bitbydeath
Gold Member
Because that is how it works and for anyone.
If Hillary was in power first and Bill went in after the same thing applies. Stop trying to think of it as sexist, that is system.
Why do you dislike Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter freeofgreed
- Start date
- Status
Because that is how it works and for anyone.
If Hillary was in power first and Bill went in after the same thing applies. Stop trying to think of it as sexist, that is system.
Melkezadek
Member
You might have a point if Hillary Clinton didn't have her own merits to go by.
But she does. So it makes that argument look pretty damn silly.
Melkezadek
Member
People being related to others in Washington means that their own personal accomplishments and abilities are thrown out the window? It must be because she was wife of Bill Clinton?
ARE PEOPLE LISTENING TO THEMSELVES?
I don't like her because of how she handled Libya. They created a vacuum in Libya that let the wolves roam freely across the country, when they could have helped support the foundations of a new democratic country. Instead Libya is going to face civil war and instability for another decade if we are lucky. I don't understand how they thought their exit plan for Libya was a good idea, it was like they were completely ignorant of previous conflicts they were involved with. For that reason, I can't support Hillary because of her involvement in that intervention.
Her foreign policy regarding the rest of the middle east, Israel and the TPP is something else I do not support as well.
Her foreign policy regarding the rest of the middle east, Israel and the TPP is something else I do not support as well.
No one is saying their merits are thrown out, but surely you don't think the *only* reason Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next president is because of her merits alone. And the "she worked her ass off" is a broad statement that can literally be applied to anything, everyone works hard, lets not fall down the rabbit whole of Republican "you reap what you sow" logic.
Do you think Dubya would have been president if he wasn't a Bush? Do you think Cameron would have been PM if he wasn't a rich posh kid? Do you think Justin would have been party leader if he wasn't a Trudeau? Do you think Donald Trump would be a billionaire and presidential candidate if he wasn't the son of Fred Trump? Your background and name matters.
CloudyTuba
Member
No doubt that her husband being a previous president has naturally shined a brighter spotlight on her than there would be without him, but I dont think that really says anything about her as a person. It's just a fact. It doesn't really affect my opinion of her. If she were lazy and used it for cruise control I'd complain but that doesn't seem true, she puts the work in.
I am a little concerned however about the same husband and wife serving in the same office, though. How much input will Bill have on the president's decisions? I read a quote from Hillary saying she'd put Bill in charge of the economy, whatever that means.
We have term limits for a reason and that's skirting the line in an uncomfortable way if you've got Bill back in the white house handling some of Hillary's work.
I dont consider it a dealbreaker but it's something that sort of nags in the back of my mind from time to time.
I am a little concerned however about the same husband and wife serving in the same office, though. How much input will Bill have on the president's decisions? I read a quote from Hillary saying she'd put Bill in charge of the economy, whatever that means.
We have term limits for a reason and that's skirting the line in an uncomfortable way if you've got Bill back in the white house handling some of Hillary's work.
I dont consider it a dealbreaker but it's something that sort of nags in the back of my mind from time to time.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Welcome to the real world.
I've heard of Toy Store Managers being put in places of power because of their parents positions.
It is not uncommon.
Melkezadek
Member
What proof do you have that Clinton's name is what pushes her over the line? It could have been other women who could have been in this position. Her time as a Senator of NY and Secretary of State gives her her merit.
If she did poorly at both of those jobs, she wouldn't be this far at all.
WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE?
bitbydeath
Gold Member
excelsiorlef
Member
Also incidentally even if we wanted to talk about her stint as First Lady that being married to Bill got her, it wasn't the title that helped her after that. It was what she did with it.
She was the first truly politically active First Lady. She took an opportunity sure but it was her hard work and drive that opened up her Senate bid. Had she just acted like a then usual First Lady she'd have not had a career in politics after.
Melkezadek
Member
And this is why conversation goes no where. When you ask for the receipts and not one "gut feeling", you're met with this crap.
Melkezadek
Member
This comment is like the perfect example, though I honestly can't tell if it's just a joke post or not.
You've staked everything on this incident yet you know so little about what was going on.
Feel free to not vote for her or not like her for Libya, or anything else, but at least get the proper information.
We are not saying she didn't put in the work- but she had to be married to Bill to be first lady to have those opportunities in the first place. That alone gave her a "head start" as opposed to random Joe/Jane Schmoe.
Being married to Bill also involved her in his infidelities and scandals, and created the very machine which has attempted to destroy her character over decades. If she had decided to go into politics without marrying Bill, the argument could be made that she may have been better off politically throughout the years.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Look closer, her hand holds proof
excelsiorlef
Member
And she frequently financially supported Bill early on.
It could argued that in some way she kinda paved the way for his success
Melkezadek
Member
So because she's married to him, that's your proof.
Done with you. You have to be trolling.
Adam_Vania
Banned
seems like you are mostly the one jumping to this conclusion. no harm in admitting she had help.
Melkezadek
Member
There is no proof that she had help. Only the fact she was married to him. Her personal work speaks for itself.
timetokill
Banned
Well, #6 is an issue, not because of the email thing, but because I'm worried about things like net neutrality and other technological initiatives. A couple laws here and there could massively change the internet for the worse, and I want somebody in charge who understands how these things work and why things like SOPA are terrible. I don't think that's "patently silly."
As far as #7 (the charisma thing), well, I said it was shallow
Can't help gut reactions though. Sometimes you just don't like people. But just because I don't like somebody doesn't mean I think they're unqualified for a job or whatever.
highrider
Banned
Summed up my feelings better than I ever could articulate.
This is something I recently found out about myself. Can't say that I was surprised, either.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I don't. On the contrary, I like her more and more each day.
Trump on the other hand, you'd think I couldn't hate him any more but then he goes and proves me wrong.
Trump on the other hand, you'd think I couldn't hate him any more but then he goes and proves me wrong.
I'm from Libya. I've witnessed first hand how their foreign policy left Libya in the state it is currently in. Don't tell me that I don't know nothing.
She did plenty of things before she became the First Lady of the nation, plenty before she became the first lady of Arkansas.
It can't be understated how much being married to Bill Clinton cost her, considering the decades of attack and the humiliation she suffered in the public eye. The things that men will never acknowledge: how much work goes into being as knowledgeable as she is, how much work she put into supporting and forgiving Bill Clinton despite everything he put her through, juggling that and raising their daughter.
But yes, discredit the achievements of the woman.
StopMakingSense
Member
Blame Dukakis. Gonna be a long while until a major presidential candidate runs agains the death penalty.
quackamole
Member
Eh neither Bill nor Hillary came from rich families. They worked to get where they are. Sure being married to a president probably helped a lot but what mattered more was the hard work and ambition. How many first ladies do you know were able to run for any sort of government position, let alone the presidency?
Also if we going to talk about getting help, does anybody here believe Trump would have gotten anywhere near he is now without inheriting a vast fortune from his parents?
Also if we going to talk about getting help, does anybody here believe Trump would have gotten anywhere near he is now without inheriting a vast fortune from his parents?
Why should that even matter? Almost everyone gets into plum posts because they have good connections. The salient point is that Clinton is one of the most qualified people to ever seek the presidency, and that will be why she's elected.
Yeah, and this too. The only major benefit is that Clinton was constantly in the news, and that drives her name recognition sky high.
When I hear of people saying she has no personality / no charisma, I think of..
http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/150127870371/i-was-taking-a-law-school-admissions-test-in-a
I think she'll be a decent president. She'll continue most of Obama's policies, and if the Senate/House have democratic majorities, she'll do good with that opportunity.
And if she never was with Bill I think life would still have her here in the same position as she is now... close to winning the presidency. Only difference is the amount of vitriol would go to her and a different man. If you look at her life history in Politics, its clear she's been a very ambitious person from the start.
And some people are very scared of that for some reason... like this guy for instance...
http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/150127870371/i-was-taking-a-law-school-admissions-test-in-a
I think she'll be a decent president. She'll continue most of Obama's policies, and if the Senate/House have democratic majorities, she'll do good with that opportunity.
And if she never was with Bill I think life would still have her here in the same position as she is now... close to winning the presidency. Only difference is the amount of vitriol would go to her and a different man. If you look at her life history in Politics, its clear she's been a very ambitious person from the start.
And some people are very scared of that for some reason... like this guy for instance...
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I don't hate her, I hate how boring she is.
Yeah, give me an overexcitable orange man that will entertain me!
Subpar Spatula
Banned
Woah, woah, did you just insinuate that since I find Hilary boring I must find Donald Trump entertaining?
Seems like this conversation has gone somewhat off base. There is definitely a problem with the elite (rich, well known) becoming president and it's historical and practically every successful candidate ever. But why would people single out Hillary for it I can think of no reason. The topic isn't "what do you dislike about how people are elected president".
maquiladora
Member
This is hilarious.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
too hawkish and too much of a neoliberal for my tastes but most all american politicians are so... its kind of a moot point i guess?
No, I just think finding her boring is not something to hate.
