haha he is pissed.
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
It becomes too much when you say you've always been for rights during a public debate, when thats clearly not the case.
Just own it.
theshizzle
Member
My main problem with Hillary is she is funded by special interest. She's not going to bite the hand that feeds her.
legacyzero
Banned
Yes. That's a huge problem. It speaks to their principle. Their character.
ESPECIALLY when she talks about how "consistent" she is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGlJHpr1s2k
I think Christie is a good example of the standard definition of flip-flopping.
Not Clinton, especially when her change of heart on gay marriage is supported both by consistent rhetoric, and her vote as a senator.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think your support for Clinton is justified, given what you have stated.
THAT said, I have some criticisms. First, most criticisms of Clinton are not because of Gay marriage becoming legal or Obama care. THOSE are victories sure. But in plenty of other areas we are doing worse.
To me, it seems like you are picking and choosing victories while ignoring the losses. Income inequality is worse than seemingly ever in the USA. Mass incarceration is worse than ever. War on drugs continues. We are seemingly forever stuck in perpetual war in the middle east. Student loan dept is higher than ever. Banks are bigger than ever. Money in politics is more insidious than ever. NSA spying at best maintained during the last 8 years.
So you basically chose 2.5 examples of progress, but ignored the many many ways in which the average American is now WORSE off.
Are you a "progressive"? Maybe. You say you want progress. Slow progress. My criticism is that I'm not sure we are making progress in the areas that many many people care about. THAT is the difference. If you can afford slow progress, you are not really seeing the dire state of desperation that many people experience. Progressiveness requires empathy outside of your own perspective. It means supporting not only the progress you support, but the progress that others want and in many cases, need.
Polioliolio
Member
I still haven't been following the candidates yet, but I guess I should since it's now 2016..
I get the impression though that Hillary is too conservative for liberals and too 'doesn't have a penis' for conservatives.
I get the impression though that Hillary is too conservative for liberals and too 'doesn't have a penis' for conservatives.
Yoda
Member
She said one thing about a free trade deal with Columbia publicly and another privately:
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...ree-trade-agreement-latest-email-dump-2326068
She's most likely doing the same with TPP.
This is another problem, she's raising boatloads of money and there is just no way that they aren't being told privately that there will be no sincere effort against CU.
We didn't socialize the losses because there weren't any losses. The Treasury made money on TARP.
It's important to understand that, like, none of the banks or businesses threatened during the bailout were fundamentally flawed or doing anything crazy. Banks make money, that's literally their whole job -- take deposits, pool them for scale, invest them, pay interest out of the returns, and pocket the float. Some of those investments lose money, although usually not to the scale of the financial crisis. But it all amortizes out over time.
The danger during the financial crisis was that liquidity vanished -- the banks that were threatened simply couldn't raise the capital they needed immediately to continue operating, because there was no money to borrow, because nobody wanted to lend (because they needed capital to continue operating).
So all the Treasury needed to do was provide that liquidity. Sure, it was on a large scale, but once they prevented the immediate shock from killing the patient, they would recover on their own. Which is what happened, and exactly why TARP made money.
If you're looking to punish the banks, doing it during the bailout seems like the wrong choice. Probably the more efficient thing to do is pass very aggressive financial regulation after the bailout is over, which is, surprise surprise, exactly what Dodd-Frank is.
As I mentioned in another thread, it's instructive to look at the oil crisis that's currently taking place. There are a bunch of shale oil companies with huge exposure to the low oil prices today, and a lot of banks who have offered them a ton of credit because of how high oil prices were two years ago. It's the recipe for a huge crisis!
But right now there's no crisis, even though the market is pricing in default risks of upwards of 40% for these loans. Why? Because Dodd-Frank forced banks to hold more capital, and accumulate even more capital, as their balance sheet became riskier. These banks might take big losses -- in fact, they probably will. But it probably won't cause a huge collapse, because Dodd-Frank was designed to ensure that that won't happen again.
Progressive?
legacyzero
Banned
Wow, I'm worried that some folks in here aren't willing to look into facts, or even more worrisome, not willing to accept them.
It feels like a cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face type of situation.
Even if you take her gay marriage "evolution" off the table, there are MANY more things that are easy to call her out on. If she "evolved" on anything, it's TPP. And even THAT I question, because of her NAFTA support.
It feels like a cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face type of situation.
Even if you take her gay marriage "evolution" off the table, there are MANY more things that are easy to call her out on. If she "evolved" on anything, it's TPP. And even THAT I question, because of her NAFTA support.
GiantBreadbug
Member
I'll just say that if you've ever said you think marriage is between a man and a woman only, whether you said it a hundred years ago or while your husband was president, or if you think it has ever been okay to be on the objectively wrong side of that issue, then you are wrong.
"She only said that because she was trying to represent the opinions of constituents."
Wow, that sure does make any marginalization and discrimination I've faced as a gay man totally worth it.
If you know what's right, say it. Doing any less is lying. And I don't like liars. So yeah Hillary lost my vote before I was even old enough to know I was gay.
The best thing I can say about people who've "evolved" on gay rights is "great, welcome to being a decent person."
Btw not basing my whole vote on the gay thing alone, but rather the fact that Hillary has had chances to do/say the right thing and has declined in favor of something that looks better for her. And I'm aware that's "just how politics works," I just think if shouldn't be that way.
"She only said that because she was trying to represent the opinions of constituents."
Wow, that sure does make any marginalization and discrimination I've faced as a gay man totally worth it.
If you know what's right, say it. Doing any less is lying. And I don't like liars. So yeah Hillary lost my vote before I was even old enough to know I was gay.
The best thing I can say about people who've "evolved" on gay rights is "great, welcome to being a decent person."
Btw not basing my whole vote on the gay thing alone, but rather the fact that Hillary has had chances to do/say the right thing and has declined in favor of something that looks better for her. And I'm aware that's "just how politics works," I just think if shouldn't be that way.
Fenderputty
Banned
I supported it at the time. I think it was a hugely unorganized mess that lacked a clear message. It allowed fringe elements of politics to be part of the movement and distort things. It allowed a narrative by the media to shape public perception. It became a movement of lazy youth with iPads and guy fawkes masks. Shame too. The success can be contained in how they've shaped discussion on wealth disparity. The 1% is still used as a way to frame the discussion as an example.
You were responding to a post I made about how the left needs a moment that understands how to work within the system. I was basically saying we don't need some political revolution but slow meaningful progress, and you responded with the opposite.
She was for "domestic unions" with benefits in the 90s. There was a lot of push back that it wasn't explicitly called marriage.
correct me if i am wrong
GiantBreadbug
Member
Yeah and if she really didn't like DOMA then it sure wasn't apparent.
The difference lies in knowing how important it is to the gay movement that it be called "marriage." The actual equality part where you don't hold gays at arm's length so they don't tarnish your political image.
She is not a friend of the movement in my eyes. She has not been brave when she needed to be (most haven't) and I have disrespect for that.
BearFlexington
Member
All valid points, particularly the bit about silent protests and shit. I am swayed.
hodayathink
Member
Ummm,
http://www.advocate.com/print-issue/cover-stories/2011/01/10/madam-secretary
Don't get me wrong, gay marriage is a big issue, but Hillary has been publicly for gay rights for a long time.
But why would you find that insincere, considering it puts her in direct opposition with the guy she's now hugging to get the nomination?
I wouldn't know from experience as I'm straight but I feel such an argument can be quite complicated for example would you say lots of progressives for their times in late 1800 Were bad cause they weren't strongly advocating for African American rights ? By your logic a lot of humanity were horrible ppl then . Society progresses and people with it it's a gradual process .there might come a time where the concept of national borders will sound absurd and xenophobic to the majority of humanity
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think that our political system is broken. Slow meaningful change is not possible with a broken system that is not interested in progress. Sometimes the tea table needs to be upended. Sometimes a revolution is necessary. (not saying Bernie is necessarily the answer). There are systematic flaws that cant be fixed slowly and meaningfully.
Wait wait. So you are saying there was no fraud during the financial crisis?
Article was longer than i expected. If I said something inaccurate just say it
Almost nobody who's been in politics for 10+ years was on the right side of that issue. You might as well abstain from all elections.
who else was pushing for that at the time?
I get what you are saying about the arms length, but it still got you everything but the title "marriage", benefits like health and life insurance, that is a very material victory. Then you can just add one mod to the bill in place to call it marriage over the next few years.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think she should be honest then.
