Jill Stein comes after Hillary

[socotra 3,357]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

If you're referring to the one discussion we had regarding your opinion on the establishment and your need to represent yourself, I vaguely remember liking your post and not commenting further because I had nothing else to of value that I had not yet said on the matter.

What did you want me to continue prodding you? I know my limits.

So..hold off on the shade k?

No, this discussion from yesterday that I was under the assumption would be continued. :P

And it's not shade, I'm directly confronting you about it, no? 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

15 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

No, this discussion from yesterday that I was under the assumption would be continued. :P

And it's not shade, I'm directly confronting you about it, no? 

The one you posted on a weekday at 1:40AM when I had already passed out? 

Also the entire two major paragraphs consisted of your opinion on the establishment, which we had already discussed a previous time. Why would I repeat myself to you in another vain attempt? Did you want me to try to convince you to vote for the Democratic party yet again? You even came out and said that you understood it was futile but you wanted to make a point. Go ahead then. You made your case and I understood the determined position you had, even if I disagreed with it. I approve of your passion.

If I had any comments to make, Whispering did them on my behalf. I'm not going to barrage you with the same thing.

Oh and I tend to dislike it when people make the claim that I'm condescending to their person when I only believe that I hold a superior opinion. If you can't tell the difference then you have not debated before. The entire point of debate is to believe your opinion is better and disprove the other person's case, hopefully without resorting to attacking their character. 

So if you do want to hold serious conversations with me as you seem to imply in the future, refrain from ad hominem. I certainly don't use it unless I truly believe you are an idiot. In that case I just ignore your posts to avoid expressing how much I loathe intentional ignorance. Clearly, I haven't and nor do I plan to because you seem like an intelligent person who simply disagrees with me.

[socotra 3,357]

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The one you posted on a weekday at 1:40AM when I had already passed out? 

Also the entire two major paragraphs consisted of your opinion on the establishment, which we had already discussed a previous time. Why would I repeat myself to you in another vain attempt? Did you want me to try to convince you to vote for the Democratic party yet again? You even came out and said that you understood it was futile but you wanted to make a point. Go ahead then.

Oh and I tend to dislike it when people make the claim that I'm condescending to their person when I'm only being condescending to their opinion. If you can't tell the difference then you have not debated before. The entire point of debate is to believe your opinion is better and prove that it is the valid one.

So if you do want to hold serious conversations with me as you seem to imply in the future, refrain from ad hominem.

 

You post in virtually every single political thread on this website and I like to think that you feel it's your responsibility to defend Hillary in a sea of Bernie bots. Thus, I assume it's your primary goal to persuade people. When I say you're being condescending and pugnacious, that isn't me confusing that with you being condescending to ME. I don't know you personally and I've never discussed anything with you aside from politics, so why would I think it's you looking down on me? That's ridiculous. We have differing opinions, and that's perfectly acceptable. However, it's puzzling to me that if your goal to persuade people (and if it's not, then I don't know why you take it upon yourself to swarm every thread with Hillary), why you go about it in such a hypercritical, aggressive manner. That isn't the way you persuade someone, by essentially calling their opinion incorrect and lumping all Bernie supporters into one category.

If I've done that in any way with Hillary supporters, please point it out and I will 100% apologize because I have always tried to give Hillary supporters the benefit of the doubt. I respect that you support Clinton, and I'd take it any day over Trump. My goal in discussing these very important issues with you is to gain insight into how other people view things. I'm open to changing my mind. I truly do not like Clinton, and I've tried to like her, but if you were to say something that completely changed the way I viewed her, I would absolutely consider voting for her. It simply is that nothing you (or any other Hillary supporter here) has said has been substantiative enough for me to ignore the research I've done on my own and to jump onto her train. 

(Calling what I've written throughout my posts "ad hominem" is a perfect example; are both of our opinions not rooted in emotion?)

[teo 609]

1 minute ago, Himeros26 said:

All you have to do is take a glimpse at her shaky record to realize she's completely untrustworthy and says whatever to gain voters. Even if it includes manipulation, stealing Bernie's ideas, and it's just fishy that the important primary states she oftent wins tend to have voter suppression issues. She's just radiates a fake personallity and just corruption.

Ok, I'm not gonna argue just vote for the random woman you heard about yesterday. Let Trump become president if they're the same. It will be hella fun for the rest of the world to watch American politics turn in to a reality show. Cause whole Europe is already laughing so let's make it a four year-round of fun for us. At the end of the day America is too big to really fall apart under any president, so the only ones truly affected by it will be the most poor and unprivileged individuals. But you go and make your statement cause that's what's important.

[Himeros26 1,688]

8 minutes ago, teo said:

Ok, I'm not gonna argue just vote for the random woman you heard about yesterday. Let Trump become president if they're the same. It will be hella fun for the rest of the world to watch American politics turn in to a reality show. Cause whole Europe is already laughing so let's make it a four year-round of fun for us. At the end of the day America is too big to really fall apart under any president, so the only ones truly affected by it will be the most poor and unprivileged individuals. But you go and make your statement cause that's what's important.

With HilLiary or Trump we'll have two disasterous four years. And no, I didn't hear about her yesterday. You don't know who or what I know. Just stay pressedt because HilLiary's been exposed.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

21 minutes ago, Legalize Chris said:

You post in virtually every single political thread on this website and I like to think that you feel it's your responsibility to defend Hillary in a sea of Bernie bots. Thus, I assume it's your primary goal to persuade people. When I say you're being condescending and pugnacious, that isn't me confusing that with you being condescending to ME. I don't know you personally and I've never discussed anything with you aside from politics, so why would I think it's you looking down on me? That's ridiculous. We have differing opinions, and that's perfectly acceptable. However, it's puzzling to me that if your goal to persuade people (and if it's not, then I don't know why you take it upon yourself to swarm every thread with Hillary), why you go about it in such a hypercritical, aggressive manner. That isn't the way you persuade someone, by essentially calling their opinion incorrect and lumping all Bernie supporters into one category.

If I've done that in any way with Hillary supporters, please point it out and I will 100% apologize because I have always tried to give Hillary supporters the benefit of the doubt. I respect that you support Clinton, and I'd take it any day over Trump. My goal in discussing these very important issues with you is to gain insight into how other people view things. I'm open to changing my mind. I truly do not like Clinton, and I've tried to like her, but if you were to say something that completely changed the way I viewed her, I would absolutely consider voting for her. It simply is that nothing you (or any other Hillary supporter here) has said has been substantiative enough for me to ignore the research I've done on my own and to jump onto her train. 

I hate that we're doing this in this thread because it's so off-topic, but I'll bite.

First of all I don't bump Bernie supporters into one category. I'm not sure why you're making that claim. Collective nouns are fickle things. One can make a statement about "Bernie supporters" without actually referring to all Bernie supporters. In any case I always endeavor to place "some" or "many" to indicate that I'm referring to a subset.

Furthermore, I'm not certain why you are claiming that I have not had tame discussions with people that I disagree with. In fact the only volatile conversations I've had are with people who are incredibly dismissive or are displaying such rabid and consistent ignorance that has not changed despite countless posts of being shown otherwise. You simply don't understand how much I detest willful ignorance in the face of facts. At the same time I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who display openness to discussion and reevaluations of opinions. I've learned much from these people myself.

Unfortunately, the same people who refuse to reevaluate frequent the same threads I do, so naturally the explosiveness appears as they make the same old post and I make the same old response, not necessarily to them, but to potential readers. That doesn't apply to people who can actually engage in a discussion. 

Anyway let's stop this. There's no need for you to lecture me about my method of speech. I'm blunt. It's as simple as that.

In any case I have provided several contexts on why Hillary is a decent, if not amazing, alternative for your goals but you have refused to accept them as adequate. What else can I say?

