Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
[CITATION NEEDED]
Holy shit.
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
You plan on just making more shit up?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do you dislike Hilary Clinton?
- Thread starter freeofgreed
- Start date
- Status
[CITATION NEEDED]
Holy shit.
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
You plan on just making more shit up?
Super_Cobra
Member
Young Hillary was gorgeous.
pathological liar
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pathological-liar
noun
1.
a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so.
Meanwhile, in reality:
STUDY SHOWS GOP CANDIDATES WHO LIE THE MOST, DO THE BEST
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/01/a-winning-gop-formula-lie-more-do-better/
Fact: Hillary Clinton Is One of America's Most Honest Politicians. Trump is one of the biggest liars
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/1/1555457/-Fact-Hillary-Clinton-Is-One-of-America-s-Most-Honest-Politicians-Trump-is-one-of-the-biggest-liars
Presenting Data Truthfully Using Charts
http://jem9.com/data-presentation-charts/
One Chart Addresses a Misconception About Hillary Clinton
http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty
Clinton's Fictional Trust Issue
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-29/how-media-fuel-the-narrative-that-clinton-isnt-honest-and-trustworthy
The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/
Hillary Clinton Is the Most Truthful Candidate in the 2016 Race
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-most-truthful-candidate/
A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/
The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed
https://www.baekdal.com/analysis/the-increasing-problem-with-the-misinformed
This post was too much. The poor kid will be too humiliated to respond.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Actually, none of them respond, I've posted quite a few links without a single reply.
Basically this thread is Feelings vs Evidence.
Damn, quoted for truth.pathological liar
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pathological-liar
noun
1.
a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so.
Meanwhile, in reality:
STUDY SHOWS GOP CANDIDATES WHO LIE THE MOST, DO THE BEST
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/01/a-winning-gop-formula-lie-more-do-better/
Fact: Hillary Clinton Is One of America's Most Honest Politicians. Trump is one of the biggest liars
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/1/1555457/-Fact-Hillary-Clinton-Is-One-of-America-s-Most-Honest-Politicians-Trump-is-one-of-the-biggest-liars
Presenting Data Truthfully Using Charts
http://jem9.com/data-presentation-charts/
One Chart Addresses a Misconception About Hillary Clinton
http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty
Clinton's Fictional Trust Issue
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-29/how-media-fuel-the-narrative-that-clinton-isnt-honest-and-trustworthy
The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/
Hillary Clinton Is the Most Truthful Candidate in the 2016 Race
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-most-truthful-candidate/
A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/
The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed
https://www.baekdal.com/analysis/the-increasing-problem-with-the-misinformed
Poor Skittles, I almost feel bad for him, until I realise that I dont. At all.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
spawnsniper
Member
My co worker said that its just weird that people."accidentally" die or go missing thats around her... Also thats she was connected to watergate scandal, and the whole email crap... He was very convincing
Then he went on that the capsule from the dollar is almost complete.meaning the nwo is about to be established.. And thats she could be a lizard person.. Yeah...lmao
Then he went on that the capsule from the dollar is almost complete.meaning the nwo is about to be established.. And thats she could be a lizard person.. Yeah...lmao
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
1.) No shit. How did that not make it fair? Please provide examples or citations.
2.) What does that have to do with her health. Secondly, where in that link does it show they were intentionally lost?
broncobuster
Banned
Aaronology
Member
The first link is a header taken out of context. Yes, Clinton was favored in the sense that she was the frontrunner many DNC members personally preferred, but the organization did not actively sabotage Sanders in any way and through much frustration sought to get him to sit at their table and cooperate even when his campaign was in the wrong.
And your second link does not substantiate what you posted on that subject.
I think this is the shit that is being referred to.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
1.) Can we have someone ask hom for his faith? What is the intention of this? Obviously to harm him by having someone ask questions that primitive people will take as a (politically irrelevant) reason not to vote for him. What is the effect of the people organising the candidate selection process having such strong bias and even discussing it semi-openly via mail? Moreover, in the German news I have read about this, there were additional points regarding setting dates deliberately in ways inconvenient for Sanders. Since I am German, I read mostly German news, therefore I had to resort to finding equivalent English language news that do not necessarily contain exactly the same information.
2.) Reagrding the health issue I was referencing the fact that she only announced her pneumonia a day after her collapsing, the first explanation for her collapsing was wrong, without any good reason.
Let's say conveniently lost laptops in investigation scenarios are not exactly a novel strategy.
They never respond because the moment you ask anyone to back up their bullshit, you're just a "Clinton-stan" who can't handle anyone not thinking Clinton is the messiah.
Aaronology
Member
I agree. It was malicious and completely inappropriate. And apparently the DNC or members thereof came to that conclusion as well, which is why it never actually happened.
The strength of this bias is arguable. We are currently at the tail end of a two term Presidency of a man who defeated the former preferred candidate in 2008, so I believe it is safe to conclude you're overstating the power of initial preference a little.
This is somewhat legitimate.
Democratic debates set to 'maximize' exposure, Wasserman Schultz claims, but evidence is dubious
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jan/20/debbie-wasserman-schultz/democratic-debates-maximize-exposure-debbie-wasser/
I absolutely won't defend DWS or the DNC in this regard. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/jan/20/debbie-wasserman-schultz/democratic-debates-maximize-exposure-debbie-wasser/
Speculation isn't receipts. It isn't even a receipt-substitute.
I still can't agree with this argument, because I think it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the primary system.
The primary is not an election, in which citizens choose between candidates. It's a party selection process, in which members of a party organize among themselves to put a candidate forward.
It is inevitable that the people organizing the Democratic primary will have preferences for particular candidates. They are Democrats! The entire primary is about convincing Democrats that they should prefer you as a candidate, and Hillary did that well. Part of doing that well was being a prominent Democrat, advocating for Democratic causes, and raising money for Democrats for two decades. That's the work you put in so that the people in the party support you.
Bernie Sanders wasn't a Democrat before the primary and did very little work for the Democratic Party.
It is not clear to me why people think it would be fair for two candidates to have equal chances of being chosen if one candidate has spent much more time and energy attempting to get support for themselves. Arguably fairness demands that Hillary receive more support. She put in the work for it.
As noted, this is baseless and malicious speculation, which assumes that you are somehow a better investigator than the FBI. But it's also worth noting that it's kind of pointless speculation, because, as per your own article, the emails were intentionally deleted from the laptop before it was mailed! If Clinton had the laptop and wanted to destroy evidence of whatever nefarious deeds you are suggesting she committed, it would be a lot more sensible just to make sure the emails couldn't be recovered and then turn the laptop over.
I don't like Hillary because she's a standard, pro corporate, war hawkish, Democrat. I didn't like that set of characteristics after Obama's first term, and so it stands to reason that I still don't like it now.
Her being a woman has no bearing on my dislike of her. Like I said Obama embodied most or all of the same things. From what I gather lots of left leaning people who also dislike her fit this discription.
Does any of this mean that I see Trump as the lesser evil/more honest candidate? The mere suggestion makes me laugh. Trump is human garbage. There is nothing that I like about him.
Her being a woman has no bearing on my dislike of her. Like I said Obama embodied most or all of the same things. From what I gather lots of left leaning people who also dislike her fit this discription.
Does any of this mean that I see Trump as the lesser evil/more honest candidate? The mere suggestion makes me laugh. Trump is human garbage. There is nothing that I like about him.
PatThePassive
Member
I know its not realistic to expect a nominee to appeal to me on every issue, so I try to stick with a nominee that at least has an objective I can get behind.
In my book president Obama was a great president because two major things appealed to me and he at least succeeded with one of those goals.
He received the Nobel peace prize for advocating for the dismantlement of nuclear arsenals and expressed that he intended to close Guantanamo Bay.
After 8 years fighting with congress the paperwork to close Guantanamo Bay is done, although its not closed yet I'm excited.
With Hilary I either don't know what her big plans are or what I've heard just sounds like red meat thrown out to get votes.(although it feels like there is a lot of that this election)
In my book president Obama was a great president because two major things appealed to me and he at least succeeded with one of those goals.
He received the Nobel peace prize for advocating for the dismantlement of nuclear arsenals and expressed that he intended to close Guantanamo Bay.
After 8 years fighting with congress the paperwork to close Guantanamo Bay is done, although its not closed yet I'm excited.
With Hilary I either don't know what her big plans are or what I've heard just sounds like red meat thrown out to get votes.(although it feels like there is a lot of that this election)
I am a late-comer here but I still don't understand why "I don't like her/him" isn't enough to invalidate a candidate. We're all people, no one can be always right.
I will vote for Hillary,but some members here keep acting as if it is our duty to vote for her and It is preposterous
I will vote for Hillary,but some members here keep acting as if it is our duty to vote for her and It is preposterous
I dont live in the USA anymore so its not my issue and i dont hate her and would likely vote for her if i was in a swing state but there are reasons im not enthused.
1.i dont like her hawkish record.
2. while she paid lip service to the left she seems firmly tied to the center.
3. like it or not she is tied to bill's legacy, and that legacy is filled with free trade deals that with the benefit of hind site we kbiw were bad for manufacturing in the USA so its hard to take her "flip flop" on the TTP seriously.
4. I dont like how it felt like it was just assumed it was her turn to be nom.
5.i know is actually pretty common but i feel like dynastic democracy is terrible and should be avoided.
6. She is a poor actress, everytime she acts "downhome" she comes across terribly.
7. The optics on her speaking engagements with the banks is pure awful, particularly for what amounts to our left leaning choice in the first big election of the second american gilded age.
8. She is status quo defined, if she is the most the left can hope for we are in trouble.
1.i dont like her hawkish record.
2. while she paid lip service to the left she seems firmly tied to the center.
3. like it or not she is tied to bill's legacy, and that legacy is filled with free trade deals that with the benefit of hind site we kbiw were bad for manufacturing in the USA so its hard to take her "flip flop" on the TTP seriously.
4. I dont like how it felt like it was just assumed it was her turn to be nom.
5.i know is actually pretty common but i feel like dynastic democracy is terrible and should be avoided.
6. She is a poor actress, everytime she acts "downhome" she comes across terribly.
7. The optics on her speaking engagements with the banks is pure awful, particularly for what amounts to our left leaning choice in the first big election of the second american gilded age.
8. She is status quo defined, if she is the most the left can hope for we are in trouble.
Da-Kid
Member
No one.
metalslimer
Member
So yeah outside of a few valid examples this thread is really just peoples feelings with nothing to back it up. The interesting ones are the people who have no problems with their favorite politicians but somehow think Hilary is 100x worse for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
I'm not American so the media painting her a certain way means nothing to me.
Watching the debate, she just seems so robotic and disingenuous. "We need to build communities" fuck off with this sound byte horse shit.
She says things that are meaningless. Typical politician imo. ANOTHER ONE /khaled voice
Better than Trump but thats hardly a compliment.
Watching the debate, she just seems so robotic and disingenuous. "We need to build communities" fuck off with this sound byte horse shit.
She says things that are meaningless. Typical politician imo. ANOTHER ONE /khaled voice
Better than Trump but thats hardly a compliment.
kavanf1
Member
Well worth listening to this from Sam Harris where he breaks down why for all Clinton's faults, she is on another level to Trump and his fuckery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j3PqOa-fNw
Yes it's half an hour long but it's devastating.
Yes it's half an hour long but it's devastating.
Except Hillary Clinton has been working on building communities since she was a teenager and was pushing for larger minority enrollment at her college, shortly after graduating law school when she co-founded a family health charity to improve low income community access to care, etc. all before she ever entered the political sphere.
I realized after the debate Monday night that a big problem with Hillary Clinton is that we have let terms like "policy", "talking points", etc. become surrogates for an intelligent, thoughtful person speaking directly about issues in a way that actually has the potential to appeal to at least half of the electorate.
She's disingenuous because she doesn't echo eighth grade level platitudes that fit perfectly in the niche of one political "team".
Because feelings aren't a good reason to invalidate a candidate.
It is your duty to vote for who you believe is the most capable candidate for the office in each successive election. Voting for POTUS this year is, per how the entire system is intended to work, you choosing which candidate you think would be the most effective president from the options presented.
Gary Johnson is a buffoon unfit for a job with the foreign policy prerequisites that come with being POTUS.
Jill Stein is a full blown anti-science nut who doesn't know the first thing about governance of any kind.
Donald Trump is a bigoted old con man silver spooner who embodies the misguided notion that economic standing at birth is some kind of birthright of superiority.
Hillary Clinton meanwhile is the most successful female politician in U.S. history, a standout in every aspect of her life which has been primarily focused on public policy and civil service, speaks intelligently about all key issues for the POTUS, and above all else is clearly more focused on building consensus than pushing her one particular ideology when given political power.
She is basically exactly what a President should be. But because everyone is obsessed with how well each candidate embodies team red or team blue she has an enthusiasm and trust gap relative to a person who is basically 10 pounds of shit stuffed in a 5 pound sack.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
You used the word robotic so I assume your talking about my post.
I mentioned that she's just like all politicians. I don't hate her or dislike her more or less than most.
But for some reason her "fans" see not supporting her as automatically being a Trump follower
Melkezadek
Member
I love seeing these kind of comments. I've yet to encounter people assuming if you don't like Hillary, it means you're a Trump supporter.
People question whether or not these people truly care about the progressive values they claim to hold so precious. Most of the ire is towards those who say they will not vote. That is a valid criticism.
Audioboxer
Member
Yup Harris says it best.
