Elfforkusu
Member
He's willing to do (and has done) an interview where he thinks in front of the camera.
-
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.
Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
BoosterDuck
Banned
Why the fuck do you care about her wardrobe? None of that shit except the Kissinger thing matters. Ok seriously you could've mentioned the crime bills or her flip-flopping on important shit like TPP or the Iraqi war or her ties with Robert Byrd but you're just pointing out shit that doesn't meant anything. Yeah ok you don't trust her 'CAUSE SHE'S A POLITICIAN' that's great
Goddammit I'm just as tired of people going "I HATE POLITICIANS THEY'RE SO CORRUPT" as you are with Hillary supporters. Yes we get it they're in the pockets of rich elites and are known to lie and feign for votes and their choices usually don't reflect the people they're representing blah blah blah. We get it you're reiterating what people have been saying since the dawn of Democracy. Can you say something of value please?
Keep the convo about the person at hand. Trump has been destroyed by the media, rightfully so. We know he's a liar. Doesn't change how I feel about Hilary. She's lucky it's Trump I'd have voted anybody else.
I wonder how much of that is black people being disappointed in what President Obama was able to get done in office and being frustrated with politics in general. Unfortunately he had the same sort of unreasonable hype on how much he can affect people's day to day lives for some black people that Trump has for low income white people. From the beginning it seemed like no matter how much Obama got done, it would never be enough.
Melkezadek
Member
Yea, let's keep ignoring the fact he opposed gay marriage, voted for the war in Iraq. But he can talk charming in front of a camera! Pass!
Ignoring how silly that test of yours is, have you actually looked up Hillary Clinton interviews to see whether or not this was true?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I see the usual people are still calling us low information voters, even after the primaries are over.
They probably think press conferences = interviews and think she hasent done either.
They most certainly do not pass a purity test. It's really not that hard to find evidence for it. I hope I am not giving you more credit then I should? This is a representative democracy, you should come to terms with that.
If your question is one of judgement and decision making, it seems completely baffling to demand and then prop up a single interview about policy positions when the candidate in question has 30 years of experience in public service. Maybe if this were a relative unknown like Obama or Trump I could see more logic in it but you have an extensive history to look
at. The idea that a person would be wiser to hold a one off interview as more reflective of her potential governing style and decision making over her extensive record seems almost incomprehensible to my mind.
It's like propping up or judging a person's creative output entiriely by how well they interview...then again maybe that explains No Man's Sky?
So her stone faced reply on gay marriage is of no substance? Super predators? Bring them to heel? The wardrobe matters because of the cost. I couldn't stand when deval Patrick took the Cadillac and bought the drapes, I can't stand that she spends thousands and thousands on her wardrobe. Makes sense why her university discount is 350,000 dollars. I know plenty of the other politicians do stuff like that which is why I think they're Hippocrates.
Melkezadek
Member
It's crazy. Just typing in Hillary Clinton interviews on youtube and I'm finding dozens. It's frustrating to even continue arguing. I was very much like how some are hear now. I wasn't honest about actually vetting her and looking into her rather lengthy career. I was a bit embarrassed after the fact to say the least. I was a victim of the cult of personality and I fed into it. You have to go into this honestly, and if one can't do that, there is nothing I, or anyone can say/show you that can change your mind. I was wrong about her completely, and I'm happy to admit that.
Boombloxer
Member
This post contains no facts.
The name recognition issue wasn't the problem, his policies were. Obama is a once in a generation politician which is why he rose so fast. Bernie is not and never was.
His brand of socialism actually stops instantly at socialism--thr word itself is demonized. That line of attack along with his other skeletons wouldve sunk him in the general.
I suggest you do some more research, you're not actually working with all of the facts. It doesn't matter for Bernie, but you might discover that he and Hillary have more in common...except shes been in the game longer. Go look at her voting record vs headlines and what she's actually done vs what you've heard.
I'm excited and proud to vote for her. Most of the posts saying otherwise in the thread are based on feelings, not facts or voting record.
Wardrobe? Really?
I just don't think you know enough of about the good she's done to actually use her clothes as a line of attack. The foundation has raised hundreds of millions, and it goes to programs in Africa, vaccine and medical research, healthy lunches in school, etc.
I mean, the info is out there. If you want to stick your head in the sand, it's cool, but there are many, many reasons why this angle is non-sensicle.
Should be on every page of these threads.
Ok, this gay marriage thing is starting to annoy me because Bernie nor Obama were perfect on it either, and she's done remarkable contributions for the community itself.
The reason why I never bought the issue with Hillary's earlier statement not accepting gay marriage, is because I weigh in what she was trying to do for the community itself...and that's actually a remarkable degree to what she did.
Hillary launched the Global Equity Fund-which is to defend LGBT rights of people all around the world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kris-m-balderston/lgbt-equality_b_1774284.html
Her push for stronger trans right regarding passport policies.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-policy-state-department-lgbt-equality-214007
Or the fact on her emails that she made a strong effort to push for LGBT rights during her tenure as SoS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-state-department-battle-for-gay-rights.html
like, why should we consider it as a mark against Hillary Clinton when Obama strongly supported gay marriage when he said he was against? Oh yeah, because he actually played a huge part in legalizing gay marriage.
And while she said she was against gay marriage, Hillary still believed in civil unions and that they deserve the same rights as straight married couples. This seem conviently ignored.
She's not perfect on LGBT rights (Her Nancy Reagan comment was dumb and she was rightfully scolded for it) but she's damn good at it and is trying with all her life. Drop this tired old shallow argument that she's "not really for gay rights" because she said she was for "traditional" marriage. Why should I care, when I actually look for what she's done?
The reason why I never bought the issue with Hillary's earlier statement not accepting gay marriage, is because I weigh in what she was trying to do for the community itself...and that's actually a remarkable degree to what she did.
Hillary launched the Global Equity Fund-which is to defend LGBT rights of people all around the world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kris-m-balderston/lgbt-equality_b_1774284.html
Her push for stronger trans right regarding passport policies.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-policy-state-department-lgbt-equality-214007
Or the fact on her emails that she made a strong effort to push for LGBT rights during her tenure as SoS.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...r-state-department-battle-for-gay-rights.html
like, why should we consider it as a mark against Hillary Clinton when Obama strongly supported gay marriage when he said he was against? Oh yeah, because he actually played a huge part in legalizing gay marriage.
And while she said she was against gay marriage, Hillary still believed in civil unions and that they deserve the same rights as straight married couples. This seem conviently ignored.
She's not perfect on LGBT rights (Her Nancy Reagan comment was dumb and she was rightfully scolded for it) but she's damn good at it and is trying with all her life. Drop this tired old shallow argument that she's "not really for gay rights" because she said she was for "traditional" marriage. Why should I care, when I actually look for what she's done?
TestOfTide
Banned
The difference is that social conservatism is plummeting in popularity while economic conservatism is unfortunately still very popular.
You aren't going to have a chance in all 50 states by running only economic leftists.
You get left economics passed by winning enough seats that each democrat in a red seat can get away with supporting 1 or 2 economically left leaning bills.
First off why does it need to be unscripted. Even the best politicians are going to need at least somewhat of a script to give every detail of their thoughts on foreign policy.
Second we know what she is generally. She is an interventionist. No that doesn't mean proWar, that just means she's not stupid enough to try and isolate America in a globalized era.
She HAS talked about the causes of those problems. She's talked about numerous ways in which she wants to rebuild the middle class and boost everyone (not just the rich) out of this anemic recovery.
Probably because outright ending the patent system for drugs would kill most motivation for drug companies to do actual R & D.
She already HAS stated her numerous strategies for transitioning to cleaner energy. Hell it even has many ties to her job investment proposals.
For fucks sake, her first goddamn speech of her current campaign was about how we need police reform.
The problem is that you don't even know what her first speech of her 2015-2016 campaign was about and you want to dismiss any speeches she does that involve a TelePrompTer.
So you're proud to vote for a racist who championed throwing young blacks, aka "super predators" behind bars for as long as possible to the profit of the privatized prisons? She only recently changed her position on that after being called out by Bernie supporters.
Don't forget all the dog whistles during the 08' primaries either!
BoosterDuck
Banned
They're not though, cause Hillary was already supporting gay marriage two decades before she 'flip-flopped'.
yeah she owned up to the crime bills and admitted they were a mistake, that's the one thing you can knock her for
Hey I like buying flashy expensive shit too. You don't? It feels good walking around in a pair of new shoes breh
Yeah, politicians are bad and corrupt so we'll need to do shit to change that.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say me and most Black people have a better idea what her entire record with regards to the AA community looks like better than you do. But you stay mad though <3
Spiritreaver
Member
So, who here watched Bernie's speech in NH today?
I would ask for receipts on the bold, but I don't think you have any.
And it's absolutely hilarious to think that Hillary only "changed her position" on that (policy from her husband's administration) after being "called out" by supporters of the man who actually voted for every bit of that legislation you're now blasting her for.
Posts like this really say more about the poster then the topic.
The painful abuse of a term that shouldn't be thrown around so causally and wrecklessly, as it is a label that deserves to retain its potency.
Compoumded with the elementary school application of hindsight and disregard for context of politics in the early 90's in order to make that point stick.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ed_the_1994_crime_bill_championed_by_the.html
Also, you should probably look at Bernies voting record while you are at it. Less you might end up looking hypocritical.
Boombloxer
Member
If you're talking about the 20-year old comment, yes.
Also, she's not a racist. The dog whistles bounced when she capitulated and proceeded to do her part. If this is really the best you have, then I suggest you let go of emotion and look at policy.
And let me make something clear--no one is perfect, not even The Islamic Shock, but I don't vote for perfection, I vote because the person has a track record of getting shit done consistently. Obama's track record in terms of changing the direction of the country is something I want to continue. She has my vote, and yes, I am still proud to vote for her.
Big Baybee
Member
Bernie Sanders voted for that crime bill and never addressed the disproportionate amount of blacks thrown in jail in his state. Saying Bernie called her out on anything while he had a direct impact on the negative impact of black lives over the last 20 years is some bullshit of the highest order.
CornBurrito
Member
I blame South Park.
She still said it, but according to supporters what she said.. wasn't true? So you mean she said that in order to get votes?
The crime bills were a mistake that were made, peopl make mistakes, but the wording and the way she said it was gross.
Buying flashy stuff is nice sure... She has ALOT she should not be taking 350,000 and talking up the same people she lambastes and refuses to debunk it, so which side is she really on then? Again "they offered" is not good enough. She shouldve spun it as charity money. Dressing in flashy attire is not a good way to reach the average person.
TestOfTide
Banned
Yes because she has done everything she could to prove that she is willing to own up to those mistakes regarding prisons and "superpredators".
She even made her first campaign speech about how we need criminal justice reform.
Or more like, what she said doesn't matter in the grand scheme of it all, considering what she actually had done for the LGBT community? Why does this matter to you so much? It's actually kinda insulting.
I'll never be one of those idiots that harps on about 'Both parties are the same' but....when it comes to immigration, they were more or less in alignment until the Tea Party and Trump's merry band of fuckwits came along. And before the Democrats tried to push immigration reform, we had Dubya trying to pass along immigration reform. Both parties had more or less turned immigration reform into a game of denial, wanting to be THE party that passed immigration reform and some form of path to legal residence and stringing along Hispanics for the ride and for the votes. Granted, W Bush was way more pro-Hispanic than most of his colleagues at the time but progress is progress, and he undeniably attempted to push immigration reform. Obama and the Dems had control of the house early on during his first term but pushed immigration reform and legalization to the backburner despite it being his big pitch to Hispanics....and then the Dem's control slipped and it got turned into a political shitshow.
Whoo boy, you must not have been paying attention during the last decade and a half if your counterpoint to critiquing the Dems on immigration is Donald effin Trump. See above.
This is what I mean, it's insulting that I don't believe what she says? It's not insulting to me when people don't like what I like. It bothers me because she said one thing and means something else in the case of not supporting gay marriage. She made the lines about super predators and bringing them to heel, which apparently she didn't mean or made a mistake... She took hundreds of thousands to speak to the crooks on wall Street, and depending on who you believe she had quite nice things to say... And yet she says the exact opposite and that she's going to stop their antics. And again the Kissinger stuff is cringeworthy.
This makes not a single shred of sense.
You're attacking Hillary for something every celebrity and out-of-office politician does. Speaking tours are practically an industry of their own, and EVERYONE has a price they charge. Heck, in comparison to high-profile pop culture celebrities, Hillary's $350,000 speaking fee is actually pretty modest. Hell, Trump charges over a million for his speaking engagements.
And since when does The Queen of Pants Suits dress in "flashy" attire?
TestOfTide
Banned
To be fair, during that <2 year period, most people thought that healthcare reform was the most important thing to get done.
I understand your criticisms but you can only get so much done in less than 2 years.
I also like the inference that if it wasnt for Bernie supporters calling out the hypocrisy their own candidate exalted, she would of never changed her position.
As if Clinton's history was erased from the collective memory and if it weren't for Bernie bros the world may have never remembered.
ShadowKingpin
Member
HillaryGAF will never accept being wrong. You don't trust Hillary? You are sexist or a privileged white individual. It's a lose-lose situation.
Get out of here with this mess!
That comment was made during the 1980-1990s when gun crime was at its peak
It so much easier to make an argument when you completely misrepresent everyone you're arguing against.
Wait so youre saying it's ok that she called young blacks super predators?
The truth is that immigration reform became more viable for the Democratic party in correlation to their growth as a voting bloc and the Republicans growing isolating actions toward hispanics.
Its a hard truth. Another hard truth is that political capital is not unlimited and you can't do everything at once. Obama took office amidst a major financial crisis and pending collapse of the American healthcare system. Both of those measures took a ton of political capital and time to get passed. The consequence of which was the tea party emergence. Forcing other issues to effectively become frozen indefinitely due to the Republican's steadfast opposition to anything Obama.
jchap
Member
You mean could have been in shambles if they had run literally any other candidates. Republicans will hold the house at least.
Silent Chief
Member
Last I remember the young black voters weren't behind Bernie at all.
If they cared enough to vote for Hillary against Bernie, they'll probably care enough to vote against Trump.
This is like cherry picking comments on social media. It means less than nothing.
Who said this?
Getting your news from memes is a horrible choice.
Aaronology
Member
Hillary has one of the most consistent records of any politician being discussed in this thread. This is factual. Your feelings about her are not applicable. From there we can conclude that you are either being disingenuous and holding Clinton to an impossibly high standard or that your issue isn't with Clinton specifically but the lack of 100% honesty in politics in general.
Which is it?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
The thread is about young black voters who don't trust Hillary, many of them women.
Make an effort dude
His imaginary friend he uses to have these arguments with...Just not sure why he felt compelled to bring them onto GAF? He will have to explain that for himself.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You don't got any proof of that. You're just repeating the same old Ghost of McCarthy socialism. All that is, is you taking the past and holding the past up as proof what will happen. It happened in the past, and so you make an unsubstantiated false equivalency to propose the damage a socialist would do. It's speculation. Nothing more. Treating it as fact is pointless. Furthermore, I never said Obama wasn't a once in a lifetime politician. That doesn't dissuade what I said. Those ideas that don't mutually annex each other out.
There is no proof that it would have tanked him. I personally don't think it would have made a difference. Just like Benghazi and emails are pointless obstructions and just an exercise in throwing shit to see if it sticks. I think you're overplaying this for convenience. Not for a fair reading or representation of events. Socialism as a dogwhistle has been overused to the point where it doesn't mean or has the power you think think it has.
I've done a lot of research and I am more than familiar with the shared policies between them. You assume a lot of things about me having to do "more research". But what you're not grasping is that their shared policies is not the issue of this thread. The issue is the validity of the accusation that she is not trustworthy as hinted by the beliefs of those from the OPs article. The accusation that she is a liar and doesn't truthfully mean what she says.
I know what she is done, and I (as are many people) are again her agenda as a SoS, her support of mad men like Netanyahu as well as her foreign policy in general. But I've NEVER claimed that her and Bernie are not similar on many domestic issues.
As non-Americans what we can do looking in from the outside is only giving our perspective, and the thing that makes us uncomfortable (I feel confident speaking for a lot of non-Americans) is the money in politics. As Aaronology and others have pointed out, that is not proof of corruption or foul play and of itself, but it is bad optics that grows concern, anxiety and fears. This is what you don't understand. This is you not doing your research on our positions or thinking that we are violently anti-Hillary. Isidewith had me at 92% agreement with Clinton. But as I said, that is not the issue of this thread.
Many of us are not hating Hillary, but I get the feeling you think we are because there are many out there. And the optics get muddy, and you lash out and throw this nonsense around, assuming all this crazy shit about posters positions you know nothing of. There are simply concerns and fears that the power play in question is what can grow the seed for corruption. One can have those concerns, be critical and still want Hillary to beat Trump. And one is allowed to have aspirations and a belief that a more leftist candidate could win.
Sanders is privileged. Because the underdog is always privileged. It is a classic caricature that plays itself endless across political history. The little man against the system has more authenticity because he in a literal and symbolic sense is closer to the voices that feels ignored the most. Finally, voting is based on feelings. For you to defend that Hillary in her heart has changed her position on things from her past that we frown upon today, is a feeling you have. Because there is no fact check for what she truly feels. So stop throwing that wrench around like you're any less compromised with regards to your bias than anyone else here.
TestOfTide
Banned
So you think she shouldn't try to help a 50 state strategy?
The only way a 50 state strategy can work is by having democrats running for red seats that can appeal to moderate conservatives and business type conservatives.
Aaronology
Member
Byakuya769
Member
Calling gang members who commit aggravated assaults and murders that happen to be black "super predators" is problematic because it focuses on the outcome and not what causes the solution--however, it is NOT the same as calling "young black males" (read "young black males") "super predators." And I am getting extremely sick and tired seeing this lazy attack peddled by people too lazy to even watch the entire interview where it was stated (hopefully that's not you), but your take on this is still off the mark.
It's tiresome and entirely unhelpful to slam someone who has been a vocal ally for something so specious and stupid.
Just wondering are you aware of the crack epidemic of the 1980s?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked