Silver Arrows
Banned
The thread was going to be barreling down the road of blaming Hillary supporters for everything when certain people showed up.
-
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.
Im a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump
- Thread starter Aruarian Reflection
- Start date
- Status
The thread was going to be barreling down the road of blaming Hillary supporters for everything when certain people showed up.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
Oh please elaborate on this one.
You mean less than 100k votes?
Vince_Russo
Banned
What the heck is up with this purity test?
I don't understand what you're proving besides that I have legit beef with how Poligaf presented their political views about Bernie supporters that spewed into the OT board. I was a registered member on gaf well before I posted. I would observed the Primary elections for months before I posted. Can I not say Yaasss kween and still vote for Hilary Clinton in the general election?
I'm a liberal. I can speak of liberals in the third person too without being a Trump supporter. WTF dude. Can you edit your post to stop trying to create some narrative that I'm actively promoting Donald Trump here and just an act of a poster. Please cut that out in the future.
I'm seriously like wow here. You made a collage of my post history and tried to link with me Diablos858385483 ? You're suspicious that I told him to stop being a fucking idiot trump supporter? And now this is your evidence that I voted for Donald Trump and I'm all MAGA and shit? WTF , I thought it was the Bernie people that were all about purity tests and shit.
The post I'm quoting fucking sucks hard because now I've been made out to be this avid Trump supporter by Aaronology in cohoots with Diablos98289384 because I'm flinging shit all over the 2016 Dem party (the one that lost us an election against TRUMP,) (and I have been flinging shit since election day -- that's true,) for daring to be bitter about the fact that my president is DONALD FUCKING TRUMP.
It must be nice being white and not having to care as much as my MEXICAN NATIONAL mother, brother and father. Jesus christ, I want to say something mean, but I'm just going to hold it in. Congrats on that investigative journalism you ran on me though, I guess.
capitalCORN
Member
Vince_Russo
Banned
I'm here. Stop shit posting. I know that I'm dangerously near a dog-pile situation here, but I'm here. It's 1:30 AM in China.
And the "Trump is bad, but it's because you guys something something Hillary" trope. There's about eight approaches, some organic and authentic, some copypasta, some rules based.
As an attack method, it's effective, because it's energized and propelled by real infighting. Yesterday someone called me paranoid and unhinged, but it's actually quite plain. I'm pretty sure gaf mods are painfully aware of both the trolls AND the legitimate posters. Like, how do you moderate that without picking a side? It's an uphill battle. I'm going to continue to toot the same horn from now on:
Stop fighting. Focus on the facts. Stop Russia and Trump from literally ruining our democracy.
27% of voters picked a racist mysoginist with deep Russian ties to be President because the majority were engaging in the guided shitposting described here and above. MOST Americans didn't choose this clown. The vast majority of eligible voters didn't either. A very small minority and a foreign nation have decided our path. We simply need to get to work fixing it for good. And that means understanding the mire that social media and conversations like this have become.
Vicetrailia
Member
You talked to all young people, and people who dont get insurance from their jobs. I know Hillary voters who feel the exact same way but didn't vote Trump. They begrudgingly opt for the penalty.
I work in Trumpland, with people who have good ass middleclass mfg jobs. It's the opposite except they're entirely misinformed about Obamacare, think hillary is a criminal, are lifelong Republicans and get all of their info from fox news. They're the average trump supporter.
KarneeKarnay
Member
From my own perspective, I find it nuts anyone could vote for Trump or Hilary. They are both without exceptions some of the worse candidates in a US election that I could think of, and Bush Jr. is on this list.
I'm going to avid Trump, because he is an easy target, but why Hilary Democrats? Why? I'll admit I supported Bernie, but when the only real opposition in the Primaries, is a man with huge support for some of the most disfranchised Democrats and a woman who is embroiled in scandals, you gave us no choice. If I were to hazard a guest, it's because she did it the anti-trump way. She kissed enough ass and filled enough pockets that Democratic Election Committee were only every going to give it to her.
Then Trump...I don't understand you America, I don't. A politician should be elected based on their actions and what they have said. Trump said he was going to build a wall around Mexico and make Mexico pay for it. Trump said that he was going to ban all Muslims from traveling to the US. You can't just say you know he wasn't going to do it. You can't just say you read between the lines.This is not a BLOODY Pick & Mix. You don't get to choose what policies your candidate should support.
Is this all just party loyalty? If it is you need to start putting a test when you vote, on whether you know what you are actually voting for. Same shit with the Brexit. "I voted for Brexit because I wanted more money to go the NHS. I didn't realise that I would lose my EU subsidies that support my buisness." ffs.
I'm going to avid Trump, because he is an easy target, but why Hilary Democrats? Why? I'll admit I supported Bernie, but when the only real opposition in the Primaries, is a man with huge support for some of the most disfranchised Democrats and a woman who is embroiled in scandals, you gave us no choice. If I were to hazard a guest, it's because she did it the anti-trump way. She kissed enough ass and filled enough pockets that Democratic Election Committee were only every going to give it to her.
Then Trump...I don't understand you America, I don't. A politician should be elected based on their actions and what they have said. Trump said he was going to build a wall around Mexico and make Mexico pay for it. Trump said that he was going to ban all Muslims from traveling to the US. You can't just say you know he wasn't going to do it. You can't just say you read between the lines.This is not a BLOODY Pick & Mix. You don't get to choose what policies your candidate should support.
Is this all just party loyalty? If it is you need to start putting a test when you vote, on whether you know what you are actually voting for. Same shit with the Brexit. "I voted for Brexit because I wanted more money to go the NHS. I didn't realise that I would lose my EU subsidies that support my buisness." ffs.
Yeah it feels like Brexit and the US election are a case study on why democracy doesn't work.
capitalCORN
Member
And what real scandal was Hillary embroidered with? The fact she won the primary with clear numbers? Emails that amounted to no criminal charge? Did you really think Bernie could reject crony capitaiism? If you think Bernie could have done better check my post above. Contrarians are worse than people who vote with the hearts.
I'm not sure why speculative fairy tales are required here? Everything you're wondering about is very well documented, you don't need to delve into Trumpian-like conspiracies.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I supported Bernie, but I don't think he could have done better. My criticism is not so much at the candidate as the people who allowed her & Bernie to become the only candidates. Hilary should have been told not to compete in the first place and I believe Bernie only really became as strong as he did, because the only other option was Hilary.
Emails were only dropped because she was running. The head of investigations bureau is in way going to risk his organisation or his job, by putting charges against the most predicted choice for President. The open secret about donations for the Middle East, her Husbands affair. She was unpopular before the election and the more celebrity endorsements she got, the more unpopular she became. You could practically plot a graph chart with it. She looks really good for the Democratic votes, she looks like complete crap for the Undecided or the Republicans. Why send someone out to do battle, when they have obvious chinks to their Armour and no real way to defend them. You'd need a someone who could charm their way out of a prison to win that one, not someone who can call in a failure.
Oh and the way the campaign was run. Always the underdog perspective. The campaign manager needs to be sacked. YOU ARE THE ESTABLISHMENT. You've got no choice. A Democratic President has been in the White house for years! Hilary tried to establish herself as this underdog character in a race against a genuine underdog. That's like shooting yourself in the foot to have an advantage in a one legged man race. Trump came out of nowhere. He had the ground support to win even when no one in the party supported him. Did they seriously not expect to see his as an even greater threat when the GOP through their full weight behind him.
She shouldn't have been trying to throw blows with him in a bar room, she should have been pulling his legs out from under him. Tackle him on the donations he receives from Russia. That is where he was the weakest, she could have destroyed him, painted him as a Commie and seen his own ground support turn on him. She didn't because she is the same god damn boat. Bernie couldn't have won, but he could have hit him where it hurt the most. Anyone else could have done it. Just not Hilary.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I like how everyone ignores how she won the popular vote in the primary by a wide margin and that after the southern states, the primaries were effectively over.
But keep parroting that she stole the primaries and the DNC had it in the bag for her. I mean, it's not like we had a rather unknown senator make a run the last time around and won the support of the DNC from her, that would just be crazy.
So no, I'm not going to apologize for voting for her in the primary or "giving you no choice", what ever that means.
KarneeKarnay
Member
Fine. I will agree. I have no proof that she did that. It just seems to odd that the former wife of a President who left office due to Public Scandal, could run twice for President, even when she herself is also caught in a Public Scandal, and that the head of the DMC when it is uncovered that it has unfairly supported her in an email leak, steps down and is rehired almost immediately into the Hilary Campaign...Defo not ass kissing or money exchanges took place. Can't see any reason to suspect that.
capitalCORN
Member
And Hillary was a shoe in by all poll measurements. The x-factor was undecideds. Hillary already called Trump a Russian agent. But like so many of the soft bellied liberal vote that want to unite with the right now, she played the high ground, like Democrats are known to do. It wasn't that Hillary overestimated her voters, It was ,to our collective horror, how toxic the rivers of the right were.
This is hindsight thinking. It's easy to say this now but let's look at the facts:
Hillary Clinton had one of the highest approval ratings of any Democrat as Secretary of State and her run in the 2008 primary netted her the 2nd highest number of votes ever received by a Democratic candidate, behind only Barack Obama. Why wouldn't she run? Because we now know she loses?
EDIT: And the campaign DID hit Trump on Russia. Just like the Democratic Party is still hitting Trump on Russia now. People do not care.
Uhhh...Bill Clinton served two full terms as President.
This is a pretty fundamental thing to get so wrong.
Has yet another topic derailed into primary bs? Seriously, why is this still open at this point? It's not even on topic anymore.
It just seems like an excuse for centrists to attack leftists right now. Projecting their own faults onto liberals yet again, contributing to "dirtying" the word liberal, for everything while accepting none of their own hateful attitudes.
It just seems like an excuse for centrists to attack leftists right now. Projecting their own faults onto liberals yet again, contributing to "dirtying" the word liberal, for everything while accepting none of their own hateful attitudes.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I don't think Bernie could have won. Neither the primaries or a presidential election. I'm only offering a possible reason as to why he did so well against her. Bernie is an extreme. He is the counterbalance. But people voted for him. I think they did because the didn't like the alternative.
Bernie did not just come out of thin air. Going into the Primaries there was a division between Democratic supporters. You needed a candidate that could bridge that gap. This election more than any other I can think of you needed a candidate that could offer a steady hand to both sides and could do it again in the Presidential. Instead we got two extremes. Hilary stuck in the Establishment. Bernie in the Extremes. If it hadn't had been Hilary, the Democrats would have done better.
excelsiorlef
Member
Can you not do this bullshit centrists thing again...
It's not bullshit. It's a matter of fact here. And that this topic has derailed into this yet again is not a welcome sign to me as a minority who leans quite a bit to the left. Get over the fricking primaries.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Oh right, those horrid email leaks showing people didn't like the guy who spent the second half of the primary shitting on the DNC, as they colluded and sabotaged his campaign with all that stuff that never actually happened.
Yes, Sanders lost because he pissed people off at the DNC and they talked about her he was poisoning the well for no reason considering he had effectively lost after the "not really liberal" south voted against him.
I guess it's easy to just say thing when you don't really know how politics work. Sure, you could infer that Clinton rehired her because "omg corruption!". Or if you did some reading, you would have seen and read that Clinton wanted her gone as well as Obama, and publicly shaming her and and raking her through the coals would have been an absolute disaster. Which meant the solution was to give her a decent way out without her going nuclear before the DNC.
But hey, screw that, corruption and stuff and feelings are what's right. It's all about that emotion and gut feeling. Even if you say you don't have any evidence, and the entire DNC was hacked and still after that no actual evidence came out of it, as long as you feel like something happened, then your opinion is totally valid!
excelsiorlef
Member
Who are you even talking to at this point? Some of GAF? Cause if so most of us ain't centrists.
TestOfTide
Banned
This is hindsight thinking. It's easy to say this now but let's look at the facts:
Hillary Clinton had one of the highest approval ratings of any Democrat as Secretary of State and her run in the 2008 primary netted her the 2nd highest number of votes ever received by a Democratic candidate, behind on Barack Obama. Why wouldn't she run? Because we now know she loses?
I agree that people are quick to blame this all on Hillary, but in hindsight I can think of one good reason that Hillary was a bad choice:
As soon as Obama won reelection, everyone and their mom knew that Hillary was going to run in 2016. Because EVERYONE knew, the GOP focused their efforts the past 4 years on mostly attacking Hillary. And your graph shows that it worked for the GOP perfectly.
Now why do I bring this up? Because it should show us that Democrats don't win elections by having an obvious nominee 4 years prior to the election and that we should NOT pick someone who's already had the GOP focus attacking them for years.
Which means that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would be HORRIBLE choices for the 2020 nominee. In fact I would go so far as to say that Democrats can't run ANY politician that has too much experience. Just check the "experience" box by having an experienced VP.
Except the "leftists" that liberals like me are shittalking are the kind of "leftists" who advocate "putting identity politics on the backburner" (which basically means abandoning civil rights issues).
And this all came up in the first place because so-called-progressives like FreedomFighter keep using this election as an excuse to defend Russia and attack anyone they deem "neoliberal".
Don't blame moderates/liberals like me when it's the fucking so-called-progressives who keep defending Russia, keep talking about how they want the Democratic Party to nominate social conservatives like Tulsi Gabbard, and talk about how they want the Dems to abandon civil rights issues.
I'm addressing the matter at hand here. More primary nonsense is rearing its ugly head. That should be over. But it's not. Hence my questions on why the topic is even open at this point.
On top of this some gaffers are still contributing to the Republican end-goal of dirtying the word liberal/leftist, etc. etc. etc. It's disturbing to me when the left-wing is the one that is out there for minorities in the first place. Especially considering the way some Hillary supporters treated minorities of all types, women, etc. etc.
If we're going to bring up primary bs then blaming the liberals for your own behaviors is something I simply can't abide by. It reeks of what Democrats did in the 90s when they would rather throw minorities to the wayside and go more to the center.
My point is, this topic has derailed into yet another repetition. Rather than discuss things people are at each other's throats over the primary. My sole contributions on the matter are simply: 1) don't blame the left-wing for what the centrists did. 2) fucking let this primary bs die so we can focus on matters that should be more important. Rather than be focused on what this thread is about we're just going into Bernie v. Hillary tirades again. It doesn't help anything.
This is all ridiculous to me because:
1) It continues and contributes to the narrative that Republicans desire wherein liberals are blamed when they're are the ones who give a damn about minorities, the poor, the environment, don't want to escalate war, etc.etc.
2) Everything you describe more aptly fits moderates/has been the behavior I've seen from moderates
You're playing right into the Republican parties hands at this point. Let's demonize liberals/minorities. Yea, that'll work out wonderfully. It's commentary like this, combined with how off-topic we are, combined with how repetitive the primary argument has become at this point given how often political topics derail to it, that really don't help with political discourse around here. For the time being anyway it just really doesn't help things.
Of course, this is a factor of many. All of that combined with concern trolling from right-wingers, people who speak for minorities as tho we support Republicans, denial of Russian involvement, etc. etc. don't help matters either.
There's a lot to unpack in regards to the (arguably lack of) discourse going on but this part in particular has just really irked me lately.
I absolutely agree with you. I just think this was a lesson Democrats couldn't be sure about until the fallout from this election. It was obvious Republicans would lay the groundwork to attack, it wasn't known how effective it would be...or how much help Republicans would get from the far left.
I think it's clear now that we don't just live in a post-truth society, we live in a post-context society too. Anything in a poltician's past that can be spun as a negative absolutely will be. We're in a reality where experience is a detriment in running for President.
capitalCORN
Member
The Reps would be able dig whatever garbage they want for whoever they want. Dems could run four year old Timmy and the Reps would slander the hell out of him with some 'cookie jar' gate. Once again, apathy lost the election. Because apparently running with 'Both sides!' argument works wonders.
KarneeKarnay
Member
I'm not going to respond to everyone and as others have pointed out this topic has gotten derailed. My original point was how can you vote for Trump, if he says things like this. You can't pick and choose policies.
The point I was trying to make with Hilary losing to Trump was that she was in my opinion, the wrong candidate to go up against Trump. I don't think Bernie could have done so either, but I think a moderate could have done. If anyone wants to continue talking about this, I would be happy to discuss this via PMs.
The point I was trying to make with Hilary losing to Trump was that she was in my opinion, the wrong candidate to go up against Trump. I don't think Bernie could have done so either, but I think a moderate could have done. If anyone wants to continue talking about this, I would be happy to discuss this via PMs.
TestOfTide
Banned
Except that didn't work on Obama or Bill Clinton (while he was running for election and reelection).
The GOP slander game only works if they have time to build up the slander. And they won't have time to build up the slander unless the nominee is Warren or Sanders.
So I assume you will be calling out the fake-leftists who deflect with, as you put it, "Primary nonsense" every time there is a thread about Russia?
capitalCORN
Member
It's not about time. The narrative was hand fed to them by outside forces. If you don't think that won't happen again, look to what happens in Germany.
This is true.
Republicans have understood for a long time that your argument doesn't have to make sense, but if you repeat it enough it'll stick.
TestOfTide
Banned
Those outside forces also tried to make Obama look bad too, yet here we are with Obama sitting on some of the highest approval he's had in years.
People only bought into the antiHillary bullshit because the GOP had been painting narratives about her for decades, with the most focus being during the past 4 years.
capitalCORN
Member
More like they had a populist projecting the whole way on an ugly message that reverberated for too many. To not accept this as a multi pronged attack is fallacy. And Dem voters are less party voters than the right, so much easier to shake.
Your statement already feels like a deflection but I do try to address matters, yes. However, I am not posting nearly as much in political threads atm for my own health and the health of others that are dear to me. So, if you want to play gotcha with me, I'm not going to bat on that. I also addressed your first reply to me in an edit already.
StrikeNinja24
Banned
I'm looking forward to the Democratic pick Kayne vs Trump debates in 2020.
Because why not.
Because why not.
excelsiorlef
Member
A deflection from what?
TestOfTide
Banned
Deflecting? No I'm just pointing out that the "centrists" you keep getting angry at are the ones who want to keep pushing civil rights while the "leftists" you claim are being unfairly attacked are the ones that keep defending Russia and keep trying to push to abandon civil rights issues.
And where the fuck was I attacking minorities and liberals? I'm attacking pro-Russia leftists not liberals.
This is hindsight thinking. It's easy to say this now but let's look at the facts:
Hillary Clinton had one of the highest approval ratings of any Democrat as Secretary of State and her run in the 2008 primary netted her the 2nd highest number of votes ever received by a Democratic candidate, behind only Barack Obama. Why wouldn't she run? Because we now know she loses?
EDIT: And the campaign DID hit Trump on Russia. Just like the Democratic Party is still hitting Trump on Russia now. People do not care.
People thought that she could overcome the years the Clinton name has been in the spotlight. They were wrong
Uhhh...Bill Clinton served two full terms as President.
This is a pretty fundamental thing to get so wrong.
Think about that chart though. Her approval drops when put in the spot light of an election. Everyone is cool when she is actually doing her job. Everyone is upset when they get reminded about the Clintons and various scandals and they have to think about actively putting her in office.
She has more baggage than anyone with good reason: The Clintons have just been in politics for an extremely long time. Perfect time for an opponent to run on the platform that they arent the typical politician
rokkerkory
Member
Biden ftw
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Still talking about the primaries in 2017.
TestOfTide
Banned
When did I say there weren't multiple factors?
And again, Trump CONSTANTLY attacked Obama, yet Obama is enjoying much higher favorability than Trump. In fact even around 10% of Trump supporters CURRENTLY approve of Obama.
No. Biden has too much experience that would be used against him the same way it was used against Hillary.
That really didn't come across in your response at all.
Nor is it even accurate to reality in terms of who is pushing for civil rights and who wants to get rid of them from the platform.
From responding to basically anything I just said and phrasing their statements in a "gotcha" manner instead.
- Status