Support NeoGAF

[3rdman]

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

It doesn't really make for a welcoming atmosphere of discussion.
I'll vote for her but acting like she's without criticism is so weird to me.

This is bull... Discussions are always welcome but you better show up with facts. Nobody (even the true believers) thinks she is without criticism but she is also far from the caricature the opposition had made her out to be. Twice I've seen posts calling her "corrupt" and when called out nobody actually explains why.

So again feel free to discuss her as there is plenty to discuss but you better bring the facts.

 

[andythinkpad]

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

I shudder whenever I see pictures of her *huge* smile. Her shit eatting grins always have the most inappropriate context, especially with people next to her in the same picture.

 

[old manatee]

I have a hard time taking Clinton's most fervent online supporters seriously since the astroturfing thing came out. It's hard to tell who is serious and who is just literally being paid to post Clinton talking points. You can get a lot of astroturfing done with a million dollars.

That's probably more of an issue on Reddit and Facebook, though.

 

[benjipwns]

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

I shudder whenever I see pictures of her *huge* smile. Her shit eatting grins always have the most inappropriate context, especially with people next to her in the same picture.

I have a hard time taking Clinton's most fervent online supporters seriously since the astroturfing thing came out. It's hard to tell who is serious and who is just literally being paid to post Clinton talking points.

That's probably more of an issue on Reddit and Facebook, though.

 

[Eidan]

This is bull... Discussions are always welcome but you better show up with facts. Nobody (even the true believers) thinks she is without criticism but she is also far from the caricature the opposition had made her out to be. Twice I've seen posts calling her "corrupt" and when called out nobody actually explains why.

So again feel free to discuss her as there is plenty to discuss but you better bring the facts.

And the woman has been in the public eye for decades. You'd think that if someone can easily call her "corrupt", they'd just as easily be able to outline how she is, and how she is more so than any other politician. There's decades worth of work in public service to oick from people, give me something better than your general feelings and her private email server.

 

[Ekai]

This is bull... Discussions are always welcome but you better show up with facts. Nobody (even the true believers) thinks she is without criticism but she is also far from the caricature the opposition had made her out to be. Twice I've seen posts calling her "corrupt" and when called out nobody actually explains why.

So again feel free to discuss her as there is plenty to discuss but you better bring the facts.

It's not bull, it's a fact of my general experience. And yes, I brought the facts often in the past. That didn't really matter. Hell, my critique of Hillary's LGBT past was more or less scoffed at and ignored when I went into detail on the matter and why I had preferred Bernie to Hillary on the subject. Which isn't even getting into where my other big issues lie with her and the Democrats at large. Which is particularly foreign policy. I would say the economy too but the Democrats are moving leftward on that.

And frankly it's what happened to many in the primary. Antagonistic responses to criticism of her =/= a discussion. Immediately jumping to accusations that one's character is flawed just because they aren't fully happy with Hillary is illogical. Especially if they can explain why and aren't at all arguing in dishonest manners. It's not conducive to any form of proper discussion and certainly not something the ToS holds in any regard.

Which is part of why I say this topic is beaten to death at this point. It never goes anywhere to point it out because most of the time nothing is done about the antagonistic elements. This topic is more or less another meta-commentary on the general attitude when it comes to these specific discussions. A meta-commentary on an issue that's frankly been an issue for months on months on months now. It's sad to see that it still is an issue in some regards. Thankfully it doesn't seem to be as big a one but I'm still seeing it pop up on occasion. I personally think it healthy to critique a nominee regardless of who they are and party affiliation.

For the record, I have my issues with Democrats in general as well. It's not like I'm specifically targeting Hillary or anything. It's not like I really hide my issues with them.

 

[tapedeck]

Both candidates are awful, I cannot stand Hilary and would never vote for her if she was running against anyone other than the mumbling orange bigot parade.

So yeah Hilary begrudgingly gets my vote out of sheer desperation.

 

[boiled goose]

This is bull... Discussions are always welcome but you better show up with facts. Nobody (even the true believers) thinks she is without criticism but she is also far from the caricature the opposition had made her out to be. Twice I've seen posts calling her "corrupt" and when called out nobody actually explains why.

