Question for Hillary Clinton supporters.
Comments
-
I know. As I've been thinking about it, I think the biggest problem I see with Clinton is that she doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the problem of the discrepancy between the rich and everyone else. She doesn't understand it because she and Bill can get large chunks of money so easily. This problem of disappearing middle class and the growth of people in poverty isn't real to her.Free said:Justam, I understand what you're saying.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
What I can I say to make it real for her? Wouldn't it be helpful if leaders actually understood the problem for so many people? Wouldn't it be helpful if they weren't people who "escaped" into the 1%?
I've been thinking about mentioning to her that the real problems of our world will start showing up more dramatically in 20 years...Most of the young people today who are still able to survive (and get educated) are partially able to survive because of their grandparents' security and foundation (pensions, property, etc.). When that generation with a solid foundation is gone, we'll see more severe problems.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0 -
I would have preferred more choices on the Democratic ticket. I'm not afraid to support an underdog--hell, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 and does anybody even remember who he was?
But I don't like Bernie. "The stars are all connected to the brain."0 -
I'm not offended at all. You have misread my tone. I have in fact answered your original question/point multiple times, yet you keep coming back with some version of "that's not a good enough answer." I get it. You're a Bernie fan. You are a far left liberal. Not everybody is.brianlux said:
You seem to take offense at my take on things yet have not really addressed what I said. That's interesting.what dreams said:
Ok, then don't vote for her. Enjoy your egalitarian fantasy. The rest of us will do what we gotta do . . . vote for Clinton so that Trump is not our next president.brianlux said:
You're not the first person here to refer to me as an idealist. What I've tried to do here and in other posts I've made, however, is to show that what some perceive as idealistic can just as easily be argued as pragmatic. Working to create a world that is more equitable for as many people as possible is pragmatic because the end result of doing so would benefit everyone in the long run. Working to help restore an ecological balance as humans being a part of (rather than self imposed ruler of) the world through a biocentric viewpoint is pragmatic: it benefits all species, human or otherwise. A Clinton presidency will not move the world closer to those practical goals. In affect, it would move us further from them. There is nothing idealistic about the goals of egalitarianism, equality and environmental stability. Those goals are both attainable and practical.what dreams said:I wouldn't call Hillary right of center on anything other than -some- foreign policy issues like fighting terror. She is certainly leftist liberal on many issues. And I'm too tired to point out how obviously so she is. (Not trying to poke either, really just tired)
Even though I would like to live in Oz, I live in Kansas. That's why I can vote for Hillary. I really don't give a shit that she's a woman, and I don't expect any of my presidents to be super-human saviors. I expect them to do this basic job --meet with world leaders to serve America's *balanced* interests abroad (we have many conflicting), prevent crazy people from blowing up our country, and ensure that the laws made by Congress are executed. That's the president's job, and Hillary is intelligently capable of doing all those things well.
The thing is . . . Most America really is center.
It may be hard for you to accept, being the idealist that you are, but most of us are willing to accept imperfection and roll with it. Keeping my own life from falling apart is hard enough. I'm not about to save the world. Especially not with my vote.0 -
Trump could win if Sanders's supporters don't come out to vote for Clinton after she secures the nomination. I think it's a really foolish move to write off Trump. That's what disturbs me the most about your question and the debate in this thread. You suggest you will not support Clinton in the general and that the rest of us shouldn't either. Like I said once already, I voted for Sanders in the primary, but now that it's practically over, I need to make my bed with Clinton. People expecting some grand reversal of fortune at either party's convention have been hoodwinked by the media's packaging of this election. Talking Heads do not select the candidates. The parties do, and the party delegates have been counted.brianlux said:Relax, friends, Trump is not going to win. And let's not put the cart before the horse. The conventions are not even here yet.
0 -
I agree, if there was one thing Clinton does not understand is the huge problem of income inequality. and election results maps have shown that rural areas are not in her favor, while those in bigger cities and higher income have been her people. Those in less than rich areas have voted Sanders.justam said:
I know. As I've been thinking about it, I think the biggest problem I see with Clinton is that she doesn't seem to understand the gravity of the problem of the discrepancy between the rich and everyone else. She doesn't understand it because she and Bill can get large chunks of money so easily. This problem of disappearing middle class and the growth of people in poverty isn't real to her.Free said:Justam, I understand what you're saying.
If we think about it, regardless of how candidates "answer questions", how many of these candidates, once elected, follow through? Obama had some great ideas on his platform but how many got to fruition? How many candidates flip and flop on topics to appease certain audiences?
What I can I say to make it real for her? Wouldn't it be helpful if leaders actually understood the problem for so many people? Wouldn't it be helpful if they weren't people who "escaped" into the 1%?
I've been thinking about mentioning to her that the real problems of our world will start showing up more dramatically in 20 years...Most of the young people today who are still able to survive (and get educated) are partially able to survive because of their grandparents' security and foundation (pensions, property, etc.). When that generation with a solid foundation is gone, we'll see more severe problems.
I guess that's why I don't understand those blindly voting for Hillary. "More of the same", is more income inequality with no real solutions to the widening poverty gap and smaller middle class. Because she has no idea what it's like for ordinary people, she doesn't see it as a real problem.
How about just getting real about what it's like for you as an ordinary person and not a billionaire. I doubt she'll understand, I doubt she'll really listen, but she needs to hear it from more of us who are not millionaires and are fed up.
Post edited by Free on0 -
what dreams said:
Trump could win if Sanders's supporters don't come out to vote for Clinton after she secures the nomination. I think it's a really foolish move to write off Trump. That's what disturbs me the most about your question and the debate in this thread. You suggest you will not support Clinton in the general and that the rest of us shouldn't either. Like I said once already, I voted for Sanders in the primary, but now that it's practically over, I need to make my bed with Clinton. People expecting some grand reversal of fortune at either party's convention have been hoodwinked by the media's packaging of this election. Talking Heads do not select the candidates. The parties do, and the party delegates have been counted.brianlux said:Relax, friends, Trump is not going to win. And let's not put the cart before the horse. The conventions are not even here yet.
Just a note, party superdelegates do not even vote until convention. And frankly, anyone listening to the word that Bernie's time is up? They are the ones fooled by media heads. The media's been saying that he cut staff, needs to drop out, is all washed up? They're the fools.Free said:Oh, and another thing for Clinton supporters: she most likely will not be able to win the candidacy with Sanders taking nearly half the delegates. He is literally stopping her from winning, and it will end up a contested convention.
Not saying he will win, just saying it's obvious who's listening to establishment and who's really listening altogether.Post edited by Free on0 -
Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.0
-
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.what dreams said:Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
0 -
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math.Free said:
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.what dreams said:Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
It absolutely is an improbability. Anything can happen, but trends, polls, pledged delegates, and endorsements paint a picture. Super delegates can change their minds, sure. But look at the endorsement picture: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/rgambs said:
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math.Free said:
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.what dreams said:Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
If Bernie were leading in pledged delegates from the primaries, he may have a chance at turning around some of these endorsements (which are essentially the super delegates). But he's behind in pledged delegates and WAY behind in endorsements. He'll have a role at the convention and a voice in helping shape the platform, but he isn't getting the nomination. I'm guessing he'll win the primary in my state, but our governor, both senators, and I believe all of the dem representatives have already said they're endorsing Hillary and have pledged their votes to her."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
If I could vote, this is what I'd say too. I wouldn't be a supporter per se, but she's shitloads better than any Republican nominee. Like by miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles and miles. I just hope that those who would have voted for Bernie don't decide to stay home rather than vote for Hillary or maybe spoil their ballots or vote for some third party. I think the ONLY thing that can (and actually could) put Trump or Cruz into the White House is left voter no-shows or third party defaults.dignin said:I don't have much to add because I am a Bernie supporter.
