Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

are you insinuating that lack of trust in a politician is paranoia

no, we're insinuating that lack of trust in a politician to pursue a pro-reform agenda in spite of that politician having a consistently pro-reform voting and policy statement record stretching back more than a decade is paranoia

 

[Russ T]

no, we're insinuating that lack of trust in a politician to pursue a pro-reform agenda in spite of that politician having a consistently pro-reform voting and policy statement record stretching back more than a decade is paranoia

so are you insinuating that there are literally ZERO reasons to distrust hillary clinton on this issue

like, absolutely no reason whatsoever to find her lacking in sincerity or consistency or immunity to outside influence?

 

[Fenderputty]

no, we're insinuating that lack of trust in a politician to pursue a pro-reform agenda in spite of that politician having a consistently pro-reform voting and policy statement record stretching back more than a decade is paranoia

.

 

[Russ T]

see above post

 

[plagiarize]

She "flip flopped" on gay marriages in her 60s. Who is really changing that hardcore of a belief that late in life? You are saying never met a decent gay person in the prior 40-50 years of her life.

I'd imagine a lot of people. I mean, America went from being against it to being for it over the last, what, ten years?

I don't think you can classify someone being against gay marriage as someone who didn't think gay people were decent people or whatever.

I didn't used to be for gay marriage. I used to be for something functionally equivalent. I remember saying something like 'call it blarriage if you want, whatever'. When MA legalized it and I realized how great that made me feel I changed my position. I didn't believe in man made climate change until about ten years ago.

Neither says anything about how firmly I believe in both of those things now. I took more convincing on those issues than other people did. But I'm convinced and have been for years now, and have never wavered on them. So what? If we can't grow and learn, then we're Ted Cruz.

And nobody should want to be Ted Cruz.

 

[boiled goose]

no, we're insinuating that lack of trust in a politician to pursue a pro-reform agenda in spite of that politician having a consistently pro-reform voting and policy statement record stretching back more than a decade is paranoia

This is the big disconnect between supporters right here.
Hillary supporters dont see the problem with politicians getting 100k paid speeches from big banks, having family members get honorary over inflated salaries in media jobs, constantly rub elbows with the rich, make a fortune as a politician, get huge donations to campaigns from corporations, etc.

I wouldn't even call myself a Bernie supporter, but to me... all of that is clear as day corruption.
It is blatantly obvious to me.
It is legal within our system sure, but to me it is basically a legalized bribe.

Hillary herself said wall street is full of smart people who make smart investments....

 

[Prodigal Son]

no, we're insinuating that lack of trust in a politician to pursue a pro-reform agenda in spite of that politician having a consistently pro-reform voting and policy statement record stretching back more than a decade is paranoia

Do you not understand how one might be skeptical of why it is an individual would take advantage of the corrupt system she opposes?

 

[eBay Huckster]

so are you insinuating that there are literally ZERO reasons to distrust hillary clinton on this issue

like, absolutely no reason whatsoever to find her lacking in sincerity or consistency or immunity to outside influence?

i mean, if you'd like to explain why she's totally not serious about overturning a court case that existed because of her first candidacy, in spite of the fact that every relevant vote she took in the senate was on the right side and in spite of the fact that she has never made a single negative policy statement on the issue, sure

This is the big disconnect between supporters right here.

yeah - clinton supporters see a record that's consistently in favor of regulated campaign money and think "huh, she's probably gonna pursue regulations of campaign money", while sanders supporters cling to every possible bit of questionable-looking minutiae

Do you not understand how one might be skeptical of why it is an individual would take advantage of the corrupt system she opposes?

are those the terms of the argument i walked into, or is this another attempt to change the terms after the fact?

 

[Russ T]

i mean, if you'd like to explain why she's totally not serious about overturning a court case that existed because of her first candidacy, in spite of the fact that every relevant vote she took in the senate was on the right side and in spite of the fact that she has never made a single negative policy statement on the issue, sure

i'm not sure how that answers my question but okay it's obvious this is going nowhere PEACE

 

[boiled goose]

i mean, if you'd like to explain why she's totally not serious about overturning a court case that existed because of her first candidacy, in spite of the fact that every relevant vote she took in the senate was on the right side and in spite of the fact that she has never made a single negative policy statement on the issue, sure



are those the terms of the argument i walked into, or is this another attempt to change the terms after the fact?

It is not changing the argument is is the point of the argument!!!! unbelievable.

 

[Kyosaiga]

This is the big disconnect between supporters right here.
Hillary supporters dont see the problem with politicians getting 100k paid speeches from big banks, having family members get honorary over inflated salaries in media jobs, constantly rub elbows with the rich, make a fortune as a politician, get huge donations to campaigns from corporations, etc.

I wouldn't even call myself a Bernie supporter, but to me... all of that is clear as day corruption.
It is blatantly obvious to me.
It is legal within our system sure, but to me it is basically a legalized bribe.

Hillary herself said wall street is full of smart people who make smart investments....

You'd have a point if Hillary's record and rhetoric aligned with her trying to make it easier for the banks to fuck over the economy and consumers...

Oh, wait. She hasn't.

 

[eBay Huckster]

i'm not sure how that answers my question but okay it's obvious this is going nowhere PEACE

It answers your question in the sense that it's literally what you're insinuating. Is Clinton trustworthy when it comes to regulating campaign finance? BECAUSE HER ACTUAL RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY SAYS YES.

"Actions speak louder than words", and on both fronts she's been in the right since 2001.

 

[plagiarize]

This is the big disconnect between supporters right here.
Hillary supporters dont see the problem with politicians getting 100k paid speeches from big banks, having family members get honorary over inflated salaries in media jobs, constantly rub elbows with the rich, make a fortune as a politician, get huge donations to campaigns from corporations, etc.

I wouldn't even call myself a Bernie supporter, but to me... all of that is clear as day corruption.

I see the problem, I just don't see anyone with a viable solution to it. Campaigning nationwide is hugely expensive. Maybe we can reach a place where campaign reform stands a real chance... but I'm not going to turn my back on a politician who I think is effective and who has a voting record I like because they use the system as it is.

It's not that I don't see a problem, it's just that I think it's a much smaller problem than the issues which are key to me. If campaign reform and income equality were what America felt were the main issues facing the country... Sanders would win.

Maybe they *are* the main issues and maybe people are wrong not to value them more highly.

But that doesn't change that people don't value them more highly, and aren't choosing the candidate that makes them the center of his platform because that isn't what they want the President to fight for.

 

[watershed]

She "flip flopped" on gay marriages in her 60s. Who is really changing that hardcore of a belief that late in life? You are saying never met a decent gay person in the prior 40-50 years of her life.

How old was Bernie when he completed his shift on gay marriage? In 2006 he was still making public statements that his home state of Vermont should NOT legalize gay marriage, seemingly for political reasons.

In 2006, when the Bush White House proposed an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Sanders spoke out against the Republican plan, saying it was “designed to divide the American people.”

But when Sanders was asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said no. “Not right now, not after what we went through,” he said.

That same year, Sanders was asked in a debate during his first run for the Senate about a Massachusetts state court decision that legalized gay marriage. The debate moderator wanted to know if Sanders thought the federal government should overturn that decision. He responded by talking about states’ rights, which is an argument often used by politicians who have argued against federal recognition of gay marriage as well.

“I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue,” Sanders said in the 2006 debate.

It wasn’t until 2009 that Sanders publicly voiced support for gay marriage, years after many of his contemporaries in Vermont. The state legislature voted to legalize gay marriage that March and overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass it into law in April. It’s unclear when exactly Sanders took his position. When asked, his campaign provided a news article from July of that year which noted that he had “previously supported” it.

http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/

Bernie is as much a politician as Hillary.

 

[Overlee]

Campaign finance reform is about a lot more than Citizens United. Citizens United is just the most outlandish example of monied influence in politics.

Personally I think it's much more volatile and harmful to democracy that we consider the growing lobbyist industry to be "normal". The fact that the DNC is opening up the flood gates to down ballot candidates to access this money is just creating more dependence on the drug of greed. It's enough for me to swear off the party entirely because I don't think they actually want to solve the underlying issue, they just want to bandage it.

 

[Russ T]

it answers your question in the sense that it's literally what you're insinuating. is clinton trustworthy when it comes to regulating campaign finance? BECAUSE HER ACTUAL RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY SAYS YES.

hmmm

maybe that is what i was insinuating

let me think

hmmm

i think

...

no i was just trying to figure out why you think i should believe hillary can do no wrong

you're acting like she's perfect

and then you're getting mad at me when i don't agree that she's perfect

do you not see the bizarre disconnect we have going on here

 

[Tesseract]

Oh hell yeah, Sanders is running until all 50 States vote

 

[eBay Huckster]

no i was just trying to figure out why you think i should believe hillary can do no wrong

you're acting like she's perfect

and then you're getting mad at me when i don't agree that she's perfect

do you not see the bizarre disconnect we have going on here

yeah, i see a bizarre disconnect where you're trying to find the answer to a very general question i'm not actually posing while i'm trying to figure out how the hell her record on campaign finance, specifically, is untrustworthy (because absent an actual red flag in her record, it ain't)

we're participating in two completely different arguments. she's done wrong in quite a few places, but not really this one.

 

[Fenderputty]

you're acting like she's perfect

No, he's acting like you shouldn't be sceptical of her record on campaign finance reform.

 

[legacyzero]

Oh hell yeah, Sanders is running until all 50 States vote

I mean, with all those contributions, I hope so.

 

[plagiarize]

Do you not understand how one might be skeptical of why it is an individual would take advantage of the corrupt system she opposes?

Yes I do, but I think it's unfounded skepticism when we have her voting record.

Look at it like a sport. There are rules that govern the sport and these rules can be gamed in a way that no one likes... but they are legal plays none the less.

You want to see the rules changed. You've publically said as much, and when they have votes on whether or not to change the rules, you vote for them to be changed...

BUT

you're playing a team that likes to exploit the existing rule to their advantage. Now you can take the moral high ground and not exploit the existing rule, increasing how likely it is to get defeated, or you can play to the rules that exist while trying to fight them and have a better chance of winning that game.

And now pretend that winning that game gives you *more* say in changing the rules.

There are benefits to both tactics and downsides to both tactics. But until the rules change, why shouldn't you fight the dirty tactics with the same dirty tactics you want to prevent? What good can you do if you lose the election?

Ask John Kerry how well taking the higher ground on PACS worked out for him.

 

[boiled goose]

I see the problem, I just don't see anyone with a viable solution to it. Campaigning nationwide is hugely expensive. Maybe we can reach a place where campaign reform stands a real chance... but I'm not going to turn my back on a politician who I think is effective and who has a voting record I like because they use the system as it is.

It's not that I don't see a problem, it's just that I think it's a much smaller problem than the issues which are key to me. If campaign reform and income equality were what America felt were the main issues facing the country... Sanders would win.

Maybe they *are* the main issues and maybe people are wrong not to value them more highly.

But that doesn't change that people don't value them more highly, and aren't choosing the candidate that makes them the center of his platform because that isn't what they want the President to fight for.

Fair point. See you say it is not the most important issue for you. Perfectly valid.

It is the most important issue to me and why that is is another discussion for another day. Short version, it affects every other issue.

It is actually a very big issue to people nationwide. Before this election year, it was actually the most important issue according to several polls.

You are certainly free to support the candidate who you agree with, and you are being honest. using the system as is effectively. that is certainly hillary.

For me personally, neither Sanders nor hillary were the right candidate to really bring about change on this issue.

 

[Russ T]

we're participating in two completely different arguments

i mean that's why i tried to bail out but then i let you pull me back in

listen her record is fine or whatever

but it's not everything there is to her

if you can't agree that there are reasons to distrust her, not even a single one, then, well, that's an interesting stance to take, but, well, you know

PEACEandwhatever

 

[eBay Huckster]

i mean that's why i tried to bail out but then i let you pull me back in

listen her record is fine or whatever

but it's not everything there is to her

if you can't agree that there are reasons to distrust her, not even a single one, then, well, that's an interesting stance to take, but, well, you know

PEACEandwhatever

yeah i'm not saying there aren't reasons to distrust her IN GENERAL, i'm just saying campaign finance ain't one of them.

night.

 

[dLMN8R]

This is what I read a couple of weeks ago that sold me on Hillary:

https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the-case-for-hillary-3564233d524f#.68mxpty4h


I'll break down my reasons why:


1) It paints a much more nuanced story about the attack on her by Elisabeth Warren

You need to read in full, but essentially it boils down to Warren claiming Clinton changed her view on a mortgage bill after meeting with big banks, and turned her back on what she previously said.

In reality, she stuck to her original principles the entire time. Democrats ended up filibustering the bill because Clinton wasn't happy with it, and Clinton voted to uphold the filibuster.

There's more stuff in the post about donations too, if you're interested in reading.


2) She's been fighting for campaign finance reform for a very long time

This isn't something new that she's conveniently advocating because Bernie is.

McCain/Feingold was not an easy effort — it failed the first time through, and that was with a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who supported the legislation. The bill that was eventually signed into law by president Bush was progress, but fell short of what was needed. If you think that a president Sanders would succeed where so many others have failed simply because he’s just so awesome, you’re as delusional as he is. What he wants is no different than what everyone else has wanted for decades. The only difference is that he has no realistic plan on how to achieve it.

3) She's obviously too ambitious to do the easy thing

Why on earth would she be spending so much time as a Senator and a two-time presidential candidate just to make things better for the rich? Especially when her voting record doesn't actually suggest that she wants to do so?

I just don't see that as being reality. It's too cynical, too myopic, and to narrow-minded.

Clinton wants a legacy that people can remember her by, for good, not for ill. She's never done the easy thing, and I can't see her doing the easy thing of bending over for big banks as president.


4) Bernie Sanders, bless his heart, is putting forth an awful lot of bad numbers

Look, I love everything Sanders says, but his numbers have been full of shit on many occasions. It doesn't give me confidence in his ability as a potential president.

His math is off by trillions. That is not good.

I do believe that the US, as the richest country in the world, could afford to give everyone healthcare and college education. But I don't believe that Sanders has painted a realistic picture of the numbers behind doing so.

As rightly intentioned as Bernie Sanders might be, his presidency could cause near fatal damage to the progressive cause. Should he bumble his way through Washington with nothing but rhetoric, fantasies, unworkable plans, and impossible promises, he could make a pathetic joke of everything we’re fighting for. The idea of democratic socialism will be solidified in the American consciousness as unworkable and foolish.

In summary:

My experience has been that whenever you closely examine the attacks on Hillary, whether they come from the left or the right, they break apart under scrutiny. That is, if you’re so inclined to scrutinize. Scant few are. Many, however, are steadfastly unwilling to view Clinton through anything other than the most severe and cynical lens. If one bit of evidence against her breaks down under examination, then another must be found. If that one fails to pan out, there’s always some other way to interpret her record that satisfies the harsh narrative we’ve chosen for her.

And finally:

She too wants universal health care — only she’s more flexible about how we attain it. She too wants to overturn Citizen’s United — and has a long and consistent record fighting for campaign finance reform. She too wants to raise the minimum wage — but to $12/hour, because she understands that Arkansas is not the same as California, and the $12 number is in keeping with what a lot of Democratic economists recommend. She too has an extensive plan for fighting climate change. She too wants to eliminate student debt. And unlike Bernie Sanders, she has quite more than just a passing interest in foreign policy.

Comparing these candidates, we see two very progressive politicians — but one has a wealth of experience and a firm grasp on reality; the other doesn’t. It’s not a hard choice. The question then becomes a matter of how serious you are about actually advancing the progressive cause.

Clinton is not perfect by any means, but she's not the fucking caricature that Republicans have convinced Liberals of.

I just wish liberals learned as much about Hillary Clinton from her actual votes and the nuances behind her alleged flip flops, as they learned about propaganda explicitly designed and propagated by Republicans.

 

[plagiarize]

I just wish liberals learned as much about Hillary Clinton from her actual votes and the nuances behind her alleged flip flops, as they learned about propaganda explicitly designed and propagated by Republicans.

I understand why hardline Baptists view a politician changing position as this massive no no, but I don't get why liberals would.

Seeing examples of Clinton changing position further to the left as an example of why we shouldn't really trust that she's progressive... it makes my mind spin.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes I do, but I think it's unfounded skepticism when we have her voting record.

Look at it like a sport. There are rules that govern the sport and these rules can be gamed in a way that no one likes... but they are legal plays none the less.

You want to see the rules changed. You've publically said as much, and when they have votes on whether or not to change the rules, you vote for them to be changed...

BUT

you're playing a team that likes to exploit the existing rule to their advantage. Now you can take the moral high ground and not exploit the existing rule, increasing how likely it is to get defeated, or you can play to the rules that exist while trying to fight them and have a better chance of winning that game.

And now pretend that winning that game gives you *more* say in changing the rules.

There are benefits to both tactics and downsides to both tactics. But until the rules change, why shouldn't you fight the dirty tactics with the same dirty tactics you want to prevent? What good can you do if you lose the election?

Ask John Kerry how well taking the higher ground on PACS worked out for him.

I'm personally a bit more principled. I don't like the ends justifies the means.
I don't like cheating. I don't like gaming things even if for a good cause. I don't like mismanaged conflicts of interest.

Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
Get used to doing favors here and there and you forget your reasons for going into service in the first place.

But I think people are free to support the "ends justifies the means" candidate. That is a personal choice. I would feel more comfortable if I actually thought the process worked. I dont think it does, based on what has happened in the past 8 years. Legislation does not correlate with public opinion. That means there is a systematic problem.

Fun discussion. especially with those keeping it real and being honest. Night.

 

[hawk2025]

dLMN8R, first, good post. Second, I'll add one more, although you and other people may disagree:

Given the excellent work that the Clinton Foundation actually does in a multitude of very progressive issues, I find it somewhat disconcerting that so many people try to brush it aside as a giant bag of cash for financing campaigns.

The same thing has been tried with the Gates Foundation in the past. I don't like it. We are incentivizing billionaires and people in power to NOT use that for good, lest they be interpreted incorrectly.*




*Note: I'm in no way absolving either foundation of any and all criticism. But those Annual and Financial Reports are right there, and the best people have come up with are spurious correlations between donations and political favors.

 

[TyrantII]

I understand why hardline Baptists view a politician changing position as this massive no no, but I don't get why liberals would.

Seeing examples of Clinton changing position further to the left as an example of why we shouldn't really trust that she's progressive... it makes my mind spin.

It's the One True Scottsman logical fallacy in action.

A politician should change positions and represent their constituents views over their own. If her constituents and the party are moving left, it's literally her job to do so as well, or retire.

This is not a bad thing.

 

[plagiarize]

I'm personally a bit more principled. I don't like the ends justifies the means.
I don't like cheating. I don't like gaming things even if for a good cause. I don't like mismanaged conflicts of interest.

Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
Get used to doing favors here and there and you forget your reasons for going into service in the first place.

But I think people are free to support the "ends justifies the means" candidate. That is a personal choice. I would feel more comfortable if I actually thought the process worked. I dont think it does, based on what has happened in the past 8 years. Legislation does not correlate with public opinion. That means there is a systematic problem.

Fun discussion. especially with those keeping it real and being honest. Night.

See you tomorrow for all the fireworks.

 

[Skellig Gra]

How old was Bernie when he completed his shift on gay marriage? In 2006 he was still making public statements that his home state of Vermont should NOT legalize gay marriage, seemingly for political reasons.


http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/

Bernie is as much a politician as Hillary.

No argument there. I don't support either of them just pointing out how it's ridiculous to claim she really "changed" her beliefs.

 

[watershed]

No argument there. I don't support either of them just pointing out how it's ridiculous to claim she really "changed" her beliefs.

I can believe she changed her beliefs on gay marriage at some point, most likely before she declared herself publicly in favor of it. It's not just age that matters, its culture and context. She grew up at a time when gay marriage was unimaginable and assumed to be wrong. She and Bernie both did. As did every politician who has been in office for at least a decade or two. As the culture and conversation changes, thoughtful, reflective people tend to change as well. That's not really a flip-flop. I see it as the result of genuine growth. It doesn't just happen in our 20s, if we are reflective and empathetic and immersed in a culture and context that changes, we are likely to change as well.

 

[Ekai]

Most of the Hilary hate I've seen has been based on her visibility. Bernie is new and shiny to a lot of people, so they (incorrectly) assume that he's free from all of the typical politician BS. People thought it somewhat when it was Obama and Hilary. There's something romantic about someone with little prior political experience coming in and bringing a lot of change, despite the impossibility of such an act.

It is pretty scary though, but I don't think it's specifically about Hilary, but more about what they see her standing for and a trend in politics.

Just wanted to set the record straight on a fact here: Bernie isn't new. He's been involved in the political system for years on years now. Since 1990 he has been in Congress. And before that he's been a mayor successfully 3 times and before that even further back he ran numerous times for governor/senator. During the inbetween time he was focused on political activism pretty strongly. Hell, he holds the record for longest serving independent in US Congressional history. He's honestly been one of my favorite politicians for years and years now. He's always been one of the few I've felt who seems to genuinely care and attempt to understand the plight of others.

I don't believe that assimilation into problematic institutions like militarism and marriage is the solution to inequality. I do not want 'equal rights' to participate in an unequal system. I want the dismantling of the social class system that allows hierarchies like heteronormativity, misogyny, transphobia, etc. to exist in the first place.

Here is a blog post that sums up my feelings about gay marriage far more eloquently that I could:

Gay Marriage Has Nothing To Do With Love: Anti-Assimilation and a Radical Vision of Queer Revolution


If Democrats truly wanted to fight for the working class and the poor, they would actually fight against the system which produces their hardships. They would fight against a system where people have no choice but to sell their labor to have access to the means of survival. They would fight against a system in which the community's resources are under the control of a wealthy minority who can use State-sanctioned violence to prevent equal access and worker control. Instead Democrats maintain that system; they serve that system.

Just wanted to comment that I find the banning of this individual odd. They are simply one among many in the LGBT spectrum who are not satisfied with the current system. I do not agree with all they have had to say across their posts but I can certainly see where they are coming from and in some respects I don't disagree entirely. I vote Democrat as it is now because they are typically generally good natured and are on the complete moral side of the matter regarding social and economic issues for not just myself but the good of the people at large. And as any decent person would, I want to help both myself and others.

That said, in part due to a Republican controlled congress, we are seeing very little progress. Especially in regards to economic strife and income inequality, women's rights, theocratic empowered discrimination against those in the lgbt spectrum and institutional racism. (All 4 are why I lean much more towards Bernie but that is not what this post is about). We also witness Republicans in many southern states just flying free with hate-crime laws and other discriminatory action and they rarely seem to get more than a slap on the wrist. If that. Which is incredibly disheartening that we allow such behavior and that our current system encourages it by not doing anything about it in the first place. At best we protest/have organizations who fight for our fights engage on the matter but it doesn't seem to change much of anything. These hateful laws and ideals are still pushed and passed around regardless of what organizations try to do. And thousands beyond thousands of people's lives are ruined by Republicans just getting away with gutting PP and it's many services or with lax approach to how law enforcement treats racial minorities or discriminatory laws aimed at lgbt teens or etc. etc. etc.

I support the organizations that do fight for us all the same (and donate whatever scraps I can when I can to what matters to me) but in the end it feels like barely anything has changed. Especially when examining issues surrounding racial minorities, women, the poor and the lgbt spectrum and how the Republicans have responded to issues these groups face throughout the decades. And how Democrats sometimes seem to barely do a thing or at best compromise with a Republican holding our rights hostage. Which is why voting in every election (not just the Presidential one) is truly important and why attempting to get the bigots to either understand and recognize us (us being anyone discriminated against, not just ones in the lgbt spectrum) as human beings or to pass on our values to future generations so the older values die out, is so essential.

More or less there has been progress which is fantastic but there has also been regression in some aspects as well. That's not even getting into specifics of how some rights movements were co-opted by others and the ones who started said movements were pushed to the rear but that's another topic entirely that has to do more with some minorities stabbing others in the back than it does Republicans messing with us in question/the seemingly inaction or compromise that Democrats do for Republicans all the time.

Incremental change to absolutely no change at all is not doing much to improve lives within the LGBT spectrum. Overtime, yes it will, but it is frustrating that that over-time statement has to be made and that we simply have to settle with someone who will at best only slowly improve our situation and at worst maintain the status quo that still leaves many of us without protections/rights. I'd love to see that statement proven wrong in regards to Hillary and what she may or may not do but at the outset right now I don't see any drastic overhauls in regards to civil rights anytime soon. Some within the spectrum are frankly happy to just settle at gay marriage and have a "fuck you, got mine" attitude regarding the rights of others in the spectrum in which is even more disheartening and frustrating. Yes, gay marriage is a big step but there's more at the table here. So the fact that some within the spectrum would actively fight against our rights by not doing a thing is just distressing to me. But I said that I wouldn't discuss that matter here. I say this as someone in the spectrum myself.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Oh hell yeah, Sanders is running until all 50 States vote

Bernie is nuts and God bless him. We need someone to stay around to keep Hillary semi-sort-of-pretend-honest as long as possible.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Just wanted to set the record straight on a fact here: Bernie isn't new. He's been involved in the political system for years on years now. Since 1990 he has been in Congress. And before that he's been a mayor successfully 3 times and before that even further back he ran numerous times for governor/senator. During the inbetween time he was focused on political activism pretty strongly. Hell, he holds the record for longest serving independent in US Congressional history. He's honestly been one of my favorite politicians for years and years now. He's always been one of the few I've felt who seems to genuinely care and attempt to understand the plight of others..

And Obama ran against Bobby Rush for his Congressional seat in 2000.

The point is 95% of Bernie's current stalwart supporters wouldn't have been able to pick him out of lineup two years ago, let alone in 2008, let alone in 2004.

 

[Ekai]

And Obama ran against Bobby Rush for his Congressional seat in 2000.

The point is 95% of Bernie's current stalwart supporters wouldn't have been able to pick him out of lineup two years ago, let alone in 2008, let alone in 2004.

That's more than a bit disingenuous. Bernie has been on the political scene for a while now. He's not exactly an unknown in the least.

 

[JesseEwiak]

That's more than a bit disingenuous. Bernie has been on the political scene for a while now. He's not exactly an unknown in the least.

I'm not saying that as a shot against Sanders.

The truth is, outside of the President, the vast majority of the population has no idea who most politicians are. You could show a picture of Mitt Romney to 100 people and maybe half would remember who he was. The only reason most people under 30 remember Joe Biden is because of The Onion.

We're both political geeks, but the people right now sharing Sanders memes largely were not involved in politics in 2008 or were sharing Obama videos then.

 

[Ekai]

I'm not saying that as a shot against Sanders.

The truth is, outside of the President, the vast majority of the population has no idea who most politicians are. You could show a picture of Mitt Romney to 100 people and maybe half would remember who he was. The only reason most people under 30 remember Joe Biden is because of The Onion.

We're both political geeks, but the people right now sharing Sanders memes largely were not involved in politics in 2008 or were sharing Obama videos then.

Understood. Thanks for the clarification and my apologies. I can see where you're coming from there.

 

[pigeon]

Just wanted to comment that I find the banning of this individual odd. They are simply one among many in the LGBT spectrum who are not satisfied with the current system. I do not agree with all they have had to say across their posts but I can certainly see where they are coming from and in some respects I don't disagree entirely.

I don't think this person got banned for posts in this thread, although looking through their post history I don't see any obvious reason they would get banned. But certainly their posts here weren't anything people get banned for usually.

 

[Ekai]

I don't think this person got banned for posts in this thread, although looking through their post history I don't see any obvious reason they would get banned. But certainly their posts here weren't anything people get banned for usually.

They barely have a post history to speak of really. 27 posts. Before this topic they made some relatively innocent posts in Gaming Gaf months back. And then tried to get some Hillary supporter to not misgender well-known trans-individuals recently. And then posted in a topic that was about a cop being upset about an art-piece equating the police to the KKK a few days back-they argued that the art has it's place and meaning (which it frankly does in our still racist society-it is very politically charged, I will not deny that), And then only posted in this topic today and yesterday. If it wasn't this topic that somehow banned them, I'm honestly not sure what it was that did it. I can only conclude they were banned because of this topic unless something happened in some PMs that resulted in the action happening. If it was this topic, it's a bit disheartening to me to see someone in the spectrum banned for more or less stating they aren't happy with the status quo.

 

[Steel]

They barely have a post history to speak of really. 27 posts. Before this topic they made some relatively innocent posts in Gaming Gaf months back. And then tried to get some Hillary supporter to not misgender well-known trans-individuals recently. And then posted in a topic that was about a cop being upset about an art-piece equating the police to the KKK a few days back-they argued that the art has it's place and meaning (which it frankly does in our still racist society-it is very politically charged, I will not deny that), And then only posted in this topic today and yesterday. If it wasn't this topic that somehow banned them, I'm honestly not sure what it was that did it. I can only conclude they were banned because of this topic unless something happened in some PMs that resulted in the action happening. If it was this topic, it's a bit disheartening to me to see someone in the spectrum banned for more or less stating they aren't happy with the status quo.

Sometimes offending posts are deleted.

 

[Ekai]

Sometimes offending posts are deleted.

I'd be interested to see what the offending post could be, if there was any. Because with the posts at hand all they were doing was expressing exasperation with the current system.

 

[sphagnum]

I hope Spica wasn't banned because of the link to a blog post about being anti-marriage. There are plenty of radical LGBTQ people who have made critiques about marriage as an institution and who therefore were annoyed by the amount of focus that gay marriage got as an issue in comparison to other LGBTQ issues. It's a legitimate position to take, although I don't think I quite agree with it, since I think the normalization of gay relations is a good step but not anywhere near enough.

Seemed like a good, budding Marxist poster.

 

[gutter_trash]

Oh hell yeah, Sanders is running until all 50 States vote

how can this be so when he already gave up on the South?

 

[Ekai]

I hope Spica wasn't banned because of the link to a blog post about being anti-marriage. There are plenty of radical LGBTQ people who have made critiques about marriage as an institution and who therefore were annoyed by the amount of focus that gay marriage got as an issue in comparison to other LGBTQ issues. It's a legitimate position to take, although I don't think quite agree with it, since I think the normalization of gay relations is a good step but not anywhere near enough.

Seemed like a good, budding Marxist poster.

I'd agree with that position in some respects and don't exactly see it as radical. . Especially in regards to how the LGBT movement actually started and how some within the spectrum want to stop at gay marriage because they feel they got their rights and don't want to be associated with others still fighting for theirs. Which is ridiculous as gay cis-men still deal with loads of hate-crimes as well so the "fuck you, got mine" attitude I'm referencing is even more perplexing to me. I alluded briefly to how the LGBT movement at large was co-opted but that's another topic entirely addressing how some, keyword some, men took over the movement and made it all about their rights only. Which is not what this topic is about so I'd rather not delve into the details. But suffice it to say, I don't see it as a radical position to be a bit disappointed with how gay marriage became pretty much the only thing the movement seemed to fight for and that other issues were pushed to the background.

That said, I also see gay marriage as a good step and am entirely happy it happened so I'm certainly not bitter on that front. It's one very good step forward. It's nowhere near enough but I am glad it happened.

 

[sphagnum]

Yes, but I'm willing to bet my entire Harry Potter collection that the group of people wanting to stop at gay marriage in the Demo Party, is completely insignificant when you compare it to how most Repubs and Repub supporters even view "LGBTQ+."

I can understand being pissed at that attitude. I didn't know about it, and it does piss me off. That being said, I don't see how the Republican Party is ... any sort of improvement about these issues.

It's more than that particular attitude though that Ekai mentioned, it's about queer liberation being transformed into a "clean and safe" thing that plays by the rules established already by heteronormative capitalist society. It went from "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" to "See, we're just like you and want to be good citizens with monogamous families, 2.5 kids, and a middle class life with a house with a white picket fence!" That's the sort of thing Spica was talking about at least, the way that the Democratic party has "co-opted" the gay liberation movement without breaking down structural barriers. That's the radical position on it at least. I'm about as straight as they come so I'm not really the best person to speak to the validity of that (I think any sort of forward step is commendable if not necessarily radical enough), but it is a valid critique that many radical LGBTQ leftists make, and their particular worry is that now that gay marriage has been held up as the "big thing" in gay rights, nobody will pay attention to other queer issues which are inherently tied into the capitalist structure.

That's why I hope Spica wasn't banned for that post.

 

[Ekai]

Yes, but I'm willing to bet my entire Harry Potter collection that the group of people wanting to stop at gay marriage in the Demo Party, is completely insignificant when you compare it to how most Repubs and Repub supporters even view "LGBTQ+."

I can understand being pissed at that attitude. I didn't know about it, and it does piss me off. That being said, I don't see how the Republican Party is ... any sort of improvement about these issues.

Well, I wouldn't argue that it's insignificant. Like I said, the whole of the LGBT movement started out very differently. It got co-opted along the way and it's focus shifted from a variety of points to just gay marriage. This shift change happened because those who co-opted it wanted to have their best chance at being seen as normal by outsiders. To me they frankly already are normal since they're just human like the rest of us but for those who have more difficulty understanding LGBT matters, it was a thing for them to more easily grasp.

Of course there were others, including those among the demographic who co-opted things, that didn't co-opt matters. And who actually fought along with others for their rights and vice-versa. These people are wonderful. But I don't think I would say the numbers for those who are content are insignificant in scope. It isn't rampant or at least as openly rampant today but it definitely is a part of LGBT history.

Compared to Republicans though it definitely is far less in number. . I'm not arguing that the Republican party is an improvement on the issues. I talked on the previous page about how I am tired of Republicans seemingly just getting away with their abuse of us within the lgbt spectrum. And also their abuse of women, racial minorities and the poor. I also spoke on my frustration with Democrats sometimes just not doing anything against those actions. But I also spoke on how I will vote Democrat everytime over anything else as it's a better use of my vote for everyone's, including my own, rights. Etc. etc.

It's more than that particular attitude though that Ekai mentioned, it's about queer liberation being transformed into a "clean and safe" thing that plays by the rules established already by heteronormative capitalist society. It went from "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" to "See, we're just like you and want to be good citizens with monogamous families, 2.5 kids, and a middle class life with a house with a white picket fence!" That's the sort of thing Spica was talking about at least, the way that the Democratic party has "co-opted" the gay liberation movement without breaking down structural barriers. That's the radical position on it at least. I'm about as straight as they come so I'm not really the best person to speak to the validity of that (I think any sort of forward step is commendable if not necessarily radical enough), but it is a valid critique that many radical LGBTQ leftists make, and their particular worry is that now that gay marriage has been held up as the "big thing" in gay rights, nobody will pay attention to other queer issues which are inherently tied into the capitalist structure.

