Is Hillary smack-talk not allowed here anymore?
- Thread starter Durden77
- Start date
- Status
the_firewithin
Member
That pour though....
whyamihere
Banned
I'd like to criticize that shitty beer pour.
Now I can't vote for her because she is irresponsibly putting her health at risk and I do not want Kaine as the president.
TheLaughingStock
Member
People whine about Bernie or Bust, Jill Stein supporters, GOP leaders who back Trump, and so on. But the real danger is Hillary or Bust voters. Nothing will convince them to drop their support.
That shitty Captain America comic and my analogy wasn't about everything Captain America stands for, of course, but about the idea of standing up for your convictions no matter how unpopular they are at the time.
My point is that it cuts both ways. Convictions are great if you are right. They are blind spots if you are not. When it comes to managing a gigantic country and its implications to the whole world -- yes, including the use of drone strikes -- I don't want someone with blanket convictions. I genuinely don't.
User 463088
Banned
thestopsign
Member
I just want to show you what polling has for Clinton's favorability ratings around the world.
She is vastly preferred in the majority of the world even if she doesn't quite have the same numbers currently as Obama.
I bookmarked this post so I can nominate it as the most brutal GAF post of the year at the end of the year.
Bfaahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahhahahahahaahahah.
teruterubozu
Member
Hmmm, a legendary beer drinker would know how to pour from a tap without all that foam.
Oops sorry, shouldn't criticize.
Sunster
Member
bunch of haters over there in Greece
thestopsign
Member
No you stated that you doubted her ability to move forward progressive ideals. Aaron in his kindness put forth a generous display of her pushing forward progressive ideals around the world.
This whole thread has become about actual criticism.
You can keep sniping from the sidelines or join the conversation.
tearsintherain
Member
I don't like Hillary Clinton just because the idea of political dynasties upsets me, I don't want any more Clinton's, Kennedy's, or Bush's in political office. Not her fault that Bill got there first, and I can understand the argument that a wife is different than children.
Also her age is a negative for me, I'd rather have someone in their 40s who has grown up with technology all their life, neither candidate is going to have that.
All around a real bummer of a presidential cycle.
Also her age is a negative for me, I'd rather have someone in their 40s who has grown up with technology all their life, neither candidate is going to have that.
All around a real bummer of a presidential cycle.
Aaronology
Member
Indeed.
One can easily attribute Hillary Clinton's current unfavorables to the unprecedented smear campaign the GOP has specifically crafted over the last few years to damage her 2016 run. Millions of dollars, countless committees, endless sham investigations and even an 11 hour interrogation will bring anyone's numbers down. To quote from the elephant's mouth:
Rep. Richard Hanna said:
Kevin McCarthy said:
Hillary Clinton at her inauguration:
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
I wouldn't drop my support for her against Trump no.
If the republicans had a moderate candidate it would be easily possible.
teruterubozu
Member
Wow, just trying to add some levity. Jeez louise.
eBay Huckster
Member
Donald Trump is to the right wing what you are to Canada-GAF.
you have a shitty beer pour ONE TIME...
I think his request for you to "List a few politicians you believe exemplify the qualifies you claim Clinton lacks if you're confident they won't be quickly revealed to have the same failings you're lambasting Hillary for now" is a legitimate response.
Like, okay, you want politicians who not only have progressive values literally years ahead of their time, who also haven't bent on those policies in the face of disagreement with the opposition but somehow also find work in politics while holding those values? Idealogical purity and democracy simply do not mix because the essence of a democratic system is compromise.
But ignoring that, Is there anyone who fits the criteria you put forth? I don't imagine there are many. And as a followup, what kind of success did they have in implementing those values into a legislative system?
brainchild
Banned
The problem with the supreme court argument is that such nominations still depends on Democrats being elected president. Neither of you can guarantee that we're going to have Democrats elected president for the next 50 years, can you?
Now think about if the general public moved towards a more liberal stance on the death penalty (Democrats and Republicans alike); we wouldn't be so dependent on partisan picks with the supreme court.
