General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 104

You can campaign against Donald Trump and not FOR Hillary at the same time.

 

no, you can't. the election system we have in this country doesn't actually allow that. it is a shitty reality, but that doesn't mean its not reality

 

this. It's an unfortunate (though TBH I feel there are flaws to non 2 party systems for a single executive position) truth that, if you vote for a third-party, you care more about making a statement than keeping Trump out of the white house.


Also you have to keep in mind that Warren is (presumably) positioning herself for her future; ie. cabinet position (something she totally deserves and would make a huge impact with) and future Veep/POTUS position

 

I think the point was that Warren is essentially a superstar within the liberal community for reasons that are very similar to Bernie's rise to stardom. That she has endorsed Hillary, despite her record, on the basis of Donald Trump's candidacy seems like a betrayal or, at the very least, a political maneuver that puts her affiliation with the party first. This is disappointing, given that she seemed to be genuinely on the left and willing to flout party unity in favor of principles. That is the discourse. It may be beyond you, which is fine, but that is it and there is a way to engage it without repeating the same nonsense we've heard before. And yes, liberals are the worst. Because those things you mentioned, they fought against them.

 

Not if you're an elected senator of the democratic party. She very clearly thinks using the system to get the change she wants is the way to go, she's not going to advocate tearing down the whole system just because Clinton is to the right of her on everything.

 

Ever think that maybe she feels that Hillary actually can advance liberal policies?

 

Haha. This is ridiculous. It is basically saying, "Hey, anyone who has been materially affected by the Clinton legacy, your feelings are unimportant". Talk about fucking privilege.

 

Maybe she does. I'm just making the argument to Clucky. I don't care for Warren, personally. She supports Israel's genocide against Palestinians, so I don't see her as a liberal champion or anyone I'd actually support either.

 

Also, just because she "endorses" Hillary doesn't mean she's suddenly "Pro-Hillary" on everything...she will almost assuredly be the left wing thorn in a Clinton presidency's side, pushing proposed legislation to the left where she can. She hasn't been shy about attacking the Obama Admin from the left, there's no reason to think that she's suddenly going to become an establishment lapdog.

 

I mean, positioning herself for a cabinet position by supporting someone she wouldn't otherwise support is kinda a shitty power play move

But still, the point stands that given what's she's said so fat, Warren's endorsement certainly feels more like a combination indictment of Trump coupled with the reality of two party politics

You're still making an underlying assumption here that it's wrong for someone to support the lesser of two evils and then getting upset when I reject the rest of the argument because I disagree with that base assumption. It's not party unity vs principles, so much as which candidate betrays those principles more

 

Are you saying there is an actual rule about this or something?

 

No, the underlying assumption is, Person A believes this and I agree with that stance. Person B does not and has actively fought for the things Person A and I stand against. Person A now supports Person B. I am disappointed by this, because I genuinely believe Person B to be harmful and believed that Person A would refrain from supporting them.

 

I don't get the criticism behind this move. What's she supposed to do, risk her career by denouncing Hillary? She is at this moment one of the most prominent members of the Democratic party and is poised to make a jump in her career, denouncing Clinton hurts that.

 

What do you think the purpose of this thread should be? Is it just a place where people can vent about issues and not have anyone challenge them? Is it to be a place where people just go to have their own opinions validated by others? Is it okay to discussion but only if its theoretical between far left and further left viewpoints that will likely never come to fruition in the current political landscape? Or is it an actual discussion thread about politics where people can engage in discussion and have their views challenged?

Someone posted they though Warren endorsing Clinton meant her "talk falls short." I disagreed, so I made a reply as to why. And as long as this continues to be the "politics discussion thread" I'll continue to do so.

 

Is it difficult to understand? The current criticism of the Republican Party is that they support Trump, despite what he has said and done in the campaign. Why is this a criticism? Because some people imagine that he is so terrible and reactionary that the republicans should work to get rid of him and openly oppose him. Some liberals feel similarly about Clinton.

 

Yes. This is an issue with "career" politicians. They are only ever looking out for themselves.

 

I singled your comment out because it was particularly facile. Someone expressed an opinion about Warren, which, within it, contained the answer to your criticism. You may not like it or agree with it, but the fact remains that it addressed the reasoning if you had engaged in critical thinking. Instead your response was utterly useless, somewhat sarcastic and did not further the discussion in the slightest.

 

So if I had said "Nice to see Warren putting her own feelings on Clinton aside in order to ensure Trump doesn't become president" would you have called out anyone who replied to disagree?

 

This is pure rhetoric. She isn't changing her stances or views. She isn't doing anything aside from making a comment as one of the highest ranking officials in the party and one of the most respected politicians in the country. Warren can do more for this country if she has Clinton on her side than if Clinton is working against her.

 

Or, she can contribute to the election of a warmonger and be held accountable for that when the time comes.

 

Well this is just downright absurd. Either you're implying that the endorsement of a criminal but not their actions makes one a criminal or you're suggesting removing one of the most dedicated public servants because she made a career move that you neither like nor understand.

 

Or she can see that she can make a huge impact on her forte: the economy.

 

I'm saying she gets support from the Democratic Party and saying "I back Hillary against Donald Trump" is literally the least she can do to return the favor. It is entirely possible she 1. Thinks it's more important to stop Trump right now because she think's he's the most dangerous thing to her personal policy goals, 2. Is excited about the prospect of having a woman president and having at least some policy agreement with that woman, and 3. Is not truly happy with Clinton being the nominee and will go back to being the same PITA for a Clinton Admin that she is for the Obama Admin.

If she wants some of her pet projects to continue (like CFPB) with possibly getting a few new ones put into action, she knows the possibility of that ends when there's a Republican in the White House. That doesn't mean she's suddenly BFF's with Hillary and agrees with Hillary's policies.

 

I'm not suggesting she be removed. I'm simply saying that she should have stuck to her principles and not endorsed a candidate that she strongly disagrees with.

 

Supporting a candidate that will in all likelihood expand the size and scope of the military won't be good for the economy.