DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Wanted to respond to a few things then the damn thread closed while I went out to smoke... On Hillary attacking Bernie - you reap what you sow. Who would have thought the most notoriously vindictive political couple of the past 30 years would hold a grudge? Maybe if you know you're gonna lose and will probably run again next time, don't antagonize people that take political slights to an extent akin to Nixon's enemies list. On Hillary's productivity, she focused a lot of energy on proving herself within the Armed Services committee. Clearly designed for her presidential aspirations, of course, but not like that's unique among US Senators. And, by all accounts she was successful in this regard. She ingratiated herself with many lions of the Senate that sat on the committee during her tenure, including John Warner, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, McCain, and Chris Dodd (ok, calling Dodd a lion of the Senate is a bit of a stretch, but he was/is very respected within DC foreign policy circles). Finally, @Rippounet, "political hobbyism" just seems to be a more fancy way of describing political junkies. I was a political junkie first and foremost, and cuz I have an addictive personality, that eventually evolved into my entire life revolving around politics. Don't see anything wrong with that. As for The Atlantic piece's assertion that many educated whites tend to be political junkies, well, yeah. The fact that most of them aren't too political active beyond voting is not revelatory in any way. Most people aren't, across the board. Except maybe college students that treat protesting as a hobby because they're bored and, I don't know, don't like bar crawls or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Apparently (as usual) her interview was taken out of context to a certain degree. That said, it seems odd to think that it's bad for her to criticize sanders but okay to criticize other dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 She is the most misquoted public figure in recent memory. I'm sure she was just trying to help things in the effort to defeat Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Apparently (as usual) her interview was taken out of context to a certain degree. Unless she was misquoted, it doesn't really matter what the context was. I completely agree with her quote below (which is what I read) - and phrased in a more..diplomatic way is certainly a very fair criticism we've discussed on here for months/years - but it's undoubtedly an attack: Quote "He was in Congress for years," Clinton says in an excerpt from the documentary. "He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Oh that part was fine. But the "will she endorse" was entirely wrong, and apparently she said that it's too early to endorse anyone and she's focused on getting trump out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Regardless of the merits of her comments (which I disagree with, but others here agree), their value is less than nil. I wish she were a bit more like Obama; his disapproval of Sanders (or maybe just his electability) was known, but through back channels. There never was a public pronouncement. I mean seriously, what is the point of throwing gasoline on the fire at a time the primaries are at their most contentious? These are by no means a carefully calibrated set of remarks (and she must have known when the documentary would air). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 Yeah I agree the endorse thing is stupid. Obviously Hillary is not going to endorse Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. But by the same token, obviously she is going to endorse whomever wins the Democratic primary. That's just a silly thing to focus on right now. 6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: I wish she were a bit more like Obama Well, yes, I wish the Clintons had thicker skins like Obamas do. But there is a distinction there outside of their personal differences. Obama is trying to keep the "former president" tradition alive of staying above the fray as much as possible (another norm that of course will be abolished if Trump ever becomes a former president). Hillary does not have that constraint - which I do think she would take seriously if it was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Hillary's obviously been employed by the Sanders campaign for PR. Surprised his poll numbers didn't shoot up 50 points after she un-endorsed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 hours ago, DMC said: Wanted to respond to a few things then the damn thread closed while I went out to smoke... On Hillary attacking Bernie - you reap what you sow. Who would have thought the most notoriously vindictive political couple of the past 30 years would hold a grudge? He antagonised her how? By running against her in a primary, which is what you're supposed to do? By doing 41 events for her and encouraging his followers to get behind her once she became the nominee? She probably blames all the antipathy toward her on Bernie, kind of like how Trump blames everything on Obama. But the truth is the antipathy is coming from the public, not from Bernie, and it's due to her corruption and war-mongering. 1 hour ago, DMC said: I completely agree with her quote below (which is what I read) - and phrased in a more..diplomatic way is certainly a very fair criticism we've discussed on here for months/years - but it's undoubtedly an attack: Yeah she really got a lot done during her time in Congress. The Iraq War...The Patriot Act... She doesn't realise this is just another point in Bernie's favour. Americans don't like Congress. They see Congress as bought and paid for by special interests. So someone who isn't getting anything done in a corrupt Congress is someone who's probably trying to do something right. Wonder if that "one senator" she said wanted to work with him is Ron Paul, another guy who rejected corporate corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Darryk said: Yeah she really got a lot done during her time in Congress. The Iraq War...The Patriot Act... I love how the Pavlovian response of Bernie supporters to any criticism isn't to react to its validity, but attack the one making the accusations. I'm not defending Hillary - in the OP I called her (half of) the most vindictive politician of the past thirty years (to be clear, though, I wasn't really taking into account GOP politicians there) and compared her to Nixon. As for this being a point in Bernie's favor, nah. I don't think it's a point in any way. Democratic primary voters are well aware Hillary hates Bernie and vice versa. This isn't so much news as fodder to fill up a 24 hour news cycle. As for people hating Congress, no shit. That's not really what the criticism is about. You can be "anti-establishment" and still be productive in Congress - as I've mentioned before, see Russ Feingold. The point is Bernie Sanders is decidedly disliked in his own workplace for the past 30 years. That's not based on ideology, it's a personal criticism of his own manifest incompetence and obstinance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, Darryk said: He antagonised her how? By running against her in a primary, which is what you're supposed to do? Oh please. 8 minutes ago, Darryk said: By doing 41 events for her and encouraging his followers to get behind her once she became the nominee? Again, oh please. 8 minutes ago, Darryk said: She probably blames all the antipathy toward her on Bernie, kind of like how Trump blames everything on Obama. But the truth is the antipathy is coming from the public, not from Bernie, and it's due to her corruption and war-mongering. Oh please. 8 minutes ago, Darryk said: She doesn't realise this is just another point in Bernie's favour. Americans don't like Congress. They see Congress as bought and paid for by special interests. So someone who isn't getting anything done in a corrupt Congress is someone who's probably trying to do something right. I'm not sure what the point of a congressperson who doesn't actually do anything in congress, but okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Darryk said: He antagonised her how? By running against her in a primary, which is what you're supposed to do? Sorry, responded quickly and forgot about this. He antagonized her by staying in the race long LONG after it was clear he was going to lose. That's just a dick move - the same dick move Hillary did to Obama 8 years earlier. And his supporters, and even campaign, definitely antagonized her up until the convention, GTFO with any arguments to the contrary. That's maybe not "directly" his fault, but he did jack shit to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 You'd think in 2020, 4 years after Clinton v Bernie, and countless discussions on that election, that we would stop rehashing it and focus on the current election and maybe how we can come together to beat Trump. But nope. Hard core Clinton supporters are talking about not voting if Sanders (unlikely) gets the nomination, and (some) Bernie supporters still badmouthing someone not even in the election. At least one benefit is that 4 more years won't come with as much initial shock, just far worse overall outcomes that will still be felt when my 1 year old becomes an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, aceluby said: You'd think in 2020, 4 years after Clinton v Bernie, and countless discussions on that election, that we would stop rehashing it and focus on the current election and maybe how we can come together to beat Trump. We're now in the thick of primary season now, it's perfectly fine things heat up - particularly considering there are more discernible differences within the Democratic party since..the Vietnam era. And Hillary has a documentary coming out, so it's hardly surprising she's gonna provide fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, DMC said: Sorry, responded quickly and forgot about this. He antagonized her by staying in the race long LONG after it was clear he was going to lose. That's just a dick move - the same dick move Hillary did to Obama 8 years earlier. And his supporters, and even campaign, definitely antagonized her up until the convention, GTFO with any arguments to the contrary. That's maybe not "directly" his fault, but he did jack shit to stop it. And the whole 'entire system is rigged' and then trying to make the superdelegates vote for him, telling his people that they can do whatever they feel they need to and defacto supporting them not voting for her or walking out of the convention, constantly having surrogates attack others and then saying how he's not in control of anyone... And all of this is fine! This is politics, and it's not super nice, but the notion that Sanders should act aggrieved (or Sanders supporters should act aggrieved) when he does this sort of thing and then has it done to him is rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryk Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, DMC said: I love how the Pavlovian response of Bernie supporters to any criticism isn't to react to its validity, but attack the one making the accusations. I'm not defending Hillary - in the OP I called her (half of) the most vindictive politician of the past thirty years (to be clear, though, I wasn't really taking into account GOP politicians there) and compared her to Nixon. As for this being a point in Bernie's favor, nah. I don't think it's a point in any way. Democratic primary voters are well aware Hillary hates Bernie and vice versa. This isn't so much news as fodder to fill up a 24 hour news cycle. As for people hating Congress, no shit. That's not really what the criticism is about. You can be "anti-establishment" and still be productive in Congress - as I've mentioned before, see Russ Feingold. The point is Bernie Sanders is decidedly disliked in his own workplace for the past 30 years. That's not based on ideology, it's a personal criticism of his own manifest incompetence and obstinance. Well the attack wasn't meant for you, I was sarcastically mentioning Hillary's achievements as a way of attacking her. The reason she got so much done in congress was cause she was so happy to roll over to Republicans on every issue. I don't know whether he's disliked in his workplace or not, if that's from a reputable source and not just another MSNBC smear then that's unfortunate. He is, however, the senator with the highest approval rating in his own state, so people of Vermont seem to like him. 18 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Oh please. Again, oh please. Oh please. I'm not sure what the point of a congressperson who doesn't actually do anything in congress, but okay Please please please explain what all the pleases are about? Did he or did he not do 41 events for Hillary Clinton after accepting her as nominee? I'm not sure what the point is of a Congress that only serves corporate interests. The fact that he didn't do anything doesn't mean he didn't try to get anything done, but obviously getting single payer healthcare is gonna be tough in a Congress off bought by insurance companies. 14 minutes ago, DMC said: Sorry, responded quickly and forgot about this. He antagonized her by staying in the race long LONG after it was clear he was going to lose. That's just a dick move - the same dick move Hillary did to Obama 8 years earlier. And his supporters, and even campaign, definitely antagonized her up until the convention, GTFO with any arguments to the contrary. That's maybe not "directly" his fault, but he did jack shit to stop it. So she's got no cause to complain about it then if she did the same thing. And her supporters are every but as cultish and odious as some of Bernie's, calling his supporters Bernie Bros and employing a vicious gamut of anti-Semitic stereotypes (the media made a big deal out of it when Ilhan Omar made a valid comment about lobbying, but an MSNBC guest can say that Bernie "makes her skin crawl" for just some reason that she can't tell). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 hour ago, DMC said: Obama is trying to keep the "former president" tradition alive of staying above the fray as much as possible (another norm that of course will be abolished if Trump ever becomes a former president). One can, perhaps, reasonably expect that President Obama's life style will keep him around far long so the other way can be put behind us? Imagine though, if Warren did get elected and then does what she says she'd on the very day, remove all his political appointees, including particularly the judicial ones. Twitter will melt down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Darryk said: Please please please explain what all the pleases are about? Did he or did he not do 41 events for Hillary Clinton after accepting her as nominee? Honestly, I suspect he did more. He also did more to hurt her than almost any other person not named Trump. And per a more recent poll, 25% of Sanders voters ended up voting for Trump. So if he did 41 events, well, it wasn't enough. 1 minute ago, Darryk said: I'm not sure what the point is of a Congress that only serves corporate interests. If you believe that congress only serves corporate interests, perhaps I can introduce you to my son, whose cancer was treated and covered because of the ACA? 1 minute ago, Darryk said: The fact that he didn't do anything doesn't mean he didn't try to get anything done, but obviously getting single payer healthcare is gonna be tough in a Congress off bought by insurance companies. I don't know what the point of this is. 1 minute ago, Darryk said: So she's got no cause to complain about it then if she did the same thing. No, she's got every reason to complain about it, because he complained about it too. That's how it works. 1 minute ago, Darryk said: And her supporters are every but as cultish and odious as some of Bernie's, calling his supporters Bernie Bros and employing a vicious gamut of anti-Semitic stereotypes (the media made a big deal out of it when Ilhan Omar made a valid comment about lobbying, but an MSNBC guest can say that Bernie "makes her skin crawl" for just some reason that she can't tell). I was told on twitter that I was being paid by Clinton to talk her up and then another person accused me of making up my son's cancer in order to engender support for her. So forgive me if the notion that Bernie Bros being some 'vicious slur' is ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Darryk said: I don't know whether he's disliked in his workplace or not, if that's from a reputable source and not just another MSNBC smear then that's unfortunate. He is, however, the senator with the highest approval rating in his own state, so people of Vermont seem to like him. Uh, it's not just MSNBC that's pointed out Sanders is disliked in Congress. This has been well established for decades. And yeah, if the presidential election was confined to Vermont voters, Bernie is a shoo-in. 5 minutes ago, Darryk said: So she's got no cause to complain about it then if she did the same thing. And her supporters are every but as cultish and odious as some of Bernie's, calling his supporters Bernie Bros and employing a vicious gamut of anti-Semitic stereotypes (the media made a big deal out of it when Ilhan Omar made a valid comment about lobbying, but an MSNBC guest can say that Bernie "makes her skin crawl" for just some reason that she can't tell). Again, attacking the accuser rather than responding to the criticism. I know you weren't attacking me in the previous response, my point was about the tendency of Bernie supporters to make it a polemic rather than soberly and cogently countering any criticisms. That tendency reflects how his supporters treat him as a demagogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 Sorry, I'll be a bit clearer - Sanders voters didn't vote 25% for Trump, they only voted 12% for Trump - but 25% of them didn't vote for Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.