Author Topic: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?  (Read 69807 times)

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« on: July 31, 2016, 12:10:41 PM »
I keep seeing and hearing about how we have two terrible presidential nominees. They are terrible choices. They are both the worst (literally the most unpopular nominees ever). The case against Trump is incredibly obvious. But is Clinton really that bad compared to other standard politicians? I feel like people are way overstating how objectionable she is. She wasn't my first (or second) choice. And also wasn't my choice in 2008. But I'm not worried about the country getting massively worse as a result of her being elected.

Some of her negatives that I hear people talk about:

She put up with Bill's cheating. Let's set aside how it's any business of yours how 2 adults navigate their own marriage. How is being cheated on and working through it worse than people who actually do the cheating? Like so many of the House Republicans who were literally cheating on their wives during the impeachment episode (or abused minors).

She took a lot of money for speeches while she was a private citizen. I think this was incredibly stupid given that she was planning to run for president. She definitely has some hubris. But more hubris than Bush invading Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11)? No. The role that big money from rich corporations plays in American politics is a travesty. And the revolving door between government and industry is sickening. But was she uniquely bad? Nowhere near it. Paulson went from running Goldman Sachs to being Secretary of the Treasury. Where he happened to provide a lot of taxpayer money to GS (where he also had over half a billion dollars of his own money invested). A huge number of congressmen and senators go from office to lobbying and vice versa (In Indiana this year, senator turned lobbyist turned senator again [if Bayh wins] will be running to replace senator turned lobbyist turned senator Coats). It's the same with many other positions (the head of the SEC used to be a lawyer for firms that she now regulates). It's the rule and not the exception. How is she worse than the typical political figure?

She takes campaign money from XYZ. Every congressman and senator (with very rare exceptions) spends many hours each day calling up those same people and asking them for money (with some different propensities--different industries donate more to different parties). The money in politics is a terrible situation. But she's no worse than anyone else participating in that system.

She is politically calculating and poll tested. Yes. Like every other politician (with very rare exceptions). Every politician has pollsters and people advising them on how to talk about issues and what positions to take. And the politician usually just reads from a literal script handed to them by the party. The Republicans are amazingly disciplined in this respect. The memo gets circulated and they will all go on TV and literally use the same exact phrases in interview after interview. Conservative media then echoes the same talking points. The Democrats do this too, but are much less organized about it. Politicians change their positions based on polls. Obama was in favor of gay marriage in the 90s (and in writing about it) and then was "against it" as he became a national politician until public opinion had shifted significantly in favor of it and then he changed his position too. Just like she did. George HW Bush was privately pro choice but decided to be publicly anti choice for politics. It's what politicians do. How is she any worse in this respect than anyone else?

Let's say you are a conservative. Then you probably don't agree with some of her policy positions (although it's probably not as many as you'd imagine since she's pretty moderate on a lot of issues). She's actually fairly moderate and mainstream from the Democratic side of the aisle. But how is she uniquely terrible compared to any other average Democrat?

So what's so bad about Hillary Clinton (that you couldn't say about pretty much everyone else who is in national politics)?

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1549
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2016, 01:26:04 PM »
I think you make some decent points and ask some fair questions. I agree with you abut Bill's cheating...who cares, in the context of this election?

For me, Hillary personifies everything that's wrong with politics. She's sneaky about some of it (and she's been caught red-handed with some of it), and blatant about the rest. She's a brilliantly manipulative, calculating liar who will say and/or do anything to get what she wants, and that (what she wants), to me, is power. I do not feel that she'll use this power for my benefit. (I mean, really, I can't tell you the last time I felt like any politician was truly working for "the people.")

My one wish for this election was no Bushes and no Clintons. (Maybe that's two wishes.)  I just can't fathom having to see and hear more and more and more of Hillary for four or eight years. (I'm not saying Trump is any better, but that's not what you asked.)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2016, 02:10:13 PM by Miss Piggy »

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2016, 02:10:28 PM »
For me, Hillary personifies everything that's wrong with politics. She's sneaky about some of it (and she's been caught red-handed with some of it), and blatant about the rest. She's a brilliant, manipulative, calculating liar who will say and/or do anything to get what she wants, and that (what she wants), to me, is power. I do not feel that she'll use this power for my benefit.

Pretty much everyone who runs for president is doing so to gain power. The difference is what they want to do with it. Some have a policy agenda they'd like to push, and that is what drives them. Others just want to be in power. I think most major candidates tend towards the latter (which is where you put Clinton). And even most of those who are in the former camp will set aside whatever their agenda was in order to get and retain that power. So in the end they are all essentially in that latter group.

Trump is running to fluff his ego and promote his brand. Cruz was told from a young age that he was the Chosen One. Cristie wants power. Jeb was running because it was the thing you do in that family. George W ran because he wanted to be like his dad but without his dad's mistakes. Carson ran to promote his book tour. Jim Webb ran briefly because he thought it would be cool to be president. Probably the same for O'Malley. Kerry also. Obama was personally ambitious, but also thought he could transform Washington and probably also thought that being the first black president would be an important accomplishment for himself and the nation. Bill Clinton was both personally ambitious and loved power, and loved being loved, but he also had a policy agenda and loved the game of getting his agenda through to some extent.

Really, the only exception that I've seen is Bernie Sanders. He's solidly in that group of having a policy agenda his whole life and being focused on getting it done however he can. Even when that costs him elections and friends. I think that's one of the main things that made him so appealing to people including a lot of non-Democrats.

(I mean, really, I can't tell you the last time I felt like any politician was truly working for "the people.")

I think Bernie Sanders was fully working for "the people" as he saw it. He didn't want any personal advancement--it was for his policy agenda. He refused the various personal benefits that people usually ask for in exchange for quitting the race and supporting their opponent. Instead he pushed for the party to change its platform and for Clinton to change her positions.

I don't remember Carter in office. But everything he's done after leaving office (along with learning some about his time in office) makes me believe he was working for "the people" as he saw it.

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2016, 05:11:47 PM »
Quote
So what's so bad about Hillary Clinton (that you couldn't say about pretty much everyone else who is in national politics)?
I think that's the problem.
Hey so she's corrupt/mendacious/unscrupulous/elitist/in the pay of big X - "but that's politics". Is hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy.
 
Although historically people who get into office for the money/prestige/vanity do less damage than those who have "an idea".
 

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2016, 06:49:53 PM »
Quote
So what's so bad about Hillary Clinton (that you couldn't say about pretty much everyone else who is in national politics)?
I think that's the problem.
Hey so she's corrupt/mendacious/unscrupulous/elitist/in the pay of big X - "but that's politics". Is hardly a ringing endorsement of democracy.
 
Although historically people who get into office for the money/prestige/vanity do less damage than those who have "an idea".
 

But that's my point. If she's so "typical" then why are people going on with such great hyperbole about what a disaster it is to choose between her and an unelectable buffoon? I can totally see not being excited about her. But if she's essentially indistinguishable in those ways from Mitt Romney and John McCain and the Bush brothers, then why all the over-the-top hate?

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2016, 06:57:49 PM »
I think it's because main stream republicans realize they have a disaster of a candidate, so their only hope is to make HRC candidacy look as bad as theirs. Kind of like a bunch of crabs pulling on each others' legs in a bucket. It's just easier because of her long time in national politics, and her penchant for dumb paranoia-driven decisions.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2016, 08:06:06 PM »
I think it's because main stream republicans realize they have a disaster of a candidate, so their only hope is to make HRC candidacy look as bad as theirs. Kind of like a bunch of crabs pulling on each others' legs in a bucket. It's just easier because of her long time in national politics, and her penchant for dumb paranoia-driven decisions.

Could be. They've also been demagoging and demonizing her for 25 years. I think a lot of people just believe the propaganda. It's been pretty insane. Like there's a list of all the people that the Clintons have supposedly murdered over the years (including some close friends). And Hillary is secretly a lesbian.

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2015
  • Age: 43
  • Location: La.
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2016, 08:23:35 PM »
I'm bothered by how she handled Benghazi among other things (many).  No one feels she is at least partly responsible for allowing people to be killed there?

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2016, 08:53:18 PM »
She seems to love war.
She wants to greatly raise taxes.

Shane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1665
  • Location: Midtown
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2016, 09:07:20 PM »
But that's my point. If she's so "typical" then why are people going on with such great hyperbole about what a disaster it is to choose between her and an unelectable buffoon? I can totally see not being excited about her. But if she's essentially indistinguishable in those ways from Mitt Romney and John McCain and the Bush brothers, then why all the over-the-top hate?

Maybe because she's a woman?

Men who strive for promotions and powerful positions are generally respected in our society. We call them "ambitious."

Aggressive, power seeking women are often referred to as "bitches."

I'm not sure that that's the reason, but the vehemence of the hatred directed towards HC doesn't match up with anything she's actually done, IMO.

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2016, 10:01:18 PM »
Could be. They've also been demagoging and demonizing her for 25 years. I think a lot of people just believe the propaganda. It's been pretty insane. Like there's a list of all the people that the Clintons have supposedly murdered over the years (including some close friends). And Hillary is secretly a lesbian.

But 8 years ago they were claiming that Obama was a muslim terrorist communist born in Kenya and secretly inserted in an Hawaii hospital as a baby by a conspiracy of Jewish bankers in the pay of the KGB - it's just the standard level of intellectual debate in politics today.

woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2016, 10:40:39 PM »
For me personally, it's because I feel like she lacks any sort of integrity. One of the reasons I voted for Obama and Bernie over her is because of their record of fighting for civil rights all of their lives, and their anti-war stance. Hillary was against gay marriage forever until it was political suicide not to be, and then she flipped. Same with the TPP and fracking, and she's still not 100% on either issue. She voted for the Iraq war and backtracked afterwards. I simply don't trust her to do anything she says she's going to do unless it's for her own personal and political gain. It's to a level I find disgusting, and I am glad I don't live in a swing state where I might have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. 

lr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2016, 11:41:50 PM »
...How is she worse than the typical political figure?...But she's no worse than anyone else participating in that system... How is she any worse in this respect than anyone else?...So what's so bad about Hillary Clinton (that you couldn't say about pretty much everyone else who is in national politics)?

Your post makes our abysmal standards for leadership so vivid that I want to barf.  Maybe that's the problem?

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #13 on: August 01, 2016, 05:46:02 AM »
I think this is an excellent question, forummm.  The answer, I think, is "nothing".  Nothing is uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton, and I have no idea why people are behaving as though she's one of the worst candidates ever.  She's not. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #14 on: August 01, 2016, 07:30:31 AM »
I like the way you worded the question.  What is it uniquely about her that makes her unlikeable to the general public?

1) Lack of integrity -  Honestly, I am still parsing this one out in my brain.  It is really hard to know how much of this is her, and how much of this is slander, but I do think it is some of both.  Her changing positions on issues doesn't bother me, because in each instance, her original position was understandable in the context of history.  I also don't think changing one's mind based on new information is a weakness.  It is the lying when accused of something and then backtracking that is harder to forgive.  Again though, perhaps she believes that if she had immediately told the truth, she would be in worse shape.   Again, though, like you said, other politicians have lied and backtracked and still manage to survive.  Why not her?
2) Lack of aspirational political skill - She doesn't have soaring oratory, or a grand vision.  Obama had the "hope and change" rhetoric.  She is more of a workhorse and a transactional politician, and that type of politics has a negative spin. 
3) Gender and our style of electing presidents - Our election process really is tailored and highlights typical male traits and leadership styles.  It isn't a coincidence that parliamentary style governments tend to have more women in leadership positions.  The gender card is disheartening.  I had a conversation with my MIL and when I highlighted some of the things she has done in her life, her response was "Why does she sound so angry all the time?" 

The media coverage of her is truly overwhelmingly negative, and I was actually very surprised during the convention to hear about many of the positive things she has done in her career, because it has been so overshadowed by the coverage of scandals and her husband's actions.  I honestly had no idea that she helped pass disability education legislation in my state, and that is something that as a mother of an autistic son directly benefits me. 


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2016, 07:36:45 AM »
I was thinking about this on my drive in this morning.  My chief complaint with her is that she seems to have a lot of naked ambition, and will run roughshod over whomever, and say anything and everything and flip positions on a whim in order to get elected. 

However, she's hardly unique in that respect.  So that brings me to why it's HER that I dislike in particular.  And I honestly asked myself if it's different because she's a woman.  I sincerely believe it's not.  I have a lot of strong women in my life (wife with a career, daughter, mother with a successful career, CEO at work, etc) and I admire and respect and support them all. 

No, what I think the difference is with Hillary is that she's very political and she's been doing it in the public eye for 25 years.  For most of us, most Presidential candidates come out of more or less nowhere every 4-8 years.  Yeah, they're senators or governors or whatever, but for the most part unless you're in their district, you likely haven't heard of them unless you're a politics junky.  Think of recent ones, prior to the election: 

-Rubio: who?
-Carson: who?
-Fiorina: that lady from HP?
-Bush: yeah, knew him, and he didn't go far
-Cruz: he's popped up in the last few years, but a relative newbie.
-Sanders: he's somewhat famous as an Independent in Congress but did you know much about him before this?

