• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sibarraz

Banned
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
 

klonere

Banned
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.
 
How'd you feel about Clinton's involvement in the Swiss file transfer?

giphy.gif
 

Glix

Member
I dislike Clinton because she is bought and paid for, like the rest of 'em.

I'm still voting for her however.
 

Elbereth

Member
This is pretty much why I can't vote for her. I dislike her as a human being. Trump is far worse, but that doesn't mean that I can ethically give my vote to her just because she is less disgusting to me.

Well said my friend. I can't consciously vote for someone that I can't trust, and both candidates seem to be very untrustworthy.
 
Doesn't really answer to the concerns I have with her. She only changes her opinion when she's forced to by someone to the left of her.

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.
 
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.
 

Eidan

Member
What exactly are the ties to Wall Street? Quick google search says that she has received lots of donations from top banks over the clintons career in politics. But isn't that also just part of going through the system as a politician? The Clinton family has been a thing since 1992. They are gonna get donations

Are there other examples that paint the ties in a more sinister light? By your other points (career politician, Clinton family power) it seems like a lot of it is related to my first post: in politics for a very long time which I guess can be seen as a negative.

This is the first job I've seen where having too much experience is actually seen as a bad thing ha

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.
 

Future

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.

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
 

Daria

Member
Her plan to reschedule it to tier II would help corporations and big pharma wanting to get into being producers, but would do nothing to empower individual patients.

There needs to be focus on letting people grow their own plants in our laws, not just the right to buy corporately-produced cannabis at a huge markup.

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
 

Acorn

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.
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.
 
for authoring the forerunner of socialized medicine and falsly claiming that she was under sniper attack in bosnia. goldman sachs speeches, renting out linconl bedroom, whitewater, travelgate. brb thinking of more
 
I don't trust her. Pretty well documented to flip flop on issues, though she seems to be on the right path recently.

I'm still not voting for trump and never would so calm down guys.

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.
 

jmdajr

Member
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.
 

Red

Member
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.
 

Future

Member
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.

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.
 

inner-G

Banned
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

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/
 

Acorn

Member
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
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.
 

Red

Member
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.
 
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.

What?
 

Reckheim

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.

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.
 
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.
 

Acorn

Member
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.
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.
 
Sources for any of this?

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
She's always given off a vibe of being cold and calculating. Her husband cheated on her multiple times and she most likely stayed with him for the good of her political future (you can't tell me a powerful woman like Hillary wouldn't ditch Bill if he wasn't the president). I don't really have a problem with most of her policies, but she has never struck me as the kind of person I'd want to be friends with.
Urgh, fuck that shit

She's a joke. Compared to our Theresa May she's a school child crying because someone is bullying her. She's jumped on the anti Trump bandwagon along with everyone else, while she should be so much better than that.
Huh? None of this makes sense.

Because I don't trust her, but this is neogaf, most will ignore her shortcomings and think it's because she's a powerful woman. I'd still vote her over Trump that's for sure , but she's no Obama.
Then please list those shortcomings (beyond "she's not Obama", who is apparently perfect or something)? That's what this thread is for!

John Oliver actually covered it, among many other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI

HIllary wasn't involved, and 9 government agencies approved it.
You just know what won't make a difference though. "Clinton Foundation!" will be listed in this thread alongside "Emails! Benghazi!" etc.

How'd you feel about Clinton's involvement in the Swiss file transfer?
lol

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
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?

Is like the Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche analogy that South Park uses
No. No. It's really, really not.

she put too much into dexterity and endurance. was hoping for a stamina build
Joke's on you, raising your Endurance levels up your total stamina!
 
I don't mind Hillary, but her diehard supporters are very off-putting. There's this weird thing going on where if you're not 100% enamored by her, then you have some kind of nefarious agenda. It's like voting for her just isn't enough.
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.
 

MIMIC

Banned
Yes she was for the crime bill, but so were most leaders of the black community at the time. It was a bad decision in hindsight, but hindsight is 20-20. Yes she lies, but name a President who didn't lie regularly. etc.

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."
 

Red

Member
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.
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?
 

Acorn

Member
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?
Supporting mass incarceration, private prisons, iraq and many more.

Negatives to the above weren't a secret, black people getting fucked by crime bills wasn't an unknown.
 
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.

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.
 

Skyzard

Banned
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.
 

Acorn

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.
Not continually make those mistakes and stop responding to short termist public opinion vs long term good policy.

Lead not follow.
 

neoemonk

Member
She's a woman and people feel entitled to hate a woman just because she is one.

No other reasons needed.

Just like it was OK to hate Obama without even glancing over the issues. He is black, therefore it's OK to hate him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

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
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom