The only part of that that’s a problem is the drug war part, and that wasn’t Clinton’s fault. That crime bill created tougher sentences of rgun crimes, which involve the very people we need to lock up and throw away the key.
Sounds like a fascist’s fantasy ideal of a centrist to me. And using “SJW” as a pejorative is pretty much all I need to figure out whether or not you’re worth pursuing a debate with.
What is it with you and “cross-dressers” and “transvestites”? Do you call black people “colored” and “negro”? Are gay people “fairies”? Do you stay in the dark ages for all minorities, or just the latest variety to publicly complain of discrimination?
And total and utter bullshit on “Israel-demonizers”. Fact-free nonsense.
I’ll think of you next time I hear a story of a transgender person beaten up or killed by someone who hates transgender people.
Bill Clinton is a real center-right politician in many ways, but triangulation was a political strategy. He has actually disowned a few of his actions as President, or blamed the Republicans(which he did on the crime bill). Clinton probably would have liked to be more liberal as President than he was, but he understood the political realities and knew enough about red state politics to be able to thrive anyway. A guy who has only ever been in blue state politics would not understand the dynamics of working with a hostile legislature as well.
In any case, it’s always amazing how much of centrist politics isn’t based on firm principles, but instead on what wins elections. I guess the nature of centrism is that it’s often just where people from the left and right meet in the middle, so that’s unavoidable, but there really should be a “fighting centrism” in our political system and that’s been lacking.
I don’t quite agree.
The federal prison system has ballooned over the past 20 years but that can be attributed to the war on drugs, which Clinton did not start, and Court doctrine going back to the 1980s which called for more uniform sentencing guidelines. Moreover, most of America’s prison population is rotting away in state and local prisons. Lots of states have enacted mandatory minimum sentencing, irrespective of federal policies. At most, Clinton’s policies may have made a problem worse, but on the flip side, getting repeat violent offenders off the streets (the trade off) is a positive development.
I sympathize with victims of racism and homophobia (see my definition of homosexuality) because one cannot change his race or sexuality. They can’t go out and become white or straight, so its ludicrous to think one can “change” his gender, or that one can be “gender fluid.” Unless we start allowing people to become “transracial.”
Also, what you did, try to imply that because I don’t support transgenderism, that I support violence, is a sad attempt to make this about something its not. I’m not an Islamist who wants to actually kill those who disagree with me or do things I don’t approve of. I simply don’t think society should encourage transvestites by allowing people with Y-chromosomes to use the womens’ bathroom or compete in their sports at unfair advantage.
[QUOTE=adaher]
In any case, it’s always amazing how much of centrist politics isn’t based on firm principles, but instead on what wins elections.
[/QUOTE]
Even if that’s the case, at least centrists like Bill show he’s open to listening to the voices of those who disagree with ideologies instead of willing to shout down everyone as bigots/racists. I doubt tho that Bill was a centrist solely out of convenience; he didn’t just carpetbag from Massachussetts to Arkansas and think “boom, I’ll just ‘become’ conservative.” Just as I doubt that New York Republicans are genuinely right-wingers in moderate clothing.
So you choose to revel in your ignorance and continue in the dark ages, rather than actually learn what transgender is. I trust that you’ll have no problem when your wife and children encounter large, muscular, bearded transmen in the women’s bathroom, since because they were born with vaginas, that’s where you believe they belong.
I wonder if you supported gay rights from the beginning of your life, or if you had to learn and hear from gay people before you fully understood it. If so, it’s a shame that you aren’t willing to give transgender people the same chance.
An oft-repeated criticism, but a silly one nonetheless. When you’re president, you must be careful how you speak. Using the term “Islamic terrorism” is needlessly inflammatory to our Muslim citizens as well as friendly Muslim nations whose cooperation we need to fight terrorism. So as president, what to do? Speak carefully and maintain these good relationships in the Middle East or blow the dog whistle to appease American bigots? The right wing does not mean “Islamic terrorism”, they mean Islamic terrorism. They want to perpetuate fear and loathing of Muslims, just as the following quote illustrates:
There is no point to mentioning Obama’s middle name except to imply: “He’s different than us! He’s Muslim! Run for your lives!” What we’re supposed to see when we read it is Barack Hussein Obama.
Only one side has created the lack of centrist politics. Republicans have gone so batshit crazy right wing that they can’t even see the center from where they are.
I have yet to hear an answer from them on this question, and I’ve either seen it asked or asked it myself numerous times since the NC law passed. They need to Google Buck Angel (with SafeSearch on, please).
Well you can indeed capitalize/bolden/enlargen “Islamic” because terror motivated by Islam happens in more places at greater human and economic cost than terror motivated by Christianity, Judaism, Bahaiism, Hinduism, etc. Islamic terrorism is a unique and formidable threat, unlike terror motivated by those other religions. Governments around the globe spend billions of dollars to fight it and pay thousands of people to do work that relates to doing so. This isn’t about loathing every individual Muslim.
Winston Churchill said it best:
[QUOTE=Churchill]
“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
[/QUOTE]
Since I’d prefer that the President doesn’t say and do things that help ISIS and other Islamic terrorists accomplish their goals, I’m thankful that President Obama tempers his language in a way that doesn’t help ISIS and other extremists.
Luckily, our leaders don’t think like you and inadvertently cooperate with ISIS.
Don’t forget his persecution of whistleblowers in government … that’s very conservative as well.
Translation: I’ll SEE your strawman and counter with my STEREOTYPES!
More of that tired reverse-psychology crap, thanks…
It isn’t reverse psychology. The Arab street pays attention to what American politicians, media types, and social media says. If they hear a constant barrage of obsession about “Islamic terrorism”, what they hear is “The US hates Islam”. Fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the reality. When the people believe that the US hates them, it makes them more likely to be recruited by terrorist organizations. What conservatives are doing in their infantile gotcha attacks on Obama for not uttering the phrase makes the US less secure and results in people getting killed.
Conservatives are good at that.
Not just more likely to be recruited by terrorists, but less likely to cooperate with those fighting terrorists, less likely to vote for and support leaders who advocate for closer ties to the US, less likely to report extremist neighbors, etc.
Are you talking about some Labour Party Brit? Obviously either “labour” or “Senator” is a typo. (Qin, if you’re using Chrome, then Settings–>Advanced–>Languages will let you choose any of five Englishes for spell-checking.)
The Arab street hears whatever the state medias allow them to hear. And I’d note that we pay attention to what their leaders, religious and political, say as well. Trump would be a liberal in their world.
Not so much any more - social media has had a huge impact on Arab societies, the implications of which we are only beginning to understand.