|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2017 08:54 Kadungon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 07:51 zlefin wrote:On July 09 2017 06:56 Kadungon wrote:
Obviously, in 3.5 years, it will be Hillary vs Trump again. And just as last time, I am sure I know who will win before election day.
Fuck the democrats. Sure. Trump belongs in jail. But I'd rather vote for him than for Hillary. Of course, if I were poor, I wouldn't have that luxury. that makes you a terrible voter; if you're choosing the objectively worse choice and are aware of it  Trump is objectively the better vote over Clinton (be it Hillary or Chelsea at that time). If you want to change the system, better elect someone that is so corrupt, criminal, and incompetent at being so as Trump, ending up in jail, than someone as slick and conniving as Clinton. They are both extremely right wing and both giving crony capitalism free play. At least with Trump, some people (but too few) will realize something needs to change. That said, I left the US and I don't plan on returning. I advice anyone educated and civilized to leave that sinking ship. Right now, it is fucked up for the poor. While it got worse, in a few years it will be fucked up for the middle class. And if this continues, in a decade or so, it will be fucked up for anyone not the super-rich. And at that point, the super-rich are going to get lynched. There is a breaking point. And then, it will be fucked up for everyone.
clinton is not extremely right wing; at least not by american parlance standards (which is the one that matters in this context). that you claim that alone, means you have no idea what your'e talking about, and are utterly unfamiliar with the topics, and/or crazy biased. so there's little point in takling to you further, and your original claim that I objected to now stands as an irrelevant claim; since you clearly havce no idea what you're taling about, your opinions on who to vote for are also of no actual meaning, in addition to being obvoiusly false on its face of course.
|
|
|
Both Clinton's are on the right of the American public, including all the rednecks/confederates and religious nuts, according to polling on policy.
Yes, I am on the left of the American public. Call it a 'bias' if you want. Reality also happens to have a bias. Being biased when the mainstream is wrong doesn't mean you can't be right.
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 09 2017 09:39 Kadungon wrote:
Both Clinton's are on the right of the American public, including all the rednecks/confederates and religious nuts, according to polling on policy.
Citation needed.
|
If you think the clintons are on the right of the american people you massively overestimate how liberal the country is.
|
If your theory is you need to put a criminal scumbag idiot in charge to break everything so it can be fixed you'd need people in there to actually light his ass up and fix the stuff he breaks. Considering he's surrounded by his own party and yes men do you really think anything is going to get fixed? Are they going to hold him to account? You're beyond delusional if you actually think anything Trump does is going to be fixed by Republicans, that's never going to happen.
|
Clinton is a third way socialist. Someone who tries to reconcile socialism with capitalism. She's no right winger anywhere.
|
On July 09 2017 09:39 Kadungon wrote:
Both Clinton's are on the right of the American public, including all the rednecks/confederates and religious nuts, according to polling on policy.
Yes, I am on the left of the American public. Call it a 'bias' if you want. Reality also happens to have a bias. Being biased when the mainstream is wrong doesn't mean you can't be right.
weird how come that a right-wing candidate drafts legislation that positions her to the left of 85% of her peers?
Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
|
Basing a political inclination measure on legislative voting record isn't exactly a surefire way to measure anything; in many cases, I think it'd say more about the tenor of what's making it through the legislative pipeline rather than an individual legislator's outlook.
Further, I think it's a mistake to ignore the extent to which Clintonite Democrats injected quite a bit of conservatism into the party's crime and justice platform. Democrats were high on Reagan-esque law enforcement attitudes throughout the 90s. To say that Hillary "was no right winger anywhere" is flat out wrong, arguments of relativity notwithstanding.
|
Clinton found a way to be very liberal without touching on any of the things that liberals are interested in or really care about while being conservative in all the things it was convenient to be a conservative.
|
On July 09 2017 10:09 RvB wrote:
Clinton is a third way socialist. Someone who tries to reconcile socialism with capitalism. She's no right winger anywhere.
Isn't third way basically Macron's neoliberalism? Clinton is to the right of that. It feels like sort of a useless concept anyway since it targets a centrist position, and centrism clearly doesn't mean the same thing when Macron talks and when the US talks.
|
On July 09 2017 10:16 farvacola wrote:
Basing a political inclination measure on legislative voting record isn't exactly a surefire way to measure anything; in many cases, I think it'd say more about the tenor of what's making it through the legislative pipeline rather than an individual legislator's outlook.
Further, I think it's a mistake to ignore the extent to which Clintonite Democrats injected quite a bit of conservatism into the party's crime and justice platform. Democrats were high on Reagan-esque law enforcement attitudes throughout the 90s. To say that Hillary "was no right winger anywhere" is flat out wrong, arguments of relativity notwithstanding.
I think it is sensible to primarily judge a professional lawmaker on their well... lawmaking. The problem with judging her based on rhetoric is that anybody will hear and read only what they'd like the Clinton's to be, which is apparent given the range of things people have attributed to Clinton, from being a socialist to being the literal robot devil.
Sure she's swung on issues in the past to try to also target centre-right voters, but who hasn't? Obama was publicly anti gay marriage not so long ago, did anybody care about that? That's just politics as usual but somehow when the Clinton's do it it's hugely controversial and taints them for decades.
The lengths people have gone through to be offended by Clinton in one way or another is truly remarkable.
On July 09 2017 10:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 10:09 RvB wrote:
Clinton is a third way socialist. Someone who tries to reconcile socialism with capitalism. She's no right winger anywhere. Isn't third way basically Macron's neoliberalism? Clinton is to the right of that. It feels like sort of a useless concept anyway since it targets a centrist position, and centrism clearly doesn't mean the same thing when Macron talks and when the US talks.
Bill is considered to be the posterchild of centrist U.S third way politics, and Hillary is significantly more left-wing than he was. In the context of respective politics Macron is significantly more right-wing than Clinton.
|
There is so much more to well.....lawmaking than legislative voting records, so I'd prefer my condescension with a helping of actual engagement with the stuff of organizing consensus, fundraising, and party direction involvement. In other words, the alternative to not relying on a five thirty eight "Clinton is so liberal....in the context of federal legislative voting opportunities" article is not a pure focus on rhetoric, contrary to the direction you've taken things. As my post made clear, the entire Democratic party has had a problem with its leftist roots and the third way turn best exemplified by Clinton and Pelosi types is not beyond criticism in its influence. I know folks like GH make this hard to recognize from time to time, but not all criticism of Clintonian Democrats comes from a place of animus focused on rhetoric.
|
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why.
|
On July 09 2017 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why.
The democratic party was much more liberal before the supposed "third way" offered by Bill Clinton in the 1990s, also known as new democrats en.wikipedia.org.
Hillary was more liberal than her husband, but in many ways the Clintons in 2008 seemed to forget that they're hated as much by the left for destroying what used to be their party as they are by the right for co-opting their ideas. There's a reason why Obama was able to beat her in 2008 primaries by running to her left without it being particularly controversial outside of some of the more racist states.
|
On July 09 2017 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why.
as to why they hold a grudge: part of is it probably the lack of a likeable/affable personality.
there might also be something with the known effects of facial structure and other such aspects of appearance.
|
I'm confused Nyxisto. You're saying at the same time that she is to the left of Macron and that she is unambiguously liberal? I certainly agree that she's liberal, but that's kind of what I thought I was arguing, against the idea that she was to the left of that.
Sanders may proclaim that he's a democratic socialist but his policies are really social democrat. There's a reason why he points to Scandinavia whenever he talks about something working well.
|
On July 09 2017 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why.
Hillary just happens to be the current face of the movement in the party started by politicians like her husband. To the extent that the Clintons and players like them try and stifle change in and around grassroots Democratic Party consensus building, they deserves the criticism they get. Past that, folks interested in moving forward need to get on from talking about Clinton lol.
|
The moment Clinton stops being relevant, I am prepared to never talk about her again. Contrary to popular belief, though, that has yet to happen. The Clintonites are doing their best to leverage the badness of Trump to try to keep that movement alive. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people are buying that shit as time goes on.
|
On July 09 2017 11:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2017 11:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Even taking all of those things into account I still can't see how Clinton isn't unambiguously liberal, especially in the American context. I don't think it has ever been controversial for a Democrat to talk tough on crime, right? Biden surely isn't more liberal and people seemed to not see that as a problem.
It just feels like people really want to be upset about the Clintons. The kind of stuff they have thrown at that family, you would have thought they publicly murder puppies or something. (or run illicit child trafficking rings in the basement of pizza parlors).
That she seemed conservative in the context of Sanders, who branded himself as a self-proclaimed socialist, sure. But this hardly means that she's not liberal enough.
People just seem to hold a grudge against Clinton and I've got no idea why. Hillary just happens to be the current face of the movement in the party started by politicians like her husband. To the extent that the Clintons and players like them try and stifle change in and around grassroots Democratic Party consensus building, they deserves the criticism they get. Past that, folks interested in moving forward need to get on from talking about Clinton lol.
I don't like the rhetoric of "stifling change", the specific persona of Clinton aside, it's legitimate to be centrist-ish Democrat right? They're justified to defend their position within the party given that they're probably just as large as the emerging progressives or larger? It sounds almost vanguard like, as if everybody has to step aside so that the progressives can step up and kick off the revolution
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
