I have big problems with how Obama deals with whistleblowers, domestic security, domestic spying, his use of drones, his continued support of the patriot act, just to name a few. Hillary I don't see being much better in that regard. I can't even criticise Hillary right now, because all that stuff I don't like Obama for he indicated he was against.
Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
She been in the game for practically her entire life, I don't think there are many people on the entire planet that could relate to her.
I honestly think that says more about the significant complexity of these issues and the hard decisions that it involves than Obama.
I do not envy the decision of using drones or basically ANY kind of military force whatsoever. Yeah, my first reaction is "what the fuck are we doing?". My second is "But wait, what the fuck should we do?". I tend to avoid this subject entirely in these discussions, largely because I simply don't know enough about what the best course of action is.
Always weary of how so many people seem to have the answers with incredible certainty on what the best course of action for an interconnected and endlessly complex world theatre is.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yes. Obama's support of TPP, government surveillance programs, and drone bombings, are his biggest flaws, IMO. And while he was still a great president, he absolutely deserves flak for those things. I can't see Hillary being much better about those things except maybe TPP since she has recently spoken against it (not that it means much, since as you said, Obama declared he was against the other things too, but there is some hope I guess), but hopefully she won't be worse.
shinra-bansho
Member
Hillary Clinton is not traditionally charismatic.
Hillary Clinton is more interventionist than not.
Hillary Clinton has been politically expedient. Hillary Clinton is a politician.
Hillary Clinton will be politically expedient. Hillary Clinton is a politician.
Hillary Clinton has done stupid things.
Hillary Clinton will do stupid things.
Hillary Clinton is too liberal.
Hillary Clinton is not liberal enough.
There are merits to critique.
And then there are less meritorious "scandals."
But Hillary Clinton should still be the next President of the United States.
Because she's smart, capable, receptive to counsel, qualified, experienced, intellectually curious, policy driven.
She believes in science.
And based on her lifetime of public service, at her core, she wants to help people.
And the alternative isn't even worth considering.
Hillary Clinton is more interventionist than not.
Hillary Clinton has been politically expedient. Hillary Clinton is a politician.
Hillary Clinton will be politically expedient. Hillary Clinton is a politician.
Hillary Clinton has done stupid things.
Hillary Clinton will do stupid things.
Hillary Clinton is too liberal.
Hillary Clinton is not liberal enough.
There are merits to critique.
And then there are less meritorious "scandals."
But Hillary Clinton should still be the next President of the United States.
Because she's smart, capable, receptive to counsel, qualified, experienced, intellectually curious, policy driven.
She believes in science.
And based on her lifetime of public service, at her core, she wants to help people.
And the alternative isn't even worth considering.
thestopsign
Member
I just want to point out, THIS IS WRONG!! If Trump gets into office, he will almost certainly have a majority in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. AKA a royal flush of the checks and balances of our government will all be under Republican control with a complete maniac leading the way. He would be able to get whatever he desires done.
She didn't grow up rich. She presumably became rich after her husband's Presidency.
Clinton is pretty bad, it's pretty tough to get passionate about her campaign and yeah, it's definitely frowned upon around here to say anything anti-clinton... after reading one page of a poli-thread
I usually don't bother with the rest because the opinions aren't different enough to make the discussion interesting.
I usually don't bother with the rest because the opinions aren't different enough to make the discussion interesting.
I know women - from college students to forty year old professors - who relate to her in regards to the obstacles she climbed as a woman and a politician. Simply being a woman in the political sphere brings with it a myriad of challenges, and for the women I know in debate teams and student government and academics and in other careers, they understand those challenges and feel empowered when they see someone like that running for President .Since I'm not a woman maybe I can't connect 1:1, but I can appreciate that effect.
sssstententen
Member
By no means were the only bad ones Hillary fans, I just think they were the
There were and still are some very problematic Sanders followers, and I think a good portion of them are just thinly veiled sexists, but it was very disheartening to just see the mud slinging and infighting that happened on the democrat side this primary season.
I'm in the same boat here, and at my other hang out, Dkos. There are people who I respected their opinion for a while who shilled in crazy ways during the primary.
I want Hillary to win, but I'll never truly like her. She ran a dirty primary, both against Obama and Bernie. "Bernie Bros", the "Annie Oakley" incident, and the "Is Obama a Christian/3 AM" stuff from the Obama campaign were all below the belt. Bernie was also not perfect during the primary, and certainly SOME of his fans were beyond the pale, but the way she and her supporters baited Bernie as a racist and sexist was dirty to me. He's a decent man who made good on his word, and supported the winner of the primary just like he always said he would.
Further, she lies a lot. Not as much as Trump, but she lies frequently enough about pointless shit that is easy to disprove that it makes me wonder what else she is lying about. Like why would you lie about sniper fire, who you were named after, or lie about what the FBI director said about you to Congress on national TV in a heavily reported story like 2 weeks ago?
I'll definitely miss no-drama Obama. He wasn't perfect, and had some pretty major missteps dealing with republicans in his first term (and whistleblowers and a few other things), but I at least feel like you can trust him.
I'm curious how this will all play out in a Hillary Presidency. On the one hand, I think the Clinton style of machine politics is going to be better at twisting arms to get things done than Obama is capable of. She also is likely to ensure a better run DNC during misterms.... That said she is sort of.gliding intl.thr Presidency as the default candidate against a total garbage candidate, and that's sure to affect any sense of mandate she will have.
I also she will attempt some sort of third way/triangulation politics once in office because she knows that as successful from Bill's tenure. I personally don't think that coalition can be built in 2016.
We need to see how she puts on a hoodie
Aaronology
Member
This is so replete with bias.
I can't really think of anything positive for non-American people that could come out of her not being president.
possiblyphil
Member
Amen.
This is mainly why I will not vote for her. I do not even need to get into the things she has done to people stateside.
Aaronology
Member
Fair. Please detail why the alternative is a superior choice.
highrider
Banned
I've always found her, and her husband pretty disingenuous. But that isn't a legitimate criticism, more just an instinct that I've always felt towards them.
As far as a legitimate criticism, I'm not crazy about her take on Israel.
https://youtu.be/2bYbunH-BZc
As far as a legitimate criticism, I'm not crazy about her take on Israel.
https://youtu.be/2bYbunH-BZc
All politicians say their opponents are monsters. They are never respectful to them. Ever.
It's when politicians imply that innocent people are monsters that you can't forgive it. When they outright say that they will enact policy against them you must vote for the other party. That's why Trump is so horrible.
I don't think Hillary Clinton has ever knowingly gotten up on a stage and said something sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted with the intention of inciting a movement against a large group of innocent people. If she has said things that were harmful to people who didn't deserve it, she has at least tried to make amends both in words and certainly as a matter of policy.
It's when politicians imply that innocent people are monsters that you can't forgive it. When they outright say that they will enact policy against them you must vote for the other party. That's why Trump is so horrible.
I don't think Hillary Clinton has ever knowingly gotten up on a stage and said something sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted with the intention of inciting a movement against a large group of innocent people. If she has said things that were harmful to people who didn't deserve it, she has at least tried to make amends both in words and certainly as a matter of policy.
possiblyphil
Member
Educate yourself
They are both just as bad as eachother, in different ways. That doesn't give Hillary a pass
Fox Mulder
Member
This is boogeyman scare shit. Obama had a huge majority coming in and was kneecapped in midterms.
Trump isn't going to have majority control long, and he doesn't even have full support of the party now.
I'm not voting for either, but the world isn't going to end with Trump.
I'm saying I don't like her and prefer other politicians... So obviously?
You're not exactly the objective Hillary supporter on the board.