You want to vote for someone because of what they represent, not because of what they can do. Do you really believe Jill Stein more qualified when she hasn't actually been in an elected position before? I doubt it. That would not make sense. She seems intelligent, but is untried and untested. She has mostly excellent positions, but so do many other people. What makes her stand out over them? Nothing. She simply shares a dream, but without actual proof of competence. It's clear you want to vote for her because she stands for a potential for change. That's fine really. I approve. She can bring change. That's all she is though. A figurehead.

Hillary has demonstrated a willingness to change but you disapprove, apparently punishing her for being part of an organization that has worked for liberal progress in the USA. You make a claim that she is part of corruption, while ignoring the fact that any political party is ultimately going to be somewhat corrupt as it increases in size and gains followers, due to the inevitable friction that occurs within and without. Loyalties within the same parties shift, and viewpoints differ. There will never be a truly purist movement, and the number of parties is ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. In fact, they often complicate the situation such as in Lebanon. You think collaborating with one party is difficult? Try 20. Compromise is basically a product of alliances, that once again form blocs. It's always the same.

In any case, would you kindly remind me why you dislike Hillary? I'd rather not bring up random talking points without context.

[socotra 3,357]

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

In fact the only volatile conversations I've had are with people who are incredibly dismissive or are displaying such rabid and consistent ignorance that has not changed despite countless posts of being shown otherwise.

Unfortunately, the same people frequent the same threads I do, so naturally the explosiveness appears. That doesn't apply to people who can actually engage in a discussion. 

"hold off on the shade k?"

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary would be an effective president. She's a qualified person and has broken numerous barriers for women and is already a massive historical figure. I want to like her, I want to love somebody who's likely to be our next president.

The following video is obviously intended to make Hillary look bad, I understand it – but how can you refute these things when you literally see her say one thing in one video and then another thing in another video? 

It's fine for her to change her opinion, but she's running on her record. She has flaunted her record in her stump speeches and in past debates, and when she does that, she loses credibility with me because I don't feel like that's being truthful. "Yes, I've evolved, Senator Sanders, and I've admitted my mistakes," would be a respectable approach in my opinion. But she has acted as though she's gotten it right 99% of the time, and I don't like that.

I don't like that she hasn't released her speeches. If there isn't anything to hide in them, why not release them? I don't like that she voted for the war in Iraq and oversaw the Libyan intervention. People make mistakes, absolutely, and should be forgiven, but I'd like our commander-in-chief to have a less impulsive hand. I don't like that people who represent fossil fuel companies' interests donate to her campaign. I don't like that she presents herself as a progressive when she (by her own admission) is more of a moderate. 

Truly, it comes down to honesty for me above anything else, and I think that's what has drawn a lot of people to Sanders in the first place. Truthfully, if she were a more honest and straightforward candidate, I probably would not have supported Sanders in the first place, because I'm definitely more fiscally conservative than Bernie is in the first place (with my advocacy for single-payer healthcare the only exception). 

(Feel free to say whatever about that video; I'd love to have it disproved, but it leaves a terrible taste in my mouth)

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

26 minutes ago, teo said:

Ok, I'm not gonna argue just vote for the random woman you heard about yesterday. Let Trump become president if they're the same. It will be hella fun for the rest of the world to watch American politics turn in to a reality show. Cause whole Europe is already laughing so let's make it a four year-round of fun for us. At the end of the day America is too big to really fall apart under any president, so the only ones truly affected by it will be the most poor and unprivileged individuals. But you go and make your statement cause that's what's important.

I thought I told you not to bother with that person.

His statements are all blatant hyperbole with a healthy dose if misplaced assumptions.

He also fails to realize that all politicians are inherently manipulative. You should never fully trust one.

He also talks about primaries and their issues, as if Sanders hasn't won states via the incredibly undemocratic caucuses that are grossly over-represented by younger or unemployed people due to their availability. Why isn't he complaining about the fact that people with actual jobs could not attend for a full day? What about their voter suppression?

[Whispering 18,865]

29 minutes ago, teo said:

Ok, I'm not gonna argue just vote for the random woman you heard about yesterday. Let Trump become president if they're the same. It will be hella fun for the rest of the world to watch American politics turn in to a reality show. Cause whole Europe is already laughing so let's make it a four year-round of fun for us. At the end of the day America is too big to really fall apart under any president, so the only ones truly affected by it will be the most poor and unprivileged individuals. But you go and make your statement cause that's what's important.

Just give up on the Bernie or Bust people. 75 percent of Bernie's supporters say they will vote for Hillary. More will come over when she gets the nomination. The rest will do what they are going to do. They really aren't worth the worry. 

[teo 609]

27 minutes ago, Himeros26 said:

With HilLiary or Trump we'll have two disasterous four years. And no, I didn't hear about her yesterday. You don't know who or what I know. Just stay pressedt because HilLiary's been exposed.

" I just recently found out about her and followed her twitter on Twitter. "

 

Your words not mine.

 

[Himeros26 1,688]

10 minutes ago, teo said:

" I just recently found out about her and followed her twitter on Twitter. "

 

Your words not mine.

 

Yes but three weeks Vs Yesterday is a pretty big difference. But according to your logic you aren't allowed to like someone you just recently found out about I guess? Idk.

[thedirtymonster 793]

2 hours ago, Himeros26 said:

YES QUEEN. I just recently found out about her and followed her twitter on Twitter. She's amazing. Love her for spilling the Truth flavored Tea! Expose the corporate puppet HilLiary!

You've got some serious probz, BB.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

"hold off on the shade k?"

I'm not shading you. In fact I just praised you. 

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

"hold off on the shade k?"

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary would be an effective president. She's a qualified person and has broken numerous barriers for women and is already a massive historical figure. I want to like her, I want to love somebody who's likely to be our next president.

The following video is obviously intended to make Hillary look bad, I understand it – but how can you refute these things when you literally see her say one thing in one video and then another thing in another video? 

 

See... this is my issue. What is that video? It's basically edited in such a sensationalist manner that I can't even take it seriously. 

Let's discuss the first segment regarding same-sex marriage. Don't you find it fascinating that the dates used at the beginning are all the way from 2002 and 2004. Do you not remember how the situation was at the time? Sanders himself was against same-sex marriage at the time as well. Most Americans at the time truly believed that marriage was an institution between men and women. Many Americans, mostly liberals, believed that gay people should be afforded the same rights and liberties in the form of civil unions, but marriage itself should not be infringed upon.

Here's a graph I picked up from google. It looks consistent from what I've read.

So you see, I don't understand why this issue is being held against her. Hillary had her own view on the matter. It wasn't what we wanted, but it was a common viewpoint at the time.

What changed that viewpoint? The efforts of liberals who were more progressive on this particular issue and the younger generation who were coming out more and more and making homosexuality seem like a normal thing as opposed to "the other".

What's interesting is that you are making the false correlation that her opinion regarding same-sex marriage somehow means that her principles have changed. They haven't. She still believes that marriage is a sacred bond. What changed is her acceptance of homosexuals as being part of that institution. Just like my own mother changed her opinion on homosexuality when I came out, so did Hillary on same-sex marriage as she garnered more information and experience on the issue. So did many other Americans.

Hillary has admitted that she wished she altered her opinion earlier. I think many people nowadays who were previously against it would make the same exact same statement. Would you call someone's mother out for her changing opinions when her son came out? You commend her. Why expect different from Hillary? Is it because she's a politician? As a liberal, is she always expected to be a part of a subsection of liberals that have ultra-progressive values on everything? Isn't that a little dismissive? Are subgroups of the Democratic party not allowed to have their own opinions, especially when they are not exactly unrepresentative of the people?

Here's the timeline of her change of opinion. Note how even when she disapproved of it, she stated that she would not block it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

Major points to look at. Look at the times.

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would supportsame-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

In fact...this is exactly the stance Bernie had. He was against same-sex marriage on a national level and wanted it to be left to the states. The difference is that in his opinion, it was a purely legislative matter. Hillary at least had her religious beliefs to fall back on. This made Sanders look heartless and robotic to me in comparison.

-----

Regarding the next part, let's make it clear. Hillary's voting record is the 11th most liberal during her tenure. That puts her in the top 10% of democrats in the Senate. Are you not for action as opposed to just words? Her actions clearly paint her as a liberal. That she has some conservative views bumps her down a notch. Does that render her entire stance unfavorable? 

Also Hillary is known to be someone who seeks compromise. She is a progressive who aligns with liberal values. Anderson says she is "kind of" moderate. Is that supposed to render her as not a progressive? Can someone not be a progressive and be "kind of" moderate on a couple of issues? I don't get how this constitutes as lying. It's nitpicking already unbounded descriptions to attempt to frame her as a liar. 

----

Regarding the e-mails, I don't get how she's lying. It's a private server. A significant portion of it was private. All of it was not classified. In the words of Obama, it was simply documents that were already publicly available but not ones you want to necessarily publicize.

Also I won't give the Benghazi trial any interest. It's already been professed by GOP personnel themselves that it was an elaborate plot overblown out of proportion to smear her. Here's one article I quickly picked up from Google.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426210/-Top-Republican-admits-Benghazi-Committee-is-all-about-attacking-Hillary-Clinton

----

The next couple of issues use scenes from a decade ago to attempt to paint her as a hypocrite today. I'm sorry but 10 years is a significant amount of time to garner new information and change your stance on an issue. It's particularly susceptible in economics when changing times require different measures. What may have been acceptable or even necessary 10 years ago can be viewed as overly negative or unnecessary today.

I can't continue with this video. It's just too sensationalist for me.

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

 

It's fine for her to change her opinion, but she's running on her record. She has flaunted her record in her stump speeches and in past debates, and when she does that, she loses credibility with me because I don't feel like that's being truthful. "Yes, I've evolved, Senator Sanders, and I've admitted my mistakes," would be a respectable approach in my opinion. But she has acted as though she's gotten it right 99% of the time, and I don't like that.

You act like she's gotten it wrong 99% of the time. The only times she has gotten it wrong have been flaunted and overblown by the media. Please, I urge you to research her work. She has spent most of her career focusing on human rights and that's exactly where you should look at her positions. She's never stopped believing in those principles. What about her principles regarding healthcare? What about her principles regarding education? What about her principles regarding a liberal world?

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

I don't like that she hasn't released her speeches. If there isn't anything to hide in them, why not release them? I don't like that she voted for the war in Iraq and oversaw the Libyan intervention. People make mistakes, absolutely, and should be forgiven, but I'd like our commander-in-chief to have a less impulsive hand. I don't like that people who represent fossil fuel companies' interests donate to her campaign. I don't like that she presents herself as a progressive when she (by her own admission) is more of a moderate. 

It's because it's a slippery slope. If she doesn't release them, she's untrustworthy. If she releases them, someone will try to find something and blow it out of proportion. It's simply better to let people believe what they want.

Furthermore, I detest the notion that she should be compelled to release these records when they were made as a private citizen (she was not in an elected body at the time) to a private institution at a private event. This is such a broad breach of privacy that it's unthinkable that an American would endorse it. 

Hillary is right. She should not release the transcripts unless everyone else does. Even if Sanders doesn't have any speeches in particular, that does not put him in the place to dictate what should be released and who should release them.

What stops Hillary from accusing Sanders of making corrupt deals on the phone and demanding he release his phone records? 

What stops Trump from accusing Hillary of engaging in sexual proclivities on Tinder and demand that she release her Tinder records?

The combination if it being a double standard being imposed on her, as well as the fact that people will want to find something bad if they're so inclined, makes it unfair and even outrageous that she's being put in this position.

1 hour ago, Legalize Chris said:

 Truly, it comes down to honesty for me above anything else, and I think that's what has drawn a lot of people to Sanders in the first place. Truthfully, if she were a more honest and straightforward candidate, I probably would not have supported Sanders in the first place, because I'm definitely more fiscally conservative than Bernie is in the first place (with my advocacy for single-payer healthcare the only exception). 

(Feel free to say whatever about that video; I'd love to have it disproved, but it leaves a terrible taste in my mouth)

That's fair, although I think you are using your own definition of honesty here. Sanders has exhibited many forms of dishonesty that don't involve lying, but let's start with that.

Browse Hillary and Sander's politifact records

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/

If you count "truth" as something that is "Mostly True" and above, you'll see that both are roughly 50%. Bernie is 2% more honest that Hillary. Is that significant to you?

In fact, if you count "lies" as something that is "Mostly False" and below, you'd see that Bernie has 31% lie-to-statement ratio as opposed to Hillary's 29. 

Those 2 points make up for the truths Bernie tells.

So that makes them equally honest. Do you disagree? 

Regarding honesty in other forms, how do you justify him deigning to use the Democratic party after claiming he would never join it? He also openly states that he's intentionally using it. He's intentionally using the party for his own goals. You think it's OK?

What about his supposed commitment as a Democratic nominee to support the eventual candidate as he said he would? Then he suddenly backtracked and said he wouldn't?

What about his comments about superdelegates? How do you accept that he calls them undemocratic, while failing to make the case that caucuses are undemocratic? How do you accept that he is once again attempting to use what he preaches against for his own goals. Isn't that the definition of corruption? 

Just because it's corruption that personally benefits you, doesn't make it any less corrupt.

Even still, do you place honesty above compromise? Bernie is unbending in principles. That is commendable, but how does that translate to representing all Americans? Should he not in practice waver on his principles to achieve them as Hillary does? You can tell me that he compromised on his Senate bills all you want, it doesn't imply that he compromised in anyone's favor but his own. 

Honesty and maintaining principles are important, but sometimes compromise demands that you bend to intersect with others. In that vein, someone can brand you inconsistent or dishonest. Do you approve of that? Does someone who says "I will never eat Broccoli" be branded inconsistent and dishonest if he ate Broccoli in order to entertain his kids to eat Broccoli? In fact this situation is applicable to what Democrats do with Republicans all the time... It's not always fun being a progressive in the face of obstructionists.

----

Hillary isn't perfect not has she ever claimed to be. I simply think you are being too harsh on her.

What do you think?

[Eighteen 5,430]

uh oh... trump's going to be president LOL i can see the liberal vote fracturing in two as i type. 

[socotra 3,357]

21 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

///

(Apologies for the shade comment, misinterpreted what you meant)

I will admit that your reasoning and those sources does change the way that I view Clinton. However, I do disagree on the transcripts. While I see your point in that it's a breach of privacy, she's running to be President of the United States and because the contents of the transcripts have potential implications with her candidacy, I believe they're fair game and should be released (but that's just me, and one of my lesser angsts against her). 

I'm well aware Bernie has flaws, and that's why I'm not particularly devastated if he loses the nomination (and he likely will). It is why I'm looking at the other options; I prefer fluidity rather than dedicating myself 100% to one candidate in a political landscape that is constantly changing. I love Bernie, but do I worship him and blindly follow everything he says? No. As for him using the Democratic Party, I have absolutely no qualm for that. Because of the way our system is constructed, the Democratic Party and Republican Party are virtually an ingrained part of the United States government. There isn't a way to be elected (at the moment) without being a member of either party. I'm glad that Bernie is pragmatic enough in that respect to know he had 0 practical chance of winning as an Independent and decided to run in the Democratic Party. And as I've said before, I greatly dislike both parties so it's kind of a nonissue for me.

While I am still leaning heavily towards Stein, I will definitely go back and look over Hillary's past policies and record again. I truly hate our system and I wish Stein was a viable candidate – but in reading through that, I also don't know how successful she would be in practice.