Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
Some people are not fans of what they see as opportunism.
This is Neogaf. Saying she sucks doesn't change my vote for her and isn't anything like campaigning for Trump.
You are so silly man. Did you just compare Breibart to the New York Times?
User 463088
Banned
Actually, Obama's stance on gay marriage is even worse.
He was for it in the 1990s. Then against it when running for President. Then for it again later. That's the very definition of a flip-flop!
Now, I don't particularly care either way, because, you know, I understand how and why his opinions changed. And, he's fine with Jesus now...so whatever.
Exactly. But even with this, she's a better candidate than the literal party of hate. People act as if it's a game changer while those who follow politics, know these things and still know she's a better choice than trump.
It's not even just that, but like if one were to bring up Iraq a reply would be "but everyone wanted it!" or when one would bring up Israel the replies would be "but everyone supports it!". Just because Trump is holding the world hostage doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Hillary when its deserved.
To answer the OP, I criticize Hillary all the time so I would say no. The only thing is there is a lot of Hillary supporters here, so if seems like that I guess.
whyamihere
Banned
I am against the death penalty and do not like that Hillary supports it. However, I know that the end of the death penalty will come from court order, and whichever SCOTUS appointees that Hillary puts on the bench will probably be against it, making it sort of moot what her opinion is (though, again, I disagree with it).
RedAssedApe
Banned
still waiting for that dude to post his legitimate criticisms of hillary.
this turning into gaming side with Sony lol.
SonyGaf aka HillaryGaf
this turning into gaming side with Sony lol.
SonyGaf aka HillaryGaf
LilWayneSuckz
Member
You're voting for someone to lead the country, not a best friend. I don't understand the whole "someone who I can have a beer with" line of reasoning in voting.
whyamihere
Banned
Most people on the left probably agree with some shade of this.
I'm just not sure what:
"She's hawkish, not liberal enough, and LTTP on issues that I was woke about from birth" makes her someone who's unelectable, regardless of her opponent. I could argue about the lobbyist thing and the weird conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton Foundation.
Let's not fuck ourselves here people, ain't nobody here voting for Clinton would have voted for Rubio had he won.
brainchild
Banned
Anyone can criticize her DURING the election as much as they damn well please as long as they vote for her in November.
Fuck this thought policing bullshit. No one is above criticism at any point in time. Period.
I realize that I'm just saying there aren't endless threads going in on her for these issues . They're just brought up in passing and waved away "cause Trump is worse". My criticism of her don't negate that even with those criticisms she's a qualified presidential candidate . I'm just saying I'm not a cheerleader and I like to see politicians picked apart and taken down so there not this blind loyalty . So while I'm stating I don't think there's enough hard criticism of Clinton on this site , I'm not at all saying she's unqualified to be present or couldn't be a fine president .
I think part of this goes to the idealism vs. pragmatism discussion that was had in the primary threads over and over. Some want idealism and loud outspoken positions, even if politically or socially unpopular or untenable. Others want a functioning government and country and a reasonable degree of logic, stability and predictability in their leaders. Change can come slowly or through a revolution and most prefer a slow process.
Ironically, I think on the left pragmatism won the primaries, on the right idealism did.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Of course, this makes sense, but we should still be able to have a discussion about candidates like Clinton and Sanders without having these discussions shut down by the pragmatic stance that anything is better than Trump.
Otakumegane
Member
Ok this is a good start. Now literally all you have to do is bring up singular issues within what you just stated and expand on them and then people can begin a dialogue. You'd be surprised to find that many people would agree on certain points, even in this community which leans quite far to the left.
What purpose would there be in a thread that stated:
"Hillary is hawkish"
When people who're voting for her have come to terms with this.
Yep, she is.
Okay...?
SoulUnison
Banned
I have a friend whose attitude is that Trump would be a better choice than Hillary because "Hillary gets people killed," but after 20 minutes of me probing him with "What are we talking about specifically so I can actually participate in the conversation? Are we talking about Benghazi?" he'd just keep changing the subject. Finally he exploded that "Yes it was Benghazi and that should have been a given and no I'm not being evasive! I'm gong to bed!"
Apparently Trump being excited about the prospect of having nukes at his disposal isn't a warning sign for someone who apparently values human life above all else in their decision making process?
He hates that Hillary seems rather two-faced and has some questionable ethics and dealings, but ignores the same things much more explicitly from Trump. I pointed out that Trump has a decades long history of also being pretty legally shady, two-faced, throwing business partners under the bus and skirting the law to make a buck, and he shrugged it off as being irrelevant since "Trump's never held office." Apparently the content of Clinton's character is unforgivable, the content of Trump's is off-limits since the Presidency would be, I guess, "too much" of a career change?
I just can't follow the train of thought of someone who'd think Trump could be a better alternative to basically ANYTHING, and it's sad, because this is a good friend whose opinion I respect. I want to hear his side of things to get information I've missed and have a bigger picture, but I don't think he's informed at all. He just has a dead-set opinion with nothing real built up underneath it.
I brought up how Trump's run-in with the Justice Department and been found twice to be systematically racist in his real estate ventures.
I brought up how he's talked about "blacks" being "lazy" and he doesn't want them "counting his money."
How do you even have a discourse with this?
I feel like I uncovered some really unexpectedly dark stuff about a close friend of more than a decade in the space of one conversation.
Both candidates are *awful*, but how can it even be a CONTEST!?
whyamihere
Banned
Well, a lot of that is natural part of the election. We also just went through a pretty thorough primary where the Left and the traditional Democrat were squared off and had a fairly robust debate on the issues you brought up. That primary is over, so it's sort of natural that this type of discussion has waned. That doesn't mean the legitimate criticisms of Hillary from the left should subside, just that it's natural they wouldn't be hit as hard when it's no longer Left vs. Center-Left but instead Hillary vs. Trump. Though I still think talking about actual issues with Hillary wouldn't be "handwaved" away.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Generally agree but 'continued decline' requires some nuance and elaboration. Progress has been made in many areas but not in others. Any GOP candidate would accelerate the decline and halt progress in the other areas entirely.
Trump is Russian roulette where the gun is filled with some real bullets and some rubber bullets. There is basically 0 chance of a good outcome, just some outcomes are worse than others.
Despite his rhetoric deviating from typical terrible right wing talking points on taxes, isreal, healthcare, foreign policy, etc. when you look at his actual proposed policies, they are all horrible.
And I think this is where a lot of this comes from.
To a certain extent, I totally agree. Trump cannot win. Period. I've even been on my girlfriend's case lately about voting because she's no planning to, telling her that every single vote matters when it comes to beating Trump (although maybe not as much after these most recent polls, lawl).
But at the same time, I feel like this mindset has really shut down a lot of standard discussion about the candidates themselves. It pretty much just comes down to "Trump is a fucking monster so vote for Hillary". The more that mindset has become stronger and stronger, the more resistant people have become to any sort of criticism towards her whatsoever. Whether it's something personal or legitimate.
Once again, damn this election is a shit show.
But what discussion do you want to have?
Ok here I'll say it, Hillary is not perfect.
The next logical step in the discussion is to compare her to Trump because that is who she is running against as president.
I mean I'm not being forced to vote for Hillary because Trump is awful. I'm perfectly fine with Hillary as president even if Trump wasn't wondering. I'm not blind, I just support her policies. When you ask most people what is wrong with Hillary exactly, most, won't have an answer except she is a liar or emails or benghazi.
That's the thing. They were not shut down during the months long primary process. It's just that the pragmatic approach that leads people to pick Hillary over Trump also led them to pick her over Sanders. It's more or less the same thing. Her stable approach is preferred over a revolution from the left or the right.
Still I find this train of thought very Machiavellian. You cold say a similar thing about Trump presidency, that a lot of his rhetoric won't matter as congress will just block him on all the crazy stuff anyways. I would like to hope you still have a president you agree with on such an issue. Someone like Bernie.... you don't doubt his convictions and feel that he is as honest as a politician can get.
Likewise, this cognitive dissonance can also be applied in other areas, like Hillary obviously hates the wall idea yet she supports this thing:
I mean obviously I still hope she wins because Donald, but I still don't like her and am massively disappointed this was the best the country could offer.
Something won on the right. Not certain that it would be called idealism.
That's the thing though. Since the alternative is Trump i'm not at all surprised people are a bit more touchy about criticism of Hillary. Especially when so much of it is bullshit anyway.
You're right that it's not a good thing but it's not really surprising.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I think the time for this was during the primaries.
Battlechili
Banned
That's actually a lot harder than I expected as a question. Hillary's improper handling of confidential emails, despite what was ultimately said regarding the investigation, is a bit worrying since she'd essentially be in what is arguably the most important political position in the United States. It raises into question her carefulness, or even if whether or not she's respects national law. Added to this, the DNC itself which had been endorsing her, based on recently leaked emails sent between members of them, show a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders since much earlier in the election, which makes the democratic party come off as extremely corrupt. Hillary has also made some passing remarks that come off as downright racist.
However, when you ask how would these problems be best avoided under Donald Trump...Well honestly, they probably wouldn't. Donald Trump is, at the very least, careless when it comes to what he says and who he says it to. If it isn't carelessness, he to could be considered racist, and in comparison to Hillary, he's far worse. Who's to say that that doesn't go farther outside of his ability to speak to people? It doesn't help that, while not a traditional form of bankruptcy, his companies filed for bankruptcy. That could be seen as an example of carelessness, and if not that, a lack of business sense. And the Republican party as a whole...Well, its not without its corruption either.
So when you ask how would Hillary's shortcomings be improved under Trump....I can't say they would.
But I have a problem with your question regardless, as I don't really look at the election as a choice between those two. Realistically speaking, yes, the President is going to be one of those two. But are there not benefits to voting for a third party?
I often argue that the party with the least number of issues would probably be the Green Party, and I find that Stein is very easily comparable to Sanders in her views. Her party lacks the obvious corruption of the other parties while seemingly is very similar to the Democratic party, and voting for Stein would help give such a party gain more traction in future elections. I also think her shortcomings are very mild in comparison to Trump's and Hillary's. People point out she's anti-vac, but I dont' think that holds much relevancy when it comes to being President, and I don't think she'd be able to set America back on that, as there would be too much opposition against her. In that sense, I don't see such a vote or showing support for such a group as throwing away one's vote, and I honestly believe that 4 years of Trump wouldn't be so bad if it resulted in helping the Green Party. I think supporting such a party is more important, but I think that varies on just how bad someone views Trump to be. If someone truly believes Trump being President is one of the worst things that could ever happen, then one simply cannot afford to vote for anyone but Hillary.
EDIT: Also please forgive me, as I make no claim at being the most well informed upcoming voter, nor do I claim to have a significant amount of political knowledge. However, it was asked that people be willing to share views on why they're against Hillary, and since you wanted something that put things into context, I figured I'd do my best. Although that makes it even harder as a question. Because honestly, if you look at the election as a choice between just Trump and Hillary, then it seems easy to choose Hillary. At least in my opinion. Feel free to correct me on any errors I've spoken.
Trigonometrize.
Member
I feel like as soon as people started to realize Trump was a real threat and Bernie wasn't the nomination, people here started talking much more fondly of Clinton. It's not unexpected when you're facing straight up evil though.
Do keep in mind that "hand waving something away" and "providing evidence and rationale that undermine the validity of your complaint" are two completely different things. It doesn't help that many complaints are poorly articulated and not very well defined and a lot of them seem to be based more in perceptions than reality.
For instance, just because people on the far left say Hillary is a right wing or center-right politician because of a lack of perspective on the beliefs of the rest of the country does not make it true. And people presenting evidence such as her 11th most liberal and 93% identical voting record to Bernie Sanders to demonstrate that she is actually very progressive relative to the average in America is not hand waving, it's presenting evidence. Yeah, she could be an even better and further left candidate, but that's moving the goal posts from the original complaint and calling that out isn't hand waving either.
There's also the recognition that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of great, and that to change the alignment of country is a slow task of dragging the Overton window up the hill to the left without stumbling and letting it roll back down to the primal nationalism and outdated pseudo-psychology of the far right. And that most people suffering the most do not have the privilege to invoke accelerationism from the safety of their ivory tower in hope that somehow it'll cause the country to underflow from all the way to the right to all the way to the left.
There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be made of Hillary, but it's got to be a bit more specific than those non-specific charges of corrupt/flip-flopper/right-winger that are of course never defined so that motte-and-bailey semantic games can be played and never presented in the context of the world. Be more specific.
For instance, just because people on the far left say Hillary is a right wing or center-right politician because of a lack of perspective on the beliefs of the rest of the country does not make it true. And people presenting evidence such as her 11th most liberal and 93% identical voting record to Bernie Sanders to demonstrate that she is actually very progressive relative to the average in America is not hand waving, it's presenting evidence. Yeah, she could be an even better and further left candidate, but that's moving the goal posts from the original complaint and calling that out isn't hand waving either.
There's also the recognition that we cannot let perfect be the enemy of great, and that to change the alignment of country is a slow task of dragging the Overton window up the hill to the left without stumbling and letting it roll back down to the primal nationalism and outdated pseudo-psychology of the far right. And that most people suffering the most do not have the privilege to invoke accelerationism from the safety of their ivory tower in hope that somehow it'll cause the country to underflow from all the way to the right to all the way to the left.
There's plenty of legitimate criticism to be made of Hillary, but it's got to be a bit more specific than those non-specific charges of corrupt/flip-flopper/right-winger that are of course never defined so that motte-and-bailey semantic games can be played and never presented in the context of the world. Be more specific.
For the record, I think the waffling death penalty position is one of the worst things about her.
I don't think you change people's minds by hiding flaws and pretending they aren't there, but rather by arguing why they can be overcome. As long as the person bringing them up isn't doing it out of just dishonest propaganda, of course.
I understand, but we are talking about Hillary Clinton.
The past two and a half decades have been literally all about her being picked apart and taken down. That's her story. More so than any other politician I can think of, she's been under the finest of microscopes.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You don't have to admit it. But then again, how do you know it's not your own cognitive dissonance creating a blindspot?
And don't get me wrong -- you often make truly excellent points. But man, do I see a lot of contradiction when you get up on that particular soapbox of calling out the "cognitive dissonance, double standards, mental gymnastics". And you do love that soapbox!
I don't think you change people's minds by hiding flaws and pretending they aren't there, but rather by arguing why they can be overcome. As long as the person bringing them up isn't doing it out of just dishonest propaganda, of course.
I understand, but we are talking about Hillary Clinton.
The past two and a half decades have been literally all about her being picked apart and taken down. That's her story. More so than any other politician I can think of, she's been under the finest of microscopes.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You don't have to admit it. But then again, how do you know it's not your own cognitive dissonance creating a blindspot?
And don't get me wrong -- you often make truly excellent points. But man, do I see a lot of contradiction when you get up on that particular soapbox of calling out the "cognitive dissonance, double standards, mental gymnastics". And you do love that soapbox!
boiled goose
good with gravy
certainly the case on this forum. The cognitive dissonance, double standards, mental gymnastics, and excuses made to make Hillary not look bad and her opponents look bad by many people on this forum has been shocking.
Yep. Most of the people that participate the most in the political threads have been doing so since the primary debates. We have had these discussions, accepted certain things and have moved on.
And there will be plenty of time to hold her accountable when she's President. That's what we do as the American people.
We've been given two (four if you count the Team Rocket of the Presidental Anime) choices in November.
One: A know nothing demagogue who has only gotten this far on the back of ignorance, anger (misguided if legitimate), and hatred.
The Other: An extremely qualified, if flawed, candidate whose obviously been working since her youth to be the change she wants to see in the world and help American and Americans.
She's not even a BAD candidate.
whyamihere
Banned
Still I find this train of thought very Machiavellian. You cold say a similar thing about Trump presidency, that a lot of his rhetoric won't matter as congress will just block him on all the crazy stuff anyways. I would like to hope you still have a president you agree with on such an issue. Someone like Bernie.... you don't doubt his convictions and feel that he is as honest as a politician can get.
Likewise, this cognitive dissonance can also be applied in other areas, like Hillary obviously hates the wall idea yet she supports this thing:
I mean obviously I still hope she wins because Donald, but I still don't like her and am massively disappointed this was the best the country could offer.
This is very silly.
I don't vote on the death penalty as one of my top issues, and being pro-death penalty has no been a very huge part of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the primary or in the general. A lot of what Trump is talking about in terms of deportations or Muslim bans are things that he could conceivably do unilaterally. Hillary Clinton as a president has really no affect on death penalty policies in this country outside of nominating SCOUTS appointees, so using her own opinion on the death penalty really won't color my vote in any way since her likely actions as a POTUS would likely lead to the end of the practice itself.
And no, I don't agree with Hillary's stances on Israel, and many of her FP positions are ones in which she deserves to be robustly criticized.
(I also do doubt Bernie's convictions on a host of issues that don't have to do with economics, but that's neither here nor there since we're not talking about that.)
I think Israel will be emboldened to do whatever they want and be even more aggressive when Clinton's president.
How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu by Hillary Rodham Clinton
It is no secret that there is enmity between Obama and Netanyahu. Clinton is marketing herself as being better than Obama for US-Israel relations on both a national level, and at the personal level between herself and Netanyahu.
Why would Clinton believe that our commitment to Israel is in need of reaffirming unless she also believed that US-Israel relations have unduly suffered under Obama's presidency? In any future conflict in Gaza, you can expect our diplomatic response to be much more slanted in Israel's favor than it already is.
How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu by Hillary Rodham Clinton
It is no secret that there is enmity between Obama and Netanyahu. Clinton is marketing herself as being better than Obama for US-Israel relations on both a national level, and at the personal level between herself and Netanyahu.
Why would Clinton believe that our commitment to Israel is in need of reaffirming unless she also believed that US-Israel relations have unduly suffered under Obama's presidency? In any future conflict in Gaza, you can expect our diplomatic response to be much more slanted in Israel's favor than it already is.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, he wavered once his political aspirations broadened and became more solidified. It's politics, and it's bullshit, but will that ever actually change?
Gordon Shumway
Banned
I've seen dudes straight kill innocent people on camera on this board and seen the cognitive dissonance, double standards, mental gymnastics, and excuses. I'm kinda shocked anything posted here shocks you, to be honest..
When we're dead and gone..like racism..just you wait..
I think that's an unfortunate feature of online discourse. I see the same sort of polarisation happens in lots of other spheres, in football forums, the degree of factionalism between console platforms and especially apparent in the vitriol exchanged between supporters of the same party in current US Democratic Party and the U.K. Labour Party.
brainchild
Banned
It's not a moot point because her position on the death penalty doesn't exist in a vacuum. It speaks to her judgment and rationality on matters like these and it's regressive, barbaric, and indefensible, imo.
I believe if the death penalty was not as popular with the country as it is, Hillary wouldn't support it, and that's a problem. Not because of some bullshit purity test, but because it would demonstrate limitations in her ability to be a progressive leader for this country.
There are many things that a president might say or believe that might not have a harmful effect directly, but indirectly, its presence in the public conscience could have a very negative if not dangerous impact on the advancement of good ethics and social values for our society.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It is interesting that many people have brought up the death penalty.
As I mentioned on my first post on the thread, I think many of Hillary's tough stances might be the result of overcompensation. Because she is a female, she will be unfairly judged as being weak.
I believe that this is part of the reason why she is so hawkish on foreign policy, historically supported 'tough on crime' legislation, against pot legalization, pro death penalty (now on limited cases).
I disagree with her completely on this issues, but that is how I interpret it.
It reminds me a bit of Obama having to be super cautious when discussing police shootings. Remember the shit he got for his comments on Trayvon Martin?
I do think racism and sexism affect the stances that many candidates take. An interesting example of white male privilege. You can take any stance without it being attributed to your race. Although nowadays, it might be attributed to you being a racist.
Well if we are going to smack talk Hilary I think I will join in.
Everything I have read about her tells me she is way too goddamned hawkish for my taste. I have the feeling that under her this country will be dragged into another 4 to 8 years of unneeded military interventions. That will probably be harmful in the long-term. Obama might have not been perfect in foreign policy, but at least he seemed to not be a member of the cult of the military.
I will be voting for her because the alternative is the republican party and I view the majority of their policy positions as racially driven, favouring the rich, and/or out-right harmful to the country in the long-term.
Everything I have read about her tells me she is way too goddamned hawkish for my taste. I have the feeling that under her this country will be dragged into another 4 to 8 years of unneeded military interventions. That will probably be harmful in the long-term. Obama might have not been perfect in foreign policy, but at least he seemed to not be a member of the cult of the military.
I will be voting for her because the alternative is the republican party and I view the majority of their policy positions as racially driven, favouring the rich, and/or out-right harmful to the country in the long-term.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
But as I said before, I criticized Clinton a lot on here and never experienced any pushback.
Maybe because my criticism was, in my opinion, legitimate.
However, calling out bullshit criticism is not a bad thing and obviously thats beeing done on here.
I feel the "bar" for Hillary, as a politician and candidate for President, has been unfairly positioned.
She's not "likable" because after all these years being a woman in politics, she ironclad. I really can't expect her to be relatable or have Obama's charisma (who does?).
It's like when people claim Obama is the worst President ever, that shit just doesn't fly with me. Hillary is going to operate within the bounds of normalcy for a Democratic president. She may be hawkish, but she isn't going to pull Iraq 2.0, that is politically out of bounds.
Worst case scenario is she is ineffective at getting things done.
She's not "likable" because after all these years being a woman in politics, she ironclad. I really can't expect her to be relatable or have Obama's charisma (who does?).
It's like when people claim Obama is the worst President ever, that shit just doesn't fly with me. Hillary is going to operate within the bounds of normalcy for a Democratic president. She may be hawkish, but she isn't going to pull Iraq 2.0, that is politically out of bounds.
Worst case scenario is she is ineffective at getting things done.
boiled goose
good with gravy
hahaha. A fair point.
I was surprised at the fanboyism in politics though. Worse than console wars. Maybe I shouldn't have been..
thezerofire
Banned
not sure I understand the "I can't get a beer with her" criticism considering she's apparently a legendary heavyweight
- Status