New Predictions

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Locked

Who do you think will be our next POTUS, and how strongly do you believe so?

Hillary Clinton (strongly)
2
25%
Hillary Clinton (moderately)
1
13%
Hillary Clinton (slightly)
2
25%
Donald Trump (strongly... or as he says, 'bigly')
1
13%
Donald Trump (moderately)
0
No votes
Donald Trump (slightly)
0
No votes
Gary Johnson (strongly)
0
No votes
Gary Johnson (moderately)
0
No votes
Gary Johnson (slightly)
0
No votes
It's too early for me to make that kind of prediction
2
25%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10373
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: New Predictions

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Voting republican at the state level could make sense for climate change.

We need the EPA at the federal level to impose limits on CO2, and it looks like the president may be able to do that (we also need good supreme court justices). Fining carbon emissions and giving limits makes sense; we just need a small financial push to benefit nuclear over coal and oil.
We can not address climate change at the state level, all that will do is cause energy to be produced in states that allow emissions and export it to those that don't (including the production of steel and cement, which have high embodied energies). States can not restrict trade between states; it would be like Europe, just a ridiculous situation.

At the state level, we need permissive governments supporting nuclear power so that with the new regulations it will stand far above polluting sources and take over.
If we have crazy democrats at the state level blocking development of nuclear power plants, we could have a serious problem.

I would have to look into it. Nuclear power would be my first litmus test, any democrat that supported it would have my support. After that, I'd vote libertarian instead if there was one. Otherwise, if the democrat opposed nuclear, and there was no libertarian candidate, I'd reluctantly vote republican for that seat, unless the republican opposed nuclear too.

I would not vote republican for congressional seats, though. If Trump is elected he needs opposition, if Hillary is elected she needs support -- she's a science positive candidate, and much more sensible on economic policies than most democrats. It's only her foreign policy I have an issue with.

I believe she will fix the affordable care act. The problems with it are actually do to the compromises added to it to placate republicans (like softening the individual mandate). If you look into the data, though, the affordable care act has actually been very successful despite that. It has curbed the increase in insurance costs (which were already rising), and it has expanded insurance coverage substantially. It was (and still is) very expensive to subsidize ERs instead of preventative care.
PsYcHo wrote:I think there needs to be major health care reforms, but I have just recently clawed my way into the middle class, and this is seriously eating into what little bit of money I am able to save. When you work upwards of 70 hours a week, six or seven days a week, and after paying taxes and all necessary bills have almost nothing left over for emergencies, it pisses you off.
Trump will raise taxes on the Middle-class. Hillary will not; the current democrat policy is relief for the middle class too, and fixation on the top 1%.

The affordable care act actually eliminates a large number of possible emergencies you could have with caps on expenditure through out of pocket maximums (despite very high coinsurance and high premiums).
http://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/out-of-pocket-maximum/
People used to go bankrupt from small medical emergencies which can quickly add up. I know $14,300 sounds like a lot for the maximum out of pocket for your family, but compared to the alternative (hundreds of thousands or more) it's an amazing safety net. You're paying for that greater security with higher premiums, but it's protecting you from the most life threatening emergencies there are.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: New Predictions

Post by EquALLity »

Making calls for Hillary.

Highlights so far:
1) "Naw, you have the wrong number sweetie."
2) "So I understand that you're a Hillary supporter, is that correct?" *hangs up*
3) "I understand that you're a Hillary supporter, is that correct?" "I am not and will never be a Hillary supporter."

Wow, no super crazy people so far! Everyone is actually pretty nice. Big contrast to my calls for Bernie.
Or maybe it just seems that way because I'm talking to less people per a given amount of calls. Bernie had an automatic dialer, AKA the system dials multiple numbers and hooks you up with whatever number answers. Hillary's are manual, and most people just don't pick up.

I think auto dial is way better, much more efficient. Albeit some people get upset because of the delay (one guy went on a rant about how it was the 'height of rudeness' that I didn't answer right away when he said hello).

I encourage anyone to make calls for Hillary if possible. :D
I still don't like her, but Trump is a monster, and we can't let him be President.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: New Predictions

Post by EquALLity »

I wonder if I should go on Trump's phone-banking tool and just click 'refused' or something else that will make them not call back a million times in a row. :twisted:

(So I will go through their numbers without calling them and recording it so that they won't ever call those people back.)

Is that dirty politics? ;)
Republicans are using dirty politics by closing polling places in minority areas in the south. Why should it be one sided?
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10373
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: New Predictions

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Why don't you like Hillary?
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: New Predictions

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Why don't you like Hillary?
1) Colluded with the democratic party to unfairly beat Bernie Sanders by receiving debate questions in advance from Donna Brazil of the DNC.
2) Puts what's politically expedient over what's right.
- didn't support marriage equality until 2013
- flip flopped on TPP when it became an issue
- is there anything she HASN'T flip-flopped on?
3) Smeared Bernie Sanders during the primaries as sexist. Wtf?
4) Outright lied about getting campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.
5) Voted for the War in Iraq.

It goes on.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10373
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: New Predictions

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Hate for Hillary like this may be one of the reasons Democrat turnout will be so low and Trump might win.
Maybe you should spend more time addressing these issues to would be democrats? If you come around to Her perspective, you may be better able to support her now and beat Trump.
EquALLity wrote:1) Colluded with the democratic party to unfairly beat Bernie Sanders by receiving debate questions in advance from Donna Brazil of the DNC.
There's no evidence of such collusion as far as I can tell. And if that's the case that you have no proof, that's a terrible thing to say: it's like accusing Sanders of personally stealing Clinton's confidential voter data.

It's possible that somebody in her campaign colluded, but still no proof of that from what I can tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html?_r=0

It's from Wikileaks (not a credible source), and you should be suspect of that already (since it has links to Russia now, and they're apparently supporting Trump), this could be taken out of context, or be a fabrication. It might as well have come out of Trump's mouth.
“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,”
According to CNN, Brazile had no access to the questions. CNN is a much more credible source.
If she sent an email like that, it was probably speculation based on her own research.

And Trump has run with this to make his own claims:
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-received-debate-questions-week-before-debate/

Propagating rumors and falsehoods (even unknowingly) hurts Hillary and helps Trump. Even if you don't like Trump MORE for other reasons, these things could make people who are more favorable to Trump (like, for instance, they agree on immigration and Muslims) vote for Trump, or at least not turn out for Hillary.
EquALLity wrote: 2) Puts what's politically expedient over what's right.
- didn't support marriage equality until 2013
- flip flopped on TPP when it became an issue
- is there anything she HASN'T flip-flopped on?
There's no evidence of that. Hillary has always been conservative. Sometimes people, if they aren't dogmatic ideologues who reject evidence at every turn (like Sanders) sincerely change their minds.
Her flips and flops have been gradual, and generally in a progressive direction, which is what you would expect of a real human being who held at one point fairly conservative values.
EquALLity wrote: 3) Smeared Bernie Sanders during the primaries as sexist. Wtf?
Evidence?

He said far worse about her. He smeared her as corrupt (coming from Mr. Dairy subsidy). It was a horrible and very negative primary. And because of Sanders' smears, the consequences may be dire: Trump has a serious chance of winning this thing. Sanders has been unable to pull off anything approaching reasonable damage control for what he did, his supporters are turning to nutcases like Jill Stein and even Trump.
EquALLity wrote:4) Outright lied about getting campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.
Evidence? Did she, and did she know she did when she said it?
EquALLity wrote:5) Voted for the War in Iraq.
So did a lot of people. She has recognized that as a mistake.
This is again not her current policy. She's human, and she changes her mind.
EquALLity wrote:It goes on.
What else?

If you don't want Trump to win this, you have to stop demonizing her. She's not perfect, but she's by far the best candidate running in terms of her policies and behavior.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: New Predictions

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Hate for Hillary like this may be one of the reasons Democrat turnout will be so low and Trump might win.
Maybe you should spend more time addressing these issues to would be democrats? If you come around to Her perspective, you may be better able to support her now and beat Trump.
I'm making calls about why I support her, not why I think she's flawed.
brimstoneSalad wrote:There's no evidence of such collusion as far as I can tell. And if that's the case that you have no proof, that's a terrible thing to say: it's like accusing Sanders of personally stealing Clinton's confidential voter data.

It's possible that somebody in her campaign colluded, but still no proof of that from what I can tell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/po ... .html?_r=0

It's from Wikileaks (not a credible source), and you should be suspect of that already (since it has links to Russia now, and they're apparently supporting Trump), this could be taken out of context, or be a fabrication. It might as well have come out of Trump's mouth.
I think that Wikileaks is an amazing organization in that it challenges the government through releasing certain documents. It's not the same as Russia, that's an actual terrible smear.
brimstoneSalad wrote:According to CNN, Brazile had no access to the questions. CNN is a much more credible source.
If she sent an email like that, it was probably speculation based on her own research.

And Trump has run with this to make his own claims:
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-received- ... re-debate/

Propagating rumors and falsehoods (even unknowingly) hurts Hillary and helps Trump. Even if you don't like Trump MORE for other reasons, these things could make people who are more favorable to Trump (like, for instance, they agree on immigration and Muslims) vote for Trump, or at least not turn out for Hillary.
Actually, that's not what they said. CNN said they never gave her access, and said that she must have got it from the other outlets they worked with. Listen to Jake Tapper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtRK9wdD1ZE
There's a reason why they fired her. They maintained that she gave the questions in advance but that CNN didn't give them to her.

CNN isn't denying that she sent the questions in advance at all.
brimstoneSalad wrote:There's no evidence of that. Hillary has always been conservative. Sometimes people, if they aren't dogmatic ideologues who reject evidence at every turn (like Sanders) sincerely change their minds.
Her flips and flops have been gradual, and generally in a progressive direction, which is what you would expect of a real human being who held at one point fairly conservative values.
I can't honestly believe that Hillary Clinton was against marriage equality until 2013. Just like Obama was revealed to being against it for political expediency, that's probably what happened with her as well. She's not a bigot, she's just a politician.

As for TPP, she was totally for it UNTIL Bernie challenged her on it. Then she flip-flopped, because Bernie had the populist position. I don't think that's a coincidence.

To clarify, I don't think that Hillary Clinton is uniquely bad. This is stuff all politicians do.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Evidence?

He said far worse about her. He smeared her as corrupt (coming from Mr. Dairy subsidy). It was a horrible and very negative primary. And because of Sanders' smears, the consequences may be dire: Trump has a serious chance of winning this thing. Sanders has been unable to pull off anything approaching reasonable damage control for what he did, his supporters are turning to nutcases like Jill Stein and even Trump.
Actually, Bernie was generally very polite given that she IS corrupt. Most of his supporters are voting for Hillary, in fact the overwhelming majority. Don't blame this on Bernie. Bernie would have beaten Trump in a LANDSLIDE. It's the fault of the democratic party for favoring Hillary Clinton and nominating such a flawed candidate.

Are you calling Bernie Sanders corrupt because he subsidized the dairy industry?
So Bernie give subsidies to small farms (which coincides with his beliefs, there's no reason to suspect corruption), and that makes him corrupt. Hillary flip flops on everything when it's conveniently politically expedient, and you see no semblance of corruption. I don't know how to respond to that.

Here's one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a8Q0RYWGqM
Throughout the entire campaign, the Clinton team was propagating this BS idea of 'Bernie Bros'.
brimstoneSalad wrote:Evidence? Did she, and did she know she did when she said it?
Yes, we have her on tape yelling at an activist who asked her about it and accusing the Bernie Sanders campaign of lying about it.
How could she not know? They're her donors.
brimstoneSalad wrote:So did a lot of people. She has recognized that as a mistake.
This is again not her current policy. She's human, and she changes her mind.
Yeah, and I don't like a lot of politicians.
Like I said, I don't think she's uniquely bad.
brimstoneSalad wrote:What else?

If you don't want Trump to win this, you have to stop demonizing her. She's not perfect, but she's by far the best candidate running in terms of her policies and behavior.
I'm not demonizing her when I'm trying to convince people to vote for her, I don't think she's uniquely bad, and I completely agree that she's ten billion times better than Donald Trump.

A lot of other things. It's a pretty long list. ;D
Here are some more:
1) Flip-flopped on bankruptcy bill after receiving money from Wall Street.
2) Gives paid speeches to Wall Street and won't release the transcripts (which reinforces the terrible influence money has on politics- what did she have to hide?), even after her standard for releasing them was met
3) Doesn't want to reinstate Glass Steagall.
4) Blatantly dishonestly accused Bernie Sanders of helping support gun violence in New York.
5) Having people campaign for her who say "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women" and that young female supporters of Bernie were supporting Bernie because that's what young men were doing (because Hillary is all about being against sexism).
It goes on and on and on.

I'm glad you care so much about Trump not winning. What activism are you doing to stop it, if you're going to critique mine? :D
I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I really think you and everyone should volunteer. I want Hillary to win, despite her many flaws.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10373
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: New Predictions

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: I think that Wikileaks is an amazing organization in that it challenges the government through releasing certain documents.
I think it's terrible how they're trying to throw this election.
EquALLity wrote: It's not the same as Russia, that's an actual terrible smear.
I did not say it was the same, it has links. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If I had to guess, I think Wikileaks is probably worse than Russia, and only has connections with some rogue agents representing the worst of the Russian government, and not Russia as a whole. That would be an insult to Russia, to say it was the same as a corrupt anti-American espionage promoting agency. But there's not a lot of transparency to show what is going on there, so that's just a guess.

Wikileaks supporting Trump is enough to know they're evil, though. They've done more to harm to world than ISIS ever has if they've helped get him elected. We'll see if they're successful, maybe then you'll change your mind about them?
This has really hurt Clinton.

It would have been more acceptable if they'd done it after the election.
EquALLity wrote: There's a reason why they fired her. They maintained that she gave the questions in advance but that CNN didn't give them to her.
Where did she get them from? If you don't know, she could have been speculating. These are reasonable guesses if the emails are even legitimate, which there's no proof of.
And do you have proof Hillary did it?

Again, Hillary's campaign is not Hillary personally. That goes far more for her than for Sanders, since she has a very large network of supporters in positions.

You're jumping to conclusions against Hillary here.
EquALLity wrote: I can't honestly believe that Hillary Clinton was against marriage equality until 2013. Just like Obama was revealed to being against it for political expediency, that's probably what happened with her as well. She's not a bigot, she's just a politician.
You don't know Hillary's motivation. It's not about having faith that she thought that, it's about not knowing, and not accusing people of being liars when you really don't know.

Even if it was politically expedient, that doesn't make it morally wrong. Political expedience is a good thing.
They've had to work with Republicans, and if they conceded that, that means they traded something else, and probably did a lot more good. It's called consequentialism. Sanders has no sense of morality, only deontological dogma, so he wouldn't understand that.

I would vote for a bill limiting abortion in exchange for cutting subsidies to animal agriculture, for example. Doesn't mean I support limiting abortion.

Politicians want to do good, and sometimes that means sacrificing a smaller goal for a larger one. Particularly when you know the courts are on their way to fixing marriage equality anyway (as Democrats had good reason to believe) and that the popular opinion was moving that way.

I would rather a "good politician" who lies sometimes or compromises who has good intentions than an incompetent one who is an uncompromising ideologue and can't get anything done with good intentions, and I'd certainly rather one who supported science to one who cherry picks on major issues like environment.
EquALLity wrote: As for TPP, she was totally for it UNTIL Bernie challenged her on it. Then she flip-flopped, because Bernie had the populist position. I don't think that's a coincidence.
I don't think it's a coincidence either. I think that debate probably changed her mind about supporting it.
Too bad Sanders doesn't change his mind.
EquALLity wrote: Actually, Bernie was generally very polite given that she IS corrupt.
AGAIN you're claiming that as a fact.

"She IS corrupt" is not comparable to "I think she's probably corrupt", or "I think there's a strong argument to suggest she is" or anything like that.
You're making an absolute assertion.

There's no evidence that she's corrupt. We've talked about this, You're being just as bad as the Trump people. :(

If you're going to be like that, there's no reasoning with you.
If you can't take it back, and apologize for claiming it so assertively yet again and admit you don't know, I'm giving up discussing politics with you.

It's harmful rhetoric like that which is why Trump might win this. And in so far as you've ever uttered that opinion to others, you helped him win. In so far as that's harmful, you're promoting an immoral belief.

EquALLity wrote:Most of his supporters are voting for Hillary, in fact the overwhelming majority.
Not an overwhelming majority. A slight majority.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/about-a-third-of-bernie-sanders-supporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/

A third still refused to back Clinton in August, and this is basically unprecedented in politics. The amount of hate and distrust he generated has outlived his campaign.
The article says it didn't matter at the time -- once upon a time when Hillary was so far ahead -- but now that the race is tightening that's changing.
Wayward Sanders supporters could easily decide this election for Trump.

This statistic seems to still be cited as accurate:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/21/politics/bernie-sanders-nh-voters-general-election/

A number of people are apparently planning on writing in Sanders on their ballots, and I've seen this trend too based on comment threads.
EquALLity wrote:Don't blame this on Bernie. Bernie would have beaten Trump in a LANDSLIDE.
He didn't win the ticket, though, and he should have known it was improbable. That's just like Sanders, never mind the consequences.
The damage he did trying is lasting.
It's like when the U.S. supports a failed political coup in another country, and just ends up thrusting it into a war that hurts everybody.
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.

Sanders wasn't likely to be an option, so yes, he is to blame for tearing apart the party before what may be the most important election in a hundred years.
EquALLity wrote:It's the fault of the democratic party for favoring Hillary Clinton and nominating such a flawed candidate.
IF he won (which didn't happen, and probably wasn't, so it's irrelevant), we would have had a very different race.

Hillary is a better candidate than Sanders. She's a better politician, and she appeals more to the center and people on the right who Trump alienated.

Just as Sanders pushed Clinton to the left, I think we would have seen the same with Trump.

I would probably be supporting Trump if Sanders got it, although perhaps reluctantly. A lot of democrats and centrists would be, and he'd be playing to the center rather than to the far right in order to win those votes (he would have advanced very different policies than he has been recently).
He wouldn't have flip flopped on his position on the war on drugs, for example, among other issues which appeal to independents.

I think Sanders as an opponent would have made a better Trump. While Clinton, being more center, has pushed Trump to the extreme right.
That's probably the only good thing that would have come from a Sanders ticket.
I don't know if he would have beat Trump or not, but given his policies I would only hope that he wouldn't.
EquALLity wrote:Are you calling Bernie Sanders corrupt because he subsidized the dairy industry?
He bought their votes. Vote for him, and he'll give you free money so you can continue profiting from animal abuse. Pretty simple tit for tat. It's 100% legal (it should be illegal, that's the REAL money that needs to get out of politics), but it's very much a special interest like any, he's just buying votes directly with money. There's no sensible reason to support handing out money to dairy farmers, this isn't welfare, it's a subsidy to something the government has no business subsidizing.
EquALLity wrote:So Bernie give subsidies to small farms (which coincides with his beliefs, there's no reason to suspect corruption), and that makes him corrupt.
What belief does that coincide with? Can you read his mind? I'd say it probably coincides with his belief that he'll get votes if he pays off dairy farmers. Can you read Hillary's to know she doesn't do what she believes is right?

And how, as a supporter of animals, could you ever think he's anything less than wicked for his policies? He's not a good person, the illusion that he's something other, or better than other politicians, it a well crafted lie from his campaign.
EquALLity wrote:Hillary flip flops on everything when it's conveniently politically expedient, and you see no semblance of corruption. I don't know how to respond to that.
I think she's a good politician and she trades favors for the greater good to support the things she believes in.
And I know she believes in more sensible science-based policies than Sanders does. She has made that very clear and spoken eloquently on the issues that matter there. So, she's better in every metric.
EquALLity wrote:Throughout the entire campaign, the Clinton team was propagating this BS idea of 'Bernie Bros'.
Her personally, or her campaign?

I don't think it's totally BS.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/how_google_shapes_the_news_you_see_about_the_candidates.html
There are two sides to it. That looks like a good breakdown, I only have time to skim it now though. That's what you're talking about, right?
EquALLity wrote:How could she not know? They're her donors.
Pretty easily, since she has staff that deal with that stuff. Big campaigns have people to solicit and manage donations.
She probably assumed that since she supported carbon limits that she hadn't received any donations. It was a fair assumption.
Maybe she got them so she could beat Sanders, who would have been worse since he probably unreasonably opposes Fracking (which is not a bad thing, it's way better than coal). That's just a guess.

The key is in not assuming people's motivations.
If she knew she received them, she probably would have acted more political and deflected.
EquALLity wrote:Like I said, I don't think she's uniquely bad.
But because of the Sanders camp propaganda, you don't think she's good either. That probably makes you a pretty poor advocate for her.
We need Democrats to vote, we need independents to support her, and we need it to happen not just for hatred of Trump; that's a very poor motivator when they hate her too.
EquALLity wrote:1) Flip-flopped on bankruptcy bill after receiving money from Wall Street.
We talked about that one.
EquALLity wrote:2) Gives paid speeches to Wall Street and won't release the transcripts (which reinforces the terrible influence money has on politics- what did she have to hide?), even after her standard for releasing them was met
Do you know why? Don't assume.

These speeches were heard by plenty of people, she wouldn't have said anything she couldn't risk being leaked. She's a good politician.
There are any number of explanations, if the accusation is even true. Look into them first. When you make charges like this, evidence is required.
EquALLity wrote:3) Doesn't want to reinstate Glass Steagall.
Why?
Don't say because she's bought out like a conspiracy theorist. Look into her actual reasons.
Take some time to look into the actual issue more, instead of just believing what people say and assuming special interests.

I don't think Glass Steagall should be reinstated. Are you going to accuse me of being bought off?
There are very good reasons why it should not be.
EquALLity wrote:4) Blatantly dishonestly accused Bernie Sanders of helping support gun violence in New York.
Maybe he did. Show me what she said, then prove he didn't.
I'd believe Hillary over Sanders.
She could have also been mistaken if it wasn't true.
EquALLity wrote:5) Having people campaign for her who say "There's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women"
Does everything you say on the phone right now represent Hillary? It's foolish to refuse support from any popular voice.
Sometimes campaigners make bad decisions. If they said that, it was probably a bad choice of words.

And fact checking...
http://time.com/4220323/madeleine-albright-place-in-hell-remark-apology/

That was Albright, who apologized for the remark there, with respect to the political context.
It's a popular catch phrase of hers, but she shouldn't have said it in a context that suggested that meant supporting Hillary specifically.

If you're condemning Hillary based on working with Albright, you have a lot of stones to look under for the people who campaigned for Sanders. That's really unreasonable.
EquALLity wrote:I'm glad you care so much about Trump not winning. What activism are you doing to stop it, if you're going to critique mine? :D
Just talking to a small number of people. I haven't put much time into it, vegan activism is more important.
EquALLity wrote:I'm not just saying that to be snarky, I really think you and everyone should volunteer. I want Hillary to win, despite her many flaws.
You'd do a better job of it if you didn't believe these bad things about her. Give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's actually innocent of ALL the claims until proved guilty. And find good arguments against them so when you talk to people who believe these things you can debunk them.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10373
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: New Predictions

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote:3) Smeared Bernie Sanders during the primaries as sexist. Wtf?
I asked for evidence of this. Apparently she implied it:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_is_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insult_to.html

The "charitable" interpretation isn't really accurate, though.
As we remember things, we change our recollections, and we can easily exaggerate events or feelings in our minds, particularly when we have third party feedback.
Hillary is surrounded by a bunch of possibly regressive feminists, and they probably told her Sanders was being sexist, and then she remembered it that way and got more angry about it after the fact (or felt entitled to express her anger which she originally repressed). Psychology is more complicated than a perfect memory, objectivity, and inability to have your feelings influenced.

Some of her regressive claims, like that rape victims have the right to be believed, are her lowest points.
I don't think she doesn't believe these, or doesn't believe she's a feminist for doing so. She can't really do anything about that in office, though. Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system, and the executive branch doesn't have the power to override that.

Here's a more complete summary of events:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/08/was-bernie-sanders-being-sexist-response-his-charge-that-hillary-clinton-not-qualified-highlights-hazards/hRvFIs6B4fS78MQz3W8YiK/story.html

It was a little inappropriate what she did, but it's entirely plausible that she believed it, and Sanders did FAR worse.
brimstoneSalad wrote: He said far worse about her. He smeared her as corrupt
You responded by effectively claiming she IS corrupt, and thus the smear is justified, as if you proved that.
EquALLity wrote:Actually, Bernie was generally very polite given that she IS corrupt.
If you qualified that as it being uncertain and your opinion, it would make no sense as a response and be nothing but circular.

"In my opinion Bernie was polite [or it wasn't a smear?] given that in my opinion she *might* be corrupt"
That's a meaningless comment, or it supports smearing people based on speculation (which is what you criticized her for).
Sanders also *might* be a sexist, it's entirely plausible.
There's the same amount of evidence for both -- none. One is a worse smear, though. and has affected the rest of this election and given Trump an advantage.

Smears also have nothing to do with "politeness" or a lack thereof.
definition wrote:smear
2.
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
His accusations were more frequent, more direct, and did far more damage to her. If Trump wins, that will be why; minus the effect of those smears, Trump wouldn't have a chance now.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: New Predictions

Post by EquALLity »

I'm going to try to manage volunteering for HIllary, doing all my homework and studying for tests crammed into the end of the marking period, and going to sleep before midnight, so I'm going to respond to all of this later.

I just want to address a few things:
brimstoneSalad wrote:Just talking to a small number of people. I haven't put much time into it, vegan activism is more important.
Well, you can convince people to be vegan anytime in the next four years. A few days (now one day) before the election, though, I think prioritizes the election. Once the election happens, that's it, and I think that Hillary becoming President (and Trump not becoming President) is more important than a few extra people become vegan.
Why not postpone the vegan activism until after the election?
brimstoneSalad wrote:You'd do a better job of it if you didn't believe these bad things about her. Give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she's actually innocent of ALL the claims until proved guilty. And find good arguments against them so when you talk to people who believe these things you can debunk them.
You seem to think that I'm talking to voters about Hillary Clinton being corrupt. I'm not doing that, I'm just encouraging them to vote for her. Unless I am campaigning, I don't really talk to adults at all about politics (or at all much really), except a teacher I know from the middle school.
If I was talking with someone who could vote about who I believe that person should vote for, I wouldn't deny what I believe are real problems with Hillary Clinton. Most people think it's pretty obvious that she's corrupt, and saying she isn't would make me look ridiculously biased, and most people would shut that out. I would emphasize that she's better than Trump.
Even if you disagree with me potentially doing that, that's not what I'm doing, because I don't talk to adults about politics outside of campaigning. And campaigning at this point- most people aren't really undecided. When you actually get someone on the other line, it's mostly, "Hi, are you a Hillary supporter? Great, ok! Just calling to tell you about your polling place which is __________. Do you have a plan to vote? ___________ *goes over plan with voter*. Ok, thanks for your time! Have a great day."

I've made over a hundred calls for her, and I haven't talked with one undecided voter. If I did, then I'd be honest, and say I definitely believe she has problems like every other politician but that she's better than Trump because __________________.

I don't think there are good arguments against it, because I believe that she IS corrupt, did paint Bernie as sexist, did flip-flop based on political expediency, etc. etc..

If you care so much about this election, then PLEASE make phone calls for Hillary. This election is so close. If you really care that much, then instead of replying to this, phone bank for Hillary.
Here's the link: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/calls/
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
Locked