Support NeoGAF

[whyamihere]

It's not a moot point because her position on the death penalty doesn't exist in a vacuum. It speaks to her judgment and rationality on matters like these and it's regressive, barbaric, and indefensible, imo.

I believe if the death penalty was not as popular with the country as it is, Hillary wouldn't support it, and that's a problem. Not because of some bullshit purity test, but because it would demonstrate limitations in her ability to be a progressive leader for this country.

There are many things that a president might say or believe that might not have a harmful effect directly, but indirectly, its presence in the public conscience could have a very negative if not dangerous impact on the advancement of good ethics and social values for our society.

I mean, it's a moot point in terms of the practicality of her position and its affect on policy. We are not passing a bill to ban the death penalty that she has to sign. Hillary's presidency will not stop states from repealing the death penalty, if they are so inclined. It's hard for me to care beyond what she can accomplish as a presidency, the same reason I didn't care what Hillary or Obama's opinions on gay marriage were in 2008. Neither of them would be the final say, but their inevitable actions would be.

I don't agree with her on the issue, though I admittedly don't rank it very high on issues in which I vote on, so I'm probably not the one to argue with about this.

 

[marrec]

not sure I understand the "I can't get a beer with her" criticism considering she's apparently a legendary heavyweight

Consistently people who hang with her come out of that meeting saying "I CAN have a beer with her, in fact multiple, in fact call me an Uber I'm trashed"

 

[jay]

not sure I understand the "I can't get a beer with her" criticism considering she's apparently a legendary heavyweight

Anyone who uses that as a criticism for a candidate should be dismissed entirely.

 

[hawk2025]

I mean, it's a moot point in terms of the practicality of her position and its affect on policy. We are not passing a bill to ban the death penalty that she has to sign. Hillary's presidency will not stop states from repealing the death penalty, if they are so inclined. It's hard for me to care beyond what she can accomplish as a presidency, the same reason I didn't care what Hillary or Obama's opinions on gay marriage were in 2008. Neither of them would be the final say, but their inevitable actions would be.

I don't agree with her on the issue, though I admittedly don't rank it very high on issues in which I vote on, so I'm probably not the one to argue with about this.

Well, just from a strictly pragmatic point of view, a softer view on the death penalty could have her saving dozens of people with pardons, no?

So there's a pretty real and direct implication here, even ignoring any real impact on policy.

Like I said, I don't think it's a deal breaker -- just one of her weakest spots IMO.

 

[Aaronology]

Fair enough on the oscillations. Flip flopping might be not exactly what I meant. Fair-weather still applies. She adopts positions conveniently after it is acceptable to do so instead of taking a stand and being a leader. See Iraq, Gay marriage, TPP, etc.

I asked you to show me how her "flip flopping" was notable, since it is a quality you very specifically cited in your disfavor of her. So far you have not done this. Instead you've listed the Iraq War vote, a mistake she made on faulty intel in tandem with most of the government and with the support of the vast majority of America, and a mistake she has spent years apologizing for. You've listed Gay Marriage, failing to acknowledge that Clinton's position evolved like Sanders's and Obama's and nearly every other liberal in the United States. And the TPP.

So I ask again: Why, specifically, does Hillary Clinton draw your ire when she is consistently progressive and largely only changes stances at the behest of her constituencies (which a politician should do) or in step with the Democratic Party? List a few politicians you believe exemplify the qualifies you claim Clinton lacks if you're confident they won't be quickly revealed to have the same failings you're lambasting Hillary for now.

I prefer leadership and principle over convenience in my politicians, even though it might be unpopular or not 'pragmatic'. It is a personal thing. It reflects my personal values, which is why I would not make a very successful politician.

Hillary Clinton's infamy among the GOP largely began with her championing women's rights, human rights and healthcare at a time where such issues were not on anyone's agenda. She took a stand and insisted on being a leader, engendering the rage and scorn of an entire political party and half the nation who thought it was unbecoming of a First Lady to be so assertive. And now, years later, you accuse this same woman of not taking a stand. I admit I am beginning to believe you might just be a little biased and not deeply informed on Clinton's history. Let's review a bit of it:

Has Hillary Really Helped the World’s Women?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160?o=1

The idea that Hillary Clinton simply doesn’t sincerely believe in her own doctrine just doesn’t tally with her rhetorical and substantive support for women and women’s rights across decades of public service. After all, this is the secretary of state who elevated the Office of Global Women’s Issues to the seventh floor of the State Department with a special “ambassador at large,” who mandated gender training for all new foreign-service officers and under whom USAID programming for women mushroomed. This is the secretary of state who traveled the world advocating for the use of cookstoves to improve women’s health and oversaw the creation of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. There’s very little, if any, personal political payoff for Clinton from these far-flung and outward-reaching initiatives; indeed, she was criticized for her attention to what some considered a “small-bore” issue.

Timeline: How Hillary Clinton Has Championed Women’s Rights
http://www.self.com/work/politics/2015/04/timeline-how-hillary-clinton-has-paved-the-way-for-womens-rights/

Throughout her distinguished career, she pushed to improve medical facilities for the poor and promoted educational reforms—a cause for which Bill would become known during his years as governor. She also nabbed several awards, including Arkansas Woman of the Year 1983 and Arkansas Young Mother of the Year in 1984.

