents are tortured, etc., targeting medical facilities, ordering your military to strike targets twice to ensure that the civil defense groups pulling people out of rubble.

If you'd like to discuss it more, then I will be glad to, but I ask that you not make cavalier blanket statements about what is misinformation and the impact it has on others.  My entire academic background leading to my under grad political science and graduate degrees in international relations, I believe does qualify me to voice a position on the matter, and to simply allege misinformation and its consequence, well OK that's your opinion and I respect your right to it.  Sorry.

As it happens, I am correct and I can prove it.  I get the sense that everyone here has a giant love of Assad and Putin because they stand up to the west.  An enemy of an enemy is not a friend.

I am interested in why you believe my point is wrong, but as for setting back these forums? Not possible.  Maybe we can have another 1000 threads about masturbation and mutah, or why if you don't beat yourself bloody every Muharram, your a mukasir with no love for Imam Hussayn (AS).  But frankly, I feel SC is lots of 15 year old keyboard warriors and I'm about a centimeter away from asking the admins to delete me again.

 

I wont discuss this because,  been discussed too many times. You can have 10000 phds and degrees and still know nothing. Im sorry im being harsh, but you deserve it. The stuff you mentioned - hiding weapons among civilians, chlorine bombs is all hasbara that is misinformation that you continue to pedal and do a service to our enemies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...