My bigger pet peeve is with Clinton Supporters who shitpost and smear of any criticism against her as purity bullshit or as a GOP brainwash propaganda.
It is this weak, and timid fanboy defense of someone who cannot own up to the mistakes. I've seen posts in PoliGAF that defends every fucking legitimate critique of her policies as a sign of what a great person she is.
Her support of Netanyahu is terrible. It's not something that should be defended. He is a proxy dictator. A right-wing racist maniac who has instigated thousands of deaths, in what is essentially a new frontier of US colonization. You can compare the Palestinians to the Native Indians in that they are slowly but surely getting fucked up and ignored, and propaganda liked it's executed via AIPAC is there to twist the narrative.
The death penalty is another one of those, that are neither a GOP attack or based in purity. Many, many countries of the world universally agree that it is a barbaric, ignorant policy stance to have that is an embarrassment to any civilized society.
Particularly so in a country that has done such a disasterous job in targeting minorities through racial court, and through bogus proceedings. There is little room for interpretation there, so to see people defend this as "YAS QUEEN" is just incredible insulting and gross. Snowden is another talking point where I think she (and Obama) is just flat out wrong in calling him a criminal. He is practically a hero who uncovered fuckery by the NSA. She should own up to it. This is not a FOX news talking point either.
I think her stance on fracking is hypocritical. It's good she embraces climate change, but saying that more studies need to be done on fracking is just bullshit. And the same goes for the legalization of weed. We all know where this is headed, and it annoys me that she won't´just come out and say it. The overwhelming science community agrees that fracking is damaging the environment.
If the reality is that the US economy needs to rely on fracking as it veins off coal, she needs to come out and say it.
Hillary might be forced because she has to pander to her moderate base. And that I understand and sympathize with. But as an armchair critic, I'm within my right to say a policy is bad when I see it's bad. When people defend her talking points- Not her decisions for a fair judgment, but flat out starts arguing that Netanyahu is great, weed is bad and fracking is perfectly safe... That is just annoying.
I agree with 93% of Hillary Clinton according to Isidewith, and that is when we all took the test in the early in 2015. Since then, she has absorbed Bernies platform, and it's probably closer to 98% now.
I'm fine with Hillary. I just don't like her fanatic supporters, much like Hillary supporters who are fine with Bernie, don't like Bernies fanatic supporters. It's the support of the ground troops that irk the knee jerk reaction, and it usually boils down to a few posters saying some arrogant bullshit.
I'm really hoping The Democrats will try and deliver on their most progressive platform in history. I do wonder what the moderate democrats feels about it. I don't think they are too happy about all these young people coming to the convention, starting shit and pushing the entire party left. After all, there are people within the democratic ranks who basically sabotaged Obama on many of his progressive issues. I'm concerned, as I try to make peace with my cynicism about the influence of donor money, and how corruptible humans are. I just don't understand how companies like Exxon Mobile give money to candidates if nothing fishy is going on.
Or AIPAC. Or big pharma. Or big arms vendors like Haliburton. Do these multi million dollar donations really comes hands free? These corporations are so disgusting and vile in their treatment of people for maximum profit that it makes me skeptical that they give a shit about politics unless they want to somehow favor the game. But that is not an accusation on Hillary or calling her crooked or corrupt, but I share Sanders concern as he said "I have huge doubts when candidates receive massive sums of money". That is not an unreasonable skepticism to have. It is unreasonable to flat out accuse someone of corruption however.
I hope for the best once she is elected. Hopefully she is. We will just have to see how the pendulum swings. I think in her first term, things will be difficult like it was for Obama and a lot of negativity will be around her, but I think that maybe things will improve. A lot of it depends on if they can take the senate in 2 years. And if they get someone through the supreme court who is liberal and young. Things could be interesting. If she gets citizen united overruled it could quite something. If the deregulation of wall street or whatever they do, can stop shadow bank (the real problem) that too would be something worth being pessimistic about.
It will take a Sulla type personality, to walsh in and reform the two-party system, and make it so third parties can be a part of coalition politics. Maybe Hillary can help do it. That would really be something!
