Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Damn this is your best hot take since calling my home province welfare bums and then saying you're become a tax expatriate because you were so angry about Liberals winning the Canadian election.
Mr. Giggles
Member
I was and still am camp Bernie
I don't like Hillary but considering the choices I'm not going to make a fuss
I don't like Hillary but considering the choices I'm not going to make a fuss
minor effort
Banned
I think the brief, small leads Trump had following the RNC kind of shook people. Not to mention leading up to the DNC you still had remnants of groups wishing to re-litigate the Democratic primary over and over. Not to mention during that brief Trump boost, you had foreign actors wishing to influence the election with the DNC hacks.
Criticism is good, but when you have a fascist leading in presidential polling, however briefly, it put a lot of people in an understandable bunker mentality with regard to the election.
Criticism is good, but when you have a fascist leading in presidential polling, however briefly, it put a lot of people in an understandable bunker mentality with regard to the election.
Like with any other topic on GAF, rational discourse and snarky smack-talk is always allowed as long as it doesn't violate the TOS.
I could say, for example:
"Hillary's handling of the e-mail issue has been needlessly obfuscatory and at this point she's bungled it so bad that admitting she wasn't 100% honest with the public won't help people change their minds"
The above statement is, in my opinion, true. Someone can obviously disagree with me and probably does. We would have a rational talk about it and then give each other handies or something I dunno.
You can be snarky as well:
"Hillary's hands are smaller than Trump's so I won't be voting for her."
The above statement is snark, I don't believe it, but it's perfectly allowable.
What you can't do is violate the TOS when talking about Hillary as in:
"Hitlery is the devil bitch queen of hell and I won't vote for her specifically because she's a woman!"
That'd probably get you banned.
Now, if you mean "I can't say negative things about Hillary Clinton without her supporters telling me that I'm wrong!" that's a different thing entirely. If you can't stand by or back up or be rational in debate about something you think is true, then it's best not to say it, especially in an atmosphere of political fear and unrest.
ENJOY YOUR BAN FUCKBOI
I could say, for example:
"Hillary's handling of the e-mail issue has been needlessly obfuscatory and at this point she's bungled it so bad that admitting she wasn't 100% honest with the public won't help people change their minds"
The above statement is, in my opinion, true. Someone can obviously disagree with me and probably does. We would have a rational talk about it and then give each other handies or something I dunno.
You can be snarky as well:
"Hillary's hands are smaller than Trump's so I won't be voting for her."
The above statement is snark, I don't believe it, but it's perfectly allowable.
What you can't do is violate the TOS when talking about Hillary as in:
"Hitlery is the devil bitch queen of hell and I won't vote for her specifically because she's a woman!"
That'd probably get you banned.
Now, if you mean "I can't say negative things about Hillary Clinton without her supporters telling me that I'm wrong!" that's a different thing entirely. If you can't stand by or back up or be rational in debate about something you think is true, then it's best not to say it, especially in an atmosphere of political fear and unrest.
ENJOY YOUR BAN FUCKBOI
the above statement is
true
It's always interesting to see people add "but I don't like ___!" as if that actually needs to be said for validation. Even the OP did it several times. If you feel you need to temper criticism of one candidate by assuring the readers that you dislike the other candidate, that's perhaps more indicative of a problem than the original post itself.
googleplex
Member
There nothing wrong with holding a politician's feet to the fire. Hell most Democrats and Hillary's supporters encourage it.
Just don't regurgitate insane conservative talking points or engaged in baseless character assassination. Then whine and get butt hurt when people call you out on it.
Just don't regurgitate insane conservative talking points or engaged in baseless character assassination. Then whine and get butt hurt when people call you out on it.
natjjohn
Member
The Guardian might be accurate, but New York Times and Washington Post gotta disagree with.
I'm sad that cuck has been co-opted by the Internet, lol.
Aaronology
Member
Plenty of people are critical of Clinton on GAF, OP. It just so happens there is an unfortunate coalescence of positions that are against the TOS and/or incredibly unpopular for justified reasons and people who are passionately opposed to Hillary Clinton in the face of Trump.
No . Incase you have noticed by all the Clinton avatars and the narrative that everyone fall in line and vote for her . I love how in any thread you try to criticize Clinton her defense force assures you it's not a legitimate gripe , but then in the same breath claim she's not infallible , yet there's never any critique you can put on her that'll stick . It's become a forced echo chamber .
No, just no. They are not even close to being on the same level.
Your post explains a lot about the stances you typically take. I would suggest either stop reading Brietbart or start reading it if you don' t and are just making assumptions because that place is Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter level of trash.
Soo... basically even though you agree with her policies and think she may do a decent job as president, you don't "like" her because you feel like you can't bro out with her over a beer?
I feel like this is exactly the type of shit she's had to deal with her whole career.
We're done here.
Battlechili
Banned
I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that people here will argue against anyone that doesn't like Hillary. This place has a lot of Hillary supporters, so naturally they might feel a bit uneasy when someone says they don't like her. Though I do think it would be better I if people were more respectful about speaking their opposing views. I noticed that if one mentions a liking of Jill Stein above all else, they will be told some hurtful things, which just isn't right. There are better ways to go about disagreeing with someone.
And yeah, I'd like to see some Trump supporters speak up around here. Its good to have varied viewpoints presented.
EDIT: To add to everything I said, if I'm being truly honest, admittedly I sometimes feel afraid to speak up opposing views out of fear of getting banned for them. I would assume a good number of other people feel the same, especially if they are Trump supporters. I think a lot of Trump supporters would fear being automatically branded as racists or something..
And yeah, I'd like to see some Trump supporters speak up around here. Its good to have varied viewpoints presented.
I don't like Trump, but I would argue that back when they were still running, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were far, FAR worse in terms of what policies they had wanted to enact. Much worse as far as presidential candidates are concerned.
EDIT: To add to everything I said, if I'm being truly honest, admittedly I sometimes feel afraid to speak up opposing views out of fear of getting banned for them. I would assume a good number of other people feel the same, especially if they are Trump supporters. I think a lot of Trump supporters would fear being automatically branded as racists or something..
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I mean we're at 65 posts and the only actual thing mentioned in the whole discussion has been "She said Nancy Reagan was good on HIV and the Reagans were actually bad on HIV and then she apologized for it".
So feel free to let out all the criticisms people are telling you you can't say
Sir_Crocodile
Member
He can only hold shot glasses so it'd take a while for him to get hammered
Orbis Tabula
Member
I'm sure I'll be banned just as soon as one of the mods notices me, hehehehe. Clearly, Stump has me on his ignore lost. MORE FOOL HIM!
massivekettle
Member
WSJ is a financial newspaper at its core, though. Not exactly the best comparable.
Being so one-sided dilutes the quality of WaPo and NYT. What happened to being fair and balanced?
See above.
Don't recall that, sorry. I had already left Canada, so ultimately wasn't personally invested in the election. Besides, I've made my peace a while ago... like the day after the election. Trudeau now better deliver for your (and my family's) sake.
At the end of the day, all those outlets are heavily one-sided. Look at WaPo's and NYT's homepages. They have an agenda just as much as Breitbart. Having a pretty website and serif font doesn't change that at the end of the day.
I usually get my news from multiple outlets, including the aforementioned.
lol, this is good
I personally don't like Hillary very much. She is far away from me politically plus she doesn't seem like a good candidate to me personally (that's a micture of politics, charisma and "coolness").
It's kinda funny to me. You had so many people to choose between from and you (America) ended up with Hillary and Trump.
It's kinda funny to me. You had so many people to choose between from and you (America) ended up with Hillary and Trump.
Everything about this post reveals why the GOP is so fucked right now.
I've PM'd mods across the internet soon you will be banned from Twitter.
"having a beer with" usually is a simple way to say "I identify with this candidate/celebrity/personality/character, i think this is a person that would understand my struggles better", it's not about "broing out" with her.
Gnome Scat
Member
It's just a lot easier to smack talk the guy who is disrespecting troops and saying he would use nukes.
BossDarkseid
Member
receipts?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Hillary is a terrible candidate that will likely win because Trump is far worse.
She is too hawkish.
I consider becoming a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very same industries you are supposed to be regulating extremely corrupt.
She is a fair weather flip flopper politician
1 and 3 have some nuance to them. As a female she is held to standards that males are not.
Don't care that much about email server thing.
Benghazi is made up nonsense.
My one hope is that she is a more. effective President than Obama. Gop hates her, but she is ok with crushing over compromise
She is too hawkish.
I consider becoming a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very same industries you are supposed to be regulating extremely corrupt.
She is a fair weather flip flopper politician
1 and 3 have some nuance to them. As a female she is held to standards that males are not.
Don't care that much about email server thing.
Benghazi is made up nonsense.
My one hope is that she is a more. effective President than Obama. Gop hates her, but she is ok with crushing over compromise
FunkyPajamas
Member
Kev is a mod-sanctioned mod-troll though.People do it all the time.
Hell Kev does it.
Remember landing under sniper fire in Bosnia? What do you call that if not an outright lie? And what do you call people who tell outright lies if not liars?
radios shipping overview
Member
This is insane. Breitbart is more like Little Green Footballs.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Do you see the screenshot I posted?
I honestly don't know why people don't like her. Are there decisions she made as SOS or as a senator that people think will continue into the Oval Office? She could be the biggest liar in the world, and she still has a lifetime worth of public service and helping people that you simply cannot deny. Her qualifications are second to none. Who or what else do people want?
Simon Belmont
Banned
ksharp is basically a parody account. Attempting a serious discussion will not get you anywhere.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
She's certainly not above criticism, but so much of it is unfair, regurgitated right-wing talking points, that a minority of the far-left will sometimes actually latch onto themselves. It's so much noise at this point, and she's been dealing with this shit forever, and that's pretty much insane.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
there's no centre right candidate to be fair and balanced to, only a far right misogynistic, racist demagogue. You want them to treat him like he doesn't say any of the reprehensible things he does on a near daily basis?
Why not. But the criticisms I see of Hillary are usually hilariously double standard.
She made deals (she's a politician), she changed position (she's a politician), embassy get attacked under her watch (as did virtually under any Secretary of State), she ordered people to war (SHE IS SECRETARY OF STATE), she sued private server (So did her predecessor), she made money as paid speaker (as did a lot of famous people),
She made deals (she's a politician), she changed position (she's a politician), embassy get attacked under her watch (as did virtually under any Secretary of State), she ordered people to war (SHE IS SECRETARY OF STATE), she sued private server (So did her predecessor), she made money as paid speaker (as did a lot of famous people),
Im can't talk about all Norwegians, but Im a member of a FB group for young people (most of them are young adults) who wants to talk about politics, it has 13000 members and literally everyone heavily dislikes Hillary on foreign policy.
And for the record, the group is a mixture of communists, socialist, socialdemocrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians and we even had one guy who supported a Norwegian version of Golden Dawn.
It's funny because even though I'm not her biggest fan, I'd love to get drunk with her. Just from what I have seen, she seems like a fun drinker. I don't think there is anybody on the Republican side I can think of off-hand I could say the same about. Maybe Paul Ryan could have a good time. Maybe.
Nah I'm good , not getting sucked into a multi page debate to be told how she's above whatever criticism I throw at her . I've been in enough threads or observed enough threads to see the routine . My previous post reflects what I've seen going on over the last few months since the primaries wrapped up . Point to me a single thread dedicated to a Clinton criticism that sticks and has support by Clinton GAF agreeing it's a fair criticism and I'd walk back on my point , yet I haven't seen a single thread of that sort yet . So that means Clinton is either infallible or there's a conscious effort not to acknowledge criticism to come her way .
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
If you wanna talk shit you better have something to back it up
old manatee
Banned
Hey, who hasn't told everyone they were attacked by a sniper in Bosnia?
dream
Member
It's interesting, though, to see that some of the more legit critiques of Hillary end up not being posted here. For example, Bloomberg published an interview with Alicia Garza, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, in which Garza said--in no uncertain terms--that she believes the Clintons are insincere in their claims to care about black people and black issues. She even says Hillary used them for votes. And this seems like a fascinating point, given the way the conversation has shaped Bernie as the man who doesn't care about black folk, while Hillary is championed as someone who does. But that interview, which was posted here, garnered a handful of Pat's that largely ignored Garza's contentious claims, then dropped off into the abyss.
The Wall Street Journal covers finance, politics, world events, the arts, you name it. It's a newspaper. And a far more reputable one than Breitbart, just as WaPo and NYT are far more reputable than Buzzfeed. I'm sorry man, but it's just a weird comparison on your part. Do you also see Drudge Report as being in the same sphere as newspapers of record?
Which is usually a link to Breitbart.
massivekettle
Member
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.
JimJamJones
Member
I don't like Hillary.
But I don't like Trump even more.
But I don't like Trump even more.
- Status