It's less fascist than making kids say the pledge of allegiance every morning. Less nationalist than singing the national anthem at the beginning of every sports game. Trump is just taking a page out of Jack Kennedy's book of campaign tricks.
I don't think this is accurate. Trump supporters tend to be older folks, whereas people who masturbate to anime are on the young end of the electorate.
You know what I want? I want Hillary to win, and then select Sanders as her running mate and VP.
I don't know if they'd make the best team, but I just think it would be hilarious to see all the sanders supporters screaming about how Hillary is literally hitler with a shaved moustache, and how she's backed by every evil corporate entity they can name just turn on a time and start acting like she's the second coming of Christ.
I get why people hate Sanders supporters like they do, but can we vote based on candidates rather than the people who support them? Imagine if it was 1972. Would you vote George Wallace so that the McGovern and Humphrey supporters would get all pissy?
Personally, I get more distant from Clinton every time I read or watch something of her. She supports advancing surveillance without voicing much concern for abridging the First or Fourth Amendments. She wants to get us more involved in the Middle East. At the debate the other night, she was bragging about what a good job Obama had done at bringing down the finance sector. She was repeatedly accusing Sanders of wanting to repeal legislation he had co-written. If the Democratic field was larger I would be open to other candidates, but in a Sanders v Clinton dichotomy I'm voting Sanders every time.
I get why people hate Sanders supporters like they do, but can we vote based on candidates rather than the people who support them? Imagine if it was 1972. Would you vote George Wallace so that the McGovern and Humphrey supporters would get all pissy?
No. But would I hope for something to happen just to watch them act in a hilariously hypocritical fashion? Sure. Because it has no cost or loss to anyone to think that something would be enormously entertaining to watch.
She was repeatedly accusing Sanders of wanting to repeal legislation he had co-written.
What legislation is that? I'm a little lacking on the point - I know he's sponsored three bills, and co-sponsored somewhere in the 200s, but I don't know off the top of my head any legislation that he's actually written or co-written.
In the debate, Clinton accused him of wanting to repeal the ACA. He responded "we're not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it." Further research has lead me to learn that this is half true, as he was not credited as an author but was influential over those who did, and directly responsible for at least one provision of the act.
Thought after the fact - I have very little idea who the fuck George Wallace is, other than the fact that he was a governor from Alabama, and he was paralyzed by an assassination attempt. He could actually be the grand wizard of the KKK in his spare time, for all I know, it's not the point.
Wallace was the last of the Dixiecrats. Expanded great society programs on the state level while touting "segregation now, segregation forever" as his slogan at just about every rally. Left office popular enough that his wife succeeded him. He fascinated me when I read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. I have a record that commemorates the Wallaces' reigns, the cover of which is each of their faces over a Confederate flag. But, like you said, it's not the point.
Those kind of ridiculous attacks are what you get when you have two candidates that may seem really far away but in reality are close enough that there isn't a great attack against the other without hurting yourself. So your advisers come up with crazy ideas. What she's really trying to do is compare herself to Obama instead of someone who would be further left then his moderate republican ways. It's just difficult.
Compare how the a lot of republican candidates are attacking Trump and Cruz and some are not. They are pulling punches because if they land any good hits they end up hurting themselves.
What's your point? She's fabricating claims because she doesn't have another way to distance herself from Sanders? I don't see how that's better. I know she's trying to compare herself to Obama, that's one of my problems. I don't want four more years of this administration.
What's your point? She's fabricating claims because she doesn't have another way to distance herself from Sanders? I don't see how that's better. I know she's trying to compare herself to Obama, that's one of my problems. I don't want four more years of this administration.
I want 4 more years of this administration compared to what the alternatives are.
Sanders shows less ability to lead/compromise than Obama has. Obama been remarkably successful for the situation he's in. Sanders will have less political capital unless something unforeseen happens.
I want 4 more years of this administration compared to what the alternatives are.
