Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

But this isn't true. Hillary doesn't want the status quo, she wants to *continue* the good work Obama has done. Maybe that isn't enough for you, fair enough, but she absolutely isn't campaigning on 'leaving things exactly as they are right now'. When she essentially infers she'd be a third Obama term... if Obama got a third term... you can bet he'd continue fighting for legislation that moves the country in the correct direction bit by bit.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

What?

That was fifty years ago! All those leaders would be dead now anyway!

This is a super bizarre argument to me. Why don't you have any new leaders yet? Fifty years is more than enough time to grow them from scratch. It's enough time for them to have children of the revolution!

We're just now at a point where socialism isn't a bad word anymore and you're seriously arguing this?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

And after the primary?

 

[Good Job Bob]

What?

That was fifty years ago! All those leaders would be dead now anyway!

This is a super bizarre argument to me. Why don't you have any new leaders yet? Fifty years is more than enough time to grow them from scratch. It's enough time for them to have children of the revolution!

It's more to do with the gutting of labor organizations around that time period than specific "leaders" being suppressed.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

In which case the same is true of Sanders:
http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage_us_569fcc4de4b0a7026bf9e06f

They both evolved. Sanders did it faster, both they both evolved and shifted over time and neither one of them had consistency on it. If you're slamming Clinton on this, you have to slam Sanders on it as well. Of course, for both of them, it was just the reality of politics that they couldn't support it sooner than they did, with Clinton taking longer because she was a national figure while Sanders, as a nobody-senator of a New England state, was able to progress faster. But nonetheless they both ebbed and flowed on it, so if you're slamming one of them as being slimy and dishonest for having changed their position, you have to do the same for the other as well.

I just don't get this talking point. I don't get it at all. Not only does it slam candidates for evolving and adopting more progressive views, a very positive thing, but it ignores and pretends that it isn't true for every single candidate running right now, on both sides of the field. They've all changed over time. They don't have the views now they've always had. And in the case of the Democratic candidates, that's a very, very good thing. Sanders got their faster, but they both got there. They both ebbed and flowed over time and the important thing is that they both got there. I'm not going to slam either one of them for this, because if I slammed one I'd just have to slam the other as well, doing so fosters the idea that politicians should just keep to one static-set of views or else they'll be seen as a "flip-flopper" which is seen as an insane negative for some reason, and it ignores the fact that by whatever path they took to get there they are nonetheless allies now, which is incredibly important and I'm not just going to ignore them because they didn't become my allies fast enough especially when I understand the political reality situation.

I'm a bisexual male. This type of thing affects my ability to marry a man, if I should choose. I understand what's at stake here. And thus it really, really lights me on fire when those outside the community tell me to shut up and take my Bernie medicine just because Hillary didn't get there as fast as Sanders did. Doesn't matter. They're both allies now and that's what's important. Trying to downplay that and insist that Senator Sanders is like the only ally we have and that we're all doomed and that Hillary will fuck us over or some shit is just profoundly ignorant especially when by that logic Sanders must have a knife to our backs as well. It's not like Sanders was even the first senator to come out in favor of gay marriage or anything, but he's treated like a savior on this issue, when he went through the same evolution as any other candidate--which is wonderful, but I'm just not seeing what makes him different just because he evolved sooner. They both evolved, they both shifted over time, not one or the other. You can't have it both ways like that.

Nothing about it makes any sense. As a bisexual male, anyone who continues to use this fucking talking point clearly does not give as much of a fuck about the community as they claim to because it just makes no sense to push that angle if progress is truly what you care about. I just don't get it.

And with that, I'm out because if I stay in here I'll probably say something I'll regret and I've got shit to do anyway. Man...

They have both evolved, but there is a difference. Citing that you don't support gay marriage under it being a state issue, is not the same thing at all as not believing in gay marriage at all. But this is not about Sanders. We're talking about Hillary. The infallible who has this vast experience, and no bad choice- Iraq, NAFTA, Patriot Act, Libya is on her table. It's always everyone elses faults, who she didn't know, or it was a mistake.

There is a MASSIVE difference between having honest beliefs, and then changing your opinions due to wanting power. My point is that Sanders is a relatively honest politician by his track record. Hillary is not. What she has done is unforgiveable, and there are accounts of this everywhere. Things that has nothing to do with benghazi or emails.
And then to sit and see an agenda unfold that basically endorses opportunistic insincerity under the guise that politicians who don't compromise are just road kill.
There is no credible evidence to support that she has changed. She is completely contradictionary to where she was in 2008. Her hate filled vendetta against Obama, and now being his champion.


Senator Warren on her flip flopping; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
Chirs Hedges; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYohyfNC1rs
And a long ass compilation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HjwYxatWNc





Remember, I am not on Hillary. I am on people painting her as someone who has done no wrong. People should vote for her. She is right on a lot of things. Liberal issues, children and womans rights is something she has been consistent on always. She is not a climate skeptic and she is a splendid politician. But her politics, and the current climate is not something to be celebrated. It's not something that should be swept under a rug. Trying to undermine and revise history.
It is NEVER okay to do the wrong thing because it's viable or realistic.
Yet you can see replies in this thread that links people who call Hillary out on her past to Anti-Vaccers. It's disgusting.

 

[BiggNife]

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

And if Trump beat Hilary in the general, the status quo is destroyed in the worst way possible and any chance of another Sanders becomes a pipe dream because we're going to have a republican supreme court for decades.

He will appoint judges that will render Bernie's agenda dead. And not just for 2016. Corporate money becomes enshrined into our process; Citizens United stands for decades. The Voting Rights Act stays dead. Marriage equality goes on shaky legal ground via "religious freedom" bills. Corporations remain legal persons.

This does not poison the well of progressivism for just the next 4 years. This is for decades.

And - not shockingly - no one has countered this.

9 pages later and I haven't seen a single counter to this argument.

 

[Cocaloch]

What?

That was fifty years ago! All those leaders would be dead now anyway!

This is a super bizarre argument to me. Why don't you have any new leaders yet? Fifty years is more than enough time to grow them from scratch. It's enough time for them to have children of the revolution!

The left was demonized in the US to a ridiculous degree until very recently. Couple that with post-modernism turning intellectuals, its traditional leadership, away from ever saying anything pertaining to the real world, and it's hardly surprising that the left doesn't have real leadership.

 

[Nipo]

We're just now at a point where socialism isn't a bad word anymore and you're seriously arguing this?

Socialism is still a bad word in most of the country. People would rather vote for an atheist than socialist.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

ACA and marriage equality are progress, but considering the times, not enough progress for most people. These are dire times. Police brutality. Institutionalized racism. Low wages. Student Loans. The drug war. Under maintained infrastructure. Poor education. Government spying. Climate change. America needs answers to these things NOW.

Conceding that ACA and marriage equality means progress given the rampant amount of lgbt poverty still happening is laughable and spit in your face worthy. Obama did a good job against a congress that did nothing to work with him, but if you can't see how the status quo will continue, I don't know what to say.

Do you think Hilary Clinton will do good on ANY of these issues? I don't.

That said, I trust she won't dismantle what we've worked hard to achieve either. Which is why I'm voting for her.

It's not laughable or a spit to the face. I don't understand why anything, but large grand instances of progress don't count or aren't seen as "real" progress. It's a completely illogical way of thought and, if anything, spits in the face of people who worked to hard to make even those small improvements possible. It's not all or nothing. There are levels between sweeping changes and massive reforms and incremental improvements and both need the respect they deserve.

While lots of progressive movements have only been gained through massive changes, lots have also come from incremental changes that snowballed into one massive sweeping legislation. So there's no need to laugh just because change on the level you're looking for hasn't come yet

 

[Elchele]

And if Trump beat Hilary in the general, the status quo is destroyed in the worst way possible and any chance of another Sanders becomes a pipe dream because we're going to have a republican supreme court for decades.

Do you think Bernie supporters would end up voting for Trump in an hypothetical Hillary vs Trump? lol

 

[gutter_trash]

Do you think Bernie supporters would end up voting for Trump in an hypothetical Hillary vs Trump? lol

Reading their salt about South Carolina.... Yes

 

[eBay Huckster]

Do you think Bernie supporters would end up voting for Trump in an hypothetical Hillary vs Trump? lol

there's an extremely loud minority of them on this forum, to say nothing about the nuclear hellscape that reddit has been all year

(not that i actually believe this is going to be a noteworthy phenomenon in the general, considering 2008 was a modern greatest hits of shit escalating and Obama still won like 92% of the Dem vote)

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Hillary protects the status quo. Bernie challenges it. Unless you get benefited by the current way of how things are, Hillary is the enemy to improvement.

As a Sanders supporter, I have to say that this isn't how it works.

It's up to us as people who don't want whatever the GOP wants to force Hillary to acquiesce to our demands. She needs us to be there in 2020 for her re-election. We have to communicate as voters to her that she needs to move left. Liberal SCOTUS nominees, a push for regulations on Wall Street, derivatives, bonds, etc., and so forth.

Politicians do not govern in a vacuum, and as we're seeing with the GOP right now, you can't just ignore the voters in order to please the donor class, or you get civil war within your own party and what might be a total loss of power for years or even decades.

Hillary is only the enemy to improvement if we let her be the enemy to improvement. Don't let her be that.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

It's not laughable or a spit to the face. I don't understand why anything, but large grand instances of progress don't count or aren't seen as "real" progress. It's a completely illogical way of thought and, if anything, spits in the face of people who worked to hard to make even those small improvements possible. It's not all or nothing. There are levels between sweeping changes and massive reforms and incremental improvements and both need the respect they deserve.

While lots of progressive movements have only been gained through massive changes, lots have also come from incremental changes that snowballed into one massive sweeping legislation. So there's no need to laugh just because change on the level you're looking for hasn't come yet

It depends on who you're talking to.

For many, LGBT rights have been won and the fight is over because of marriage equality. Hence the statement.

 

[excelsiorlef]

9 pages later and I haven't seen a single counter to this argument.

It doesn't exist and those folks know it.

 

[Elchele]

there's an extremely loud minority of them on this forum, to say nothing about the nuclear hellscape that reddit has been all year

(not that i actually believe this is going to be a noteworthy phenomenon in the general)

From supporting Bernie who is a a very strong left wing candidate to support Trump (for revenge sake) who is basically a extreme right wing fascist? Yeah, I doubt people with a brain would actually do that.

 

[BiggNife]

Do you think Bernie supporters would end up voting for Trump in an hypothetical Hillary vs Trump? lol

There are a bunch of posts in this very thread where Bernie supporters have said they would either abstain from voting or vote for "anyone other than hilary" in the general if Bernie does not win the primaries, which is looking more and more likely.

It is probably a vocal minority but the opinion does exist and it's fucking mind boggling.

 

[TyrantII]

Not always, historically. A big enough third-party gets its ideas co-opted by the two major parties. Off the top of my head, I believe the People's Party in the 1880s and 1890s would be the biggest example of this.

I don't think the Green Party has enough support from Americans to be anything like that, however.

Right, should have said it better. You either get coopted, or adopted.

A minority third party has never gotten out of the woods in our History, and has always been a lame protest vote. At best, they steal enough votes to get their opponents easily into power. If you truly want change, you reform the existing party.

That is slow, hard work. It's easier to piff feathers and Stoke egos.

 

[TheJLC]

Overall I think all these politicians are horrible candidates for president. It's like choosing the lesser of two evils among all of them for me.

 

[eBay Huckster]

From supporting Bernie who is a a very strong left wing candidate to support Trump (for revenge sake) who is basically a extreme right wing fascist? Yeah, I doubt people with a brain would actually do that.

You're not getting any argument from me on that front, that's for sure

 

[Elchele]

As a Sanders supporter, I have to say that this isn't how it works.

It's up to us as people who don't want whatever the GOP wants to force Hillary to acquiesce to our demands. She needs us to be there in 2020 for her re-election. We have to communicate as voters to her that she needs to move left. Liberal SCOTUS nominees, a push for regulations on Wall Street, derivatives, bonds, etc., and so forth.

Politicians do not govern in a vacuum, and as we're seeing with the GOP right now, you can't just ignore the voters in order to please the donor class, or you get civil war within your own party and what might be a total loss of power for years or even decades.

Hillary is only the enemy to improvement if we let her be the enemy to improvement. Don't let her be that.

Like it or not, Hillary has the interest of a lot of people behind her campaign. She can't just switch during her presidency and do what Bernie wants to do. Seeing how people are supporting Bernie, I think Hillary will be more free to move a bit more to the left if she ends up being nominated. But I see her far more on the right than Obama, so basically in the best case scenario she will be another Obama.

 

[BiggNife]

Overall I think all these politicians are horrible candidates for president. It's like choosing the lesser of two evils among all of them for me.

That's not unusual when it comes to general elections but imo it's still important to vote for whichever candidate you dislike less

 

[Monocle]

Hillary is a great choice for me because she's the only electable candidate who will fight for my civil rights and my ability to afford health care.

If you allow a republican in office, know that a lot of people are going to have a much more difficult life in the US.

Yes but what if you make a comfortable living and you're not really affected by what happens to minorities and gay people? Isn't it totally fine to dick over people you don't see every day? That's what America's all about IMO. The personal freedom to deny the personal freedom of others.

 

[plagiarize]

From supporting Bernie who is a a very strong left wing candidate to support Trump (for revenge sake) who is basically a extreme right wing fascist? Yeah, I doubt people with a brain would actually do that.

I doubt many will either, but a very loud portion of his supporters are threatening just that. But it's rhetoric aimed at helping Sanders win the nomination (as it was from Clinton supporters in 2008) and when Sanders drops out (sorry guys, that's a when, not an if) and start stumping for Clinton, such people will mysteriously vanish.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

It depends on who you're talking to.

For many, LGBT rights have been won and the fight is over because of marriage equality. Hence the statement.

Yeah, but those are akin to the people who said racism was over because Obama was elected. The vast majority of people who truly care about those issues of rights of minority groups, know that each "win" is really just pushing it closer. No group has truly "won" equality, nor is the fight over. Hell, I don't even think it's possible it'll ever be over. I see it more as a limit, you can approach the perfect ideal world, but you can never actually reach it. It doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for

 

[hawk2025]

You know what, I can't. I'll be doing this for the next six months if I get started again.

 

[Darryl M R]

It disgusts me. If we get a Republican president after a X vs Hillary race I will blame every Bernie supporter.

Support your candidate but also the party.

 

[EnthronedReaper]

And if Trump beat Hilary in the general, the status quo is destroyed in the worst way possible and any chance of another Sanders becomes a pipe dream because we're going to have a republican supreme court for decades.



9 pages later and I haven't seen a single counter to this argument.

Being Devils advocate here but maybe after all those atrocities occur maybe just maybe people will vote for progressive ideals which will propel us to greatness rather than becoming an idiocracy.
Honestly though, the simple fact that trump becoming president is a possibility is ludicrous.
Maybe after this shit show the republicans can go back to the once great party they were.

If someone told me when I was a youngster that trump would run under the same banner that Abe Lincoln once did, I would be fucking stunned. Might have shit my pants in disbelief

 

[Gordon Shumway]

That's not unusual when it comes to general elections but imo it's still important to vote for whichever candidate you dislike less

lol..nevermind.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

And if Trump beat Hilary in the general, the status quo is destroyed in the worst way possible and any chance of another Sanders becomes a pipe dream because we're going to have a republican supreme court for decades.



9 pages later and I haven't seen a single counter to this argument.

Because there is no counter.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

Like it or not, Hillary has the interest of a lot of people behind her campaign. She can't just switch during her presidency and do what Bernie wants to do. Seeing how people are supporting Bernie, I think Hillary will be more free to move a bit more to the left if she ends up being nominated. But I see her far more on the right than Obama, so basically in the best case scenario she will be another Obama.

Well, Hillary has never claimed to be as liberal as Bernie Sanders, and in fact I do think that she's probably more conservative than she's letting on right now, but she's beholden to the voters in some very real ways.

The GOP's fracturing right now is probably also teaching Democrats a few lessons about keeping their coalition together, namely that you have to actually listen to and address the concerns of said coalition.

I believe that regardless of Ms. Clinton's own personal views, she is savvy as a politician and really fucking smart, and the lesson that the GOP is providing along with her recognition that there is a sizable group of people in her own party who are disillusioned with the party itself is not lost on her.

 

[LCGeek]

The GOP won the mid terms because lots of people who turned out to vote Democrat in 2012 didn't turn out in 2014. We know that. Even so, more votes were cast for Democrats in 2014, but given how things break down state by state, district by district, Conservatives made major gains.

But gerrymandering only delays the inevitable, and the Republicans needed to make major changes in 2013 after losing the presidential race if they wanted to prevent the party imploding. They hit snooze on the the alarm clock, and find themselves with their primaries getting completely hijacked by a crazy outsider.

They let trump happen to be fair. Plenty of foxnews types saw him for what he was but the big guys upstairs refused to see the situation the same way.

 

[BiggNife]

lol..nevermind.

I'm...not sure why this is an unreasonable thing to say? It's much better to vote than not, even if you dislike both candidates. If you don't vote there's a bigger chance the candidate you disagree with more could get elected.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Being Devils advocate here but maybe after all those atrocities occur maybe just maybe people will vote for progressive ideals which will propel us to greatness rather than becoming an idiocracy.
Honestly though, the simple fact that trump becoming president is a possibility is ludicrous.
Maybe after this shit show the republicans can go back to the once great party they were.

If someone told me when I was a youngster that trump would run under the same banner that Abe Lincoln once did, I would be fucking stunned. Might have shit my pants in disbelief

A) Too late the GOP will control the Supreme Court for decades and oops looks like progressive legislation is suddenly unconstitutional for the next several decades.

B) Could just as likely shift everything rightward, forcing less progressive Democrat party.

And btw B is what likely would happen.

 

[Bornstellar]

This is actually an opinion of the matter. Do you think we are going to all of a sudden return to the dark ages if a Republican wins?

I see the same rhetoric elsewhere. "A Democrat CANNOT win", as if their freedoms will be in jeopardy. The whole thing is just ridiculous to me. Nothing will really happen except some money will shift elsewhere and some freedoms we enjoy (both liberal and conservative) will be eroded in the name of safety.

Welcome to the team sport that is politics in the US.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Just gonna point out that historically, accelerationism (let's make shit the worst all at once and maybe we can improve from our current position, eventually!) is a stronger argument for fascism than it is for any kind of left-wing ideals.

 

[televator]

The Far-Left hating her are as bad or worse then the Right hating her

No. It's not. People demonizing "far leftists" is just a shitty thing to do though. "People don't like the candidate that I like so they must be just as bad as the tea party." Sounds amazingly self centered and childish.

It's like the Anti-vaccine movement, both far ends loop around and end up on the same side for different reasons.

Aside from antivax tripe being an issues that crosses party lines (i.e. One doesn't need to be a far leftist or right winger to be an antivaxer jackass), what purpose does it serve to villainize "far leftists" like this? This is starting to sound like a boogeyman setup by Rush Limbaugh and is just as divisive.

If this is a sentiment that should propagate in American politics, people have no right to be angry that not enough "far leftists" voted the way you wanted them to.

 

[Prodigal Son]

And if Trump beat Hilary in the general, the status quo is destroyed in the worst way possible and any chance of another Sanders becomes a pipe dream because we're going to have a republican supreme court for decades.



9 pages later and I haven't seen a single counter to this argument.

You haven't seen a single counter to this argument because very few sane people here actually want a fucking republican president. Hating Hillary doesn't mean we love republicans.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Yeah, but those are akin to the people who said racism was over because Obama was elected. The vast majority of people who truly care about those issues of rights of minority groups, know that each "win" is really just pushing it closer. No group has truly "won" equality, nor is the fight over. Hell, I don't even think it's possible it'll ever be over. I see it more as a limit, you can approach the perfect ideal world, but you can never actually reach it. It doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for

That's fair.

 

[MC Safety]

Why do people dislike Hillary?

Start with national healthcare, and work your way to Libya.

Somewhere among the scandals, lies, and corporate worship there's bound to be something to turn you off.

 

[Abounder]

Why do people dislike Hillary?

Start with national healthcare, and work your way to Libya.

Somewhere among the scandals, lies, and corporate worship there's bound to be something to turn you off.

Not to mention the Clintons just flat out lie to the American public. If Hillary loses it'll be because of incidents like 'sniper fire', they are not trustworthy. It's why Obama's voters aren't showing up to vote

 

[excelsiorlef]

Welcome to the team sport that is politics in the US.

You have two parties, one is insane, the other isn't.

That's not team sports, that's fucking reality.

The US is still paying for Reagan

 

[Darkgran]

Has anyone answered my question on how Trump actually gets to 270?!??!???

 

[Kathian]

She works fucking hard, just look at her work in South Carolina vs Sanders' work there.

Full stop this idea that she hasn't earned her way to where she is preposterous.

Politics is not about working hard. She's been in politics (and right up there) for decades and has little legacy.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

Not to mention the Clintons just flat out lie to the American public. If Hillary loses it'll be because of incidents like 'sniper fire', they are not trustworthy. It's why Obama's voters aren't showing up to vote

I really think running with Hilary could be a big gamble. What if her history bites her in the ass and she doesn't win the GE?

 

[excelsiorlef]

No. It's not. People demonizing "far leftists" is just a shitty thing to do though. "People don't like the candidate that I like so they must be just as bad as the tea party." Sounds amazingly self centered and childish.



Aside from antivax tripe being an issues that crosses party lines (i.e. One doesn't need to be a far leftist or right winger to be an antivaxer jackass), what purpose does it serve to villainize "far leftists" like this? This is starting to sound like a boogeyman setup by Rush Limbaugh and is just as divisive.

If this is a sentiment that should propagate in American politics, people have no right to be angry that not enough "far leftists" voted the way you wanted them to.

We're talking about the far left folk who have started to just speak in right wing talk points regarding Clinton and talking about not voting or voting Trump.

If you aren't a far leftist who is expressing right wing talking points and overtly thinking of not voting or supporting Trump, you aren't who I'm talking about.

 

[Krowley]

I think it would be interesting if a large number of Bernie voters in non-swing states decided to vote green (democrat down-ticket).

With modern social media you could probably get very organized with an effort like that, and if the percentages were high enough it would send a strong message to the democratic party.

 

[excelsiorlef]

You haven't seen a single counter to this argument because very few sane people here actually want a fucking republican president. Hating Hillary doesn't mean we love republicans.

This thread is full of people talking about not voting, or voting third party, or voting Trump, etc....

 

[Prodigal Son]

I really think running with Hilary could be a big gamble. What if her history bites her in the ass and she doesn't win the GE?

She'll win. Trump is too polarizing of a figure. Hillary is hated by much of the country too, but not nearly as much as Trump. The entire liberal, youthful media will come out against Trump this November and that will all but guarantee a democratic victory. I think.

This thread is full of people talking about not voting, or voting third party, or voting Trump, etc....

And I question the rationale that voter apathy is the equivalent of showing support for either party. It isn't.

Like I've said, few here want a Republican president. The few posters who do are being quoted repeatedly and are given a ton of attention because of how unusual and ludicrous their perspective is. They aren't, at all, indicative of the general sentiment on these boards.

 

[Russ T]

This thread is full of people talking about not voting, or voting third party, or voting Trump, etc....

The first two are not people wanting a Republican.

The last one is insane, which fits the claim that few sane people would vote Trump!