unholyrevenger72
Banned
Why is it eye roll inducing? People want change. Bernie is the best avenue for peaceful change, but don't doubt they will vote for chaotic change in the form of Trump.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Charles Koch: "Possible Clinton is preferable to a Republican" but...
- Thread starter Macho Madness
- Start date
- Status
Why is it eye roll inducing? People want change. Bernie is the best avenue for peaceful change, but don't doubt they will vote for chaotic change in the form of Trump.
balladofwindfishes
Member
You did in fact leave just that here. Unfortunately you also left out the methods by which such an arbitrary number was found. Likely because the methods amount to nothing more than "feelings" on whose more Liberal or not and not based on voting records or anything that would actually prove Hillary is further left than even Obama, which is generally accepted as being the case.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Good sir, do not tell me you question the authority of circles and colors arranged in a pattern in unexplained ways. If we can't trust them, what can we trust!?
they thrive because they are smart enough to buy candidates at the state level and have them do their bidding. they aren't thriving because obama is giving them everything they want.
kame-sennin
Member
Why do people get upset when it's stated that Hillary has right-wing policies? Just because the republicans have gone off the right-wing deep end doesn't make Hillary a leftist. She's conservative on war, Israel, and banking. Those are just facts.
This shit cracks me upI'll just leave this here.
A few years old, but not much changes. She's still center-right no matter how you slice it on the world chart.
Link
The Autumn Wind
It was the perfect followup to his first post in this thread.
Then I'm sure you have some receipts then, since those are the facts?
exmachina64
Banned
I'll just leave this here.
A few years old, but not much changes. She's still center-right no matter how you slice it on the world chart.
Aw yiss.
Motherfucking Dennis Kucinich.
Because being conservative on a few issues doesn't suddenly throw you into the republican side of things. Sander's more conservativesque stance on gun issues doesn't make him center-left.
brianmcdoogle
Member
I'll just leave this here.
he has no receipts because those are false accusations against our Queen.
Saying Hillary is the same as the Republicans which has been stated in this thread is the thing that's making people upset.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Ok, this got me good.I'll just leave this here.
Inspector Jones
Member
I agree with you; if things don't change (And call me extremely pessimistic to think they won't) for the better soon (Like 20 years from now); then I think that we will see people turning violent. Innocent people will be hurt and it'll be remembered as a tragedy, but it might be what it takes to correct things if they don't resolve out peacefully.
That said, I don't think it's at that point, and I can certainly hope that the pendulum will swing back in favor of the people (EDIT: I also worry it may be too late for it to swing back fast enough). I'll be so glad to never see this in my lifetime.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Sanders is a freakin neocon man, he is a gun fanatic
Both parties AND independents are the same!!!
Emperor_Uriel
Member
You keep reiterating this point as if there's some huge moral disparity between killing people through violence and killing them slowly over years through crooked policy, essentially economic abuse. Why do you care what happens to the reprehensible individuals who make daily decisions to take and take from those with barely anything to survive on, knowing that lives they deem unimportant will be lost in the process?
Not one top banker or major executive went to jail for their role in the 2009 financial crisis, there's absolutely nothing dissuading them from once again putting the country's best interests on the line to increase their payout.
The French Revolution, on the other hand, taught those at the top to never take advantage of those at the bottom, who vastly outnumber them. The message was: "You are rich and powerful because we allow you to be. Nobody will ever achieve that status again without our permission." That's what we need in this country today, for those who willingly take advantage of the middle and lower class citizens to be forced to respect them.
You and I can probably wait the 10+ years of liberal administrations it would take to change things even a little bit, but what about the millions living paycheck to paycheck, or worse? And if we start electing Republicans again? Our kids and grandkids will be the ones frequenting those soup kitchens and shelters we once donated to.
Because there's a greater chance that the country will turn into Syria than there is that the 1% will be surgically removed and everyone else will live happily ever after.
Straight up crazy talk
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
it's eye roll inducing because the details under that "change" are delusional, especially when they try and embrace a whack study that said their plans would create 5% GDP growth.
kame-sennin
Member
I didn't even think calling Clinton right-wing on foreign policy, Israel, or banking was even controversial.
Iraq, Libya, Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Iraq_War
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/hillary-clintons-insane-plan-for-a-no-fly-zone.html
Israel:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/26/hil...n_israel_is_just_the_newest_horrific_example/
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hillary-clinton-on-israel-palestine
Banking:
http://robertreich.org/post/124114229225
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030415/hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties.asp
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782
And while I didn't mention it in my first post, as I person of color I would be remiss if I didn't mention the primary reason Hillary's conservatism offends me, her support of the U.S.' horrifically racist Mass Incarceration policy. This is explained powerfully by Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow):
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve the Black Vote
It's inaccurate to say she would be a republican in today's climate, because the current GOP is far too extreme. The GOP circa 1991 might be a better fit. That's because in the late 80's a faction of the democratic party made a concerted effort to move to the right on a few key issues and make an attempt at raising corporate money (which was a phenomenal success). Bill Clinton was the first successful candidate among this class of democrats, but every presidential nominee since has followed this strategy.
After the landslide electoral losses to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, a group of prominent Democrats began to believe their party was out of touch and in need of a radical shift in economic policy and ideas of governance.[1][2] The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was founded in 1985 by Al From and a group of like-minded politicians and strategists.[3] They advocated a political "Third Way" as an antidote to the electoral successes of Reaganism.[1][2]
The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred centrist democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party’s policies to the center of the political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as former Vice President Al Gore, Vice President Joseph Biden participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic nomination.[4]
The DLC espoused policies that moved the Democratic Party to the center. However, the DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be “simply posturing in the middle.” Thus, the DLC declared their ideas to be “progressive”, and a third way to address the problems of the 1990s.
The landslide 1984 Presidential election defeat spurred centrist democrats to action, and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed. The DLC, an unofficial party organization played a critical role in moving the Democratic Party’s policies to the center of the political spectrum. Prominent Democratic politicians such as former Vice President Al Gore, Vice President Joseph Biden participated in DLC affairs prior to their candidacy for the 1988 Democratic nomination.[4]
The DLC espoused policies that moved the Democratic Party to the center. However, the DLC did not want the Democratic Party to be “simply posturing in the middle.” Thus, the DLC declared their ideas to be “progressive”, and a third way to address the problems of the 1990s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-bernie-sanders-voted-get-rid-/
And now Libya's in chaos. Turns out hindsight is 20/20... for both Clinton and Sanders.
Macho Madness
Member
Yes they want Cruz more than anybody.
But if they can't have him, they'd at least like stability. That's how I'd take his comments.
"Sanders supported a non-binding Senate resolution that called on Gaddafi to resign his post in a peaceful, democratic transition of power."
That's what happened, right?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
The Koch brothers aren't stupid. They're no doubt aware of the growing rift in the Democratic Party between Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton, largely built on mistrust and a belief that she's a neocon in liberal clothing.
They know their name is poison among Democrats. What better way to ensure a Republican victory in November than to drive a wedge into that rift by speaking kindly about Hillary Clinton, thereby infuriating the disenfranchised and uninformed portion of the Sanders base (who were already threatening to "bern it all down" by voting Republican if Sanders loses the primary) and driving them even deeper into their blind rage against Clinton?
Sadly, judging by some of the posts I'm seeing across the internet, it seems to be working.
They know their name is poison among Democrats. What better way to ensure a Republican victory in November than to drive a wedge into that rift by speaking kindly about Hillary Clinton, thereby infuriating the disenfranchised and uninformed portion of the Sanders base (who were already threatening to "bern it all down" by voting Republican if Sanders loses the primary) and driving them even deeper into their blind rage against Clinton?
Sadly, judging by some of the posts I'm seeing across the internet, it seems to be working.
People think this is a swerve? I think this is his genuine feeling on the matter. He knows Trump is going to be the nominee, that's why the Koch's are pulling out of the presidential race entirely and spending their entire budget on downticket races.
They'd rather have Clinton than Trump, which is not an uncommon position among establishment Republicans.
They'd rather have Clinton than Trump, which is not an uncommon position among establishment Republicans.
Oh I don't know because maybe they're ok with VIOLENCE to further their cause?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Are there Sanders supporters actually advocating a violent overthrow of our current system? Jesus fucking Christ. You may disagree with the people in power, but they're still fucking people. They're not the evil, soulless, cartoon monsters your anger has painted them up to be. Would you like to explain to the crying spouses and children of those you've murdered why mommy or daddy deserved to die?
Ironically, those calling for the use of violence are often those who shit on Hillary Clinton for being too "hawkish."
Ironically, those calling for the use of violence are often those who shit on Hillary Clinton for being too "hawkish."
The problem with the argument is that there is no anti-Israel or anti-interventionist consensus on the left. Plenty of people on the left decried the previous Clinton's lack of urgency in intervening in the Rwandan genocide for instance. And there are a lot of Libertarians on the right who are isolationist. There is a reason the interventionists on the right are called "Neo-Conservatives" rather than just "Conservatives".
LogicalFallacy
Member
I'd like to see some rational argument for why violence is not a valid expression of opposition to the present day power structure. Were the Baltimore Riots justified? I'd argue that the violence that occurred there was certainly a factor in why we saw legislation towards tightening the police force's limits from the Obama administration. When do the ends justify the violent means? Never? Tell that to American Revolutionaries, who guaranteed your independence from the United Kingdom today through the use of revolutionary violence. Tell that to union members of many first world countries who used the threat of violence against their bosses to guarantee better labor conditions and wages for themselves and their families. The threat of violence (or use of it) is one of the means that makes change happen. It's not invalid. We don't have to view this through moral dimension. Violence is a choice you can use when you want to get results for your ideals, and it has verifiably been an effective means at doing so.
This might be too much of a tangent for this thread, though.
StickSoldier
Member
Same thinking. But obviously we are talking about the Koch brothers, not like they have ever been considered decent people. They only care about their own agendas and that's all. Everyone else can go on the back burner. Hate to say this, but the world is going to be better off when these fools are gone from it.
titiklabingapat
Member
Seth Enosh
Member
When the 13 colonies rebelled from England, they were revolting against a government where they had no representation in the legislature (Parliament) and led by an executive (the king) who was not an American and was only checked by the power of parliament.
Every single adult man and woman in this country has the ability to change the government using his or her vote. Sanders is losing because a majority of the voters in the Democratic side are rejecting him. A violent revolution to install him in power would be a minoriry imposing themselves on the majority using violence. I'm sure he himself would not be in favor of this.
Nobody is stopping you from refuting Clinton criticism
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Perfect rebuttal to a frighteningly misguided post.
Still can't believe people are advocating violence here.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I'm not so sure.
Within the past week or so, we've started to see some detractors on the right coalesce behind him, spurred on by assurances from Trump's new campaign team telling GOP leadership that the past several months have been an act to attract the large, disaffected portions of the party, with a promise that a center-pivot is coming soon.
We'll see if it works as intended. I have a feeling that, as the old saying goes, we will start seeing more and more Republicans "fall in line" behind their eventual nominee.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If politicians always do the opposite of what they say, and Trump is mostly saying bad stuff while Hillary is mostly saying good stuff, then the obvious choice is Trump.
I think you're right for most of them; they will eat the shit sandwich. But a few might decide that a centrist like Clinton is an acceptable alternative to a presidential nominee who is as mercurial and unreliable as Trump.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
So it was morally wrong for american colonials to send the British packing? It was wrong for Lincoln to forcibly make the Union whole again? It was wrong for the U.S. to get involved in either World War's?
People on the left are okay with the expansion of settlements in Palestinian lands? Maybe there isn't consensus among the political class Democrats, but there are a lot of people around the world and in Israel that despise Netanyahu and the right wing parties that elected him.
Congress voted no to authorizing use of force in Syria. The american people are sick of war after being lied to about Iraq.
That is pennies compared to what they'll achieve with their lobbying efforts to get them favorable policies and deals.
theignoramus
Member
LOL, talk about an endorsement the Hillary campaign doesnt want.
theignoramus
Member
I dont like her as a candidate, but a Republican would never say all that she's has said about racial issues and gender pay gaps.
(Whether she actually believes what she says is another matter)
LogicalFallacy
Member
Sanders supporters hold a similar position to commoners of the 17th century might have held during that time period in that they think that the common citizen does not have much of an impact on what legislation gets passed in congress. I recall reading a study on this forum a year or so ago that did imply that the will of the common person has little to no effect on legislature passed compared to that of the 1%/capital holders. I think it's this one here.
The relevant excerpt from the article:
So yes, while the framing of the American Revolution's governmental grievance is different from the modern day's, it's not that different. The issue is still proper representation in government, 200 and some years later. The subject has changed from representation for American citizens to representation for the common citizen who does not hold much wealth. Thankfully we don't have to deal with monarchs anymore.
I agree with your second paragraph. I will clarify that I wasn't advocating for a revolution to install Bernie in power (I don't want to install any potential despot/dictator in power, though Sanders supporters may, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know), my post was an attempt to clear violence's bad name as a means to enact change. We commonly think that violence is a morally bad and thus always unjustifiable action, but the government certainly doesn't think this way. They'll use violence through military action whenever they deem violence necessary to get the results they want. When I read euphemism's post, it gave me the impression that he/she was saying violence should never be used to accomplish any goals period. I think this is irrational. Of course you should try for a diplomatic solution first (and there are many diplomatic non-violent solutions to choose from), but if that fails, there's not many more avenues of action I can think of that are effective at changing paradigms.
This isn't helpful. This doesn't tell me what you disagree with. It just tells me you're angry at me without providing substance. This sort of drive-by is totally unproductive.
I can take a guess at what you're thinking, though, with the help of your previous post.
I haven't seen any Sanders supporters advocating for a violent overthrow of their current system. That's because I don't spend my time in Sanders-centric circles. I don't think Emperor_Uriel was necessarily a Sanders supporter either- more than likely he was a communist without any specific allegiance to either candidate. It's unfair of you to peg him as a Sanders supporter if he didn't specifically come out and say it, which after reading all of his posts in this thread, he didn't.
However, let's follow the logic here. Sanders supporters believe Hillary is a representative of the establishment, and if she gets elected, we'll continue to have a government that represents the will of the few who have the most money rather than the will of the many who don't have much money and have to work for their living. Is that actually true? I have no idea. Whether or not it's true is pretty dependent on whether Hillary will attempt to overturn Citizens United, which is one of the main causes for the current imbalance of power in congress between the few and the many. Through a google search, I can't find anything where Hillary is saying she'll specifically overturn Citizens United. I found this, but I'm not sure how valuable it is since it came before her campaign. I can't find anything that solid regarding overturning the decision that she's said during my campaign. If she has, please feel free to correct me. I wish to be more informed.
Continuing, if you subscribe to that belief that a Hillary presidency is another 8 years of corporations-first legislature, Sanders supporters could respond in several ways. They could spend the next eight years increasing the ranks of their anti corporate-first government organization with non-violent tactics- preaching on the street, handing out pamphlets, public meetings, and so on. Or they could protest on the street until the state is forced to respond to their demands, which has worked in the past, though certainly didn't work in the case of OWS. Or they could revolt against the state ala French Revolution. Now, I don't really pay attention to the Sanders circles as stated, but I have a hunch Sanders supporters are too moderate to consider doing that last choice. Sanders supporters aren't revolutionaries, they're just people frustrated with a verifiably unrepresentative governmental system. Feel free to correct me if you've actually seen a significant number of Sanders supporters advocating for violent revolution. The most they'll do is another OWS type protest, I would imagine. But my point here is that choosing to revolt ala the French Revolution isn't a wrong choice- it's a right choice, assuming that the Bernie supporters are of the belief that that is a possible avenue to enact their change that they want. Growing their coalition and staging OWS-like protests are also viable choices for affecting change. There's no bad choice here, some choices are just more radical than another choice.
Ah, one more thing. You don't need to view the people in power as evil to see all of this by the way- you can just look at the type of legislation they pass and who it benefits more often than not, realize you're in the group who isn't benefitted by most congress legislation, and desire a change in government based on that. No moral grounds involved.. Who they choose doesn't make them evil, it makes them rational- they're choosing to represent the group that gives them the most benefit through cash. And of course they have no reason to represent the common people if there's no consequence for not doing so.
The Albatross
Member
I'll just leave this here.
joke grid invalidated because Satan should be on the libertarian side. Fall from grace was a personal independence movement, man!
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll