2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease stop telling me I will vote for Sanders because I am a leftist.
I admit it. I am a leftist. Always have been and always will be. No one in Congress is left leaning enough to suit me. No one. They all play the same game---beg for dollars, pander for votes. Some of them are lucky enough to have constituencies (Vermont) that demand that they act like liberals. Some of them were unfortunate enough to have constituencies (New York) that demanded that they protect them from any more terror acts. They did what they did, because it is part of the job of being an elected official in the US. None of them have halos. All of them have feet of clay. All of them. The perfect candidate is one who would never run for office, because he or she is too busy leading protests or running a soup kitchen or raising awareness about an important cause. Everyone who runs for office has something slightly wrong with them. Everyone.
I will vote for the candidate who has the best chance of prevailing in November and who is best able to get the job done. The job being to obstruct the New Federalists and the Tea Party and all the other crazies on the right and maybe even guilt the members of Congress into not acting like total assholes 24-7 . I do not expect a president to single handedly change the structure of our government. He or she will have to know how to use the current system.
I am not looking for Eugene McCarty. I am looking for a second term of LBJ---LBJ as in Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Medicare. LBJ as in gets the job done. Competent. Crafty. Able to work both sides of the aisle.
Come on candidates. Show me your inner LBJ.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It's the "no true Scotsman" thing.
BTW: A REAL "leftist" would have known that.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)SunSeeker
(51,787 posts)elleng
(131,296 posts)LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)the war. The good that LBJ did was almost overshadowed by Vietnam, which cost around 58,000 American lives and millions of lives in SE Asia. Vietnam also cost the Democratic Party millions of votes, and Nixon and Reagan might not have happened if LBJ hadn't continued and escalated the Vietnam War. So I would say that being pro-peace is more important in a candidate than anything else.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Will we stay at home and mind our own business? Stances like "I never ever want us to be at war ever" are unrealistic. And they will bomb in the general election, because the average American wants the federal government to keep him/her safe first, second and third. Everything else is gravy that can be managed on a local level.
Ask yourself this: Are you happy that Bill Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda? Was that the right choice, because sending US troops abroad is always wrong? Hillary wanted Bill to send in troops. Was this a sign of her unrepentant "hawkishness"?
LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)Vietnam was a 100 percent elective war, like Iraq. My position is not against all war, it's against unnecessary wars, and I also think that it's extremely important for a President to know which is which.
Kevin from WI
(184 posts)America has been fighting other people's wars for a long time. It is unsustainable for the US to keep fighting all these wars. We do not have enough troops, money, or equipment to keep this up. We can not intervene in every Rwanda type conflict. Is Somalia better off because we intervened? How about Iraq? I think it is arrogant to think that America has all the answers and will always make the right decisions in other people's conflicts.
War should be rare and only used as a last resort. People die in war, and a lot of them are not soldiers, but civilians. Please remember that before you champion having bombers sent to fight the next conflict.