Sure, I’d used that metric since it shows a difference between Dems and the GOP which the confused person I’d replied to said were completely indistinguishable. It isn’t that presidents of both parties don’t engage in global conflicts, but which they choose and how they’re engaged in. I’m not a fan of either, but since the GOP under Reagan/DLCification of the Dems, one’s Party’s consistently created higher death tolls around the globe due to their chosen methods of choosing who to engage and how.
I have no clue who you are planning to vote for. Which is good, because we all should get a secret ballot at election time, right?
But you are (or seem to be) equating support for Trump with support for Hillary, and the rise of racism and reaction to that with the advocating of a pro-choice position. I’m speaking to specifics of your comments above. Maybe it’s because I’ve lived in the south for much of my life that I’m pretty sensitive to issues of race and gender. They do matter and people who wave all of that away and plan to vote for Trump are really missing the forest for the trees as far as I’m concerned.
And for the record, I’m well aware of the very real problems with Clinton. To imagine she’s not a better choice than Trump or that the racist vote is irrelevant is not very helpful. Sanders, who I preferred lost his chance to win the nomination. But he also has a strong movement for electing progressive candidates locally and for the congress. We’d all come out much
17 Likes
Yes, come to save the day… please. Somebody.
5 Likes
I’m not a fan of either, but since the GOP under Reagan/DLCification of
the Dems, one’s Party’s consistently created higher death tolls around
the globe due to their chosen methods of choosing who to engage and how.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… all the biggest conflicts that caused the largest numbers of dead, wounded and displaced were all bi-partisan, roundly supported by both parties. Even the ones that weren’t undertaken by Democrats, they still voted for them, stood behind them, and funded them. Why do you keep calling them Republican endeavors? Please point out a conflict with a high death toll that Democrats didn’t actively support.
A little light humor to break up the tension:
We have to save ourselves… and sadly, therein lies the problem.
10 Likes
Thank goodness despite being able to comment over and over on facebook, we can only legally vote once at the polls.
5 Likes
I’m not all the way there, but I’m more toward there than I have been in previous elections. I don’t want Trump to win, but I don’t want to be put on the position to have to vote for Clinton either. I don’t know what I’m going to do, but I won’t enjoy it, and I wish I could just flash forward to after the election.
3 Likes
Sumpin’ tells me the crapstorm will be like November 2008, and will not abate soon enough.
2 Likes
Korea/Vietnam were post-Reagan and the DLC?
3 Likes
Clinton will win handily but Trump will find a way to stretch this out 
5 Likes
No, and I truly do understand why you choose to omit them to make your points appear reasonable, but sadly one has to overlook that Democrats supported the rest, too.
It’s nice to make an artificial parenthesis that starts at Reagan so you can pretend these policies started with Republicans, but the fact is it always was, and still is, solidly bi-partisan, and Democrats are just as accountable.
1 Like
#Don’t. We. All.
*lolz
Anyhoos, I get it about feeling irate at being told that you have to make a decision between two choices that you don’t want.
And of course, there is always the choice to be inactive… but that negates whatever minute influence you may have had either way.
Personally I’ve always voted for the lesser of two evils, (as tiresome as that reality is) not because I expect any real change, but because I don’t want it to actively get any worse.
Simply not voting isn’t an option to me; that would be a huge disservice to all my ancestors who marched, fought, bled and, in many cases, died for the right.
12 Likes
Is it because the GOP’s conservative revolution under Reagan and the DLC movement among the Dems both created significant changes in policy both foreign and domestic breaking from previous stands by these respective parties? If you chose a different reason, you’d be incorrect.
4 Likes
My concern for other races also extends to those millions in other nations who suffer and die in proxy wars to further our policies, and those policies people pay us to pursue.
Is that literally just counting the proportion of times each candidate’s name was mentioned, without analysing why it was mentioned? Clinton may make headlines, but she is competing against the orange prince of American self-publicity.
14 Likes
I saw a pickup go past our intersection the other day, it had a large Trump flag planted in the back. My main thought was “now there goes some chutzpah.” For context, this was a white woman, passing a mixed-ethnicity neighborhood, in an African American-majority county. I am guessing that Trump will take less than 20% of the vote here.
ETA: On the other hand, I don’t really see any Clinton signs in the yards around here, either. That may be because it goes without saying, given how our county (Prince George’s) tilts so heavily Democratic (about 87% of registered voters). But if I drive across the Bay Bridge to the Eastern Shore (IIRC even before I reach there) it’s one Trump sign after another, as though they’re trying to spite (most of) the rest of Maryland.
6 Likes
Liked for your ability to insert tribbles into the conversation.
13 Likes
So where exactly is this conversation going? I don’t sense an end in sight nor anything that seems to be a segue to action.
2 Likes
I can see how someone who chooses to omit the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s might believe that.
What peace-loving, “previous stands” are we talking about? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? You want to start with Reagan, saying he changed the game, but you don’t want to look at the game previous to Reagan. Democrats before Reagan happily engaged in terrible wars. They happily supported them after, too, but it’s Reagan’s fault? Why, because they were hypnotized by Republicans? Like children that just started hanging out with the wrong crowd, or something?
Now who is “splitting”?
I think anyone who seeing it as a whole would see iterations of the same policy repeated under both parties, and supported by both parties. You can turn on the news and see the same policies today.
1 Like
