Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
'On many issues, particularly trade and foreign policy, Clinton is to the right of Trump, with an inclination toward militaristic belligerence that more closely resembles a neoconservative war hawk than the progressive she claims to be.
For evidence, look no further than the neoconservatives themselves, who are so petrified of Trump’s noninterventionist approach to foreign policy, they are ready to line up behind Clinton.
This isn’t the first time Clinton has won the adoration of the war hawks.
Back in 2008, neoconservatives breathed a sigh of relief when President Barack Obama nominated Clinton as his secretary of state.
Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board under President George W. Bush and a leading architect of the Iraq war, said of Clinton’s appointment, “I’m quite pleased … There’s not going to be as much change as we were led to believe.”
The neoconservative Weekly Standard also celebrated Clinton’s nomination, applauding her evolution from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”
Clinton went on to exceed neoconservative expectations.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said he was impressed with Clinton’s work at the State Department, which amounts to a neoconservative seal of approval.
Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe in 2014, Dan Senor, a leading neoconservative operative and former foreign policy advisor to 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, declared, “Hillary is more hawkish than any of us!”
“Hillary is the neocon’s neocon,” added host Joe Scarborough. “It’s going to be fascinating if she decides to run and gets the nomination. She will be more of a saber-rattler, more of a neocon, than probably the Republican nominee. I mean, there’s hardly been a military engagement that Hillary hasn’t been for in the past twenty years.”'
What's the source??
a war hawk is it
Hilary worships Israel
And hs said she'd be willing to "obliterate" Iran if it came to that.
Obviously Trump is a loon but Clinton is a proven instigator of massacres and undemocratic intervention in foreign countries.
Because my understanding is that Clinton was condemned for not intervening in the military coup there but you want her to be non-interventionist?
which is quite a big thing accusation to make against someone.
'In recent months, Clinton has reinvented herself as an anti-racist social justice warrior, using the language of intersectionality and privilege discourse to deride Sanders’ economic populism, distract from her well-publicized ties to Wall Street and distinguish herself from Trump’s hateful rhetoric.
But behind her social justice veneer are principles more in line with Republicans than the Democratic base.
While Trump has called Mexicans “rapists” and mocked people with disabilities, Clinton notoriously called Black children “super-predators” and referred to welfare recipients as “deadbeats.”'
even on DiS!
purely because of responses like yours.
Couldve cut the word count down by a quarter by using it a little less though
It's now accepted that she's overseen and approved of state-sanctioned violence and foreign bloodbaths resulting directly from her terrible work in the Obama admin. I know he's a stupid and scary Republican but how does that automatically make him worse than her, considering she has had a measurably horrific impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world and he...um...hasn't?
Iean I would never vote for him but he at least advocates staying the fuck out of places where America isn't wanted.
pretty much all US politicians are terrible and have been since the Cold War began. So Hillary is partially awful but in a way we're used to anyway. Trump is just completely awful and a total idiot to boot.
with Ross Kemp
Well, I'm sure this will be a even-handed look at American politics.
the crimes of a member of the neoliberal establishment, I agree.
We can be bias as all fuck when discussing Republican sleazebags, tho.
"Oh, they're all the same aren't they" is the rallying cry of idiot conspiracy theorists.
Any progressive, left-winger will take issues with some of Clinton's career, as they could with any politician (even Bernie!). The sad fact is that conservatism is deeply ingrained in American politics, and money talks, so radical change will never be achieved by electoral means. Even if some ideal candidate came along promising a socialist wave of reforms, they’d be hamstrung by the rest of the political establishment and the rigours of the constitution. So is Hillary perfect? Of course not. Does she have some black marks on her record? Sure. Is she as bad as Trump? Um, no. Shall we have a look at some of her policy goals?
- Eliminate tuition fees at in-state colleges for low-income families
- Comprehensive immigration reform
- Expand affordable healthcare
- Bring in Paycheck Fairness Act to combat the gender pay gap
- Tax raises for high-earners
- Increased federal minimum wage
- Close loopholes on gun sales at gun shows and similar
- Grow federal infrastructure spending
Trump's policies are... build a wall?
But yeah, they're the same really.
And tbf the article is arguing she's worse than Trump not I.
I just ventured that she was awful. Which she is.
Seems a fairly harmless conclusion to draw. Especially since many of those "black marks" you mention are, you know, peoples' lives.
I get that the old "sixth form politics" chestnut, conflating having a problem with a proven war hawk equalling a tacit endorsement of Trump, and falling back on the old sop of "we don't live in an ideal world and as a grown up I will educate you on why A is better than B" are the safest routes in these things but come on, you're better than this.
All you missed was the "Hmm, interesting".
we all agreed
Progressive anti-establishment/reformist politician > progressive establishment politician > centrist to centre-right estabilishment politician (CLINTON) > right wing establishment politician > right wing anti-estabilisment politician (TRUMP)
Position 1 is debatable, but I reckon that works as a general rule. Someone who both has regressive values and an unpredictable nature due to their disdain for the established system is almost inherently more 'dangerous'. Clinton might take backhanders and favour corporations and powerful friends etc. but she'll do it without shaking the status quo, in fact, relies on it reamining intact.
not in only in terms of her values but proven actions too, despite using a lot of language cribbed from feminist/social justice thought. DD or someone would be able to explain it better than I can.
I mean, what do you think of Clinton the status quo/establishment candidate? Considering the effects of the system as is on women/minorities/LGBT...
Can't remember where I read it but someone wrote that the choice between Clinton and Trump, at best, is, say, two million innocent dead vs ten million. But thus far she has more bodies on her record than Trump does, which makes it seem odd that he's been judged by what he might hypothetically do if he gets into power and the Senate (who detest him) okay it, but we're seemingly overlooking/dismissing what she has actually, provably done so far.
I get what you mean about appropriating progressive language in order to maintain/revert to the status quo, too.
Truthfully, she's awful, like you say. But you already know just how awful she is. With Trump, you take a huge gamble with the unknown, and with only his word to be taken for, I think it can be reasonably assumed that he'll be even worse.
If Clinton is the regressive establishment politician, she still probably edges out the scary facist anti-establishment one.
it's not exactly that interesting or complex a point to make but her feminism is not going to/does not really benefit poor women and women of colour. hardly worth even comparing her to donald trump or his credentials on this though.
bit of a moot point as he's never been in government or had any part in foreign policy. if he was just killing people in his spare time i reckon he might be in jail now, like
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton boasted at a New Hampshire town hall in November.
Asked at a debate last month to distinguish her wall from Trump’s, Clinton pointed to size.
“As I understand him, [Trump’s] talking about a very tall wall,” she said.
Come on, that's bullshit student politics. Trump is much, much worse than Clinton by any metric
they're a feet and gallons kind of nation
is he clearly just says stuff. Whereas Clinton has a proven track record so she is a known quantity regardless of what we've seen. Trump, much like Farage and UKIP, just reads a headline or sees Fox News, hears some populist sounding stuff and then makes out he's the antidote.
We don't know what he'd do in charge. There's a good chance he'll do very little and achieve nothing. He's insulated from that because his whole thing is how he's 'anti-government' and they want to stop him, so he'll just claim he tried and they stopped him.
yeah, safe pair of hands there!!!!!!!!!!11
support Hilary and did so over Bernie. Which just baffles me cos she is genuinely dreadful.
Actually yeah I probably wouldn't.
don't think the same way as you
"6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must."
" The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves."
is that a couple of clicks later I'm looking up stuff about syntax and making my brain hurt.
Good article though, explains "lesser evil voting" with classic Chomsky scare quotes and everything.
Key bit for me is:
4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
Love a bit of Slavoj, banging on about communism and how gross his parents having sex are.
its hardly all that complex or insightful to sort of blithely ignore the harm she has and will cause because it's...the mature thing to do, or something? Because she won't cause as many deaths as Trump? Cos Trump is a wackjob?
Agree with still_here really, the Yanks have been short changed. Vote for a slimy, unrepentant, lying scumbag, or vote for Donald Trump. Hardly an inspiring situation is it. :(
I can't think of another political with as much negative baggage behind her, as every single profile, article, think-piece, op-ed and poll has demonstrated. But there's also a legacy of progressive attitudes and positive changes that it's possible to be optimistic about her implementing, even if you can't fully get on board with her or find parts of her platform intolerable. There's very little inspiring about it, but hey, that's late period capitalism for you.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
great chat. sorry to interrupt.
Just a reminder that we all need to record our daily movement in the stools thread before COP.
Ok as you were.