-Romney: Who?
-Obama prior to 2008: who?
-Gore: didn't know of him before he was Bill's VP
-Bill Clinton: Never heard of him before he ran in '92

Then you have Hillary, who has basically had this huge amount of ambition in the public spotlight for the past 25ish years.  Even if some guy like Cruz or Obama has been scheming since college, we didn't hear much about him until he was basically in the race; versus Hillary we've had to see her plot and position and adjust and readjust in the public spotlight, and it just makes it seem so much fake and dirtier, you know? 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2016, 07:41:27 AM »
1) Lack of integrity -  Honestly, I am still parsing this one out in my brain.  It is really hard to know how much of this is her, and how much of this is slander, but I do think it is some of both.  Her changing positions on issues doesn't bother me, because in each instance, her original position was understandable in the context of history.  I also don't think changing one's mind based on new information is a weakness.  It is the lying when accused of something and then backtracking that is harder to forgive.  Again though, perhaps she believes that if she had immediately told the truth, she would be in worse shape.   Again, though, like you said, other politicians have lied and backtracked and still manage to survive.  Why not her?

I think what's so tough about Hillary's changing of position is that she A) always seems to wait and weigh the politics and jump trains at the last possible second, and B) then try and rewrite history as if she was always on that side and you're just smearing her if you claim she wasn't.  The gay marriage thing is the most egregious; I get why she was against it and I get why she's now for it, and that's fine.  And if she could just say "I re-evaluated my position and I was wrong and I decided to try and right that by being a champion for gay causes" it would be fine, but instead she has to insist she was always for gay causes and how dare you suggest otherwise, it is laughably untrue, dishonest, and transparently political.  That's what makes it unprincipled, it is always a calculated political play, it never comes across that "I changed my mind because I believe it was the right thing to do."

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2016, 07:51:37 AM »
For me personally, it's because I feel like she lacks any sort of integrity. One of the reasons I voted for Obama and Bernie over her is because of their record of fighting for civil rights all of their lives, and their anti-war stance. Hillary was against gay marriage forever until it was political suicide not to be, and then she flipped. Same with the TPP and fracking, and she's still not 100% on either issue. She voted for the Iraq war and backtracked afterwards. I simply don't trust her to do anything she says she's going to do unless it's for her own personal and political gain. It's to a level I find disgusting, and I am glad I don't live in a swing state where I might have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I always find stances like this amusing.  On the one hand, people say that politicians don't listen "to the people", and that "our voices are not heard".  But then you have Hillary consistently changing her position based on what the people tell her (via polls) and then everyone bitches that she has no integrity?  So which is it?  Do you want integrity, or someone that listens to you and changes their positions based on your input? 

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2016, 07:58:09 AM »

No, what I think the difference is with Hillary is that she's very political and she's been doing it in the public eye for 25 years.  For most of us, most Presidential candidates come out of more or less nowhere every 4-8 years.  Yeah, they're senators or governors or whatever, but for the most part unless you're in their district, you likely haven't heard of them unless you're a politics junky. 

I think you hit the nail on the head with this. I'm basically a lifelong super liberal but I just haven't liked her.

I've done a lot of soul searching on her and my reaction to her this election season and I've come to realize that my entire life I've never heard anything nice about her. When I was kid and Clinton was president there was a lot of talk about her overstepping her bounds as first lady (health care reform and all that), and then she took him back after Monica (what self respecting feminist would do that?!), and then made a "calculated" move to new york to run for senate and everyone was p*ssed about that etc, etc. etc.

With all of that in the background my whole life I totally developed a negative reaction to her. I am sure I am not alone in that reaction.

I'd love to see an analysis of of 25 years of press on her and the percentage that was negative vs. positive. I may have to go dig around on the interwebs and see if it exists.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2016, 07:59:54 AM »
I, too, have been struggling to understand why Hillary Clinton is seen as such an awful candidate.  Virtually every oft-repeated criticism about her seems to apply to many former presidential candidates and even elected presidents.

I'll hypothesize that its a combination of these factors
1) she's a woman, and an ambitious woman is seen less favorably than an ambitious man by many in our society.

2) It's been 8 years since the GOP held the White House.  Anytime one party holds the executive branch for the better part of a decade the other side begins to feel like the federal policies don't represent them (and they have justifications to think so; federal appointees, vetoed legislation, etc).  One of the most persistent criticisms I've heard is that she would be "Obama's 3rd term".  On the other side, many of the most idealistic democrats/independents that pushed Obama into office have been disappointed that congressional bickering has continued (and perhaps increased) during his term.

3) Collectively we've been incredibly dissappointed with our federal government for 6+ years, and Clinton was a high-profile federal appointee during that time period.  One of Clinton's core arguments is that she has federal level experience (elected twice as a Senator, then appointed SoS) during this time period.