Sanders shows less ability to lead/compromise than Obama has. Obama been remarkably successful for the situation he's in. Sanders will have less political capital unless something unforeseen happens.
All the republicans are huge steps backwards.
Thus Clinton.
Obviously excepting the first two years-ish where they weren't in the majority in the house, the Republicans have been opposed to compromise. Where exactly has Obama been key to brokering a compromise that wasn't just going to pass anyway? And in the first two years, the Democratic majority was so riddled with conflict and faction that they proved to be a stumbling block that hampered his ability to lead and keep his majority in Congress. Where were his leadership and compromise then?
Also a block of wood would be better than a Republican. It isn't exactly a hard bar to clear.
I will vote for Sanders because I want the left to rise. But I actually do think Hillary will be more effective at accomplishing real change.
I keep hearing this point made but I don't think I have ever seen a compelling argument for why she would be more effective.
Her record in the Senate and Secretary of State is that of a realpolitiker and excellent diplomat. Sanders on the other hand has a long history of fighting for lost causes and not rallying much support for them. I trust that Clinton will be able to do everything she says, which is why I'm not voting for her. There would be some, maybe many, positive things that Clinton could accomplish, but she also has made a lot of remarks about advancing the War on Terror that frighten me.
Her record in the Senate and Secretary of State is that of a realpolitiker and excellent diplomat. Sanders on the other hand has a long history of fighting for lost causes and not rallying much support for them. I trust that Clinton will be able to do everything she says, which is why I'm not voting for her. There would be some, maybe many, positive things that Clinton could accomplish, but she also has made a lot of remarks about advancing the War on Terror that frighten me.
That's a fair assessment. Bernie does get shit done, but being president would hamstring many of his best methods of getting shit done.
My support of Sanders remains largely symbolic, even I will admit. But how far he's come given the limitations in who he's willing to take money from, and the corruption he isn't willing to put up with, is something many people said wouldn't happen. He's proof that the American "democracy" is capable of working as such, where the vocal citizens with a desire for change can campaign for what they believe in, even if big business is against them.
I will vote for whatever liberal candidate is put on the ballot. I would prefer if Sanders reached that ballot to show it's possible, but Clinton will do the Obama thing and keep the nation liveable. If pretty much any notable Republican is elected, I will consider honestly ducking out to Canada. Trump will make me 100% start trying to move to Canada.
I will vote for Sanders because I want the left to rise. But I actually do think Hillary will be more effective at accomplishing real change.
I keep hearing this point made but I don't think I have ever seen a compelling argument for why she would be more effective.
Her record in the Senate and Secretary of State is that of a realpolitiker and excellent diplomat. Sanders on the other hand has a long history of fighting for lost causes and not rallying much support for them. I trust that Clinton will be able to do everything she says, which is why I'm not voting for her. There would be some, maybe many, positive things that Clinton could accomplish, but she also has made a lot of remarks about advancing the War on Terror that frighten me.
Being a "realpolitiker" doesn't mean that you are effective. Just because a person is ruthless doesn't mean they are a genius of anything. Her record in the senate is middling at best. Honestly, it is comparable to Obama's in substance and he spent less time on the job. If you are looking for things that she sponsored and passed on congress.gov it is hard to find much of anything of substance.
As for Secretary of State, she didn't have any major accomplishments because Obama didn't want her to. An article summarized her tenure thusly: "The lack of major accomplishments isn’t really her fault, however, for several reasons. First, as I noted way back when Obama became president, there just weren’t a lot of low-hanging fruit available when the new team took office in 2009. On the contrary, they faced a series of difficult-to-intractable problems, several of which (Iraq, Afghanistan) were likely to end up looking like failures no matter what they did. Even if Clinton had been a magical combination of Bismarck, Machiavelli, Gandhi, and Zhou en Lai, she’d have had trouble devising a strategy that could have solved all these problems quickly and without costs.
