Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 179: My Recollection of Flair Existing Keeps Changing

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

When Americans changed their positions on issues, she changed too.

why did she lose, then? if she agreed with the majority of americans on the issues she probably would have won.

Because it's not credible. The simplest explanation is she says publicly whatever she thinks is popular.

And since she does speak privately in paid speeches, and her public positions are not credible, people tend to think her actual positions are what she says privately.
---

Corrik posted...

With what you said, Clinton had this air of entitlement that because she was a woman she deserved to be president. Her sex didn't matter to her merit. And she didn't seem to ever grasp that.

I really never got that impression.

I did get the impression that once she was 1-on-1 with Trump she acted like she deserved to be President.
---

And, this is maybe why people hate her - she pairs her tendency to support whatever the majority supports with vicious condemnations of the minority, even for holding the same positions she held at another point in time (when it was more popular).

In the 90s, when Americans wanted to be tough on crime, she called black kids "super predators" with no empathy who needed to be "brought to heel." A wave of bad, "tough" crime laws were indeed passed, by her husband and a bunch of states, which actually ruined people's lives on the supposition that they were "super predators." Now, the winds of public opinion have changed. And if you said something 10% as harsh as what Hillary said, she would support you being branded as a racist, and having your business and livelihood slandered and destroyed.

For many years, Hillary opposed gay marriage. She used her position and bully pulpit to deny recognition and legal rights to gay people. Then public opinion changed, and now anyone who held her old positions is to be condemned as a bigot. Hillary voted for Iraq (supposedly believing unsupported lies from Bush), and now she says it was a mistake. It wasn't a mistake, it was simply popular at the time.
---

Corrik posted...

She lost because she was a worse candidate.

She lost because we have a stupid electoral college system.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It wasn't a mistake, it was simply popular at the time.

It can be both!
---

red sox 777 posted...

And, this is maybe why people hate her - she pairs her tendency to support whatever the majority supports with vicious condemnations of the minority, even for holding the same positions she held at another point in time (when it was more popular).

In the 90s, when Americans wanted to be tough on crime, she called black kids "super predators" with no empathy who needed to be "brought to heel." A wave of bad, "tough" crime laws were indeed passed, by her husband and a bunch of states, which actually ruined people's lives on the supposition that they were "super predators." Now, the winds of public opinion have changed. And if you said something 10% as harsh as what Hillary said, she would support you being branded as a racist, and having your business and livelihood slandered and destroyed.

For many years, Hillary opposed gay marriage. She used her position and bully pulpit to deny recognition and legal rights to gay people. Then public opinion changed, and now anyone who held her old positions is to be condemned as a bigot. Hillary voted for Iraq (supposedly believing unsupported lies from Bush), and now she says it was a mistake. It wasn't a mistake, it was simply popular at the time.

DOMA. Sure Hillary didn't support that from her husband.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont get the arrogance thing about Hillary. Shes no more arrogant than any national politician ever.

Thats the part that smells like sexism to a lot of people.

This is accurate and is underplayed even by people who point it out. Oftenttimes a woman acting the same way as a 'confidant' man is seen as being a bitch.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont get the arrogance thing about Hillary. Shes no more arrogant than any national politician ever.

Thats the part that smells like sexism to a lot of people.

This is accurate and is underplayed even by people who point it out. Oftenttimes a woman acting the same way as a 'confidant' man is seen as being a bitch.

Just making excuses to find her not in the wrong. Imo
---

If people didn't like Hillary for being Arrogant, how the fuck did they even come close to like the billion times more arrogant Donald Trump?

I mean if there was ever the human embodiment of arrogance, it would be Donald Trump.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Because it's not credible.

and trump WAS credible, even though he took both sides on like 99% of the issues?
---

Corrik posted...

Just making excuses to find her not in the wrong. Imo

not really. i hate hillary and i'll still admit there was probably a lot of sexism involved in her losing.
---

*wakes up and checks poli topic*

...

hillary clinton really guys

really
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

Just making excuses to find her not in the wrong. Imo

not really. i hate hillary and i'll still admit there was probably a lot of sexism involved in her losing.

I agree there was probably sexism. (not racism). But, what I don't agree is you (whoever) saying my comment is an example of sexism or a hint of it.
---

yo lasa

why not do the simple, easy thing

and just quit reading red sox posts
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Because it's not credible.

and trump WAS credible, even though he took both sides on like 99% of the issues?

Trump is like a used car salesman. He doesn't expect you to believe him.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

*wakes up and checks poli topic*

...

hillary clinton really guys

really

we all died in 2016 and this topic is our purgatory
---

Fox News accidentally lets a truth bomb split out

https://twitter.com/MuslimIQ/status/1005831563811147776
---

Gotta love THE MOOCH

He tells it like it is!
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4HCULGOxN8" data-time="

1st of all, this dude is 100% drunk.

2nd, he's railing Trudeau for "saying statements for domestic consumption behind Trump's back", like Trump doesn't do that literally every day.
---

behind his back huh

lol yeah canada was really hiding its disapproval beforehand
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

1st of all, this dude is 100% drunk.

wow, definitely
---

quite something when Americans treat "we won't be bullied" as a verbal assault deserving of literally "a special place in hell" yet let everything Trump says fly like nothing
---

*slightly fewer than half of Americans...!
---

I feel like it might have actually been "behind trump's back" because his aides try to avoid showing him things that he won't like. So it's entirely possible that he had no idea Trudeau had that position.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

I feel like it might have actually been "behind trump's back" because his aides try to avoid showing him things that he won't like. So it's entirely possible that he had no idea Trudeau had that position.

But we know he talked with him on a phone call about it because when Trudeau asked what could his basis possibly be for declaring the tariffs a national security issue we got the War of 1812 stuff.
---

fool trade
---

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1006173344167649280

This story is bonkers.

@NRA meets with right-wing Russian nationalists, sanctioned oligarchs, Putin cronies, money-launderers, and then spends $70 million on Trumps campaign - twice as much as they did on Romneys.

Because theyre about freedom. https://t.co/Yrd44Gqr1D

BREAKING: Several prominent Russians, some in President Vladimir Putins inner circle or high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with @NRA officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign. https://t.co/goKK64ZaNs

But the NRA aren't traitors, oh no. And the new president, a convicted arms dealer, is totally legit, guys.
---

Good lord.

Why do we live in such a stupid timeline.
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

*wakes up and checks poli topic*

...

hillary clinton really guys

really

I was more astonished as to why people hate her so much that they voted for Trump despite knowing full well what he'd do and the kind of person he is. I don't have any problems understanding how Trump won the election or why someone would vote for him generally!
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I was more astonished as to why people hate her so much that they voted for Trump despite knowing full well what he'd do and the kind of person he is.

yeah, this is what i don't get either.

reminds me of the '04 election when people voting for GWB went "yeah of course he sucks BUT HE'S THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS." i was like "...no, he's fucking not."
---

People would apparently rather trust a serial liar over Hillary Clinton.

I thought maybe people take Hillary's knowledge of politics as a negative and view her as a manipulative b**ch who they can't gauge as a result, while Trump goes around saying stupid junk but because the public understands they trust him more?

Perhaps because of her completely obliviousness towards the changing social situation (at least that's what I can think of, don't know what I'd refer to this problem as), Hillary shows a lot of SJW tendencies and is unaware of the damage that's doing to her approval. But I dunno, I personally think she's much more reasonable as compared to someone like Anita Sarkeesian (she doesn't call everything in sight racist or sexist, admits when progress is happening, and focuses mostly on real issues instead of fictional media) - plus she has actually lived through times where women had things significantly tougher unlike with Anita. I understand that dealing with women's issues is what Hillary has been doing for a while, and if people hate her on that basis, what on earth is she supposed to do?

Yes I just read a bit more of "What Happened?" Should I have shame?
---

Oh good let's rehash W too while we're at it.
---

Saw this over on the Politics board, bringing it on over because misery loves company, amirite?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/supreme-court-greenlights-ohio-voter-purges-in-husted-v-randolph.html
---

kevwaffles posted...

