Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

I don't see how I'm using buzzwords. It is plain English. What is "the establishment" in any plain common-sense interpretation? Is it not whoever/whatever is established? And when speaking of the practices of government agencies and contractors, would it not be those who are established in those roles? So what then, logically, would an "establishment mindset" be except one supporting the decisions and actions of the establishment simply because it has become the common way of life? I don't see how there is anything confusing or esoteric about my language. Does this mean I have problems with the way Obama has been doing things, indeed the way many have been doing things? YES!

What am I suppose got out it ? I am explaining the reasons why they do things.

So all you are doing is literally explaining the process, not supporting it as being in itself a valid reason for carrying out our national affairs in such a way. Okay.

However, and again I don't think it is hard to discern this context, I was asking about what would motivate me to approve of Hilary when looking at these things. This whole thread is about personal approval of Hilary as a leader. Wouldn't then my questions about the way she has carried out her prior responsibilities be in reference to how acceptable they are? I suppose there is plenty of room for disagreement over what is a good or a bad thing in our world, and many may simply entirely overlook the consequences of our weapons deals and the implications about our moral culpability for the results, but if I am inviting one to explain to me how something is okay, shouldn't one be able to infer the fact I don't think it is okay, so as to look to raise those questions? So then my question isn't about the mechanical "How does this happen?" but rather the moral "What makes you personally think that these sort of deals okay?" in context to the acceptability of Hilary as a leader, as one who has overseen the deals quite extensively and seems to take no issue.

 

[Laevateinn]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

Wouldn't the logical thing be to vote for a third party instead of the candidate that definitely supports imprisoning African Americans at higher rates?

 

[EatinOlives]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

So you'd vote for a party that does what you don't like about Hillary, but far worse.

jlawOhYeah.gif

 

[Jack Remington]

Whether or not you agree with U.S. defense manufacturers being allowed to sell to foreign governments with questionable morals, it has been going on for many, many years. The Clinton Foundation has also been accepting donations from a wide range of businesses, individuals, and governments for many years, long before Hillary Clinton was ever Secretary of State.

There's no evidence of any quid pro quo arrangement besides the fact that the percent increase in arms sales went up more in countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation than in countries that didn't donate. And sales of arms to countries that didn't donate still increased.

So all they really have is a difference in the rate of increase. That's pretty weak. I'd love to see a regression on that one. What's the beta coefficient for "Clinton Foundation donation"? How wide is their confidence interval? What other variables did they throw into the model? Hell, what countries are even included in either category?

Note: there's almost certainly no model, I'm just mocking how silly the whole article is.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't see how I'm using buzzwords. It is plain English. What is "the establishment" in any plain common-sense interpretation? Is it not whoever/whatever is established? And when speaking of the practices of government agencies and contractors, would it not be those who are established in those roles? So what then, logically, would an "establishment mindset" be except one supporting the decisions and actions of the establishment simply because it has become the common way of life? I don't see how there is anything confusing or esoteric about my language. Does this mean I have problems with the way Obama has been doing things, indeed the way many have been doing things? YES!

So all you are doing is literally explaining the process, not supporting it as being in itself a valid reason for carrying out our national affairs in such a way. Okay.

However, and again I don't think it is hard to discern this context, I was asking about what would motivate me to approve of Hilary when looking at these things. This whole thread is about personal approval of Hilary as a leader. Wouldn't then my questions about the way she has carried out her prior responsibilities be in reference to how acceptable they are? I suppose there is plenty of room for disagreement over what is a good or a bad thing in our world, and many may simply entirely overlook the consequences of our weapons deals and the implications about our moral culpability for the results, but if I am inviting one to explain to me how something is okay, shouldn't one be able to infer the fact I don't think it is okay, so as to look to raise those questions? So then my question isn't about the mechanical "How does this happen?" but rather the moral "What makes you personally think that these sort of deals okay?" in context to the acceptability of Hilary as a leader, as one who has overseen the deals quite extensively and seems to take no issue.

Buzzwords are phrase that can mean anything, but the politician or anyone that is advertising don't really explain what they are saying and the listeners fill in the blanks and basically agreeing to it. That is why I called it a buzzword. The way you described establishment is basically calling any authority of anything an establishment which makes very little sense because the term isn't specific and broad when trying to put in context. When people sometimes talk about the establishment they are talking well connected group people in a certain party that has set agendas and has the most influence within the party. What you are basically asking is to change the entire government.
No one isn't accepting anything that is an entire different subject that is going to be subjective. Like I said defense contractors has a purpose which is to sell crap that is it, there is no "establishment mindset". That is calling any every group group that has a certain agenda like practically every government, business, organization like the Red Cross, every party, every family unit, every tribe, every institution an establishment. Defense contractors sell shit because that is their point and the US government allows it because that is their policy right now, it is like questioning why a lion kills and eats their prey.


If you don't think it is okay then say why it isn't okay. Which is an entire different subject that is going to be subjective. You didn't explain anything just posted an article that operates like many conspiracy theories, combine a few things that may or may not be relevant alone and imply wrong doing without being direct about it. If you think she shouldn't approved those sells to SA and the foundation shouldn't from those places then say so but part of it probably has little do with her and more to do with Obama.

 

[Dice]

I think you're missing the fact that this entire thread is discussing personal enthusiasm about Hilary as the potential leader of this country. Having a personal problem with the operations of this country and the question of whether or not she would continue them is not "an entirely different subject" as you say. If all we do is state how things are and accept them, what is left to decide our approval of a leader? I really don't understand how one can think without morals like this, handwaving the results of defense contractors simply because it's the nature of their existence. You realize these things are optional for humanity, right? That they exist because we choose it?

 

[KingV]

There are people with valid criticisms of Clinton and real issues with throwing support behind her. But at some point you have to accept a lot of people will dislike her regardless of facts. I'm approaching the point where I'm automatically dismissive of anyone who calls Clinton a Republican or thinks she has an axe to grind with single payer. How do you have a discussion with people almost completely disconnected from reality?

I mean, she never has run for president on single payer. She basically ran on Obamacare in 2008. Why would anyone assume she supports single payer?

Maybe she did 20 years ago. But she didn't in 2008. She doesn't now.

 

[Macam]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

This is one of the stupidest positions I've ever heard. There's no guarantee that whomever emerges as the Republican candidate will be supportive of prison reform or also won't profit from the prison industrial complex (felons don't vote and have few proponents with real weight in the halls of Congress, although corporations that profit from it certainly do), let alone are, arguably, any less 'evil'. Nor do I think it's inherently guaranteed that Republicans won't win.

If it's such a compelling issue for you, you're better off not voting for the presidential office, unless you're actually certain the opposition's position is more palatable than Clinton's. You're far likely to be better off voting third party in that case, as they're much more likely to be supportive of that position (whether libertarian, progressive/green, etc). It's only a subset of Republicans that actually support the idea that the prison industrial complex is a problem and/or needs reform (more on the Paul side, less on the Christie/Trump/Cruz), and for most of them, it's more of a financial issue than an ethical one.

That said, contacting/supporting your respective Congressional representative about the issue would certainly help. Much as attitudes towards non-violent drug offenses are finally turning, so are attitudes towards addressing the criminal justice system. Slowly.

 

[Acorn]

As an outsider looking in (scottish), what does she offer that isn't bettered by others?

She's a neoliberal whose whole campaign seems to be centered on "we won't rock the boat". If I'm am an American it isn't gonna excite me.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Trump will definitely be for prison-reform, you know, the same guy that took out a full front page ad advocating for bringing back the death penalty for the Central Park Five boys

Yeah, definitely throw in an apathetic vote for that guy!

 

[Acorn]

Trump will definitely be for prison-reform, you know, the same guy that took out a full front page ad advocating for bringing back the death penalty for the Central Park Five boys

Yeah, definitely throw in an apathetic vote for that guy!

He also decried their settlement by saying they shouldn't get a penny because "they are no angels". Lol

 

[excelsiorlef]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

The Homophobic Transphobic Racist Sexist Pro-Life community thanks you for the support and would like to assure you, that even as they take away your rights, that in their hearts you'll always be one of the good ones.

 

[Mahonay]

Bernie speaks to my personal beliefs and values. He explains his policies clearly and is open to public discourse. He seems like he's not full of shit, and as a liberal American THAT is very exciting.

Hilary tends to show herself as disconnected and unwilling to drop the same political facade we've been presented with for years. Too busy trying to get across slogans, pretending to be folksy, and unfortunately for her having to make people forget about the emails.

I'd still vote for Hilary a million years before I'd ever vote for Trump or Cruz. But Bernie is an easy choice for me personally. Hilary would have to do a complete 180 in how she runs her campaign.

 

[gutter_trash]

sorry to bump up thread but NBC hyped up having an interview with Hillary Clinton then having a phone interview with Donald Trump for this morning's show.

I can tell you this, Hillary's biggest fault is not being able to turn off the "politician speak" when talking on camera.

Chuck Todd asked her what she thinks about Michael Bloomberg toying with entering the race and she just does the typical bobble head, smile and polite generic answer like politicians do.

the lack of enthusiasms people have towards her is about not being able to relate to her because she speaks "politician" instead of English when on camera.

Then you get Trump on the phone with Chuck Todd, even Trump lies and makes shit up, he still comes across as a Joe talking is head off like any Joe.