Support NeoGAF

[Sirpopopop]

I don't think Bernie would have won the general, though then again I also thought he was going to be beaten far harder in the primary. But the answer to how this is possible is fairly obvious. Voting Between Bernie and Hillary is fundamentally different than Voting between Hillary and Trump or Bernie and Trump. This is especially true when you take into account the fact that the Bernie Hillary vote was a pretty specific group of voters. The claim is that Despite the fact that Hillary was more popular when pitted against Bernie among the democratic primary voters she would actually be less popular when pitted against Trump amongst the general voter. Personally I think it's probably the other way around, but it's not like it's impossible to hold such an opinion.

Certainly what you say is valid if we are dealing with a narrow group of voters. We aren't. The Democratic Party is a big tent of voters who represent a large portion of the U.S. populace.

If someone is overwhelmingly popular then that popularity should be able to persist when dealing with what is a large subset of voters (The Democratic Party) which includes many of his most passionate supporters.

Honestly, the best way to describe Bernie's popularity is the old phrase, "The backup QB is the most popular player on the team."

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Supporting Iraq was a terrible decision that Hillary does deserve far more shit for, but I'm failing to see how it's relevant to this thread. Like if you want to go yell about it go into the other thread about her blaming Russia and Comey and say "I didn't realize Russia and Comey made her vote to invade Iraq."

Chelsea's monstrosities aren't either though tbf

 

[exmachina64]

Let's get back to the next President of the United States, Chelsea Clinton.

How do you guys feel about "I'm With Her Daughter" as a slogan?

Sounds creepy.

 

[Cocaloch]

These concerns are mostly thin veils, and the knee knocking isn't something I can take seriously.

A lot of it is and some of it isn't, but I find that GAF is in general hostile to pressure coming from the left of the democratic mainstream. There's a poster in this thread who rejects the use of the word neo-liberal to refer to anything besides Chicago school economics and also suggests that there is literally no value to be found in reading Marx. Those sorts of attacks on the legitimacy of anything to the left of left-leaning liberals are what I think is really problematic, and I think you see a lot of that sentiment in this thread when collapsing okay posts people don't agree with, with the obvious shitposts.

What we should be discussing is where do we at our level of understanding and information believe funds should go, where do we really need it the most, what's prudent, and how she could be most effective at bankrolling operations.
But that's not nearly as interesting as the anxiety and hardheadedness that leads to "why won't she just go awaaaaaay".
Get us around that hurdle, and we can have a proper discussion.

I agree that's probably a more useful conversation, but I don't think we really get to control political discourse to the level that most people think. Ignoring a conversation isn't always not making a statement in it. I'll grant it's often neccessary though.

I'm more partial to a fairly neutral,"this is a good thing" than the "only bernie-bros have a problem with Hilary" that is fairly common on this topic. Just like I am more partial to the people actually talking about what their problem with Hilary might be instead of knee jerk "lol shillary".

Certainly what you say is valid if we are dealing with a narrow group of voters. We aren't. The Democratic Party is a big tent of voters who represent a large portion of the U.S. populace.

If someone is overwhelmingly popular then that popularity should be able to persist when dealing with what is a large subset of voters (The Democratic Party) which includes many of his most passionate supporters.

Honestly, the best way to describe Bernie's popularity is the old phrase, "The backup QB is the most popular player on the team."

You're only looking at half of the equation there, both the sample is different, and that matters more than you're giving it credit for because that affects turnout on both sides, but also the weighted preferences of people are different. The key is getting someone that the largest number of people, well in the right places anyway, would actually be bothered enough to vote for. I still think this is Hilary, but it's a different argument than you seem to think.

I don't know much about sports but maybe the equivalent analogy is that this QB might be better statistically in the abstract, but against another team the backup QB is actually better because of a specific playstyle/relationship with his team.

Again I think they are giving Bernie too much credit, or more accurately the socialist label, too much credit there, but I don't think it's a fundamentally misguided argument.

 

[kirblar]

A lot of it is and a lot of it isn't, but I find that GAF is in general hostile to pressure coming from the left of the democratic mainstream. There's a poster in this thread who rejects the use of the word neo-liberal to refer to anything besides Chicago school economics and also suggests that there is literally no value to be found in reading Marx. Those sorts of attacks on the legitimacy of anything to the left of left-leaning liberals are what I think is really problematic, and I think you see a lot of that sentiment in this thread when collapsing okay posts people don't agree with, with the obvious shitposts.

I mean, use my name if you're gonna talk about me.

 

[Cocaloch]

I mean, use my name if you're gonna talk about me.

Fair enough.

 

[Sirpopopop]

A lot of it is and a lot of it isn't, but I find that GAF is in general hostile to pressure coming from the left of the democratic mainstream.

By the #s there are a lot of posters here who are to the left of the democratic mainstream. This topic is nothing more than primary relitigation. It's like the DNC Chair battle all over again. The fight there wasn't about the difference in candidate positions, but rather relitigating the primary.

I mean, the response to Bernie doing ventures like this is nowhere near as hostile as the response to Clinton doing the same. Bernie only reaches similar levels of hostility when he does stuff like support Heath Miello or slag on Jon Ossoff.

There's a poster in this thread who rejects the use of the word neo-liberal to refer to anything besides Chicago school economics and also suggests that there is literally no value to be found in reading Marx. Those sorts of attacks on the legitimacy of anything to the left of left-leaning liberals are what I think is really problematic, and I think you see a lot of that sentiment in this thread when collapsing okay posts people don't agree with, with the obvious shitposts.

Neoliberal is a word that's most often used as a slur to denigrate Democrats that don't fit the alt-left paradigm. It's a dog whistle, along with the question, "What is the alt-left?"

It's a shitposting tactic. Maybe it was once legitimate, but I think that age passed a long time ago.

 

[madstarr12]

Chelsea should change her last name to Mezvinsky, that way, the "Clinton" name won't be on the ballot! This election showed that you could trick people into voting for you, so why not try that?!

Spoiler

only 2% serious

 

[D i Z]

A lot of it is and some of it isn't, but I find that GAF is in general hostile to pressure coming from the left of the democratic mainstream. There's a poster in this thread who rejects the use of the word neo-liberal to refer to anything besides Chicago school economics and also suggests that there is literally no value to be found in reading Marx. Those sorts of attacks on the legitimacy of anything to the left of left-leaning liberals are what I think is really problematic, and I think you see a lot of that sentiment in this thread when collapsing okay posts people don't agree with, with the obvious shitposts.



I agree that's probably a more useful conversation, but I don't think we really get to control political discourse to the level that most people think. Ignoring a conversation isn't always not making a statement in it. I'll grant it's often neccessary though.

I'm more partial to a fairly neutral,"this is a good thing" than the "only bernie-bros have a problem with Hilary" that is fairly common on this topic. Just like I am more partial to the people actually talking about what their problem with Hilary might be instead of knee jerk "lol shillary".

So as I'm reading this, you don't actually want to elevate the level of discourse in the thread, you just want to go around in the same circle, but at your comfort level?

 

[Cocaloch]

This topic is nothing more than primary relitigation.

I agree, and that's my problem with it. The primary was, as they are want to be, shitty from both angles.

I mean, the response to Bernie doing ventures like this is nowhere near as hostile as the response to Clinton doing the same. Bernie only reaches similar levels of hostility when he does stuff like support Heath Miello or slag on Jon Ossoff.

I'd agree Hilary gets more shit, but you're deluding yourself if you think Bernie threads, or even Hilary threads fairly often, don't get tons of knee jerk shit posts about him. More importantly I'm not particularly interested in defending Bernie himself.

Neoliberal is a word that's most often used as a slur to denigrate Democrats that don't fit the alt-left paradigm.

Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the West. It's a thing.

It's a dog whistle, along with the question, "What is the alt-left?"

How is that question a dog whistle? I've literally never seen or heard the phrase "alt-left" before this thread.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Real talk I think a really small subconcious factor is the the whole dynasty aspect.

It would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton?

Yeah not really fuckin with that.... Its a shame cus Hillary would be a fantastic president but the cards just don't line up. Maybe if 8 year Bush/Obama gets chopped up, but from the jump the Dems should have been breeding new blood instead of relying on old guard.

 

[tuxfool]

Neoliberal is a word that's most often used as a slur to denigrate Democrats that don't fit the alt-left paradigm. It's a dog whistle, along with the question, "What is the alt-left?"

It's a shitposting tactic. Maybe it was once legitimate, but I think that age passed a long time ago.

While I agree with this sentiment, I don't think using the label Alt-left is all that helpful, especially considering it is a label used by the right to bring moral equivalency to their crazies.

Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the Western. It's a thing.

And used by morons as a short hand dismissal.

 

[Psychoward]

Wait, cmon.

It was not impossible to identify that the Iraq War was a bad idea. I marched against the war and I was just a dumb college student.

The Dems got suckered into supporting an unnecessary war. But that's still bad! We should hope for politicians that are smart enough and principled enough not to get suckered into unnecessary wars.

Yep, I voted for Hillary in the GE but one of the reasons I liked Bernie in the primaries is because he convinced me he had the foresight to not get in to foreign policy disasters. Granted, some foreign policy disasters are an inevitable conclusion of even just basic aid, but yeah.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

I agree, and that's my problem with it. The primary was, as they are want to be, shitty from both angles.



I'd agree Hilary gets more shit, but you're deluding yourself if you think Bernie threads, or even Hilary threads fairly often, don't get tons of knee jerk shit posts about him. More importantly I'm not particularly interested in defending Bernie himself.



Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the Western. It's a thing.



How is that question a dog whistle? I've literally never seen or heard the phrase "alt-left" before this thread.

I only want to address your neoliberal comment and say that the word makes everyone who uses it seriously sound like an idiot.

 

[Cocaloch]

And used by morons as a short hand dismissal.

Sure, lots of words are used like that though.

I only want to address your neoliberal comment and say that the word makes everyone who uses it seriously sound like an idiot.

I mean this is exactly the problem. Neoliberalism is absolutely a thing. I don't use the word on GAF because people tend to immediately turn off when they hear it, as evidenced by these two posts. I mean at the bare minimum we live in a post Friedman world.

So as I'm reading this, you don't actually want to elevate the level of discourse in the thread, you just want to go around in the same circle, but at your comfort level?

It's not about my comfort level, though as someone that's too far to the left for GAFs tastes it would be nice to see more leftish positions given a certain baseline of respect. This is about what I think is fundamentally necessary for a productive public sphere. Whether or not left-liberals like us, and whether or not we like them, the American political system means we have to work together if we want get any of our policy.

I'm not sure why you think I don't want to elevate the level of discourse, that's exactly what I want. I just think once a topic is raised it becomes harder to ignore. Especially when the topic is about a fundamental point in the conversation you want to be having.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark though, and people to the left of the left-liberals simply don't have even the little place they once had in American politics anymore. Regardless though, it's obviously in my interest to advocate for it.

 

[watershed]

Good. There is a lot of unfocused energy and passion right now.

 

[Koomaster]

She should definitely get more involved and be more of a voice so she can drown out that loudmouth Sanders.

 

[boiled goose]

Raising money is fine... but it depends how.

Big donor, corporate, and pac money? AGAINST

 

[TheLaughingStock]

yeah like do people not get that Hillary is literally one of the best fundraisers there is?

Anyone that actually wants a successful 50 state strategy should be HAPPY to hear that the best democratic fundraiser will be raising funds for it.



Actions like her numerous successes at raising a shitload of funds?

Also that news article is very deceptive because like most campaigns during Presidential Election years, Hillary's campaign was directly involved in downtick races. Since Hillary is not running for POTUS again, there is literally no way that these funds WON'T go directly to state and local races.

How is the article from Politico deceptive? She lied and didn't produce the supposed benefits for people she claimed that she wanted to help in a big way.

It's a con that she wants to power the "resistance". At best, she wants to control and influence the resistance because it's not just a threat to the GOP and Donald Trump. Think about it...all this energy is being channeled without direction from major donors and her input. I mean she's been sitting at home on her butt coping with a massive L as her recent public comments suggest.

The fact people are coming together and are getting an unexpected amount of attention has people like Clinton worried. They're at town halls, marching, calling reps and networking without the drawbacks of the Clinton machine. Her services with strings attached are no longer needed. I completely understand where Hillary is coming from since her hiatus but it looks like pure desperation to maintain control in my book.

 

[Gruco]

Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the West. It's a thing.

It's used almost exclusively as a broad spectrum dismissal of Democrats (or other left leaning party, what have you) who aren't right with a certain subset of the left. Almost no one uses it as a form of self-identification. I'm sure it had some etymological usefulness at some point, but usage determines meaning, and at this point it's basically a slur.

 

[SolarPowered]

Good that she is participating in the way she can help best. The democratic party needs new and younger progressive faces to look forward to come 2020 and beyond. Bernie will have to hold the fort until then, I guess.

 

[Abelard]

So neo-liberalism isn't a real thing but just a slur huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

 

[Axiology]

I'm wary about the notion that she's going to fundraise but that she won't be a public face for the Democrats. Giving private speeches, for instance, is still somewhat of a public endeavor (even more so in the age of the Internet and smartphones). Especially if she's representing the Democrats while she does it.

It's far too early to completely write off the naysayers.

Edit: Also, I expect her to go HAM on the SuperPAC system now that they didn't get a chance to reform it. So relationships there will also have to be examined.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's used almost exclusively as a broad spectrum dismissal of Democrats who aren't right with a certain subset of the left. Almost no one uses it as a form of self-identification. I'm sure it had some etymological usefulness at some point, but usage determines meaning, and at this point it's basically a slur.

I'm an academic, and I can personally assure you that plenty of academics use the word frequently for analytical purposes.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

How is the article from Politico deceptive? She lied and didn't produce the supposed benefits for people she claimed that she wanted to help in a big way.

It's a con that she wants to power the "resistance". At best, she wants to control and influence the resistance because it's not just a threat to the GOP and Donald Trump. Think about it...all this energy is being channeled without direction from major donors and her input. I mean she's been sitting at home on her butt coping with a massive L as her recent public comments suggest.

The fact people are coming together and are getting an unexpected amount of attention has people like Clinton worried. They're at town halls, marching, calling reps and networking without the drawbacks of the Clinton machine. Her services with strings attached are no longer needed. I completely understand where Hillary is coming from since her hiatus but it looks like pure desperation to maintain control in my book.

This is one of the most disgusting posts in this thread, wow

 

[D i Z]

It's not about my comfort level, though as someone that's too far to the left for GAFs tastes it would be nice to see more leftish positions given a certain baseline of respect. This is about what I think is fundamentally necessary for a productive public sphere. Whether or not left-liberals like us, and whether or not we like them, the American political system means we have to work together if we want get any of our policy.

I'm not sure why you think I don't want to elevate the level of discourse, that's exactly what I want. I just think once a topic is raised it becomes harder to ignore. Especially when the topic is about a fundamental point in the conversation you want to be having.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark though, and people to the left of the left-liberals simply don't have even the little place they once had in American politics anymore. Regardless though, it's obviously in my interest to advocate for it.

I understand your position better now.

 

[water_wendi]

Cant wait for the Jimmy Dore video on this one.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the West. It's a thing.

It's a problem when the term "neoliberal shill" is used to denigrate Democrats who don't agree with you on economic issues.

How is that question a dog whistle? I've literally never seen or heard the phrase "alt-left" before this thread.

It's been around, especially immediately after the election. This term is not a new thing. (some examples of the term in use below)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1247886&highlight=alt+left

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=210324630&postcount=74

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211267530&postcount=833

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=213223593&postcount=391

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=214137429&postcount=14

I could keep on going on, but this is just from last year. Anyway, the phrase has been in use for nearly a year now.

Anyway, the urban dictionary definitions of the term are also a good window into their mindset.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=alt-left

 

[tuxfool]

I mean this is exactly the problem. Neoliberalism is absolutely a thing. I don't use the word on GAF because people tend to immediately turn off when they hear it, as evidenced by these two posts. I mean at the bare minimum we live in a post Friedman world.

Blame the aforementioned abusers of the term.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

How is the article from Politico deceptive? She lied and didn't produce the supposed benefits for people she claimed that she wanted to help in a big way.

It's a con that she wants to power the "resistance". At best, she wants to control and influence the resistance because it's not just a threat to the GOP and Donald Trump. Think about it...all this energy is being channeled without direction from major donors and her input. I mean she's been sitting at home on her butt coping with a massive L as her recent public comments suggest.

The fact people are coming together and are getting an unexpected amount of attention has people like Clinton worried. They're at town halls, marching, calling reps and networking without the drawbacks of the Clinton machine. Her services with strings attached are no longer needed. I completely understand where Hillary is coming from since her hiatus but it looks like pure desperation to maintain control in my book.

Where do you people get this shit

Besides reddit and 4chan, I mean

 

[excelsiorlef]

Cant wait for the Jimmy Dore video on this one.

He and the rest of TYT will probably demand an FBI investigation

 

[quesalupa]

fuuuuuuuckkkkk offfffffff

f

 

[Gruco]

I'm an academic, and I can personally assure you that plenty of academics use the word frequently for analytical purposes.

