Support NeoGAF

[Flying Toaster]

I don't like her. Not voting or voting for Trump is not the answer. And midterms... Vote midterms people. I cannot believe how many people will talk shit but only vote for president.

 

[Jetman]

So for a new page so I can get my answers on point for annoying Facebook posts, no liberals here have any good arguments for these issues:

How do you guys argue the Benghazi and email points?

and are just voting her because she's a Democratic, non-idiot Republican?

I'm just hoping there's more people like my second friend than the first.

Yeah, same here. Except I have no friends like your second one so far :/

 

[Future]

I don't like her. Not voting or voting for Trump is not the answer. And midterms... Vote midterms people. I cannot believe how many people will talk shit but only vote for president.

Because liberals have this idea in their head that if they don't 100% agree with the candidate on everything they've ever said or done they don't vote. They can't or choose not to see the big picture of everything that stands to change gradually over the years of an elected official.

People claim that they hate Hilary's foreign policy voting record.... But do they envision trumps "tough America" stance is gonna be good? No? Stalemate then and move on to the next point. Don't stop there and claim your vote doesn't matter because of the "principle" or whatever bullshit excuse to not bother looking into the rest of the issues.

Even if you hate both candidates with a passion, Supreme Court nominee alone should force you to get out there and vote. That right there is a long term ticket towards change.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I'm starting to feel that "Establishment" is going to replace "Liberal" as the new knee-jerk insult for politicians.

 

[Dictator93]

As far as the first paragraph, what makes you think people against Clinton have some deep rooted Freudian misogyny going on?

Even people who hold on to some of the more reaching claims seem to not like her for actual reasons that they believe are crucial.

I'd even say most people dislike her because of her political history, a reason that's extremely valid compared to other complaints .

I mean, I think there are extremely legitimate reasons for disliking hillary clinton as a perosn, and her candidacy. I share the view of others that the clinton history (man and woman) is one of political wheeling, dealing, and corporate interest. Bill repealed Glass–Steagall
and ran a dirty and modern campaign against George H.W. (not to say the repubs were that much better back then). I see similar levels of ethical problems among the way the HIllary Clinton is doing things.

I am just being realistic and stating that those reasons could be used as a cover to hide some people's mysogyny. Evidence of that is something I cannot bring up with exclusive examples in this thread or the media itself, rather, just in passing and my personal experience with americans on the issue.

 

[Angelus Errare]

How do you guys argue the Benghazi and email points?

There were 18 embassy attacks resulting in like 60 deaths under Bush, and I don't hear republicans asking for him to be arrested. I then end the debate with "kill yourself".

 

[Brian Griffin]

Bernie said it best himself. On their worst days, he and Hillary are both 100 times better than any GOP candidate.

Hillary hate is so dumb shit.

 

[Makonero]

There were 18 embassy attacks resulting in like 60 deaths under Bush, and I don't hear republicans asking for him to be arrested. I then end the debate with "kill yourself".

You and I have very different ways of talking politics with friends.

 

[SlimySnake]

I don't think it even has anything to do with her. A lot of people don't want an establishment candidate when the establishment has done fuck all for them the past couple decades.

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

- Obama bailed out the Auto industry which saved millions and millions of jobs. Some estimates had the unemployment rate jumping from 10% to 21%. It would've been chaos.

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

- The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 months during the recession that helped millions of people.

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

- People under 26 were allowed to stay under their parents insurance which saved them thousands in health care costs.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

 

[Steel]

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

- Obama bailed out the Auto industry which saved millions and millions of jobs. Some estimates had the unemployment rate jumping from 10% to 21%. It would've been chaos.

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

- The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 months during the recession that helped millions of people.

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

- People under 26 were allowed to stay under their parents insurance which saved them thousands in health care costs.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

B-b-but if someone has received any money from Wall Street then they're the worst thing on earth! Really!

 

[Future]

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

- Obama bailed out the Auto industry which saved millions and millions of jobs. Some estimates had the unemployment rate jumping from 10% to 21%. It would've been chaos.

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

- The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 months during the recession that helped millions of people.

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

- People under 26 were allowed to stay under their parents insurance which saved them thousands in health care costs.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

Doesn't matter. No one sees the big picture. All they see is that they still have to pay for college and health care, guns are still a thing, and U.S. Isn't pure isolationist so nothing is happening!

 

[Melkezadek]

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

- Obama bailed out the Auto industry which saved millions and millions of jobs. Some estimates had the unemployment rate jumping from 10% to 21%. It would've been chaos.

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

- The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 months during the recession that helped millions of people.

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

- People under 26 were allowed to stay under their parents insurance which saved them thousands in health care costs.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

Thank you.

This is getting almost as ridiculous as those Republicans who say Obama hasn't done anything. If you have been actually paying attention you know that can't be true.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

There were 18 embassy attacks resulting in like 60 deaths under Bush, and I don't hear republicans asking for him to be arrested. I then end the debate with "kill yourself".

You and I have very different ways of talking politics with friends.

LOL..I'm dying.

 

[Maxim726X]

I don't think it even has anything to do with her. A lot of people don't want an establishment candidate when the establishment has done fuck all for them the past couple decades.

Obama is an establishment candidate.

Would you say he's gotten nothing accomplished in the last 7 years?

Also, this thought process is absurd. Could President Sanders enact all of these radical changes he'd like to make with an obstructive legislative branch? Would he then be branded an 'establishment shill' if he wasn't successful in enacting his whimsical programs and laws?

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I don't think it even has anything to do with her. A lot of people don't want an establishment candidate when the establishment has done fuck all for them the past couple decades.

If you've been waiting for decades for an elected official to do something for you, then perhaps some time spent in quiet meditation reflecting on your life and how you got to this point is in order.

 

[dave is ok]

I'm just explaining how these people think.

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

The bailout happened as a result of a crash that was only possible because the SEC is toothless and the government refuses to actually punish risky behaviour. The people who lost their houses to foreclosure don't really give a fuck that Bush got a bailout passed which didn't really help their situation, being without a home and all

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

Again, for all the rounds of quantitative easing - it didn't help the average person. Wages still remained stagnant while costs of living increased, including:

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

Healthcare costs, which even with ACA put most American families one medical emergency from bankruptcy. And:

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

Costs of education, which have skyrocketed and are completely unable to be discharged in bankruptcy. Student loan debt is a bubble waiting to explode at the moment.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

Almost everything you listed these people would list as the government trying to fix the mess they created themselves or let happen. Ordinary people aren't responsible for the crash of 2008, or the wage stagnation or the ballooning costs of healthcare or education. And no quote-unquote establishment candidate has any plan whastoever to fix these things that is radical enough to change anything.

 

[zethren]

I really feel it is a super vocal minority that is trying to make Hillary look worse to encourage more people to vote for Bernie. In the end, I think the majority of Bernie bros (including me) will vote for Hilldawg.

Yep.
I want Bernie to win, but if Hillary gets the nom I'm voting for her.

Either of them are light years better than any of the Republicans.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Almost everything you listed these people would list as the government trying to fix the mess they created themselves or let happen. Ordinary people aren't responsible for the crash of 2008, or the wage stagnation or the ballooning costs of healthcare or education. And no quote-unquote establishment candidate has any plan whastoever to fix these things that is radical enough to change anything.

You post all of the above as if the general population has no responsibility with regards to these things. Perhaps if the besieged populace chose to exit their hibernation more than once every four years, the legislature would more represent their interests. Perhaps if some small set of these folks who get enraged every four years actually used that energy to run for local offices themselves or even merely get involved at the local level, things would change and progressive ideas would trickle up, as they have from California, Hawaii, and other places. Sanders didn't spring up over the summer from nothing, he started his ascent at the local level, as did Rubio, as did many many others. You (royal) have a problem with the system? Perhaps instead of impotent message board posting you (royal) should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why if you care so much about these issues do you not put your own butt on the line to try to effect change.

