Clinton gives her take on Sanders supporters in leaked fundraising recording

[VinLAURiA]

Y'know, she's got a point. Truthfully, I actually have a little more faith in her after knowing the full quote, because it seems like at the very least she gets what it's like down here in the trenches.

[QUOTE=Cone;51136076]taxes in the US aren't even much lower - private healthcare is just so inefficient and extortionate that Americans are essentially paying European taxes for some of the worst coverage in the western world. it's so utterly backwards.[/QUOTE]
It's times like this I feel fortunate that I got into Obamacare. Yeah, it's not the system it could have been, but it's still made a big change for me. Zero co-pay for doctor's visits has been a major boon to actually getting some long-standing medical problems checked out.

[JohnnyMo]

The quote is not too bad, but she pretty much ignores the fact that what Sanders wanted was not a revolution, basically just parity with the rest of the first world in several areas.

The only place he really sounded like a revolutionary was in all the railing against the 1% (and even then it's hardly radical), but it's no wonder Clinton's not onboard. She's well, well above earnings average even for people in the top 1%.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

So the quote is not as bad as the headline makes it, but it's still off-the-mark and rather patronizing.

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136227]The quote is not too bad, [B]but she pretty much ignores the fact that what Sanders wanted was not a revolution[/B], basically just parity with the rest of the first world in several areas.

The only place he really sounded like a revolutionary was in all the railing against the 1% (and even then it's hardly radical), but it's no wonder Clinton's not onboard. She's well, well above earnings average even for people in the top 1%.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

So the quote is not as bad as the headline makes it, but it's still off-the-mark and rather patronizing.[/QUOTE]

I think she's saying that being "part of a political revolution" would look tempting to a lot of these people - Bernie doesn't want a revolution, but he definitely framed his policies [I]like[/I] one. In that sense I think she's right, and it makes sense when you look at the full quote; she's talking about framing her policies in a way that would appeal to these people, not so much what Sanders wants to do:
[QUOTE]...then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing. So I think we should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals. But to take what we can achieve now and try to present them as bigger goals.[/QUOTE]

Personally I think this part is worse:
[QUOTE] And on the other side, there’s just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we’ve done hasn’t gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don’t know what that means, but it’s something that they deeply feel.[/QUOTE]

Edit:
Either way I think it's actually pretty surprising (or at least it puts my mind at ease) that someone dug up a recording from a setting where Clinton might've thought she could talk freely, and what they dug up ended up pretty tame. Especially compared to what Trump spouts in public.

[markfu]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51135818]Listening to the audio it really doesn't sound condescending at all, she says it completely matter-of-factly. I hope people care to actually listen to or read the quote in context instead of just going "Oh she's saying we're all a bunch of basement dwellers!".[/QUOTE]

I think it might have been better to use the phrase "living at home" instead of "basement dwellers" though. The latter has a more negative connotation to the voters she's trying to court while the former is more neutral.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=markfu;51136263]I think it might have been better to use the phrase "living at home" instead of "basement dwellers" though. The latter has a more negative connotation to the voters she's trying to court while the former is more neutral.[/QUOTE]

She's not wrong, but it does come off as insensitive. I live in my parents' basement. So do the two other coworkers who are my age at work (the other at our level is a retiree and the rest are management). We are all college graduates. One of them has another job and works literally every day of her life and still doesn't make enough to move out on her own in this area.

It may come off as funny to people who haven't lived it, but it's incredibly frustrating. Everything around here is either extremely competitive or doesn't pay much.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

But in short, yes. "Living at home" sounds less shitty.

[Turnips5]

[QUOTE=markfu;51136263]I think it might have been better to use the phrase "living at home" instead of "basement dwellers" though. The latter has a more negative connotation to the voters she's trying to court while the former is more neutral.[/QUOTE]

she didn't say "basement dweller" though, she said "living in their parents' basement"

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

the exact phrase that johnny just used for his own living situation

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136304]She's not wrong, but it does come off as insensitive. I live in my parents' basement. So do the two other coworkers who are my age at work (the other at our level is a retiree and the rest are management). We are all college graduates. One of them has another job and works literally every day of her life and still doesn't make enough to move out on her own in this area.

It may come off as funny to people who haven't lived it, but it's incredibly frustrating. Everything around here is either extremely competitive or doesn't pay much.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

But in short, yes. "Living at home" sounds less shitty.[/QUOTE]

She should probably have said "living at home", but listening to her delivery she doesn't play it off as joke - the fact that you are a college graduate and you live in your parents' basement kinda shows that she could've been completely sincere.

