Black Mamba
Member
I'm so glad voters are so ignorant that they think he may not be wrong and/or lying.
"That's not the Fed's job, to stimulate the economy."
Just what we need, someone who has no idea what the Fed's role is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
I'm so glad voters are so ignorant that they think he may not be wrong and/or lying.
"That's not the Fed's job, to stimulate the economy."
Just what we need, someone who has no idea what the Fed's role is.
Yoda
Member
Same goes for nearly all of cable news. On top of that all their viewers are senior citizens.
It's a toss up. Too close to call. Nate Silver is a hack.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'd recommend learning to actually read and engage with people's points before trotting out your sanctimony as if it constitutes an argument. Nothing - literally nothing - in my post has anything to do with whether or not Hillary's experiences are "real" or not. My point is that it is the job of the candidate, if they are going to use their identity as a talking point for why people should vote for them, to connect that to their campaign in a meaningful, cogent, relatable way, because the de facto way to receive anything a politician says is to assume that it's cynical political gamesmanship, and that Hillary has not done that. My point is and has been about her rhetoric and campaign message, not her personal life. If you disagree, do so, but you've yet to make anything remotely resembling an argument in the last day.
shinra - I'm aware of the literature you're mentioning, but it doesn't mean that there are no women that fit such descriptors, either. Hillary has always had trouble connecting with people, which is why she starts off with advantages and then has to scramble once she realizes resting on her laurels does her no good.
brainchild
Banned
When I say 'real', I'm taking about sincerity; 'keepin' it real'. Everything that you're talking about has to do with calculation and deviation from a sincere point of view to a more acceptable and palpable one.
If you are 'modulating out of necessity', you are not 'keepin' it real'. And by you accusing me of degrading into stupidity simply because you don't like my approach in responding to something, are you not also doing the very thing that you're accusing me of?
Maybe in hindsight, but no. That's SC/Super Tuesday.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Surely Morning Joe viewers don't actually vote, right? Our democracy can't be that fundamentally broken.
The problem is that female politicians can't do that. If she gets too passionate then people say she's shrill, if she's not passionate enough they day she's cold and uncaring. What you're describing is a result of the balancing act female politicians have to do.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The way Morning Joe is literally performing oral sex on Trump and Sanders as though they are the answer to the problem in politics rather than the problem is mind blowing.
thehypocrite
Member
I'm glad that Hillary is a woman and what it entails, I dislike when she's asked about specific things and she responds with that. I understand that it would be a monumental step for USA to elect a woman president and I agree that who she is, her experiences, & her gender make her different than her peers, but the questions are supposed to show how those factors have made her to be the best choice to the voters that ultimately decide.
why do both your and brainchild's responses seem to be summed up as "learn to read" or "you would understand my point if you weren't so stupid". at least that's what it comes across like. it's not very nice.
Abinash117
Member
I think she did say BLM in 2014 and 2015.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...llary-clinton-says-black-lives-matter-n395296
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/hillary-clinton-torture-blacks_n_6338154.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BerbgxMa6ro (around 8:45)
shinra-bansho
Member
No I'm telling everyone they need to stop with telling other people their posts are full of shit, because it's not appropriate conduct.
As for keeping it real. I may have linked this before, but this may be of interest: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/d...dership-damned-if-you-do-doomed-if-you-dont-0
He's jealous he's not part of the Washington elite anymore!
I take that back, he's always been a loser. Didn't he kill a staffer?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Because that poster first accused me of "doubling down on my stupidity" earlier today, and isn't making any actual arguments, just engaging in the kind of "How dare you" sanctimony that makes actual discussion impossible.
So is NV the beginning of the end if she wins it?
please dont get my hopes down
I struggle to see where Sanders gets his next big win if he doesn't take Nevada.
He might do well in Michigan or Ohio but that'll be after a beating in SC, on Super Tuesday, March 5, and all the endorsements and superdelegates liable to flow to Clinton between this weekend and mid March.
brainchild
Banned
Nina Turner comes across as 1000% times more sincere than Hillary Clinton and she's a black female politician. She has even gone on record to say that she's voting for Bernie due to a 'heart-soul agreement', something no female politician should do according to societal standards.
Hillary is not forced to act this way. She chooses to because she's a smart woman and realizes that it makes her career a hell of a lot easier if she plays her cards right.
I think it's worth mentioning that PPP has been really, really bad so far.
They had Clinton up by 8 in Iowa, and the last PPP NH poll I could find had Clinton winning by three points in early January when most outlets were already giving Bernie a significant lead. So they missed that one by more than 20 points.
They may have corrected the problem by now, so I'm not saying we should ignore this data point, especially since this is the only recent information available for a lot of these primaries, but I personally don't think she'll win with anywhere near those margins in most of those states. In fact, if he wins NV, I wouldn't be surprised if he flips a few of those in his favor.
brainchild
Banned
Thank you for being more specific, I'll keep that in mind going forward.
And yes, I understand the consequences of women who keep it real, but some women would rather do that than pretend to be someone else. Nina Turner is a good example of that kind of woman.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The thing that marks all successful politicians and leaders, though, is figuring out what works for them, and building support on the back of such. Hillary has never marked out a strong niche for herself other than being a generalized policy wonk, and she has never figured out how to craft any kind of relatable message for herself. I don't disagree that women face special challenges as leaders, but I also am sure that the reason I perceive her as calculating and insincere is not because of internalized sexism and/or gender stereotypes.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I don't doubt that this happens. I've seen it happen. I think we're being disingenuous to say the problem is entirely due to sexism, though. Hillary really is more opaque about where she stands, in her heart, on any issue than the average politician. Do I think Hillary actually supports the death penalty? No, I think it's a matter of political convenience. Do I think Hillary actually considers black teens to be "super-predators"? No, again, I think it's a matter of political convenience. The problem is the frequency with which she stands up for what's popular over what would strike me, just as a human, as the morally consistent perspective. What evidence can be presented that she really will make racial justice the mission of her presidency? She just said it would be yesterday. But for what reason should I believe this outside of her saying it? I'd like to believe in a candidate who says that. It would be huge to me. I just can't trust Hillary to follow through on that. If someone can present a cogent argument as to why she will follow through on yesterday's claim, I'm all ears.
Nina Turner didn't have everyone laugh at her in 1993 when she said she believed people should be nicer to each other.
What sort of discussion is there to be had with a guy who implies that women are getting turned off by people talking too much about women's issues? I mean clearly you're tired of having to hear about how a woman can empathize with other women, and you think it's unappealing (to you) and think that it should be toned down.
So we're supposed to discuss women and women's issues with you who, from the start, said that the women talk was too much? How are we supposed to do that?
shinra-bansho
Member
A lot can change in a few weeks, that was just again based on that polling. It could be very far from reality.
----
I don't really think the balancing act that Clinton has had to perform on the national stage as a female politician who was excoriated as First Lady and now wants to be President and Commander-and-Chief is particularly comparable to a state senator and campaign surrogate. Although, I'd be very surprised if Turner hasn't had to modulate at all the way she talks, the way she dresses, the things she says, in her career.
And I'm not sure in what post-gender world one is living in that they would argue that there is no need for this balancing act at all.
I do agree her long national career is also a part of it. But then it takes a long time to break into the establishment and cross the competency threshold.
----
I don't really think the balancing act that Clinton has had to perform on the national stage as a female politician who was excoriated as First Lady and now wants to be President and Commander-and-Chief is particularly comparable to a state senator and campaign surrogate. Although, I'd be very surprised if Turner hasn't had to modulate at all the way she talks, the way she dresses, the things she says, in her career.
And I'm not sure in what post-gender world one is living in that they would argue that there is no need for this balancing act at all.
I do agree her long national career is also a part of it. But then it takes a long time to break into the establishment and cross the competency threshold.
People have forgotten how much shit Hillary got when she put herself out there during Bill's Presidency.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
Enough with this Ted Cruz is in first place poll. It's a fucking outlier you pieces of shit.
eBay Huckster
Member
And Nina Turner has had the fantastic boon of being able to represent what is basically a D+30 district in the Ohio Senate in the course of cultivating an image of keeping it real.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I don't deny there exists a balancing act. I'd just argue Hillary isn't particularly good at it, as shown by the fact that her unfavorables are so much worse than her husband's despite him being hit with even more vicious attacks and actually having been in the presidential hot seat. She doesn't have much charisma, her speaking ability is average, she can't figure out a good message for herself, she's a political weather vane and so has no real "core" political personality people can latch onto. She's a smart policy wonk, but were it not for Bill, she'd never have ascended to the heights she has, because it's not a particularly natural fit for her. If she wins the presidency, I'll be happy that a woman has held the office, but I'd be lying if I said I thought she was as fitting for that milestone as Obama was for his.
brainchild
Banned
Nina Turner has been told in no uncertain terms that there's a special place in hell for her, as she has switched her endorsement from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders.
Okay, no one directly said that to her, but she's been attacked by the media because of her actions and comments, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, SHE'S STILL A WOMAN.
No one laughed at her when she opened up about her guiding philosophy. There was a buzzfeed piece from a few weeks ago I feel like a lot of people need to read.
Roland_Gunner
Member
When you're building a political movement of people to left of Alan Krueger and Paul Krugman, Turner is exactly what you're looking for. Guess we'll see how that turns out.
Bingo. Good points all around, from you, dramatis and shin.
I've touched on this topic before with people throwing around the "fake" label on Hillary in another topic. Many of the criticisms I see against her are based on someones feelings of her, and not actual policy, it's always just a personal "feel" about her as a person. People are not being empathetic to how woman in the public eye have to behave, have to look, or even how to dress in order to maintain broad approval.
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm gonna guess "reasonably well in cities and inner-ring suburbs, poorly elsewhere"
Retromelon
Member
Brainchild imo is like 99-0, never been defeated. He is too good for this thread but I hope he stays.
Dramatis did u see my post in the pokken thread? I tried to tell them that the game's roster was shit for fire babies but no one cared about what I had to say
Dramatis did u see my post in the pokken thread? I tried to tell them that the game's roster was shit for fire babies but no one cared about what I had to say
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
That she said "all lives matter" months after being on record having said "black lives matter", as you pointed out, is only further proof that she does not at all follow the issue from a place of personal interest. No one who is genuinely supportive of the BLM movement would make the mistake she made. Anyone who's actually concerned about these issues, reads about them, follows them as a matter of personal investment knows exactly what the intention of "all lives matter" entails. That Hillary Clinton said it signifies that her commitment to BLM is superficial at best.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Bill Clinton is a likable, master politician. Hillary isn't particularly likable and is not a good politician. Does being a woman impact the way she is perceived in many ways? Of course. But you can criticize her behavior, career, and talents without criticizing her gender.
She's not good at this, guys. And she's surrounded by loyalists who are stuck in the past.
you did call Hillary "lazy", "entitled", "arrogant", not "real" when it comes to how she expresses her gender identity, a "generic representation of womanhood"unspecific, unthoughtful, impersonal, insincere, and not simple like Obama on raceaccused a poster of sanctimony and poor reading comprehensionyet you're complaining about not getting engagement in this discussion ofwhat? I lost track of what we were talking about amidst all the invective.
You're at 0-99 in Pokken roster begging for sure
shinra-bansho
Member
She's likable enough.
Retromelon
Member
I get bodied every time by the horde of butthurt charizard preschoolers
Women just aren't given as much benefit of the doubt when it comes to their personalities and how they're judged socially.
I think a similar comparison can be made to female comediennes and how many people find them 'unfunny' compared to men, and the struggle they have. It's an ingrained prejudice, an expectation that many people want to see of a woman. A powerful, smart, ambitious political woman is more likely to be labeled "fake" "deceiftul" "two-faced" than a man with a similar political history.
I think a similar comparison can be made to female comediennes and how many people find them 'unfunny' compared to men, and the struggle they have. It's an ingrained prejudice, an expectation that many people want to see of a woman. A powerful, smart, ambitious political woman is more likely to be labeled "fake" "deceiftul" "two-faced" than a man with a similar political history.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Those are all opinions that I hold, opinions that are not particularly uncommon when you step outside the sphere of Democratic diehards, hence her poor favorables with independents. They are also all refutable, and this board generally has a standard wherein arguments are supposed to be, well, arguments, not name-calling. I only accused that poster of sanctimony when they basically called me a clueless asshole and told me how stupid I sounded, without actually making any points in response, while openly misconstruing my points in their summation of them. Note that I haven't said anything similar to shinra, Prost, or others.
I'd argue that, given the relative newness of the BLM moment at the time, a lot of people (politicians included) are learning a new vocabulary they may have not had to examine before.
If you had asked someone at the beginning of the BLM movement "Do all lives matter?" you might get a "well no shit" answer. I don't fault someone for learning more about BLM. They've been a great force and I think have educated Hillary on these issues better than anyone else could have.
brainchild
Banned
I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. The conversation about Hillary's authenticity was originally rebutted with the fact that she's a woman, and that there are inherent consequences that come with that, making it necessary for her to come across the way that she does. I then pointed out that not all woman succumb to this kind of 'modulation', even in the face of these looming consequences. The conversation then shifted to why other aspects of her political career have also contributed to her perceived lack of authenticity, and I don't disagree with that, but then, that was never my point.
I just don't agree that Hillary is forced to act this way. YES, it can be argued that she may have legitimate reasons for presenting herself in the way that she does, but it isn't a foregone conclusion for female politicians. Even Elizabeth Warren comes across as more sincere, and she's been unfairly criticized for decades due to her being a woman.
I just don't agree that Hillary is forced to act this way. YES, it can be argued that she may have legitimate reasons for presenting herself in the way that she does, but it isn't a foregone conclusion for female politicians. Even Elizabeth Warren comes across as more sincere, and she's been unfairly criticized for decades due to her being a woman.
Elizabeth Warren has been in office for one term. She's not running for president. The entire country made fun of Hillary for saying we should be kind to one another and then the right destroyed one of the few policy issues she openly advocated for.
Comparing Hillary's experience to any other woman's in public office is silly. To say that other women in politics don't have to modulate their public persona is silly. I find this entire point to be really problematic, and this feels like kind of a half assed way to walk it back.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
This is all true, but surely you can see why Hillary Clinton is one of the worst politicians to make this argument for. Bill Clinton has been accused by liberals of being duplicitous for decades. To this day there are a lot of people still angry about the welfare reforms and NAFTA. Clinton wiggles out of a lot of criticism with a general charm (and spin) because he's good at what he does...yet still there are those who haven't forgiven him. Hillary Clinton is just as duplicitous, yet she has none of his talents as a politician. She voted for the Iraq war, has supported Wall Street, endorsed all of her husbands worse ideas, etc. Now she is running as Wall Street's worst nightmare, embracing all of her husband's best ideas, and seems to expect to be handed the nomination. I don't see why it's hard to grasp the genuine reasons why she is disliked.
Politicians flip flop, there's no question about that. Perhaps a female flip flopper is judged harsher. Yet how many politicians can you name who have made such drastic flops on multiple important issues? Criminal justice, Wall Street, welfare, Iraq. You know who comes to mind? Bill Clinton. I can't think of many more. This is all made worse by the fact that she's running against someone who hasn't really changed his positions and has generally been right about all the issues she's been wrong about.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked