Clinton's Cold Creepiness... - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14855103
anna wrote:Yes we do. She's already stated that she's done with being a candidate, although she plans to stay active in politics.

Oh that's pretty conclusive because Hillary never lies and never changes her positions. I mean some politicians changed their position on Gay marriage to follow public opinion, but not Hillary, she's stated quite adamant her position on Gay marriage never "evolved".
#14855112
Rich wrote:Oh that's pretty conclusive because Hillary never lies and never changes her positions. I mean some politicians changed their position on Gay marriage to follow public opinion, but not Hillary, she's stated quite adamant her position on Gay marriage never "evolved".


You mean like the orange weeble's evolution on abortion? (Trump was for it before he was against it.)

I have no problem with an evolution in ideas by anyone, particularly if it takes place over years, a hopeful indication of growth from time and experience. I do have a problem with people who waffle specifically for political gain, no matter who it is who does the waffling.
#14855629
I tend to agree with the socialists in this thread that Hillary is a monster of liberalism (just like Trump).

But, really, calling her out a year after she failed to assume an elected office is putting too much emphasis on personalities instead of the system that these personalities represent. Trump is a puppet of billionaires pulling his strings, so is Clinton, McCain, Pelosi, etc, etc

By turning this into some kind of competition about who seems mean on TV we risk justifying the rotten system as a natural and neutral state in which there are only bad actors.

A sitting president is different; people should know that Obama ramped up drone warfare and bailed out corporate execs instead of the workers he said he was saving; and it must be underlined that Trump, despite his rhetoric, is as bad or worse than any other choice.

But after a while, a defeated politician can be safely thrown into the garbage heap he or she comes from.
#14855823
The Immortal Goon wrote:I tend to agree with the socialists in this thread that Hillary is a monster of liberalism (just like Trump).

But, really, calling her out a year after she failed to assume an elected office is putting too much emphasis on personalities instead of the system that these personalities represent.


I'd agree if so many people weren't taken in by these personalities. Most of the people that voted for Clinton still have no idea what Clinton actually represents. They have to be shown how these personalities campaign as progressives and govern as neoliberals, they have to be shown what these characters are really about and how to recognize them. The system functions through these personalities, if the personalities lose support the system will begin to break down.
#14855845
Sivad wrote:I'd agree if so many people weren't taken in by these personalities. Most of the people that voted for Clinton still have no idea what Clinton actually represents. They have to be shown how these personalities campaign as progressives and govern as neoliberals, they have to be shown what these characters are really about and how to recognize them. The system functions through these personalities, if the personalities lose support the system will begin to break down.


I suppose the question here is how we interact with an administration that uses the rhetoric of a revolutionary while doing exactly the opposite. Trump has been careful to paint himself as some kind of revolutionary outsider, and the capitalist press has jumped to help him do the same.

The refrain that he and his followers keep harping on was that Hillary was the system, and he is beating the system.

This is, of course, half right in that she was the system. What is incorrect—obviously—is the idea that he is somehow beating the system because this is some kind of radical binary instead of the dictatorship of a class.

So is it best to engage in this kind of rhetoric at the expense of justifying Trump and Bannon's rhetoric, or is it best to focus on the representative in power?

This is not a rhetoric question, I honestly don't know and think that this is something that has been tricky before. I've before said that Trump isn't a fascist as is often charged, and he's not a Bonapartist—but the latter is a much easier case to make.

Like the first Napoleon, he all but declares, "I am the revolution." Like the history turned farce of Napoleon III, he announces that he is "All things to all men." And his own farce proclaims, "I alone can fix it!"

We, on the left, tend to do pretty poorly when the right takes our rhetoric. Whether it be the Nazis marching around dropping the word, "socialist," and waving red flags, or one of the Bonapartes marching around explaining how they are freeing everyone by taking away their rights.

I'm not totally convinced that beating a fallen political rival that will never rise again is necessarily the best target. The living Democrat snakes still in power in their holes; the living Republican monsters in control of the dictatorship both seem like more effective targets to me.

But I can be talked out of that rather easily. I'm not exactly here to defend the Clintons in any way, shape, or form any more than I'd defend Obama or Romney. But we seem to have let the latter two off the hook easier and there was no real push to use them as a face of personalities in the way that their political rivals wanted us to after the dust cleared. Not like the two-minute hate the Trumpites want to keep encouraging.
#14855854
I think the problem with this kind of rhetoric is that these politicians and these people who support them aren't evil. The one thing I have always believed is that the majority of people really do believe they are doing the best they can. Hillary isn't evil anymore than a local state house politician is evil. They may believe the wrong things and be slaves to the realities of the systems they operate in but most people really aren't out there thinking they are fucking over the working class or what have you.

When people go to the "they are snakes", "they are evil", "they are corrupt" type rhetoric you alienate people who don't already agree with you. Which would be most people. And I would think growing socialist movements would be a higher priority than preaching to the choir some feel good tunes.

