Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
It was also a time where, apparently, considering supporting Elizabeth Warren as a progressive was labeled sexism, go back and read it if you don't believe me. So do as I did and accept that the consensus has fortunately moved on from that.
Life is unfair...People are more apathetic to Hillary than soft. She's said some things recently that would make some people here blow a gasket but nobody cares enough to post them.
If you're talking about 2016, then that's another story. More a rollercoaster than a story. At the start, most people just seemed resigned to her candidacy since it seemed a forgone conclusion shed win without ginning up any excitement. Sanders flipped that over and some genuine defense of her clashed with outright hostility over Clinton. The rise of Trump and Sanders' refusal to give up even when it became obvious he wasn't going to win made the thread turn on Sanders and from that point onwards it was a mix of now hyper Hillary supporting or people who hated Trump more than they disliked Clinton.
This is all incorrect.
I was there, Unicorn Brigade was used about a specific type of (unreasonable) progressive. It's simply false to claim that it was used against all progressives, many people in the thread (such as myself and Ambar) are progressives. We simply dislike the types of progressives who would smear candidates like Clinton who had progressive records and platforms just because they weren't some Perfect Progressive Messiah (TM).
Furthermore, I need some major [CITATION NEEDED] on her record with race being worse than Sanders. And no, the superpredator comment from decades ago is not evidence.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:55:29 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Hillary openly defends AIPAC even though they support a lunatic like Netanyahu, was majorly behind the crime bill advocated going easy on wall street and refused to support gay rights until it became acceptable. She's no progressive. She has progressive elements but she's a centrist at heart.
![]()
![]()
Not really. Pelosi seems more bothered by centrists being attacked by the Squad then the fact that those centrists kinda suck
She also supported Clinton's crime bill like everyone else in the 90s. Sanders tried to amend the crime bill and mostly supported the violence against women portion. He also led a sit in in chicago as part of core and got arrested for it.
Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 1:57:06 AM
Didn't Sanders actually sign that crime bill? If so, why does he get a pass?
This is Sincerity Mode.
I know Biden signed it and was basically the impetus for it, and he has tended to get a pass (not from leftists, but definitely from a lot of anti-Hillary people).
The first part of your post is entirely unsourced, so I'm going to dismiss it.
Of course, she tells them not to attack centrist Democrats. The only reason we control the House, and have any chance of controlling the Senate, is because of Centrist Democrats.
As the majority leader it's her duty to make sure that the members of the party are protected, which means that arch-progressives in safe seats shouldn't publicly attack centrist democrats in significantly more dangerous seats.
Nope, supporting AIPAC is not evidence of having a poor record on race.
Nor did you provide any evidence of her refusing to support gay rights.
This nonsense about Hillary not being progressive is disconnected from reality, her record is most certainly progressive
.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:01:01 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangOr tried to undermine the achievements of the first black president on MLK Day?
And these are just examples off the top of my head. There are probably more that I haven't thought of. My point is, it's clear to everyone paying attention that black and brown people will be made to sit at the back of Sanders' revolution bus, and his base simply refuses to deal with that in any way, shape, or form.
i'm tired, my friend![]()
Considering that AIPAC seems to view Palestinians as the ones responsible for the conflict (and if you believe that than by definition you think palestinians are subhuman vermin)....yes. If you support AIPAC you think Palestinians are subhuman animals at worst or are ok with Israel brutalizing them at best. There's no middle ground there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
Defines marriage as between Man and Women. This was in 04 by the way. Of course she was singing a different tune in 2013. She also supported the Defense of Marriage act in 1998 as well as don't ask don't tell.
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:04:04 AM
I think the argument being made regarding AIPAC is that they support Netanyahu, who has an abysmal record on race relations (primarily in regards to Muslims and non-Jewish Arabs), and Clinton defends them despite that. Not saying the logic necessarily holds up, but I can see the perspective at play.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"There was a statement she made I think about immigrants in Europe that got posted some months ago and people here were quite displeased with her, but yes in general Clinton is not particularly relevant anymore so that's probably why any potentially problematic recent statements made by her haven't been posted.
If memory serves, Hillary did sign praises of the Reagans which owing to their approach to the AIDS epidemic could be interpreted as gay unfriendly.
The infamous crime bill was discussed years ago in this thread. and per this
and this
most members of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for it with reticence and Bernie did as well for somewhat different reasons that have nothing to do with tough-on-crime matters. Hillary was much more positive about the bill (using the word "superpredators" for example) but didn't vote on it as she wasn't in Congress back then.
More relevant side note:
Israel’s government on Thursday barred Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering the country as part of a landmark visit, in a move that quickly set off a political firestorm in Washington.
Omar and Tlaib — the first two Muslim women in Congress — were slated to arrive this weekend, but President Donald Trump had lobbied Israeli leaders to block them from entering the country and again lashed out at the pair on Thursday.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/15/israel-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib-netanyahu-1463655
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 15th 2019 at 3:09:49 AM
As for Clinton, my personal opinion is that she was certainly, definitely the better alternative compared to Trump.....but thats not much of a high bar.
I think she would've been a terrible president, and yeah, I also think that people around here are a bit too soft on her.
What I dislike the most about her are her hawkish tendencies. And if she really qualifies as a "progressive", then that term certainly needs some higher standarts.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianI want some actual context for her 'defense' of AIPAC, I simply don't buy the idea that defending them is the same thing as automatically supporting racism against Palestinians.
The entire nation changed its position in regards to same-sex marriage practically overnight, it's extremely disingenuous to act as if she was somehow unique in that regard.
Don't Ask Don't Tell was a progressive policy at the time of its inception, it made life easier for Gay and Lesbian servicepeople. Obviously, full legalization would've been preferable but it requires willful ignorance of the historical context to consider that plausible.
I think she would've been a terrible president, and yeah, I also think that people around here are a bit too soft on her.
What I dislike the most about her are her hawkish tendencies. And if she really qualifies as a "progressive", then that term certainly needs some higher standarts.
I'm not too soft on her, she was a great politician who stood for many good things. There is nothing to be soft on.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:11:01 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
Frankly Clinton's hawkish tendencies are what we need right now.
This situation with Russia has gotten completely out of hand. Fighting them and their interests abroad is the same as advancing progressive movements back here at this point.
Edited by LeGarcon on Aug 15th 2019 at 5:14:41 AM
Oh really when?https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/gaza-aren-mourning-clinton-loss-161117123959810.html
https://972mag.com/what-clinton-gets-so-wrong-about-israel-palestine/122678/
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/harder-times-palestine-clinton-wins-election-160912073343128.html
Quite frankly Hillary's stance is "Israel good palestinians bad." She backs the idiotic idea that Israel offered a state in 2000 (when in reality it was a bantustan.) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/04/was-arafat-the-problem.html
She has some accomplishments but fourthspartan is delusional if he thinks there's nothing to criticize her about.
Supporting AIPAC is basically saying "palestinians are subhuman vermin who don't matter."
Edited by LordYAM on Aug 15th 2019 at 2:21:02 AM
Well, I'm glad you're not in control of foreign policy right now, then. Fighting endless proxy wars against third world countries just because they won't bend over backwards for American political and business interests has led to nothing but the pointless slaughter of innocent civilians and the installation of horrifying, sometimes genocidal regimes throughout the world.
You want to fight a war with Russia, fight a war Russia. It will doom us both, but at least the rest of world would be safe from our endless, self-serving imperialism.

I will say that I felt that Kamala Harris was put on a bit of a pedestal for time, but that time is long gone now.