|
Bob le Moche posted:I'm pretty confident that all my problems with Hillary are very clearly things that Trump is not better at, and that me openly speaking out about them will not cause anyone to vote for Trump Yeah HRC is thankfully going to win this election anyway, because enough of the election is sensible enough. That doesn't make what you're doing any less than Morally Hazardous. This kind of failure of collective action literally brought us the Bush administration, a mere sixteen years ago. Nader likes to reclaim there was a majority progressive vote, but we drat sure got someone decidedly regressive policy thanks to him deliberate spoiler campaign.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:Do you work in PR? You're very good at it. This is an honest compliment.  If being aware of general historical trends and not being a raving idiot qualified you for PR I wouldn't be making fourteen dollars an hour. I'd bet good money if Hillary hadn't been running a disgruntled Republican outreach this thread would have died at a couple pages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I can't, but since her policies will reverberate around the world with the force and significance of a gunshot I still consider my opinion worth hearing, if not listening to. Dubya and Barry have done a hell of a lot to destroy any faith the world at large has in America and I don't see Another Clinton or, god forbid, Trump doing much better. The future should not be an American boot stomping on every human face it can find forever and until its leaders are made properly accountable that's the way it's probably gonna be. Are you kidding me? The history of the US has been imperialism and war since before any of us were born. The world has always had faith in America to do one thing: make the world safe for capitalist exploitation. Who's going to lose faith in the US? The British, who asked for US intervention to prevent Iranian democracy from nationalizing their oil monopoly? The French, who dragged us into their futile colonial war in Vietnam? An America that doesn't drop a single bomb and doesn't shoot a single foreign civilian for eight whole years would be fairly unprecedented in the modern era, I think, and a massive departure from worldwide foreign policy orthodoxy dating back to the Victorian era. It's not like the US has some great legacy of peace that presidents randomly decided to start making GBS threads all over as soon as you were old enough to start watching the news. CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:I never said I hated Hillary. How did you come to that conclusion? "If I'm not with you I'm against you" is an interesting way to think. You're posting about why you don't like Hillary in the "why do people hate Hillary" thread. Also, the reason you don't like her has absolutely nothing to do with her or her campaign and isn't even a real thing at all. Also, you're making veiled accusations that people in this thread are literally paid shills for her. That's why I'm assuming you hate Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:We agree on the basic principle though. What incentive is there to radically change anything, though, if the current system in its current configuration is the one that keeps you in power? I guess it's the same old, same old debate of reformism versus revolution. I reckon we both get where the other is coming from and disagree mainly on the method of realising change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What incentive is there to radically change anything, though, if the current system in its current configuration is the one that keeps you in power? I guess it's the same old, same old debate of reformism versus revolution. I reckon we both get where the other is coming from and disagree mainly on the method of realising change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What incentive is there to radically change anything, though, if the current system in its current configuration is the one that keeps you in power? I guess it's the same old, same old debate of reformism versus revolution. I reckon we both get where the other is coming from and disagree mainly on the method of realising change. I guess it's too bad a progressive can't just, you know, become a politician. It's a real shame, since that would be so much easier than trying to convince existing politicians to abandon beliefs held by the majority of Americans in order to cater to a smaller fringe group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess it's too bad a progressive can't just, you know, become a politician. It's a real shame, since that would be so much easier than trying to convince existing politicians to abandon beliefs held by the majority of Americans in order to cater to a smaller fringe group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:An America that doesn't drop a single bomb and doesn't shoot a single foreign civilian for eight whole years would be fairly unprecedented in the modern era, I think, and a massive departure from worldwide foreign policy orthodoxy dating back to the Victorian era. It's not like the US has some great legacy of peace that presidents randomly decided to start making GBS threads all over as soon as you were old enough to start watching the news. America was radically isolationist for the majority of its history leading up to WW1 Because there was good old fashioned domestic imperialism to be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
I couldn't care less about ideals or ethical purity. I don't really believe in any of these things. I try to remain critical of Hillary, the Democratic party, lesser-evilism, dominant ideology, etc because I am convinced that it actually does lead to a better outcome in actually-existing-reality to do so. This is something that I learned through both extensive real-life experience, and educating myself on the history of popular movements, the politics of democracy, social change, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What incentive is there to radically change anything, though, if the current system in its current configuration is the one that keeps you in power? I guess it's the same old, same old debate of reformism versus revolution. I reckon we both get where the other is coming from and disagree mainly on the method of realising change. Pretty much. My issue with revolution is that it almost never works. How many revolutions lead to more bloodshed and instability than solved it? There is a certain romantic idea by revolution, and I used to be all about it, but I ended up seeing more people burnt by the sun* than saved. *-bonus points to who gets this reference Like, I get you. Reform is slow and awful and nigh unforgivable in that it leaves injustices to thrive much longer than should be ethically tolerable. I just cannot conceive of a better system. You are right though, America is not going to willingly give up power itself. The danger of a democracy as a global superpower is that it is impossible to get a majority to agree to give up its hegemony. The US has to be made, along with Russia and China, to abandon imperialism and exploitation. However, I think the world stands a better chance of de-escalating exploitation in a stable geopolitical environment than it does in a chaotic one. At least the world knows Russia, China, and the US and their allegiances and behavior are understood. Work against the enemy you know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guess it's too bad a progressive can't just, you know, become a politician. Unfortunately it's pretty much impossible for a progressive to become a politician because what you need to do in order to become successful as a politician ties you irrevocably to reactionary interests. It's a systemic problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Reminder: By any metric that accounts for worldwide population growth this is the most bloodless era in recorded human history. And yet with the population and density of this population it has the capacity to be worse than anything ever seen. Think about that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Unfortunately it's pretty much impossible for a progressive to become a politician because what you need to do in order to become successful as a politician ties you irrevocably to reactionary interests. It's a systemic problem. I know, too bad there's no mainstream candidate with a blood feud against the Citizen's United ruling, huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I couldn't care less about ideals or ethical purity. I don't really believe in any of these things. I try to remain critical of Hillary, the Democratic party, lesser-evilism, dominant ideology, etc because I am convinced that it actually does lead to a better outcome in actually-existing-reality to do so. This is something that I learned through both extensive real-life experience, and educating myself on the history of popular movements, the politics of democracy, social change, etc. You obviously care about those things very much because you refuse to vote for Hillary on that basis even though she's obviously the better of the two options. People who support her, at least the majority of the people here, don't uncritically support her. Those are goalposts you're moving. The point is you can be critical and still understand that, under the current system, the best outcome results from still voting for her. You care more about your personal feelings than doing that, which increases the chances of a Trump presidency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You obviously care about those things very much because you refuse to vote for Hillary on that basis even though she's obviously the better of the two options. People who support her, at least the majority of the people here, don't uncritically support her. Those are goalposts you're moving. The point is you can be critical and still understand that, under the current system, the best outcome results from still voting for her. You care more about your personal feelings than doing that, which increases the chances of a Trump presidency. I never actually said I refuse to vote for Hillary. Well maybe I implied it facetiously in that one post with the winking smiley. This thread is called "What's the deal with people who hate Hillary?" I'm here to help provide answers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
If the thread was called "Why won't people vote for Hillary?" I would probably say similar things, though. I would probably also point out that being a non-voter is highly correlated with poverty, being racialized, being a single mom, a recent immigrant, someone who work unreasonable hours, etc. That a lot of people do not vote because there are actual material obstacles to voting that they do not have the means to overcome. That a lot of people do not feel inspired by Hillary very much, even though they do see her as a better choice than Trump, that they figure she will surely get elected anyway and that they have more pressing, immediate, and urgent concerns in their struggle for survival than overcoming the obstacles that have been put in their way to cast a vote for her. I would make the argument that when likely non-voters say that Hillary represents business as usual they are actually correct, they are not being ignorant or stupid or extremists, and that shaming non-voters for not voting is probably very limited in its effectiveness, and that victim-blaming never solved anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I would probably also point out that being a non-voter is highly correlated with poverty, being racialized, being a single mom, a recent immigrant, someone who work unreasonable hours, etc. That a lot of people do not vote because there are actual material obstacles to voting that they do not have the means to overcome. That a lot of people do not feel inspired by Hillary very much, even though they do see her as a better choice than Trump, that they figure she will surely get elected anyway and that they have more pressing, immediate, and urgent concerns in their struggle for survival than overcoming the obstacles that have been put in their way to cast a vote for her. That's why I encourage everyone who lives in a State with mail-in ballots to advocate for them. I'm working on a flier to put in mailboxes in my area (lower middle class Cincinnati) offering assistance applying for mail in ballots. I wish I had gotten on it sooner to mention registration, but I'm a procrastinator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If the thread was called "Why won't people vote for Hillary?" I would probably say similar things, though. Could be the same obstacles that prevent them from voting for her prevent them from having an informed opinion about her. nah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Hmm interesting. Mel Mudkiper posted:But most likely won't Okay got it, I'm the cynic and by golly as-is America is just about the best we can hope for (and everyone else is worse besides).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
McGavin posted:I hate Hillary Clinton solely because of her shrill voice. I understand why Americans have to vote for her, but gently caress you all for forcing me to listen to her seagull-like screech for the next four years. Her voice isn't shrill, it's low-pitched. It can be a little blaring at times. Guess what that says about anybody who calls her "shrill" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Her voice isn't shrill, it's low-pitched. It can be a little blaring at times. No, wait. It says nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
I don't know how you get Shrill from Hillary. She's droning and flat sometimes and her delivery can suffer, but she has a deeper voice than any woman I interact with on a daily basis, barring maybe my wife.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Hillary is the sad proof that, no matter how far you go to sell out to patriarchy as a woman, you will never be treated with respect by your masters
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
So are we still glossing over the fact that Bill Clinton is responsible for 500,000 Iraqi children dying and that america is currently training Jihadis in Syria?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Hillary is the sad proof that, no matter how far you go to sell out to patriarchy as a woman, you will never be treated with respect by your masters Erm, I don't think the people in this thread are her masters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:So are we still glossing over the fact that Bill Clinton is responsible for 500,000 Iraqi children dying and that america is currently training Jihadis in Syria? Remember that time when Americans were training jihadis in Afghanistan to fight marxists, and then after that was done these same jihadis blew up the world trade center, and then because of that America invaded Afghanistan and also Iraq while we were at it for no good reason? And now that war is still going on and involves many more middle-eastern territories and will never end? Classic American imperialism!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:So are we still glossing over the fact that Bill Clinton is responsible for 500,000 Iraqi children dying and that america is currently training Jihadis in Syria? Hillary is not Bill. That said, has a single person in this thread supported Hillary's foreign policy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hillary is not Bill. That said, has a single person in this thread supported Hillary's foreign policy? there were those couple of people who said "oh come on it's not like we hosed up Libya THAT much," putting themselves in the ignominious position of setting up a Stalinist to dunk on them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
You would think after 30 years of the exact same mistakes we'd learn but welp.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:there were those couple of people who said "oh come on it's not like we hosed up Libya THAT much," putting themselves in the ignominious position of setting up a Stalinist to dunk on them. Personally I'm more pro-Hillary when it comes to reproductive rights and LGBT issues, but I'm more pro-Stalin when it comes to the question of ownership of the means of production and foreign policy. Would be curious what the Stalinist in this thread thinks about Stalin's weirdly regressive ideas on family values compared to Lenin, and whether he can convince me that's not good enough reason to vote for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hillary is not Bill. That said, has a single person in this thread supported Hillary's foreign policy? Several people have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hillary is not Bill. That said, has a single person in this thread supported Hillary's foreign policy? You know if my partner killed half a million children, I'd think about maybe not being with them any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hillary is not Bill. The shifting of rhetorical focus where Hillary is simultaneously The Most Experienced Candidate In History and also completely not responsible for everything that happened during the process of getting that experience. "She had important input to his administration", "2-for-1", "He'll be an important asset and resource to her presidency" transitions to "Their different people who just happened to be married" once anyone brings up the fact that Bill is human garbage
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Hillary is not Bill. That said, has a single person in this thread supported Hillary's foreign policy? There isn't a lot of daylight between "I support Clinton's foreign policy" and "If you say anything bad about Clinton's foreign policy, the devil himself will take control of America, so just deal with it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are you kidding me? The history of the US has been imperialism and war since before any of us were born. The world has always had faith in America to do one thing: make the world safe for capitalist exploitation. Who's going to lose faith in the US? The British, who asked for US intervention to prevent Iranian democracy from nationalizing their oil monopoly? The French, who dragged us into their futile colonial war in Vietnam? You're assuming that if I'm not in lockstep with you, I hate Hillary Clinton. This is not a good train of thought. I thought Trump was the fascist. I. Do. Not. Hate. Hillary. Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I know. I just felt it had to be said, because people on the left have really broken ideas about what is ethical behavior. Protip: It isn't about being true to your ideals at all costs. Well, or more accurately, it isn't about obeying the "letter of the law" of your ideals, at the expense of the "spirit of the law." By which I mean, if you're voting for the candidate whose policies match yours most closely, but you're risking putting a much more harmful politician in power by not voting for another imperfect, but significantly less harmful, one, welp...then that's a betrayal of left-wing ideals anyway, IMO. Using your vote as your personal means of expression is not helpful to left-wing causes. It's all about how your actions affect other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:You know if my partner killed half a million children, I'd think about maybe not being with them any more. I'm not clear on how sanctions carried out by multiple states beginning in 1990 are the sole fault of the man who became president in 1992.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm not clear on how sanctions carried out by multiple states beginning in 1990 are the sole fault of the man who became president in 1992. No, Bill Clinton personally killed each and every one of those children with his own hands. And Hillary is equally at fault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
SickZip posted:The shifting of rhetorical focus where Hillary is simultaneously The Most Experienced Candidate In History and also completely not responsible for everything that happened during the process of getting that experience. You realize that she was also other things besides the wife of a president right? Like I think she had some kind of government job between 2000 and now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
I guess the deal with people who hate Hillary is that they are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:04
|
|