 

[lastflowers]

fuck all?

- Bush passed the Wallstreet bailout that prevented us from going into Depression. An anti-establishment candidate wouldnt have done that out of principle and caused millions of us to live on the streets.

- Obama bailed out the Auto industry which saved millions and millions of jobs. Some estimates had the unemployment rate jumping from 10% to 21%. It would've been chaos.

- Obama the put in nearly a trillion dollars in the economy which turned the economy around and provided millions of jobs.

- Obama then passed ACA which provided insurance to millions of people.

- The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 months during the recession that helped millions of people.

- the student loan interest rates were halved to just 3% that helped millions of students.

- People under 26 were allowed to stay under their parents insurance which saved them thousands in health care costs.

But sure, keep believing your nonsense that the establishment candidates have done fuck all to help people.

[apologize for rambling. written in a break while drinking coffee]

Except, what were the market conditions that led to the financial industry that caused the problem that required these fixes? The anti-establishment people would say that we've learned absolutely little from our previous mistakes, and that had you been listening when the laws were made our financial institutions might have been effectively able to regulate and oversee the market. Instead, we got a global recession and more money flowing to the top and through the government process instead of to the workers.

We pay to deal with the fuckup instead of preventing the fuckup from ever happening in the first place. That's why a lot of people are pissed, and they feel (rightly or wrongly, I'm always fully cognizant that I could be very wrong) that we've simply set up a precedent that enables these institutions to make bigger and bigger gambles without proper oversight.

Looking at the inflow and outflow of money pre bailout, after bailout, the rotating door of officials from Wall Street into Fed positions, prominent roles such as treasury secretary etc is a bit disturbing to say the least, and it feels like there's a large amount of regulatory capture. There was large outrage when reports of executive payments were recorded in 2009. Contrasting record profits with low wages, people FEEL the problem more than they can articulate what's wrong, partially because most of the outrage and reporting happened around 2009. It's been a while. They FEEL that their government doesn't have the citizens best interests at heart. It's pent up anger that they haven't solved the problem yet, and it seems people are tired of politicians saying 'they tried'.

I mean, Obama did what he could, but some of his initial financial appointments (my father famously made a long tirade to me about Geithner when it happened in 2009) revealed it was purely damage control--which is probably the safe decision as a new president in unprecedented level of worry in a country and congress full of racist assholes. Luckily Dodd-Frank was passed, but I'm still very wary of its actual effectiveness in combating the heavily risky nature of these massive institutions. The cash reserves is nice, but as a relatively economic lightweight I still worry that we haven't nearly raised our oversight and effectiveness are actually regulating our policies. After all, it was more or less our lack of oversight that caused these mortgage packages to be inaccurately rated for so goddamn long. It's not malevolence so much as idiocy and unchecked swagger that worries me with our financial institutes.

I'm still worried about regulatory capture, but Bernie's prominence in the national discussion should entail more of an eyes is kept on that topic by Hilldawg and by the legislative bodies. My worry is Hillary is purely a wolf in sheep's clothing, but her history in regulatory proposals are reassuring. My hope is she actually beefs up the agencies that can enact the regulation. The constant thing I read about our financial institutions is that there just isn't enough money to do the regulation we already have.

I went searching for an article by Krugman, and it turned out to be his review of Geithner's book (interestingly enough...): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/07/10/geithner-does-he-pass-test/

The best guess is that Geithner was in fact unenthusiastic about stimulus and more or less hostile to mortgage debt relief. But did this matter? You can argue that a bigger stimulus plan would have failed to pass Congress; you can argue that mortgage refinancing would either have proved impossible to implement or have provoked a huge political backlash. The truth is that we’ll never know, because the Obama administration never really tried to push the envelope on either fiscal policy or debt relief. And Geithner’s influence was probably an important reason for this caution. Geithner saw the economic crisis as more or less entirely a matter of lost confidence; he believed that restoring that confidence by saving the banks was enough, that once financial stability was back the rest of the economy would take care of itself. And he was very wrong.


Stress Test concludes on a note of celebration. Yes, mistakes were made, Geithner concedes, but on the whole, he tells us, Washington rose to the occasion, doing what was necessary to prevent another depression.

To the rest of us, however, the victory over financial crisis looks awfully Pyrrhic. Before the crisis, most analysts expected the US economy to keep growing at around 2.5 percent per year; in fact it has barely managed 1 percent, so that our annual national income at this point is around $1.7 trillion less than expected. Headline unemployment is down, but that’s largely because many workers, despairing of ever finding a job, have stopped looking. Median family income is still far below its pre-crisis level. And there’s a growing consensus among economists that much of the damage to the economy is permanent, that we’ll never get back to our old path of growth.

The only way you can consider this record a success story is by comparing it with the Great Depression. And that’s a pretty low bar—after all, aren’t we supposed to know more about economic management than our grandfathers did?

In fact, we did have both the knowledge and the tools to fight this disaster. We know a lot about how fiscal policy works, and the United States clearly had the borrowing capacity to spend more on fighting unemployment. Whatever Geithner may say, it’s clear that a lot more could also have been done to reduce the burden of mortgage debt. Yet we didn’t do what needed to be done.

I like Geithner’s metaphor of a stress test—and his book is very much worth reading, especially for its account of the crisis. But he’s wrong about the outcome of that test. We can argue about how much of the blame rests with the Obama team, how much with the crazies in Congress who met every administration initiative, no matter how reasonable, with scorched-earth opposition. But the overall grade seems clear. We didn’t pass the test—we failed, badly.

Now I again really want to read the book. This time I might have the time to do so as opposed to when it came out...

 

[MikeyB]

The "establishment" politicians couldn't even set up a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to effectively deal with payday lenders, nevermind large traditional financial institutions. Sure, they emptied the public coffers to keep the lights on in banks and the auto industry, but those are bandaids for a tumor.

Hilary is through and through aligned with the "failing system" that Sanders supporters are concerned about. Their hatred for her is logical.

 

[GregLombardi]

I don't think it even has anything to do with her. A lot of people don't want an establishment candidate when the establishment has done fuck all for them the past couple decades.

Based on the commentary on the internet, it went from "I don't want to an establishment candidate" to "I don't want a Vagina in office.". At least, IMHO that is what happened.

Luckily it is just the internet.

 

[XenodudeX]

I don't think it even has anything to do with her. A lot of people don't want an establishment candidate when the establishment has done fuck all for them the past couple decades.

We've know for almost 8 years that this is bullshit.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

edit: Already addressed, but yeah. The notion that the establishment has nothing to help is fucking bullshit and needs to be called out.

edit: I guess you can argue the that point if you're a hardcore conservative, but not for those on the left

 

[Horns]

Some people will find the negative in everything. Not all, but a number of Bernie supporters are generally negative and not inclusive. It reminds me of pessimistic views of Ron Paul supporters. Obama was not as negative and didn't exclude those from participating in his plans of the future. I read this Vox article and it really stuck with me.

Still, there are ways in which even Obama's process promises were more incremental than Sanders's. Jon Favreau, Obama's speechwriter on the 2008 campaign, points to a line Obama used often on the trail, where he would say, "It's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair." Over email, Favreau unpacked its importance:

To me, this exemplifies the difference between Bernie and Obama. Bernie would never say something like that. He doesn't think insurance companies, or drug companies, or banks, or millionaires get any seats at the table. He doesn't talk about making progress by working with Republicans, or the political establishment, or the business establishment. I guess his plan is to build a mobilized grassroots that simply wrestles power away from those who have it.

It's not just that Obama doesn't think that's feasible, it's that he doesn't think that's the right way to govern in a pluralistic democracy where everyone gets a voice. Obama believes that there's too many Americans who don't have a voice, and too many Americans who don't have opportunity, and that a big reason for that is the power of special interests and big corporations. But he also believes that there's a place for those interests and corporations in our system.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10967374/obama-staffers-bernie-sanders

 

[Russ T]

Based on the commentary on the internet, it went from "I don't want to an establishment candidate" to "I don't want a Vagina in office.". At least, IMHO that is what happened.