5 Times Hillary Clinton Pushed for LGBT Rights
http://shewinswewin.org/blog/5-times-hillary-clinton-pushed-for-lgbt-rights/

1. She Was The First-Ever Global Leader to Declare That Gay Rights Are Human Rights, Again and Again.

In 2011, Hillary Clinton followed in her own footsteps when she declared, on a global stage, that “gay rights are human rights.” In what could only be considered the 21st-century sequel to her historic speech on women’s rights in Beijing in 1997, Hillary did what no American leader or global figurehead otherwise had ever had the courage to do: unequivocally demand that LGBT rights be part of the human rights framework around the world.

..

3. In the Senate, She Voted Consistently for LGBT Rights. As Secretary of State, She Institutionalized Them.
Of course, all of this work was preceded by Hillary’s Senate career, in which she stood tall as an ally to LGBT folks at every turn.

As a Senator, Hillary voted against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and supported efforts to expand workplace non-discrimination legislation to include LGBT employees, end restrictions on gay adoption, and put hate crime legislation into place that recognized the identity-based attacks on LGBT people. She earned an 89% grade from the Human Rights Campaign as a Senator, indicating her strong support for queer and trans rights.

[Hillary Clinton] urged President Obama to push harder against homophobic regimes in Africa.
http://www.newnownext.com/8-times-hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-lgbt-equality/02/2016/

While outlets like Fox News attacked Clinton about “hiding” emails, there was actually some good that surfaced: One leaked message revealed she pushed the Obama Administration to press leaders in Africa to change their anti-LGBT policies.

It was not a safe position, either: As Clinton revealed in her memoir, Hard Choices, after she confronted Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni about gay rights, he ridiculed my concerns.”

“Like many people in Uganda and around the world, I was appalled that the police and government had done little to protect [murdered activist] David [Cato] after public calls for his murder,” she wrote. “It was the result of a nationwide campaign to suppress LGBT people by any means necessary, and the government was part of it.”

Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era

Hillary Clinton leading a 1968 student protest to increase African-American admissions at Wellesley College, following the assassination of Martin Luther King. Clinton met King in Chicago in 1962, when she was 14.

...

Also at age 20, she denounced the Republican Party as being racist, after she attended the RNC convention in Miami and saw Richard Nixon's supporters attack, sometimes physically, supporters of moderate Republican Nelson Rockefeller, who stood on the old guard Party of Lincoln platform. Nixon threw that one out with his Southern Strategy that swept the racist southern Democrats off their feet for the GOP.

At age 21, unknown Hillary Clinton made headlines. She and her speech were featured in a Life Magazine article about the activist ideals of the class of 1969. She had led protests to protect black civil rights. She had accomplished civil rights goals. She advocated active civil disobedience to better African-American lives, to make the changes that passive compliance and blind trust had failed to make.

How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html

In summer 1972, Mr. Clinton was in Miami working on George McGovern’s presidential campaign when Mrs. Clinton traveled from Washington to Atlanta to meet with civil rights lawyers and activists, then rented a car and drove the nearly four hours to Dothan.

...

She drove over the railroad tracks near downtown, east of Park Avenue, to the black part of town. There, she met local contacts who told her over a lunch of sweetened ice tea and burgers “that many of the school districts in the area were draining local public schools of books and equipment to send to the so-called academies, which they viewed as the alternatives for white students,” she wrote in “Living History.”

Years later, Mrs. Clinton does not say she ever felt afraid, but a white woman traveling alone in the South would have been “looking over her shoulder,” said Marlene Provizer, who did similar research into segregation academies in Mississippi and Georgia in the same era.

“There weren’t many folks doing this work,” she said. “I was very conscious of being ‘the other.’ ”

This Is The Robust Civil Rights History of Hillary Clinton
http://killingthebreeze.com/this-is-the-robust-civil-rights-history-of-hillary-clinton/

Voter ID
While in the Senate, Hillary Clinton introduced the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 to combat a “history of intimidation.” Fighting against voter ID laws, Clinton said that:

“By trying to require not just photo identification but proof of citizenship — proof that thousands of American citizens can’t produce through no fault of their own — cynical Republican lawmakers are trying to build new walls between hundreds of thousands of eligible senior, minority, and low-income Americans and their civil right to choose their own leaders. Republicans claim that these requirements are needed to prevent fraud, but the reality is that they do little more than disenfranchise eligible voters.”

Equality Under The Law

Hillary co-sponsored a bill recognizing Juneteenth as the historical end of slavery. The resolution recognized the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressed that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future. Recognizing the historical significance to the nation, and supporting the continued celebration of Juneteenth Independence Day (June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved African Americans were free), Congress passed it declaring the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.

Clinton also co-sponsored a bill reinforcing anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements; specifically, to restore, reaffirm, and reconcile legal rights and remedies under civil rights statutes. The bill amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish discrimination based on disparate impact; and rights of action and recovery for unlawful discrimination. It also authorized civil actions in federal court for discrimination based on disability, and repealed provisions limiting the amount of compensatory and punitive damages that may be awarded in cases of intentional discrimination in employment. Finally, it revised provisions governing discrimination in the payment of wages, including equal pay requirements.

Now, does this appear to be a woman who is afraid of taking a stance and being assertive, Goose?

 

[Blader]

It's not a moot point because her position on the death penalty doesn't exist in a vacuum. It speaks to her judgment and rationality on matters like these and it's regressive, barbaric, and indefensible, imo.

I believe if the death penalty was not as popular with the country as it is, Hillary wouldn't support it, and that's a problem. Not because of some bullshit purity test, but because it would demonstrate limitations in her ability to be a progressive leader for this country.

There are many things that a president might say or believe that might not have a harmful effect directly, but indirectly, its presence in the public conscience could have a very negative if not dangerous impact on the advancement of good ethics and social values for our society.

If Hillary were personally in favor of the death penalty but decided to stop supporting it because most of the country was against it, how is that a problem? How is better reflecting the views of your constituents a problem in a representative democracy?

 

[whyamihere]

Well, just from a strictly pragmatic point of view, a softer view on the death penalty could have her saving dozens of people with pardons, no?

So there's a pretty real and direct implication here, even ignoring any real impact on policy.

Like I said, I don't think it's a deal breaker -- just one of her weakest spots IMO.

Obama finds the death penalty "deeply troubling" and still hasn't pardoned anyone on death row. I guess if she was extremely anti-death penalty she could do this, so yes, you're right.

 

[funkystudent]

Its kind of impressive she managed to pull a probable presidential win off after that imaginary sniper fire bit a few years back. As far as damning, very public gafs that is a real doozy to walk away from.


It really is a 1 in a million election cycle. If the DNC got behind a bag of dog food it probably would have won this election for them against the racist trash heap from the other side.


At this stage I am looking at 2020 and wondering if the Republicans can get their act together. Hillary seems like a real easy person to get out of office if they a willing to back off the crazy and have a reasonably charismatic, human candidate. If they a willing this could be what brings the American Right Wing back from the brink.

 

[entremet]

I've criticized Hillary pretty freely without bans. Justify your points. Otherwise, it's YT level commentary.

 

[brainchild]

I mean, it's a moot point in terms of the practicality of her position and its affect on policy. We are not passing a bill to ban the death penalty that she has to sign. Hillary's presidency will not stop states from repealing the death penalty, if they are so inclined. It's hard for me to care beyond what she can accomplish as a presidency, the same reason I didn't care what Hillary or Obama's opinions on gay marriage were in 2008. Neither of them would be the final say, but their inevitable actions would be.

I don't agree with her on the issue, though I admittedly don't rank it very high on issues in which I vote on, so I'm probably not the one to argue with about this.

Being president is more than just directly affecting policy. The president is public face of the country. What the president says on a given day matters more than what anyone else says on given day.

It would be nice to have a president that didn't advocate for the death penalty. It would be even better for society to have a president that publicly spoke out against the death penalty. You may not think that it matters, but what the president speaks into public consciousness really does make a difference in what society assesses as moral values and ethics.

 

[Kyzer]

I'm a Hillary supporter that criticizes Hillary

 

[User 463088]

I asked you to show me how her "flip flopping" was notable, since it is a quality you very specifically cited in your disfavor of her. So far you have not done this. Instead you've listed the Iraq War vote, a mistake she made on faulty intel in tandem with most of the government and with the support of the vast majority of America, and a mistake she has spent years apologizing for. You've listed Gay Marriage, failing to acknowledge that Clinton's position evolved like Sanders's and Obama's and nearly every other liberal in the United States. And the TPP.

So I ask again: Why, specifically, does Hillary Clinton draw your ire when she is consistently progressive and largely only changes stances at the behest of her constituencies (which a politician should do) or in step with the Democratic Party? List a few politicians you believe exemplify the qualifies you claim Clinton lacks if you're confident they won't be quickly revealed to have the same failings you're lambasting Hillary for now.



Hillary Clinton's infamy among the GOP largely began with her championing women's rights, human rights and healthcare at a time where such issues were not on anyone's agenda. She took a stand and insisted on being a leader, engendering the rage and scorn of an entire political party and half the nation who thought it was unbecoming of a First Lady to be so assertive. And now, years later, you accuse this same woman of not taking a stand. I admit I am beginning to believe you might just be a little biased and not deeply informed on Clinton's history. Let's review a bit of it:

Has Hillary Really Helped the World’s Women?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160?o=1


Timeline: How Hillary Clinton Has Championed Women’s Rights
http://www.self.com/work/politics/2015/04/timeline-how-hillary-clinton-has-paved-the-way-for-womens-rights/


5 Times Hillary Clinton Pushed for LGBT Rights
http://shewinswewin.org/blog/5-times-hillary-clinton-pushed-for-lgbt-rights/


[Hillary Clinton] urged President Obama to push harder against homophobic regimes in Africa.
http://www.newnownext.com/8-times-hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-lgbt-equality/02/2016/


Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era


How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html


This Is The Robust Civil Rights History of Hillary Clinton
http://killingthebreeze.com/this-is-the-robust-civil-rights-history-of-hillary-clinton/


Now, does this appear to be a woman who is afraid of taking a stance and being assertive, Goose?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think people say things about Trump that would see them banned if it were about other politicians, Inc Hil.

