Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hillary?

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hillary?

#1 Post by Hype » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:45 pm

I can understand not finding her likeable, but I don't think that's a good reason to think she shouldn't be a presidential candidate. But it seems that a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum actively dislike Hillary Clinton to the point of not even thinking she's better than Trump (which she very clearly is by any objective standard).

Is it Benghazi? Or the email thing? (Really?!) Or is it... that she isn't Bernie Sanders? Or that she's willing to compromise? Or takes money from corporations? Or is it that she's a woman? Or that she stuck with Bill after Lewinski?

None of those seem like good reasons not to vote for her in this election... so what is it?

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#2 Post by SR » Sat Jul 30, 2016 2:04 pm

Fair q. I have spent far too much time arguing this via PM with friends lately.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#3 Post by mockbee » Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:26 pm

With the general american populace, I am going with the fact that she is a woman.

I think that speaks to the fact, as well, that people see her as wholly inauthentic. She knows she can't be perceived as a traditional woman, or as a woman with the attributes of a man or as a vocally progressive woman; so what's left?

It's critically unfortunate that generally people can't differentiate between the two options for president and the dichotomy of her situation.

I'm not saying that I like her, just we could do way, way, way worse.
:noclue:

User avatar
kv
Posts: 8743
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#4 Post by kv » Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:29 pm

She's not a man. She's a strong women. That scares the fuck out of some people. Mostly insecure dudes. Everything is a fucking high school popularity contest here. I don't get why you have to like the most qualified to vote for them.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#5 Post by mockbee » Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:47 pm

I am most interested in why a lot women really don't like her.

Is it the same reasons that men don't? That she is a woman?
:hs:

I get what hype is saying, it's fine if you think she doesn't have likable qualities or her positions are centrist, but why the rage?

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#6 Post by chaos » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:59 pm

I don't understand it either. I have never not liked her. I think the partisan bullshit is ramping up even more since she is a woman.

I guess most men are pigs. (I'M KIDDING!!) :lol:

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#7 Post by Matz » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:06 pm

maybe some people think the Clintons have had their 8 year moment in the sun already and it's enough :noclue:

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#8 Post by chaos » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:11 pm

Yeah, but the larger issue is whether Trump should have ANY time in the sun. (I mean that both figuratively and literally. :lol: )

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2963
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#9 Post by Bandit72 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:38 pm

Is it something to do with her husband? Serious question.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#10 Post by Larry B. » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:07 pm

Is this thread a serious question?

She's a criminal. I thought this was common knowledge. She's not just "not likeable", she has committed numerous crimes.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#11 Post by Hype » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:31 pm

I don't recall her being convicted of any crimes... :neutral:

MYXYLPLYX
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#12 Post by MYXYLPLYX » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:04 pm

I saw a meme that said something to the effect that "Hillary is everything that's wrong with our government, and Trump is everything that's wrong with our culture."

Like all memes it's fatally simplistic, but I think it touches on the legitimate criticism of Hillary - she is the consummate politician.

The average person (ugh :eyes: ) finds politicians to be completely reprehensible in all the cliche ways ("They aint like us honest, hard working folks!")


Hillary has lived a life of politics with an eye towards the Presidency, with all the attendant compromising, deal brokering, craven fundraising, public equivocation, and ethical hair splitting that comes with our political system...


She never would have made it this far if she didn't do all that despicable stuff, but now that she has she carries an indelible taint for doing so. It's a lame catch 22, and provides handy cover for her enemies to pillory her for essentially doing what everyone else has done, but with less scrutiny.


:noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#13 Post by Hype » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:13 pm

MYXYLPLYX wrote:I saw a meme that said something to the effect that "Hillary is everything that's wrong with our government, and Trump is everything that's wrong with our culture."

Like all memes it's fatally simplistic, but I think it touches on the legitimate criticism of Hillary - she is the consummate politician.

The average person (ugh :eyes: ) finds politicians to be completely reprehensible in all the cliche ways ("They aint like us honest, hard working folks!")


Hillary has lived a life of politics with an eye towards the Presidency, with all the attendant compromising, deal brokering, craven fundraising, public equivocation, and ethical hair splitting that comes with our political system...


She never would have made it this far if she didn't do all that despicable stuff, but now that she has she carries an indelible taint for doing so. It's a lame catch 22, and provides handy cover for her enemies to pillory her for essentially doing what everyone else has done, but with less scrutiny.


:noclue:
This is a nice sophisticated way of explaining that she's a career politician, but this is true of a lot of people that aren't so openly and angrily disliked. It also doesn't quite explain why people like Larry (or people who, you know, actually live in the United States and pay attention, or at least lived through her being FLOTUS and NY Sen.) call her a "criminal". Does this just mean "politician"? Really? So... is this an indictment of Hillary or of politics? If it's an indictment of politics then why should anyone give a shit what you think?

I'm a pretty far left-wing thinker, I think, but I don't understand or have much patience for the tendency of people with strong positions to end up adopting an all-or-nothing mentality. The libertarians do this with governance, and it seems that a certain kind of social-democrat type (generally young, generally somewhat educated, but probably not more than a masters degree) tends to adopt the same view, more or less, but with an eye to replacing the existing system tout court with their own skewed vision of what's "better" (as if there could be a single fact of the matter about an entire system...) I don't know if that's the kind of thing bouncing around in Larry's skull, but I think it's a pretty accurate depiction of something I've seen in a lot of people on college campuses. Don't get it. :noclue:

User avatar
Artemis
Posts: 10344
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#14 Post by Artemis » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:39 pm

The problem is the perception people have of Hillary. As you pointed out, she has never been convicted of any crimes but the "criminal" label has stuck with her. It's tough to rebrand that. During the RNC a big effort was made to make her seem more empathetic, softer, more feminine. I guess people- men and women- still have a problem with ambitious and career driven women. People think she's arrogant and entitled because she's confidant and outspoken. So what though? She's well educated, experienced and competent for the job of president, imo. I agree with what Matz and Bandit said about the association with Bill and the 8 Clinton years already served.
I also agree with kv that it's all about the image. Hillary is like a product that can no longer be revamped and repackaged no matter how good it may be.

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#15 Post by Angry Canine » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:07 pm

Artemis wrote:The problem is the perception people have of Hillary. As you pointed out, she has never been convicted of any crimes but the "criminal" label has stuck with her. It's tough to rebrand that. During the RNC a big effort was made to make her seem more empathetic, softer, more feminine. I guess people- men and women- still have a problem with ambitious and career driven women. People think she's arrogant and entitled because she's confidant and outspoken. So what though? She's well educated, experienced and competent for the job of president, imo. I agree with what Matz and Bandit said about the association with Bill and the 8 Clinton years already served.
I also agree with kv that it's all about the image. Hillary is like a product that can no longer be revamped and repackaged no matter how good it may be.

There's just been so many sketchy things happen around her. There just doesn't seem like there couldn't be any way that something shouldn't.

She's also not just confident and outspoken, she's just always, from hitting national politics, to now, acted like it is her god-given birthright to be the first woman president. That' s about as arrogant and entitled as it gets.

And it's pretty insulting that not wanting to vote for her is allegedly nothing other than misogynistic. The candidate I wish I could be voting for is Elizabeth Warren. She would appear to be a woman as well.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#16 Post by Hype » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:19 pm

Not wanting to vote for a candidate is totally different from actively disliking them, or thinking they're "bad" in some factual way. The latter is all I was asking about.

I like Warren quite a lot, though I suspect she's right that she can do more good where she is rather than as prez/vp.

I agree with the worry about political dynasties, esp. after 8 yrs of Clinton and 12 years of Bush in the last 28 years. But I don't think that's a reason to dislike Hillary Clinton as a person or as a political candidate (it seems more like a flimsy excuse to attempt to justify unjustified dislike). Even if this is an absolute dud of an election year, it still seems like the actual choice is pretty obvious, and that Clinton isn't likely to be much worse than Obama, who, despite many great things, is pretty much a standard Clinton-esque centrist Democrat, not a progressive, and that doesn't seem like a reason to dislike Obama. He and Clinton have a point about "getting things done". There's a good article on Vox about this -- and the politics of opposition that also helps push these democrat centrists to be more progressive: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12322862/h ... on-protest

There's also an interesting Vox article about the dynastic aspect: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/28/12319508/h ... on-dynasty

I think I'm still unclear about what exactly could justify the amount of hate Hillary gets... There's a video from her 1996 speech (her first ever major one) where the commentators even point it out, before she's even said a word (because of an insanely long ovation...):

MYXYLPLYX
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#17 Post by MYXYLPLYX » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:06 pm

I believe a lot of it began early during Bill's Presidency when he put her in charge of healthcare reform.


The idea of a First Lady being involved in policy really seemed to strike a nerve with the establishment and she was savaged beyond belief.

It was after that period that all the Vince Foster and Whitewater and Rose law firm stuff began to circulate.

I think she became the proxy for Bill's enemies to attack instead of the very popular President himself. That she was a woman thrust in to their midst as their peer seemed to really ratchet up their bile...

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#18 Post by Larry B. » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:07 am

Hype wrote:I don't recall her being convicted of any crimes... :neutral:
Oh, so this isn't a serious conversation then.

I don't recall Hitler being convicted of any crimes either. Or Bush. Or Pinochet.

Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion.

Hillary hasn't been convicted, but that doesn't make it any less of a criminal.


User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#20 Post by nausearockpig » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:32 am

I guess these are (exaggerated? ) points that people go to to say she's a crim.
http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom ... t-hillary/

clickie
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#21 Post by clickie » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:47 am

She's been cleared of all crimes, even by the republicans. None of its been proven.

I'd say a lot of people dislike her because they feel she's hollow and lacks moral character.

This is the ultimate election of "anybody but the other guy"

The only thing left to sway anyones opinion on these two candidates are the debates.

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#22 Post by SR » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:11 am

I think that Hill is a victim of her 90's past, already spoken about here, but also the fuckwit fallout and the Obama years.

Middle Merica couldn't stand the idea that the three headed monster should have been tried for war crimes. Calls for her incarceration are sandbox social replies to that. And the venom towards Obama that is racist in nature isn't far from the misogynistic hate thrown her way by the exact same people.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#23 Post by chaos » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:11 am

nausearockpig wrote:I'm not sure this will help
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-th ... 2016-02-04
:lol:

Some of the highlights from the piece NP posted:
1. When she was first lady, she murdered White House lawyer Vince Foster and then dumped his body in a park.

2. She drove Vince Foster to commit suicide through her temper tantrums.

12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.

24. When she was first lady of Arkansas, she pandered to conservative voters by dyeing her hair.

25. Before that, she totally insulted them by refusing to.

38. By cleverly hiding all evidence of her crimes in the Whitewater affair, she caused Congress to waste all that taxpayers’ money.

39. When she ran for senator of New York, she was still a fan of the Chicago Cubs.

57. She insulted Tammy Wynette.

clickie
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#24 Post by clickie » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:23 am

Hey, in nausea's defense he did give a disclaimer beforehand that some of those might be exaggerated.

User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#25 Post by chaos » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:30 am

Yeah, for the 2nd piece. He posted two different pieces. Both are humorous.

Post Reply