• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Root: 'Hillary Is Not Your White Savior'

A

aeolist

Banned
Fenderputty said:
People actively want to destroy the ACA because a minority is getting more help then them and you still believe in the "rising tides" bullshit?
Click to expand...

republicans got traction with their talk about repealing the ACA because the marketplaces suck balls and are terrible to deal with, plus it did not do enough to address the problems with the rest of our healthcare system.

there is a vast hunger in this country for actually good and moral healthcare solutions and to chalk that discontent up to "minorities getting help" is laughably stupid. hell, the part that helped minorities most (medicaid expansion) is by far the most popular aspect of the ACA (because it pushes back against the insanity that is market-based health insurance) and trying to do away with it is what killed the GOP's plans.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
DontBeThatGuy said:
I mean, this is also true. You aren't getting anything significant done unless you control everything, and even then it's not a sure thing.
Click to expand...

Besides Gorsuch, Jeff sessions wouldn't be in the DOJ fighting for the destruction of affirmative action, we wouldn't be deporting people like animals and we wouldn't be making blanket Muslim bans.

The idea that Clinton would have done nothing is so short sighted it hurts
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
I really wish for America's sake you guys would stop arguing about Hillary Clinton. Who is going to be the new Democrat leader to try and point your country back in the right direction at the next general election? That should be what arguments are about now. Nearly a year has passed since Clinton lost and you're still fighting about her chances of winning an election... that's long over? Unless you secretly want her running again next time then I'd suggest it's fast approaching time to let fucking go.

I said in that book release topic of hers, but this is going to be downright depressing if she's still all that is being argued about in 2018. Yes, everyone, it's nearly 2018. Time to move on please, many around the rest of the world are looking at America and thinking cmon, please try and do better than Trump next time. I agree some reflection about why Trump won is needed, but most of the work needs to go to picking a better potential leader for the next election and also focussing on stay at home voters and people not voting. That 5~15% needed to win an election is not coming by arguing about a past candidate that didn't win.

Yeah yeah, comments from an outsider, but I can't be the only one thinking it's starting to get a bit long in the tooth still arguing about Hillary Clinton. Point for this article or rebuttals to "If Hillary Clinton had won" is, who the fuck cares about that hypothetical now? She didn't. Work needs to be done on getting a potential leader sorted out who will run a good campaign and will win. Inspire people, get them out voting, and try and clean up whatever mess Trump causes.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
aeolist said:
republicans got traction with their talk about repealing the ACA because the marketplaces suck balls and are terrible to deal with, plus it did not do enough to address the problems with the rest of our healthcare system.

there is a vast hunger in this country for actually good and moral healthcare solutions and to chalk that discontent up to "minorities getting help" is laughably stupid. hell, the part that helped minorities most (medicaid expansion) is by far the most popular aspect of the ACA (because it pushes back against the insanity that is market-based health insurance) and trying to do away with it is what killed the GOP's plans.
Click to expand...

This isn't a retort to my post.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Bonen no Max'd said:
I dunno, she seems to ask one for counsel on her foreign policy so she can't be too worried about it. I suppose Kissinger wasn't a dictator but he sure accomplished plenty of genocide.

or this gem
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what your argument is here. It seems to start from the first principle that everything Kissinger ever touches is immediately made evil. I think Kissinger is pretty bad but I'm not really convinced that he is King Midas of genocide, so maybe you should expand on this if you want it to be understood.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Melkr_ said:
Shocked at this thread devolving into Sanders vs. Clinton.
Click to expand...

I mean, the article was written against an imaginary point of view from a different author just to prop up progressive creds. It was basically a not very well hidden Clinton v Progressives article based on imagination. Not hard to see where it would go
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
gcubed said:
I mean, the article was written against an imaginary point of view from a different author just to prop up progressive creds. It was basically a not very well hidden Clinton v Progressives article based on imagination. Not hard to see where it would go
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what it was after reading the New York Times article. LOL
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
O Canada Our Home and Native Land said:
Well even your other post about Hillary's take on institutional racism is complicated by the fact that she took money from the private prison industry before returning it after she was called out. Hillary has a lot of dirt.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a lot of dirt. Welcome to politics. You pick the least shitty option available and you try and keep them on the straight and narrow via political pressure.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Fenderputty said:
This isn't a retort to my post.
Click to expand...

There seems to be this fantasy among many progressives that people will vote for a canidate that will give healthcare to all, etc etc.

They don't understand the history of racism in this country, and the degree it still exists.
People will vote against their own interests if it means keeping such benefits away from races they don't like.
 
C

Calcaneus

Member
I think its a bit optimistic about how much Trump is getting America to notice and oppose White Supremacy. Its kinda interesting to see all the sharp cynicism directed towards Democrats who think Clinton would have been better, but then the article turns around and proposes that the unified national attention and horror at White Supremacists will even last into the next month.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
aeolist said:
there is a vast hunger in this country for actually good and moral healthcare solutions
Click to expand...

a hunger so vast that it lost by 4 million in the democratic primaries and nominated a narcissistic circus huckster who literally lies every single time he opens his mouth in the republican primaries

turns out there was actually a vast hunger by white people to vote for someone who played to "we aren't doing anything wrong" nonstop for two years
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
Fenderputty said:
Besides Gorsuch, Jeff sessions wouldn't be in the DOJ fighting for the destruction of affirmative action, we wouldn't be deporting people like animals and we wouldn't be making blanket Muslim bans.

The idea that Clinton would have done nothing is so short sighted it hurts
Click to expand...

I'm talking besides not doing the hideous things that obviously wouldn't be anywhere on the agenda if she would've won. (and I thought I was agreeing with you?)

She would've been incredibly stifled from a policy standpoint, just as Obama was after midterms. It's not possible for anyone to be a 'savior' (again, doesn't exist) in such an obstructionists at any cost environment.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
lightskintwin said:
Quit using minorities, she's specifically speaking from a Black perspective. Feel free to disagree with her, but it's not some crazy sentiment she's expressing that hasn't been expressed in Black communities.
Click to expand...

While the author is black, many of the issues addressed affect all minorities too. And I believe in strength in numbers. I'm black myself - but I also know we can't do it alone. It'll be either partnering with whites or partnering with other minorities to get more of the pie - or a combination. Going at it as a black only issue or situation will get us nowhere - even though the black struggle in the US is unique compared to other minorities. And this is only in relation to actually trying to get real change at the electoral level throughout the US in the voter box. That's all I meant by that.

But that's just my view.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
eBay Huckster said:
a hunger so vast that it lost by 4 million in the democratic primaries and nominated a narcissistic circus huckster who literally lies every single time he opens his mouth in the republican primaries
Click to expand...

it's almost as if our electoral system is fundamentally broken and anti-democratic, our politicians feel more accountable to a few wealthy donors than their millions of constituents, and the ruling class is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo
 
B

Billy_Pilgrim

Member
She was the saviour of those who spend every day thinking about how much they can blame white people for, most of whom were white themselves. Which was completely bizarre as she was the dictionary definition of white privilege.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
aeolist said:
it's almost as if our electoral system is fundamentally broken and anti-democratic, our politicians feel more accountable to a few wealthy donors than their millions of constituents, and the ruling class is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo
Click to expand...

What was broken about the primary?
 
L

lightskintwin

Banned
GoldenEye 007 said:
While the author is black, many of the issues addressed affect all minorities too. And I believe in strength in numbers. I'm black myself - but I also know we can't do it alone. It'll be either partnering with whites or partnering with other minorities to get more of the pie - or a combination. Going at it as a black only issue or situation will get us nowhere - even though the black struggle in the US is unique compared to other minorities. That's all I meant by that.

But that's just my view.
Click to expand...

Oh I know that, it's just that specific article was written by a Black person to a Black audience on a site geared to a Black demographic.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
aeolist said:
it's almost as if our electoral system is fundamentally broken and anti-democratic, our politicians feel more accountable to a few wealthy donors than their millions of constituents, and the ruling class is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo
Click to expand...

actually it's almost as if elections have consequences, given that more or less every major cause of the current particular level of election-finance fuckery can be traced back to people vote-splitting in 2000 because "both sides are the same"

(it's also almost as if a certain group of people will vote against their own interests on racial lines like fucking clockwork if someone's able to gin up enough fictional discontent among them)
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Suikoguy said:
There seems to be this fantasy among many progressives that people will vote for a canidate that will give healthcare to all, etc etc.

They don't understand the history of racism in this country, and the degree it still exists.
People will vote against their own interests if it means keeping such benefits away from races they don't like.
Click to expand...

"Rising tides" needs to be a part of a comprehensive attack, but it is not the solution itself.

I explain that people vote against their own interests for racial reasons and the response I get is basically a double down of the original post lol

Racial animus is hurting our ability to lift the damn tides!!!
 
G

Gorillaz

Member
No doubt Hilary would have just been ststus quo WS and everyone would have just go with it. The one positive thing to this Trump thing is that people are realizing shit is not as sweet as they thought. It's fucked up it had to happen but at least this turned into a wakeup call for alot of people
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
pigeon said:
I'm not really sure what your argument is here. It seems to start from the first principle that everything Kissinger ever touches is immediately made evil. I think Kissinger is pretty bad but I'm not really convinced that he is King Midas of genocide, so maybe you should expand on this if you want it to be understood.
Click to expand...
as I understand your argument, military force is anti-racist when used for the purpose of stopping genocide and thus Clinton's plan to go to war with Syria is anti-racist. If I'm wrong on this, let me know.

My argument is that it's hard to say Clinton really cared about genocide because she's close friends with and seeks the counsel of a genocidal monster and broadly endorses his worldview. I really doubt you'd accept someone saying "look, I may not always agree with Théoneste Bagosora's views on society but he's a very close and important friend and his worldview is incredibly smart and broadly close to my own", right?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
DontBeThatGuy said:
I'm talking besides not doing the hideous things that obviously wouldn't be anywhere on the agenda if she would've won. (and I thought I was agreeing with you?)

She would've been incredibly stifled from a policy standpoint, just as Obama was after midterms. It's not possible for anyone to be a 'savior' (again, doesn't exist) in such an obstructionists at any cost environment.
Click to expand...

We were agreeing, I was just adding to the original point
 
O

O Canada Our Home and Native Land

Banned
pigeon said:
.
Click to expand...

You can't just praise someone for a single act and expect people to say silent when that person does other questionable actions. What's wrong with pointing out a fact that is related, in this case institutional racism, that brings a more fuller view of a politician?

I don't understand why Hillary is even mentioned in the NYT piece. What is the point of the article? How are you better after reading it?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
eBay Huckster said:
actually it's almost as if elections have consequences, given that more or less every major cause of the current particular level of fuckery can be traced back to people vote-splitting in 2000 because "both sides are the same"
Click to expand...

...or it could be traced back to Al Gore being an incredibly underwhelming candidate.

We live in a democratic system. You can't dissolve the people and elect another. If something goes wrong for you, saying 'fuck the voters' isn't going to make it any better. If anything, it makes it worse. Your candidate was something that was under your control - maybe you should start questioning why you keep picking such bad candidates?
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
Crab said:
...or it could be traced back to Al Gore being an incredibly underwhelming candidate.

We live in a democratic system. You can't dissolve the people and elect another. If something goes wrong for you, saying 'fuck the voters' isn't going to make it any better. If anything, it makes it worse. Your candidate was something that was under your control - maybe you should start questioning why you keep picking such bad candidates?
Click to expand...

alternately, maybe it's possible that 1) the candidates are bad and 2) the voters have some level of responsibility in continuing to make bad choices (both in the primaries and in the general)
 
D

DontBeThatGuy

Member
Calcaneus said:
I think its a bit optimistic about how much Trump is getting America to notice and oppose White Supremacy. Its kinda interesting to see all the sharp cynicism directed towards Democrats who think Clinton would have been better, but then the article turns around and proposes that the unified national attention and horror at White Supremacists will even last into the next month.
Click to expand...

I've personally noticed some shifting, some cracks in the ice around these parts pertaining to Trump's support after Charlottesville. But yeah, these folks could also jump right back on that peculiar bandwagon at a moment's notice.

