Anyway, don't misunderstand me: Clinton isn't great just because they called her terrible. I just need to look up reliable sources. But I'm super leery of the vitriol now, it seems suspiciously one-sided. Clinton supporters say Sanders' platform is too extreme to get enacted, whereas a certain Sanders supporter *in this thread* keeps saying Clinton "only gets votes because she has a vagina".
Next time I see it phrased so baitingly, I'm reporting. I'm sick of that feud, and people have been banned recently for far less.
come at me bro
And no, Clinton supporters say Sanders' supporters are racist/misoygnist/Communists/lazy/ignorant/"Bernie Bros"/do I need to fucking go on? Don't act like this is a one-sided street. It's a long fall from that moral high horse.
My complaint with Clinton is not that she is female. It's with her character and her questionable track record. Now, I *do* have a problem with the narrative put forth by some Clinton surrogates that women in particular should vote for Clinton primarily on the basis of her gender. And if you want to deny that narrative is being pushed, I can post a fuckton of links for you.
I want my first time with a woman president to be something special. Someone who will transform me into a more complete and mature citizen.
And yet you're supporting Clinton? *snnrk*
I want to save this quote and bring it up four years from now, after President Clinton begins ordering drone strikes on a resurgent Occupy movement.
Given that Obama has had a fairly low approval rating for a while now, and Bill is most known for cheating on her, I'd say her predecessors are not the best thing to bank on, all things considered.
The presidency of Bill Clinton is widely regarded, with quite a bit of justification, by Democrats as a Golden Age, and if he were allowed to run he'd probably win in a landslide. A huge percentage of Hillary's support base back her because they hope for a return.
Except that it really wasn't. I was old enough to be politically aware during the 90's. There was some tense shit going on, and everyone started losing their minds with millennialism (before that referred to a whole generation of people) and conspiracy theories and black helicopters and FEMA death camps and certain people going far enough down the rabbit hole that they blew up a Federal building. Or an Olympic park. Or sniped abortion doctors.
Economically, it was a boom era, but that had far less to do with Clinton himself, and far more to do with the birth of the Web. The growth of the Internet and the Web was almost single-handedly responsible for the economic boom of the latter 90's (and its resultant flame-out). I'd wager that the same kind of boom cycle would have occurred under most Presidents in that situation. But in repealing Glass-Steagall and passing free trade bills that made it easier than ever to offshore labor (and profits), he also laid the groundwork for the kind of hypercapitalist globalism that's steadily gutting this country, and which Trump and Sanders are a reaction to (Trump from the Pat Buchanan right-wing school of anti-globalization
[close the borders but leave the wealth in place], and Sanders from the Noam Chomsky left-wing school of anti-globalization
[redistribute the wealth but leave the borders open]).
Hillary is much more akin to the Thomas Friedman "radical centrist" school of pro-globalization, and I think the events of the last 15 years have discredited Friedman to the point of being a laughing-stock.
EDIT: In other news, Clarence Thomas spoke during oral arguments for the first time in ten years. TEN YEARS. This may be the first recorded instance of a puppet speaking only *after* the puppeteer has died.