Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley (NY-14 Democratic Primary)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

undeadsuitor:

crimson5pheonix:

undeadsuitor:

That assumes that voters are rational creatures.

Like, realistically people would vote for the candidate with the best plan that would reasonably help the country. But reality is unrealistic and people are easily swayed by fake promises.

First you would have to have a candidate that would reasonably help the country. That's apparently a hard hurdle to overcome. Mostly due to poor thinking from the political class.

And just because the democrats didn't have a hail mary pass save everyone fix the country plan, doesn't mean the guy who ran on deporting brown people and rubbing coal on his balls suddenly seemed like a reasonable option.

The US election system is broken, and it has nothing to do with "well the democrats didn't put forth their best"

its been a long slow spiral towards being simply a popularity contest. Hell, even Obama was voted because he was more charming than the other guy. The Republicans just took it to it's logical extreme

Oh well. She failed to play the political game. Which is a problem when it's a politician. And a major problem when that politician is campaigning on being a better politician. It's like a self-feeding cycle of incompetence.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Your pot shots are not appreciated.

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

It takes slavery being appeased. The Electoral College is a remnant of pro-slavery policy. Trump won on slavery.

Democrats won on that system before. A few times I think. I think the last guy won on that system. Maybe the good candidate should have learned the rules?

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

It takes slavery being appeased. The Electoral College is a remnant of pro-slavery policy. Trump won on slavery.

Democrats won on that system before. A few times I think. I think the last guy won on that system. Maybe the good candidate should have learned the rules?

Bush was not a Democrat. And if you're talking about Benjamin Harris, he was a Democrat when Democrats were right-wing, and when being left-wing did not equal being pro-LGBT.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

BreakfastMan:

Except campaign in swing states. Or give people a reason to vote for her.

Your pot shots are not appreciated.

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

To be fair, Ronald Reagan was an actor who took 44 out of 50 states, including NY. Clinton was not incompetent by any stretch, but she was overconfident. She spent the last few days of the campaign promoting other candidates down the ticket rather than her own campaign because the polls said she had it in the bag.

undeadsuitor:
The US election system is broken, and it has nothing to do with "well the democrats didn't put forth their best"

That is literally the reason why the Democrats didn't put forth their best.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
It takes slavery being appeased. The Electoral College is a remnant of pro-slavery policy. Trump won on slavery.

Democrats won on that system before. A few times I think. I think the last guy won on that system. Maybe the good candidate should have learned the rules?

Bush was not a Democrat. And if you're talking about Benjamin Harris, he was a Democrat when Democrats were right-wing, and when being left-wing did not equal being pro-LGBT.

I was talking about Obama...

Ryotknife:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Your pot shots are not appreciated.

But not inaccurate.

It takes a special level of incompetence to lose to a reality tv star.

To be fair, Ronald Reagan was an actor who took 44 out of 50 states, including NY. Clinton was not incompetent by any stretch, but she was overconfident. She spent the last few days of the campaign promoting other candidates down the ticket rather than her own campaign because the polls said she had it in the bag.

But he wasn't a reality tv star, thus I am still technically correct.

image

Though it should be pointed out that Reagan went against Carter, who was very unpopular at the time iirc.

And I'd call a candidate who doesn't campaign in swing states pretty incompetent.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Democrats won on that system before. A few times I think. I think the last guy won on that system. Maybe the good candidate should have learned the rules?

Bush was not a Democrat. And if you're talking about Benjamin Harris, he was a Democrat when Democrats were right-wing, and when being left-wing did not equal being pro-LGBT.

I was talking about Obama...

Oh, in 2008 when Obama got more votes or in 2012 when Obama got more votes?

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Bush was not a Democrat. And if you're talking about Benjamin Harris, he was a Democrat when Democrats were right-wing, and when being left-wing did not equal being pro-LGBT.

I was talking about Obama...

Oh, in 2008 when Obama got more votes or in 2012 when Obama got more votes?

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

I was talking about Obama...

Oh, in 2008 when Obama got more votes or in 2012 when Obama got more votes?

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

Goal posts moved.

The EC is bad. It is fine when it atleast coincides with Democracy, but in those instances when it subverts Democracy, it shows its flaws. Trump, Bush (and Harrison, Hayes, and Adams) should never have been President.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Oh, in 2008 when Obama got more votes or in 2012 when Obama got more votes?

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

Goal posts moved.

No, you just didn't read it correctly the first time.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Oh, in 2008 when Obama got more votes or in 2012 when Obama got more votes?

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

Goal posts moved.

The EC is bad. It is fine when it atleast coincides with Democracy, but in those instances when it subverts Democracy, it shows its flaws. Trump, Bush (and Harrison, Hayes, and Adams) should never have been President.

How is the goal post moved? Did Obama not win off the EC votes? Like every president before him?

Saying you want to change it is all well and good (and possibly right), but that doesn't change that it's how the system works at this moment, thus what is needed to win and do anything. Ignoring this because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

I'd really like to invite everyone in this thread who is eagerly savaging Clinton for not being left-wing to take a moment to review her actual policy platform in 2016.