I'm just cautiously optimistic that more people are already getting really sick of him and in 4 years time, his chances of re-election will be dead in the water. (no idea about midterms)

Fenderputty said:
We were agreeing, I was just adding to the original point
Click to expand...

Ah, okay.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
aeolist said:
closed primaries, voter roll purges, caucuses (lol they helped bernie more! i am aware, they are still anti-democratic and should go), unelected delegates declaring for one candidate almost immediately
Click to expand...

Does that add up to the difference in the final totals between Hillary and Bernie?

DontBeThatGuy said:
I've personally noticed some shifting, some cracks in the ice around these parts pertaining to Trump's support after Charlottesville. But yeah, these folks can jump right back on that peculiar bandwagon at a moment's notice.

I'm just cautiously optimistic that more people are already getting really sick of him and in 4 years time, his chances of re-election will be dead in the water. (no idea about midterms)



Ah, okay.
Click to expand...

He won't be the guy for the GOP next election, even if he isn't impeached by then, unless they somehow figure out a way to get him under control so they can actually work on implementing their agenda - and so far they've failed miserably at that, so I don't really see that happening.
 
T

TurnipFritters

Member
Calcaneus said:
I think its a bit optimistic about how much Trump is getting America to notice and oppose White Supremacy. Its kinda interesting to see all the sharp cynicism directed towards Democrats who think Clinton would have been better, but then the article turns around and proposes that the unified national attention and horror at White Supremacists will even last into the next month.
Click to expand...

Yeeeeah. There's a lot of "Trump's presidency is making America confront racism head on" and it's like, (A) polls show most people are buying into the "both sides" bullshit and (B) even if that were not the case, what would be the actual next step? Like, sure, people who went to the nazi rally are getting fired, and CEOs who exploit the labor of people of color resigned from Trump's advisory board, but ultimately it seems like it's just reinforcing the status quo of "it's ok to advocate for racist policies just as long as you use the appropriate dog whistles and don't proudly identify yourself as a racist."
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
eBay Huckster said:
alternately, maybe it's possible that 1) the candidates are bad and 2) the voters have some level of responsibility in continuing to make bad choices
Click to expand...

2) is probably true, but it's a useless observation. It's like saying 'I wouldn't be poor if I had a million dollars'. No shit - but you don't. You can actually do something about 1), but I don't think I've ever heard you front up and say 'you know what, Clinton was a really bad candidate and in retrospect we really need to examine what went so badly wrong that she ended up being the candidate, and see what we can do to fix the systems that failed us so badly'.

I mean, why not have a go now? Any suggestions for what systemic changes can be made to increase the chance of successful Democratic candidates?
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
i mean, it's a useless observation made in response to what's ultimately another useless article that's attacking a fictional viewpoint to gin up views. i've made worse posts

Crab said:
I don't think I've ever heard you front up and say 'you know what, Clinton was a really bad candidate and in retrospect we really need to examine what went so badly wrong that she ended up being the candidate, and see what we can do to fix the systems that failed us so badly'.
Click to expand...

i've kept this on facebook for the most part, mainly because i don't think my opinions are particularly notable on here when probably two dozen people can articulate the same points better. but i'll give it a go anyway.

Any suggestions for what systemic changes can be made to increase the chance of successful Democratic candidates?
Click to expand...

for starters: replace all closed primaries and caucuses with semi-closed primaries, make voter registration deadlines considerably less strict, and probably figure out a way to bar superdelegates from declaring before super tuesday
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
Billy_Pilgrim said:
She was the saviour of those who spend every day thinking about how much they can blame white people for, most of whom were white themselves. Which was completely bizarre as she was the dictionary definition of white privilege.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that definition has to go to a man....like maybe our current POTUS.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
cdyhybrid said:
Does that add up to the difference in the final totals between Hillary and Bernie?
Click to expand...

is that the point i was making?

i'm saying you should not expect the will of the people to be broadly represented in policy when you have a system like ours that does not directly translate it into election wins. this is beyond any single election and is more fundamental than the policy split between those two particular candidates.
 
B

blackflag

Member
Sirpopopop said:
She wouldn't have been a savior, but it would have meant:

-No Gorsuch
-No withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol
-No Scott Pruitt
-Stronger response to Charlottesville
-No Transgender ban in the military
-None of this deregulation hogwash
-No attempt at a Muslim ban
-None of this Chicago race baiting.
-None of this MS13 bullshit
-None of this Border Wall bullshit

That's more than just, "Yeah... she would have been better than Trump."
Click to expand...

War on drugs and mandatory minimums wouldn't have been escalated again.

I for sure get their point and yeah I agree but don't pretend things wouldn't be much better than they are now.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
eBay Huckster said:
alternately, maybe it's possible that 1) the candidates are bad and 2) the voters have some level of responsibility in continuing to make bad choices (both in the primaries and in the general)
Click to expand...

voters narrowly chose gore just as they chose clinton last year, but once again our fucking stupid and awful system means the popular will is not implemented.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Crab said:
...or it could be traced back to Al Gore being an incredibly underwhelming candidate.

We live in a democratic system. You can't dissolve the people and elect another. If something goes wrong for you, saying 'fuck the voters' isn't going to make it any better. If anything, it makes it worse. Your candidate was something that was under your control - maybe you should start questioning why you keep picking such bad candidates?
Click to expand...

The question would be then who is better and more "charismatic" versus who is actually better for policy and governance. Sometimes it is both, but that clearly isn't as easy as anyone thinks it is.

Gore was clearly the better politician and he was the VP of a popular outgoing president. Although the scandal caused him to distance himself from Clinton. People liked Bush because they thought they could have a beer with him. If the electorate is basing their vote off stuff like that, then yeah. Blame them for lacking basic critical thinking skills. By the time we were done with Bush, we were on the brink of a depression and were in the middle of two unpopular wars.

Sometimes yeah the politician can be to blame. But if the level of education and understanding is that bad among the population, then maybe the issues go well beyond the candidate alone. It becomes a societal issue - which certainly happens among populations.
 
C

cdyhybrid

Member
aeolist said:
is that the point i was making?

i'm saying you should not expect the will of the people to be broadly represented in policy when you have a system like ours that does not directly translate it into election wins. this is beyond any single election and is more fundamental than the policy split between those two particular candidates.
Click to expand...

The argument you put forth was that there is an enormous bloc of voters who want progressive healthcare policy beyond what Hillary was campaigning on, was it not? If not, my mistake.

Unless your argument is that the primary was so rigged that it disenfranchised that entire group, then the results of the primary would suggest that said argument (and the existence of said voter bloc) is questionable.
 
A

aeolist

Banned
cdyhybrid said:
The argument you put forth was that there is an enormous bloc of voters who want progressive healthcare policy beyond what Hillary was offering, was it not? If not, my mistake.

Unless your argument is that the primary was so rigged that it disenfranchised that entire group, then that would suggest that said argument is questionable.
Click to expand...

polling does tell us that universal government-backed health insurance enjoys popular support, yes.

and the reason i brought that up was because of the ridiculous suggestion that the ACA was only ever disliked because some black people got to see a doctor. it goes way beyond that.
 
J

joshcryer

it's ok, you're all right now
Heh, Hillary would've been having confederate monuments torn down left and right and scorned and shamed those who wished to keep them. It would've been fun. Because, in the end, from a purely bureaucratic perspective, who can argue for keeping up monuments of a traitors? It would've been coy, at the local level, with suggestions with what to replace them with. But she wouldn't be sitting idly by hesitating on lambasting white supremacists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oppenheimer debuts in Japan ༼ ༎ຶ ᆺ ༎ຶ༽
Science
41
2K
Winter John replied
Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
7K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
1K
AJUMP23 replied
A True Saint: Betty White secretly paid to evacuate animals from New Orleans aquarium after Hurricane Katrina
15
1K
Gonpachiro Kamaboko replied
Bloomberg at GDC: creativity way too risky as AAA budgets hit 300 mil, painting bleak future with mostly safe IPs
News 2 3 4 5
209
8K
Deerock71 replied
Top Bottom