That's why I hope Spica wasn't banned for that post.

Thank you for this post. You are stating the point in a succinct way and I appreciate that you acknowledge your own space on the matter. And I appreciate your input as well, to be frank.

 

[MHWilliams]

Just wanted to comment that I find the banning of this individual odd.

We don't discuss moderation as a matter of policy. The person who was banned got a full reason for that ban and that's where we leave it.

If you wish to discuss the content of those posts or the topic of this thread, carry on. Spica was not banned for anything posted in this thread.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Largely, i think a lot of people are talking past each other on these matters, so i will reset my tone in the conversation and really try to frame my best argument for why people legitimately dislike the woman as a politician and as a character, and why politicians (no matter what party) who are represented by big money and corporate interests should no longer be allowed to control our Democracy. Here it goes.



In general, money in politics is the absolute worst corruption in the modern history of the US political system. It is a scourge that is what has brought this country to its knees in almost every level, and unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of that.

Right now, she is taking more money than literally ANY individual GOP senator or individual Democratic senator not just by individual speaking fees, but direct campaign donations from powerful players.

Hillary said during one of the debates that money would never influence a single vote or legislation she would ever make, but we also know that is wrong.

Among other things, she voted for the Bankruptcy Bill which she helped destroy as a first lady as noted by Elizabeth Warren.

The common rebuttal is usually Clinton's press release in 01, where she says that she voted for the bill because of a provision in it that was good.

However Elizabeth Warren herself disputes this notion in her 2003 book, “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke", by stating that

“While this amendment may have provided some political cover, it offers virtually no financial help to single mothers, since the overwhelming majority of ex-husbands don’t pay anything distributions during bankruptcy,”

“Of far more importance was the fact that the bill would permit credit card companies to compete with women after bankruptcy for their ex-husbands’ limited income, and this provision remained unchanged in the 1998 and 2001 versions of the bill. Senator Clinton claimed that the bill improved circumstances for single mothers, but her view was not shared by any women’s groups or consumer groups.”

And so...if she voted for the bill due to the money thrown at her, and then lied about it, by definition that makes her claim of not being influenced a lie as well doesn't it?

Still following me? Good.

The fact of the matter is, you can't say that campaign donations, speaking fees, lavish rewards and vistas have no impact, because the special interest in question does not donate untold amounts of money just because they are such good people or they think they are doing you a personal service. They donate to these politicians to get all kinds of special deals and exemptions that they know are going to be given back to them through access and kindness in return.

Look down the list of Clinton's contributors, do you really think for a second that in the event of her becoming President, she's not going to fill the regulator positions of the agencies dedicated to regulating these entities with people who are largely from Wall Street like Obama had done, with literally zero convictions as Elizabeth Warren also stated?

Its a huge problem, and the GOP, while fully off the cliff, the Democrats in general are following them rapidly when you have the DNC chair herself debbie wasserman being a complicit ally in helping payday lenders prey on poor and minorities with tons of other Democrats surely to follow....remember, the rules in this were directly Elizabeth Warren's own she set up for the consumer protection financial agency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...z-paylenders-cfpb_us_56d4ce38e4b03260bf77e8fc

This is what money in politics does to you, and this is what it does to every single piece of legislation that is either passed, or created. Its a political tool to further expand corporate welfare over the average citizen, and destroy what little is there. It doesn't matter the party or the renoun of the politician

I rest my case.

 

[dLMN8R]

And so...if she voted for the bill due to the money thrown at her, and then lied about it, by definition that makes her claim of not being influenced a lie as well doesn't it?

Too bad both you and Elisabeth Warren are leaving out a fairly important part of the story:

https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the-case-for-hillary-3564233d524f#.ww7zm5h3z

So what happened? Did Hillary vote for this bill because she became beholden to special interests on Wall Street? What excuse does she have? Here’s her explanation in her own words:

I rise today in support of final passage of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress.

While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child’s father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings.

This year, we have made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer’s amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be nondischargeable.

Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.

In addition, I was concerned about competing nondischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.

Let me be very clear — I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.

Now I deeply respect and admire Elizabeth Warren — but it seems she left out some important details from her account. Clinton, in fact, worked with other members of congress to include amendments that addressed Elizabeth Warren’s concerns. And the bill passed 83–15. So why didn’t Warren mention this? I really have no idea — I’d love to ask her. Maybe she became so locked into this anti-bankruptcy bill stance, she couldn’t free herself from an oppositional frame of mind. Maybe Warren didn’t feel these amendments went far enough (but if that were true, why not mention that?) For whatever reason, the story Warren tells in this interview is incomplete. Clinton’s position on this bill was no different than that uber-conservative, Barbara Boxer.

Here’s what happened next — the bill went to the Republican controlled congress, they stripped out those amendments, sent the bill back to the senate, the Democrats filibustered the bill, and Clinton voted to uphold the filibuster. Another version of the bill later passed that Hillary opposed. So that woman Warren describes in the first part of her interview — the woman who “really gets it” — turns out that woman never changed after all (and currently, Warren speaks very highly of Hillary).