US Presidential Race

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

I didnt say Most African Americans were muslim, I said they were the largest group and wikipedia agrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Arab muslims from all nations in origin are only one percentage point higher than them from looking, and Asians only a few higher than that. This is a group Hillary has dominated with

Footyfan does make an interesting point about Israel, and the jewish vote. Sanders lived in Israel, but lags behind Hillary in the Jewish opinion. Their opinion is important because they are some of the more loyal democratic voters in this country, and the Jewish state is probably our closest ally Its probably a big issue if Jewish people do not feel he is their friend.

FennecFox7 wrote:Not just muslim voters. I'm atheist.

How about voters who give a shit about innocent children and women. *bleep* the race card footy. I absolutely love Bernie for his stance on Palestine.

So you must adore Obama's stance then

Betty La Fea wrote:I didnt say Most African Americans were muslim, I said they were the largest group and wikipedia agrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Arab muslims from all nations in origin are only one percentage point higher than them from looking, and Asians only a few higher than that. This is a group Hillary has dominated with

Footyfan does make an interesting point about Israel, and the jewish vote. Sanders lived in Israel, but lags behind Hillary in the Jewish opinion. Their opinion is important because they are some of the more loyal democratic voters in this country, and the Jewish state is probably our closest ally Its probably a big issue if Jewish people do not feel he is their friend.

where did that term come from. calling black people African English would not go down well in England.

Pedram wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

Please let's not praise the 70s as if they were the gold standard of politics, the democratic party has shifted economically to the right, true, but that's a good thing. Free trade beats the hell out of things like import tariffs and draconian taxes. In Europe too all the social democrat parties have shifted to the right. This is because free trade works. There is a debate to be had about the size of the social safety net, but if you look at the very definition of the nordic model you'll find this: "This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level". The question is how to redistribute the income generated from free trade to get everyone a higher living standard, but not the basis of free trade itself.

Bernie Sander is a dinosaur who is far more to the left than any of the parties he claims to model himself after in their current iterations.

Unique wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:I didnt say Most African Americans were muslim, I said they were the largest group and wikipedia agrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Arab muslims from all nations in origin are only one percentage point higher than them from looking, and Asians only a few higher than that. This is a group Hillary has dominated with

Footyfan does make an interesting point about Israel, and the jewish vote. Sanders lived in Israel, but lags behind Hillary in the Jewish opinion. Their opinion is important because they are some of the more loyal democratic voters in this country, and the Jewish state is probably our closest ally Its probably a big issue if Jewish people do not feel he is their friend.

where did that term come from. calling black people African English would not go down well in England.

It wouldnt go down well because, from what I have seen most black people in England either came from a Caribbean Island(Thus the term West Indian applies) or are from a very specific former English or French colony in Africa where they are able to claim as an identifier. African American comes out of a specific nation not existing for most African Americans.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Pedram wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

Please let's not praise the 70s as if they were the gold standard of politics, the democratic party has shifted economically to the right, true, but that's a good thing. Free trade beats the hell out of things like import tariffs and draconian taxes. In Europe too all the social democrat parties have shifted to the right. This is because free trade works. There is a debate to be had about the size of the social safety net, but if you look at the very definition of the nordic model you'll find this: "This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level". The question is how to redistribute the income generated from free trade to get everyone a higher living standard, but not the basis of free trade itself.

Bernie Sander is a dinosaur who is far more to the left than any of the parties he claims to model himself after in their current iterations.

Free trade has been a net positive for everybody. Sanders plays off the fears of xenophobic union leaders by speaking against it.

While it is very smart of him, those of us who are not in that bubble are terrified of it. An Asian American man in the 80's was even killed after such populist ideas lead some car workers to believe the yellow terror was coming for their jobs

His name was Vincent Chin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Vincent_Chin

Betty La Fea wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:Not just muslim voters. I'm atheist.

How about voters who give a shit about innocent children and women. *bleep* the race card footy. I absolutely love Bernie for his stance on Palestine.

So you must adore Obama's stance then

a) Unlike Obama, we actually have a little bit of hope Sanders' stance will manifest in different foreign policy
b) Hillary is clearly more right than Obama on this issue and the most recent debate rammed that home

Cruijf wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:Not just muslim voters. I'm atheist.

How about voters who give a shit about innocent children and women. *bleep* the race card footy. I absolutely love Bernie for his stance on Palestine.

So you must adore Obama's stance then

a) Unlike Obama, we actually have a little bit of hope Sanders' stance will manifest in different foreign policy
b) Hillary is clearly more right than Obama on this issue and the most recent debate rammed that home

How would you specifically change the foreign policy? Netanyahu, and Israel hates Obama for the most part because he has spoken out against their settlements, and the way they have treated the people in the Arab territory. What else could he realistically do?

Betty La Fea wrote:

Unique wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:I didnt say Most African Americans were muslim, I said they were the largest group and wikipedia agrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics

Arab muslims from all nations in origin are only one percentage point higher than them from looking, and Asians only a few higher than that. This is a group Hillary has dominated with

Footyfan does make an interesting point about Israel, and the jewish vote. Sanders lived in Israel, but lags behind Hillary in the Jewish opinion. Their opinion is important because they are some of the more loyal democratic voters in this country, and the Jewish state is probably our closest ally Its probably a big issue if Jewish people do not feel he is their friend.

where did that term come from. calling black people African English would not go down well in England.

It wouldnt go down well because, from what I have seen most black people in England either came from a Caribbean Island(Thus the term West Indian applies) or are from a very specific former English or French colony in Africa where they are able to claim as an identifier. African American comes out of a specific nation not existing for most African Americans.

but in England we don't label black people at all. if your black and English then your English. if your black and African your African.

VendettaRed07 wrote:

I didn't lie about anything. Its a fact. The time they spent in the senate together they voted the same way 93% of the time. Picking out a single vote from 2002, doesn't change their similar voting records; especially considering Bernie was not a senator at that time.

Most Democrats in Congress will have similar voting records. Means jackshit imo. Your voting record does not signify how progressive you are. You could have a moderate and a progressive agree on a moderate issue. That doesn't make the moderate a progressive. You can only differentiate if there were a significant number of progressive issues actually on the table in the Congress. That's not the case. Most bills are moderate issues/common sense measures/issues that many people agree on.

Anyway, Hillary all the way. Bernie the socialist will raise my taxes to obscene levels and I'm not going to remain in the US to take advantage of them (free university for my kids, universal health care in my middle-age/later years, bigger pensions etc).

Betty La Fea wrote:

Cruijf wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

So you must adore Obama's stance then

a) Unlike Obama, we actually have a little bit of hope Sanders' stance will manifest in different foreign policy
b) Hillary is clearly more right than Obama on this issue and the most recent debate rammed that home

How would you specifically change the foreign policy? Netanyahu, and Israel hates Obama for the most part because he has spoken out against their settlements, and the way they have treated the people in the Arab territory. What else could he realistically do?

Cut aid, institute economic sanctions, even just condemn their actions more clearly without the mandatory 30 minute preamble of Israel having the right to defend themselves before the 30 second soundbite about Palestinians deserving dignity.  

The US has tremendous power in their foreign policy and has used it very effectively against countries like Iraq and Iran. Why not Israel?

Even just supporting Palestine more. Why can't the US recognize them as a state, provide them with military support to defend themselves against occupiers, and provide them with more humanitarian aid?

Are you guys seriously suggesting Bernie Sanders, who lived in Israel, has Israeli relatives and is Jewish, will be an avid supporter of the Palestinian cause? He'll say all the right things, but when it comes to doing he will do what is best for Israel, as will any US president for that matter.

When it comes to this issue the best hope for Palestinians might be Trump, who claims to be neutral about Israel, but we know his stance on Muslims so...

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Are you guys seriously suggesting Bernie Sanders, who lived in Israel, has Israeli relatives and is Jewish, will be an avid supporter of the Palestinian cause? He'll say all the right things, but when it comes to doing he will do what is best for Israel, as will any US president for that matter.

When it comes to this issue the best hope for Palestinians might be Trump, who claims to be neutral about Israel, but we know his stance on Muslims so...