 

[User 463088]

I think people say things about Trump that would see them banned if it were about other politicians, Inc Hil.

I think Trump says things that if people on Gaf said they'd get banned.

 

[teruterubozu]

I think people say things about Trump that would see them banned if it were about other politicians, Inc Hil.

I don't know about that. There were lots of free passes when it came to calling Bernie names.

 

[hawk2025]

Its kind of impressive she managed to pull a probable presidential win off after that imaginary sniper fire bit a few years back. As far as damning, very public gafs that is a real doozy to walk away from.


It really is a 1 in a million election cycle. If the DNC got behind a bag of dog food it probably would have won this election for them against the racist trash heap from the other side.


At this stage I am looking at 2020 and wondering if the Republicans can get their act together. Hillary seems like a real easy person to get out of office if they a willing to back off the crazy and have a reasonably charismatic, human candidate. If they a willing this could be what brings the American Right Wing back from the brink.

Her popularity has shot up every time she's been in office, IIRC.

I don't think 2020 is as easy as Republicans are surely assuming.

 

[Simon Belmont]

not sure I understand the "I can't get a beer with her" criticism considering she's apparently a legendary heavyweight

That makes me like her so much more.

 

[whyamihere]

Being president is more than just directly affecting policy. The president is public face of the country. What the president says on a given day matters more than what anyone else says on given day.

It would be nice to have a president that didn't advocate for the death penalty. It would be even better for society to have a president that publicly spoke out against the death penalty. You may not think that it matters, but what the president speaks into public consciousness really does make a difference in what society assesses as moral values and ethics.

You're right, I don't particularly think it matters because the practical implications of a president's actions have a far more lasting effect than whatever effects such a position may have on society.

I think the argument that a president against the death penalty could end up pardoning those on death row if she were against the death penalty is more compelling, since there are actually practical implications with that person's policy position, though I believe we're talking in circles and will continue to do so.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Aaronology putting in work. Thank you.

 

[Melkezadek]

I asked you to show me how her "flip flopping" was notable, since it is a quality you very specifically cited in your disfavor of her. So far you have not done this. Instead you've listed the Iraq War vote, a mistake she made on faulty intel in tandem with most of the government and with the support of the vast majority of America, and a mistake she has spent years apologizing for. You've listed Gay Marriage, failing to acknowledge that Clinton's position evolved like Sanders's and Obama's and nearly every other liberal in the United States. And the TPP.

So I ask again: Why, specifically, does Hillary Clinton draw your ire when she is consistently progressive and largely only changes stances at the behest of her constituencies (which a politician should do) or in step with the Democratic Party? List a few politicians you believe exemplify the qualifies you claim Clinton lacks if you're confident they won't be quickly revealed to have the same failings you're lambasting Hillary for now.



Hillary Clinton's infamy among the GOP largely began with her championing women's rights, human rights and healthcare at a time where such issues were not on anyone's agenda. She took a stand and insisted on being a leader, engendering the rage and scorn of an entire political party and half the nation who thought it was unbecoming of a First Lady to be so assertive. And now, years later, you accuse this same woman of not taking a stand. I admit I am beginning to believe you might just be a little biased and not deeply informed on Clinton's history. Let's review a bit of it:

Has Hillary Really Helped the World’s Women?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-record-saudi-arabia-116160?o=1


Timeline: How Hillary Clinton Has Championed Women’s Rights
http://www.self.com/work/politics/2015/04/timeline-how-hillary-clinton-has-paved-the-way-for-womens-rights/


5 Times Hillary Clinton Pushed for LGBT Rights
http://shewinswewin.org/blog/5-times-hillary-clinton-pushed-for-lgbt-rights/


[Hillary Clinton] urged President Obama to push harder against homophobic regimes in Africa.
http://www.newnownext.com/8-times-hillary-clinton-was-a-champion-of-lgbt-equality/02/2016/


Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/4/1495575/-Hillary-Clinton-in-the-Civil-Rights-Era


How Hillary Clinton Went Undercover to Examine Race in Education
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/us/politics/how-hillary-clinton-went-undercover-to-examine-race-in-education.html


This Is The Robust Civil Rights History of Hillary Clinton
http://killingthebreeze.com/this-is-the-robust-civil-rights-history-of-hillary-clinton/


Now, does this appear to be a woman who is afraid of taking a stance and being assertive, Goose?

These are what receipts look like.

 

[Blader]

not sure I understand the "I can't get a beer with her" criticism considering she's apparently a legendary heavyweight

And Trump doesn't drink.

 

[Ophelion]

And Trump doesn't drink.

Confirmed, the final debate must have a drinking contest element. Every time the moderator has to fact check you, you take a shot.

 

[styl3s]

You can criticize Hillary all you want after the election. The main and only end goal right now is to make people vote for her.

It's as simple as that.

I can and do criticize her now and i am not voting for her simply because she is the "lesser of two evils" i find that personally not only morally but consciously wrong so i will vote third party like i usually do.

