Support NeoGAF

[Mecha]

How is HRC a centrist?

Learn up on some politics.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Learn up on some politics.

lmao this chart

Like, it doesn't even have Cruz right, since he's much further right than any of those people there. I'd probably put Bush (assuming it's W) a wee bit more to the left. And Hillary a tad right to where Bernie is, and Bernie a bit further left than he is.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Learn up on some politics.

you live in the U.S?

 

[Fedelias]

Learn up on some politics.

Can you list out for me where Clinton and Sanders differ and how that makes her a centrist and him "way more" progressive?

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Learn up on some politics.

 

[Mecha]

you live in the U.S?

Yes, but I used the chart as a joke.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Learn up on some politics.

I like how you don't even try to provide context for this graph.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

This is the end.... my only friend, the end.

Video?????

 

[nib95]

lmao this chart

Like, it doesn't even have Cruz right, since he's much further right than any of those people there.

It does have Cruz right. Just authoritarian right.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

As a liberal, I can't wait to be able to vote for either a centrist, right of center candidate or an extreme far right candidate for the presidency in the November general election . It's so amazing that we live in a country that offers such a wide selection of competing political candidates who represent a myriad of political views like my own and countless others. Yay for Democracy.

This is where liberals can get it so wrong.

The country does not move any direction very quickly. In fact, it slowly moves left. Incremental change isn't exciting, but it's how the country works. Vote for progressives at the local level and stay engaged for the mid terms. Complaining about the President not being far left enough to enact more liberal policies isn't realistic.

 

[Suikoguy]

I like how you don't even try to provide context for this graph.

I'll provide it straight from the same website:

Style more than substance separates Trump from Hillary Clinton. After all, Trump was a generous donor to Clinton's senate campaigns, and also to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary is nevertheless disingenuously promoting herself as the centrist between an extreme right-winger (Trump) and an 'extreme left-winger' (Sanders). Abortion and gay marriage place her on a more liberal position on the social scale than all of the Republicans but, when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair.

Yes, that's really what they wrote.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

How is HRC a centrist?

Fracking has turned my state into the earthquake capital of the world and its putting our drinking water at risk. I lost my job due the financial crisis in 08 and i dont think telling them to "knock it off" is going to help protect us in the future, and western intervention in the middle east rarely works out and usually just makes things worse.

I'm not confident in her helping with any of these issues.

 

[Suikoguy]

Fracking has turned my state into the earthquake capital of the world and its putting our drinking water at risk. I lost my job due the financial crisis in 08 and i dont think telling them to "knock it off" is going to help protect us in the future, and western intervention in the middle east rarely works out and usually just makes things worse.

I'm not confident in her helping with any of these issues.

She is not for fracking if it causes drinking water issues. The Middle East is a mess, with no real solutions. Unless you want to be isolationist, Hillary is probably your best bet. You are welcome to be isolationist, but it's a hard sell to the electorate and our alliances. Also, quit quoting Sanders talking points if you want to have an argument.

 

[PeskyToaster]

This is where liberals can get it so wrong.

The country does not move any direction very quickly. In fact, it slowly moves left. Incremental change isn't exciting, but it's how the country works. Vote for progressives at the local level and stay engaged for the mid terms. Complaining about the President not being far left enough to enact more liberal policies isn't realistic.

I think that's a symptom of the two party system and democracy as a whole. It's gong to be slow n steady progress and while that kind of sucks there also won't be any rapid regressions. Unless of course there's ample motivation and broad consensus then things go fast.

 

[Mecha]

I'll provide it straight from the same website:



Yes, that's really what they wrote.

Here's the website if anyone is curious.

 

[2 Slice Toaster]

Clinton didn't pay off her debt from her 2008 run until the end of 2013. But she loaned her campaign a lot of money, i don't Bernie has done that

But campaign debt is campaign debt. Since Bernie doesn't have the personal net worth Clinton had, I would think that it would be all the more likely he's not sitting on a huge warchest.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Learn up on some politics.

reminder that politicalcompass has literally never been reliable and that inputting clinton's actual issues statements into their shitty not-updated-since-2004 test puts you in the bottom-left quadrant

 

[Suikoguy]

Here's the website if anyone is curious.

Ah, yeah I should have included that.

Here is a realistic comparison of candidates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html

The only real difference between Sanders and Clinton is on defense. And even then, Sanders is not all that isolationist as many suspect if you look at his voting record. He seems to like it if it helps his state too.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

With the combination of HUELEN10 posts and that fucking chart, my wall now has head sized holes in it because I have smashed my head into my wall to end my mental pain and replace it with physical.

 

[nib95]

I'll provide it straight from the same website:

Yes, that's really what they wrote.

That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations (not necessarily just European). It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.

I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European or more international standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less….developed….but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.

 

[hawk2025]

That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations. It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.

I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less….developed….but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.

I honestly wonder if you are capable of sounding any more condescending if you tried.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

She is not for fracking if it causes drinking water issues.

So she's ok with the hundreds of earthquakes that they cause every single year?

 

[BlastProcessing]

Learn up on some politics.

I see your completely unsourced chart has both an X and Y axis. Therefore, I am unable to disagree with it.

Fair play!

 

[Suikoguy]

That's pretty accurate though. I would say on the whole they've had relatively decent charts, but more inclined towards a European or more progressive idea or understanding of political leanings. I suspect many Americans would strongly disagree with it, simply because the political culture and landscape in the US is still behind compared to many other Western nations. It's amusing to me that so many actually think Hillary is left wing, by European or international standards, she absolutely is not.

I'd personally argue she was centre right or right by European standards, based on her policies on healthcare (still far from Universal), foreign policy (hawkish and aggressive), taxation (far lower than most European standards), big business (more lenient on regulations and major policy shifts) and so on. Obviously you could argue that US politics in general are more right wing and less….developed….but that doesn't change her political alignment comparative to most standards.

Odd, I had no idea Hillary was running for President of Europe. Also odd that Hillary and Trumps policies are so similar, I had no idea looking at their respective platforms. On taxes alone for that matter. Obviously Trump is lying about his policy plans, it's the only way their statement makes any sense.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Ah, yeah I should have included that.

Here is a realistic comparison of candidates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html



The only real difference between Sanders and Clinton is on defense. And even then, Sanders is not all that isolationist as many suspect if you look at his voting record. He seems to like it if it helps his state too.

And once again being the litmus test progressive never hypocritical super candidate causes issues.

I love all these articles that come up exposing Sanders as a politician.

 

[Cipherr]

That fucking chart is the dunce cap of this election period. Posting it unironically is 2016's equivalent of showing up to school with your pants on backwards after watching Kriss Kross videos in the 90's and being convinced that style was going to take off. Only to arrive and have the entire school point and laugh at you.

Ah, yeah I should have included that.

Here is a realistic comparison of candidates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/findthebest-/every-2016-candidate-from_b_7562176.html

The only real difference between Sanders and Clinton is on defense. And even then, Sanders is not all that isolationist as many suspect if you look at his voting record. He seems to like it if it helps his state too.

Reality has a Hillary bias.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Learn up on some politics.

This picture is becoming the 'Offensive/Stephen Fry' picture of politics

 

[Suikoguy]

So she's ok with the hundreds of earthquakes that they cause every single year?

It's tough to tell if the bigger earthquakes were caused by fracking. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/

The small earthquakes are not a serious concern though unless you are looking for something to bitch about.

Since drinking water tends to be the top concern, I've not seen any statements from Hillary about earthquakes. She has voiced concern about Methane releases though. Fracking needs additional regulation and study, but done properly it could be a great energy stop gap. Given her stances on the other problems with fracking, if plausible links can be provided about major earthquakes, that may be a deal breaker for her too.

 

[nib95]

I honestly wonder if you are capable of sounding any more condescending if you tried.

I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.

 

[AlphaDump]

I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.

the irony here is, you are trying to redefine america's definition of political leanings. because you're from europe.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I think that's a symptom of the two party system and democracy as a whole. It's gong to be slow n steady progress and while that kind of sucks there also won't be any rapid regressions. Unless of course there's ample motivation and broad consensus then things go fast.

I believe that's where a lot of the Sanders support comes from- frustration with the speed at which liberal policies can be enacted. I believe they think it should happen now. All of these liberal policies should happen right now, anything less is unacceptable. Why shouldn't it? Everyone who doesn't agree is a part of the problem, preventing it from happening, in their eyes.

What frustrates me is the lack of perspective that motivates that support. I've been disappointed with Sanders throughout his campaign- sometimes even angry- and I've been pretty liberal for decades. Of course Sanders is right about many issues, but the antagonistic, uncompromising approach is a detriment to actually getting the country moving in that direction. The country is not up for that. As you said, it requires a broader consensus to get things moving more quickly- and it certainly requires a softer approach than what Sanders was capable of. I just hope Sanders supporters get some perspective and apply that enthusiasm to come to a more realistic understanding of how things are, and how to actually get to where they want.

 

[Valhelm]

Bernie should probably drop out. I love the guy to death, but he's not able to win at this point. Staying in doesn't promote his views as much as taints the popular opinion of social democracy. If I was Bernie, I'd concede the primary and use that hot, hot Sanders cash to prop up progressive legislators.

It's close enough to November that Bernie staying in might weaken Clinton against the Republican opposition.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

People barely even remember the people that make it to the general and lose in most cases. I think its a bit of wishful thinking to expect that Bernie would have some special place in the mind of those in the future.

You really need to remember that he is less popular among the populace than she is. He is LOSING the popular vote because more people want Hillary as opposed to him. I reckon when this election is looked back on in the past it will be "First female president" and "LOL Donald Trump" and not much about Bernie Sanders.

That's just how it goes.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH

I swear it's babies first election for some of you people.

Bernie is the failed "populist" candidate we get at least 1 every cycle.

I want Bernie supporters to pass a damn test before they try to tell me Sanders will matter in a decade. Just tell me who ran against Bill in '96, and for bonus points, tell me someone that lost either primary that year. Maybe 1/10 could do it? That's Sanders' future. The guy isn't going to matter. He got thumped, far more than Clinton did by Obama, and since he's borderline running as an "Obama sucks" candidate, he'll go down as being opposed to the left-wing Ronald Reagan. The idea that Sanders could win on that platform is striking.

I know you're banned now, but basically my entire professional experience is in that field. I'm a lawyer after all ;P

Hell, I've worked for the DoD, and half of what that guy was saying was wrong. Dude knew what SWIM was, but stuff like "bringing a smartphone to work would get you sent to court!" he was way off. It's a personal strike on your record (that disappears after a year). Low level employees might get fired, but one of the perks of getting promotions is you get more strikes to get fired. GS15s could walk around the building with their phones out, scrolling Reddit, once a year and it wouldn't rack up enough strikes to fire them.

 

[nib95]

the irony here is, you are trying to redefine america's definition of political leanings.

By that you mean a more internationally and widely accepted definition. I am perfect fine with that. I believe cultural and political isolation and/or insular outlooks can be hugely detrimental and lend to a lack of progress in the said areas.

 

[Suikoguy]

I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.

I'd like some legit studies and comparison tests that show what you surmise is true. Based on the policies i've seen, the gap is far smaller if not non-existent. Political compass is bullshit, find a real source. I've done some top level research and i'm not finding anyone who has done it.

Additionally, the gap between what a candidate wants, and what a candidate can do given the house and senate muddies this comparison further.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right.

But Europe does?

Come on.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

It's tough to tell if the bigger earthquakes were caused by fracking. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/induced/

.

Just letting you know, not even the republicans in Oklahoma deny that fracking is causing the earthquakes because its so blatantly obvious.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Bernie should probably drop out. I love the guy to death, but he's not able to win at this point. Staying in doesn't promote his views as much as taints the popular opinion of social democracy. If I was Bernie, I'd concede the primary and use that hot, hot Sanders cash to prop up progressive legislators.

It's close enough to November that Bernie staying in might weaken Clinton against the Republican opposition.

The problem is he has these two corrupt cronies manipulating him into signing two more months worth of paychecks.

Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I apologise for that, but surely you can acknowledge there is some truth to what I'm saying? The US doesn't get to redefine how political leanings work or are inferenced simply because culturally and politically the US is already aligned further towards the right. Doing so is a very dangerous thing, as you not only diminish the acceptance of that fact, but essentially risk marginalising or obscuring actual properly left wing political leanings, Eg something closer to socialism or whatever else.

But Europe does?

Come on.

Yeah, seriously. This is especially hilarious given the political terms are already designed to be relative, not absolute (left/right by definition assumes the position of the "center" is nebulous).

Literally no one cares what "left" is in Europe. And after the rise of a few insane parties that are outright running on racism over there that would make freaking Trump blush, I'm not inclined to take political advice from them. Hell, we'll be able to say in November that we rejected Trump pretty handily as a nation (demographics all but confirm this). Can't say that in Europe!

Just letting you know, not even the republicans in Oklahoma deny that fracking is causing the earthquakes because its so blatantly obvious.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/

Let's see. Do I trust "Eco Watch" or a Dot Gov site more?

