Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned over minority issues, but how much do you think these politicians really care about this stuff, and how much do they use it to obscure what they really get up to.

And is it really as important as the systems of power and control that cause children to get blown to bits in the third world?

Aside from that, I firmly believe if you deal with the problem at the root, everything will get better - including issues that affect women and minorities.

Minorities don't have the benefit of waiting around for the root aka the entire system to change.

 

[sphagnum]

And is it really as important as the systems of power and control that cause children to get blown to bits in the third world?

There are black American children being murdered by police at home as well.

 

[Ekai]

I don't support Sanders, because one of his supporters irritated me on Twitter 5 months ago

/s

That's pretty much the reaction to Bernie a lot of people seem to have. It's an incredibly childish excuse.

 

[akira28]

The poster andthebeatgoeson nailed it.

The state has systematically destroyed support systems for poor people since the failure of the Great Society. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, etc., have all labeled those systems socialist or presented them as being bogged down by druggies or fraudsters (mostly of black and brown skin, too).

The erosion of those systems has led to the current state where the working poor have just enough skin in the system that they choose to work two jobs rather than abandon the system and have the time to participate in rallies, but not enough skin in the system to have anything but an essentially subsistence lifestyle.

On that note, assuming that the working poor even get the chance to vote, they'll vote for the brand that generally seems to be for them, and they'll vote for the biggest names in that brand. This is why Bill Clinton, for example, is parroted as a great president for black folks in America; he played the sax on Arsenio, a popular show that the working poor would have seen him on, and some people heard Toni Morrison call him our "first black president" out of context and go with it. Does it matter that Clinton's actual policies only further harmed black America by doubling down on racist law enforcement policies or the elimination of social safety nets for the working (or unemployed) poor? No, and who the fuck has time to research it when you're going from your bottling plant job to your other job in the kitchen at McDonald's five or six days a week?

but that saxophone though. Nixon never would have gone on Aresenio.

i find myself slightly insulted by the 'minorities are locked in for Clinton' narrative. They underestimate so much and take so much for granted. Clinton has done nothing for me, ever. and I don't expect her to. I only expect her to be a polished politician playing to win. Bernie, I like what he has to say, but there is no time for trust at this point. I do know I have no faith in Hillary Clinton.

 

[Kenai]

I can't speak for every minority nor will I try to but I can still give my opinion as one.

Minorities have to deal with a lot of systematic bullshit ranging from outright and diet racism to at-best indifference on said extra b.s.. Say what you will about Hilary, but she has been seen over and over and over and over again standing beside them and working for them and working with them, consecutively building up her image via both her words and deeds since at least the early 90s, aka not when it was exactly politically correct to do so. Some people complaining so much that Hilary only does stuff when it's PC to do so, this is one of those times where that's clearly not the case and it absolutely is working in her favor.

Trying to appeal to that demograph isn't something you can do in a single election cycle, coming within sniffing range of Hillary even less so. Clearly she is oldschool/slow/stubborn on several issues but her foundation for good is there

Also I cannot roll my eyes enough at people preferring Trump to Hilary after first picking Bernie. The absolute height of ignorance, possibly even worse than preferring Trump to begin with. I can totally appreciate Bernie and his ability to be a major part of the Democrats staying or shifting more left and would vote for him easily if he got the nom, but when they agree on over 90% of the issues you don't f*cking shift over to the polar opposite Repub when one or the other losers, that is literally being insane. Also GG at calling Hilary a flip flopper or a fake of some kind but not Trump. Pure insanity.

 

[captainnapalm]

There are black American children being murdered by police at home as well.

I think it's important to distinguish between a certain brand of "grievance-based" identity politics, and how it is supported in certain media and academic circles, and genuine and serious social issues that affect minorities like police brutality or serious prejudice or whatever.

One amounts to a lot of noise that detracts from the real issues, the other is obviously very important and deserves attention.

 

[FStop7]

Minorities don't like Bernie likely because of three reasons. The first is that they are hardly familiar with him and are familiar with Clinton.Hillary Clinton has been a household name since the early 1990s. The Clinton's became very popular with minorities. But Sanders? Who the fuck is Sanders? Just some random guy from Vermont who appeared at the stage. The second is that Sanders is from Vermont which is racially homogeneous, compared to Hillary who is experienced in New York which is very diverse. Hillary knows how to campaign to minorities, Sanders has zero experience with that. It takes years of experience to know how to reach a demographic. Peope could point to Obama, but he was a community organizer... The final reason is because Sanders is a Socialist. Now people can argue all they want about how Sanders policies should appeal more to minorities because they are more left wing then the majority white populace, at least economically, which is true. However this doesn't mean they gel welk with Socialism. It isn't that minorities dislike Socialism, it is just that it has been a very foreign thong to them outside of the Black Panthers, a niche party, in the 1960s. There is a reason that socialist movements in the country is a sea of white people with only sone exceptions. Socialism isn't seen as "hip" to most minorities for one reason or another.

Strident Bernie supporters condescendingly admonishing people with the "He walked with Dr. King" line over and over did him no favors.

His people leveraging a breach to access Clinton campaign data did him no favors, either.

People see through veneers. Bernie's "befuddled old professor" veneer is no exception.

 

[akira28]

the Clinton clan's veneer is blinding though.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Have we reached the "summon MLK like Blue Eyes White Dragon" stage of this debate yet?

 

[Kenai]

Strident Bernie supporters condescendingly admonishing people with the "He walked with Dr. King" line over and over did him no favors.

His people leveraging a breach to access Clinton campaign data did him no favors, either.

People see through veneers. Bernie's "befuddled old professor" veneer is no exception.

Yea it's great when it's like "remember that one time Bernie did something with that one black guy" is a thing. It's almost straight out of an Onion article or SNL skit.

Bernie's got a lot of good stuff and I like the guy but this type of groundwork needed to be done years ago, long before realizing it as a problem in the middle of one's presidency campaign. he has no time whatsoever to fix his image in any meaningful way, at least in ways that are under his control.

 

[Your Entertainer]

Strident Bernie supporters condescendingly admonishing people with the "He walked with Dr. King" line over and over did him no favors.

His people leveraging a breach to access Clinton campaign data did him no favors, either.

People see through veneers. Bernie's "befuddled old professor" veneer is no exception.

And Strident Hillary supporters never fail to chime in with their own condescension and passive-aggressive remarks. I can't count how many times I've read a "alright guys, let's keep it real, I like Bernie, but he's unelectable (or some other similar remark" with that smug, stupid "keepin it real" attitude. And the constant building up and beating down of the Bernie fan who will vote for Trump if Hillary is the nominee.

Hillary absolutely has the most transparent veneer - and the polls and public opinion have shown that for years.

 

[silvermember]

Well, I see your point. What you'res saying is if you end up backing a losing horse, and the guy on the other side gets in, it could be way worse for you. So you might be less likely to take risks.

I do get that, and I think it's sad that people are put in a position where they have to think like this. I'm kind an extreme idealist, and generally don't have much time for pragmatism, but I can see why my position perhaps affords that a bit more than others.

You have the luxury of being an idealist because you are either extremely privilege or you don't live in the real world. As a minority, I don't have that luxury. I have ONLY 1 life to live, so my goal is to make less terrible as I can possibly make it.

So this means, that I for example, will always vote for the less terrible option. The option that can win to starve off, the other side for at least four years. MLK jr was an extreme idealist, but he never once forgot how the real world worked and continue to be idealistic while dealing with the real world.

 

[nocturnalis]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

 

[Your Entertainer]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president. Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

It's so easy to ignore any justification of not voting for Bernie that begins with "Bernie sanders supporters...."

 

[BanGy.nz]

Have we reached the "summon MLK like Blue Eyes White Dragon" stage of this debate yet?

Y'all should start busting out that Malcolm X trap card.

 

[samn]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

What a dumb reason for not supporting Bernie Sanders.

 

[PsychBat!]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Cool

 

[Voysa Reezun]

What a dumb reason for not supporting Bernie Sanders.

This thread in general is proof that branding, not policy, is what matters to most voters, and why wouldn't that be true? Policy takes time, attention, and a level of education that isn't accessible to most voters. Branding is easy to understand. Further, our society is anti-intellectual and promotes that brand is what is more important and that any wonk into policy is an egghead or thinks that s/he is smarter than the general populace.

So when someone says that they won't vote for Bernie because of his supporters, they mean that they don't like the branding. Or when someone says that they won't vote for Hillary because of her disingenuousness, but they cite something like the "Hillary is your abuela" campaign. They hate that branding, not necessarily Hillary's policies.

I note that when GOP candidates are talked about here, it's easy for people to pick out and criticize individual policies those candidates hold. When it comes to Democratic candidates, however, the conversation often (and quickly) defaults to discussing the brand of Sanders or Hillary Clinton, which is interesting.

 

[Aaronology]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

Not backing Bernie solely because of a handful of his rabid fan base annoy you is completely asinine, to be blunt. You aren't much better than those deciding to vote for Trump (or sit out) if Clinton gets nominated. You may not remember Obama's first campaign and primary run, but I do. A small subset of Hillary's vocal supporters delved into some real fuckery back then as well when it became clear Barack had garnered huge support from minorities. But I don't hold that against her now and will gladly vote for her in the General, if she's nominated. I don't understand why it is difficult to separate Sanders and his politics from a tiny group of people who clearly don't share his respect for people of color.

 

[BlastProcessing]

This thread in general is proof that branding, not policy, is what matters to most voters, and why wouldn't that be true? Policy takes time, attention, and a level of education that isn't accessible to most voters. Branding is easy to understand. Further, our society is anti-intellectual and promotes that brand is what is more important and that any wonk into policy is an egghead or thinks that s/he is smarter than the general populace.

So when someone says that they won't vote for Bernie because of his supporters, they mean that they don't like the branding. Or when someone says that they won't vote for Hillary because of her disingenuousness, but they cite something like the "Hillary is your abuela" campaign. They hate that branding, not necessarily Hillary's policies.

I note that when GOP candidates are talked about here, it's easy for people to pick out and criticize individual policies those candidates hold. When it comes to Democratic candidates, however, the conversation often (and quickly) defaults to discussing the brand of Sanders or Hillary Clinton, which is interesting.

Branding is just another way of saying messaging and effective messaging is absolutely a vital property of a good President.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Branding is just another way of saying messaging and effective messaging is absolutely a vital property of a good President.

Sure. The way that an idea is presented is more important than the validity of the idea itself to your typical voter from the U.S.

This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, which is that branding or messaging or PR or whatever you want to call it is often without substance when it comes down to it, and yet it becomes a key point of argument for many people when they argue Bernie vs. Hillary or talk about what they like about Donald Trump or whatever. I'm from the United States, and I'm just as susceptible to it as most are.

It's really a cultural thing for us, I think; branding supersedes actual factual exploration of policy - and when the exploration of policy doesn't match the branding, it upsets people. It's why if I said something right now that is truthful, say that President Obama's foreign policy is essentially a continuation of W.'s foreign policy and that the differences between Obama, Reagan, Hillary, and W. on foreign policy are negligible in the big picture, even if I backed that up with factual information, there are some people who wouldn't want to hear it and would accuse me of making a BSABSVR argument as a strawman or whatever.

It's curious that people here, whom I consider to be pretty thoughtful about why they believe what they believe, often default to arguments about branding when differentiating between Hillary and Bernie, though, which is really what I was commenting on.

Sorry for the lengthy response.

 

[Nuu]

Best post i'v read on GAF in years.

no this is:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=192135128&postcount=200

Both of those posts are terrible.

Strident Bernie supporters condescendingly admonishing people with the "He walked with Dr. King" line over and over did him no favors.

His people leveraging a breach to access Clinton campaign data did him no favors, either.

People see through veneers. Bernie's "befuddled old professor" veneer is no exception.

This is total bullshit. Most people don't browser internet message boards. Minority communities aren't likely to have liberal friends on Facebook bombarding them with Bernie messages. 99% of the populace aren't even aware of the campaign data controversy.

This is a classic case of being to far in the Internet World.

Not backing Bernie solely because of a handful of his rabid fan base annoy you is completely asinine, to be blunt. You aren't much better than those deciding to vote for Trump (or sit out) if Clinton gets nominated. You may not remember Obama's first campaign and primary run, but I do. A small subset of Hillary's vocal supporters delved into some real fuckery back then as well when it became clear Barack had garnered huge support from minorities. But I don't hold that against her now and will gladly vote for her in the General, if she's nominated. I don't understand why it is difficult to separate Sanders and his politics from a tiny group of people who clearly don't share his respect for people of color.

History constantly repeats itself. And the Hillary fans were much MUCH more condescending toward minorities than Sanders fans were. Like they never shut up about it. You would regularly hear their arguments of "black people only voting for Obama because he is black and they ignore how he lacks experience and his policies are terrible" in the general public. Oh how things change. Possibly in ten years there could be a democratic socialist winning the primaries over the moderate competitor and the moderates will cry "but they are voting because the blacks aren't educated about the political landscape!" or "they are voting for free money".

Regardless these people make up less 10% of the supporters for these candidates. Hell even in this thread with almost a thousand pages I've seen like five people bring up that argument.And one of them isn't even from America so...

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

Hillary will be a boon for women and minorities who are also rich. Poor people still fucked for life though.

At least it will be funny to see poor women and minorities confused as to why their lives are still horrible after Hillary is elected.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

I'm voting for Bernie in the primaries (I'm Black BTW).

But there's no way I'm going to defend how supporters have acted, and Bernie's underdeveloped outreach methods. That's on his campaign. Yes, even the bad behavior of his supporters.

Hillary knows how that can ruin a campaign. I wish Bernie didn't have to learn the same.

Branding and communication is vital. Outreach is vital. Understanding different demographics is vital.

As much as you want it to be, it's not just about policy when you are trying to get votes.


EDIT: And knowing how to switch up and adapt your message to different voters is SUPER vital. Black folks don't want to hear about the millionaires and billionaires when we are dying on the streets and broke af. Puerto Ricans don't want to hear about Citizens United when they are dealing with a ton of issues of their own. The people of Flint aren't trying to hear revolution when they need fucking water.

 

[Nuu]

Branding and communication is vital. Outreach is vital. Understanding different demographics is vital.

As much as you want it to be, it's not just about policy when you are trying to get votes.


EDIT: And knowing how to switch up and adapt your message to different voters is SUPER vital. Black folks don't want to hear about the millionaires and billionaires when we are dying on the streets and broke af. Puerto Ricans don't want to hear about Citizens United when they are dealing with a ton of issues of their own. The people of Flint aren't trying to hear revolution when they need fucking water.

This is probably the best post in the thread. It may be on the short side of explaining things but this part hits the nerve of why Bernie is struggling with those demographics besides simply not being as known.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

I actually just had someone on FB tell me I was being naive for supporting Clinton over Sanders after providing three very detailed reasons, with one of them being sourced from the Vox article shit-talking Sanders' single-payer "proposal". It's obnoxious as hell, and with the policy disagreements I do already have it's just pushing me further away.

 

[LosDaddie]

It's understandable. Sanders never really had a shot at winning those demographics.

Just a few reasons off the top of my head:
-Clinton is nationally known
-Bill is still very popular with minorities
-Hillary is the "next in line" for the Dem nomination
-Hillary is a woman
-Sanders in an old white dude
-Sanders is/was relatively unknown on the national stage

It's no surprise Sanders trails with certain demographics. Clinton benefits from a very weak Dem field this time. It's a shame shithead Dems stayed home in 2010 and 2014 because there might've been at least a few governors/senators who would've been a better challenge to Clinton.

Also, considering how 2008 played out, I always get a laugh at how Clinton supporters throw out "Sanders supporters are a bunch of white racists!" accusations so easily. It's true the American voter has a short term memory.

Honestly, at this point I'd rather have an expanding private prison complex with harsher penalties on people of color than the condescending, patronizing whitesplaining being done by Bernie fans in this thread. Yeah, we get it. You want all Blacks to vote for your guy, and you expect all Blacks to fall in line like good little Civil Rights recipients. Sorry, that's not gonna work this time.

Edit: ok, I exaggerated about the prison/sentences out of anger, but I'll still take my chances with Clinton. It's not the '90s anymore and I doubt she'll continue her husband's record in that regard.

I wish it were satire. I wish this whole thing was a stupid dream. But there are still people out there who think they can tell people of color who the "right person to vote for is." If someone truly believes in equality and freedom, that person would understand that autonomy is the most important tenet of those two values. You can't tell a person what's in that person's best interest. The ability to decide that for yourself is at the very heart of freedom. So you'll forgive me for getting mad at some (usually) white Twitterites trying to tell others to eat their vegetables if they want to grow up big and strong.

Did you guys see Killer Mike pandering to white folk on Colbert, with the same Dr. King nonsense? He's basically an Uncle Tom at this point. Bruh, just vote for Hillary if you care about black values. We don't need your condescending apocalyptic scare tactics.

I love all these posts. Thank you.

 

[lenovox1]

Hillary will be a boon for women and minorities who are also rich. Poor people still fucked for life though.

At least it will be funny to see poor women and minorities confused as to why their lives are still horrible after Hillary is elected.

Bernie and Hilary support fairly similar economic policies. Granted, Sanders pushes the goal line farther, but they're both going in the same direction. Congress has the final say, regardless.

What are the vast differences that would leave the poor disenfranchised under Clinton's goals?

 

[Tesseract]

sanders is picking up steam among minorities, soon he will overtake hillary

 

[rjinaz]

I have a dream that one say Bernie Sanders supports would realize that many minorities don't support Sanders because his followers act as if minorities are ignorant of politics just because they do not want to vote for him. It's like they never seem to think that maybe, just maybe people like Hillary Clinton and want her to be our next president.

Also, Bernie Sanders supporters acting aa if he is some infallible Christ figure ia a real turn off.

I think a lot of times it comes down to people seeing what they want to see. Both sides are guilty of this by the way. Go read that debate thread from when it first started and tell me that some people don't think Clinton is infallible.

 

[ThankYouDaletech]

Bernie and Hilary support fairly similar economic policies. Granted, Sanders pushes the goal line farther, but they're both going in the same direction. Congress has the final say, regardless.

What are the vast differences that would leave the poor disenfranchised under Clinton's goals?

Clinton has been center-right her whole career and is backed by the corporate oligarchy.

Clinton is very intelligent, and probably a high-functioning sociopath, so I think she'll just say what she needs to say to make Sanders supporters vote for her instead of the Republican nominee. When she gets elected it's going to be politics as usual.

 

[watershed]

I don't understand the crazy warped perception people have of Hillary as a figure representative of all that is wrong with American politics. I'm not even a Clinton supporter but I don't hate her at all.

 

[rjinaz]

I don't understand the crazy warped perception people have of Hillary as a figure representative of all that is wrong with American politics. I'm not even a Clinton supporter but I don't hate her at all.

I don't either. I think she's fine too. Far better than what we usually get out of politicians at any rate. I just happen to think Bernie is better is all.

 

[danm999]

I think between wrapping herself in Obama and her bringing up Flint Michigan, Clinton has little to worry about in terms of the minority vote at this point.

 

[lenovox1]

Clinton has been center-right her whole career and is backed by the corporate oligarchy.

Clinton is very intelligent, and probably a high-functioning sociopath, so I think she'll just say what she needs to say to make Sanders supporters vote for her instead of the Republican nominee. When she gets elected it's going to be politics as usual.

Those are not the receipts I came for.

The woman was the 11th most liberal senator in Congress, left of Biden, left of Obama, left of nearly everyone she's gone against in this election bar Sanders, who happens to lean the most left.

She's a warhawk. She has many friends in the financial sector.

But painting her as center right is inaccurate based on her actual record. (Besides, that's not even what I asked.)

http://dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

 

[BlastProcessing]

sanders is picking up steam among minorities, soon he will overtake hillary

That doesn't seem likely.

 

[AlphaDump]

Those are not the receipts I came for.

The woman was the 11th most liberal senator in Congress, left of Biden, left of Obama, left of nearly everyone she's gone against in this election bar Sanders, who happens to lean the most left.

She's a warhawk. She has many friends in the financial sector.

But painting her as center right is inaccurate based on her actual record. (Besides, that's not even what I asked.)

http://dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

from your own source:

But suggestions that she is "a liberal republican or a conservative dem," to take one example of a quotation I read today, should stop here.

it continues:

By her voting record in Congress, Hillary Clinton is squarely in the mainstream of the national Democratic party in America, and would be a good ideological fit for it as its nominee. If anyone tries to tell you differently, ask them to show their work.

 

[Aaronology]

Those are not the receipts I came for.

The woman was the 11th most liberal senator in Congress, left of Biden, left of Obama, left of nearly everyone she's gone against in this election bar Sanders, who happens to lean the most left.

She's a warhawk. She has many friends in the financial sector.

But painting her as center right is inaccurate based on her actual record. (Besides, that's not even what I asked.)

http://dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

The "Clinton is a Republican" narrative is one that a lot of willfully ignorant people are trying to push right now, and it falls completely flat in the face of her voting record. But that hasn't stopped people pretending she isn't one of the most liberal politicians in US politics at the moment, reality be damned.

 

[watershed]

from your own source:



it continues:

These quotes just confirm what the poster was saying, that Hillary is not center-right. Is that what you meant?

 

[AlphaDump]

These quotes just confirm what the poster was saying, that Hillary is not center-right. Is that what you meant?

a warhawk and financial sector reference, i.e. wallstreet and war is synonymous with Republican.

only she just has good foreign policy and doesnt want to repeal Dodd-Frank (per wikipedia).

an Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes

it is a defense mechanism. his own source was pointing that out.

 

[dabig2]

Those are not the receipts I came for.

The woman was the 11th most liberal senator in Congress, left of Biden, left of Obama, left of nearly everyone she's gone against in this election bar Sanders, who happens to lean the most left.

She's a warhawk. She has many friends in the financial sector.

But painting her as center right is inaccurate based on her actual record. (Besides, that's not even what I asked.)

http://dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate

Not going to convince a lot of Bernie and anti-establishment fans with this because they see the entire Democrat wing of the party shifting drastically to the right since the 80s anyways, along with the rest of the country. That means the center moved along with it. So x most liberal doesn't mean much these days, relatively speaking of course.

I mean, think about it. The ACA is one of the most liberal policies in this country today when a mere 25 years ago that bill was basically the right-wing alternative to actual healthcare that makes sense (which Hillary championed to drive the point home).

 

[eBay Huckster]

I mean, think about it. The ACA is one of the most liberal policies in this country today when a mere 25 years ago that bill was basically the right-wing alternative to actual healthcare that makes sense (which Hillary championed to drive the point home).

the Medicaid expansion alone is practically a Tommy Douglas initiative compared to Hillarycare, but yeah, I see your point

 

[watershed]

a warhawk and financial sector reference, i.e. wallstreet and war is synonymous with Republican.

only she just has good foreign policy and doesnt want to repeal Dodd-Frank (per wikipedia).



it is a defense mechanism. his own source was pointing that out.

Well maybe we are reading things differently but I feel like the poster (can't bother typing out usernames) was saying Clinton is very much a democrat and not at all a republican and that source proves that. She does have friends on wall street and her current pitch to reign in wall street is not as strong as Bernie's or O'Malley's, but she's still firmly in the democratic range on policy. Warhawk is more a perception thing. She has always wanted to look tough on national defense but not pro-war like so many republicans.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

Lol, jesus fucking christ.

 

[AlphaDump]

Well maybe we are reading things differently but I feel like the poster (can't bother typing out usernames) was saying Clinton is very much a democrat and not at all a republican and that source proves that. She does have friends on wall street and her current pitch to reign in wall street is not as strong as Bernie's or O'Malley's, but she's still firmly in the democratic range on policy. Warhawk is more a perception thing. She has always wanted to look tough on national defense but not pro-war like so many republicans.

my perception:

Republicans are bought by wall street, not democrats. Democrats support government. Reagan was championed by republicans, corporations and the rich for years for this reason. It is a weird shift in narrative that dilutes what the Republicans did.


She isn't a warhawk, she is the former Secretary of State.

 

[lenovox1]

my perception:

Republicans are bought by wall street, not democrats. Democrats support government. Reagan was championed by republicans, corporations and the rich for years for this reason. It is a weird shift in narrative that dilutes what the Republicans did.


She isn't a warhawk, she is the former Secretary of State.

No, watershed is right, I was saying that I actually wanted to see the receipts. But I was giving Daletech things that would give her the perception of being more right leaning than she actually has been.

But I do honestly want to know where Bernie and her diverge majorly on the economic front that isn't just a matter of degrees.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

To be fair, if you're the U.S. Secretary of State, you probably are a warhawk simply because being SoS means that you are likely upholding the longstanding United States foreign policy of fomenting violent conflict in countries where the regime is not beholden to U.S. interests.

When people quote Hillary being liberal relative to the rest of our Senate, that doesn't mean that Hillary isn't center-right from a global perspective; it just means that we are a fairly far-right country which supports the protection of U.S. interests via any means necessary, including open war with other countries and the use of client states to do our bidding. This is why Saudi Arabia, for example, gets to do what it wants without a peep from our government, but Iran is a target of our ire.

 

[watershed]

To be fair, if you're the U.S. Secretary of State, you probably are a warhawk simply because being SoS means that you are likely upholding the longstanding United States foreign policy of fomenting violent conflict in countries where the regime is not beholden to U.S. interests.

When people quote Hillary being liberal relative to the rest of our Senate, that doesn't mean that Hillary isn't center-right from a global perspective; it just means that we are a fairly far-right country which supports the protection of U.S. interests via any means necessary, including open war with other countries and the use of client states to do our bidding. This is why Saudi Arabia, for example, gets to do what it wants without a peep from our government, but Iran is a target of our ire.

I wish that were the case but it's not. A lot of self-declared liberals or progressives think Hillary is essentially a republican. It makes no sense. It's not backed by reality. I can't explain it. But it is not based on a global perspective, it's just they think she is a closet republican or something.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

I wish that were the case but it's not. A lot of self-declared liberals or progressives think Hillary is essentially a republican. It makes no sense. It's not backed by reality. I can't explain it. But it is not based on a global perspective, it's just they think she is a closet republican or something.

Well, this is hyperbole. Hillary is still far superior to any GOP candidate unless maybe you take the small sliver of candidate Trump who is an economic populist and ignore all of the other repugnant beliefs that he holds.

From the standpoint of purely social freedoms, Hillary is far superior to any GOP candidate out there. In terms of her economic and foreign policy, however, I think that it is fair to call her center-right from a global perspective.

 

[zero shift]

Why do people keep responding to the guy who isn't even from America?

Just who the hell gets this involved in another nation's politics anyway?

Did fortified concept get another account after he was banned?