Say yeah, I compromised, yeah I did sacrifice, but it was all because I was playing the long game. That would be sincere. Not this "I evolved" nonsense.
legacyzero
Banned
Regardless, it screams dishonesty to me. When you "evolve" on so many of these issues, that tells me she is willing to change her stance based on who she's dealing with. It's stinky.
Yep.
And THEN to go and say, "I've been CONSISTENT!!"
Pretty much how I feel. Let's not forget her recent revisionist history regarding why DOMA was passed as well.
I have different feelings about the specific evolution of Hillary, Bernie, and Obama's stance on SSM. Bernie hid behind a states' rights argument, so I give him no credit. To me, it's the lengths that Hillary went to in defending "the sanctity of marriage" by the language she chose to justify her stance that I find quite offensive. I'm supposed to believe she's binge-watching RuPaul's Drag Race and my best friend now?
No, and nobody's asked you to believe that.
All that matters is that when it comes to the fight for gay rights, Hillary is on the same side, and that's reflected in her senate voting record. That's all I give a shit about. The rest is fluff.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It is an interesting balance between being a leader and representing your constituents. It is the nature of a republic with a representative democratic system. Not Bernie nor Hillary nor Obama are perfect on this. But as you point out, it is not fair to call it a wash either.
There's plenty of fraud on Wall Street, but the business practices that led to the financial crisis were (and mostly still are) perfectly legal.
When her voting record nearly universally matches my views, I don't care if it's fucking "politically expedient".
If it's "politically expedient" for her to vote for things that I care about, and that you probably care about considering that you're posting in this thread and seem to support Bernie, then what difference does it really make?
It just seems like people who hate Clinton are all "OH MY GOD SHE VOTES FOR THINGS JUST TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE HER INTO OFFICE THE TRAVESTY THE HORROR"
so you are offended about "the sanctity of marriage" defense while also stating that in order to appeal to gay people Hillary is now binge watching RuPauls Drag Race and my best friend?
without a hint of irony, too. impressive.
nitekrawlwer
Member
I get that things are bad but are all of those losses? Take Mass incarceration. Obama has lowered the disparity in sentences for crack vs cocaine, trying to implement body cams, researched and developed best practices for use of force, attempts to demilitarize the police. I get that it's glacial and not enough but are those not victories? Are those to be ignored entirely until the problem is solved? I think the same could be said of any of the losses you mentioned.
The "sanctity of marriage" line is the same line Republicans used/are still using over the last few years. It's hard not to look at that video of her from 2004 and not feel a visceral reaction, even if there has been an evolution on her part since then. I'm not simply taking issue with those 3 words alone, it's the sentiment it's couched in that I find offensive.
I'm not sure what's impressive about any irony or lack thereof, please explain. Maybe I misphrased something.
Hillary's best friend, beyond the corporations that have padded her nest, is the selective memory of the American people.
boiled goose
good with gravy
My point was that I dont necessarily see net progress. Even if net, it might not be sufficient.
So there was no fraud?
Second question. Should these practices still be legal if they led to the crisis?
To me it is fascinating how young people don't seem to support her. It is truly amazing. I wonder why they dont and older people do.
It is also curious how the educated tend to support sanders, while the very wealthy skew Clinton. simply fascinating.
I don't actually disagree with anything you're saying here, except for your very last point about Hillary being a step in the right direction. I'm worried she'll, at best, maintain exactly what we already have, and, at worst, pull us back a bunch. I think she's completely and utterly compromised. I think her effect on the economics of my country will be a net negative. I think that, though she will probably some good things, those things will be undermined by, again, her effect on the economics of this country. She's done nothing to show me that she's not going to bow to the whims of the people paying for her campaign. She's done a lot to show me she probably doesn't plan to do go against them.
I'm also a socialist. I think this country is going to be fucked in a few decades if we don't get on the basic income train soon. I believe it is a right of every single human on this earth to have free health care. I think all the corporations whose wallets Hillary has her fingers in will do everything they can to oppose these things.
I do not believe Hillary is progressive. I can understand your position on this, but, man, I just can't agree.
I'll still be voting for her, because we don't have a better choice. Unless Bernie miraculously wins... Hah!
again, point to me anyone else fighting for this at the time.
it is impressive because you lazily define how Hilary is now appealing to LGBT through a RuPaul show rather than from her actual policy.
