Maybe Obama should be blamed for doing a bad job as president. Blaming Russian interference is so last 9 years ago.
And by extension, buying into the Russian meddling story would imply that the presidential election can be swayed by some trolls and memes. That means Dems got outplayed by trolls and memes. Makes them look even worse.
I am not a democrat but I would guess its all relative. Yes, Obama sucked at foreign policy but compare him with Trump, Bush, Clinton, and he seems like an Angel from Heaven. It would also have been nice if he was more on the frontfoot against the right rather than trying to be "balanced". But suspect donors have too much control of the democratic party.
Well.. I would say there's plenty of people who don't think Clinton was a bad candidate and don't blame the Democrats for tilting the primary toward her. I'm not sure that's even consensus opinion among committed Democrats.
But then how did she lose to the Orange Jackass, Obama may have his critics over his foreign policy but economy was booming when he left the presidency, being associated to the obama administration was a big positive for Hillary, all negativity around her came from her own controversies.
Benghazi, being a woman, e-mail scandal, running a bad campaign in terms of states visited, etc.
I personally think she was a bad candidate, too many controversies around her, the guy i replied to didn't think she was the problem hence my question, as i agree, literally anyone but Hillary comfortably smokes trump in the 2016 elections.
Agree, she was a bad candidate. She came across as inauthentic and the embodiment of the Washington establishment that people had really started resenting. It was a change election and the Dems ran a status quo candidate.
I believe we have seen that it doesn't take Russians to spread misinformation. The West is pretty good at doing that on it's own accord. As long as we have the Internet, we are even more prone to it. Maybe the Russians bumped things along, and still are, but it grows organically unfortunately.
The no real options felt mostly down to dems trying to set a clear path for hillary, no clue who these guys you have mentioned are, only popular jim i know is from Office and the lincoln i know about would not have qualified on count of being dead for centuries, but i am pretty sure they would have smoked trump if they stood against him.
She would have been better than Trump and she would have been a horrible president. Simply because she comes from the same neoliberal school of thought as the others and therefor advocates the same shitty neoliberal policies as the rest.
Well, it's not really that easy for a party to win three consecutive terms. The last time it happened was way back with George Bush Sr. in the late 80s.
I think that was never a good theory and it was largely disproven by the next two elections. It also has no political use anymore.
And when you are just as compromised regarding oligarchy and capital as the GOP but have slightly different views on that (economics). So, what can divide people? We'll be "pro-life" and you be "pro-choice". That's one difference (not a fictional difference, don't get me wrong, but it is weaponized that way and each "side" knows it). Different agendas for killing free speech with antisemitism the goldilocks zone where each meet. The GOP wants all DEI (their DEI) removed and the Dems don't want you to be allowed to hurt anyone's feelings not because they give a shit but because they want to weaponize it themselves.
Pretty much this. Well put.
No it's not, it pedantic tripe. Both parties may suck ass, but to frame the two sides as having "slightly different" views on economics is just dumb, and to frame the protection of the rights of at risk groups as not being "allowed to hurt anyone's feelings" as being on par with disappearing college students is just.....I mean, I guess it explains how we got here if that is "well put".
I disagree. The differences in economic politics are marginal and identity politics are basically the one big difference there is between the parties. It’s basically Wolin‘s concept of inverted totalitarianism. Economically it’s neoliberalism in slightly different shapes and forms, in regards to exterior politics there’s no choice at all and the difference between the parties are mostly identity politics.
Not what I said at all. It's you arguing a strawman insofar as I can tell. My post is more nuanced than that is not "both sides" (insofar as that exists it is well qualified and refers to Columbia and other universities which, under the Biden admin, were brutally harassed and many faculty and student careers destroyed for protesting genocide in Israel). Trump merely followed that trend with the inclusion of hyper-deportation Trumpism.
Basically. I might have left it too vague or something but I wasn't arguing "no difference" at all or that what is happening is not sinister.
Nice of you to put "no difference" in quotes when I literally did not say that in my post. I correctly referenced your "slight different" comment.
Yes, and I won't be walking that back. They don't give a shit about people's feelings. It's CIA level (not a joke) of inclusivity of things like LGBTQ not because they give a shit but because they want to weaponize communities and symbols. Now, Chuck Schumer just wrote a book, brilliantly brought to pieces by Norman Finkelstein, under precisely the topic you would have me walk back. The protests (against genocide) "hurt feelings" was his justification for what he did (DNC) to those students and faculty.
I do that a lot but it is never my intention. My bad if worded wrong. Probably not qualified sufficiently.
We need Skip Bayless to run for the GOP then. Would be pure cinema.
That’s been the case since Reagan really.
