-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hillary Clinton is ready to join the resistance
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
Oh yeah, Hillary Clinton's been a public servant more than half her life, even went to college for this. But I'm sure she's motivated by the same thing that made Donald Trump run for president after being mocked by Obama.
Like, how can you not see how blatantly ignorant this is?
TestOfTide
Banned
The last time I asked an alt-right liar for a source, they literally cited online non-scientific polls.
Don't expect laughing stock to give you any sources.
No. The sources for his ridiculous claim that "people are coming together and are getting an unexpected amount of attention has people like Clinton worried"
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Sources for what? The town halls?
boiled goose
good with gravy
To those crying about neoliberal label, instead argue why they are correct on "political disagreements".
A label, misused or not is worthless if it doesn't refer to anything.
A label, misused or not is worthless if it doesn't refer to anything.
What's the "alt" bit and how are they different from the left? Centrists aren't left, by the way. I just figured I'd mention that.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
It's to imply you're the same as the white supremacists.
It's incredibly common among the kind of people I usually talk to. The only time I see it as a pejorative is on GAF.
There are lots of words that people misuse and that other people still use. I'm not going to change my diction unless it becomes really egregious.
Disagree. If people call you a neoliberal, just tell them they're wrong and you aren't one.
If they have specific political disagreements, it's on them to advance and discuss them rather than resorting to useless labels. If they can't do that, they're not really worth talking to anyway.
His dumb psychoanalysis.
Great advice. Wish more people thought like you on this topic .
I thought we are arguing concepts tho, not labels????
You're misunderstanding either the concern about colloquial usage, or the concept of burden of proof.
I don't know or care whether neoliberalism is good or bad. There are a lot of policies I probably disagree with people about. I wish they'd discuss them more specifically rather than talking about neoliberalism.
To put it another way, you can't just ascribe someone a set of beliefs and demand they defend it. Step one is to explain why the beliefs fit into the label you're kicking. But then if concepts are indeed what you actually care about, there's really no need for the label to begin with.
One could just say "I believe Clinton (or Democrat or whatever) policy X is bad" and then no one will accuse anyone else of using lazy slurs and we've skipped this entire distraction. It's all a pretty easy fix.
This reads like a very poorly written fanfiction. Cite your source, lest your ramblings come off like the crazy person shouting the apocalypse in the middle of the town square.
Unknown Soldier
Member
In general, supporting free trade agreements like TPP, open borders (or nonexistent ones, i.e. a world state), deregulation of financial markets, privatization of public resources, and that sort of thing will earn you the title of neoliberal. If you support these things, you are a neoliberal and maybe it's time you start owning the title instead of trying to redefine reality to prevent people from using the label.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Y'all are getting caught in the rabbit hole of semantic political label definitions. Just debate specific issues, and you'll save yourselves lots of grief.
But enough about that, let's talk about how no one understands what socialism and Marxism is.
But enough about that, let's talk about how no one understands what socialism and Marxism is.
TestOfTide
Banned
It's the part where you have a history of deflecting criticism of Russia and Wikileaks.
You think I would forget that time you claimed that NATO are "the aggressors" just because some eastern nations decided of their own volition to join NATO?
excelsiorlef
Member
Hey you know what's cool Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton and their team are going to be giving and raising funds for grass roots activism....
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's pretty obviously used only as a slur around here. If someone loves to use it that much they're not going to be taken seriously by others and that includes humoring their arguments
Looks who's back. Honestly man, you never understood the point I made even Rentahamster explained. And here you show up yet again to spout the same old nonsense. Please. Go back and read the thread, maybe something will sink in this time.
Your answers explain next to nothing and instead are just reactionary bile.
TestOfTide
Banned
Oh that reminds me. Why does the alt-left HATE Howard Dean? Dude was EXTREMELY successful with his 50 state strategy in 2006 and 2008.
Oh don't worry, I'm not in the mood to argue with more of your whataboutist Foreign Policy. You asked what the alt part referred to and I figured I would let you know.
Being a supporter of free trade has virtually nothing to do with someone's position on deregulation and privatization. Tons of liberal posters support the former while being staunchly opposed to the latter, which is why they are going to get pretty pissed about having that word tossed at them for supporting a mainstream mundane economic concept.
Do I need to be in favour of all of to earn such a prestigious title can it be any one of them?
Autodidact
Banned
They hate anyone who wins elections because people who win elections are neoliberal shills.
This is the first time I've heard you just say that supporting immigration as a net public good makes you neoliberal.
I guess I can understand why you were a Buster.
boiled goose
good with gravy
As someone indifferent to Dean, I'm not particularly impressed with actual policy results of the Obama presidency.
Winning politically means little if you dont win on policy.
Bux tax cuts permanent.
Wall street fraud not held accountable.
More people in poverty.
All gains of economic recovery going to the top.
Mass incarceration.
Mass deportation.
Weak or negligible progress on regulation of carbon emissions.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Just because Republicans would have been worse doesn't mean you have to be happy with the results....
excelsiorlef
Member
Because he sold out to big pharma or something I dunno
That said I think using alt-left is dumb, alt-right is basically just code for white supremacist and if we start using alt-left we give that code cover... I think finding another word would be good
Chapo Trap House is actually alt-left because their whole argument is that we should be socialists who don't care about social justice.
Everybody else isn't as far as I can tell.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I don't think it's an exclusively neoliberal concept (I think most socialists are pro open borders) but I definitely think it's part of the whole project, along with mobility of capital. I think it's all part of the attempt to turn the world into one single market for all the good and problems that entails. I would definitely list it as one of the key ideas there.
excelsiorlef
Member
See that's applicable... Yeah for sure.
Keep defending US hegemony. You're doing great.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I see you still don't understand the point Dopus was trying to make in that thread.
TestOfTide
Banned
Do you want me to explain to you all the shit the Democrats got done in just 2 years (2009 and 2010) that helped millions of Americans?
How about Fake-Progressives?
Says the guy who has a history of deflecting Russian hegemony by trying to focus on US hegemony.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Open borders is an intersting "neoliberal" position that to me is a bit of a red herring.
There are economic issues that arise from capital being more mobile than labor.
However, labor being able to move around is not really enough. Unless there is proper regulation, it just means cheaper labor and more upwards wealth redistribution.
Ssummary. I disagree on closed borders ideologically. I want the us to be uber immigration friendly. But open borders alone are not really a progressive position.
There are economic issues that arise from capital being more mobile than labor.
However, labor being able to move around is not really enough. Unless there is proper regulation, it just means cheaper labor and more upwards wealth redistribution.
Ssummary. I disagree on closed borders ideologically. I want the us to be uber immigration friendly. But open borders alone are not really a progressive position.
Sirpopopop
Member
A. Her education policy was about way more than charter schools. It was just one nod among many in her toolkit. She mostly focused on repairing the school environment through issuing government bonds to help schools rebuild.
B. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/ Her plan was the exact opposite of "slash social security spending."
C. Sure, the welfare reform bill is a big one. You're not going to find much disagreement on this forum about the issues with the welfare reform bill. You also have a point if you want to bring up free trade.
Is that enough to earn someone a pejorative label? Maybe, if you are willing to have a discussion about why that label is earned and why it is uniformly a bad thing that she is for free trade. It's probably a better place to take this thread than where it was at the start.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone on the left wouldn't want Hillary Clinton helping the cause.
The Clintons are well off and she's never running for President again. There's nothing stopping her from engaging in expensive corporate speech deals and consultation work outside of the public eye and then retiring upon a mountain of cash. It'd be easy. But you're mad at her for not taking the easy route? For facing what had to have been the biggest crisis of faith in her lifetime to get back in the saddle to continue to help people?
That's why you're mad at her?
Saying that neoliberals support open borders is one thing. I can agree with that, to the degree that I think the word is meaningful.
Saying that supporting open borders makes you a neoliberal means either you want everybody to be a neoliberal or you basically think Trump is right on immigration.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I want more.
Much much more.
Republican obstructionism is a problem, but if you look at net results there's a skew that can't be pegged entirely on gop. Especially when Democrats had a supermajority.
excelsiorlef
Member
Dude I like you but yeah avoid this shit....
I don't even know that Fake Progressives work but that's a bit better I guess but I think the idea that Progressives can't be shit on xyz issues makes it harder to police our own because we just throw them out instead.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I can't stand Hillary, but if there is one thing she is really good at in this world, it's kissing up to people with checkbooks and getting them to fork some over. Her raising money for liberal organizations is very much the best thing she can do with her remaining celebrity and political clout.
TestOfTide
Banned
I want more.
Much much more.
Republican obstructionism is a problem, but if you look at net results there's a skew that can't be pegged entirely on gop. Especially when Democrats had a supermajority.
I agree that the Dems maybe should have nuked the filibuster when they had full control.
I'm just saying that Dems helped a lot of people in those two years and that it was a lot more than just "well at least it wasn't a republican in charge".
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree that one position devoid of context does not justify a label describing more comprehensive views.
The poster that listed open borders added other reasons I believe. (Not that I am defending that position, just clarifying)
Give me some quotes where I defend Russian hegemony. I'll wait here.
From the thread you just love to bring up, courtesy of Rentahamster - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=228186427&postcount=309
Also, you should probably read this.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
a) Charters were just an example of a market reform for a public good she supports, not the whole sin itself. Same with the ACA, which is market-focused over being a public good, which she mostly endorsed as is until the platform was written and a public option got pushed by the Sanders delegates.
b) I mean she changed her views as the pressures changed, especially in the primary, but in one the ~speeches~ she endorsed slashing spending and cutting the deficit as a means of stimulating growth.
c) I think neoliberal is pretty descriptive of her views and so I use it to describe her. It's not a 'pejorative' which I think is silly, but I don't like neoliberalism and think it's bad so I also don't like that she holds those views, in the same way I don't like neoconservatism but I don't think it's a 'pejorative' to call McCain a neocon. If people want to say they don't like socialism or social democracy then attack candidates for being socialists or social democrats, more power to them. I'll disagree because I believe in socialism, but I won't begrudge them for using the term when they clearly don't have a beef with socialism.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Ultimately, they are all pretty fundamental concepts of economic liberalism. It's mostly a matter of how far along a spectrum you are towards a completely unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. The concept of neoliberalism is basically a resurrection of old-school laissez-faire capitalism after all, rebranded for a post-modern age.
There is no way that labor can ever be as mobile as capital, for the obvious reasons that humans don't just suddenly teleport somewhere with all their stuff and have a job where they appear. In that sense, there is no sense in supporting "open borders" because what that actually entails is a world where everyone is equally poor and a few super-powerful and super-rich rule the entire planet instead of smaller fiefs within nation-states. These days "open borders" is more or less used as economic elite code phrasing for "world state where a few people own everything and rule everything".
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Eh, I'm unfortunately not convinced that the progressive platforms we want are actually popular enough to win electoral control on their own. I just don't think the country is there.
We've been over this before so I'm not going to go fully into with you again, but you're using the word far too narrowly here. In general academic usage it refers to more than a specific, but still more general than you are giving it credit for, economic theory. It refers to A) a theory of political economy or B) a ressurgence of liberalism after the end of the fordian consensus.
I think it's more due to the rise of econometrics than anything else, but sure this played a role.
That's too simplistic an argument for why people are using the phrase. People are generally unhappy with the turn to the right because they genuinely believe in leftist politics.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm saying there are groups for whom using the word makes sense. Other people using it as a pejorative doesn't change that. When people use words we generally look at the context of their using it in order to understand what they mean. If someone is just throwing the word out there as an insult feel free to point that out, it should be pretty obvious whether or not it has any analytical teeth.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Guess expecting your politicians to actually (entirely?) represent constituents is too high of an expectation for you.
I believe (and think Im justified in believing) that there are systematic reasons why Democrats seemingly suck in terms of policy outcomes despite demographic and policy stance advantages.
For example. Today medicare for all has an approval rating of over 50 percent. (Nationwide , higher in democratic constituents)... yet how many Congress people support it?
I want Democrats to win. Part of that is assuming popular positions. It's not just a disagreement on policy, but politics and strategy
excelsiorlef
Member
I mean I'd like to again congratulate everyone for turning this thread now into a relegation of the primaries and a debate on who and who isn't a neoliberal and if it is or isn't a pejorative.
Howard Dean name drops Clinton in talking about an initiate to help activists on the ground get financing and we're debating about neoliberalism in between the fuck you and fuck off posts.... Congratulations
Howard Dean name drops Clinton in talking about an initiate to help activists on the ground get financing and we're debating about neoliberalism in between the fuck you and fuck off posts.... Congratulations
Someone who is for free markets and free movement but supports stronger financial regulations, a strong social safety net, and continued public ownership of certain utility functions isn't a "Neoliberal", they're a liberal! (Speaking American politics, of course.)
The US (between states) and the EU (between countries) feature open borders. No one in the mainstream views this as a substituted for "Oligarchy."
- Status