My main point is that you may think that people are wrong, that they make bad policies, that they've rationalized everything, but they aren't evil. And calling them evil instead of misguided or something serves to make sure no one wants to switch sides.

Nobody has ever been convinced to join a political movement because somebody on a street corner accused them of pernicious acts.
#14855879
The Immortal Goon wrote:I suppose the question here is how we interact with an administration that uses the rhetoric of a revolutionary while doing exactly the opposite. Trump has been careful to paint himself as some kind of revolutionary outsider, and the capitalist press has jumped to help him do the same.

The refrain that he and his followers keep harping on was that Hillary was the system, and he is beating the system.

This is, of course, half right in that she was the system. What is incorrect—obviously—is the idea that he is somehow beating the system because this is some kind of radical binary instead of the dictatorship of a class.

So is it best to engage in this kind of rhetoric at the expense of justifying Trump and Bannon's rhetoric, or is it best to focus on the representative in power?


Some of Trump and Bannon's rhetoric is justified, the best approach is to acknowledge that there is some validity in it and then to call them out on their hypocrisy. Trump is an outsider in terms of the political establishment, that much is clear, but he's also a ruling class elitist. He's following Obama's playbook, run as a populist and then govern in the interest of crony and class, and that's where he's vulnerable. Trump fucked over his wingnut base just as fast and hard as Obama fucked the progressives. It's almost pointless to even talk about reforming the system until the working class has enough political savvy to at least stop backing billionaires and establishment technocrats and to start supporting genuine reformers from their own ranks.

I'm not totally convinced that beating a fallen political rival that will never rise again is necessarily the best target. The living Democrat snakes still in power in their holes; the living Republican monsters in control of the dictatorship both seem like more effective targets to me.


I get that, but if you do it as an object lesson in fraud, deceit, and betrayal then I think it can be useful. Right now the dems are hyping Kamala Harris who is just a carbon copy clone of Clinton and Obama but there's a lot of progressives out there thinking maybe she's different, maybe she's the real deal. You have to remind people how many times they've already been burned by that kind of cockeyed optimism so maybe they'll be more discriminating this time around.

But I can be talked out of that rather easily. I'm not exactly here to defend the Clintons in any way, shape, or form any more than I'd defend Obama or Romney. But we seem to have let the latter two off the hook easier and there was no real push to use them as a face of personalities in the way that their political rivals wanted us to after the dust cleared. Not like the two-minute hate the Trumpites want to keep encouraging.

I think that focusing on Trump exclusively lets liberals off the hook. Trump was the best thing that could have happened for liberals at this point in time. It took all the heat off of them for the last eight years of Obomber and scared the shit out of a lot of the progressive left who will now be a lot more susceptible to the lesser evil nonsense. I wish Clinton would have won, she would have split the party in one term by demonstrating to progressives everywhere exactly how corrupt and degenerate establishment liberalism truly is.
#14855935
It’s not that I disagree with you so much as I think Harris should be the target. What’s the established time before we stop talking about Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

At some point we’re punching ghosts that don’t have anything left to punch.

Obviously I think it would be dumb to only criticize Trump, but at some point the people that are in charge need to be taking the heat. I don’t remember punching Romney or McCain a year after the election.

But, you know, Fuck Hillary Clinton. I can be sold on that.
#14855939
I didn't realize you were so desperate to fuck Hillary Clinton tig. :excited:

In all honesty, I pretty much agree with you, for all I like Hillary for my own reasons your points are pretty good.

I feel like some people see such an unpopular figure as easy political rhetoric but really you aren't "speaking truth to power" by attacking rondo people who (while yes worth a good amount of money) don't really have any power anymore.
#14855945
anna wrote:No projectile vomiting with that one, but it'll have to do I guess. ;)



I know, right? They have multiple variations on the theme with their clown-in-chief leading the parade, of course (and thanks for adding Obama). Their whole reason for being is based on negating a non-issue. I think I know why, though, it's just to divert attention from his daily colossal screw-ups. "Quick!! I screwed up again, throw another Clinton meme to the masses!"


I agree about Trump disagree about Hilary and Obama. The Muslim Kenyan and Killary are the ones who keep themselves in the media, they are like a itch that never goes away.
5 examples, there's plenty more around





#14856156
Politiks wrote:I agree about Trump disagree about Hilary and Obama. The Muslim Kenyan and Killary are the ones who keep themselves in the media, they are like a itch that never goes away.
5 examples, there's plenty more around


Did anyone force you to watch any of those?

I didn't feel compelled to watch any of them.
#14856162
The Immortal Goon wrote:It’s not that I disagree with you so much as I think Harris should be the target. What’s the established time before we stop talking about Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

At some point we’re punching ghosts that don’t have anything left to punch..


I would say most Presidents post Hoover are still being "punched"....

Herbert Hoover is probably the most recent President that is no longer ripped into, despite the crash of '29 and the depression.

Eisenhower and Reagan seem to be ok(both almost universally loved, though both arguably are still dug up and criticized by the side of politics that hated them).

JFK remains visible mainly because of the violent way he died rather than the Bay of Pigs or anything else. If it wasn't for Oswald, his star might have faded by now.

FDR - Stayed too long. Loved, but stayed too long. Died with his boots on.

Everyone else is nowhere near yet old enough as President to warrant not being discussed.

Ford didn't last long I guess, so maybe he's been forgotten a little.
#14856178
anna wrote:Did anyone force you to watch any of those?

I didn't feel compelled to watch any of them.


Of course, the pro Hillary and anti-Trump people wouldn't want to watch the videos, it would validate their rival’s observations of hypocrisy. Therefore, its more accurate to wonder why there is so much denial of Hillary verses peoples obsession her.
#14856182
Finfinder wrote:Of course, the pro Hillary and anti-Trump people wouldn't want to watch the videos, it would validate their rival’s observations of hypocrisy. Therefore, its more accurate to wonder why there is so much denial of Hillary verses peoples obsession her.


Right, because ABC, CNN and the Tonight Show are all about validating Trump's observations... :lol:

Sites like Breitbart, Drudge, Newsmax, etc. are all-Hillary, all the time. It's the alt-right's websites that can't let her go, and that's why the alt-righters see her at every turn. :lol:
#14856184
On Breitbart's front page right now:

    IT’S ON: FBI INFORMANT AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK WITH CONGRESS ON CLINTON AND URANIUM

    Clinton Campaign Still Paying Top Aides $300,000+

    NYT Reporter: Team Hillary ‘Lied… with Sanctimony, for a Year’ About Hiring Firm Behind ‘Pee Pee’ Dossier

    Former Clinton Spokesman Brian Fallon Calls Trump Dossier ‘Money Well Spent’

    Report: Hillary Clinton, DNC — and One Republican — Paid for ‘Pee Pee’ Dossier

    CNN Gives Four Minutes of Airtime to Clinton Uranium Deal Since Scandal Broke
#14856185
anna wrote:Right, because ABC, CNN and the Tonight Show are all about validating Trump's observations... :lol:

Sites like Breitbart, Drudge, Newsmax, etc. are all-Hillary, all the time. It's the alt-right's websites that can't let her go, and that's why the alt-righters see her at every turn. :lol:


That is because the mainstream media has allowed for that niche by not reporting real news stories. If you don't honestly think the uranium sale to Russia is legit news story, then we don't need to go further. Its real embarrassing when the left has been all in on a fake Trump Russian collusion narrative and there not one piece of evidence.
#14856189
Finfinder wrote:That is because the mainstream media has allowed for that niche by not reporting real news stories. If you don't honestly think the uranium sale to Russia is legit news story, then we don't need to go further. Its real embarrassing when the left has been all in on a fake Trump Russian collusion narrative and there not one piece of evidence.


You're moving the goalposts. You said "pro Hillary and anti-Trump people wouldn't want to watch the videos, it would validate their rival’s observations of hypocrisy" because apparently you didn't realize those weren't pro-Trump sites.

Now that you realize they aren't pro-Trump sites, you've moved on to saying, in effect, "well, we need niche sites yada yada yada..."

The fact remains that the same people who are complaining about Clinton being 'in their face' all the time are likely the same ones seeing their "niche" sites post article after article after article about her. This has been going on since the inception of Drudge and the blue dress and Watergate. Nothing new here at all.
#14856191
Speaking of real vs. fake news:

Here's our government, having to admit it faked a photo:

Image

    Rachel Maddow opened her Tuesday show with the news, which was reported by the BBC after observers noticed discrepancies in different version of the photo — which was actually taken at a U.S. military installation.

    “The State Department initially tried to get away with saying that this meeting between Rex Tillerson on the left and Ashraf Ghani on the right,” Maddow said, “took place in the capital city of Kabul. It did not. They did not meet in Kabul. They met, rather, inside the perimeter of a U.S. military base at Bagram.”

    “The problem is that the meeting was not in Kabul, but in a windowless room in Bagram, the heavily fortified American military base a 90-minute drive away,” said The New York Times. “The misinformation, apparently meant to obscure the true venue, was betrayed by discrepancies in similar photographs released by the Americans and the Afghans.”

    The State Department issued a correction on Tuesday, admitting it had faked the photo and lied about the meeting’s location and about Kabul being safe enough for the U.S. Secretary of State to openly visit.


    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/busted ... ghanistan/

Sad!
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@Potemkin They've spent the best part of two […]

Juan Dalmau needs to be the governor and the isla[…]

Whats "breaking" here ? Russians have s[…]

@Puffer Fish You dig a trench avoiding existin[…]