• 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 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.

PBY

Banned
I can't stand Hillary Clinton but am baffled why anyone would be upset that she gave a post-election interview, months after the election. Do I think it's a good idea that losing candidates with no political future slowly disappear to make room for the next batch of candidates? Yea of course. But Hillary tweeting a couple times and giving an interview isn't some outrageous or unprecedented level of public participation. And no, I don't think this has anything to do with sexism. A lot of people don't like her and are still bitter about the election (and primary).

If I was a republican I could understand being upset about Mitt Romney buying influence and attempting to prop himself up as some power broker. Obviously people on the far right agree with that position but overall republicans seem pretty fine with Romney popping up here or there.

I actually completely agree with you (except for the fact that I actually still like Hillary).

I don't think its a huge deal. I don't think its outrageous or unprecedented. I just want to make clear my position that these kinds of appearances shouldn't be the norm, and that she should NOT be a national voice for the party.

Pretty sure that's all Crab and I are saying.
 

dramatis

Member
Come on, this is petulant. The people who "give a shit" are all of those lost voters from 2012 -> 2016 who cited the Democratic Party as being out of touch and elitist, predominantly because of Clinton. I want the Democratic Party to do well, and I presume Clinton does too, which is why I'm pointing out, in good faith, the best thing she can do is rest until her star recovers.

Also, I can actually phonebank. The more you know!
Those people don't give a shit if Hillary is doing an interview. They're not watching CNN to hang onto Hillary's every word or even every word of CNN pundits. Aren't you just making lousy arguments for why you're right that Hillary should shut up and disappear?

I notice you said you can phonebank, and not that you will, or that you did. You're very good at patting yourself on the back for absolutely nothing.
 

PBY

Banned
Those people don't give a shit if Hillary is doing an interview. They're not watching CNN to hang onto Hillary's every word or even every word of CNN pundits. Aren't you just making lousy arguments for why you're right that Hillary should shut up and disappear?

I notice you said you can phonebank, and not that you will, or that you did. You're very good at patting yourself on the back for absolutely nothing.

why is this necessary?
 

pigeon

Banned
I agree with Crab. Hillary should just take a break. That's, like, pretty standard for losing presidential candidates who don't hold office. America wants you to go do something else.

In this case it happens that lots of people still like Hillary and think she'd be a good president, like me, but even so, I don't really get what she gets out of giving interviews. If you think Hillary is basically a good person you should probably want her to just stay out of the spotlight and do good works, which is the thing she is best at.

I generally think she was probably right about all the stuff she said in the interview, because she usually is, but still.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I agree with Crab. Hillary should just take a break. That's, like, pretty standard for losing presidential candidates who don't hold office. America wants you to go do something else.

In this case it happens that lots of people still like Hillary and think she'd be a good president, like me, but even so, I don't really get what she gets out of giving interviews. If you think Hillary is basically a good person you should probably want her to just stay out of the spotlight and do good works, which is the thing she is best at.

I generally think she was probably right about all the stuff she said in the interview, because she usually is, but still.

Let's see what degree this continues. An occasional interview is not a big deal, i'm sure many people still want to hear from her.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Hillary can do whatever she pleases. She served this country well for decades, and I hope she serves it more as a governor.

I also don't want the media running to her with every piece of news for input about future democratic presidential aspirations. She's smart enough to stay out of it, and I think that's exactly what she will do.
 

PBY

Banned
People still clutching their pearls over the most minor shit possible.

No one is pearl clutching. People "bitch" to make the party better.


Also easier to call all of this "minor" if Dems hadn't taken an historic L just a few months ago.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I notice you said you can phonebank, and not that you will, or that you did. You're very good at patting yourself on the back for absolutely nothing.

I have, actually (DAUK, to be specific). I also have some spare spades if you need them.
 

PBY

Banned
Common reaction when a woman does a thing.

I can't sit up here and say that my stance has nothing to do with sexism, because sexism and racism are things that almost by definition are blind spots.

That said, there isn't really a counterpoint to that argument, and I'm not going to attempt to make one.
 
I can't sit up here and say that my stance has nothing to do with sexism, because sexism and racism are things that almost by definition are blind spots.

That said, there isn't really a counterpoint to that argument, and I'm not going to attempt to make one.

I don't mean to say anyone making your point is necessarily sexist, but it's definitely possible than someone might be. Similar to Obama's paid speeches (see the many reactions from various people of color).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't mean to say anyone making your point is necessarily sexist, but it's definitely possible than someone might be. Similar to Obama's paid speeches (see the many reactions from various people of color).

Reactions like this one?
 
No one is pearl clutching. People "bitch" to make the party better.


Also easier to call all of this "minor" if Dems hadn't taken an historic L just a few months ago.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not "the party". Neither one is currently an elected official or serving in any capacity at the DNC. I believe that Clinton's actions as a private citizen are detrimental at this point and have said so, but the idea that this reflects on the Democratic party is kinda weird.
 
No one is pearl clutching. People "bitch" to make the party better.


Also easier to call all of this "minor" if Dems hadn't taken an historic L just a few months ago.

I will bitch if the party makes dumb decisions on their voter outreach efforts and policy stances. No one gives a damn about Hilary Clinton anymore. She is not going to be some face of the democratic party. ANd no her giving an interview doesn't change that.
 

dramatis

Member
why is this necessary?
Why is this necessary, then?
JUST. GO. AWAY.

That's what she should do.
I get it, people hate Hillary Clinton. They want to blame the whole election on her, because it is easier to have a target that is not yourself. It is easier to excuse the American electorate than it is to tell them the truth. It is easier to push the burden of blame onto the object of your hate than to admit that you might have contributed to the current mess.

But something I find particularly awful is that someone who is a foreigner constantly being a drag about Sanders and Hillary because he had a favorite that wasn't chosen by American voters, and he has the gall to be arrogant about his contributions to ragging on the candidate we needed to support to avoid this mess. It's now after the election, what really matters to said foreigner is that he was right about everything, and not the political realities and harm caused to people on the ground.

After this election, what right is it of anybody except Hillary Clinton herself to dictate what she should do with her time? The same people who insist that she no longer be a leader are against when she does things on her own time without intruding on the party. If that isn't advocating for complete control over how Hillary conducts herself, what is? Their insistence that she go away isn't about whether or not she's good or bad for the current party, it's about fear that they will lose ground and power in the party. It's also about petty vengeance for the primary that she won.

Why is this necessary? Who is going to speak up for women on this board? The overwhelming male population of posters? The people who constantly fret about "not a good look", but don't take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror when they deny women a voice and just earnings to a black man? The "colorblind" male foreigner who thinks he thoroughly understands American politics while furtively attempting to strip it of its incontrovertible racial elements?

You can say you supported Hillary and was keenly in her camp for the election. But you should also recognize clearly that a CNN interview is literally nothing. Favorability polling now for Hillary Clinton is meaningless. You are inadvertently promoting inequality, because you are judging Hillary by a different standard from her predecessors and because you are assisting those who would seek to silence the voice of a woman for no particular reason other than their hate.

Not a good look, PBY.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/kfile-karen-handel-husband-tweet/index.html

(CNN)The husband of Republican congressional candidate Karen Handel shared an image on his Twitter timeline Tuesday that urged voters to support his wife in order to "free the black slaves from the Democratic plantation."

Handel's husband, Steve Handel, shared the image in the form of a quote-tweet, in which he shared the tweet of another user who initially posted the image and added his own commentary. In a statement to CNN's KFile on Tuesday, Handel's campaign said her husband hadn't paid attention to what was said in the original tweet.

"Like many of us, he (Steve) made a mistake and retweeted something he didn't pay a lot of attention to, thinking it was just an absentee vote message. It clearly was not appropriate and has been deleted," a campaign spokesperson said.

Handel is running to replace former Rep. Tom Price, who resigned his seat to become Health and Human Services Secretary. She's locked in a tight race in the runoff election with Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff.

The image, shared by user @rose10052, featured a stock image of young black man in a suit with white text.

"Criticizing black kids for obeying the law, studying in school, and being ambitious as 'acting white' is a trick Democrats play on Black people to keep them poor, ignorant, and dependent," text on the image reads. "Free the black slaves from the Democratic plantation."

"Handel will fight for minorities to excel," the image reads in bold letters at the top. The bottom of the image also tells people to "join the movement" to "send Karen Handel to Congress" with a link to her website.

170502162149-kfile-steve-handel-tweet-exlarge-169.jpg
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Sources: Former Acting AG Yates to contradict administration about Flynn at hearing

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is prepared to testify before a Senate panel next week that she gave a forceful warning to the White House regarding then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn nearly three weeks before he was fired, contradicting the administration's version of events, sources familiar with her account tell CNN.

In a private meeting January 26, Yates told White House Counsel Don McGahn that Flynn was lying when he denied in public and private that he had discussed US sanctions on Russia in conversations with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. Flynn's misleading comments, Yates said, made him potentially vulnerable to being compromised by Russia, according to sources familiar with her version of events. She expressed "serious concerns" to McGahn, making it clear -- without making a recommendation -- that Flynn could be fired.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/sally-yates-michael-flynn-testimony-contradict/index.html

giphy.gif
 

PBY

Banned
Why is this necessary, then?

I get it, people hate Hillary Clinton. They want to blame the whole election on her, because it is easier to have a target that is not yourself. It is easier to excuse the American electorate than it is to tell them the truth. It is easier to push the burden of blame onto the object of your hate than to admit that you might have contributed to the current mess.

But something I find particularly awful is that someone who is a foreigner constantly being a drag about Sanders and Hillary because he had a favorite that wasn't chosen by American voters, and he has the gall to be arrogant about his contributions to ragging on the candidate we needed to support to avoid this mess. It's now after the election, what really matters to said foreigner is that he was right about everything, and not the political realities and harm caused to people on the ground.

After this election, what right is it of anybody except Hillary Clinton herself to dictate what she should do with her time? The same people who insist that she no longer be a leader are against when she does things on her own time without intruding on the party. If that isn't advocating for complete control over how Hillary conducts herself, what is? Their insistence that she go away isn't about whether or not she's good or bad for the current party, it's about fear that they will lose ground and power in the party. It's also about petty vengeance for the primary that she won.

Why is this necessary? Who is going to speak up for women on this board? The overwhelming male population of posters? The people who constantly fret about "not a good look", but don't take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror when they deny women a voice and just earnings to a black man? The "colorblind" male foreigner who thinks he thoroughly understands American politics while furtively attempting to strip it of its incontrovertible racial elements?

You can say you supported Hillary and was keenly in her camp for the election. But you should also recognize clearly that a CNN interview is literally nothing. Favorability polling now for Hillary Clinton is meaningless. You are inadvertently promoting inequality, because you are judging Hillary by a different standard from her predecessors and because you are assisting those who would seek to silence the voice of a woman for no particular reason other than their hate.

Not a good look, PBY.

First - get out of here with your condescending "not a good look"

Second - I'm just concerned about the party winning, that's all. She doesn't help that. It has nothing to "promoting inequality" so miss me with that.

Third - The post you quoted was too harsh, I should not have said that.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
There are much shorter ways to explain how much you missed the point, dramatis.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Matt Fuller‏Verified account @MEPFuller

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen calls AHCA's coverage for pre-existing conditions coverage "in name only."

Hilarious.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
No, but seriously. This thread has a horrible tendency to always take any perspective not of their own at the absolute worst level it can be possibly be framed as - to the point of outright ignoring what's been written. It's really tedious. As an example: I care about women's rights. The Democratic Party is the party best placed to further women's rights. I want the Democratic Party to do as well as possible. If Clinton were to appear regularly, the Democratic Party would do worse. Ergo, because I care about women's rights, it would be better if Clinton did not appear regularly.

Now, you could take this argument in good faith. We could have a fairly good discussion about how Clinton can be most effective. For example, she has a lot of influence over Democratic donors. Her future might be in silently working behind the scenes to ensure the financial viability of Gillibrand as a candidate. Or you could just deny my point entirely - maybe over time, so many people will come to hate Trump, Clinton will come to be seen as unfairly maligned, and her approval ratings will soar as 'the best President who never was' (see: Al Gore), and she'll be hugely influential over the public narrative in a positive way in the future.

But what dramatis does is to just ignore my stated motivations. Because I disagree with dramatis, I can't possibly care about women's rights. I must be sexist. There is no other possible explanation for my argument. It's just tedious, and illustrates a large part of the problem with certain parts of the Democratic party - they have all the empathetic ability of a spoon. I don't mind engaging in bitching, it's water off a duck's back at this point and I'll give as good as I get. Honestly, I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it somewhat fun - you can't take stuff like that seriously, it would just be depressing if I were to take the intended ill will to heart.

But there's some actual interesting conversations to have. Why do you have to waste your time making posts like your last one? I'm watching a full-grown human adult person throw a tantrum on the internet.
 

daedalius

Member
C-1JPQEWsAAXEKc.jpg


Darrel Issa isn't on this list. Darrel Issa's district went for Hilary Clinton easily and he had a nailbiter against Applegate.

I seriously doubt Issa will vote for this if there's any doubt that it might not pass. There's been a lot of healthcare protests in his district.

Saw my rep, Yoder, was undecided and called his office.

I think this district was the closest to Hillary in the election, so I'm sure he is stressing.
 
How exactly is "go away Hillary" an interesting discussion?

I took dramatis' post as meaning that people were gettign overly concerned about a lone interview. I think that's valid. HRC has shown no signs of engaging politically and a months-after interview hardly qualifies.
 
No, but seriously. This thread has a horrible tendency to always take any perspective not of their own at the absolute worst level it can be possibly be framed as - to the point of outright ignoring what's been written. It's really tedious. As an example: I care about women's rights. The Democratic Party is the party best placed to further women's rights. I want the Democratic Party to do as well as possible. If Clinton were to appear regularly, the Democratic Party would do worse. Ergo, because I care about women's rights, it would be better if Clinton did not appear regularly.

Now, you could take this argument in good faith. We could have a fairly good discussion about how Clinton can be most effective. For example, she has a lot of influence over Democratic donors. Her future might be in silently working behind the scenes to ensure the financial viability of Gillibrand as a candidate. Or you could just deny my point entirely - maybe over time, so many people will come to hate Trump, Clinton will come to be seen as unfairly maligned, and her approval ratings will soar as 'the best President who never was' (see: Al Gore), and she'll be hugely influential over the public narrative in a positive way in the future.

But what dramatis does is to just ignore my stated motivations. Because I disagree with dramatis, I can't possibly care about women's rights. I must be sexist. There is no other possible explanation for my argument. It's just tedious, and illustrates a large part of the problem with certain parts of the Democratic party - they have all the empathetic ability of a spoon. I don't mind engaging in bitching, it's water off a duck's back at this point and I'll give as good as I get. Honestly, I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it somewhat fun - you can't take stuff like that seriously, it would just be depressing if I were to take the intended ill will to heart.

But there's some actual interesting conversations to have. Why do you have to waste your time making posts like your last one? I'm watching a full-grown human adult person throw a tantrum on the internet.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to diagnose "this thread" as a whole entity.
 
Cristina Marcos @cimarcos 20m
Reporters ask Rep. Issa his position on the revised healthcare bill. "None of your business," he says.

Cristina Marcos @cimarcos 19m
Me: "What about your constituents? Don't they deserve to know how you'd vote on this?"
Issa: "You're not a constituent."

Cristina Marcos @cimarcos 10m
Pro tip for members of Congress: When you speak to a reporter, you're not speaking to us individually. You're speaking to our audiences.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
This thread will be fun if Ossoff wins, which seems like a true tossup at this point based on every available metric.

The trouble is, the informative value is pretty limited. It's a local race that has received national level attention - byelections are usually poor predictors of national elections (Mensch's successor was thrashed by Labour in 2012, only to win the seat back in the subsequent general election, as a topical example). I hope Ossoff wins, but the main value in his win will be just in the fact of the win itself (and the narrative effect), rather than holding much significant predictive value.
 

Foffy

Banned
So, why are people mad Hillary decided to talk recently..? Like, are you that bothered by what people do?

She deserves props for finally, FINALLY talking about the social disruption happening with technology and the precariat. She avoided this shit in deep, infuriating ways during the campaign, always finding ways to pivot. We should be marking out over this realness, not being upset by it.
 

Wilsongt

Member
This thread will be fun if Ossoff wins, which seems like a true tossup at this point based on every available metric.

You can't believe poll numbers anymore, apparently. Sneaky people who like Trump and Trump supporters love staying silent or saying "don't know" on poll questions and then will vote for them
 
The trouble is, the informative value is pretty limited. It's a local race that has received national level attention - byelections are usually poor predictors of national elections (Mensch's successor was thrashed by Labour in 2012, only to win the seat back in the subsequent general election, as a topical example). I hope Ossoff wins, but the main value in his win will be just in the fact of the win itself (and the narrative effect), rather than holding much significant predictive value.
This might be true, and an Ossoff victory might just mean that, but a counterexample would be that 2005 Ohio special election that acted as a sign of the 2006 wave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom