General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: With her speech today, HRC made herself the pro-slaughter candidate. [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)being a convincing or useful argument, if your aim is to drive people away from Hillary Clinton. Anyone who listened to the speech did not come away with anything like a "pro-slaughter" sentiment (she talked about bringing all the other diplomatic and economic powers to bear), and your statement that a "war president can't be progressive" is patently absurd: I thought of FDR immediately, too.
Indeed, I watched Bernie Sanders on Charlie Rose the other night, and he sounded pretty hawkish, by your standards. He was asked if he agreed with Obama's decision to send 450 more troops as advisors. He started to agree and then said he hadn't fully studied it, but that (insert positive things here about Obama's policies in that regard) we needed to defeat ISIS. "Slaughterer?"
Hyperbole is not effective argumentation. Distorting speech isn't effective argumentation. Any presidential candidate is going to have to say they will keep this country safe. If you see blood dripping out the sides of their mouths, that's your problem. The rest of America will see it as a kind of basic requirement.
Fail on the attempt to scare people.