Voting cynically doesn't help any more than voting a guy in you believe in but who will be neutered by the status quo, I think. Obama failed on more than half of his platform, in my opinion. Did it matter how electable he was? I dunno. Romney would only have been marginally worse in that we might not have gotten the ACA that has been depressingly mediocre and he probably wouldn't have advocated even as weakly as Obama has for gay rights, police brutality against blacks, etc... but no huge loss there either as Obama has been more talk than anything else.
And you can argue that he was marginalized deliberately and sure, he was, but so what? Electable, but about as useless as you think Bernie will be.
As far as platforms go, who controls Congress is more important than who's the President. Obama got a lot accomplished considering he really only had two years with a helpful Congress.
Congress is definitely more important but the veto still matters as does foreign policy and such. Having a moron in office definitely doesn't help national morale much, for whatever that's worth. I don't think Americans were quite so ashamed of themselves as a group before Bush Jr as they are now.
Based on needing a majority without a veto and two thirds with, the president is mathematically worth 16 senators and 72 representatives, and you need >= 57% in each house (67 effective senators and 290 effective representatives). Although that ignores delays and other effects of the veto.
Jeb Bush said that it's "intellectual arrogance" to say that the science is decided on climate change. I guess the ritual dumbening for the GOP primary has begun.
Shit is getting real bad in the Middle East. Daesh has taken Ramadi and Palyrma in the past week, and they've just overran the eastern defenses at Ramadi. These are two extremely strategic towns in both Syria and Iraq. It really points to a failure in the current strategic policy to contain Daesh. I'll be curious to see what the candidates start discussing in the next few weeks as I'm sure this ill become a pretty serious issue in the long term.
The over-runs were coming for a long time now. Those Daesh shitheads have been running constant operations in and around them for months now. The "coalition" against them literally just doesn't seem to have the collective military capabilities to put real pressure on them.
The only solution I want is a UN mandated invasion and occupation, let primarily by the US military...
The over-runs were coming for a long time now. Those Daesh shitheads have been running constant operations in and around them for months now. The "coalition" against them literally just doesn't seem to have the collective military capabilities to put real pressure on them.
The only solution I want is a UN mandated invasion and occupation, let primarily by the US military...
which won't happen because the Congress is run by a bunch of cowards who won't even put talking about the military action that we're already doing up for a vote. They are literally refusing to do their job and vote on it.
The over-runs were coming for a long time now. Those Daesh shitheads have been running constant operations in and around them for months now. The "coalition" against them literally just doesn't seem to have the collective military capabilities to put real pressure on them.
The only solution I want is a UN mandated invasion and occupation, let primarily by the US military...
I don't know, it's really fucked. 03 Iraq was such a shitshow because we were fighting a proxy war (and sometimes not so proxy) with Iraq and Syria. Assad literally opened his prisons and shoved Wahhabi extremists into Iraq in order to destabilize the region and fuck up the US mission. Iran was sending advisers and special forces into Iraq for the same purpose. Sure, the US made some very serious errors in the executions (de-Ba'athification is one of the most egregious errors ever made by US policy makers), but we got pretty fucked in the ass by nearby players in the region.
Without solid, public support from Iran, I doubt any sort of ground operation will be successful.
I still don't get why we aren't giving more support to the Kurds. I mean they're trying to create their own secular state with some actual gender equality and other things pretty hard to find in that part of the world.
I still don't get why we aren't giving more support to the Kurds. I mean they're trying to create their own secular state with some actual gender equality and other things pretty hard to find in that part of the world.
Turkey is our "ally" still, and Turkey doesn't want the Kurds expressing any independence for a number of reasons.
Given half a chance, the Kurds would probably rather be an independent state from Iraq, which is an unpopular idea with Iraqis...
I still don't get why we aren't giving more support to the Kurds. I mean they're trying to create their own secular state with some actual gender equality and other things pretty hard to find in that part of the world.
Turkey is our "ally" still, and Turkey doesn't want the Kurds expressing any independence for a number of reasons.
Given half a chance, the Kurds would probably rather be an independent state from Iraq, which is an unpopular idea with Iraqis...
Oh definitely, tha'ts what they're fighting for, to try to separate the Kurdish portions of Iraq and Syria into their own State.
Not to mention that the PKK is a Communist worker's party and technically classified as a terrorist organization.
Well shit, guess I'm probably on another watch list. And that's pretty fucked up when you think about it anyway, since they seem a lot less like a terrorist organization than some of the groups we're supporting right now to fight ISIS, and that we previously supported during the Syrian Revolution. Not to mention the whole clusterfuck with the Mujaheddin way back when.
Considering the fact that I live in New York, any presidential vote I cast is completely worthless. Clinton is going to win both the primary and the general in my state, so I may as well cast whacky votes for third parties!
Considering the fact that I live in New York, any presidential vote I cast is completely worthless. Clinton is going to win both the primary and the general in my state, so I may as well cast whacky votes for third parties!
Comments
You may remember Senator Feingold from such hits as "voted against the patriot act" and "voted against going to war in Iraq."
Go Russ!
Now I have to review all available information to decide who I want.
If (or when) Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her. She's not my ideal candidate, but she's better than the alternatives.
But I know he's effectively unelectable, and none of his ideas would pass any Congress that we would elect. So he'd be worthless in the office.
Still, a man can dream.
And you can argue that he was marginalized deliberately and sure, he was, but so what? Electable, but about as useless as you think Bernie will be.
I don't see your point.Oh, I get it. I would actually vote for a wet noodle against any Republican.
The only solution I want is a UN mandated invasion and occupation, let primarily by the US military...
Without solid, public support from Iran, I doubt any sort of ground operation will be successful.
Given half a chance, the Kurds would probably rather be an independent state from Iraq, which is an unpopular idea with Iraqis...