Do you mean she’s not advocating ending the wars, or she’s not the only one doing it? In that context, I meant the only one who’s declared candidacy for the Dem nomination, anyway.
What’s that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant? He is advocating ending the wars, and he’s a reliable vote against government spying. Credit where credit is due. It’s a fucking disgrace that he’s far better on these issues than most Democrats are.
Agreed. However, my point is that being against the US interventionist, colonialist and regime-change doctrine isn’t just the purview of the Dems. And that Rand Paul is a monster who can hold progressive views on such matters while also thinking it’s the government’s place to wage a war on women.
As far as current candidates, sure she’s the most outspoken about it.
Because bb has always been flooded with Hillary wannabes that still reminisce about how a moderate message elected Donald Trump. They’re quick to engage in agism but, forget about how Trump hijacked bernies message to sweep their first woman president bs.
It’s a myth only if you don’t think the executive branch and government in general are important. Those of us at the leftward end of the spectrum tend to think government is important and needs to function as well as we can make it function.
Trump’s goal is to tear down the government and erect barriers (figurative as well as literal) to its operation, both for his own self-aggrandizement and to enrich himself (and, secondarily, his family). That’s the kind of thing a petty three-year-old can do pretty well in four hours a day with help from some bootlicking enablers.
The next president’s job (assuming we elect a Democrat) is going to be significantly harder than usual because in addition to trying to achieve progressive policy goals, that president is going to need to do what s/he can to restore faith in government and to reconstruct the guardrails that Trump and McConnell are smashing.
I think that’s true, but under the hood, much of what is happening is operating as it should (the good and the bad). The only time we’ve seen it grinding to a halt in any meaningful way was during the shut down and the GOP has proven they’ll do that well prior to Trump, in their zeal to destroy government.
The problem with Trump is that he has a desire to dominate all aspects of government function in a way that is not in line with out government normally functions and that he has an inability to actually DO that job (because he’s both lazy and incompetent). But his administration still does just work around him, generally speaking. In a more normal administration, much more of the work would fall on others at any rate. President sets the agenda, and the team executes that agenda.
I’m not arguing about this shit for the next two years; period.
I’m not throwing all my time and energy into any candidate this early in the race, as it’s not conducive to anything beneficial.
I’ll be more invested when the primaries are actually close at hand, and until then, I’ll be keeping my eyes and ears open.
When the time comes, I’m voting for whomever has won the Dems’ nom, and I’m not going to act like this upcoming election is some sort of sporting competition.
That kind of shitty mentality about politics is partly how we ended up in this current mess.
Can we all just please agree to push for our favorite in the primaries without getting so pissed at each other that we refuse to vote in the general. We can’t afford that shit again. I like Bernie. I have some concerns about his age and stuff but if he makes it through the primaries I’ll be behind him 110 percent.
The human being occupying the job does not have to be a solar-powered super computer that doesn’t sleep, doesn’t blink, and poops line annotated policy briefs while lifting weights.
That’s the super-leader myth of fascism, not the left. It’s not about how important the executive branch is to the functioning of a government.
Beyond practical questions of his age, my other concern here is that, quite frankly, I think Bernie is a poor candidate.
Oh sure, I love his ideas, his grassroots efforts, the movement he inspired that’s focused on local candidates, and the acceptance of Socalism as something we should aspire to; I think it’s fair to say we wouldn’t have AOC without Bernie.
But as a guy out there on TV giving speeches and inspiring people to think “yeah, he’d be a great President”? Not so much. I watched plenty of debates with Bernie last time around. He’s good at delivering his talking points over and over and doing that hand-pound gesture that makes his hair go all wild and funky. But he’s not a clever debater or a quick wit. Americans get hung up on image and first impressions, and unfortunately, angry granddad is going to be what they’ll see. He’s way better on paper than in person, in my opinion.
Still, the next human being occupying this job is going to have some actual leading to do, not just tearing down. So it’s for sure gonna help if s/he is willing and able to put in long days most of the time.