 

[AlphaDump]

By that you mean a more internationally and widely accepted definition. I am perfect fine with that. I believe cultural and political isolation and/or insular outlooks can be hugely detrimental and lend to a lack of progress in the said areas.

I am sick and tired of this. it is borderline trolling at this point.

 

[danm999]

By that you mean a more internationally and widely accepted definition. I am perfect fine with that. I believe cultural and political isolation and/or insular outlooks can be hugely detrimental and lend to a lack of progress in the said areas.

Dunno, sounds pretty Eurocentric to me. Hell, you even kind of have to exclude some Eastern European countries to say all this with a straight face.

 

[digdug2k]

The problem is he has these two corrupt cronies manipulating him into signing two more months worth of paychecks.

Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?

Do people actually believe this "establishment" BS? I mean, its basically "If you're in politics, you're establishment. Unless I like you, then you're not establishment".

 

[Steel]

I really love it when these threads devolve into no-true scotsman fallacies. I wish Hillary was a centrist. But, at least she's not crazy about sticking to her guns even if it means nothing gets done, which is good enough for me. But apparently any willingness to compromise makes you a dirty centrist or even a right leaner.

 

[hawk2025]

"Left" and "Right" are words that, by their own etymology, are sensitive to their use in relation to a reference point.


This discussion is fruitless.

 

[Suikoguy]

Just letting you know, not even the republicans in Oklahoma deny that fracking is causing the earthquakes because its so blatantly obvious.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/23/oklahoma-earthquakes-caused-by-fracking/

I'm not making it into a Republican/Democrat argument. I'm making it into a what is right argument. I only have a nominal background in seismology, but my understanding is earthquakes are releases of pent up energy. So is fracking releasing this energy or creating the energy? I don't see how it can be created, not in the amount of energy needed. If that's the case then the number of major earthquakes could actually be decreased by releasing the energy in multiple smaller ones.

The bottom line is, it needs to be researched, but the other fracking issues are more important at this point.

Historical Oaklahoma earthquake data:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/oklahoma/history.php

Which leads me to a question I've been wondering. If his campaign is being run by two guys who literally define establishment politics (except always on the losing side) how was he going to pull off the whole outsider thing? Would they have gotten jobs in his administration?

That's something that rarely gets brought up. The campaign seemed ripe to have a couple of new strategists, or at least a mix of old and new.

 

[nib95]

But Europe does?

Come on.

It's not just Europe though is it. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica etc might agree. I'd say it's more of an international interpretation if anything.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Y




Let's see. Do I trust "Eco Watch" or a Dot Gov site more?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/u...-gas-wells-as-major-cause-of-quakes.html?_r=0

I can find dozens more if you want.

 

[Macam]

I am sick and tired of this. it is borderline trolling at this point.

That post or these types of threads? Asking for a friend.

 

[IrishNinja]

Bernie's intent right now is to save the Democratic party, but it might be too late. By winning enough delegates he can make demands for what issues become the party's platform. I'm surprised nobody has figured out his strategy yet.

If the Democratic party fails to oblige we could very well see a third party candidate pull the rug from under the establishment's feet this election.

He didn't win because all of the rigging. 126k+ people have their registration changed in New York's closed election. Bernie never under performs, so when he did in New York it shot off a bunch of red flags. We had a lawsuit to switch it to an open primary, but we lost that.

I'm young, but I've seen time and time again how the system is rigged to go against the will of the people. It all starts with recognizing these parties as private entities and then process of funding elections.

i would like to subscribe to your newsletter
also when you say no one has "figured out" that strategy, did you mean bernie as well

What generation are you in? Maybe you ought to recognize things are different. Your generation has failed this country, mine is fixing it.

we're not just makin' promisesssssssssssssssss
that we know, we'll never keep

Fixing it... by having your candidate lose?

Bold tactic.

not every man has the fortitude for such a long game, it's pretty commendable

Ail 126K would have voted for him? the Clintons knew years in advance that Bernie would be a problem and rigged shit? Not even batman has that kind of preptime, Black Panther maybe

shame t'challa didn't have a contingency for when the levees broke, though

 

[Jenov]

Oh my god, someone is posting that stupid politicalcompass site again. I hope you all know that they refuse to release any of the data for the charts they make:

"Can you provide your scoring details so that students/colleagues can respond to the propositions with pencil and paper?
We get many such requests from teachers, lecturers and students.

While we're delighted for whole classes to take the test online — and many do — we have a strict policy against releasing this information."

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq25

AKA, data from their ass! Do not take a website that refuses to show their data or methods seriously.