There is a fuckload of fraud and problematic issues to regulate in financial markets. Many of them led to the 2008 mess.
The problem is wanting to throw the whole system that has led to prosperity and funding of massive and staggering technological advances under the bus.
Lest we forget, the purpose of financial markets is for companies to socialize their ownership to finance their growth and projects.
This got us Google, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, and (this one's for GAF) NVidia where they are now.
In a haphazard attempt to solve the issues, some of you guys want to throw the whole system away. And it's such a strong position before the discussion even gets started that we are not even getting at the relevant discussion of how to regulate it properly and make it efficient and safe to our system: None of what I said above means that funds should be able to be leveraged hundreds of times over, or banks able to package mortgages in esoteric ways that do their best to hide their true value.
The problem is wanting to throw the whole system that has led to prosperity and funding of massive and staggering technological advances under the bus.
Lest we forget, the purpose of financial markets is for companies to socialize their ownership to finance their growth and projects.
This got us Google, Intel, Microsoft, IBM, and (this one's for GAF) NVidia where they are now.
In a haphazard attempt to solve the issues, some of you guys want to throw the whole system away. And it's such a strong position before the discussion even gets started that we are not even getting at the relevant discussion of how to regulate it properly and make it efficient and safe to our system: None of what I said above means that funds should be able to be leveraged hundreds of times over, or banks able to package mortgages in esoteric ways that do their best to hide their true value.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I am curious how the election will go.... Hillary's SC crush was certainly a bucket of ice water to Sanders and on Super Tuesday she will do well. After that though, there are tons of states that he can take. If he wins Ma, colorado, and minnesota on Super tuesday along vermont and oklahoma, then we have a race on our hands. In fact, he might be favored at that point.
I might be wrong in Nevada, do correct me if wrong. comment was based on some of the other primaries. I am actually not sure what the trend is nationally.
My obviousness was deliberate of course. haha.
Old people value experience and slow pragmatism. Young people want the immediacy of a revolution and value idealism.
I don't buy the educated/wealthy dichotomy you're pitching though.
Point to me where I made that assertion? I said I don't give Bernie any credit for his evolution. Are you asking me to let Hillary off the hook because everyone else was anti-gay at the time? That doesn't give me much comfort if populism at some point doesn't favor me in the future.
Pardon the levity, I guess. My point was that Hillary's evolution is drastic and I'm calling such a swing into question when you couple her stance then with her stance now when you factor in something like her DOMA revisionism as a way to soften her old stance. I'm familiar with her current stump speech and I do hope we see progress made with regards to the "married on Saturday, fired on Monday" portion of LGBT rights.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You're wrong. On Gay Marriage in particular:
???
Iran Nuclear Deal?? ( http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/1...pologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/ )
Iraq? ( http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...rom-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-apology/372427/ )
Her hate/love for Obama? ( then: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19933710/...nton-obama-naive-foreign-policy/#.VeneQBFVikp / now: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-iran-nuclear-deal-120078 )
Patriot Act? ( http://www.wired.com/2008/01/clinton-slams-o/ )
Nafta? ( http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm )
XL Pipeline? ( http://journalstar.com/news/local/h...cle_cda4324a-dd70-11df-80f4-001cc4c03286.html )
Gun Control? ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now )
Mass Incarceration? ( http://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8522259/hillary-record-criminal-justice )
Drugs? ( war on drugs; http://downtrend.com/71superb/why-doesnt-the-media-care-about-hillary-clintons-flip-flopping )
Immigration? (http://theweek.com/articles/556421/hillary-clinton-already-crushed-republicans-immigration )
TPP? ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/ )
She is extremely opportunistic and insincere. She didn't took the unpopular vote, Bernie did- and stood like the crazy loon on the hill saying a lot of shit that has turned out to be right, while she apologizes, where her base panders that her expertise is what makes her such a good candidate.
She has been wrong so many times, when it really mattered.
People should still vote for her over the republicans. But you cannot say that all of this is honestly evolving on the issues. She changes her positions when public opinion changes. It's what happened with gay rights, what is happening now with minimum wage, and what will happen with marijuana- Which is why she has a completely stupid stance on the subject now, of letting it go to a lower class drug.
That's not to say Hillary flipflops on everything. On Women and Children she has always been solid. Same with her grotesque and gross support of maintaining the death penality; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-death-penalty_us_56310eb4e4b00aa54a4c48c9
But truly, when your campaign is run on fumes from Saudi Monarchs who massacre Shias all over the middle east, why would you give a fuck about something so trivial as draconian medieval bullshit like state executions?
Again. You don't have to like Hillary- In fact, I think you shouldn't. It's important to educate yourself to what she is, and the positions she has had in the past. You can't just get off on all these things.
But at the same time, Hillary Clinton is an extremely gifted politician, and she has been vetted for this for a long time. Bill started taking 500,000+ dollar speech fees before she was even SOS, I believe. And the clinton foundation was set up as a trojan horse that allowed them receive vast funds from foreign governments, as donating to a candidate specifically is not allowed.
As such, we have to conclude that Hillary Clinton is a bad person, and this is a power grab on her part. But she is not dumb. And a part of me thinks that she will take the fight to the republicans. But I think under her, income inequality will get a lot worse. money will remain in politics, gun violence is going to get worse, more people are going to fall out of the middle class, and everyone under 35 need to probe themselves on having less opportunities than their middle class parents.
many jobs are going to disappear, automation will make it a lot worse. I think for that reason, 4 years from now, if the income inequality keeps the current pace, the 1% will own 95% of all the wealth in America in 4-5 years. In the meantime, I wonder if Hillary will keep her oaths with expanding obamacare, closing private prisons and 12-USD minimum wage.
IrishNinja
Member
No one wants to talk about the Clinton Foundation?
Vigilant Walrus got u
According to exit polls, Hillary and Bernie basically tie on college students, Bernie edged out by 5 points on college grads, and Hillary won graduate students by almost 30 points.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NV
So your "Educated people vote Bernie" point is moot when it comes to the state of Nevada.
Truth is there is no real trend yet. All that's obvious at this point is that two small, largely white and rural states have no fucking business setting the tone for the Democratic primaries. That needs to change, and soon.
Bernie has the privilege of being from a deeply liberal, very tiny state. He can take pretty far-left positions and never has to pay for it in an election.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Thanks for the facts on Nevada. Caucuses might not be 'quite' the best representation of the population, especially in Nevada.
Certainly, the preferred candidate will be chosen by the primaries. So you would support the candidate being picked by whichever candidate wins the most democratically chosen delegates? Also, which states should set the tone? California? MA? the south?
JesseEwiak
Member
Bingo. I think what a lot of people forget is that a lot of Democrat's, including John Kerry, voted against the first Iraq War, and then saw the US Army blaze through Iraq like a knife through butter and Bush the First with 90% approval ratings.
There's a reason why Bill Clinton was able to win the nomination in '92. It's because no big name wanted the assume L the '92 election was when fundraising and campaigning began.
Also, most of the stuff the Hillary has flip flopped on is stuff that _America_ has flip flopped on. If you're a suburban voter who only began to support gay marriage because your cousin came out or a nice gay family moved into the cul de sac you're not going to think Hillary is some evil flip flopper, she's going to think you're like you.
Those question marks are apt.
Where in that post do you address her votes? I've already stated in multiple posts in this thread that I don't really care about what she's said. I care about how she voted.
So go look up her votes.
TheLaughingStock
Member
I'm confused on how you would be concerned with the long-term. The global community is currently in the midst of multiple scandals involving financial assets valued in the 100s of trillions pertaining to interest rates, currencies, bonds, loans, etc. Virtually every person on Earth with an account or carrying money around has been impacted by the reach of these fraud schemes. Why would you want to punish people by raising taxes on everyone?
Some of these scandals won't be over in US jurisdiction until the statute of limitations run out in 2016/2017. And going forward, do we really want billions of lives to be subject to a new explosion of US bank money and correspondingly US bank risk knowing their guarantees and representations of health don't mean squat? They're serial liars and private sector banks already handle the vast majority of total financing in the US Federal Reserve System. I think if the US gov't doesn't want to put the full faith and credit of the US towards doing great things or prosecute fraudsters manipulating numbers up and down...the least they could do is not raise taxes. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to the people.
- Status