Maybe for some voters like rogerbox it’s more of a Ponzi Scheme.
Who benefits from our military adventures? And who pays the price for them?
Being a warmonger is binary, you’re either a war monger or not. Hillary and Trump are both warmongers and thus unworthy of my vote.
The difference between Hillary and Trump is that only one of them has already proved they are willing to get us into a needless war, so in effect Trump is less of a warmonger than Hillary, at least thus far he is only spewing rhetoric. She’s actually culpable for all of those needlessly killed and the terrorists we have created with her hawkishness.
I think we can stop right there.
So tell me all the wonderful benefits of the Iraq war Hillary helped us get into? Ah yes, like all entitled Hillary supporters, you can’t actually respond to reasonable criticism… even basic things like “This person shouldn’t be president as they’ve already supported a needless war that wasted TRILLIONS and killed hundreds of thousands”. No, keep talking down to us, it’s a great look!
It took you until there?
Really just sort of reminiscing about being that age myself once, when everything was simple and binary, when there were heroes and villains … you remember too, right?
Start another party or change one from within.
Parties are private entities. We forget that because they are so much of our political system.
The reason we’ve ended up with two big parties is because having dozens of people on the ballot splits the vote - we aren’t set up for coalition governments - we don’t like to compromise enough as a people.
Or do what I do. Don’t participate in the party system. See what the parties give you and then pick the best of those options. Be the swing vote.
Of course Hillary has some good parts since she has a long career where she has been on the right side of history on certain issues. However, her hawkishness is unacceptable. Again, thanks for talking down to me and everyone who is an actual progressive by oversimplifying my positions, you’re helping to show that there is no place for us in the Democratic party.
To what are you referring?
I wish we could. I don’t have any hope of getting through to the people who spout this kind of OTT invective, of course. But in this social media age, just as when dealing with ISIS tweeters, mainstream Democrats need to develop ways of reaching idealistic and impressionable young people and countering these extremist appeals. It’s a tough task, because simplistic, “pure”, uncompromising ideology is so much more appealing to adolescent minds. (This also explains Ron Paul’s popularity with the young.)
As always throughout the course of history, in every system from dictatorships to democratic socialist countries - the rich and powerful. That isn’t a weakness of parties.
If I was an older Bernie supporter I’d certainly resent having my mind referred to as “adolescent”, especially since I already do as a working man with a wife wanting to start a family soon. Secondly, I wouldn’t be so smug about being so willing to compromise on being willing to start needless wars, it doesn’t make you superior in any way, in fact the opposite.
Spare me. Her and 80% of Congress who were, if you recall, lied to by Bush and Cheney and friends. And the majority of the public. Ah, but you conveniently forget that.
There you go. Perfectly legitimate approach IMO. And for you uber-lefties, there are Greens and such to choose from as well on that general election ballot. Just stay out of our Democratic Party primaries, if you please.
So your tacitly contributing to the status quo is doing the best for the American people? Right, because doing nothing always brings about change.
That doesn’t sound like a denial.
Go ahead and correct me if I’m mistaken. I don’t have the stomach to search and re-read your posts. At least not at the moment.
There’s a lot more to it than the Iraq vote.
Maybe I’ll start a separate thread about it later on. Have work to do right now.
It’s worse than nothing if they interfere with, and distort, Democratic primaries, but then take their ball and go home if their candidate loses.
This from the man who was extolling the idea of switching parties to vote for Trump in the primaries as a tactic.
[Quote=Dangerosa]
The reason we’ve ended up with two big parties is because having dozens of people on the ballot splits the vote - we aren’t set up for coalition governments - we don’t like to compromise enough as a people.
[/QUOTE]
The only reason we aren’t set up for coalition governments is because, by historical accident, we ended up with first-past-the-post voting. Change that, and the outcomes change. It’s not down to our national character.
Try telling him that Sanders is the new Robespierre, that’s the sort of even-handed, moderate rhetoric you’re pushing for, right? Physician, heal thyself.
I’m sure by your standard, I am. I just don’t recall our discussing military interventions in these threads, so I find your repetition of this moniker curious.