• 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 |OT4| Tyler New Chief Exit Pollster at CNN

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ivysaur12

Banned
This is kind of where I am

http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021

But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.

After many speeches and debates, I see no “revolution” coming in the poll results. Bernie’s support comes from educated white males, young white women, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and the Screen Actors Guild. That’s not a political revolution, that’s the check out line at Whole Foods.

Minorities are voting for Hillary, and working class white men are voting for Donald Trump. Bernie can’t hold together the “Obama coalition,” much less pick up the disaffected whites or irreligious Republicans who would give him the mandate for revolutionary change. We remain a deeply divided country... which is a YUGE problem for Bernie more than anybody since his theory of the case is that voters will overwhelmingly rise to help him pressure Congress into submission.

Bernie had his chance, but as Junior Soprano might say, he couldn’t sell it. He wants to overthrow the boss, but he couldn’t sell it to the people he needs to support him. Bernie Bros tend to blame the people who aren’t supporting Bernie for not being informed, but it was on Bernie to convince marginalized Americans that he was their voice, and he couldn’t do it. Not in large enough numbers he himself has said he needs.
Click to expand...

If possible, I would go through this entire Hillary Clinton endorsement without actually talking about Hillary Clinton. She’s a flawed candidate. I would say that voting for her would be like putting Lady MacBeth in the White House, but if you think Hillary would have a nervous breakdown just because she got her hands dirty while bringing about regime change, then you haven’t been paying attention to this woman the past 25 years.

Hillary’s foreign policy is terrifying. If elected, she will kill people. Many of them will be terrorists and some of them will be criminals, but all of them will be people and she will not let other, non-terrorist people, stand in the way of killing the people she thinks we need to kill. And when she’s not killing people, she will be spying on people in case she needs to kill those people later.

So... that’s bad.

But I don’t understand liberals who hate Hillary Clinton. She is authentic; she is naturally bad at running for office and that painfully shows through at almost all points. But maybe you would be bad at campaigning too if you had been subjected to over two decades of vicious and often contradictory political attacks.

We’ve forced Hillary Clinton to change her hair, her clothes, and her accent. We’ve criticized her for taking too prominent a role during the Bill Clinton administration, then questioned whether being First “Lady” qualified her to run for office. She’s been the most investigated politician since Richard Nixon, yet has never been found to have committed a crime. People have said she has all of the “Clinton baggage” but none of the “Clinton charisma,” which is odd because the “baggage” is her husband cheating on her and the “charisma” is what allows her philandering husband who perjured himself to be loved, while she’s gets called “untrustworthy.” We told her she was too uncompromising in the 1993 health care debate, and now tell her she comprises too much. She’s the most detail-oriented major party candidate since... Bobby Kennedy? But when she shows her substance, we call her “boring.” We call her a political robot, but when she tries to throw away a meaningless platitude at some old lady’s funeral, we lose our minds. We’ve questioned her toughness because she’s a woman, then when she proves she’s as tough as anybody, we “unsex” her and make jokes about her having big balls.

Clinton can’t say “the sky is blue” without Breitbart running a headline “Hillary Clinton Politicizes Sky, Denies Noble Whiteness Of Clouds.”

Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.

That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
Click to expand...
 
E

Effect

Member
That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”
Click to expand...

Maybe I shouldn't have but this made me laugh out loud.
 
H

hawk2025

Member
The best point is, naturally, on how to actually specify the very definition of the core of the campaign:

What is a political revolution?

What is a political revolution, within the context of our institutions, to elect a new president?

The answer can go through two different venues: One, there may be an underlying plan to elect like-minded majorities over the next two years (maybe 6? Should I consider every possible election, and assume a 8-year term?) that we haven't heard of and no funds have been raised for. Two, the Revolution is a little more literal than expected, and the plan is to overthrow the current institutions in the first place... somehow?

I hate both answers and can't think of a different one, so the core of his campaign is fundamentally empty for me.
 
I

Iolo

Member
The only part of that essay I take issue with is that Hillary will kill a lot of people as president, including terrorists and criminals. Well, no shit. So will Bernie; he has even said as much. He is clearly not as hawkish and would likely be more hesitant to use force, but he will order people to be killed; world peace is not going to break out upon his election.
 
K

Kangi

Member
CfoWmsBUkAAPTjN.jpg
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Paskil said:
I like this a lot, but I am not so cynical about Clinton. Also, I miss Tim Russert.
Click to expand...

I think she will surprise many and not be nearly as hawkish as people suspect.
Take that away and she could really be a great president. I hope she proves me right.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Iolo said:
The only part of that essay I take issue with is that Hillary will kill a lot of people as president, including terrorists and criminals. Well, no shit. So will Bernie; he has even said as much. He is clearly not as hawkish and would likely be more hesitant to use force, but he will order people to be killed; world peace is not going to break out upon his election.
Click to expand...

No matter who is elected, they will wind up killing hundreds, if not thousands, of people over their (hopefully) 8 years in office. Part of me think Hillary's hawkishness might just be her being honest about the job, basically her saying, "I've seen how this goes, twice. I'm gonna kill people, that's just how it is. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for you. The President will kill people."

I think the time is past that the president can be a dove. If you told someone in 2008 that Obama would use the drone program to the extent he has they'd have laughed at you. 2012 Obama was markedly different in this regard than 2008 Obama. The office of the Presidency seems to be the sort of thing that changes your priorities, sort of like becoming father of a hundred million kids.

I mean, I don't like it, at all, but I'm not in the position where I need to make that sort of decisions. I don't like seeing anyone hurt, but if I were president I'd probably wind up hurting people if it meant helping others.

Basically, "Why is a Kundunese life worth less to me than an American one?"
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
The signatures page of the New York electors is just filled with comedy. One guy forgot how to spell his name and crossed it out to start over, one looks like they signed it drunk, one made a squiggle, one used hieroglyphics, one forgot how to spell his name half way through and gave up, three couldn't be bothered to be there so they had to find someone else to do it, and one didn't even bother to try and spell his own name.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-new-york.pdf

My state is run by the illiterate and people who can't be bothered to be there on time.
 
R

royalan

Member
B-Dubs said:
No matter who is elected, they will wind up killing hundreds, if not thousands, of people over their (hopefully) 8 years in office. Part of me think Hillary's hawkishness might just be her being honest about the job, basically her saying, "I've seen how this goes, twice. I'm gonna kill people, that's just how it is. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for you. The President will kill people."

I think the time is past that the president can be a dove. If you told someone in 2008 that Obama would use the drone program to the extent he has they'd have laughed at you. 2012 Obama was markedly different in this regard than 2008 Obama. The office of the Presidency seems to be the sort of thing that changes your priorities, sort of like becoming father of a hundred million kids.

I mean, I don't like it, at all, but I'm not in the position where I need to make that sort of decisions. I don't like seeing anyone hurt, but if I were president I'd probably wind up hurting people if it meant helping others.

Basically, "Why is a Kundunese life worth less to me than an American one?"
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the view of Hillary as "hawkish" is very gendered thinking. This stereotypical view that a mature woman is either a nurturing mother figure, or an evil harpy shrew, with very little room in-between.

Hillary has said countless times at this point that she has no interest or intention of involving the US in another ground war or costing American lives unnecessarily. She's called herself a "smart power diplomat" and only advocates using the force of the American military if it can be demonstrated that even greater loss of life would result from inaction. She's advocated supporting the allies who have supported us, and she's hardly the only one to do so. Hell, Obama was on FOX this week defending the US going into Libya, yet he hasn't taken half the flack for it that Hillary has, and it's his damn administration.

For all the flack Hillary gets about wanting to be our abuela, it's like people actually WANT her to be like our grandmothers, and when she's not, she's an evil warmonger. It's ridiculous.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
Finally beat dark souls!! On my last attempt before going to sleep. Had to use a crossbow to take gwyn down. Feels good to never have to play this game again

Die 40 times and spend 3 minutes running back to the boss every time souls would have been a more apt albeit lengthy title
 
S

studyguy

Member
DWS might be shitty at her job but having her primaried when she's already out next year because the will of the
internet
people demand it, not because her own district demands it is dumb. Moreover I don't see Tim replacing her as anything more than a moral victory for sanders supporters who will likely be gone next year anyway.

What's there to gain here from pushing someone on stage who seems at odds with the DNC already and likely will have no support from the people lifting him up in a few months?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
studyguy said:
DWS might be shitty at her job but having her primaried when she's already out next year because the will of the
internet
people demand it, not because her own district demands it is dumb. Moreover I don't see Tim replacing her as anything more than a moral victory for sanders supporters who will likely be gone next year anyway.

What's there to gain here from pushing someone on stage who seems at odds with the DNC already and likely will have no support from the people lifting him up in a few months?
Click to expand...

DWS isn't going to lose the primary. From what has been said about the race, she's got pretty deep local roots.
 
K

Kangi

Member
Apparently Bernie likes his hot dog with mustard and sauerkraut. This has done more to make me like him than anything he's said in the past three weeks.

His wife likes hers with ketchup, though. I'm not sure I can condone that in a potential first lady.
 
R

royalan

Member
Kangi said:
Apparently Bernie likes his hot dog with mustard and sauerkraut. This has done more to make me like him than anything he's said in the past three weeks.

His wife likes hers with ketchup, though. I'm not sure I can condone that in a potential first lady.
Click to expand...

No wonder I have such an intense disliking of him. It's not his puddle-deep policy proposals. It's this.

#TeamRelish
 
K

Kangi

Member
royalan said:
No wonder I have such an intense disliking of him. It's not his puddle-deep policy proposals. It's this.

#TeamRelish
Click to expand...

Relish belongs in egg salad, not on a hot dog. Do you eat your burgers with relish, too?

The only thing missing from his hot dog is chili, and he can get a pass on that because you don't want the chili some hot dog stands serve.
 
S

studyguy

Member
Hotdogs are the lowest of street food fare. That being said, I enjoy peppers, onion, jalapeño, mustard and ketchup. Maybe sometimes the bacon wrap out in LA but not often, it's too much imo. Also street taco > street hotdog

Now that I think of it the bacon wrap hot dog is awful, why am I defending it? I've lived too long in LA
 
E

East Lake

Member
royalan said:
Honestly, I think the view of Hillary as "hawkish" is very gendered thinking. This stereotypical view that a mature woman is either a nurturing mother figure, or an evil harpy shrew, with very little room in-between.

Hillary has said countless times at this point that she has no interest or intention of involving the US in another ground war or costing American lives unnecessarily. She's called herself a "smart power diplomat" and only advocates using the force of the American military if it can be demonstrated that even greater loss of life would result from inaction. She's advocated supporting the allies who have supported us, and she's hardly the only one to do so. Hell, Obama was on FOX this week defending the US going into Libya, yet he hasn't taken half the flack for it that Hillary has, and it's his damn administration.

For all the flack Hillary gets about wanting to be our abuela, it's like people actually WANT her to be like our grandmothers, and when she's not, she's an evil warmonger. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
So she's basically the same as any politician who wants a war then. Is Ted Cruz going to say his war is dumb power, or that it'll cost american lives unnecessarily, or that he's not doing it to defend some group x?
 
S

studyguy

Member
East Lake said:
So she's basically the same as any politician who wants a war then. Is Ted Cruz going to say his war is dumb power, or that it'll cost american lives unnecessarily, or that he's not doing it to defend some group x?
Click to expand...

Well she's also not on stage debating with other people who wanted to basically bomb the shit out of innocents and didn't say anything against it.

I'd take a hawkish dem over literally anyone on the Republican side atm.
 
R

royalan

Member
East Lake said:
So she's basically the same as any politician who wants a war then. Is Ted Cruz going to say his war is dumb power, or that it'll cost american lives unnecessarily, or that he's not doing it to defend some group x?
Click to expand...

This is a completely ridiculous comparison.

Ted Cruz has advocated putting troops on the ground, carpet bombing the Middle East "until the sand glows", and bombing ISIS even after it's been pointed out to him multiple times that ISIS hides among populations of innocent people. Hell, he even wants to bring this shit home with his advocacy of the patrolling of Muslim neighborhoods. Ted Cruz is not just hawkish, he's a fucking maniac, and Hillary Clinton is absolutely, unequivocally nowhere near being in the same league as him just because she hasn't taken military intervention off the table in any unforeseeable future conflict. Nor can being pragmatic about the use of military force be considered "wanting a war." I mean, really...

Thank you for proving my point.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
royalan said:
This is a completely ridiculous comparison.

Ted Cruz has advocated putting troops on the ground, carpet bombing the Middle East "until the sand glows", and bombing ISIS even after it's been pointed out to him multiple times that ISIS hides among populations of innocent people. Hell, he even wants to bring this shit home with his advocacy of the patrolling of Muslim neighborhoods. Ted Cruz is not just hawkish, he's a fucking maniac, and Hillary Clinton is absolutely, unequivocally nowhere near being in the same league as him just because she hasn't taken military intervention off the table in any unforeseeable future conflict. Nor can being pragmatic about the use of military force be considered "wanting a war." I mean, really...

Thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm opposed to boots on the ground just about anywhere but there are times when military action is absolutely justifiable.

As long as Hillary doesn't start a ground war I'm good. Even then new situations and complications may arise in the future which might escalate things and I'd have to evaluate that when they come and whether I'd be personally willing to support a candidate for president who's willing to go there.
 
E

East Lake

Member
royalan said:
This is a completely ridiculous comparison.

Ted Cruz has advocated putting troops on the ground, carpet bombing the Middle East "until the sand glows", and bombing ISIS even after it's been pointed out to him multiple times that ISIS hides among populations of innocent people. Hell, he even wants to bring this shit home with his advocacy of the patrolling of Muslim neighborhoods. Ted Cruz is not just hawkish, he's a fucking maniac, and Hillary Clinton is absolutely, unequivocally nowhere near being in the same league as him just because she hasn't taken military intervention off the table in any unforeseeable future conflict. Nor can being pragmatic about the use of military force be considered "wanting a war." I mean, really...

Thank you for proving my point.
Click to expand...
I think you're getting a bit hyperbolic because you know I have a point. That Ted Cruz is a maniac is obvious, and doesn't really detract from anything I said. A war will always be framed in the highest ideals, whether it's "good" war or not. You think Obama isn't killing innocent people with his drone strikes?
 
R

royalan

Member
East Lake said:
I think you're getting a bit hyperbolic because you know I have a point. That Ted Cruz is a maniac is obvious, and doesn't really detract from anything I said. A war will always be framed in the highest ideals, whether it's "good" war or not. You think Obama isn't killing innocent people with his drone strikes?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but what is your point?

My point was that Hillary Clinton has had to say more times than can be counted that she has no intention of getting the US involved in another ground war, but because she's displayed a toughness and acknowledged that sometimes military intervention is unavoidable for the protection of the greater good, she gets labeled as "hawkish", a term I've heard almost exclusively applied to her this entire election cycle.

Your response was to...compare her to Ted Cruz, a man so itching to blow shit up that it seems like high on his first-90-days agenda will be the blow his wad all over the pentagon. Like, I didn't put any words in his mouth; everything in my last post are things he has said he wants to do.

It just plays to the notion that a woman has to be completely docile and soft, and if she's not, she's desexualized, labeled evil and destructive, or both.
 
E

East Lake

Member
Lets start with a list of things I didn't say.

1. Hillary Clinton is literally the same as Ted Cruz.

^This is obvious right? I already am familiar with Ted.

The point is to find the president who isn't going to frame a war like Hillary Clinton does. Which wars weren't for the greater good?

That's where the similarity is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom