Options

PRESIDENTIAL RACE 2016: Dehumanize yourself and face to polling

19495969798100»

Posts

  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Balefuego wrote: »
    I will vote for Hillary in November if she gets the nod but it's pretty frustrating how pervasive the sentiment is that we should be happy voting for a shitty candidate just because the other alterna
    You thinking the candidate is shitty doesn't mean other people agree

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Well Hillary isn't a shitty candidate, so...
    I don't really get the reason people are so upset during this primary.

    Probably ecause there's a large segment of progressive voters who are not looking forward to having to wait 8 years for a chance at a truly progressive nominee in the White House rather than a hawk like Clinton who is emblematic of a party establishment that they are increasingly disillusioned with/feeling betrayed by.

    Clinton ran to the right of Obama in 08 and her platform was almost hilariously moderate until Bernie started pushing her to the left.

    This is a simplistic and broad take on it of course, there are going to be a lot more different, specific reasons why voters would be unhappy with one candidate or the other, but it's not hard to see that there's a rather dramatic rift in the left opening up right now. Not as disastrously or explosively as on the right, but it's happening.

    Also 4 out of the last 5 presidents being a Bush or a Clinton doesn't exactly help dispel the perception that the US is practically an oligarchy.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    gtrmp wrote: »
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
    The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.”

    Obama’s reticence frustrated [Samantha] Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit.

    arming and training a group of rebels in the middle east also sounds like exactly the kind of stupid shit that people shouldn't be advocating for in a post-Contra, post-Mujahideen, post-Taliban world

This discussion has been closed.