Opinion of the pro-Clinton left

[IceSpear]

FFs (normal).

And this is a really, really bad knockoff of the Putin thread. Supporting a centrist is the same thing as supporting the leader of a right wing oligarchy! lol

[IceSpear]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

Someone who supports Jim Webb for president and likes Andrew Cuomo probably shouldn't be trying to play the purity card against Hillary supporters. Just sayin.

[IceSpear]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

You read a little too much into that. My only point was to highlight the strange nature of the PUMA/#ReadyForHillary coalition, who are the only people who seem to be enthusiastic about the prospect of President Hillary Clinton as opposed to a grudging acceptance of the (supposed) inevitability thereof.

"PUMA" has nothing to do with people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I think there are a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016, but supported Barack Obama in  the 2008 primaries.  I actually really disliked Hillary Clinton after the 2008 primary race.  I thought she ran a presumptuous, classless campaign in 2008 and I don't regret supporting Obama.  I don't think I'm alone in that regard. 

And, sure, if Clinton 2016 runs on the same themes as Clinton 2008 April-June campaign, that would be monumentally stupid on her part.  This is sort of the folly of lining up behind a candidate or criticizing them before the campaign has even started.  Hillary Clinton has to earn people's votes.

It's a strawman. If PUMAs were a significant factor outside of Appalachia, we'd have gotten President McCain. People seem to forget that Hillary got the support of nearly half the party in 2008.

Some people are still stuck in 2008. They think everyone who voted against her in 2008 still hates her (which wasn't even true at the time, but certainly isn't true now). This is where the whole "#shesnotinevitable/#2008redux!!!!" stuff comes from. Now, hundreds of polls have begged to differ on that, but that doesn't stop the bitterness. What reason is there to be bitter anyway? You guys won 6 years ago, it's time to get over your irrational hatred.

[IceSpear]

Setting themselves up for an even more GOP senate and congress!

This doesn't even make sense. Do you think it makes more sense for Democrats to throw the presidential election and potentially risk a right-wing majority on SCOTUS, repeal of most legislation passed during the Obama presidency, forfeiting all executive power, etc. for the sake of MAYBE winning Congress in 2018?

[IceSpear]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

Such as gutting welfare, removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry, signing destructive trade agreements, killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan, smashing union health care plans, fostering the growth of media conglomerates, forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system, and backing neoliberal education privatization schemes? Or is that all just a long con for the magical left-liberal utopia that Hillary will bring after the 2016 elections?

For one thing, the president isn't a dictator. Congress matters. Secondly, incremental change is not worse than nothing. Thirdly, many of these things you listed are mischaracterizations.

[IceSpear]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

Such as gutting welfare, removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry, signing destructive trade agreements, killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan, smashing union health care plans, fostering the growth of media conglomerates, forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system, and backing neoliberal education privatization schemes? Or is that all just a long con for the magical left-liberal utopia that Hillary will bring after the 2016 elections?

For one thing, the president isn't a dictator. Congress matters.

TIL Congress forced Obama to invade Libya

Who said that statement applied to every single thing he listed?

[IceSpear]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

Such as gutting welfare, removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry, signing destructive trade agreements, killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan, smashing union health care plans, fostering the growth of media conglomerates, forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system, and backing neoliberal education privatization schemes? Or is that all just a long con for the magical left-liberal utopia that Hillary will bring after the 2016 elections?

For one thing, the president isn't a dictator. Congress matters.

TIL Congress forced Obama to invade Libya

Who said that statement applied to every single thing he listed?

Which ones did it apply to?

The first two. People tend to gloss over the fact that a heavily Republican right wing Congress passed these policies with veto proof majorities. I'd address the rest of it, but bedstuy has already beaten me to it.

[IceSpear]

Setting themselves up for an even more GOP senate and congress!

This doesn't even make sense. Do you think it makes more sense for Democrats to throw the presidential election and potentially risk a right-wing majority on SCOTUS, repeal of most legislation passed during the Obama presidency, forfeiting all executive power, etc. for the sake of MAYBE winning Congress in 2018?

How much is hillary going to pass when the GOP supermajority going to come around?

First of all, I highly doubt there will be a GOP "supermajority" (either 66% or 60%) in the House or Senate even after 2018. Secondly, even if there was, it still makes no sense whatsoever to throw a presidential election and hand the GOP a trifecta on a silver platter for a MINIMUM of 2 years. Dems gain nothing in this scenario. There's only two possible Senate pickups for Dems in 2018, even in a massive wave. Assuming they win the presidential election, the GOP probably has 52 seats or more after 2016. So taking back the Senate is likely a nonstarter. The House is gerrymandered to hell, but in a wave Dems could take it back. But it's no sure thing that 2018 would be a Democratic wave even if the incumbent Republican is unpopular, particularly because of turnout issues which plague Democrats in midterms. So the stategery here is apparently to throw a presidential election, hand the GOP all the executive power, let them possibly replace Ginsburg and some of their own justices on the SCOTUS, let them repeal countless pieces of legislation passed since 2009, all for...an outside shot at taking the House? Uh, no thanks on that deal.