Waddle Dee
Member
I don't dislike her at all. She has done some questionable things in the past that stops her from feeling like great president material but she's got her heart in the right place and is a saint compared to Trump. Obviously gonna be voting for her. Hopefully she wins and the idea of a female president won't be so crazy to the ignorant fucks out there.
timetokill
Banned
fart town usa
Banned
Foreign policy
Neo-liberalism
Who she seeks council from
Ken Salazar leading her transition team
Cozying up to the GOP and distancing them from trump
Triangulation politics
Political expediency
Neo-liberalism
Who she seeks council from
Ken Salazar leading her transition team
Cozying up to the GOP and distancing them from trump
Triangulation politics
Political expediency
Iraq vote and her term as Senator and SoS soured me on Clinton. I don't think she is a worse candidate than Gore or Kerry but she is certainly in their league.
What has always been my main issue with Clinton - I've always felt she would struggle this election. I was convinced that Bernie/Hillary have it in the beg with candidates as bad as Trump/Cruz. "There is no way!", I said to myself. "When presented with that type of a circus act the American public is not going to fall for this shit again". Hillary was OK but I wanted Warren in the race, I wanted Biden in the race - I wanted it to be a race, but we almost got Clinton against NoOne. Bernie ran precisely because noone serious to the left of Clinton was running - the whole donate your time and money could have happened with another candidate that had similar "extreme" ideas. Personally I always saw his age as his main flaw but his health seemed fine enough, he does get flustered and angered easily but I though that ended up making him more endearing to his base. People convinced themselves he is the antichrist and would demonize him around these parts.
Which brings us to point number two, I saw Bernie as the preferable candidate even as I realized that his policies had no chance of being enacted because of Republicans and bought out Democrats. I come into neogaf to nevertheless to actually discuss these policies and I have a bunch of people whose end goal is supposedly a similar system(
) shit on the idea.
In every single thread we have to be reminded how he cannot enact his platform - well duh. And the young are to blame for not understanding and I'm puzzled and angry at the whole situation. So that really did additionally sour me on Clinton who I've disliked since 08 and how she handled that election.
The last few months I've seen a lot of his platform adopted. But instead of screaming that from the rooftops with positive advertising from the millions she raised - Hillary's campaign and her Super Pacs are more concerned with Trump and Gary Johnson. Her campaign is seriously approaching this campaign in such a way and it just reinforces her already shaky image as a candidate with huge corporate and international ties who pretty much hand selected the DNC and was already untrustworthy. This candidate decides that the best action is instead of talking about the wonderful platform she has to use all that money to say how much worse her opponents are.
This is why the enthusiasm for the platform is gone. Because Bernie had qualities and an image that Democrats could have used this election. If they had approached his grassroots and if it was level playing field Hillary would have been a fine victor. And she would have easily brought in everyone into the fold. You might be facing Trump/Cruz but you'd still prefer people to have something to vote for.
Personally I don't think she would have won if the DNC had not tipped the scales towards her to begin with. Right now the volunteers that were working for the Bernie campaign - which pretty much build out an entire mainframe for young people to get organized in less than an year mostly via volunteer would, would now be in a frenzy shutting Trump down on every conceivable media from which he feeds off in every conceivable way. Instead of Russian hackers - we'd have the entire dirt of the entire life of Trump out by this point. It was hilarious for example how the DNC and people here blamed Bernie for "hacking" the DNC database(his campaign had alerted the vendor and DNC prior to the "hack" that the firewall had gone down in previous instances), yet if this was reported earlier the DNC hack by Russians would have come to light much sooner. I think the Russian expected the DNC would tip the scales, they knew the DNC had very lack security and it could be an opportunity to not allow Hillary into the Oval Office(maybe Putin hates Hillary who knows). Now I realize having written that people would ask for proof and that infuriates me, this is just my thoughts on the whole bizarre saga and I'm attacked for trying to use the available information at hand.
I've said harsh things but that's my perception of her, her campaign and her hardcore supporters - to me as a candidate she always seemed like Mitt Romney, Kerry, Gore league. I'm high but not high enough to vote for Gary Johnson - Clinton will hopefully win but she has made this whole election far more nerve wrecking than I ever expected it to get.
What has always been my main issue with Clinton - I've always felt she would struggle this election. I was convinced that Bernie/Hillary have it in the beg with candidates as bad as Trump/Cruz. "There is no way!", I said to myself. "When presented with that type of a circus act the American public is not going to fall for this shit again". Hillary was OK but I wanted Warren in the race, I wanted Biden in the race - I wanted it to be a race, but we almost got Clinton against NoOne. Bernie ran precisely because noone serious to the left of Clinton was running - the whole donate your time and money could have happened with another candidate that had similar "extreme" ideas. Personally I always saw his age as his main flaw but his health seemed fine enough, he does get flustered and angered easily but I though that ended up making him more endearing to his base. People convinced themselves he is the antichrist and would demonize him around these parts.
Which brings us to point number two, I saw Bernie as the preferable candidate even as I realized that his policies had no chance of being enacted because of Republicans and bought out Democrats. I come into neogaf to nevertheless to actually discuss these policies and I have a bunch of people whose end goal is supposedly a similar system(
end of the drug war, treating drugs as a health concern, changes in the justice system, no college debt, government run healthcare, greater economic equality via taxation, harder stance on corporate cronyism and the rising oligarchy which is bleeding the planet dry, tackling Climate change as the greatest risk facing the Planet, getting money out of politics or at least attempting to do something to address it, trying to work with the entire international community to find solutions to crisis and attempting not to stir the pot, etc etc
In every single thread we have to be reminded how he cannot enact his platform - well duh. And the young are to blame for not understanding and I'm puzzled and angry at the whole situation. So that really did additionally sour me on Clinton who I've disliked since 08 and how she handled that election.
The last few months I've seen a lot of his platform adopted. But instead of screaming that from the rooftops with positive advertising from the millions she raised - Hillary's campaign and her Super Pacs are more concerned with Trump and Gary Johnson. Her campaign is seriously approaching this campaign in such a way and it just reinforces her already shaky image as a candidate with huge corporate and international ties who pretty much hand selected the DNC and was already untrustworthy. This candidate decides that the best action is instead of talking about the wonderful platform she has to use all that money to say how much worse her opponents are.
This is why the enthusiasm for the platform is gone. Because Bernie had qualities and an image that Democrats could have used this election. If they had approached his grassroots and if it was level playing field Hillary would have been a fine victor. And she would have easily brought in everyone into the fold. You might be facing Trump/Cruz but you'd still prefer people to have something to vote for.
Personally I don't think she would have won if the DNC had not tipped the scales towards her to begin with. Right now the volunteers that were working for the Bernie campaign - which pretty much build out an entire mainframe for young people to get organized in less than an year mostly via volunteer would, would now be in a frenzy shutting Trump down on every conceivable media from which he feeds off in every conceivable way. Instead of Russian hackers - we'd have the entire dirt of the entire life of Trump out by this point. It was hilarious for example how the DNC and people here blamed Bernie for "hacking" the DNC database(his campaign had alerted the vendor and DNC prior to the "hack" that the firewall had gone down in previous instances), yet if this was reported earlier the DNC hack by Russians would have come to light much sooner. I think the Russian expected the DNC would tip the scales, they knew the DNC had very lack security and it could be an opportunity to not allow Hillary into the Oval Office(maybe Putin hates Hillary who knows). Now I realize having written that people would ask for proof and that infuriates me, this is just my thoughts on the whole bizarre saga and I'm attacked for trying to use the available information at hand.
I've said harsh things but that's my perception of her, her campaign and her hardcore supporters - to me as a candidate she always seemed like Mitt Romney, Kerry, Gore league. I'm high but not high enough to vote for Gary Johnson - Clinton will hopefully win but she has made this whole election far more nerve wrecking than I ever expected it to get.
You discredited all of these opinions when you decided you could judge Hillary Clinton, a person you don't know, based off of how she handled her marriage to Bill Clinton. What is truth in a perspective that is biased like that?
cryptosporidium
Member
Im not sure if neoliberal is the right term for Clinton. She seems more realist (IR theory not whatever connotations you have for the word) on foreign relations though the argument could be made that she is now looking more towards liberal institutionism. On domestic affairs she from what I can tell doesnt back small government nor really the welfare state so I'd personally call her either liberal (economoic policies) or maaaybe burkean (for this id argue elitism, conservatism) in her approach.
I welcome any challenges to my labels because im curious as to what others think.
I welcome any challenges to my labels because im curious as to what others think.
maquiladora
Member
Side note, why do so many people spell her name wrong?
the only real knock i have on hillary is her Iraq war vote. other than that i have good faith she'll build upon what obama accomplished in office
though through faults beyond her own i think it would've been better to have "somebody new" as the political divide will only grow with her in office. but again, that's not really her fault
though through faults beyond her own i think it would've been better to have "somebody new" as the political divide will only grow with her in office. but again, that's not really her fault
fart town usa
Banned
She's a total neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism is basically privatizing aspects of public services. Bill brought it to the mainstream on the Left. It is what it is. Totally necessary at the time because liberalism was so unpopular but many of the policies have hindered the nation in the long run.
People will ask for receipts. Research it yourself. This is popular opinion in political theory and papers are plentiful and not difficult to find.
kaname-san
Member
She's a robot. I'm voting for her but still.
We're better off with a robot than a maniac.
We're better off with a robot than a maniac.
I agree that Bill's platform and policies were neo-liberal. Hillary's platform is not.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
suh d00ds, top of the page
- Status