362
363

Those people who want Hillary Clinton elected president... (i.imgur.com)

submitted by zeeshopper

all 68 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]rickytickytappy 42 ポイント43 ポイント

If one hates republicans or conservatism, fine, but voting based on feelings and/or guilt is pure cancer to any political system.

[–]GreatJanitor 18 ポイント19 ポイント

I remember back in 2008 I had one friend and several coworkers tell me that they voted for Obama because it was the first time the president wouldn't be an old white man. I asked them "Is that all that mattered, skin color? What was his platform? What changes was he wanting to make? Or was the only thing that mattered to you was the color of his skin?" If they still said it was the color of his skin my response was "Please, stop exercising your right to vote, you're too stupid to do so."

Someone once told me that the Electoral College was designed because the Founding Fathers believed that the average voter was too uneducated to be trusted to vote. When someone can count on winning an election because he'd be the first black president, then yes, the Founding Fathers were correct.

[–]anon_bane 28 ポイント29 ポイント

Remember, it isn't racism as long as you're discriminating against white people

[–]GreatJanitor 15 ポイント16 ポイント

The belief of the party who denies the existence of reverse discrimination. Meanwhile, I had a job last year where the department I was in was dissolved. My bosses and coworkers told me "Don't worry, you have perfect attendance, your numbers are the best in the department, you'll be the first pick when the other departments select who they want." And I watched as my bosses practically begged the other departments to take me over the people who they were taking. Every black person was instantly picked by the other departments. I was the one person who was let go. I was also the sole white person in that department. In my exit interview with HR I asked "How the fuck was this not racist?" She said "Please tell me you don't believe in that reverse racism nonsense."

[–]thelerkAnarchist 15 ポイント16 ポイント

It's not "reverse racism" it's just racism

[–]Vid-Master 8 ポイント9 ポイント

I have seen someone say that same thing "that reverse racism nonsense"

Makes absolutely NO sense. Are we trying to get equality for everyone, or equality for some people?

[–]GreatJanitor 9 ポイント10 ポイント

I had a professor in college say that when it comes to 'equality', no one is really fighting for true equality, just advantages over everyone else.

[–]bluehairedbeaver 0 ポイント1 ポイント

We should just start making Watson fight for our equality.

[–]BabalonRising 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Remember, it isn't racism as long as you're discriminating against white people

You can thank a certain kind of 60's-70's "champagne-socialism" for this oddity in modern racial politics.

Taking the theory of class warfare for granted (while still not really understanding it that well), persons of this bend went a step further and uncritically plugged "race" in the place of "economic class" in said social diagram.

Long story short, the more extreme elements amongst nominal progressive opinion not only find that kind of racism excusable, but even justifiable.

It's unfortunate, because what everyone in the USA really needed was for the question of race to go away, and not be indirectly sustained by thinking the past could be somehow "evened out."

[–]actofgod22 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"A revenge movement masquerading as equality"

[–]BabalonRising 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Unfortunately this seems to be the case.

A lot of political drama can be distilled into good old fashioned primate drama. Literal "monkey business." And when people nurse grievances, and feel like they're still spinning in circles, that can come out as dressed up bile. And surprise surprise, it ends with people behaving quite unreasonably.

People really do suck. Ha.

[–]Vid-Master 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Good point!

[–]actofgod22 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I'm pretty sure you just qualified yourself as a racist for saying that! Shame on you, racist!!!! lol

[–]BabalonRising 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Someone once told me that the Electoral College was designed because the Founding Fathers believed that the average voter was too uneducated to be trusted to vote. When someone can count on winning an election because he'd be the first black president, then yes, the Founding Fathers were correct.

I don't know if that was indeed their rational. I certainly know enfranchisement wasn't nearly as universal in the USA's infancy as it was after the Civil War.

Though perhaps that was indirectly their aim, as it could be argued that having a certain level of property gives some evidence that one is informed and aware enough to vote competently.

Not that I'd endorse going back to those kind of property limit (never mind that even suggesting such would be political suicide...and I think rightly so at this point.) But I must confess that I find something unsavory about the ignorance of most of the public, and how that ignorance is honored as being equal to an informed opinion (whatever it may be.)

Unfortunately I don't trust anyone to craft some sort of criteria for enfranchisement (beyond birth or naturalization), nor would I expect anyone else to extend such confidence to me or anyone else either.

The "popular vote" is something we're stuck with. I think all that can be done is to improve the utility of this device (for instance, consider getting rid of "first past the post", having run-off elections, etc.)

[–]billyjoedupree 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Using land ownership was a method (and an effective one) of ensuring that tho those voting had actual "skin in the game" when casting vote. Remember, taxes were based on property back then. Essentially it limited voting to taxpayers. Otherwise, they were afraid that those without land would vote themselves a largesse.

[–]Zeppelin415Libertarian Conservative 7 ポイント8 ポイント

I remember a video went viral where they asked people if they liked Obama because of [reasons] and all the accomplishments/stances were McCain's.

[–]zwind 1 ポイント2 ポイント

old white man

Boy, they must have never heard of John F. Kennedy...

[–]carsismeZ06Libertarian Conservative 4 ポイント5 ポイント

I love Thomas Sowell.

[–]20somethinghipster 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Except in a presidential election, it's the low information voters that matter. The undecideds are the ones who win the presidency, and the single largest bloc of undecideds is thelow information voters. These are the voters who vote based on name recognition or which candidate has better hair or a pet dog.

Yes there are examples of clean sweeps by a candidate, but in reality it's all down to a handful of dumb people in a handful of states.

Look at it another way, how many of y'all would vote democrat if confronted with a solid argument to? How many democrats vote republican if you could just make them see it your way?

The people who run campaigns already know how you're gonna vote. They run the campaigns for the people who vote based on which candidate had more signs on election day. And you won't find any of those people on reddit.

[–]BabalonRising 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Meh, good point but it won't stop people from imagining themselves to be "great revolutionaries" for putting "the first (token-x)" in office.

Or any such trifling, superficial reasons for picking one candidate over the other.

I'd actually accuse the general public of having little competence in the use of their franchise. Not just the "libruls."

[–]imfromcaLazy 2 ポイント3 ポイント

good point, but you're talking about a droplet out of a lake i feel

[–]actofgod22 2 ポイント3 ポイント

"First this to do that!" - Levin

That type of thinking is so annoying, just mindless pandering to idiots.

[–]ManOfTheInBetweenConservative 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Sadly, she will be our next President. I wager the family farm on it.

[–]barsonmeMember of the Non-Establishment Establishment 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Based solely on statistics Obama should not have won the last election. Any president with that bad of an economy and as few pieces of meaningful legislation passed should have been voted out. But, because of his charisma and the GOP's technological, messaging, and community woes he won.

But barring the GOP sending forward a shitty candidate from the primary and the GOP being unable to get its act together (many states are doing better with messaging + technology) I doubt a Democrat will win next year -- even if the candidate is a woman.

Statistically, the odds are so incredibly in the GOP's favor it's not even funny.

[–]ozymandris 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Eh. Nate Silver did a good job with statistics. I think Romney was electable, but the primary process made it look like the Republican Party didn't really want him. Going through every conceivable "conservative alternative". Even though he was conservative alternative to McCain in 2008. If it seemed like republicans didn't want him, what does that say to the average undecided voter?

[–]barsonmeMember of the Non-Establishment Establishment 0 ポイント1 ポイント

To be fair, our candidates sucked. And although the GOP is known for having scorched earth primaries, Romney was the only one who managed to escape without making some sort of stupid mistake. Electable? Meh. He had some good things going for him, but the rich white guy persona definitely didn't help, especially when compared to the image the Dems portrayed of Obama.

There was a lot more than went into it. I mean, our grassroots effort sucked. Sure, the Tea Party was very vocal, but that's about it. We didn't have the same community support that they had been amassing for years.

Mike Shields from the RNC came over to Washington about a month ago and talked to us about what their plans were for tech + grassroots (community), but unfortunately the outlook is less than stellar for the latter. A lot of slack will have to be picked up by the states :/

[–]dr054n 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Not if the GOP nominates Rand Paul

[–]zarus 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Spengler believed that the politics of personality rather than platform was the sign of a democracy in decline, and that it laid the foundation for Caesarism and force-politics.

[–]glennflynn 0 ポイント1 ポイント

While Spengler was sort of a debbie downer, and I hate reading him, I do indeed believe a lot of what he says regarding civilization is right.

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Mrs. Bill "B.J." Clinton is out of work and admittedly has been dead broke in the past. She needs honest work. Why would voters not want to help a sister out with a job?

[–]YoungMonarchist 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Electing Hillary would be to a elect a Dictator-Queen. An incompetent one too.

[–]cortex112 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I am speechless facing some people who treats presidential election like another season of American Idol.

[–]baldyloxLibertarian Conservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Hillary will never be president.

She's proven that she can't even win the nomination against an opponent with a shady, secretive history, extremely questionable friends and mentors including a racist, anti-Semite preacher, scores of known Communists, and a known domestic terrorist. Obama was a man who had never accomplished anything in his life. Resume the size of a postage stamp - hailing from the most corrupt system in America.

If the Clinton machine couldn't manage to blast that guy out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, how would she fare against a tough opponent? Not very well.

[–]teepstwo3 5 ポイント6 ポイント

I'd say look no further than OP's post. The people who voted for Obama for president based on his demographics are how he was able to also beat Hillary in the primary races.

[–]the_fewer_desiresModerate Independent 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Then why hadn't a black person won in any previous Democratic presidential primary? Surely 2008 wasn't the first time back people voted for the black person.

[–]UmbrellaResearchCorp 7 ポイント8 ポイント

That's the problem right there. There are enough morons out there who will vote for her based on "ooh I think it'd be awesome if we had our first democrat woman as president!" --- enough that will tip the scales when you factor in all the other actual issue-based democrat voters.

In addition -- The Free Shit ArmyTM is massive and has grown in numbers during Barry's terms in office

[–]TheSamsonOption 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Sadly, I think you hit the nail on the head. So many people are on the government train that they will do what's necessary to have this continue. It's their livelihood. This and pandering to the immigration lobby will be the largest voting block and will literally carry every national election for the foreseeable future.

[–]baldyloxLibertarian Conservative 5 ポイント6 ポイント

A dangerously uncurious and obsequious media certainly helped him.

[–]symkoReagan Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I agree with this, we've been demagogued to death. The ideals that the average American believes in have been skewed so much we can't get a clear picture of the state of the Nation. I do believe this will greatly affect the Political class in Washington as they have NO clue what the average American wants. If this has any truth to it, November will be very interesting.

[–]Flameon3k 1 ポイント2 ポイント

November will be very interesting.

Not really.

Republicans will hold the house. They will in all odds take the senate but will be well short of that 60 seat supermajoirty so everything will still be DOA in the Senate. Basically more gridlock til 2016.

[–]ozymandris 0 ポイント1 ポイント

2016? I think we are in it for much longer

[–]jkonine 1 ポイント2 ポイント

No chance in hell that Hillary gets the same number of black people that Obama has had vote for him.

[–]BabalonRising 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I think it's really up in the air at this point.

It is hard to gauge the gullible-vote. It's also hard to know just how pissed off and burned the more principled progressive wing of the Democratic Party base will remain come the primaries or the general election. Or how extensive that is. A lot of people were left profoundly disappointed after Obama's first term. And while many of those people will never vote Republican, how that will play out in the next Democratic primary will be interesting to see. Or if Hillary gets the nomination, whether the base will be even bother to come out to vote.

I wouldn't even dare place any bets this soon.

[–]redcell5 2 ポイント3 ポイント

If the Clinton machine couldn't manage to blast that guy out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, how would she fare against a tough opponent? Not very well.

I tend to agree, especially given her book sales and appearance on NPR.

Which makes me think Elizabeth Warren will be the Dem nominee. First woman President and all.

...

Yeah.

[–]baldyloxLibertarian Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

... and Princess Running Bullshit's chances of being elected president are about the same as mine.

[–]redcell5 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Here's hoping.

[–]backspacez -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

That's all you got? He had a shitty preacher? You're kind of forgetting that he's a goddamn politician and religion is all public opinion, but since it's convenient for you here, you'll use it against him. Here we are back to the red scare, better not associate with anyone who's not a Democrat or Republican! And Obama was in contact with Ayers, they weren't even friends.

I really want to know what you expect out of a US president. Do you want them to live their 40-60 years on earth completely clean of anything short of a parking ticket? Or do you only hold liberals to that standard?

Talk about voting based on emotion, you know what's worse? Voters who can't appreciate anyone on the other side of party lines.

[–]baldyloxLibertarian Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I'm not going to shoot down all of your points, because they're just plain silly.

I'll tackle one of them, and let others do the rest. Unless, of course, people are tired of feeding the trolls today.

Known domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Obama certainly were friends. Their wives worked at the same law firm together. They both served on different boards together.

Despite the fact that Obama has lied about it repeatedly, Obama did launch his political career at a fundraiser for himself hosted in the living room of Bill Ayers & Bernadette Peters.

Ayers himself admitted as much after the 2012 election.

Here's a nice CNN story about it, so you don't have to get your information from Faux News.

[–]backspacez 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I'm not going to shoot down all of your points, because they're just plain silly. I'll tackle one of them, and let others do the rest. Unless, of course, people are tired of feeding the trolls today. Known domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Obama certainly were friends. Their wives worked at the same law firm together. They both served on different boards together. Despite the fact that Obama has lied about it repeatedly, Obama did launch his political career at a fundraiser for himself hosted in the living room of Bill Ayers & Bernadette Peters.

I'm digging your confidence. So, you're digging up the CNN story that quotes Kurtz' claims that were later debunked? Nice.

Why don't read this nice piece from FactCheck, and if for some reason you don't like them, snopes. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/he-lied-about-bill-ayers/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ayers.asp

And the fact that somehow Obama being in contact with someone who is very much part of the public, means that he subscribes to Ayers' ideas is preposterous and you know it.

Your comment is nothing but attacks on people the President associated with, and even when details aren't even clear. You didn't say you disliked his foreign policy or that the ACA is flawed or anything to do with his governing.

Let me also make it clear, I'm not here to be the defender of Obama, far from it. I'm not a staunch supporter of the President at all, but at least come up with a real reason for not liking the guy. He's the goddamn president, show him some respect. And you shouldn't always assert that you know things for sure and be so arrogant about it man, show some for love your fellow conservatives!

[–]Gadsden1776 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Cruz 2016.

[–]GreatJanitor 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Hillary won't win. At this point I see the following possibilities:

1) Republicans win big in November, Obama gets impeached, stays in office, Hillary runs and loses because "The last two Dems we elected were impeached!"

2) Republicans win big in November, Obama gets impeached and leaves office or pulls a Nixon and leaves on his own terms early. Biden becomes President and tells Hillary that he's running for re-election. Biden loses.

3) No impeachment, Hillary runs as does several other Dems, possibly Biden included. The Dems use Benghazi, NSA, Bergdahl, and the gaff about her being broke against Hillary and she loses in the primaries, decides to retire.

4) Loses in the primaries, refuses to drop out, just like in 2008, no one buys her off with a cabinet position, she stays on the ballot splitting the Dem vote two ways, Republicans win.

[–]tenderbranson301 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Obama gets impeached

I really can't see that happening. It's kinda fun and everyone likes to talk about it, but I think it will just come off as pettiness and will set an awful precedent where every president has to battle impeachment if the opposite party gets a majority in Congress.

[–]GreatJanitor 2 ポイント3 ポイント

I would love to see this happen. Not out of spit or pettiness, but due to things like the IRS scandal and the Bergdahl trade. Mainly because if it doesn't happen, then our next president knows he can pretty much fuck over the citizens any way he pleases any time he pleases without anything happening to him.

[–]Flameon3k 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Mainly because if it doesn't happen, then our next president knows he can pretty much fuck over the citizens any way he pleases any time he pleases without anything happening to him

Impeachment without conviction is basically nothing. And not even the most optimistic polls paint the republicans as taking that big a bite out of the senate.

Not to mention this means the republicans have impeached the last 2/2 democrat presidents. If the next one is even worse then what? Nobody will give a fuck because it will look like business as usual.

[–]eilliw21 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Sadly you are probably wrong. In other countries you can bet money on US politics and this website gives Vegas style statistics. Hillary has 5/4 odds. Closest we come is Christie and Rubio with 1/10! Ugh. They have predicted every election correctly since they have been open. They have no bias as they are just trying to make money and well the house always wins. Interesting website though. They are the ONLY "poll" I trust.

[–]GreatJanitor -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I still say Hillary won't win. As someone on this thread pointed out, if she couldn't be Obama in 2008 (a virtual nobody back then), in 2016 she won't stand a chance. Things that she has to overcome:

1) Benghazi. Many liberals have been trying to act as if Benghazi doesn't matter. Now those same liberals are going to hear other Democrats question Hillary on her role in Benghazi. One reason is to destroy her. Other is to win over possible swing voters by making Benghazi seem like a big deal.

2) Her role in the Bergdahl trade. Most Americans hate that it happened. Dems who had no part in that deal can attack Hillary for it without fear of someone stepping up and questioning their role in it.

3) NSA. This is a chance for new comers to take out the established Democrat Leadership (Pelosi, Clinton, Biden, Reid, Feinstein, etc...) by attacking Hillary for her role in the NSA and Snowden.

4) Illegal Immigration. Obama has pissed off the border states (save California). A Dem, any Dem, being able to link Hillary to the border crisis and her support for what's happening will pretty much be the only way a Dem will have a chance in the south. For example, here in Texas, Perry isn't running for Governor. I don't know who the Republican candidate is, but Perry is fired up about the southern border and wants the Feds to do something about it. Wendy Davis, the Dem candidate for Texas Governor has been silent on this issue while another Democrat, Shelia Jackson Lee has been pro Illegal Immigrant. If Davis comes out pro illegal immigrants, if she comes out in support of giving them free shelter/clothing/medical/education/food/etc she will lose.

5) Her gaff about being poor. She's going to be attacked on that

6) Stuff during the Clinton Administration. Expect other Dems to bring up those 8 years and every word she said. It happened in 2008 when she told the story of landing in another nation under heavy gun fire, however, they found footage of that event where there was no gun fire, zero danger. A little girl even walked out and handed her a flower or two.

Other things against Hillary is that her book bombed, which shows that even Liberals aren't behind her any more. Americans don't like the idea of political families, and Hillary being elected to president would make the Clintons a political family. Something that she wants, no doubt. It wouldn't surprise me if she expects Chelsea to run in a few years. Also, the Obama Administration is one of the least popular administrations, the U.S. in general doesn't trust this administration anymore and even my liberal friends and family members have told me that they'd vote Republican before voting Hillary.

And finally, this Primary is going to be a game of King of the Mountain and yes, right now Hillary might be the King of the Mountain, but that just means that every Dem who announces their candidacy to run will just be one more person gunning to take out Hillary, and it wouldn't surprise me if those people included Pelosi, Warren, Michelle Obama and Biden.

[–]GrahamBeRad 0 ポイント1 ポイント

But progress! Historical!

Pay no attention to the fact that a devout Mormon was endorsed by the two largest names in American pornography; that couldn't possibly be an achievement.

[–]ziggmuff 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yup

[–]foobadoop 1 ポイント2 ポイント

For once, I have to agree with r/conservative. You should judge your potential leadership on much more than demographics.

[–]glennflynn 1 ポイント2 ポイント

It doesn't help that most of the voting base is completely uninformed and that's their ONLY way if making the decision, other than not voting at all.

[–]joshuad80Centrist -1 ポイント0 ポイント

i certainly can't argue with that.

[–]AutoModerator[M] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Posts from the 'i.imgur.com' domain require moderation. Please be patient. Thank you.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.