Why so silent about Hillary?
  • I know the answer is "Because we are ideologues and hypocrites" but it'd be nice if you'd at least be honest about it. Considering the hissy fit thrown when Trump was named nominee. Now we have Hillary the criminal by any sane man's definition of the word getting a free pass from the US Justice *vomit* system, and then endorsed by none other than batshit crazy Bernie Sanders, who not too long ago was saying she's unfit to be president, and that we should fight the corrupt system, until it's time to throw in with that system I guess. It's oh so ugly. And oh so hilarious.

    I'm going to love watching the regressive lefties tear themselves apart, and enjoy listening to the extent their lies will go to to convince themselves they aren't the problem. The feminist / Islam cognitive dissonance was funny enough, but this is going to ice that delicious cake.

    Noobied by 1Larsnillson
  • I won't leap in to speak for anyone (although I think most people on here who are from the Left part of the US political spectrum have already said 'I don't like Hilary, but I'll take her over Trump') but I wonder if Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK are a symptom of...I dunno...something?  A general youth disengagement from modern politics?  A more general reaction to the neo-liberalism that, if anything, seems to have taken a stronger hold post-2008?  

    Certainly the divides that both of them appear to have opened up within the progressive parties in their countries are very similar; with a fervent, vocal support base that are willing to reject the more electable, centrist members of the party up to the point of opening the door for the opposing party to have an almost completely clear ride to do whatever they want.

    It certainly looks weird now to see Bernie endorsing Hilary, but politics often makes odd bedfellows.  Besides, he probably feels like making it this far is a success.  If he's managed to shift the Overton Window even just slightly, a lot of the people he campaigned to represent will possibly benefit in the long run.
  • Bernie did more than I think even he realized he could do. He basically single handedly got the Democrat party platform to now:

    Support a $15 minimum wage
    Abolish the death penalty
    Provide free public tuition to colleges
    Legalization of marijuana
    Reform of the federal reserve
    New laws to prevent politicians from immediately moving into lobbying after they leave politics
    And much more.

    Almost none of these would have happened without his movement.

    Hillary is the most qualified candidate to handle the day to the day realm of the presidency, more than Trump or the 3rd party candidates are. She has more experience in Washington and has been involved in the messy reality of compromise and negotiation and egos that Washington bores into you from day 1. Probably the biggest thing she has working for her is that she will work 16 hours a day as president. She is notorious for spending non on-the-job time working with other politicians, Republicans included, to get stuff done, more so than even Obama in his first couple years. She is also notorious for studying up on foreign affairs, policy implications, the like, sometimes to a fault, which causes her to sound more robotic than anecdotal, and anecdotes are very powerful in political campaigns, even if they are rather worthless in the large picture.

    I think for those who want to understand how she ticks, these two are important reads



    I remain frustrated by the email scandal and it shows a sort of arrogance and belief that what she does shouldn't be transparent, but she's hardly the first president or staff to have the exact same issue (it happened under the Bush presidency, too). I think Hillary's previous hawkishness is a huge black mark, and hope it is reigned in if she is president. She will also face gridlock in a Republican controlled congress, although there is an outside shot at the Dems getting back the senate, which would mean judicial appointments would pass, as that's the body that approves them. Doing so would be a huge boon for the Supreme Court.

    Hardcore ideologues are dangerous to have in politics. That is what the Tea Party and Freedom caucus are, and they have thrown everyone, Republicans and Dems under the bus, in their effort to only achieve 100% of their goals or 0%. Politics is about knowing that 70% good and 30% bad is sometimes the best you can do and worth pursuing. There are over 500 members of congress in which you need to get a majority to get something done. Rigid ideology only leads to chaos.
  • hypocrisy plays a big role in the minds of the media drones.