Consistent? Like that time he said he'd never run a negative ad? Or when he said he would refrain from attacks on character?
-
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: More Than Just a Symbol [The Atlantic]
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
It's certainly become much more common on gaf in the last few weeks though.
It's pretty clearly ironic.
Vicetrailia
Member
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
This is some high quality sarcasm.
Why do people act like this is a virtue? I don't want a leader that is consistent. I want a leader that adapts to the situation. Competence is more important than consistency.
M0nochromatic
Member
Yes, it's the newest iteration of attack on the policies and ideals Sanders is about. Before, it was simply pointing out that those policies might not make it anywhere considering the current climate and strength of the Republicans. Now it sounds like it came straight from a radio hosts mouth, and also insinuates that he doesn't believe in any of it and is just a manipulator.
It's actually rather clever. Clinton catches a lot of flack for appearing unauthentic and caring only about issues as they become topical. This buzz phrase allows that type of criticism to be applied to Sanders instead.
The Senate Democrats are pushing for $12 not $15, so Hillary's position don't come from thin air.
http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/240301-dems-push-for-12-minimum-wage
I don't want to dwell too much on the issue because it isn't about the article itself and I don't wanna be misconstrued as baiting people, but it's in the context of my previous post.
If you're not familiar with Weber's essay on Politics as a Vocation, my basic gist is that you to truly live for politics you shouldn't be making money out of it (which is why the political career was associated with rich people ironically), while living from politics is to use them to gain money and power. The Walmart comments is just to draw the insight of where she came from and her career. Didn't wanna go further and mention how shady the Clinton foundation or the Goldman Sachs speeches that go straight to her pockets.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
Link?
Unions really really like the $15 mark.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Cause you're on a moderate/slightly right leaning forum? Neogaf is the definition of faux-gressive. We have people here that are genuinely progressive, but the general population isn't. People will get outraged at issues that spring up in the news, but once no one is there to tell them it's outrageous, it all goes out the window. People will make incredibly racist jokes, or refuse to acknowledge problems because one gaffer pointed it, and since it's not in the news, it doesn't count.
Jon Carter
Member
Now Bernie is a snake oil salesman, but Hillary is fine. Good Lord. I mean sure, you do have to know how to sell yourself to be a politician, so Bernie is not 100% honest all the time and that bird on the podium didn't actually come from God on a giant rainbow, but damn.
Also, I think women are interested in more than just women's issues. It would make sense if Bernie was on the wrong side of history about those, like the Republican candidates, but he isn't. It's not his selling point but he's on the right side.
Also, I think women are interested in more than just women's issues. It would make sense if Bernie was on the wrong side of history about those, like the Republican candidates, but he isn't. It's not his selling point but he's on the right side.
googleplex
Member
So basically your calling her corrupt and paid for. Without any substantive proof of what these people supposedly got for their money.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
Actually, I have read Weber's essay. And I don't care about what he thinks about politics as a vocation. The notion that politics should only be done for free by these enlightened ones is just as ridiculous as the Philosopher Kings. Theory is nice, but this is the real world. It isn't going to be perfect. And I'd rather vote for a candidate that reflects that than one running on pie-in-the-sky idealism.
But no, keep doing what you're doing in all your posts. Call Hillary corrupt or whatever and then "clarify" with a bunch of bullshit why that's not actually what you've said. I knew a lot of people like you in the freshman political theory class where I first read Weber's essay. They were always so smug, too.
Wafflecakes
Member
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
GAF is maybe the most left leaning community of any size I've ever posted on that wasn't just a community dedicated to leftist politics. The difference is that it doesn't tend to be as radical. Not in the sense of calling anyone radicals, but just in the sense of embracing "burn it down" attitudes
Neogaf is definitely not faux-gressive. I would argue there is a large brogressive element, but that's not a huge indictment given its a videogame forum that men are more likely to frequent.
Directly addressing her conflict of interest and the conflict of interest of most of the political spectrum is one of the core points of his presidential platform. Sure you can think it doesn't influence or at least it doesn't hinders politicians enough to not be able to work for the populace.
There's a reason Warren says "personnel is policy" and she Bernie have issues on the treasury secretaries having ties to Citibank or other private sectors.
Saying it's an attack on her character is just the most childish read from his position.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
Wafflecakes
Member
So what you are saying is that he lied? Thought so.
I agree that a large portion of Gaffers aren't as progressive as they think they are, but this is by no means a right leaning forum. Also, I'm really not sure where you are finding these racist jokes, this is a pretty tame forum compared to a lot of other places.
Sanders is not a snake oil salesmen:
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-will-make-the-economy-great-again/
His policies are just outside of the political mainstream of the U.S. - or at least they have been until now.
Also, both California and New York are moving towards statewide 15 dollar minimum wages. Both plans will phase the increases in over a period of 6-10 year across the states. We'll see if an economic hellscape results.
By the same token, Hillary Clinton definitely isn't the monster she is portrayed as in some places. She is a liberal/progressive by any definition of those terms in the U.S., and she certainly personally cares about issues related to discrimination and woman's rights.
Clinton's problem is that she is running of the establishment head of a party that doesn't have the social and financial base necessary to enact the structural changes in the U.S. economy necessary to alleviate the economic concerns of the U.S. electorate. As a result, she is forced to run a defensive campaign focused on scaring voters about Republicans (who would make those problems worse) and taking strategic positions to appease her base.
Sanders is trying to remedy those problems, but it looks like it will be about 10-20 years before the social base will exist for the type of Democratic Party he is trying to create. Also, it remains to be seen whether the manpower and financial resources mobilized by his campaign will translate into a movement capable of electing candidates making lasting political changes. Right now, it seems like all he is doing is highlighting contradictions with the Democrats.
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-will-make-the-economy-great-again/
His policies are just outside of the political mainstream of the U.S. - or at least they have been until now.
Also, both California and New York are moving towards statewide 15 dollar minimum wages. Both plans will phase the increases in over a period of 6-10 year across the states. We'll see if an economic hellscape results.
By the same token, Hillary Clinton definitely isn't the monster she is portrayed as in some places. She is a liberal/progressive by any definition of those terms in the U.S., and she certainly personally cares about issues related to discrimination and woman's rights.
Clinton's problem is that she is running of the establishment head of a party that doesn't have the social and financial base necessary to enact the structural changes in the U.S. economy necessary to alleviate the economic concerns of the U.S. electorate. As a result, she is forced to run a defensive campaign focused on scaring voters about Republicans (who would make those problems worse) and taking strategic positions to appease her base.
Sanders is trying to remedy those problems, but it looks like it will be about 10-20 years before the social base will exist for the type of Democratic Party he is trying to create. Also, it remains to be seen whether the manpower and financial resources mobilized by his campaign will translate into a movement capable of electing candidates making lasting political changes. Right now, it seems like all he is doing is highlighting contradictions with the Democrats.
googleplex
Member
This is categorically untrue. The Average Gaffer tends to be actually be more informed. And we have a very low tolerance for bullshit. That why we're never been all that entranced by Bernie's "revolution"
TheBritishBear
Banned
You don't want to play the 'he said, she said' game because you're frankly going to lose that.
M0nochromatic
Member
Take the recent tax related threads for example. Many people here are socially progressive, in that they support LGBTQIA+ issues, as well as women's rights and are against racist policies and speech. However, when it came to issues that would also support equality and help the less fortunate, but would ask for a financial sacrifice, there was a hang up.
Fauxgressive is incorrect(it comes off as shitty as well), but we're certainly not that far into the left side of the spectrum as we're purported to be.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
I think you will find that being socially progressive but fiscally conservative is how most Americans actually are. GAF is unique in that unlike other forums there is actually a diversity of opinion as extremists are not permitted to monopolize the conversation.
I'm saying money and interest affects policies. In my country (Chile) we've had an insane political turmoil of broken trust on the political system due corruption surfacing on our consciousness. Both major coalitions were affected in one way or another on corruption charges or taking advantage of their privileged positions in order to help certain groups of interests that involve big money. The latest scandal was that an email surfaced on how a minister was talking with a major CEO on how to pass the new legislation to help them take advantage of major tax cuts for the company. Chile's political system is surprising similar to the USA's as well just in case you guys get offended by my anecdote.
Side note, I find t funny that people accepted that there was corruption with the politicians but didn't affect their judgment because it wasn't visible on the surface, but now that it's all out in the open, the population recieved a wake up slap that we're not that much better than other South American countries as we like to believe we are.
And Webber point was a gross simplification just to express my cynism regarding her positions and well 99% of politicians. I'm sorry if I touched a nerve by trying to stay civil.
If you think heavy ties with big money corporations is part of Hillary's character then sure I guess.
But as I said it's a pretty zealot way at looking at his political position.
TheBritishBear
Banned
I'm saying that his voting record and history definitely states he's not a snake oil salesman of any kind.
Again, he's been consistent and genuine in his history and voting record. And to be honest, I rather have a consistent politician that had great foresight than a politician that I would describe more as a 'shape-shifting chameleon' instead of 'adapting with the times'.
Cause I see Hillary as the former than anything else.
As I said, I'm fine with America having Hillary as long as Trump is not President. I do think she has merits and do the country wonders. But I particularly don't like her history, her policies or the funding she is getting from. And I particularly don't trust her with foreign policy, which matters greatly to me as a British citizen.
and pro war ?
This is a very nice and concise analysis of the situation. Kudos.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked