If you think it's only about one seat, then you don't know full well about it.
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
If you think it's only about one seat, then you don't know full well about it.
SneakersSO
Member
But but but but but (x34) "sexism is never a factor, it's reductionist to say this" etc. etc. etc. blehhh
Huh. Okay.
Huh.
Okay.
Huh.
Okay. What issues do you care about that are immune from a conservative supreme court?
It doesn't give any insight on how she will govern. I also don't think a corporate friendly SC justice is necessarily a good thing for this country. What good are civil rights when there is no economical future for 250 million of our citizens?
Clinton is not liberal and not progressive, her legislation record is certain proof. If you think she will govern as such then prepare to be disappointed. Other then that you can expect business as usual: Wholesale decline of the middle class with LGBT rights expansion. War on drugs will continue, militarization of the police will continue and the ongoing police state we live in will tighten. Pipelines will be built and the environment will get kicked down the road for profits as she takes a 4/8 year victory lap as the first female president while things worsen or don't change.
How many of her supporters are ready to fight a ground war in Syria? Best believe that shit is coming June 2017 if she gets elected.
Just.... cut it out guys!
Prodigal Son
Member
lol definitely
If X = Y 90% of the time, you can't assume Y = X every time you encounter Y. That doesn't actually help anything and just makes your argument look weak.
The Albatross
Member
The grudges will likely melt away when the race is down to the two parties. What's unique about this Democratic primary from prior years is that other Democrats are feeling the vitriolic hatred that is typically levied only at Republicans.
The reason OP is 'scared' and others are so surprised (myself included) by the hatred for Hillary from some people in Bernie's camp is because now Hillary is being painted as a fascist imperialist, which is a mischaracterization that has thus far been reserved for Republicans.
I'm hoping that come April, when it becomes a two candidate race, some in the Hillary camp may take a step back and say, "wow, there are a lot of people on the left who are capable of spewing a lot of misdirected, hyperbolic rhetoric," and maybe it'll help temper the caustic political atmosphere that we have. But, I doubt it, and it also depends on who the GOP nominates.
Do you think leading by following polls will give us the best decisions for the country?
SneakersSO
Member
I know a black couple who went in support of Trump at a Trump rally in my local state, who told me they were openly welcomed.
I also have a friend who is now a Trump supporter after when she went caucusing in Nevada. She, a black woman, went caucusing for Ben Carson (I do not understand why, she just thinks he'd be great, smh), and during the Nevada primary, had two other black people dress up as KKK members with pro-Trump signs outside of the venue. However, when the people were stopped & questioned by the police after they had been disrupting and harassing people, and I believe my friend mentioned a local newspaper looked into them, it turned out these two 'protestors' were actually democrats who were trying to paint Trump in a racist light. My friend told me she said she decided to support Trump should he get nominated, because she can't stand how dishonest democrats will be to paint opposing candidates in a negative light.
I dunno if this story has any amount of truth to it, or its just her justifying voting republican in the GE because Carson ain't gonna make it.
Mighty Chin
Banned
I'm at a loss here.
I mean, I hope so, since that's called democracy and it's pretty much the foundation of our political system.
But haven't we been an oligarchy for a few years now? Doesn't the public oftentimes have a divide between what they value and what is proposed for them? We've very clearly seen a corporate>people social dynamic the last eight years, for sure.
Aaronology
Member
Oh, this old tired argument again. Let's see... FiveThirtyEight on Clinton's political leaning.
OnTheIssues.Org's has an exhaustive list of Clinton's stances and ranks her politics based on comments, voting records and her entire career. The result?
Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.
DailyKos on Clinton's liberalism:
And The New York Times?
The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clintons Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.
And if this hasn't already been mentioned repeatedly, her voting record is over 90% identical to Bernie Sanders. "Hillary Clinton is not liberal" is, to be blunt, ignorant bullshit.
There we go again with that false statement. Hillary had the 11th most liberal voting record in the Senate. She was and STILL IS to the left of Obama on Healthcare.
SneakersSO
Member
Sexism is totally a factor. I know people who are life-long democrats who will not vote Hillary because (I swear I am not making this up) they are religious, and according to the Bible, women shouldn't be in positions of power. THIS IS FROM A DEMOCRATIC FAMILY!
Personally, the thing that scares me, that I have stated from the very beginning, was that I feel Hillary & her siding with corporate interests against public interests, whenever the two sides butt heads (which is ever-more frequent), can do as much damage as a republican controlled supreme court. If I had even the slightest inkling that she would look out for the people who make up this country when they need to defend themselves against increasingly powerful corporate interests, then she might have begrudgingly got my vote. But she won't. I know she won't. The amount of corporate backing, and the amount of bias corporate media, has given Hillary (outside of FOX of course) just confirms just how badly they want her in as a candidate, which scares the shit out of me.
Catchpenny
Member
The one thing that drives me nuts about millennials is this constant quest for authenticity. That you're a fraud if you don't wear your opinions on your sleeve all the time, or if you come across as too rehearsed, or, god forbid, you compromise on an issue in order to get some of your goals accomplished.
Politics: you almost never get what you want when you want it. Progress comes in steps, and you have to be careful in consolidating the gains you make. Obama may not be what you wanted him to be, and neither will Hillary. But Trump (or any other Republican president) with a Congress controlled by Tea Party Republicans? They won't just undo Obama's accomplishments, they'll undo a lot of progressive accomplishments from the past century.
So yeah, some of us Hillary supporters ain't got time for that shit. I like Bernie Sanders a lot. He's a great voice in the Senate and I share many of his values. But putting him forth as our party's best candidate for President is no different from putting up Ted Cruz. It's a sign of inflexible ideology of an extreme bent that does not represent what most of this country believes in. He would probably lose, and if he won he'd get about 2% of his proposals made into law.
Hillary is far from perfect; I think she's too cozy with moneyed interests, and too cautious at times. I don't think she's a particularly good campaigner. I know a Hillary presidency would upset and disappoint me at times. But she is whip smart, respected even amongst Republicans though they'll never go on record admitting it, and she gets shit done. She would make a good president and she's an electable one.
You can't just show up once every four years and expect to shift the Overton window; that work is done far away from elections. Support Bernie and his goals, after this election and in your local community. That way, the next Bernie Sanders won't seem so radical, and we can point to examples in our own country where things like free college and single payer have worked, rather than trying to tell people we need to be more like Sweden.
Politics: you almost never get what you want when you want it. Progress comes in steps, and you have to be careful in consolidating the gains you make. Obama may not be what you wanted him to be, and neither will Hillary. But Trump (or any other Republican president) with a Congress controlled by Tea Party Republicans? They won't just undo Obama's accomplishments, they'll undo a lot of progressive accomplishments from the past century.
So yeah, some of us Hillary supporters ain't got time for that shit. I like Bernie Sanders a lot. He's a great voice in the Senate and I share many of his values. But putting him forth as our party's best candidate for President is no different from putting up Ted Cruz. It's a sign of inflexible ideology of an extreme bent that does not represent what most of this country believes in. He would probably lose, and if he won he'd get about 2% of his proposals made into law.
Hillary is far from perfect; I think she's too cozy with moneyed interests, and too cautious at times. I don't think she's a particularly good campaigner. I know a Hillary presidency would upset and disappoint me at times. But she is whip smart, respected even amongst Republicans though they'll never go on record admitting it, and she gets shit done. She would make a good president and she's an electable one.
You can't just show up once every four years and expect to shift the Overton window; that work is done far away from elections. Support Bernie and his goals, after this election and in your local community. That way, the next Bernie Sanders won't seem so radical, and we can point to examples in our own country where things like free college and single payer have worked, rather than trying to tell people we need to be more like Sweden.
Is that good? I mean, what we already have kinda sucks ass, and I have not heard a single word from her on how she'd improve the current state of mediocrity for anything even whispering the words "humanistic approach to healthcare."
An improvement to the ACA, by principle, does not fix the underlying problems this country has with how bad it's ruined healthcare. So to see it as a praised standard is a little funny.
Does Hillary want singlepayer? I believe Obama does, and if she's to the left of him, she's been awfully silent on this goal..
Of course corporations want as much influence in the government as possible. That's how it's always been. This Bernie/Trump viability occurrence is NEW, but that doesn't mean it will never happen again. I'm itching to change it too, but not if it means a Trump presidency. Like I said, I doubt his policies would benefit or advance women in this country at all. I guess our priorities are different. Maybe once Trump becomes the nominee and the reality sets in, you'll have a different perspective.
TheOctodad
Member
I don't really like Hilary that much. But I would rather her be in office and electing a new Judge and cabinet than Trump/Cruz/Rubio.
I don't have to love a person to vote for them, though it's nice when it works out that way.
I don't have to love a person to vote for them, though it's nice when it works out that way.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
If Trump does win because of people like HyperOne or whatever who don't give a fuck about anything but themselves and political theater, I hope that his protectionist economic policy wipes out all the gains of people like that so maybe at least their self-interest will be activated the next time they vote.
Catchpenny
Member
To even get the ACA passed took 60 Democrats in the Senate and some damn good work from Nancy Pelosi in the House. Tell me how Bernie is going to get that done with a Republican congress, and a nation whose citizens probably don't want to reinvent health care for the second time in a decade.
I also don't understand why you think Obama wants single player; he was the one who took it off the table pretty early in the process. The ACA is what he wanted passed, for the most part.
SneakersSO
Member
My perspective the last two weeks, has been of the fact that it will be a Hillary vs. Trump ticket this November, and that I will not vote for Clinton. I don't want more corporate influence on my government at. all. None. I can't stand it. Thats my hard line. I won't vote Trump, but I certainly won't vote Hillary.
I am not going to tell anyone else how they should vote, especially after Bernie gets knocked out of the race. We all have our reasons & justifcations & things we are more passionate about than others. None of this is an ideal political slate of candidates. We got screwed this election cycle. The only person I was remotely happy about is likely not going to be in the race come next weekend. If you look in my post history, i've made peace with that fact for the last few weeks. Just vote for someone you can get behind. Thats what i'll be doing. If I could get behind Hillary, she'd have my vote. I just can't though.
The One and Done
Member
Meh. Feels par for the course with these things.
Oh 100%. If nothing else in this thread comes to fruition, this will.
Fox will not concede a Trump victory come hell or high water.
I thought Kyosaiga covered this really well earlier: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197008150&postcount=5103
UnemployedVillain
Member
He took out single payer because it was clear the ACA would never go through with it included, not because he never wanted it. It barely passed with the Democrat majority
jordan0386
Member
Cuts public housing budget
Increased prison budget
What's not to hate?
Increased prison budget
What's not to hate?
I never said Bernie will accomplish anything, so I don't see what the comparison to him is trying to showcase. His arguments rely on social infrastructure to create a movement, and it's not there. He can literally have the scientific, technological, and economic powerhouses the world over on his side, but unless there is some change in the political body, they can always hang to ghosts, as they always do. We have already seen this happen to Obama with yeehaws and their guns.
I believe Obama also stated what the endgame should be on Marc Maron's podcast a year or two ago, where he admitted this is all a work-in-progress. Where does a Democrat talk about the ACA in that manner? They talk about it, disgustingly enough, as a "gold standard." This is what I meant when I said shit in wrappings earlier, for the core problems of health "care" in America have not been addressed by the ACA.
Does the ACA end the have/have not dichotomy that infers taking care of people as a social imposition? Is it offered to all unconditionally or coerced with demands of assimilation to certain ideas on how one becomes a "haver" of it?
Does the ACA end the for-profit exploitation of its people with chargemasters and various systems that could be considered institutionalized cartels?
Both of my questions have the same answer, and it's not yes. Two core problems in America have been left untouched, and what we have, for that simple fact, is awful. More people in a "you must have X" social game is not a good thing if the social game in question is one based on bullshit, abuse, and playing people like products. And if you dare equate anything that we have to humanism, you deserve and should be laughed out of whatever room you're in even thinking such thoughts.
If what we have is a gold standard, we must also admit the chocolate in its wrapping is not actually chocolate, like the rest of the developed world actually has compared to us.
Prodigal Son
Member
ur just a gamers gate supporter
Big Baybee
Member
Her record doesn't matter. It'll just be hand waved like it always is.
If the only alternative to a band-aid is bleeding money for the next 20 years of your life, then I'd probably take the band-aid.
I suppose there will always be a stigma attached to attending state schools or community college, but is avoiding that stigma really worth spending tens of thousands extra in tuition?
No matter what kind of "free college" solution Sanders might be able to put in place, there are always going to be top-level private institutions that don't sign up for public funding. So whatever stigma people associate with public schools won't disappear anyway.
SneakersSO
Member
Wait, who did this?
The Albatross
Member
I'd like to add to this...
In 2009 when Obama was elected, he joined the white house with 58 Democrats in senate and 2 independents caucusing with the Democrats, compared to 40 Republicans. He also joined with a 257-178 Democratic majority in the House. In every election since 2009, Republicans gained seats and Democrats lost them, starting with the particularly historic 2010 election where Republicans took back the house and established the largest Republican majority since 1946 during the politically disastrous first term of Harry Truman. Democrats went from having a super majority to losing both the house and senate and only recouped a handful of seats in the 2012 presidential election year.
The unfortunately inability for Bernie to work with a Republican congress is one thing, but House Democrats cannot politically afford to lose any more seats. Republicans have only had a larger majority since before the Great Depression.
Clinton is not going to sweep in some Democratic majority in the House, but it's less likely that as president the Democrats would bleed seats like they did with Obama as president or with a very liberal senator from, arguably, the most liberal city in the United States.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
An amazing, thorough, and well-researched post that will be totally ignored by those who would rather spew stump speech bullshit than learn a fact or two.
Honestly baffled at how you think pulling that statistic in is supposed to convince me I'm wrong.
1) The statistic is only based on two years of shared Senate voting.
2) Sanders has been consistent throughout many years of his involvement in politics. Hillary's only consistency is that she votes for something shitty and then later acts like she never did.
3) No but seriously, two years.
4) They disagreed on a few very big issues. Continuing the war and bank bailouts. Hillary loves war and loves banks. She'll tell us now, of course, that she doesn't. (They also disagreed on immigration reform, which Sanders opposed for a very specific reason and not because he wanted to block immigrants. I'm not sure how I feel about this one.)
5) Two years? C'mon.
"Insane." Try again when you've got more than a random statistic that you don't even understand, thanks.
The college problem is also funny, because it fails to address the fact education is only prone to becoming a net-negative in the future.
We talk about fixing a broken system so people can get to college and get jobs easier, failing to realize that last bit - jobs - is being a game of diminishing returns as we move further into this century.
To the Democrats' defense, Obama, Clinton, and Sanders have talked about it, but each of them has only said one sentence on the matter, and none of it was substantial. This is troubling, because all three people have had people directly connected to them who have said far more and far more concretely (Obama had an economic report outright talking about automation, Clinton had Alec Ross, and Sanders had Robert Reich). No Republican has an answer other than "Jobs n Growth" as sickening as that answer really amounts to.
Maybe that conversation can't be had yet, as the answer is literally S O C I A L I S M and probably an atomic bomb in this climate. But, that button will have to be pressed, and before we're senior citizens.
you sure do love beating that automation drum every thread.
It's a real thing, and next to climate change, something I obviously care about. Is it somehow wrong I choose to acknowledge something real as we have our eyes kind of off the ball?
Would you like to address the post I brought up prior to dat mechanization?
I'm not familiar with this drum, as I dont' follow every political thread on these forums, but... it's true.
Automation is going to be a huge problem in the near future. If not the next ten years, then the next twenty. For example, we're already seeing signs of it with self-driving cars. What happens when semi-trucks become self-driving and all those truckers lose their jobs? Where will they go? To the factories that will be more and more automated? To the fast good places that will, undoubtedly, eventually be automated?
There are solutions to the problems that will rise, but I worry we won't address them until it's too late for millions and millions of people.
I promise to keep the automation thing to an end in this thread unless directly prodded, but I have to ask one thing.
...When? What do you mean 'when'? Do you mean as of last year?
Wafflecakes
Member
Don't really buy that there is anything that CAN be done other than encourage education so that people can enter service industries or engineering.
manfestival
Member
arent hillary and trump pretty close in their overall views? I mean that should be more than enough to explain the hatred. It just trump has got race against him
Wafflecakes
Member
I promise to keep the automation thing to an end in this thread unless directly prodded, but I have to ask one thing.
...When? What do you mean 'when'? Do you mean as of last year?
I meant on a mass-scale, but yeah, I get your point. The time is now!
The first step is basic income. But that's anathema, at least in the US. Nobody would dream of bringing that up. Not even Bernie "SOCIALISM" Sanders.
Not even close, man.
aronnov reborn
Banned
Would love nothing more then Bernie supporters writing his name in.
- Status