Support NeoGAF

[Jombie]

I think Hillary is a fairly rotten person and a proto-political robot, but there are no words for how much of a disaster Trump would be. It's ludicrous and terrifying to even ponder.

 

[Aerogamer]

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.

I completely agree with this. The thing is as you said, in politics you have to play the game, especially in American politics. The people who want Bernie's vision need to realize you have to give progressive politicians something to work with in congress and the senate to have anything done. A vote for Hillary is as good as a vote for a Progressive Supreme Court. Incremental progress may not be ideal for them, but it is realistic in our political system. Politicians will promise you the moon, but you have to understand that they are salesmen, Bernie is a salesman as is Hillary. That in itself is not bad as long as you see the prospects with which they will be able to legislate and push for some of thing things that are important to you. Everyone has a voice, voting in local elections and making sure that the people closest to your causes are elected in every facet is more important than just voting for the President.

 

[bidguy]

its fascinating how such a huge and diverse country has hillary clinton and donald trump as potential head of state lol

 

[Keri]

It seems like, for years and years, women were blocked from this position, because they couldn't have enough experience to be president. Or, at least, couldn't have the experience comparable to a man. She is literally our first viable female candidate. And now, suddenly, when she appears, the country is all "meh, I wish we had someone fresh and exciting, who isn't part of the 'establishment'"? Suddenly, years in politics becomes a liability? There's no winning with some. I doubt very much that a woman with less experience or who was "anti-establishment" would have a better shot (or any shot) of winning. Then the story would just be: "Yeah, but shouldn't the first female president have more experience in politics?"

 

[MoeDabs]

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..

You've been in top form the last few days.

 

[mAcOdIn]

It seems like, for years and years, women were blocked from this position, because they couldn't have enough experience to be president. Or, at least, couldn't have the experience comparable to a man. She is literally our first viable female candidate. And now, suddenly, when she appears, the country is all "meh, I wish we had someone fresh and exciting, who isn't part of the 'establishment'"? Suddenly, years in politics becomes a liability? There's no winning with some. I doubt very much that a woman with less experience or who was "anti-establishment" would have a better shot (or any shot) of winning. Then the story would just be: "Yeah, but shouldn't the first female president have more experience in politics?"

That's a little revisionist I think. She didn't just appear, she lost 8 years ago too, so it's not like she "just appeared!"

And in all honesty look at the landscape, it is odd timing for her this election, Sanders was going on being anti-establishment, the two front runners on the Republican side were basically outsiders with Cruz representing the tea party upset with establishment Republicans and the winner, Trump, being a total political outsider. It's not just some excuse people are bandying about, there really is an anti-establishment movement in the country.

Though in the end I can't say if a less experienced but perhaps more charismatic female candidate would have actually done better. I know at least one person on TV would use the excuse she's not experienced enough though, not touching that one.

And thanks for the people correcting me on Hillary's stance, I continually confuse the two terms so keep keep calling me out when I do it and maybe one day I can break that curse.

 

[User 463088]

That's a little revisionist I think. She didn't just appear, she lost 8 years ago too, so it's not like she "just appeared!"

And in all honesty look at the landscape, it is odd timing for her this election, Sanders was going on being anti-establishment, the two front runners on the Republican side were basically outsiders with Cruz representing the tea party upset with establishment Republicans and the winner, Trump, being a total political outsider. It's not just some excuse people are bandying about, there really is an anti-establishment movement in the country.

Though in the end I can't say if a less experienced but perhaps more charismatic female candidate would have actually done better. I know at least one person on TV would use the excuse she's not experienced enough though, not touching that one.

And thanks for the people correcting me on Hillary's stance, I continually confuse the two terms so keep keep calling me out when I do it and maybe one day I can break that curse.

I think that if Hillary hadn't been in the race, Bernie wouldn't have done half as well as he did. She pretty much cleared the field. No one was going to run against her if they thought they had a legitimate chance of being President. It's why Biden didn't run, at the end of the day. So, if Queen hadn't run....Bernie would have been out by SC, I bet. He basically got to run as "not Clinton." Had he had to actually defend his policies and positions (something his interviews showed he's not great at for some reason), I don't think we'd still be hearing about him.

 

[jon bones]

Yes, the article saying it's been pretty much the same thing for 9 years shows that while it's exciting to have a first BLANK president, in the case of Obama the first multi-racial african-american identifying president, in the possible case of Clinton, first female president, it's been going on too long.

Having her as the first just isn't exciting.

Not that pics for such an important positions should be done on hype, but still... it's kinda of a meh-pick to many at this point.

Sentiment like this, coupled with strong support for Trump, just comes off at thinly veiled misogyny.

If you don't have a strong understanding of the issues, you have to rely on vague complaints about not being "fresh enough" - which is literally the worst way to downplay such a historic nominee.

Also lol @ how uncomfortable you are saying the words 'black person.'

 

[Keri]

That's a little revisionist I think. She didn't just appear, she lost 8 years ago too, so it's not like she "just appeared!"

Yes, but the same thing happened in 2008. Voters flocked to a candidate with significantly less experience. I mean, you're right that I'm simplifying things, but it's incredibly disheartening to see the first viable female candidate for President get attacked for too much experience and time in politics. It feels like anything becomes a liability, if you're a woman.

I mean, the idea she's part of the "establishment" in the first place, is a little laughable to me, considering we've never had a female President. This isn't an "establishment" women have been permitted to enter and using the justification of "you're part of the establishment" to further delay entry, just seems insulting. Also, even putting that aside, the "establishment" she could be considered a part of, is the "establishment" people chose over her in 2008, because it was considered the new and exciting path for this country. She's running on a platform of continuing the progress created by Obama, but this is now viewed as "establishment" politics? Her politics are incredibly similar to both Obama and Sanders, but there are people who (although seemingly liking those candidates) just don't want her.

 

[keuja]

She might not be exciting but at least she's not Trump.

 

[Kinyou]

I think that if Hillary hadn't been in the race, Bernie wouldn't have done half as well as he did. She pretty much cleared the field. No one was going to run against her if they thought they had a legitimate chance of being President. It's why Biden didn't run, at the end of the day. So, if Queen hadn't run....Bernie would have been out by SC, I bet. He basically got to run as "not Clinton." Had he had to actually defend his policies and positions (something his interviews showed he's not great at for some reason), I don't think we'd still be hearing about him.

I think that other candidates decided to not even run because of her didn't help the image. It rather affirmed that she's "inevitable" which is what people seem to dislike.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yes, but the same thing happened in 2008. Voters flocked to a candidate with significantly less experience. I mean, you're right that I'm simplifying things, but it's incredibly disheartening to see the first viable female candidate for President get attacked for too much experience and time in politics. It feels like anything becomes a liability, if you're a woman.

I mean, the idea she's part of the "establishment" in the first place, is a little laughable to me, considering we've never had a female President. This isn't an "establishment" women have been permitted to enter and using the justification of "you're part of the establishment" to further delay entry, just seems insulting. Also, even putting that aside, the "establishment" she could be considered a part of, is the "establishment" people chose over her in 2008, because it was considered the new and exciting path for this country. She's running on a platform of continuing the progress created by Obama, but this is now viewed as "establishment" politics? Her politics are incredibly similar to both Obama and Sanders, but there are people who (although seemingly liking those candidates) just don't want her.

First off, to me this reads like Clinton should be President because she's paid her dues, which I think is wrong. This election will be because she's the best out there not because it's time and she's been delayed enough or some crap.

To be honest, the 2008 election's not fresh enough in my mind to recall why Hillary lost to Obama, I don't know that her "experience" was considered a liability then or not. I would hesitate to say Obama was significantly less experienced than her though, at that point wasn't the only difference really her time as First Lady? Weren't they both Senators roughly the same time? I mean, if Michelle Obama ran tomorrow would we call her the second most experienced candidate?

Although the latter part, saying she's part of the establishment she lost to, in my opinion I don't get your gripe. The people upset with her on the left are upset with Obama, her being an Obama continuation isn't a win for those people. To the right she was a demon, married to a cheating devil, served a secret Muslim Marxist and is now running to continue that God Emperor's policies assuming he doesn't instigate Martial Law, invade Texas and serve a life term. So they're not going to like her. And what you're left with is a female candidate who's won her party's popular vote and is leading the polls nationally.

So, you're upset it's not unanimous or some shit?

To put another way: I think you're placing too much importance on the Sanders camp, who, in reality should be an afterthought at this point. Clinton's got the majority of the Democratic support. Yes Sanders is loud and some of his supporters are deafening, and crazy(Trump as a second choice WTF(not even Sanders himself wants that)) but those people are the minority. Clinton supporters are the majority.

And I'll be honest, totally separate from Hillary as a person I don't like the idea of these dynasties we've built up. We had two Bushes as President and now are going to have two Clintons with Obama being the only fucking outsider to those two families since what 1992? Disregarding the fact I think Hillary's the best among the candidates available this time, that is fucking gross.

 

[HUELEN10]

Sentiment like this, coupled with strong support for Trump, just comes off at thinly veiled misogyny.

If you don't have a strong understanding of the issues, you have to rely on vague complaints about not being "fresh enough" - which is literally the worst way to downplay such a historic nominee.

Also lol @ how uncomfortable you are saying the words 'black person.'

I am very comfortable saying black person, please don't try to start something that isn't there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52qRIHshOEs

I respect the president greatly when it comes to how he expresses his identity. He is a person who is less interested in labels and more interested in treating each other right. Respectfully calling him a multi-racial African american-identifying person is accurate and is respectful to his core beliefs.

And Mysogyny? Seriously? I've probably vote for about as many women as men in my lifetime, and I Belleive that choosing a president of the United States and letting looks, race, gender expression, orientation or sex become a determining factor is extremely petty and discriminatory; something I would never do.

Do I believe that the USA could and should have a female president? Absolutely, why not? No reason why a woman can't be a great leader of this great nation. Do I think that person is Clinton? I do not.

The little I said was respectful and not complicated, you seemed to actually want to turn it into something ugly that it wasn't. Not cool.

 

[M.Bluth]

To be honest, the 2008 election's not fresh enough in my mind to recall why Hillary lost to Obama, I don't know that her "experience" was considered a liability then or not. I would hesitate to say Obama was significantly less experienced than her though, at that point wasn't the only difference really her time as First Lady? Weren't they both Senators roughly the same time?

Well, no. You can just google this. Clinton started in the Senate in 2001, Obama in 2005. In total, it was 8 years for Clinton vs 3 years for Obama in the senate.

 

[Yen]

Speaking as a non-american, so disregard everything I say, what concerns me is her advisors. On economics, she'll be advised by the same people who heavily contributed to the crash, and on foreign policy she was previously advised by Robert Kagan (of the Project for the New American Century), never mind the fact her tenure as Secretary of State seems less than perfect, to be glib.

I saw on Vox that Sanders won 72-28 of young voters, so maybe in the future Democrats will be able to nominate someone other than a neoliberal on economic issues and a neocon on foreign policy issues, but I'm not hopeful.

 

[jon bones]

extremely petty and discriminatory; something I would never do.

But if you aren't a misogynist, why are you OK with Trump's anti-women rhetoric?

You are have been very outspoken for your support of the GOP (and by extension, their racist & anti-gay policies.)

So if you don't mind clarifying: how do you reconcile the GOP's racist, homophobic and misogynistic policies & rhetoric with what you claim is your own tolerance?

Please post in-detail about why you agree with Trump & the GOP on:
1) Why are you OK with gay people not being able to marry?
2) Why do you think it's OK to allow private companies to discriminate based on orientation?
2) Why isn't systemic racism a problem?
3) Why are Trump's comments on women are OK?

Looking forward to hearing your answer

Spoiler

, but fully expecting you to leave the thread without addressing any of this lol.

 

[Walshicus]

To be fair, she doesn't really inspire much does she? I mean yeah it'd be great for the US to break that gender barrier, but Hillary just sounds like more of the same old same old you guys have had for years. She's 100% establishment.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I hate shitposts which consist of nothing but the word "ether", so I added this disclaimer.

Ether

 

[Corronchilejano]

To be fair, she doesn't really inspire much does she? I mean yeah it'd be great for the US to break that gender barrier, but Hillary just sounds like more of the same old same old you guys have had for years. She's 100% establishment.

I'll never understand US thought processes.

"I want someone in the Whitehouse that definetly has no experience to work there."

 

[Jobbs]

I can't think of anyone I wouldn't vote for over trump. If the stanford rapist was running against him I'd have a hard time choosing.

(I don't mean to equate Hillary Clinton to the SR, in case any of you wanted to hear it that way -- I actually generally think she's ok)

 

[Walshicus]

I'll never understand US thought processes.

"I want someone in the Whitehouse that definetly has no experience to work there."

I'm English.

 

[like.a.ser]

Anything is better than Trump, it doesn't matter that she was first lady before.

I basically agree, but am reminded of a quote:

"People seemed to like this better, but only marginally so - the way one might prefer to be stabbed than shot. Optimally, one isn't stabbed or shot. Optimally, one eats some cake! But there are times when cake is not available, and instead we are destroyed. This is the deep poetry of the universe." - Tycho, Penny Arcade, 2007

Spoiler

regarding Rock Band instrument bundling, but still.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I'm English.

So then consider if this were an election between some dickhead like Blair, and Nigel Farage. Who would you be supporting?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

If you want to see the direction the Democratic party is compared to the Republicans, just look at who is the nominee of the last two cycles.

You have Obama + Clinton, who both have made history for the country and both are extremely similar in terms of policy.

And then you have McCain, Romney (who in all fairness is pretty moderate), Cruz and Trump for the last four major political possible nominees/ actual nominees

 

[Corronchilejano]

I'm English.

And yet your thoughts evoke most Clinton detractors at a time where her opponent might as well be a parrot stuck in a room with a computer reading the comments section of every Fox News article 24/7.

 

[Crv756]

If I could vote in the US, I would vote for Bernie. If Hillary wins the nomination, then I would vote for Trump...

Why? Because Bernie is the only one that cares to make a difference for the people, Hillary is more right then left. So I would vote for trump to see a 4 year long "kardashian-playboy-jersey shore" like presidency. It would also be interesting to see how the other world leaders would react to him.

 

[Xe4]

To be fair, she doesn't really inspire much does she? I mean yeah it'd be great for the US to break that gender barrier, but Hillary just sounds like more of the same old same old you guys have had for years. She's 100% establishment.

That establishment that:
Passed comprehensive health care reforn
Passed the Dodd-Frank Act
Put the judges in place to legalize gay marriage
Repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell
Pushed for comprehensive immigration reform including trying their hardest to pass the Dream Act.
Has continually pushed for common sense gun laws
Scaled down our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan
Reduced the deficit dramatically
Created tons of jobs, continuing to this day
Pushed for the bill that closed loopholes for tax evasion overseas
Pushed for green energy and carbon emmision reductions as hard as they could.
Pushed for the continuation of net neutrality.
Vastly improved relations with Cuba
Vastly improved relations with Iran
Etc, etc,

I don't know about you, but I think the "establishment" is doing a pretty knock up job.

It almost seems like they'd do a better job if those who were holding progress back didn't continue to win seats because people can only be assed to vote every four years...

If I could vote in the US, I would vote for Bernie. If Hillary wins the nomination, then I would vote for Trump...

Why? Because Bernie is the only one that cares to make a difference for the people, Hillary is more right then left. So I would vote for trump to see a 4 year long "kardashian-playboy-jersey shore" like presidency. It would also be interesting to see how the other world leaders would react to him.

I'm forever grateful you don't live in the US, cause it's obvious you don't give a damn about it or the people in it, and would rather see it burn to the ground than not have your way.

And get out of here with that "more right than left" crap. Hillary is more liberal than Obama. She was the 11th most liberal senator during her tenure as Senator, and is by no means right or center, by the US's metrics, Europe's metrics or anyones. You'd know that if you paid the slightest attention to what her policies are instead of being blinded by your hatred of her and/or "the establishment".

 

[Wafflecakes]

If I could vote in the US, I would vote for Bernie. If Hillary wins the nomination, then I would vote for Trump...

Why? Because Bernie is the only one that cares to make a difference for the people, Hillary is more right then left. So I would vote for trump to see a 4 year long "kardashian-playboy-jersey shore" like presidency. It would also be interesting to see how the other world leaders would react to him.

Hilarity.

You remind me of a Fox News viewer I know.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

If I could vote in the US, I would vote for Bernie. If Hillary wins the nomination, then I would vote for Trump...

Why? Because Bernie is the only one that cares to make a difference for the people, Hillary is more right then left. So I would vote for trump to see a 4 year long "kardashian-playboy-jersey shore" like presidency. It would also be interesting to see how the other world leaders would react to him.

You're basically an idiot then, who only cares about politicians making a difference for white, heterosexual christian people.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

To be fair, she doesn't really inspire much does she? I mean yeah it'd be great for the US to break that gender barrier, but Hillary just sounds like more of the same old same old you guys have had for years. She's 100% establishment.

So what?

Establishment has given us civil rights, gay rights, action on climate change, action on Wall St. regulation, EPA regulations, protection from religious zealots...

I can go on and on, I'm tried of people bitching about "establishment" politics when the Democratic party has been the progressive party for the last fifty years in nearly every single matter in the country. Why do we need someone to "inspire" people, why can't we elect someone who can do their fucking job extremely well, get shit done and leave office with legislation in place that increases the wellbeing of the vast majority of people in the county?

If you need to feel inspired to vote then you need to figure out your own priorities, I vote because it's my civic and personal duty to make sure that I can guarantee the rights I have as a middle class white kid to as many people as possible who aren't as lucky to be born where I was with the opportunities I have been given simply because of the work of my parents and the inherent social bias of the color of my skin.

 

[Crv756]

Hilarity.

You remind me of a Fox News viewer I know.

...Was that an insult?

You're basically an idiot then, who only cares about politicians making a difference for white, heterosexual christian people.

So Bernie only supports white, heterosexual and Christians? What? I don't know if you misread my post.

What USA needs (opinion-opinion-opinion) is a far left democrat that has the balls to create a welfare state in the US... And that's Bernie. If you think twice, you may guess where I am from.

EDIT: Ok, I may have said something wrong here about left and right party, maybe its different here. so I will clarify. Hillary is too liberal from what the US needs, USA needs a form of social democracy.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

...Was that an insult?



So Bernie only supports white, heterosexual and Christians? What? I don't know if you misread my post.

What USA needs (opinion-opinion-opinion) is a far left democrat that has the balls to create a welfare state in the US... And that's Bernie. If you think twice, you may guess where I am from.

No, Trump only supports white heterosexual christians. Why the fuck would you support an openly racist and flip-flopping shit just to stick it to the establishment? Think your position through.

Edit: and your welfare state support is awesome by me, maybe you're a Scandinavian where welfare state is not a negative thing, which I am 100% down with. Trump is not going to improve that for Americans, he will make it far worse.

 

[Wafflecakes]

...Was that an insult?

Should it be?

I can only imagine what type of classless PoS would take their policy positions (very far left with Bernie), take a shit on them by voting for a candidate who opposes everything Bernie stands for, then vote for a racist.

 

[Sorcerer]

It just occurred to me that Hilary and Bill will be a couple where both can both claim the title of President of The United States. How weird is that?

Both can claim first lady/first man status as well.

 

[Xe4]

...Was that an insult?



So Bernie only supports white, heterosexual and Christians? What? I don't know if you misread my post.

What USA needs (opinion-opinion-opinion) is a far left democrat that has the balls to create a welfare state in the US... And that's Bernie. If you think twice, you may guess where I am from.

Trump only gives a shit about while, heterosexual, Christian males. By saying you want him to win if not Sanders, that's telling me and others you don't give a fuck about anyone that doesn't fit that profile.

And you're right, America needs more political parties that represent more than two views of Americans. But that's not going to happen for a while. And a far left party would either be wiped out, or play part in destroying the democrats, so it's not an option.

That doesn't mean it should burn to the ground and have millions suffer while it does so. So why don't you worry about your country, and leave those who actually care about the direction America heads in, care about it.

Edit: he's banned and I need to calm down so I don't follow him. Still, people with those viewpoints make my blood boil, but I can't let it get to my head : p

 

[ChosenPredator]

Not crazy about Hillary myself but I think i'll keep my opinion to myself about her on here, lol. She's just the upper tier of worse.

 

[mAcOdIn]

So what?

Establishment has given us civil rights, gay rights, action on climate change, action on Wall St. regulation, EPA regulations, protection from religious zealots...

I can go on and on, I'm tried of people bitching about "establishment" politics when the Democratic party has been the progressive party for the last fifty years in nearly every single matter in the country. Why do we need someone to "inspire" people, why can't we elect someone who can do their fucking job extremely well, get shit done and leave office with legislation in place that increases the wellbeing of the vast majority of people in the county?

If you need to feel inspired to vote then you need to figure out your own priorities, I vote because it's my civic and personal duty to make sure that I can guarantee the rights I have as a middle class white kid to as many people as possible who aren't as lucky to be born where I was with the opportunities I have been given simply because of the work of my parents and the inherent social bias of the color of my skin.

Again, I don't think it's so much that people want to be inspired but that they want someone to champion those causes, speed up their acceptance, some people probably want them forced down the public's throat whether it's popular or not.

That said, I agree with the rest, the Democratic party's been good as of late which is why I finally got turned off of Sanders by him repeatedly bashing it, and anyone who doesn't support him. A sad reality in this country is if you do something too soon before the populace wants it, or at least knows they want it, is you have a chance to lose it. Republicans have repealing Obamacare as a tentpole of their policy right now and many Democrats fell on their swords to pass that bill, as marginal a step forward as many of us see it. But if the Presidency were lost there is a good chance it would have been repealed, along with a lot of other shit Obama did. Granted, from a progressive POV it was small, maybe too little change from our perspectives but for the other voting half of our country it was fucking heresy. The smart thing to do is to treat it like a military offensive, it's not enough to clear the area and then leave, you have to be able to hold it. If you can't hold it it's meaningless. So it is in our politics when the other side is so vehemently anti-everything. It's not enough to pass the legislation, you gotta keep most of those seats in your party's hands long enough for those policies to become popular or at the least liked enough where it won't get repealed.

It's a sad state to be in for sure but that's where we're at.

 

[Xe4]

Not crazy about Hillary myself but I think i'll keep my opinion to myself about her on here, lol. She's just the upper tier of worse.

Can I ask why you think that? Are you conservative or liberal or what? I'm honestly not trying to shit on you or anything. I just am wondering why you dislike her so much.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Not crazy about Hillary myself but I think i'll keep my opinion to myself about her on here, lol. She's just the upper tier of worse.

Why post to tell us you're not going to even explain your position?

 

[Walshicus]

So then consider if this were an election between some dickhead like Blair, and Nigel Farage. Who would you be supporting?

I'm not saying that Hillary isn't a better choice than Trump, just as Blair was a better choice than IDS, and William Hague.

I'm saying that the lesser of two evils isn't that great a label. She's still Hawkish on foreign policy, she's still in collusion with Wall Street, she's still a rabid Israel-apologist...

Just don't see what she offers beyond being a safer pair of hands than Trump. What's her hook?

 

[Xe4]

I'm not saying that Hillary isn't a better choice than Trump, just as Blair was a better choice than IDS, and William Hague.

I'm saying that the lesser of two evils isn't that great a label. She's still Hawkish on foreign policy, she's still in collusion with Wall Street, she's still a rabid Israel-apologist...

Just don't see what she offers beyond being a safer pair of hands than Trump. What's her hook?

I've always disliked the lesser of two evils view when discussing Hillary, because though it is a figure of speech, it implies Hillary is evil, or bad, or whatever. She's not my ideal candidate (the only person that could be that is me, lol), but she holds so many opinions that I agree with and love her for.

I like that she took the fight for UHC in the 90s likely knowing that it had a high chance of failing, as it had so many times before.

I like her feminist viewpoints, and feel that as someone who has had to deal with the BS she's had to gone through has a lot to say on the issue.

I line her continuation of Obama's policies. I'm not saying that as if it's the only thing she can do, but more of the fact that they have very simmilar ideologies and I really liked Obama's presidency.

I like her view on gun control, certainly a lot more than Bernies.

I actually like that we interviewed in Lybia. Perhaps we could have done it better, or had a better plan for the aftermath, bit us interviewing possibly saved thousands of lives and have the trouble Lybia is going through now seem tiny in comparison. But that's another discussion for another day.

These are some of the reasons I support her at least. It's not the longest post I've written, and others have certainly done better, but there are lots of people that support her for reasons other than "not Trump". In fact the majority of the Democrat party likes her, and I'm proud to consider myself one of them.

 

[War Peaceman]

I'm not saying that Hillary isn't a better choice than Trump, just as Blair was a better choice than IDS, and William Hague.

I'm saying that the lesser of two evils isn't that great a label. She's still Hawkish on foreign policy, she's still in collusion with Wall Street, she's still a rabid Israel-apologist...

Just don't see what she offers beyond being a safer pair of hands than Trump. What's her hook?

First female president.

You stated she isn't inspiring, but how do women feel about her?

I don't know the answer to that, but I think a lot of assumptions are wrongly made.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I'm not saying that Hillary isn't a better choice than Trump, just as Blair was a better choice than IDS, and William Hague.

I'm saying that the lesser of two evils isn't that great a label. She's still Hawkish on foreign policy, she's still in collusion with Wall Street, she's still a rabid Israel-apologist...

Just don't see what she offers beyond being a safer pair of hands than Trump. What's her hook?

Honestly, even if that is her only hook I'd still be fully behind her because the alternative is just so horrible; and unfortunately that's the way the current US electoral system operates. I'm Australian (US citizen wife plus daughter), so the notion of preferential voting mattering is one I totally understand. That said, I truly believe that the only hope of the legislature ever amending the process in the US lies with democrats, because statistically speaking the Republicans have been getting fucked for decades and have been doing their best to use a legislative hammer to stay relevant despite the diverse nation that they represent turning away from them.

This is a possible turning point for the US which affects the whole world, so I'm happy to accept that Hillary is part of the Establishment as long as she continues to behave like the decent side of it.

 

[Condom]

So what?

Establishment has given us civil rights, gay rights, action on climate change, action on Wall St. regulation, EPA regulations, protection from religious zealots...

I can go on and on, I'm tried of people bitching about "establishment" politics when the Democratic party has been the progressive party for the last fifty years in nearly every single matter in the country. Why do we need someone to "inspire" people, why can't we elect someone who can do their fucking job extremely well, get shit done and leave office with legislation in place that increases the wellbeing of the vast majority of people in the county?

If you need to feel inspired to vote then you need to figure out your own priorities, I vote because it's my civic and personal duty to make sure that I can guarantee the rights I have as a middle class white kid to as many people as possible who aren't as lucky to be born where I was with the opportunities I have been given simply because of the work of my parents and the inherent social bias of the color of my skin.

You don't know how politics works do you?
Politicians don't do shit unless the people campaign for change and pressure the politicians to do good things.

It's very clear who believes in the schoolbook example of liberal democracy and who have actually participated in it.

That's why you need an inspiring president, one that can activate people to pressure for change. One that joins protests etc.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

A lot of presidents we elect are also "old". Why is it a problem now that it's a woman?

 

[Wafflecakes]

A lot of presidents we elect are also "old". Why is it a problem now that it's a woman?

I don't think you need someone to tell you the answer to that question...

 

[Xe4]

You don't know how politics works do you?
Politicians don't do shit unless the people campaign for change and pressure the politicians to do good things.

It's very clear who believes in the schoolbook example of liberal democracy and who have actually participated in it.

That's why you need an inspiring president, one that can activate people to pressure for change. One that joins protests etc.

I don't think that's true, as that assumes that politicians don't do what they do to help others.

Sure public pressure definitely helps, and has helped change politicians minds on a lot of things (gay marriage is a good example), but the majority of democrats are there to do good things, to help the country progress, and I think it's disingenuous to paint it otherwise.

 

[Parshias7]

You don't know how politics works do you?
Politicians don't do shit unless the people campaign for change and pressure the politicians to do good things.

It's very clear who believes in the schoolbook example of liberal democracy and who have actually participated in it.

That's why you need an inspiring president, one that can activate people to pressure for change. One that joins protests etc.

This post is sarcasm, right? Its hard to tell.

 

[OneEightZero]

It seems like, for years and years, women were blocked from this position, because they couldn't have enough experience to be president. Or, at least, couldn't have the experience comparable to a man. She is literally our first viable female candidate. And now, suddenly, when she appears, the country is all "meh, I wish we had someone fresh and exciting, who isn't part of the 'establishment'"? Suddenly, years in politics becomes a liability? There's no winning with some. I doubt very much that a woman with less experience or who was "anti-establishment" would have a better shot (or any shot) of winning. Then the story would just be: "Yeah, but shouldn't the first female president have more experience in politics?"

Wholeheartedly agree. Hillary has the wisdom and experience to run a nation. The opponents do not.

 

[HylianTom]

Her campaign slipped and told the truth a few months ago: young women take where we are for granted.

Go back just a few decades, and we were debating the constitutionality of contraception bans, for chrissakes. And a segment of the GOP base keeps that hope alive. I'm sure the Santorums out there would still love to see Griswold overturned.

They've come of age in a time where the culture wars have begun to swing decisively, so they don't have fond memories of the Christian Coalition, or Anita Bryant, Ralph Reed, Focus on the Family, etc..