General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 291

Well, I boiled down the phrase "false equivalency" to variations of "basically the same" or "marginally different" or "similar" or "no different" when the post in question is making a false equivalency, cause it flows better.

 

Lol or maybe the Democratic party could have fielded a candidate who didn't say and endorse racist shit in person and in policy. That would, admittedly, require them not to be so problematic themselves, but I feel this is a low bar.

 

Although not covered, the message was by and large "the platform."

 

Imagine being the type of person who thinks the only way to know a presidential candidate's platform is by visiting their campaign website lol

 

Where Have All the Black-Owned Businesses Gone?

 

Every time one of those CNN dolts makes a crack I think of this ...

 

Right, you're endorsing a policy of let the guy who is even worse than 1993 Hillary on those policies and attudes win because I'm withholding my vote for 2016 Hillary based on 1993 Hillary.

You don't see the profound issues with that? You can't look back at American history and see how that attitude could have impacted policy advances in the past? Look no further than the 1960s and the LBJ Dems. There were a bunch of pasty ass old white people leading the Dems at the time, you don't think they weren't horribly racist in the 1920-1950s? Of course they probably were! We're talking about white peoplenin the 20s-50s. Times were changing by the 1960s and they had to change with them, and the result was, hey hey, some important policy wins on issues of race. Now this was back when both parties really were quite similar, pragmatism was popular, the electorate wasn't as polarized, etc, and I STILL wouldn't have trusted the more racist elements of the Dem and Repub parties at the time to succumb to public pressure and pass those measures regardless.

Now we're in 2017 and the Republican Party is so far gone the far right rabbit hole that the mere suggestion that moderate Dems are only "marginally different" is ridiculous beyond belief. So yes, when the supposed moderate Dem runs on a platform and proposing policies further to the left than we've seen in our lifetimes, and she's running against the current far right Republican Party, it probably helps to put yourself in the shoes of a voter in the 1960s and wonder if it would have been a smart idea to rail against Dem party because they held racist policy beliefs 20 years prior. Back then it could at least be understandable because of how much more pragmatic and not limited to one party or another people were, but in today's climate? With how insane the GOP is? Running Donald Trump the racist who grabs women by the pussy at will?! Yes, it may be smart at that point to realize you're not voting for 1993 Hillary Clinton.

 

You know what's dope? When you have a conversation, and there's someone in the back of the room yelling "yeah!" or "you're right!" or "that other person is wrong!," but the person yelling from the back never actually has a conversation with the people they disagree with. I love that

 

Also, Bill Clinton is a rapist, and this remains true no matter how much the GOP has taken advantage of his victim

 

No, but you both basically act as though the recent past is irrelevant and doesn't color the current political realities and should have no bearing on one's decision-making. Like I said, it's weird. This is the one spot where even the limited systemic analysis of liberalism has no purchase.

 

People underestimate how little that was cared about back then, it's insane. Like obviously and it was covered as was a huge scandal and all that, but had that happened today he would have been done. Back then it was a scandal but like...look at Bill O Reilly. We've know for, what, 15 years that he had called a female coworker and masturbated while on her answer machine? I brought that up when someone tried to go with the "well why do people only care now?!" And I was just like society changes, and sexual harassment isn't just something that women are expected to deal with anymore, they're encouraged to speak up and the men who do it are no longer automatically forgiven.

It's a different time, and obviously different for the much, much better. Bill would have been toast if he did that while president now. Social media would have killed him.

 

I guess in this one specific regard he and Trump are exactly the same

 

Get involved with groups that are oriented towards undermining systems of oppression, read, talk to people, and listen.

 

But the person married to him, who defends him from that, who continues to seek political office.....not toast

 

No, I'm endorsing the policy of don't elect people who supported racist policies using racist language and takes twenty years to apologize after those policies have had devastating effects. I try to hold presidential candidates to higher standards than I do pop punk bands when it comes to not being shitty.

Anyway, I assume this is just another "issue" we disagree on how actively a candidate should handle, as is the destruction of Palestinians, ignorance of MENA minorities, refusal to actively combat the roots of massive inequality, and so on. Yes, Trump is a horrible president who will enact legendarily inhumane policies. Perhaps the Democratic candidate shouldn't have traded union votes in rural counties for Republican ones (didn't work) or the party shouldn't weaken on the few issues they actually act on (it'll get worse).

 

In 40 years history will be very unkind to those three months.

 

yeaubim not going to disqualify her from office because she didn't disown her husband and flay him living like she probably should have. I def think there's something to the 'they only stayed married because of their careers' thing, but the right would have dragged her trough the mud back then just for being a divorced woman. Hell, that still would have come up in 2016 as some sort of mark against her. Trump 'went there' a few times anyway, even though she stayed married, so I guess it ended up not mattering.

 

Clinton asked about rape accusations against husband

 

I guess I phrased my question wrong. I didn't mean how can one, I meant how can one do the things you and lightning have suggested and evolve their platform/beliefs without continuously being equated to the person one was 5, 10, 20+ years ago? Will the far left ever accept anyone (politician, chorus.fm member, public figure, etc) who has skeletons in their past if they've acknowledged their problems and evolved beyond them?

 

You're not going to disqualify a person who actively and publicly defends a rapist from running for office? Can I ask why not? These people are disqualified from posting on this site, even