Aaaand that’s exactly what I mean about the popular dialog overshadowing facts.
6 Likes
Not at all. Hillary Clinton is pro-fracking, is (was?) against the minimum wage increase to $15/hr, supported the Iraq War, supports capital punishment, supported policies that destabilized the banking industry and led to the 2008 collapse, said and did nothing about Standing Rock, was in favor of the TPP, called young black men “super predators” on tape and was dismissive of BLM, and opposed gay marriage as late as 2013. For me, many of those are deal-breakers, such as capital punishment. Also opposing gay marriage or supporting the Iraq War at any time will score very low marks with me.
Those are my reasons for not voting for Hillary Clinton, but seeing what the other options were, I voted for her anyway despite all this.
But please continue to deflect by saying this race was all about sexism and Monica Lewinsky and whatever. Next thing I know you’ll be telling me I care about Vince Foster or Benghazi or some shit like that. It doesn’t matter, I have my reasons, and you can respect this or not.
2 Likes
I think when people’s positions change dramatically, their old opinions don’t continue to matter so much. Otherwise shouldn’t we be celebrating Trump, who used to be pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-gay marriage, and pro socialized medicine?[quote=“LearnedCoward, post:66, topic:96617”]
But please continue to deflect by saying this race was all about sexism and Monica Lewinsky and whatever.
[/quote]
I never said any such thing, but now you’re putting a whoooole lot of words in my mouth, so I’m not interested in continuing any sort of debate, thank you.
3 Likes
If we’re talking about some college kid, yes, it’s possible that their opinion changed dramatically. A grown-ass woman who entered national-level politics at the age of 54? Not so much. As far as celebrating Trump… still no, because he thinks abhorrent things now. Believing these things at any time is bad, but now counts as any time, and is even worse because it’s in the present.
Sure, Clinton can adopt Sanders-lite positions when the mood strikes her, but that doesn’t mean that she believes these things or would actually follow through.
You were the one who brought up Monica Lewinsky, even if you only implied that this was something I cared about, rather than stated it outright.
But yeah, I’m doing exactly what I accused you of doing, so I’m genuinely sorry about that.
You’re thinking of someone else. I never mentioned Monica Lewinsky in any post I’ve made here apart from mentioning my mother-in-law’s hatred of Hillary for what she saw as being a bad wife, but I didn’t talk about Monica or any of the ridiculous fake scandal. I only used that as an example because, to me, it shows how someone can form a prejudice against a candidate for their own specific and personal reasons, and hold onto that prejudice tightly.
2 Likes
Of course policies are more important than personalities. But people in the US have been conditioned for decades to vote for policies which are against their best interests. Consolidation of wealth and trickle-down effect probably sound rational to those who drink that kool-aid, but I think the evidence is against it. Instead services get privatized, jobs get exported, rights get curtailed - and it’s the same old tactic of “blame the minorities/foreigners”. The boogyman changes to whatever is fashionable, from communists, to hippies, to gays, to Muslims. But it is still the same interests fleecing the US people with the same tactics.
The only big difference is that Trump represents a different brand of robber baron than the Koch/Wall Street ones of the past few years.
It’s not really a rational choice for most, because Trump’s plan appears to be to defend our economy by making the US a giant closed 3rd world military dictatorship, so at best it would be gated communities for the already wealthy with less opportunity for anybody else.
4 Likes
Yes, that’s what I was talking about. I agree that it’s a ridiculous fake scandal but still causes long-lasting damage, but it’s something that doesn’t affect me at any conscious level. There are people who use these fake scandals as a linchpin in their argument, but I am not one of them. Maybe there’s some subconscious do-not-trust impulse there that’s a little stronger than it ordinarily would have been, but it would have been there anyway.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Are you sure those are her real policies, or what she – as a lifelong politician and public servant – has compromised on in order to get other issues to the table?
In other words: once in the most powerful office, preferably with a Democratic House to support her, do you think she would still actively promote the dominant Republican agenda she’s been laboring under for decades?
I think we would have seen incremental improvements domestically, and maintained or even strengthened our international standing. She knows how to work with politicians and leaders of state. And Putin can’t stand her, because he knows he can’t manipulate her.
5 Likes
I’m not sure of her real positions on anything and that’s a big part of the problem. However, these were things she campaigned under, for the most part. Nobody made her give a weasel answer on fracking when campaigning for President in 2016, or support the TPP when she didn’t even hold public office at the time, or say absolutely nothing about Standing Rock. Nobody made her say that stupid shit about super predators, and absolutely nobody made her react completely dismissively when BLM confronted her about this on multiple occasions. And the death penalty? Completely fucking barbaric, and even most of the Democratic Party agrees with me there. Supporting this does her no favors.
I’m not a big fan of compromise either. She should grow some ovaries and stand up for stuff she actually believes in. She did a good job standing up for women’s rights, I’ll give her that much. Everything else… not so much. Either too tepid, too willing to compromise, or too late to the party. Obama had many of the same issues, which is why I didn’t vote for him. I only voted for Clinton because the alternative to a Clinton victory was so much worse.
I think so… maybe. It would be up to activists and not politicians to make these improvements though. It always has been, we’ve just only been noticing it fairly recently. However, we’d also see the same stuff we saw under Obama. The Left will go to sleep whenever she would do anything contrary to their agenda, when they really ought to call her on it.
This means she can get what she wants diplomatically. Definitely a good skill to have, and I’d definitely prefer her over some bumbler who will alienate entire countries just out of sheer incompetence. That doesn’t mean she’s on my side though.
I hear you. I guess having grown up in politics – definitely one of those industries where you don’t want to know how the sausage is made – I have a very different tolerance for the kinds of compromises that have to happen for ANYTHING to get done. Being able to tell the difference between necessary compromise and actual preference is quite a skill, though, and I wouldn’t claim to be anywhere near perfect at it.
2 Likes
10 Likes
Welcome, new community member.
4 Likes
The tone of your comments suggests you’re not here for discussion. If that’s not true, now’s your chance to correct that impression.
7 Likes
I agree when people change their positions because they were convinced by solid evidence or a newfound understanding. Less so when those positions change perfectly in tandem with public polling. One indicates personal growth, the other disingenuous political pandering.
You can probably guess my opinion in this case, but-
3 Likes
“disingenuous political pandering” by a more generous phrase is “representing one’s constituents”. It’s entirely possible that rather than framing it in terms of the politician personally, one could frame it as “personal growth individually on the part of enough of the voters”.
Of course, paying attention to which positions they will blow in the wind with as opposed to having a principle that they won’t violate regardless of the people they represent, is entirely fair game and is a necessary (if extremely unfortunate) part of voting.
2 Likes
Welcome to Boing Boing, comrade.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
