Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

Bill Clinton decided to make a massive error during a speech for his wife's candidacy, saying, "Hillary can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us." Now, she's running for president, so it's safe to assume he was talking about Obama right?

 

In all fairness his aides have clarified that he was talking about the Republicans' obstructionism, but I mean... that's kind of a long walk from the words he actually said. It's also kind of hilarious when you try to think about him not being in the right period of time, thinking it is 2008, or 2000, or 1992, etc.

 

Edit - And then Sanders seized an opportunity. Absolutely fairly, I'd say. The Clintons aren't clean fighters in politics so let's not get upset at Sanders. I also want to take this moment to add, how many times are the Clintons going to apologize for shit they say throughout this election? And how often, by comparison, has Sanders had to make apologies, let alone been demanded to make apologies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how often, by comparison, has Sanders had to make apologies, let alone been demanded to make apologies?

Fairly often, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys read the transcript of Trump's meeting with the Washington Post editorial board? It's really long and totally bananas from top to bottom. At one point he deflects a question about using nuclear weapons by saying that everyone there is good looking? Also this bit

 

TRUMP: ... But one of the things he said was “He has small hands and therefore, you know what that means, he has small something else.” You can look it up. I didn’t say it.

MARCUS: You chose to raise it …

TRUMP: No, I chose to respond.

MARCUS: You chose to respond.

TRUMP: I had no choice.

 

Honestly I could pull a similar quote from any exchange in the meeting. Reading it is probably as close as I could come to the sensation a robot would have after you give it one of those logical paradoxes that causes it to self destruct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly often, actually.

Citation needed. Examples please. Every time I see the guy speak or that he did speak, it isn't in response like some sort of damage control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be completely frank, I don't feel like building a list, and I feel no desire to try to convince you. You'll just have to take my word for it. Or not.

 

The one example I've got off the top of my head is when he carelessly dropped the word "ghetto".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a whole host of BLM criticism to his comments that come to mind (like the ghetto comments he made), some criticism about offhanded remarks about mental health, criticism of his support of Fidel Castro, criticism on his gun control comments... He does a fair amount of damage control. Not an extraordinary amount, but he's a politician after all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my roomies (Jewish, very actively practicing her faith) is now personally offended by Hillary Clinton. The reason? Clinton used the story of Purim and twisted it beyond belief. Incidentally my roomie had just told me the story of Purim a couple days ago (as Purim was this past week or so) so my awareness of the story is way higher than it ever has been (which is to say, I didn't know the story existed and it's fresh in my mind). Clinton decided to try and make the story about feminism and also use it to justify military action / war in the middle east, which is far from what the story is about in either situation. If anything, the story doesn't think much of women.

 

So now we're in the same boat of Clinton trying to appease demographics we belong to. She has the lame pandering to Jewish people without understanding their texts at all, and I've got "I'm like you're Mexican grandmother!" which she in no way is.

 

I will again point out that Sanders doesn't engage in lame ass pandering. Hillary is trying to be everything to everyone and would honestly get more respect if she didn't feel she had to speak on everything ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel obligated here to point out that Clinton is not pandering to the Jewish demographic. She is pandering to zionists, probably because zionists are the ones who have the wealthy lobbies. They're the ones who are impacted by BDS, which she is an outspoken opponent of. All signs point to shrinking Jewish zionism among the American Jewry, but the wealthiest American Jews are generally right wing zionists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it makes it more heinous. She's not making efforts to be appealing to American Jewry-at-large because the support of a broad base doesn't matter as much as the support of the wealthiest few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Piping in to voice a similar position as Gorm's.

 

Literally nobody here is saying Hillary is perfect - the only thing that's happened are some people saying they support her over Bernie for various reasons - and you react to every single thing people have to say to you as if everybody's hard on her side and thinks she can do no wrong.

 

You're allowed to disagree with people without coming off as such a hardass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I focus on the Clinton / Sanders side of the election process, for now, because they're the most relevant to me. Either way, they are who I'd prefer over any of the people running for the GOP ticket. But between the two, I have a preference, and it is a strong preference. This isn't like 2000 or 2004 when any Democrat would do for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fine to feel that way but it's kinda coming off like you're haranguing others for feeling differently?

I would rather people support Sanders because you get the few positives of Clinton without the baggage, and more positives on top of that. Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate the tone being more "this is why you should support Sanders," and less "this is why you should hate Clinton." The latter doesn't really do anything for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...what?

I thought it was pretty clear what I'm saying.

 

Clinton claims to support black people and has a history of being really bad to them. Sanders has a history of helping them since before he took any office. (to further illustrate, Sanders let BLM protesters speak when getting on stage unplanned; Clinton kicks out a woman demanding answers on the "brought to heel" crap while saying she'd be happy to answer that concern, then didn't answer)

 

Clinton says $12 is "good enough" or "realistic." Sanders says $15 is where it's at.

 

Just a couple examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah see that stuff is fine, you just seem to get really aggressive whenever anyone isn't 100% convinced by one of your arguments. I mean I have no problem with bringing up evidence against Clinton, it's just the tone whenever someone says why they don't find that evidence damning or brings up counterevidence or tries to bring it into perspective that NO You're WRONG and then supporting that with some kind of diatribe that's usually only tangentially related to the thing they actually said that seems... not productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot at stake in this election, beyond typical "this team vs that team" stuff. The reason why Sanders' campaign is referred to as a "revolution" is because of the lack of corporate interest on his part. It's atypical for a politician to not be sponsored in the way Nascar drivers are sponsored. I have very, very strong views and feelings about wealthy controlling the meager (the latter of which I have been my whole life). It isn't about pitch forks and torches, but at the very least, stop controlling us and keeping us down to the extent that they do. I view human history as the poor rising up against the wealthy's latest scheme to control, over and over and over again. It gets more sophisticated each round but eventually the poor wise up and take effective action.

 

I see this as a chance to start that process again. Clinton is far from the one-and-only politician I despise for being manipulated by money, but she has particular relevance because she is the first stage of opposition for a guy who can and does fight against that. If Sanders wins the nomination for the Democrats, I will be able to shut up about Clinton, and move on to whoever ends up getting the Republican nomination (or whatever other third party interests suddenly spring up if they have that kind of momentum).

 

I'm not going to promise to stop aggressively pushing against Clinton because I will slip up. I will continue to point out faults and how they show against what Sanders does or will do by comparison. I'm not gonna run around going nuts name calling people here. But asking me to not focus on her is absurd. Why wouldn't I? Like I said, she's more relevant than anything right now. Hell, her running worries me about Sanders' chances more than Sanders being pitted against any of the GOP's current runners.

 

Edit - By the way I want to see this supposed apology over a supposed ghetto statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a nice juxtaposition here, between Coates saying that Sanders is betraying his radical name and the fact that Trump's solution to racial inequality addresses the problem on the merits of class -- namely, an opportunity gap and an employment gap. Sanders's position is certainly more robust, but Trump's proposed solution has a similar shape.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-plan-solve-the-racial-divide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×