Support NeoGAF

[Ryaaan14]

Its this kind of "I'm not getting my way/people criticizing my decision so I'm rage quitting!" mentality that makes no one take young voters seriously.

Grow up, people.

There's a lot of things that makes people not take young voters seriously.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Check my post again, and try to locate where I said "I will not vote at all" in the post. Oh. I appreciate your concern though.

Sorry about that.

 

[Nickle]

Don't judge Hilary supporters based on what you read on Gaf, the average Hilary supporter just wants Hilary to be president and won't antagonize people who don't.

 

[poppabk]

This is such a great post. Politics is a game of inches and compromise, you'll rarely ever get everything you want and progress will be slow. It's not fair, but that's how the world works.

If your candidate didn't win you have the right to be disappointed, but if you don't vote for the next best thing you're hurting the cause you're fighting for.

Progress is slow, depressingly, but it's always constant. If you fight for a mile but fail, you should take an inch instead. The sort of widespread changes across the board Sanders is proposing are never gonna happen all at once.

The ACA is just a first step towards Universal Health Care, but you have to break these things up into bite sized pieces the opposition can swallow one at a time.

You call this progress?

 

[GuessMyUserName]

I will not vote for her, and I don't have to feel bad about it because I live in California and it is going to go blue anyway.

Ta-da.

I can't say I understand these posts. You're only saying you'd support her if you thought your vote actually mattered so it's not really much of a statement.

 

[Dragmire]

I would possibly vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of office, but DNC is corrupt and becoming similar to GOP. They don't deserve voters' support. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should learn what unemployment is like.

Hillary Clinton is farther to the right than Trump on several big issues and profits from war, fracking, healthcare, and more. She has done some worse things than Trump, such as Libya (this is obviously only because he hasn't held office yet). Her biggest accomplishment as a "public servant" is wealth and power. One of the biggest crises is climate change, and she is firmly in bed with the oil industry. She runs very dirty campaigns and has control over the media. She wants to limit our choice and is an enemy of democracy. Voters should be doing everything they can to keep Hillary out of the office.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

There's a lot of things that makes people not take young voters seriously.

But their thin-skinned fickleness is definitely at the top of the list.

 

[rjinaz]

Not 100% accurate, as a sanders supporter I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for hillary, even convinced my republican mother to do the same - after reading this thread, I was informed I was a misogynist, held white privilege for being apprehensive about hillary. At this point I'm saying fuck it, the clintonites are just as insufferable as trump supporters, and I will just stay home and sleep through election night.

Some real assholes in this thread - a prime example on how not to convince others to see your point of view. I more than quadrupled my ignore list

As a Sander's supporter, I kind of agree. I've always found particular Hillary posters on GAF particularly hostile towards any Bernie supporter.

Now that being said, not voting for any candidate based on a very tiny representation of a voting base is downright silly. There are wonderful Hillary supporters out there just as there are shitty Sanders supporters out there or supporters of any candidate.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I can't say I understand these posts. You're only saying you'd support her if you thought your vote actually mattered so it's not really much of a statement.

Out of the 50 states in the Union, how many actually aren't safely Blue or Red every year? 7? 8?

I've only ever lived in Blue states, I could vote for Trump in November and not a single thing would change from if I voted for Hillary, Jill Stein, or Vermin Supreme.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Protectionism isn't a left/right divide.
Trump is an inconsistent warmonger who has called for the US to commit war crimes. For the most part, he's just entirely ignorant on foreign policy and international relations.
Actually the latter comment really applies to most policy.
And his healthcare plan is Republican orthodoxy; repeal current reforms reducing access, healthcare accounts, etc.

I'm not sure where these bizarre ideas about Trump are coming from.

Meanwhile, if the Clintons really controlled the media, they wouldn't have been trying to find the silver bullet that brings them down for decades.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

No, I would not vote for her either way, but since I live in California, I have the added benefit of not feeling bad about it.

And I am leaving it at that.

... This makes less than the 0 sense of the original post then. You only add more confusion by saying your choice makes you feel bad.

huh

Out of the 50 states in the Union, how many actually aren't safely Blue or Red every year? 7? 8?

I've only ever lived in Blue states, I could vote for Trump in November and not a single thing would change from if I voted for Hillary, Jill Stein, or Vermin Supreme.

... Right, the argument of "voting doesn't matter". Not fond of it at all.

If you're saying you'd vote Hill if you thought your vote mattered... you're already saying you have an opinion of Hillary > Trump so I don't understand withholding it intentionally

 

[Mael]

Out of the 50 states in the Union, how many actually aren't safely Blue or Red every year? 7? 8?

I've only ever lived in Blue states, I could vote for Trump in November and not a single thing would change from if I voted for Hillary, Jill Stein, or Vermin Supreme.

This is making light of precedent elections,
California wasn't a solid blue and Texas wasn't solid red forever.
If it means much to you you can try to change people's mind, little by little that's how a difference is made.
Sure it ain't sexy but it actually works.

 

[Dragmire]

Meanwhile, if the Clintons really controlled the media, they wouldn't have been trying to find the silver bullet that brings them down for decades.

Believe none of what you see, and half of what you hear.

No, the media isn't under totalitarian control... They will report a breaking story that they don't want their competitors to break first. But there are clear cases that CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and more work closely with Washington. Time Warner Cable is one of Hillary's biggest donors. Even Rupert Murdoch is tied to Hillary.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

If you're saying you'd vote Hill if you thought your vote mattered... you're already saying you have an opinion of Hillary > Trump so I don't understand withholding it intentionally

Heh, this description put the "I am Spartacus" scene to mind, except now this voter is some dude in the back who was like "I mean, I'm Spartacus too, but there's already a whole bunch of other dudes who are Spartacus so it doesn't really matter I guess I'll just stay seated, maybe poke at a rock or something with this stick I found I dunno, feels bad man"

 

[Molemitts]

Here's my point of view from someone in the UK and is also very left wing. Given the option I would absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders. I don't think his politics is perfect, but he can help to create progress to the kind of systems that will make things better. I'd never vote for any Republican.

But Hilary is almost certainly gonna win the Democrat nomination at this point. I'd only vote for her if I lived in a swing state. My reason behind this is that I wouldn't want my vote to contribute to some kind of "legitimization" of her presidency if I can help it, sorry if I'm not explaining this well. I don't approve of her but I would rather not have Republicans (and probably Trump) in power. I'd only vote, then, if it was a state where that vote mattered a lot.

Also, if I'm misunderstanding something about how American politics work then, uh, sorry I guess.

 

[Mael]

Believe none of what you see, and half of what you hear.

No, the media isn't under totalitarian control... They will report a breaking story that they don't want their competitors to break first. But there are clear cases that CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and more work closely with Washington. Time Warner Cable is one of Hillary's biggest donors. Even Rupert Murdoch is tied to Hillary.

Rupert Murdoch the owner of Fox News is sure as hell making sure his media channel is easy on Hillary.
This makes even less sense than most 911 conspiracy.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

This "I'm a progressive but Hillary is evil" shit is stale.

 

[Tesseract]

God gave us punished trump,

Revelations speaks of great trumpets sounding off through atmospheres before the end of timers

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Still curious as to what policies Hillary is to the right of compared to Trump

 

[rjinaz]

You know, any other election year, I could almost understand the "don't want to vote for the lesser evil" argument. But not this year. Not with who is going to be the front runner for the Republicans. People need to do everything possible to keep that nut job away from the presidency.

 

[Dragmire]

Rupert Murdoch the owner of Fox News is sure as hell making sure his media channel is easy on Hillary.
This makes even less sense than most 911 conspiracy.

She went on the Fox Democratic Town Hall because Bernie did. She initially declined, but somehow an agreement was made. They could have brought up any of the real dirt about her that I posted above but they didn't say a thing. Just the stupid email stuff, which she has plenty of canned answers for anyway.

Also, I sure didn't say Fox News was nice to Hillary, did I? But she has connections with them.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

This is such a great post. Politics is a game of inches and compromise, you'll rarely ever get everything you want and progress will be slow. It's not fair, but that's how the world works.

If your candidate didn't win you have the right to be disappointed, but if you don't vote for the next best thing you're hurting the cause you're fighting for.

Progress is slow, depressingly, but it's always constant. If you fight for a mile but fail, you should take an inch instead. The sort of widespread changes across the board Sanders is proposing are never gonna happen all at once.

The ACA is just a first step towards Universal Health Care, but you have to break these things up into bite sized pieces the opposition can swallow one at a time.

They're never going to happen at all because the Democrats, in their current state, will not nominate and fight for a candidate who is advocating for them to happen. One of the few attractive components of the insurance handout that was the PPACA was the idea of a public option and that was the first thing on the chopping block. "Progress is slow" is the line liberals have been fed for generations but it's only true because we nominate centrists who, by your analogy, take two inches in the right direction and give three to the Republicans. Liberals have been fed this same line of horseshit for decades and have largely stayed with the Democratic party despite being wholly taken for granted. At least the wider Democratic party pantomimes concern for LGBT and black issues even if their outspoken support is conspicuously in line with the shifting public mood of the nation. Democratic socialist ideals aren't even afforded that much, instead being characterized by the frontrunner you're telling me to vote for as a fantasy perpetuated by college-aged children despite being the status quo throughout the entirety of fucking Western civilization that isn't the United States.

Maybe a wildfire is needed to clear the centrist undergrowth that is stifling the Democratic forest.

 

[RustyNails]

She went on the Fox Democratic Town Hall because Bernie did. She initially declined, but somehow an agreement was made. They could have brought up any of the real dirt about her that I posted above but they didn't say a thing. Just the stupid email stuff.

Or...maybe she just decided she wont let Bernie have the entire floor? And they didn't want to target their guest with a hitjob? I mean, they could have brought up Bernie's honeymoon in USSR and his singing sonnets about Castro too. Didn't know Clinton Derangement Syndrome infected liberals as well.

 

[Dragmire]

Or...maybe she just decided she wont let Bernie have the entire floor? And they didn't want to target their guest with a hitjob? I mean, they could have brought up Bernie's honeymoon in USSR and his singing sonnets about Castro too. Didn't know Clinton Derangement Syndrome infected liberals as well.

This makes no sense. So they run hit jobs about Hillary every chance they get, but then when she comes on the Fox Town Hall, they decline to do so? Why?

 

[shinra-bansho]

The New York Times was so eager for a Clinton scalp that they had to embarrassingly walk back the headline, lede and body text of their article on the her emails last year. Jorge Ramos clearly wasn't beholden to his Univision paymaster Haim Saban when he questioned Clinton about her impending indictment. The WaPo's Milbank and Cillizza made up label for an HRC beer was "Mad Bitch Beer" which got his web series cancelled. This is just nonsense.

Still curious as to what policies Hillary is to the right of compared to Trump

He's an environmentalist.

Would you cut departments?

Trump: Environmental Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come out with new regulations.

 

[Mael]

This makes no sense. So they run hit jobs about Hillary every chance they get, but then when she comes on the Fox Town Hall, they decline to do so? Why?

Because this kind of negative stuffs push people away during a debate?
All the media have years of shit to sink Trump's chance and they didn't run with it that doesn't mean they're secretly having meetings to make sure Trump is elected.
After all the shit the R debates went through to only throw softballs at the candidates you're surprised they didn't crucify Clinton?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Not 100% accurate, as a sanders supporter I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for hillary, even convinced my republican mother to do the same - after reading this thread, I was informed I was a misogynist, held white privilege for being apprehensive about hillary. At this point I'm saying fuck it, the clintonites are just as insufferable as trump supporters, and I will just stay home and sleep through election night.

Some real assholes in this thread - a prime example on how not to convince others to see your point of view. I more than quadrupled my ignore list

Do you not realize how hilariously petty and childish you sound?

This is the perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Boy, you sure showed those NeoGAF meanies!

 

[RustyNails]

This makes no sense. So they run hit jobs about Hillary every chance they get, but then when she comes on the Fox Town Hall, they decline to do so? Why?

Maybe they want her back for later appearances? Same reason why CNN doesn't call out anyone during interview/debates? There's like a ton of reasons without us having to go into conspiracy nonsense. Obama goes to Fox News and interviews with Chris Wallace, Bret Bair all the time when those 3 stooges during the morning show peddle birther and Obama martial law nonsense. He even went there when Glenn Beck was on Fox News spinning his yarn about George Soros' connection to Obama and Black panthers or whatever the fuck.

 

[Dragmire]

Because this kind of negative stuffs push people away during a debate?
All the media have years of shit to sink Trump's chance and they didn't run with it that doesn't mean they're secretly having meetings to make sure Trump is elected.
After all the shit the R debates went through to only throw softballs at the candidates you're surprised they didn't crucify Clinton?

We are talking about Fox News. The staunchly right-wing, fearmongering news network that crucifies Hillary as often as they can. They're worried about pushing viewers away by being tough on Clinton? I don't understand that argument.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Softball questions are the norm for debate questions. You get better results out of a carefully worded softball than a combative question.

 

[jaekeem]

We are talking about Fox News. The staunchly right-wing, fearmongering news network that crucifies Hillary as often as they can. They're worried about pushing viewers away by being tough on Clinton? I don't understand that argument.

because even fox has class at times

 

[Mael]

because even fox has class at times

No clearly it's because their master Murdock told them that they had to be nice.
That's also why they've thrown shit at the wall for the last 8 years on Clinton to be sure people knew about her so that they would elect her later.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

They're worried about pushing viewers away

I interpreted the "people" in that quote to mean the actual candidates, not the viewers. Debates with guaranteed majority hardball questions might make candidates less inclined to show up, and spend time/money managing their messaging via other means.

Also: on which policies/issues is Clinton standing to the right of Trump?

 

[Odrion]

Not 100% accurate, as a sanders supporter I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for hillary, even convinced my republican mother to do the same - after reading this thread, I was informed I was a misogynist, held white privilege for being apprehensive about hillary. At this point I'm saying fuck it, the clintonites are just as insufferable as trump supporters, and I will just stay home and sleep through election night.

Some real assholes in this thread - a prime example on how not to convince others to see your point of view. I more than quadrupled my ignore list

So why stoop lower than them? :\

 

[Piecake]

You call this progress?

Progress isn't limited only to economic inequality.

I think we have certainly improved access to health care and improved LBGT rights as well. Isnt that progress?

 

[Dragmire]

Maybe they want her back for later appearances? Same reason why CNN doesn't call out anyone during interview/debates? There's like a ton of reasons without us having to go into conspiracy nonsense. Obama goes to Fox News and interviews with Chris Wallace, Bret Bair all the time when those 3 stooges during the morning show peddle birther and Obama martial law nonsense. He even went there when Glenn Beck was on Fox News spinning his yarn about George Soros' connection to Obama and Black panthers or whatever the fuck.

We don't have enough information to know why Clinton agreed to go on Fox News, or why they were so much gentler on her than in their regular coverage. But we have plenty of reasons to know why other liberal media reports the way they do, which I've already posted.

I can't believe people think the government has no influence on the media and want to pass that off as 'conspiracy' theory, yet can't explain it with anything more than dismissing it. What about Twitter, whose executive chair, Omid Kordestani, threw a fundraiser for Clinton, and Twitter kept censoring hashtags that were against Hillary and for Bernie? After she swept Ohio, FL and the other states, Twitter hasn't been doing it as much or at all. Possibly because the "inevitability" machine is in full force. But I have seen it firsthand.

 

[Mael]

We don't have enough information to know why Clinton agreed to go on Fox News, or why they were so much gentler on her than in their regular coverage. But we have plenty of reasons to know why other liberal media reports the way they do, which I've already posted.

We already have the answers in this very page.
Because if they go that way it's counterproductive anyway and they don't give a shit about the Dem's side they didn't try to take down Sanders too during the debates.
Are you saying that it would have been to obvious and they actually know the meaning of subtlety or something?

I can't believe people think the government has no influence on the media and want to pass that off as 'conspiracy' theory, yet can't explain it with anything more than dismissing it. What about Twitter, whose executive chair, Omid Kordestani, threw a fundraiser for Clinton, and Twitter kept censoring hashtags that were against Hillary and for Bernie? After she swept Ohio, FL and the other states, Twitter hasn't been doing it as much or at all. Possibly because the "inevitability" machine is in full force. But I have seen it firsthand.

Yes Twitter was responsible for costing Ohio and Florida to Sanders...

 

[Dragmire]

I interpreted the "people" in that quote to mean the actual candidates, not the viewers. Debates with guaranteed majority hardball questions might make candidates less inclined to show up, and spend time/money managing their messaging via other means.

Also: on which policies/issues is Clinton standing to the right of Trump?

Trump claims to be anti-corporatist. He has said he is for universal health care or coverage. You never know with him but he will be able to bounce left and right on the Dem candidate. Whichever is expedient. The man doesn't have truly solid policies laid down yet, so he has a lot of wiggle room.

 

[Piecake]

We don't have enough information to know why Clinton agreed to go on Fox News, or why they were so much gentler on her than in their regular coverage. But we have plenty of reasons to know why other liberal media reports the way they do, which I've already posted.

I can't believe people think the government has no influence on the media and want to pass that off as 'conspiracy' theory, yet can't explain it with anything more than dismissing it. What about Twitter, whose executive chair, Omid Kordestani, threw a fundraiser for Clinton, and Twitter kept censoring hashtags that were against Hillary and for Bernie? After she swept Ohio, FL and the other states, Twitter hasn't been doing it as much or at all. Possibly because the "inevitability" machine is in full force. But I have seen it firsthand.

Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory or speculative hypothesis suggesting that two or more persons or an organization have conspired to cause or to cover up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation typically regarded as illegal or harmful.

Your explanation seems to perfectly fit the definition of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Bonfires Down]

Not 100% accurate, as a sanders supporter I was prepared to hold my nose and vote for hillary, even convinced my republican mother to do the same - after reading this thread, I was informed I was a misogynist, held white privilege for being apprehensive about hillary. At this point I'm saying fuck it, the clintonites are just as insufferable as trump supporters, and I will just stay home and sleep through election night.

Some real assholes in this thread - a prime example on how not to convince others to see your point of view. I more than quadrupled my ignore list

What, our strategy of ridiculing people who don't conform to our agenda didn't work? I'm so surprised.

You really should vote though, don't let those guys get you down.

 

[Dragmire]

We already have the answers in this very page.
Because if they go that way it's counterproductive anyway and they don't give a shit about the Dem's side they didn't try to take down Sanders too during the debates.
Are you saying that it would have been to obvious and they actually know the meaning of subtlety or something?

No one responded to my post about the liberal media, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Yes Twitter was responsible for costing Ohio and Florida to Sanders...

I didn't say that. I said they stopped being so defensive of Hillary. Are you just disagreeing with everything I am saying?

 

[MThanded]

Conspiracy theories.

Hilarious stuff.

 

[Dragmire]

Wikipedia:


Your explanation seems to perfectly fit the definition of a conspiracy theory.

I believe I said we don't have enough information to know what happened, and no one can provide definitive proof. So my theory has as much basis as the other theories in the thread. Mine is just less trusting of the media.

 

[MThanded]

I believe I said we don't have enough information to know what happened, and no one can provide definitive proof. So my theory has as much basis as the other theories in the thread. Mine is just less trusting of the media.

Some things are more likely than others. Logically. However, I know that a common line of thinking among conspiracy theorists is that all possible paths are equally as likely.

Possible and likely are 2 different things.

Trump claims to be anti-corporatist. He has said he is for universal health care or coverage. You never know with him but he will be able to bounce left and right on the Dem candidate. Whichever is expedient. The man doesn't have truly solid policies laid down yet, so he has a lot of wiggle room.

That's problematic. He recently was advocating for HSAs a deregulation of state based healthcare and you somehow believe he is going to flip a switch and support single payer.

Wiggle room == I'll say anything to get elected, trust me i got this

 

[Mael]

No one responded to my post about the liberal media, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

If Foxnews wasn't full Glenn Beck mode during DNC debates what makes you think the rest of the media would go Glenn Beck on her?
Your post is also full of very boring stories that would lower ratings so I can why they're not running with it.
You also don't have an explanation for the media running the horse race narrative when the race is basically over on the DNC side.

I didn't say that. I said they stopped being so defensive of Hillary. Are you just disagreeing with everything I am saying?

Considering Twitter is trying to do something against harassment it wouldn't surprise me if most anti Hillary tweets could have been caught in their nets if that actually happened of course.

That's problematic. He recently was advocating for HSAs a deregulation of state based healthcare and you somehow believe he is going to flip a switch and support single payer.

Wiggle room == I'll say anything to get elected, trust me i got this

Ah, no sorry on that one you're wrong.
Only Clinton is a filthy liar demagogue when she says stuffs to get elected, the others are all pure.

 

[Days like these...]

They're never going to happen at all because the Democrats, in their current state, will not nominate and fight for a candidate who is advocating for them to happen. One of the few attractive components of the insurance handout that was the PPACA was the idea of a public option and that was the first thing on the chopping block. "Progress is slow" is the line liberals have been fed for generations but it's only true because we nominate centrists who, by your analogy, take two inches in the right direction and give three to the Republicans. Liberals have been fed this same line of horseshit for decades and have largely stayed with the Democratic party despite being wholly taken for granted. At least the wider Democratic party pantomimes concern for LGBT and black issues even if their outspoken support is conspicuously in line with the shifting public mood of the nation. Democratic socialist ideals aren't even afforded that much, instead being characterized by the frontrunner you're telling me to vote for as a fantasy perpetuated by college-aged children despite being the status quo throughout the entirety of fucking Western civilization that isn't the United States.

Maybe a wildfire is needed to clear the centrist undergrowth that is stifling the Democratic forest.

I feel the same way. Still I live in solid red state so it doesn't matter if I don't vote for Clinton. I'm a minority so spare the speeches about privilege and not caring about minorities.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Trump claims to be anti-corporatist.

what

 

[Piecake]

I believe I said we don't have enough information to know what happened, and no one can provide definitive proof. So my theory has as much basis as the other theories in the thread. Mine is just less trusting of the media.

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Stating that we don't have definitive proof and then choosing a conclusion that is based on a number of wild and grandiose assumptions and claiming that that interpretation is just as likely as any other is a basic hallmark of any conspiracy theorist defense.

 

[Dragmire]

Some things are more likely than others. Logically. However, I know that a common line of thinking among conspiracy theorists is that all possible paths are equally as likely.

Possible and likely are 2 different things.

If this isn't splitting hairs, I'm not sure what is. Sounds more like justifying one's own argument to me. Again, no one has explained the stuff about CNN, Washington Post, New York Times.

 

[jaekeem]

I believe I said we don't have enough information to know what happened, and no one can provide definitive proof. So my theory has as much basis as the other theories in the thread. Mine is just less trusting of the media.

bro, you never heard of occam's razor? c'mon now Lol

anyways I don't doubt that the liberal/democratic media has an interest in propping up Clinton. I don't think it's insidious though. They lean left, and they want to support whomever they think is most likely to win in the general.

Now if there was actual evidence of abuse/laws broken, IE voting machiens tampered with this would be another story