Luckily it is just the internet.

That's certainly the narrative the Hillary campaign wants people to believe, yeah.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Except, what were the market conditions that led to the financial industry that caused the problem that required these fixes? The anti-establishment people would say that we've learned absolutely little from our previous mistakes, and that had you been listening when the laws were made our financial institutions might have been effectively able to regulate and oversee the market. Instead, we got a global recession and more money flowing to the top and through the government process instead of to the workers.

And there were establishment politicians like Hillary Clinton that were already warning about shadow banking on Wall St. And it took establishment politicians like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to pass legislation that would fix our banking system. By the way, Barney Frank has never called for the breaking up of big banks, and thinks that Sanders is wrong about Glass Steagall.

We pay to deal with the fuckup instead of preventing the fuckup from ever happening in the first place. That's why a lot of people are pissed, and they feel (rightly or wrongly, I'm always fully cognizant that I could be very wrong) that we've simply set up a precedent that enables these institutions to make bigger and bigger gambles without proper oversight.

This is called the implicit subsidy of systematically important financial institutions. The IMF says that we're on our way to curbing this and that we should continue implementing the provisions in legislation that we've already passed.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL033114A.htm

Looking at the inflow and outflow of money pre bailout, after bailout, the rotating door of officials from Wall Street into Fed positions, prominent roles such as treasury secretary etc is a bit disturbing to say the least, and it feels like there's a large amount of regulatory capture.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The reason why people in top banks end up in policy positions and vice versa is that the most respectable and accomplished economists always end up at the largest and most successful institutions. Did you want a local community college economics professor running the federal reserve?

it seems people are tired of politicians saying 'they tried'.

In most ways, they actually succeeded.

I mean, Obama did what he could, but some of his initial financial appointments (my father famously made a long tirade to me about Geithner when it happened in 2009) revealed it was purely damage control--which is probably the safe decision as a new president in unprecedented level of worry in a country and congress full of racist assholes.

Timothy Geithner quite famously did not involve himself in politics and treated his appointment as a simple task: save the economy. In public conferences, Obama would say something like "If you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist," expecting Geithner to parrot, but Geithner volunteered to stay quiet during those conferences because he did not share those views. This was inter-cabinet friction, but ultimately Ben Bernanke had personally selected Geithner for the job and Obama trusted him.

Luckily Dodd-Frank was passed, but I'm still very wary of its actual effectiveness in combating the heavily risky nature of these massive institutions. The cash reserves is nice, but as a relatively economic lightweight I still worry that we haven't nearly raised our oversight and effectiveness are actually regulating our policies. After all, it was more or less our lack of oversight that caused these mortgage packages to be inaccurately rated for so goddamn long. It's not malevolence so much as idiocy and unchecked swagger that worries me with our financial institutes.

Luckily, Dodd-Frank is effective in all those things you're worried about.

My worry is Hillary is purely a wolf in sheep's clothing, but her history in regulatory proposals are reassuring. My hope is she actually beefs up the agencies that can enact the regulation.

There is exactly one candidate right now who knows anything about wall street reform, and it's not Bernie Sanders.

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

This whole circus hasn't changed my decision. I'll vote for Bernie in the primary (if he lasts till June) or I'll vote for Hillary in the general election.

But if Trump wins the presidency I will never forgive my fellow liberals for letting it happen.

 

[DOWN]

Legit found a friend's mom on Facebook always types Killary instead of Hillary ever since the Benghazi hearings.

 

[SolidSnakex]

The world will not get worse but things will be set back. Especially in the Supreme Court, if you want more liberal bias towards progressive issues and law.

