|
I dunno that it's so much just that she is changing her views so much as that it seems like she's only doing it for votes and there's no confidence she'll actually DO those things when in office as opposed to some half-hearted attempt which ends up gutted on the Senate floor. How she could alleviate that feeling I dunno really. Otherwise yeah I agree that's reasonable; if the public wants X the leaders should act accordingly instead of ignoring public sentiment. I think partially it makes people feel like she lacks conviction in her stances (which doesn't help the feeling that she won't actually DO those things in office). Did she really think about gay marriage and decide her ethics/principles were wrong and have a change of heart or is she just paying lip service to gay rights now that it is popular? Maybe it doesn't matter in the end as long as gay rights happen but it makes people feel like she won't fight for any of those things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
I'm gonna vote for the lizard person but I don't have to like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
InterFaced posted:I pretty much agree with everything here but since I'm bitchin' about Clinton today the most aggravating thing for me is how she just revises her position based on how much it affects her polling. (Marriage Equality, TPP, Minimum wage.. basically adopting sanders' platform while she was opposing him.) I realize that as an elected representative seeing where the people are going and following along isn't something that should be necessarily bad but the shameless way she does it leads me to believe she has no real agenda other than gaining power. I don't know if I would call it shameless, maybe shrewd, but not shameless. The difference between Clinton and Trump flip-flopping on issues is that Clinton is a career politician who knows that if you're going to advocate for something, you actually have to work towards that goal, while Trump is literally saying anything he can to get elected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
I will say that going strictly on her voting record she seems like a pretty decent progressive candidate. Sure no one hits the mark 100% but she seems fairly genuine once you look past the media narrative and all the election day hype stuff, even if she does still come across as a bit House of Cards.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Rabble posted:I don't know if I would call it shameless, maybe shrewd, but not shameless. The difference between Clinton and Trump flip-flopping on issues is that Clinton is a career politician who knows that if you're going to advocate for something, you actually have to work towards that goal, while Trump is literally saying anything he can to get elected. thats the exact sense i get from hillary clinton too though
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Roylicious sure does seem to figuratively spunk out a whole load of literal dullard opinions from his brain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:...so the fact that she is one of the most experienced politicians we've ever had running for president over the last 50 years or so is impressive to me. I always hear this and it's absolutely ridiculous - she was a Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4. There are plenty of candidates in the past 50 years with equal if not more high-level government experience. McCain, Gore, Dole, HW Bush, Mondale, and Nixon were all more experienced politicians. There seems to be this odd need to elevate her to be the next best thing since sliced bread. She's a hawkish, slightly socially progressive, populist Democrat. Pretty much a dime a dozen, except she has name recognition and has turned herself into a fortune generating brand (just in a more respectable way than Trump - she sells the appearance of access while he sells his name to any piece of poo poo that pays). The fact that Trump is as close to her in the polls as he is reflects poorly on her skill as a politician and on Americans as a whole. Boxcar fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:22
|
|
verdigris murder posted:Roylicious sure does seem to figuratively spunk out a whole load of literal dullard opinions from his brain. That's rude  Just because I'm not super gung ho about one side or another's narrative or on the alternate 'gently caress everything' team?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
It was appalling how the media twisted Hillary getting carried up the stairs by her security team into some disease. The ignorance required in believing that campaigning for president or ruling as a senior is an easy job coincides with the rearranging of the alt-Right into a Scientology cult of Trump. It's astounding the level of acting required even to participate in discussions involving Trump as a serious contender.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
im voting for trump because we're going to go to war either way and i'd rather the opponent be a complete surprise
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Politics in America has always been a gradual creep towards 'branding' which is ironic since Obama is black, and has worked on his personal brand (drone strikes, healthcare, federalism, being a committed black dad) for quite a while. Trump and Clinton is just a weird example of memetic isomorphism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Also Luke Cage won't do as well. Which will have racist consequences for those involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Stexils posted:trump is a nutso idiot but the threat of his presidency is less "mexican wall" and more that he'll be a rubber stamp for 90 percent of the republican legislation the house passes, and also put someone horrible in the supreme court. shame clinton is so incredibly unlikable in every way Trump as third party chestbuster to the republican party was a lot more fun and electable then current standard-republican-but-loud trump. He still had obviously no idea what he was doing but he offered the possibility of maybe challenging some of the interests that run America or at least loving up in a way that would take them down. Currently, you know he's surrounded by republican apparatchiks who will ensure he' wouldnt be allowed to do anything that might interrupt status quo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
verdigris murder posted:Also Luke Cage won't do as well. Which will have racist consequences for those involved. Counterpoint: Luke Cage will do pretty well, just not as well as the show that starred a hot superhero chick as the main character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Pitdragon posted:trump might be just another cog in the corporate oligarchy, but at least he isn't a familiar cog. and he's promising to change things and make a difference! i think it's literally a case of people being so fed up with the status quo that they are willing to chance it with the devil they don't know. it's the same reason bernie had a chance in hell of winning. it's the same reason obama won. maybe stupid or shortsighted, but it shows just how desperate the economic situation is for people This just doesn't seem right to me. Whatever you believe the problem with the economy is, whether you think that it's all about the rising wealth gap or that rich people need to pay less taxes, there were fringe candidates running on a reform platform on both sides, during the primaries. You had Bernie for the Democrats and the Zodiac Killer for the Republicans. But they both lost. People CHOSE the status quo candidate Clinton, and they CHOSE to go with a clown, instead of the Zodiac Killer. There was real reform on the table, but people refused to take it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Lol that you think Cruz wasn't status quo
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Counterpoint: Luke Cage will do pretty well, just not as well as the show that starred a hot superhero chick as the main character. Islam on the other hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I think hillary totally dominates bill in bed and I would probably let her do it to me too
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I think Trump is a dick because part of the plan for all his ventures is "stiff the people who sell you goods and services." There have been a few stories about this lately, but I've been hearing about that poo poo since high school. The rear end in a top hat goes into agreements knowing he is not going to pay and destroys small businesses who thought they had hit the jackpot with a Trump contract.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
verdigris murder posted:Also Luke Cage won't do as well. Which will have racist consequences for those involved. I think Netflix will say it did great regardless and no one else has access to the info. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Troposphere posted:I think hillary totally dominates bill in bed and I would probably let her do it to me too Those two don't even sleep in the same wing. Cramming into the West Wing will be closer than they've been in decades. Fortunately she'll be out working a lot. There will be hookers. Oh yes. There will be hookers. Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:This just doesn't seem right to me. Whatever you believe the problem with the economy is, whether you think that it's all about the rising wealth gap or that rich people need to pay less taxes, there were fringe candidates running on a reform platform on both sides, during the primaries. You had Bernie for the Democrats and the Zodiac Killer for the Republicans. But they both lost. People CHOSE the status quo candidate Clinton, and they CHOSE to go with a clown, instead of the Zodiac Killer. lol you think Ted Cruz is a reformist? everything else aside he has an actual track record of being completely incapable of getting anything done in Washington, like outstandingly inept even to the hurhur nothing ever gets done in Congress low-info crowd. You can project whatever fantasies you like on Trump cause he's a poltiical blank slate and has no track record except running fancy hotels, and that was enough for him to crush every competitor sullied by an actual track record of promising change and being kinda lovely and lackluster once elected, while Clinton the god-empress of the DNC with fawning vassals in every major media outlet had to pull every ratfucking trick in the book to scrape by against a geriatric socialist who couldn't even defend his microphone from random shouty crazies
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:I think partially it makes people feel like she lacks conviction in her stances (which doesn't help the feeling that she won't actually DO those things in office). Did she really think about gay marriage and decide her ethics/principles were wrong and have a change of heart or is she just paying lip service to gay rights now that it is popular? Maybe it doesn't matter in the end as long as gay rights happen but it makes people feel like she won't fight for any of those things. ideally, everyone changes their views and opinions about things over decades as society changes. it's just that most people, unlike career politicians, are not constantly asked what they think and then those words are written down. personally i dont think changing opinions are a bad thing, nor does it make someone untrustworthy. there's a hell of a lot of midwesterners pushing 70 who haven't evolved on gay rights, for example
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
TBH I enjoyed watching Cersei Lannister debate Archie Bunker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
one question I have: if Hillary wins, what will happen in 4 years? everyone hates the two candidates, would she get primaried from the left (even just to make sure she gets pulled to the left again)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
poorlifedecision posted:What's the less shameless way of incorporating things that polling data tells you your constituents want? A fireside chat where you delve deeply into how you came to your decision? I mean I get the frustration over someone not having the ideal or policy in the first place, but at what point does it become unacceptable to change your view because voters are telling you it's what they demand? Isn't that a representative democracy? A page ago, but I agree with Roylicious on this one. The concern is that Hillary has problems being for many things until they become acceptable to the mainstream. Hence the oft-repeated example about her stance on gay marriage. The DNC sabotaged a candidate who would have tried to make large, popular changes in favor of a candidate who will say anything to be popular. If she does anything to better my life or the lives of people I know, it will be a surprise. Her justifiable caution about giving Trump nukes becomes ridiculous since she's been starting poo poo with Russia over the fact that she doesn't encrypt her motherfucking phone. She's starting poo poo with Russia over the actions of a Romanian. It's like something Bush II would've done. In short, I do miss Sanders. He would have mopped the floor with Trump and eaten him. And that idiot moderator would have let it happen, because apparently that's what moderators do now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
AugmentedVision posted:It doesn't matter
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:we're everywhere motherfucker it worked for bush
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:This just doesn't seem right to me. Whatever you believe the problem with the economy is, whether you think that it's all about the rising wealth gap or that rich people need to pay less taxes, there were fringe candidates running on a reform platform on both sides, during the primaries. You had Bernie for the Democrats and the Zodiac Killer for the Republicans. But they both lost. People CHOSE the status quo candidate Clinton, and they CHOSE to go with a clown, instead of the Zodiac Killer. It's all about image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:As a non american I don't know who "Bernie" is. Why was he a "good" candidate unlike these others? He was America's Jeremy Corbyn, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Morticia makes me hard posted:one question I have: if Hillary wins, what will happen in 4 years? everyone hates the two candidates, would she get primaried from the left (even just to make sure she gets pulled to the left again)? GOP will come to their senses, go with Rubio, and he will probably flatten a much older Hillary exhausted by 4 years of perpetual legislative stalemate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
phasmid posted:The DNC sabotaged a candidate phasmid posted:He would have mopped the floor with Trump and eaten him. Neither of these things are true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:53
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:People CHOSE the status quo candidate Clinton, and they CHOSE to go with a clown, instead of the Zodiac Killer. All the DNC accusation stuff aside, it is a true fact that the media treated HRC like she was already the DNC candidate from day 1 and it is a true fact that in major important state CA the media announced HRC as already having won so no point in voting for Sanders the day before the vote happened. Even if you completely discount the DNC being biased against Bernie, the media was most *definitely* biased against him and that for sure ensured he would lose. As an aside, did ya'll know Chelsea Clinton sits on the board of directors for IAC, the company that owns The Daily Beast? Huh I wonder why they were running non-stop anti-Bernie articles...
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Neither of these things are true. Actually, there's smoking gun evidence that the DNC colluded against Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:Even if you completely discount the DNC being biased against Bernie, the media was most *definitely* biased against him and that for sure ensured he would lose. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media Bernie Sanders didn't receive as much press as Hillary, but the media covered him more positively then any other candidate in the race. Hillary was covered the most negatively. This includes Republican candidates for both of these people. a bone to pick posted:Actually, there's smoking gun evidence that the DNC colluded against Bernie. They may not have wanted him to be the nominee, I'm not arguing with that. What the hell does that matter if they don't actually attempt to sabotage him in any way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:They may not have wanted him to be the nominee, I'm not arguing with that. What the hell does that matter if they don't actually attempt to sabotage him in any way? ...Because they controlled the media narrative to manipulate voters against him? Because it was such an unethical abuse of power that the head of the DNC had to step down? Because he was never given the same treatment that the other candidate got? I think it matters a lot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:05
|
|
trapped mouse posted:https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media Look all I know is for weeks on end all the headlines in the mags and papers by the checkout were basically sucking Hillary off, lambasting Trump, and ignoring Bernie 100%. I don't need a Harvard study to tell me that Also, from the study itself: quote:Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.[23] Clinton got three times more coverage than he did.[24]
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I mean maybe I'm wrong but I thought it wasn't the DNC's job to pick a preferred candidate
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:...Because they controlled the media narrative to manipulate voters against him? Where's the smoking gun for this? a bone to pick posted:Because he was never given the same treatment that the other candidate got? There were more than two candidates running for president in the democratic primary, and Bernie got way better treatment than the others, especially considering he wasn't even a democrat before he decided to make a run for it. What treatment from the DNC are you talking about? Code Jockey posted:I mean maybe I'm wrong but I thought it wasn't the DNC's job to pick a preferred candidate They sure as hell didn't pick the nominee. Voters did that, whether you like it or not. By the way, those arguing for "name recognition", Bernie couldn't have possibly had as high name recognition as Hillary no matter what he did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:58 |
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Where's the smoking gun for this? The leaked DNC emails that led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepping down?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 17:50
|
|
