Comment by pluma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pluma | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Contrast her making her candidacy a Feminist (and by absurd extrapolation LGBTQ and diversity) issue with Obama's campaign. Yes, everybody felt good about having elected a black president when it was over but he didn't offer "black cards" for download on his website and show grandiose self-promoting videos about the Black Man's Struggle.

A large part of Hillary's campaign (both officially and via her supporters on social media) was actively shaming people into voting for "the woman" instead of "the bigot". Unsurprisingly that seems to have backfired, leaving many liberals flabbergasted how "Women for Trump" was ever a thing.

I would have been upset with either candidate winning but the entire candidacy showed the worst side of American election cycles: mudslinging, character assassination and trying to convince everyone the other guy is literally the devil. Trump's accusations of Clinton being "a liar" and "a criminal" (IOW a typical career politician) were pretty harmless compared to the hyperbole (deserved or not) hauled at him.

Agreed. Ideas are only as strong as the arguments defending them, and the problem with feminism as identity politics is that it takes a bunch of unconnected ideas and packages them in such a way that if you attack the ideas then you're attacking women. This makes it so that bad ideas and bad arguments don't get weeded out and just keep getting repeated.

For whatever barriers Clinton faced due to her gender, she also wasn't held accountable early enough for a lot of legitimately bad things that she's done, which came back to hurt her in the end.

> Trump's accusations of Clinton being "a liar" and "a criminal" (IOW a typical career politician) were pretty harmless compared to the hyperbole (deserved or not) hauled at him

I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. Now maybe it's my liberal tendencies talking but the things that have come out of his mouth are flat out dangerous for a person who has that much power (now). Not much of it was hyperbole because it didn't have to be. He was already after foreigners, women, "the washington elite", the internet etc. before any of the media got involved. He was addicted to the cycle coverage but he still said all of those things and you can't wish that away.

I'm not defending either candidate here. I have no skin in this game (and besides, it's all decided now anyway).

But I've never before seen a candidate -- and especially that candidate's supporters -- be so viciously attacked as Trump was in this election campaign. I know certain liberal groups think "tone policing" is fallacious but I don't agree with this and neither do half of the American voters apparently (please excuse the tired phrase).

Throughout this campaign I've seen HRC supporters lump in abstainees and third party voters with Trump supporters in a way that only reminds me of George W Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric. I've seen HRC supporters sever ties with family members who announced they would vote for Trump. I've seen them shame and ridicule anyone saying they would do anything other than vote for HRC. I've even seen them call for boycotts of companies run by alleged Trump supporters.

It's not that Trump isn't a disagreeable character, its that he has been singled out and denounced with every imaginable slur and every single accusation levelled at him was taken at face value.

I know this is not solely the work of Clinton's campaign and that the election unfortunately coincided with the BLM movement, various Islamist attacks in the West (including the massacre in Orlando) and the peak of SJW conflicts at American universities but this was a despicable crapshoot and you know it.

I think the personal attacks on Clinton were far, far worse: 'crooked Hillary', 'such a nasty woman', 'lock her up' (or 'hang that bitch' from the Trump supporters) without any due process, attacking her for her husbands infidelities, Comey sends an ambiguously worded letter to congress and it becomes 'she will surely be prosecuted', she is 'rigging the election',...

If a family member said the things Trump has said, our relationship would be very strained.

If a company's CEO or owner said the things Trump has said, I would call for boycotting the company until that person no longer ran it.

That has nothing to do with the Democratic party, nor his running for president (I'm not even allowed to vote): It's because Trump's ideas are today's equivalent to being opposed to interracial marriage back then.

In politics, as in real life, it is important to judge people on what they do not what they say.

While Clinton mastered the "experienced, competent" persona, what she actually did was mostly driven by her ambition to become the first female president.

Trump, who has been accused of being a bigot, has always been very liberal towards LGBT (see his interview for Rolling Stone from a few years ago), while Hillary had been strongly against gay marriage until it became very clear public opinion changed in favor of it.

How can one be liberal towards LGBT folks while picking Pence as a running mate?

I can see him being apathetic towards them: if they get married, that's not my problem, but if they get "conversion therapy," that's also not my problem.

Now, I'm not sure that bigotry is the right word for that. But it is something at least as monstrous.

(Also, as a tangent: let's please not confuse gay marriage with "LGBT" as a whole. Trump has come down firmly on the evangelicals' side about trans people and bathrooms. If we mean "LGB" or "gay marriage", we should say what we mean.)

Yes, Pence's position is unfortunate, but he was brought in to please the religious supporters.

I believe Trump's administration will focus on pressing trade/economics and foreign policy issues, not bathroom identification issues, which affect 0.3% of the population.

To people disappointed with his victory, the consoling fact should be that Trump is not a religious nut. Yes, he said things about Supreme Court/abortion - as a Republican, you have to, to win the primaries.

Well, one would have hoped that the federal government would have stepped in and voided the laws being made by religious nuts at the state/local level. Obama was trying to do that. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Trump will continue trying to do that.

Also, while these issues directly affect 0.3% of the population, it is a subset of the 99.7% of the population that's calling for these bills. Perhaps enough of a subset that he'll continue wanting to please the religious supporters.

> How can one be liberal towards LGBT folks while picking Pence as a running mate?

Compromise.

Does no one remember when Obama was against and would not support gay marriage?

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/09/11623172-the...

Yes, I remember that. I would not have called 2004 Obama liberal on LGBT issues.

Also, and maybe I'm missing something because I'm not personally affected by this, but I think there's quite a difference between telling two adults they can't get married, and telling a child that they're going to be miserable and flawed their whole life if they don't figure out how to be straight, and we'll give you electric shocks to condition you out of being gay.

Or between telling two adults they can't get married, and telling an adult they can't use the bathroom. (Which is the effective result of the bathroom bills: a trans person is legally unwelcome in one restroom and socially unwelcome, to the point of causing legal trouble until a judge looks at their birth certificate, in another.) I would much prefer never to be able to get legally married than never to be able to use a public restroom.

There are plenty of anti-gay-marriage people, even evangelicals, who don't support "conversion therapy" and who don't believe that government should be regulating which bathroom you're using. I would be very willing to call someone liberal on LGBT issues despite picking, say, Obama of 2004 as their running mate.

Absolutely agree here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com