Clinton promised to:

- overturn Citizens United, propose legislation requiring outside political groups to disclose details of large financial contributions, and direct federal government employees to do the same by executive order.
- cut the tax subsidies enjoyed by coal and gas companies, invest $60 billion in state renewable energy infrastructure, and install half a billion solar panels within four years with the goal of having every home in the US powered by clean energy within ten years.
- eliminate tax loopholes exploited by Wall Street, implement a fair share surcharge to prevent rich people paying less tax than poor people, and cut taxes for lower-income earners and businesses with less than 5 employees.
- raise the minimum wage to $15, dump the TPP, and restore collective bargaining rights for unions.
- reform immigration law to provide migrants with a path to citizenship, pass legislation protecting Dreamers, and allow migrant non-citizens to benefit from the ACA.
- expand the ACA to provide a universal public health insurance option and doubling funding for community health care centres.
- fund student loans and make college debt-free for students, including free community college and free college tuition for anyone earning under $125,000 a year.

There's also a whole bunch of other stuff that goes without listing, like gun control and reproductive rights. Now, who knows how much of that would have materialised in a hypothetical Clinton presidency. I imagine a chunk of it is simply impossible in light of basic political facts, such as a Republican Congress. But it is simply inaccurate to say that Clinton's platform was not left-wing. It was a very progressive platform that actually incorporated many of the things Sanders supporters were asking for. And that wouldn't have happened if Clinton had been simply ignoring Sanders supporters entirely, as some people in this thread have stated.

This is the great irony of the 2016 election; Sanders and Clinton were not that far apart on domestic policy grounds. Sanders actually pushed Clinton to the left on many issues. Ultimately their biggest substantive disagreement was in a completely different field - Sanders was opposed to excessive military spending and overseas military engagement, and Clinton wasn't.

The fundamental dispute is an old one; whether the left-wing ought to be committed to an anti-war message, or whether that made them too vulnerable to right-wing allegations that they were weak or naive. But it is not that dispute that the left-wing has used to rationalise their apathy towards Hillary Clinton. Most people who criticise Clinton's campaign say, as has been said in this thread, that she was not left-wing enough domestically - that her policies were out-of-touch, that she wasn't listening to what the people needed, and that she felt entitled to Democrat votes without giving Democrats something to vote for.

And that is pure bullshit. Clinton's 2016 policy platform was up on her website and it was a damn sight more comprehensive than Trump's - which has conveniently vanished from the internet now that he's won. Clinton did not fail to provide solutions to people's demands; she failed to draw attention to them.

Her campaign was like an excellently-researched academic paper that buried the lede underneath a droning introductory paragraph. And Trump's campaign was a tabloid mag; an endless parade of attention-grabbing scandals and outrages with no story backing it up - headlines without articles, endless cover pages, each one promising something more ridiculous than the last like a particularly desperate Matryoshka doll.

And you know what? I'm sick of hearing that it was Clinton's race to lose. I'm kind of sick of talking about Clinton at all! American voters made a dumb, dumb choice - both the ones who voted for Trump and the ones who sat it out. They're paying for it right now, and if they don't acknowledge that they made a damn mistake and take responsibility for it - instead of blaming Clinton for being only 90% of what they wanted instead of 100% - they'll still be paying for it in three year's time.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

Goal posts moved.

No, you just didn't read it correctly the first time.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Number of votes doesn't matter. The electoral college does. Most Democrats know this, which is why they campaign like they do. Hillary apparently did not.

Goal posts moved.

The EC is bad. It is fine when it atleast coincides with Democracy, but in those instances when it subverts Democracy, it shows its flaws. Trump, Bush (and Harrison, Hayes, and Adams) should never have been President.

How is the goal post moved? Did Obama not win off the EC votes? Like every president before him?

Saying you want to change it is all well and good (and possibly right), but that doesn't change that it's how the system works at this moment, thus what is needed to win and do anything. Ignoring this because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

If anyone misread, it was crimson. The Presidency should be decided by popular vote, ie Democracy. Trump did not win that way. He won because of an institution built to help pro-slavery states.

Obama won the popular vote, twice. Trump did not. Nor did Bush, the previous bar for worst modern President.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
Goal posts moved.

No, you just didn't read it correctly the first time.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Goal posts moved.

The EC is bad. It is fine when it atleast coincides with Democracy, but in those instances when it subverts Democracy, it shows its flaws. Trump, Bush (and Harrison, Hayes, and Adams) should never have been President.

How is the goal post moved? Did Obama not win off the EC votes? Like every president before him?

Saying you want to change it is all well and good (and possibly right), but that doesn't change that it's how the system works at this moment, thus what is needed to win and do anything. Ignoring this because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

If anyone misread, it was crimson. The Presidency should be decided by popular vote, ie Democracy. Trump did not win that way. He won because of an institution built to help pro-slavery states.

Obama won the popular vote, twice. Trump did not. Nor did Bush, the previous bar for worst modern President.

Every president wins on that system. The popular vote is an indicator but ultimately incidental to the final result. This is a republic (well an oligarchy, but we can only have oligarchs as candidates it seems so *shrug*), calling it a democracy is fallacious.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

No, you just didn't read it correctly the first time.

crimson5pheonix:

How is the goal post moved? Did Obama not win off the EC votes? Like every president before him?

Saying you want to change it is all well and good (and possibly right), but that doesn't change that it's how the system works at this moment, thus what is needed to win and do anything. Ignoring this because you don't like it doesn't make it go away.

If anyone misread, it was crimson. The Presidency should be decided by popular vote, ie Democracy. Trump did not win that way. He won because of an institution built to help pro-slavery states.

Obama won the popular vote, twice. Trump did not. Nor did Bush, the previous bar for worst modern President.

Every president wins on that system. The popular vote is an indicator but ultimately incidental to the final result. This is a republic (well an oligarchy, but we can only have oligarchs as candidates it seems so *shrug*), calling it a democracy is fallacious.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Ya know, people like to use Oligarchy against the left as if it is not the Bush's and Trump's that are the oligarchs here. Personally, I would love for some more Obamas in power. Michelle, please run for President! Pleeeeease!

And again, goal posts moved. Maybe go back to what started this chain of debate? Suddenly now its 'every president won on it' when initially we were talking about how a 'tv reality star' won the presidency.

You claim it was Sanders who got Clinton to promise more left-wing policies as if that is bad. Who cares? If thats why, then great! Why is getting what Sanders promised via Hillary a bad thing? Why is her doing good things a criticism?

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
If anyone misread, it was crimson. The Presidency should be decided by popular vote, ie Democracy. Trump did not win that way. He won because of an institution built to help pro-slavery states.

Obama won the popular vote, twice. Trump did not. Nor did Bush, the previous bar for worst modern President.

Every president wins on that system. The popular vote is an indicator but ultimately incidental to the final result. This is a republic (well an oligarchy, but we can only have oligarchs as candidates it seems so *shrug*), calling it a democracy is fallacious.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Ya know, people like to use Oligarchy against the left as if it is not the Bush's and Trump's that are the oligarchs here. Personally, I would love for some more Obamas in power. Michelle, please run for President! Pleeeeease!

Oh yes, political dynasties. Let's do that. Can we crown her queen and do away with voting entirely? Granted, that seemed to be Clinton's rationale.

And again, goal posts moved. Maybe go back to what started this chain of debate? Suddenly now its 'every president won on it' when initially we were talking about how a 'tv reality star' won the presidency.

Yeah, because he won the system. Either by gaming it or by stumbling into it (or being handed it by his opponent). You're acting like the popular vote wins the presidency when it never has. The EC has always won the presidency, but you're mad now because Trump won.

You claim it was Sanders who got Clinton to promise more left-wing policies as if that is bad. Who cares? If thats why, then great! Why is getting what Sanders promised via Hillary a bad thing? Why is her doing good things a criticism?

If she were to follow through on it, it would be good. I wouldn't trust her to though. I'd have no reason to trust her.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Every president wins on that system. The popular vote is an indicator but ultimately incidental to the final result. This is a republic (well an oligarchy, but we can only have oligarchs as candidates it seems so *shrug*), calling it a democracy is fallacious.

Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Ya know, people like to use Oligarchy against the left as if it is not the Bush's and Trump's that are the oligarchs here. Personally, I would love for some more Obamas in power. Michelle, please run for President! Pleeeeease!

Oh yes, political dynasties. Let's do that. Can we crown her queen and do away with voting entirely? Granted, that seemed to be Clinton's rationale.

And again, goal posts moved. Maybe go back to what started this chain of debate? Suddenly now its 'every president won on it' when initially we were talking about how a 'tv reality star' won the presidency.

Yeah, because he won the system. Either by gaming it or by stumbling into it (or being handed it by his opponent). You're acting like the popular vote wins the presidency when it never has. The EC has always won the presidency, but you're mad now because Trump won.

You claim it was Sanders who got Clinton to promise more left-wing policies as if that is bad. Who cares? If thats why, then great! Why is getting what Sanders promised via Hillary a bad thing? Why is her doing good things a criticism?

If she were to follow through on it, it would be good. I wouldn't trust her to though. I'd have no reason to trust her.

Michele is a competent and fair person. Your jab is not a justified argument.

And your mad cause Hillary beat Bernie then. See, I can do that too. Yeah I am mad that Trump is President, cause I give a fuck about other people. Anyone who is not mad that Trump is President needs to re-evaluate their morals.

And what reason do you have to trust Trump? He straight up said he would do the opposite of most of that stuff.

Again, every argument against Hillary fails when put against Trump. No one who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Trump win.

crimson5pheonix:
Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Can you make a substantive criticism of her platform, or are you just leaning on the "you can't trust her to keep her promises" defence?

This is what I'm saying. When it comes to actually comparing the merits of Clinton's platform to Sanders', there was not that much difference between the two. Sanders was further to the left, to be sure, but that was basically his whole intent in running - to be the guy who was always further to the left, and keep pulling the discussion further to the left.

On nearly all core domestic policy issues, Sanders and Clinton were offering the same basic deal. It is willfully ignorant to say that Clinton was not "left-wing", or that Clinton was ignoring the needs of Sanders voters. And blaming Clinton for losing the campaign requires swiftly glossing over how she both won the popular vote by three million ballots and the basic political fact that every individual voter is ultimately responsible for their vote.

As I said earlier, Clinton's platform is remarkably similar to Richard Ojeda's - a set of progressive left-wing social and economic positions combined with a hawkish stance on the military and national security. What I find curious is how people can suddenly support that particular policy mix simply because it has Ojeda's name attached to it and not Clinton's. Clinton was insanely unpopular in West Virginia; Ojeda is practically a rock star. Why?

bastardofmelbourne:

crimson5pheonix:
Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Can you make a substantive criticism of her platform, or are you just leaning on the "you can't trust her to keep her promises" defence?

This is what I'm saying. When it comes to actually comparing the merits of Clinton's platform to Sanders', there was not that much difference between the two. Sanders was further to the left, to be sure, but that was basically his whole intent in running - to be the guy who was always further to the left, and keep pulling the discussion further to the left.

On nearly all core domestic policy issues, Sanders and Clinton were offering the same basic deal. It is willfully ignorant to say that Clinton was not "left-wing", or that Clinton was ignoring the needs of Sanders voters. And blaming Clinton for losing the campaign requires swiftly glossing over how she both won the popular vote by three million ballots and the basic political fact that every individual voter is ultimately responsible for their vote.

As I said earlier, Clinton's platform is remarkably similar to Richard Ojeda's - a set of progressive left-wing social and economic positions combined with a hawkish stance on the military and national security. What I find curious is how people can suddenly support that particular policy mix simply because it has Ojeda's name attached to it and not Clinton's. Clinton was insanely unpopular in West Virginia; Ojeda is practically a rock star. Why?

It is interesting how Trump can just hold up a rainbow flag and people will clamber to claim he is a bastion of LGBT rights, he can claim he will bring jobs back to miners and every other white person and everyone believes him despite his history, and despite BEING WALLSTREET, he claims he will drain the swamp and people believe him.

Yet Clinton gets all this fucking baggage on her and apparently no one will believe...

Why though? It literally makes no sense.

Why are people so willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt despite how unearned it is for him, yet Clinton cant get shit, despite her proven career?

Saelune:

snip

Michele is a competent and fair person. Your jab is not a justified argument.

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

And your mad cause Hillary beat Bernie then. See, I can do that too. Yeah I am mad that Trump is President, cause I give a fuck about other people. Anyone who is not mad that Trump is President needs to re-evaluate their morals.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

And what reason do you have to trust Trump? He straight up said he would do the opposite of most of that stuff.

Who said I did?

Again, every argument against Hillary fails when put against Trump. No one who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Trump win.

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:

snip

Michele is a competent and fair person. Your jab is not a justified argument.

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

And your mad cause Hillary beat Bernie then. See, I can do that too. Yeah I am mad that Trump is President, cause I give a fuck about other people. Anyone who is not mad that Trump is President needs to re-evaluate their morals.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

And what reason do you have to trust Trump? He straight up said he would do the opposite of most of that stuff.

Who said I did?

Again, every argument against Hillary fails when put against Trump. No one who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Trump win.

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

bastardofmelbourne:

crimson5pheonix:
Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Can you make a substantive criticism of her platform, or are you just leaning on the "you can't trust her to keep her promises" defence?

This is what I'm saying. When it comes to actually comparing the merits of Clinton's platform to Sanders', there was not that much difference between the two. Sanders was further to the left, to be sure, but that was basically his whole intent in running - to be the guy who was always further to the left, and keep pulling the discussion further to the left.

On nearly all core domestic policy issues, Sanders and Clinton were offering the same basic deal. It is willfully ignorant to say that Clinton was not "left-wing", or that Clinton was ignoring the needs of Sanders voters. And blaming Clinton for losing the campaign requires swiftly glossing over how she both won the popular vote by three million ballots and the basic political fact that every individual voter is ultimately responsible for their vote.

As I said earlier, Clinton's platform is remarkably similar to Richard Ojeda's - a set of progressive left-wing social and economic positions combined with a hawkish stance on the military and national security. What I find curious is how people can suddenly support that particular policy mix simply because it has Ojeda's name attached to it and not Clinton's. Clinton was insanely unpopular in West Virginia; Ojeda is practically a rock star. Why?

Trust. Trust is why.

Also, if I want to take the low road: what you said is that someone just had to go to her website to be educated by her platform. This is all well and good, but looking at the source of her website it's full of javascript links and JSON. Not that bad, so long as you have even halfway decent internet. Of course, this is America, and not everyone has halfway decent internet. In fact, a lot of rural areas are still in dial-up. A website like hers would take forever to load on such rustic internet. Of course, America is this way because of our heavily deregulated telecommunication laws. The internet for example, started it's (de)regulation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which if the date didn't give it away was signed by Bill Clinton.

So a lot of rural voters couldn't educate themselves on her platform unless she campaigned there (which she didn't) because of her husband.

So your initial point that just saying it was her race to lose is lazy isn't entirely untrue. She had an uphill battle.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
Michele is a competent and fair person. Your jab is not a justified argument.

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

And your mad cause Hillary beat Bernie then. See, I can do that too. Yeah I am mad that Trump is President, cause I give a fuck about other people. Anyone who is not mad that Trump is President needs to re-evaluate their morals.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

And what reason do you have to trust Trump? He straight up said he would do the opposite of most of that stuff.

