superdeluxe
Member
I don't dislike her, I wish she handled the email issue better, but honestly it is not *that* big of a deal.
Why do you dislike Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter freeofgreed
- Start date
- Status
She doesn't seem sincere at all, and like someone said in the end she is a politician, she must owe lots of guys favors. Also I hate that any criticism against her is dismissed as "they criticize her since she is a woman" It will be awesome if the USA (or any country) has their first female president to change paradigms, but like I said, I really don't trust her
Is like the Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche analogy that South Park uses
Is like the Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche analogy that South Park uses
Mmm, the most concrete reason I can put down is her relationship and the Foundation's relationship with certified cunt Denis O'Brien here in Ireland, which may or may not include quid-pro-quo action over in Haiti regarding rights to establish a telecom service in Haiti post earthquake. Now the Clinton's have done a lot for us in Ireland but daillances with a man like Denis O'Brien does not look good in my eyes.
Otherwise she is the consummate career politician and will be a fine President, upholding the absolute status quo in very very general terms.
Otherwise she is the consummate career politician and will be a fine President, upholding the absolute status quo in very very general terms.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
It sucks that congress won't be half as amazing. I wish we could have dems control congress like in the early Obama days.
I'm surprised Obama has achieved what he has with the right in control.
ZackieChan
Member
This is very true.
Well said my friend. I can't consciously vote for someone that I can't trust, and both candidates seem to be very untrustworthy.
freeofgreed
Member
What's wrong with becoming more left wing? And unless she switches to a more left position then goes back to the right wing I don't know how that makes her a flip flopper.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Sources for any of this?
I'd be pretty mad if someone swindled me into buying fake beef too
Frustrated_me
Member
lol @ the people jumping on others who hint at not voting for her.
Is this a bait thread?
Warren would have been such an ideal candidate, someone I would be able to connect with, she's truly the candidate that would fight for everyone. I love the work she's been putting in, truly passionate about her people.
Clinton has fucked up Libya, was pro Syrian intervention and generally is known to be hawkish. It goes without saying her experience is impressive, but I just can't connect with he foreign policy. She laughs shit off whenever she needs to pivot away from a political mistake, as if her audience is too dumb to realize what's going on. That off-air footage of her laughing when Gaddafi was announced dead was chilling.
Don't hang me for not liking her. I'm not even American so this is simply an outsiders view. That being said, I don't think Trump is any better BTW. I wholly agree an outsider candidate would be really awesome IMO but Trump isn't that candidate.
Is this a bait thread?
Warren would have been such an ideal candidate, someone I would be able to connect with, she's truly the candidate that would fight for everyone. I love the work she's been putting in, truly passionate about her people.
Clinton has fucked up Libya, was pro Syrian intervention and generally is known to be hawkish. It goes without saying her experience is impressive, but I just can't connect with he foreign policy. She laughs shit off whenever she needs to pivot away from a political mistake, as if her audience is too dumb to realize what's going on. That off-air footage of her laughing when Gaddafi was announced dead was chilling.
Don't hang me for not liking her. I'm not even American so this is simply an outsiders view. That being said, I don't think Trump is any better BTW. I wholly agree an outsider candidate would be really awesome IMO but Trump isn't that candidate.
freeofgreed
Member
Lol I was thinking the same thing.
She ran a primary against Bernie Sanders, who effectively painted Clinton as the pro-Wall Street candidate. He was so effective in fact, that he got a lot of his supporters agreeing with the insane notion that Sanders shouldn't have to release his tax returns, if Clinton hadn't released...transcripts from speeches she gave in front of Wall Street banks. Silly, I know, but his support was largely with the young and they ate it up.
The truth is that Clinton's connections with moneyed interests are no greater or more sinister than any other politician. If someone dislikes Clinton because she has received money from Wall Street, they should dislike Obama and every other national politician to an equal degree.
People want her to have the correct opinions at birth and not need to be influenced by the world or changing views with new education and information.
Essentially people would prefer a robot for president
Said propositions, at least in california, would allow people to grow 6 plants at home in a locked and out of public sight area. that's major. california legalizing it would be huge and send off a shockwave for the rest of the states over the next 2-5 years
She made the actual policy decisions then changes her mind because of the negatives of which she would have or should've known about prior to making decision about x. What would happen with 3 strikes etc wasn't a big secret unknown.
Changing your mind doesn't erase your previous vote or support for a policy in place for x years.
ersocaster
Member
I'd rather a candidate flip flop and do what their constituents want rather than double down on bad policy in the name of consistency.
Do people not trust Hilary to carry out her left wing agenda? Compared to Obama? Carter?
I mean how far back to do we go?
I think will Hill you at least won't see right wing agenda out of control. You'll get some stuff libs will be happy about. She has a history. There are no surprises.
But Trump. Who the fuck knows. Just different levels of awful.
I mean how far back to do we go?
I think will Hill you at least won't see right wing agenda out of control. You'll get some stuff libs will be happy about. She has a history. There are no surprises.
But Trump. Who the fuck knows. Just different levels of awful.
She lacks charisma, which does little to hurt my support for her, but is a little disappointing after an Obama presidency. I am on board with pretty much all her policies. Her "scandals" make her look technologically inept, again disappointing, but I don't dislike her for it, although all other things equal, I'd vote for a Dem candidate with a better grasp on technology.
Yeah I can see this but this is also just being a part of the public eye and seeing her opinions live for 25 years or so. Everyone in this thread has had some stupid opinion about something that they changed with age and education on the world. The only difference is that there isn't a written record of everyone's baggage like there would be for a politician
In fact,I'd argue that the ability to adapt and change your mind is something NEEDED by a politician. Many tend to be stubborn and hold onto old values and beliefs even when presented new information. Oddly I LIKE Clinton because of this
benjipwns
Banned
Because she betrayed her Goldwater Girl roots to become the worst type of proud fundamentalist authoritarian eliminating every shred of real liberalism she might have had to bathe in the glory of violence against her fellow citizens she perceives as enemies. Plus I'm a radical extremist who considers the state's monopoly claims to be illegitimate and so disagree with her on that.
Also, she murdered my dad, Vince Foster.
Also, she murdered my dad, Vince Foster.
Those are state laws. I live in WA where patients can grow their own.
Whatever she works on would be federal though and would/could supersede state law. Handing the market to corporations is what we need to fight against - Monsanto didn't buy out Advanced Nutrients and an entire litany of cannabis products, as well as start patenting cannabis genetics for no reason.
Luckily there are people mapping out the cannabis genome to keep companies from being able to patent existing genetics: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pr...nting-company-begins-mapping-cannabis-genome/
Well yeah it depends on your perspective, I'm just more cynical in regards to her actually changing her mind vs doing whatever is most popular nationally or in her party.
And theres a point where number of mistakes shows bad judgement long term.
I don't really get the criticism of politicians "flip flopping." When new data presents itself, they may change their minds. That's the right thing to do. They represent a population, and if the popular opinion changes, they must be able to detect that and to make new decisions considering the representation of their people. That's also the right thing to do.
freeofgreed
Member
What?
Reckheim
Member
I have to agree with this, I actually don't hate Clinton (i'd vote for her if I could) but I feel the two choices this election cycle aren't the greatest.
Warren would have been great imo; too bad she decided not to run for presidency.
Super_Cobra
Member
For real, Obama is such a good president. I'm glad he was president in my life time.
Dangansona
Member
To point to something she actually did the most recent thing that I took issue with is how she used Sandy Hook victims as a tool to against Sander's stance on guns manufactures. Around the same time she also claimed that somehow New York's gun problem comes from Vermont, which even if that was true I don't know how that relates to Sanders as a Senator.
Being involved in making shitty decisions that end up ruining lives for 20 years then changing your mind doesn't help those already fucked by your previous choice. The negatives she should've or would've known.
