I meant the political system, not the party. If you get a majority in your government to alter the system, it's still able to be altered. (Social Democracy is a range on a "capitalism curve" you can move towards or away from.)
Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populists
- Thread starter Deleted member 13364
- Start date
My mistake. Obviously, she's not even partly responsible for every single foreign policy decision. But don't undersell the effects of the Iraq war or our actions in Libya which Hillary was a part of. In addition to that, she is incredibly hawkish on foreign policy which is a trait many of us don't like. She's also friends with Henry Gissinger. Again, American imperialism has been terrible. It's wrong to lay it all at her feet, but she very much a part of that machine.
You're mixing up a few things here, countries are absolutely able to control their immigration, Schengen isn't just a free-for-all for anyone and everyone, it's just about free movement. Germany is working on its "Einwanderungsgesetz" right now.
I'm not saying he's at the center of it, just mentioned him because people know him and he gives a lot of interviews. And well known rightwingers are atleast meeting him, or even join his movement:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...steve-bannon-european-populist-group-movement
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...-trumps-ex-berater-steve-bannon-15481231.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-european-parliament-elections-a8638591.html
Last edited:
re: Iraq, this is a very good read on the extent to which HRC has paid lip service to having been wrong to support the war, versus the extent to which she's actually, substantively held herself and the DC foreign policy establishment accountable for having been so disastrously wrong (hint: it's far more the former)
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...nton-iraq-bush-war-hussein-wmd-senate/499160/
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...nton-iraq-bush-war-hussein-wmd-senate/499160/
This is the Hillary that Haiti is familiar with. The first thing her and her asshole husband did post-quake was roll the red carpet for exiled rightwing dictator Baby Doc.
ugh....well, i can't say i am surprised, this is just par the course.
"progressive who likes to get things done", everyone. Is she still against Iran and blindly for Israel when Iran is still the only one's complying with the nuclear deal even when the US pulled out?
"progressive who likes to get things done", everyone. Is she still against Iran and blindly for Israel when Iran is still the only one's complying with the nuclear deal even when the US pulled out?
Wut? She backed the deal. She's not Chuck Schumer. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-backs-iran-nuclear-deal.html
I could have sworn she was at one point saying it was a bad idea and would make America less safe, but i guess i got it confused with her general habits of being explicitly against Iran and for israel.
Thanks for the clarification Kirb. I swear, your the most help on this site when it comes to information
On the topic of America's responsibility of instability within other developing countries:
I absolutely agree that America bares a large responsibility for many concerns that developing countries are going through. I will always say that the violence in Mexico and Central America is a product of America's behavior. However, what I have often seen from posts around here is putting the blame on America, but without baring any blame as an American. In America, we live comfortably. We fill up our gas tanks and are able to buy cheap vegetables and meats on a weekly basis. We take all the water from the rivers before they flow into Mexico. We over-fish. We buy oil by the billions of gallons.Yet, we still wipe our own hands clean of it and instead just blame our politicians.
I feel like if Americans really give a shit about it, than we also need to make our own individual actions that can address change. Voting is not the only thing that we can do, and being a liberal does not just mean getting a college degree and being smart enough to discuss liberal topics on the internet. You gotta actually do something.
I absolutely agree that America bares a large responsibility for many concerns that developing countries are going through. I will always say that the violence in Mexico and Central America is a product of America's behavior. However, what I have often seen from posts around here is putting the blame on America, but without baring any blame as an American. In America, we live comfortably. We fill up our gas tanks and are able to buy cheap vegetables and meats on a weekly basis. We take all the water from the rivers before they flow into Mexico. We over-fish. We buy oil by the billions of gallons.Yet, we still wipe our own hands clean of it and instead just blame our politicians.
I feel like if Americans really give a shit about it, than we also need to make our own individual actions that can address change. Voting is not the only thing that we can do, and being a liberal does not just mean getting a college degree and being smart enough to discuss liberal topics on the internet. You gotta actually do something.
hasnt she not been "to the left" for a long time now? she is an oligarch, i think its hard to argue she is leftist in any sense. Being not crazy on cultural issues isnt exactly worth a gold star(although with this, even cultural issues seem to not be off limits)
Even if you want to call her a right leaning centrist, with this she is pretty much echoing trump and passing the blame of extremism to the people who want to immigrate, not even ILLEGAL immigration either, but just immigration. That's not even centrism, that's the far right argument.
Just imagine someone said that in America in response to Trump's bullshit. "The only way you can stop trump is by doing what he wants and stopping immigrants, cause its their fault the right wing are so crazy"
The right wing are already pointing to her statement as "victory for our cause". That does more to embolden them than immigrants could.
Last edited:
Sites that actually track records on votes, public statements, and fundraising had her in the #10-#15 most liberal Senators during her time for most of the 2-year chunks, when there were about 50 Democratic Senators. Her, Biden, Sanders, Kerry, and Obama and others overlapped for a chunk of that, and the rankings according to the popular "DW-nominate" system are about:
Sanders(#1)>Sherrod>Hillary>Durbin>Kerry>Obama>Schumer>Biden>Reid>Feinsten>Lieberman(#42)
Cherry picking specific stances and specific actions rather than looking at their overall history from a detached a perspective is how ResetERA starts to invoke an arbitrary political spectrum and the ol' "Pelosi is CONSERVATIVE" nonsense.
https://legacy.voteview.com/SENATE_SORT110.HTM
I'm not saying DW-Nominate is ironclad, but it is a start, and I generally think Resetera and liberals in general should be a bit more consistent with their labeling and standards rather than applying generic labels like "progressive" arbitrarily.
You can argue that she grew more Conservative during her time as SoS, but I don't think that is well-supported and dwells overwhelmingly on one or two issues.
I would argue that because of the senate being so far to the right in general, being one of the "top 10 to 15 liberal senators" doesnt account for much in general.
But disregarding that, rather than look at a small snapshot of her within a 2 year period, im more interested in her larger history going from early days of her political career to now. And in that time, its undeniable how she is not a supporter of the left wing causes that the left wing actually espouses on a large scale, especially as the money and influence of her family has grown, and the connections to major donors and institutions has increased.
And that has nothing to do with one or two issues, its all interconnected.
Italy has been a shelter for thousands of refugees for decades. It costs a ton of money to rescue and control it and the country is already in massive debt. Other EU countries have given 0 help, financial or human.
Every day cost guards are out in the sea looking for boats and rafts. To save them, btw, not to shoot them down like here in the US.
The ones that are found and get on land alive run away from shelters and registrations all the time. It's a mess. It shouldn't be restricted but this way is not sustainable, you guys don't know what you are talking about.
Every day cost guards are out in the sea looking for boats and rafts. To save them, btw, not to shoot them down like here in the US.
The ones that are found and get on land alive run away from shelters and registrations all the time. It's a mess. It shouldn't be restricted but this way is not sustainable, you guys don't know what you are talking about.
So you agree that immigration to countries should not be restricted. Great, then that's all that needs to be said right? How your government handles the inflow of immigrants can make a big difference to how things play out and how they actually settle.
I also said it is unsustainable. People die on boats crossing the sea all the time, if they arrive and there's a barely living economy to support them. And no other country is willing to help (except recently Spain). It's not about rightwing populists, it's about life and death. And it's about a whole failing country. The EU needs to support us and they're not. There's no system in place.
She was literally the leading voice for universal healthcare during the early 90s. The she was a Senator for 8 years, which are well-covered by actual voting records, and statements, and fundraising, and she was pretty consistently liberal. And even as SoS, she was credited as being a lead push for the Fair Pay Act. You are right that the Senate skews more Conservative due to having to represent states at large rather than individual polarized districts. But still, there's actual standards that people use for this kind of thing.
Like, if her voting record doesn't matter, her major policy initiatives don't matter, the platform she ran on multiple times doesn't matter, and her public statements and speeches and debates don't matter, and literally only blaming her for the absolute entirety of all foreign policy decisions from the 8 years of the Obama administration DOES matter, then yes, I guess you can make the case that she is to the right of the average Democrat.
This is what I got out of this as well. I get the sentiment that she is trying to show with her statement (because of the issues you mention here), but she's approaching it from a somewhat hypocritical angle. Seeing as she was a supporter of the wars that forced these massive amounts of refugees to find safety in the first place.
The EU's failure to evolve into a fiscal and even legal union is certainly real and a part of the problem here.
But it doesn't fundamentally change the moral calculus once the refugees arrive.
That's true. Speaking of morality, does the US still shoot to kill illegal trespassers?
This. Still stupid that so many Haitians were willing to go with Trump in 2016 instead of her. I remember on NeoGAF how everyone was talking about how "progressive" Hillary. Good to see the veil finally being pulled off.
Yep, I'm sure studies have shown that giving bad people what they are want will certainly keep them quiet.
Good advice, Hilary, keep up the good work.
I originally misread the title as Hilary warning the EU to screen immigrants in case they were white supremacists. That would be a better topic...
Good advice, Hilary, keep up the good work.
I originally misread the title as Hilary warning the EU to screen immigrants in case they were white supremacists. That would be a better topic...
This has literally never been official US policy?
Traditionally the US shoots to kill after illegally trespassing, which is totally different.
Of course, when it comes to unwarranted imperialism, it's possible Italy doesn't have much of a leg to stand on there either.
The only thing that matters is winning elections and power. It's how the Clintons work and how their influence has shaped the Democratic platform and what being liberal means in modern American politics.
If you need an ideology that is tough on crime and appeals to racists who want to "reform" social safety nets, the third way exists for well-to-do white suburbanites who don't like the idea of things changing.
The modern Democratic Party's status quo Reagan-esque political leanings were solidified in the 90s and has been resistant to change ever since. The spirit of the party is captured in generations of bi-partisan wars for private profit.
The only thing that matters is how it impacts their lineage's power. There's a reason the office of President has become dynastic. We'll see more Trumps running for office. It's going to happen.
I don't know how anyone could be surprised by Clinton saying this. The veil has been lifted many times. The partisan smears are pretty easy when you are an opportunist with few scruples.
Tricky Dick probably thought he got a rough ride too.
So she's saying the immigrants are the problem, and the right-wing European populists are a symptom.
Of course. Does HRC have a consistent stance on any topic? She goes from right to left and then back to right again.
Of course. Does HRC have a consistent stance on any topic? She goes from right to left and then back to right again.
She has never been a part of the left. Neither of the Clintons have.
I have a family member that was killed by the regime and one other who fled w/a bounty on him, after his whole group of political opponents was killed. Clintons pulling that stunt was disgusting.
My mother remembered having her dresses pulled and being whistled at by the Tonton Macoutes when she was a girl. She had to not make eye contact or have any disrespectful facial expressions. Shit is sad in Haiti, and that the Clinton family had a disregard is even more infuriating.
I think she is saying keeping and having power in politics is the most important thing to her. Whatever you do with that power and what values you actually believe in is irrelevant to her.
Sounds like the typical liberal response to fascism, honestly.
What else is in duh news?
Negative attitudes towards migration prevail across Europe hence parties not catering to those attitudes will lose voters.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...visor-immigration-refugee-crisis-slides_0.pdf
https://news.gallup.com/poll/212405/terrorism-migration-trouble-europe.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Terrorism,%20Migration%20Trouble%20Many%20in%20Europe
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82538
Negative attitudes towards migration prevail across Europe hence parties not catering to those attitudes will lose voters.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default...visor-immigration-refugee-crisis-slides_0.pdf
https://news.gallup.com/poll/212405/terrorism-migration-trouble-europe.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Terrorism,%20Migration%20Trouble%20Many%20in%20Europe
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82538
Migrants are not the problem.
Politicians convincing people we should be afraid of them and then promising to fight immigration are.
All the hate comes from the fear they instilled in people, giving them the perception that life would be better without migrants. They did a great job painting a huge target on their backs, and now it's time to score votes by saying they'll hit them.
Politicians convincing people we should be afraid of them and then promising to fight immigration are.
All the hate comes from the fear they instilled in people, giving them the perception that life would be better without migrants. They did a great job painting a huge target on their backs, and now it's time to score votes by saying they'll hit them.
Immigration reform won't happen in the EU due to our backwards member (Poland, Hungary).
The truth is that the EU must find smart reforms or be complicit in many more deaths that will come from climate change.
The truth is that the EU must find smart reforms or be complicit in many more deaths that will come from climate change.
The problem is that he trying to appear the racists st the expense of the vulnerable which is a huge no-no.
I mean, probably 'we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support', unless you think "able" is synonymous with "willing".
That's a really blind and ignorant way of looking at the whole situation, there's a lot of hate and fear coming from migrants towards LGBT and women, gay beatings have risen since the refugee crisis and everyone is ignoring this side of it to come off as super liberal and good.
Than they are not liberal... at least not in the true sense of the word.
The American meaning on the other hand... is just a nice way to say "right-wing" and to distinguish them from the far-right.
Last edited:
Engaging the far right on its immigration nonsense strengthens it. By acknowledging it you make it a bigger topic (especially with how the media will run endless debates on the topic) that sways more voters and the right will stir up more hatred. If they can't fuck with immigrants any further they'll pick the next other to blame for all problems and you've got the same appeasement cycle again. By improving the situations that make people go looking for easy outs like blaming immigrants you deprive the extremists of fuel. The far right gets power from discontent and fulfilling its demands won't remove that discontent because they're just populist bullshit.
Punish the guilty, don't preemptively attack anyone from the outside because they MIGHT be homophobes.
Punish the guilty, don't preemptively attack anyone from the outside because they MIGHT be homophobes.
Sure, then there's also facts Vs perception.
She's addressing hate, a lot of which was conveniently fed by politicians and press over here.
It's the oldest political trick ever; find an enemy, create an enemy if necessary, then promise to fight it.
Its a strategy that still proves successfull with blind and ignorant people. There's plenty.
