Support NeoGAF

[Wowfunhappy]

"Generally dishonest" is a valid criticism.

Generally dishonest is a broad criticism. It could be valid if followed by evidence, but it usually isn't. This is the type of area where I think gender bias really comes into play, ie powerful woman tend to seem dishonest, and then we try to confirm that belief.

The emails and donations I agree with—as you say, I don't think it's that big a deal, but that's probably largely because of where I stand politically. The problem is that this doesn't get discussed. Even in a thread like this which is essentially begging for people to post valid criticisms.

 

[Dishwalla]

Is Kanye going to run as a Republican or a Democrat? It would be pretty ballsy for him to try and take on the incumbent.

 

[KingV]

You do realize single-payer isn't the end-all be-all of healthcare systems right? Why don't you look up what country has the best system in the world, then look at what the system is? I'll give you a hint: it's France and they don't use single-payer.

French system is very similar to Medicare with heavily regulated Medigap policies at least from what I can figure out. It seems like there are multiple health administrations for the main insurance (like one for agricultural workers, etc) but they are all paid from the general fund.

Technically, it's not Single Payer, in that there are indeed private insurance companies that supplement the public system. Most Americanwould consider expanding Medicare to cover everyone to be effectively a form of single payer.

I'm not saying your wrong, exactly, because you are technically correct, but you imply that they have a system that is much different than largely government paid medical care, when the government pays like 75% of the costs.

 

[benjipwns]

Is Kanye going to run as a Republican or a Democrat? It would be pretty ballsy for him to try and take on the incumbent.

He's running as an independent according to a later interview I think.

In other people who announced a 2020 campaign two years ago news, Adam Kokesh will be running for the Libertarian nomination.

Generally dishonest is a broad criticism. It could be valid if followed by evidence, but it usually isn't. This is the type of area where I think gender bias really comes into play, ie powerful woman tend to seem dishonest, and then we try to confirm that belief.

Certainly nobody would ever think nearly all politicians are dishonest. Or that a Clinton in particular was.

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

People have been smack talking her for 20+ years.

Most of that smack talk stems from contorted facts or out right lies to fit an agenda.

If you got actual facts to back the smack talking, then I think it should be allowed.

I'm with her though, unless somebody better comes up, which is unlikely to happen.

 

[Laughing Banana]

If anything, that YASSS QUEEN crap should be bannable, blerghhhhh.

 

[davepoobond]

If anything, that YASSS QUEEN crap should be bannable, blerghhhhh.

Stop being so politically correct

 

[EatinOlives]

It's absolutely fascinating how well this thread illustrates the baseless Clinton attacks.

Without a shadow of irony.

I think there's two things here that a lot of people don't grasp, not just on GAF but in terms of the wider political conversation.

1. Mountains of bullshit and baseless attacks from the right have made it next to impossible to truly discern what is real and what isn't, which is dumb conspiracy bullshit ("omg did she rig the primaries???") vs. what may be legitimate holes in her policy or past. This is obviously by design. Pepper her entire political career with "scandals" and "investigations" with varying degrees of validity and people will develop this idea that she's not trustworthy. And at that point whether or not the individual allegations are true simply doesn't matter anymore. People now look in her direction, notice all the controversy surrounding her, and simply assume this is somehow her fault. "After all, nobody else comes under this close a scrutiny!" without knowing which is the cause and which is the effect. I've heard from many people (including in this thread) that "she's untrustworthy because she was investigated by the FBI!" among other things. That right there is the problem: being under investigation doesn't mean anything. An investigation entails whether someone did something wrong, it doesn't inherently mean they actually did something wrong. But people buy this narrative that she's untrustworthy by accepting the flimsiest of "evidence" because it's the easiest picture it paints. Again, this is by design.

2. Due the mountains of bullshit, getting into each and every allegation requires an abnormally high amount of discussion. Disproving these baseless attacks over and over again gives off the impression to people who may not be paying the closest of attention that the "defenders" are "apologists". After all, they spend countless hours debunking allegation after allegation against Hillary! This obviously feeds back into the first point, this mistaken idea that "where there's smoke there's fire" without actually looking at whether the smoke is real or simply manufactured. But the fact of the matter is, even when people attempt to engage with the individual flimsy allegations, the sheer frequency at which this happens makes people think they're reading words from apologists making excuse after excuse.

 

[KingV]

Generally dishonest is a broad criticism. It could be valid if followed by evidence, but it usually isn't. This is the type of area where I think gender bias really comes into play, ie powerful woman tend to seem dishonest, and then we try to confirm that belief.

The emails and donations I agree with—as you say, I don't think it's that big a deal, but that's probably largely because of where I stand politically. The problem is that this doesn't get discussed. Even in a thread like this which is essentially begging for people to post valid criticisms.

There's plenty of evidence of her lying though. There's tons of high profile, well-known lies. In a way they are all sort of small ball (I.e. Broke after left the white House), but taken in totality you can say "she sure has lied about stuff a lot, I wonder what else she's lied about?"

A lot of people brush it off as being in the public life for so long, but like, Obama is pretty clean.

I think also her lies are clearly own goals. Shes lied about inconsequential shit for seemingly no reason, like Sniper Fire, or who shes named after. If she's lying about some policy idea, or some scandal, people are used to that and kind of expect it. It's like the difference between a kid that lies about forgetting to being his homework to school and one that lies and says he has a Playstation 5 and it's 100% holograms. They both lied, but only one of them gets a rep as being full of shit.

I think if Obama started telling tall.tales about every day stuff he'd develop the same rep quickly, and it's not really a sexist thing at all.

Studies suggest that people typically think women are more trustworthy than men. It might be different for a politician, but I'm not sure why it would be.

 

[Palpable]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. Her mishandling of emails and blatant lies don't sit well with me. Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

 

[davepoobond]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

Equating the two is ridiculous. Hillary isn't proposing anything as upending as deporting 11 million illegal immigrants.

 

[Socreges]

Hill-bot here, already thinking of requesting that a mod SHUT THIS THREAD DOWN.

K this made me burst out laughing

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

Dude, no. Just no. No sane person could honestly believe the two are comparable.

 

[benjipwns]

If anything, that YASSS QUEEN crap should be bannable, blerghhhhh.

Please follow the guidelines:

No. That is not appropriate.

Yaaasss queen SLAY!!!

Notice the hold on the a's and s's. Not just the s's. Also queen must always SLAY (in all caps). This is not up for debate.

 

[EatinOlives]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

She's not "basically Trump, but hides it better". That's an absolutely asinine false equivalency and if you're going to start with this premise you better bring the evidence.

 

[pigeon]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

One of the candidates is a crazy white nationalist who wants to nuke the Middle East. One of them wanted to keep her last name.

This is going to be a post you feel bad about once you get to your junior year of high school.

 

[Sai-kun]

It's funny how bad people talk about Drumpf simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Drumpf. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Drumpf. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Drumpf, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Drumpf is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Drumpf and voting Hillary or, if you believe Drumpf is the lesser of two turds, voting for Drumpf. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

control + f "sheep"

delete your account

 

[Palpable]

Equating the two is ridiculous. Hillary isn't proposing anything as upending as deporting 11 million illegal immigrants.

lol... you think I was equating them down to the T? They're both shit candidates. That's what I mean.

 

[TrounceX]

I'm exhausted by this constant victim angle everybody wants to play. Just don't be a dick when you talk about things and you'll be fine. And if you are indeed treated unfairly for your opinions, well... you're probably still being a dick and don't realize it. But if you're among the very few who is being polite, genuine, and willing to process new information, and still getting mistreated, contact a mod.

There are plenty of places online with unmoderated dogpiling that drives out all reasonable discussion. This isn't really one of them.

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

 

[davepoobond]

lol... you think I was equating them down to the T? They're both shit candidates. That's what I mean.

To be accurate, your equation was actually "T minus emails"

 

[ISOM]

lol... you think I was equating them down to the T? They're both shit candidates. That's what I mean.

If you're going to equate them without bringing the proof other than vague generalizations then you deserve to get laughed at.

 

[Palpable]

To be accurate, your equation was actually "T minus emails"

Oh, my bad. I'll reiterate. They're both shit candidates. What's this I hear about Hillary's emails and the whole Benghazi thing?

Distaste for Hillary is clearly an unpopular opinion on this forum. I've lurked plenty of political threads where the "group think" mentality with those accustomed to lean to the left is in full effect and it's quite unsettling. I shall go back to avoiding political threads lol.

 

[semisonic]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol). Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

The only thing palpable here is your intent to troll. 6/10, maybe bring your A game next time.

 

[darkace]

Her tax plan is my main concern, she seems to be just changing the numbers on the current ones- whereas Sanders plan seems to be a restructuring of the brackets themselves. Also, singer payer health care is the big one she is missing out on. I do hope she gets the college plan passed though, I have to commend her for adopting that into her platform.

Also, hate to sound like a broken record but the wall street involvement is off-putting. I would like to see more regulations and restrictions, which I think would actually be easier to pass than some of the other things Sanders proposed considering the new Republicans seem to be in favor of the same thing.

She's a strong defender of Dodd-Frank, which is very good legislation, and AFAIK backs BASEL and G-SIB/D-SIB legislation, which is very important for minimising risks.

As for single-payer, I imagine a similar system is on her mind (although I doubt single-payer would work in the US, maybe a multi-payer system), but she understands the difference between wants and possibilities. Also Sanders tax proposals are awful. Awful. It's essentially extortion. I'm not a fan of her college position (free college is essentially a handout for the upper-middle class paid for by the poor), but it's better than Bernie's.

 

[benjipwns]

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

brb PMing Steve Youngblood

 

[PyroPaperPlanes]

I ain't american, and perhaps I'm wearing a tin-foil hat in saying this, but I wouldn't be half surprised Trump's actions was all part of the plan to accept Hillary into power. My point being, I'd rather neither was candidate. Ah well, Trudeau is doing a good enough job up here in Canada for now. Good luck with the show America! :/

Spoiler

at least the situation isn't as bad as Britiain... for now

 

[Ovek]

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

It's the Gaf Hive Mind™ in action. First rule of Gaf don't express a differing opinion specifically on the police especially not American politics or you will called a dick or "being a dick without knowing it". If you continue some sad arse will go through your entire post history just on the of chance they can use something to attack you with.

 

[pigeon]

Oh, my bad. I'll reiterate. They're both shit candidates. What's this I hear about Hillary's emails and the whole Benghazi thing?

You should try knowing literally anything about the topic you're discussing.

 

[Palpable]

You should try knowing literally anything about the topic you're discussing.

You should try detecting rhetorical questions.

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

Look at everyone's replies to my post above this one of yours I quoted. They don't have to agree with it nor do they have to like it. They can think it's completely wrong and stick to their own little opinions if they so choose, but I got a bunch of condescending replies right off the bat. I wasn't being rude nor did I attack anyone. I know some see it as the "GAF Hive Mind". I'm more in favor of the "group think" term to describe it.

It's the Gaf Hive Mind™ in action. First rule of Gaf don't express a differing opinion specifically on the police especially not American politics or you will called a dick or "being a dick without knowing it". If you continue some sad arse will go through your entire post history just on the of chance they can use something to attack you with.

Beautifully put.

 

[benjipwns]

If you continue some sad arse will go through your entire post history just on the of chance they can use something to attack you with.

This is why I make each of my posts with a different account.

 

[atr0cious]

You should try detecting rhetorical questions.



Look at everyone's replies to my post above this one of yours I quoted. They don't have to agree with it nor do they have to like it. They can think it's completely wrong and stick to their own little opinions if they so choose, but I got a bunch of condescending replies right off the bat. I wasn't being rude nor did I attack anyone. I know some see it as the "GAF Hive Mind". I'm more in favor of the "group think" term to describe it.



Beautifully put.

But you're talking about a person, so you're either stating facts or lies, there is no opinion in this:

She's basically Trump, but she hides it better (minus the emails, lol).

and how would we know if she's so good at hiding it?

 

[digdug2k]

I ain't american, and perhaps I'm wearing a tin-foil hat in saying this, but I wouldn't be half surprised Trump's actions was all part of the plan to accept Hillary into power. My point being, I'd rather neither was candidate. Ah well, Trudeau is doing a good enough job up here in Canada for now. Good luck with the show America! :/

Spoiler

at least the situation isn't as bad as Britiain... for now

<rant>Heh. Its ironic to me, I've blocked more Canadians from my Facebook feed this year because I'm sick of the condescending "read this article about how our shit don't stink" posts than I think I've blocked Trump fans</rant>

 

[gutter_trash]

?!

Thought you were a Trudeau man?

I am, And I am super pro-NATO

 

[Dsyndrome]

Equating the two is ridiculous. Hillary isn't proposing anything as upending as deporting 11 million illegal immigrants.

It's not ridiculous if you deal with classified material in any way, shape, or form. I can't stand any of the two candidates, and I hate it.

 

[Theonik]

I hate Hillary a fair bit and wish Bernie could have gotten nominated instead. Trump is so bad that I won't really make a fuss though. Fuck that noise.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Why does this forum not accept criticism of Hillary Clinton

80% of following posts are drive by, goal post moving or bullshit.


Shocking really

Are you going for the Most Ironic Post of the Year Award, or something?

 

[marc^o^]

It's funny how bad people talk about Trump simply because it's the "cool thing to do". I'm not saying I like Trump. I don't. He's not president material and he's pretty much an idiot in terms of politics. The thing is, people are simply going to vote for Hillary because they don't want Trump. That's wrong. Hillary is also an absolutely horrible choice. Her mishandling of emails and blatant lies don't sit well with me. Voting for Hillary is a bad idea. Voting for Trump is a bad idea. It's better to vote for someone else, even if the chances of that someone else aren't good. At least you're not jumping on this bullshit "hate train" for Trump and voting Hillary or, if you believe Trump is the lesser of two turds, voting for Trump. This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

If you don't see the difference between them, you will cloud my day.

 

[andythinkpad]

Is there a word for Hilary drones? Like Berniestan?

Does Hilary Money Boys roll of the the tongue right?

 

[Count Dookkake]

I just don't think she's funny enough to vote for.

 

[GreatestHits]

I think even 90% of Gaf will ease their way into the Hillary smack-talk train at some point in the next 4 years. The "hill-dawg" spirit on Gaf comes off very shill, tbh.

And of course, fuck Trump

 

[darkace]

Is there a word for Hilary drones? Like Berniestan?

Does Hilary Money Boys roll of the the tongue right?

I think it's Hill shills. Although that might be banned, it was in another forum I was at.

 

[Servbot24]

Oh, my bad. I'll reiterate. They're both shit candidates. What's this I hear about Hillary's emails and the whole Benghazi thing?

Distaste for Hillary is clearly an unpopular opinion on this forum. I've lurked plenty of political threads where the "group think" mentality with those accustomed to lean to the left is in full effect and it's quite unsettling. I shall go back to avoiding political threads lol.

What's more unsettling than "group think" is the "no facts think" that you are bringing to the table.

 

[boiled goose]

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.

In my opinion, Obama was also late. Once he adopted it, the polls moved. As President he had an even bigger responsibility to lead. Democrats still got their asses handed to them in the midterms.

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.

Because LGBTQ people agree with you right? You can't possibly be this silly. Maybe you live in a Fucking bubble or something.

You made a judgement about me simply because I don't agree with your political strategy.

I have never claimed the need for "ideological purity". That's another strawman. There's a balance between leading on an issue and apopting it once it's popular. Adopting earlier, it can affect others (see obama) adopting it too early, you might hurt yourself and the issue. Success eventually is great, but success earlier is better. Lives are affected at each Time point.

We agree on this right?

From my perspective I would have liked the dial tuned slightly towards leading (For Hillary and Obama too) on this issue.

It's not that complicated.

Dude, I don't even know what the fuck you want anymore.

You cite calculation at one of her faults and that it makes her inauthentic while suggesting the solution to this is a marginally riskier but more convincing calculation. You're not suggesting that she change how she operates, just that she should do it better. Lie more convincingly, since she's lying poorly now.

Before this, you laid out an ideal candidate would not budge on issues out of principle, and when I suggested that you name politicians that have done so and succeeded in legislating those ideals, you failed to do so. Because there aren't any, because that's not how democracy works. Then you tried to shift the discussion about how this is actually about the corruption of the political system itself, even though that's not the topic and you're still talking about Hillary Clinton in particular.

And it's not like you provided the 'ideal' year for her to switch her position either, you just say that it's the wrong one while arguing that a few years earlier also wouldn't have hurt her. So how is that any better then? It doesn't remove the fact that the crux of your argument lies is basically "only way to be authentic is to commit political suicide or atleast mutilation", which when it was pointed out to you why taking a moral stance with no benefit produces no actual benefit, you just shrugged off as if it was not a legitimate counter to your argument.

So I can tell you're not happy with Clinton, but you're not putting those grievances in any coherent form. I'm guessing it's because as soon as you would, you'd realize the circumstances of her situation mean that her options were limited and taking the stances you expect her to is unreasonable. Because that's how I see it. Ideological purity is all great and exciting, but it does not work when you have to work with guys who disagree over it to make it a law.

I'm sure others will argue this point with you further, but for me, this is just moving in circles.

It's moving in circles to you because you keep strawmaning my position. I never demanded "ideological purity". That's a strawman phrased designed to sound unreasonable.

The examples don't need to be "ideologically pure" but simply politicians who supported gay marriage earlier.

I would prefer the dial be slightly tuned towards leadership vs late. Hillary was late to gay marriage. Again it's not that complicated. It is not even my main issue with Hillary as a candidate yet it's devolved into a humongous mess.

Hillary coming out in support of gay marriage in 2013 was too late. Is that really that controversial of an opinion? Holy shit.

 

[BinaryPork2737]

Look at everyone's replies to my post above this one of yours I quoted. They don't have to agree with it nor do they have to like it. They can think it's completely wrong and stick to their own little opinions if they so choose, but I got a bunch of condescending replies right off the bat. I wasn't being rude nor did I attack anyone. I know some see it as the "GAF Hive Mind". I'm more in favor of the "group think" term to describe it.

I don't know what you were expecting. Your post condescendingly ends by calling anyone who disagrees with your opinion "sheep."

This two party system is a joke and all the American citizens following it blindly like sheep are simply contributing to the problem.

Then there's the ridicule towards the opinion you love labelling as "group think." Stuff like that doesn't help to foster meaningful, respectful discussion. It just ends the conversation prematurely with name-calling and derision.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The thread criticizing her bizarre statement when she gave credit to Reagan for his contributions to fighting AIDS indicates that when there's a real issue there's no holding back here.

Most of the members here tend to have a perspective on what is important, and disregard or put into proper perspective pap meant to entertain the opinion news narrative crowd, or that aren't meaningful in the grand scheme of things.

It's extremely difficult for Democrats to have an effective debate with Republicans since they have conceded facts and evidence in favor of feelings as the foundation of their arguments, on top of their already irrational perspective on Democrats and Clinton. How do you debate insanity? Another issue is that Trump stokes fear, bigotry and hatred, which leads to pro-Trump members here breaking the TOS.

Democrats had a decent debate here with Sanders supporters from time to time, but they also would fall into a habit of basing their arguments based on feelings, failing to argue without resorting to generalities and cartoonish views of 'the establishment'.

There's also the issue of sexism when criticizing Clinton. It's been going on for so long even before some members were even born, that it's just second nature for them to follow along with it without even being aware of it. How are Democrats supposed to parse legitimate criticism when it's partially or sometimes even wholly rooted in sexism, in many cases when they aren't even aware that they're perpetuating it.

 

[Theonik]

I think even 90% of Gaf will ease their way into the Hillary smack-talk train at some point in the next 4 years. The "hill-dawg" spirit on Gaf comes off very shill, tbh.

And of course, fuck Trump

It feels manufactured like most of her persona. The main problem Hillary has is she has the charisma of on old biscuit. Especially coming after Obama.

 

[Crisco]

You know, it's been estimated Republicans have spent up to $200 million smearing the Clintons over the years. It's actually kinda heartening that despite all that effort, the worst thing most people say about Hillary is she "seems dishonest". Americans aren't as dumb as we thought!

 

[Ekai]

I'd generally agree that it's frowned upon to criticize her, OP. I mean I was insinuated to be a misogynist for criticizing her just the other day.
: /


It doesn't really make for a welcoming atmosphere of discussion.
I'll vote for her but acting like she's without criticism is so weird to me. To go further than that and insult someone's character for criticizing her is so blatantly against the ToS to me.

Honestly though this topic has been beaten to death on this forum and nothing seems to come of it so it's not really worth discussing anymore. : / As depressing as that is to say.

It feels manufactured like most of her persona. The main problem Hillary has is she has the charisma of on old biscuit. Especially coming after Obama.

Honestly I think her speaking voice is just fine. Of course she's not as charismatic as Obama but he's one of the best orators out there. It feels like a somewhat unfair comparison.

 

[Eidan]

No one is getting banned simply for criticisIng Clinton. It seems like people are really upset that they can't just say whatever they want without people, well, critiquing it.

They'd prefer to just be able to say "Clinton is just as bad as Trump", and have you smile and say nothing in response.

 

[boiled goose]

You know, it's been estimated Republicans have spent up to $200 million smearing the Clintons over the years. It's actually kinda heartening that despite all that effort, the worst thing most people say about Hillary is she "seems dishonest". Americans aren't as dumb as we thought!

A lot of the attacks on the Clintons have been made up garbage. Hillary seems dishonest because her political persona is very manufactured. It's very hard for authenticity to come through.

I'm not sure I would conflate general consistency with honesty. Consistency can be measured. Honesty can only be perceived.

Issues such as the email server and low blows to obama and bernie also affect her perception as honest.

 

[Ekai]

No one is getting banned simply for criticisIng Clinton. It seems like people are really upset that they can't just say whatever they want without people, well, critiquing it.

They'd prefer to just be able to say "Clinton is just as bad as Drumpf", and have you smile and say nothing in response.

About that. >_>