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
![]()
Well, I don't know about other politicians, but Sanders seems to run on pride and adoration, which can be worse, depending on the case.
Most politicians are greedy because most humans are greedy. Instead of expecting superhuman virtue from them, we should set up incentives so that their interests align with those of their constituents and the nation at large.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.One reason why I think it's likely that her opinion as well as that of President Obama did legitimately change is that that's basically what happened with a lot of Americans. Like I forget the study, but over the past like 10 or 20 years, there's been like a 180 degree shift opinion.
In fact, I guess I myself am an example. I've always been strongly anti-discrimination, but I used to support the civil union idea as opposed to marriage. However, due to probably a combination of knowing more gay people and having a greater understanding of homophobia, I ended up solidly in support of same sex marriage and gay rights.
Not that I or anyone else deserves a medal for ending up with the correct viewpoint, but from my personal experience, I think a legitimate change in opinion is quite believable.
@Aces: Not legally speaking, but it raises the very same sort of questions as, for example, me hiring my cousin for a job. Both are conflicts of interest, and while that doesn't necessarily mean he's unqualified, it's problematic for several reasons.
In Clinton's case, the pertinent question is whether she'd be willing to enact legislature that went strongly against the interests of her benefactors; Obama was far more diversified than Clinton in terms of donations, but his Wall Street money vanished after Dodd-Frank passed. Clinton can't afford to alienate certain major donors, and unlike Obama's, her donors are very heavily concentrated in a few industries, first and foremost the financial industry.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:48:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
Legitimate change is certainly possible. 13 year old me probably would have been a die hard Trump supporter. Now I despise the man. Insisting on ideological purity only weakens the progressive cause. It's why I think the Bernie or Bust crowd is a far bigger threat to progress than their supposed enemies.
@LSBK Of course, billionaires and millionaires have feelings. I never said they didn't. But it would be naive to think generally they donations are given entirely out of the goodness of their hearts. Here's one of the billionaires admitting that they gamed the system.
@Hodor It's possible that her she legitimately changed her mind. It's possible that she didn't support the community out of political convenience. But Bernie Sanders has supported them for decades which is why it really bothers me that he's being demonized. People, check his record.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:53:52 PM by 940131
![]()
I agree with the last point, but there's a difference insisting on purity, and insisting on progression. Clinton is a fair bit more militaristic and more tied to particular industries than Obama, not less, and her, Sanders, and Obama are about the same in regards to where they stand on social justice issues.
Trump is worse on all three counts however, so voting for her is important if you're in a district he can contest.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:55:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Hodor 2: I agree, and I myself was in the similar situation. Now, the problem this presents for Clinton is that it hangs over her image as a "fighter." I do believe the support she shows is genuine, but it's when she decided to show it that people are taking issue with.
On the other hand, it's not necessarily a deal-breaker for the LGBT community, who have obviously seen lot of people evolve on these issues in the last few years.
@940: I'd advise against continuing down this particular line of conversation unless you can do so in a polite, nonconfrontstional manner. Tvtropes moderation is very strict, and in my opinion no less biased than anywhere else on the Internet, so if your expressing an unpopular opinion, you need to be careful about how you say it.
@Captain I'm not sure what I said that was rude. I'm not trying to be and I don't think I have been.
@Smokeycut When did I say Clinton is unelectable? This arguement didn't even start because of Trump. And saying that Trump and billionaires like him give tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians isn't supporting him. It means he's corrupt and hypocritical. It started because Bernie Sanders was attacked. You will acknowledge that Bernie Sanders is more consistently progresive than Clinton, right? You'll acknowledge that he's supported gay rights a lot longer than Hilary Clinton, correct?
edited 2nd Jul '16 5:06:12 PM by 940131
![]()
![]()
![]()
940: Seriously, the moderator for OTC is seemingly asleep right now, but if you insist on this line of conversation, you are walking on a razor's edge; there's no Trump supporters here for a reason.
Where did you get that impression in regards to thinking minorities problems are economic in origin? He never said anything to that effect, and while he spends a disproportionate amount of time talking about economic issues, do realize that economic inequality is both a significant barrier and significant contributor to racial inequality.
edited 2nd Jul '16 5:09:55 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't care how much longer he's supported LGBT rights than Clinton. Both support them, and Hillary is among the few politicians to pay tribute to Marsha P Johnson and Sylvia Rivera.
I care about the fact that Hillary wants to enact stricter gun control measures and doesn't have isolationist views.
@smokey: Sanders foreign policy views aren't isolationist, they're anti-military, and on trade believe it or not, his issue is with the TPP (which is almost purely a geopolitical manuever an includes what is essentially SOPA) and some specific parts of NAFTA (which was also largely geopolitical), not free trade in general, though he is guilty of framing it in terms of American job losses in his campaign rhetoric.
Most candidates, with the notable exception of Trump are a fair bit more nuanced than their soundbites imply.
edited 2nd Jul '16 5:31:47 PM by CaptainCapsase

Except, of course, for Bernie Sanders.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:39:32 PM by ILoveDogs