Support NeoGAF

[Aaronology]

She's a mild Republican and a Corporate sympathizer.

There are enough legitimate reasons to disfavor Clinton that you should not have to resort to pretending she is Republican-Lite. It's ridiculous, dishonest and not based on reality as her voting record puts her as one of the most liberal Democrats, left of Obama during both the 109th and 110th Senate.

 

[Leeroy3101]

Hillary only does what's best for her chances to get elected. She only comes out in support of something when it won't hurt her. Same-sex marriage, healthcare (to only double back after Bernie supports single payer), and an unwillingness to publicy ackonwledge the lack of social mobility in our country. She may give lip service to progressive causes, but she falters much like Obama has.

Some call it pragmatism, but I see it more of "Eh, I shouldn't anger my donors. I'll keep up the corporatism and oligarchy that put me in this position."

 

[The Beard]

She's so goddamn phony. I know that's nothing new with politicians, but Hilary's "fun grandma" shtick on talk shows is vomit inducing.

 

[Tesseract]

don't trust anyone that has pac money, they're liars

 

[conman]

It's all about how different candidates have staked their claim to specific voting populations. The Republican field has been chasing the far-right, so Clinton started chasing the right-of-center voters--assuming that she had the lefties in the bag. Then Bernie showed up and swept up the lefties she had left behind. So Clinton got caught in the middle. And her pro-business, pro-establishment record doesn't help. Now she looks conservative even to those just left of center. And people remember that she was a Goldwater Republican in her youth and are starting to think that her politics haven't changed much.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Hillary only does what's best for her chances to get elected. She only comes out in support of something when it won't hurt her. Same-sex marriage, healthcare (to only double back after Bernie supports single payer), and an unwillingness to publicy ackonwledge the lack of social mobility in our country. She may give lip service to progressive causes, but she falters much like Obama has.

Some call it pragmatism, but I see it more of "Eh, I shouldn't anger my donors. I'll keep up the corporatism and oligarchy that put me in this position."

 

[Grover]

shes pure establishment, but atleast shes not a bafoon i guess

 

[Leeroy3101]

She's attacked his stance on single payer and went the "all these taxes, and he wants to undo Obama!" route.

 

[metalslimer]

I still don't buy into the claim that she is somehow some kind of conservative on the American spectrum. She would essentially be another Obama term

 

[Dysun]

Nobody gets excited about the safe establishment candidate

 

[GnawtyDog]

She's attacked his stance on single payer and went the "all these taxes, and he wants to undo Obama!" route.

Deceitful attacks is part of politics. What does that have to do with the bold? It's ok if you don't know a bit about Hillary and healthcare dating way back to her start in her career, Bills presidency etc.....but it's a click away on google search.

 

[TheExecutive]

I am sure it's been said before but why would I be excited for another Clinton? It's like being excited for another Bush. Plus she had a bad rep for beyond all about what anyone wants to hear.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Would you guys be really happy with Hillary as your president

Never been a fan.

Bernie would be nice I guess.

Not a chance of me voting for any of the GOP front runners.

 

[MIMIC]

This is precisely what's wrong with modern-day politics in the USA. Way too many people settle for a corrupt corporate shill instead of voting for someone who actually represents them because of the "lesser of two evils" fallacy.

Why anyone would be enthusiastic for the return of a political dynasty eludes me. Have we returned to the days of the Monarchy?

1989-1993: Bush
1993-2001: Clinton
2001-2009: Bush
2016-2024: Clinton

24-28 years of either a Bush or Clinton if Hillary gets in. Absolutely disgusting. What's next? Jeb Bush in 2024? Chelsea Clinton in 2028?

It's time to break away from the iron grip of political dynasties.

If I'm going to vote in this political cycle, it's going to be an anti-establishment candidate, one who really wants to challenge the status quo and isn't in the pocket of special interests and corporations. I really hope Bernie Sanders is able to beat her for that reason.

I'd say this is probably the main reason why I won't be voting for her (if I can help it). I don't know how people are so comfortable with the fact that we're electing the same people to office. I'm definitely not comfortable perpetuating the idea that the Presidency is a family business....democrat or republican. It's time more people stood up against this practice or else it's going to be the same crap over and over again. And if you don't oppose it now, then when?

That, and she voted for the Iraq war.....which was the MAIN reason why I didn't want her as president back in 2008.

 

[Giant Panda]

It is a bit hard to be enthusiastic about her because of her scandals and shifting policies. I'm not holding my nose to vote for her though, it isn't that bad at least, as I suspect that my positions match up with Clinton's pretty closely. On the other hand, I would have to hold my nose to vote for Bernie. Love his social positions, but I am economically centrist (at least way to right of most people on this board) so I believe he is too left wing for me in that regard.

 

[Supast4r]

Her most attractive quality is that she's not a Republican, that's it.

She used to be

 

[Leeroy3101]

Deceitful attacks is part of politics. What does that have to do with the bold? It's ok if you don't know a bit about Hillary and healthcare dating way back to her start in her career, Bills presidency etc.....but it's a click away on google search.

You don't need to belittle me with snide "google this" quotes. I'm well versed in Hillary's "I'll only support what I need to for electoral purposes" game.

She's ego driven, and fails at altruism.

 

[jchap]

Everything feels so engineered with her.

 

[Neoweee]

She's attacked his stance on single payer and went the "all these taxes, and he wants to undo Obama!" route.

Did you sleep through a certain decade?

Like, the cornerstone of why the right hates her so incredibly much was her support of single payer during the 90s. She lost, and has and will continue to throw her support to healthcare reform that actually stands a chance of working during her presidency.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

The Bushes and the Clintons are symbols of a corrupt system and a permanent governing class. Willingly voting in the corruption and baggage of the Bush and Clinton families for 30 years is something I'm not going to do out of principle.

I have one vote. That one vote isn't going to make any difference in the scheme of things as millions will vote and elect regardless of what I say or think. The establishment will continue convincing people that Hillary is "for the people." But that one vote I make will be made with a conscience free of guilt embracing the tenets of a Democratic Republic espoused by George Washington who despised the two-party system.

Maybe if more people decided to do that then have a desperate need to settle for slimeballs we COULD see real change in politics.

But hey! I'm just one guy! I'm sure enough people will subscribe to your "lesser of two evils" fallacy and vote her in. I'm sure that's what the establishment loves to hear. We'll go right back to the status quo in Washington the moment Obama leaves the Oval. I can't wait! Let's beat the Republicans, guys!

Yep look at all those Clintons and Bushes in office right now. Oh wait a minute there aren't any.

 

[Tesseract]

Did you sleep through a certain decade?

Like, the cornerstone of why the right hates her so incredibly much was her support of single payer during the 90s. She lost, and has and will continue to throw her support to healthcare reform that actually stands a chance of working during her presidency.

the 90s are over, people want universal

 

[Aaronology]

Did you sleep through a certain decade?

Like, the cornerstone of why the right hates her so incredibly much was her support of single payer during the 90s. She lost, and has and will continue to throw her support to healthcare reform that actually stands a chance of working during her presidency.

There are people with valid criticisms of Clinton and real issues with throwing support behind her. But at some point you have to accept a lot of people will dislike her regardless of facts. I'm approaching the point where I'm automatically dismissive of anyone who calls Clinton a Republican or thinks she has an axe to grind with single payer. How do you have a discussion with people almost completely disconnected from reality?

 

[120v]

The Bushes and the Clintons are symbols of a corrupt system and a permanent governing class. Willingly voting in the corruption and baggage of the Bush and Clinton families for 30 years is something I'm not going to do out of principle.

I have one vote. That one vote isn't going to make any difference in the scheme of things as millions will vote and elect regardless of what I say or think. The establishment will continue convincing people that Hillary is "for the people." But that one vote I make will be made with a conscience free of guilt embracing the tenets of a Democratic Republic espoused by George Washington who despised the two-party system.

Maybe if more people decided to do that then have a desperate need to settle for slimeballs we COULD see real change in politics.

But hey! I'm just one guy! I'm sure enough people will subscribe to your "lesser of two evils" fallacy and vote her in. I'm sure that's what the establishment loves to hear. We'll go right back to the status quo in Washington the moment Obama leaves the Oval. I can't wait! Let's beat the Republicans, guys!

nothing wrong with rejecting status quo politics and all that but the clintons were never "corrupt"

even with bush 43 as horrible a president he was "corruption" is kind of stretch

 

[Macam]

I'd say this is probably the main reason why I won't be voting for her (if I can help it). I don't know how people are so comfortable with the fact that we're electing the same people to office. I'm definitely not comfortable perpetuating the idea that the Presidency is a family business....democrat or republican. It's time more people stood up against this practice or else it's going to be the same crap over and over again. And if you don't oppose it now, then when?

It's not a matter of being comfortable with the idea as much as that, on the spectrum of all the things to vote on for/against a candidate, this is a pretty silly one.

Perhaps for the Bush clan, where you have three Bush's having held or running for the presidential office, while another Bush holds a state office out in Texas. There, okay, there's definitely something to be said for the idea. At least W's terrible legacy has pretty much ensured that another Bush won't be heading to the White House anytime soon. It's more of a temporal fluke that we're seeing a set of Bush's and Clinton's running for president within such a condensed time frame.

I'm more concerned with the idea that we're electing the "same people" in the sense that we're still by and large electing old, white men that predominately come from the political or legal profession, and little else.

 

[Inuhanyou]

There are enough legitimate reasons to disfavor Clinton that you should not have to resort to pretending she is Republican-Lite. It's ridiculous, dishonest and not based on reality as her voting record puts her as one of the most liberal Democrats, left of Obama during both the 109th and 110th Senate.

If the category of "most liberal" after voting for both the iraq war and the patriot act(TWICE) is still valid, the senate probably wasn't very liberal then was it? I'm tired of these guys being knowingly obtuse about Hillary's record.

She aint a lib, nor is she a progressive, especially on a grand majority of the issues that matter today.

All we have to do, is go back to when her and Obama were fighting over the issues and we already see many of the skeletons she keeps.

nothing wrong with rejecting status quo politics and all that but the clintons were never "corrupt"

even with bush 43 as horrible a president he was "corruption" is kind of stretch

What is your idea of 'corrupt'?

If your idea of corrupt is not "collusion of big special interests in exchange for support, favors and funding", then no, i guess she isnt'.

But for those of us who have such a definition and live in the actual United States, she, her husband, and even her daughter and her husband are apart of that system.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

There are enough legitimate reasons to disfavor Clinton that you should not have to resort to pretending she is Republican-Lite. It's ridiculous, dishonest and not based on reality as her voting record puts her as one of the most liberal Democrats, left of Obama during both the 109th and 110th Senate.

She voted for the Iraq war. And the original PATRIOT Act (somewhat forgivable, most did and it wasn't entirely known how it was going to be done, though note Sanders did not). And then the reauthorization in 2005 (not forgivable in the slightest even if she supported a filibuster to moderate it earlier in the debate) Maybe her voting on the domestic parts of the agenda are pretty liberal, but in the one area where she'll have almost unilateral control, foreign policy and the surveillance state, she's pretty far to the right.'

Anyone listened to Hamilton? Clinton is the reincarnation of Aaron Burr (well, admittedly, she's not likely to launch a coup if she loses the election).

[HAMILTON]
Hey
What are you waiting for?
What do you stall for?

[BURR]
What?

[HAMILTON]
We won the war
What was it all for?
Do you support this constitution?

[BURR]
Of course

[HAMILTON]
Then defend it

[BURR]
And what if you’re backing the wrong horse?

[HAMILTON]
Burr, we studied and we fought and we killed
For the notion of a nation we now get to build
For once in your life, take a stand with pride
I don’t understand how you stand to the side

[BURR]
I’ll keep all my plans
Close to my chest


I’ll wait here and see
Which way the wind
Will blow
I’m taking my time
Watching the
Afterbirth of a nation
Watching the tension grow.

 

[GnawtyDog]

You don't need to belittle me with snide "google this" quotes. I'm well versed in Hillary's "I'll only support what I need to for electoral purposes" game.

She's ego driven, and fails at altruism.

If you said so. I think it shows a lack of understanding of her history on healthcare. You'll have to jump many hoops to make all of those accusations true when it comes to healthcare.

It's not belittling, I am just showing you the door to information, kindly. You're merely doubling down on your assertion.

 

[KingV]

I still don't buy into the claim that she is somehow some kind of conservative on the American spectrum. She would essentially be another Obama term

Obama is essentially a moderate republican from the early nineties. He is, in fact, quite similar to Bush 1.

 

[KingV]

There are people with valid criticisms of Clinton and real issues with throwing support behind her. But at some point you have to accept a lot of people will dislike her regardless of facts. I'm approaching the point where I'm automatically dismissive of anyone who calls Clinton a Republican or thinks she has an axe to grind with single payer. How do you have a discussion with people almost completely disconnected from reality?

She didn't support single payer in 2008. She basically supported an Obamacare like plan:

Here's the relevant quote and link:

If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm

Might I remind you that Obamacare was basically the Republican Health Care plan until Obama started to recommend it.

You can paint Hillary as a true progressive all you want, but it doesn't make it true. I would say Obama is not particularly Progressive either, he talked a good game but has governed basically center to center-right.

 

[uncelestial]

Yep look at all those Clintons and Bushes in office right now. Oh wait a minute there aren't any.

Please. And because it's snowing in the NE, climate change isn't real.

 

[Dice]

Okay Clinton-lovers, explain to me how this is more conservative attacks that are false:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

 

[Abounder]

Oldie but a goldie:

 

[ghost99]

Why would the GOP need to run smear ads?

The IG reports and the upcoming FBI investigation results will do more than any television ads can do lol

 

[Anoregon]

Oldie but a goldie:

KILLARY LIED

 

[Jack Remington]

Okay Clinton-lovers, explain to me how this is more conservative attacks that are false:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Holy fuck, incredible. Where to even start?

There are like 3 U.S. defense contractors that even do military aircraft: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics. Northrop Grumman may also do some. Anyway it's an industry with very few players. Boeing does about as much business as the rest of the industry combined. Saudi Arabia is a key ally in the region with a huge military budget. It's not hard to put this all together.

This is even more ridiculous than Benghazi.

Btw the Clinton Foundation is a great charity (it's not really what you would traditionally think of as a foundation, but does most of its work directly), not some organized crime syndicate.

 

[Setzer]

She and her husband are slimebags, liars, and creeps of the highest order.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Dice]

Holy fuck, incredible. Where to even start?

There are like 3 U.S. defense contractors that even do military aircraft: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics. Northrop Grumman may also do some. Anyway it's an industry with very few players. Boeing does about as much business as the rest of the industry combined. Saudi Arabia is a key ally in the region with a huge military budget. It's not hard to put this all together.

This is even more ridiculous than Benghazi.

Btw the Clinton Foundation is a great charity (it's not really what you would traditionally think of as a foundation, but does most of its work directly), not some organized crime syndicate.

So you use establishment titles like "allies" as justifications in the same way they do while handwaving the effect on our world. Basically just stating that yes, we are the sole suppliers, but that's okay because we are the sole suppliers? Alright.

 

[Rubenov]

Why? Because who would seriously be excited about their Abuela running for office?

 

[Ophelion]

She used to be

Well, I mean, so did I, but I'm certainly no friend to Republicans today either. And she's been on the right side of things decades longer than I've been.

I'm not sure I understand what the point of a progressive agenda is if you have to be born progressively pure to be considered at all trustworthy. That seems distinctly un-American to me. Surely an enlightened and superior liberal society would include the ability for someone to realize they're wrong on things—like gay rights for example—and right the ship without being tarred and feathered for it.

I'm not really interested in a Democratic party that expects you to have been polishing your Democrat badge since childhood to be considered anything other than a political poseur.

 

[Abinash117]

So you use establishment titles like "allies" as justifications in the same way they do while handwaving the effect on our world. Basically just stating that yes, we are the sole suppliers, but that's okay because we are the sole suppliers? Alright.

You aren't making sense those contractors always sells this type of equipment to many countries, the 'ally' excuse is there because SA is US ally no matter how you put it, so obviously they are going to sell them stuff. Are you going to imply that some else is going to do different? Plus, some countries sell arms to SA like Canada, Britain , and I think France. It is a stupid criticism to Hillary Clinton because there's nothing controversial about it.

 

[AlphaDump]

Okay Clinton-lovers, explain to me how this is more conservative attacks that are false:

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions -- a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy.But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

The second paragraph is interesting because she signed an agreement for added transparency.

Mind you this was before she became secretary of state.


In addition

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the 'favor bank' and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

this is just a political fart cloud, and is especially rich coming from the bush administration who specifically catered to defense contractors. .

 

[Dice]

You aren't making sense those contractors always sells this type of equipment to many countries, the 'ally' excuse is there because SA is US ally no matter how you put it, so obviously they are going to sell them stuff. Are you going to imply that some else is going to do different? Plus, some countries sell arms to SA like Canada, Britain , and I think France. It is a stupid criticism to Hillary Clinton because there's nothing controversial about it.

Again, you're trying to justify something simply by the fact that it happens. Do things really become okay just because it is how things have been working? The establishment mindset is utterly confounding to me.

 

[Jack Remington]

This might register as 1 micro-Halliburton.

 

[Abinash117]

Again, you're trying to justify something simply by the fact that it happens. Do things really become okay just because it is how things have been working? The establishment mindset is utterly confounding to me.

I'm not justifying simply fact because it "just happens" . It is a policy that the US goes by, so that is why it happens. If it isn't in the interest to do so then they stop. It has nothing to do with establishment mindset( don't even think you know what that means) or whatever buzzword.

Besides you aren't making an argument all you are is implying things. Defense contractors sells equipment to countries that is their freaking one of the points and countries sell equipment to countries that have good relations with why wouldn't they? If you want to make the argument that those defense contractors shouldn't do business with other countries then that fine and take it up with them.

 

[Dice]

I'm not justifying simply fact because it "just happens"

...

Defense contractors sells equipment to countries that is their freaking one of the points and countries sell equipment to countries that have good relations with why wouldn't they?

...?

It is a policy that the US goes by, so that is why it happens. If it isn't in the interest to do so then they stop. It has nothing to do with establishment mindset( don't even think you know what that means) or whatever buzzword.

What do you think it means? You are demonstrating it in yourself, in this very post, in that first sentence, perfectly.

Besides you aren't making an argument all you are is implying things. If you want to make the argument that those defense contractors shouldn't do business with other countries then that fine and take it up with them.

It isn't my job. It is the job of the one who oversees and approves their business.

 

[Aaronology]

The establishment mindset is utterly confounding to me.

So you use establishment titles...

You're going in heavy with buzzwords but I am earnestly having a hard time understanding what it is you are attempting to convey here, Dice.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

 

[Abinash117]

...
...?

What do you think it means? You are demonstrating it in yourself, in this very post, in that first sentence, perfectly.

It isn't my job. It is the job of the one who oversees and approves their business.

What am I suppose got out it ? I am explaining the reasons why they do things. Are you trying to make me fill in the blanks because you don't/can't/etc do it yourself? I just explained why they do things the way they do, it is the the purpose of defense contractors sell equipment why wouldn't they do it? You aren't answering the question.

What the heck are you even trying to say anyway? That Clinton approval sells ( which is Obama's policy anyway because the state department is not some separate entity; he would stop sells like he did with Egypt at one point. ) to SA and because SA is evil that she shouldn't do it? All you did was post the article and allowed people to try to figure out what you are trying to say

Why would you ask me " what do you think it means " when I just called it a buzzword ? Explain what is an establishment mindset, considering that is part of the argument.

 

[exmachina64]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

This website that aggregates the various candidates' stances on issues (not my website) lists Hillary as supporting allowing prisoners serving sentences for non-violent crimes to appeal their sentences, increasing a judge's capability to ignore mandatory minimum sentences, ending the privatization of prisons, and restoring voting rights to former prisoners.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

I hate her husband, she blocked prison reforms multiple times, she profits from the prison industrial complex and she gives off an evil aurora. If I don't vote, I'll be spitting on the graves of my ancestors so when if comes voting time, I'll just vote for whatever Republican candidate. They aren't going to win anyway and I'm not aware of any current Republican candidate profiting off black slaves anyway.

Just be aware Trumps inherited fortune comes from his father's racist housing projects in NY.