Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, the American revolution wasn't an isolated incident. It was preceded by the Dutch Republic, the French revolution and Scottish Enlightenment. Still, I guess you could argue either way. I definitely think they had a better philosophical grounding, for what that means in a post realpolitik world.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A woman president would be new, Hillary Clinton is not.
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
- Status
Flying Toaster
Member
It is as if no one was taught American history.
Which French Revolution are we referring to?
Sidewinder
Member
It should've been a Kardashian, maybe next time??
WaterAstro
Member
I wouldn't vote someone to be in charge of such power if they weren't old.
I mean, even Sarah Palin is getting there at the age of 52.
No one is going to vote for some 30 year old who probably don't know a damn thing about how to run a company, much less a country.
I mean, even Sarah Palin is getting there at the age of 52.
No one is going to vote for some 30 year old who probably don't know a damn thing about how to run a company, much less a country.
I see your point, but sometimes a 'fresh' face can bring about more change than the old 'familiar'
Sure she can hit the job running, wont even be a problem, she will know where the toilets are in the white house (and all stupid shit like that) but can she bring about the change America wants? I am not so sure you can if you have been in the 'establishment' at the white house for such a long time
Flying Toaster
Member
It would be hard to argue that the universal brain trust of modern society was not tied to the evolution of America becoming America. Honestly its lightning in a bottle how America came to be. The right people at the right time with knowledge bases spanning practically everything happened to be in the same geographical region.
Edit: I do not disagree with what you are saying, I just find it fascinating that historically stuff happened the way it did. Sorry for the de-rail.
Welp lemme retract this turd.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Honestly, I don't really care if she was a woman or a man or a nonbinary. She had a lot of experience in politics and she seems qualified to me to be the president.
Also, her alternative is far worse.
Also, her alternative is far worse.
I don't know if we can really equate time in government as qualification for being President. I mean, it's relevant for sure, but when I think "best qualified" I think someone that's shown, shown, that they do great work in that field. Frankly, in regards to Clinton, I don't find anything fantastic in her record in government that would lead me to believe she's more qualified than any other Senator or Secretary of State. In other words I don't think just having a record is proof of qualification and just like in the civilian world I may feel that a relatively new employee is better suited for a job than an established senior employee I feel the same about the Presidency.
All that said however, she's by far the best candidate in this race and I'll vote for her no reservations I just feel that claiming she may have the best qualifications ever a bit hyperbolic.
This thread reminded me, you know, there are people who unironically are worried that Bernie is literally too old to be president, like, among his supporters even, and they actually mean his age.
It's funny when comparing how, save for this thread and that article, i don't really think i have seen people truly criticize Hillary due to her age.
It's funny when comparing how, save for this thread and that article, i don't really think i have seen people truly criticize Hillary due to her age.
Irrespective of her rival for the GE, Hillary has done enormous amounts of public work which can and should stand up to scrutiny based on merit. Her age, gender, race, religion etc are all irrelevant in a sense. They all make up the person to an extent, but Hillary Clinton has a record which is what people should base their decisions upon.
She would be a damn good candidate any GE, but this time in particular she is leagues ahead of any candidate and realistically, she is the only rational choice.
Fwiw I don't mean that you should vote for her or even can't find her boring (I do too), I just lament the fact that qualifications are seen as disqualifications by many. Though at the same time I very much agree with you that work experience itself isn't everything.
You win some, you lose some. Just as with men.
If you want an example of an exemplary PM look up Helen Clark from New Zealand.
kavanf1
Member
As an outsider looking in, it seems like an absolute no brainer that Clinton should be the next US president. Perhaps that's as much to do with her opponent's weaknesses as it is to do with her capabilities, but I don't doubt that she has the ability to do the job and do it well.
Other upsides: the first First Gentleman; more Simpsons episodes with the aliens wanting to meet Klin-ton.
Other upsides: the first First Gentleman; more Simpsons episodes with the aliens wanting to meet Klin-ton.
Flying Toaster
Member
I feel sorry for the Brits. You have had a lot of strong willed people as PM's and it almost always blows up in your faces... Churchill I love the man dearly but wow just wow.
A lot of it is old salt from the 90s, feels like to me.
Idiocracy, the word that tells it all.
Monocle
Member
Let's cross our fingers!
No single president is going to bring about profound change, not with our current system where one party is hell bent on opposing the other side no matter their position, even if it means paralyzing the political process.
Obama made extraordinary progress considering the opposition he faced. The best we can hope for this election cycle is a president who will preserve the progress he made, react intelligently to developing threats like ISIS and global warming, and nominate progressive Supreme Court justices.
Trump would dismantle Obamacare, enact sickeningly regressive policies against ethnic minorities and women and LGBT people, stall our already insufficient response to climate change, set back the country by decades with conservative Supreme Court nominations, pour funds into our already bloated military at the expense of education and science (among other things), attack social safety nets (increasing illness and death among our poor, which aside from the human cost would have a significant financial impact too), squander the goodwill Obama built up overseas, and probably screw up just about everything to do with foreign policy.
How could any Democratic candidate, even one who's "too establishment," compare to that mess?
Bonus: Hillary's not an unapologetic bigot who openly insults the people she's supposed to represent.
I just doubt an unknown woman would have had the same kind of traction as Hilary, solely because you know Hilary's credentials, and an unknown would need to prove that. Bernie, being unknown, succeeded by appealing to the young and disenfranchised, and calling for "revolution" ad nauseum, whilst hitting that angry straight white male group, which in part would never have voted for a woman, Hilary or not.
I don't think anyone says being qualified is a disqualification just the concept of what qualifies one to be President is different for many, sometimes out of necessity and others out of ideology. We can't equate qualifications with experience. If someone is qualified they are qualified. Period. Where people differ is many people look at Hillary Clinton and say she has experience but they don't think she's qualified. It would take one hell of a fool, who doesn't understand their own language, to claim Hillary's too qualified and thus should be disqualified. (Looking at you Rubio!)
For instance, if you dislike the current political system, someone who's been a part of it for decades now probably isn't qualified to you to be the person to change it. Or depending on who you're running against you may find them claim that being a Governor's better experience than a Senator(to which I'd usually agree in all honesty) or whatever. Or a CEO. The goal post moves depending on who's running as to what qualifies one to be President.
This is true too though. I may not sing her praises but she also doesn't deserve the scorn and hate she gets either.
d00d3n
Member
Do people really hate her? For me, she is the medicine that the US needs to take to save your own economy and avoid nasty trade wars with the EU and China. As it happens, a Hillary win would have the greatest auxiliary effects by far on my own country (Sweden). But yeah, her personality is not great and she does not have the rhetorical/political chops to match Trump. I don't get why that would make people hate her, though. Apathy is a relevant emotion here, but not hate. When it comes to Trump you can respect his skills, but he is infinitely more hatable imo.
Republicans HATE her. Literally. There's a good deal who would vote for anyone but her because of how much some people demonize her.
Yeah, there is some genuine hate against her for some reason from a subset of people on the left. They see her as fake and evil, but really make no good points as to why in terms of comparisons to most politicians. They also harp on and reason that she did nothing important for progressive causes, which is absolutely false.
I was on the fence about this until she tanked (in the MMO sense) the Republicans for 11 whole hours and didn't even look like she was to break. It was also revealed later that the entire hearing was entirely intentional to go after her by the GOP.
Trump can't stand more than 3 seconds of someone giving him a hard question before he explodes.
Nice
Officerrob
Banned
I hear yeah, but lets get Hillary in there, get RBG to retire, and fill a couple of Supreme Court spots first. Shaping the Supreme Court for a generation is what this election is all about
A small subset of people on the left as well. They will decry her for things from the past that basically all other politicians were in on as well. The thing is they cover their ears when we say that her current platform, the one she is running on in 2016 serves there values rather well. We just need to make sure we can have a progressive supreme court because a lot of people in this country cannot have a conservative court that makes no attempt at broad and sweeping social change.
Monocle
Member
Yep, she clowned them. That was the day I went from being a passive supporter in the face of the awful Republican alternatives to having little doubt she'd be a capable president.
astroturfing
Member
she's going to lose isn't she? no one really likes her or wants her back in the white house.
Bernie would probably have done better against Trump. Hillary is gonna lose just like last time. people should have voted for the better candidate..
Bernie would probably have done better against Trump. Hillary is gonna lose just like last time. people should have voted for the better candidate..
Officerrob
Banned
She's favored to win. Also, she lost in 2008 because she went-up against a once in a generation candidate/campaigner
eBay Huckster
Member
she's literally up by a wider margin than obama over romney (+5 vs +3.9) before any of the various bounces that are about to happen but sure let's keep fucking this chicken
kavanf1
Member
I doubt it. Trump fans make a lot of noise but there is likely to be a silent majority whose views aren't being factored into people's perceptions about how the race is going. Ultimately all that counts is people turning up to vote.
lol. Love how you're telling people how to vote. Ignore the 3 million voters and huge electoral college victory and the more swing states and more because YOU think Sanders is the better candidate. Hint: (Clintons the better candidate), Sanders does better in match ups because:
a) Clinton supporters indicate that they'd support Sanders while many Sanders supporters do not do the same for Clinton. That's not to say they won't (most will, especially with Trump running), but rather they are mad that their candidate lost. Clinton supporters did this in '08, and would again if she was loosing. They nearly always come around.
b) Sanders does well as opposed to Clinton, because no one knew who he is, same reason Kaisch did well against Clinton. Those people see someone who they have no idea who they are (or a very small idea), and think they'd be ok. With more info this will very well change, which brings us to...
c) Sanders has not been attacked in any meaningful way. Non of his skeletons have been dragged out of the closet (and he has a LOT, more than even Clinton), and they would be used while the gloves came off faster than Sanders could blink.
I still think Sanders would win, mostly cause of Trump, but so will Clinton, who is currently 2+ points ahead in GE polls and swing state polls. If held today, Clinton would smash Trump, winning perhaps even better than Bams did in '08. It's not an excuse to relax, but don't let the doom and gloom get to your head.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I think a lot of people are sold on the idea that a world led by women would be less prone to conflict, war etc and the prospect of Hillary as president kinda sours them on this utopian idea, because she doesn't seem particularly less prone to any of the trappings of male presidents like many thought a female president would be.
I'm not saying she should be less prone to those trappings, mind you. It's naive to think that Hillary should be some peace loving hippie just by nature of being a woman, but I think that's nonetheless what a lot of people had hoped for when they hoped for a woman president. Hillary, then, represents reality, where it turns out that world affairs and international disputes are more than dick measuring contests, and replacing every man in power with a woman won't fix anything. Big problems will still require hard work and diplomacy like they always have. People don't like the reality, so they'd rather believe Hillary isn't worthy of being the first female president than accept that she's a perfectly capable candidate and that the notion of a woman president ushering in some transformative worldview and way of governance was just pixie dust.
User 463088
Banned
Hillary Clinton Wants to Talk to You About Love and Kindness
Don't let the title of this article fool you into thinking it's something ridiculous. This is as good of an exploration of Hillary as anyone has done in a very, very long time. It puts so much of her world view and philosophy into context if you're not familiar with all the threads of personality and life history. I encourage anyone, no matter how you feel about her, to read it.
Don't let the title of this article fool you into thinking it's something ridiculous. This is as good of an exploration of Hillary as anyone has done in a very, very long time. It puts so much of her world view and philosophy into context if you're not familiar with all the threads of personality and life history. I encourage anyone, no matter how you feel about her, to read it.
Monocle
Member
This seems quite plausible.
Already Torn
Banned
The ones on the left that hate her hate her because she isn't Bernie, she doesn't want UHC, she isn't progressive enough.
I know Clinton wants to call herself a progressive and in many aspects she is but I think people look at it like this: There's two kinds of progressives,(any politician really) one who will go out and risk their neck championing a cause and one who'll wait for it to become acceptable and sign it, Hillary's going to be the latter. People on the left deriding Clinton are likely the same people upset with Obama because they bought into the idea of change and assumed that he was going to do all this shit that he never really said. Sanders was cool with them because he said he'd do it. Now truthfully, Sanders couldn't do it but he stuck his neck out there. That's what people want, someone to champion progressive causes not just let them pass once they're acceptable. Hillary'd call it pragmatism, I disagree to an extent. I think you can be a champion and also be pragmatic and settle for less in a good compromise, I'd say she's really just playing it safe. Which makes progressive an odd, label, are you a progressive if you support something once it's politically popular to do so? I dunno. In either case she won't obstruct progressive causes I just don't see her fighting for them either.
What I wish most progressive voters would start to realize though is those people aren't exactly enemies to the movement. They're waiting for you to place something workable and passable on their desk, that's more than most!
Though I will give Hillary credit for staking out a position against gun manufacturers. 'Course whether she can follow through with it is another matter entirely but she's on the record saying she'd like them to be liable for gun deaths. For the first time now all the right wingers I know claiming the President wants to take away their guns will actually have a point!
People on the right hate her as much as they hate the Devil or Communism.
She absolutely wants UHC, just not single payer, FYI. I don't want single payer either: something like Germany would be ideal for me, well regulated companies with a public option.
Other than that I agree to an extent. She is very progressive, especially for America, just not as much as Sanders or Warren. She's a pragmatist above all else, which I think we need for our next president given the Republican fuckery that will continue.
secondspace
Member
I can see the point the author is making and it's not like shallow perception has never been an issue in presidential politics. Nixon looks shabby against Kennedy. Bill Clinton is all good looks and charm. George W Bush pretends he's a rancher for years.Obama is incredibly young and inexperienced when he wins.
You could as easily argue that Hillary's appearance as an experienced, safe, centrist has helped her towards victory in a campaign where the Republican candidate is frightening on many levels and her Democratic rival is too radical for a lot of people.
You could as easily argue that Hillary's appearance as an experienced, safe, centrist has helped her towards victory in a campaign where the Republican candidate is frightening on many levels and her Democratic rival is too radical for a lot of people.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
No one is going to vote for some 30 year old because you need to be 35 to be president.
User 463088
Banned
I'm going to slightly disagree with you. Firstly, Hillary absolutely is in favor of Universal Healthcare. She has the lumps to prove it. Now, she disagrees with Sander's approach, as do I. But to say that she's not in favor of it isn't really accurate.
The difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary does come down to something you said about sticking your neck out. Hillary has learned throughout her career, that sometimes when you stick your neck out too far, it just ends up getting your head lobed off. Bernie, being an Independent back bencher for most of his career(and I don't say that with shade, I mean it in the nicest way possible, honestly) doesn't have that problem. He can yell at clouds and give speeches to empty rooms all day, and it's perfectly fine. That's not what a President does, though. That's what an ideologue does. (Again, I don't mean that in a completely negative sense.)
I'm not saying that it's not admirable. I'm not saying it's not justifiable. I'm not saying it's not alluring to some. But, a President is about getting results. Bernie has a lot of ideas (some are good, some are downright awful) but, in his 30 years of public service, he's done almost nothing to get them passed. (Again, I'm not throwing shade on him, nor am I trying to pile on the guy because this thing is over anyway).
Should a President be inspirational and aspirational? Absolutely. But, I don't think that is the sole defining factor of liberalism or progressiveness. Especially since I, and a lot of other people, find Hillary to be both of those things.
Now, I agree with you that we liberals often let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We've always had that problem, as does the right. It's just human nature.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll