Support NeoGAF

[Omegasquash]

I read it. What do you think I'm missing?

The part where I said she's not anywhere near perfect. I could get into it more and say that in a House and Senate that were stacked with more progressive leadership, I'd vote for a Bernie or even a Warren.

Right now, I think Hillary is the best shot we've got. And I admire her for persevering in a climate that's been really harsh on her. Anyone else voting for progressive candidates is welcome to do so, and judgment free from me in most cases.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Good for you. The rest of us will have to cope with not telling people to commit suicide because we disagree politically.

That sucks, just remember logic and facts aren't going to work. Might as well try an appeal to emotion.

Or maybe, we don't like her. This not a contest..this is about our democracy and where we want this country to go...and i think a lot of people really don't understand that when they make comments like this.

If you are a Hillary 'fan', fine, but i don't really think there's any way to really make an argument for her from a liberal perspective, nor do i expect any defense of her record of which there is no excuse.

She's gotten so many things wrong the first time and had to 'evolve' on those issues long after they were in style to support, or after the damage had been done. Is that who Hillary supporters want running this country?

If Hillary becomes the President, and shit hits the fan, i don't want to hear anyone getting cold feet or buyers remorse, cause a lot of us will say that we warned you.

America is still around after both Reagan and Bush so your doomsday scenario is just fearmongering nonsense. If shit hit the fan with Bernie as President we'd be in the same place with shit everywhere.

It just amazes me that one of the main arguments against Hilary (and Obama) is that they promised a lot of things that didn't pass, then people turn around say vote Bernie if you want real change...because everything the Bern is promising is tooootes going to pass. Like you can clearly tell this is so many people's first time voting or even being part of the political process.

As for a being a Hilary fan, I'm not. I'm not a fan of any of these candidates and that includes the great white hope Bernie Sanders. They're all making empty promises that's how politics in general work. Bernie is no exception so if you're going to attack a candidate for making empty promises, make sure your golden goose isn't promising a Utopia.

The idea that so many people think this country would be just as bad under Hilary as it would under Trump is some white privilege nonsense of the highest order and shows a severe lack of understanding and at worse is a sign of genuine stupidity fueled by emotional outrage that not everyone is "feeling the Bern". For people who feel that Hilary is just as bad as Trump, I'd advise you to stick with your day job because politics is clearly above you in every discernible way.

I'll reluctantly vote for Hilary not because I like her but because I'm pragmatic and a realist. Hilarious doomsday scenarios won't change that.

 

[Melkezadek]

Why are people shifting the topic to reasons to dislike Hilary? Disliking Hilary is absolutely valid.

The question is really "Would the United States and its citizens be worse off with a Trump presidency?"

I'm sorry, nothing on Hilary's record is going to convince me that Americans as a whole will be worse off than with Trump. Trump. Who will attack and terrorize the citizens of this country through policy and hate speech. Trump, who'd have a hand in picking new Justices that could overturn the rights of millions of Americans.

At this point there is no sense in arguing because all these points have been repeated. At the end of the day people just don't give a fuck about the welfare of the people who will be directly impacted by this election. You can't logic apathy away. That's just them as people.

 

[Drek]

Obama also presided over the greatest expansion of wealth inequality since the Great Depression era. He's also instrumental in the TPP. Obama is a pretty blatant corporatist and his accomplishments elsewhere don't give him a free pass on this.

So why exactly is being a "corporatist" (and I put it in quotes because clearly you define everyone who isn't of a "soak the corps" mindset as a corporatist) a bad thing?

Last I checked the United States still primarily functions via a capitalist economy. Corporations tend to play a key role in how that entire model works. I mean, you're posting on a website funded by corporate advertising via a web browser made by a corporation, running on hardware designed and manufactured by at least one corporation, using an internet connection provided by another corporation.

Welcome to the reality of the first world, corporations are powerful multi-national entities that have significant pull within the political process.

The problem, as it pertains to the American form of government at least which was inherently designed to work with a capitalist economic model, is the role corporations are given to play within the political system.

A bad corporate actor would be the Koch Industries' efforts to built the trans-pacific pipeline. They're funding politicians to ignore the ecological/environmental due diligence and vote against their constituency to support a single item benefiting primarily a single corporation.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum (for this one issue) you have Apple putting forward all their legal muscle to challenge an FBI request to break private data encryption as a slippery slope.

The later needs to end. The former is the idealized outcome of this model. If Apple wins it will be the single biggest curtailing of federal investigative authority we've seen in decades. All thanks to a corporation pushing back.

The average person can't push back against something as large as the federal government on any issue, at least not substantively. And not every issue can be solved simply through grass roots political movements, at least not as long as most of the electorate only tunes in once every four years. Corporations, with the right set of rules, are a benefit to the nation not a hindrance. Unfortunately Sanders' suggestion amounts to scapegoating them for economic inequality instead of the real root of the problem, wealth inheritance and the power that buys individuals (not corporations) already at the top.

The United States isn't just waiting for the right person to come along and lead it into the socialist promised land. That is not what the vast majority of Americans have any interest in. That is Sanders' ultimate problem. He's really popular with a segment of the extreme left base, just like Trump is really popular with a segment of the extreme right. A President needs to serve both sides, even when something they're ideologically opposed comes along with sound logic and clear merits, no matter how distasteful it might seem to be.

One of Obama's more iconic lines from his first POTUS run was stating an unwillingness to sacrifice the good in search of the great. That is an absolutely critical viewpoint required of the POTUS and across the entire primary season field Hillary Clinton is the only person who offers that.

 

[Barzul]

Why are people shifting the topic to reasons to dislike Hilary? Disliking Hilary is absolutely valid.

The question is really "Would the United States and its citizens be worse off with a Trump presidency?"

I'm sorry, nothing on Hilary's record is going to convince me that Americans as a whole will be worse off than with Trump. Trump. Who will attack and terrorize the citizens of this country through policy and hate speech. Trump, who'd have a hand in picking new Justices that could overturn the rights of millions of Americans.

At this point there is no sense in arguing because all these points have been repeated. At the end of the day people just don't give a fuck about the welfare of the people who will be directly impacted by this election. You can't logic apathy away. That's just them as people.

That's the hardcore Bernie supporter right there who will vote for no one else. I can't understand how someone can claim to be liberal yet would rather see a Trump presidency over a Hilary one.

 

[nynt9]

So why exactly is being a "corporatist" (and I put it in quotes because clearly you define everyone who isn't of a "soak the corps" mindset as a corporatist) a bad thing?

Last I checked the United States still primarily functions via a capitalist economy. Corporations tend to play a key role in how that entire model works. I mean, you're posting on a website funded by corporate advertising via a web browser made by a corporation, running on hardware designed and manufactured by at least one corporation, using an internet connection provided by another corporation.

Welcome to the reality of the first world, corporations are powerful multi-national entities that have significant pull within the political process.

The problem, as it pertains to the American form of government at least which was inherently designed to work with a capitalist economic model, is the role corporations are given to play within the political system.

A bad corporate actor would be the Koch Industries' efforts to built the trans-pacific pipeline. They're funding politicians to ignore the ecological/environmental due diligence and vote against their constituency to support a single item benefiting primarily a single corporation.

But on the opposite end of the spectrum (for this one issue) you have Apple putting forward all their legal muscle to challenge an FBI request to break private data encryption as a slippery slope.

The later needs to end. The former is the idealized outcome of this model. If Apple wins it will be the single biggest curtailing of federal investigative authority we've seen in decades. All thanks to a corporation pushing back.

The average person can't push back against something as large as the federal government on any issue, at least not substantively. And not every issue can be solved simply through grass roots political movements, at least not as long as most of the electorate only tunes in once every four years. Corporations, with the right set of rules, are a benefit to the nation not a hindrance. Unfortunately Sanders' suggestion amounts to scapegoating them for economic inequality instead of the real root of the problem, wealth inheritance and the power that buys individuals (not corporations) already at the top.

The United States isn't just waiting for the right person to come along and lead it into the socialist promised land. That is not what the vast majority of Americans have any interest in. That is Sanders' ultimate problem. He's really popular with a segment of the extreme left base, just like Trump is really popular with a segment of the extreme right. A President needs to serve both sides, even when something they're ideologically opposed comes along with sound logic and clear merits, no matter how distasteful it might seem to be.

One of Obama's more iconic lines from his first POTUS run was stating an unwillingness to sacrifice the good in search of the great. That is an absolutely critical viewpoint required of the POTUS and across the entire primary season field Hillary Clinton is the only person who offers that.

Just because corporations play a huge role in our lives doesn't mean we should give them free reign to influence and even control politics. This is almost like talking to a Republican. There are many first world countries in the world that do not have as strong a corporate influence in their politics, and they seem to be getting along fine. There are many arguments to restrict the power corporations have over governance, and being against that isn't an extremist view. Sanders isn't even that big of a socialist. America is just so far to the right and so deep into capitalism that he appears so compared to everyone else.

 

[Russ T]

Why are people shifting the topic to reasons to dislike Hilary? Disliking Hilary is absolutely valid.

Because the thread is 26 pages, the topic is literally "The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me", and there are some people in this very thread trying to say that disliking Hillary is not a valid stance. Not many, granted, but some.

Furthermore, telling someone to vote for Hillary even if you don't like her is pretty anti-democratic. I, personally, agree that it's not the best decision to make, but democracy is supposed to be all about the voice of the people. If you make the choice to use your voice to denounce Hillary, then so be it.

I hope she wins over Trump, but she is the less of two evils, not a good.

Just because corporations play a huge role in our lives doesn't mean we should give them free reign to influence and even control politics. This is almost like talking to a Republican. There are many first world countries in the world that do not have as strong a corporate influence in their politics, and they seem to be getting along fine. There are many arguments to restrict the power corporations have over governance, and being against that isn't an extremist view. Sanders isn't even that big of a socialist. America is just so far to the right and so deep into capitalism that he appears so compared to everyone else.

Yep yep yep. Everything in this post is good and correct.

Nobody is saying capitalism is inherently bad, but it needs checks in place so it doesn't get out of control, like it is now. There are plenty of examples of this working in the first world, but people believe it's impossible for the US to make these changes because we're too big.

And, no arguments here, it's going to be hard. Very hard. It's going to be a LOT of work. but why does that mean we should roll over and give up? As long as the corporations have control, the small worker's life will be worse than it could - than it should - be.

 

[lastflowers]

Most are just being emotional, I hope. Hilary's fine, despite my doubts of her exact alignments and decision making at times. She's definitely shown more knowledgable policy understanding, and hopefully Bernie can actually move her policy towards taking a better look at income inequality.

 

[Melkezadek]

I hope she wins over Trump, but she is the less of two evils, not a good.

There seems to be a difference of opinion in the gap of evil here.

If Hilary is Frieza then Trump is Majin Buu. "Less of two evils" is a serious understatement given all the points raised in the thread.

And yea, it's pretty anti-democratic to force someone to vote. But I have the right to call them out and say it's a shitty, selfish thing to do. And it's been explained thoroughly as to why that is.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Hillary is basically the same politically as Obama/Biden. In regards to how they have acted as politicians and how they've financed their campaigns and presidential runs. All three deserve real criticism, for sure.

And yet, one of them is made out to be spectacularly worse somehow than the other two amongst the Liberal base. Most of the reasons people use as to why tend to be unfounded or hypocritical considering the records of her counterparts that everyone loves.. So it isn't crazy as to why people think that many have some sort of angle going on with their narrative they force on her. And if you think she deflects every criticism with "You don't like me because you are sexist" you are making shit up. I don't recall her backing into that defense over and over when being interrogated by a politicized fraud trial for thirteen hours straight at the benghazi hearings.

It makes zero sense how she is the only democrat who gets insane heat for flipping on issues like gay marriage. When Obama, Biden, Sanders, basically every democrat in office get a pass for it. Obama is the "First gay President! The President who made gay marriage happen!" Who tries to discredit him for what he's done by bringing up quotes he made from 2002 all the time? Biden voted for the Iraq war. And yet, I guarantee.. I 100% absolutely guarantee the SAME PEOPLE saying "Hillary is just as bad as Trump. She'll be like BUSH. Trump is more liberal than Hillary. He was against the Iraq war" Would never. Not in a million years say that about Joe Biden. She voted the same way as the socialist savior of America 93% of the time and some of those times they voted differently she was voting to the left of him on gun issues and yet is a fake democrat, republican in sheep's clothing.

Its great that people like Elizabeth Warren. I like her a lot. But she isn't running. And if she did and had any intention of actually winning she wouldn't be able to be the same person. She would be forced to present herself much different, or lose; like Bernie currently is.

 

[LegendofLex]

Hillary is basically the same politically as Obama/Biden. In regards to how they have acted as politicians and how they've financed their campaigns and presidential runs. All three deserve real criticism, for sure.

And yet, one of them is made out to be spectacularly worse somehow than the other two amongst the Liberal base.

Only one of them is actually up for election this cycle.

I have most of the same problems with Obama that I do with Hillary. 2008 Obama was still better than 2008 Hillary, and neither 2008 nor 2012 Obama were going up against 2016 Bernie.

I think the real problem is that her career comes with greater name recognition than either of theirs did (compounded by her husband's career which she visibly promoted) before they became POTUS and VP, and with that comes greater potential for scrutiny.

Furthermore, telling someone to vote for Hillary even if you don't like her is pretty anti-democratic.

I think "if Hillary gets the nomination, you should vote for Hillary if you don't like [-insert Republican nominee's name here-]" is a pretty valid reason.

 

[TyrantII]

I think much of the dislike of Hillary is sexism, pure and simple.

I think it's really simpler, it's 40 years of being in the public eye. First along side Bill, and then her own career. That's a lot of negative messaging from Republicans, and a lot of public scrutiny.

Dem or GOP, people dont seem to like life long politicians in America when asked about it. They internalize the attacks, right or wrong. Then there's just the fact that the longer in politics, the less people can you please 100% of the time. You eventually will have to balance different constituents interests. At which point no one is 100% happy. But that's politics.

 

[Dangansona]

Most people who criticize her on this forum would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

Exactly. I am sick of people claiming if we don't like Hillary it is because of sexism. But then again I am generally shocked by the amount of support Hillary has on this site and the condescending nature of some of those supporters.

I don't like Hillary because she is a by-the-books politician who takes money from corporations (which is my most important issue by a mile in this election. It has to stop), flip flops and pretends to care about the issues that are popular in the moment, and with her connections and support from the DNC is doing her best to make this election as one sided as possible. And the majority of the media is right there with her.

Do I hate her supporters? Of course not. But I feel like they are being deceived into thinking that she is "fighting for us."

Edit: And of course Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in our Congress. I would hope most of us get that. But I'd rather vote for him and show that some Americans want the issues he is pushing for rather than giving my vote to #NoWeCan't. And if we can make any progress to taking money out of politics, that would make his term a victory in itself.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately asking "why is being a corporatist a bad thing"? Is that really what we're doing?

Most people who criticize her on this forum would vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat.

I certainly would. Warren should have run this time just to get that horrible false narrative of Hillary defenders out of the atmosphere.

I don't want a person who would lie at a moments notice to boost herself to represent me.

Its no surprise that she lied about supporting Colombian free trade, but then fully backed it as Sec of State

http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ree-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068

I expect TPP to fully be continued under her, i held no allusion to her transparent walkback of TPP

 

[Skellig Gra]

I think "if Hillary gets the nomination, you should vote for Hillary if you don't like [-insert Republican nominee's name here-]" is a pretty valid reason.

I disagree, you aren't required to pick 1 of 2 candidates. I don't subscribe to voting of the lesser of 2 evils line of thinking. I've voted none of the above before. In the end your 1 vote really doesn't matter.

 

[Russ T]

There seems to be a difference of opinion in the gap of evil here.

If Hilary is Frieza then Drumpf is Majin Buu. "Less of two evils" is a serious understatement given all the points raised in the thread.

And yea, it's pretty anti-democratic to force someone to vote. But I have the right to call them out and say it's a shitty, selfish thing to do. And it's been explained thoroughly as to why that is.

What's with all the Dragon Ball references in this thread hahaha.

You quoted my typo and it made me sad. ;_;

I agree it's kind of a selfish thing to do, but isn't democracy inherently selfish? You're supposed to put in a vote for who you believe in. If you don't believe in Hillary...

Anyway to clarify, when I say lesser of two evils I mean basically this: Hillary is a net negative, as far as I'm concerned.

...Trump is that times a thousand. Or worse. There is nothing redeeming about Trump. Hillary will at least maintain the status quo, while making things slightly worse in the grand scheme of things. MAYBE slightly better, but I have very little hope of that. Trump, if he actually tried to go through with everything he's talking about, would destroy much of the slow, agonizing progress this country has experienced and throw us back decades...

 

[Aaronology]

Hillary is basically the same politically as Obama/Biden. In regards to how they have acted as politicians and how they've financed their campaigns and presidential runs. All three deserve real criticism, for sure.

And yet, one of them is made out to be spectacularly worse somehow than the other two amongst the Liberal base. Most of the reasons people use as to why tend to be unfounded or hypocritical considering the records of her counterparts that everyone loves.. So it isn't crazy as to why people think that many have some sort of angle going on with their narrative they force on her. And if you think she deflects every criticism with "You don't like me because you are sexist" you are making shit up. I don't recall her backing into that defense over and over when being interrogated by a politicized fraud trial for thirteen hours straight at the benghazi hearings.

It makes zero sense how she is the only democrat who gets insane heat for flipping on issues like gay marriage. When Obama, Biden, Sanders, basically every democrat in office get a pass for it. Obama is the "First gay President! The President who made gay marriage happen!" Who tries to discredit him for what he's done by bringing up quotes he made from 2002 all the time? Biden voted for the Iraq war. And yet, I guarantee.. I 100% absolutely guarantee the SAME PEOPLE saying "Hillary is just as bad as Trump. She'll be like BUSH. Trump is more liberal than Hillary. He was against the Iraq war" Would never. Not in a million years say that about Joe Biden. She voted the same way as the socialist savior of America 93% of the time and some of those times they voted differently she was voting to the left of him on gun issues and yet is a fake democrat, republican in sheep's clothing.

Its great that people like Elizabeth Warren. I like her a lot. But she isn't running. And if she did and had any intention of actually winning she wouldn't be able to be the same person. She would be forced to present herself much different, or lose; like Bernie currently is.

Preach.

 

[Melkezadek]

I don't subscribe to voting of the lesser of 2 evils line of thinking

Even if one of the candidates is actively trying to take the rights away from millions of Americans? Even if one of the candidates are specifically targeted you and your family because of what religion you hold or where you were born?

Politics. Trumps. Morality

 

[_woLf]

As I've said before in these kinds of threads, it absolutely terrifies me how negative most Bernie supporters are regarding who they will vote for if Bernie loses the nomination. I've seen everything from voting for Trump, to not voting, to writing in Bernie, etc...

I haven't met a single person who supports Hillary that has said they will not vote for Bernie if he beats Hillary for the nomination.

This is scary. And it's a very, very bad sign of what could happen in November. I really hope people remember to vote for the greater good no matter what, even if your chosen candidate doesn't win the nomination. It could legitimately have dire consequences if you don't and Trump manages to win.

 

[hawk2025]

I certainly hope Clinton keeps supporting free trade in the future and throughout her presidency. Every time she panders against it is a disappointment.

Excellent, data-driven position to have and essential to keep our economy dynamic, productive, and heading directly towards the future of labor allocation in the country.

The focus should be on discussing the short-term policies we should have aimed towards helping people currently working in unproductive industries impacted by free trade, not on the concept of free trade altogether. We need to do a lot for them.

Protectionism should be dead and buried for a country the size and importance of the United States, lest we be left with another HFCS-laden mess in our hands.

 

[Russ T]

As I've said before in these kinds of threads, it absolutely terrifies me how negative most Bernie supporters are regarding who they will vote for if Bernie loses the nomination.

You got some hard numbers to back up this claim of "most"?

 

[Armaros]

Hillary is basically the same politically as Obama/Biden. In regards to how they have acted as politicians and how they've financed their campaigns and presidential runs. All three deserve real criticism, for sure.

And yet, one of them is made out to be spectacularly worse somehow than the other two amongst the Liberal base. Most of the reasons people use as to why tend to be unfounded or hypocritical considering the records of her counterparts that everyone loves.. So it isn't crazy as to why people think that many have some sort of angle going on with their narrative they force on her. And if you think she deflects every criticism with "You don't like me because you are sexist" you are making shit up. I don't recall her backing into that defense over and over when being interrogated by a politicized fraud trial for thirteen hours straight at the benghazi hearings.

It makes zero sense how she is the only democrat who gets insane heat for flipping on issues like gay marriage. When Obama, Biden, Sanders, basically every democrat in office get a pass for it. Obama is the "First gay President! The President who made gay marriage happen!" Who tries to discredit him for what he's done by bringing up quotes he made from 2002 all the time? Biden voted for the Iraq war. And yet, I guarantee.. I 100% absolutely guarantee the SAME PEOPLE saying "Hillary is just as bad as Trump. She'll be like BUSH. Trump is more liberal than Hillary. He was against the Iraq war" Would never. Not in a million years say that about Joe Biden. She voted the same way as the socialist savior of America 93% of the time and some of those times they voted differently she was voting to the left of him on gun issues and yet is a fake democrat, republican in sheep's clothing.

Its great that people like Elizabeth Warren. I like her a lot. But she isn't running. And if she did and had any intention of actually winning she wouldn't be able to be the same person. She would be forced to present herself much different, or lose; like Bernie currently is.

All that needs to be said really.

Not one person has explained this double standard. Since the primary has began.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately asking "why is being a corporatist a bad thing"? Is that really what we're doing?

Yes, we have. The reality is that the Democrats were infiltrated and purchased by the same corporations that control the Republicans long ago. It makes sense because there's only two parties, so you can easily get what you want by funding both and playing them against each other under the pretense that one is better than the other. Of course the reality is that for example the biggest recipient of pharmaceutical industry donations this election cycle isn't Ted Cruz or Marco Roboto. We all know Trump isn't taking any drug company money.

The actual biggest recipient of drug company money is Hillary Clinton.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field

So can anybody look at someone who knows this with a straight face and claim that Hillary is going to take on the drug companies and do something about the lack of price controls which results in $130 ear drops in this country? Anybody? Come on Hillary supporters, let's see you try.

 

[lastflowers]

Yes, we have.

the fight has been lost years ago, we just found out lately.

 

[Russ T]

All that needs to be said really.

Not one person has explained this double standard. Since the primary has began.

It's simple.

Bernie has been consistent on most issues. He has a few issues I disagree with his history on, but he doesn't lie.

Hillary has been inconsistent on most issues. When question on any one specific issue, her response is, as often as not, to straight up lie and pretend she never said what she said, or that she always supported X despite voting Y, etc.

In other words, it's not a double standard. Unless "double" is referring to her two different faces?

 

[border]

So can anybody look at someone who knows this with a straight face and claim that Hillary is going to take on the drug companies and do something about the lack of price controls which results in $130 ear drops in this country? Anybody? Come on Hillary supporters, let's see you try.

"They represent mostly individual donors affiliated with the pharmaceutical industry, as well as some political action committee money."

"The Sanders campaign said it has no problem with individual donors who work in the industry."

 

[excelsiorlef]

I disagree, you aren't required to pick 1 of 2 candidates. I don't subscribe to voting of the lesser of 2 evils line of thinking. I've voted none of the above before. In the end your 1 vote really doesn't matter.

And if everyone does that. Boom collectively you've given the GOP the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court.

 

[Drek]

Just because corporations play a huge role in our lives doesn't mean we should give them free reign to influence and even control politics. This is almost like talking to a Republican. There are many first world countries in the world that do not have as strong a corporate influence in their politics, and they seem to be getting along fine. There are many arguments to restrict the power corporations have over governance, and being against that isn't an extremist view. Sanders isn't even that big of a socialist. America is just so far to the right and so deep into capitalism that he appears so compared to everyone else.

1. you said nothing in response to any of the points I was making. I'm guessing this is what people mean when they refer to something as "Bernsplaining".

2. What first world country houses over 300 million people and is actually an assemblage of 50 entities with their own unique framework and laws? The EU is a far sight from what the United States is as a union and it's looking on the verge of failure less than 30 years after the experiment was first attempted.

3. If you had READ THE GODDAMN POST YOU QUOTED you'd have seen this statement within it:
The problem, as it pertains to the American form of government at least which was inherently designed to work with a capitalist economic model, is the role corporations are given to play within the political system.
Corporations deserve a seat at the table, just like unions deserve a seat at the table or any political action group deserves a seat at the table. Organized entities are what make progress happen. The problem is how we as a nation have managed the transition from privately held corporations as a surrogate for a single individual to publicly held corporations that represent an incredibly broad net of shareholders. Citizen's United is a clear example of how the Constitution was written with understanding of the former but no ability to fathom just what would develop alongside the later. We need to fix that, not just demonize corporations.

4. Sanders is judged on where he stands on the American political spectrum. He's not very far left by the standards of some nations, but then by that same standard there are people far more to the right politically than Ted Cruz in this world as well. All politicians are measured on their deviation from their nation's mid-point at the time of the comparison. So it's nice that in some place he might be considered a "moderate" candidate that place sure as hell isn't the United States. Here he's a far left ideologue because he promises shit he could never pass and, more importantly, if he could it would be directly against a large majority of Americans (which is why he won't win the nom, let alone the election, let alone then passing any of his proposals). He's a shitty candidate who happens to embrace his socialist leanings openly, making him a shittier one.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I certainly hope Clinton keeps supporting free trade in the future and throughout her presidency. Every time she panders against it is a disappointment.

Except, your supporting 'trade deals' that essentially do nothing but allow Corporate entities to have an easier time gaming the system globally instead of worldwide, with nothing on the US's end to show for it besides giving more freedom to corporate entities that continue to lobby for more power over that system.

Like seriously, are some of you guys even liberals? You might as well just be libertarians at this point.

As I've said before in these kinds of threads, it absolutely terrifies me how negative most Bernie supporters are regarding who they will vote for if Bernie loses the nomination. I've seen everything from voting for Trump, to not voting, to writing in Bernie, etc...

I haven't met a single person who supports Hillary that has said they will not vote for Bernie if he beats Hillary for the nomination.

This is scary. And it's a very, very bad sign of what could happen in November. I really hope people remember to vote for the greater good no matter what, even if your chosen candidate doesn't win the nomination. It could legitimately have dire consequences if you don't and Trump manages to win.

And that is why Bernie was the best shot for the democratic party in the general. There will be plenty of people who stay home in November because they don't like or are not enthused about Hillary, and that won't be their fault, it will be Hillary's fault for being a bad candidate.

 

[Neoweee]

Yes, we have. The reality is that the Democrats were infiltrated and purchased by the same corporations that control the Republicans long ago. It makes sense because there's only two parties, so you can easily get what you want by funding both and playing them against each other under the pretense that one is better than the other. Of course the reality is that for example the biggest recipient of pharmaceutical industry donations this election cycle isn't Ted Cruz or Marco Roboto. We all know Trump isn't taking any drug company money.

The actual biggest recipient of drug company money is Hillary Clinton.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field

So can anybody look at someone who knows this with a straight face and claim that Hillary is going to take on the drug companies and do something about the lack of price controls which results in $130 ear drops in this country? Anybody? Come on Hillary supporters, let's see you try.

I'll try. It sounds like you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever donated to a campaign before?

When you donate, you have to list your employer. People sift through that and apply broad categories to write shitty articles about X dollars being from "an industry", when it is really from employees of companies related to that industry. $146,000 in aggregate from a few hundred employees that vaguely belong in a huge industry ain't buying shit. I donated to Bernie, but saying he is bought buy my industry as a result is completely and utterly laughable to the point where I can't imagine them saying it with a straight face. It is purely hypocritical BS when people use this as a line of attack.

 

[Feep]

And that is why Bernie was the best shot for the democratic party in the general. There will be plenty of people who stay home in November because they don't like or are not enthused about Hillary, and that won't be their fault, it will be Hillary's fault for being a bad candidate.

No, it will absolutely be their fault. Voting is a civic duty, as far as I'm concerned, and if you don't go out and vote, you can go fuck yourself.

 

[Armaros]

It's simple.

Bernie has been consistent on most issues. He has a few issues I disagree with his history on, but he doesn't lie.

Hillary has been inconsistent on most issues. When question on any one specific issue, her response is, as often as not, to straight up lie and pretend she never said what she said, or that she always supported X despite voting Y, etc.

In other words, it's not a double standard. Unless "double" is referring to her two different faces?

So in other words you have not answered the posters question, you instantly flip to Bernie when he isn't even involved in the question.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

No one election will ruin America and the world. If the Republicans sweep Washington due to Hillary being a shitty candidate and people not voting, it'll be two years for the midterm swing of the pendulum that happens all the time.

Real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

This won't happen.

But lots of the progress we've made as a country in these last seven years is put on shaky ground with a Rep presidency, Congress, and soon after SC.

 

[Russ T]

No, it will absolutely be their fault. Voting is a civic duty, as far as I'm concerned, and if you don't go out and vote, you can go fuck yourself.

If voting was mandatory (I honestly believe it should be), and they just wrote in Sanders, would you still blame them?

So in other words you have not answered the posters question, you instantly flip to Bernie when he isn't even involved in the question.

Um, the post they were responding to specifically mentioned Sanders. EDIT: Wait, I was responding to your post. What poster's question are you referring to?

 

[Feep]

If voting was mandatory (I honestly believe it should be), and they just wrote in Sanders, would you still blame them?

No.

 

[Drek]

Have we really gotten to the point where people are legitimately asking "why is being a corporatist a bad thing"? Is that really what we're doing?

If you're going to act like thinking corporations deserve a seat at the table is being a "corporatist" then yes, and I'd absolutely love to see your logic as to how it is an inarguable "bad thing".

You made the statement, back it up.

 

[hawk2025]

Except, your supporting 'trade deals' that essentially do nothing but allow Corporate entities to have an easier time gaming the system globally instead of worldwide, with nothing on the US's end to show for it besides giving more freedom to corporate entities that continue to lobby for more power over that system.

Like seriously, are some of you guys even liberals? You might as well just be libertarians at this point.




And that is why Bernie was the best shot for the democratic party in the general. There will be plenty of people who stay home in November because they don't like or are not enthused about Hillary, and that won't be their fault, it will be Hillary's fault for being a bad candidate.

You are not making a cogent point based on evidence -- you are repeating a "corporations" talking point, because you do not understand the Economics of free trade.

I'm not interested in how you decide to label me or what variation of No True Scotsman you are currently using. Free Trade goes against the old base of the Democratic party, yes, and the past 15 years I've been studying the subject of International Trade has led me in the direction of overwhelmingly supporting it. I'm happy to see that the Democratic party has been going in the same direction, because the data and logic supports it.

If that does not make me "liberal" in your view, so be it. I'll stick to the evidence, just like I did when an alarming number of people were defending the ridiculous Friedman numbers just last week and throwing extremely liberal supporters that questioned those numbers under the fucking bus.

 

[Russ T]

No.

Fair enough! Was mostly just curious.

 

[Tesseract]

No, it will absolutely be their fault. Voting is a civic duty, as far as I'm concerned, and if you don't go out and vote, you can go fuck yourself.

I'd just fill in Jill Stein instead

 

[Arnie7]

So people should sell out their ideals and vote for someone who is everything they are against just to keep the bogeyman out? It's hilarious how two sided US politics really are. If I lived in the US I would never vote for Clinton based on her foreign policy record alone. Drones, Libya, Syria and she even voted for the Iraq war FFS! She is a warmonger and proud member of the military industrial complex. As for her domestic policy I couldn't give two shits, the above is reason enough for me to label her an awful, evil person and contributor to the deaths of innocents and the destabilising of countries that won't play ball with western style oligarchic capitalism.

Well said. I hate what Trump stands for but Obama and Hillary are just as complicit in human suffering around the world. Countless drone strikes and war support is just as bad as Trumps rhetoric about mexican migration.

 

[Veritigo_X]

And that is why Bernie was the best shot for the democratic party in the general. There will be plenty of people who stay home in November because they don't like or are not enthused about Hillary, and that won't be their fault, it will be Hillary's fault for being a bad candidate.

Any poll numbers that support your theory of large amounts of people staying home? I've been under the impression that it's just a small vocal group of people yelling online. I don't think it's worth the tradeoff since Bernie seems like he would be a much weaker candidate in the GE given what we've seen from him in the primary.

Staying home because your guy lost is just salty anyway. Politics probably shouldn't be for those types since they treat it like a game.

 

[dave is ok]

If you're going to act like thinking corporations deserve a seat at the table is being a "corporatist" then yes, and I'd absolutely love to see your logic as to how it is an inarguable "bad thing".

You made the statement, back it up.

Not all corporations are created equal. Insurance giants make the type of healthcare that all other first world countries enjoy an impossibility in the United State and gun manufacturers and the lobbies they employ make gun reform a laughable prospect.

 

[TyrantII]

No, it will absolutely be their fault. Voting is a civic duty, as far as I'm concerned, and if you don't go out and vote, you can go fuck yourself.

This.

By definition Bernie supporters moving to Clinton sends a message that they expect her to move just as far towards them as them to her. And there will be a referendum in 4 years on if they think she did. She will have to account for them to keep support and get a second term. That is unless their support is so small they don't matter politically.

That's how representative politics works.

Sitting at home with your thumb up your ass is your fault. It's akin to throwing a tantrum.

 

[Armaros]

Well said. I hate what Trump stands for but Obama and Hillary are just as complicit in human suffering around the world. Countless drone strikes and war support is just as bad as Trumps rhetoric about mexican migration.

That post earlier about how everyone just wants to say 'both sides are the same' but don't want to use the words, was so right.

 

[Russ T]

Well said. I hate what Drumpf stands for but Obama and Hillary are just as complicit in human suffering around the world. Countless drone strikes and war support is just as bad as Drumpfs rhetoric about mexican migration.

It's sadly true. Trump's statements just hit closer to home because he's talking about domestic issues.

Hillary is, and will probably continue to be, responsible for ruining the lives of many, many, many people.

 

[Ophelion]

I think the real problem is that her career comes with greater name recognition than either of theirs did (compounded by her husband's career which she visibly promoted) before they became POTUS and VP, and with that comes greater potential for scrutiny.

This is it right here. Hillary has been the woman in the arena since 1992. The longer you are fighting in the spotlight, the more opportunity there is to make a mistake or say something that could later be construed as hypocritical. Combine that with the fact that she gets to carry the weight of any failings or hypocrisies leveled at Bill too and that begins to look like a long and damning list of shortcomings, no matter how ethical, liberal or capable the candidate presents themselves as. People can't help but look back over at that damning list again and wonder how someone can claim to be the good guy and still have that on their record.

All that said, I personally still see Hillary as an intelligent, compassionate and capable leader who would absolutely be the right choice for our country as a whole as it exists today. I'm just sympathetic to why someone might see it in a different way. I also think Bernie is a great sign of what's coming in the future. I won't be surprised at all if the next major Democratic candidate in 2020 or 2024 is a more well-rounded, charismatic version of the senator. He's shown that the younger generations are ready for a much more progressive Democratic Party. That vote is only going to become more important as time marches on. Imagine what a Bernie 2.0 could accomplish with a liberal-leaning SCOTUS and a senate that more accurately represents the interests of the American people.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Yes, we have.

Oh, i know the Democratic party is driven by big money...my surprise is that Hillary Clinton supporters, as in civilians, have largely turned into conservatives with their rhetoric in support of big money in politics, corporate checked legislation, corporate dominated trade deals, perpetual warfare and regime change...

Its chilling to see how the conversation has shifted to being a purely rightwing argument even in the party that is supposed to be the 'left'

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

There will be plenty of people who stay home in November because they don't like or are not enthused about Hillary, and that won't be their fault, it will be Hillary's fault for being a bad candidate.

These people will stay at home and wonder why no one takes them seriously as a voting bloc. rinse wash repeat every four years.

 

[Armaros]

These people will stay at home and wonder why no one takes them seriously as a voting bloc. rinse wash repeat every four years.

SC already told everyone why.

 

[Russ T]

Oh, i know the Democratic party is driven by big money...my surprise is that Hillary Clinton supporters, as in civilians, have largely turned into conservatives with their rhetoric in support of big money in politics, corporate checked legislation, corporate dominated trade deals, perpetual warfare and regime change...

Its chilling to see how the conversation has shifted to being a purely rightwing argument even in the party that is supposed to be the 'left'

It honestly makes me uncomfortable. And whenever you point this kind of thing out, it's deflection after deflection.