2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI - Page 39 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2016, 02:04 AM   #571
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,808
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Oh look, someone just posted another one:

 


I don't even understand...
__________________

__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 02:14 AM   #572
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,032
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04 View Post
I mean, part of me strongly hopes Trump wins, just because of how funny the next four years would be

There's a pretty good chance minorities, immigrants and Muslims wouldn't find it funny.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 02:19 AM   #573
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,032
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Oh look, someone just posted another one:

 


I don't even understand...

That's what I think this DNC has done so well: reframe the narrative that Hillary is just another politician out for herself. It has patiently and methodically brought out example after example showing that, actually, Hillary really does care about the issues. She really does put in the hard work of coming up with solutions. She really does listen to people's problems and follow up with them.

Essentially the DNC has attempted to argue that Clinton is actually Leslie Knope. I think they did a pretty good job of it, too.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 02:29 AM   #574
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,416
Local Time: 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from?
This article puts the start at around January 1996.
https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-...87c#.if9gymfga
Quote:
In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
And from that moment on the Republicans ran with that story. And because of all the repetition and people's often short memories (Clinton was one of the most favourably rated US politicians when she was Secretary Of State) that part is sticking with most.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 02:48 AM   #575
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,147
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Clinton's poor decision making with what she supported in the past along with her transparent attempts to claim power at all costs are why people on the left dislike her and even her supporters in this thread will agree on both of those counts. I agree that most of the Republican hit points on her are utter nonsense and fairy tales. But for people on the left? She's done a hell of a lot of damage over the years.

I think part of the problem is that like Jeb Bush this year, she's basically a dinosaur - a relic from an older age that nobody wants in an era where authenticity, political purity and (most importantly) excitement matter most. Clinton's from that pre-Obama period where it was all about appearing Presidential and being politically cautious. Now, the rules of the game have changed. Candidates that vote for Bush doctrine nonsense including the Iraq War, take money from Goldman Sachs for oral fellating them, etc. are things that just don't work in the party anymore, but thanks to her name recognition and popularity with segments of the Democratic Party that's what helped her win the nomination.

There will never be another Clinton or Jeb Bush or John McCain winning the major party nominations ever again. This is the end of the line. Republicans clearly want excitement and Democrats are going to demand liberal purity.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 03:26 AM   #576
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 18,998
Local Time: 12:22 PM
While I fully support the Democrats continuing to push for liberal policy becoming law, I also think the party has to be careful about moving towards the whole "purity test" idea. That's what the GOP's been doing in recent years, and it's been backfiring on them in many ways, and leading to a party that isn't even remotely unified. We definitely need to have a clear cut, strong message and central theme for our party policy-wise, certainly, and Democrats absolutely need to be stronger in fighting back when the Republicans try and shoot down any legislation they attempt to pass. For all their faults, the Republicans do know how to run roughshod over people in order to get what they want. The Democrats seem to struggle more with bringing out that tough side sometimes.

But we also shouldn't be so restrictive with who we allow to work with us to the point where we isolate ourselves and become an echo chamber. If someone who may be more moderate/centrist, or even conservative on some issues, wants to help out and support the Democratic Party, that indicates to me they're on board with at least a FEW of our ideas right off the bat, and I'd say that's a good sign right there.

I do take the point about being tired of establishment politics and political/family dynasties, though. I totally understand the desire for new blood, and new faces. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, despite the fact that the youngest age a person's allowed to be president is 35, which is pretty young and which should entice many younger politicians to throw their hat in the ring as a result, it doesn't seem there's enough of them out there doing so (or at least, they're not getting the kind of support at local or state levels that they need to make that boost). Hence, for the most part, older people still wind up running.

Plus, for all the talk about wanting younger people in office, experience still matters to a lot of voters, and fair or not, they may not see younger people as having enough of it to prove themselves worthy of running. Obama obviously had more political experience when he ran in 2008 than Trump does, but even he had people doubting his abilities back then (and even after he got elected). Maybe as time goes on we'll see more of that attitude shifting and see people becoming more accepting of younger candidates and new faces, and fortunately, now that we've had people like Obama, Hilary, and Rubio changing the party dynamics on both sides to where we now have more candidates that aren't old white men running, I do think we'll see a lot more variety of presidential candidates/nominees in coming years. And I'm all for that.

But as of now, despite the complaints about dynasties and age and so on, at least voters have some idea of what to expect with people who've been around a while, and I think some find that comforting, especially in uncertain times.

I also don't argue that politics is way too wrapped up in corporate sponsors and Wall Street, and I do agree that that is something Clinton will need to address and deal with to prove to potential voters she's on their side. That is something that absolutely needs to be fixed (and I think dismantling the Citizens United ruling could be a good start at making that happen).

Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president
I'd wondered that, too. No, she's not perfect, and yes, she's supported things I wouldn't (notably the Iraq War), but I don't exactly see her as the devil incarnate, either.

But Popmartijn's article explains a whole lot of where that mess began. I was 12 in 1996, so I wasn't aware of that sort of thing back then. It's kind of incredibly sad that the GOP spent so many years trying to take her down, and based on a lot of ridiculous nonsense reasons at that.

Regarding the issues of authenticity, and being likable and exciting, I understand people wanting a candidate to be those things, and obviously I know they have to have those qualities to some degree when they do the "travel and schmooze" thing and fire up voters at rallies.

But those qualities can be in the eye of the beholder, too. Sure, people may find Trump exciting, in the sense that he's shaking things up big time for the GOP and politics as a whole. I, however, think he's expressing that excitement in a horrible way. And sure, Clinton may not be the most personable figure in many people's eyes, they may find her robotic and hard to relate to, but there's plenty of people who've worked with her who respect her hard work and extensive knowledge of political issues. So which quality is more important to some people in that instance?

Speaking for myself, the most important thing for me as a voter is whether or not the candidate is going to do their best to fight for and support at least most, if not all, of the issues that matter to me. If they are, they get my vote.

As for memes and people sharing their opinions and whatnot, yeah, I've read some utterly ridiculous, facepalm-worthy stuff online as well :/. I saw someone who had supported Bernie in the primaries say on another site earlier tonight that this election would be like choosing between Stalin and Hitler. Which...yeah...no.

(Not to mention, are we as a society seriously not done yet with the "Hitler" comparisons in politics? Holy hell, people, get a new song to play already).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I might (extra stress on might) have convinced my mom tonight to take a harder look at who Donald Trump really is, so I haven't totally abandoned all hope. She's firmly in the never-Clinton camp, but hasn't quite made up her mind on Trump.
My mom, sister, and I are all on the same page with our choice . We're very outnumbered by my relatives, however. They either hate both Trump and Clinton, or they're solidly Trump.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 03:36 AM   #577
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 80,808
Local Time: 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
along with her transparent attempts to claim power at all costs
Comments like this. What does this even mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
As for memes and people sharing their opinions and whatnot, yeah, I've read some utterly ridiculous, facepalm-worthy stuff online as well :/. I saw someone who had supported Bernie in the primaries say on another site earlier tonight that this election would be like choosing between Stalin and Hitler. Which...yeah...no.
This was the one I saw the other day where I was like...what?
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 06:43 AM   #578
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 39,553
Local Time: 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president

In the 90's Republicans embraced this excessive cartoonish propaganda campaign. It gave birth to Limbaugh, then later Fox News, and the current right wing media landscape. Which has lead to this current celebration of ignorance; which has lead to Trump.

This propaganda machine centered around the Clintons; they attacked Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea. They spent so much time and effort attacking them that real news sources had to start speaking to their claims. But this cartoon media has been focused on the word Clinton for so long that it's just permeated our entire media landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-29-2016, 07:40 AM   #579
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,636
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Comments like this. What does this even mean?
Yeah. Like her embracing of Obama's candidacy after her defeat in the 2008 primaries in a way that was clearly more active/enthusiastic than Sanders so far.
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 07:53 AM   #580
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,641
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from?
While I'm uncomfortable with Obama's heavy use of drone strikes (which we've discussed separately and is obviously a complicated issue), I'm very turned off by Hillary's tendency to embrace aggressive foreign policy. She's certainly more right-wing on that front than Obama. There is a reason a lot of prominent neoconservatives are behind her, and it's because they consider her one of them in the arena of foreign policy.

BMP's attacks on HRC are largely nonsense, however. He seems to stray away from the actual negatives of Clinton regularly (aside from her economic policies, but he only really scratches the surface on the actual issues involved there), opting instead to get really fucking upset that it took her slightly longer to get on board with gay marriage than it took Barack Obama.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 08:09 AM   #581
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,636
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
While I'm uncomfortable with Obama's heavy use of drone strikes (which we've discussed separately and is obviously a complicated issue), I'm very turned off by Hillary's tendency to embrace aggressive foreign policy. She's certainly more right-wing on that front than Obama. There is a reason a lot of prominent neoconservatives are behind her, and it's because they consider her one of them in the arena of foreign policy.

BMP's attacks on HRC are largely nonsense, however. He seems to stray away from the actual negatives of Clinton regularly (aside from her economic policies, but he only really scratches the surface on the actual issues involved there), opting instead to get really fucking upset that it took her slightly longer to get on board with gay marriage than it took Barack Obama.
These are genuine criticisms, but I don't think they answer the question about the Hillary-being-the-devil narrative. And I think most of it comes from the 1990s, in a time when partisan media was being consolidated (across the ideological spectrum), and she became the target of attacks for everything that was wrong with liberal America.
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 09:47 AM   #582
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,641
Local Time: 01:22 PM
My point is that there is an actual case to be made that Hillary Clinton is a dangerous candidate, and almost everyone who is calling her dangerous is doing it for totally the wrong reasons.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 09:54 AM   #583
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Entombed in a shrine of zeroes and ones, you know?
Posts: 18,641
Local Time: 01:22 PM
This guy is way more articulate about Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton than I think most in here (including myself) have been:

This trucker makes the best argument for Bernie or Bust - Vox

Quote:
Bill Clinton, the only reason he was successful in getting stuff pushed through Congress is that he made so many concessions to the right he basically was a Republican. I’ve read some articles that Bill Clinton was ready to push privatization of Social Security through in ‘99 and the only thing that stopped him was a blow job from an intern. [The Cato Institute basically agrees.]

I just feel like the Clintons have betrayed me over and over. I read a book about the Clinton years and how the liberal class just sold out the middle class, and Clinton was a big part of that. Living through these things, I remember when they said, "We’ll reform welfare" and they did that by taking millions of single women off of food stamps with no way to feed their children. Then they started the "three strikes and you’re out" policy, and it put a generation of black men in jail.

Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall and after that we fell apart. We lost our jobs in the recession. We lost our homes, and after that they bailed out the bankers and gave them trillions of dollars so they could keep their bonuses while the working man hasn’t gotten a raise in 25 years. And the elite give themselves money and pat themselves on the back.

...

If she wins, she’ll be back in the bubble again. She’s out there saying whatever she needs to say right now, sure. But we’ve seen the reality of a Clinton presidency; it wasn’t as rosy as it was portrayed to be.

I see her taking money from Goldman Sachs and the banks and the pharmaceutical companies. And Clinton was on the board of Walmart. The Clinton Foundation — my god.

I find it hard to believe she’ll do anything for me after taking all this money from these special interest groups. Why will she turn on those people when it’s so easy to turn on us?

...

I know Donald Trump will appoint worse judges. I would never vote for him. I’m just trying to imagine either of them being president, and all I see is them as puppets for the bankers and the elites pulling the strings behind the scenes.
I understand that a lot of what's being talked about is about Bill Clinton's presidency, but it's a thoughtful take regardless.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 10:14 AM   #584
New Yorker
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 2,932
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
This guy is way more articulate about Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton than I think most in here (including myself) have been:

This trucker makes the best argument for Bernie or Bust - Vox



I understand that a lot of what's being talked about is about Bill Clinton's presidency, but it's a thoughtful take regardless.
I don't think this is thoughtful at all. It is the same senseless parroting we've had to endure for many months now.
First Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton. Not Hillary. Second, those years of Bill Clintons, the country was at a much different place. The electorate was backing far more conservative agendas, and to even have a chance, Bill had to be a right leaning Democrat.

She is a different person in a different time. I think its sad that people cant believe that maybe through her experience over the years, living with both good and bad decisions, that she has actually learned a damned thing or two and actually now has a much more real understanding of why not to make those mistakes again.
Now that the Democratic party is leaning much more left, She understands that she is there to represent the people who elect her, and she has shown this by backing the most progressive agenda in Democratic history.

And I'm sorry, but the whole Goldman Sachs speeches wreaks of sexism. She was NOT in office. She had every right to go out and speak and make just as much money as any other man with her background would make.
She got paid hundreds of thousands speaking to Universities and non-financial institutions as well.
And after all that money, what has she done to prove that she does any favors for wall street or big banks?
Coming out this campaign with the most comprehensive plan to regulate them? Pushing through Dodd Frank?
Somehow Sanders who actually voted for deregulation of credit default swaps, and voted for weakening credit card regs, is the champion of the little guy. But if Hillary had made those votes, she would be credited with single-handedly bringing the crash of 08.
Bernie voted for the crime bill, But hillary who didn't is the one that has "imprisoned a generation of black people"
It's just stunning delusion.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 07-29-2016, 10:17 AM   #585
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 27,681
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
My point is that there is an actual case to be made that Hillary Clinton is a dangerous candidate, and almost everyone who is calling her dangerous is doing it for totally the wrong reasons.
There is a genuinely useful discussion to be had on Hillary as a dangerous candidate (to the point that I don't see a substantial difference between her and you-know-who aside from rhetoric), which I think a lot of her supporters may be unaware of. I would like to contribute some things to it tomorrow.
__________________

__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com