SANDERS vs. CLINTON - FROM AN ANTIWAR GROUP'S PERSPECTIVE
It's clear that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is worse than Bernie Sanders'. But from an antiwar perspective, the foreign policy of Bernie Sanders is not even close to being supportable; it's actually repulsive.
Liberals rightfully cheer when Sanders says he doesn't want to kick Muslims out of the U.S., but they turn a blind eye to the fact that he wants Muslims in the Middle East to bomb and shoot each other
Why is caring about overseas victims of U.S. wars lowest on the totem pole? Would democrats support Sanders if he were just a little better than
- but still bad - on gay marriage, the environment, workers rights, race relations or a woman's right to choose?
The "lesser of two evils" way of thinking is not only cynical and tired, it is catastrophic for millions around the world. Voting for someone because they may kill fewer people overseas, is not acceptable, just like it is not acceptable to:
- Hire a teacher who "only" rapes adults but not children
- Support al-Qaeda because they are less brutal than ISIS
- Vote for someone who said it's not OK for cops to shoot white people, but it is OK to shoot black people
Sanders has pledged to do whatever it takes to prevent Trump from getting into office, but he fails to mention that a Clinton presidency would put (or keep) the "Full Spectrum Dominance" neoconservatives in the Oval Office.
If Sanders' idea of a "political revolution" is to encourage his supporters to vote for Clinton, then he is a typical politician who ultimately does what is best for his own career.