Who said I did?

Again, every argument against Hillary fails when put against Trump. No one who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Trump win.

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

Well she can try. She might win. So long as she doesn't remember the popular vote doesn't matter.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

The status quo was children being separated from parents and put into cages; Canada, France, Russia, and Germany being friendly but distant fellow imperialists; North Korea building weapons to counter our imperialism; Iran funding terrorists to counter our imperialism; and our trade deals kept the poor poor without help from the top, which never came; and our healthcare was a Republican *SCARE CHORD* plan that benefited the wealthy far more than it did the people.

The status quo was never good. Either the slow decent of the status quo was going to strangle the country or major reformers were going to have to come in. Now it's just going to happen faster.

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

I have yet to defend Trump.

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

Trump does not enter into that last line at all. It is devoid of Trump.

crimson5pheonix:

bastardofmelbourne:

crimson5pheonix:
Yes, Sanders got her to make some promises on her website after she played dirty pool against him and then took actions that made her seem insincere. It was her race to lose. It shouldn't have been possible to lose to Trump. But she found a way.

Can you make a substantive criticism of her platform, or are you just leaning on the "you can't trust her to keep her promises" defence?

This is what I'm saying. When it comes to actually comparing the merits of Clinton's platform to Sanders', there was not that much difference between the two. Sanders was further to the left, to be sure, but that was basically his whole intent in running - to be the guy who was always further to the left, and keep pulling the discussion further to the left.

On nearly all core domestic policy issues, Sanders and Clinton were offering the same basic deal. It is willfully ignorant to say that Clinton was not "left-wing", or that Clinton was ignoring the needs of Sanders voters. And blaming Clinton for losing the campaign requires swiftly glossing over how she both won the popular vote by three million ballots and the basic political fact that every individual voter is ultimately responsible for their vote.

As I said earlier, Clinton's platform is remarkably similar to Richard Ojeda's - a set of progressive left-wing social and economic positions combined with a hawkish stance on the military and national security. What I find curious is how people can suddenly support that particular policy mix simply because it has Ojeda's name attached to it and not Clinton's. Clinton was insanely unpopular in West Virginia; Ojeda is practically a rock star. Why?

Trust. Trust is why.

Also, if I want to take the low road: what you said is that someone just had to go to her website to be educated by her platform. This is all well and good, but looking at the source of her website it's full of javascript links and JSON. Not that bad, so long as you have even halfway decent internet. Of course, this is America, and not everyone has halfway decent internet. In fact, a lot of rural areas are still in dial-up. A website like hers would take forever to load on such rustic internet. Of course, America is this way because of our heavily deregulated telecommunication laws. The internet for example, started it's (de)regulation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which if the date didn't give it away was signed by Bill Clinton.

So a lot of rural voters couldn't educate themselves on her platform unless she campaigned there (which she didn't) because of her husband.

So your initial point that just saying it was her race to lose is lazy isn't entirely untrue. She had an uphill battle.

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:

Just a couple posts ago you were talking about how great democracy is then you go into setting up political dynasties. I just don't get it.

More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

Who said I did?

Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

Why does me liking a left-wing woman who is smart and dedicated mean I have to oppose voting? I would love to VOTE for her, and I bet plenty of others would too.

Well she can try. She might win. So long as she doesn't remember the popular vote doesn't matter.

I miss the status quo. Way less children being put in cages separated from parents, Canada, France and Germany were our allies, North Korea and Russia weren't fucking us up the ass, we were getting Iran to toss some dangerous weapons away, and we were trading with other countries, oh and we had healthcare. The status quo is a paradise compared to this 'change'. If the status quo is a ship NOT sinking, then great!

The status quo was children being separated from parents and put into cages; Canada, France, Russia, and Germany being friendly but distant fellow imperialists; North Korea building weapons to counter our imperialism; Iran funding terrorists to counter our imperialism; and our trade deals kept the poor poor without help from the top, which never came; and our healthcare was a Republican *SCARE CHORD* plan that benefited the wealthy far more than it did the people.

The status quo was never good. Either the slow decent of the status quo was going to strangle the country or major reformers were going to have to come in. Now it's just going to happen faster.

Well, you complain about Hillary and defend Trump. You certainly are not arguing about trusting Trump, are you?

I have yet to defend Trump.

That last line is just wrong. Trump has thuroughly proven that.

Trump does not enter into that last line at all. It is devoid of Trump.

All you have been doing is defending Trump. This is not in a vacuum. The choice was Hillary or Trump. Therefor by opposing Hillary, you are supporting Trump.

Obama had no policy of putting kids in cages and separating from parents. Trump does.

If you actually cared about fixing any of this, you would oppose Trump. If everything was so bad before, Trump made it worse. If nothing else, Hillary kept things from getting this bad. We don't have the luxury of waiting for the best possible person for the office.

It does though. Trump has spent his entire Presidency doing two things, golfing, and dismantinling everything left-wingers support. Anyone who cared about left-wing views, would not be ok with Trump doing that. Supporting Hillary was the only way to stop that.

Saelune:
snip

All you have been doing is defending Trump. This is not in a vacuum. The choice was Hillary or Trump. Therefor by opposing Hillary, you are supporting Trump.

Actually factually incorrect. It's possible to support neither.

Obama had no policy of putting kids in cages and separating from parents. Trump does.

And yet they were.

If you actually cared about fixing any of this, you would oppose Trump. If everything was so bad before, Trump made it worse. If nothing else, Hillary kept things from getting this bad. We don't have the luxury of waiting for the best possible person for the office.

It's not a luxury, it's an inevitability. As I pointed out earlier other countries got their "status quo is best quo" candidates and things are going downhill for them just as much. The EU is borderline fracturing over these politicians.

It does though. Trump has spent his entire Presidency doing two things, golfing, and dismantinling everything left-wingers support. Anyone who cared about left-wing views, would not be ok with Trump doing that. Supporting Hillary was the only way to stop that.

What has happened here is we're supposed to look at Trump in a vacuum and not think critically about his opponent. That's the issue. If you actually want to fix the problems, you get someone who will fix the problems. Not someone who'll let them fester while keeping you content so that nothing gets done. Rip that bandaid off.

BreakfastMan:
Bernie would have won, I think it is safe to say at this point.

I mean...is it? The impression I got was that while Bernie was very popular with trendy internet dwelling folks like us...that was kind of it. That he didn't really gain much traction outside of millennials who liked making memes about him. And I'm not entirely sure how reliable a voter base that is. Am I missing some data or statistics that show he was strongly favoured by others in the political spectrum?

crimson5pheonix:
Trust. Trust is why.

Was there anything at all Hillary Clinton could have done to earn your trust at any point during the 2016 election?

What did Clinton fail to do that would have made her trustworthy?

crimson5pheonix:
Also, if I want to take the low road: what you said is that someone just had to go to her website to be educated by her platform. This is all well and good, but looking at the source of her website it's full of javascript links and JSON. Not that bad, so long as you have even halfway decent internet. Of course, this is America, and not everyone has halfway decent internet. In fact, a lot of rural areas are still in dial-up. A website like hers would take forever to load on such rustic internet. Of course, America is this way because of our heavily deregulated telecommunication laws. The internet for example, started it's (de)regulation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which if the date didn't give it away was signed by Bill Clinton.

So a lot of rural voters couldn't educate themselves on her platform unless she campaigned there (which she didn't) because of her husband.

So the reason Bernie Sanders had so much support amongst these internet-dry voters was because of...his impressive use of social media?

The social media that these voters can't access without better internet? The same social media that Trump used to catapult himself through the Republican primaries in those very areas?

Coincidentally, Clinton's policy platform had a commitment to nationwide high-speed broadband access by 2020. If only these guys who couldn't use the Internet had voted for her, maybe they could have gotten the internet that would have let them be able to find out that voting for her was how to get the internet that would let them know that they needed to vote for her to get their internet.

crimson5pheonix:
More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

One of the things I've been trying to emphasise here is that Clinton's platform was not "keep everything the same." Clinton's platform was "keep reforming things, but gradually." Many of her promises openly called for significant and wide-ranging reforms to campaign finance, taxation, financial regulation, education and healthcare.

I mean, hey, she wouldn't have delivered on everything. But I can guarantee that Hypothetical President Sanders would have failed in certain areas as well. It's doubtful that his promise of a single-payer healthcare system - which would represent the nationalisation of one-sixth of the US economy - could ever have come to fruition in the face of Republican congressional majorities. This is one of the points in favour of incrementalism as a reform strategy; it accomplishes more in the long term because making huge changes in the short term is difficult and risky. The downside is that the changes can be so incremental that you don't even see them.

crimson5pheonix:
Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

How is Hillary Clinton's 2016 platform not left-wing? This is what I'm trying to get an answer on.

To me, the biggest left-wing criticisms you can slap Clinton with are that she is too much of a hawk in terms of overseas military engagement and she leans towards free market liberalism. There are a lot of people on the left-wing spectrum who fit that descriptor.

But beyond that? I don't see how Clinton's policies aren't left-wing. Specifically, I don't see how they're any more or less left-wing than Ojeda's. Except for the marijuana legalisation.

crimson5pheonix:
Well she can try. She might win. So long as she doesn't remember the popular vote doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter?

Saelune:
It is interesting how Trump can just hold up a rainbow flag and people will clamber to claim he is a bastion of LGBT rights, he can claim he will bring jobs back to miners and every other white person and everyone believes him despite his history, and despite BEING WALLSTREET, he claims he will drain the swamp and people believe him.

Yet Clinton gets all this fucking baggage on her and apparently no one will believe...

Why though? It literally makes no sense.

Why are people so willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt despite how unearned it is for him, yet Clinton cant get shit, despite her proven career?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a former law professor with the charisma of a former law professor, and Donald Trump sold his soul to the Devil at a midnight crossroads in exchange for supernatural impunity towards all moral or social consequences for his misdeeds.

It could have something to do with the Lady Macbeth effect - whereby ambition is seen as a positive trait in men and as a negative trait in women - but I'm loath to ascribe it entirely to that. It's a theory supported by her approval ratings, however. Every time Clinton has run for office, her approval ratings - which are normally quite good - have plummeted in response. One could argue that this is because society perceives ambitious women as untrustworthy, corrupt, or otherwise nefarious.

bastardofmelbourne:

crimson5pheonix:
Trust. Trust is why.

Was there anything at all Hillary Clinton could have done to earn your trust at any point during the 2016 election?

What did Clinton fail to do that would have made her trustworthy?

I mean by that point it was too late. It was, to be fair, an uphill battle carrying on the legacy of Bill and a lot of her right wing opinions and votes in the 2000's. That she went further beyond with the dirty pool against Bernie and the various scandals around that time put her on a level playing field with Trump. Which the voting showed. I was quite prescient when I said the general election was going to be a coinflip at the end of the Democrat primaries.

crimson5pheonix:
Also, if I want to take the low road: what you said is that someone just had to go to her website to be educated by her platform. This is all well and good, but looking at the source of her website it's full of javascript links and JSON. Not that bad, so long as you have even halfway decent internet. Of course, this is America, and not everyone has halfway decent internet. In fact, a lot of rural areas are still in dial-up. A website like hers would take forever to load on such rustic internet. Of course, America is this way because of our heavily deregulated telecommunication laws. The internet for example, started it's (de)regulation with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which if the date didn't give it away was signed by Bill Clinton.

So a lot of rural voters couldn't educate themselves on her platform unless she campaigned there (which she didn't) because of her husband.

So the reason Bernie Sanders had so much support amongst these internet-dry voters was because of...his impressive use of social media?

The social media that these voters can't access without better internet? The same social media that Trump used to catapult himself through the Republican primaries in those very areas?

Well that and they actually went to these places. And Sanders spoke his plans better on TV, which is everywhere reasonably. Compared to Hillary's quotable moment being "pokemon go to the polls".

Coincidentally, Clinton's policy platform had a commitment to nationwide high-speed broadband access by 2020. If only these guys who couldn't use the Internet had voted for her, maybe they could have gotten the internet that would have let them be able to find out that voting for her was how to get the internet that would let them know that they needed to vote for her to get their internet.

Oh, if only her husband hadn't put them in that situation in the first place. Maybe if she actually went to one of these rural places people might believe her. But promises like this ring hollow.

crimson5pheonix:
More accurately, you're mad at the system when the person you didn't want to win, wins. Instead of the person who was all about keeping the status quo, which would mean keeping the system you apparently don't like.

One of the things I've been trying to emphasise here is that Clinton's platform was not "keep everything the same." Clinton's platform was "keep reforming things, but gradually." Many of her promises openly called for significant and wide-ranging reforms to campaign finance, taxation, financial regulation, education and healthcare.

I mean, hey, she wouldn't have delivered on everything. But I can guarantee that Hypothetical President Sanders would have failed in certain areas as well. It's doubtful that his promise of a single-payer healthcare system - which would represent the nationalisation of one-sixth of the US economy - could ever have come to fruition in the face of Republican congressional majorities. This is one of the points in favour of incrementalism as a reform strategy; it accomplishes more in the long term because making huge changes in the short term is difficult and risky. The downside is that the changes can be so incremental that you don't even see them.

Or they stagnate. Or that they go backwards. One of the broadest and most relevant metrics to gauge effectiveness on is the gap between the rich and poor.
image
Something that continued to widen under the last Democrat president. Even when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency. This is what happens when you uncritically elect Democrats. Obama campaigned on making everything better forever and that didn't work out. So when Hillary comes in saying "keep making the progress Obama was making", it's no wonder people look unfavorably on it.

crimson5pheonix:
Nobody who cares about left-wing views can honestly justify letting Hillary win.

How is Hillary Clinton's 2016 platform not left-wing? This is what I'm trying to get an answer on.

To me, the biggest left-wing criticisms you can slap Clinton with are that she is too much of a hawk in terms of overseas military engagement and she leans towards free market liberalism. There are a lot of people on the left-wing spectrum who fit that descriptor.

But beyond that? I don't see how Clinton's policies aren't left-wing. Specifically, I don't see how they're any more or less left-wing than Ojeda's. Except for the marijuana legalisation.

To me, the biggest left-wing criticisms you can slap Clinton with are that she is too much of a hawk in terms of overseas military engagement and she leans towards free market liberalism.

This, this right here, is what we call right-wing. Being pro-lgbt and civil rights is good, but it's only a part of being left-wing and not even that big of a part in my opinion. Fixing the class divide is first and foremost what defines a solid left-wing candidate. Part of that is civil rights to not have a codified class, but being happy with defacto classes because gay people can get married is in my opinion lazy.

As to Ojeda, I don't know much about him. Sean seems to like him, but I haven't even read his platform. If I had to guess, he might be the "incremental change" that you want, but to a smaller region where things like that actually are a step forward. Not being bankrolled by the people he claims to be fighting is also a major plus.

crimson5pheonix:
Well she can try. She might win. So long as she doesn't remember the popular vote doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter?

Because that's not how the EC works. If she changes it in office, neato. But getting to office requires the knowledge that winning the popular vote is not how you win the election.

It's worth underlining that the electoral college is not by any stretch the biggest problem with or obstacle to representation in the United States. And that remains so even just as regards the structure of voting and ignoring how campaigns are financed. A winner-takes-all popular vote for President would be more or less the same as far as how undemocratic it is; it would just be somewhat different in its outcome in some edge cases (such as 2016 and 2000).

Choosing between two candidates is not democratic. And neither is choosing between three or more and having so-called 'spoilers'. Real democracy requires that people be able to and have no compelling reason not to vote their first choice and that that choice has a material impact on the outcome. You're never going to get that in a unitary executive, but you can get it in a large legislative body. For example: every Congressional candidate who gets a vote gets a seat and they get as many votes in Congress as they got votes in the election. Simple.

crimson5pheonix:

image
Something that continued to widen under the last Democrat president. Even when they had control of the house, senate, and presidency.

I really don't think that's a conclusion that graph adequately defends. It looks to me much more accurate to say that the last Democratic president achieved no significant alteration in the gap between rich and poor.

What we might also need to consider is what the graph is measuring. If it's just income (investments and salaries) it would be flawed by not including welfare. If it includes welfare as well, it still might not be a good measure without consideration of social services. For instance, the ACA provides affordable state-paid healthcare worth thousands of dollars to millions of people. It makes them much better off, without necessarily appearing on an earnings graph.

Although that said, even if not the full picture, the graph surely does illustrate well enough a widening income gap over the last few decades that most left-wingers should want reduced.

bastardofmelbourne:

Saelune:
It is interesting how Trump can just hold up a rainbow flag and people will clamber to claim he is a bastion of LGBT rights, he can claim he will bring jobs back to miners and every other white person and everyone believes him despite his history, and despite BEING WALLSTREET, he claims he will drain the swamp and people believe him.

Yet Clinton gets all this fucking baggage on her and apparently no one will believe...

Why though? It literally makes no sense.

Why are people so willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt despite how unearned it is for him, yet Clinton cant get shit, despite her proven career?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a former law professor with the charisma of a former law professor, and Donald Trump sold his soul to the Devil at a midnight crossroads in exchange for supernatural impunity towards all moral or social consequences for his misdeeds.

It could have something to do with the Lady Macbeth effect - whereby ambition is seen as a positive trait in men and as a negative trait in women - but I'm loath to ascribe it entirely to that. It's a theory supported by her approval ratings, however. Every time Clinton has run for office, her approval ratings - which are normally quite good - have plummeted in response. One could argue that this is because society perceives ambitious women as untrustworthy, corrupt, or otherwise nefarious.

Unfortunately, I guess the left still has a ton of sexism in its ranks. Explains why people also hate on Pelosi and Warren so much, but love Bernie.

crimson5pheonix:

Saelune:
snip

All you have been doing is defending Trump. This is not in a vacuum. The choice was Hillary or Trump. Therefor by opposing Hillary, you are supporting Trump.

Actually factually incorrect. It's possible to support neither.

Obama had no policy of putting kids in cages and separating from parents. Trump does.

And yet they were.

If you actually cared about fixing any of this, you would oppose Trump. If everything was so bad before, Trump made it worse. If nothing else, Hillary kept things from getting this bad. We don't have the luxury of waiting for the best possible person for the office.

It's not a luxury, it's an inevitability. As I pointed out earlier other countries got their "status quo is best quo" candidates and things are going downhill for them just as much. The EU is borderline fracturing over these politicians.

It does though. Trump has spent his entire Presidency doing two things, golfing, and dismantinling everything left-wingers support. Anyone who cared about left-wing views, would not be ok with Trump doing that. Supporting Hillary was the only way to stop that.

What has happened here is we're supposed to look at Trump in a vacuum and not think critically about his opponent. That's the issue. If you actually want to fix the problems, you get someone who will fix the problems. Not someone who'll let them fester while keeping you content so that nothing gets done. Rip that bandaid off.

Says the person ok with letting it fester instead of voting for Hillary. Rip off your own damn bandaid, aka Bernie.

crimson5pheonix:
Being pro-lgbt and civil rights is good, but it's only a part of being left-wing and not even that big of a part in my opinion. Fixing the class divide is first and foremost what defines a solid left-wing candidate.

Oh...there is a lot of room for disagreement and infighting there.

Palindromemordnilap:

BreakfastMan:
Bernie would have won, I think it is safe to say at this point.

I mean...is it?

Bernie won the primaries in the swing states that Trump won in the general. He is currently the most-liked politician in the US.

BreakfastMan:

Palindromemordnilap:

BreakfastMan:
Bernie would have won, I think it is safe to say at this point.

I mean...is it?

Bernie won the primaries in the swing states that Trump won in the general. He is currently the most-liked politician in the US.

The GOP didn't smear him the way they did Clinton. Admittedly, they've been doing it for long before the elections, but surely they'd find or create something to hound him about if he was the dems candidate.

BreakfastMan:
Bernie won the primaries in the swing states that Trump won in the general. He is currently the most-liked politician in the US.

Although it remains to be seen if that survives going head-to-head in a presidential race, when the worst dirt starts flying.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here