Support NeoGAF

[EMT0]

Wish Hispanic Millenials had this kind of survey going on targeting them also. Mostly to rake the Dems over the coals for continuing to use immigration reform as bait but never delivering.

 

[Aaronology]

And this is why. Who responds well to this?

Bruh, I'm not ya momma and I'm not trying to spare feelings. You haven't been paying attention at all if you think either Hillary Clinton or her supporters are not dissimilar from Donald Trump and the alt right. You have not been paying attention if you need someone to politely refer you to the mountains of evidence showing Donald Trump and those who back him engaging in racism.

So no, I wasn't trying to spark a conversation there, any more than I'd try to engage in a verbal discussion with someone who is evidently deaf. You've already displayed an impressive ability to disregard reality; If that gif bothers you so much, pretend I said something else. You're black, though, so I have faith in your ability to survive a little snark on the internet when so many of us face oppression of a much more serious nature.

Edit:

Considering that you went with the "both sides are bad" nonsense, I don't blame his reaction.

Both sides FACTUALLY aren't the same and it matters who wins. Trump is calling themselves the "Law and Order" candidate, wants more police in our neighborhoods and had no intention in calling for police reform, has disastrous immigration policies that have done nothing but inflame racial tensions, effectively wants to persecute if not ban a religious group, wants tax cuts that benefit the rich and white predominately, has no intention in fighting for voting rights, etc.

Clinton is literally the opposite on ALL those fronts and has a history of PERSONALLY fighting for minority causes. Trump on the other hand has PERSONALLY shit on minorities all the fucking time (housing discrimination, employment discrimination, Central Park 5, BRITHERISM, lies about Muslims, etc.) for which he never apologized and has never once fought for minorities as a means of repentance. The man literally started his campaign calling Mexican immigrants rapists. That's a thing that happened in reality!

If you want more serious replies to your posts, don't post nonsense.

Also this.

 

[Cagey]

It's strange watching young voters criticize and dismiss other young voters for how young voters don't matter because those other young voters don't agree with the critical/dismissive ones.

 

[Good Job Bob]

Okay great. But you aren't going to get left leaning economics passed without first winning more elections.

Do you want to start seeing Democrats being competitive in all 50 states? Well it's going to require getting the support of people that aren't left or liberal on every single issue.

Probably not going to get left leaning economics if you start inviting tons of wealthy and hugely influential economically right leaning donors into the centre-left party either.

Also, could you not make these same arguments you're making for bringing economic rightists into the Democratic sway in favor of bringing social rightists in the Democratic sway? So are you in favor of bringing in social rightists as well? If not, why not?

 

[Jonm1010]

Really?

She has a laundry list of baggage. Overblown? Possibly.

But compared to her predecessor? She has a lot a stuff to attack her for.

Hmm 30 years of public life married to another person with decades of political life with an entire political party targeting you at every stop VS. a relative unknown that rose quickly to prominence and won the presidency.

I wonder why one has more political fodder to prod them with??? Can you help me out? It really is eluding me.

 

[Blader]

Even during the primaries it was well known that he'd do better against Trump. Bernie vs. Hillary and Bernie vs. Trump are two completely different races.

This has been explained a hundred times since the primary started, but putting that aside, why do you think a hypothetical poll that pits a nationally known candidate (Trump) against a nationally unknown candidate (Bernie) at all seems like an accurate match up?

Wish Hispanic Millenials had this kind of survey going on targeting them also. Mostly to rake the Dems over the coals for continuing to use immigration reform as bait but never delivering.

I'm pretty sure it's not Dems who killed immigration reform in the House or who have blocked Obama's executive orders on it.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

If you're in your 20's now, unless you're from NY, and even then, you grew up basically being told she's a liar and cannot be trusted under any circumstances. If you yell something loud enough for long enough it enters the subconscious and you just assume it's true, even with no proof.

Yup. My family hates Hillary. It took a ton of personal research, as well as info on Hillary provided here at GAF to win me over on her. It wasn't easy to break free of the stigma I had against her.

 

[jwhit28]

Why do you keep avoiding the point that you claimed she hasn't spoke on policy when in fact she has?

I'm not. She can't keep pace with Trump. A lot of voters aren't going to know more about these candidates than the soundbites and video clips they catch on the news and she is having trouble staying in that loop. She has to get out there more rapidly and repeat why she is good, not why Trump is bad. I don't think it would hurt the democrat vote here because so many are fired up against state level Republicans.

 

[B-Dubs]

Even during the primaries it was well known that he'd do better against Trump. Bernie vs. Hillary and Bernie vs. Trump are two completely different races.



His skeletons wouldn't matter compared to Hillary's. He's far more a man of the people, where as Clinton is a well known corporate puppet.

Do you even know what Sierra Blanca is referring to? Go look it up and tell me he's still a man of the people.

 

[Jonm1010]

Even during the primaries it was well known that he'd do better against Trump. Bernie vs. Hillary and Bernie vs. Trump are two completely different races.



His skeletons wouldn't matter compared to Hillary's. He's far more a man of the people, where as Clinton is a well known corporate puppet.

I wonder what it is like living in alternate realities?

 

[jwhit28]

So why bring up her policy talk?

Policy is always going to get ignored over controversy.

Because she has solid policies and it's sad she can't get them out to people who aren't searching for them.

 

[jack_package_200]

I wonder what it is like living in alternate realities?

Can I live in the alternate reality where vocal young dems actually voted in 2010, 2012, and 2014?

 

[Melkezadek]

I wonder what it is like living in alternate realities?

I'm so glad that I was about to break free of the Bernie worship early on. Was after I threw my vote in for him, but I was able to nonetheless. The irony is that these are the same posters who claim that the GAF hive mind believe Clinton can do no wrong.

 

[msdstc]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm getting tired of this "she won by 3 million votes". If that is your argument for why she is better, then you are by proxy saying that Netanyahu, Duterte, Erogdan or any other terrible democratically elected majority figure is the best fit for the country. The idea that someone is better because of a popularity contest is a ignorant statement. If you think she has better policies, then say that- Stop justifying your sthick based on idiocy like this. Popular opinion is not consensus.

This is a very disingenuous argument. The 3 million votes thing is a response to the delusional claims that Bernie would be winning by more than Clinton at this point.

 

[Jonm1010]

Yup. My family hates Hillary. It took a ton of personal research, as well as info on Hillary provided here at GAF to win me over on her. It wasn't easy to break free of the stigma I had against her.

Karl Rove got rich off exploiting this flaw in human reasoning. Fox News, in part, has built a network around it.

Say something enough and with enough conviction and it becomes the truth, even if facts don't support it. In fact, do it right and those swindled by it will even engage in personal confirmation bias excercises to defend and reinforce it further.

 

[Melkezadek]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

If "very good reason" is "I don't like the way she speaks." then...I don't think that is a very good reason at all.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Okay. So what dialogs do you want to hear more of from Hillary?

Personally:

I'd like to hear an unscripted(!) interview where she discusses her thoughts on what America's military role in the world should be. The unscripted part is necessary, as is the content. I need the assurance that these aren't canned answers written by someone else.

Likewise, for what's caused the growing class gap over the past 35 years ("republicans" is not an acceptable answer), and what should be done about it.

Likewise, for why we should or shouldn't enact Bernie's proposal to end drug patents in favor of a reward based system. (implications for prescription drugs, and development of new antibiotics)

Likewise, for how wind and solar are supposed to meet energy demand.

Likewise, for how we're going to solve the policing problem in this country.



I wouldn't expect definitive answers for all of these things. But I would expect any presidential candidate that I'm comfortable voting for to be able to participate in an unscripted dialogue about these issues and make constructive proposals. This is a job interview.

If such an interview was done in the last 4 years, let me know! I'll go watch it!

 

[Ihyll]

Wish Hispanic Millenials had this kind of survey going on targeting them also. Mostly to rake the Dems over the coals for continuing to use immigration reform as bait but never delivering.

Obama granted dreamers work permits and social security numbers

Trump plans on killing that executive action as soon as he steps into office

But it's Dems who never deliver right?

 

[Caelus]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

I don't know, why don't you use a fact checker to ease your reluctance?

 

[joebruin]

That's all very well, but I don't see any specifics beyond Benghazi (looks like she didn't do anything wrong) the emails (guilty of being IT illiterate) and her having given some speeches to Wall Street. What are the specifics that make her more untrustworthy than other politicians?

Crooked Hillary. Killary. Liar. Suspicious deaths of people around the Clintons. (lol)

 

[Melkezadek]

Personally:

I'd like to hear an unscripted(!) interview on her thoughts on what America's military role in the world should be. The unscripted part is necessary, as is the content. I need the assurance that these aren't canned answers written by someone else.

And how would you know that? And because many of the staff who worked for Obama is now working for her, how would it not be chalked up to her "being coached"?

 

[Debirudog]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

At this point, it almost feels like baiting Hillary supporters to ask again and again for those exact "very good" reasons.

Because again and again, Hillary supporters argue with facts and logic, only to be dismissed as "bullying" Fuck this victimization complex.

 

[BoosterDuck]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

Oh god, if anything these threads get filled with "I don't trust Shillary myeeh" or "zomg two horrible candidates o u americans" drive-bys that aren't explained because they know they'll get slammed for it.

 

[Elfforkusu]

And how would you know that? And because many of the staff who worked for Obama is now working for her, how would it not be chalked up to her "being coached"?

It's a good interviewer's job to get legitimate answers out of the person sitting across the table.

e: I don't know that Hillary would be willing to do such an interview, though?

 

[ipukespiders]

Bernie would have been so much better. Too bad old people suck.

Well, it's been two hours and this comment still stands, so I guess we are allowed to say "old people suck".

What other ______ people suck are we allowed under the TOS?

 

[Boombloxer]

Bernie is unelectable and has been exposed as two dimensional and erratically off message. Hillary for all her faults will do better against Trump. Also we're going to see lots more of these stories as the media desperately struggles to create a horse race.

Pretty much. She'll pull those votes as we get closer.

Bernie didn't see this voting block as important, so no, he'd doing worse, again.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

That's among those who intend to vote. If black turnout dropped by 90%, but in equal proportions from Clinton and Trump, then polling would still show Clinton leading 90/10 among black voters, but the extent to which that would be useful would be greatly diminished.

Very few pollsters actually conduct likelihood-to-vote polls, because they're very difficult to do. That's why GOTV operations and focusing on voter enthusiasm are so important. Mostly, pollsters just assume that each demographic will turnout at approximately the same rate it did the last election. That's worrying for Clinton, because if it turns out that black turnout falls, that means all of the current polling is overestimating her.

The trendline for black participation has been increasing for a long time now. There's zero evidence of this drop, and it's pretty dishonest to not mention that here.

Joe Biden could have been a moderate Republican in the 90s but apparently it's all good because of personality.

Elizabeth Warren was! But none of the Bernie people even know that because Googling is hard.

I'm getting tired of this "she won by 3 million votes". If that is your argument for why she is better, then you are by proxy saying that Netanyahu, Duterte, Erogdan or any other terrible democratically elected majority figure is the best fit for the country. The idea that someone is better because of a popularity contest is a ignorant statement. If you think she has better policies, then say that- Stop justifying your sthick based on idiocy like this. Popular opinion is not consensus.

Secondly, please understand that a a significant amount of people didn't know who Bernie Sanders is. There is a reason why well known populists tend to win elections in the United States, and its due to the fact that the average voter- Not just in the US (see Berlusconi) votes for the person they recognize the most on TV. Hillary Supporters are seriously downplaying the importance of exposure. According to Bernies own estimate, 60-70% of Americans didnt know who he was. Which is why the DNC had so few debates (less exposure) and why Hillary immediately focused on the self-sabotaging clown, because engaging Sanders would give him more exposure. Hillary won fair and square in the system we have, but it's fucked up shitty system. It's a system heavily influcenced by money interest (legally), with the DNC being full of characters, laws, regulations and rules set in place that creates the potential for bias, favorism. A sort of bias that would be unacceptable in many other forms of public life.

Hillarys unlikeability partly comes down to that she is a pandering baby kissing career politician. Yes, she gets under the knife more than many others, but right now it's not just right wing propaganda and sexism due to her being a woman, but a rising sentiment over many years that politicians say what they want to be elected and then don't follow through. This is a sentiment shared all over the world. Hillary is the front figure of that. It is what she is. It is what a politician has always been. But this surge of contempt reflects (particularly) young peoples hatred and apathy for the process. People are so cynical they cannot see the forest from the trees, and in come Hillary- Not worse, but more of the same, type of politician who talk sweet honey words and carefully drafted worded statements maximized not to piss of anybody. It's not what many people want right now.
Millennials are not swayed about what she says she will do, but you can hardly forgive anyone who feel uncomfortable. Not just by the way she carry herself, but by the amount of time where she has been on the wrong side. She is not entitled to anybodies forgiveness, and clearly "I have changed" falls on death ears.
She is getting so many passes because her opponent is a degenerate sociopath who must not win. Of course that stings. It could have been Elizabeth Warren, or some other less career oriented politician who spoke more for the poor and common class.
I really hope with all my heart Hillary wins. I think she is a splendid politician, but many people are fed up with this process and they hate the system. Hillary represents the face of a timid tent hypocritical tent pole party. And when you're a young college grad, why would you give a fuck more than anybody else? EVERYBODY votes selfish. old people, rich people, middle class, lower class. Everybody votes biased towards what they get out of it.
And saying Trump and Clinton are equal is outrageous. The republican party is barely a political party at this point but more akin to a facist movement in its treatment of people. Gay conversion therapy, assault weapons for teachers in elementary schools, and federal bans on abortion are the policies of mad men. For all intents and purposes this sort of abuse might as well be some form of western doctrine akin to a christian form of Sharia law imposing itself on all.

Clinton has to win and she is a smart person. History will judge her presidency, but right now people are angry at her, and have a right to be angry with her because she represents a system that people hate.
You can support someone and still be critical to the person you're supporting. You can do anything in your power for them to win, and still take a step back and realize that the anger aimed at that person represents decade of pent up frustration with two-party politics, a sense of not being listened to, growing income inequality, worsening quality of life for many people (but better for others).

And lastly, when people are mad, they talk mad shit and over exaggerate. Just let them have their fill and talk themselves tired. Life sucks. You have to work more for stagnant wages. Your career is being automated. You're going to have less than your parents, you will realistically live home until you're married, you will pay of your student debts in 10-20 years. You got a right to be mad at the system. It's understandable. The United States is incredible wealthy but spends so much on defense, while special money interests have historic soaring profits, and while shadow banking runs amok. Hillary just represents a class of person who rubs it in the face of those whose lives of shit. She is not the messenger she want, and this is worsened by the fact that she has these problems as a orator.
This really bothers me, because Hillary being uncomfortable or not being a good speaker should not (in an ideal world) keep her from being president. Because that is the type of judgment that prove that people vote for a mascot, and not a political candidate who runs on policies.

I'm going to break down why this post is offensive.

First, Bernie didn't lose by 3 million votes because he was outnumbered by fascists or racists (your examples fail this test pretty badly!). He lost because his coalition was as white as his home state, and he failed (badly) to fix that.

Your second point amounts to "Those ignorant Negros just don't know what's best for them!" and you even try to back that up with completely unsourced numbers (Hint; you're incredibly wrong here. Sanders name recognition was only 5-10% less than Clinton's). I'll just keep repeating this until you get it: Hillary's votes came from Hispanic and black voters, not bankers. Stop denying reality, especially with racist stereotypes.

Your next paragraph falls into what I mentioned to Bam earlier; you even mention Warren! A former Republican, and not a high school one either. Warren probably voted for Reagan while Hillary was pulling the lever for Mondale, but you would know that if you bothered to research any of this.

Your last paragraph would fit nicely into an old OWS post. I also don't really care if people over-exaggerate in a discussion. I'm going to argue with what you say, not your intent. If you want people to take your argument correctly, then try to explain it in a structured manner that maintains a level of accuracy that the subject requires. Hyperbole makes a person look like a child.

 

[Melkezadek]

It's a good interviewer's job to get legitimate answers out of the person sitting across the table.

Well, then that seems to lay with the interviewer, not Hillary herself then, huh?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I can't even finish your impressively lengthy post because this comment grinds my gears so. What the hell else has anyone been doing? You're on GAF enough to know that plenty of people shout to the heavens about Clinton's qualifications, her political history, her accomplishments and her stances.

Should I even bother reading the remainder of that when you're being so incredibly dishonest at the start of it? I really do not want to.

I am not responding to that. I am responding specifically to the "3 million votes.." argument. I am saying what I am with regards to that. Saying that is not an affirmation that you and others haven't touted her qualities in other ways. But that argument is shit, and endlessly repeated. That is amll.

Except that most of his post is intellectually dishonest at best. Just because it's long doesn't make it right, it just makes it more annoying to sift through and debunk.
.

There is nothing to debunk or dishonest about it. The only thing here is you playing on Right wing propagandas power and using that as a pillow to drive home a (shitty) narrative as to why the popularii candidate is the only option.
Bernie Sanders past looked at from outside the United States; Nobody gives a shit. Nobody gives a shit about what any republican has to say. Nobody in Europe cares about her emails or benghazi. With regards to Clinton we care a lot more about her stance on the death penalty or TPP. This idea that Sanders comments in decades past is skeletons in the closet of the same magnitude to Hillarys is insane.

Granted- Absolutely granted is that Clinton has been in the fire of hell and stood in impossible decisions that Sanders hasn't. But what you end up with is the same old statement that Clinton has a lot of experience, but Sanders don't have many of her Skeletons. That is the ONLY plausible and fair way to genuinely judge them side by side I'd say.
I've not looked into Sierra Blanca, but I am sure if Sanders was pressed on it, he would stooge up something akin to Clinton with "having evolved" on the issue. And I am sure that all Clinton supporters would sing from the rooftops that people can change and deserve a second chance.

 

[Polioliolio]

I don't agree with all of Hillary's policies or some of her past actions, but I've never quite understood how she was so strongly labeled a liar. Was there some big 'scandal' outside of Benghazi people accuse her of lying about? Is it all about the emails?

How has the right wing media managed such a strong smear campaign when Trump lies nearly everyday and yet will likely get 50 million votes? I know partisanship is strong but still...

This is what they do best. You can grill anybody who says "I don't trust her" and all they can do is vomit up the same lines in the headlines on the news things. The damned "emails" as if 30000 emails having existed is such a shockingly huge number that is must be an evil thing. Don't trust her? That's because the media can't stop questioning her integrity. It doesn't matter what she does. They feel that way because these types of people, their opinion simply reflects the mainstream culture opinion. They know nothing other than vague impressions of the candidates they gather from the common word on tv and radio.

Wouldn't trust her to walk your dog? Are you kidding me?

 

[Elfforkusu]

Well, then that seems to lay with the interviewer, not Hillary herself then, huh?

Hillary ultimately loses out on some support no matter whose fault it is, because some people (i.e: me) don't trust what she says, largely as a result of not having a level-set for what her actual thought process looks like.

Does she lose enough support for it to matter? I hope not. (since the alternative is Trump)

 

[msdstc]

If "very good reason" is "I don't like the way she speaks." then...I don't think that is a very good reason at all.

I don't know, why don't you use a fact checker to ease your reluctance?

I'm tired of the supporters dismissing the various issues such as her view as of not that long ago on gay marriage, her ties to Kissinger and the reluctance to denounce him, her absurd demands for speeches, including prices charged, where she's talked, the food, drink, and water she asked for. How unavailable she is to anybody not in the elite, super predators and bringing them to heel, blaming the right wingers for a major "right wing conspiracy" attacking her husband's integrity when he couldn't keep it in his pants. The seemingly limitless cost of her wardrobe, etc

You can explain it away how you want, it makes plenty sense to the average person. I'm not a fan of politicians period. Please please please, do NOT tell me how Trump is worse. I know that he's garbage
Hilary is not my favorite but she's all I have to stop the apocalypse.

 

[gutter_trash]

Bernie would have been so much better. Too bad old people suck.

Should've backed Bernie, ya dingleberries.

Sanders' tax plan is a recipe for losing an election

He would have gotten Corbynned

 

[jchap]

It's a no win election

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm tired of the supporters dismissing the various issues such as her view as of not that long ago on gay marriage, her ties to Kissinger and the reluctance to denounce him, her absurd demands for speeches, including prices charged, where she's talked, the food, drink, and water she asked for. How unavailable she is to anybody not in the elite, super predators and bringing them to heel, blaming the right wingers for a major "right wing conspiracy" attacking her husband's integrity when he couldn't keep it in his pants. The seemingly limitless cost of her wardrobe, etc

You can explain it away how you want, it makes plenty sense to the average person. I'm not a fan of politicians period. Please please please, do NOT tell me how Trump is worse. I know that he's garbage
Hilary is not my favorite but she's all I have to stop the apocalypse.

What if people genuinely feel those things have been explained and addressed, or are silly to worry about? At that point all you're saying is that you're tired of people not thinking the way you do.

 

[Jonm1010]

It's a good interviewer's job to get legitimate answers out of the person sitting across the table.

I don't know that Hillary would be willing to do such an interview, though?

No candidate is giving you their gut feelings or true opinions. One might even argue that is less important then what positions they will represent given this is a representative democracy.

Or are you one of those people that think Obama genuinely didn't believe in gay marriage in 2008 when he played to the polls and only supported civil unions? That in his heart he is a really strong Christian?

Because if your bar is purity, you are going to fail to find a suitable candidate at this level of politics. And FYI, third party candidates are no less guilty of it.

 

[Aaronology]

Another day, another Hilary thread where anyone and everyone are "wrong" to not trust Hillary. There is very good reason why people feel this way about he. Trump is so scary and awful that I will vote for her... But I'm doing so reluctantly. I don't believe a thing she says.

...ok.

Fact: Hillary Clinton Is One of America's Most Honest Politicians. Trump is one of the biggest liars
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/1/1555457/-Fact-Hillary-Clinton-Is-One-of-America-s-Most-Honest-Politicians-Trump-is-one-of-the-biggest-liars

Trust and honesty are considered Hillary’s weak areas. She’s competent, can be warm and caring, qualified, knows her stuff (a “policy wonk”.) But, when it comes to honesty, people give her low marks. Those who know her and have followed her for years know that the persistent meme is false, largely the result of constant right-wing attacks on her integrity, and a good slice of the country has bought into that false perception.

The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/

6. More about Clinton

Just 16 of Clinton’s 120 rated statements ended up as False or Pants on Fire. By contrast, 53 percent of the statements we fact-checked were rated True or Mostly True.

Hillary Clinton Is the Most Truthful Candidate in the 2016 Race
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-most-truthful-candidate/

 

[BoosterDuck]

It's a no win election

the racists won though, they don't have to hide anymore

Democrats won too, the GOP is in shambles lol

 

[entremet]

Hmm 30 years of public life married to another person with decades of political life with an entire political party targeting you at every stop VS. a relative unknown that rose quickly to prominence and won the presidency.

I wonder why one has more political fodder to prod them with??? Can you help me out? It really is eluding me.

I agree, but then it's on the Democrats for choosing to go along with Hillary instead of another up and comer.

But it's gloves off when you throw your hat in the race.

And to be honest, the GOP is looking for anything since Trump is a disaster.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The trendline for black participation has been increasing for a long time now. There's zero evidence of this drop, and it's pretty dishonest to not mention that here.

The OP is literally about a report conducted on behalf of the Democratic party finding some evidence that black participation might decrease. Like, what? Are we even in the same thread?

 

[msdstc]

What if people genuinely feel those things have been explained and addressed, or are silly to worry about? At that point all you're saying is that you're tired of people not thinking the way you do.

You're fine to think how you want. All of the stuff I've mentioned always gets talked about as her playing the game. Her response to the money during the debate as to why she took it being... Well they offered is absurd. Same with the "university discount" she gives.

 

[fantomena]

I see no problem with this. Young people should be skeptical about everything.

If a young black person does not want to vote Hillary, then I see no problem with it.

 

[Melkezadek]

I'm tired of the supporters dismissing the various issues such as her view as of not that long ago on gay marriage, her ties to Kissinger and the reluctance to denounce him, her absurd demands for speeches, including prices charged, where she's talked, the food, drink, and water she asked for. How unavailable she is to anybody not in the elite, super predators and bringing them to heel, blaming the right wingers for a major "right wing conspiracy" attacking her husband's integrity when he couldn't keep it in his pants. The seemingly limitless cost of her wardrobe, etc

You can explain it away how you want, it makes plenty sense to the average person. I'm not a fan of politicians period. Please please please, do NOT tell me how Trump is worse. I know that he's garbage
Hilary is not my favorite but she's all I have to stop the apocalypse.

1) You mean the her stance on gay marriage that many, including Obama, were not for only until recently?
2) Her ties to Kissinger are bothersome, but I fail to see how her association is a deal breaker (especially as I doubt that many even knew who he was prior to Bernie talking about him or Hitchen sermons
3) Why the hell does it matter to you how much she charges for speeches? Doesn't effect me, you, or anyone else really, in the slightest. Seems shallow at best.

And please save the "supporter" label. I voted for Bernie and was all for him during the primaries. That ship has sailed and he isn't going to be president. Hillary's actual record proposed policy (you know, the thing that actually matters) is the only thing allowing to cast my vote for her in November. Should be for anyone who claims to hold any progressive values. (which her platform, is)
3)

 

[Elfforkusu]

No candidate is giving you their gut feelings or true opinions. One might even argue that is less important then what positions they will represent given this is a representative democracy.

Or are you one of those people that think Obama genuinely didn't believe in gay marriage in 2008 when he played to the polls and only supported civil unions? That in his heart he is a really strong Christian?

Because if your bar is purity, you are going to fail to find a suitable candidate at this level of politics.

Not when the question is one of judgement, which IMO is one of the most important questions for the Presidency.

Policy positions are political calculations made over months or years by hundreds of people. Presidents don't have the luxury of having someone else feed them the magical opinion to have.

re: that "purity" test: in my opinion, Biden, Sanders, and Warren all pass it. So...?

re: 3rd party candidates, the Greens and Libertarians are jokes. Sadly.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I'm going to break down why this post is offensive.

No. You're not breaking down anything. You are purposefully being obtuse in an attempt to derail. This shit is by far one of the most petty shitposts I have ever seen. Holy fuck you're off the mark.

First, Bernie didn't lose by 3 million votes because he was outnumbered by fascists or racists (your examples fail this test pretty badly!). He lost because his coalition was as white as his home state, and he failed (badly) to fix that.

Your second point amounts to "Those ignorant Negros just don't know what's best for them!" and you even try to back that up with completely unsourced numbers (Hint; you're incredibly wrong here. Sanders name recognition was only 5-10% less than Clinton's). I'll just keep repeating this until you get it: Hillary's votes came from Hispanic and black voters, not bankers. Stop denying reality, especially with racist stereotypes.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never talked about Blankers, I talked about media expousure equals higher chance of winning elections. Stop reading your own compartmentalized shitty bigotry into my posts. Also I find it hard to believe that Sanders was 5-10% less known than Clinton. It's especially hard to swallow given the staggering amount of ignorance regarding democratic socialism.

Your next paragraph falls into what I mentioned to Bam earlier; you even mention Warren! A former Republican, and not a high school one either. Warren probably voted for Reagan while Hillary was pulling the lever for Mondale, but you would know that if you bothered to research any of this.

Your last paragraph would fit nicely into an old OWS post. I also don't really care if people over-exaggerate in a discussion. I'm going to argue with what you say, not your intent. If you want people to take your argument correctly, then try to explain it in a structured manner that maintains a level of accuracy that the subject requires. Hyperbole makes a person look like a child.

You sound like Glenn Beck. Ohh Warren that republican devil.

Your entire post is a complete failure of baseless attack, unfair reading and purposefully misunderstanding of my post because you got nothing of substance to add besides a stump speech. I argue and contain that the average voter (all over the western world) is biased towards the candidates with more exposure, and while there can be multitude of reasons why a person lose an election (Sanders not very well run campaign) that doesn't disprove the notion that Clintons name recognition had a massive play in it.

I am really curious if there is a lot to the body of work regarding how well known Sanders and his policies is among the democratic populace. I find it difficult to believe, because as Hillary democrats themselves say- Sanders was unqualified because he was not vetted or played into this role years in advance, but just stood up on a soapbox when nobody knew who he was. Obama was built up since his speech in 04, and Clinton has been prepped for this since she was a Senator.
I find it incredible difficult to believe, that Sanders had a name recognition that high, or that the American people understand what his brand of socialism is.

 

[Jonm1010]

I see no problem with this. Young people should be skeptical about everything.

If a young black person does not want to vote Hillary, then I see no problem with it.

On the surface sure, you don't want to vote that is your right. The problem comes in when that decision is built on things like false equivalencies or an inaccurate understanding of how change is achieved in this particular political system.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's a no win election

No matter who is elected, the rich and corporations win. Our political process has been completely undermined to this point.

 

[Melkezadek]

Not when the question is one of judgement, which IMO is one of the most important questions for the Presidency.

Policy positions are political calculations made over months or years by hundreds of people. Presidents don't have the luxury of having someone else feed them the magical opinion to have.

re: that purity test: in my opinion, Biden, Sanders, and Warren all pass it. So...?

re: 3rd party candidates, the Greens and Libertarians are jokes. Sadly.

In what ways does Biden pass this purity test?

 

[Moppeh]

I'm so fucking tired of Hillary Clinton being called a liar. She's up against Trump and she is labelled as "the liar"? That's ridiculous.