You have got to be kidding me. Shocked and disappointed by such blatant discrimination from someone I had great respect for as a poster. None of these things have even a remote effect on Sanders' ability to be neutral and support the Palestinians. What we can judge him by is his rhetoric, which has been infinitely better than any presidential candidate in recent memory.

What are you talking about? I think they have a great effect on his ability to be neutral. He has family ties there. Even if he tries to be neutral it will inevitably come into play.

And in any case I don't see anything in his rhetoric that aims to be different:

Jewish Heritage: Bernie is Jewish, but he does not favor Israel over the Palestinians, nor does he otherwise let his religion influence his positions regarding the conflict.

Two-State Solution: Bernie believes that Israel and the Palestinians can, and should, peacefully co-exist, and that Palestinians should have a country of their own.

On Netanyahu & Iran: Bernie is not a big supporter of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and believes that diplomacy, not military action or economic sanctions, can keep Israel safe from Iran.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/

The last 2 paragraphs could have been written about Obama, it doesn't read like a change to me. The US supports a 2 state solution, Israel doesn't and will continue to build settlements on Palestinian territory. What will happen when they do this? Will Bernie threaten to withdraw military, economic or any sort of aid? Very unlikely in my opinion.

Cruijf wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Cruijf wrote:


a) Unlike Obama, we actually have a little bit of hope Sanders' stance will manifest in different foreign policy
b) Hillary is clearly more right than Obama on this issue and the most recent debate rammed that home

How would you specifically change the foreign policy? Netanyahu, and Israel hates Obama for the most part because he has spoken out against their settlements, and the way they have treated the people in the Arab territory. What else could he realistically do?

Cut aid, institute economic sanctions, even just condemn their actions more clearly without the mandatory 30 minute preamble of Israel having the right to defend themselves before the 30 second soundbite about Palestinians deserving dignity.  

The US has tremendous power in their foreign policy and has used it very effectively against countries like Iraq and Iran. Why not Israel?

I understand where you are coming from .

While I see that point I do think it is not viable, for any politician, at this time. We are a nation devoted to protecting the interest of the Jewish state, and for good reason. During the holocaust many Jews were condemned to their death by being turned away by our government, and that is a true national shame. We have to do what we can to maintain a strong connection with a nation we will always have a strong bond with. That is a commitment to Jews that we owe to them.

I do think the best, and most humane, course of action would to continue to advocate a two state solution, and Hillary has pretty strong experience in pushing for this.

Unfortunately I think Betty is right here.

Not to mention the whole "having a powerful ally in the middle east, even if they're the bully" thing is something we're interested in actually having over there.

Not that I think any of that is right, or to disagree with you Cruijf, simply that from the US standpoint and from a presidential standpoint, I'm not really sure how much of a viable option it is for us to turn our back on Israel like that.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:What are you talking about? I think they have a great effect on his ability to be neutral. He has family ties there. Even if he tries to be neutral it will inevitably come into play.

And in any case I don't see anything in his rhetoric that aims to be different:

Jewish Heritage: Bernie is Jewish, but he does not favor Israel over the Palestinians, nor does he otherwise let his religion influence his positions regarding the conflict.

Two-State Solution: Bernie believes that Israel and the Palestinians can, and should, peacefully co-exist, and that Palestinians should have a country of their own.

On Netanyahu & Iran: Bernie is not a big supporter of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and believes that diplomacy, not military action or economic sanctions, can keep Israel safe from Iran.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-israel-and-the-palestinians/

The last 2 paragraphs could have been written about Obama, it doesn't read like a change to me. The US supports a 2 state solution, Israel doesn't and will continue to build settlements on Palestinian territory. What will happen when they do this? Will Bernie threaten to withdraw military, economic or any sort of aid? Very unlikely in my opinion.

Very unlikely? Sure.

Discounting a presidential candidate because of his race/religion? Too far. And you know it. Don't ever say that again or I lose all my respect for you.

Also, regardless if it does happen, his stance on it is the only stance that has any type of support for the palestineans. And if you want to talk about someone not keeping promises, it won't be Bernie, it'll be that snake Hillary.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
When it comes to this issue the best hope for Palestinians might be Trump

Over Sanders? You have officially gone full crazy

                                 

Betty La Fea wrote:

Cruijf wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:


How would you specifically change the foreign policy? Netanyahu, and Israel hates Obama for the most part because he has spoken out against their settlements, and the way they have treated the people in the Arab territory. What else could he realistically do?

Cut aid, institute economic sanctions, even just condemn their actions more clearly without the mandatory 30 minute preamble of Israel having the right to defend themselves before the 30 second soundbite about Palestinians deserving dignity.  

The US has tremendous power in their foreign policy and has used it very effectively against countries like Iraq and Iran. Why not Israel?

I understand where you are coming from .

While I see that point I do think it is not viable, for any politician, at this time. We are a nation devoted to protecting the interest of the Jewish state, and for good reason. During the holocaust many Jews were condemned to their death by being turned away by our government, and that is a true national shame. We have to do what we can to maintain a strong connection with a nation we will always have a strong bond with. That is a commitment to Jews that we owe to them.

I do think the best, and most humane, course of action would to continue to advocate a two state solution, and Hillary has pretty strong experience in pushing for this.

Really, so killing arabs and innocent children because something that happened in Europe is justifiable because hey it's the jews, they've had it rough.

I don't see anyone saying Algeria should colonize and subjugate France because half of our population was decimated by them over the course of the last two centuries. And the middle east had NOTHING to do with the holocaust

But you know, hey, all the arabs are bloodthirsty muslims aligned with Hamas so kill them all!

FennecFox7 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Cruijf wrote:


Cut aid, institute economic sanctions, even just condemn their actions more clearly without the mandatory 30 minute preamble of Israel having the right to defend themselves before the 30 second soundbite about Palestinians deserving dignity.  

The US has tremendous power in their foreign policy and has used it very effectively against countries like Iraq and Iran. Why not Israel?

I understand where you are coming from .

While I see that point I do think it is not viable, for any politician, at this time. We are a nation devoted to protecting the interest of the Jewish state, and for good reason. During the holocaust many Jews were condemned to their death by being turned away by our government, and that is a true national shame. We have to do what we can to maintain a strong connection with a nation we will always have a strong bond with. That is a commitment to Jews that we owe to them.

I do think the best, and most humane, course of action would to continue to advocate a two state solution, and Hillary has pretty strong experience in pushing for this.

Really, so killing arabs and innocent children because something that happened in Europe is justifiable because hey it's the jews, they've had it rough.

I don't see anyone saying Algeria should colonize and subjugate France because half of our population was decimated by them over the course of the last two centuries. And the middle east had NOTHING to do with the holocaust

But you know, hey, all the arabs are bloodthirsty muslims aligned with Hamas so kill them all!

Our relationship with the Israeli state is justifiable for what happened in the past.

Nobody said the middle east had anything to do with the holocaust, but that our relationship with Israeli is based on that. We have an invested national interest in the jewish state existing. Even culturally we are a very Jewish nation. From our Hollywood films, to the broadway and Music industry. Even the holistic application project which seeks to study the whole individual in our education system comes from the need for the WASP to stop them from dominating schools. It is nearly impossible to separate a Jewish culturally Identity from the Anglo one at this point. They also have been a reliable democratic and progressive voter base

On the last point I don't think the Israelis are inherently bloodthirsty. From what I saw they had war declared on them the same day they declared independence kind of how the crown did us when we declared independence from the British Empire. If they really wanted to commit genocide, which they clearly don't want to do, they could have done so numerous times and nobody would have been able to stop them. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was the Democratic president Lyndon B Johnson who stopped Israel from destroying Nasser's army in Egypt full scale in 1967. This only exists because of our great relationship with the Israeli nation, and the fact that they have a trusting with us. It must be maintained to keep peace IMO.

CNN and the Associated Press has called Hillary the Winner of NY. Less than an hour since poll closed.


Bernie will close it down by getting upstate. Population is too small up there though.

Betty La Fea wrote:

FennecFox7 wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:


I understand where you are coming from .

While I see that point I do think it is not viable, for any politician, at this time. We are a nation devoted to protecting the interest of the Jewish state, and for good reason. During the holocaust many Jews were condemned to their death by being turned away by our government, and that is a true national shame. We have to do what we can to maintain a strong connection with a nation we will always have a strong bond with. That is a commitment to Jews that we owe to them.

I do think the best, and most humane, course of action would to continue to advocate a two state solution, and Hillary has pretty strong experience in pushing for this.

Really, so killing arabs and innocent children because something that happened in Europe is justifiable because hey it's the jews, they've had it rough.

I don't see anyone saying Algeria should colonize and subjugate France because half of our population was decimated by them over the course of the last two centuries. And the middle east had NOTHING to do with the holocaust

But you know, hey, all the arabs are bloodthirsty muslims aligned with Hamas so kill them all!

Our relationship with the Israeli state is justifiable for what happened in the past.

Nobody said the middle east had anything to do with the holocaust, but that our relationship with Israeli is based on that. We have an invested national interest in the jewish state existing. Even culturally we are a very Jewish nation. From our Hollywood films, to the broadway and Music industry. Even the holistic application project which seeks to study the whole individual in our education system comes from the need for the WASP to stop them from dominating schools. It is nearly impossible to separate a Jewish culturally Identity from the Anglo one at this point. They also have been a reliable democratic and progressive voter base

On the last point I don't think the Israelis are inherently bloodthirsty. From what I saw they had war declared on them the same day they declared independence kind of how the crown did us when we declared independence from the British Empire. If they really wanted to commit genocide, which they clearly don't want to do, they could have done so numerous times and nobody would have been able to stop them. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was the Democratic president Lyndon B Johnson who stopped Israel from destroying Nasser's army in Egypt full scale in 1967. This only exists because of our great relationship with the Israeli nation, and the fact that they have a trusting with us. It must be maintained to keep peace IMO.

This is a load of garbage. I'll summarize your three points

1. Jewish-Americans are incredibly successful (very true)
2. We have quite a bit of jewish influence in American culture (yeah, what does hollywood have to do with Israel-Palestine?)
3. If I read that last part correctly, Palestine should be thankful for not being destroyed by Israel right away, and if Israel wanted to they could wipe them off the face of the earth

So, your first point, okay, what the hell does killing innocent children and women, bombing innocent civilians have to do with Jews being smart. What?? Next.

Your second point. Whether you are right or not, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Next.

Third point. Are you kidding me? Why are you putting Israel on a pedestal for not annihilating Palestine right away? The fact is, they are still killing innocent civllians and statistics do not lie.


If you want to support Netanyahu and his extremist policies, then yeah, I can see why you would vote for someone like Hillary. How would you like it if your home country was taken over and your countrymen slaughtered? Oh yeah, thought so.

On an ending note, I never said the Israelis were bloodthirsty. Government actions =/= people. Don't put words into my mouth

1. Jewish-Americans are incredibly successful (very true)

Jewish Americans being successful means they are able to effectively campaign for Israel, which is why it is so popular. In America a group of people is judged by the diaspora on show, and Jewish Americans have campaigned tirelessly, while supporting the democratic party, for Israel which leads to:

. We have quite a bit of jewish influence in American culture (yeah, what does hollywood have to do with Israel-Palestine?)

The people creating our culture, for the most part, play an important part in shaping public opinion towards the Israeli state, and even more so when you realize that Jewish people are not only all over Hollywood, but music. I mean you can barely go past a page in the great American songbook without seeing a Jewish American songwriter or performer. We are intrinsically tied together by culture these days. Which leads to 3:

If I read that last part correctly, Palestine should be thankful for not being destroyed by Israel right away, and if Israel wanted to they could wipe them off the face of the earth

Not be thankful, but be aware of the situation that they are in, which is helped by the fact that we hold Israel back due to our relationship with them. This only exists because we have a good relationship with them. We hold them back, and there is some resentment there(as seen by Netanyahu shunning obama) on their part. The truth of the matter is if Israel decided tomorrow that they wanted to do whatever they want there is only one nation on Earth that could stop them, and we hold that place because of our historic link to them. The entire world has an invested interest in us holding a decent position next to Israel.

Btw Sanders claimed in the last debate to be "100% for Israel in the long term", does that sound neutral to you guys?