Thread: If Trump is so bad, why weren't you supporting Hillary?

Results 1 to 18 of 18

  1. #1
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 596
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default If Trump is so bad, why weren't you supporting Hillary?

    I think enough time has passed since the election. Let's talk about why so many of us weren't supporting Hillary (with a straight face)
  2. #2
    Join Date May 2015
    Location California
    Posts 270
    Organisation
    Red Army Faction Reunited
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    I think enough time has passed since the election. Let's talk about why so many of us weren't supporting Hillary (with a straight face)
    Well I don't know about you guys, but I still had some dignity left to preserve.
    An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World

    The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels

    While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ComradeAllende For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Nov 2011
    Posts 210
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    I think enough time has passed since the election. Let's talk about why so many of us weren't supporting Hillary (with a straight face)
    Spotted the liberal.
    Last edited by rylasasin; 22nd March 2017 at 12:34.
  5. #4
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,828
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 60

    Default

    Wt -- wtf
  6. #5
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 596
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Everybody's so down on Trump these days
  7. #6
    Join Date Oct 2008
    Location New York
    Posts 1,072
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    I think enough time has passed since the election. Let's talk about why so many of us weren't supporting Hillary (with a straight face)
    Because she's more similar than different to Trump, and because supporting the failed policies of the Democratic establishment is what drove many voters to vote for Trump.
  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RedSonRising For This Useful Post:


  9. #7
    Join Date Jul 2016
    Posts 95
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    1. First and foremost: I'm not a US citizen.
    2. I could only justify supporting Hillary in swing states, I guess.
    3. Lesser evilism is kind of pointless.
  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Ale Brider For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Join Date Mar 2016
    Posts 41
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I ended up voting for her when it started to look like Trump had the upper hand in the last few weeks of the election. I was more interested in preventing him from getting to nominate a supreme court justice rather than getting her elected though. To be honest the day after the election I had mixed feelings about the result. As bad as it is that he won I can't say seeing her lose wasn't satisfying on some level. She was a bad candidate and she's just an awful person in general.
  12. #9
    Join Date Mar 2017
    Posts 5
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Because I figured, being a welfare recipient, that both Clinton and Trump have anti-welfare politics but if Clinton cuts welfare people are going to tell me that it's fine and I should stop complaining because she's not a republican and it would be so much worse if bla bla bla, and I should fix that problem by voting for more Democrats, while if Trump does it, there will be massive resistance campaigns dedicated to protecting people like me.

    So far I am right, and after struggling through the last two years of the Obama administration to keep myself indoors through a botched SSI application, I raised $400 the day after the election to help me with legal fees. Literally in one day.

    Trump's a bad man, but the fact that everyone knows that makes this a much better country.

    For the record, I voted (and actively campaigned) for Jill Stein, even though I'm not a huge fan of her now.
  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to whimslcott For This Useful Post:


  14. #10
    Join Date Feb 2017
    Posts 92
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Two choices in the diverse multi-ethnic and multicultural landscape that is America? That's not democracy. That's criminal.

    Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk
  15. The Following User Says Thank You to jdneel For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date Mar 2017
    Location The Moon,
    Posts 4
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Because Hillary is a perfect example of liberalism. She's got no vision, revolutionary spirit, no decent policies, and is another enemy of the working class. But, rather then being upfront about it like Trump, she tried so hard to seem that she was a working class women. Even though she spent most of her life acquiring more power for the bourgeoisie.
    "The assumption that what currently exists must exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking."
    -Murray Bookchin
  17. #12
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 503
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Its much more simple than what the people in this thread have already said. IF Hillary, or someone like her, COULD represent a force that could stop the ongoing reaction (represented by Le Penn, Trump, Wilders etc...) sure, one could hold one's nose and enter the stink of supporting them. They cannot. At the present, liberalism has no hope of stopping such a reaction EVEN IF they win elections.
  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Antiochus For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Join Date Dec 2016
    Posts 130
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I think that the real cause of so many people voted for Donald Trump was really that Donald Trump sold himself as an anti-war progressive populist. Even Donald Trump's daughter said in one of the Donald Trump major pre-election political events that all the millions of poor people of the USA are her daughters and sons. (And the great majority believed it, the great majority of US citizens and US voters are slaves a bunch of slaves. They buy and drive the car that other people drive, they have the same physical gestures that other people have, they celebrate the holidays that other americans celebrate. The USA is a country of copy-cats, of clones in every sector of their lives)

    Americans are like that for every thing. For example in the USA if you have a family and children, and you don't celebrate the children's holidays (like Halloween) your own neighbors will hate you. This is just the way that most people in the USA are, and add to that many negative traits of the behaviour of most US citizens, like silence. This is a silent country where people hate talking with others about their own personal problems. And if you try to talk with them, they turn their backs on you and get violent




    Well I don't know about you guys, but I still had some dignity left to preserve.
  20. #14
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 7,951
    Rep Power 161

    Default

    Because it is not a strategy that will either weaken the right or increase the likelihood of class resistance. We have very marginal impact on national elections so our basic tasks remain the same although more urgency to confront an emboldened far right (who may have been emboldened even if Clinton won)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  22. #15
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 7,951
    Rep Power 161

    Default

    Its much more simple than what the people in this thread have already said. IF Hillary, or someone like her, COULD represent a force that could stop the ongoing reaction (represented by Le Penn, Trump, Wilders etc...) sure, one could hold one's nose and enter the stink of supporting them. They cannot. At the present, liberalism has no hope of stopping such a reaction EVEN IF they win elections.
    +10 on this. 40 years of neoliberalism and liberal/conservative agreement on this in the context of declining reform/labor movements + general capitalist crisis produced the space for far right movements... so even if Trump or Le Pen are defeated electorally (or by buerocrats dragging trump into some pseudo-political scandal), what they represent remains--a festering and growing middle class right-wing movement.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  23. #16
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,828
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 60

    Default

    News Updates from CLG
    06 April 2017
    http://www.legitgov.org/
    All links are here:
    http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

    Hillary Clinton calls for U.S. to bomb Syrian air fields | 06 April 2017 | In her first interview since her stunning presidential election defeat by Republican rival Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for the United States to bomb Syrian air fields...Asked whether she now believes that failing to take a tougher stand against Syria was her worst foreign policy mistake as secretary of state under President Barack Obama, Clinton said she favored more aggressive action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
  24. #17
    Join Date Mar 2017
    Location Occupied Ojibwe Territory
    Posts 5
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    America's ruling class does not subordinate its interests among party lines. This is abundantly clear. The Head of State will be an imperialist ad infinitum and without shame. As for Hillary Clinton, we all remember Libya, right? That alone would be a massive deterrent. Trump peddled anti-interventionist ruse and it was bought, here we are ... Syrian airfield bombed, SAA men dead, and the ICRC just came out and declared the situation a "international armed conflict" in contract to the previous assertion "internal armed conflict." I'm not an American, so I will not comment on my non-existing vote -- however, the outplay of it all would have been (and is) harrowing regardless.
  25. #18
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,828
    Blog Entries 4
    Rep Power 60

    Default Why did Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party lose the 2016 election?

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../pers-m03.html


    Why did Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party lose the 2016 election?

    3 May 2017

    In a public appearance Tuesday with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attributed her loss to Donald Trump last November to two main factors: misogyny within the electorate and Russian interference. She also placed emphasis on FBI Director James Comey’s October announcement that the FBI was re-opening its investigation of her use of a private email account while she was secretary of state.

    Misogyny “played a role,” she said, claiming that “it would have been a really big deal” to elect the first woman president. She also blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin, claiming he “clearly interfered in our election, and it was designed to hurt me and help my opponent.” As proof of Russian meddling, Clinton pointed to WikiLeaks’ release of emails from Clinton aide John Podesta, which included transcripts of some of her paid speeches to Wall Street bankers.

    Clinton’s claims are belied by the facts. In a May 1 article titled “Why did Trump Win? New research by Democrats offers a worrisome answer,” Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent cites poll data showing that Trump’s election was the product of widespread economic hardship in the working class and popular opposition to the pro-corporate policies of the Democratic Party.

    The poll, commissioned by the Democratic Party-linked firm Priorities USA, was conducted in the working class suburbs outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Detroit, Michigan, as well as in Tampa, Florida. All three of these traditional “swing states” supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, but swung for Trump in 2016. The poll targeted two types of voters: those who voted for Obama in 2012 but for Trump in 2016 (“Obama-Trump voters”) and those who voted for Obama in 2012 but did not vote in 2016 (“drop-off voters”).

    The picture that emerges from the poll is of a working class that is under tremendous financial strain, is growing disillusioned with both parties, and is deeply opposed to cuts in social programs such as health care.

    “A key commonality” of these voters is that “they are struggling economically,” the pollsters conclude. Of Obama-Trump voters, 50 percent say their income is falling behind the cost of living and 31 percent say their income is just equal to rises in the cost of living. Conditions are even worse among drop-off voters. Forty-three percent say their income is falling behind the cost of living and 49 percent say their income is only staying even with the cost of living—that is, 92 percent are either falling behind or barely staying afloat.

    In a confused and contradictory manner, Obama-Trump voters express the growth of social opposition to the political establishment from the left. According to these voters, the government’s most important priorities should be protecting Social Security and Medicare (85 percent for both), creating good-paying jobs (84 percent) and providing everyone with access to affordable health care (80 percent).

    The poll shows these voters’ lowest priority is building a wall between the US and Mexico. They are least concerned that Trump will “be too close to Putin and won’t stand up to Putin.” They are substantially more concerned that Trump will involve the US in foreign wars and will put the interests of corporate executives ahead of working people.

    Among drop-off voters, 87 percent support raising taxes on corporations, 89 percent support infrastructure spending, 79 percent support raising the minimum wage, 75 percent support raising taxes on the rich and 73 percent support paid family leave for child care. Drop-off voters are by far most concerned with the economy and access to health care. Only 6 percent say Russia is the most important issue, with 5 percent citing immigration and 2 percent citing terrorism/national security.

    As their economic conditions deteriorate, those polled view the policies of the Democratic Party as favoring the wealthy. The Washington Post’s Sargent notes, “One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy—twice the percentage that said the same about Trump. I was also permitted to view video of some focus group activity, which showed Obama-Trump voters offering sharp criticism of Democrats on the economy.”

    Sargent explained that when focus group respondents were asked what the Democratic Party stands for, they responded: “the one percent” and “the status quo.” Among those who voted for Obama in 2012 but didn’t vote in 2016, the most common reasons given for abstaining include: “It makes no difference,” “I did not like either candidate,” “I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary; I couldn’t support Clinton for the general election,” and “I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.”

    These poll results confirm what the World Socialist Web Site stressed in its initial analysis of the US election results: Clinton’s loss was the product of mass abstention by workers—and particularly African American workers—in key industrial cities such as Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee, plus swings by all racial groups toward the Republican candidate in 2016 compared with 2012. Clinton’s claim that she lost the election due to misogyny is refuted by the fact that exit polls show the Democratic Party lost the votes of over a million working class women from 2012 to 2016.

    The American working class does not hate Hillary Clinton because of her gender, it hates her because she embodies, both personally and politically, everything rotten about American capitalism. More specifically, the dislike of Clinton expresses the growing perception that the Democratic Party is the most naked representative of the banks and corporations.

    For the first half of the 20th century, the Democratic Party based its national presence on an alliance of sections of better-off professionals with Tammany Hall city machines in the North and segregationists across the former slave states in the South. Even into the 1960s, the Democrats’ domestic program was based on a series of mild social reforms—a partial cooptation of the platforms of the pre-Depression populist and progressive movements.

    A key turning point came in the late 1960s, when the contradictions embedded in the party’s anti-communist and pro-capitalist foundations burst into the open as President Lyndon Johnson drained resources intended for Great Society social programs to fund the war in Vietnam.

    Deeply discredited by the disastrous impact of the war and the administration’s crackdown on anti-war demonstrations and inner-city riots, the Democratic Party began to reorient itself toward a wealthy section of African-American and other racial minorities who benefited from the Democratic Party-backed civil rights legislation of the mid-1960s.

    As the chasm between rich and poor widened in the subsequent decades, the Democrats began to abandon even the pretense of appealing to working class voters on the basis of a program of social reform. Increasingly tied to Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies and increasingly unpopular within the working class, the Democratic Party sought to build a broader electoral base in the privileged upper-middle class, where the politics of race, gender and sexual preference dominate.

    Clinton’s presidential campaign represented the ugly culmination of this rightward trajectory. Her campaign married the military-intelligence apparatus and finance capital to the politics of racial and gender identity, while Clinton consciously ignored the economic struggles of the working class and opposed the demagogue Trump from the right on questions of war and state surveillance.

    Figures like Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left supporters play a most pathetic role in shoring up support for the Democratic Party. Speaking on his swing-state tour with Democratic Party Chairman and Clinton-confidante Thomas Perez, Sanders recently told a crowd that they had “come to the right place” to talk about “political revolution,” and that “our job is to radically transform the Democratic Party.”

    What Sanders, Clinton and the entire political establishment fear most is that the growing opposition that found an initial and distorted reflection in the 2016 election will develop in a consciously left-wing, socialist direction.

    Eric London

    Copyright © 1998-2017 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts