Tranqueris
Banned
For me it's the straight up double standards that even Obama doesn't have to deal with
(smile more Barack)
Why do you dislike Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter freeofgreed
- Start date
- Status
For me it's the straight up double standards that even Obama doesn't have to deal with
Fenderputty
Banned
This thread just reinforces how depressed I am with the liberal reflexive attitudes regarding TTP.
aha, that is funny. I think the main difference is I would not consider any parent to be an expert at parenting. unless they've had like 5+ kids or something. We are talking about electing someone that is supposed to be the best in the world at this stuff. Have you seen our debates? XD
honestly I probably misunderstand everything regarding this stuff. I'm just not a fan of misleading shit, dishonesty, etc. It's too prevalent and accepted
. as humans we are very susceptible to this stuff, even if efforts are taken to educate ones self.Trump has like 5 kids. Is he an expect at parenting?
Melkezadek
Member
I voted for Bernie in the primary and for a brief moment of 3 months, I hated her.
Then one day I decided to stop being a hypocrite and actually read up on her policy positions and found myself not disagreeing with her at all. I then had to admit to myself that all these negative "in my gut" feelings are just projections of how *everyone else* feels about her the "liar, more corrupt than any other politician, smug and arrogant vile woman" candidate.
Then I looked at her voting record and had to accept that this woman has been fighting against injustice all her life. If she was only interested in self service, then she would have spent her life doing other things.
It doesn't bother me that people dislike her. I'm not naive enough to believe she's not a politician at heart. If things like her voting on the Iraq War, her evolution on same sex marriage, her "lies", really bother you, that's fine, but be consistent. Don't tell me you hate her for these things, but then in the next breath you love Obama, Biden, or "Trump doesn't lie as much/more than her!". It's beyond hypocritical and don't expect people to not call you out on it.
"Can't say ANYTHING bad about her around GAF"
PLEASE.
When you need to cite how you "don't like the look of her face/reaction to balloons, seems fake" as a bullet point in your to dislike a candidate, is when you need to stop and think to yourself
"What the hell is wrong with ME?"
And then go from there.
Then one day I decided to stop being a hypocrite and actually read up on her policy positions and found myself not disagreeing with her at all. I then had to admit to myself that all these negative "in my gut" feelings are just projections of how *everyone else* feels about her the "liar, more corrupt than any other politician, smug and arrogant vile woman" candidate.
Then I looked at her voting record and had to accept that this woman has been fighting against injustice all her life. If she was only interested in self service, then she would have spent her life doing other things.
It doesn't bother me that people dislike her. I'm not naive enough to believe she's not a politician at heart. If things like her voting on the Iraq War, her evolution on same sex marriage, her "lies", really bother you, that's fine, but be consistent. Don't tell me you hate her for these things, but then in the next breath you love Obama, Biden, or "Trump doesn't lie as much/more than her!". It's beyond hypocritical and don't expect people to not call you out on it.
"Can't say ANYTHING bad about her around GAF"
PLEASE.
When you need to cite how you "don't like the look of her face/reaction to balloons, seems fake" as a bullet point in your to dislike a candidate, is when you need to stop and think to yourself
"What the hell is wrong with ME?"
And then go from there.
Right, and it's important to remember that politicians, even the best of them, are still regular people. They fuck up and lie just like the rest of us. I wish they were some sort of all knowing omnibenevolent gods, but they aren't. Most of what political rates as false is objectively false, but usually not something politicians are trying to deliberately deceive us on. Sometimes it is, but honestly it depends on the statement and circumstances. Pants on Fire statements are the only ones that even the simplest of fact checks would've proved incorrect, and I'm not going to make excuses for those. The statement's shouldn't have been made.
But I've lied before, on some not so great stuff too. I'm not proud of it, and I'm probably going to lie again. I try to minimize it as little as possible, but it's an inevitable part of life. Even still, Only 15% of Obama's and 1 in 3 of Hillary Clinton's were False or pants on fire, with the majority being false. Meanwhile, over half of Trumps statements were false or pants on fire, with nearly 20% being wrong as shit (compared with 2% of Hillary's).
Politifact isn't great for anyone's look, but only Trump and other far right republicans come away embarrassed when someone brings up their politifact page.
I'd expect him to be better at it then when he had 0, yes? that being said, I don't know trump well outside of his outward persona, and hell I don't even know if he raised his own kids or paid someone else to do it, haha. that was a silly response.
Yeah man, I understand. I just feel like the truth should be valued to the point where at the beginning of any debate, they go over what was OBJECTIVELY wrong and set the record straight before letting the candidates continue further.
It seems like that would be the very least thing they could do, and should be reasonable. There are so many misconceptions out there that could be cleared up quite quickly by the media but it's rarely done, though not a surprise at this point when you consider our state of affairs.
but at the same time I guess that would be a 6 hour session in itself, heyo.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
I don't dislike her but I always get the feeling that she never made it this far on her own merits but rather off the back of Bill.
RPGCrazied
Member
First post and all that. Sure I wasn't for her at the start of the election, I was a Bernie man, but I have no issues voting for her over Trump. I'd take Bush again for 4 years than him.
I was just teasing you.
And it kinda seems like he paid someone to raise his kids since none of them had any personal stories or human moments to share at the RNC. And it looks like the only one he has a connection with, Ivanka, is the one he wants to fuck
Then you really haven't paying attention. Because that's a fucking lie.
superdeluxe
Member
Yup this right here, I know she has flaws, but as long as she has your vote. You do you.
I've historically disliked her for not being very relatable or level headed; she sometimes comes across as really smug to me and her attitude in general can be overly negative, especially when pressed. I hate to admit it but I did agree with ONE thing Trump said in that she did not do a very good job when running against Obama and lost her cool pretty badly from time to time.
Obama, in direct comparison, is much more able to pull people together/has a ton of charisma. I don't think I've ever seen him lose his cool/hold his ground in a debate or conversation; he seems to be even sharper and more intelligent when pressed or seemingly cornered.
However, no one can deny her experience and vast knowledge, and I tend to agree with the large majority of what she says/where he viewpoints lie.
That being said.. she really blew me away in Monday's debate. She exhibited an INCREDIBLE amount of patience and the type of level headedness I didn't think she had (especially considering she was ultimately debating a spoiled, tantrum throwing child). I was very impressed with her and I hope she keeps it up.
I'll definitely be voting for her in November.
Obama, in direct comparison, is much more able to pull people together/has a ton of charisma. I don't think I've ever seen him lose his cool/hold his ground in a debate or conversation; he seems to be even sharper and more intelligent when pressed or seemingly cornered.
However, no one can deny her experience and vast knowledge, and I tend to agree with the large majority of what she says/where he viewpoints lie.
That being said.. she really blew me away in Monday's debate. She exhibited an INCREDIBLE amount of patience and the type of level headedness I didn't think she had (especially considering she was ultimately debating a spoiled, tantrum throwing child). I was very impressed with her and I hope she keeps it up.
I'll definitely be voting for her in November.
superdeluxe
Member
What the hell?
AnathemicOne
Banned
I don't dislike her and she is definitely the most qualified (in experience) to take on the presidency, however, I'm not exactly amiable towards her either.
- Her Charisma is nonexistent compared to the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton, or hell, even Donald Trump. But just as the lattermost examples proves, charisma is not the main factor in determining whether one is qualified for president. Again, just look at Trump.
For things that (I feel) are relevant to the presidency, here's some of my issues with her.
- Private Email Server. Now I'm not talking about the contents of the emails, that's nonissue for me. However, I'm a technology-oriented person (aren't we all) and I'm currently finishing by bachelor's in Computer Information Systems and Clinton's use of a private email server instead a of federal-hosted one just reeks of technological illiteracy akin to Trump's illiteracy on not knowing what "cyber" is. Especially in the modern era where technology is ever growing, technology illiteracy is a big issue and needs to be addressed imo.
- Flip-Flopping. It's no secret that Clinton has had a few missteps during her career that is now looked down upon as being on the wrong side of history, notable examples are her being against gay marriage and the like. I accept that she's learned over the years but I prefer someone who has the wisdom/temperance to recognize something being objectively wrong at first glance and being adamant about it, which leads to me to my next and final point...
- Iraq War/Patriot Act. The Iraq War was a complete failure of the US Government to its people; Congress and the Bush Administration exploited the fear and anger of 9/11 to pull off a business stunt in Iraq knowing full well that it wasn't the source of the attacks. Clinton thew her vote in here and I cannot just let it slide idly by; on top of that she also supported the bullshit Patriot Act.
So overall I believe Clinton is very qualified to be president however her past decisions aren't something I can just let slip despite the possibility that she may have learned from those decisions. I'll obviously throw my vote for her over Trump.
- Her Charisma is nonexistent compared to the likes of Obama, Bill Clinton, or hell, even Donald Trump. But just as the lattermost examples proves, charisma is not the main factor in determining whether one is qualified for president. Again, just look at Trump.
For things that (I feel) are relevant to the presidency, here's some of my issues with her.
- Private Email Server. Now I'm not talking about the contents of the emails, that's nonissue for me. However, I'm a technology-oriented person (aren't we all) and I'm currently finishing by bachelor's in Computer Information Systems and Clinton's use of a private email server instead a of federal-hosted one just reeks of technological illiteracy akin to Trump's illiteracy on not knowing what "cyber" is. Especially in the modern era where technology is ever growing, technology illiteracy is a big issue and needs to be addressed imo.
- Flip-Flopping. It's no secret that Clinton has had a few missteps during her career that is now looked down upon as being on the wrong side of history, notable examples are her being against gay marriage and the like. I accept that she's learned over the years but I prefer someone who has the wisdom/temperance to recognize something being objectively wrong at first glance and being adamant about it, which leads to me to my next and final point...
- Iraq War/Patriot Act. The Iraq War was a complete failure of the US Government to its people; Congress and the Bush Administration exploited the fear and anger of 9/11 to pull off a business stunt in Iraq knowing full well that it wasn't the source of the attacks. Clinton thew her vote in here and I cannot just let it slide idly by; on top of that she also supported the bullshit Patriot Act.
So overall I believe Clinton is very qualified to be president however her past decisions aren't something I can just let slip despite the possibility that she may have learned from those decisions. I'll obviously throw my vote for her over Trump.
hydragonwarrior
Member
I like Hillary and agree with you on the charisma critique. I can't help but compare her to Obama, and the change in energy is going to be noticeable, but she has her own strengths and they're good enough for being POTUS imo.
hunchback
Member
It's his first election with his headphones plugged all the way in.
Do you really think Hillary Clinton would be an (almost) President if not for being married to Bill? I don't deny that she would have still been a successful woman, but I doubt she would have gotten to this stage. That's like saying George W. Bush would have still been president even if his father wasn't H Dubya.
I don't like these kinds of threads. Your basically trying to shame people for not liking your favored politician personally. I don't care about Hillary Clinton as a person. I do care about what she stands for politically and what she represents in terms of our country, which is bigger than her.
Those who lie about their own government records, who lie about their ties to powerful interests that influence their campaigns and their public views, be they financial or political, who lie about their own intent for the country in the smarmiest of manners...these things are not only what the Clinton's have represented for a long time,its also the corrupt way of doing business that is par the course in Washington today in both parties that needs to change.
Its not even like the OP is parsing the difference, asking why people would not vote for her, which would be a far more reasonable viewpoint to have, because people can obviously not like her politics or dislike her as a Presidential candidate yet at the least support her run for the Presidency over Donald Trump, easily.
Some democratic party loyalists just can't comprehend that Hillary Clinton has a lot of political flaws indicative of not just her, but the party she leads as well, and can't stand that some people don't like that or support that.
And so they put their hands in their ears whenever these things are brought up because, hey, i don't have to listen to a thing you say because your obviously a sexist or some other name that allows me to disengage from debating with your core point.
Does Hillary Clinton have a cozy relationship with Wall Street and get most of her donations from them? Yes.
Does she have a cozy relationship with all the dirty fuel companies who have a vested interest in their own destruction of the planet? Yes.
Does she care only about Israel and openly mock or ignore any other side of the middle eastern conflict outside of attacking both the Syrian goverment and rebels at the same time and inflaming tensions with Russia? Yes.
Is her political view too far to the right on many issues to the point where most of these powerful influencers are backing her? Yes.
Is the fact that the only decent plans we've heard out of her so far(like her new college tuition plan which thankfully now isn't just giving more private grants to have people fall into more debt?) built on deals she's made with more progressive politicans to garner their support? Yes.
Are all of these issues indicative of washington in general, and the mess that needs to be cleaned up in order for anything of actual note to be accomplished? Yes.
I really wish that we can all come to understand these basic points before we have arguments about whether or not its wrong to like or dislike a person we don't know.
Those who lie about their own government records, who lie about their ties to powerful interests that influence their campaigns and their public views, be they financial or political, who lie about their own intent for the country in the smarmiest of manners...these things are not only what the Clinton's have represented for a long time,its also the corrupt way of doing business that is par the course in Washington today in both parties that needs to change.
Its not even like the OP is parsing the difference, asking why people would not vote for her, which would be a far more reasonable viewpoint to have, because people can obviously not like her politics or dislike her as a Presidential candidate yet at the least support her run for the Presidency over Donald Trump, easily.
Some democratic party loyalists just can't comprehend that Hillary Clinton has a lot of political flaws indicative of not just her, but the party she leads as well, and can't stand that some people don't like that or support that.
And so they put their hands in their ears whenever these things are brought up because, hey, i don't have to listen to a thing you say because your obviously a sexist or some other name that allows me to disengage from debating with your core point.
Does Hillary Clinton have a cozy relationship with Wall Street and get most of her donations from them? Yes.
Does she have a cozy relationship with all the dirty fuel companies who have a vested interest in their own destruction of the planet? Yes.
Does she care only about Israel and openly mock or ignore any other side of the middle eastern conflict outside of attacking both the Syrian goverment and rebels at the same time and inflaming tensions with Russia? Yes.
Is her political view too far to the right on many issues to the point where most of these powerful influencers are backing her? Yes.
Is the fact that the only decent plans we've heard out of her so far(like her new college tuition plan which thankfully now isn't just giving more private grants to have people fall into more debt?) built on deals she's made with more progressive politicans to garner their support? Yes.
Are all of these issues indicative of washington in general, and the mess that needs to be cleaned up in order for anything of actual note to be accomplished? Yes.
I really wish that we can all come to understand these basic points before we have arguments about whether or not its wrong to like or dislike a person we don't know.
billy beane
Banned
Hillary is like that boss that's doesn't really come off as a nice person all the time but that's because she's serious about her job and doesn't play. But every once and a while she does something that makes you realize she's really a nice person. And then you hear stories about how she's actually super cool outside of work and is super into Tool or something weird like that. And then you respect her.
I'm ok with Hilary being my president.
I'm ok with Hilary being my president.
Melkezadek
Member
Yea surely it would have nothing to do with her own accomplishments and ability.
If people wonder why the word "sexism" gets thrown around, here it is.
excelsiorlef
Member
This is so blatantly sexist...
Like legit.
She was the breadwinner for a long time in their relationship...
She's worked her ass off to get where she is and you accuse her of riding her husband's coattails?
Aaron Strife
Banned
This is so pathetic.
Melkezadek
Member
It's my opinion.
excelsiorlef
Member
And?
Melkezadek
Member
Yea because heaven forbid she actually cares about her husband despite infidelity. It must be for that "Clinton last name".
I'm allowed to have one just like you.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Never said you weren't allowed to have an opinion, just that that one is pathetic.
Un-democratic? Does being a relative automatically disqualify you from being appointed by the people? Because THAT is un-democractic.
Anyway I don't feel inspired by a Clinton vote and the documentary didn't do anything to change that. It did however cement the fact that I am indeed voting AGAINST Trump and if that means a Clinton vote then I feel like it's my obligation as a non mouth-breathing-idiot to prevent an atrocious thug like Trump from reaching the oval office.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
It's only sexist if you want that as the out.
Bill could have been married to a guy and the same would still apply.
If she never met Bill and gained those connections do you really think she'd be in the running right now?
SporeCrawler
Member
i do not dislike her at all. i respect her.
Melkezadek
Member
What difference does that make? There are plenty of women who make it to positions of power on their own merit. Why what Hillary be any different?
Especially when she was successful and doing her own thing before she even married Bill. Do you know anything about her life?
Are people even listening to themselves? People don't know what sexism is at all, which is probably why they don't realize it exists.
broncobuster
Banned
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Because she has the connections.
EDIT: I'm not saying that IS how she got there but it certainly is a strong possibility.
chicko1983
Member
My boss doesn't trust her. But he is the traditional family type where men go to work and women stay at home. He is also a middle aged white man.
I was saying how bad it would be for minorities if Trump was elected, let alone for the rest of the world's security. His reply is that "Clinton isn't much better.
We are Australian, so we cant vote.
I was saying how bad it would be for minorities if Trump was elected, let alone for the rest of the world's security. His reply is that "Clinton isn't much better.
We are Australian, so we cant vote.
I'm not saying she wouldn't have been successful without him, and it has nothing to do with her being a woman- what I am saying is that its a case of nepotism, just like with the Bush family.
Melkezadek
Member
So because her husband was in public office, that means she couldn't have gotten to where she is now without him..
Go on..what is your proof? Why is it a strong possibility? Why couldn't it be because of her own public work?
My brother was a store manager at Gamestop. I became a store manager at Gamestop. Do you assume it's because I have a brother in the system, or because I have what it takes to be there?
hunchback
Member
Don't forget people having a issue with Hillary staying with Bill after the affair. What the hell? Their relationship is nobody's business but theirs. So tired of this. Not one guy here would be questioning a male running for president about his wife if she cheated. Someone might call him dumb for staying but they sure wouldn't try to use it as a way of saying he shouldn't be president.
Melkezadek
Member
What proof of this do you have?
Chinese Cartoons
Banned
Good to see the echo chamber hive mind is still going strong.
HerbertBirdsfoot
Member
I don't dislike her. I think she is less personally appealing than Obama but would/will be better at being president.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Melkezadek
Member
Why assume she couldn't have done it with her own merit. As she's proven that she's capable of doing a lot without Bill.
Why assume because of her ties to Bill?
Her policy positions are fine. I'm much further left than the Democratic party, so I'm used to this. Most of my issues are with the State Department involvement in Honduras and Haiti while she was Secretary of State.
Adam_Vania
Banned
if you can't see how being married to the President would give you certain advantages then you are beyond "proof"
JinjoUnchained
Member
I dislike her due to her foreign policy record as a Senator and Secretary of State. If we're going to be critical of Bush and Cheney for regime change and nation building, then in order to be consistent, we have to be critical of Hillary too.
As a Senator, she voted for the Iraq War. As Secretary of State she presided over misguided regime change in Libya that, like the Iraq War, led to massive loss of life and destabilized an entire region. For good measure she presided over regime change in Honduras with similar results. She lobbied hard for similar actions in Iran and Syria, but fortunately she and Obama were stonewalled on these two fronts.
So I'm not voting for Hillary because I can't in good conscious vote for a third Dick Cheney term. Plus I'm not in a swing state, so who cares what I do? But Hillary is a dangerous hawk who shouldn't get anywhere close to the commander in chief role.
Edit: realistically I expect her to back into a win over Trump in November. Hopefully she's changed and has better judgement in foreign policy as president. I try to be optimistic as I think younger voters are more skeptical of imperialist and destructive styled foreign policy.
As a Senator, she voted for the Iraq War. As Secretary of State she presided over misguided regime change in Libya that, like the Iraq War, led to massive loss of life and destabilized an entire region. For good measure she presided over regime change in Honduras with similar results. She lobbied hard for similar actions in Iran and Syria, but fortunately she and Obama were stonewalled on these two fronts.
So I'm not voting for Hillary because I can't in good conscious vote for a third Dick Cheney term. Plus I'm not in a swing state, so who cares what I do? But Hillary is a dangerous hawk who shouldn't get anywhere close to the commander in chief role.
Edit: realistically I expect her to back into a win over Trump in November. Hopefully she's changed and has better judgement in foreign policy as president. I try to be optimistic as I think younger voters are more skeptical of imperialist and destructive styled foreign policy.
- Status