People that won't vote at all if Bernie doesn't get the nom seem to not care about the issues and only care about "establishment" rhetoric. Bernie would want ALL of you to vote Hillary instead of trump if given that choice, but in all honesty it's hard to get fucking democrats to turn out to vote in the first place. Too busy whining how no candidate is perfect, their vote is worthless, etc. Meanwhile old out of touch white men will march right into that voting booth and vote republican with consistency

Damn it's annoying being liberal

Obama had no problem getting liberals out to vote for him. Hillary's potential loss is on her complete inability to get people outside of her diehard supporters excited about supporting her, as well as every person that has pushed for her to become president. Those people knew the risks of her being the candidate. It's not a secret that she's extremely divisive. It's not a secret that she's a very boring candidate in terms of actually inspiring people. Yet that's the candidate Democrats have pushed for. And now it seems like all of that is starting to hit her supporters. That this isn't going to be the cakewalk that they previously convinced themselves it will be.

 

[dave is ok]

We've know for almost 8 years that this is bullshit.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

edit: Already addressed, but yeah. The notion that the establishment has nothing to help is fucking bullshit and needs to be called out.

edit: I guess you can argue the that point if you're a hardcore conservative, but not for those on the left

Obama has done a good job as president, but he clearly stayed within the bounds of what you would expect from an entrenched establishment candidate. He didn't even try for single payer/universal health care when he had the political capital to spend on it.

 

[Steel]

Obama has done a good job as president, but he clearly stayed within the bounds of what you would expect from an entrenched establishment candidate. He didn't even try for single payer/universal health care when he had the political capital to spend on it.

C'mon, we both know he would have gone a lot further if the tea party hadn't wrecked his presidency after 2 years.

 

[SlimySnake]

I'm just explaining how these people think.


The bailout happened as a result of a crash that was only possible because the SEC is toothless and the government refuses to actually punish risky behaviour. The people who lost their houses to foreclosure don't really give a fuck that Bush got a bailout passed which didn't really help their situation, being without a home and all


Again, for all the rounds of quantitative easing - it didn't help the average person. Wages still remained stagnant while costs of living increased, including:


Healthcare costs, which even with ACA put most American families one medical emergency from bankruptcy. And:


Costs of education, which have skyrocketed and are completely unable to be discharged in bankruptcy. Student loan debt is a bubble waiting to explode at the moment.


Almost everything you listed these people would list as the government trying to fix the mess they created themselves or let happen. Ordinary people aren't responsible for the crash of 2008, or the wage stagnation or the ballooning costs of healthcare or education. And no quote-unquote establishment candidate has any plan whastoever to fix these things that is radical enough to change anything.

Listen to yourself. How can pumping a trillion dollars into a depression bound economy not help the average person? How can increasing unemployment benefits not help the average person? Or the fact that you can now get insurance despite having pre-existing conditions? or that you no longer have to work full time to get insurance? or work at all to get to get insurance after ACA extended the medicare coverage?

Ordinary people are responsible for being dumb enough to vote for Bush twice or dumb enough to believe Sanders will bring about the radical change he is promising. They are also dumb enough to go buy houses at $0 down with no way to pay even the monthly mortgage. They are responsible because they did not go to the polls in the midterms and left obama with 6 years of a republican house that made it impossible to get even the most common sense reforms passed. Let alone radical ones Bernie is suggesting.

You anti-establishment guys and your candidates HAVE to work with establishment to get stuff passed. And I can promise you nothing radical is going to get passed by this congress. You think Obama didn't want free college education for everyone? hes been asking for free community college tuition in his SOTU addresses for years now.

This whole idea that these lifelong Democrats, who have tirelessly worked within the system to bring about meaningful change slowly but surely, are somehow less qualified to be president than some asshole anti-establishment candidate, who made life harder for said democrats because of idealistic principles, is bizarre and insulting. ACA is Hilary's accomplishment just as much as Obama's. The fact that gays can openly serve in the military is only possible due to the small yet vital step we took due to DODT.

In real life, change is brought about slowly. We are still a center right country. These democrats have to make sure they dont let the republicans win and plunge us back into medieval times.

 

[Angelus Errare]

You and I have very different ways of talking politics with friends.

I don't have republican friends.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Obama has done a good job as president, but he clearly stayed within the bounds of what you would expect from an entrenched establishment candidate. He didn't even try for single payer/universal health care when he had the political capital to spend on it.

Obama also presided over the greatest expansion of wealth inequality since the Great Depression era. He's also instrumental in the TPP. Obama is a pretty blatant corporatist and his accomplishments elsewhere don't give him a free pass on this.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I'm a Bernie fan, myself. But the amount of die-hard Bernie fans that have an amazing amount of hatred for Hillary is astounding. They go so far as to say that she's just as bad as Trump. If Bernie doesn't win the primaries, they plan on writing in his name in the general election or simply not voting at all. That makes us much more likely to have a republican president. The hatred for her is what makes me scared that we'll have Cruz, Trump, or Rubio as president.

I may not love Hillary, but I do NOT want a republican president, and I feel that anyone who's liberal should feel the same way. Why all the Hillary hate all of the sudden? I see so much anti-Hillary propaganda from liberals all over social media. Even in conversations, they shit on her so much. I know she's not going to crack down on Wall Street, I know she's not anti-establishment like Bernie, I know she's not a progressive. But the fact of the matter is that we CANNOT have a republican in the White House.

A lot of us don't want to pick the 'lesser' of two evils anymore.

Again, you say the amount of Hillary hate scares you, but even in your post your only argument is basically fear of GOP control, which says nothing about Hillary or why anybody should give a shit about supporting her if they have their own principles.

Hillary is as bad as Bush foreign policy wise in regards to her job as secretary of state, being one of the chief proponents of the Libya disaster which left that country a failed state, a chief supporter of the war in Iraq which she supported as a 'business opportunity' for US corps in the region, leaving that nation in a civil war that destabilized the entire region, and now wants to knock over Syria's government and institute more regime change.

She takes money from literally every corporate interest in this country there is, and her Clinton family's foundation has made more blunders worldwide than we can count(providing weapons deals to Saudi Arabia in exchange for 'donations' from the Saudi government, the total mishandling of all the Haiti funds which left that country in a much worse position than right after the earthquake.

All the while saying that universal healthcare and tuition free college in this country is 'unrealistic'.

I don't think its any real surprise why people dislike her as a politician and refuse to support her.

If the Dems pick Hillary for the nom and she's on the ballot against Trump and is in danger of loosing, i think that says more about the Democratic establishment that lost their minds than the voters who are fed up with that bullshit.

I think its really sad that i've more and more frequently seen Hillary supporters having to bend over backward to echo GOP talking points in defense of her than actual liberal principles, which those of us who refuse to support her still have.

 

[Russ T]

Obama also presided over the greatest expansion of wealth inequality since the Great Depression era. He's also instrumental in the TPP. Obama is a pretty blatant corporatist and his accomplishments elsewhere don't give him a free pass on this.

This. So much this.

It's even worse with Hillary. She's worse than Obama by a large margin, but if you ever try to point out her flaws, it's immediately either 1) "Well, she's better than the GOP" or 2) "Well, she did some good stuff, too".

Just... immediate deflection. Don't even want to pretend she has real flaws that make people seriously dislike her.

Now for someone to drop that dumb useless out-of-context "93%" stat on me again.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Some Bernie supporters are like Gohan fans. They're really upset that Goku (Hilary) ultimately is the chosen one.

 

[Russ T]

Some Bernie supporters are like Gohan fans. They're really upset that Goku (Hilary) ultimately is the chosen one.

Yo don't even. Gohan is a fuckin chump. DON'T EVEN.

wink

 

[dave is ok]

Listen to yourself. How can pumping a trillion dollars into a depression bound economy not help the average person?

Even Bernanke says that QE did almost nothing for the average person.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Some Bernie supporters are like Gohan fans. They're really upset that Goku (Hilary) ultimately is the chosen one.

Or maybe, we don't like her. This not a contest..this is about our democracy and where we want this country to go...and i think a lot of people really don't understand that when they make comments like this.

If you are a Hillary 'fan', fine, but i don't really think there's any way to really make an argument for her from a liberal perspective, nor do i expect any defense of her record of which there is no excuse.

She's gotten so many things wrong the first time and had to 'evolve' on those issues long after they were in style to support, or after the damage had been done. Is that who Hillary supporters want running this country?

If Hillary becomes the President, and shit hits the fan, i don't want to hear anyone getting cold feet or buyers remorse, cause a lot of us will say that we warned you.

 

[213372bu]

I mean, I think there are extremely legitimate reasons for disliking hillary clinton as a perosn, and her candidacy. I share the view of others that the clinton history (man and woman) is one of political wheeling, dealing, and corporate interest. Bill repealed Glass–Steagall
and ran a dirty and modern campaign against George H.W. (not to say the repubs were that much better back then). I see similar levels of ethical problems among the way the HIllary Clinton is doing things.

I am just being realistic and stating that those reasons could be used as a cover to hide some people's mysogyny. Evidence of that is something I cannot bring up with exclusive examples in this thread or the media itself, rather, just in passing and my personal experience with americans on the issue.

Thanks for the response, I don't know how it came across on the internet, but I was being genuine.

 

[Makonero]

I don't have republican friends.

Good for you. The rest of us will have to cope with not telling people to commit suicide because we disagree politically.

 

[Omegasquash]

I think much of the dislike of Hillary is sexism, pure and simple. In my opinion, she's had to play a game with more restrictions than Bernie. She can't get on stage and wave her hands without being the butt of a joke, and she can't make an argument without people seeing her as a "bitch".

And she's STILL accomplished plenty.

Politically, she's not anywhere near perfect, but we're never going to get a perfect candidate that can actually deliver on their promises without tipping the boat over. That she's so hated is beyond me, and I welcome the opportunity to debate any member of any political party that would vote Trump over Hillary.

 

[Skellig Gra]

I've never liked her and I won't be voting for her. Won't be voting for Trump either.

 

[stufte]

I think much of the dislike of Hillary is sexism, pure and simple.

Must be nice to hand-wave any criticism of her away as sexism. Super easy way to dismiss the very real reasons to dislike her.

Are there people who dislike her *just* because she's a woman? Sure! But don't mistake dislike of a woman because of her history with dislike because of her gender.

 

[dave is ok]

Must be nice to hand-wave any criticism of her away as sexism. Super easy way to dismiss the very real reasons to dislike her.

Are there people who dislike her *just* because she's a woman? Sure! But don't mistake dislike of a woman because of her history with dislike because of her gender.

Most people who criticize her on this forum would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I'm fine with ppl voting Bernie. But I'm not fine with ppl then voting for Trump out of spite or for some insane establishment change which will not benefit anyone with progressive values (assuming you're progressive since you're voting for Bernie).

I get being anti- establishment for change, but then you have to consider what KIND of change would be coming. And if you look at what Trump is standing for, it is some really frightening shit.

 

[stufte]

Most people who criticize her on this forum would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

Count me as one of those people. It's a shame she didn't run this round, I think she would have done really well.

 

[Omegasquash]

Must be nice to hand-wave any criticism of her away as sexism. Super easy way to dismiss the very real reasons to dislike her.

Are there people who dislike her *just* because she's a woman? Sure! But don't mistake dislike of a woman because of her history with dislike because of her gender.

Or you could read my post.

 

[stufte]

Or you could read my post.

I read it. What do you think I'm missing?

 

[Russ T]

Most people who criticize her on this forum would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

Without hesitation, yeah.

It's a shame Hillary's campaign has successfully tricked people into thinking people who hate her are all sexist at their core. It's a shame, and, honestly, it's gross. There are no doubt plenty of people who do dislike her because she's a woman, but it's used far too frequently to deflect real goddamn criticism about the way she has acted as a politician.

It'd be nice if people were allowed to think that way without an implied accusation of sexism from multiple angles.

Gloria Steinem was pretty damn sexist when she came out against Sanders, claiming women were only with Sanders because they were following "the boys", but we've all just forgotten that as a misstep, apparently!