John Kowalski
Banned
Wow that's terrible even for a first time.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Call Trump a lot of things but you can't call him a liar.
you have little right to complain when you didn't bother casting a vote.
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
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.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...
Amateur.Wow that's terrible even for a first time.
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
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.
Then OP wasn't calling you to answer.
"Hey guys, who likes bacon?"
"I'M A VEGETARIAN"
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. 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.the ship of American Empire, amirite?
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".
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.freeofgreed said:Then what is your issue? She is opposed to it....
Voting for Trump now.
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?
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...
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/
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
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.
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 CIAs 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 amazing.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.
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.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.
yes a little right called the first amendment.
Iraq war.
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.
She lies! Call Trump a lot of things but you can't call him a liar.
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.
Probably the most manufactured candidate in history. Also, fuck political dynasties.
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.
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 isn't Elizabeth Warren.
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...