But I would vote for her over Trump or Cruz because obviously she is not Trump or Cruz.
It's your damn 2 party system Brian, you don't have many options.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Well, after thinking about what question I might ask, I wasn't even able to see her in person. The room was already full when we arrived. Everyone who couldn't fit in the room was left to listen to her speech outside on the patio.
It was a good speech but she didn't even come outside where we could see her when she left. She got into her SUV with tinted windows out of sight of the crowd waiting outside to see her!
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0 -
And we have seen where Math is not accurate. (polls for starters, because they mean nothing).rgambs said:
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math.Free said:
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.what dreams said:Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
There is no such thing as an "accurate prediction about the future". Hypotheses are educated guesses, not "accurate" educated guesses.Post edited by Free on0 -
Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.0
-
Not really... not at all. We know the system is rigged. I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell at this point that he'll win. Even Bernie knows his chances are slim. But as has been said, crazier things have happened, and I'll be thrilled if it happens... but the odds are still against him. You act like no one here supports him and you need to defend him, which is very far from the truth. At any rate, why don't you just think of it as a hypothetical so that you can have a conversation about it?Free said:Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
Huh? The polls have been pretty accurate indicators this time around with a couple of exceptions (MI was the biggie), so it makes no sense to dismiss them out of hand. And there are accurate predictions about the future. Models exist for all sorts of future events from weather to climate to voting to product launches. They use historical data, polling, and other indicators to make predictions all the time. I'm not sure how you don't know this. This isn't specific to politics. It is used in myriad ways every day by businesses, governments, media, scientists, etc...Free said:
And we have seen where Math is not accurate. (polls for starters, because they mean nothing).rgambs said:
That's the beauty of that little thing you don't believe in: Math.Free said:
Listen, unless you have an incredible talent of psychic ability, you don't know for sure, no one does.what dreams said:Even if the super delegates vote for Sanders, he will not have enough. And yes, I listened to HIS ENTIRE NEWS CONFERENCE on C-Span this weekend. I listen. I read. I think. It's over. Sorry for him, his supporters. I hope he gives a great speech at the convention. His delegates will impact the platform. But he will not be the nominee.
It allows one who studies and applies it to make accurate predictions about the future.
I don't think a Sanders nomination is out of the question, but it's a mathematical improbability.
There is no such thing as an "accurate prediction about the future". Hypotheses are educated guesses, not "accurate" educated guesses."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Not getting into the math thing again, man. You may not like it, but math is not a sure thing.
As I said before, polls are used to manipulate behavior, swaying any "math" about it.
0 -
I don't trust a poll for anything - I've seen them fail too miserably before. And I still think that Bernie has almost no chance of winning. I just don't believe that the shitty democratic primaries will allow for it. They are corrupted in Hillary's favour IMO.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
-
He's not preventing, he's prolonging. Sanders has to win every --every-- race between now and June for the super delegates to even come into play. While he may win some, it will not be all, and it likely won't be enough for the super delegates to matter.Free said:Why have NONE of you acknowledged that with Sanders winning nearly half of all delegates in most states, he is PREVENTING Clinton from winning the candidacy? That's what is accurate.
I do understand your hope. I'm just not there, and I'm okay with supporting Clinton. She will nominate rational judges, she will protect health care, she will promote economic opportunity around the world, she will deal strong blows to America's enemies as necessary, she will do what is practical to make college affordable for those who need help. . . . Only with a friendly Congress who actually make the laws. Quite honestly, I don't see why everyone gets all lathered up about the president who has zero legislative power other than a veto. Neither Sanders nor Clinton can do shit without Congress writing and passing bills, but there are no Congress threads. If people got as worked up about Congressional candidates, we'd be so much better off as a nation.0 -
How about answering Brian's question?
What is it about Hillary Clinton that appeals to you and why do you support her bid for the presidency?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help