Hillary Clinton Establishment Machine Is Alive And Well And Killing Progressives

[ultramanhyata]

Depends on one's standards, no? Not as progressive as Sanders (or Harris, for that matter), but more progressive than any previous presidential nominee.

lol Since the first Bush administration. Yes.

She has been able to take advantage of how far her soulless husband moved the goal posts on what constituted "the left" and "liberalism".

 

[VivaRevolution]

Warren/Sanders, probably, but Gabbard is awful so that's not saying much. Gabbard has nowhere near the intelligence, experience, or integrity necessary to do the job well. I'd take her over Trump, but not over any decent candidate, regardless of party. I would also prefer a non-geezer, and someone who is less divisive on the left than Bernie. And I have misgivings about his aptitude as well.



Same thing, no?

Lol, not surprised that the candidate I like the most, you like the least.

No, i don't think it is the same thing. I think that accepting that it is, is a false dichotomy, meant to keep the status quo of the DNC rolling along.

You effect the policy you want, with the people responsible for the policy. The DNC is responsible for fielding candidates I can't support in good conscience. The only leverage I have with the DNC is withholding my support, and vote. If enough people do this, it will effect change in how the DNC operates eventually.

 

[kpt018]

To call Clinton's foreign policy positions and economic agenda "very progressive" is an impressively ballsy, brazen move.

Kudos. I guess.

So you'll ignore her progressive stances on healthcare, taxes, safety net, etc?

Cool, I guess.

And tell us what exactly is a progressive foreign policy.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think Gabbard/Sanders is the strongest, btw.

Sadly, Gabbard would be pilloried and her candidacy probably done in by the identity politic wing-nuts on the left.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol Since the first Bush administration. Yes.

She has been able to take advantage of how far her soulless husband moved the goal posts on what constituted "the left" and "liberalism".

You're saying that Dukakis and Mondale were further left than Clinton? On what basis? Certainly Carter wasn't (and note that he was primaried by the left).

 

[kpt018]

And yet it most clearly isn't if Donald trump is president.

I think you have it backwards btw, the dems will keep losing elections until they stop trying to control who the nominees are.

I was saying the policy is more important in terms of affecting people's lives. I know Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about policy details, although he's a run of the mill conservative.

We've been through the other part too.

 

[kpt018]

Oh i see. You don't even understand what the swamp is which would explain your staunch support and defense of Hillary Swamp Thing Clinton lol.

Trump is the least swampy president and politician of my lifetime. Meanwhile Hillary is the swampiest. Given this you're not even qualified to have this discussion.

Lol! You're such a hack. And that's your typical response when you're out of talking points - claim the poster is incompetent or not qualified.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sadly, Gabbard would be pilloried and her candidacy probably done in by the identity politic wing-nuts on the left.

How? She is a Samoan women. Her veteran status appeals to many white males. Being attractive doesn't hurt with males in general to be sure.

I mean I couldn't build a better identity politics candidate in a laboratory. She isn't threatening to any identity group.

I mean I get your distaste at the whole thing, but identity politics has always existed, it's just been put on steroids.

 

[Trotsky]

Warren/Sanders, probably, but Gabbard is awful so that's not saying much. Gabbard has nowhere near the intelligence, experience, or integrity necessary to do the job well. I'd take her over Trump, but not over any decent candidate, regardless of party. I would also prefer a non-geezer, and someone who is less divisive on the left than Bernie. And I have misgivings about his aptitude as well.



Same thing, no?

What "decent candidate" from the GOP would you take over Gabbard?

Romney? Cruz? Perry? Santorum? Gingrich? Carson? Rubio?

Also, what deficits in integrity and intelligence has she shown? This seems like a very strange vendetta towards a pretty unremarkable politician.

 

[ultramanhyata]

So you'll ignore her progressive stances on healthcare, taxes, safety net, etc?

Cool, I guess.

And tell us what exactly is a progressive foreign policy.

Any legitimately progressive pundits consider Clinton a center right democrat.

A "progressive" position doesn't mean any position that is less conservative than the GOP's.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Lol! You're such a hack. And that's your typical response when you're out of talking points - claim the poster is incompetent or not qualified.

Dude, you think Hillary is a progressive and not knee deep in the swamp. You're not qualified to have this discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol, not surprised that the candidate I like the most, you like the least.

It's not about liking or disliking. I like my neighbor, but I wouldn't vote for him for president. Gabbard has given no sign of being capable of doing the job, and her ethics are very questionable.

No, i don't think it is the same thing. I think that accepting that it is, is a false dichotomy, meant to keep the status quo of the DNC rolling along.

Of course it's the same thing. As I noted Romney was more popular than Trump (higher approval ratings, more votes, etc.). Trump won because the opposition was more divided. The far left decided that petty and irrational personal grievances were more important than policy, and they screwed themselves.

You effect the policy you want, with the people responsible for the policy. The DNC is responsible for fielding candidates I can't support in good conscience. The only leverage I have with the DNC is withholding my support, and vote. If enough people do this, it will effect change in how the DNC operates eventually.

Not really. You're in the extreme minority. What you can do is help the right win and weaken worker, consumer and environmental protections, and promote more upward redistribution of wealth.

 

[ultramanhyata]

How? She is a Samoan women. Her veteran status appeals to many white males. Being attractive doesn't hurt with males in general to be sure.

I mean I couldn't build a better identity politics candidate in a laboratory. She isn't threatening to any identity group.

I mean I get your distaste at the whole thing, but identity politics has always existed, it's just been put on steroids.

She opposed LGBTQ rights during her time in the Hawaii state legislature.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sadly, Gabbard would be pilloried and her candidacy probably done in by the identity politic wing-nuts on the left.

Yeah, those identity politic nuts sure hate white men like Gabbard.

Any legitimately progressive pundits consider Clinton a center right democrat.

A "progressive" position doesn't mean any position that is less conservative than the GOP's.

Clinton was one of the most liberal senators in America, and has consistently been to the left of the median Democrat. There's no reasonable sense in which she was a center-right Democrat.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's not about liking or disliking. I like my neighbor, but I wouldn't vote for him for president. Gabbard has given no sign of being capable of doing the job, and her ethics are very questionable.



Of course it's the same thing. As I noted Romney was more popular than Trump (higher approval ratings, more votes, etc.). Trump won because the opposition was more divided. The far left decided that petty and irrational personal grievances were more important than policy, and they screwed themselves.



Not really. You're in the extreme minority. What you can do is help the right win and weaken worker, consumer and environmental protections, and promote more upward redistribution of wealth.

You know jack, according to the exit polling Clinton lost because she didn't turn out the black and Latino vote like Obama did. Even in the rustbelt, I believe i have read that if the black and Latino vote would have turned out for Clinton like they did obama, she would have won.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What "decent candidate" from the GOP would you take over Gabbard?

Romney? Cruz? Perry? Santorum? Gingrich? Carson? Rubio?

Also, what deficits in integrity and intelligence has she shown? This seems like a very strange vendetta towards a pretty unremarkable politician.

Romney, yes. Rubio, maybe. The whole Syria thing reflects really badly on her integrity, and listening to her talk, she comes across as very unimpressive. I don't have any vendetta toward her. I thought that when McCain picked Palin, decent should have denounced it (and to be fair, many did). If Democrats were to pick their own version of Palin, I would think decent liberals would denounce that. I really do not want to be fighting fire with fire and playing a role in the continued degradation of the nation. I want to oppose sleazy, unqualified Republicans not with sleazy, unqualified Democrats, but with good, well-qualified people.

That said, I'd still vote Bernie/Gabbard over Trump or something. I would be unhappy with it, but I do believe in supporting the *better* ticket.

 

[VivaRevolution]

She opposed LGBTQ rights during her time in the Hawaii state legislature.

So did 90% of Democrat politicians 10 years ago.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So did 90% of Democrat politicians 10 years ago.

Yep. No one gives a shit about whatever Ultra is even talking about. I've never even heard that.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

Someone is unemployed again...

Looks like James Comey Jr.

 

[kpt018]

Any legitimately progressive pundits consider Clinton a center right democrat.

A "progressive" position doesn't mean any position that is less conservative than the GOP's.

So what exactly is progressive foreign policy? I'll start with that since you missed it on this post.

And I understand the spectrum. I think any pundit who classifies her as center right is wrong. In fact Bernie agreed that she was very close to him on policy. If Bernie is center right than the spectrum is meaningless.

This is all a tactic to justify hating Hillary and feeling ok about it.