# Article - "Bernie Sanders surge partly fueled by veterans"



## Six-Two (Jun 28, 2015)

Thought you guys might find this interesting.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...ed-veterans/e1qNTpzFpIaoxIGKygKa9J/story.html


----------



## HOLLiS (Jun 28, 2015)

Maybe it is a age thing, but the D's and R's seem to only offer More of the Same (MOTS).     Heck lets kick the hornets nest and see what happens.   So far MOTS has not served the American people and tended to place those serving some where far in the rear when it comes to support.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 28, 2015)

Maybe they just hate hillary enough to want her out.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 28, 2015)

Six-Two said:


> Thought you guys might find this interesting.
> 
> https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...ed-veterans/e1qNTpzFpIaoxIGKygKa9J/story.html


What are your thoughts on this Six-two?


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 28, 2015)

I found the article interesting for two reasons: facts and consistency.  Once a Congressman or Senator's record is brought to light, it is impossible to deny how they voted, what bills they passed or attempted to pass, or what issues were important to them.  The aforementioned Congressional record highlights consistency or inconsistency; yet another point where documentation beats conversation. 

I'll have to study more about the candidates going forward, but I will do this later as there are far too many candidates in the mix to make it worth my time.


----------



## Six-Two (Jun 29, 2015)

Viper1 said:


> What are your thoughts on this Six-two?



I'm not usually one to discuss personal politics with relative strangers, but I'd be remiss not to express my admiration for Bernie Sanders or his supporters mentioned in this article. I respect that his convictions tend to remain steadfast until he's presented with new information or he has to compromise to make something happen, rather than changing them based on what's polling (a la Hillary, or... pretty much anybody else). Be it social issues, economic ones, civil liberty/rights... He's remained steadfast. For example, a decade ago, Hillary Clinton was against gay marriage, but now she's out waving rainbow flags and cheering for the newly-weds. That's a pretty damned short time to change your stance on what you consider to be the inalienable rights of another human being and fellow American.

I also have to applaud the fact that he doesn't confuse supporting the military with the cheap hawkishness that's been polling well since 2001 because everybody's been freaked out. Pretty much everybody I've interacted with on this site (certainly the more senior members and QPs) has demonstrated the intellectual sensitivity to realize that a military solution isn't always the best one, and Bernie has _always_ maintained that. By the same token, his definition of "support the troops" isn't the one that has, sadly, characterized the years of 2001-present. It isn't a cheap, generalized "thank you for your service," or a Kid Rock concert in Tallahassee cosponsored by Bank of America or a free beer at a baseball game, or, more insidiously, the conflation of "support" and "wanton deployment" as perpetuated by a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks with bullshit heart murmurs or *ahem* Air National Guard contracts. What it _is_, to me, is making sure you don't have to figure out how the hell you're gonna pay for your daughter's braces; it's making sure a guy on your fireteam has the adequate support to recover from a life-changing injury, both physically and mentally. It's making sure your housing allowances aren't incongruous with the neighborhoods of the school district your wife is dead set on that same braces-needing daughter getting into. It's making sure the GI Bill kicks ass so you can transition out of military life if you so choose or enrich the mind of a member of our country's armed forces without the strains of our fairly ridiculous student loan problems. It's making sure that the choice to put guys and gals in harm's way to begin with is made with a measured hand that's not based on fear or hoodwinking the American public with domestic psyops facilitated by the likes of the New York Times, but on logic and the best interests of the nation (I won't elaborate because I don't want to offend anybody, and I don't feel fully qualified/caffeinated to defend a more specific analysis of all those decisions without risking undermining any SS members' sacrifices - which I do not want to do at all). 

He's also steadfast on other ideals and objectives that I can get behind, like putting an end to the economic game of Russian Roulette that this country's financial institutions have been playing with the gun pointed at the American taxpayer's head, and a common-sense approach to things like gun control and student loans (for those unfamiliar with his perspectives, here's gun control and student debt). I also think that at 73, he's substantially more immune to the financial wooing endemic to the political machine, and feel that if he was really concerned with being president just for his legacy's sake, he wouldn't be sourcing his campaign funds exclusively through populist donations or being an absolutely unwavering voice for the things that he believes in.

I admire and applaud the members of the Armed Forces community the article refers to for seeing past party lines and allying themselves with someone who actually does seem to represent their interests despite what political labels and what I'd consider less-important issues would otherwise dictate. I think a lot of the guys mentioned in the article recognize that he's not going to bullshit them once he's elected, and respect the fact that if nothing else, he clearly gives a shit about this country and won't compromise those ideals, and he's been very clear about what those ideals are.

Respectfully,

-62

*Disclaimer: Worded very carefully due to inability to edit, but if I miss something, please allow time for a response before full judgment is passed.*


----------



## Six-Two (Jun 29, 2015)

Addendum: I just wanted to add to the section of "supporting the troops." I think an incredibly important, but oft-overlooked aspect of that fight is the allocation of resources - supporting the troops to me also means we're not spending $1.5 trillion on shit like the F-35 while the Coast Guard is using 60-year-old cutters that should've been retired when I was in diapers and Marines are going to war with Vietnam-era M16s or inferior body armor. I don't know Sanders' stance on things like that, but by all indications he wants to reduce military spending and I don't see him doing that in ways that would compromise troops' wellbeing.


----------



## Six-Two (Jun 29, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe they just hate hillary enough to want her out.


Lil of column A, lil of column B?


----------

