|
icantfindaname posted:So you're allowed to dislike Hillary now, but only to a degree considered reasonable by internet forum poster Nevvy Z? It's an improvement on people saying straight up there's no legitimate criticisms of her at all, I suppose Look at all those things no one actually said.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Kristov posted:That demographic is pretty much "everyone who doesn't vote straight ticket republican" subtracted by "everyone who isn't already in the bag for Hillary". So I dunno, probably 10 - 20 percent of the eligible voter population on any given day. That's a pretty sizable chunk. computer parts posted:Bernie is a rarity. Most of the time, there is no progressive primary challenger, or--as we can see with Bernie/Hilary--the Democratic party puts barriers in front of those candidates and strongly backs incumbents or more moderate/conservative candidates. This makes it an uphill fight for populist, left-leaning candidates, and so the Democrats shouldn't be surprised that after decades of suppressing the left side of their party, the party is more right-wing, and left-leaning voters don't like it. Majorian posted:You're going to have to prove that that's a lie (as opposed to him just being incorrect or whatever), or a vaguely-disguised misogynist statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:why do you say "intelligence community" unironically Because I'm not being ironic
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:
Here is a direct link to said post If you're still going to deny reality. If you want I can take a screenshot too, maybe try to get the Google Analytics of that time period so we know exactly how many people were online then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
it sounds really dumb and embarrassing way to refer to your career and makes you sound like you're a janitor
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:it sounds really dumb and embarrassing way to refer to your career and makes you sound like you're a janitor and if anyone knows about looking dumb and embarrassing online, its HorseLord
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Do you have evidence for that, or are you just guessing? I was just doing some back-of-the envelope calcs in my head. Going by Obama's approval rating (about 60%) subtracting trumps polling floor (about 40%) for the range, and noticing the wibble-wobble polls (about plus or minus 10%). I mean, I'm not going to get too scientific about this here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:it sounds really dumb and embarrassing way to refer to your career and makes you sound like you're a janitor Not really. "Intelligence community" is how it's referred to in the Anglophone world. That's not exactly a secret. You just aren't very well informed. HorseLord posted:Looks like I touched a nerve! Yes, that's why people are jumping on you: because your insight is so cutting. Silly tankie. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
What annoys me is that Hillary will be pretty honest about stuff and people will still say she is pandering. Examples include her love of hot sauce and some of her speeches. I mean take a look at her racial speech in Harlem from the primary. No politician on the national stage has really talked about race in that way. Not even Obama but that is probably for other reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:What annoys me is that Hillary will be pretty honest about stuff and people will still say she is pandering. Examples include her love of hot sauce and some of her speeches. I mean take a look at her racial speech in Harlem from the primary. No politician on the national stage has really talked about race in that way. Not even Obama but that is probably for other reasons. Yeah, well, tbf, it's still white lady president coming in after black dude president, so it was always going to look a little weird. Plus there's nothing wrong with pandering; that's what candidates are supposed to do. The question is, are they doing it sincerely or not? I think Clinton really is, and I've only become more convinced of that since the Convention, and I'm hoping that more voters feel the same way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
lol somebody maaaaaaadddddd
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
also we should ask more broadly why so much of america looks like it was done as a joke but is actually serious. you gave your president a theme song. everyone has to do a weird salute when the national anthem plays, which is usually also when military jets fly over football stadiums for some reason. your money talks about god in an attempt to spite russia. do you not know how weird this looks
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i know job-role obscuring euphemisms are popular but why do you say "intelligence community" unironically. why not just say you work for a spy agency. that's what it is. you're not a janitor, you don't need to hide behind calling yourself a "deputy hygiene manager" Intelligence agencies are mostly full of glorified clerks. Calling them spy agencies awards an undue air of prestige and mystique to what is no doubt an incredibly boring and uneventful job. Not everybody in the intelligence community is limbering up their enhanced interrogation techniques by crushing hobo's testicles in a Uruguayan basement. edit: by which I mean most dudes working in "spy agencies" are mere accessories to rape, torture and murder rather than rapists, torturers and murderers themselves. TomViolence fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Yo I'm here for a title. There is no reason to not vote for Hillary unless you literally have brain damage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
I think it's because she's a democrat hth source: my parents, who've despised every democrat since they've been alive except for some of the state senators who are "one of the good ones".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:also we should ask more broadly why so much of america looks like it was done as a joke but is actually serious. What country do you come from, again? Also, I reiterate: glass houses, tankie. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Andorra posted:I think it's because she's a democrat hth That's part of it. I legitimately think Hillary Clinton is actually as progressive as the platform she's running on, though perhaps not as much as I'd like. But more to the point, the political beliefs I hold are well outside the mainstream for America and that brings us to the biggest elephant in the room: the American electorate sucks, white people suck, dudes suck, and most people in America are immensely conservative compared even to the international baseline. If you want to get elected in America, you have to skew right. In that context, combined with the feedback loop of constant smear attacks on Clinton leading to people being more willing to accept smear attacks on Clinton, and the fact that she's a woman in a man's world running for office of the most powerful nation in the history of the world, basically explain the problem. Right-wingers hate he for what she is, and left-wingers in America have internalized and accepted, on some implicit level, most of the narratives and social mores of our distinctly conservative culture and are more receptive to the idea that Hillary is Bad because she must be Bad. Hillary isn't perfect, mind you, and dismissing criticism of her is silly. But the reality is that the most powerful country in the history of the world cannot and should not be allowed to fall to fascism because god help us all of it does. Accelerationism does not and never will work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Right-wingers hate he for what she is, and left-wingers in America have internalized and accepted, on some implicit level, most of the narratives and social mores of our distinctly conservative culture and are more receptive to the idea that Hillary is Bad because she must be Bad. I won't deny that that's true, because obviously it is. But remember, for a lot of people on the left, "Clinton" is still a byword for "compromising more than is wise." No, she's not her husband, and no, it's not fair to categorically condemn her and Bill for compromising at all in the weird political context of the 90's. But to be perfectly honest, I think a certain level of wariness from the left towards the Clintons can be a healthy thing. I'm hoping that once she is inaugurated, progressives hold her feet to the fire and make sure that she lives up to the promises she's made on the campaign trail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:What annoys me is that Hillary will be pretty honest about stuff and people will still say she is pandering. I mean, even the hosts of the Breakfast Club were taken aback at how tonedeaf the hot sauce thing was
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
That was honest though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I won't deny that that's true, because obviously it is. But remember, for a lot of people on the left, "Clinton" is still a byword for "compromising more than is wise." No, she's not her husband, and no, it's not fair to categorically condemn her and Bill for compromising in the weird political context of the 90's. But to be perfectly honest, I think a certain level of wariness from the left towards the Clintons can be a healthy thing. I'm hoping that once she is inaugurated, progressives hold her feet to the fire and make sure that she lives up to the promises she's made on the campaign trail. I mean, I don't disagree. For my part, I actually kind of really don't like Bill Clinton's presidency - partly for lack of familiarity, partly for disagreement - and struggle to defend him in political discussions. He essentially embodies the criticism many Americans have been force-fed of "both sides are the same," because that was essentially his strategy to get elected in the aftermath of the Reagan disaster. On the flip side, Hillary has a documented record of being more left-wing than Bill. That doesn't mean she's progressive enough, or that the left should just roll over and go back to bed until 2020, but the sheer vitriol and willingness to accept conspiracy theories by some people on the left indicates that some of the hate she is getting isn't based on any rational criticism. My yardstick is Obama. If somebody tells you they really like Obama and his presidency and then turns around and talks about how terrible Hillary is from the left without acknowledging the same criticisms you can make of Obama, they're probably not being fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hillary isn't perfect, mind you, and dismissing criticism of her is silly. But the reality is that the most powerful country in the history of the world cannot and should not be allowed to fall to fascism because god help us all of it does. Accelerationism does not and never will work. i like how you imagine your figurehead position going to donal tump will suddenly make the fascism happen and not say, all of american history and behaviour from the beginning to the present day, including that of clinton's i imagine the difference between a fascist america and a non fascist america is basically that they don't even bother with the lip service to democracy anymore. you already have a police state, extensive dissident surpression programs and black sites, notorious human rights abuses and both offical and unoffical colonies, i'm not sure what you expect would be all that different
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i like how you imagine your figurehead position going to donal tump will suddenly make the fascism happen and not say, all of american history and behaviour from the beginning to the present day. The crimes against humanity would be happening on American soil, rather than extraterritorially like usual. Do keep up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The crimes against humanity would be happening on American soil, rather than extraterritorially like it usually does. Do keep up. those already happen on american soil and i'm not sure why doing it outside america is supposed to be better
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i'm not sure what you expect would be all that different A ban on Muslim immigration and deporting 11 million immigrants would be a pretty big difference. I would say The Wall too, but we all know it would never actually be built.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, I don't disagree. For my part, I actually kind of really don't like Bill Clinton's presidency - partly for lack of familiarity, partly for disagreement - and struggle to defend him in political discussions. He essentially embodies the criticism many Americans have been force-fed of "both sides are the same," because that was essentially his strategy to get elected in the aftermath of the Reagan disaster. Sure, and that's fair. It just seems to me that one of the things that's coming back to haunt her, ironically, is how much she was sold as an equal partner in her husband's presidency. As Bill put it in 1992: quote:If I get elected president, it will be an unprecedented partnership, far more than Franklin Roosevelt and Eleanor. They were two great people, but on different tracks. If I get elected, we’ll do things together like we always have. So I think that's why so many people assume that she holds the same views as her husband did during his presidency, even if that's not true. It was a good line at the time, but the conception of them as equal partners in his administration has partially burdened her with some of his political baggage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:A ban on Muslim immigration and deporting 11 million immigrants would be a pretty big difference. I would say The Wall too, but we all know it would never actually be built. the USA already deports every single "illegal" it can find, also 580 miles of the anti-mexican wall already exists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier btw how could trump deport people on his own? is america's government already set up as a dictatorship, but you can replace them like lightbulbs or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yo I'm here for a title. There is no reason to not vote for Hillary unless you literally have brain damage. While the vast majority of these also apply to whatever republican candidate here are some reasons for people who pay attention and care. Continuing military aggression in foreign nations, specifically in the middle east. With no benefit to the average US citizen. Continuing the undermining of democracy in Latin America for the benefit of multi-national corporations. A continuation of the status-quo in the US including, but not limited to police militarization with no real political movement on fixing the issue of police being allowed to street justice pretty much anyone they want whenever they want, band-aid fixes for serious big problems that instead of fixing the issues just adds more nonsense on top of whatever was broken in the first place(a good example is ACA, while it does a lot of good it doesn't go anywhere near the actual problem of healthcare being so stupid loving expensive and doctors/hospitals being lovely shitheads that will literally charge a mother to hold her newborn child). Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i'm not sure why doing it outside america is supposed to be better it isn't better 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sure, and that's fair. It just seems to me that one of the things that's coming back to haunt her, ironically, is how much she was sold as an equal partner in her husband's presidency. As Bill put it in 1992: Quoting Bill from 1992 seems hardly fair to Hillary, who has never claimed that Bill will be an equal partner in her Presidency. Obviously he will contribute in some ways, but she has barely talked about what role he will be playing. HorseLord posted:btw how could trump deport people on his own? is america's government already set up as a dictatorship, but you can replace them like lightbulbs or something? Congress is currently controlled by the Republicans, dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i like how you imagine your figurehead position going to donal tump will suddenly make the fascism happen and not say, all of american history and behaviour from the beginning to the present day, including that of clinton's Hm, are you, say, a white straight male tankie from a majority white First World country talking about how electing a fascist who will happily rubber stamp the agenda of the fascist party he's running for won't make a difference because you're privileged enough that it won't affect you? That's absurd, though, a well-meaning, right-thinking leftist would never throw minorities under the bus like that! Fascism is also defined primarily by an imperial expansionist policy, and as of recently the United States hasn't been annexing or permanently conquering anyone. I'm sure you, as a good Englishman, would abhor the idea of Britain as the 51st State. That would mean you'd have to live in America. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Fascism is also defined primarily by an imperial expansionist policy, and as of recently the United States hasn't been annexing or permanently conquering anyone. Let's be fair here. You don't need to directly administer conquered territory when you can just squat down and poo poo out a military base in their neighbourhood and bully them into adopting your economic policies instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:i like how you imagine your figurehead position going to donal tump will suddenly make the fascism happen and not say, all of american history and behaviour from the beginning to the present day, including that of clinton's Besides what's already been mentioned, a complete unraveling of the American social safety net, such as it is. Plus an end to the relatively small amount of government regulation that still exists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Quoting Bill from 1992 seems hardly fair to Hillary, who has never claimed that Bill will be an equal partner in her Presidency. No, but I'm not talking about the role Bill will play going forward. I'm referring to what her role in Bill's administration can tell us about how she will negotiate with Republicans in Congress. I don't think it's unfair to be cautious of whether or not Hillary will be overly ready to compromise with Republicans on important issues. She did play a historically large role in an administration for a First Lady, and I do think she bears some responsibility for how readily they compromised on some pretty crucial policies. That said, people can learn from their mistakes (even politicians), and I believe she has. I just think progressives need to "trust but verify."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
I think a good way to help understand the hate would be to analyze the many copy pastas and re:re:re:killary email chains. Things like "Hillary killed anyone who had dirt on her" "Hillary lost 6 million in state Dept funds" Are common, along with many others that haven't even been debated on MSM channels. To these people, this indicates an obvious cover-up of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Let's be fair here. You don't need to directly administer conquered territory when you can just squat down and poo poo out a military base in their neighbourhood and bully them into adopting your economic policies instead. I was mostly being facetious to make fun of him. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with being categorically opposed to being complacent around any given politician as long as you keep enough intellectual distance to make sure you disagree with their policy, rather than hating them for prejudiced reasons like race or sex or class, and that you acknowledge that it's possible to be entirely opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton and also see that she's the best option for future progress and to ensure that we don't backslide on our obligations to the most vulnerable in society. To put it another way, Hillary might not make things better - and that isn't entirely in her control, either, given that Congress exists and sucks - but she won't aggressively make things worse across the board like Donald Trump would. If you even pretend to give any fucks about minority rights and lives, that matters. Majorian posted:No, but I'm not talking about the role Bill will play going forward. I'm referring to what her role in Bill's administration can tell us about how she will negotiate with Republicans in Congress. I don't think it's unfair to be cautious of whether or not Hillary will be overly ready to compromise with Republicans on important issues. She did play a historically large role in an administration for a First Lady, and I do think she bears some responsibility for how readily they compromised on some pretty crucial policies. While true, the one thing I can't take away from Bill Clinton's presidency is that he was operating in the post-Reagan, post-Cold War world and his ability to do anything progressive was questionable at best. The American electorate was even more conservative then than it is now, after all, and also whiter. That he managed to halt our backslide into Reaganonomics and general bullshit was a minor miracle in hindsight, even if Bush II promptly pissed it all away. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hm, are you, say, a white straight male tankie from a majority white First World country talking about how electing a fascist who will happily rubber stamp the agenda of the fascist party he's running for won't make a difference because you're privileged enough that it won't affect you? That's absurd, though, a well-meaning, right-thinking leftist would never throw minorities under the bus like that! Trump isn't a fascist. Fascism is about revolution and the seizure of power and Trump's campaign is about preventing the loss of power and privilege, mainly the power to deny rent to black people and to call women fat on TV. This is why Trump's electoral support comes entirely from comfortable old white people, not social outcasts who have nothing to lose. Fascists want to build monuments to themselves, Trump doesn't want to build anything other than a wall to keep new brown people from coming in (he doesn't even talk about throwing out existing brown people). "Make America Great Again" doesn't refer to some age of Ubermenschen and triumph stored in the national mythos, it refers to when The Apprentice first came on the air. Trump's literally not ambitious enough to be a fascist, he's just a blunt dumb reactionary. I don't get why it's so important to people to call Trump a fascist (which he isn't) rather than a big idiot that will make everyone's lives incredibly terrible (which he is)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Lucky for me I live in a state that's predestined to go to Clinton so it's not like my opinion actually matters in this country. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I don't get why it's so important to people to call Trump a fascist (which he isn't) rather than a big idiot that will make everyone's lives incredibly terrible (which he is) I think it derives from his support from fascist political groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:23 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:(he doesn't even talk about throwing out existing brown people) Hoo boy, did you miss when he said in a debate that he wanted to re-implement Operation Wetback?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:59
|
|