And really, regardless of what the government is able to do despite Hillary's personal views, that doesn't really absolve Hillary herself of perpetuating such regressive values onto society, which in and of itself is still worthy of criticism, even disregarding her role as a politician.
timetokill
Banned
I think to the OP's point, a lot of left-leaning GAF is absolutely terrified that something big is going to stick to Hillary. With her history, it could be at any moment, and the prospect that she'd lose because of it is crippling. Her being an unliked candidate with a lot of negatives is not unknown to them. In fact, all of her flaws are exactly why they're so aggressive about shouting down criticism about her. She's a fragile candidate on the road to victory largely by the grace of the modern GOP literally crumbling to pieces before our eyes.
A reasonable GOP candidate would have no trouble beating her, in my opinion. But the GOP left "reasonable" at the door after 2012.
A reasonable GOP candidate would have no trouble beating her, in my opinion. But the GOP left "reasonable" at the door after 2012.
I do think you have this pretty backwards, as far as the largest effect goes.
You want trickle-down politics, trickle-down values.
This is fundamentally not what a representative democracy is about: It is, as the name suggests, about representing the population.
Now, that's not to say in any way that this kind of leading shouldn't be valued. I just think you put a crazy-high weight on it.
And I turn again to the dangers of "convictions" when dealing with supremely complex issues. I don't want conviction, I want rationality and reasonable updating of beliefs.
I definitely stopped discussing US elections on the internet because I dared criticize democrats like Hillary and Bernie, yes Trump is infinitely worse, but that doesn't mean Hillary and Bernie are beyond criticism.
What I talk about the most is foreign policy, Bernie has a more anti-war policy but it completely lacks detail, he speaks in generics to appeal to the far-left/anti-war crowd without speaking about actual policy, while Hillary has an awful policy that will in no doubt kill a lot of brown people indiscriminately, and she has in her tenor as SoS sold weapons to the regime in my country, those weapons were used to kill innocent people, and she then defended her actions, it was a gut-punch at the time because me and a lot of liberal/leftist people in my country somewhat respected her, the right-wing/Islamists always hated her because they hate all things American anyway, so they were vindicated in a sense.
But people jump down my throat every time I speak about them, especially Hillary. But that's first world privilege for ya, first worlders can shrug off any pain or destruction caused to people living in third world countries as a "lesser issue", aka. their lives are worth less.
I can't wait until the elections are over so I can freely criticize Hillary without people getting defensive. I really do not appreciate the "jokes" a lot of Hillary supporters use to dismiss criticism like "har har she's a war criminal lulz" as a way to deflect the fact that she is in fact a war criminal. Don't worry though, a lot of politicians around the world are (dare I say most?), so stop making light of the fact that she contributed to the death of many people just because their lives are less valuable to you.
Just my 0.02.
What I talk about the most is foreign policy, Bernie has a more anti-war policy but it completely lacks detail, he speaks in generics to appeal to the far-left/anti-war crowd without speaking about actual policy, while Hillary has an awful policy that will in no doubt kill a lot of brown people indiscriminately, and she has in her tenor as SoS sold weapons to the regime in my country, those weapons were used to kill innocent people, and she then defended her actions, it was a gut-punch at the time because me and a lot of liberal/leftist people in my country somewhat respected her, the right-wing/Islamists always hated her because they hate all things American anyway, so they were vindicated in a sense.
But people jump down my throat every time I speak about them, especially Hillary. But that's first world privilege for ya, first worlders can shrug off any pain or destruction caused to people living in third world countries as a "lesser issue", aka. their lives are worth less.
I can't wait until the elections are over so I can freely criticize Hillary without people getting defensive. I really do not appreciate the "jokes" a lot of Hillary supporters use to dismiss criticism like "har har she's a war criminal lulz" as a way to deflect the fact that she is in fact a war criminal. Don't worry though, a lot of politicians around the world are (dare I say most?), so stop making light of the fact that she contributed to the death of many people just because their lives are less valuable to you.
Just my 0.02.
Aaronology
Member
# 3 Donald Trump Does Not Drink Alcohol
http://conservativeamerica-online.com/3-donald-trump-does-not-drink-alcohol/
Trump says straight-edged lifestyle more likely to lead to happiness, success
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifestyle-without-alcohol-drugs/
What Donald Trump learned from his alcoholic brother Fred
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fred-trump-alcoholism-413207
I would normally be skeptical of claims he makes about his life but it appears he has a deeply personal reason motivating his abstinence.
teruterubozu
Member
I mean, I just got ripped for just making a small joke. It's allowed but it is gravely frowned upon.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I don't remember saying quite that, did I?? In any case, I will question many of her decisions. I think her current stance on Wall Street regulation is definitely influenced by the fact that democrats rely Wall Street money. I think her vote on Iraq was to avoid going against the majority. I think her current stance on marijuana and the death penalty is 100% wrong and not remotely progressive. I think her stance on Palestine-Isreal is the opposite of progressive.
You think voting for the Iraq war was progressive or out of principle?
You think being for the death penalty is progressive? today in 2016. In the USA.
You think keeping pot as an illegal drug is progressive? Here on GAF people get bent out of shape (legitimately) when folks in the green party are anti GMO or anti Vax without science on their side. Well, where is the science that support pot should be a schedule 1 drug??
No we are getting to a deeper discussion about some of the current flaws of our political system.
Two small notes.
1) Compromise is necessary and many times good. There is a difference between compromise and lying about your positions.
2) The roadblocks to getting stuff done legislatively now are not really attributable to public opinion. Public opinion has 0 correlation with public opinion. Positive correlation with donor opinion. By taking millions of dollars from wealthy donors you legitimize this broken and corrupt system.
You're seriously putting Breitbart on the same tier as the New York Times?
Yeah that's pretty delusional
That's the risk of running.
A laugh was enough to kill a presidential run.
John Kerry's shitty campaign was destroyed by the opposition finding something to pick him appart.
Heck Sanders' skeletons would have been enough to kill his run quite easily, he's lucky his side of the primaries was kiddy's 1rst run to elected official with a grand total of 1 angle of attack that was used.
You want to sink Clinton?
Find something new that the news media haven't run into the ground in the last 20 years, people are rightfully sick of always hearing the same shit they didn't give a crap about before.
And the GoP? They didn't have a candidate worthy of running since 2008. They devolved in an ever increasing maelstrom of stupidity so much we actually see the singularity of stupidity with Trump.
They never had a chance from the moment they let the inmates run the asylum.
And in the case Trump is elected Zombie Tocqueville will rise from his grave to knock on the door of every American citizen to moan "Jvoulavebiendi" while fishing for brains.
brainchild
Banned
I don't want trickle down values, I want progressive values that aren't impeded from the top-down. I want Hillary to play her part in helping the cause (socially). I won't want Hillary to be the Savior and grand arbiter of moral convictions.
And enough with the false dichotomies. Convictions and rationality are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing wrong with updating beliefs. In this case though, Hillary needs to update her belief on the death penalty, like, yesterday.
Also, you say I put a crazy high weight on these values, yet I'm still voting for Hillary so...
You got ripped for posting content-free posts in this thread, not once, but three times.
It was a pattern I felt should be called out.
It's absolutely not a false dichotomy, and I not once said they are mutually exclusive. Pointing out a trade-off is absolutely not a false dichotomy.
It's simple bayesian updating. The stronger your convictions, the less you update your posteriors.
There's a clear tradeoff between being maleable and having convictions. I don't want a politician that has far too many points in the "conviction" column. But I would definitely agree that Clinton is way too far along on the maleable part of the scale, definitely.
Dude is canadian? If he wasn't wringing his hands about people laughing at Trump, I'd think he was Ted Cruz.
teruterubozu
Member
Do you do this to all posters? Why am I getting singled out here? Fuck off, dude.
Well, if you want to criticize the political system of democracy as a whole, that's a different discussion altogether.
But that's not what the topic nor the conversation was about. It's about Hillary Clinton and in what way is it fair to criticize her. If the criteria you describe can't be found in any real life candidate that also made actual progress, you are by definition not holding Hillary to a realistic or reasonable standard.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Clinton winning proooobably won't get me killed in the street.
Trump winning legitimizes a movement that wants to get me killed in the street.
Ergo, I will do everything in my power to make sure Clinton wins.
Trump winning legitimizes a movement that wants to get me killed in the street.
Ergo, I will do everything in my power to make sure Clinton wins.
It's awful. Obama's is pretty much iconic.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I think it is entirely reasonable to criticize Hillary for putting millions of dollars in her pockets from the banking industry and also entirely reasonable to criticize her (and the majority of politicians) for accepting millions of dollars of donations from wealthy donors.
Just because many politicians currently share her flaws doesn't mean they aren't real flaws.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I don't like Hillary Clinton. My vote - and telling friends/friends to vote - for her is strictly anti Trump. I have no problem talking smack and criticizing Clinton. As of now, it is what it is and I have to deal with the cards we were dealt. In 2020, I will reassess the situation, see how she did (presuming she wins) from 2017 - 2020 and who her opponent is and go from there.
Because as much of a rampant liar as he may be, I feel like using his brother's death from alcoholism as the stated reason for why he doesn't drink would be crossing a line even for Trump.
I have seen this idea brought up a lot so I will dress it hear. Honestly in this primary season, I would think such labels would be worse for Bernie. Its true Hillary is a woman and many Republicans quiver in their pants at the thought, but other than that she is a white, capitalist, god-fearing christian.
Bernie on the other hand obviously has the socialism moniker, but he is also Jewish and to make matters worse, he is perceived as an Agnostic or even an Atheist which only adds to the "godless Communist" narrative.
Why would you willingly sign up for an echo chamber? It's boring to never be challenged or even be presented with another viewpoint.
Are we talking campaign funds or are we talking personal funds.
Because one should lend you to jail while you can an argument for the other.
If you ask me all parties should be burned to the ground and from the ashes we should have publicly funded parties that can't take private money....and even with this system I can see plenty of flaws I hate.
Now you're strawmanning. I am not implying that one politician committing a wrongdoing makes it okay if others do it.
I'm asking you to name a politician who fits the stringent principle criteria you've established. And, as a follow-up, I'm asking you to lay out their successes as a politician. This isn't a defense of Hillary in itself, but if you can't name a single one, then the heart of the whatever issues you have are clearly not with Hillary herself.
brainchild
Banned
If this is what you meant initially, then I can certainly accept your point of view; I'd even agree with it. There are always exceptions however. For instance, 1st degree murder should never be permissable by law and it should be an unassailable conviction. I don't think I should have to explain why they should be the case. I don't view the death penalty quite as starkly, but it's damn close.
Yeah, which is why in the Captain America post I tried to make clear that there is definitely "degrees" to the story that is also context and issue-sensitive. But I think you got the crux of the point now. We simply have different optimal points where we think someone should be on the maleable-conviction scale. I definitely agree with you that Clinton goes too far into "maleable", though.
Going back to the death penalty: Frankly, as I said on my first post in this thread, the death penalty position annoys the hell out of me. It's disgusting and upsetting.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
I don't think that's the case OP, but from my experience, (and I know this is anecdotal), people who are against Hillary to the point where they're openly supporting Trump, have some crazy hateful zeal against her. Almost always coupled with some misogynistic comment about her being shrill or unattractive.
Then, without fail, the talks of emails and Benghazi start. Which, sure, I agree were fucked up, but I don't understand how this scandal is a greater offense than everything Trump and the GOP have stood for and done. If someone can break this down, please do so, cause it's always, always the pro-Trump, anti-Hillary "beat a dead horse" argument that they bring up.
Then, without fail, the talks of emails and Benghazi start. Which, sure, I agree were fucked up, but I don't understand how this scandal is a greater offense than everything Trump and the GOP have stood for and done. If someone can break this down, please do so, cause it's always, always the pro-Trump, anti-Hillary "beat a dead horse" argument that they bring up.
- Status