sclpls Posted March 18, 2016 It is also just a general trend where candidates and politicians engage with the media less and less, and more on their own terms. One of the downsides of the internet I guess. Before the internet politicians needed the media to get exposure. Now they can just use twitter or youtube to reach people without worrying about some pesky reporter sending them off-script! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted March 18, 2016 This definitely reminds me of the double standard with how the media covered Tea Party rallies vs Occupy Wall St. The media was definitely ready to jump on board the Tea Party movement as an "authentic expression of American anger" or whatever garbage phrases they were using at the time, but it took months before Occupy Wall St. was treated as anything more than a curiosity. The media definitely loves going for the smelly-hippy-punching-bag trope. Yeah, the need for "balanced narrative" is infuriating, and genuinely harmful. The right has been pushing relentlessly hard to the right, and frankly being totally irrational, and they're held up as just "the other side." It's like those Oregon ranchers that are militantly anti-government people who subsist entirely on government benefits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 18, 2016 Yeah, the need for "balanced narrative" is infuriating, and genuinely harmful. The right has been pushing relentlessly hard to the right, and frankly being totally irrational, and they're held up as just "the other side." It's like those Oregon ranchers that are militantly anti-government people who subsist entirely on government benefits. To be fair, the Tea Party had goals and benchmarks for success. Occupy Wall Street had no clear, unified, stated goals (on purpose, to not alienate anyone who wanted to join) and was just an expression of anger that eventually was coopted COINTELPRO style and adopted a set of goals as it faded into obscurity following widespread police violence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 18, 2016 I've seen a lot of people make this complaint about Clinton. But I remember what reporting on the Clintons was like in the 90s, and I think that family's paranoid relationship to the media, and how they present themselves is kind of justified? Because total nothings frequently got blown up out of proportion. And this is all the worse for Hillary who has been a prominent woman in the media eye and she is just not allowed to act human at all, anything will be interpreted by the media in the most negative light possible. So it drives me a little nuts when people are overly harsh on Clinton about this kind of stuff. Bernie Sanders gets to play the guy with integrity, but he's also a white dude from the state of Vermont, and that gives him an enormous amount of privilege that Hillary lacks. And I'm not saying this to try and get anyone to change their mind about which candidate they are supporting, but on this count at least I really don't think it is fair to turn Hillary into this villain because the decks are pretty stacked. 1) Total nothings getting blown out of proportion happens to all people of celebrity. Clinton is not alone in facing that kind of BS. 2) Not allowed to act human? In what sense? Are we talking about mistakes made? Because misrepresenting what happened in the 80s RE: AIDS/HIV is not "human error," that's actually fucked up. Clinton has flaws and any time I bring them up I get met with bullshit about how it doesn't matter or don't see them get addressed. So it drives me a little nuts to see that kind of excusing going on. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people - men and women, straight, bi, gay, poly, mono, etc - that are critical of Clinton based on her character and career. If there's a deck stacked, it's in Hillary's favor, because she has brand name recognition in the United States. As I mentioned before, I grew up viewing the Clintons as heroes, but one day I realized my only citation for that was a surplus in the country's budget. When I look back on the policies they enacted and promoted, the Clintons were a TERROR on people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 18, 2016 1) Total nothings getting blown out of proportion happens to all people of celebrity. Clinton is not alone in facing that kind of BS. 2) Not allowed to act human? In what sense? Are we talking about mistakes made? Because misrepresenting what happened in the 80s RE: AIDS/HIV is not "human error," that's actually fucked up. Clinton has flaws and any time I bring them up I get met with bullshit about how it doesn't matter or don't see them get addressed. So it drives me a little nuts to see that kind of excusing going on. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people - men and women, straight, bi, gay, poly, mono, etc - that are critical of Clinton based on her character and career. If there's a deck stacked, it's in Hillary's favor, because she has brand name recognition in the United States. As I mentioned before, I grew up viewing the Clintons as heroes, but one day I realized my only citation for that was a surplus in the country's budget. When I look back on the policies they enacted and promoted, the Clintons were a TERROR on people. Clinton said what she said about HIV/AIDS, but that was not a mistake. She did perhaps misspeak, but only because she did not know. And she did not know because she does not have to. It gave rise to an opportunity for education, and Clinton apologized shortly after her comment brought awareness of a difficult time in queer history to her mind and to the minds of people who may otherwise not have known about it. Her misstep led to her own personal growth and, hopefully, the growth of a nation that now knows more about the difficulties that queer populations faced in the 80s due to the HIV crisis. What's fucked up is not what she said. What's fucked up is the way the nation functions, and one person's small misstep pales in comparison to the violence of a nation. What's fucked up is people expecting a straight white ciswoman to know queer history in a nation that doesn't ask straight white ciswomen to know queer history. My own gut reaction was anger but when I thought about it, I wasn't angry at Clinton; I was angry at Nancy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 18, 2016 And she did not know because she does not have to. What. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sclpls Posted March 18, 2016 1) Total nothings getting blown out of proportion happens to all people of celebrity. Clinton is not alone in facing that kind of BS. 2) Not allowed to act human? In what sense? Are we talking about mistakes made? Because misrepresenting what happened in the 80s RE: AIDS/HIV is not "human error," that's actually fucked up. Clinton has flaws and any time I bring them up I get met with bullshit about how it doesn't matter or don't see them get addressed. So it drives me a little nuts to see that kind of excusing going on. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people - men and women, straight, bi, gay, poly, mono, etc - that are critical of Clinton based on her character and career. If there's a deck stacked, it's in Hillary's favor, because she has brand name recognition in the United States. As I mentioned before, I grew up viewing the Clintons as heroes, but one day I realized my only citation for that was a surplus in the country's budget. When I look back on the policies they enacted and promoted, the Clintons were a TERROR on people. 1.I never said it doesn't happen to other people, but it is an important piece of contextual information in understanding the relationship between Clinton and the media. 2. Gormongous already brought up her comments about AIDS and I already agreed that was a valid criticism. However a lot of criticism of Clinton from the media comes down to tone policing. There was an infamous moment in the 2008 campaign when Clinton got emotional and teared up, and the press was vicious against her, it was seen as manipulative, inauthentic, etc. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say she is not allowed to act like a normal human being. I specifically called out more general criticisms of the way she talks, which tends to be vague and non-committal, I think veers into sexist territory. As I said where you quoted me, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind about who they are supporting. There is just a specific piece of criticism from people on the left that I really think they need to knock off because it comes from a really ugly place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 19, 2016 What. What's fucked up is people expecting a straight white ciswoman to know queer history in a nation that doesn't ask straight white ciswomen to know queer history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 19, 2016 She's trying to become president of the United States and touts herself as an ally of the LGBT community, so you're goddamn right I have that expectation of her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Problem Machine Posted March 19, 2016 I wouldn't necessarily expect her to know it off-hand, but I would expect her to fact-check it before making a statement. The fact that she didn't is... odd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 19, 2016 She's trying to become president of the United States and touts herself as an ally of the LGBT community, so you're goddamn right I have that expectation of her. A good ally isn't one that knows everything -- that's an unreasonable expectation. A good ally is one that apologizes when they're wrong, and then puts effort into being better. Clinton has shown that she does that. I don't support her for the Democratic nomination, but I'm happy to call her an ally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 19, 2016 Waiting for this effort she's somehow shown to be better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 19, 2016 Waiting for this effort she's somehow shown to be better. https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-the-fight-against-hiv-and-aids-and-on-the-people-who-really-started-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.absml1nxy She misspoke, and then admitted she made a mistake while recognizing the historic efforts of LGBT people in the fight against HIV/AIDS and putting forth a concrete plan for future improvements. There's also this little foundation with her name on it that works on this kind of thing. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative/programs/hivaids Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 19, 2016 https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-the-fight-against-hiv-and-aids-and-on-the-people-who-really-started-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.absml1nxy She misspoke, and then admitted she made a mistake while recognizing the historic efforts of LGBT people in the fight against HIV/AIDS and putting forth a concrete plan for future improvements. There's also this little foundation with her name on it that works on this kind of thing. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative/programs/hivaids Misspeaking is if she said George HW Bush instead of Ronald Reagan. What she did was give a long diatribe. As for the foundation, it has her last name on it... but only Bill and Chelsea actually manage it. Hillary doesn't run the foundation at all. Giving her credit is a little silly. Also 60% of the Clinton Foundation's money goes toward a building of theirs in New York. That's some distribution of funds for a charity organization. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/04/15/foreign-grants-doubled-boston-unit-clinton-foundation/KFY7lgQ7fm76f7MmqI7V9M/story.html Also it focuses on foreign healthcare vs domestic. Which isn't wrong, that is helpful. Just not at home so it can't be declared as such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 19, 2016 Misspeaking is if she said George HW Bush instead of Ronald Reagan. What she did was give a long diatribe. As for the foundation, it has her last name on it... but only Bill and Chelsea actually manage it. Hillary doesn't run the foundation at all. Giving her credit is a little silly. Also 60% of the Clinton Foundation's money goes toward a building of theirs in New York. That's some distribution of funds for a charity organization. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/04/15/foreign-grants-doubled-boston-unit-clinton-foundation/KFY7lgQ7fm76f7MmqI7V9M/story.html Also it focuses on foreign healthcare vs domestic. Which isn't wrong, that is helpful. Just not at home so it can't be declared as such. Well, I don't think a foreign life is worth less than an American life, so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree that the last point is a thing. And in general, I think you're just fully committed to thinking Hillary is the literal devil who can do nothing right ever, so I'm just gonna let you do you. I'm pretty over being told that I have to hate Hillary because I'm gay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 19, 2016 In other presidential election stuff (actual news), Ron Paul is weighing in on the GOP's latest bet to beat Trump - a Contested Convention. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politics/ron-paul-donald-trump-rule-40-republican-convention/ I had no idea this happened to him in 2012, but the GOP wrote a new rule to keep Paul out of the running at Convention time. That is some damn dirty stuff (and I still suspect the Democrats are attempting to do the same to Sanders; an Independent that is popular among the party's base, must keep him out for some reason) (we can talk about that if people are interested). Essentially the rule they wrote is now endangering the GOP to not be able to block Trump, because Cruz and Kasich won't meet the rule's requirement to win majority vote in x amount of states. I was never a Ron Paul supporter but, like I said, that's some dirty shameful shit to do to keep a non-party-member off your ticket. I find myself getting more turned on to the idea of abolishing the Two Party System we operate with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cordeos Posted March 19, 2016 In other presidential election stuff (actual news), Ron Paul is weighing in on the GOP's latest bet to beat Trump - a Contested Convention. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/politics/ron-paul-donald-trump-rule-40-republican-convention/ I had no idea this happened to him in 2012, but the GOP wrote a new rule to keep Paul out of the running at Convention time. That is some damn dirty stuff (and I still suspect the Democrats are attempting to do the same to Sanders; an Independent that is popular among the party's base, must keep him out for some reason) (we can talk about that if people are interested). Essentially the rule they wrote is now endangering the GOP to not be able to block Trump, because Cruz and Kasich won't meet the rule's requirement to win majority vote in x amount of states. I was never a Ron Paul supporter but, like I said, that's some dirty shameful shit to do to keep a non-party-member off your ticket. I find myself getting more turned on to the idea of abolishing the Two Party System we operate with. I appreciate the Pauls because they are pretty much the only candidates challenging foreign policy orthodoxy. I disagree with them about FP, but we need more debate on these issues. It is extremely dangerous to have both parties going along with our policies with little debate. "In their annual End of Year poll, researchers for WIN and Gallup International surveyed more than 66,000 people across 65 nations and found that 24 percent of all respondents answered that the United States “is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” Pakistan and China fell significantly behind the United States on the poll, with 8 and 6 percent, respectively. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea all tied for fourth place with 4 percent." http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ben X Posted March 19, 2016 24 percent of all respondents answered that the United States “is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” This is a very strangely phrased question; what does it even mean? Which country is the most likely to destroy what peace we currently have? So, what, it's the most likely to start World War 3? Or most likely to push all countries not currently in conflict into conflict? Or which country is the biggest obstacle to a potential, unprecedented world peace? Or does it just mean which country is being the biggest asshole? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted March 19, 2016 I'd be interested to see this study done more recently, not because I think the answers will change necessarily but because a lot has happened since 2013 when the study was performed. I see studies like this, or possibly just this one, referenced often in pieces critical of US foreign policy, but I feel like I've never seen a real discussion of alternatives/what should change. I personally would hope that whoever becomes our next president starts to draw down our now 70+ year tradition of being the world's police, though I doubt the motivation exists for that kind of thing to happen. As it stands now we have something like 65,000 troops stationed around Europe, and we continue to contribute the largest portion of NATO's budget, not counting the annual military costs as a result of the personnel and equipment we provide. I don't think it's really in doubt that we have provided some measure of peace and stability to the world, but it's long past the time where this is a viable way forward. I feel like if more US voters really understood where and why our military budget is spent, popular support for it's funding would fall off a cliff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 19, 2016 I'm pretty over being told that I have to hate Hillary because I'm gay. Let me try to explain the point of view. Fact: Hillary Clinton backed her husband's efforts with Don't Ask Don't Tell and The Defense of Marriage Act, both of which were hostile toward homosexuals in the country. Also Fact: Hillary Clinton being vocal about rights for the LGBT community starting around 2008, but only officially making a statement in 2013 or so about being pro-gay-marriage. Another Fact: Many politicians engage in appeasement without action often. (I won't declare it a fact that Clinton does this, I can only declare my opinion that she does) Not fact but my opinion: Clinton's timing on coming around on gay marriage is after the population by majority wanted it. That's suspicious to me. She has a traceable, fact-checkable history of being a champion and antagonist of gay people. So. Now it's a coin flip - is she trustworthy on the issue, or no? I'm fine if people decide she is. All I ask is - that the arguments I make are declared valid (because they aren't lies, she did those things) - that I not get demonized for being anti-Clinton I'm not here to berate people into changing their mind. I just want to know if people are aware of her mixed history on something that actually affects them directly. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the risk (or see it as a risk, I guess). My personal opinion on this is to hold Clinton in suspicion given her past and timing. If she manages to use her office to positive effect for gay people, then hey, I eat my words and will do so in relief. At most though I expect indifference from her if she takes the seat of the presidency. And at worse, she will actually act to regress rights gained by gay people (or introduce new means to make them second-class citizens). I'm not willing to take the chance and neither are plenty of gay (and straight or bi!) people I know. This isn't to say you or anyone else is the odd one out here. I can only say a danger foreseen is half-avoided. Junior Mints has mentioned a few times on Twitter that she's a Clinton supporter and I just hope and hope and hope that Clinton doesn't let her, you, or anyone else down on that issue. We live in a world where the balance for gay people is finally starting to tip, but it's a fight far from won. I urge caution and being on guard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 20, 2016 Clinton was for civil unions that were equal to marriage in all but name in 2006 (so your second fact is suspect, at best), and her entire tenure as Secretary of State is full of examples of her trying to do her best for queer communities around the world -- from Ghana to Switzerland to the USA. The timing of her coming around is suspect if you want to try and say that queer communities -- and the coming out campaigns that are largely the reason LGBT communities are so well accepted in the Western world -- had no hand in impacting the minds of the people they came in contact with. I'm legit offended by people who think that she's only pro-LGBT rights because it's politically convenient because that stance ignores the millions of queer voices that probably had a hand in changing her mind, and renders moot the efforts that people took that put them in danger. Does she have a history? Yes. She's been politically active for basically my entire life. I don't like some of the things she's done. But DADT was 20 years ago, and she was a part of the administration that repealed it. Get over it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vader Posted March 21, 2016 It's also worth noting that DADT was a compromise. Bill and Hillary wanted people to be able