Fenderputty
Banned
FTFY
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
FTFY
minor effort
Banned
And this election, even if you think Hillary Clinton is at-best the lesser of two evils, the gulf between those two evils grows wider with each passing day.
I've also yet to vote for a perfect candidate. Hopefully I'll find one someday.
Yeah. My perfect candidate would be a candidate that actually cares about long-term economics enough to raise taxes on everyone and mind the budget while we're still in a relatively decent economic situation so we can spend it when we need to. That candidate simply doesn't exist and probably won't for the foreseeable future. If I was do or die on that I'd never vote.
TwoDurans
"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
You do know the bailout was signed by Bush Jr, and was already in effect when Obama took the oath of office, right? Same with any punishment, or lack there of. Everything happened on W's watch.
I believe the PAC system can work. It's not any different from the people at r/sandersforpresident calling people on behalf of their candidate, except that it's better funded. Like it or not, corporations need to take an interest in politics, and will use their money and influence to try and get their person elected. Drumpf wants to mess up our relations with Mexico. MSFT has several X-Box plants there. You think MSFT is going to sit by and hope that a potential president doesn't mess with their bottom line? Absolutely not. They're going to get in the game.
And no, I do not see a problem there. They hold just as much influence as a $100 donor does with Sanders. Everyone throws in with their guy (or gal) and will use whatever means are at their disposal to ensure they get elected.
The left needs its own tea party. A group of people to push the party further left and make sure they don't compromise away their beliefs in the name of progress.
eBay Huckster
Member
I don't frame trade policy solely in its benefits to a country that already had a massive comparative advantage beforehand, and in any event "those other dozen" (namely NAFTA) were arguably a push rather than the disaster that protectionists such as Drumpf and Sanders claim they were.
She actually proposed regulations on derivatives prior to 2008 and this much is inarguable. Actions speak louder than words. (And speaking of actions - CFMA vote, anyone?)
Her plan offers subsidized everything to low and middle-income people with several provisos, which has the added benefit of not driving credentialism into even more of a fever pitch (to say nothing about its effects on controlling costs).
She's not the one with the multiple votes against immigration reform on the exact named basis. At best, this is a push.
shadowsdarknes
Member
It probably won't ever be as effective as the Tea Party because social democracy isn't exactly a wealthy donor's wet dream.
You convinced me to vote Hillary tomorrow. Got to put this Green-Rainbow mindset crap to an end.
We got people who don't vote Democratic pretending to be Dems, using GOP framing in their arguments, and poisoning the well for anyone not ultra-liberal.
I wanted to vote Bernie to keep the fire on Clinton; but with this sort of rehtoric being thrown out there trying to damage the candidate that will be the nominee, yeah no. Sorry Bernie, but too much is at stake for this nonsense.
Fenderputty
Banned
No, the left doesn't need a tea party. Any grassroots liberal movement should be grounded in reality based policy that works within and understands our political system.
Tesseract
Banned
Your decision obviously, but I'm wary of anyone who uses lesser of two evil tactics to reel me in.
Zugzwang
boiled goose
good with gravy
I do think the way to make progress and continue fighting is to always be politically engaged and vote. Even if you vote for the green party or whatever. Even if you write in bernie. Even if you vote blank. It is bettter than sitting at home. At least it says I exist and someone should cater to me.
Keep trying to push candidates towards your principles and at the end of the day vote for the least worst option. During a candidates time in office, keep challenging them. Then next time around, rinse and repeat.
Thanks for admitting that you think money in politics is alright. At least we found the root of our disagreement.
I do think that people working for microsoft should have a voice. It is called a vote. It is called speech and ideas.
I do not think that corporations (or unions, or even individuals) should be allowed to influence politicians with excessive amounts of money. And not $100 dollars a pop from 100000 donors is not the same as $10000000 from a single donor. One represents 100000 constituents, one represents a single wealthy one. I thought government should represent the people no? or should it be an oligarchy? When money is not evenly distributed, the more wealthy will have more power and rig government in their favor (hint, that is what is happening now).
Trump does the same shit but is about 10x worse in both frequency and extremity.
Example of this?
People can't evolve on views apparently.
I don't believe that assimilation into problematic institutions like militarism and marriage is the solution to inequality. I do not want 'equal rights' to participate in an unequal system. I want the dismantling of the social class system that allows hierarchies like heteronormativity, misogyny, transphobia, etc. to exist in the first place.
Here is a blog post that sums up my feelings about gay marriage far more eloquently that I could:
Gay Marriage Has Nothing To Do With Love: Anti-Assimilation and a Radical Vision of Queer Revolution
If Democrats truly wanted to fight for the working class and the poor, they would actually fight against the system which produces their hardships. They would fight against a system where people have no choice but to sell their labor to have access to the means of survival. They would fight against a system in which the community's resources are under the control of a wealthy minority who can use State-sanctioned violence to prevent equal access and worker control. Instead Democrats maintain that system; they serve that system.
No. Don't be reasonable. We need to burn down everything we have right now at any cost, and fuck logic and how the political process works.
But seriously, why would anyone want a liberal tea party? It's literally at the root of the implosion happening in the Republican party right now.
Tea partiers get elected. They try to do what exactly what they were sent to congress to do.
But can't, because that's not how government works.
So Republican voters turn to Trump.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I do think people can evolve. You can't just take people's words at face value. I don't buy for a second that Hillary changed her views on gay marriage all the way until 2013, just like Obama saying he wasn't in favor of it in 08.
I do think Hillary has involved on things like race. She basically said that she was wrong to use "super predators" and "bring them to heel". I believe her there.
I don't think Sanders has evolved on gun control either. I think he was representing his constituents before, so while not the worst reason, I dont think his personal beliefs have suddenly changed.
Seriously? You and I talked about this the other day lol. Gay marriage.
thiscoldblack
Unconfirmed Member
The amount of Hillary love in the forum scares me. 
I honestly don't see myself voting for Hillary. She changes her stance too much to get support flowing in her favor. You would be lying if you say Bernie hasn't change her stance on many things during this campaign. There's a reason why people were bring up the #whichhillary tag the other day.
I'm very disappointed to see Trump and Hillary winning the polls lately. However, I'm not surprised since this is the country who re-elected G.W. Bush for president.
I honestly don't see myself voting for Hillary. She changes her stance too much to get support flowing in her favor. You would be lying if you say Bernie hasn't change her stance on many things during this campaign. There's a reason why people were bring up the #whichhillary tag the other day.
I'm very disappointed to see Trump and Hillary winning the polls lately. However, I'm not surprised since this is the country who re-elected G.W. Bush for president.
boiled goose
good with gravy
A big A Hell Naw to this.
I UNDERSTAND how our political system works and BECAUSE OF THAT I want to change it. The current system is broken. Money runs government. Government works for the wealthy. The USA is basically an oligarchy.
Nevermind, I misunderstood!
Then again I ask: why is it ok for Bernie (a quiet senator from a quiet state) to evolve on this issue, but not Hillary (one of the foremost politicians of our time)?
TwoDurans
"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
I wish you luck. Changing the very system our country was founded on won't be easy, or doable for that matter. But it's nice to have a hobby I guess.
The amount of Hillary love in the forum scares me.
I honestly don't see myself voting for Hillary. She changes her stance too much to get support flowing in her favor. You would be lying if you say Bernie hasn't change her stance on many things during this campaign. There's a reason why people were bring up the #whichhillary tag the other day.
I'm very disappointed to see Trump and Hillary winning the polls lately. However, I'm not surprised since this is the country who re-elected G.W. Bush for president.
Damn, did Bernie spoil some people. He's a complete outlier in the realm of politicians. The vast majority of them flipflop and play the finance game, especially the ones trying to be President.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It actually is my new hobby!
But you are wrong on one thing. Money running government was not the way it has always been. It has been a battle and issue for a long time. It started getting worse around 1970 because of some supreme court decisions and got really bad after Citizens. Amazingly, both wealth inequality increasing and policy not correlating with popular opinion begin around 1970.
The Constitution has been amended 17 times, so it can be done.
There is a reason why things are changing. The internet.
People are more informed than ever.
NullPointer
Member
Politics is compromise.
Its a big country, with a lot of people with different backgrounds, stories, perspectives, ambitions and hardships. Lots of different centers of power too, held in the grips of people and organizations of wildly differing views. You have to work with people who disagree with you to make anything happen.
That's the case no matter who you're voting for.
I think it's a joke that politicians get heat for changing positions, especially if it's towards the interests of the electorate. That's what a representative is supposed to do. 10 years ago a majority of the nation didn't want gay marriage. Today that's obviously changed. So I'm supposed to be mad that a rep. Actually represents?
I'm still amused by the idea that flip-flopping is in itself a bad thing. I want a politician that is able to see new perspectives, and even admit they're wrong. This isn't about a specific candidate, but that the Republicans were able to spin shifting positions into something bad is kind of amazing.
Also, there's been people long before Bernie who also gave off the appearance of being an outsider and not flip-flopping. In general, not being in the spotlight will grant everyone that, but that doesn't make it true.
It's very simple: flip-flopping is what it's called when a candidate you don't like evolves on an issue.
Bernie wasn't the one that said a few week ago that he's always been in support of peoples right, despite publicly denouncing gay marriage in 2002 2004, and 2010. If you can't read through the lines, thats on you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPc0kOZZWBI
And here is Bernie defending gays in the military
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O49wD6_g_Bs
Who's more likely to be more genuine about this particular issue?
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree compromise is necessary. What you get with a compromise depends in part with what you come to the table. See Obama getting railroaded in his first term.
NullPointer
Member
No. Its called flip-flopping when a change seems insincere, and done only to advance one's political ambitions.
The danger there is for the candidate who is so eager to change with the wind, how can you depend upon them to hold fast to the principles that brought them into office once they're in power?
This is a general definition, and applies to all candidates, past and present.
Certainly. Starting on one extreme is one tactic that seems to be brought up with both Sanders and Trump. its one tool in the toolbox for sure. As long as its not the only one that's probably OK ;p
I'd imagine an honest politician would sound something like this:
"Well, I'd really like to give everyone single-payer healthcare, but given our current budget and the Republican opposition, I'll probably have to settle with just trying to make healthcare cheaper if I want to get anything done at all.
Oh, and I'll probably have to raise your taxes too. Sorry."
But that doesn't get voters' blood pumping.
On a completely unrelated note, most Trump voters are voting for him because they think he's honest and telling it like it is.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think there can be a difference.
Evolution can be supported by actions. Flip Flopping is insincere pandering.
Yes of course. The idea that Sander doesn't compromise is another lie meme like "bernie bros". Doesnt he have a really good record proposing and passing legislation with bipartisan support?
Also unfair would be your characterization as "extreme". Issue by issue, most of the population agrees with Sanders.
And how does this definition apply to Hillary Clinton as it has been used in this thread? Has she evolved on any positions recently in an insincere way that's nt backed up by her senate record or proposed actions as a public official and potential president?>
Fenderputty
Banned
This is bullshit. If you understand how our political system works then you know that change is possible though slow. Start at local elections, build support during midterms and complete the shift nationally every 4 years. It's not going to be some revolution that changes things in one term of the POTUS. This is a parallel between the tea party and bernie die hards.
NullPointer
Member
I only had a problem with your definition of the term. Wasn't claiming anything about Clinton or Bernie or anyone else.
Another way to put it would be to say they're making very big asks. I meant extreme as one end of a spectrum with pure mainstream compromise in the middle. I think both Sanders and Trump are asking for extreme and radical things for this country, but I don't mean either of those terms as a negative. Just means they'd be seriously disruptive to the status quo.
In Bernie's case I'm all for his particular brand of radical. Doesn't mean he has won my vote though.
So what did you think about Occupy Wallstreet?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Umm. Your answer was a non-sequitor.
I did not mention a "revolution".
I do think understanding the system is important. It doesn't mean you have to accept the system. You can work to change the system itself. Though change overall is generally slow, there are always quantized leaps that we can make.
I think Occupy had several issues, but one big difference between Occupy and the Tea party is that the Tea party was promoted by the media and the GOP establishment. Occupy was completely dismissed by the media and the democrats. Occupy wanted to attack the establishment. The media and DC politicians are the establishment.
Also, dont for a second think the Tea Party was some perfectly natural "grassroots movement". Have you seen who was backing them financially? Hint it starts with Koch and ends with Brothers. They have a financial incentive to make government inefficient.
To be fair, I'm sure the GOP partially regrets propping up the Tea Party hahaha.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
And I would like to add that it isn't just the fact that Hillary evolved on gay marriage. No one is saying people can't evolve on an issue. I think people, by and large, can accept a certain number of evolutions and changing positions and whatnot... but when you start to do it too much it makes it seem less genuine and more like you are just telling people what they want to hear.
The fact that Hillary does it so much and then denies that she ever did it makes it worse though.
When exactly does it become too much?
At what point is a politician supposed to say, "Ok, I've gotta stop now. I've evolved too much"?
When they find their evolution always occurs when it is politically expedient for them to do so.
boiled goose
good with gravy
On this issue of evolution. Do you Believe that Hillary thought Gay marriage was wrong all the way up to 2013?
Why not just provide a source of your point rather than throw out some gotcha net
NullPointer
Member
One hilariously awkward example I'd put up is Christie's evolution into a Trump supporter, as seen on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
Its almost painful to watch Christie try and fail miserably to go through the motions. There is a line, I just doubt people could give you a concrete answer of exactly where that line is.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
It depends on the person, obviously. What's too much for one person may not be too much for someone else.
They're being punished right now, by Democrats beholden to special interests. That's the point. Look at what has happened to the working classes since 2008.
I apologize for the lateness of my reply here, I was working and wanted to have more time.
Let me be pretty direct -- I am tired of having my progressiveness challenged because I support Hillary Clinton. (And I'm especially tired of posts that say "some people on GAF aren't really progressives," such as the post you were responding to.)
This is not my first presidential election. I have been through a few by now. I remember years of being out in the cold and things getting steadily worse in literally every respect, while we voted for the Democrats and waited for things to improve.
Part of the reason I am an incrementalist -- and why I am happy to vote for somebody who promises to uphold and slightly improve the status quo -- is because I remember when the status quo was really, really bad. Not going back there strikes me as a pretty important goal.
I consider it deeply insulting and disrespectful to suggest that we're not really liberals, as though our efforts and our votes to improve America and make it more progressive don't count because we didn't somehow magically achieve the ultimate, perfect progressive society.
Gay marriage is a huge progressive victory. Creating the foundation of a universal healthcare system (not single-payer, but still the beginning of a universal healthcare system) is a huge progressive victory. Putting into place the strongest financial regulation since the Great Depression is a huge progressive victory. And I'm not even mentioning the stuff Obama had to do on top of that, like end a recession.
When all that stuff gets dismissed as handouts to corporations, or Republican policymaking, I basically have no choice but to assume that the person I'm talking to simply has no understanding of either the policy victories we've achieved or the context of American history and society.
Having an actual plan for moving America towards my policy goals doesn't make me a conservative. I'm a socialist, and I strongly believe America has to institute a basic income, a universal healthcare system, etc., etc. sooner rather than later. I'm voting for the candidate that I consider most likely to move us towards those goals, and that's Hillary Clinton.
Christie is on a establishment warpath after he got thrown to the curb. This was supposed to be his cycle.
I mean, it's pretty apparent: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-christie-scotus-nom
- Status