Support NeoGAF

[thehypocrite]

Spin everywhere. I didn't say anything about colors.
I said that if they'll say one thing and do the other or change their positions according to the prevailing political climate I have no way of knowing their actual stance.

Changing their position for the better is a virtue, not a flaw. Obama was against marriage equality for a time but he changed his stance for the better. Was that wrong of him? Cause he didn't stand by in a position that was considerably worse than the new one?

 

[Killer Queen]

So, are you guys feeling more confident about Hillary's chances in November?

 

[dLMN8R]

LOL. Where did I claim that?

That's why I skip some of these posts then you guys follow up asking why I didn't respond.

I can't read minds so I have to take people at their word. If their word proves untrustworthy, they've lost credibility.

I said nothing about running for president or doing Obama's job.
Spin and ad hominen everywhere.

How about this? Is this "spin" too?

A few things:

1) She supported TPP in its form when she was still Secretary of State. She's been out of that office for years, and the TPP has changed substantially since then. She obviously wants to review it more, and perhaps change it substantially, before it's ever implemented.

2) Obviously she voted for the Iraq war. Just like almost everyone except Sanders. Good on Sanders. But the fact that she (and everyone else) was completely misled by our Intelligence organizations is not an unimportant point. It was reprehensible, and not because she voted for it.

3) She has never been "against" a $15/hour minimum wage. She wanted to start with $12 - higher in some states with higher standards of living - and carefully roll in increased minimum wages as appropriate, pragmatically. Just like everything she's accomplished - she wanted to be pragmatic. And now, thanks to Sanders' support, she thinks $15 might be more attainable.

4) You need to read up about how corporate campaign contributions work. It's not like Citigroup went and outright donated $900,000 to her campaign. Citigroup's individual employees donated that money. And they donate roughly equal amounts of money to Republican candidates. Because individual employees have individual opinions and minds and choose to donate on their own volition.

5) Simply saying "Hillary is against Glass Steagall" is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. As always, the story is more nuanced that that.

6) Yes, Hillary worked with Republicans. Specifically campaigning for Barry Goldwater. When she was 17-fucking-years-old. Don't pretend like you didn't have some stupid politica views when you were 17. Trying to undermine her compared to Bernie for this is just fucking ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that Bernie isn't even a Democrat

7) OH MY GOD GOVERNOR CLINTON KEPT THE CONFEDERATE FLAG??? 30 fucking years ago Do you realize how regressive the entire United States was 30 years ago?


"From the Huffington Post" is meaningless here. You're repeating a ridiculous, sensationalist blog post by an uninformed Bernie supporter and representing literally everything wrong with Bernie's movement - no nuance, no understanding of pragmatism, and no god damned fucking respect for her being one of the most genuinely accomplished liberal politicians to ever serve the United States.

 

[Christine]

I can't keep track of all the spin. I'm keeping things focused on the record, which is clear.

You're having to respond in real time to multiple people who oppose your position, which is difficult and can quickly become very unfair if the opposition piles on, either deliberately or through simple crowd dynamics in which many people all independently choose to respond simultaneously. Remember that this is a thread that has been focused on shared reaction to a singular presentation all day.

I would appreciate it a bit if people were better about recognizing this as it happens, but you're contributing to the problem with this post. It's better just to take a step back and come back to it later. You don't have to say "I'm out" or anything like that. In fact, it's better if you don't. People will respect you more for it.

 

[TestOfTide]

LOL. Where did I claim that?

That's why I skip some of these posts then you guys follow up asking why I didn't respond.

I can't read minds so I have to take people at their word. If their word proves untrustworthy, they've lost credibility.

I said nothing about running for president or doing Obama's job.
Spin and ad hominen everywhere.

You make the assumption that the positions held were automatically not genuine, but there are many reasons that Obama and Hillary may have had to take action contrary to their previous positions. Positions that I might add that were stated before either of them received intelligence briefings.

 

[Diffense]

Trust is belief without question and no politician should get that from you, ever. I trust my parents, not civil servants. Those in government should be evaluated based on their record, what they have done and how that aligns with their public statements to form the most objective opinion possible. You go from there.

What, exactly, do you want the people you're arguing with to do here? What do you want to happen in November, Diffense?

I'm not sure why they're arguing with me for pointing out HRC's record.
That is a factual matter. They are just trying to apologize for it in various ways.

As for November, I'm prepared to accept whatever happens.

 

[EatinOlives]

Spin everywhere. I didn't say anything about colors.
I said that if they'll say one thing and do the other or change their positions according to the prevailing political climate I have no way of knowing their actual stance.

You can't just shout "Spin!" over and over and think you're making a good argument because you aren't.

 

[Veelk]

Bill

Story time with Uncle Bill was incredible. Especially the last 10-15 minutes, but really watch the whole thing (~45 min) if you can.

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

 

[whyamihere]

I'm not sure why they're arguing with me for pointing out HRC's record.
That is a factual matter. They are just trying to apologize for it in various ways.

As for November, I'm prepared to accept whatever happens.

You're being willfully ignorant on aspects of Hillary's history and record, while saying ludicrous things like "why didn't Hillary just oppose Obama when she was SoS" without understanding the dynamics of the Executive Branch.

 

[aliengmr]

So, are you guys feeling more confident about Hillary's chances in November?

I'm mostly confidant that the majority wants actual policy instead of "feelings".

 

[Slayven]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

Mothers of the Movement
Howard Dean if just for the end

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

Mothers of the movement was great too.

 

[dLMN8R]

I'm not sure why they're arguing with me for pointing out HRC's record.
That is a factual matter. They are just trying to apologize for it in various ways.

As for November, I'm prepared to accept whatever happens.

No one is disputing her record. We're disputing you presenting her record as some inherently terrible thing, when in actuality, it isn't.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Okay, I missed the entire convention today

Help me gaf

What are the parts I must see?

"'Hillary Clinton isn’t afraid to say black lives matter,' says Mothers of the Movement"
"Watch Ryan Moore's full speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention"
"Rep. Joseph Crowley: Where was Donald Trump after 9/11?"
"Watch Bill Clinton's full speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention"

 

[User 463088]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

You also need to find the Mothers of the Movement segment, definitely.

And, see if you can find the video of Hillary speaking to the convention with the video that airs before it. So worth it.

 

[Slackerish]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

While long, the roll call is always awesome to watch.

 

[Oblivion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUKS6wow5AM

:O

Total badass.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I'd just really appreciate it if people would stop using her statements against her when she's currently working for someone. I mean as SoS Hillary has to be behind Obama's decisions 100% in public. They might have argued like crazy, but his decision had to be backed in public. Because she took the job.

I take what she says during her own campaigns as closer to "real" Hillary. Hill "unleashed" if you will.

 

[Diffense]

You make the assumption that the positions held were automatically not genuine, but there are many reasons that Obama and Hillary may have had to take action contrary to their previous positions. Positions that I might add that were stated before either of them received intelligence briefings.

I question the genuineness of Hillary Clinton's position wrt to the Colombia trade deal when she stated opposition in 2008 because

1) She has a history of supporting such trade deals even if she later "reevaluates" her position

2) Her husband Bill Clinton supported it back in 2008 when he was supposedly opposed

3) Her chief campaign strategist at the time apparently supported it back in 2008 when she supposedly opposed

4) She supported it as Secretary of State under Obama

This is a credibility determination I am free to make based on the facts available to me.
Not sure where "I'm claiming to know more than them about running the government".

 

[Torokil]

Seeing Bill and Obama speak compared to the "future" stars of the party we've seen this convention just fills me with a sense of dread that these two are gonna be the best Presidents I'm going to get in my lifetime.

 

[mariachi507]

I am not a Muslim, and that one line teared me up as well. Such a truly powerful statement.

The "we went you" part got me.

 

[whyamihere]

I question the genuineness of Hillary Clinton's position wrt to the Colombia trade deal when she stated opposition in 2008 because

1) She has a history of supporting such trade deals even if she later "reevaluates" her position

2) Her husband Bill Clinton supported it back in 2008 when he was supposedly opposed

3) Her chief campaign strategist at the time supported it back in 2008 when she supposedly opposed

4) She supported it as Secretary of State under Obama

This is a credibility determination I am free to make based on the facts available to me.
Not sure where "I'm claiming to know more than them about running the government".

Because at point #4, Obama was for trade deals such as TPP, and American foreign policy necessitates to speak with one public voice, even when there are internal disagreements. Saying she supported Obama's foreign trade deals as SoS is sort of lame, because she had to.

 

[HawthorneKitty]

Seeing Bill and Obama speak compared to the "future" stars of the party we've seen this convention just fills me with a sense of dread that these two are gonna be the best Presidents I'm going to get in my lifetime.

Life's long, don't worry.

 

[Slayven]

Seeing Bill and Obama speak compared to the "future" stars of the party we've seen this convention just fills me with a sense of dread that these two are gonna be the best Presidents I'm going to get in my lifetime.

There is always somebody on the up and coming. Obama was a nobody until 2004

 

[Jeffrey]

Cnn is hilarious right now.

Some fierce stuff between the trump supporter and the lady on her right.

 

[Mobius 1]

I really have to catch up to the speeches, been too busy with work. Dying to see what Mrs. Obama and Old Bill had to say.

 

[jackal27]

Man I was fervent Bernie supporter and I'll never like Hillary, but I can't believe the way these people are reacting. At the very worst I feel like Hillary would be a president that would float us along until we are ready to vote in real change. Trump on the other hand would be an unmitigated disaster. What is happening?

 

[Killer Queen]

I really have to catch up to the speeches, been too busy with work. Dying to see what Mrs. Obama and Old Bill had to say.

You're in for a treat.

Man I was fervent Bernie supporter and I'll never like Hillary, but I can't believe the way these people are reacting. At the very worst I feel like Hillary would be a president that would float us along until we are ready to vote in real change. Trump on the other hand would be an unmitigated disaster. What is happening?

Kids being petulant because they didn't get what they want.

 

[AniHawk]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

bernie sanders cancelling the nomination via votes and electing hillary as the nominee via acclamation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi2z4VJ4G8s

 

[Diffense]

Because at point #4, Obama was for trade deals such as TPP, and American foreign policy necessitates to speak with one public voice, even when there are internal disagreements. Saying she supported Obama's foreign trade deals as SoS is sort of lame, because she had to.

And I'm saying that given the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe she supported it under duress.

 

[whyamihere]

who made this

 

[JeTmAn81]

Bill's speech was good, but the opening about him meeting and falling in love with Hillary sure rings hollow when you know about the way he treated his marriage later in life.

 

[Meowster]

I am excited for Emperor King Obama's speech tomorrow.

I'm still torn between Michelle and Bill's speeches. Both were top notch.

 

[whyamihere]

And I'm saying that given the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe she supported it under duress.

Again -- American FP needs to speak with one voice. It did not matter if Hillary was for or against trade deals like TPP. Obama was for it. The SoS would not be for it. It's not something you should really take seriously if you were to come up with a list of reasons why you think Hillary is actually insincere about trade deals.

 

[Future]

It is indeed their choice and they might exercise it.
Here is an example of Clinton's long list of questionable positions she is reconsidering:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/hillary-clinton-says-its-_b_9825650.html



That's from Huffington Post not Fox News.

If know there will be a lot of finger pointing if Trump wins in November but don't be too quick to blame BernieOrBusters, independents etc. HRC was selected as the Democratic candidate for the presidency (even with some underhandedness as leaked emails suggest) despite her problematic political history.

I will definitely blame them. And people like you. That is, if you actually want the country moving forward in a liberal direction. That's what it's about. It's not a personal pledge to love Hillary. It's about putting someone in office that can push policies in directions you agree with, done in many ways including appointing justices of the Supreme Court.

To not see this is petty reasoning, trying to blame the downfall on other people when in truth you are at fault for not seeing the bigger picture. At least with republicans you know where they stand and I can agree to disagree. But if you claim to want liberal policy and direction yet do not do your part to make it happening, and attempt to rationalize it in ways that show limited understanding on how things get done, then yeah... It's your damn fault if trump wins

 

[Diffense]

Again -- American FP needs to speak with one voice. It did not matter if Hillary was for or against trade deals like TPP. Obama was for it. The SoS would not be for it. It's not something you should really take seriously if you were to come up with a list of reasons why you think Hillary is actually insincere about trade deals.

Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't believe she supported it under duress. It is a question of credibility not foreign policy.

I will definitely blame them. And people like you. That is, if you actually want the country moving forward in a liberal direction. That's what it's about. It's not a personal pledge to love Hillary. It's about putting someone in office that can push policies in directions you agree with, done in many ways including appointing justices of the Supreme Court.

To not see this is petty reasoning, trying to blame the downfall on other people when in truth you are at fault for not seeing the bigger picture. At least with republicans you know where they stand and I can agree to disagree. But if you claim to want liberal policy and direction yet do not do your part to make it happening, and attempt to rationalize it in ways that show limited understanding on how things get done, then yeah... It's your damn fault if trump wins

I actually agree with the bolded. Therefore I'm not sure why you would "blame them". It seems as if your principle would support their sticking to their guns.

 

[whyamihere]

There is an onus on Hillary to persuade Bernie voters to vote for her, but it also up to Bernie voters to actually be open to listening to Hillary's pitch.

 

[anaron]

is that Billy Baldwin on CNN?

 

[whyamihere]

Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't believe she supported it under duress. It is a question of credibility not foreign policy.

I don't actually think you're reading what I'm saying.

If you are a making a list of reasons why Hillary is not being sincere about being against TPP, you cannot use her statements under Obama's SoS against her, because of the necessity of FP to speak with one voice. You might think that she is actually supports TPP. This piece of evidence does not support your point because of the unique role of the SoS.

 

[crackhead_bob]

Bernie or Busters, were they of voting age in 2000, or does the name Ralph Nader elude them? I would have liked to have had Sanders as the nominee, but given the alternative....

 

[Diffense]

I don't actually think you're reading what I'm saying.

If you are a making a list of reasons why Hillary is not being sincere about being against TPP, you cannot use her statements under Obama's SoS against her, because of the necessity of FP to speak with one voice. You might think that she is actually supports TPP. This piece of evidence does not support your point because of the unique role of the SoS.

I think point 4 for is consistent with points 1-3.

In any case, none of this addresses the credibility issue.
Regardless of the justifications (eg. she takes a job that forces a certain action), this is just one example of being unable to pin down HRC's principled stance on things.

 

[Fracas]

Seeing Bill and Obama speak compared to the "future" stars of the party we've seen this convention just fills me with a sense of dread that these two are gonna be the best Presidents I'm going to get in my lifetime.

I've been pretty pleased with a lot of those that could be considered up and coming. Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Kaine and even smaller names like Alison Lundergan Grimes (though I'm biased since I live in Kentucky) are all good to me.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Booker apparently did well although I haven't watched his speech (yet)

Let's see what Kaine does tomorrow, too

Booker had his own take on Obama's 2004 United speech.

I'll admit. It was the best speech I'd heard until Michelle spoke. And then I got sad because she doesn't want to run for office.

 

[thcsquad]

Okay, old Billy Goat's speech.

Anything else? Yesterday had 4 notable speeches, just one today?

Some of the roll call (If AZ doesn't make you cry, nothing will....plus Bernie at the end), Donna Brazile. John Lewis.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Man I was fervent Bernie supporter and I'll never like Hillary, but I can't believe the way these people are reacting. At the very worst I feel like Hillary would be a president that would float us along until we are ready to vote in real change. Trump on the other hand would be an unmitigated disaster. What is happening?

I think most Sanders supporters are right there with you. It's a tiny subset who are lashing out.

 

[Future]

Given the totality of the circumstances, I don't believe she supported it under duress. It is a question of credibility not foreign policy.



I actually agree with the bolded. Therefore I'm not sure why you would "blame them". It seems as if your principle would support their sticking to their guns.

If they truly believe in someone like Gary Johnson to get things done, then of course I don't blame them. They are voting what they want

If they actually want liberal policy pushed forward, yet avoid voting Hillary because of some character flaws, then they are why the liberals lose. Because to allow trump to get in office with that point of view is the equivalent of punching yourself in the face. It proves no point besides that its gonna take that much longer to make liberal policy the law of the land because liberals keep tripping over each other to the finish line

I jumped in at the end of this thread, so may be understanding this wrong. I blame specifically the mantra that I'm for Bernie but can't be for Hillary for whatever reason. If that has nothing to do with this conversation then I apologize, and will see myself out

 

[whyamihere]

I think point 4 for is consistent with points 1-3.

In any case, none of this addresses the credibility issue.
Regardless of the justifications (eg. she takes a job that forces a certain action), this is just one example of being unable to pin down HRC's principled stance on things.

But no, again -- you're trying to say something silly. "She takes a job that forces a certain action" in regards to FP doesn't make her unprincipled. This is where people originally took issue with your example, because it's extremely silly. Even if (again, hypothetically, I am not in her brain) she was vehemently against TPP, there is nothing she could do as a cabinet member aside from resign that would've allowed her to be publicly against TPP. You see that now with Tom Perez, who probably isn't for TPP, but as the Sec. of Labor, he has to be for it.

It's a silly example, and trying to use it in your list makes you seem like you don't fully understand necessary context to evaluate a person's policy positions.

 

[neurosisxeno]

In any case, none of this addresses the credibility issue.
Regardless of the justifications (eg. she takes a job that forces a certain action), this is just one example of being unable to pin down HRC's principled stance on things.

You're literally saying, "If we ignore all context, she has inconsistent stances." When it comes to TPP, she personally didn't support it, but she was tasked with negotiating the deal with representatives from other countries on behalf of the Obama Administration. If she goes on CNN or to the briefing room and starts saying she doesn't support it, how well do you think those negotiations will go? The mantra of the Executive Branch is, "I serve at the pleasure of the President." That means the President sets the agenda, and you help make it a reality, regardless of your personal beliefs.

 

[Raitosaito]

Man I was fervent Bernie supporter and I'll never like Hillary, but I can't believe the way these people are reacting. At the very worst I feel like Hillary would be a president that would float us along until we are ready to vote in real change. Trump on the other hand would be an unmitigated disaster. What is happening?

Base on all her public interviews, it seems like her presidency will have a lot of input from many people.

 

[Phased]

Seeing Bill and Obama speak compared to the "future" stars of the party we've seen this convention just fills me with a sense of dread that these two are gonna be the best Presidents I'm going to get in my lifetime.

The Democratic party has been really lucky. The last few Presidents we've elected have been amazing. Obama was great, Clinton was great and Carter has made a very real difference in the lives of millions by helping to nearly eradicate the Guinea Worm.

With that said I think people like Booker and others are the ones to watch for. In ~4-8 years they could become the next generation of big stars in the party. Republicans cling to a Reagan presidency that was 30 years ago and have nobody of note left in their party.