2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

[mikal]

So, it's more heroic to be for something you were previously against when it was unpopular than to take a stand decades prior?


That would fit in with the new fiction of Hillary Clinton = Prominently Important Gay Rights Activist For Decades.

Does it matter though? I have a ton of respect for someone willing to flip flop on an issue after researching it further. I don't really care how they got there as long as I agree with their standpoints.

Great example, my dad grew up in a very racist portion of northern Wisconsin. It wasn't until he joined the military and met people from other races that he realized that racism was complete BS. Does that make my dad any less of a person?

 

[PhilsFan]

Wow. I've never once heard that. Having been a bernie guy for months and switching to HRC, and being active on FB and Twitter, I've seen both sides, AND have been actively hit from both sides.
I can attest to the fact that Bernie people seem to just spew piles of vileness compared to most HRC people.
99% of Hillary people will admit that HRC isn't perfect, and would vote for Bernie if he's the nom.
I'd say a good 30% of Bernie posts i see are a long list of GOP smears against Clinton followed by, I will never vote for the corporate shill, Killary!!

Ugh.. I'm not sure where you are frequenting on social media, but thank god you are shielded from the onslaught that i see.

I'm at a Twitter crossroads between sports fans and humorous people who are also liberals. It's a mixture of Clinton and Sanders supporters but I would say as a whole they tend to lean Sanders. A lot of them are troubled by Clinton's foreign policy, her views on income inequality, and her utter inability to recognize and understand where the people to her left are coming from. So I'm not going to pretend I'm getting 100 percent objectivity here. These are Sanders supporters who are flummoxed by the Clinton campaign and thus are having it out with the prominent voices defending Clinton and attacked Sanders. Peter Daou, Tom Watson, Sady Doyle, Michael Cohen, those types. I don't know how familiar everyone here is with names like those, but they've been particularly vocal Clinton supporters and their defenses/attacks on Sanders have ranged from bizarre, to hilariously outlandish, to flat out lies. I'm at work and don't have time to go through it all, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[Diemen]

last time i checked, Diemen, the globe was still warming at an alarming rate, children were still being shot to death on the streets of Chicago, and we don't have a global basic income to lift millions of Africans out of poverty.

a real progressive would have accomplished all these things.

The rise of the left wing "compromise is weakness" counterpart to the tea party is truly a wonder to behold.

 

[Irvine511]

You're either supportive of something on day one or you are detrimental to the cause.

yeah, see, this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. ossification and an unreasonable demand for purity used to be only for those on the right.

as a homosexual (i love saying that), i totally understood that Obama couldn't take a pro-SSM position because, shock, it would have, at the time, meant that he would be in danger of losing votes that he needed to win the election. i knew, instinctively, that he was pro-SSM, and would one day be pro-SSM, and that if i were patient, and voted for the right people, and continued to make the argument, and if he continued to make incremental change (like DADT), that eventually the time would come. i'm not a child, so i didn't demand to be catered to or that my own individual concerns were so important that they were more important than other concerns, nor do i think that my vote is something rare and precious that must be courted and won, like some maiden's virginity. politics is a zero sum game, and it's a long game, and it's more important to assemble a coalition and run a national party that works together for achievable common goals than to be so sure of our rightness and so intolerant of other viewpoints and ways of life and the fact that, gosh, change *is* hard for some people, that we sacrifice the good for our own self-absorbed ideas of perfection.

 

[PhilsFan]

Also, Bill Clinton had a very bad day in Philadelphia.

 

[BVS]

You're either supportive of something on day one or you are detrimental to the cause. By Obama not coming out immediately in support of gay rights, it led to the passage of a lot of discriminatory legislation, some of which was voter approved like Prop 8 in California. So, he helped set back the movement before giving them a shove in the right direction years after the fact.

Prop 8 happened before he took office.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[mikal]

yeah, see, this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. ossification and an unreasonable demand for purity used to be only for those on the right.

as a homosexual (i love saying that), i totally understood that Obama couldn't take a pro-SSM position because, shock, it would have, at the time, meant that he would be in danger of losing votes that he needed to win the election. i knew, instinctively, that he was pro-SSM, and would one day be pro-SSM, and that if i were patient, and voted for the right people, and continued to make the argument, and if he continued to make incremental change (like DADT), that eventually the time would come. i'm not a child, so i didn't demand to be catered to or that my own individual concerns were so important that they were more important than other concerns, nor do i think that my vote is something rare and precious that must be courted and won, like some maiden's virginity. politics is a zero sum game, and it's a long game, and it's more important to assemble a coalition and run a national party that works together for achievable common goals than to be so sure of our rightness and so intolerant of other viewpoints and ways of life and the fact that, gosh, change *is* hard for some people, that we sacrifice the good for our own self-absorbed ideas of perfection.

 

[BEAL]

i feel as if we've all gotten a good glimpse of what we were talking about earlier.

This x100000

It's like debating with the Extreme Right.

NO COMPROMISE!!!! HILLARY EVIL!!!! BERNIE SAVES


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

It's a good thing Bernie is 74 and the Messiah, this probably means his evolving is over and there's no more changing stances.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

I'm glad the left finally woke up and realizes who the enemy is.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think it's more heroic when someone is able to change or evolve their stance because they realize it's the right thing to do.

Oh come on. That's not the story at all. She either changed her views on stuff like gay marriage because she previously took the favored political stance that she personally disagreed with, or because she took he favored political stance that she didn't agree with when it became popular.

She didn't "heroically" evolve. If anything, she never really cared.

 

[mikal]

Oh come on. That's not the story at all. She either changed her views on stuff like gay marriage because she previously took the favored political stance that she personally disagreed with, or because she took he favored political stance that she didn't agree with when it became popular.

She didn't "heroically" evolve. If anything, she never really cared.

Proof?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[LuckyNumber7]

yeah, see, this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. ossification and an unreasonable demand for purity used to be only for those on the right.

I agree. While I don't admire Clinton's "evolution," I do think it's a bit ridiculous that it would disqualify her. It's not what she stands for now, and that's what matters. It definitely speaks to her character... or rather better put... it speaks to Senator Sanders' character.

But character isn't everything. People should focus more on now and tomorrow. I've been critical of Clinton on stuff like this, but I'll totally still vote for her on the grounds that she does represent a fair portion of what I want.

If you can produce damning evidence that suggests that she routinely says one thing and then does another, that's a problem. But I have no crazy imagination that Clinton would go out and reenact DOMA just because 20 years ago she was in favor of it.

 

[Mack_Again]

this argument is so futile because we can't get into Hillary's head.

 

[Mack_Again]

Proof?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I want to prove but to complete the proof I need to complete studying about hyperbolic space.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I will say though... the Iraq War is a special case where I do think that flip flopping is important to be criticized heavily. That's because it's an assessment of judgement, not just character.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

this argument is so futile because we can't get into Hillary's head.

Well that's my point. She's definitely not "heroic" for changing. That's drinking the Clinton kool aid. But it's not an adequate judgement of her ability to do what she says she'll do. I'm sure she will, no doubt about that.

 

[Mack_Again]

I feel like Hillary's "compromise and what we think of compromise is pretty different.

 

[DaveC]

Well, this thread certainly isn't doing either side any favors

 

[BVS]

I'm glad the left finally woke up and realizes who the enemy is.

Tribute bands are the enemy of art, and compromise is the tribute band of politics.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Hollow Island]

So let’s forget the smoking guns for the moment. The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.

For instance, under the Clintons’ guidance, drug companies work with the foundation to knock down their prices in Africa (conveniently avoiding the real solution: changing the system of patenting that allows them to charge such grotesque prices to the poor in the first place). The Dow Chemical Company finances water projects in India (just don’t mention their connection to the ongoing human health disaster in Bhopal, for which the company still refuses to take responsibility). And it was at the Clinton Global Initiative that airline mogul Richard Branson made his flashy pledge to spend billions solving climate change (almost a decade later, we’re still waiting, while Virgin Airlines keeps expanding).
In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.



At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.



The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview. | The Nation

 

[Hollow Island]

The problem with people who worship the idea of compromise is that they fail to realize that there are some things that cannot be compromised on.

 

[BVS]

The problem with people who worship the idea of compromise is that they fail to realize that there are some things that cannot be compromised on.

Understanding the necessity of compromise at times is not worshipping. The problem with the all or nothing crowd is they may die waiting for change.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[PhilsFan]

My biggest hang-up with the far left (which exists now, I guess that's progress from where it felt like we were not that long ago?) is exactly what BM is showing here. There has to be some level of pragmatism. You can't just say "never drone strike." You can't just say "tax the rich." Both on a political and practical level, you need to get real at some point. And it's why Sanders is such an odd concept for me. He's the only one who gets one of the major issues, but his solutions aren't good.

But that doesn't get Clinton off the hook. Part of what this election cycle has revealed is that the Bill Clinton nostalgia is a little over-the-top and inaccurate.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

yeah, see, this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. ossification and an unreasonable demand for purity used to be only for those on the right.

as a homosexual (i love saying that), i totally understood that Obama couldn't take a pro-SSM position because, shock, it would have, at the time, meant that he would be in danger of losing votes that he needed to win the election. i knew, instinctively, that he was pro-SSM, and would one day be pro-SSM, and that if i were patient, and voted for the right people, and continued to make the argument, and if he continued to make incremental change (like DADT), that eventually the time would come. i'm not a child, so i didn't demand to be catered to or that my own individual concerns were so important that they were more important than other concerns, nor do i think that my vote is something rare and precious that must be courted and won, like some maiden's virginity. politics is a zero sum game, and it's a long game, and it's more important to assemble a coalition and run a national party that works together for achievable common goals than to be so sure of our rightness and so intolerant of other viewpoints and ways of life and the fact that, gosh, change *is* hard for some people, that we sacrifice the good for our own self-absorbed ideas of perfection.

Thank. You.

It doesn't make sense. We're all supposedly so cynical about politicians, but then we complain when they don't live up to the promises and campaign slogans they spout. Well, yeah, of course they won't follow through with every last thing they say they'll do and say they believe. They're politicians. We're not supposed to trust them from the start, remember?

And I do NOT want the left emulating the right on the "no compromise ever" attitude. We cannot bitch about the right refusing to compromise with Obama and the Democrats when we're willing to turn around and do the exact same thing. We just can't.

That's not to say we shouldn't stand our ground on issues/bills that are especially important when they come up. Absolutely we should. But there still needs to be room for compromise at some point, too. And if doing that means that change happens a little more slowly than one would like or expect, then so be it. At least that way, the results will likely be better for everyone in the long run.

Speaking for myself, as long as I know a politician is at least TRYING to do what they can, as long as I can agree with them on a good portion of their political views and get the sense that they are at least interested in doing their part to help with issues I care about (doesn't matter whether they were there from day one or came in late, fact is, they're there and that's what matters), that's the most important thing to me. I don't expect sweeping change overnight (certainly won't complain if it happens, but some things take more time than others), and I don't expect to find a candidate who I will never ever disagree with or who's never ever done things I wouldn't support. I still very much like Obama and am glad I voted for him both times. Have I agreed with everything he's done? No. But he's also done or supported enough good things that make me feel like voting for him was worth it.

And if I disagree with him or any other politician strongly enough on something, or have an issue that I think is worth bringing attention to, I write letters. I support organizations. I'll go to a rally or a protest if need be. Sometimes it might work, sometimes it might not, but at least I'm doing something.

 

[Irvine511]

I admire many of Sanders' long-held positions. The video of him demolishing Sen. Duke Cumningnham for using the term "homos in the military" way back in 1995 is genuinely inspiring and exemplary.

It's also easier to take such positions when you only have to answer to 650,000ish Vermonters. It's a very white, very real state in the middle of common sense mind-your-own-business New England, and the first state to pass Civil Union legislation in 2003 (thanks to Howard Dean, who had to wear a bullet proof vest when he signed the bill). Bernie's position on handguns also reflects his constituents. Vermonters like to hunt. Naturally, he is more supportive of gun rights.

All of which is to say that Bernie is a politician. One with a little more leeway than others. But even still, he represents the interests of his constituents. Like he's supposed to.

 

[anitram]

as a homosexual (i love saying that), i totally understood that Obama couldn't take a pro-SSM position because, shock, it would have, at the time, meant that he would be in danger of losing votes that he needed to win the election. i knew, instinctively, that he was pro-SSM, and would one day be pro-SSM, and that if i were patient, and voted for the right people, and continued to make the argument, and if he continued to make incremental change (like DADT), that eventually the time would come. i'm not a child, so i didn't demand to be catered to or that my own individual concerns were so important that they were more important than other concerns, nor do i think that my vote is something rare and precious that must be courted and won, like some maiden's virginity. politics is a zero sum game, and it's a long game, and it's more important to assemble a coalition and run a national party that works together for achievable common goals than to be so sure of our rightness and so intolerant of other viewpoints and ways of life and the fact that, gosh, change *is* hard for some people, that we sacrifice the good for our own self-absorbed ideas of perfection.

You know it's interesting because Canadians like to pat themselves on the back for how much more advanced we are on the gay marriage issue, but years ago I went to see one of the lawyers who basically legislated all of them main cases prior to gay marriage being legalized. Fascinating woman who told us of the 20 YEAR process it was in my province (Ontario) and basically it began with chipping away at smaller things, like human rights issues that could be argued before tribunals, etc. So that when gay marriage was legalized it was actually just the last step of many, many incremental changes which came before (like rights re: visitations in hospitals, workplace discrimination rules, etc). But because most people have no idea that this went on it was as if Canada was suddenly enlightened and our courts out of the blue declared "one man + one woman" unconstitutional. Those courts basically had no choice at that point.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, Irvine, I'd be willing to bet that many Democratic politicians here in Iowa would have a similar stance on the gun issue for the same reason. LOTS of gun owners here. Lots.

It would be interesting, though, to see if and how his stance on the gun issue changed if he were to become president. I imagine we probably would see at least bit of a shift in some respects, especially if more gun control groups and organizations do press him to show more support for their stance.

I'm fine with either Sanders or Clinton. For the most part, I think I tend to be more politically in line with Sanders, but I'm fine with Hilary, too. I don't get the intense hatred some have for her (well, I know one reason some people hate her, but that's also not the only reason people hate her), and I don't feel she's THAT much worse than any other politician out there. Certainly there's legit things in her record or past to criticize or scrutinize or investigate, but hell, the chances of finding a politician whose past you DON'T have to do that for is pretty slim, so... Not saying that makes any shady stuff politicians do right, of course, just...welcome to the world of politics, unfortunately.

I'll need to check out that video you mention of Sanders going after Cunningham. That sounds pretty awesome.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Prop 8 happened before he took office.

Obama won California at the top of the same ballot. Had he come out in favor of gay marriage, it could have convinced enough people, particularly black voters, to say "no" to Prop 8. So yes, his stance at the time is completely relevant.

 

[corianderstem]

Fuck North Carolina. Fuck Mississippi. Like anyone wants to go to Mississippi anyway.

(People do want to go to NC. I hear the beaches and Outer Banks are lovely. I have an uncle who lives in NC. He's probably in favor of the ruling or law or whatever, alas.)