to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation, but DADT was what they ultimately ended up with. In addition to forcing gay service members to remain closeted, it also banned the harassment of closeted folks. I'm certainly not defending DADT, but it would be unfair to characterize it as something that the Clintons pushed through to bar gay folks from the service. In fact, it was just the opposite. I'm sure Hillary was as thrilled as anyone when the Obama administration was able to get it repealed and replaced with a non discriminatory policy (which is what the Clintons wanted from the start).It should also be noted that the '90s were not a time when LGBT rights were exactly in the mainstream of american politics. The limited steps that the Clintons did take, contextually, were pretty monumental in that they occurred in defiance of the political wisdom of their day (I don't mean to make it sound like it was all them, I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT activists to thank for lobbying them).It also bugs me that Hillary gets flack for how late she was coming out for marriage equality when Obama, Biden, and basically every other mainstream democrat did so around the same time. Discrimination was wrong then and it's wrong now. She hasn't been here as long as she should've been (almost no one has), but she's certainly here now.Also, should it really be a shock that in a democracy a politician would change their opinion on something around the same time as the people? That's kind of what's supposed to happen.If you want to knock Hillary for something, knock her for her connections to large corporate interests and for her hawkish foreign policy stance. If you're going rule out anyone who pre-2012 opposed marriage equality regardless of their recent activities or everything else in their career, I'm afraid you're going to find yourself at a bit of a loss for political allies in Washington. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted March 21, 2016 Compromising by dehumanizing people is bullshit. There's no excuse. Either you stand up for what's right or you cave in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vader Posted March 21, 2016 Compromising by dehumanizing people is bullshit. There's no excuse. Either you stand up for what's right or you cave in. Ted Cruz would agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted March 21, 2016 Compromising by dehumanizing people is bullshit. There's no excuse. Either you stand up for what's right or you cave in. This is a great way for someone who has zero power or influence on policy to think. This is a terrible way for someone with any power or influence on policy to think. For instance, I'm a huge detractor of ACA. I think it's locked the nation into skyrocketing healthcare costs, has forced people into the arms of private insurers who want to increase their profit margins more than they want to help people, and has soothed the left into not acting on a better solution. But you know what? I have damn good health insurance. I can afford to be against ACA. I'm not reliant on expanded medicare coverage or a subsidized plan. People who are in that position would disagree with me about ACA, and with good reason. That's ultimately why it's a good thing that I'm just a small man with no power -- my ideology would blind me to a good solution because it's not the best solution. In the same way, I don't like DADT. But a gay kid from a poor, broken home whose only path to a college education was military service was probably damn grateful to have DADT -- he could go about his business on his own time and not be beholden to questions about it. He would think differently than me about DADT, and with good reason. His opinion wouldn't be that DADT is dehumanizing, but that it was a lifesaving avenue to a better life for himself. Having ideological positions is great. They're a huge benefit in a lot of ways. But when you're dealing with real policies in the real world, things are more complicated. There isn't as much black and white. Someone isn't necessarily for us or against us, but rather they often lie somewhere in the middle. For example, Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia has been a staunch opponent of LGBT rights historically, but now that Georgia's legislature is considering passing a "religious freedom" act he's come out as accepting of gays. He says that people don't need to feel threatened by people doing things they don't agree with, and he backs up his view with biblical quotes. So is he for gays or against gays? He seems to be mostly against, but it's complicated. He's somewhere in the middle, and it doesn't do anyone any good to say that Governor Deal voted against gay adoption rights in 2006 or whatever else he's done, since in 2016 he said that people should accept gay marriage even if they don't agree with it. He quoted the Bible -- as his Southern Baptist upbringing would guide him to do -- saying that people should love and accept society's outcasts. I don't have full faith that he'll push for more gay rights, but he seems to be standing up for the ones we have. Does that mean he's against us, or does it mean he's with us? I think it means it's complicated. Life is complicated. Reducing things into the two categories of "good" and "bad" doesn't really help anyone make things better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites