Umm…no, it’s not. “Drinking the Kool-Aid” a reference to Jonestown.
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that people expressing their political opinions on this very lightly-visited forum actually has the capacity to sway voters.
Not an opinion I share, much less the notion of withholding my opinion out of fear as to how others might react to it.
That’s just cowardly.
I believe in Occam’s Razor. I believe Obama’s hand was forced with those stories about children dying of thirst and I whole heartedly supported saving them. I believe we would be seeing similar “convert or die” situations in Kurdistan if we had not intervened.
And who has used the kool-aid talking point the most? That’s right, right wingers have.
Actually, it does. This forum is supposedly a progressive blog, and when some voters who don’t normally vote go to this blog, and see the negative comments about Democrats from supposed progressives, they aren’t going to show up to the polls to support Democrats, which in turn actually suppresses more votes for Democrats than any voter ID law from the Republicans. The 2010 midterm election is proof on what happens when unicorn progressives dedicate more of their time attacking Democrats as opposed to Republicans, and here you are, repeating that same failed strategy, attacking President Obama and Secretary Kerry.
Keyword: “Supposedly”.
Being an arm of the DNC isn’t my idea of “progressive”.
Anyway - I guess we’ll just have to disagree on the terrible/not so terrible implications of people expressing their views here.
Will our Republic survive the diversity of opinions? Stay Tuned!
Doesn’t anyone take some heart that no fewer than ten Arab countries have agreed to aid the US in military strikes on ISIS, which is a threat to their countries?
(I know, I know, the NYT calls this ‘tepid’ support, but hey, have ten Arab nations ever agreed on anything except the destruction of Israel before??)
If those Arab countries will get their clerics and billionaires under control that’s more than half the battle.
And who made you the arbiter of what is/isn’t “progressive”?
The root word of “progressive” BTW, is progress. How are you making progress when you posit negativity against the very politicians amiable to progressive causes?
The only point all progressives should agree upon is getting rid of the current GOP, because they are the real problem. How can you attack Democrats when it’s Jack Kingston (R) who pretty much laid out the Republican strategy below:
A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, ‘Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.’ It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.
Thing is, it’s not just Republicans following that strategy, it’s unicorn progressives such as yourself that refuse to be pragmatic and practical, as opposed to clinging to ideology no matter what.
ICYMI This is an important article that accentuates the difference between “you don’t roll out a new product in August” foreign policy with a reluctance to go to war.
“Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama”
“I was not here in the run-up to Iraq in 2003,” he told a group of visitors who met with him in the White House before his televised speech to the nation, according to several people who were in the meeting. “It would have been fascinating to see the momentum and how it builds.”
In his own way, Mr. Obama said, he had seen something similar, a virtual fever rising in Washington, pressuring him to send the armed forces after the Sunni radicals who had swept through Iraq and beheaded American journalists. He had told his staff, he said, not to evaluate their own policy based on external momentum. He would not rush to war. He would be deliberate.
Kerry is all over the map:
CNN (9/11): “We are not at war against ISIS”
TPM (9/14): “We ARE at war with ISIS”
America pays for its empire with rank doublespeak. “To disengage” is the only long-term cure, along with seating of grand juries to probe matters of war crimes no matter where they lead. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed due to American aggression.
Context, do you understand what that word means?
Very few of the people in DC are actually “Progressive”. It’s all about the continuation of the status quo, as an actual Progressive movement would be highly disruptive to the Fat Cats that make up the donor base.
Citizens United is going to have a lasting and highly negative effect on this country - no actual “Progressive” is going to be allowed anywhere near the levers of power as long as Cash is King.
Here’s an example of how Progressives get ignored and marginalized:
The most contentious issue between the congressional progressives and Obama remains trade. Obama wants fast-track trade promotion authority in order to complete trade agreements — including one with the European Union and countries that are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Progressives don’t want to give it to him.
“There is no trust whatsoever with this admin on the trade issue,” progressive strategist Mike Lux said.
Lux added that while he “appreciates the movement” on some issues, the president hasn’t taken progressive concerns seriously enough.
We are at battle with ISIS in the same way we are at war with the rebels in Somolia. It’s a drone and bombing mission. You take them out when they get too close to valuable infrastructure or reveal their whereabouts.
You don’t put your military at risk on the ground and spend money you don’t have to chase anarchists that will burn themselves out soon enough on their own. These guys are more like pirates who have to depend on ransom money to exist unless Sunni dictators hire them to do their bidding.
They are not a country or a real military. Just mercenaries who like to think they are religious. Their actions prove they aren’t.