Oh good let's rehash W too while we're at it.

not sure why people have such a problem with talking about stuff from the past...? this is the "politics containment topic," not the "politics news topic." reflecting on the past can be insightful too.
---

i have ptsd from reading 2016 arguments over the past two years

They also tend to get kinda uncivil.

Older stuff sure why not I guess.
---

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1005874771450585089

In emails obtained through a FOIA lawsuit, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly confirmed that his personal email account had been hacked

Butter he males!
---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/EdwardTHardy/status/1005874771450585089

In emails obtained through a FOIA lawsuit, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly confirmed that his personal email account had been hacked

Butter he males!

Hell of a typo
---

... that was on purpose lol
---

Peace___Frog posted...

... that was on purpose lol

Lol looks like what my auto-correct does to me on the regular.
---

I generally try to proofread things before i hit the post message button.

Sometimes my phone doesn't put the automatic space in between words though, that grinds my gears something fierce.
---

Oh by the way, net neutrality in the US ended today, and the supreme court ruled 5-4 that voter purges due to inactivity are ok.

Big wins for the trump team. Gotta vote in November, folks.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Butter he males!

Is this related to those "buttery males" Republicans are so obsessed with?
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Oh by the way, net neutrality in the US ended today, and the supreme court ruled 5-4 that voter purges due to inactivity are ok.

Big wins for the trump team. Gotta vote in November, folks.

Don't worry, red states will make sure a lot can't
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Oh by the way, net neutrality in the US ended today, and the supreme court ruled 5-4 that voter purges due to inactivity are ok.

Big wins for the trump team. Gotta vote in November, folks.

How long do they have to wait before they can purge? In Canada you are removed after some time of inactivity, mostly to remove the dead and people who move and fail to report the change.

Of course in Canada we have same day registration so it isn't a big deal outside of it taking ~10 minutes longer to vote.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Oh by the way, net neutrality in the US ended today, and the supreme court ruled 5-4 that voter purges due to inactivity are ok.

Big wins for the trump team. Gotta vote in November, folks.

How long do they have to wait before they can purge? In Canada you are removed after some time of inactivity, mostly to remove the dead and people who move and fail to report the change.

Of course in Canada we have same day registration so it isn't a big deal outside of it taking ~10 minutes longer to vote.

In Ohio, 6 years of nonvoting and not answering warning postcards.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Oh by the way, net neutrality in the US ended today, and the supreme court ruled 5-4 that voter purges due to inactivity are ok.

Big wins for the trump team. Gotta vote in November, folks.

How long do they have to wait before they can purge? In Canada you are removed after some time of inactivity, mostly to remove the dead and people who move and fail to report the change.

Of course in Canada we have same day registration so it isn't a big deal outside of it taking ~10 minutes longer to vote.

They didn't set exact rules, merely ruled that Ohio's rules are acceptable. So you can bet that other states will try to push that envelope.

Link to the decision here:
https://t.co/BA6SHRuSmz
---

charmander6000 posted...

How long do they have to wait before they can purge?

The law in Ohio which brought this case is that after 2 years of not voting in any election a notice is sent to the address on file to confirm they are still living there. If the person don't send back that notice and doesn't vote in any election for another 4 years after that then they are removed and have to reregister. So you have to no vote in any election for 6 straight years before you have to register again to vote. Law seems fair enough IMO it's just now that something like this has passed the supreme court I'd expect way shittier versions of that law in places to suppress voters.
---

There's nothing stopping the Supreme Court or lower courts from striking down worse laws.
---

hockeydude15 posted...

charmander6000 posted...

How long do they have to wait before they can purge?

The law in Ohio which brought this case is that after 2 years of not voting in any election a notice is sent to the address on file to confirm they are still living there. If the person don't send back that notice and doesn't vote in any election for another 4 years after that then they are removed and have to reregister. So you have to no vote in any election for 6 straight years before you have to register again to vote. Law seems fair enough IMO it's just now that something like this has passed the supreme court I'd expect way shittier versions of that law in places to suppress voters.

Not even not vote. Just not even respond for 6 years. You could respond and not vote and stay on the log.
---