I really do not see any way how Trump can win this election if not for unforeseen things, as i said.
And i say that since months.
The polls talk a very clear language and are pretty reliable by now.
Basically, everything clinton has to do is playing it safe, bring a good debate and possibly stop using emails for now.
Let them talk about all the outragious things trump says. It benefits her to not go down on his Level.
She just has to seem halfway competent in the debate and get it over with.
And by the end of the year, you guys got your first female president.
And in my personal opinion, clinton will be a very good president
Given the scandals Hillary keeps getting in, as well as her reputation, she's in trouble even if she's in the lead. She's seen as an untrustworthy person who flip flops and has health issues, among many other stuff. It just so happens that she's probably ahead of Trump mainly because many people see her as the lesser evil, not because they support her or think she'd be a good president. Hillary also needs to use Trump's outrageous shit against himself, she can't just ignore it or stay quiet.
From what I know, Hillary would be a bad president. Where does she stand on most of the issues? She seems to flip flop to whatever's the more popular opinion nowadays.
Given the scandals Hillary keeps getting in, as well as her reputation, she's in trouble even if she's in the lead. She's seen as an untrustworthy person who flip flops and has health issues, among many other stuff. It just so happens that she's probably ahead of Trump mainly because many people see her as the lesser evil, not because they support her or think she'd be a good president. Hillary also needs to use Trump's outrageous shit against himself, she can't just ignore it or stay quiet.
From what I know, Hillary would be a bad president. Where does she stand on most of the issues? She seems to flip flop to whatever's the more popular opinion nowadays.
But flipflopping is a necessary quality of a politician.
Any politician who is not able to do that is a bad one.
THe important thing is that your underlying moral to handle things with certain premises in mind stays the same.
And clinton has been consisten in her fight for progressive ideas throughout her many years. She naturally did mistake or changed her mind on issues (or rather, found that society changed and certain issue are in reach now which weren't before), but she did or at least tried to do a lot of good things.
Clinton was the first one to at least try to have a general healthcare system worthy of its name. She got derided back then like obama was later, and it sadly failed, but she was the first who tried that despite knowing it could harm her.
Noone talks about that now.
CLinton also, after having a very rough fight with insanely much shit thrown at her (more than at sanders by any stretch of imagination) accepted her defeat in the primary and supported obama with an enthusiastic speech.
NOt your usual 'kk i lost but i support him cuz i have to', but the best she could muster.
Still, it gets put like sanders had no chance against her even tho she actually did lose a primary already and accepted that.
She gets framed as a liar when she didnt lie more than most other politicians you can find (because as i said, they HAVE to flip flop. Some do it better, some worse) and at least can be seen with good intentions throuhout the years.
She gets blamed for iraq war when most of the senate voted for it under false presumptions, and it gets forgotten how strongly she fought against the bush administration.
Honestly, throughtout the years, clinton probably got the most shit thrown at her from all politicians in the US.
And she still keeps fighting even tho she has enough money to just call it quits.
That has nothing to do with an urge for power anymore, i believe her to be genuinely well intentioned.
Flip flopping is not a good thing, wtf? If they flipflop, then how the fuck do you know where they stand? That logic makes no sense. How can you trust a politician who changes with the popular opinion, especially when years ago Hillary was more of a right-wing than she is now? That's the problem with Hillary, not many people trust her and as result, she's not trouncing Trump in the polls as she logically should.
Did she really? I mean, over a year ago she was distancing herself from Obama because she thought he could hurt her campaign, but once Bernie entered the fray, Hillary out of nowhere started supporting Obama. And didn't few years ago she opposed accepting South American refugee kids? Why accept Syrian refugee kids, then, who are seen as more of risks? And if I recall, she was against same sex marriage or homosexuality and now, she supports them? What do they have in common? Liberals/progressives/Bernie supporters believe in those strongly, and many see democrats as champions of homosexual rights and accepting refugees.
The main reason why Bernie had a very difficult fight is because Hillary's been in the limelight for lot longer, as well as democrats not liking Bernie. Hillary is more well known and isn't a socialist or seen as one, so of course she's more likely to win the primaries.
SHe seems to lie while Bernie doesn't seem to lie much. In fact, Trump is probably a bigger liar than Hillary. And if I recall, Bernie did not flip flop nor did he ever have to flip flop, One of the reasons why he's popular is because he's seen as genuine - what he believed in decades ago, like civil rights and homosexual rights, are what he believes in now.
Who blamed her for the Iraq War though? I'm pretty sure Bush Administration has received most of the blame, while most politicians have received far less scrutiny even though they were in favor. She hasn't proven she has good intentions, though. I'm pretty sure she's in it for the power, especially with how she has a lot of politicians in her pockets and all.
Politics isn't religion tho; it's not like there's one belief where you should never challenge it, regardless if it's wrong or inhumane.
Flip flopping doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing (unless if it's a constant flip flopping like Trump has been doing); it just means a change of view done by some influence (like Homosexuality being acceptable in American society).
I don't mind politicians changing their stances over certain subjects, it just means politicians are adapting to the social environment (or possibly to allow their agendas to be achieved via votes and support).
Flip flopping is not a good thing, wtf? If they flipflop, then how the fuck do you know where they stand? That logic makes no sense. How can you trust a politician who changes with the popular opinion, especially when years ago Hillary was more of a right-wing than she is now? That's the problem with Hillary, not many people trust her and as result, she's not trouncing Trump in the polls as she logically should.
Did she really? I mean, over a year ago she was distancing herself from Obama because she thought he could hurt her campaign, but once Bernie entered the fray, Hillary out of nowhere started supporting Obama. And didn't few years ago she opposed accepting South American refugee kids? Why accept Syrian refugee kids, then, who are seen as more of risks? And if I recall, she was against same sex marriage or homosexuality and now, she supports them? What do they have in common? Liberals/progressives/Bernie supporters believe in those strongly, and many see democrats as champions of homosexual rights and accepting refugees.
The main reason why Bernie had a very difficult fight is because Hillary's been in the limelight for lot longer, as well as democrats not liking Bernie. Hillary is more well known and isn't a socialist or seen as one, so of course she's more likely to win the primaries.
SHe seems to lie while Bernie doesn't seem to lie much. In fact, Trump is probably a bigger liar than Hillary. And if I recall, Bernie did not flip flop nor did he ever have to flip flop, One of the reasons why he's popular is because he's seen as genuine - what he believed in decades ago, like civil rights and homosexual rights, are what he believes in now.
Who blamed her for the Iraq War though? I'm pretty sure Bush Administration has received most of the blame, while most politicians have received far less scrutiny even though they were in favor. She hasn't proven she has good intentions, though. I'm pretty sure she's in it for the power, especially with how she has a lot of politicians in her pockets and all.
So.... once you have a view you are supposed to stick with it until you die regardless of whether you agree with it? If she used to be more conservative but is now defending more liberal policies then that should be a good thing (for those who agree with those views). It's not like last tuesday she was groin kicking gays people to stop them from getting married and then wednesday she was hosting the weddings herself and then today she went back to groinkicking and already has her gay wedding hosting agenda filled for tomorrow.
As for the bold part... what's your point? That bernie lost fair and square?
Politics isn't religion tho; it's not like there's one belief where you should never challenge it, regardless if it's wrong or inhumane.
Flip flopping doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing (unless if it's a constant flip flopping like Trump has been doing); it just means a change of view done by some influence (like Homosexuality being acceptable in American society).
I don't mind politicians changing their stances over certain subjects, it just means politicians are adapting to the social environment (or possibly to allow their agendas to be achieved via votes and support).
I have no problem with politicians changing their views because they have a new or better mindset, but I have a problem with politicians changing views at convenient moments. Who's to say Hillary won't go back to her bigoted views?
So.... once you have a view you are supposed to stick with it until you die regardless of whether you agree with it? If she used to be more conservative but is now defending more liberal policies then that should be a good thing (for those who agree with those views). It's not like last tuesday she was groin kicking gays people to stop them from getting married and then wednesday she was hosting the weddings herself and then today she went back to groinkicking and already has her gay wedding hosting agenda filled for tomorrow.
As for the bold part... what's your point? That bernie lost fair and square?
I'm really sick and tired of this campaign honestly. You just can't make this shit up, reality is definitely stranger than fiction. It's so insane and trollish on a daily basis and has been this way for so long that it's actually mundane at this point.
Dave Rubin pretty much sums it up for me at this point
I have no problem with politicians changing their views because they have a new or better mindset, but I have a problem with politicians changing views at convenient moments. Who's to say Hillary won't go back to her bigoted views?
If she were to go back to her previous views, then it would hurt her political reputation (not that it was any better to begin with). I could be missing something here, but I don't think Hillary has ever returned to any of her previous stances (like from anti-samesex marriage, then to pro-samesex marriage, and then back in anti-samesex marriage).
I have no problem with politicians changing their views because they have a new or better mindset, but I have a problem with politicians changing views at convenient moments. Who's to say Hillary won't go back to her bigoted views?
Everything she has done so far in her whole life says that.
A politician who cannot change course when he sees an opportunity and see convencience in it is not suited for the job to be president.
That is just as it is.
Give me one high profile politician from any time in modern history you think did a good job and i will be able to show you a stance which was taken due to convenience.
Clinton stands for a progressive but realistic mindset.
That does not dictate every single decision she makes, but it dictates the broader course of her political career.
You can never be sure that a promise will turn out to be kept (again, show me one president in modern history who kept all his promises), but you can exspect her to keep on pursuing her general stance on things.
And her general stance on things is actually pretty promising.
iN her career she most oftenly took the more progressive side of the battles.
Then let's also doubt that clinton lost fair and square in the last primaries.
I am sure there was some muslim socialist network at play there, escalating comrade obama to top position.
No seriously, it is clear the DNC was biased, but what did that matter to the single voters? How were they influenced?
They weren't. Sanders lost fair and square in any shape and form, with or without super delegates.
I'm really sick and tired of this campaign honestly. You just can't make this shit up, reality is definitely stranger than fiction. It's so insane and trollish on a daily basis and has been this way for so long that it's actually mundane at this point.
Dave Rubin pretty much sums it up for me at this point
I disagree with pretty much everything in that video.
First of all: It is an absolutely normal election if it wasnt for trump.
The only reason it appears to be unnormal is the media attention he garners and subsequently the tone of the arguments in the society.
Aside from that, it is absolutely the same shit as it always is. It just just easier to see that US elections never were about rational political analysis but about emotional topics.
In 3 month clinton will be president and the horrorshow is over.
Also 'speak your opinion if you are not crazy' is probably the most useless advise i have ever read.
Your average tinfoil head does not think he is crazy,
I have no problem with politicians changing their views because they have a new or better mindset, but I have a problem with politicians changing views at convenient moments. Who's to say Hillary won't go back to her bigoted views?
How often has Bernie flipped? He's always believed in civil rights and homosexual rights.
I am not sure there is evidence that hillary was ever anti civil rights.... I have read she worked with a republican who was a segregationist but that is still does not mean she was pro seggregation. She just worked for a relatively high profile politician at the time who had an unfortunately mainstream view. Doing a quirk search does not suggest she herself was actually pro segregation at least, if you have any other information let me know. Of course, she did change her view on gay marriage. But what under what scenario does it make a shred of sense for her to turn back to her old view or even anti segregation? Either notion seems blatantly stupid. Specially if your point about political convenience holds any degree of merit (and it does have plenty of merit but that only makes the whole thing even more stupid).
Why don't you just google bernie sanders flip flops? You will find at least a few examples...
The main reason why Bernie had a very difficult fight is because Hillary's been in the limelight for lot longer, as well as democrats not liking Bernie. Hillary is more well known and isn't a socialist or seen as one, so of course she's more likely to win the primaries.
This part literally means bernie lost fair and square. You are saying he lost specifically because democrats liked hillary more than sanders. That said, what democrats did do was a dick move at the absolute worst but by no means the only reason sanders lost. Democrats merely "endorsed" a candidate whom they knew and trusted themselves. Sanders was an unknown and we know sanders is not a democrat at heart, he is a progressive left of democrats. However they did not rig or committed fraud at the elections. Considering how huge hillary's victory over him was, even the party not openly supporting her would not have changed the outcome.
First of all: It is an absolutely normal election if it wasnt for trump.
The only reason it appears to be unnormal is the media attention he garners and subsequently the tone of the arguments in the society.
Aside from that, it is absolutely the same shit as it always is. It just just easier to see that US elections never were about rational political analysis but about emotional topics.
So it's completely normal...except for where it isn't at all? I mean, that's at least one half of this election being being completely insane and abnormal. That's more than enough to prove his point really.
It's not really about the election from a functional point of view, it's mostly always been like this. The huge x factor is social media and the current 24/7 news cycle that stirs it all up. I'm mainly talking about the environment surrounding it. Maybe it's not really clear to someone who isn't living here (not trying to pull that card, but yeah), but he summed it up rather well IMO.
In 3 month clinton will be president and the horrorshow is over.
Also 'speak your opinion if you are not crazy' is probably the most useless advise i have ever read.
Your average tinfoil head does not think he is crazy,
If she were to go back to her previous views, then it would hurt her political reputation (not that it was any better to begin with). I could be missing something here, but I don't think Hillary has ever returned to any of her previous stances (like from anti-samesex marriage, then to pro-samesex marriage, and then back in anti-samesex marriage).
As you said, it'd hurt her reputation and turn away progressives and liberals. Why would she go back to her previous opinions and risk losing votes, especially with all the scandals coming out? Too dangerous; she can talk and promise whatever, but what matters is what she does in the office. Obama promised change, and yet how much change has truly happened?
Never said she was, though conservatives pull up how she and/or Bill said similar/same things as Trump but aren't being called racists. I don't care as much because right now, I consider Trump and his supporters the bigger enemies.
It is not a logic, it is a hyperbolic analogy.Because there is nothing clinton can do to 'just win' the primary just because the democratic eader wanted her to be the nominee.
The voters decided, sanders lost. And unless you can tell me how voters were manipulated here in a substantial way and with means outside of normal primary tactics, then this is a baseless speculation.
Furthermore: When bill and hillary said things considered racist today, they were usually rather progressive back when the clintons said them.
So it's completely normal...l except for where it isn't at all? I mean, that's at least one half of this election being being completely insane and abnormal. That's more than enough to prove his point really.
It's not really about the election from a functional point of view, it's mostly always been like this. The huge x factor is social media and the current 24/7 news cycle that stirs it all up. I'm mainly talking about the environment surrounding it. Maybe it's not really clear to someone who isn't living here (not trying to pull that card, but yeah), but he summed it up rather well IMO.
It might might be a change in how the people perceive the election, but reps saying things which are unacceptable and nutty is not exactly a new developement.
Thisis just the first time that the biggest clown is the nominee.
I just cannot see how this is so shocking when just some years ago we had Palin as possible vice president.
Trump simply says things a lot of republicans believe since a long time.The people before him high up in the reps said similar things, just with a better veil so they would not embarass themselves in front of the rational people. But the content? It really was there.
If anything, this election has the positi e side of showing america its own ugly side without the veil.
But the people who believe the shit trump says and the politicians who feed them with more conspiracy theoriesdirectly or indirectly were there before.
When i think back to the rep's reaction to obama i can hardly see trump even being that much more ridicoulus than a lot of them. He is simply louder.
Maybe it is a pet peeve of mine, but i feel advices like that strenghten the narrative of 'people try to deny you your opinion', which i feel is not true. And i mostly encounter people which are in fact cracy who want to 'speak out without fear' and mention that every other post than people who are rational. The rational people discuss in a normal way anyway, they dont have to be afraid to do so.
And ya, naturally clinton will face pushback. But she is pretty much used to it by now.
And as you mentioned: It will be the same nonsense as with obama. It is not new. And the more the reps do it, the weaker they will get.
As you said, it'd hurt her reputation and turn away progressives and liberals. Why would she go back to her previous opinions and risk losing votes, especially with all the scandals coming out? Too dangerous; she can talk and promise whatever, but what matters is what she does in the office. Obama promised change, and yet how much change has truly happened?
So just like any other presidents who promised and couldn't fulfill such duty (although IIR, there was one president who managed to completely fulfill every promises he made).
Edit: Found his name. President James K. Polk.
So just like any other presidents who promised and couldn't fulfill such duty (although IIR, there was one president who managed to completely fulfill every promises he made).
Edit: Found his name. President James K. Polk.
Just read about that guy. Super pro slave and there is actually no historical record about the promises he made (and kept) other than in a biography made about him. So it is kinda shaky.
Just read about that guy. Super pro slave and there is actually no historical record about the promises he made (and kept) other than in a biography made about him. So it is kinda shaky.
He laid out his agenda, which were reducing Tariffs, reestablishing the Independent Treasury System, secured Oregon Country, New Mexico, and California. As well as claimed that he is only running for one term.
Eh, the pro-slave argument is void if we're comparing societies in different times.
No historical records about his claims doesn't really surprise me tho, since he is the first dark horse candidate to win the race.
I'm trying to do some research on the guy, but I'm extremely tired at the moment.
Maybe it is a pet peeve of mine, but i feel advices like that strenghten the narrative of 'people try to deny you your opinion', which i feel is not true. And i mostly encounter people which are in fact cracy who want to 'speak out without fear' and mention that every other post than people who are rational. The rational people discuss in a normal way anyway, they dont have to be afraid to do so.
I think the fear comes from people who are immediately labeled as being bigoted for speaking out against something. There's nothing wrong with having open discussion about issues, even if someone's idea might be bigoted. You don't win hearts and minds by shunning people. This kind of behavior is way too common in this day and age, and that's what has led to the "regressive left" label.
And ya, naturally clinton will face pushback. But she is pretty much used to it by now.
And as you mentioned: It will be the same nonsense as with obama. It is not new. And the more the reps do it, the weaker they will get.
Her being immune to it is a problem though. I mean, it's great for her and all her spin-doctors, but her "immunity" to this is what I would refer to as her greatest strength and her greatest weakness.
I brought up Obama only because they're both Democrats. I don't think there's much credence to what Republicans have said about Obama, especially when it comes to the idiotic hate-mongering going on. There could be some of that with Clinton, but for every bit of it there is also legitimate criticism. This is why she lost to Obama and the first place, and it's a real issue.
As you said, it'd hurt her reputation and turn away progressives and liberals. Why would she go back to her previous opinions and risk losing votes, especially with all the scandals coming out? Too dangerous; she can talk and promise whatever, but what matters is what she does in the office. Obama promised change, and yet how much change has truly happened?
Never said she was, though conservatives pull up how she and/or Bill said similar/same things as Trump but aren't being called racists. I don't care as much because right now, I consider Trump and his supporters the bigger enemies.
What? you are the one who just made the point that you couldn't trust her and she could go back to her old views at any time. but now you are saying that's not a thing? Are you trying to say anything at all?
You did imply pretty strongly that she was anti civil rights. What else could you possibly try to say with your earlier paragraph? When has bill or hillary ever said the same things as trump? Conservatives saying stuff does not mean it's true.
I think the fear comes from people who are immediately labeled as being bigoted for speaking out against something. There's nothing wrong with having open discussion about issues, even if someone's idea might be bigoted. You don't win hearts and minds by shunning people. This kind of behavior is way too common in this day and age, and that's what has led to the "regressive left" label.
Well, you are certainly not going to win hearts over by calling people bigots. But I think that idea sort of misses the bigger picture here and the whole thing goes the other way around. Take someone who supports trump's views on immigrants. There are plenty of statistics about them that suggest trump is wrong. A while back for instance I posted about how immigrants at the US were less prone to crime and it's subsequent generations that basically play catch up to folk at the US. And you can find plenty of other sources for that(except, laughably, fox news lol). Do you think these guys would actually look at this and realize that the basic premise of what they think is wrong? You are talking about people who watch TV, see someone being called a bigot for a racist position and immediately at least feels alluded to (and thus offended). You are talking about people who get called out on being wrong on these issues (and racist) and immediately complain about PC stuff and scream freedom of speech (even though it makes no contextual sense to bring it up and probably implies they don't even know what it is). "Regressive left" is ultimately a term for certain folk to dismiss anyone who doesn't share their worldview. Well, to be fair calling someone a bigot is at least equally dismissive. But at least "bigots" are a real thing which have been shaping up policy unlike "regressive left" which is entirely made up (at least in this specific issue, I don't know if there are other issues in which regressive left could be argued to be an actual thing). And people should absolutely be called out on it regardless of how much it offends them.
Do you think these guys would actually look at this and realize that the basic premise of what they think is wrong? You are talking about people who watch TV, see someone being called a bigot for a racist position and immediately at least feels alluded to (and thus offended). You are talking about people who get called out on being wrong on these issues (and racist) and immediately complain about PC stuff and scream freedom of speech (even though it makes no contextual sense to bring it up and probably implies they don't even know what it is). "Regressive left" is ultimately a term for certain folk to dismiss anyone who doesn't share their worldview. Well, to be fair calling someone a bigot is at least equally dismissive. But at least "bigots" are a real thing which have been shaping up policy unlike "regressive left" which is entirely made up (at least in this specific issue, I don't know if there are other issues in which regressive left could be argued to be an actual thing). And people should absolutely be called out on it regardless of how much it offends them.
Yes, certain people. But that doesn't mean the left doesn't have their own problem with authoritarian-like worldviews.
Entirely made up In regards to what issue? Immigration? I'm not going to argue against that, as I think a hardline stance towards immigration is a bit stupid and counter-productive. Immigration isn't even being addressed really at all in this election if you do more than glance at it. The wall is much more symbolic than it is indicative of a common sense solution. It would be nothing but a giant time and money sink. Trump has no rational/legal solution to Immigration issues on a person-by-person basis...hell, he has no actual policy in regards to this at all when you strip away the rhetoric.
But with that being said, I don't live near the border, so I can't say with certainty whether someone living on the border actually faces real threat on a regular basis or not and whether something needs to be done about it. Outside of a few asshole sheriffs from Arizona, there's no actual talk about things on the border. It's only about a Wall that will accomplish nothing. There's a difference between a property owners view on the border who has their land trespassed upon on a regular basis and some orange-glow idiot from New York City. The former might actually have a legitimate gripe with our border security. The latter has likely benefited from illegal immigration every single time his company builds something.
But as far as "regressive left" as a phenomena - I do think it exists. But it's mostly in regards to social issues...but I guess we've gone off on a tangent here.
Yes, certain people. But that doesn't mean the left doesn't have their own problem with authoritarian-like worldviews.
Entirely made up In regards to what issue? Immigration? I'm not going to argue against that, as I think a hardline stance towards immigration is a bit stupid and counter-productive. Immigration isn't even being addressed really at all in this election if you do more than glance at it. The wall is much more symbolic than it is indicative of a common sense solution. It would be nothing but a giant time and money sink. Trump has no rational/legal solution to Immigration issues on a person-by-person basis...hell, he has no actual policy in regards to this at all when you strip away the rhetoric.
But with that being said, I don't live near the border, so I can't say with certainty whether someone living on the border actually faces real threat on a regular basis or not and whether something needs to be done about it. Outside of a few asshole sheriffs from Arizona, there's no actual talk about things on the border. It's only about a Wall that will accomplish nothing. There's a difference between a property owners view on the border who has their land trespassed upon on a regular basis and some orange-glow idiot from New York City. The former might actually have a legitimate gripe with our border security. The latter has likely benefited from illegal immigration every single time his company builds something.
But as far as "regressive left" as a phenomena - I do think it exists. But it's mostly in regards to social issues...but I guess we've gone off on a tangent here.
Well, the issue in regards to right wingers or trump supporters being called bigots and them taking issue with that is hardly about authoritarianism, at least as far as I can tell. At the most this is about them being offended and annoyed about being called out on being bigots and racists. They want other people to shut up about their views so they can spout their nonsense unimpeded (and then defend themselves with "free speech" nonsense even though what they just want is the other side to shut up). If you go into specific proposals from trump on republicans there might be stuff that seems authoritarian but that is kinda besides this specific point.
Well, what would reasonably fall into the regressive left? I have read a few things about such that but so far it seems to be nonsense about third wave feminazis or wars on Christmas (which is absolutely not a thing). What am I missing here?