So again feel free to discuss her as there is plenty to discuss but you better bring the facts.

I think she is corrupt. Just not particularly corrupt compared to other politicians. Also not legally corrupt, since corruption has been legalized in the US.

This is a criticism that can't legitimately come from the right, since by my standards the gop is much more corrupt than the Democrats.

I consider it corrupt to take donations from and have closed meetings with wealthy donors. That is a problem not particular to Hillary but most politicians and the political system in general. OF COURSE it affects policy. First the evidence is there. See Princeton study. Legislation correlates with donor, not constituent opinion. Second, politicians are required to have acceptable stances to donors to get such donations. Or politicians with said views get propped up. In either case it's a problem.

Now, I also consider it corrupt ( or unethical if you prefer) to become a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very industries you are supposed to be regulating. That is a criticism more specific to the Clintons.

Despite these issues, I will unapologetically vote for Clinton in November.. and not just because of Trump. Hillary is infinitely better than pretty much any Republican.

 

[watershed]

People tend to build their own little persecution complexes in their minds because other people call them out on their shit.

Unless I've been on an alternate universe gaf for the past several months, I'm pretty sure you can criticize or "smack-talk" Hillary Clinton all you want. But if you post right wing propaganda or say she's the same as Trump or some other hyperbole someone will question your statement and that's not such a bad thing to me. And if you say something sexist or reproduce sexist sentiments without realizing it, someone will call you out and that too seems like not such a bad thing to me.

 

[Big Baybee]

I think she is corrupt. Just not particularly corrupt compared to other politicians. Also not legally corrupt, since corruption has been legalized in the US.

I consider it corrupt to take donations from and have closed meetings with wealthy donors. That is a problem not particular to Hillary but most politicians and the political system in general. OF COURSE it affects policy. First the evidence is there. See Princeton study. Legislation correlates with donor, not constituent opinion. Second, politicians are required to have acceptable stances to donors to get such donations. Or politicians with said views get propped up. In either case it's a problem.

Now, I also consider it corrupt ( or unethical if you prefer) to become a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very industries you are supposed to be regulating. That is a criticism more specific to the Clintons.

Despite these issues, I will unapologetically vote for Clinton in November.. and not just because of Trump. Hillary is infinitely better than pretty much any Republican.

So, I'm being serious here, can you point out specific things? What specifically has she taken, and how can it be traced back to her record as a public servant?

 

[boiled goose]

So, I'm being serious here, can you point out specific things? What specifically has she taken, and how can it be traced back to her record as a public servant?

So are you saying that it's necessary to point out specific quid pro quo like examples?

If I am unable too, then there is no evidence of the corrupting influence of money in politics right?

What has she taken? How do you think the Clinton's became multimillionaires? The money just appeared.

 

[Ekai]

People tend to build their own little persecution complexes in their minds because other people call them out on their shit.

Unless I've been on an alternate universe gaf for the past several months, I'm pretty sure you can criticize or "smack-talk" Hillary Clinton all you want. But if you post right wing propaganda or say she's the same as Drumpf or some other hyperbole someone will question your statement and that's not such a bad thing to me. And if you say something sexist or reproduce sexist sentiments without realizing it, someone will call you out and that too seems like not such a bad thing to me.

I never posted right-wing propaganda, made sexist statements, said she and Trump are the same, etc. etc. and that certainly never stopped what I got. And during the primary I saw much the same treatment given to many other users. It's not really "calling someone out on their shit" when all they're doing is critiquing her.
Again, this feels like such a tired meta-commentary at this point.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

Whenever I see some of the attacks leveled at Clinton, I can't help but wonder what's at the root of it all (not here on GAF; just in general).

Obama faced (and still faces) similar hatred, for whatever reason.

Much of the "Hillary Defense Force" here possibly stems from a subconscious desire to fight back and balance the scales against so many smears that are based on rumors, half-truths, and outright lies that have been repeated so often that they're now simply accepted as fact, with no thought given to where the claim originated.

As a Clinton supporter, I'll freely admit she's made some stupid mistakes and isn't perfect (and a lot of what I dislike about her has been openly discussed in this very thread by some fantastic posters), but I do think she gets a lot more hate than she deserves.

Now, if only we could figure out what it is about Hillary Clinton that drives so many people (particularly on the right) to hate her with such passion...

 

[watershed]

I never posted right-wing propaganda, made sexist statements, said she and Trump are the same, etc. etc. and that certainly never stopped what I got. And during the primary I saw much the same treatment given to many other users. It's not really "calling someone out on their shit" when all they're doing is critiquing her.
Again, this feels like such a tired meta-commentary at this point.

Did you get banned? If not, then you are perfectly free to criticize Hillary Clinton. If some people were mean to you, well I empathize with you, but political conversations tend to bring out strong emotions. And those strong emotions are not specific to Hillary Clinton or any politician. There was a lot of angry back and forth between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on gaf, and the rest of the world, during the primary. There still is. A lot of angry and mean-spirited things were said, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize her.

 

[Ekai]

Now, if only we could figure out what it is about Hillary Clinton that drives so many people (particularly on the right) to hate her with such passion...

For the right-wing it is largely about sexism. I mean, let's be real here. They were angry that she was an active in politics first lady.

 

[Veelk]

So are you saying that it's necessary to point out specific quid pro quo like examples?

If I am unable too, then there is no evidence of the corrupting influence of money in politics right?

What has she taken? How do you think the Clinton's became multimillionaires? The money just appeared.

Lack of specificity has been the general failing of your arguments. Who has the kind of integrity and principled stance that you want Hillary to have? "others". When should she have taken a gay marriage stance? "earlier". What example of her being bribed is there? "What, I need to provide an example or my argument is invalid?"

As some point, yes, you do need to substantiate your claims.

 

[Glass Shark]

I have a hard time taking Clinton's most fervent online supporters seriously since the astroturfing thing came out. It's hard to tell who is serious and who is just literally being paid to post Clinton talking points. You can get a lot of astroturfing done with a million dollars.

That's probably more of an issue on Reddit and Facebook, though.

no one told me I was going to get paid

 

[tanooki27]

ah, the ol "drinking a beer together" test. It's what pushed W over the top, twice. does it apply to this election?

 

[googleplex]

So are you saying that it's necessary to point out specific quid pro quo like examples?

If I am unable too, then there is no evidence of the corrupting influence of money in politics right?

What has she taken? How do you think the Clinton's became multimillionaires? The money just appeared.

Your argument boils dow to: She's made lots of money legally ,there for she is corrupt.

This is seriously disturbing.

 

[Regiruler]

Donald Trump doesnt drink.

I actually didn't know this.

After a search, it's not hard to see why. He lost a brother to alcoholism.

EDIT: I see it was already brought up

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

For the right-wing it is largely about sexism. I mean, let's be real here. They were angry that she was an active in politics first lady.

Spoiler

There's a secret message in that post that points out what I feel is likely behind the hate. Look for the bolded letters.

 

[old manatee]

no one told me I was going to get paid

Hit up that superpac, I'm sure they are still at it.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I never posted right-wing propaganda, made sexist statements, said she and Trump are the same, etc. etc. and that certainly never stopped what I got. And during the primary I saw much the same treatment given to many other users. It's not really "calling someone out on their shit" when all they're doing is critiquing her.
Again, this feels like such a tired meta-commentary at this point.

It's not right, but I think sometimes it can be attributed to how anxious people are about this election. Discourse is fucked up for obvious reasons. That doesn't excuse it, but even the most conscientious member can lose it from time to time all things considered. I've made some shitty posts here and there.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

It's not right, but I think sometimes it can be attributed to how anxious people are about this election. Discourse is fucked up for obvious reasons. That doesn't excuse it, but even the most conscientious member can lose it from time to time all things considered. I've made some shitty posts here and there.

I think it comes down to how you express your beliefs. I was warned in a roundabout way by a mod that I was this close to a ban for posting pro-Clinton stuff in a shitty way.

I think it basically comes down to "don't be a dick."

 

[Ekai]

Spoiler

There's a secret message in that post that points out what I feel is likely behind the hate. Look for the bolded letters.

Clever girl.

It's not right, but I think sometimes it can be attributed to how anxious people are about this election. Discourse is fucked up for obvious reasons. That doesn't excuse it, but even the most conscientious member can lose it from time to time all things considered. I've made some shitty posts here and there.

I'd agree with this sentiment.

Did you get banned? If not, then you are perfectly free to criticize Hillary Clinton. If some people were mean to you, well I empathize with you, but political conversations tend to bring out strong emotions. And those strong emotions are not specific to Hillary Clinton or any politician. There was a lot of angry back and forth between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters on gaf, and the rest of the world, during the primary. There still is. A lot of angry and mean-spirited things were said, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean you're not allowed to criticize her.

I was for reasons that didn't even relate to me criticizing her. My first ban was a result of me being distraught over the antagonistic attitude of one particular poster. That was a month. Then I got a 3 month ban for making a dumb little quip about what I perceive as Vox's bias in a topic that had admittedly nothing to do with politics. I recognize that was a dumb post. So *shrugs* Both bans to me seem far harsher than what people who were actively antagonistic got (if anything at all) but I'm not in a position of power so I can't do much about it.

And I've already tried discussing the matter and it went nowhere so it's not really worth exploring. Suffice it to say, I think this meta-commentary is pointless. Which is a repetitive statement now. Honestly I'm surprised the topic isn't locked yet since all this is doing is exploring and retreading a topic that is seriously beaten to death. And mayhaps opening wounds that are still trying to heal.

I'd question after my own experiences and what I witnessed whether criticism of her is allowed, to be frank. That said, yes, there was a lot of angry back and forth. In some ways there still is but it does seem to have died down which I am thankful for.

 

[Glass Shark]

For real though, as a registered Democrat no one has ever been able to give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for Hillary. I agree with her on 99% of the issues (literally—I took a test) and all the nebulous stuff about her not being "trustworthy" has never struck a chord with me. I appreciate that she's been strong and outspoken despite a culture and political climate that says First Ladies and women in general need to be calm and stay out of the spotlight. And damn if it isn't time for a woman to get a chance at leading our nation.

The biggest things I see against Hillary are Benghazi and the email stuff. She's been cleared of wrongdoing by government committees and agencies on both counts. It's conspiratorial bullshit used as ammo by people who want a concrete reason to hate her other than "she's a loud brash woman."

She's the victim of a political double standard. She's 100x more reserved and calculated than Donald Trump and she's still called "shrill," a "bitch," told to smile more. It's maddening.

 

[benjipwns]

For real though, as a registered Democrat no one has ever been able to give me a good reason why I shouldn't vote for Hillary. I agree with her on 99% of the issues (literally—I took a test)

Most people aren't arguing over someone like you though. They're talking about Sanders supporters or the old Reagan Democrat/Perot Voter type or Greens or whoever.

Sometimes they're even arguing over a nutjob like me because she apparently ranks higher then Trump according to this week:

 

[KingV]

For the right-wing it is largely about sexism. I mean, let's be real here. They were angry that she was an active in politics first lady.

That's certainly part of it, but honestly it's a heck of a lot simpler than that. They hate her because she's a Clinton. They hated Bill, ergo they hate her. There's all sorts of terrible women the right likes perfectly fine.

 

[Ekai]

That's certainly part of it, but honestly it's a heck of a lot simpler than that. They hate her because she's a Clinton. They hated Bill, ergo they hate her. There's all sorts of terrible women the right likes perfectly fine.

Fair enough.

 

[wachie]

I think criticizing Hillary is mostly fine. It makes her a better candidate in some ways and helps people push her so she's more likely to pay attention to whatever cause they're working for. The problem is when criticism devolves into nonsense like "and that's why Hillary is worse than Trump! Jill Stein 2016!" and "I'm going to criticize Hillary because I'm still mad Bernie lost and no attempts on her behalf to reach out to me are going to convince me to support her!"

Agreed 100%.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

That's certainly part of it, but honestly it's a heck of a lot simpler than that. They hate her because she's a Clinton. They hated Bill, ergo they hate her. There's all sorts of terrible women the right likes perfectly fine.

But most of those women seem to be subservient and most certainly haven't been in positions of power that are at the heights Hillary Clinton has reached.

 

[Ekai]

But most of those women seem to be subservient and most certainly haven't been in positions of power that are at the heights Hillary Clinton has reached.

Also very very true.

 

[woolley]

I think she is corrupt. Just not particularly corrupt compared to other politicians. Also not legally corrupt, since corruption has been legalized in the US.

This is a criticism that can't legitimately come from the right, since by my standards the gop is much more corrupt than the Democrats.

I consider it corrupt to take donations from and have closed meetings with wealthy donors. That is a problem not particular to Hillary but most politicians and the political system in general. OF COURSE it affects policy. First the evidence is there. See Princeton study. Legislation correlates with donor, not constituent opinion. Second, politicians are required to have acceptable stances to donors to get such donations. Or politicians with said views get propped up. In either case it's a problem.

Now, I also consider it corrupt ( or unethical if you prefer) to become a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very industries you are supposed to be regulating. That is a criticism more specific to the Clintons.

Despite these issues, I will unapologetically vote for Clinton in November.. and not just because of Trump. Hillary is infinitely better than pretty much any Republican.

So she's corrupt and makes legislation based on what big donors say and doesn't care what the people want but she is also a flip flopper that only does what is popular by the American people?

 

[draetenth]

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

TBH, anyone will seem like that after Obama. IMO, he's a once in a lifetime type of person.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

This article proved to me Hillary would be pretty bad foreign policy wise

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

Wish it was just 4 more years of Obama instead.

 

[Portugeezer]

I really can't understand what is going on in this gif.

 

[KingV]

But most of those women seem to be subservient and most certainly haven't been in positions of power that are at the heights Hillary Clinton has reached.

Sure, I just don't think she'd be significantly better liked if she was Bill Clinton's son instead of wife.

 

[Kin5290]

This article proved to me Hillary would be pretty bad foreign policy wise

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

Wish it was just 4 more years of Obama instead.

With the benefit of hindsight, Obama's detached approach to Syria is arguably his greatest foreign policy failure.

 

[AstroNut325]

Both candidates are awful, I cannot stand Hilary and would never vote for her if she was running against anyone other than the mumbling orange bigot parade.

So yeah Hilary begrudgingly gets my vote out of sheer desperation.

What makes Hilary awful?

Is she against LBGT? Is she trying to push to much austerity or too much spending? Is she bad because her past mistakes are too significant to brush aside? If yes, which mistakes? And why? Or do you feel she is a typical politician because she also has business interests and support?

Please be specific.

 

[Valhelm]

With the benefit of hindsight, Obama's detached approach to Syria is arguably his greatest foreign policy failure.

I'm not sure about that. A full-on invasion of Syria could have killed a lot more people and would have likely given the GOP the White House.

 

[Deleted member 20415]

I really can't understand what is going on in this gif.

It was at the very end of the DNC, and VERY loud fireworks went off above her head and scared the shit out of her, but she tried to play it cool.

That's the result.

 

[Big Baybee]

So are you saying that it's necessary to point out specific quid pro quo like examples?

If I am unable too, then there is no evidence of the corrupting influence of money in politics right?

What has she taken? How do you think the Clinton's became multimillionaires? The money just appeared.

She was paid to give speeches. But what money has she taken that has influenced her as a senator or as SoS? If it is so plainly obvious, then provide some examples.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm not sure about that. A full-on invasion of Syria could have killed a lot more people and would have likely given the GOP the White House.

It could have also kneecapped ISIS and given them very little room to grow.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

As a left winger myself, yes, I can confirm there is an extremely pro-Hillary slant on here. Pro-liberal, as well, but pro-Hillary first.

While there are illogical/emotional arguments made against her, there are also many legit criticisms as well. Some common patterns here: people will take the low-hanging fruit before ever approaching the actual criticisms. If that doesn't work, they'll ask how the screw ups or flaws are worse than anything Trump has done (which well yeah, most people aren't as big of morons as Trump, let alone Politicians). If that doesn't work, they'll ask how this makes her a BAD CANDIDATE or UNELECTABLE, even if neither of these things have been mentioned or inferred. In relation to her lying about stuff, right wing media and sexism are blanket blamed regardless of if the lies are overblown or if it's stuff where she's on record lying for no reason.

I'm tempted to find all the non-legit and legit criticisms in this thread and tally up the number of non-legit and legit responses there are to each type of post. I have a strong intuition the numbers would show dogpiling on easy, no-detail posts and crickets for anything of substance.

Also, Trump is terrible yeah, worst nominee I can remember. But man we have to hold people accountable, and by that I mean everyone..echo chambering is not the right way to go about it imo which is often what happens here.

Ps: How is it that Hillary still won't admit she lied/screwed up with the emails. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Does she not know what her image is? So dumb.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

My bigger pet peeve is with Clinton Supporters who shitpost and smear of any criticism against her as purity bullshit or as a GOP brainwash propaganda.

It is this weak, and timid fanboy defense of someone who cannot own up to the mistakes. I've seen posts in PoliGAF that defends every fucking legitimate critique of her policies as a sign of what a great person she is.
Her support of Netanyahu is terrible. It's not something that should be defended. He is a proxy dictator. A right-wing racist maniac who has instigated thousands of deaths, in what is essentially a new frontier of US colonization. You can compare the Palestinians to the Native Indians in that they are slowly but surely getting fucked up and ignored, and propaganda liked it's executed via AIPAC is there to twist the narrative.
The death penalty is another one of those, that are neither a GOP attack or based in purity. Many, many countries of the world universally agree that it is a barbaric, ignorant policy stance to have that is an embarrassment to any civilized society.
Particularly so in a country that has done such a disasterous job in targeting minorities through racial court, and through bogus proceedings. There is little room for interpretation there, so to see people defend this as "YAS QUEEN" is just incredible insulting and gross. Snowden is another talking point where I think she (and Obama) is just flat out wrong in calling him a criminal. He is practically a hero who uncovered fuckery by the NSA. She should own up to it. This is not a FOX news talking point either.
I think her stance on fracking is hypocritical. It's good she embraces climate change, but saying that more studies need to be done on fracking is just bullshit. And the same goes for the legalization of weed. We all know where this is headed, and it annoys me that she won't´just come out and say it. The overwhelming science community agrees that fracking is damaging the environment.
If the reality is that the US economy needs to rely on fracking as it veins off coal, she needs to come out and say it.

Hillary might be forced because she has to pander to her moderate base. And that I understand and sympathize with. But as an armchair critic, I'm within my right to say a policy is bad when I see it's bad. When people defend her talking points- Not her decisions for a fair judgment, but flat out starts arguing that Netanyahu is great, weed is bad and fracking is perfectly safe... That is just annoying.
I agree with 93% of Hillary Clinton according to Isidewith, and that is when we all took the test in the early in 2015. Since then, she has absorbed Bernies platform, and it's probably closer to 98% now.
I'm fine with Hillary. I just don't like her fanatic supporters, much like Hillary supporters who are fine with Bernie, don't like Bernies fanatic supporters. It's the support of the ground troops that irk the knee jerk reaction, and it usually boils down to a few posters saying some arrogant bullshit.

I'm really hoping The Democrats will try and deliver on their most progressive platform in history. I do wonder what the moderate democrats feels about it. I don't think they are too happy about all these young people coming to the convention, starting shit and pushing the entire party left. After all, there are people within the democratic ranks who basically sabotaged Obama on many of his progressive issues. I'm concerned, as I try to make peace with my cynicism about the influence of donor money, and how corruptible humans are. I just don't understand how companies like Exxon Mobile give money to candidates if nothing fishy is going on.
Or AIPAC. Or big pharma. Or big arms vendors like Haliburton. Do these multi million dollar donations really comes hands free? These corporations are so disgusting and vile in their treatment of people for maximum profit that it makes me skeptical that they give a shit about politics unless they want to somehow favor the game. But that is not an accusation on Hillary or calling her crooked or corrupt, but I share Sanders concern as he said "I have huge doubts when candidates receive massive sums of money". That is not an unreasonable skepticism to have. It is unreasonable to flat out accuse someone of corruption however.

I hope for the best once she is elected. Hopefully she is. We will just have to see how the pendulum swings. I think in her first term, things will be difficult like it was for Obama and a lot of negativity will be around her, but I think that maybe things will improve. A lot of it depends on if they can take the senate in 2 years. And if they get someone through the supreme court who is liberal and young. Things could be interesting. If she gets citizen united overruled it could quite something. If the deregulation of wall street or whatever they do, can stop shadow bank (the real problem) that too would be something worth being pessimistic about.
It will take a Sulla type personality, to walsh in and reform the two-party system, and make it so third parties can be a part of coalition politics. Maybe Hillary can help do it. That would really be something!

 

[DedValve]

I felt that this thread very quickly became hillary dominated after Bernie gave his support to her.

Before that it was a very nasty fight between Bernie and Hillary, despite this it felt as if almost no side was willing to listen to the (at times valid) complaints of both candidates and with most of the Bernie voters who went Hillary or busted the same attitude remained but without any other viable candidate to fling shit at each other.

This forum, much like politics in general always felt like you must defend the person you vote for no matter what.

 

[aliengmr]

Ps: How is it that Hillary still won't admit she lied/screwed up with the emails. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Does she not know what her image is? So dumb.

She did. As recent as yesterday.

 

[Kin5290]

I'm not sure about that. A full-on invasion of Syria could have killed a lot more people and would have likely given the GOP the White House.

There's a wide spectrum of responses between what we did and launching a full scale invasion of Syria.

By remaining aloof, Obama left a vacuum that was filled by the Russians, have been happily bombing civilian populations ever since.

 

[Artdayne]

She did. As recent as yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-journalism/index.html

"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify."

Clinton went on to repeat that she "never sent or received" classified information on her private email server -- a statement that is inconsistent with Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill.
"And I would go back to where I started, I regret using one account, I have taken responsibility for that," Clinton said.

Is that really an admission?

 

[Mighty Chin]

As a left winger myself, yes, I can confirm there is an extremely pro-Hillary slant on here. Pro-liberal, as well, but pro-Hillary first.

While there are illogical/emotional arguments made against her, there are also many legit criticisms as well. Some common patterns here: people will take the low-hanging fruit before ever approaching the actual criticisms. If that doesn't work, they'll ask how the screw ups or flaws are worse than anything Trump has done (which well yeah, most people aren't as big of morons as Trump, let alone Politicians). If that doesn't work, they'll ask how this makes her a BAD CANDIDATE or UNELECTABLE, even if neither of these things have been mentioned or inferred. In relation to her lying about stuff, right wing media and sexism are blanket blamed regardless of if the lies are overblown or if it's stuff where she's on record lying for no reason.

I'm tempted to find all the non-legit and legit criticisms in this thread and tally up the number of non-legit and legit responses there are to each type of post. I have a strong intuition the numbers would show dogpiling on easy, no-detail posts and crickets for anything of substance.

Also, Trump is terrible yeah, worst nominee I can remember. But man we have to hold people accountable, and by that I mean everyone..echo chambering is not the right way to go about it imo which is often what happens here.

Ps: How is it that Hillary still won't admit she lied/screwed up with the emails. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Does she not know what her image is? So dumb.

I feel it's only Pro Hillary on here because the people here are pragmatic enough to know that as much as they would have loved a Bernie Presidency the country is just not ready for that yet. When Democratic Socialism is still equates with Communism to a large section of the voting Electorate, the country is not ready for that big of a shift.

With Hillary hopefully continuing on the Obama trajectory towards a more progressive future. The Bernie dream will just take a little bit longer.

Besides its pretty easy to be Pro Hillary when it's Trump on the other side.