Support NeoGAF

[HylianTom]

Isn't overturning Citizens United part of the rank and file democrat platform?

You would never guess it from much of the rhetoric used this season.

 

[Spinifex]

There are degrees to everything. It is not about what organization favors which candidate, but to what degree do they favor that candidate and how that bias impacts and colors its reporting.

If a news organization can't have its main personalities say or its writers write a neutral or positive article about the other democratic candidate then I think that is a pretty telling sign. Even if you think Vox, the New York Times, The Atlantic, or whatever are in the bag for Hilary, those organizations do put out neutral to positive stories about Bernie Sanders (and again, if you can find a few examples from TYT and the other places I mentioned I would appreciate it).

And it really doesn't matter if they regularly have more pragmatic liberals on because what defines a pundit news organization is the opinions of the hosts and writers. I mean, hell, Fox News has democrats and liberals on as well.

One of the main guys is for Hillary and got into a pretty heated argument with a Bernie supporter over the 'unqualified' saga and how Bernie was stupid to say that. (Which I agree with as a Bernie supporter. I want to see criticism of his missteps)

Overall you get far more perspective and balance than say, Fox News. Not a high bar, I know, but people here act like TYT is the liberal equivalent to Fox News and it's not, at all.

Secular Talk would be the equivalent to Fox News.

 

[nubbe]

The difference between TYT and Fox is that TYT base their views on facts and reality (dreams too)
TYT has never claimed to be "Fair and balanced".. their stance is totally about being progressive
So they will obviously flock around their wet dream candidate

 

[johnsmith]

The difference between TYT and Fox is that TYT base their views on facts and reality (dreams too)
TYT has never claimed to be "Fair and balanced".. their stance is totally about being progressive
So they will obviously flock around their wet dream candidate

If TYT based their views on facts and reality they'd realize the primary is over, and stop attacking the liberal general election candidate, Clinton.

 

[nubbe]

If TYT based their views on facts and reality they'd realize the primary is over, and stop attacking the liberal general election candidate, Clinton.

note the (dreams too)
since it would still be technically possible
so they still keep dreaming of a better future

WHISPER OF A DREAM

 

[googleplex]

The difference between TYT and Fox is that TYT base their views on facts and reality (dreams too)
TYT has never claimed to be "Fair and balanced".. their stance is totally about being progressive
So they will obviously flock around their wet dream candidate

No! Them claiming that Hillary can't wait to pass conservative legislation once she's elected is in no Way based on reality. It's one thing to be pro Bernie. But they've been so Anti-Hillary that they've started stooping to right-wing bullshit attacks.

 

[airmangataosenai]

They're not pretending to be unbiased tho, they are actively saying that they are pro-Bernie.

The problem is tyat they are actively lying to their lower information viewers about tge status of the race in order to keep enthusiasm for his campaign up. Most of them aren't knowledgeable enough about the nomination process to know better.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yep, she's awesome.

 

[Justin]

I remember tyt a bit from 2008 but haven't heard anyone mention them till someone posted about the main dude having a meltdown on their Super Tuesday stream. I turned it on and the guy was screaming about how stupid the voters were and took an accelerationist stance suggesting that voting in trump might be the only way to get their message across.

Not tuning in again... Unless he is having another meltdown.

 

[close to the edge]

She's an actor.

There's a reason you don't go visit a Doctress when you're sick. Actress is an archaic diminutive and has become passé.

So this post is really interesting to me because in German, there's been a big push over the last ~15 years in the opposite direction. In contrast to English, most German nouns have versions for both genders, like actor/actress in English. For example, the German word Student has a female version, Studentin and since you want to be inclusive, in official language, you'd find something like "Sehr geehrte(r) Student/in" (Dear student).

 

[Prodigal Son]

If TYT based their views on facts and reality they'd realize the primary is over, and stop attacking the liberal general election candidate, Clinton.

Wow what a post. I had to double take. This is one for the books, my man.
Screenshotted.

 

[googleplex]

Wow what a post. I had to double take. This is one for the books, my man.
Screenshotted.

Why? There was nothing wrong, or false about what he posted.

 

[Aaronology]

Wow what a post. I had to double take. This is one for the books, my man.
Screenshotted.

The primary is practically over. Hillary Clinton is a liberal and the presumptive nominee. What part of that post is inaccurate?

 

[Condom]

Oh TYT is biased! Who cares? I like having something decently to watch for someone with my political orientation. They're on the right side of politics.

What TYT is to you, all the other mainstream stuff people watch or read is to me. Ok maybe MSNBC can be surprisingly tolerable but that's about it when it comes to big US channels.

 

[Prodigal Son]

The primary is practically over. Hillary Clinton is a liberal and the presumptive nominee. What part of that post is inaccurate?

Call it an argument of semantics or ideological purity, but much of the world would disagree with the label 'liberal' being applied to Hillary Clinton.

Fracking, US global policing/interventionist ideologies, among many, many other issues, would beg to differ. She'd also beg to differ, probably.

Then again, Jane's not fond of the word either.

To be frank, I'm not too bothered by labels you apply to yourself. Democrat, progressive, liberal or whatever else means little if many of your policy positions are bad, inferior or constantly 'evolving.'

This is silly. It makes you look silly. Sanders and Sanders supporters have little reason to give up the fight before the convention. Barring some unforeseen shocker, Hillary should be able to beat Cruz or Trump in a GE. There's no reason not to continue the debate on the left. It's healthy debate over policy and the direction of the party. Which is fantastic.

Also this.

 

[ApharmdX]

If TYT based their views on facts and reality they'd realize the primary is over, and stop attacking the liberal general election candidate, Clinton.

This is silly. It makes you look silly. Sanders and Sanders supporters have little reason to give up the fight before the convention. Barring some unforeseen shocker, Hillary should be able to beat Cruz or Trump in a GE. There's no reason not to continue the debate on the left. It's healthy debate over policy and the direction of the party. Which is fantastic.

 

[BanGy.nz]

This is silly. It makes you look silly. Sanders and Sanders supporters have little reason to give up the fight before the convention. Barring some unforeseen shocker, Hillary should be able to beat Cruz or Trump in a GE. There's no reason not to continue the debate on the left. It's healthy debate over policy and the direction of the party. Which is fantastic.

Insinuations that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and can't be trusted aren't a debate over policy or the direction of the party.

 

[Boney]

Oh TYT is biased! Who cares? I like having something decently to watch for someone with my political orientation. They're on the right side of politics.

What TYT is to you, all the other mainstream stuff people watch or read is to me. Ok maybe MSNBC can be surprisingly tolerable but that's about it when it comes to big US channels.

MSNBC can be a big hit and miss
http://youtu.be/eTc5xkECkLk

 

[Clydefrog]

+12 Rosario

 

[Aaronology]

Call it an argument of semantics or ideological purity, but much of the world would disagree with the label 'liberal' being applied to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is an American politician, and "liberal" used in the context of describing her would naturally be relative to American politics. What much of the world thinks of that is fantasically irrelevant. This is not a semantics argument, Prodigal; You are factually wrong.

By every measurably metric, Hillary Clinton is not only a liberal but a hardcore liberal. In US politics there are only a handful of politicians to her left on the national stage. Barack Obama, by the way, is not one of them.

FiveThirtyEight on Clinton's political leaning.

We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.

To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

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.

DailyKos on Clinton's liberalism:

Using House and Senate roll call votes as inputs, DW-NOMINATE has been used to chart every member of every Congress in a two-dimensional space. The primary dimension corresponds strongly to conventional notions of the liberal-conservative axis in modern politics, while the significance of the secondary axis tends to change over time (traditionally it tended to highlight the distance between Dixiecrats and the rest of the Democratic party; today it's kind of a more nebulous indicator of social and cultural differences and is, in my opinion, not particularly interesting). The point is that we can sort the members of a particular Congress by their scores on the primary dimension to easily rank them from most liberal to most conservative based entirely on their own voting data.

As it turns out, with a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).

OnTheIssues.Org's has an exhaustive list of Clinton's stances and ranks her politics based on comments, voting records and her entire career as an activist and politician.

Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.

The New York Times:

The field of potential Democratic presidential candidates is ideologically cohesive. While there is room to the left of Mrs. Clinton’s Crowdpac score of -6.4, there is not a lot.

Labeling Clinton anything else is a tactic taken up by the delusional far left fringe in an attempt to discredit her, and GAF is well familiar with it by now. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon/not liberal" reveals either a willful ignorance of what these words mean and how they apply to political ideologies in the United States... or rank intellectual dishonesty. Which is it with you, Prodigal?

 

[Ushay]

I hope she is represented by Nelson and Murdock

Eyyyyy

 

[bengraven]

The FBI needs tobstart blacklisting suspected capitalists.

 

[mrhyderager]

If TYT based their views on facts and reality they'd realize the primary is over, and stop attacking the liberal general election candidate, Clinton.

So we're ignoring the fact that Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 primaries and has surged to within the margin of error on several polls for NY?

I'm finding it remarkable that people are posting that TYT is biased (as though they ever claimed otherwise) and yet declaring the primary over.

Full disclosure, I'm a Bernie supporter, if that wasn't obvious.

 

[AuthenticM]

Here's the political compass of this election from PoliticalCompass.org

Voter reaction against the party mainstream and Washington insiders couldn't be more in evidence, as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders confound the apparatchiks and pack out the town hall meetings. The GOP, having lost its way since the end of the cold war, has little that's unique to unify its supporters. Wall Street? The Obama/Clinton Democrats couldn't have been more supportive. Militarism? Think only of Libya, Syria and Iraq. Civil liberties? Have you checked out the extended presidential powers in the NDAA, further surveillance provisions and Obama's unprecedented pursuit of whistle-blowers? With liberal Republicans a long-extinct political species, and the party shifting relentlessly rightwards, the GOP became the home to Christian evangelicals. There's little to distinguish the deeply traditional conservative Christian Republican candidates, yet the profane Mr Trump is paradoxically enjoying the largest share of white evangelical support. Never mind that he's clearly more at home with the gospel of Ayn Rand. A recent U-turn on abortion was all that the blustering billionaire, a man of apparently few fixed principles and no guiding ideology, needed to attract many of the party's Christian conservatives. His economics are sometimes less right-wing than the other GOP candidates; Trump for a time even supported single-payer health care. Is he really a Tory … or a wig? He defended Obama's bank bailouts — anathema to the other GOP contenders. Contradictions notwithstanding, he successfully targets the heartland of the anti-tax, anti-immigrant, pro-security social base of the party. He's a populist in the Berlusconi mould, and the more outrageous his statements the more his supporters love it.

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.

Quite why Sanders is describing himself to the American electorate — of all electorates — as a 'socialist' or 'democratic socialist' isn't clear. His economics are Keynesian or Galbraithian, in common with mainstream parties of the left in the rest of the west — the Labour or Social Democrat parties. Surely 'Social Democrat' would be a more accurate and appealing label for the Sanders campaign to adopt. While Sanders claims to admire particularly the Scandinavian model, he neglects to point out that a characteristic of all social democracies is a low defence budget, reflecting not only a degree of anti-militarism, but also social spending as a priority. Beyond tinkering, though, Sanders has no appetite for significantly cutting the Herculean defence budget or criticising imperial adventures. His urging for the World's most authoritarian country, Saudi Arabia, to assert a stronger military presence in the Middle East is a bizarre position for a social democrat to hold. These odd clusters of attitudes are reflected in our placement of Sanders. Domestically the man is an undoubted progressive — not the least for his courageous attack on corporate campaign funding. But on foreign policy, you could expect a President Sanders to be strikingly similar to his predecessors.

 

[Aaronology]

Here's the political compass of this election from PoliticalCompass.org

Am I to believe Barack Obama, right of Clinton, is only slightly to the left of Donald Trump and Rick Santorum? Where would that put Joe Biden and other prominent democrats to his right?

Do you believe this is an accurate representation of where these politicians stand in US Politics, Authentic?

 

[Future]

Am I to believe Barack Obama, right of Clinton, is only slightly to the left of Donald Trump and Rick Santorum? Where would that put Joe Biden and other prominent democrats to his right?

Do you believe this is an accurate representation of where these politicians stand in US Politics, Authentic?

Was Obama really that close to mitt Romney? Kind of hard to fathom

 

[AuthenticM]

Am I to believe Barack Obama, right of Clinton, is only slightly to the left of Donald Trump and Rick Santorum? Where would that put Joe Biden and other prominent democrats to his right?

Do you believe this is an accurate representation of where these politicians stand in US Politics, Authentic?

The chart seems to reflect the paragraph under it:

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals. Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. Taking office during the financial meltdown, Obama appointed its principal architects to top economic positions. We list these because many of Obama's detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

 

[Aaronology]

The chart seems to reflect the paragraph under it:

I am not asking for PCO's analysis, of which I don't put much stock. I saw that paragraph when it was first posted years ago and before I linked their graph here now. I asked you if you believe it's accurate to represent Barack Obama as only slightly to the left of Donald Trump and Rick Santorum (and Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, etc). Do you?

PCO also claims Obama and Clinton have shifted farther to the right in 2012 and 2016 than John McCain and Rudy Giuliani of 2008. Do you also believe this is accurate?

 

[Jenov]

Here's the political compass of this election from PoliticalCompass.org

What a joke of a write up. "...when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair." You have to be kidding me. Clinton supports raising the min wage, taxing the rich, supporting and expanding the middle class. GTFO with that fake-ass site. You have a dozen legitimate news sites that all point out fact and reason, over that shit show of a write up.

And lol, the Obama one alone is also hilarious. As pointed out, you're going to throw Biden and Obama next to Rick Santorum? Seriously? Deranged.

 

[alternade]

All these theatrics because your candidate is losing and has whipped his supporters into a frenzy. While fighting for what you believe in is admirable I can't help but roll my eyes at the self serving underlying tones of this Democracy Spring protest.

 

[AuthenticM]

I am not asking for PCO's analysis, of which I don't put much stock. I saw that paragraph when it was first posted years ago and before I linked their graph here now. I asked you if you believe it's accurate to represent Barack Obama as only slightly to the left of Donald Trump and Rick Santorum (and Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, etc). Do you?

PCO also claims Obama and Clinton have shifted farther to the right in 2012 and 2016 than John McCain and Rudy Giuliani of 2008. Do you also believe this is accurate?

My instinct is telling me that they should be further apart from each other. But unless the facts listed in the paragraph above are false, which I doubt, Barack seems to be where he needs to be on that graph.

As for the second question, I am not informed enough on the evolution of the politicians' policies to have an opinion on the veracity of the statement.

What a joke of a write up. "...when it comes to economics, Clinton's unswerving attachment to neoliberalism and big money is a mutual love affair." You have to be kidding me. Clinton supports raising the min wage, taxing the rich, supporting and expanding the middle class. GTFO with that fake-ass site. You have a dozen legitimate news sites that all point out fact and reason, over that shit show of a write up.

And lol, the Obama one alone is also hilarious. As pointed out, you're going to throw Biden and Obama next to Rick Santorum? Seriously? Deranged.

I'll gladly take a better website for a comparison of politicians if you have one to offer!

 

[Daft Punk]

Rosario Dawson and Susan Sarandon mean that Bernie has the hottest supporters.

I have the biggest crush on Susan Sarandon lol. Her in Rocky Horror Picture Show is the stuff of legends.

 

[Jenov]

I'll gladly take a better website for a comparison of politicians if you have one to offer!

You just had someone give you 4, which all counteract that ridiculous write up, and actually uses fact, like voting record, to support it:

Hillary Clinton is an American politician, and "liberal" used in the context of describing her would naturally be relative to American politics. What much of the world thinks of that is fantasically irrelevant. This is not a semantics argument, Prodigal; You are factually wrong.

By every measurably metric, Hillary Clinton is not only a liberal but a hardcore liberal. In US politics there are only a handful of politicians to her left on the national stage. Barack Obama, by the way, is not one of them.

FiveThirtyEight on Clinton's political leaning.



DailyKos on Clinton's liberalism:



OnTheIssues.Org's has an exhaustive list of Clinton's stances and ranks her politics based on comments, voting records and her entire career as an activist and politicians.



The New York Times:



Labeling Clinton anything else is a tactic taken up by the delusional far left fringe in an attempt to discredit her, and GAF is well familiar with it by now. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon/not liberal" reveals either a willful ignorance of what these words mean and how they apply to political ideologies in the United States... or rank intellectual dishonesty. Which is it with you, Prodigal?

Why you would take the baseless writings of a nobody website, over the fact-finding of reputable news sources is beyond me.

 

[Aaronology]

My instinct is telling me that they should be further apart from each other. But unless the facts listed in the paragraph above are false, which I doubt, Barack seems to be where he needs to be on that graph.

As for the second question, I am not informed enough on the evolution of the politicians' policies to have an opinion on the veracity of the statement.



I'll gladly take a better website for a comparison of politicians if you have one to offer!

I take this is a "yes"? You believe Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) fall to the right of 2008's John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and slightly to the left of 2016's Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[AuthenticM]

You just had someone give you 4, which all counteract that ridiculous write up, and actually uses fact, like voting record, to support it:



Why you would take the baseless writings of a nobody website, over the fact-finding of reputable news sources is beyond me.

I mean a website that uses a similar quadrant to compare the policians. The websites above don't give what I'm asking.

I take this is a "yes"? You believe Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) fall to the right of 2008's John McCain, Rick Santorum, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and slightly to the left of 2016's Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

Thank you for answering my question.

I don't think either Obama or Clinton fall to the right (on both social issues and economics) of any of the policitians you named. As for the comparison of Trump and Cruz, I think both Obama and Clinton are to their left by quite a distance on social issues, but for economics, I don't know how wide that distance is.

 

[Aaronology]

I mean a website that uses a similar quadrant to compare the policians. The websites above don't give what I'm asking.



I don't think either Obama or Clinton fall to the right (on both social issues and economics) of any of the policitians you named. As for the comparison of Trump and Cruz, I think both Obama and Clinton are to their left by quite a distance on social issues, but for economics, I don't know how wide that distance is.

AuthenticM, if you do not believe in PoliticalCompass.Org's opinion of Obama's or Clinton's position within the American political spectrum, why are you posting their charts?

 

[AuthenticM]

AuthenticM, if you do not believe in PoliticalCompass.Org's opinion of Obama's or Clinton's position within the American political spectrum, why are you posting their charts?

But the website doesn't put them to the right of the politicians you named. Unless there's something I missed. I went back to the US elections 2012 page and I didn't find that anywhere.

 

[Jenov]

I mean a website that uses a similar quadrant to compare the policians. The websites above don't give what I'm asking.

This website has the quadrants you're so adamant about, and has them for multiple politicians: http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

But even better, how about using a site that tries drawing their graphs based on actual data points like the New York Times using Crowdpac as their source, which uses real data from votes, speeches, and money to graph all of their candidates:

https://www.crowdpac.com/elections/2016-presidential-election
https://www.crowdpac.com/about

The Crowdpac data model combines three sources of publicly available information about candidates:

Money - which individuals or organizations have contributed to the candidates' campaigns, and which campaigns the candidates themselves have contributed to, as reported to federal and state regulatory authorities. This gives us a good indication of their overall political position.
Speech - what the candidates say: the bills they sponsor or co-sponsor (if they are currently in office or have been elected before); the words or phrases they use most, as reported in legislative text and floor records, and candidate statements made on official websites, Facebook profiles and via official tweets. This gives us a good indication of their political priorities.
Votes - the candidates' voting record (if they are currently in office or have been in office before). This helps increase the accuracy of our predictions - from around 92% to 94% - and to estimate candidates' position on specific issues.

Political compass data points is straight from their asses as far as I can tell. They have no measurable data to support their drawn up clown quadrants.

 

[Piecake]

So we're ignoring the fact that Sanders has won 7 of the last 8 primaries and has surged to within the margin of error on several polls for NY?

I'm finding it remarkable that people are posting that TYT is biased (as though they ever claimed otherwise) and yet declaring the primary over.

Full disclosure, I'm a Bernie supporter, if that wasn't obvious.

It is over.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-york-democratic/

Clinton has a 98% chance of winning NY and they are projecting her to win by 17 points.

Clinton has a 91% of winning California and is projected to win by 18 points.

And you need to completely disregard the momentum narrative. That is fools gold. It is this years skewed polls. If you look at the type of primary, caucus or primary, and the demographic make up of the state, white or diverse, then you can predict what state Bernie will do well in and what state Clinton will do well in.

Bernie does well in White Caucus states while Clinton does well in diverse primary states. The only momentum Bernie had was that basically all of the past several primaries were from white caucus states. That's it.

Not to mention that even if Bernie wins all of the remaining states, he has to win by like an average of 15 points to pass Clinton's pledged delegate lead. I personally don't find it terribly remarkable that people are declaring that the primary is over because it sure looks like it is over if you look at comprehensive polling data and dig deeper into the primary results instead of just cherry pick a few polls here and there and believe in the momentum narrative.

 

[AuthenticM]

This website has the quadrants you're so adamant about, and has them for multiple politicians: http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

I can't find a graph that has all the politicians on it; only individual graphs.

But even better, how about using a site that tries drawing their graphs based on actual data points like the New York Times using Crowdpac as a their source, which uses real data from votes, speeches, and money to graph all of their candidates:

https://www.crowdpac.com/elections/2016-presidential-election
https://www.crowdpac.com/about

Political compass data points is straight from their asses as far as I can tell. They have no measurable data to support their drawn up clown quadrants.

OnTheIssues sure seems like a better source of information on the candidates than PoliticalCompass. I'll be sure to refer to it.

 

[malingenie]

No! Them claiming that Hillary can't wait to pass conservative legislation once she's elected is in no Way based on reality. It's one thing to be pro Bernie. But they've been so Anti-Hillary that they've started stooping to right-wing bullshit attacks.

Agreed 100%. I dont support the TYT anymore based on their behavior. And I couldn't give less of a fuck what my liberal friends think.

 

[lunchtoast]

Don't forget Sarah Silverman, my dream JAP (Jewish American Princess).

Funny, she doesn't look Druish.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Hillary Clinton is an American politician, and "liberal" used in the context of describing her would naturally be relative to American politics. What much of the world thinks of that is fantasically irrelevant. This is not a semantics argument, Prodigal; You are factually wrong.

I mean. yeah. If you're going to look at it from a comically ethnocentric perspective, sure. She's super liberal. Congrats Hillary. You're relatively liberal in a country where Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are the status quo. That's like bragging about winning a basketball game when you've got three feet on the other team.

Some of us have lived all around the earth. In an increasingly globalized world, you're going to have to stop pretending you're not a super conservative country when you're staring every other modern, industrialized country in the face. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, etc etc etc etc. From a global perspective (my perspective), Hillary isn't consistently progressive enough for my support.

lolsorry

 

[gutter_trash]

I love Sarah Silverman as a comedian.
But she became politically irrelevant when she meddled into the Canadian election and picked Mulcair over our beloved Justin Trudeau.

Beards lose

 

[Aaronology]

But the website doesn't put them to the right of the politicians you named. Unless there's something I missed. I went back to the US elections 2012 page and I didn't find that anywhere.

I was comparing their graphs and analysis from 2008, 2012 and this cycle. They specifically ask their readers to pay attention to the supposed rightward shift of several democrats in 2008, and using their own data places Obama/Clinton/Biden etc to the right of or equally aligned with the politicians I listed.

I think this discussion is about over if we've all reached the conclusion PCO is not a great source of information, and that their charts do not substantiate in any way the claim that Hillary Clinton is not liberal.

 

[Piecake]

I mean. yeah. If you're going to look at it from a comically ethnocentric perspective, sure. She's super liberal. Congrats Hillary. You're relatively liberal in a country where Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are the status quo. That's like bragging about being the best at basketball when you're playing against wheelchair-bound toddlers.

Some of us have lived all around the earth. In an increasingly globalized world, you're going to have to stop pretending you're not a super conservative country when you're staring every other modern, industrialized country in the face. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, etc etc etc etc. From a global perspective (my perspective), Hillary isn't consistently progressive enough for my support.

lolsorry

So, if the United States is super conservative, Clinton is a conservative-moderate and Bernie is the only true progressive liberal, then how is Bernie supposed to get elected in the general when his views, according to you, only represent a minority of the population?

And lolsorry is just an infantile and dickish thing to say. I mean, we are all just so sorry that you had to demean yourself and waste your time to talk about the backwardness of American politics. *rolls eyes*

 

[Aaronology]

I mean. yeah. If you're going to look at it from a comically ethnocentric perspective, sure. She's super liberal. Congrats Hillary. You're relatively liberal in a country where Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are the status quo. That's like bragging about winning a basketball game when you've got three feet on the other team.

Some of us have lived all around the earth. In an increasingly globalized world, you're going to have to stop pretending you're not a super conservative country when you're staring every other modern, industrialized country in the face. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, etc etc etc etc. From a global perspective (my perspective), Hillary isn't consistently progressive enough for my support.

lolsorry

Some of us have indeed lived around the Earth. Your condescension fails to mask the fact that you are still wrong. "Liberal" is a word that means a specific thing in American politics. You can ignore that and claim you're speaking using a global context. However there is not a single POTUS candidate who would fall under "hard left" under this criteria. This applies to Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, the entire democrat party and every hardcore liberal on the national stage in this country. It's a useless frame of reference in a discussion about the 2016 United States Presidential Election, and I am sure you are aware of this. If you are truly judging what is and is not progressive from a "global perspective" I doubt you would be in favor of any candidate running, and certainly not one with a voting record practically identical to Clinton's and who sits only a few ideological notches to her left.

Further, Santorum, Cruz and such are rightward of most politicians of their party and (thankfully) not the "status quo" in this country or the GOP in general. You are either again being dishonest is framing your statements or displaying a notable lack of familiarity about the topic and people you continue talking about. I'm reaching the conclusion it is the former.


Edit: Prodigal, you choose to lay that arrogant post down on a page filled with links and data from several sources completely rejecting your claim that Clinton is not liberal. From Crowdpac, the NYT, 538, OntheIssues, and so on. That you utterly avoided addressing any of them has not gone unnoticed.

 

[googleplex]

I'll be so glad when this primary us over. I'm not sure how much more I can take.

 

[Puppen]

Vox is extremely biased towards Hillary and distorts reality so much for her. I prefer Bernie so if I had to pick my poison, I'd go with TYT anyday of the week over Vox.

Lmao the only people distorting reality are Bernie supporters. Vox actually knows what they're talking about.

 

[ApharmdX]

Insinuations that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and can't be trusted aren't a debate over policy or the direction of the party.

It's more a assertion that the current political system, where money has corrupted the entire process, is badly broken than an attack specifically targeting Hillary herself. Sanders has never called Hillary corrupt directly, just pointed out financial sector donors that she's received millions of dollars from.

I enjoy this debate. Sanders, and Trump on the right, have shone a light on money in politics in the way that establishment politicians cannot. It's the very brightest spot of the 2016 elections.