 

[GYODX]

What purpose would there be in a thread that stated:

"Hillary is hawkish"

When people who're voting for her have come to terms with this.

Yep, she is.

Okay...?

What disturbing lack of empathy. How easy it is to shrug off hawkishness when Americans aren't the ones suffering from American imperialism. What the fuck happened to liberals' anti-war stance from the Bush years? I've said it before: American liberals only care about their military and foreign policy being responsible for the deaths of foreigners when there's a Republican in the White House.

Honestly, Americans as a fucking country need to check their privilege. While you're having a national debate about police killings of innocent Americans, weddings in Yemen are being bombed because of a drone program that your President is responsible for. Where is the outrage? And I don't mean that fake-ass token outrage--where is the call for an end to these disgusting murders?

This hand-waving away of American imperialism is infuriating. How about some perspective? Minutes away from me is the only place where the US government has knowingly bombed its own citizens.

 

[RedAssedApe]

I can and do criticize her now and i am not voting for her simply because she is the "lesser of two evils" i find that personally not only morally but consciously wrong so i will vote third party like i usually do.

fyi you're voting for trump then. which is fine. just know that your vote is possibly the vote that ends the world

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I can and do criticize her now and i am not voting for her simply because she is the "lesser of two evils" i find that personally not only morally but consciously wrong so i will vote third party like i usually do.

I might get banned, so I won't.

 

[whyamihere]

fyi you're voting for trump then. which is fine. just know that your vote is possibly the vote that ends the world

To be honest, if he's always voted third party, then he's probably not.

 

[jay]

What disturbing lack of empathy. How easy it is to shrug off hawkishness when Americans aren't the ones suffering from American imperialism. What the fuck happened to liberals' anti-war stance from the Bush years? I've said it before: American liberals only care about their military and foreign policy being responsible for the deaths of foreigners when there's a Republican in the White House.

Honestly, Americans as a fucking country need to check their privilege. While you're having a national debate about police killings of innocent Americans, weddings in Yemen are being bombed because of a drone program that your President is responsible for. Where is the outrage? And I don't mean that fake-ass token outrage--where is the call for an end to these disgusting murders?

If we support politicians so crazy left leaning that they aren't pro-war, we will have revolutions in the streets.

 

[andythinkpad]

You have to call her the Queen. Didn't you get the hivemind newsletter?

 

[Bounceounce]

This is very silly.

I don't vote on the death penalty as one of my top issues, and being pro-death penalty has no been a very huge part of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the primary or in the general. A lot of what Trump is talking about in terms of deportations or Muslim bans are things that he could conceivably do unilaterally. Hillary Clinton as a president has really no affect on death penalty policies in this country outside of nominating SCOUTS appointees, so using her own opinion on the death penalty really won't color my vote in any way since her likely actions as a POTUS would likely lead to the end of the practice itself.

And no, I don't agree with Hillary's stances on Israel, and many of her FP positions are ones in which she deserves to be robustly criticized.

(I also do doubt Bernie's convictions on a host of issues that don't have to do with economics, but that's neither here nor there since we're not talking about that.)

There's literally no legitimate reason as far as I can see to doubt Bernie's convictions in comparison to Hillary's, literally everything since he was starting scholarships for Korean orphans in highschool, leading civil rights chapters and getting arrested in college, writing feminist pieces post college, implementing feminist initiatives in Vermont while mayor, starting lgbt parades despite opposition and signing city ordinances to protect housing/prevent discrimination for the handicapped, lgbt, and gay, speaking out against US fuckery in Latin America, speaking out against Reagan, giving lectures on the civil rights movement and white activists abandoning causes post it, supporting Jesse Jackson, speaking out against making English the national language as it legitimizes xenophobia, speaking out against the crime bill because it would harm the poor but disproportionately damage black Americans, etc etc etc.

The attacks on Bernie and his supporters on "non economic" issues this election (and I still have literally no clue on what these issues Hillary is attacking and Bernie isn't are or what the separation between "economic issues" and these other issues is) from neogaf posters has disgusted me so much this election, as far as I'm concerned it's a completely unfounded narrative that requires a white washing of Hillary and her voter base to even imply.
(Keep in mind I believe Hillary is strong on social justice despite her flaws and Bernie has flaws as well, I just don't understand how posters here can wipe away hers and then essentially act like Bernie has libertarian views and behavior on social isssues).

 

[commedieu]

What disturbing lack of empathy. How easy it is to shrug off hawkishness when Americans aren't the ones suffering from American imperialism. What the fuck happened to liberals' anti-war stance from the Bush years? I've said it before: American liberals only care about their military and foreign policy being responsible for the deaths of foreigners when there's a Republican in the White House.

Honestly, Americans as a fucking country need to check their privilege. While you're having a national debate about police killings of innocent Americans, weddings in Yemen are being bombed because of a drone program that your President is responsible for. Where is the outrage? And I don't mean that fake-ass token outrage--where is the call for an end to these disgusting murders?

This issue is going to take generations to solve, and it's not for lack of trying. America has a military industrial complex. Trump is talking about using nukes.

This election isn't about the mic. A lot of Americans are anti war. Congress has an agenda as do global arms dealers and industries.


A presidency isn't going to fix that. So putting your foot down at this line is unrealistic. War would have happened without her support. Pentagon asks for less money, Congress gives them more to keep the complex running and pockets padded.


The mistake you make is thinking that people that support Hillary are unaware of this.

 

[styl3s]

To be honest, if he's always voted third party, then he's probably not.

I have always voted third party.

 

[hawk2025]

I can and do criticize her now and i am not voting for her simply because she is the "lesser of two evils" i find that personally not only morally but consciously wrong so i will vote third party like i usually do.

See, here's the problem. This always, always come up in these threads.

I assume you are voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

Why is that not morally and consciously wrong? Can you say there is nothing in her or his platform that you find morally and consciously wrong? Or do you find that less objectionable because they won't win anyways, and thus whatever they do won't be "on you", so to speak?

 

[brainchild]

If Hillary were personally in favor of the death penalty but decided to stop supporting it because most of the country was against it, how is that a problem? How is better reflecting the views of your constituents a problem in a representative democracy?

If you read the next sentence, I already answered your question. Waiting for your constituents to eventually uphold humane and ethical values is a slippery slope, and it may or may not happen, depending on how leadership responds to it.

Sometimes the general public is wrong, and it's why a representative democracy isn't 100% perfect. Sometimes it's better for a leader to provide the public with alternative options that the public may elect of their own volition if they were properly exposed to them. Constituents may only hold certain views because they aren't aware of any better options, but when given better options, they're open to changing their views.

Hillary changing her stances to better reflect her constituents isn't a problem in and of itself. The problem arises when positive social change is nearly inhibited because the leadership isn't progressive enough.

 

[Xe4]

Hillary didn't come out in support of Gay Marriage till 2013. Late to the party is an understatement..
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ry-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

Instead of saying LOL ok, you should concede my point. She was late here. You were so jumpy to defend Hillary you didn't even 'dig in' yourself.

Again, I also hold that against Obama. Gay marriage got a bump from americans after Obama came out in favor of it, especially from African Americans.

I value leadership and principle or politically popular.



I know... I'm saying I don't like that. Hillary is the epitome of 'politics'.



Nah. I will criticize Hillary, Trump, Obama, Sanders, Stein, anyone right now when warranted.

Bams didn't come out till 2012, and only after intense scrutiny by the left. Hell, Hillary was known to be pro gay marriage back as far as her being secretary of state because of emails she sent. Not coming out in support of positions till their positive is something that unfortunately happens a lot in politics. Gay marrage didn't have simple majority support till ~2011, so it's not shocking.

Still I find this train of thought very Machiavellian. You cold say a similar thing about Trump presidency, that a lot of his rhetoric won't matter as congress will just block him on all the crazy stuff anyways. I would like to hope you still have a president you agree with on such an issue. Someone like Bernie.... you don't doubt his convictions and feel that he is as honest as a politician can get.

Likewise, this cognitive dissonance can also be applied in other areas, like Hillary obviously hates the wall idea yet she supports this thing:

I mean obviously I still hope she wins because Donald, but I still don't like her and am massively disappointed this was the best the country could offer.

America is stuck between a rock and a hard place on Israel. They can get away with whatever they want because of Jewish democrats on the left and evangelicals on the right. Combine that with AIPAC lobbying, it's unfortunately unsurprising Israel gets the support it does.

I asked you to show me how her "flip flopping" was notable, since it is a quality you very specifically cited in your disfavor of her. So far you have not done this. Instead you've listed the Iraq War vote, a mistake she made on faulty intel in tandem with most of the government and with the support of the vast majority of America, and a mistake she has spent years apologizing for. You've listed Gay Marriage, failing to acknowledge that Clinton's position evolved like Sanders's and Obama's and nearly every other liberal in the United States. And the TPP....

Damn, son!

If you read the next sentence, I already answered your question. Waiting for your constituents to eventually uphold humane and ethical values is a slippery slope, and it may or may not happen, depending on how leadership responds to it.

Sometimes the general public is wrong, and it's why a representative democracy isn't 100% perfect. Sometimes it's better for a leader to provide the public with alternative options that the public may elect of their own volition if they were properly exposed to them. Constituents may only hold certain views because they aren't aware of any better options, but when given better options, they're open to changing their views.

Hillary changing her stances to better reflect her constituents isn't a problem in and of itself. The problem arises when positive social change is nearly inhibited because the leadership isn't progressive enough.

This is all true, but it's why we have the supreme court. Politicians aren't going to go against the public will because it's their job to represent their constituents.

The majority of major changes have been through the supreme court, see interracial marrage, gay marrage, the death penalty, etc. It's why it's so important liberal jusices get put on the court, there is a large chance the death penalty will be outlawed in ten years if Hillary and enough of the Senate gets elected.

 

[killer rin]

Feel free, just don't drop down to republican conspiracy theories and back up your sources

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I find it interesting that Hillary is routinely portrayed as a "liar" and untrustworthy.

Let's check her Politifact rating, shall we? Details are on the site, but I'll group the percentages together for simplicity's sake (because of rounding it might not add up perfectly to 100 every time):

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
50% true statements, 21% half-true, 27% false. Damn, that sounds damning!

Let's check Barack Obama:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
48% true, 27% half-true, 26% false. Well... that's just about the same, even arguably worse. Oops? Does Barack Obama have a reputation for being a "liar", a "crook", being "dishonest" or "untrustworthy"? Hmmmmmm. Both have a 2% rating for "pants on fire", which is the category reserved for outrageously false statements.

Let's check Bill Clinton!
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-clinton/
48% true, 30% half-true, 23% false. Bill seems to like his misleading factoids, it seems. His "pants on fire" rating is also higher than both the above. But overall, similar ratings.

Bernie?
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
52% true, 20% half-true, 28% false. Almost identical to Clinton, only slightly better. Worth noting his "pants on fire" rating is at 0%, though, good for him.

Overall these ratings are very close to one another. Maybe it's just the typical politician rating and they all hover around this area. Let's check some Republicans...

Mitt Romney
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/
31% true, 28% half-true, 42% false. Oooof, now we're seeing a major difference. "Pants on fire" rating at 9%!

John McCain
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/john-mccain/
40% true, 16% half-true, 42% false. Well then. McCain rarely deals in half-truths, and seems to prefer either being right or spouting outright falsehoods?

Jeb Bush
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jeb-bush/
48% true, 22% half-true, 31% false. Similar to most Democrats, seems like, and the closest rating to Hillary's so far outside of Bernie.

Ted Cruz
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
22% true, 13% half-true, 65% false. Yiiiiikes. "Lyin' Ted" sure deserves his nickname.

And last but not least... Donald Trump
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
15% true, 15% half-true, 70% false. Record-high "pants on fire" rating of 19%, spiking well above the other candidates I listed. Maybe Lyin' Ted deserves his nickname, but it rings a little hollow when it comes from the biggest pants-on-fire liar of them all.

So, other than "Lyin' Ted" Cruz, none of the other male politicians have a reputation for being particularly untrustworthy or untruthful, yet they mostly have extremely similar ratings. Some, like Mitt Romney and of course Trump, have significantly higher "false" ratings, even. Curious, don't you think?

Obviously that's just the Politifact rating, take it for what you will. Not every statement ever made by these politicians are documented here, as it's mostly recent stuff, but I'd argue that's what matters the most. Perhaps someone will say Politifact is "biased", but it appears both conservatives and liberals have praised and criticized the site, so if they're biased, it doesn't appear to lean in one particular direction.

Breitbart is to the right wing what the New York Times, the WaPo and the Guardian are to the left-wing.

Oh dear

I did. I'm not saying Breitbart is deserving of Pulitzer. Just saying they're in the same bucket as the other given how one-sided they are.

All WaPo and NYT are doing is bash Trump. What about Hillary? Given all the skeletons she has in her closet, I am surprised there isn't more press (from left-leaning media outlets) about them.

Read above. Not about quality per se, but complete one-sidedness.

One-sided, my ass. As someone said, the NYT broke the email scandal story.

As for them bashing Trump constantly, it's not their fault that Trump says something depraved or insane every fucking day.

 

[Nafai1123]

Aaronology should be GAF's official Hillary fact-checker.

 

[whyamihere]

There's literally no legitimate reason as far as I can see to doubt Bernie's convictions in comparison to Hillary's, literally everything since he was starting scholarships for Korean orphans I'm highschool, leading civil rights chapters and getting arrested in college, writing feminist pieces post college, implementing feminist initiatives in Vermont while mayor, starting lgbt parades despite opposition and signing city ordinances to protect housing/prevent discrimination for the handicapped, lgbt, and gay, speaking out against US fuckery in Latin America, speaking out against Reagan, giving lectures on the civil rights movement and white activists abandoning causes post it, supporting Jesse Jackson, speaking out against making English the national language as it legitimizes xenophobia, speaking out against the crime bill because it would harm the poor but disproportionately damage black Americans, etc etc etc.

The attacks on Bernie and his supporters on "non economic" issues this election (and I still have literally no clue on what these issues Hillary is attacking and Bernie isn't are or what the separation between "economic issues" and these other issues is) from neogaf posters has disgusted me so much this election, as far as I'm concerned it's a completely unfounded narrative that requires a white washing of Hillary and her voter base to even imply.

I mean, are we talking about comparisons, are we actually just talking about one's convictions? The post I was talking about was:

Someone like Bernie.... you don't doubt his convictions and feel that he is as honest as a politician can get.

Which has nothing to do with Hillary's positions. Bernie has obviously held more constant in his beliefs throughout his career than Hillary has, for a host of reasons, though I also don't think that his beliefs on certain issues are shielded from criticism. I also don't want to relitigate the primary on issues I've posted about before.

I have always voted third party.

Great, then Obama won without you and Hillary doesn't need you. And I wouldn't say your vote is an implicit vote for Trump.

 

[Malmorian]

As a Canadian who's had a few beers let me say this.

Trump is a fucking clown eh?, and i'm still in shock that he's the representing the Republican party, i feel sorry for you all. Almost anyone except that extra-terrestial Cruz would have been better.

Hillary, she's got a lot going for her. I will miss Obama, and wish my southern brothers and sisters would forgo this whole 2 term thing. Don't get me wrong, we got stuck with Harper and it sucked, so there is totally a downside to it too.

Anyways, 2 cents and all that. I hope you all turn out to vote cuz that shit is really important, just make an informed decision. We're all in this together eh?

 

[Acerac]

You can criticize Hillary all you want after the election. The main and only end goal right now is to make people vote for her.

It's as simple as that.

I get that mindset, but it makes me terribly nervous.

Nobody should be above criticism.

 

[Ophelion]

Aaronology should be GAF's official Hillary fact-checker.

Head of our "Wonks for Wonks" department, eh?

 

[timetokill]

A year ago I would've bet the rest of my life earnings that I'd never vote for Hillary. The fact that I've even considered it at this point shows how shitty this election is.

 

[hawk2025]

Here's one more, and this is a fundamental disagreement with a lot of you, I'm sure:


I do not want Captain America as a president.

I quite literally don't want someone with unwavering convictions.
I want them to listen to experts and to new evidence as it comes in.

Convictions and "being there early" works great if we are talking about gay marriage.

It is TERRIBLE when it comes to the economy and the constantly changing needs of regulation and economic policy.

 

[Tranqueris]

You can criticize Hillary all you want after the election. The main and only end goal right now is to make people vote for her.

It's as simple as that.

I think criticizing Hillary is mostly fine. It makes her a better candidate in some ways and helps people push her so she's more likely to pay attention to whatever cause they're working for. The problem is when criticism devolves into nonsense like "and that's why Hillary is worse than Trump! Jill Stein 2016!" and "I'm going to criticize Hillary because I'm still mad Bernie lost and no attempts on her behalf to reach out to me are going to convince me to support her!"

 

[SirClinksAlot]

Its kind of impressive she managed to pull a probable presidential win off after that imaginary sniper fire bit a few years back. As far as damning, very public gafs that is a real doozy to walk away from.


It really is a 1 in a million election cycle. If the DNC got behind a bag of dog food it probably would have won this election for them against the racist trash heap from the other side.


At this stage I am looking at 2020 and wondering if the Republicans can get their act together. Hillary seems like a real easy person to get out of office if they a willing to back off the crazy and have a reasonably charismatic, human candidate. If they a willing this could be what brings the American Right Wing back from the brink.

She's actually quite popular when she is in office.

 

[commedieu]

Here's one more, and this is a fundamental disagreement with a lot of you, I'm sure:


I do not want Captain America as a president.

I quite literally don't want someone with unwavering convictions.
I want them to listen to experts and to new evidence as it comes in.

Convictions and "being there early" works great if we are talking about gay marriage.

It is TERRIBLE when it comes to the economy and the constantly changing needs of regulation and economic policy.

In context..

She's against Trump. Which is ultimately worse /inept in every measurable way, though.

That much has to be a factor,doesn't it?

 

[boiled goose]

I asked you to show me how her "flip flopping" was notable, since it is a quality you very specifically cited in your disfavor of her. So far you have not done this. Instead you've listed the Iraq War vote, a mistake she made on faulty intel in tandem with most of the government and with the support of the vast majority of America, and a mistake she has spent years apologizing for. You've listed Gay Marriage, failing to acknowledge that Clinton's position evolved like Sanders's and Obama's and nearly every other liberal in the United States. And the TPP.

So I ask again: Why, specifically, does Hillary Clinton draw your ire when she is consistently progressive and largely only changes stances at the behest of her constituencies (which a politician should do) or in step with the Democratic Party? List a few politicians you believe exemplify the qualifies you claim Clinton lacks if you're confident they won't be quickly revealed to have the same failings you're lambasting Hillary for now.

Holy shit. Can you even read?
I clarified that flip flopping was not the right word.
So Iraq doesnt count.
So changing her view late to the party on Gay marriage when it mattered most doesn't count. Obama did the same? I hold it against Obama too???? Again can you read? There is nothing inconsistent about my position. You just say And TPP so I guess that doesn't count either.

Now, we are getting a Goal post move with: "It is what politicians should do" Pretend to hold one position because it is popular instead of being leaders on an issue. My whole post is that I don't agree that that is what politicians should do. I disagree with that attitude and that practice!

Hillary defense force is hilarious.
When did I say Hillary was 'particularly bad' compared to other politicians? I don't like that she is not better. This is 100% a strawman.
It is like you assume that anyone who is not a Hillary fanboy must be biased unfairly against her. It is pathetic.

Your whole response is a strawman and a goal post move, as explained clearly above.

 

[jay]

Here's one more, and this is a fundamental disagreement with a lot of you, I'm sure:


I do not want Captain America as a president.

I quite literally don't want someone with unwavering convictions.
I want them to listen to experts and to new evidence as it comes in.

Convictions and "being there early" works great if we are talking about gay marriage.

It is TERRIBLE when it comes to the economy and the constantly changing needs of regulation and economic policy.

I doubt Hillary critics here are patriots who believe in American exceptionalism, like Cpt America.

 

[DragonSworne]

Good lord, imagine if he did drink.

He does drink.

Why do people think Trump doesn't drink?