Second, Clinton isn’t a great secretary of state because that is not the role that she’s been asked to play in this administration. Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker had extremely close working relationship with the presidents that they served, and each enjoyed far more authority over foreign policy than Clinton has been given by the Obama White House. Obama’s initial reliance on a set of "special envoys" diluted Clinton’s clout even more, even when some of them (such as the late Richard Holbrooke) were personally close to the secretary.
Add to this the fact that the Pentagon and intelligence community now controls vastly greater resources than the State Department does, and has for more impact on our relations with trouble spots like Central Asia, Yemen, the Persian Gulf, etc.. Given that raw bureaucratic reality, it’s not surprising that Clinton cannot point to any major achievements on her watch. Indeed, a good case can be made that American foreign policy is still operating ass-backwards: Instead of seeing military power as one of the tools we use to advance a broad political agenda, today military imperatives tend to dominate and the diplomats just get sent out to line up some compliant partners and to clean things up afterward (see under: Drone wars)." Source: https://goo.gl/c5JhDs
tl;dr We live in a country that leads with missiles first and Obama ran foreign policy out of the White House so there isn't really much material left over to make an "excellent" diplomat.
Some concessions and comments -To the Hillary haters: This argument is mostly leaving aside all of the awful things she's done because this was just about her reputation of positive competence and effectiveness. If we talk about her warmongering, support of awful initiatives, and lining her business friend's pockets we would be here for a while though little of that had to do with statecraft. It is not that I think that she wouldn't do uncomfortable, neoliberal, imperialist things, I just wonder where all of the fear that she would be, in statecraft terms, supremely effective at it comes from. Obama lacked experience and engagement in foreign and domestic affairs and it didn't stop him from doing uncomfortable, neoliberal, imperialist things. Under Obama, the reactionary American police state continued on as before, just with different emphases. For example, George W Bush wishes he racked up the deportation numbers Obama did. Much of it violating human rights and due process but I come to expect that from America.
-To the Hillary fans: Like I said above, a plank of wood with a veto auto pen would be better than any Republican, but making a convincing argument for Hillary that in any way justifies the hype is something that is going to take some actual work.
-Or you could like her middling record and the awful things she has done. If that is the case good for you, you have found your candidate.
Or you can look at what she was actually building as Sec of State. Most of the accomplishments of the second term were laid out during her first term. But it's ok for forget all those issues that didn't become big issues (except for Benghazi :-p)
Her function for Obama was pretty much to travel the world and talk/reassure/rebuild strained relationships with our Allies, she pretty much did that.
Comments
Edit:
I can't believe anyone thought that was a good idea. It's literally a dystopian sci-fi level of nationalism.
Somepony wants another shot at being VP.
I don't think this is accurate. Trump supporters tend to be older folks, whereas people who masturbate to anime are on the young end of the electorate.
I don't know if they'd make the best team, but I just think it would be hilarious to see all the sanders supporters screaming about how Hillary is literally hitler with a shaved moustache, and how she's backed by every evil corporate entity they can name just turn on a time and start acting like she's the second coming of Christ.
Personally, I get more distant from Clinton every time I read or watch something of her. She supports advancing surveillance without voicing much concern for abridging the First or Fourth Amendments. She wants to get us more involved in the Middle East. At the debate the other night, she was bragging about what a good job Obama had done at bringing down the finance sector. She was repeatedly accusing Sanders of wanting to repeal legislation he had co-written. If the Democratic field was larger I would be open to other candidates, but in a Sanders v Clinton dichotomy I'm voting Sanders every time.
Those kind of ridiculous attacks are what you get when you have two candidates that may seem really far away but in reality are close enough that there isn't a great attack against the other without hurting yourself. So your advisers come up with crazy ideas. What she's really trying to do is compare herself to Obama instead of someone who would be further left then his moderate republican ways. It's just difficult.
Compare how the a lot of republican candidates are attacking Trump and Cruz and some are not. They are pulling punches because if they land any good hits they end up hurting themselves.
Sanders shows less ability to lead/compromise than Obama has. Obama been remarkably successful for the situation he's in. Sanders will have less political capital unless something unforeseen happens.
All the republicans are huge steps backwards.
Thus Clinton.
Also a block of wood would be better than a Republican. It isn't exactly a hard bar to clear. I keep hearing this point made but I don't think I have ever seen a compelling argument for why she would be more effective.
I will vote for whatever liberal candidate is put on the ballot. I would prefer if Sanders reached that ballot to show it's possible, but Clinton will do the Obama thing and keep the nation liveable. If pretty much any notable Republican is elected, I will consider honestly ducking out to Canada. Trump will make me 100% start trying to move to Canada.
As for Secretary of State, she didn't have any major accomplishments because Obama didn't want her to. An article summarized her tenure thusly:
"The lack of major accomplishments isn’t really her fault, however, for several reasons. First, as I noted way back when Obama became president, there just weren’t a lot of low-hanging fruit available when the new team took office in 2009. On the contrary, they faced a series of difficult-to-intractable problems, several of which (Iraq, Afghanistan) were likely to end up looking like failures no matter what they did. Even if Clinton had been a magical combination of Bismarck, Machiavelli, Gandhi, and Zhou en Lai, she’d have had trouble devising a strategy that could have solved all these problems quickly and without costs.
Second, Clinton isn’t a great secretary of state because that is not the role that she’s been asked to play in this administration. Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker had extremely close working relationship with the presidents that they served, and each enjoyed far more authority over foreign policy than Clinton has been given by the Obama White House. Obama’s initial reliance on a set of "special envoys" diluted Clinton’s clout even more, even when some of them (such as the late Richard Holbrooke) were personally close to the secretary.
Add to this the fact that the Pentagon and intelligence community now controls vastly greater resources than the State Department does, and has for more impact on our relations with trouble spots like Central Asia, Yemen, the Persian Gulf, etc.. Given that raw bureaucratic reality, it’s not surprising that Clinton cannot point to any major achievements on her watch. Indeed, a good case can be made that American foreign policy is still operating ass-backwards: Instead of seeing military power as one of the tools we use to advance a broad political agenda, today military imperatives tend to dominate and the diplomats just get sent out to line up some compliant partners and to clean things up afterward (see under: Drone wars)." Source: https://goo.gl/c5JhDs
tl;dr We live in a country that leads with missiles first and Obama ran foreign policy out of the White House so there isn't really much material left over to make an "excellent" diplomat.
Some concessions and comments
-To the Hillary haters: This argument is mostly leaving aside all of the awful things she's done because this was just about her reputation of positive competence and effectiveness. If we talk about her warmongering, support of awful initiatives, and lining her business friend's pockets we would be here for a while though little of that had to do with statecraft. It is not that I think that she wouldn't do uncomfortable, neoliberal, imperialist things, I just wonder where all of the fear that she would be, in statecraft terms, supremely effective at it comes from. Obama lacked experience and engagement in foreign and domestic affairs and it didn't stop him from doing uncomfortable, neoliberal, imperialist things. Under Obama, the reactionary American police state continued on as before, just with different emphases. For example, George W Bush wishes he racked up the deportation numbers Obama did. Much of it violating human rights and due process but I come to expect that from America.
-To the Hillary fans: Like I said above, a plank of wood with a veto auto pen would be better than any Republican, but making a convincing argument for Hillary that in any way justifies the hype is something that is going to take some actual work.
-Or you could like her middling record and the awful things she has done. If that is the case good for you, you have found your candidate.
Or you can look at what she was actually building as Sec of State. Most of the accomplishments of the second term were laid out during her first term. But it's ok for forget all those issues that didn't become big issues (except for Benghazi :-p)
Her function for Obama was pretty much to travel the world and talk/reassure/rebuild strained relationships with our Allies, she pretty much did that.