The frightening thing, of course, is that neither of these positions are as disconnected from geopolitical reality as Obama’s remain, almost seven years into his presidency. But now we just have to hold on and survive the next fifteen months.
Sorry, like David Brooks, she forfeited any reasons to take her views seriously in 2008. It was perfectly obvious to many of us that Barack Obama was a radical (he told us so himself, in his pledge to “fundamentally transform America”), in his years in Wright’s pews, in his associations with Ayers and Khalidi, in his socialist run in the 90s with the New Party, in his seeking of Marxists in college. I was right, she was wrong.
Obama’s outclassed here — if, that is, his goals are really those stated above. If, as many suspect, Obama is perfectly happy to see America and Europe weakened on the global scale, then he’s not incompetent at all.
Regardless of Obama’s motives, I don’t think he’s capable of discerning those of Vladimir Putin.
Democrats in Congress would be calling for hearings and investigations for each transgression: the bombing, troop levels, and drone policy. Chuck Schumer would hold daily press briefings scolding the wreckless president from behind the glasses perched precariously down his nose. Someone would accurately quote Sheila Jackson-Lee condeming the terrible bombing of the “orphanage in Pakistan”.
But Mitt Romney isn’t president, Barack Obama is, so no one cares.
They told me that if I voted for Romney, the president would be bombing innocent people in hospitals. And they were right!
To be fair, of course, I don’t think Bernie Sanders understands anything about anything.
Related: Bernie Sanders and the fixed-pie fallacy. He (like all Marxists) doesn’t understand that wealth is created, or how. He thinks it’s just something to be magically redistributed.
As AP already noted, this is a winning strategy for Clinton in the primary because her base has largely been sold on the idea of things like expanded background checks at the federal level and a national gun registry. (!) How they will react to actual gun confiscation from law abiding owners remains to be seen. But when it comes to the general election, Clinton has a serious storm brewing on the horizon. Regarding a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns, the public has been consistent in their response for decades. As of last year there was 73% opposition to such a ban, and 63% said that a home was safer if there was a gun in the house.
Those numbers don’t shift when there is a mass shooting. They never do in any significant way. So with all that in mind, I think we need to encourage Hillary to pick up this flag and run with it. In fact, I’m going to go on record as supporting Hillary to be the nominee for the Democrats next year. This is just what the Democrats need and I look forward to her explaining her gun confiscation plans to the public when she debates the eventual GOP nominee.
Yup. And as noted, crime rates, and particularly armed robberies, when up in Australia after the buy-back.
Yes, I think that, while some people have serious health issues, much of this is just fad.
[Update a while later]
I should note that I’m allergic to tree nuts, but it’s never been life threatening, as far as I know. It’s just that if I eat them, the linings of my mouth and throat itch.
One more point. I’m not normally into censorship, but I think that the “Food Babe” moron should be banned from the Internet.
Five years until the first probe hardly seems like a breakneck pace, but I take this more seriously than I do China. I suspect that the next president, whoever it is, will have to make some serious choices about US plans.