Vets for Bernie: Why Thousands of Veterans Are Rallying Behind an Unexpected Candidate

[Confounding]

Most politicians are completely full of shit when they say they support the troops. Bernie is one of the few that isn't.

"When our men and women come home from war, some wounded in body some wounded in spirit, I don't want to hear people telling me "It's too expensive to take care of those wounded veterans." I don't accept that. If you think it's too expensive to take care of veterans, don't send them to war."
-Bernie Sanders



Vets for Bernie: Why Thousands of Veterans Are Rallying Behind an Unexpected Candidate

Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War. He is a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, and he decries the Military Industrial Complex that so many veterans have been a part of. It may come as a surprise then, that thousands and thousands of veterans are "feeling the Bern," as Sanders' supporters are proud to proclaim. So what is it about this Senator from Vermont that has veterans passionately fighting for his election?

Sanders is and has been one of the most vocal champions for active duty service members, veterans, and veteran's rights for the last three decades.

That's right -- the democratic socialist from Vermont, who applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, has been standing up for veterans for a long, long time -- and Veterans have taken notice. Many vets believe that Sanders has shown great leadership and judgment in his opposition to United States-led actions around the globe; from the first Gulf War, to his infamous opposition of the invasion of Iraq which he predicted would lead to the destabilization of the region and the rise of unpredictable insurgencies.

But veterans say that, even more than his willingness to speak up when the country is heading down the wrong path, it is his steadfast support for returning warriors that earn him their loyalty. Over the years, Sanders has been integral in getting key legislation passed to improve and extend benefits for our service members, veterans, and their families. He has received bipartisan praise from key members of the Republican Party, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, who says that he and Sanders "were able to come together and come and pass legislation that was nearly unanimous in both House and Senate. So he does have a record of advocacy for our veterans."

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's good that he supports the veterans, too bad he doesn't generally support the soldiers.

 

[Rustic]

And he's a loopy kunt

 

[Confounding]

It's good that he supports the veterans, too bad he doesn't generally support the soldiers.

Republicans send soldiers to war under false pretenses for the benefit of war profiteers and then shoot down bills that would pay for the care they need when they get back. It's pretty obvious who supports the troops and who doesn't.

 

[Timmy]

It's good that he supports the veterans, too bad he doesn't generally support the soldiers.

He voted against sending them to Iraq . Keeping troops out of unnecessary danger is the best support !

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Would Sanders have the same rules of engagement for combat soldiers as Obamas that have gotten thousands of them killed in Afghanistan?

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's good that he supports the veterans, too bad he doesn't generally support the soldiers.

Republicans send soldiers to war for the benefit of war profiteers and then shoot down bills that would pay for the care they need when they get back. It's pretty fucking obvious who supports the troops and who doesn't.

Yup, only Republicans send soldiers to war...

It's pretty obvious who possess common sense also...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump and Sanders supporters have this incorrect perception that either candidate can 'change' anything if elected president, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth; the notion is naïve, unfounded, and devoid of merit.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's good that he supports the veterans, too bad he doesn't generally support the soldiers.

He voted against sending them to Iraq . Keeping troops out of unnecessary danger is the best support !

I don't believe sending people to war is taken lightly by either Political Party. (hindsight 20/20 then twisted)

Now losing a war in the name of politics, that's unforgivable.

 

[Confounding]

Yup, only Republicans send soldiers to war...

I was referring to the pointless waste of blood and treasure in Iraq, though I can see why you interpreted what I said the way you did; I should have used better wording. Your point is fair, though. Democrats send soldiers to war too, but at least they vote for the bills that would give veterans the care they need.

 

[nat4900]

I don't believe sending people to war is taken lightly by either Political Party. (hindsight 20/20 then twisted)

Now losing a war in the name of politics, that's unforgivable.

This is when a right wingers shows what a fucking idiot he or she is....Look at the above (brainwashed by FOX) and "decipher what this idiot is stating:

1. Its OK to go to war based on LIES fed to congress and the electorate by a republican administration......and

2, Honoring an agreement made by a republican to pull our troops out of danger by a certain date, means "losing a war" that was never declared in the first place.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Yup, only Republicans send soldiers to war...

I was referring to the pointless waste of blood and treasure in Iraq, though I can see why you interpreted what I said the way you did; I should have used better wording. Your point is fair, though. Democrats send soldiers to war too, but at least they vote for the bills that would give veterans the care they need. Oh, I'm also not aware of any wars the Democrats have started under false pretenses.

Umm. I'm a little edgy tonight, I'll try to be reasonable but .. no promises...

 

[Lumpy 1]

I don't believe sending people to war is taken lightly by either Political Party. (hindsight 20/20 then twisted)

Now losing a war in the name of politics, that's unforgivable.

This is when a right wingers shows what a fucking idiot he or she is....Look at the above (brainwashed by FOX) and "decipher what this idiot is stating:

1. Its OK to go to war based on LIES fed to congress and the electorate by a republican administration......and

2, Honoring an agreement made by a republican to pull our troops out of danger by a certain date, means "losing a war" that was never declared in the first place.

Sheesh, no wonder I'm edgy...

 

[cnm]

Oh, I'm also not aware of any wars the Democrats have started under false pretenses.

Libya was done under false pretences, using a UNSC resolution to effect regime change in violation of the UN Charter, under the pretext of protecting civilians. Left it a collection of warring fiefdoms.

 

[Confounding]

Libya was done under false pretences, using a UNSC resolution to effect regime change in violation of the UN Charter.

False Pretense for War in Libya? | RealClearPolitics

Damn it Obama! I should have stuck to defending Bernie.

 

[nat4900]

Libya was done under false pretences, using a UNSC resolution to effect regime change in violation of the UN Charter, under the pretext of protecting civilians. Left it a collection of warring fiefdoms.

Not here to defend the Obama administration and Libya......As in Iran in the 1950s, we have been led to change regimes by selfish business interests, especially those in Europe....

Nonetheless, you judge on the cost of LIVES and TREASURE between Libya and Iraq.

 

[cnm]

Nonetheless, you judge on the cost of LIVES and TREASURE between Libya and Iraq.

Judge on the two most secular Arab nations reduced to warring sectarian factions after US led or enabled interventions in breach of the UN Charter, with infrastructure and administration destroyed. For Nothing. Oh, ok, ME destabilisation, fair enough. But nothing apart from that.