Years after George Washington died, someone came up with that dumb cherry tree story. Hillary, to me, would tell people that she chopped down the cherry tree if she thought it would help her.
boiled goose
good with gravy
A whole bunch of substance free rhetoric.
Plus an accusation. Who the fuck are you to make judgments about me when you know nothing about me personally or my family?
Because I dont personally agree with your political strategy you must make personal accusations?
Sometimes change comes slow, but sometimes it takes political courage even when it means sacrificing your political career in the process. Not even a requirement in this case.
Coming out in 2013 in support of gay marriage was too late in my opinion.
DirtyLarry
Member
Could it just be that most people on GAF are fortunately intelligent and realize Trump cannot be elected no matter what? Even if that means supporting Hillary. Even if she is "the lesser of two evils."
Could it be deep down people know voting for her is the only way to absolutely make sure Trump does not stand any chance at all?
Or could it just be the liberal media has infiltrated GAF?
We may never know.
I would love to believe it was one of the first two speculations. That would make me feel a little bit better about the current state of my country.
Unfortunately I know that is probably not the case.
Could it be deep down people know voting for her is the only way to absolutely make sure Trump does not stand any chance at all?
Or could it just be the liberal media has infiltrated GAF?
We may never know.
I would love to believe it was one of the first two speculations. That would make me feel a little bit better about the current state of my country.
Unfortunately I know that is probably not the case.
Eating a possum's anus is just as bad as fruit cake.
Idea: if you're going to complain about someone else's bias, don't go so overboard with the hyperbole right afterward.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Oh the irony.
Do elaborate.
As someone who voted for her in 08, she didn't punch below the belt? Is that not dislike worthy?
Please.
Using Reason as a source? I would ask for a second opinion to back that up.
At this point, you're just saying that the only way to be a good politician is to take moral positions that will ultimately destroy your career, thus not be a politician at all and have no change occur.
The 'substance free rhetoric' you're quoting is making a point exactly against that. In your world, where HRC and all the other major democrats took that brave stance where they came out in support of gay marriage ahead of it's time would just result in them not being voted into office, where they wouldn't be able to make gay marriage happen.
What is more significant to you: Saying you're for gay marriage or making gay marriage a legislative reality?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Gay marriage in 2013 would have cost Hillary her career?
Hillary is able to take relatively strong stances. See guns. If more politicians were like her on this issue, thousands of lives could be saved.
She took a terrible stance on iraq. In part because of her vote hundreds of thousands of lives were lost.
Pragmatism is a good thing sometimes. Sometimes you need to take a stand.
Why is this so hard?
Bosnia Sniper fire, leaving the white House dead broke, and being named after Sir Edmund Hillary frankly are just bald-faced lies. They are unnecessary lies. Her actual story is good enough. Why embellish it with total BS?
In my opinion these are on the same level as.if she said she chopped down a cherry tree and couldn't lie about it. She has tried to create a personal mini-narrative from whole cloth st various times in her life.
It doesn't mean I won't vote for her, but the people saying that shes fundamentally honest are out to lunch. Most politicians are generous with the positives of their policies and downplay the negatives. She just makes shit up to make herself look better. No nuanced argumen or embellishment, just straight up makes up some shit and says it in an interview with a straight face.
possiblyphil
Member
There are plenty of sources in the article. Thaddeus Russell is one of the most liberal people on the planet
QuantumZebra
Member
Please do
Uh...it obviously didn't...
Wait, I'm confused, isn't the crux of your point that 2013 is too late to do so? That she should have done it when it would have hurt her, since apparently that's the only way to be authentic in your eyes?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Why 2013? Isn't the fact that she didn't support it in 2003 or 1993 "just as bad"?
Ok taking that article at face value, the real problem there is that bases its assumptions of a Trump presidency being built on the principles of rational actors, which we know will not be the case given the things we know about him. It completely dismisses all the collateral damage demonstrated the last time there was a know-nothing president. It also completely ignores domestic policies under Trump.
The very same political opportunism people complain about Clinton are the kinds of things that will counterbalance her hawkishness.
Spooky Scary Skeleton
Member
Aaronology
Member
Ardent support of Hillary Clinton is not by itself indicative of a lack of objectivity. I try to keep in lock with reality and you're welcome to cite where my own bias skew my posts away from it.
My issue with that quote is how you overly deemphasized the actions of the Sanders's campaign while criticizing Clinton for running what you call a "dirty primary." Yet it was Bernie Sanders who constantly accused her of corruption, cheating, and criminality without substantiation. It is Bernie Sanders's campaign that attacked AIDs activists, that smeared EMILY's List, that stole data.
Bernie riled his base up to such an extent they had the gall to chant NO TPP during Elijah Cummings's speech about civil rights and Black Lives Matter in Philly, utterly disrespecting both causes and the African Americans that neither they or their candidate could win over and reminding everyone exactly why. That it was his delegates shouting "LOCK HER UP" exactly like the throng of Republicans going crazy for Donald Trump should give you a reason to avoid attempting to compare the two campaigns. Bernie Sanders and his supporters are not victims of Hillary Clinton.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I'm saying that say a few years earlier could have made a difference without hurting her too much.
Lack of authenticity is a problem for her, so being more authentic more often could even benefit her.
In my opinion 2013 was too late. It's a criticism that is symptomatic of Clinton's flaws but one of the reasons for her success. Calculation.
This "calculation" has backfired too in other occasions.
Now. This Clinton being late to gay marriage is such a minor issue it's not worth arguing about it further.
The other problems I outlined were far more important to me.
And... I am unapologetically voting for her in November... gasp.
I was going to make this huge long post, but then my computer died.
Even though it was plugged in and charging : ((
A shorter version is that the Republicans have held the court for more than 30 years now, and this is the first time we can turn it around. Conservatives got that advantage because of two back to back presidents, which is a similar situation to what democrats can have this year.
Below is an image of the leanings of the Supreme Court, as you can see, the court has been changing ideology for quite a while, and there are long stretches of years where the court stays with one leaning.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/01...me-Court-final2_5000w.jpg?4402124340634297419
As of right now, Breyer is 77, Kennedy is 80, and RBG is 83, and has had cancer for 16 years. Scalia is dead. Right now, Republicans have the advantage of a younger court than the Democrats. But that can change. Ginsberg can retire after Hillary is elected, as can Breyer. Kennedy can hold out, but it is likely he will die or will have to leave, especially if Hillary is reelected. What were talking about here is two different roads.
The first is that Trump (or any republican really) wins:
Scalia will be replaced by a republican, that is fairly conservative, if not as conservative as Antonin. Kennedy retires, and gets replaced by a younger justice. The Republicans now have a Supreme Court that is 5-4, and young: their oldest member will be 66. Say Ginsberg dies(which is sadly likely). Now they have a 6-3 young advantage. Breyer will probably trudge on, but that would make the next election tantamount for democrats to keep it from being a 7-2 court (fuuuuuuuck that).
The second is that Hillary wins:
Scalia will be replaced by a democrat, who may or may not be as liberal as some want, but will undoubtedly be more liberal than Kennedy, which is what matters. RBG will be replaced, which will go easier than Scalia's seat, as it will not flip the court. Breyer will also likely choose to be replaced. It is possible Kennedy leaves for whatever reason. The democrats now have a young (oldest member is now probably less than 70 years old), democratic supreme court at least 5-4, and possibly 6-3, which is an advantage they can keep for at least ten years, no matter if Hillary has a second term or not.
Why is this important? The supreme court is far and away the most powerful branch of government. They have the ability to strike down any order,law, treaty, or statute they find to be unconstitutional. The justices will not be held whim to their constituents, as they have none, and will be free to vote their conscience on any cases.
Were talking overruling citizens united, which is a number one priority according to Hillary. We're talking striking down voter id laws, finding gun control measures constitutional, not having Roe v Wade overturned, possibly ending the death penalty (they did in the past, and there is a clear case for this under the 8th amendment).
This is the power of the supreme court, which has the ability to shape the future of america in ways the president or legislature simply can not.
She definitely has a severe lack of charisma and doesn't do well at all in front of big crowds. Her inability to connect with people while holding events or rally's makes it near impossible to become authentic.
She also closes in on her self fearing she'll do something wrong instead of letting go, but that one is a bit more understandable
OfficerRaichu15
Member
Im not really a fan of her since I supported Bernie.
I want her now of course.
I want her now of course.
Here's the problem, this opinion is lacking a lot of context. Libya wasn't a simple choice and we weren't the only ones involved. My guess is that had we not intervened the criticism would have been "The US supports a dictator and people died".
Other than that, this opinion didn't really offer a counter and was just saying "both sides".
Let me ask you again: were you ok with Obama publicly supporting it as late as 2012 and only after he was pressured into it? Keep in mind it only became favorable in 2011.
Also keep in mind, this was Hillary admitting she liked gay marriage. Emails show her supporting it as far back as 2011, and she made LGBT a huge part of her SOS campaign. Remember "gay rights are human rights"?
Sick post breh.
Aaronology
Member
I don't know anything about you or your family. I've shared personal information about myself, because you are using an issue that deeply affects me on a personal level as a talking point without seeming to care about the actual ramifications of the actions you're advocating.
Where have I done that, goose?
I am glad this was not the opinion of Obama's advisors in 2008's GE. It is not courage to knowingly lose an election and cede government to a group that will damage the communities that rely on your victory simply to appeal to ideological purity. It's stupidity and shortsightedness.
Byakuya769
Member
Thanks for the edge up.
I like how you link Bernie Sanders delegates to the man himself, as if if he didn't specifically ask them for no shenanigans on the floor. Please point me to the speech where Bernie told his supporters to go interrupt Elija Cummings. Yes, he had some bad apples, but you can't say that he incited them to do it when he, in some cases asked them not and in no case asked them to do so. Let's remember that it was Hillary supporting PUMAs that created the fucking Birther Movement before hanging the sins of their supporters around the necks of the candidates themselves. I don't blame Hillary for that, and you shouldn't blame Bernie because some of his supporters also have showed their ass at times.
I will give a few things that Bernie did wrong, I think calling her corrupt was uncalled for, but asking for the transcripts was fair. I think calling planned Parenthood establishment was in poor form, and I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting. I also think corporate whore was uncalled for. Most of the worst of it was as his campaign was clearly falling apart and I thought he did not handle that with much class, in general. That said, plenty of Hillary supporters and surrogates were just about the worst winners I have ever seen in a primary. Plenty of people (yourself included, apparently) will shit on him to this day, even after he took heat from his own supporters to prop up Hillary at the DNC just like he always said he would.
However, I distinctly recall Hillary going on national TV in October of last year and dog whistling Bernie as a sexist and a racist, or calling out surrogates to suggest he was a racist or a sexist. I didn't like when her campaign leaked the Obama secret Muslim stuff in 2008 either. It just turns me off when candidates invoke identity politics in such a cynical way. It was clear to me that her main strategy was to paint Bernie as sexist and racist.
At the end of the day, I'm convinced that Hillary will be a better actual President than Bernie would have been. I think shes a better administrator, and she better understand how to wield the levers of power at that level. Bernie will be a powerful voice in the Democratic Party going forward, and a valued endorsement for candidates in the future.
But I still think shes a shitty person. My gut says she will advocate for some positions that are horridly unpopular with her base, more than Obama did, but hopefully I'm proven wrong. I suspect she will create scandals where there doesn't need to be, partially just because of her being a Clinton, and partly because she's just shown a proclivity for scoring own goals.
- Status