Jump to content

U.S. Election - Onward to New Hampshire


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TKG,

And no one should be shamed into voting for a canadidate based on their faith.  Otherwise shouldn't Jews be campaigning for Sanders as Sanders is Jewish or go to a "special hell"?

Maybe Jews will decide to start having a hell just for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Not that I've seen. Can you substantiate this? This isn't me picking a fight, if she's said it I want to know. In recent memory, not during the Bill Administration.

Actually I slightly misspoke. She's for universal healthcare, but doesn't believe single payer is going to work super well. That being said, during the ACA hearings she spoke about it and what she thought. This article goes into a fair amount of history on her reversal of thinking on it and where she stands now. But it's pretty clear that the thing she opposes isn't universal health care - it's Sanders' plan on how to get there. 

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

This is cogent only from the a priori position that war is always bad. It's a question of judgment -- the Iraq war is the primary "now obviously bad" war in the past 20 years. I don't have a problem with Kosovo or Bosnia, although my political memory of that period is limited due to my age at the time.

Kosovo kind of sucked hard in a lot of ways. So did Somalia. My point is simply that being against Iraq isn't a major policy decision nor is it an ethical decision - it's a pragmatic one because he wanted more data. Sanders isn't against war, isn't against escalating forces and wasn't even massively opposed to Iraq (otherwise he would have voted against the appropriations for it). The notion that him and Clinton are really far apart from each other because of this is really misleading. I think it's a point in Sanders' favor, but it isn't a sign that there is a major policy shift between the two or that he'd be particularly less warmongering than Clinton is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

WS,

:P

 

Let me ask you this would you be cool with Sander's Jewish supports browbeating other Jews to support Sanders for no better reason than he is Jewish?

I don't agree with that at all in principle. Also, practically speaking, I don't think browbeating is an effective motivator to drive voting. There are also far fewer Jews than women in the U.S. so we're not talking about a bloc that's likely to swing the election. Just seems like another tone-deaf move from the Clinton camp.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inigima said:

Here's an exact transcription, by me, from the direct video.

"We can tell our story about how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women don't think you have to-- it's been done. It's not done, and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you, and just remember, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."

It's in the same sentence, even. It's plain as day, it doesn't require some kind of verbal contortion to get there, it's a prima facie exhortation for women to support Hillary Clinton because of her gender.

There is literally no other reasonable interpretation of what she's saying than this. It's clear as day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

There is literally no other reasonable interpretation of what she's saying than this. It's clear as day. 

I still can't figure out why she said it. I don't see how it would sway Sanders' supporters and/or undecideds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I still can't figure out why she said it. I don't see how it would sway Sanders' supporters and/or undecideds.

Because guilting people into doing the right thing based on their purported identity is a pretty good tactic. Feeling ostracized - especially as a group that's already marginalized - is a long recognized tactic. Same reason that the entire conservative primary boils down to which one of them is the most representative of True Republican Values. 

If you don't understand that, try and think of a group you self-identify with and then think about a time when they did something that you might not like, and ask yourself if them guilting you into doing it would have worked. For most humans it's profoundly effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TKG,

And no one should be shamed into voting for a canadidate based on their faith.  Otherwise shouldn't Jews be campaigning for Sanders as Sanders is Jewish or go to a "special hell"?

 

 Regardless of personal opinion of how important religion or faith on who to vote for, it is a reality of voting in the U.S.

 That a compliant of externals based on Sex or Race coincides with groups that had historically been repress can bring an appearance of different standards of what externals can or can not be important regardless of merit.

Couple fun facts that I do think I saw here.  Bernie Sanders became the first Jewish candidate ever to receive delegates.  If he wins tonight, he will be the first to win a primary or caucus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Inigima said:

Yes. She's said it before. That part was a joke. What's clearly not a joke is that she thinks women owe it to their own gender to support Clinton on that basis.

If you don't see why people -- myself included -- have a problem with being told to ignore serious political differences to vote for a candidate based on their gender, you and I are never going to see eye to eye. Clinton and Sanders have major political differences. If they were offering functionally the same politics, I think there's a case to be made that the right call is to back, potentially, the first female president. (Though Sanders would also be our first Jewish president -- which may not be insignificant, given the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) But they aren't, and I resent the implication that those differences should be shunted aside in favor of a vote on a gendered basis.

I really can't get worked up over what Madeline Albright might think about the behavior of women voters. And I'm not making a case to vote for anyone; I'm saying I just don't think what Albright says or thinks is that big a deal. We have no idea what Clinton herself might say, and since she's the one running for president, that's where my concern lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

So, if Carley Fiorona said women should vote for her because she's a woman or if a loh cabin Republian said to vote for him because he's gay you'd be cool with that?

A gay candidate is welcome to tell me he expects my vote, but he may not get it. And, no, I am not offended by the suggestion because I don't think it's entirely off-base--especially if I think there is something tongue-in-cheek about the suggestion itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

So, if Carley Fiorona said women should vote for her because she's a woman or if a log cabin Republian said to vote for him because he's gay you'd be cool with that?

Uh, I dunno how you got that out of his post - it's more like he'd be cool with Condaliza Rice saying to vote for Carly Fiorina because she's a woman. Or, more to the point, he wouldn't care. Because Condaliza Rice isn't the one running. So what she says is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because guilting people into doing the right thing based on their purported identity is a pretty good tactic. Feeling ostracized - especially as a group that's already marginalized - is a long recognized tactic. Same reason that the entire conservative primary boils down to which one of them is the most representative of True Republican Values.

If you don't understand that, try and think of a group you self-identify with and then think about a time when they did something that you might not like, and ask yourself if them guilting you into doing it would have worked. For most humans it's profoundly effective.

It's funny you say that, considering previously you were upset that I asked why don't members of the LGBT and black community reconsider their support for Clinton because I thought Sanders was a better candidate to speak to issues that mattered to those communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say I supported the tactic. I think it sucks. But I understand it. And more importantly I think it sucks more when people outside said community try to guilt a community into voting a certain way. That's even worse.

I don't get how this would be particularly funny. Understanding Clinton's tactic is not the same thing as supporting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's funny you say that, considering previously you were upset that I asked why don't members of the LGBT and black community reconsider their support for Clinton because I thought Sanders was a better candidate to speak to issues that mattered to those communities.

Why is he better? Both of them support gay rights now, and both of them have, ah, mixed records in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Why is he better? Both of them support gay rights now, and both of them have, ah, mixed records in that regard.

I'd argue Sanders' record is better, but I know that doesn't matter for you as we've had this conversation before. I also trust Sanders more, which again we've disscussed. And we've disscussed my distrust over why Clinton changes her positions on various issues.

I have an honest question (no snark, promise). Since Clinton first held elected office, has she thrown her support behind an issue that was widely unpopular (like polls at less than 40% support)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd argue Sanders' record is better, but I know that doesn't matter for you as we've had this conversation before. I also trust Sanders more, which again we've disscussed. And we've disscussed my distrust over why Clinton changes her positions on various issues.

I have an honest question (no snark, promise). Since Clinton first held elected office, has she thrown her support behind an issue that was widely unpopular (like polls at less than 40% support)?

That's a question that requires research I'm not interested in conducting, so I'll pass on that one. However, it's interesting to note that Bernie himself has flipped on gay rights when the political atmosphere allowed it, and this does not bother me in the slightest. Politicians always shape their message to suit the electorate, and Sanders is no exception.

Also, I don't necessarily want a politician who never changes her mind. I've changed my mind in twenty years; why would I expect anything different from my elected officials? Also, I know I would hate to be judged by opinions I changed ten years ago. Great Zeus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...