Hillary won more votes for President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OANTwOQUbuY

rssesq said:

She opens up the ass kissing spectacle that is the AIPAC convention in about 5 mins.
SELL OUTS! Say hello Lloyd Blankfein, the entire Federal Reserve and soon to be 4 of 5 Supreme Court justices. For a 3% population, that aint to shabby. Laugh or you might wanna cry.

http://stopaipacforpeace.blogspot.com/

What is your point exactly?

JimmyV said:

Hillary Clinton is running to the right of Donald Trump on Israel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-donald-trump/index.html

This should surprise no one. Hillary has always taken this position. It will be interesting to see if Trump sticks to that mantra in his speech today. He's said basically nothing of substance on the subject thus far.

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Hillary Clinton is running to the right of Donald Trump on Israel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-donald-trump/index.html

This should surprise no one. Hillary has always taken this position. It will be interesting to see if Trump sticks to that mantra in his speech today. He's said basically nothing of substance on the subject thus far.

It surprised me. The Democratic frontrunner is running to the right of a Republican candidate who is being routinely referred to as a fascist? That is a problem.

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Hillary Clinton is running to the right of Donald Trump on Israel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-donald-trump/index.html

This should surprise no one. Hillary has always taken this position. It will be interesting to see if Trump sticks to that mantra in his speech today. He's said basically nothing of substance on the subject thus far.

It surprised me. The Democratic frontrunner is running to the right of a Republican candidate who is being routinely referred to as a fascist? That is a problem.

I'm not sure that the 'Trump is a fascist' argument and Hillary being more pro-Israel than Trump are connected in any way. In fact, since fascism is generally connected to ultra-nationalism, there is almost a dichotomy between the two positions.

I've never been particularly comfortable with how close we are with Israel, but much of my discomfort comes from the Likud party and Bibby specifically. If there was another moderate that supported a two state solution, I would absolutely support continued military funding while pulling back on the settlements.

JimmyV said:

I don't know what the Democrats are doing anymore. I really don't.

The Democrats have always been pro-Israel. This is not a new position. The change that MAY be occurring is that Trump is getting to the left of Hillary on this issue, vs. most GOP which are more pro-Likud. Although I wouldn't count on it yet, we have to see Trump's speech on it. All he has said thus far is that he would be 'neutral'.

^ I don't quite understand your point though. The Dems are positioning themselves precisely where they've always positioned themselves on the issue. Hillary has always supported a two state solution. If that changes, it would be very disappointing. It wouldn't be enough for me to turn to Trump, but I would disagree with it vehemently. Bernie's view on it is meaningless to me. He isn't winning the nomination and I live in VA. We already had our primary.

My point is that Hillary is firmly planted where Clinton and Obama were planted on Israel. It's Trump that is the wild card here. And just because he gets to the left (maybe) of Hillary, doesn't mean she should move further left. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

mrussel1 said:

My intent was to spin the coup in precisely the opposite way that the previous poster did, to point out how easy it is to paint something one way or the other, using incendiary language. The truth is probably somewhere in between. But here are some things that are interesting to me:

1. If Zelaya was simply a benevolent reformer, why didn't he leave those altruistic projects to his successor? He could not have implemented those reforms by the time he left office and if he didn't want to stay (his argument), why float the referendum? If those projects are what the people wanted, wouldn't a successor have been elected to continue the reforms?

2. Clinton Derangement Syndrome...again. Was Obama a lackey? A rube? A neophyte that was under the spell of the power wielding Clinton? Did I miss the change in the Constitution where the Sec'y of State calls all the shots? Where there are no Joint Chiefs, DOD, Cabinet Meetings.. no POTUS? Clinton bashers tend to lay all the decisions of the OBAMA administration at the feet Clinton, as if she wasn't implemented the policy of the POTUS. I find it interesting that we lay Iraq at the feet of W (not Powell) but everything from 2008-12 is Clinton's call. And Kerry continues the same policies.

And yes, it is Realpolitik. It's precisely that unless you start from the position that the Obama administration orchestrated the coup, which I've never seen from any credible source.

1. I may be wrong, but that is exactly how I read that it would have happened....the referendum was part of the election, so his successor would have continued the reforms. Which leads me to believe he floated them for the betterment of the country, because he felt it was the right thing to do. I'm not exactly well-versed in the situation there, but there are definitely two sides to this story and the story most common outside the US is not in alignment with the story presented within it.
2. It's not Hilary derangement, it's system derangement. The fact that the dem's chose to put her face on the mess in Honduras does not mean it was all her fault, nor that Obama was not involved. It means she is complicit and more than willing to continue empire building. Zelaya was working for a minimum wage increase - Honduras along with Haiti are the standard bearers for slave labour wages in the west...wage increases would have had a domino affect thru all of our client states down there. That would be unacceptable to our business interests. Land reforms would have affected the bottom line of the palm oil biz and hurt the handful of ruling families in that country. Unacceptable. I'm going to go out on a limb (without researching) and say that the massive infrastructure projects now underway were based on IMF austerity/privatization based loans that will cripple Honduras for decades and benefit no one but the upper class, as per usual....and Zelaya was fighting these deals. Unacceptable. If these reforms worked, and the socialist agenda kept gaining momentum along with their continued alignment with our leftist rivals, there would likely have been a movement to remove the US military from their country....unacceptable. It seems you're arguing both sides of the coin here - ' we didn't organize the coup, we only supported it afterwards...but if we did organize it, it's because of zelaya's ambitions'. Do you really need 'a credible source' to see the never-ending pattern of SA governments being overthrown by the aristocracy, working hand in glove with the US establishment? Hits in the mob world may not involve the godfather or his henchmen....but you can bet damn sure the family pulling the trigger asked the godfather for permission, knowing their actions need to be cleared or they risk his wrath. Knowing the coup government have been advised by US lobbyists with personal ties to the US establishment (the clintons), it would appear they at the very least, had a green light. If continuing aid for a coup government makes the dem's work there truly altruistic, then I guess you're right - realpolitik.

I don't think informed people lay Iraq at the feet of W....they lay it at the feet of a system that encourages economic growth over human rights. A system that Hillary is as entrenched in as any politician on the planet. Which takes me back to my original point: the world awaits a candidate that will remove the view of the US as a major threat to peace. Is it unrealistic to expect a candidate to rock the boat that floats them? of course. Does that mean I should support her as the lesser of two evils? Fuck no. Same goes with the Dem's ongoing support of the apartheid regime in Israel. We can wish there was a true partner for peace in power there, but the fact remains that there is not, and will not be anytime soon, given the recent polls showing the population's increasingly hostile attitude toward arabs, and the cabinet postings given to MK's from the extremist right Jewish Home party. Yet there is no wavering in support for their government, nor any financial consequence to these developments - Clinton proves this with her AIPAC speech. This further demonstrates that Clinton is just another foreign policy hawk working toward the same over-arching imperialist goals as the GOP. Generally speaking, the Dems may save american lives by focusing more on subversion and regime change by propping up opposition leaders/encouraging coups, no-fly zones, and drone kill lists to maintain hegemony, instead of the GOP/neo con tactic of air strikes and occasional boots on the groud. BOTH parties push a neo-liberal agenda for their financial backers and advisors. This doesn't make a whole lot of difference to the people of the country being fucked with. Ask a Syrian or a Libyan or a Ukrainian et al whether they'd prefer foreign involvement to come in the form of aircraft carriers and F18's, or drones and corrupted locals.
*getting on high horse*
I get pretty disillusioned when I see people acknowledge the systemic problems with western imperialism, yet they feel the lesser of two evils argument puts them in a position that they need to defend their less-evil side. If people want to compromise their morality in order to keep the other side's monster out of office, have at it (I personally can't live with a vote for anyone who doesn't at least somewhat reflect my beliefs). But we all need to be honest with ourselves at how much we are willing to defend the lesser evil side. We should all be criticizing both sides of the aisle until we're comfortable with what they are presenting to us.

^ There's too much in here to argue point by point. I agree with some of what you say, but disagree vehemently with some other things that I believe are conjecture or conclusions based on the most negative possible analysis.

But most importantly, I'm not arguing both sides of the coin. I'm saying the Obama administration handled the situation in the past way they could. Considering I don't believe they orchestrated a coup, what were they to do? Invade militarily in order to reinstall Zelaya? Of course not. That's even more aggressive power, wielding it from the left. So you manage the situation you have, not the one you want.

As far as our hawkish stance across the world, I'm in agreement. I'm a conservative when it comes to foreign affairs (note, as opposed to neo-liberal). It pains me when I see all the aid to Israel. Moreover, I'm Ukrainian (my real last name is Rosul, not the Americanized Russell). So I would have loved to have the US help my country fight off the Beast in the East. But one thing I have learned is to be a pragmatist. A person can withhold their vote or go third party. They are welcome to do that. But the last time that happened in force was in 2000. And Ralph Nader earned 97k votes in FL. That gave us a Bush Presidency. GOPers will say the same thing about 92 and Perot. So I respect that option, but no thanks for me. I may have to take a lesser bad option considering I'm again living in a swing state (VA).