[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[Sommerswerd]

You say it's not an HRC slogan?
A thirty dollar t-shirt says differently.

How quickly it changed from "the slogan: to "an HRC slogan." However, looking at the other merchandise, you'll see it's outnumber by "Stronger together," "Never Trump," "Love trumps hate," etc.

Indeed

She has multiple slogans. "I'm with her" is an older slogan, designed to play up the female angle, when she didn't know who her ultimate opponent would be other than it would probably be a man. "Stronger together" seems calculated to draw attention to Trump's alt-right/white-nationalism/Klan pandering and was developed once it was clear Trump was the opponent.

 

[Zkribbler]

Meanwhile, Trump's latest double-down: Of course he will accept the results of the election...as long as he wins.

Isn't this a moral cop out? Trump says he's seen lists of "thousands and thousands" of fraudulent voter registrations. Isn't he planning on turning these lists over to the state AG offices for prosecution? Is he just going to sit back and do nothing about massive voter fraud? I'm am deeply ashamed of him.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, it's one slogan, not the slogan. The central slogan of her whole campaign is "Stronger Together", as you could see during the DNC etc. It's pretty remarkable for a candidate to have such an explicitly inclusive message, so if you want to argue that Clinton's campaign isn't about letting people into their coalition you need stronger arguments than misinterpreting their messaging.

I wanted to illustrate my argument by comparing "Make America Great Again" with various stuff that the Trump campaign has on their t-shirts but then I realised I can't without violating forum rules.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which Clinton policies aren't centrist?

 

[BvBPL]

How quickly it changed from "the slogan: to "an HRC slogan."

The definite article has many uses. It can be used to refer to a previously referenced item, before superlatives, when referencing something specific, or when referencing something unique.


Here, it was used to reference a specific thing. This use is totally appropriate and in no way suggests that slogan is the only slogan of the HRC campaign. (The definite article can also be used both before “only” and proceeding proper nouns.)


If you’d like to learn more about the myriad of uses for the definite article, I heartily recommend this website.

 

[Arakhor]

... and in no way suggests that slogan is the only slogan of the HRC campaign.

Grammatically maybe so, but idiomatically, using 'the' instead of 'a' clearly implies that it is the slogan of a given body (in this case, the Clinton campaign). Your meaning would only have been enhanced by using the indefinite article instead.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which Clinton policies aren't centrist?

I guess strengthening Obamacare isn't centrist. But I have no idea what would be centrist there.

Balanced budget is centrist.

Climate change policies are centrist.

Defanging Citizens United is centrist.

Drone strikes but no ground forces is centrist

 

[BvBPL]

Replacing the definite article with the indefinite one would not have been appropriate.

"It's right in a slogan: 'I'm with her.'"
It doesn't work.

 

[JohannaK]

I have to be with BvBPL. While his post is certainly ambiguous and leaves out much needed context, the definite article there refers to the message as a unique element.

 

[tetley]

I guess strengthening Obamacare isn't centrist. But I have no idea what would be centrist there.

Balanced budget is centrist.

Climate change policies are centrist.

Defanging Citizens United is centrist.

Drone strikes but no ground forces is centrist

Difference of opinion.

Balanced budget is right-wing.
Climate change is left.
Defanging is left.
Drone strikes is less right-wing than ground forces, but still right-wing.

The end result, however, is moderate left-wing.

 

[Leoreth]

This grammatical tangent distracts from the overall point. BvBPL may not have intended to single out one Clinton slogan as more important than the others but that is precisely why he is wrong. There is one Clinton slogan that is more important than the others, and it's not the one he is focusing on, and it directly contradicts his narrative.

Now I don't think that slogans are a good way to judge a campaign in general but that's the grounds he decided to base his argument on.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're going to be binary, it's nearly impossible. Trump is proposing massive deficits for funding top-down stimulus. That's certainly not 'more' centrist than 'balanced budget'.

Climate change cannot be 'left'. It's centrist. Calling it 'left' makes no sense. George HW Bush confirmed the UNFCC. Reagan helped ratify the Montreal Protocol. Denying climate change may be 'rightwing', but that doesn't mean it makes acknowledging AGW 'left'. Denying is just extreme rightwing.

It blows my mind that 'defanging' is left. But it's certainly not this election. Both candidates are running on the policy of defanging. Clinton merely has a gameplan. Trump promises to be 'unbribable' (lol).

 

[Leoreth]

El Machinae, it seems that your criterion for centrist policies is taking reasonable and measured action against problems that have been established by objective fact.

I wish that this was actually what passed for centrism in this day and age.

But to answer your original question, I think you could call tax increases on the wealthy leftist. Unless you count it as centrist because it offsets right-wing tax cuts on the rich.

 

[El_Machinae]

El Machinae, it seems that your criterion for centrist policies is taking reasonable and measured action against problems that have been established by objective fact.

I wish that this was actually what passed for centrism in this day and age.

But to answer your original question, I think you could call tax increases on the wealthy leftist. Unless you count it as centrist because it offsets right-wing tax cuts on the rich.

Sounds good. She's certainly using tax increases to balance her budget (instead of cutting spending to fit the current system). That's 'leftwing', sure. Trump's got the Rightwing plan of 'massive deficits paid for by kicking the can down the road again', which is certainly Rightwing. But, haha, is more Keynesian than Clinton's plan.

So, Obamacare isn't centrist (though I don't know what is). Tax increases to balance a budget isn't centrist (unless it was being used to pay down the debt, I guess). Anything else?

 

[Leoreth]

Does defending the status quo counts if it is perceived as left-wing by the right? In this case, protecting Roe v. Wade and LGBT rights. You could construct some kind of proactive anti-religious agenda out of both, too.

 

[BvBPL]

This grammatical tangent distracts from the overall point. BvBPL may not have intended to single out one Clinton slogan as more important than the others but that is precisely why he is wrong. There is one Clinton slogan that is more important than the others, and it's not the one he is focusing on, and it directly contradicts his narrative.

Now I don't think that slogans are a good way to judge a campaign in general but that's the grounds he decided to base his argument on.

It is noteworthy that “Stronger Together” does not reflect how Clinton is running her campaign. Obama ran, and governed, on a policy of reaching across the aisle and bipartisan cooperation. In contrast, Clinton has not made a cooperative administration a priority in campaigning. For that matter, her record of cooperation within the Democratic party is pretty poor, witness the Democratic primaries where Clinton surrogates in the national committee actively worked against candidates on the left wing of the party. She certainly doesn’t see herself as being stronger together with the press as her record with media engagement is exceedingly lacking.


The Clinton campaign is based on her being such a personal and individual force that the electorate should support her because she’s Hilary Clinton, not so much because of her attributes as a stateswoman. The occasional narratives of it being “her time” are demonstrative. The presidency is not an office to be passed down to those waiting in line, but one that must be earned through engagement with others.


Deeper still, the focus on Clinton as a personality reveals her personal flaws. She’s consistently been behind the curve on a variety of issues, taking stances because of political expediency rather than principle. While a leader may go far as a personal force, Clinton is but a follower of the crowd.

 

[tetley]

The Republican party has completely failed the country. Reaching out and trying to compromise with a bunch of neocon crooks and frauds is like trying to compromise with terrorists, so that you only pay "half" of their ransom demands.

Monopolies are bad; and that's why we need Republicans. If the Democratic party is the only player in town, bad monopolistic things happen. As it is now, at least the GOP provides a common enemy to unite against. But that's it. Nothing to keep Democrats honest, no real competing ideas, nothing.

If we just threw out the GOP and splintered the Democratic party in two--Hillary vs. Bernie--that would be left vs. more-left, but at least that's better than it is now. And Hillary and Bernie are competitors; not enemies. There's a difference.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It is noteworthy that “Stronger Together” does not reflect how Clinton is running her campaign. Obama ran, and governed, on a policy of reaching across the aisle and bipartisan cooperation. In contrast, Clinton has not made a cooperative administration a priority in campaigning. For that matter, her record of cooperation within the Democratic party is pretty poor, witness the Democratic primaries where Clinton surrogates in the national committee actively worked against candidates on the left wing of the party. She certainly doesn’t see herself as being stronger together with the press as her record with media engagement is exceedingly lacking. The Clinton campaign is based on her being such a personal and individual force that the electorate should support her because she’s Hilary Clinton, not so much because of her attributes as a stateswoman. The occasional narratives of it being “her time” are demonstrative. The presidency is not an office to be passed down to those waiting in line, but one that must be earned through engagement with others. Deeper still, the focus on Clinton as a personality reveals her personal flaws. She’s consistently been behind the curve on a variety of issues, taking stances because of political expediency rather than principle. While a leader may go far as a personal force, Clinton is but a follower of the crowd.

Your claim that Pres Obama governed through bi-partisan co-operation is a little bizarre, and belies a commitment/focus on viewing Hillary as poorly as possible. I don't think any conservative (or liberal FTM) pundit would agree that bi-partisan co-operation was a character of the Obama Presidency.

Similarly, your claim that the Democrats are passing the succession down to those in line is also bizarrely and obviously seeking to find any fault possible with Hillary, since it is well known that the Republicans have consistently been the party of "wait your turn" and passing the nomination to the next guy in line, with this 2016 cycle being the rare exception.

 

[El_Machinae]

Obama certainly campaigned on being bipartisan. Both he and McCain overwhelmingly did. But that was when the neocons were on the severe downswing. It's also before the Party of No changed the landscapes. I don't know how one would run in a bipartisan fashion now. You'd have to invite Republicans to shuck their crazy element, but then they'd lose their local race to the Party of No wing

 

[onejayhawk]

Your claim that Pres Obama governed through bi-partisan co-operation is a little bizarre, and belies a commitment/focus on viewing Hillary as poorly as possible. I don't think any conservative (or liberal FTM) pundit would agree that bi-partisan co-operation was a character of the Obama Presidency.

Similarly, your claim that the Democrats are passing the succession down to those in line is also bizarrely and obviously seeking to find any fault possible with Hillary, since it is well known that the Republicans have consistently been the party of "wait your turn" and passing the nomination to the next guy in line, with this 2016 cycle being the rare exception.

I must agree. He utterly failed to include the opposition in his methodology. At best he had forced capitulation. It is the signature failing of his administration.

I guess strengthening Obamacare isn't centrist. But I have no idea what would be centrist there. Wanting properly crafted laws. The problem with ACA is that the bill itself was a trainwreck compilation of dissimilar interests.

Balanced budget is centrist. More conservative than centrist.

Climate change policies are centrist. More liberal than centrist.

Defanging Citizens United is centrist. More liberal than centrist.

Drone strikes but no ground forces is centrist. More liberal than centrist.

Everyone wants a balanced budget. The issue is one of priorities. As such, it does not fit in this list. The other items are liberal causes that might appeal to a centrist about half of the time.

J