- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Concerning the matter of same-sex marriage, it's worth pointing out that the average American didn't embrace the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage until 2013 either.[...] She's even scaled back on the degree to which she supports the death penalty to the point that she now says she'd sign a bill repealing it nationwide if one came before her.
The anti-death penalty DNC position was, again, one that was pushed for by Bernie surrogates, but I digress.
Look, I'm hardly unequivocal in my support of Hillary Clinton as someone who personally favors participatory democracy [but] I can't help but feel that you really just want to believe that Hillary Clinton is this cartoon villain still stuck in the politics of the 1990s and just as bad as Trump, but it just seems dishonest to believe that.
I've posted this before, but prior to the primary, I was rather indifferent to Hillary Clinton. I assumed that Sanders was going to push her to the Left a bit, which would be nice, and then we'd have a slightly more leftish version of Hillary, and I'd vote another milquetoast, half-right-wing Democrat over the far right-wing Republican, and that was the best of option out of many worse options. By June of this year that changed, and now I pretty much will never feel anything but seething contempt for Hillary --I'll be honest about that. But it's important why that happened.
1.) The name "Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine" on your ballot is a lot more than the person Hillary Clinton and the person Tim Kaine. It's the institution of people, including other elected officials and the donors who fund them, it's the media allies they have, and it's the people that they let work beside them day after day. So when I say Hillary Clinton, that's who I mean.
2.) The most conspicuous thing about the primary was how open their disdain (i.e. Hillary, the DNC, the DNC-friendly media) for the Left was. That really can't be understated, the DNC is an organization that not only promotes the status quo, they are very happy with the way the country is progressing (A country where now the top 10% control 90% of the wealth). It means something that fellow so-called left-wingers treated left-wing policies with contempt and acted like they were stupid and (I'm quoting Hillary) "fairytales" that "are never going to happen," that they brutally lied about and viciously slandered Leftists and Leftist politicians, that they threatened people like Tulsi Gabbard not to endorse and vote her conscience, and that they condoned breaking their own rules and then immediately coming to the aid of the people who broke them. This is oligarchy at it's finest, and it's inexcusable, it's disgusting, and I will never be okay with it, no matter how much I don't want to see Trump in the Oval Office.
3.) Hillary is a feminist when it means she should be free from sexist slander, but when it's in her interests to slander and make sexist claims about other women? Her mouthpieces immediately fall in line, from Madeliene Albright telling women they were going to hell for not supporting Hillary (and Hillary refusing to denounce that statement even after Albright apologized for it) to Gloria Steinem saying female Sanders supporters "just wanted to meet boys" to Chris Hayes' slandering (in spite of him now apparently agreeing with her) of Susan Sarandon. No one complained about sexism when Hayes talked over Sarandon and treated her like she was a crazy nutcase, but boy did the DNC-friendly media fall in line with the trope that Bernie was a flaming "sexist" who was "tone deaf" for asking her to stop speaking over him during his speaking time. And not being enough to slander Bernie, Hillary's campaign and allies went directly after his supporters, too, calling them sexists and racists. It was just tedious, offensive, and unnecessary.
4.) It disturbs me how much Hillary Clinton supporters (not voters like myself, but the people who are full-throated, so-called liberals and leftists who endorse and promote her) are willing to ignore, dismiss, or excuse her actions. Presidents need people to keep them honest.
But the really core thing for me is the Syria issue. I'm very committed to supporting the anarchist Rojava Revolution
I don't support military invasions of any kind unless they are defensive or the world gets together and decides to send in a UN Peacekeeping force or equivalently globally-agreed-upon initiative to stop human rights violations. I think the US unilaterally getting involved in foreign affairs, no matter how noble (and trust me, I very much like the idea of feminists in the middle-east), has more serious, less obvious consequences. And in any case, the belief that the US will obviously be a force for good in these situations is ameliorated by our own historical failures and war crimes in these missions. So I don't condone imperialism, even when I happen to want the outcome.
Last edited: