• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Why do you dislike Hilary Clinton?

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Kowalski

Banned
Oct 31, 2013
30,087
1
555
among the creatures of the night

Wow that's terrible even for a first time.
 

soul creator

Member
Mar 31, 2006
17,053
3
1,380
www.soulcreator.com
For me personally, it's because I don't think her ideology and approach to policy (incrementalist tweaking, pushing "public-private" partnerships, arbitrary means-testing, American foreign policy exceptionalism, #imwithher rather than pushing for grassroots movements, etc.) would do enough to actually solve the root problems facing this country.

And if we're just speaking about pure optics and silly political horserace language, she's a terrible candidate by that standard. I always found it amusing that mainstream Democrats were going on and on about how Sanders saying something vaguely positive about Castro 30 years ago would have been a major scandal in a general election that would instantly doom us all to 8 years of Trump, but all the baggage (real or otherwise) that comes along with the Clintons would be no big deal at all ("people already know her!"). Even though all the evidence at the time (and the evidence now) has shown that to be false. And it seems like instead of just admitting that Clinton's baggage was always going to be a huge negative going into a general election where the electorate has mostly lost trust in the status quo (and there's nothing more status quo than a Clinton, lol), and figuring out ways to patch up those flaws, the mainstream of the Democratic Party would rather now just yell at people who don't immediately fall in line, and blame everyone else. And it's amusing when they yell at young voters, 3rd party voters, and non-voters about "privilege", when a large amount of those same groups are minorities and women. It's weird.

Her strength is quiet competence and a steady hand to keep the ship moving forward
the ship of American Empire, amirite?
. Which is fine, and will probably be enough to win the election, but I don't think it's surprising to say that there's a lot of people out there in 2016 that want a bit more than that.

For obvious reasons, she's better than pretty much any Republican, as is any mainstream Democrat (well, for some people. For a lot of the poor worldwide, they'll still be screwed just as they have been under any president or party), and of course she's an incredibly intelligent woman, but there's plenty of smart, intelligent, well-intentioned people who still support bad ideas that ultimately cause a lot of harm (see: the current president, or hell, even W.). And we've been doing the "but still, they're better than Republicans right?" thing for like 30 something years now, and while things have obviously improved in some ways, a lot of major problems have either stayed the same or have gotten worse. And depending on what issues an individual person prioritizes, that would affect their view of her or any other politician.

On a related note, none of this has anything to do with "purity" or whatever other strawman people usually bring up when someone doesn't like a mainstream Democrat. "Purity" is in the eye of the beholder. Democrats usually don't yell at people about "abortion rights purity" or "gun rights purity" because they know that's part of their base they need to win elections, even though that's no different about someone having purity about tuition-free college education or single-payer health care or any of the millions of issues that exist. Democrats often use "purity" arguments to punch anyone to the left of them, not because they somehow have a principled objection to the idea of purity. Literally every person has some issue that's of primary importance to them, so it's silly to criticize others for doing the exact same thing. If someone feels single-payer healthcare is the wrong policy for example, then just say that, rather than going on about "purity".
 

JustenP88

I earned 100 Gamerscore™ for collecting 300 widgets and thereby created Trump's America
Aug 25, 2014
5,769
0
0
I don't dislike her strongly but any dislike comes from reasons you could also attribute to 99.9% of politicians so, for me, it's less a "her" thing than it is a "them" thing.

Kinda specific "Hillary" things:

-This isn't necessarily her fault, but it irks me something fierce that, by 2024, it's likely that 16 of the past 24 years of Democratic presidents will have come from the same marriage. I don't feel that I even have to imply any nefarious behavior on the Clinton's part to get across why that's unsettling. In a country of 300+ million where we at least like to feign impartiality and the idea that votes truly matter, the odds should be astronomical that things could fall into place the way they have. Again, not her fault. Not saying she doesn't have sufficient merit for the job. I'd vote for her over any democratic or Republican nominee since my first election (2008), except for Obama.

-I'd like to see politicians on the left do more to differentiate themselves from the right in matters of national security/foreign military intervention. Yeah, she's better than whateverthefuck Trump and Pence would roll out. It just seems to me like she errs on the side of military action more than I'd like. However, I do recognize that I might be a bit naively "soft" on this issue. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started when I was a middle schooler and they haven't been much more than tremendous wastes of money and, of course, human life. Conflict in the middle east has been kinda THE story in our world for like 15 years now. I came into adulthood with this shit and I'd like to see things handled differently in the future.

-Republicans have industries they bow a bit too for fund-raising/single-issue-voter reasons (fossil fuels, guns) and I don't think it's too conspiratorial to think that Democrats acquiesce to banks/wall Street in a similar, admittedly less egregious, manner. I think the Clinton's are at the forefront of all this "third-way" stuff and I think this is a natural consequence.

-I think any liberal politician, that wants to have an opinion on race relations, needs to go hard against the war on drugs. If you're not doing so, you either have a weak grasp of the damage it has caused, or you have ulterior motives (pharma lobby, private prisons). I just don't think, at this point in history, there's any middle ground on this issue.
 

TheOfficeMut

Unconfirmed Member
Aug 21, 2014
6,664
0
0
The democratic party endorsed her over Bernie and they made sure Clinton was elected candidate, not a secret, a fact, also there is a long list of cons for Hillary to be POTUS, of course they don't seem that bad when you're competing against Donald Trump.

Mother flower. We, Hillary supporters, outvoted Bernie. But let's ignore that, right?

She has just flip flopped many times.

And of course she's been a politician for so long, and reached so many heights that you just know she owns more than a few favors. In short, she's a politician, do you trust politicians?

Oh yes, the good ol' "let's maintain an incorrect trajectory just for the sake of appearing infallible and full of STA-MI-NA."
 

Abounder

Banned
Jun 6, 2013
6,889
0
0

She's got terrible judgment and toxic charisma, plus carries the Clinton name who might as well be cousins of the Cosby's. From sniper fire to emails, Hillary has a Napoleon complex and really can't be trusted
 

Sirpopopop

Member
Jun 7, 2004
7,787
1
1,475
It's a shame Biden isn't running. It would be a slam dunk against Trump.

Much of what you anti-Hillary types pin on Hillary can be pinned on Biden.

Yet, you're perfectly ok with Biden.

You want to know why people might go hard on folks with your viewpoint. It's views like this...
 

Jakoo

Member
Jun 13, 2014
1,548
0
320
I find her hawkish stances in places like Libya a bad continuation of existing foreign policy blunders.

I also find her to be a bit pandering when it comes to her public persona (Exhibits A and B stand out).

That being said, I do believe her to be very knowledgeable on some pretty wonkish details on policy (I like this interview she did with Ezra Klein) and even if I disagree with her prescriptions, I at least trust that she understands issues on a level Trump cannot.

I'm not in love with her by any means but she's the only sane choice this election season.
 

Adam_Vania

Banned
Mar 19, 2016
2,265
1
0
Atlanta, GA
first this is not "a trend".

the reasons why people dislike her are many and they have been going on for decades due to her long career. they are listed out in this very thread many times over. to be asking this question at this point in the election you must be oblivious to the facts of her long and controversial career. if you can't understand why the Iraq War and war on terror stuff could be a dealbreaker for someone, you will forever be asking this question.

there are probably a thousands threads just like this all over the internet and they all repeat the same cycle:

someone will feign ignorance of the many controversial points of her career and say that oh people are just being manipulated into thinking this way.

then someone state point-by-point the many events over her career where she displayed in their opinion a poor judgement.

then we loop. someone else will feign ignorance, maybe spout something about the media being too hard on her (while she outspends all other candidates, sure) and nobody listens to anybody and everyone who thought Hillary haters are all idiots get to live in their nice safe bubble cos they don't have to confront the reality of who they are voting for, thanks to the distracting troll she brought along.

in the end it's down to personal preference. but fuck the trend of saying one side or the other is being manipulated. we are all being manipulated. everyone is entitled to their opinion. but the opinion that some people don't really believe what they say they believe is..... i don't know, probably unhealthy and anti-social.... maybe kind of paranoid
 

Sinfamy

Member
Jun 3, 2013
4,656
41
590
steamcommunity.com
What's the point of writing 3 nuanced paragraphs with details and examples on a website that shills for her constantly.
"Yea but Trump is worse" is probably a likely response.

I know, that doesn't excuse Clinton from criticism.
I'll be voting for her nonetheless because you have little right to complain when you didn't bother casting a vote.

I don't care about Clintons personal life, but on policy, she's said nothing about poverty, homelessness or given real concrete ways to fight the disparaging income inequality that exists because it would inconvenient for the people in her income bracket.
 
May 7, 2015
2,011
2
0
first this is not "a trend".

the reasons why people dislike her are many and they have been going on for decades due to her long career. they are listed out in this very thread many times over. to be asking this question at this point in the election you must be oblivious to the facts of her long and controversial career. if you can't understand why the Iraq War and war on terror stuff could be a dealbreaker for someone, you will forever be asking this question.

there are probably a thousands threads just like this all over the internet and they all repeat the same cycle:

someone will feign ignorance of the many controversial points of her career and say that oh people are just being manipulated into thinking this way.

then someone state point-by-point the many events over her career where she displayed in their opinion a poor judgement.

then we loop. someone else will feign ignorance, maybe spout something about the media being too hard on her (while she outspends all other candidates, sure) and nobody listens to anybody and everyone who thought Hillary haters are all idiots get to live in their nice safe bubble cos they don't have to confront the reality of who they are voting for, thanks to the distracting troll she brought along.

in the end it's down to personal preference. but fuck the trend of saying one side or the other is being manipulated. we are all being manipulated. everyone is entitled to their opinion. but the opinion that some people don't really believe what they say they believe is..... i don't know, probably unhealthy and anti-social.... maybe kind of paranoid

This.

Honestly Americans should vote for Clinton BUT keep in mind her poor judgements and ties. Thinking critically, acting and protesting, doing all these things will help keep the government in check when it comes to foreign policy. The president is a fairly weak executive when it comes to domestic affairs SO ALSO VOTE in state elections and such. Though ridings (are they called that in america?) are drawn up to favour republican candidates you can still make an impact.
 

4Tran

Member
Mar 10, 2013
4,319
0
0
Much of what you anti-Hillary types pin on Hillary can be pinned on Biden.

Yet, you're perfectly ok with Biden.

You want to know why people might go hard on folks with your viewpoint. It's views like this...
Biden hasn't been constantly attacked for the last two and a half decades. It's one of Clinton's main drawbacks, but since she's so tested, you can be sure that there's not a lot left for her to hide.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Jul 23, 2010
31,050
13
720
www.metal-archives.com
People criticizing her for staying with Bill genuinely piss me off.

First, you don't actually know that she stayed with him for career reasons or not, and there's no way you can possibly know that, so fuck right off. Second, even if it's true, so what? It doesn't inherently make her a bad person. If both partners are OK with how their relationship evolve, that's their business, and it's none of yours. Third, I wonder how many "pro family values" folks criticize her for... actually sticking with her marriage.

And lastly, it's really quite astonishing* that she gets more shit for having been cheated on, than Bill does for being the cheater.

* Not really all that astonishing I know. Ugh
 

bionic77

Member
Jun 7, 2004
58,286
1
0
I hate the idea of families or names in power.

But when the choice is between that (which is mild) or the second coming of Hitler I don't hesitate in deciding between the two like half of this shitty country.

People in this country act like it is a choice between coke and Pepsi when it is really a choice between soda and rat poison.
 

Dalibor68

Banned
May 7, 2016
2,011
2
0
And lastly, it's really quite astonishing* that she gets more shit for having been cheated on, than Bill does for being the cheater.

* Not really all that astonishing I know. Ugh

Bill isn't running for president, so why would people shit on him for that? (and yes, ofc there is a double standard in general)
 

SquirrelWide

Member
Mar 3, 2014
235
0
0
Thought about coming in with actual policy disagreements, but quickly realized the thread was more about the hyperbolic hate around her. It's because she's a woman.

Don't like her positions, but may end up holding my nose and picking her anyways because Maryland assigns electoral votes by plurality. My alternative has been leaving it blank, because I got tired of picking what I saw as the less bad option.
 

jmdajr

Member
Dec 12, 2006
59,009
1
0
I hate the idea of families or names in power.

But when the choice is between that (which is mild) or the second coming of Hitler I don't hesitate in deciding between the two like half of this shitty country.

People in this country act like it is a choice between coke and Pepsi when it is really a choice between soda and rat poison.

Diet Soda I hope. Sugar is poison too!

Vote for Hilary PLEASE.
 

Davilmar

Member
Aug 7, 2015
447
0
0
For me personally, it's because I don't think her ideology and approach to policy (incrementalist tweaking, pushing "public-private" partnerships, arbitrary means-testing, American foreign policy exceptionalism, #imwithher rather than pushing for grassroots movements, etc.) would do enough to actually solve the root problems facing this country.

And if we're just speaking about pure optics and silly political horserace language, she's a terrible candidate by that standard. I always found it amusing that mainstream Democrats were going on and on about how Sanders saying something vaguely positive about Castro 30 years ago would have been a major scandal in a general election that would instantly doom us all to 8 years of Trump, but all the baggage (real or otherwise) that comes along with the Clintons would be no big deal at all ("people already know her!"). Even though all the evidence at the time (and the evidence now) has shown that to be false. And it seems like instead of just admitting that Clinton's baggage was always going to be a huge negative going into a general election where the electorate has mostly lost trust in the status quo (and there's nothing more status quo than a Clinton, lol), and figuring out ways to patch up those flaws, the mainstream of the Democratic Party would rather now just yell at people who don't immediately fall in line, and blame everyone else. And it's amusing when they yell at young voters, 3rd party voters, and non-voters about "privilege", when a large amount of those same groups are minorities and women. It's weird.

Her strength is quiet competence and a steady hand to keep the ship moving forward
the ship of American Empire, amirite?
. Which is fine, and will probably be enough to win the election, but I don't think it's surprising to say that there's a lot of people out there in 2016 that want a bit more than that.

For obvious reasons, she's better than pretty much any Republican, as is any mainstream Democrat (well, for some people. For a lot of the poor worldwide, they'll still be screwed just as they have been under any president or party), and of course she's an incredibly intelligent woman, but there's plenty of smart, intelligent, well-intentioned people who still support bad ideas that ultimately cause a lot of harm (see: the current president, or hell, even W.). And we've been doing the "but still, they're better than Republicans right?" thing for like 30 something years now, and while things have obviously improved in some ways, a lot of major problems have either stayed the same or have gotten worse. And depending on what issues an individual person prioritizes, that would affect their view of her or any other politician.

On a related note, none of this has anything to do with "purity" or whatever other strawman people usually bring up when someone doesn't like a mainstream Democrat. "Purity" is in the eye of the beholder. Democrats usually don't yell at people about "abortion rights purity" or "gun rights purity" because they know that's part of their base they need to win elections, even though that's no different about someone having purity about tuition-free college education or single-payer health care or any of the millions of issues that exist. Democrats often use "purity" arguments to punch anyone to the left of them, not because they somehow have a principled objection to the idea of purity. Literally every person has some issue that's of primary importance to them, so it's silly to criticize others for doing the exact same thing. If someone feels single-payer healthcare is the wrong policy for example, then just say that, rather than going on about "purity".

You have basically summed my entire feelings about Hillary Clinton in a beautiful, fair and detailed manner that I couldn't. I applaud you. I especially want to point out the issue of Clinton not being in a position of making substantial changes. At best, Clinton is going to be a "technocratic pragmatism" that will fall short of the seismic changes needed. That isn't necessarily her fault, but Clinton has always been known more for reservation and caution that going against the tide. While that may be necessary given the horrific possibility of her Republican opponent, there isn't anything inspiring about that. I can't help but hold my own bias that Clinton is basically going to throw bread crumbs toward legislative reforms that won't upset her voting base, but ultimately gets minimal changes.

At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the status quo political system. It is undeniable, and that will be a far better alternative to the unhinged mentality of Trump and Christian conservatives. Her foreign policy still alarms me, and her penchant for always getting into ethical improprieties makes me roll my eyes. For whatever reason, Bill and Hillary Clinton continue to get into these self-inflicted controversies that make my blood boil.
 

commedieu

Banned
Jan 10, 2009
27,364
1
0
I don't like her. But she's qualified to be president. That bar isn't super high. I don't like the idea of constant war, but it's what our country does. Trump wouldn't change that. Neither did obama.

I don't like wealthy paying nothing. Trump won't change that. Neither will she. I don't like the police brutality, Hillary ain't going to do shit about that. But, having a more liberal supreme Court may help. I'm used to being robbed of dignity by every president. OBama included.

I don't like the idea of bigotry being a national theme. So she's the easy choice.
 

xxracerxx

Don't worry, I'll vouch for them.
Feb 24, 2009
45,604
3
0
Portland, OR
The problem is what's the "next TPP" that she gets wrong before getting right? It would be preferable to have people who were right to begin with, who can then more convincingly argue for the right things in the future.

I mean, do you expect any candidate for President to make the right choice all the time?
 

winjet81

Member
Apr 19, 2007
1,316
0
0
Much of what you anti-Hillary types pin on Hillary can be pinned on Biden.

Yet, you're perfectly ok with Biden.

You want to know why people might go hard on folks with your viewpoint. It's views like this...

Double-standard sexism has become Hillary's greatest enemy in this election. Even secure Democrats get lulled into this game.
 

Piecake

Member
Jun 11, 2004
16,157
0
0
count claude henri de saint simon spins violently in his grave

^ to above, i said that because her stance on foreign policy and big business. I really recommend people actually read the article I posted earlier. Hell I repost it https://theintercept.com/2016/03/13...-of-collaboration-with-gop-on-foreign-policy/

That article is trash. It is trying to paint a picture that the reason why Republican foreign policy advisers act backing Clinton not because Trump's foreign policy views are fucking stupid and insane, but that Clinton is basically a Republican, which is ridiculous. They are supporting her because Trump is nuts and Clinton is sane.

That NY Times article is ridiculous as well. Foreign policy neocons would vote for Clinton over Isolationist Rand Paul? Shocker!!! Well, Hilary must be a Neocon then!

So, we should have let Iraq invade and take over Kuwait?

Saddam was flouting WMD inspectors during the 90s and not fully cooperating. Should we have done nothing and let Saddam have those weapons? Weapons that he has previously used and has a previous history of invading other nations?

And the next logical step after that is another invasion? Like some grand plan conspiracy?

No doubt that she is more hawkish than Obama, but that does not make her a proponent of idealistic regime change and the belief that a good war can solve all problems.

In October 2002, Clinton joined 28 other Democratic senators in voting for war with Iraq. In her speech explaining her decision, she reiterated her support for the Iraq Liberation Act four years before.

It was “undisputed,” according to Clinton, that Iraq possessed “chemical and biological weapons,” and had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Moreover, she said, even if Iraq disarmed, the U.S. should continue a policy of regime change short of direct invasion

Where does the writer get this from. There is no doubt that Clinton supported the Iraq War and it turned out to be a gigantic mistake, but here is what she said in the speech.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

That does not sound like the rhetoric of a person who wanted war no matter what. Moreover, that certainly sounds different than Republicans. Does she have no problem using force if she thinks its in America's best interest? No doubt, but that isn't something that is limited to Republicans. And the differences between those two are very important. It simply isn't just a black and white thing of pro-war and anti-war.

As for the regime change policy that she advocated. That is just a change in political language for political purposes. If you take military invasion off the table, then what the fuck is the difference between policies that Bill Clinton had in place before 1998? If you take military invasion off the table, all you have left is inspections and sanctions.

The writer is trying to make this some sinister plot when it is just rather ridiculous.

Clinton would later acknowledge in her book Hard Choices that she “got it wrong,” but had “acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had.” In fact, she had not even bothered to read the classified version of the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. She had also refused to meet before her vote with Scott Ritter, a top U.N. weapons inspector in the 1990s – and, as a New York state resident, her constituent — to talk about the meager evidence that Iraq had banned weapons.

This is misleading. While it is certainly true that she admits that she did not read it, this article paints the picture that she was totally unaware of the intelligence data on it. In fact, she was briefed on it multiple times.

And business? Lol, okay. She is in favor of regulation and Republicans arent. How are they the same?
 

Demy

Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,992
0
565
Los Angeles
I still can't forgive what her campaign did to Bernie Sanders and his efforts. I was really hoping for a Sanders administration.
Was mostly indifferent with shades of "I don't like her for no reason" before the debate but she won me over as a bit of a fan after that, at least for this race.
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
She believes the rules don't apply to her. At least that's the impression she gives off. Trump does as well.
 
Aug 6, 2014
2,622
0
0
The Onion had an article "by her" that comes pretty close to the way I see her: If I Could Be Just Completely Honest For A Second, I Believe Exactly What You Believe

The problem is what's the "next TPP" that she gets wrong before getting right? It would be preferable to have people who were right to begin with, who can then more convincingly argue for the right things in the future.
This is amazing.
What's the point of writing 3 nuanced paragraphs with details and examples on a website that shills for her constantly.
"Yea but Trump is worse" is probably a likely response.

I know, that doesn't excuse Clinton from criticism.
I'll be voting for her nonetheless because you have little right to complain when you didn't bother casting a vote.

I don't care about Clintons personal life, but on policy, she's said nothing about poverty, homelessness or given real concrete ways to fight the disparaging income inequality that exists because it would inconvenient for the people in her income bracket.
Lol I know this feel. I posted my long post as to why I don't like her and I don't anyone even read it because I wasn't singing her praises.
 
Apr 18, 2014
3,949
4,524
930
Iraq war.

This.

1. Her foreign policy history is simply awful. One of my main reasons for disliking her.

2. She is incredibly secretive. Considering we're coming off of Obama's hugely failed promise of "transparent government" I'd really like to see that reverse direction. Very unlikely with Hillary.

3. I don't trust that she'll do the right thing if it's unpopular. Her history on same-sex marriage, for instance, doesn't instill confidence. The TPP situation is grey as well.

4. Her "contributions" to the prison-industrial complex in the past, including three strikes and her support of a lot of the crime policies in Bill's terms, do not make me happy.

5. She's not into space exploration and related technologies to the degree that I want. This is actually one of the main things I want in a candidate and I'm almost always disappointed.

6. She's old and out of touch with today's technological society.

7. She lacks any kind of charisma. Even when I agree with what she's saying I feel compelled to disagree or at best tune out. It's shallow but it's a real reaction, sorry.

8. Not a fan of political dynasties. I don't like that if (when) she's elected, 24 of my 36 years of life will have been under a Bush or a Clinton. Tired of the aristocracy.

9. Iraq War.

10. Patriot Act.

There's more but I'll stop here.

Well, all this too.
 

timetokill

Banned
Oct 19, 2004
32,837
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
1. Her foreign policy history is simply awful. One of my main reasons for disliking her.

2. She is incredibly secretive. Considering we're coming off of Obama's hugely failed promise of "transparent government" I'd really like to see that reverse direction. Very unlikely with Hillary.

3. I don't trust that she'll do the right thing if it's unpopular. Her history on same-sex marriage, for instance, doesn't instill confidence. The TPP situation is grey as well.

4. Her "contributions" to the prison-industrial complex in the past, including three strikes and her support of a lot of the crime policies in Bill's terms, do not make me happy.

5. She's not into space exploration and related technologies to the degree that I want. This is actually one of the main things I want in a candidate and I'm almost always disappointed.

6. She's old and out of touch with today's technological society.

7. She lacks any kind of charisma. Even when I agree with what she's saying I feel compelled to disagree or at best tune out. It's shallow but it's a real reaction, sorry.

8. Not a fan of political dynasties. I don't like that if (when) she's elected, 24 of my 36 years of life will have been under a Bush or a Clinton. Tired of the aristocracy.

9. Iraq War.

10. Patriot Act.

There's more but I'll stop here.
 

E92 M3

Member
Jun 15, 2013
26,667
2
500
1. Her foreign policy history is simply awful. One of my main reasons for disliking her.

2. She is incredibly secretive. Considering we're coming off of Obama's hugely failed promise of "transparent government" I'd really like to see that reverse direction. Very unlikely with Hillary.

3. I don't trust that she'll do the right thing if it's unpopular. Her history on same-sex marriage, for instance, doesn't instill confidence. The TPP situation is grey as well.

4. Her "contributions" to the prison-industrial complex in the past, including three strikes and her support of a lot of the crime policies in Bill's terms, do not make me happy.

5. She's not into space exploration and related technologies to the degree that I want. This is actually one of the main things I want in a candidate and I'm almost always disappointed.

6. She's old and out of touch with today's technological society.

7. She lacks any kind of charisma. Even when I agree with what she's saying I feel compelled to disagree or at best tune out. It's shallow but it's a real reaction, sorry.

8. Not a fan of political dynasties. I don't like that if (when) she's elected, 24 of my 36 years of life will have been under a Bush or a Clinton. Tired of the aristocracy.

9. Iraq War.

10. Patriot Act.

There's more but I'll stop here.

Yeah, I can net neutrality becoming a hot topic under here.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Probably the most manufactured candidate in history. Also, fuck political dynasties.

Manufactured? In what way? This feels like a thinly veiled attack on her clear ambition, which seems to only be an issue when the ambitious person has a vagina.
 

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Oct 14, 2010
66,821
1
0
Beaumont, TX
www.neogaf.com
Its crazy how disliked this woman is(for a variety of valid and/or shallow reasons), and that she can only win because she's going up against a Looney Tunes character. And maybe not even win by that big a margin.

What a bizarre political cycle this has been.
 

Eidan

Member
May 23, 2012
13,250
2
0
Its crazy how disliked this woman is(for a variety of valid and/or shallow reasons), and that she can only win because she's going up against a Looney Tunes character. And maybe not even win by that big a margin.

What a bizarre political cycle this has been.

Well the runner-up in the GOP primary was Ted Cruz, another insane cartoon character. I honestly think Clinton would be doing better against Cruz than Trump, if only because Cruz has a harder time co-opting Americans' love for politicians with no policy experience.
 

EightBitNate

Member
Mar 27, 2012
11,065
39
820
Manufactured? In what way? This feels like a thinly veiled attack on her clear ambition, which seems to only be an issue when the ambitious person has a vagina.



She's second probably only to Jeb. It all has to relate back to the political dynasties bullshit. What are the odds that the people best suited to run the country all happen to be related to each other? Has absolutely nothing to do with her vagina, and shame on you for accusing me of that.

Also, it's just like, why would I give a fuck if she was a woman? What a lame ass argument. Nothing I said had anything to do with sex. The more I think about your response, the more frustrated I get.
 

Leunam

Member
Dec 5, 2008
12,740
0
0
Houston, TX
She isn't Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren is more useful in her current position, this should be incredibly obvious. That people wanted her as VP as well to Clinton or Sanders is even more insane to me, as if those calling for it don't understand how toothless that post actually is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.