• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Hillary Clinton visits the Howard Stern show for her first interview

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Particle Physicist said:
huh? There wasn't suppressed turnout. She had the third highest votes for a presidential candidate ever, just behind Obama. I guess you can argue that there was suppressed turnout in some states, but a big part of that is from Republican voter suppression tactics.

2008 Obama: 69,498,516

2012 Obama: 65,915,795

2016 Clinton: 65,853,514 (48.2%)

2016 Trump: 62,984,828 (46.1%)

source: wikipedia

She beat Trump by 2,868,686 votes or 2.1% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We can run some numbers but I seriously doubt that 2016 kept pace with population growth and the overall growth trend of a non re-election contest.

Edit : It did not.

You then also have to consider that Trump did better than Romney with virtually every single group, to the point that voter suppression (which IS a massive factor don't think I mean otherwise!) can't explain it.

Inuhanyou said:
Go Corbyn. These rich elitist fucks really do love their virtue signalling through on a whim charity schemes.

Stop trying to make people think your good people and actually contribute to society and the downtrodden in a substantive way that actually helps everyone.

I know these billionaires will never do it on their own, but im glad the facade of "feel good" stories about donating personal wealth is crashing down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For a lot of them it's even simply for the personal ego boost. Because you KNOW that they're personally getting thanks and applause for giving less in leu of paying anywhere near fair taxation. It's the epitome of selfishness.
 
mescalineeyes

mescalineeyes

Banned
May 12, 2018
4,444
Vienna
ghoul has a very specific meaning when it comes to politics and Hillary Clinton definitely is one and it has nothing to do with her gender.
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
image0.png

They find it so easy to straw man people who explicitly say they're here to REDISTRIBUTE CAPITAL
 
ebs

ebs

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
443
Particle Physicist said:
huh? There wasn't suppressed turnout. She had the third highest votes for a presidential candidate ever, just behind Obama. I guess you can argue that there was suppressed turnout in some states, but a big part of that is from Republican voter suppression tactics.

2008 Obama: 69,498,516

2012 Obama: 65,915,795

2016 Clinton: 65,853,514 (48.2%)

2016 Trump: 62,984,828 (46.1%)

source: wikipedia

She beat Trump by 2,868,686 votes or 2.1% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

3rd highest of all time is meaningless because of population growth.

If you normalise for population growth then 2016 Clinton got 11% less votes than 2008 Obama, which is a significant loss.
 
Paz

Paz

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,164
Brisbane, Australia
Hard to hate on Hilary when she hasn't changed at all from 2016, Americans knew what they were getting then and they know what they're getting now if they really pick Biden.
 
Lentic

Lentic

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,836
tulpa said:
she also misgenders Caitlyn Jenner and engages in a lengthy conversation that repeatedly uses her deadname in part five. yet some of y'all will keep defending her "valid concerns" about trans people bullshit
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
tulpa said:
i really implore everyone, especially people that continue to defend this person, to listen to the full interview. she defends Richard Nixon and says the difference between now and the Nixon era is that "Republicans followed the law." she says it was good for Gerald Ford to pardon Nixon because it allowed the nation to move on. she refers to Caitlyn Jenner as "he." her entire argument against Trump is based around her love and respect for the US military. her politics are essentially that of a 1970s era Republican. how can you keep defending this person?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If this is true, then yikes at the people calling it a great interview. Weird how the defenders of our Queen ran away all of a sudden. I seriously get White Femenist vibes from her and her supporters.

..and lol CNN
 
Boiled Goose

Boiled Goose

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
9,999
People are calling this a great interview??? Guess they love right wing talking points. :/

"How are you going to pay for it?"

Smh
 
Carnby

Carnby

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,256
Ionic said:
Christo Aivalis is still a small time Youtuber, but I think he really sees through the bullshit of the wealthiest people. This video really lays into the absolutely insulting equivocation of calling for universal health care or tuition to a child calling for free chocolate milk and pizza at elementary school that Clinton and Stern make on their program. Succinct and biting.



"Basic human rights are not chocolate milk"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


The guy in the video makes some great points.

I never liked Hillary but I still voted for her.
 
sphagnum

sphagnum

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
16,058
SurrenderDorothy said:
I can never understand how people fell in love with this ghoul.

God, they're insufferable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Hey, mods, we're gonna need some clarification here. What exactly is the "inappropriate commentary" in this post? Is it calling Hillary a ghoul, or is it the "they're insufferable" part? Because "ghoul" is not a sexist term and SurrenderDorothy should not have been banned for it. "Ghoul" has nothing to do with Hillary's appearance, it's not specific to women, it's not even unique to her. It's an increasingly common insult thrown around online for politicians that people don't like.

For example:

Missouri GOP are ghouls who should be jailed for life
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They needed help to unlock a suspect's account, not one of their own agents, you cousin-fucking ghoul.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(that one's about Giuliani)

Get fucked, you ghoul. I really hope he gets in trouble again after Trump is out of office.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(about Arpaio)

LOL at the "Steady State".

Fuck them all. Useless cowards and self-important ghouls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is just one, ONE, single brick in this monster's heinous legacy. He has done so much harm to so many others. The audacity to try to frame him as anything less than a ghoul is staggering.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
(about Reagan)

Have zero problem with Momentum weaponising Twitter against the ghouls standing for the Conservative party, or the worse end of the Lib Dems.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even Nunes had the sense to say he wouldn't comment. Gym Jordan seriously has no shame. Him and Gaetz are so beyond any sort of redemption, it's sickening to see, and people keep voting for these soulless ghouls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


So as we can see, it is a term that is widely used and accepted on this forum and for which people do not get banned.

If the issue is that SurrenderDorothy said "they're insufferable", does that mean we can't express frustration at people who vote for candidates we don't like? Because we do that all the time for some other politicians and parties (considering the leanings of the userbase of this site, it's often quite justifiable!). It doesn't seem like any particular posters were being attacked in the post. If that's the reason for the ban, then we need clarity on it so we know what the bounds are.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
sphagnum said:
Hey, mods, we're gonna need some clarification here. What exactly is the "inappropriate commentary" in this post? Is it calling Hillary a ghoul, or is it the "they're insufferable" part? Because "ghoul" is not a sexist term and SurrenderDorothy should not have been banned for it. "Ghoul" has nothing to do with Hillary's appearance, it's not specific to women, it's not even unique to her. It's an increasingly common insult thrown around online for politicians that people don't like.

For example:




(that one's about Giuliani)


(about Arpaio)




(about Reagan)






So as we can see, it is a term that is widely used and accepted on this forum and for which people do not get banned.

If the issue is that SurrenderDorothy said "they're insufferable", does that mean we can't express frustration at people who vote for candidates we don't like? Because we do that all the time for some other politicians and parties (considering the leanings of the userbase of this site, it's often quite justifiable!). It doesn't seem like any particular posters were being attacked in the post. If that's the reason for the ban, then we need clarity on it so we know what the bounds are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seconded, especially on the expressing frustration part. I've seen many people call nonvoters and third party voters horrible things and nothing happens.

Clarification would very much appreciated.
 

Deffers

Banned
Mar 4, 2018
2,402
Helio said:
Seconded, especially on the expressing frustration part. I've seen many people call nonvoters and third party voters horrible things and nothing happens.

Clarification would very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, like, Clinton's a TERF and she lived in a governor's mansion staffed by people who had life sentences (and the way she's talked about that experience in published books is... well, there's an adjective I'd use but I suppose "repulsive" and "revolting" will do instead. If that doesn't qualify her for that insult, or if she's exempt for reasons of her gender, the record should be set straight.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Add my voice to the outcry. "Ghoul" is not a gendered slur and, given that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under a presidency that committed war crimes, I think that is an entire appropriate descriptor for her.
 
Regulus Tera

Regulus Tera

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,458
Smh at people defending Clinton for this

ps Hillary Cinton is a war criminal so the best we can attach to her is the adjective of reaper
 
Cow Mengde

Cow Mengde

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,787
WTF? Someone got banned for calling a war criminal a ghoul? She's also a TERF and supported racist policies.
 
tulpa

tulpa

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,878
it's wild that it's acceptable to directly defend war crimes and terfs on this forum yet when people call out ableism they can catch a ban
 

Deleted member 7130

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,685
Ghoul is apt for a pro war hawk who spews TERF ideas and is chummy with other ghouls like Henry Kissinger
 
lacer

lacer

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,693
Helio said:
Sometimes, it feels like Era has an anti-leftist bias.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
eh we get away with saying some pretty mean stuff about mayo pete. it's the inconsistency that's really baffling here. a mod said Hillary might be worse on foreign policy than Trump (Brazil did nothing wrong) which seems way more harsh than simple name-calling, but calling her a ghoul is worth a three day ban? huh?
 
Cow Mengde

Cow Mengde

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,787
lacer said:
eh we get away with saying some pretty mean stuff about mayo pete. it's the inconsistency that's really baffling here. a mod said Hillary might be worse on foreign policy than Trump (Brazil did nothing wrong) which seems way more harsh than simple name-calling, but calling her a ghoul is worth a three day ban? huh?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To be fair, they are all individual people. Chances are, they're not the same people doing the bannings.

This is definitely a bad call on their part.
 
Papercuts

Papercuts

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,138
Damn the mods here can do BAC tests and redefine the english language itself. Truly incredible.
 
GYODX

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,268
Good interview. Regardless of how you feel about her, I recommend you go into it with an open mind and give it a listen.
 

Deleted member 19066

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,826
Deffers said:
Yeah, like, Clinton's a TERF and she lived in a governor's mansion staffed by people who had life sentences (and the way she's talked about that experience in published books is... well, there's an adjective I'd use but I suppose "repulsive" and "revolting" will do instead. If that doesn't qualify her for that insult, or if she's exempt for reasons of her gender, the record should be set straight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's entirely possible that that prison labor paid nothing. Not even 50c an hour. Nada. Actual, legal, slavery.
 
y2dvd

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,481
loquaciousJenny said:
I'm trying to avoid derailing the thread too much, but if calling her a witch is sexist than moving one step from that should be too. Mocking her voice is apparently a 3 day, and in a previous thread calling her a cunt is worth just a warning, so I'm not sure how the grading in this class works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's slimy straight up how you are now switching it from a ghoul to a witch which is now gender specific and the ban on who you quoted is bullshit. This is seriously some trash shit you pulled and the mod is trash for the ban. It should be reversed from your derailment.
 
Last edited:
Maximo

Maximo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,291
And here I thought Era said it was going to do better at moderation wtf...We need to stop with these vague as hell moderation comments.
 

Deleted member 3968

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
888
'Inappropriate comment' can mean literally anything. That is in no way a clear explanation, and as has been pointed out several times ghoul has a specific meaning in politics and is in no way a gendered slur.
 
Ionic

Ionic

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,735
GYODX said:
Good interview. Regardless of how you feel about her, I recommend you go into it with an open mind and give it a listen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the interview beyond just vague platitudes about it being "good". Plenty of people have talked at length about what they thought was awful about the content of the interview, so more insight from the other perspective would be nice.
 
GYODX

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,268
Ionic said:
I'd be interested to hear more of your thoughts on the interview beyond just vague platitudes about it being "good". Plenty of people have talked at length about what they thought was awful about the content of the interview, so more insight from the other perspective would be nice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Two very engaging and intelligent people speaking candidly about their personal lives with some politics thrown in the mix. Give it a 10-15 minute listen, even if you vehemently disagree with certain points. Start at the 6 minute mark of part 2. It doesn't have to change your opinion of her, and you don't have to despise her any less after having watched it; but it's a very interesting and engaging interview nonetheless.
 
Hinkypunk

Hinkypunk

alt account
Banned
Dec 13, 2018
134
sphagnum said:
Hey, mods, we're gonna need some clarification here. What exactly is the "inappropriate commentary" in this post? Is it calling Hillary a ghoul, or is it the "they're insufferable" part? Because "ghoul" is not a sexist term and SurrenderDorothy should not have been banned for it. "Ghoul" has nothing to do with Hillary's appearance, it's not specific to women, it's not even unique to her. It's an increasingly common insult thrown around online for politicians that people don't like.

For example:




(that one's about Giuliani)


(about Arpaio)




(about Reagan)






So as we can see, it is a term that is widely used and accepted on this forum and for which people do not get banned.

If the issue is that SurrenderDorothy said "they're insufferable", does that mean we can't express frustration at people who vote for candidates we don't like? Because we do that all the time for some other politicians and parties (considering the leanings of the userbase of this site, it's often quite justifiable!). It doesn't seem like any particular posters were being attacked in the post. If that's the reason for the ban, then we need clarity on it so we know what the bounds are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
100% this.

Wtf is going on with this website?

We JUST had that policy announcement thread where admins unequivocally stated ALL ban actions are made in a team with multiple moderators debating it.

So, this means multiple mods just approved a ban for "ghoul"? lol
 
Pretendo Switch

Pretendo Switch

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
957
Boiled Goose said:
People are calling this a great interview??? Guess they love right wing talking points. :/

"How are you going to pay for it?"

Smh
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Howard is suuuuuuuper left wing on most topics. Calling him right wing seems pretty nutty to me. The only area he gets a little iffy on is money. But all other social, racial, economic, climate change topics etc, he's as far left as mainstream entertainers get.
 

Allforce

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,136
sphagnum said:
Hey, mods, we're gonna need some clarification here. What exactly is the "inappropriate commentary" in this post? Is it calling Hillary a ghoul, or is it the "they're insufferable" part? Because "ghoul" is not a sexist term and SurrenderDorothy should not have been banned for it. "Ghoul" has nothing to do with Hillary's appearance, it's not specific to women, it's not even unique to her. It's an increasingly common insult thrown around online for politicians that people don't like.

For example:




(that one's about Giuliani)


(about Arpaio)




(about Reagan)






So as we can see, it is a term that is widely used and accepted on this forum and for which people do not get banned.

If the issue is that SurrenderDorothy said "they're insufferable", does that mean we can't express frustration at people who vote for candidates we don't like? Because we do that all the time for some other politicians and parties (considering the leanings of the userbase of this site, it's often quite justifiable!). It doesn't seem like any particular posters were being attacked in the post. If that's the reason for the ban, then we need clarity on it so we know what the bounds are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm with this guy, wtf is this ban all about?
 
uncelestial

uncelestial

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,060
San Francisco, CA, USA
Illuminating to see, laid bare, the many policy reasons for why I supported Bernie instead of her in the primaries.

But also illuminating re: her as a person with a story and a personality, that I think many people never got to see. Even as I scoffed and rolled my eyes at shit like her giving Ellen a pass, praising Nixon and Kissinger, mocking the idea of free tuition while glorifying stories of her own family members benefiting from free school lunches, and more, I did at least feel like we were seeing the "real her." It's an excellent interview by an excellent interviewer.

That said:
If it had happened in 2016, she would've been in campaign mode and it wouldn't have been nearly this candid; wouldn't have made a lick of difference.
 
Last edited:
Luminish

Luminish

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,508
Denver
sphagnum said:
Hey, mods, we're gonna need some clarification here. What exactly is the "inappropriate commentary" in this post? Is it calling Hillary a ghoul, or is it the "they're insufferable" part? Because "ghoul" is not a sexist term and SurrenderDorothy should not have been banned for it. "Ghoul" has nothing to do with Hillary's appearance, it's not specific to women, it's not even unique to her. It's an increasingly common insult thrown around online for politicians that people don't like.

For example:




(that one's about Giuliani)


(about Arpaio)




(about Reagan)






So as we can see, it is a term that is widely used and accepted on this forum and for which people do not get banned.

If the issue is that SurrenderDorothy said "they're insufferable", does that mean we can't express frustration at people who vote for candidates we don't like? Because we do that all the time for some other politicians and parties (considering the leanings of the userbase of this site, it's often quite justifiable!). It doesn't seem like any particular posters were being attacked in the post. If that's the reason for the ban, then we need clarity on it so we know what the bounds are.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Really, "ghoul" should be encouraged to be used as an insult precisely because it's a rare example of not being sexist, racist, homophobic, or ablest.
 
Sibylus

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,731
There's some serious issues with folks taking the proverbial car dive to try and rub out people they dislike. Examples du jour? Raising a stink about the use of centrist, or ghoul.
 
Last edited:
Fantastical

Fantastical

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,424
The Kissinger stuff is over the top, especially because it comes from Stern (we're used to Clinton talking lovingly about Kissinger). I listened to the show when I had a Sirius trial and you could definitely tell he's more of a centrist-type lib but damn, naming Kissinger as "the gold standard"... that reads like parody.
 
TheHunter

TheHunter

Bold Bur3n Wrangler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
25,774
Sibylus said:
There's some serious issues with folks taking the proverbial car dive to try and rub out people they dislike. Examples du jour? Raising a stink about the use of centrist, or ghoul.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How was me taking issue with incorrectly labeling the Democratic party centrist/right-wing trying to get someone banned?
 
DisasterMaster

DisasterMaster

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
551
So apparently ghoul is a ban worthy word now? Like what is going on i dont see why Dorthy was banned for that post unless loquacious wrote a report that the mods didn't look into too deeply
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.