[Pops]

hey man, i don't live in the basement, i just spend most of my time here when i'm not working.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=Turnips5;51136321]she didn't say "basement dweller" though, she said "living in their parents' basement"

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

the exact phrase that johnny just used for his own living situation[/QUOTE]

Mentioning the basement at all has a negative connotation

[Zillamaster55]

I'd be more than happy to stay in the basement for the next couple years tbqh, it's big and spacey, clean, and I wouldn't have to bust my ass for an apartment that's overpriced

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136227]The quote is not too bad, but she pretty much ignores the fact that what Sanders wanted was not a revolution, basically just parity with the rest of the first world in several areas.

The only place he really sounded like a revolutionary was in all the railing against the 1% (and even then it's hardly radical), but it's no wonder Clinton's not onboard. She's well, well above earnings average even for people in the top 1%.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

So the quote is not as bad as the headline makes it, but it's still off-the-mark and rather patronizing.[/QUOTE]

Sanders regularly [url=https://berniesanders.com/political-revolution-continues/]referred to his movement as a "political revolution"[/url] so I can see where she got the idea

[Turnips5]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136352]Mentioning the basement at all has a negative connotation[/QUOTE]

the solution is obviously to stop building basements

[Croatsky]

[QUOTE=Chonch;51135477]Romney's 47% comment wasn't actually all bad when taken in context of the full quote, but that didn't stop it from getting sensationalized either.[/QUOTE]

Not really, even in full context it was still pretty bad. Also highly presidential thing to say. An elected president represents everyone, including those that do not vote for him. Being dismissive with half of your country population makes you a crappy president.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=smurfy;51136412]Sanders regularly [url=https://berniesanders.com/political-revolution-continues/]referred to his movement as a "political revolution"[/url] so I can see where she got the idea[/QUOTE]

I made an argument here but going back and reading her quote in context it sounds like she's directly referring to his statements, you're right. But I think the point that I was going to make (that it isn't much of a revolution to get what he was aiming for, just par for the course) is pretty well demonstrated by the thing GoDong quoted a while back and her statements that she's prefers center-left to center-right. Sanders is center-left compared to most of the first world.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Turnips5;51136416]the solution is obviously to stop building basements[/QUOTE]

I concur, but then where will we hide from tornados?

[PsychedelicLiz]

I live with my parents, and with all 3 of us working a job we get quite a good cashflow going. Hell I'd love to live in a basement if we had one, I wouldn't have to worry about tornadoes and shit.

[inaba]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136419]I concur, but then where will we hide from tornados?[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, no basement floods

[Croatsky]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51135528]If I were a US citizen I would obstain voting.

This is unconscionable conduct; sure, it happens almost everywhere, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to normalize it.[/QUOTE]

Apathy will solve nothing. In fact it will encourage the ruling elite to make things worse for the common people, because they know the people will do nothing and just accept their cynical life.

[TheJoey]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51135528]If I were a US citizen I would obstain voting.

This is unconscionable conduct; sure, it happens almost everywhere, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to normalize it.[/QUOTE]

i do poll calling here across the U.S. and the co-workers and i tend to talk a lot about this. everybody gives a look of... worry? whenever i say i'm abstaining. "if you don't vote, or vote for a third party, you're throwing your vote into the ring of the worst evil" in which i say "ok, if i do vote, what would you say if i voted for trump then?" since clearly that's what people mean when they say that.

either way, this is a democracy, and i have that right to abstain in protest. i don't feel any candidate right now represents my views and i can't morally help put someone in office i think will be bad for this country and its people. and if anyone thinks democracy is making me feel guilty or forcing me to vote (unless, of course, you vote for THE WRONG PERSON) then they're fucked and this country is fucked.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51136450]i do poll calling here across the U.S. and the co-workers and i tend to talk a lot about this. everybody gives a look of... worry? whenever i say i'm abstaining. "if you don't vote, or vote for a third party, you're throwing your vote into the ring of the worst evil"[/QUOTE]

I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?

[TheJoey]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136458]I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

exactly. it's with us, or against us. no gray area. it's essentially bullying people into fitting in with the "right" crowd.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136458]I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

You're "giving Trump a vote" if you're more likely to vote for Clinton, and you're "giving Clinton a vote" if you're more likely to vote for Trump.

Not literally of course. Voting strategy is really weird and counter intuitive.

[paramud]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136458]I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

You're not giving a vote to anyone, you're removing a potential vote for someone. As someone who absolutely detests Trump, I'd tell you you're taking a potential vote from Hillary. To someone who wants Trump in office for some insane fucking reason, they'd be telling you you're taking a potential vote from Trump.

[Big Dumb Patriot]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136458]I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

Either way, really. If you don't vote, all you're really saying is, "I'm fine with either candidate."

It becomes a soft endorsement of whoever ends up winning for the simple fact that you didn't try to prevent them from taking office.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=Paramud;51136524]You're not giving a vote to anyone, you're removing a potential vote for someone. As someone who absolutely detests Trump, I'd tell you you're taking a potential vote from Hillary. To someone who wants Trump in office for some insane fucking reason, they'd be telling you you're taking a potential vote from Trump.[/QUOTE]

Right, exactly. People on either side will tell you you're helping the other guy. No, I'm not helping the other guy, I'm just not helping yours as much as you'd like.

[editline]1st October 2016[/editline]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51136527]Either way, really. If you don't vote, all you're really saying is, "I'm fine with either candidate."

It becomes a soft endorsement of whoever ends up winning for the simple fact that you didn't try to prevent them from taking office.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with that sentiment at all. What if I don't want anyone who is currently running to be president? How can you express that via voting? I don't think you should have to vote for the "least bad" option to be taken seriously. I can understand suggesting that someone write-in Mickey Mouse to make an active statement, but I don't think you should have to do that to make it known that you don't like anyone.

I know taking George Carlin's word on politics as gospel is pretty played, but I have to agree with him on this:

[quote]Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.[/quote]

Of course, I think you should do this as an informed voter and because you think it's the best option, not just because you're lazy or haven't thought very deeply about the options.

Also, I'm not actually saying I'm not going to vote. At the moment I'm leaning toward Hillary, but voting for nobody is currently in second place. Or possibly writing in Vermin Supreme.

[inaba]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136458]I don't understand this sentiment. Trump supporters will say I'm effectively giving Hillary a vote, Hillary supporters will say I'm effectively giving Trump a vote. Which is it?[/QUOTE]

If you're a Hillary supporter, or somewhat of a Hillary supporter, or just a democrat. Find someone who would vote for Trump. Then if both of you don't vote you're basically giving your vote away to the third party candidates. Like that'll matter anyway

[TheJoey]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51136527]Either way, really. If you don't vote, all you're really saying is, "I'm fine with either candidate."

It becomes a soft endorsement of whoever ends up winning for the simple fact that you didn't try to prevent them from taking office.[/QUOTE]

prevent who from taking office? i hate literally every candidate. let's say i wrote in "bernie sanders", would you say the same thing? literally nothing i do, no matter how i vote, helps this country. i am either voting for a slow poison or a very fast poison.

in a way i am "fine" with any candidate at this point because i full well know that i do not have a choice. this is what i've been given, then fine, that's that then isn't it?

if you are going to give me literal shit to eat because i am starving, i would rather starve than eat shit. that is not an endorsement for shit, and that is not saying i'm fine with eating shit.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=gokiyono;51136547]Find someone who would vote for Trump.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like the opposite of what I want to do on a daily basis.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51136549]prevent who from taking office? i hate literally every candidate. let's say i wrote in "bernie sanders", would you say the same thing? literally nothing i do, no matter how i vote, helps this country. i am either voting for a slow poison or a very fast poison.

in a way i am "fine" with any candidate at this point because i full well know that i do not have a choice. this is what i've been given, then fine, that's that then isn't it?

if you are going to give me literal shit to eat because i am starving, i would rather starve than eat shit. that is not an endorsement for shit, and that is not saying i'm fine with eating shit.[/QUOTE]

I think he means to say that voting for a third party or not voting only makes sense if you think the two likely candidates are equally acceptable

Because even if you hate both of them, if you thought one was preferable to the other, you'd want to make sure they got in rather than the other one.

[JohnnyMo]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51136572]Because even if you hate both of them, if you thought one was preferable to the other, you'd want to make sure they got in rather than the other one.[/QUOTE]

Not really. That's only the case if at least one of them meets a minimum acceptable threshold. If the candidates are a guy who wants to bring about the Fourth Reich and another guy who wants all of the exact same things but also pot should be legal, I'm not voting for pot legalization guy just because he's marginally less abysmal.

[Mr. Scorpio]

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51136576]Not really. That's only the case if at least one of them meets a minimum acceptable threshold. If the candidates are a guy who wants to bring about the Fourth Reich and another guy who wants all of the exact same things but also pot should be legal, I'm not voting for pot legalization guy just because he's marginally less abysmal.[/QUOTE]

So if you had to choose between being waterboarded and being waterboarded while someone kicks you in the balls, you'd be equally satisfied with either possibility? You'd have to flip a coin to decide which you'd rather do?