So 28% knew it was bullshit. And so did the millions of people marching in the streets of every major non-US city.
And so did Hillary.
2 Likes
And so did Bernie Sanders.
Only, he stood up for truth and decency.
3 Likes
Yâknow, I wonder how many on the (bleached, wishy-washy, centre- ) left look at Clinton like they looked at Obama and only see her femaleness, like they only saw his blackness, and (subconsciously) think to themselves, this will make it all better, this bit of empty symbolism. And be so invested in having the first female president, hot on the heels of the first black president, that all Obamaâs dashed Hope of Change is swept to one side along with the litany of valid concerns regarding Clinton that people have, like so many trillions of public revenue palmed by the banksters.
At least these guys arenât Republicans though, hey? They have the decency to pretend theyâre not evil, and go to the trouble of making pretty sounds for us. Meanwhile, the scumbag elite wonders what inconsequential bone they can throw us next⌠I know, Latino and gay! And legal weed - thatâll even help generate apathy along with more tax to steal.
Speaking as a benighted foreigner, I have to ask, compared to whom? Of the potential candidates lined up for the extended job interviews for the job of POTUS next year, of who among them are there not valid concerns to be had? And who among them does not have a pile of invalid concerns that the media and every twit on twitter are determined must be dealt with in detail before they can pass the interview?
Your concerns about Rodham Clinton might be valid or invalid, I donât know; it all depends on your criteria. Itâs a bit of an irregular verb, innit: âYour concerns about my favoured candidate are invalid, my concerns about your favoured candidate are not only valid, but paramount.â
2 Likes
Itâs unreasonable to support something if you donât know whatâs in it, regardless of whether your boss is championing it or not,
2 Likes
Not really. But Iâm sure she appreciates your advice on how to do her job.
So obviously you disagree that endorsing something on your bossâs say-so is a bad thing, but can you accept that lots of people disagree with you on this one and that it might be a reasonable difference of opinion?
1 Like
I definitely see that lots of people disagree with the way Clinton handled it, and I also see that most people here seem to loathe her as much as the right wing. I donât actually see that âlots of peopleâ disagree with me, as only one or two have responded.
I see it this way: from what we understand, the Secretary of State was given information on the TPP that led her to believe that it was a pretty good option, from her point of view. When she was given a more complete set of information, she apologized, reversed that opinion, and explained why she did so. Itâs odd to me that that would be seen as âunreasonableâ or âfoolishâ.
Was this actually a Republican tactic to help Hilary Clinton so that she could win the nomination against Bernie Sanders at the insistence of the Depublican (Remocrat?) corporate masters?!?
2 Likes
Sexism is still firmly entrenched in the country, almost as much on the left as the right.
Think about how frothed-mouth the right gets about a black man as President of the U.S. Itâs the same thing.
1 Like
I donât know that all of the dislike of her from the left/Dems is sexist (although some surely is). The preferred alternative is/was Elizabeth Warren - while still prefer to Sanders, much as I like him.
FWIW, I dislike Clinton because sheâs a corporatist warhawk, and I donât much like the idea of repeated presidents from the same family.
But if I can be arsed to sort out citizenship before the election Iâd have no qualms at all voting for her against any of the Republicans (pointless as it would be anyway in WA).
I think sheâll be a president on the right side of history, as Obama is. But others would be better.
9 Likes
I think we can safely infer that if two people on the BoingBoing BBS think so, that there are probably thousands of other people at least who think the same thing.
Your interpretation of the situation obviously depends on at least a few assumptions that others may not be willing to make. Assuming it was an honest change of opinion on the basis of new information, then yes it wouldnât be fair to characterize it as âunreasonableâ or âfoolishâ.
But some may take the assumption that Clinton was led around by the nose so long on this subject itself to be âunreasonableâ or âfoolishâ, and think that itâs much more likely that Clintonâs reversal is a cynical ploy.
Given the typical behavior of politicians, that doesnât seem like a really crazy, out-there assumption to make to me, anyway.
3 Likes
Yes, really.
Why donât more folks have trouble with the whole corporatist warhawk bit? Iâd have thought more of us would be on the same page, and be less swayed by her supposed credentials as a Democrat and a person lacking a dick to swing⌠because itâs pretty obvious she is a swinging dick, so to speak.
Sanders is what Democrats used to be, before they lost their way and bought into the systemic corruption. Surely it doesnât take an unusual degree of historical knowledge to perceive that, and thus be aware that heâs the only option anyone sensible could actually be happy with.
Clinton may not be a crazy Republican, but she could totally have stood for nomination as a Republican candidate thirty or forty years ago. Sheâs a status quo candidate. You know, that status quo weâve all been getting so damn tired of? That extremely radical proposal of business as usual in the face of ubiquitous evidence that thatâs an extremely bad idea?
You know what I think is conservative? Recognising that itâs probably a good idea to stop doing a whole bunch of stuff that we know is really, really stupid. Thatâs
#not radical
3 Likes
If Warren would only run, sheâd look like the moderate now. Sheâs just a traditional New Deal Democrat.
Itâs not like sheâd have to quit the Senate, unless ⌠is she afraid she would win?
1 Like
Funny how so many of us, at the time, clearly knew the whole thing was a fraud and spoke out against the war. It is almost like the public knew something the politicians didnât orâŚactually cared.
This âthe Democrats were fooled by evil Republicansâ narrative isnât going to get you very far. Reasonable folks recognized the war was without real basis at the time.
3 Likes
It isnât hindsight, as @anon62122146 said, IF WE WERE SAYING IT AT THE TIME (and we were).
Fixed that for you, Carnage.
2 Likes
Who is the presidential candidate for âfree willâ that weâll be allowed to vote for? Remember, we only get two choices.
1 Like
By the way, look up the term âDeep Stateâ sometime.
1 Like