And part of being a leader is seeing past the short term polls for longer term good policy.
ColdLasagna
Member
Pantsuits.
Some other stuff, but mostly pantsuits.
Some other stuff, but mostly pantsuits.
mrhyderager
Member
Of course not exhaustive because no one has investigated it. The issues were dropped. Do you think the DNC would incriminate themselves?
But let's look at the obvious points, which are either out right stated in their emails or at least heavily implied.
Heavy, while not the most reliable source, has compiled a pretty cut-and-dry compilation of emails from the DNC leak which speak for themselves.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Urgh, fuck that shit
Huh? None of this makes sense.
Then please list those shortcomings (beyond "she's not Obama", who is apparently perfect or something)? That's what this thread is for!
You just know what won't make a difference though. "Clinton Foundation!" will be listed in this thread alongside "Emails! Benghazi!" etc.
lol
Again someone who fails to explain why. The only thing you offered as argument is "she must owe lots of guys favors", because that makes her any different than Sanders, Obama, etc.? Makes no sense.
Why, concretely, do you not trust her?
No. No. It's really, really not.
Joke's on you, raising your Endurance levels up your total stamina!
Admiral Woofington
Member
Im of similar mind though it's more of indifference but at the same time it's a better option as she's more qualified. When i made an admittedly badly worded joke in the debate thread I got jumped down on calling me edgy and making assumptions on what I thought and my stances. This thread was made with good intentions but it immediately brought forth mockery posts. If there was a place to have a dialogue for folks who have actual issues with her gaf isn't exactly the first place folks might want to do it.
Similar to when Bernie was running you wouldn't want to have a civil dialogue about your issues with Bernie based on an overall idea of what you're going to get. Could you do it? Yeah.
This completely ignores the fact that most black leaders were not OK with most of the provisions -- kinda like how most people don't like Hillary but will elect her anyway. I hear this a lot (Hillary is never responsible for her actions; there's always someone else for her to blame) and it glosses over the important fact that leaders tried to have the worst measures of the bill removed, in addition to calls for measures that would strengthen and uplift the black community.
The NAACP was completely against it and the Congressional Black Caucus tried to push their own version of the bill. They threatened to refuse to vote for it if the bill didn't allow for a racial bias provision, which would allow for those who were sentenced to death to show how the death penalty is disproportionately applied to blacks. The White House said no.
So were most black leaders for the extremely punitive measures of the bill? They most certainly were not.
People love to point to the fact that "the blacks wanted this" and that completely ignores the fact that they were ALSO for ways to make sure that the crime bill didn't turn into a complete monster. So I'd change the statement to "but so were most leaders of the black community at the time, begrudgingly so."
MrToughPants
Brian Burke punched my mom
I'm not a fan of reptiles.
It's one thing if "she knew the outcome" can be proven. Or if she was motivated to act in her own self interest at the expense of others. If a bad outcome occurs because of a policy decision made in good faith, and the decision is reversed later, with the revelation of new data, and steps are taken to mitigate the original negative impact, well, that's the right course to take.
What specifically are you referring to?
Basketball
Member
In Government too long
and the other guy is an idiot
this election is trash
and the other guy is an idiot
this election is trash
freeofgreed
Member
So what would you have her do then? Double down and stick to those flawed beliefs? Me personally I'd much rather her own up those mistakes and work to fix them in the future. Which is exactly what she seems to be doing.
How about making the right call in the first place.
Nailed it.
I mean, most of what I dislike is stuff from her past, she says all the right things now. I guess her being a politician is why I have a hard time believing she's changed in any meaningful manner. I'll be voting for her mostly because trump is so much worse.
John Oliver says it best.
Not continually make those mistakes and stop responding to short termist public opinion vs long term good policy.
Lead not follow.
The discussion in that article about the way the media treated Bush, Romney, and Colin Powell's emailing habits was interesting to me. It really does suggest a double standard on that issue.
- Status