Really, I think the problem is that Hillary is still an instinctively hawkish person. It's not her genius, but her instincts, that are the problem.
Yes. She is instinctively hawkish and for her to pretend she is some great friend of Obama after dog whistling through the entire 2008 primary is beyond absurd. It really is a disgrace to the Democratic party that we would be considering a standard bearer who thinks it "sends a message" to deport children, that we will "never ever" have single payer because it's too hard (?), that it's okay to lie and bet against the American people by assuming they will never vote for a black candidate. There's a reason Republicans are okay with Hillary Clinton. They have plenty in common.
Hillary Clinton: The real conservative choice for president.
Jesus effing Christ! That's exactly what America needs. A Democratic Tea Party on a DINO hunt.
christ, you are a greek who is in favor of austerity measures who supports an american president who's forwarded an economic agenda that demonstrates the stupidity of "contractionary fiscal expansion" and that embodies the virtues of counter-cyclical fiscal policies. count me as someone on a "DINO hunt" if being on a "DINO hunt" means opposing candidates that a right-wing Greek weirdo, who is okay with the undemocratic rule of EU bureaucrats, supports.
Ummm, what?
Obama, along with Geithner first and then Lew, has consistently pressured Merkel and the other European policymakers to abandon austerity and loosen up fiscal policy, to the point that Schauble has openly expressed his annoyance with the American interference in EU's internal affairs.
Also, what the fyck has that to do with the rabid opposition of the Berniebots to Hillary?
Has she advocated austerity in any way and I missed it?
english: do you speak it.
my point is that:
1. the obama administration has forwarded an economic agenda that is very "keynesian" and in touch with prudential macroeconomic practices. everything that you are stating about lew and geithner forms the basis of my post.
2. if i am remembering this correctly, you supported the memorandum and ditched pasok for some center-right liberal party because pasok was insufficiently reasonable.
this really isn't a complex point. i am questioning your bonafides and your general ability to accuse people of being purity trolls or left-wing tea party types seeing as you have a history of being opposed to the left in your own country. the democratic party is, in fact, a big-tent party of the left and my wonderful president's economic policies are a testament to this fact.
anyways, i do not think that berniebros on this forum are passionately opposed to clinton for the most part. i think they are simply aligned with his ideology and support him as such. it's not our fault that clinton has ran a condescending campaign over the past few weeks that implies that sanders supporters are either misogynists or gender-traitors or that a single-payer healthcare system, an idea which hillary clinton was once well-disposed to, would "damage" americans etc. furthermore, few people on this forum believe that hillary clinton should exit the party or that her "establishment" allies are DINOs. the last time i checked, it is the rabid clintonites who imply that they'd sooner vote for a billionaire than sanders. this, in my view, is ideological purity trolling or dogmatism.