That's cool. How representative would you say this is of common usage?

People aren't objecting to anyone using it to describe Pinochet's Chile in a political science journal.

 

[SummitAve]

Maher has been calling her Bill Buckner, except that the series didn't ultimately end on his gaff, and I'd still want Buckner on my team.

 

[Sirpopopop]

So neo-liberalism isn't a real thing but just a slur huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

It sure does when you call someone who wanted to increase government spending like Hillary Clinton a neoliberal shill.

 

[The Salt Life]

The article literally says “Hillary’s a key player, of course. Hillary’s a critical part of this. But this is not some effort by Hillary to redeem herself!”

But yes, let's continue to shit on Hillary for doing something that is ostensibly good because we can't get over the fucking primary.

People have not liked her since Bill was president, it goes beyond the primaries.

I don't like Hillary being a "critical" part of anything. They are politicians they don't do favors for free. Behind closed doors they will want something in return. We the people are fucked either way.

 

[water_wendi]

He and the rest of TYT will probably demand an FBI investigation

Somehow i doubt thats going to a thing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Somehow i doubt thats going to a thing.

I'm joking... though I do imagine their coverage will sound not too dissimilar to the omg fuck off shit that's all over this thread.

People have not liked her since Bill was president, it goes beyond the primaries.

I don't like Hillary being a "critical" part of anything. They are politicians they don't do favors for free. Behind closed doors they will want something in return. We the people are fucked either way.

Yeah they hated her because she didn't want to bake cookies and worked on health care reform

Clinton is retired as fuck... she doesn't have to do this, she's doing it because you know she actually cares.

 

[TestOfTide]

How is the article from Politico deceptive? She lied and didn't produce the supposed benefits for people she claimed that she wanted to help in a big way.

It's deceptive because it doesn't mention that her campaign was working very closely with downtick campaigns, and such even if the money didn't directly go to downtick campaigns, it still was involved in helping downtick candidates.

It's a con that she wants to power the "resistance". At best, she wants to control and influence the resistance because it's not just a threat to the GOP and Donald Trump. Think about it...all this energy is being channeled without direction from major donors and her input. I mean she's been sitting at home on her butt coping with a massive L as her recent public comments suggest.

Oh look another poster posting conspiracy nonsense about the democrats.....

The fact people are coming together and are getting an unexpected amount of attention has people like Clinton worried. They're at town halls, marching, calling reps and networking without the drawbacks of the Clinton machine. Her services with strings attached are no longer needed. I completely understand where Hillary is coming from since her hiatus but it looks like pure desperation to maintain control in my book.

Worried? No the whole fucking point of her doing fundraising is to help FUND those local and downtick races.

Do you want Democrats to actually do a 50 state strategy? Well that costs a lot of fucking money.

This is one of the most disgusting posts in this thread, wow

well what do you expect from him? he's a Trump supporter who was more blatant pre-election day, then tried to play it more subtle post election, but never changed his avatar.

 

[boiled goose]

It's used almost exclusively as a broad spectrum dismissal of Democrats (or other left leaning party, what have you) who aren't right with a certain subset of the left. Almost no one uses it as a form of self-identification. I'm sure it had some etymological usefulness at some point, but usage determines meaning, and at this point it's basically a slur.

It's used to describe political stances on economics that are well described. It applies to many Democrats and Republicans.

If you dont like arguing labels srgue concepts.

Lots of analysis showing the embrace of neoliberal policies by gop since Regan and since b Clinton by Democrats. Don't like if it implies something negative? Explain why you think neoliberalism is good. Either economically or politically.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Real talk I think a really small subconcious factor is the the whole dynasty aspect.

It would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton?

Yeah not really fuckin with that.... Its a shame cus Hillary would be a fantastic president but the cards just don't line up. Maybe if 8 year Bush/Obama gets chopped up, but from the jump the Dems should have been breeding new blood instead of relying on old guard.

I said this in the first thread when trump announced that he would run for president. I pointed out that he would have a good chance to beat a bush in the primary and a clinton in the general.

It wasn't a small factor imho.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I said this in the first thread when trump announced that he would run for president. I pointed out that he would have a good chance to beat a bush in the primary and a clinton in the general.

It wasn't a small factor imho.

Cool what's that got to do with her raising money for activists groups in 2017

 

[kirblar]

Neoliberal is a word that pretty accurately describes a large political-theoretical movement across the Western. It's a thing.

It doesn't though. It accurately describes a very lassez-faire movement that was used as the basis for Market reforms in South America back in the '80s. Those were succesful in large part because literally any move to free-market systems (no matter how far left or right) was going to be way better than the statist economic systems they had previously. This same thinking also led to the Reagan/Thatcher trickle-down/supply-side economics and obsession with privatization that proved to be disastrous.

However, at the same time, even though we were learning tons about how moving that far right on economics put you into fairy tale territory, the mainstream of economic thought was also moving to the right at the same time, due to socialism/communism (not social democracy) being discredited as actual workable systems (alongside liberal solutions to issues like Rent Control,which were shown to have nasty adverse side effects.)

While this move to the center has been good in terms of actually finding workable solutions, it has made people on the far left very unhappy, because it moved away from their favored theoretical models and solutions. "Neoliberal" then became their favored term to apply to anyone who was to their right (which turns out to be, nearly everyone!)

Here's one study looking at the term's usage:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12116-009-9040-5/fulltext.html

Based on a content analysis of 148 journal articles published from 1990 to 2004, we document three potentially problematic aspects of neoliberalism's use: the term is often undefined; it is employed unevenly across ideological divides; and it is used to characterize an excessively broad variety of phenomena.

We show that neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term associated with radical economic reforms in Pinochet's Chile.

There's another study out there with similar findings that I was aware of (I believe it found that "Neoliberal" was typically used as a perjorative by non-economists when talking about economic issues) but I can't find it at the moment.

I'm an academic, and I can personally assure you that plenty of academics use the word frequently for analytical purposes.

Most people are not academics. And most academics aren't going to follow the word "Neoliberal" with the word "Shill."

 

[boiled goose]

It's a problem when the term "neoliberal shill" is used to denigrate Democrats who don't agree with you on economic issues.


[/url]

I don't get your objection. If neoliberalism is good in your view, why do you resent the label?

Own the label.

If any pro neoliberal politician doesn't take pac money and corporate donations from industries those policies benefit they should just be neoliberal. Shill can be dropped.

If their political views align with donors and not constituents, Im ok with shill.

 

[Abelard]

Yeah they hated her because she didn't want to bake cookies and worked on health care reform

Clinton is retired as fuck... she doesn't have to do this, she's doing it because you know she actually cares.

I imagine for Clinton its a combination of things, I do believe at least a part of her pursuit in politics is for the same reason Trump does it: for the ego. With the Clinton's you get the impression they always want to be at the top. Sam Harris talks about it here and keep in mind he was a Clinton supporter from the very beginning, like since the primaries(something I personally disagree with):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRghkcEEGO8

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Cool what's that got to do with her raising money for activists groups in 2017

Whatever, no-one has talked about anything slightly off topic in this thread but me right?

Especially the post I was quoting.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It sure does when you call someone who wanted to increase government spending like Hillary Clinton a neoliberal shill.

I mean she supports market reforms like charter schools, the debt-reduction austerity that would have slashed social security spending, and whipped votes for the welfare reform bill. She also supported some of the parts of neoliberalism that (some) people like like open borders.

She fits the bill pretty well. You can decide if you like that or not. Not that it matters to this thread topic.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I imagine for Clinton its a combination of things, I do believe at least a part of her pursuit in politics is for the same reason Trump does it: for the ego. With the Clinton's you get the impression they always want to be at the top. Sam Harris talks about it here and keep in mind he was a Clinton supporter from the very beginning, like since the primaries(something I personally disagree with):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRghkcEEGO8

Everyone who runs for President is guided by ego on some level... that you'd even compare her to Trump on that front is pretty messed up.

And I really don't care about Sam Harris' psychoanalyzing.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I imagine for Clinton its a combination of things, I do believe at least a part of her pursuit in politics is for the same reason Trump does it: for the ego. With the Clinton's you get the impression they always want to be at the top. Sam Harris talks about it here and keep in mind he was a Clinton supporter from the very beginning, like since the primaries(something I personally disagree with):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRghkcEEGO8

Honestly this doesn't matter. Thank god she's not a republican then.

 

[boiled goose]

Everyone who runs for President is guided by ego on some level... that you'd even compare her to Trump on that front is pretty messed up.

Ego is irrelevant I agree. What matter is how people channel their drive.