I refuse to believe it's anything but a joke post.
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
I refuse to believe it's anything but a joke post.
The only humane solution is to end the system in which one must sell their labor to have access to the means of survival.
Wafflecakes
Member
I like that as an eventual goal. Don't think it is practical currently.
Most industries are not automated yet, and those industries are what will provide funding for a basic income in the future.
Not to mention that it is a waste of time to discuss it in the current political climate.
Aaronology
Member
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
All I can say if the world gets President Trump, I will blame you so hard for that, America. And yes, that includes everyone in both parties too, because it's clear that how he gets as far as he is right now and possibly beyond is mostly because many are feeling screwed by how both parties run the US so far.
Yeah it's absolutely not practical at all haha. Besides, we need to address climate change first, or shit won't even matter.
But it is an eventual necessity, and the sooner we start talking about it without people cringing in disgust, the better!
Is there a thread about automation on these forums? 'Cause yo I'd like to read some thoughts on this without further derailing this thread. Though I guess there's unlikely to be a long-lasting thread about it, huh. C'est la vie.
Wafflecakes
Member
I think the fear of automation has been stifled by people crying wolf on it in the past.
This is not a new topic. People were panicking in the 80's and 90's that machines in factories would lead to mass unemployment.
Instead we are now sitting at sub 5% unemployment as the jobs just shifted to different industries.
I think it will be hard to get people to care for some time.
Bernie is in favor of it, but there's an obvious catch. As a last measure to handle poverty and potential technological unemployables, a basic income would be considered. The parody is it's the only bullet in the chamber to solve both problems as we stick to bullshit ideas like job guarantees and other social miasma. Most nations proposing the model today is to end poverty, like the groups in Canada making moves on it.
Hillary was humble enough to admit she didn't have an answer, but she deserves praise for the fact she even answered a question about it. It speaks volumes that regressives can't even acknowledge the problem of climate change; how will they handle the second largest macro problem of this century if they deny the first?
One of the reasons we're going to need more Democrats in power is while they're handling the shit-flinging nonsense known as the Republican party and thus propose half-measures to issues that need full-measures, they are the only mainstream base that has talked about this issue, and thus the only one to even propose a solution. The other side is still in the illusion of Reaganomics, even if a UBI is a historically bipartisan goal. America's own social ego is in the way of it being seen that way today.
I know I said I wouldn't pry further, but I can't help myself. I find your response interesting.
While it may not seem practical, if we're going on the concerns of some people - one of which is Alec Ross - the necessity of a basic income will absolutely spike in the next 5-10 years, and Ross was a Senior Advisor to Innovation under then-Secretary of State Clinton. I don't know if it will be that soon - I think 10 is the shortest timetable of massive disruption - but if Ross is right, Clinton might actually inherit this problem in a mainstream way.
I've made threads on this sorta stuff, hence why I seem to be known as the automation mark on GAF. I wish I was the nondual mark, but I can't find a way to plug how free will is bunk in every thread, though I try.
There. No more. PM me if anyone wishes to continue this topic; I don't want my words to derail the thread and its original intent any further, please. Don't coerce me to!
Yeah I agree with you entirely. That's why I'm so scared for the future.
But, on the other hand, the excitement for the things Bernie has to say also give me hope for the future. Maybe once that group grows large enough we can start having the really hard conversations we need to have.
You know, after eight years of Hillary. ):
EDIT:
I don't really have anything to add (at the moment, at least), but I just want you to know I read and appreciate your post!
You're telling me that you exist in a land where jobs haven't been lost to automation and that businesses aren't actively looking to minimize their cost of labor?
Wha? IMO, no platform in 2016 is complete without at least acknowledging that it's a social issue waiting to happen.
Honey Bunny
Member
I'd probably want to take my ball home too if Hillary bloody Clinton was the most progressive candidate available to my country in 2016.
You can say that because you obviously don't live here.
excelsiorlef
Member
And you're on board for the candidate of choice for those people.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I know right, everyone who doesn't support Hillary is a Gamergate supporter according to some people in this thread!
eu pfhor ia
Neo Member
my 2 cents: Clinton likely represents continued neoliberal economics and excessive military-industrial spending, while Sanders represents what could be the beginning of a lasting economic and political shift for the country, which I see as THE key issue- trying to start fixing these systems. So while I still plan to vote for her, it's only because I recognize the stakes in this election and in no way because I actually like her or because I think she will try to meet those goals. I'd love to eat crow on that, but I'm pretty goddamn cynical at this point tbh
Wafflecakes
Member
I know I said I wouldn't pry further, but I can't help myself. I find your response interesting.
While it may not seem practical, if we're going on the concerns of some people - one of which is Alec Ross - the necessity of a basic income will absolutely spike in the next 5-10 years, and Ross was a Senior Advisor to Innovation under then-Secretary of State Clinton. I don't know if it will be that soon - I think 10 is the shortest timetable of massive disruption - but if Ross is right, Clinton might actually inherit this problem in a mainstream way.
Long term I agree that it is inevitable. Though I think it is a lot further off. Probably 40-50 years.
Right now only the wealthiest and most cutting edge companies are even messing with significant automation. I expect that these companies will make great strides over the next ten years, but they only make up a small fraction of total employment in the US.
The tipping point will be when automation is so affordable and customization that smaller and non-traditional businesses (think restaurants) pick it up, but that is still a long ways off.
excelsiorlef
Member
You mean her 93% identical record to Sanders with part of that 7% being more progressive action on gun control?
Prodigal Son
Member
Your sarcasm isn't even far off, guy.
It's been directly implied (and defended by some posters) that old Bernie supporters who are anti-Clinton are of the privileged, straight, white (gamer's gate) crowd.
I really wish this was a joke.
excelsiorlef
Member
So your solution is to sit back and accept and even worse court nominated by the GOP?
Like even if everything you said was accurate, the other option is 1000000 worse.
gutter_trash
Banned
It's nice of you to ignore my post addressing this statistic that you're using incorrectly, but I'd at least hoped you would stop using it incorrectly!
Honey Bunny
Member
Sherlock is it?
excelsiorlef
Member
I'll just quote this
It's hilarious given that you called her two-faced slime, that you're now asking for substance and rejecting anything that amounts to substance.
excelsiorlef
Member
It really doesn't change anything, she had a 93% similar voting record while they were both in the Senate, unless you think those 2 years were just a complete anomaly for her.
You're surprised that someone with a really high unfavorability isn't broadly liked?
If it's any consolation, the current front runner of the opposing party has an even higher unfavorable rating, and the second place runner is so disliked that sitting Senators, of his own party, are joking about him being murdered on the Senate floor and no one caring.
If it's any consolation, the current front runner of the opposing party has an even higher unfavorable rating, and the second place runner is so disliked that sitting Senators, of his own party, are joking about him being murdered on the Senate floor and no one caring.
Big Green Anus
Member
There's must be something negative that Democrats have with Hillary since the amount of votes in the primaries are significantly lower than 2008. It shows that people are not as interested in the her compared to Obama, while the Republicans are having record turnouts. People are really underestimating the Republicans if Rubio gets the nominee.
Right, and that suggests that they have similar views of the legislation that was being passed during that time window. It has very little bearing regarding how progressive, radical, or whatever the two candidates are, but you keep spamming it in response to people suggesting there are significant differences between the candidates. It's not a particularly useful statistic, and seems mostly to be being used to shut down discussion on the topic.
There ARE significant differences between the candidates, and it would be nice if people could say that without a cuckoo clock shouting "93%".
Either actually have a discussion on the issue or leave it alone, but quit stripping it of all nuance so you can shout someone down.
excelsiorlef
Member
That also makers it pretty clear that Sanders doesn't have this revolution going.
Wafflecakes
Member
Not necessarily.
Hillary is the presumptive nominee and has only lost one state. A good chunk of the lower turnout can be attributed to the inevitability of her win.
True.
Big Green Anus
Member
True, but what I was trying to say that the current Democratic line-up is not as strong as Obama and might lose this year. I personally expected close to the turnout in 2008 due to Hillary making history as the first woman president.
Nope, Sanders didn't vote to send my brother off to die in Iraq. In addition, quit expecting Clinton to become something other then the existing person she is: a 3rd way pro war politician & Walmart board member.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I would absolutely respect her more if she had not changed her opinion on TPP, because then it would be an actual position she had instead of whatever she thinks will get her votes right now. Obama, lame duck though he is, has absolutely stuck to his guns on TPP and I respect that even though I categorically oppose TPP. I know where Obama stands on everything he does and I respect that even if I don't agree with some things he stands for.
excelsiorlef
Member
I think the reality is that for pretty much all demographics above 30 they see Clinton as inevitable so there isn't that huge drive to go out and vote.
Clinton's lead amongst likely primary voters is significant.
Wafflecakes
Member
If he doesn't then he deserves nothing but scorn and contempt.
I don't think it will come to that though.
I think there is definitely a risk of Rubio winning if he gets nominated, but primary turnout doesn't historically correlate to general turnout.
excelsiorlef
Member
I'd be shocked if he doesn't endorse Clinton.
I'll just say there are plenty of links posted in this thread that highlight that yes in fact Clinton is progressive.
That you support Sanders over her is understandable and fine, frankly my sole concern is the GE.
shadowsdarknes
Member
It's pretty clear that they are united against their Republican Opponents. Bernie ran his campaign for the people who wanted to take a stand to traditional establishment politics. He didn't run for personal glory. And he will bow out gracefully and endorse Clinton as the best candidate to represent the interest of the every day person.
I don't think the record Republican turnout can be attributed to Rubio.
Trump is a bigger threat to Hillary. I still think she'll beat him, but Rubio won't even come close. Running a poor establishment candidate against a good one doesn't seem like a winning strategy.
2008 was after 8 years of Bush. It's a normal thing to have a larger turnout for the opposing party in the primaries after a long run.
And the country was on the brink of a total economic meltdown. Potent combination of factors for voter turnout.
Rubio doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. Cruz supporters are more likely to support Trump than Rubio if he drops out, and that's the only possible way Rubio has even a sliver of a chance of being nominated.
At the same time, a lot of Rubio/Kasich supporters are unlikely to support Trump in a general election.
That's where I think the Democrats have a problem with Hillary - she's such a divisive candidate that plenty from the Republican side will turn out even if they can't stand Trump.
Of course, the effect from the Republicans running Trump is likely to be the same if not greater.
It's going to be a fascinating race.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I'm sorry for your loss, but your brother died because Bush lied. To everyone. Most Democrats voted for the war, too. And people went from being against the war to being in favor of it when Bush lied to Colin Powell to get Colin Powell to lie to all of us. So never forget who destroyed this country and destroyed Iraq, and be happy his brother didn't even make it past the primaries.
excelsiorlef
Member
Sanders would also be a beacon for the GOP to try and get their base out even more.
Frankly any Democrat is.
I'm not sure anyone actually knows what Trumps views are. He just appears to say shit. His platform isn't really coherent.
I would fear him in the general though, his race-baiting message gets a lot of attention, but he spends a lot more time on a populist message.
He is sort of like the evil version of Bernie Sanders, where instead of trying to come up with smart policies to fix economic equality, he announces dumb hateful shit-for-brains ideas to fix economic equality and corruption. That said, a lot of people are dumb too, and so it might not matter.
I do think Hillary has a problem this year. I'm not sure about the "writing in Bernie thing", but I could see a race where people just generally don't show up for Hillary. This year has a feel like 2010 to me, where people are just so unenthused by the candidates where Dem's might just not show up at the polls. I also think Trump is going to go HAM on Hillary in ways that she really has no answer to.
Yes, he may be a racist, hateful piece of shit, but there's a bunch of shit he can try to pin on Hillary, either because it's actually true, or at least "LOOKS" true enough.
Imagine what he's going to say about the speeches...
SaviourMK2
Member
I'm a Bernie fan, but I don't hate Hillary, I just don't believe she's anywhere close the the Progressive she claims to be.
I'm also of the mind that America needs to try different policies, not the same old ones.
I'd prefer Hillary over any Republican candidate, but I still think Sander's is the true Progressive and America needs to try something different than typical Capitalism.
Young people don't like Hillary, they don't believe shell help them get ut of the mess the previous generations have caused.
I'm also of the mind that America needs to try different policies, not the same old ones.
I'd prefer Hillary over any Republican candidate, but I still think Sander's is the true Progressive and America needs to try something different than typical Capitalism.
Young people don't like Hillary, they don't believe shell help them get ut of the mess the previous generations have caused.
Someone lying doesn't automatically absolve others of poor judgement, especially not politicians who's job it is to know better. There was more than enough evidence and antics to show the grounds for war were very weak and unreliable. In-fact, the vast majority of the world was against it.
Hell, so many politician's (especially Republican) to this day still champion this notion that Iran is such an immanent and grave threat. It seems like every year Iran is accused of being moments away from producing this phantom nuclear bomb they're going to use on the US or Israel, doesn't make it remotely true. Hell politicians have been using the same fearmongering propaganda for over a decade.
- Status