I do however think he may also be partially right about Trump. People predicting World War 3 and other nonsense is going a bit far on the hyperbolic scale in psychosis around Trump. That's my opinion though and I do think the far left is utterly embarrassing itself these days on many levels. Trump no matter if acting on certain things for shock value has to be held account for being such a man-child. He's running for presidency, acting should never be part of that parcel. It's my major beef with the American political scene, it's all a big fucking super bowl event, and popularity contests/money and power is utterly poisoning the whole thing. Be a decent fucking human being and win based on merits of intelligence and holding reasonable debate. Not sound bites, headlines, trolling and baiting people into a frenzy. The us vs them mentality around being a democrat or a republican is an utter joke. Plays out like that superbowl event with two sports teams competing against each other. It utterly warps and poisons the minds of Americans as well. So many behave like politics is a team sport and that the us vs them mentality is something to celebrate and embrace. It's not, it is utterly embarrassing and an incredibly childish take on something as important as politics and running a country.
I can think like Harris that Trump is an unqualified waste of air, but still criticise Hillary without that meaning I'm a sexist, racist misogynist Nazi. That is the kind of responses from the far left I absolutely cannot stand and there are genuine times I see similar GAF avatars wheel off to the far left to blow the head off other GAFers with a shotgun for merely having an individualistic opinion that isn't hard right, or hard left. It may well be somewhere in between. Shockingly one can be both conservative and liberal on different issues. It's easy to ignore though, state your opinions peacefully, and then take criticism and engage in it with decent GAFers. Ignore those baiting you, and just accept there is going to be times people go full ham on you when it may not be fully deserved. As in they start judging you as a person not just your opinion. Already I've seen someone shutdown on GAF for mentioning what America done to destabilize a country with war (which Clinton played a part in), and then ironically they replied by saying I live in this country... Just goes to show how wrong you can be to jump to your keyboard and tell someone they are wrong and a troll without enough evidence to actually judge their person/personality.
Harris gets that all the time though, the amount of times I've seen him called a racist is unbelievable. Harris is not racist, or at least has demonstrated nothing tangible to walk away charging him as guilty. Criticising religion/ideologies is up there right now for the far left outside of politics as the next number 1 defacto to blow peoples heads off with shotguns if they attempt to discuss Islam in any way that isn't to paint it as "peaceful". It happened somewhat with Christianity but the far left is largely over defending Christianity from flak, Islam is the new virtue signal of choice right now. Many times showing their ignorance conflating an ideology with a race. Ben Affleck the most notable celeb to make a fool of themselves in recent times on public TV. However I do think that was partially down to someone behind the scenes misinforming him about Harris pre-show, and therefore loading him up like a shotgun to go off. Even if ones heart is in the right place someone like Affleck can easily do his own research. It's not as if he doesn't have the money to own a PC and access the internet. That's all your really need these days, as mainstream news channels are largely nonsense. The internet is far better for research and news when used diligently.
For what is worth Trumps handling of Islam is pure nonsense though. As I said at the start of this post if you wear sheeps clothing and/or try to involve acting in politics you reap what you sow. Your character is going to be forever doubted, judged and even when you engage in debates that should be happening, such as that around ideologies, it's hard to ever think you're not doing something for personal gain/trolling/etc. Basically, Trump you made your grave and it doesn't matter if you ever discuss topics that deserve limelight. Others can do it far better than you and come from a genuine place. Such as Harris.
I knew opening this thread I should see validation to the posts saying her diehard fans are insufferable. Alas, I was correct.
I don't "dislike" Hillary, but I'm not fond of her either. As others have said, I think she is very calculated and robotic. Whoever used the analogy saying she's like an alien from Mars trying to relate using human emotion hit it right on the head. Whenever she's giving speeches, nothing comes off as genuine. It seems very robotic-like and overly rehearsed; her cadence is very off-putting, like she knows what remarks she says is going to incite applause or cheers or laughter - it was really evident during the debate. I think she just has an extremely hard time relating to millennials, and when she attempts, it seems very, very forced.
Before I start getting "sexist!" remarks flung my way, it has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. I would have the same exact remarks to say if it was a man.
With that being said, however, I don't necessarily fault her for it. Being in a field heavily dominated by men most of her life, I can only imagine the remarks flung her way to the point where it's almost ingrained that she has to act and behave a certain way. I was very cognizant of it during the debate, where it was a damned if she did/damned if she didn't scenario. If she snapped back at Trump, she would've been a "bitch." If she remained quiet, she was smiling too much. It's ridiculous.
Her diehard supporters make it extremely difficult though. Posting link after link and theses about why you MUST like her. Last time I checked, I don't have to personally like someone or think they're a genuine person in any instance of life, especially in a job - but if they are qualified and do the job well, that's above all else. Hence why I will be voting for her in November.
I don't "dislike" Hillary, but I'm not fond of her either. As others have said, I think she is very calculated and robotic. Whoever used the analogy saying she's like an alien from Mars trying to relate using human emotion hit it right on the head. Whenever she's giving speeches, nothing comes off as genuine. It seems very robotic-like and overly rehearsed; her cadence is very off-putting, like she knows what remarks she says is going to incite applause or cheers or laughter - it was really evident during the debate. I think she just has an extremely hard time relating to millennials, and when she attempts, it seems very, very forced.
Before I start getting "sexist!" remarks flung my way, it has absolutely nothing to do with her gender. I would have the same exact remarks to say if it was a man.
With that being said, however, I don't necessarily fault her for it. Being in a field heavily dominated by men most of her life, I can only imagine the remarks flung her way to the point where it's almost ingrained that she has to act and behave a certain way. I was very cognizant of it during the debate, where it was a damned if she did/damned if she didn't scenario. If she snapped back at Trump, she would've been a "bitch." If she remained quiet, she was smiling too much. It's ridiculous.
Her diehard supporters make it extremely difficult though. Posting link after link and theses about why you MUST like her. Last time I checked, I don't have to personally like someone or think they're a genuine person in any instance of life, especially in a job - but if they are qualified and do the job well, that's above all else. Hence why I will be voting for her in November.
Aaronology
Member
Look, I give you Sturgeon, but let's not pretend that European politicians are somehow more refined than their American counterparts in this regard. Recent events around the world and in your neck of the woods specifically should have disabused everyone of that notion.
The unquoted sections of your post I mostly agree with.
Heckler456
Banned
I don't think people are posting links to convince others to like her. I think they're posting links to point out that a lot of the reasons people use to base their dislike of her on are mostly bogus.
Audioboxer
Member
What does European politics have to do with what I said? You're engaging in the us vs them mentality again now knowing I'm in the EU and saying look Audioboxer your scathing remarks on America should be aimed at the EU as well!
They are! I just didn't see the need to disclaimer the post above with "by the way I feel this way about the EU/UK also!". You've clearly read my posts before, so how could you not know how I feel about the UK? The UKs political scene is a complete and utter mess as well. For similar reasons to America, but it's not 1:1. We do not have news channels hyping up some Person A vs Person B political debate like some popcorn and beer drinking event to scream/laugh at your TV. America is quite unique on that front, hence why I refer to it as the king of us vs them politics. I mean you might still disagree with that I suppose, but honestly living in the UK I don't bear witness to anything like the frenzy going on in America with headlines, news channels, memes, and so on. Not to mention the obscene amounts of money in American campaigning and an utter lack of campaigning restrictions such as us who have a limited window for political campaigning (like 7 weeks?). America seems to allow it to go on forever and for millions of dollars to get burned up on TV ads, marketing, debates and so on. I honestly think I'm quite justified in saying America takes the crown for turning politics into a sporting event.
In one sense what does it matter what the rich want to blow money on, but on a more sinister side it is without a doubt warping the minds of Americans. The viciousness and us vs them mentality displayed by many in your country around politics makes it an utterly depressing realm to try and have any discussion in without it resorting to screaming, shouting and name calling. On the money front though it is making it nigh impossible for regular high IQ qualified candidates to run for presidency. It's all million/billionaire business men and women. A great representation of regular American citizens for sure. I mean, don't you all have private jets in your back yards like Trump? Of course, sure, being involved in politics is going to pay you a good wage, but America takes the crown again for the amount of millionaires and ruthless business folks leading parties and wanting the sweet nectar of power being at the top gives out.
Just so it is clear as well my scathing remarks on your political system is pretty much exclusively aimed at the system, the elite and so forth. Not the American people. If anything I actually feel empathy for you folks. Also sincere concern as to be an 18~20 year old voter growing up with this political machine in play is clearly warping the minds of many. The amount of "make America great" or whatever Trumps headline caps I see on Uni campuses and behaviour that is akin to supporting a football team is utterly depressing. Many of your young minds who are suppose to be the future of America are engaging in a war of us vs them and "supporting a team". Politics when whittled down to that is nothing more than a game of exploitation, popularity and us vs them. Very little room for tackling and discussing serious global issues such as climate, terrorism and financial debt/poverty, and more so just screaming about what team you are on and "winning". Half the "kids" wearing these Trump hats probably don't have a fucking clue how to engage in a serious debate, and instead just scream and cheer and wave their hands like getting Trump to win is the actual ends and means of engaging in politics...
Are all these students frothing at the mouth racists? No, they aren't. To put it blunty a large portion of them are just fucking idiots treating politics like a sporting event, and some probably supporting a team because their parents told them to/their family does. Many seem to treat politics like it is an ideology, a religion. Some passed down family token to carry, or a bandwagon to blindly jump on because the friends they like are on it. Which makes you a fucking idiot. Like I said previously politics should be a fluid system for everyone, something you can be individualistic about, open to debate/change and ultimately try and get engaged in for the good of humanity on the whole. Not sinister personal gain. Cue the human disease though, of self serving and for many sheer arrogance/entitlement. However even reflecting back to those college kids no, not every single one of them is a frothing at the mouth self entitled and self serving asshole either. As always, there is diversity even within group-think, and that is one thing the far left seemingly cannot handle or take the time to consider right now. EVERYONE has to be tarred with the same brush if they are on the opposing side. Individualism is dead. I can empathise why many Americans are in such a frenzy to cry "racist! bigot! asshole! at the mere suggestion someone is voting for someone other than Hillary, but that can at times make you a fucking idiot as well for simply fueling the us vs them mentality. For now though, just keep Trump out of the White House and maybe after this joke of an election is over some more nuance can start to filter through to many people about the future of politics in America. We've got to hope it does anyway, or "God" help us what the next election and the one after it will be like.
I honest don't think it's too far fetched to in the dark recesses of ones mind ponder the possibility of another civil war in America one day if the political scene just continues to get worse after this election. You've certainly got the guns on the streets for it! This is just my thoughts spewed out loud with no real evidence to support them, but I honestly think American blood on blood is far more likely than some World War 3 just because Trump, or some other asshole like Trump down the line gets in the WH. These self serving business folks care about profits and business, and letting their big company friends drain every American dry not having the world come to an end in smoke and rubble. Even George Bush and co went to war on the basis of profiteering (oil/power) and believing there wouldn't be retaliation on a worldwide scale where we actually enter World War 3. Which is fucking disgusting on it's own merits, but it is not the same as a global war. Although the destabilization is leading to terrorism/retaliation of another kind. Just because ISIS don't have the wealth to invade countries on a global scale isn't stopping them sending small groups of individuals (or creating homegrown terrorism) to take the lives of tens/hundreds. Any life lost to terrorism is one too many, we don't need a global war to reach some point of outrage where it becomes an issue. It is an issue right now. Go ask the parents of anyone killed in the Orlando shooting how they feel.
Inferno313
Banned
People are posting links when the reason that someone dislikes her are bogus or false. As long as you're voting for her, we don't care if you like her or not. There are definitely things that I have concerns about when it comes to her, but she's far and away the most qualified candidate.
Aaronology
Member
This "Die hard supporters" stuff feels very similar to how any activist seems to get recieved by a general public.
People don't like feminists, not because they disagree with the message, but because they are so in their face about it. I've rarely, if ever, seen a feminist be truly in the face of someone else trying to convert them. 99% of the time, they're just pointing out facts that disprove commonly held biases.
There are points where it's less about personal hatred/dislike, but more about the pain in the ass of having to restructure fundamental perceptions. It's not fun to throw out everything you think you know, but with Hillary Clinton, one has to often forget everything they think they know about her to truly get a clearer picture. "Well, I know she's a liar" Nope, turns out she's one of the more honest politicians out there. "Well, she's never done anything for the black community" Here's this list of her working for civil rights all her life. "She only came out for gay support in 2013" She was the first lady to march for gay rights in 2000. "Emails!" Really not as big a scandal as you've heard. "Benghazi?" Seriously?
If you're not already well researched with Hillary, if you write up a list of things you think you know about her and give them to some kind of fact checker, most of them will be wrong just because of how her image has been poisoned over the years.
For that reason, it's worth being skeptical when someone comes in with a negative opinion of Hillary. I'm perfectly willing to admit her faults, only if their true, because my research has shown that she's not only one of the most capable politicians, but also one of the most ardent defenders of human rights in the world. She has her share of mistakes, but I think she would be as inspirational a politician as Obama if every negative thing about her wasn't magnified beyond all proportion. If you don't like her, that's fine, but it's worth making sure that the stuff you don't like her for actually has a basis in reality.
People don't like feminists, not because they disagree with the message, but because they are so in their face about it. I've rarely, if ever, seen a feminist be truly in the face of someone else trying to convert them. 99% of the time, they're just pointing out facts that disprove commonly held biases.
There are points where it's less about personal hatred/dislike, but more about the pain in the ass of having to restructure fundamental perceptions. It's not fun to throw out everything you think you know, but with Hillary Clinton, one has to often forget everything they think they know about her to truly get a clearer picture. "Well, I know she's a liar" Nope, turns out she's one of the more honest politicians out there. "Well, she's never done anything for the black community" Here's this list of her working for civil rights all her life. "She only came out for gay support in 2013" She was the first lady to march for gay rights in 2000. "Emails!" Really not as big a scandal as you've heard. "Benghazi?" Seriously?
If you're not already well researched with Hillary, if you write up a list of things you think you know about her and give them to some kind of fact checker, most of them will be wrong just because of how her image has been poisoned over the years.
For that reason, it's worth being skeptical when someone comes in with a negative opinion of Hillary. I'm perfectly willing to admit her faults, only if their true, because my research has shown that she's not only one of the most capable politicians, but also one of the most ardent defenders of human rights in the world. She has her share of mistakes, but I think she would be as inspirational a politician as Obama if every negative thing about her wasn't magnified beyond all proportion. If you don't like her, that's fine, but it's worth making sure that the stuff you don't like her for actually has a basis in reality.
I mean, I think people should take responsibility for preventing a white nationalist for becoming president by voting for the candidate that can beat him, who also happens to be extremely competent and prepared for the job. I don't think that's preposterous at all.
Obviously you have the right to vote for whoever you want. That's how democracy works. But other people have the right to criticize your choice and try to convince you to change it. That's also how democracy works! Both components are necessary for a functional system.
If you want to not vote for somebody because you "just don't like them" then sure, you've got the right. But this post seems like you expect not just to have the choice, but for people to support your choice. That's not a right! If you want people to support your choice, make a choice people support.
With Islam though, what candidate actually represents what Harris wants? Because you are right, Harris isn't racist and even Reza Aslan would say as much- but what Trump and other republicans are advocating for is not some intellectual criticism of the religion but rather an unfettered fear of its followers, who in the end are just people. There is no candidate right now, to my knowledge at least is actually protecting liberal, American values against Islam- its literally come down to if you think brown people should be allowed in the country or not. Once we move past this nonsense, then, maybe someday we can get into the nitty gritty.
You quoted HA Goodma . The biggest "progressive" Clinton hater and BernieBro that exist.
Girl, bye.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
bitbydeath said:
I see where bitbydeath is coming from, though the problem is we don't know what she was doing in an alternate timeline where Bill Clinton wasn't President. But I do find it harder to believe someone without such a connection and the national profile it gave her would have so successfully been able to move to New York and become the Democratic candidate for Senate instead of a local. Maybe in that alternate timeline she made herself a national figure some other way.superdeluxe said:
pathological liar
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pathological-liar
noun
1.
a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so.
Meanwhile, in reality:
STUDY SHOWS GOP CANDIDATES WHO LIE THE MOST, DO THE BEST
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/01/a-winning-gop-formula-lie-more-do-better/
Fact: Hillary Clinton Is One of America's Most Honest Politicians. Trump is one of the biggest liars
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/1/1555457/-Fact-Hillary-Clinton-Is-One-of-America-s-Most-Honest-Politicians-Trump-is-one-of-the-biggest-liars
Presenting Data Truthfully Using Charts
http://jem9.com/data-presentation-charts/
One Chart Addresses a Misconception About Hillary Clinton
http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty
Clinton's Fictional Trust Issue
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-29/how-media-fuel-the-narrative-that-clinton-isnt-honest-and-trustworthy
The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jun/29/fact-checking-2016-clinton-trump/
Hillary Clinton Is the Most Truthful Candidate in the 2016 Race
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-most-truthful-candidate/
A fact checker looked into 158 things Donald Trump said. 78 percent were false.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/donald-trump-has-been-wrong-way-more-often-than-all-the-other-2016-candidates-combined/
The Increasing Problem With the Misinformed
https://www.baekdal.com/analysis/the-increasing-problem-with-the-misinformed
Fuck data! I feel in in my gut brah, just like GWB felt it!
Its real to me!
Audioboxer
Member
None of them do, that is the problem. Hillary is far less offensive than Trump though. Far less.
Good immigration vetting and taking care of your countries population first, whilst still being humane and supporting refugees is a complex and messy situation. What it doesn't require is soundbite headlines and insanely crude and unrealistic promises like mass deportation. None of that nonsense is happening, and it wouldn't even if Trump gets in. Besides being almost impossible to carry out, and costing a fuck load of money, it's just not something worth the effort. What is worth the effort is being sensible about the future of your country (and it's values) and not being a fucking coward to talk about global ideologies because some far left news sites will call anyone a racist for merely discussing what reality is currently like. People are being killed because of ideologies and dangerous indoctrination. That is a fact and you can take your political correctness and shove it up your ass if you please, as as I said instead of whining in the comfort of your cosy home behind a PC go spend a few days with the parents of those shot in Orlando by a maniac who was flipped by homegrown terrorism which is like it or not influenced by Islamic doctrine. Or you know go jump on a plane and see how the homosexuals are enjoying life who get jailed and/or thrown off rooftops in certain countries. Or visit France lately. Or go see the women in many countries. Hitchens had it right. Educating and empowering women is one hell of a way to dismantle harmful ideologies. Instead we have women forced to dress like bin bags, have rights taken away and raped/passed around like absolute scum. Now #notallimigrants dabble in such behaviour, but like it or not sympathisers of such behaviour because they believe their doctrine supports it can be equally as damaging to your countries values. Go look at pew polls Muslims fill in about how they feel about homosexuals, women, or cartoonists who get shot because of mocking Islam. The figures are insanely high in favour of EMPATHISING with sharia law, or "they had it coming". That is a problem that is at least worth discussing because every country has a responsibility to care about assimilation and people wanting to come in and contribute to your society. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean you can largely believe whatever bat shit stuff you want to behind closed doors/in your home, but a country has to be vigilant in taking note of people who may not keep their potentially violent/discriminatory personal beliefs private. How does a country do that? Well it starts with open discussion without fear of the hard left policing language and crying wolf every bloody second someone is clearly trying to have a genuine conversation about Islamic doctrine. From there, well, we need to look to those who are suppose to be educated experts on immigration and security within the government. We have to hope people employed in such positions are experts, but who knows these days when Donald Trump is a presidential candidate. Open discussion is the one thing we can all get involved in though, even Joe Bloggs the plumber as discussion doesn't always have to be coming from educated elites. Discussion is where things/ideas start from, and then actions can follow. Skipping the "discussion" and going right to action is how assholes like Farage and Trump say stupid shit.
What Trump is trying to sell is a vague us vs them narrative to voters who instead of thinking with their head actually somehow believe mass deportation is a thing. We've just seen that kind of absolutely idiotic, moronic and downright deserving of the dunce cap behaviour in the UK. People actually thinking the topic of immigration is some easy one liner they can get behind and give someone a vote over (hai guyz Nigel Farage says immigrants bad, lets kick them out!!!111). It's the absolute height of human idiocy, and it isn't helped by asshole politicians knowingly lying, deceiving and feeding into voter ignorance for a quick vote to get their egos into power/money. Humans continue to prove time and time again they are thick as shit when it comes to actually being politically turned on and wise about issues which are at the height of complexity and requiring great care/time. Or at best, purposely ignorant because what is more important is to play the team game and support your parents handed down political party/the one your friends vote for. In other words giving up your own individualism and right of passage to be yourself in favour of group-think and wanting to be popular amongst family/friends. It's messy, it's at times something you can sympathise with when people can be genuinely ignorant, but ultimately really fucking bad politicians are continuing to get into power because people are either dumb, couldn't care less or purposefully ignorant.
Let me know when Trump actually sits down for some hour long complex discussions on immigration and how to balance it all, rather than just screaming about building walls or ban dat Islamic follower! I'll be six feet under, or more so Trump will be six feet under before anyone gets back to me on that. These (the candidates) are suppose to be the most qualified and intelligent potential leaders of an absolute super-power of a country and this is the best we get. Or more so, this is the best obscene amounts of money can buy. More so Trump there, as as Harris even recognises even if you don't like Hillary she is qualified. However she still gets criticised for being an icon of wealth, and being "just the next Clinton" going after the power. Which personally I don't think is ridiculous to say. I would rather see fresh faces in politics, than Bushes and Clinton's still being around and chasing power in their "70s". Still I'll say it one final time, keep Trump out America, then next you can hopefully do more about dismantling the current political scene in your country. I'm certainly trying to do it in my own country by campaigning to sever off the rotten corpse in London (via Scottish indepdence) which has consisted of the rich boys Eton Squad for far too long (best friends and wealth connoisseurs controlling and running politics, much like Bushes and Clinton's always trying to nose around in America). It's a bit of a micro scale compared to America, but don't tell them that, the boys in Westminster still think the UK is a super-power on the scale of America. It never was. We've always been Americas bitch (I say that offensively aimed at London, not at American citizens). On a related note unashamedly one thing I want to say is America take your nuclear weapons back, I don't want your missiles beached in Scotland and the obscene amounts of money we pay you for them. I heard Saudi Arabia is happy to continue with the arms sales you (and we, meaning the UK) kindly give them to kill people. Also, "InsertThatImageHereShowingUSExpenseOnMilitaryvsEducation/PublicServices.jpg". We're just as bad in the UK, except we cut traditional military budgets for troops/boats/etc in favour of said nuclear missiles. Gotta have dat nuclear deterrent bro.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked