Mr. Clinton calls Bernie sexist, claims that Bernie supporters are internet trolls
143 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698863]Yeah, I do. First of all, the US would still be spending a massive amount on defense, to the point where US contractors would feel it, but Slovakia wouldn't.
Second, I don't think that matters; I think the more important aspect is that the United States SHOULD be the leader in global security, not a coalition of members.[/QUOTE]
Why? I understand that our place as world police somewhat allows us to secure better trade deals, but that doesn't seem to actually benefit the average man when those trade deals end up like TPP. I don't think my money that I pay in taxes should be shoveled into the money sink that is world policing if the elected individuals don't use it to benefit the people that elect them. I'd rather my money be used to actually benefit most the country instead in the form of IDK education spending or infrastructure maintenance and improvement.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698912]Uh, yeah. That's what I'm saying.
I'm not apathetic; I just think that some politicians are better leaders than others. That's their job, to lead. I think you're confusing apathy with me simply being a bit more conservative than a lot of leftists on facepunch.
Not sure I understand what you mean with the methods of attack thing, but I don't think anybody in this campaign has said or done anything atypical of any other election we've had in the last decade.
Well you can't get the media to look at your views critically if you present them in a childish way (which you admit is childish). If you want someone to take you seriously, you have to stop slinging profanity and names at Clinton. If you want to draw Clinton supporters to Sanders, then the Sanders campaign has to be able to communicate between generations, since Sanders has youth support while Clinton has older folks support, and older folks aren't going to be convinced by calling her "Shillary".[/QUOTE]
Or you could just read the article dabomb posted above you
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698912]
Well you can't get the media to look at your views critically if you present them in a childish way (which you admit is childish). If you want someone to take you seriously, you have to stop slinging profanity and names at Clinton. If you want to draw Clinton supporters to Sanders, then the Sanders campaign has to be able to communicate between generations, since Sanders has youth support while Clinton has older folks support, and older folks aren't going to be convinced by calling her "Shillary".[/QUOTE]
Because the supporters obviously know every little detail of Bernie's policy, and not the man himself?
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
The article posted by Dabomb almost word for word has been the refutation of attacks used on GamerGate since its inception.
The sexism at best is a minimal result of any amorphous blob. For fuck's sake; the people I mentioned used sexist attacks against women to try and bring them over to women.
This is getting ridiculous, we're no longer talking about god damn policy; we're now talking about the same level of stupid shit that completely ground GG to a halt because the power doesn't lie in the facts, it lies in the fucking accusation.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698426]Come on guys; you can't deny this. I mean, sure you can say that about really any political candidate, but some people here on facepunch are pretty crazy. They call her "shillary", "cunton/clitton", calling her things like a "psychopathic bitch". I think the sexism thing is just a talking point, but you can't deny that some bernie supporters have been pretty fucking vicious online. Comparably, I haven't seen anybody saying nearly as vicious things about bernie sanders, just that they don't believe he'd be a good leader.[/QUOTE]
It's a non-issue as politicians receive flak all the time. Political figures are bound to receive at least one negative opinion from a country from a population with nearly 300 million people. Sarah Palin and George Bush received a lot more criticism, but the press didn't decry their antagonizers as a sexist and ableist people.
If she's unable to handle mean internet comments in a time where we're threatened by terrorism and exploitative corporations, then she's unfit to be a president.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49698884]That's the thing I like most about her. Sure she might be twisted and she might have flippy-floppy opinions based on public and party opinion, but as long as she serves the interests of the public and her party, does her personal connection with those beliefs really matter?[/QUOTE]
Admittedly, yes. If you're a flip flop on issues during the campaign, there's no guarantee that you'll actually support those issues after being Elected. It's often said that Obama the candidate would have been angry with Obama the president. If someone is only saying something to get elected, they may just go back on those campaign promises. However, as a democrat there will be pressure on her to implement some kind of incremental change in some direction.
Hillary has supported universal healthcare for a long time (it was her project as first lady), so I can't see her going back on that, but she could simply seek to extend the terms of Obamacare to make up the difference (keeping private insurance by improving copays and deductibles, etc.)
I think she's going to make gun control a huge part of her campaign in the general election, and I think some kind of legislative change during her presidency will be the platform for her to run for a 2nd term, so I can't see her going back on that either.
Bernie has certainly dragged Clinton far to the left; he's done more for American Democracy than any "3rd party" (he caucuses with the democrays) candidate has done before. I think Clinton may go back on her education policies, and I highly doubt Clinton will back up anything she's got to say on the financial sector. Sanders constantly says we need a new Glass-steagall act, closing tax loopholes, etc., which Clinton has also come out in support of, but these are things that I think Clinton has been forced to concede because no politician in their right mind (save Mitt Romney) would come out in support of corporate personhood. While Bernie and Hillary have both come out in support of reversing Citizens United, neither of them have any chance of doing so as overriding a supreme court decision would require some serious constitutional maneuvering (and good luck getting congress to agree on anything of that scale)
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698952]Admittedly, yes. If you're a flip flop on issues during the campaign, there's no guarantee that you'll actually support those issues after being Elected. It's often said that Obama the candidate would have been angry with Obama the president. If someone is only saying something to get elected, they may just go back on those campaign promises. However, as a democrat there will be pressure on her to implement some kind of incremental change in some direction.[/QUOTE]
I find it strange. Obama campaigned on Change and Hilary campaigns on "change? we gotta be realistic".
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49698855]Here's a fantastic takedown of the "Bernie Bro" fake narrative by Glenn Greenwald (guy who broke the Snowden story): [url]https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] because it “implies that only college-age men support Sen. Sanders, which obviously isn’t the case.”[/QUOTE]
Modern feminism is extremely toxic. Supporting a political candidate based on the idea that one should only stick up for ones own sex is perhaps the most sexist thing you can do.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1504946[/url] <- Female Bernie supporters only want mens attention
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton[/url] <- Feminist Senator says “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”
The use of the woman card is disgusting. Obama didn't use the race card and that should get him praise.
[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49698604]Politician vs. statesman[/QUOTE]
The only real statesman of which we have at the present time is Bernie.
Perhaps with campaign finance reform and an outright ban on all lobbying we can have more true statesman.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49698960]The only real statesman of which we have at the present time is Bernie.
[/QUOTE]
Bernie stood in opposition of the Iraq war, patriot act and stood up for gay people in the 1990s. Hilary waited until the public changed their mind and than presented herself as if she'd supported those ideas all along
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49698470]I don't get why people act like this is such a total zinger and then turn around and discount anyone bringing up Sanders' "Man-and-Woman" essay because "its from decades ago, it's irrelevant, people can change"[/QUOTE]
Theres a difference between criticizing how consistent somebody has been and for example, using ancient forum ban to discredit them.
I'm just mad. Any time something good happens, any time a movement or something sprouts out to make this country or an industry better, it gets attacked on all sides.
The whole 'All Lives Matter' horseshit. 'Gamers are Dead'. 'Bernie Bros'. I can keep going on but at the center of all of these are lazy, rhetorical, and empty of all fact but the projection of the writer bullshit that brings conversations, debates and any actual god for saken good change to a screeching halt.
I no longer dislike Hillary, I hate her now because she's dragged this empty, baseless and downright unprofessional behavior into a field that was already rife with it.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698912]I'm not apathetic; I just think that some politicians are better leaders than others. That's their job, to lead. I think you're confusing apathy with me simply being a bit more conservative than a lot of leftists on facepunch. [/QUOTE]A war-mongering flip-floper of a politcian who has Wall Street in her pockets and corporations telling her what to do is not a good leader, how the fuck you think someone like that is going to have the people's best interest at heart is beyond me when we've been shown time and time again that politicians who have, again, Wall Street in their pockets and corporations telling them what to do do NOT have the people's best interest at heart.
A better leader for who? Certainly not the people.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49698886]fake or not, this does not surprise me[/QUOTE]Considering the whole Bernie Bro thing that was made up by Pro-Clinton media outlets, I really wouldn't be surprised.
[QUOTE=Durandal;49698918]Why? I understand that our place as world police somewhat allows us to secure better trade deals, but that doesn't seem to actually benefit the average man when those trade deals end up like TPP. I don't think my money that I pay in taxes should be shoveled into the money sink that is world policing if the elected individuals don't use it to benefit the people that elect them. I'd rather my money be used to actually benefit most the country instead in the form of IDK education spending or infrastructure maintenance and improvement.[/QUOTE]
First, I'm not totally sold on the "anti-tpp" thing, because I haven't read it (actually I don't think anyone has, isn't it secret?)
Also, maybe I'm insulated since I live in the beltway, but the United States' position as a world power contributes to American job growth in the defense sector.
While I agree that more needs to be spent on those things (education, infrastructure), and that we ought to draw down funds from the defense budget to pay for it (which, in turn would coincide with NATO members being pressured to hold up their end of their budgetary agreement), I think that Bernie wants to go further with it, and re-order the stage as being a coalition of states rather than the United States and its NATO allies. I personally just can't see NATO standing up to Russia as a loose confederacy of states each with their own worries and economies; I don't think such a disunited structure can survive the pressure of an economic and military behemoth.
[QUOTE=Swilly;49698933]Because the supporters obviously know every little detail of Bernie's policy, and not the man himself?
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
The article posted by Dabomb almost word for word has been the refutation of attacks used on GamerGate since its inception.
The sexism at best is a minimal result of any amorphous blob. For fuck's sake; the people I mentioned used sexist attacks against women to try and bring them over to women.
This is getting ridiculous, we're no longer talking about god damn policy; we're now talking about the same level of stupid shit that completely ground GG to a halt because the power doesn't lie in the facts, it lies in the fucking accusation.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I missed that post. I'll read it now.
Well The OP is exactly about the tactics used in the Clinton and Sanders campaign, so we're not really derailing here (The policy discussion would actually be somewhat off topic, since the article is about campaign strategy).
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;49698950]It's a non-issue as politicians receive flak all the time. Political figures are bound to receive at least one negative opinion from a country from a population with nearly 300 million people. Sarah Palin and George Bush received a lot more criticism, but the press didn't decry their antagonizers as a sexist and ableist people.
If she's unable to handle mean internet comments in a time where we're threatened by terrorism and exploitative corporations, then she's unfit to be a president.[/QUOTE]
The issue is not that Clinton can't take it; Clinton's campaign is simply trying to discredit Sanders' followers as immature and childish, to discourage Clinton supporters from crossing the line to the other camp (since Clinton supporters are generally older, not wanting to be seen as childish is a pretty useful tactic).
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49698979]Bernie stood in opposition of the Iraq war, patriot act and stood up for gay people in the 1990s. Hilary waited until the public changed their mind and than presented herself as if she'd supported those ideas all along
[/QUOTE]
Well, yes? I already know of his past positions and that's what I meant in my post.
[QUOTE=Killer900;49698997]A war-mongering flip-floper of a politcian who has Wall Street in her pockets and corporations telling her what to do is not a good leader, how the fuck you think someone like that is going to have the people's best interest at heart is beyond me when we've been shown time and time again that politicians who have, again, Wall Street in their pockets and corporations telling them what to do do NOT have the people's best interest at heart.
A better leader for who? Certainly not the people.[/QUOTE]
Well I wouldn't call Clinton a war-monger; The only action started by the Obama administration is the Syrian conflict, which hasn't even involved a large scale boots on the ground effort, and didn't even start until about a year after Clinton left office to prepare for her campaign. Meanwhile, the Obama administration drew down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I can assure you required some kind of collaboration with his secretary of state.
Personally, I don't think it's consequential whether or not she has the peoples' best interest as her first priority. I'm sure the next post replying to this will call be "unfucking believable" or something, or accuse me of being a paid clinton shill.
But, I think that the important thing in a leader is that what they do [I]results[/I] in what's best for the people. The ends justify the means, and so on, and I think Clinton is definitely a Machiavellian kind of person.
I'm sure Barrack Obama had significant corporate donor ties in the 2008 and 2012 election (I've seen the SuperPAC records), but nonetheless, he got Obamacare passed through, was a supporter of LGBT rights, and has recently come out in support of free community college education.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49698999]
The issue is not that Clinton can't take it; [B]Clinton's campaign is simply trying to discredit Sanders' followers as immature and childish,[/B] to discourage Clinton supporters from crossing the line to the other camp (since Clinton supporters are generally older, not wanting to be seen as childish is a pretty useful tactic).[/QUOTE]Nice so instead of attacking his policies they attack his constituents, the classic tactic for when you know you can't attack what your opposition stands for, so rather you attack their character and those who stand with them.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699031]Personally, I don't think it's consequential whether or not she has the peoples' best interest as her first priority. I'm sure the next post replying to this will call be "unfucking believable" or something, or accuse me of being a paid clinton shill.
But, I think that the important thing in a leader is that what they do [I]results[/I] in what's best for the people. The ends justify the means, and so on, [B]and I think Clinton is definitely a Machiavellian kind of person.[/B][/QUOTE]Not really someone you can trust though, no?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699031]Well I wouldn't call Clinton a war-monger; The only action started by the Obama administration is the Syrian conflict, which hasn't even involved a large scale boots on the ground effort, and didn't even start until about a year after Clinton left office to prepare for her campaign. Meanwhile, the Obama administration drew down the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which I can assure you required some kind of collaboration with his secretary of state.
Personally, [B]I don't think it's consequential whether or not she has the peoples' best interest as her first priority[/B]. I'm sure the next post replying to this will call be "unfucking believable" or something, or accuse me of being a paid clinton shill.
But, I think that the important thing in a leader is that what they do [I]results[/I] in what's best for the people. The ends justify the means, and so on, and I think Clinton is definitely a Machiavellian kind of person.
[/quote]
The people's interest shouldn't be her priority? What the hell even is a president for then?
How do you justify your claim that her ends justify her means when her ends likely involve increasing/sustatining the corrupt influence of big money?
[quote]
I'm sure Barrack Obama had significant corporate donor ties in the 2008 and 2012 election (I've seen the SuperPAC records), but nonetheless, he got Obamacare passed through, was a supporter of LGBT rights, and has recently come out in support of free community college education.[/QUOTE]
What does Obama have to do with anything? We aren't saying corporate money is bad because it stops LGBT rights, we are saying it is bad because it leaves 99% of the population comparatively under-represented.
[QUOTE=Killer900;49699046]Nice so instead of attacking his policies they attack his constituents, the classic tactic for when you know you can't attack what your opposition stands for, so rather you attack their character and those who stand with them.[/quote]
This is politics. I'm not sure what the issue is here. How someone conducts their campaign, outside of illegal activity, doesn't really matter to me, as long as the candidate I want gets elected.
[Quote]Not really someone you can trust though, no?[/QUOTE]
Depends what you want to trust them with. I want to be able to trust a candidate to do exactly what I'd expect them to do, and I'd expect clinton to continue the center left policies of the Obama administration, and pull the healthcare policy a little more to the left.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699072]How do you justify your claim that her ends justify her means when her ends likely involve increasing/sustatining the corrupt influence of big money?
What does Obama have to do with anything? We aren't saying corporate money is bad because it stops LGBT rights, we are saying it is bad because it leaves 99% of the population comparatively under-represented.[/QUOTE]
I don't categorically care about the influence of big money; I care about the end result of the big money. If the end result is LGBT rights, then yay big money. There's big money on both sides of every argument.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699075]This is politics. I'm not sure what the issue is here. How someone conducts their campaign, outside of illegal activity, doesn't really matter to me, as long as the candidate I want gets elected.
Depends what you want to trust them with. I want to be able to trust a candidate to do exactly what I'd expect them to do, and I'd expect clinton to continue the center left policies of the Obama administration, and pull the healthcare policy a little more to the left.[/QUOTE]
And not say a word about the thousand legions of lobbyists which fill their pockets and are conveniently on the same side of the issues.
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699075]
I don't categorically care about the influence of big money; I care about the end result of the big money. If the end result is LGBT rights, then yay big money. There's big money on both sides of every argument.[/QUOTE]
There is no connection between big money and the policies you like, only between big money and the policies they like and you and I probably have never heard of. The end result of big money is whatever the hell they want, not what you want.
When I say big money I mean literally people with billions of dollars not individual donors.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699075]This is politics. I'm not sure what the issue is here. How someone conducts their campaign, outside of illegal activity, doesn't really matter to me, as long as the candidate I want gets elected.[/QUOTE]Fuck, do you not think that this is a problem with politics in general, and is something that should generally be frowned upon? It speaks volumes about a candidate if they have to resort to smear tactics in order to get ahead, because they're essentially lying, which doesn't translate well into being trustworthy.
[QUOTE=Killer900;49699128]Fuck, do you not think that this is a problem with politics in general, and is something that should generally be frowned upon? It speaks volumes about a candidate if they have to resort to smear tactics in order to get ahead, because they're essentially lying, which doesn't translate well into being trustworthy.[/QUOTE]
I'm not concerned with trying to change human nature. I don't think that how a person runs his or her campaign reflects their policies
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699158]I'm not concerned with trying to change human nature. [B]I don't think that how a person runs his or her campaign reflects their policies[/B][/QUOTE]
This can't be the first time you've paid attention to politics right?
No seriously, how can you believe asinine shit like this?
A person who uses subversion and lies to get their point across is not a good reflection of their character.
Why does the media hate Bernie so much? Everywhere you look, they're talking about Trump, Clinton, and Cruz, but rarely Bernie.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;49699173]Why does the media hate Bernie so much? Everywhere you look, they're talking about Trump, Clinton, and Cruz, but rarely Bernie.[/QUOTE]
I would venture a guess that the reason is because most networks are owned by people who stand to gain(not lose) from Sanders losing.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;49699173]Why does the media hate Bernie so much? Everywhere you look, they're talking about Trump, Clinton, and Cruz, but rarely Bernie.[/QUOTE]As tinfoil hat as it sounds, it's the establishment.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699194]I would venture a guess that the reason is because most networks are owned by people who stand to gain(not lose) from Sanders losing.[/QUOTE]Pretty much this
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699158]I'm not concerned with trying to change human nature. I don't think that how a person runs his or her campaign reflects their policies[/QUOTE]
If I could fucking use a meme image, that fucking old ass cartoon man laughing would be what I'd post.
I'm saying the politicians lie in their campaigns to get elected and you guys disagree?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699471]I'm saying the politicians lie in their campaigns to get elected and you guys disagree?[/QUOTE]
We don't disagree, we (read: I) just think that it is silly that you support clinton when she is clearly the bigger liar. I don't think Sanders is a saint, nearly no-one is. I just think that he is the less full-of-shit choice because at least his opinions are his own, and not the result of many thousands of dollars.
Just because all politicians lie doesn't mean you should disregard honesty as a criteria.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49699517]We don't disagree, we (read: I) just think that it is silly that you support clinton when she is clearly the bigger liar. I don't think Sanders is a saint, nearly no-one is. I just think that he is the less full-of-shit choice because at least his opinions are his own, and not the result of many thousands of dollars.
Just because all politicians lie doesn't mean you should disregard honesty as a criteria.[/QUOTE]
I just don't think honesty is a useful criteria for someone who's leading the most powerful country in the world. I can expect clinton to do certain things; I'm aware of that. I don't expect her to keep her promises on a lot of domestic issues but those issues arent all that important for me. Honest or not, foreign policy is the most important issue for me and I think Bernie has weak foreign policy and he would rather focus on domestic issues
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49699601]I just don't think honesty is a useful criteria for someone who's leading the most powerful country in the world.[/QUOTE]i am not a crook *peace sign*
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;49699648]i am not a crook *peace sign*[/QUOTE]
What Richard Nixon did was illegal. Hillary Clinton is just slinging mud.
Even so, what Richard Nixon did really had no effect on the results of the election; he was a delusional paranoid man who did anything he had to to burn his competitors. We ought to evaluate his legacy, which is that he opened diplomacy with China, expanded and then ended the Vietnam war, founded the EPA, and made Americans more skeptical of the office ever since. I think he's had a pretty conflicted impact on American history, since hE only ended the Vietnam War after expanding bombing runs to cambodia, so we can't really call him a peace activist can we?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49699694]the clinton email scandal would get the average person a ticket to gitmo or something equally horrible[/QUOTE]
That issue doesn't really matter to me. I don't see why that's something people give a shit about
[editline]8th February 2016[/editline]
Maybe someone can explain the importance of it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.