Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Um, I was told that if you publicly mention you are getting paid to stan for Hillary, it violates the NDA you signed and they take away that money so you may want to edit that.

You're also supposed to put the secret code on your taxes and the corrupt Obama IRS will cover that shit up.

It's the same one we Koch shills get so you only have to remember the one incase you switch sides like David Brock.

 

[fart town usa]

Shills, huh. Got any proof of that?

Yea, look at the bed-wetting of democrats still acting as if Sanders is still campaigning for himself and is spoiling the election for her.

Even Axelrod calls out the attempts of Hillary's camp to cast her in a different light each time her campaign attempts to reboot her image. It's pathetic.

Heaven forbid a candidate (Sanders) run a largely successful campaign that focused on his political background/policies as well as the political background/policies of his rival (Hillary).

People act like Hillary's life in public service is off-limits. Give me a break.

 

[rjinaz]

You're also supposed to put the secret code on your taxes and the corrupt Obama IRS will cover that shit up.

Why are you ruining it for us? I was close to making Hillary speech money.

 

[Kin5290]

Bernie is absolutely right here. Trump is just so bad we need to do everything we can do defeat him, and that means voting for Clinton. A protest vote would have been fine if the conservative candidate was sane (like Romney or McCain), because then it's a reasonable risk. But we really cannot risk Trump.

On the other hand, Bush the younger was a sane conservative candidate, and he dragged us into an illegal war that ruined the Middle East for decades to come.

 

[jack_package_200]

Clinton does not deserve my vote, so she will not get it. I'll vote with my conscience, not some misguided fear of an obese windbag billionaire charlatan. Americans should never be guided by fear.

I'm absolutely all for living by a code and taking a stand for your beliefs. But you have to face facts. A third party vote or choosing to stay home is a Trump vote.

There are many groups of people in this country who will be fucked over by a Trump presidency. But hey, you voted your conscience. Good for you, champ.

 

[fart town usa]

If Trump wins because Bernie voters didn't vote Clinton, THE DNC IS TO BLAME, not the voters.


The writing has been on the wall with Clinton for a long time.

This.

 

[BearFlexington]

Clinton does not deserve my vote, so she will not get it. I'll vote with my conscience, not some misguided fear of an obese windbag billionaire charlatan. Americans should never be guided by fear.

Bravo.

 

[reckless]

Clinton does not deserve my vote, so she will not get it. I'll vote with my conscience, not some misguided fear of an obese windbag billionaire charlatan. Americans should never be guided by fear.

Not exactly a misguided fear, its a real fear with real consequences for millions of people, but who cares about them...

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Bravo.

Not in the slightest.

 

[rjinaz]

Not exactly a misguided fear, its a real fear with real consequences for millions of people, but who cares about them...

We're talking about people that matter here. Not rapists and terrorists. Keep up. /s

 

[Ozigizo]

People act like Hillary's life in public service is off-limits. Give me a break.

So, nobody said that, but alright. I don't really understand what your point is.

 

[jack_package_200]

Not exactly a misguided fear, its a real fear with real consequences for millions of people, but who cares about them...

Apparently its cool to be an asshole who is incapable of empathy

 

[Imperial Bishop]

Wrong thread

 

[benjipwns]

On the other hand, Bush the younger was a sane conservative candidate, and he dragged us into an illegal war that ruined the Middle East for decades to come.

Johm McCain, the sane candidate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9kumiroe6M

who picked Sarah Palin

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Clinton does not deserve my vote, so she will not get it. I'll vote with my conscience, not some misguided fear of an obese windbag billionaire charlatan. Americans should never be guided by fear.

This is a ridiculous statement. We should never choose our actions in such a way as to avoid negative outcomes?

 

[fart town usa]

I'm absolutely all for living by a code and taking a stand for your beliefs. But you have to face facts. A third party vote or choosing to stay home is a Trump vote.

There are many groups of people in this country who will be fucked over by a Trump presidency. But hey, you voted your conscience. Good for you, champ.

You realize that Trump has a history of being a typical capitalist of his generation as well as a blow hard. His record as a public official is nonexistent at this point.

Hillary has a very real history of making horrible domestic and foreign policy decisions. She also has a real track record of fucking over people in this country.

Not voting for Hillary isn't a vote for Trump. It's simply a vote that Hillary didn't earn or straight up lost because of her track record.

Fear tactics are fear tactics.

If Noam Chomsky has to write an argument as to why you should vote Hillary over Trump, you know the candidate is flawed (Hillary).

Hillary should be taking this election easily but she hasn't been because she's flawed through and through.

 

[Aaronology]

Yea. Everyone has their reasons.

I'm a liberal/progressive and I'm not voting for president. Strictly down ballot.

My stances have been thoroughly documented and attacked on gaf.

America doesn't have compulsory voting, people are gonna do what they're gonna do.

Calling yourself liberal and progressive is one thing, fart town, but sincerely being so requires one to actively advocate progressive causes. In this election, the paramount concern of any legitimate Progressive is ensuring that the USSC does not fall into conservative hands, as there is no greater threat facing the Left than a Court stacked against it during a period where our government is dominated by the GOP. Ensuring this does not come to pass requires voting for the Democratic ticket, bottom to top. That's reality, and the ability to accept it is a very basic litmus test separating the people who simply don the Progressive label from those who actually safeguard and push it forward.

Nonsense.

Democrats created this scenario for themselves by 2+ decades of neo-liberal policies.

If this scenario is HRC being the nominee, is that not the result of people voting for her? How did the DNC create this situation, specifically? What is your definition "neo-liberal" and which policies are you referring to? Elaborate, please.

 

[fart town usa]

So, nobody said that, but alright. I don't really understand what your point is.

Uh, because whenever a legit concern is brought up regarding her as a politician people get offended or act like the person finding issue with Clinton is being unreasonable or a purist.

My whole point was that Sanders is not harming Hillary whatsoever post-DNC and that his attacks on her during the primary was completely within bounds of normal political debate/campaigning.

You know, there's an interview where Hillary staright up says she doesn't need his voters votes, that she already has a majority. Sanders is doing her a service that she won't do herself, I.e. campaign to indepdents and progressives.

 

[benjipwns]

If Noam Chomsky has to write an argument as to why you should vote Hillary over Trump, you know the candidate is flawed (Hillary).

Didn't know he did this but was kinda shocked he wrote this:

Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.

Is he retroactively supporting LBJ and/or HHH who were even more pro-Vietnam than Nixon? HHH only shifted to a bombing pause because it was politically advantageous and LBJ had one in his pocket to use.

Maybe he means 1972? Though the McGovern clusterfuck really had less to do with policy/ideology than straightforward cleavage politics.

In this election, the paramount concern of any legitimate Progressive is ensuring that the USSC does not fall into conservative hands, as there is no greater threat facing the Left than a Court stacked against it during a period where our government is dominated by the GOP. Ensuring this does not come to pass requires voting for the Democratic ticket, bottom to top. That's reality

No, it's not. Even granting the premise that a single vote from a progressive can determine the outcome of the election, you only need the Presidency and the Senate. Everything else downballot is irrelevant to selecting U.S. Supreme Court justices.

 

[Karsticles]

What? This is the perfect time for a protest vote. If you have something to protest.

No one knows why you vote the way you do.

 

[Aaronology]

No, it's not. Even granting the premise that a single vote from a progressive can determine the outcome of the election, you only need the Presidency and the Senate. Everything else downballot is irrelevant to selecting U.S. Supreme Court justices.

That's rather my point. Emphasis there was on " to top", as I was replying to someone with the intention of only voting for the downticket. You completely miss the context of that post.

 

[Aaronology]

Uh, because whenever a legit concern is brought up regarding her as a politician people get offended or act like the person finding issue with Clinton is being unreasonable or a purist.

You're playing victim. Which "legit concern" has not been met with discussion here, fart town?

My whole point was that Sanders is not harming Hillary whatsoever post-DNC and that his attacks on her during the primary was completely within bounds of normal political debate/campaigning.

"It's just politics" is an odd defense for the factually dishonest methods employed by Sanders's campaign during the Primary coming from someone who seems disgusted by normal politics wrt to the DNC and Clinton specifically.

How inconsistent of you.

You know, there's an interview where Hillary staright up says she doesn't need his voters votes, that she already has a majority. Sanders is doing her a service that she won't do herself, I.e. campaign to indepdents and progressives.

It seems you're taking something out of context here. Citation?

 

[fart town usa]

Calling yourself liberal and progressive is one thing, fart town, but sincerely being so requires one to actively advocate progressive causes. In this election, the paramount concern of any legitimate Progressive is ensuring that the USSC does not fall into conservative hands, as there is no greater threat facing the Left than a Court stacked against it during a period where our government is dominated by the GOP. Ensuring this does not come to pass requires voting for the Democratic ticket, bottom to top. That's reality, and the ability to accept it is a very basic litmus test separating the people who simply don the Progressive label from those who actually safeguard and push it forward.


If this scenario is HRC being the nominee, is that not the result of people voting for her? How did the DNC create this situation, specifically? What is your definition "neo-liberal" and which policies are you referring to? Elaborate, please.

I've been over this many times. I'm not doing it again. Look it up for yourself, it's not hard to find. It's common knowledge that the Clinton's brought neo-liberalism to the democratic party in the 90s as a way to win on a national level as the democratic party was viewed unfavorably after the failures of the late 70s and the "success" of the Reagan years.

You can promote and actively back progressive and liberal causes at the local and state level. The scotus element isn't enough for me to back a hawk and a corporatist who will further normalize practices that I find to be just as dangerous as Trumps.

It's clear you fashion yourself as a gatekeeper 'round these parts. Actually research neo-liberalism and Hillary's past policies to see how many lives she's ruined and how late she's been to the social justice party.

Spoiler

However. I will give her credit for the speech she gave in China as first lady. That was noble. See, I recognize some of her more admirable actions, why can't you see how so many of her actions have been harmful?

 

[benjipwns]

That's rather my point. Emphasis there was on " to top", as I was replying to someone with the intention of only voting for the downticket. You completely miss the context of that post.

The entire thing is academic because it depends on his state, he might not even have a "top" worth voting for as it's already decided. His vote will statistically count for more downballot anyhow. No statewide race is ever going to be decided by a vote or a handful of votes, the recounts will see to that. Downballot it could conceivably contribute to blocking a recount.

 

[Condom]

I'd refrain from saying people are playing the victim Aaron, your posts in the primaries are open to see for everyone. You are somebody who will blame a Clinton loss on others that for example point out at the pro corporate stances of Hillary. You're doing it in this thread even.

 

[Eusis]

No. Contrary to the popular belief here, most Bernie supporters are reasonable people who are going to vote for Clinton now.

Probably just a vocal minority. I was more in favor of Bernie (though I wondered near the end, but still voted for him in the end) but I'd definitely vote Hillary over Trump any day.

But hell, at this point she kind of IS a protest vote against Trump, just one that'll actually have an effect.

 

[PdotMichael]

So how many of the Bernie or Bust boogeymen do even exist in the first place?

 

[Boombloxer]

I was, and still am, a Bernie supporter, but I won't be bringing myself to vote for Hilldawg.

She'll win, i'm confident in that. I don't even think I care enough to bring myself to the poll anymore. But if I do, i'll either go for Johnson or Stein. I was a life-long democrat, but this election put a pin in that aspect of my identity.

Then, simply put, you don't actually support Bernie, and would rather risk a 30 year supreme Court than push forward.

Pure, rich horseshit.

 

[benjipwns]

So how many of the Bernie or Bust boogeymen do even exist in the first place?

We won't know until November and we see how many people didn't vote or voted third party or voted for Trump. If Hillary is under 50% of the popular vote and turnout is under 100%, then we know it's all of them.

 

[Aaronology]

I'd refrain from saying people are playing the victim Aaron, your posts in the primaries are open to see for everyone. You are somebody who will blame a Clinton loss on others that for example point out at the pro corporate stances of Hillary. You're doing it in this thread even.

Clinton's victory in the primary is ultimately due to voters, and so would be her victory or loss in the general. Casting a ballot is one of the most important civic duties any American has, and I have no problem holding people who claim to be liberals to their word if their own vote fails to align in a manner that safeguards actual progressive causes.

Where, exactly, have I played the victim?

 

[benjipwns]

Casting a ballot is one of the most important civic duties any American has

It's not a duty, and it's not important.

 

[fart town usa]

You're playing victim. Which "legit concern" has not been met with discussion here, fart town?



"It's just politics" is an odd defense for the factually dishonest methods employed by Sanders's campaign during the Primary coming from someone who seems disgusted by normal politics wrt to the DNC and Clinton specifically.

How inconsistent of you.

It seems you're taking something out of context here. Citation?

What are you talking about? You've lost me. Victim, "legit", lol...good one.

There's your citation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6DQr7lrrA#t=3m20s

 

[ryutaro's mama]

It's not a duty, and it's not important.

Yeah, deciding who will be on the Supreme Court to make decisions that impact millions is totes not important.

 

[Aaronology]

It's not a duty, and it's not important.

You're being pedantic. Yes, voting is clearly not legally required, but I consider it both a duty and an extremely important one to boot.

 

[Psychoward]

Uh, because whenever a legit concern is brought up regarding her as a politician people get offended or act like the person finding issue with Clinton is being unreasonable or a purist.

My whole point was that Sanders is not harming Hillary whatsoever post-DNC and that his attacks on her during the primary was completely within bounds of normal political debate/campaigning.

You know, there's an interview where Hillary staright up says she doesn't need his voters votes, that she already has a majority. Sanders is doing her a service that she won't do herself, I.e. campaign to indepdents and progressives.

I supported Bernie and have a few issues with Hillary but I see more people bitching about Clinton supporters being unreasonable purists than Clinton supporters actually being unreasonable purists here.

I think some of it comes from some of the "reasonable concerns" actually being unreasonable and debunked already, and people who continue to refuse to vote for Clinton seeing what they want to see.

 

[fart town usa]

Clinton's victory in the primary is ultimately due to voters, and so would be her victory or loss in the general. Casting a ballot is one of the most important civic duties any American has, and I have no problem holding people who claim to be liberals to their word if their own vote fails to align in a manner that safeguards actual progressive causes.

Where, exactly, have I played the victim?

Ha!

Seriously, I've only given reasonable reasons as to why I think Hillary is flawed. If you don't agree, so be it. But don't take the moral high ground or try to attack my character. I'm not offended, it's just unnecessary.

 

[Psychoward]

Ha!

Seriously, I've only given reasonable reasons as to why I think Hillary is flawed. If you don't agree, so be it. But don't take the moral high ground or try to attack my character. I'm not offended, it's just unnecessary.

You actually haven't given a single reason as to why you think Hillary is flawed besides linking an entire fucking town hall video.

You've talked about your concerns with her supporters but nothing about HRC herself in this thread.

Kind of funny talking about moral high ground and not attacking your character when you opened the thread calling her GAF supporters shills. I'm sure you can see the irony in that.

 

[jack_package_200]

You actually haven't given a single reason as to why you think Hillary is flawed besides linking an entire fucking town hall video.

You've talked about your concerns with her supporters but nothing about HRC herself in this thread.

This is the closest he has come to any kind of specifics in this thread.

Edit: Quoted the wrong the wrong thing. I fixed it.

I've been over this many times. I'm not doing it again. Look it up for yourself, it's not hard to find. It's common knowledge that the Clinton's brought neo-liberalism to the democratic party in the 90s as a way to win on a national level as the democratic party was viewed unfavorably after the failures of the late 70s and the "success" of the Reagan years.

You can promote and actively back progressive and liberal causes at the local and state level. The scotus element isn't enough for me to back a hawk and a corporatist who will further normalize practices that I find to be just as dangerous as Trumps.

It's clear you fashion yourself as a gatekeeper 'round these parts. Actually research neo-liberalism and Hillary's past policies to see how many lives she's ruined and how late she's been to the social justice party.

Spoiler

However. I will give her credit for the speech she gave in China as first lady. That was noble. See, I recognize some of her more admirable actions, why can't you see how so many of her actions have been harmful?

 

[Condom]

Clinton's victory in the primary is ultimately due to voters, and so would be her victory or loss in the general. Casting a ballot is one of the most important civic duties any American has, and I have no problem holding people who claim to be liberals to their word if their own vote fails to align in a manner that safeguards actual progressive causes.

Where, exactly, have I played the victim?

I am not going to waste my time searching through old topics but here is what also reflected your posts a couple of months ago:

You're being very generous. I see Sanders as being primarily responsible here.

Complaining Sanders is the one responsible for the fact that Hillary has a bad name when it comes to things like being friendly to the bank that is more like a Mafia group that without the honour (Goldman Sachs). If you want citations go do a Google search on 'Clinton Goldman sachs' and choose to your liking. What my problem with you is that instead of owning up to it that yes it is a flaw Hilary has you continue to turn a blind eye. I mean, it's OK to be economically centrist and not care but don't act like you secretly do care but that the accusations are unfounded. As if it isn't the case but that you would care if it was. You wouldn't. You don't care.

 

[Aaronology]

What are you talking about? You've lost me. Victim, "legit", lol...good one.

There's your citation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6DQr7lrrA#t=3m20s

You originally claimed "there's an interview where Hillary staright up says she doesn't need his voters votes." It appears you didn't watch your own link, which is becoming a bit of a pattern for you. That was a very nuanced discussion in which HRC explains she has no intention of dramatically altering her platform to mirror Bernie's, as her platform is already more specific and one of the reasons she attributes to her huge lead over Sanders. She never claims she does not "need" his supporters or their votes in the General Election, fart town, rather that she believes it would behoove Sanders to endorse her without conditions as she did Obama in 2008 and to encourage them to back the Party as, again, she did herself after losing the nomination.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, deciding who will be on the Supreme Court to make decisions that impact millions is totes not important.

You're a U.S. Senator? I withdraw my statement then.

 

[fart town usa]

You actually haven't given a single reason as to why you think Hillary is flawed besides linking an entire fucking town hall video.

You've talked about your concerns with her supporters deflecting but nothing about HRC herself in this thread.

Foreign policy and support/embrace of neo-liberal policies. Basically her entire political career concerning anything of actual effect. Ive already gone into specifics a number of times. There are plenty of reliable outlets to research her background and stances over the last 2+ decades. And out recently, normalizing the GOP by helping hem distance themselves from Trump. That is seriously not cool. The DNC/her aides even warned her that it was a bad idea.

It honestly comes off as if many of you have no insight into Hillary outside of this primary/general election.

And the video was set up on a time marker as to the exact thing aaronology asked about.

This is the crap I'm talking about. Even when presented with what you ask, I get doubled down responses portraying me like I'm the a-hole.

 

[PdotMichael]

We won't know until November and we see how many people didn't vote or voted third party or voted for Trump. If Hillary is under 50% of the popular vote and turnout is under 100%, then we know it's all of them.

This would be just logical.

 

[Torokil]

I wonder what the general reaction to him is now.

Is it "that sellout is old news!"?

Well, he only got like 120 people in a hall today. Bernie's star has faded and his our revolution pac failed. Toss him into the bin of other leftist no hopers like McGovern or Kucinich.

On to the next one!

 

[EmpressInYellow]

It seems like "vote my conscience" is a euphemism for "vote my ego, disregarding the way electoral politics and the secret ballot actually function".

The purpose of voting is not to make you feel good about yourself. It's to help achieve a specific electoral outcome. In this election, there are two possible electoral outcomes. One of them is going to happen. That's reality.

 

[KHlover]

This is what you get for telling people their votes are important and matter and also this election is the most important ever and they're deciding it. And voting is the most important thing a person can do or have the ability to do.

All of which is entirely untrue. As it is in every election.

Tbh I agree. When you get people to vote who didn't care to before, it's not going to be those who are satisfied with the political system. Those people are not going to vote for one of the established parties.

We've had just that case last week in Germany. 10% more people voted (compared to the last election in that state), those votes pretty much went straight to the right-populist "AfD".

 

[fart town usa]

You originally claimed "there's an interview where Hillary staright up says she doesn't need his voters votes." It appears you didn't watch your own link, which is becoming a bit of a pattern for you. That was a very nuanced discussion in which HRC explains she has no intention of dramatically altering her platform to mirror Bernie's, as her platform is already more specific and one of the reasons she attributes to her huge lead over Sanders. She never claims she does not "need" his supporters or their votes in the General Election, fart town, rather that she believes it would behoove Sanders to endorse her without conditions as she did Obama in 2008 and to encourage them to back the Party as, again, she did herself after losing the nomination.

Holy crap dude. Sorry I couldn't remember her lines verbatim from a town hall filmed months ago. Also, a town hall IS a friggin interview so stop splitting hairs.

Hillary makes it clear she's winning with a majority of the votes and doesn't need his supporters or a change in her platform. Which obviously wasn't/isn't the case and Sanders is still at work trying to get people on her side. Everything I've said still stands. Split all the hairs you want.

Back to the matter at hand, point being is that this all stemmed from the argument that Sanders somehow sabatoged her campaign and the supposed lasting effect of him campaigning against her. It's nonsense and a deflection of anything critical tossed at Hillary because her strongest of supporters refuse to come to terms with the issues people have with her.

Edit-

Ha. Thanks for cherry picking that post of mine. You know I had a comment on Tim Kaine and his late entry to the pro-choice party. It's cool though.

 

[The Kree]

It seems like "vote my conscience" is a euphemism for "vote my ego, disregarding the way electoral politics and the secret ballot actually function".

The purpose of voting is not to make you feel good about yourself. It's to help achieve a specific electoral outcome. In this election, there are two possible electoral outcomes. One of them is going to happen. That's reality.

Well said.

 

[Aaronology]

I am not going to waste my time searching through old topics...

C'mon. If you're going to bother calling me out for very specific past behavior you should have your receipts in hand when you step through the door, because I will ask for them at the counter.

...but here is what also reflected your posts a couple of months ago:


Complaining Sanders is the one responsible for the fact that Hillary has a bad name when it comes to things like... </snip>

You are mistaken. Bernie Sanders had every right to call into question Clinton's association with the banking industry, and I've no problem with his actions there. The post you quoted and what I was referring to therein was the Sanders's campaign reliance on smear work, from attacking EMILY'S List, AIDs workers, falsely accusing the Clinton campaign of criminal behavior and fraud, and riling up his supporters to such an extent that they would eventually even boo him at the DNC. He's a man who lost control of the Red Flower, and I absolutely think he deserves a sizeable portion of the blame for the resulting fire.

 

[ZackieChan]

What's the term for the Hillary supporter equivalent of mansplaining? Because there's a ton of it in every one of these threads, as if people who don't support her don't realize that Trump is bad.

On the other hand, Bush the younger was a sane conservative candidate, and he dragged us into an illegal war that ruined the Middle East for decades to come.

He was also called the devil incarnate, basically, during that election. People wanted him tried for war crimes. There's no way in hell that a protest vote would have been fine back then. People saying that must not have been around then.