General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 73

Sanders is worlds better on foreign policy than Clinton from a philosophical perspective. Clinton might be "more knowledgeable" in the sense that she, you know, served as Secretary of State for 4 years and is more plugged in, but her approach to foreign policy is morally bankrupt, as evidenced by some of her moves during her time with the Obama administration. There's no disputing that she is a neocon and well to the right of many Republicans on foreign policy.

 

I agree that she is more interventionist than Bernie Sanders and even more so than Obama. I think calling her "well to the right of many Republicans on foreign policy" is an exaggeration without any factual basis. She voted for the War in Iraq, sure. So did a lot of Senate Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, the other Senator from NY. There was a lot of pressure from New Yorkers since 9/11 happened right there just 2 years prior. Every single Republican in the Senate (except for Lincoln Chafee who later switched parties) voted for the Iraq war. Most Republicans are also promising committing troops to fight ISIS, which is to the right of Hillary's position. And the rhetoric coming from the right is far more extreme. "Carpet bombing" "Go after their families". I have never heard Hillary say anything like that.

But you're right, Bernie is less interventionist. Does that make him "better" on foreign policy? I don't think so. In fact, I would argue that it is a politically convenient position. You can always say that the US should never go to war or intervene in another country's affairs and people will love it, of course, because nobody wants to go to war. Even Donald Trump is using this line of attack, calling the Iraq War a disaster (even though he previously supported it) because it has a nice, populist ring to it. But, unfortunately, taking the moral high ground on foreign policy and not taking an active involvement in US and World security can cause instability that affects everyone. Do I want the US to kill people? No, in a perfect world we would not have to. But we live in the real world, and sometimes hard choices need to be made to maintain global security and prevent the rise of fascist regimes.

 

yeah....Clinton definitely had to help overthrow that democratically elected government in Honduras and put in one that murders indigenous people and definitely had to make sure the minimum wage in Haiti was <50c. for the good of the world right

 

Its been a while since I took a US Government class but I'm pretty sure the US Secretary of State does not set the minimum wage for Honduras, or command the military of Honduras.

My understanding of the situation in Honduras was that there was a coup, the country became politically unstable, and the US decided to look out for their interests. Hillary did not lead the troops into battle to overthrow the Honduran government. Not every country's problems can be blamed entirely on the United States, contrary to popular belief.

 

Dominick and I are likely of opposing viewpoints on this matter, but, in my eyes, you need not embrace neoliberalism, especially at the expense of foreign nations in the form of exploitation of resources and nefarious meddling with those nations' work on behalf of their people, to be capitalistic. I don't condone overthrowing the capitalist economy, but I can still oppose neoliberalism in its worst incarnations and endorse a more egalitarian capitalist economy.

But no one is discouraging working from the ground. Anyone who thought electing a social democrat would reverse the system instantly was at best naive and at worst a moron.

At what point did the Tea Party make concessions in the form of electing someone contrary to their espoused interests? You are comparing apples and oranges. The interests of Tea Partiers were entirely consistent with the political establishment at their disposal.

Who here is claiming some sort of legion of progressives?

Hillary got more votes. If there was no shitty activity on the part of the DNC, she still would have most likely gotten more votes, partially due to the will of the people being shaped by the external forces that are symbiotic with how the DNC is ran.

You misread. I said that equating voting third party to apathy or abstinence was fucking stupid.

 

No, I'm saying that their existence is wedded to the retention of neoliberal orthodoxy and capitalism more generally, so seeking out remedies to the ailments of the system is not to be found there. But, to answer your initial question: neoliberalism refers to the period that came after the post-war boom. The crisis of profitability in western capitalist countries elicited an offensive by the capitalist class that targeted unions, the welfare state, regulations,etc. In other words, it is a project to profilerate market mechanisms in all aspects of life, reducing any public expenditures, any levers of resistance and, whilst suppressing standards of living across the board, particularly in the black community, transposing the costs on to workers. This is a project to which democrats are committed. Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines; Bill Clinton took a sledge hammer to the welfare state, contributed significantly to the rise of prisons as a source of labor; he eliminated regulations on finance capital. Obama's signature accomplishement is streamlining healthcare consumerism and private health insurance according to more "rational" market mechanisms. The transpacific partnership is the newest iteration of NAFTA, where workers are further subject to the whims of the global marketplace, both in America and abroad. This is what I mean when I say neoliberalism. This is a trend that cannot be reversed, because the dominant political parties understand the health of the capitalist as the health of Americans in general, so the needs of capital will always be first; the sense that workers are doing worse is seen as something which occurs as economies change, but economies change in a very specific way for very specific reasons and when it is to the detriment of those who depend upon wages to live, it is for the capitalist class.

 

I didn't claim any of those things. However, she took action as secretary of state that influenced heavily the Haitian government's actions with regard to their minimum wage and that allowed the new Honduran government to take a particularly brutal character. I find it hard to believe that this was in service of "global security" and "preventing fascism."

 

Literally her entire record supports this. Neocons themselves say this all the time

“Hillary is more hawkish than any of us!” former Mitt Romney foreign policy advisor Dan Senor said. “She just compared Putin and the Russians to Nazis.”

The New York Times even did a profile on her hawkishness which called her "the last true hawk in the race." [/quote]

I'm not even talking about her Iraq vote, which was awful, but her entire record of supporting every single war and intervention she could.

This isn't about rhetoric, this is about policy. And her rhetoric certainly is awful as well. She promised to "obliterate" Iran in 2008 after all.

Yes it does.

Haha what? If you think non-intervention is the politically convenient position you're delusional.

Except the political class.

You realize that US intervention has caused tons of instability right? Name a US-only intervention that hasn't caused more instability in the region. Just name one.

You're justifying murder based on what exactly here?

Oh so Hillary has supported fascist, dictatorial regimes/leaders (Israel, the Saudi regime, the military-backed coup in Honduras, Mubarak, Assad, approved arms deals for Algeria, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, etc) to prevent the rise of fascist regimes. I see now.

 

It seems like you are claiming it here.

Also, I am not saying you are wrong, but it would be nice to have some sources if you are going to make claims like that.

 

keyword in that post is "help" which implies a degree of, but not complete, responsibility


Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti

Hillary Clinton Suppressed Haiti's Minimum Wage?

Hear Hillary Clinton Defend Her Role in Honduras Coup When Questioned by Juan González | Democracy Now!

How Hillary Clinton Militarized US Policy in Honduras

OPINION: Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath

Did Hillary Clinton's State Department help suppress the minimum wage in Haiti?

Hillary’s State Department Stopped Haiti From Increasing Its Minimum Wage to 61 Cents

Flashback: When Hillary Clinton moved to 'aggressively block' Haiti from raising minimum wage — to 62 cents

WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day

 

Clinton needed Obamas consent or approval, ultimately the White House controlls foreign policy decisions.
The political process in Central American was/is fucked up for decades now, for different reasons, the US (before Obama/Clinton) did already destabilized the region in different ways. I'm not saying what Obama/Clinton decided to do was the right thing to do, but it's not like they are they only two people in Washington making wrong decisions regarding Central America. Countries there have seen conflict arise from militaristic socialists supported by Sanders and his philosophical perspective.

Also: Sanders stance on the NATO doesn't differ much from Trumps. Both potential presidents are making eastern European countries extremly nervous and it's not like they weren't already on the verge of a nervous breakdown regarding Russia before these two showed up.

 

Holy shit lol

Yes, it was the socialists who caused conflicts in Central and South America. After all, their agreement with Sanders, which pretty much only crosses over in terms of worker rights and modestly lowering income inequality, is just so horrible.

Also, in terms of murdering brown people for profit, you're not painting an allegiance with American liberals in a very good light.

 

No, you're right. They aren't the only ones who have supported brutal leaders or policies, which is emblematic of the depravity of the dominant electoral parties.

 

If a repressive right-wing dictatorship was determined to kill you, your family, your fellow citizens, you'd be militaristic. There is no middle ground at that point. If you think you wouldn't, then there, as now, you're part of the problem.

 

It's really hard to have thoughtful discussions on solutions for current problems when the vast majority on this site believes there is no solution that exists in today's world. If one person says "here is a problem here is how I think we can fix it" The answer is always that the solution presented is not socialist so therefor wrong. The only solution provided back is that we need to start a grassroots campaign for socialism and hope and pray that they world destroys itself. That if the body count gets high enough maybe people will buy into our political revolution, and if they don't they must be killed. If this sounds familiar, it's the same process that took the lives of over 100 million people in our history.

 

Socialism is a goal. There are reforms that need to take place to make people's lives better. Many of the people are fighting for a fifteen dollar an hour minion wage or against police violence. These are goals things that can be fought for and gains made in the here and now. The critique of solutions offered up isn't to advocate an appeal to a far off future, but to get to the content of their solution and how it is situated within society as it actually exists. Similarly, no one is trying to increase the body count to forge a revolution. There's no political content behind slaughter for the sake of it. Speaking for myself, I understand it will be necessary. A lot of people, a lot of white people, will have to die. So be it.

 

Great, I'm leaving this thread. That's FUCKING FUCKED UP.

 

It's nice to see that you're just as informed and as invested in the left-right dichotomy as you were before you even posted here.

The only "solution" being rejected in partisanship that is accepting of exploitation and slaughter as a means of preventing a theoretical series of exploitation and slaughter that is to some degree worse. If you have a solution other than "shut your eyes and vote Democrat no matter what to fight Republicans," by all means articulate it. I'm not saying that you or others don't, but that seems to be the sticking point that this thread constantly devolves into again and again.

 

I don't see how this post is relevant to the current discussion on why Clinton's foreign policy is fucked, it doesn't take a socialist to see that, just any person with a basic grasp of international law and human rights. And there are far fewer revolutionary socialists on this site than you are making it seem.

 

yeah...all that conflict in South America, mostly socialists' fault. like remember when Chile had a democratically elected socialist replaced by a US backed military dictator that disappeared thousands of people? how could the socialists do that, man

 

I know, but Dom just said he would be fine if a lot of white people were slaughtered. I think most people just want to see someone like Bernie to try and see if we can make the world a better place. Like I said though, I will not participate on a site that advocates the murdering of people, even if it's in the name of trying to stop other murders.

Edit: Not saying anyone else is saying that, but if Dom is allowed on this thread I don't think we can have a productive discussion.

 

What is your solution? I've already said I am fine moving the Bernie direction, but the world will keep moving and people need to come to real solutions that can actually happen.

 

Or how about when that democratically and ultra-popular elected Venezuelan guy had a military coup against him funded after he earned the hearts of the poor and considerably improved his country through leftist enactments.

*also, note his sentiment towards neoliberalism near the beginning in the airplane scene-- it's appropriate*

 

Working at a grassroots level, from the bottom up, and not feeling guilty for not voting for a monster to prevent the election of another monster when doing so actively enables and empowers a system of exploitation and corruption.

People severely underestimate the significance of a Jill Stein stealing 5% from the Democratic Party and what that would do to the trajectory of the party (Democratic or Green) and how much it would empower marginalized voters, even if the short-term end result has a fucky haircut.

Also, in terms of this tired argument

 

Would you call a slave that murdered their master a murderer?