MandyM

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Location: Lexington, KY
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2016, 08:31:44 AM »
No, what I think the difference is with Hillary is that she's very political and she's been doing it in the public eye for 25 years.  For most of us, most Presidential candidates come out of more or less nowhere every 4-8 years.  Yeah, they're senators or governors or whatever, but for the most part unless you're in their district, you likely haven't heard of them unless you're a politics junky.  Think of recent ones, prior to the election: 

-Rubio: who?
-Carson: who?
-Fiorina: that lady from HP?
-Bush: yeah, knew him, and he didn't go far
-Cruz: he's popped up in the last few years, but a relative newbie.
-Sanders: he's somewhat famous as an Independent in Congress but did you know much about him before this?

-Romney: Who?
-Obama prior to 2008: who?
-Gore: didn't know of him before he was Bill's VP
-Bill Clinton: Never heard of him before he ran in '92

Then you have Hillary, who has basically had this huge amount of ambition in the public spotlight for the past 25ish years.  Even if some guy like Cruz or Obama has been scheming since college, we didn't hear much about him until he was basically in the race; versus Hillary we've had to see her plot and position and adjust and readjust in the public spotlight, and it just makes it seem so much fake and dirtier, you know?

Is this truly a bad thing? Experience and ambition in a field is bad? I understand that being in the public spotlight that long can make her seem fake and dirty...but now that you have had this realization, do you still see this as a negative?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2016, 08:58:23 AM »
Quote
I think what's so tough about Hillary's changing of position is that she A) always seems to wait and weigh the politics and jump trains at the last possible second, and B) then try and rewrite history as if she was always on that side and you're just smearing her if you claim she wasn't.  The gay marriage thing is the most egregious; I get why she was against it and I get why she's now for it, and that's fine.  And if she could just say "I re-evaluated my position and I was wrong and I decided to try and right that by being a champion for gay causes" it would be fine, but instead she has to insist she was always for gay causes and how dare you suggest otherwise, it is laughably untrue, dishonest, and transparently political.  That's what makes it unprincipled, it is always a calculated political play, it never comes across that "I changed my mind because I believe it was the right thing to do."

Agreed, and like I said, that is her other serious issue - lack of political skill.  Most other politicians could do exactly the same thing as she did and make it seem totally understandable, but she does have a tendency to try to rewrite history.  Why?   I don't know.  She will apologize for her mistakes, but she has to be pushed against a wall to do it. 




thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2016, 09:02:29 AM »
Quote
I think what's so tough about Hillary's changing of position is that she A) always seems to wait and weigh the politics and jump trains at the last possible second, and B) then try and rewrite history as if she was always on that side and you're just smearing her if you claim she wasn't.  The gay marriage thing is the most egregious; I get why she was against it and I get why she's now for it, and that's fine.  And if she could just say "I re-evaluated my position and I was wrong and I decided to try and right that by being a champion for gay causes" it would be fine, but instead she has to insist she was always for gay causes and how dare you suggest otherwise, it is laughably untrue, dishonest, and transparently political.  That's what makes it unprincipled, it is always a calculated political play, it never comes across that "I changed my mind because I believe it was the right thing to do."

Agreed, and like I said, that is her other serious issue - lack of political skill.  Most other politicians could do exactly the same thing as she did and make it seem totally understandable, but she does have a tendency to try to rewrite history.  Why?   I don't know.  She will apologize for her mistakes, but she has to be pushed against a wall to do it.
Still, her opponent will apologize for nothing.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2016, 09:05:15 AM »
She is politically calculating and poll tested. Yes. Like every other politician (with very rare exceptions).

Those very rare exceptions are exactly the only politicians I like, and I like them precisely because they are the exceptions!

We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks fucked him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

Still, her opponent will apologize for nothing.

Her opponent in the primary was so ideologically consistent that he had nothing to apologize for.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2016, 09:21:44 AM »

We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks
Spoiler: show
fucked
him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

What were these "dirty tricks" that you referred to?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2016, 09:41:28 AM »
We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks
Spoiler: show
fucked
him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

What were these "dirty tricks" that you referred to?

Mobilizing the entire DNC against him, obviously. We won't find emails directly linking her to any of the specific unethical tactics, of course, but those acts were done in her name. Even if she didn't ask for it, she accepted it, and that makes her culpable.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2016, 09:45:58 AM »
I think a couple of folks here have hit the nail on the head:  She's basically been front and center in the public eye for at least 25 years, and for most of those years has been relentlessly attacked, mocked and demonized. Quite literally billions of dollars have been spent attacking her, and while much of that money is from the right, a good chunk of it is from the left. 

And the result of all that is, depending on who you talk to, Hillary is either a war mongering, corporatist who is moving the Democratic Party to the right or an uber liberal socialist traitor. That's quite the spectrum of hate.   

That's not to say she doesn't have her faults.  She clearly isn't a great politician, and she seems accustomed to shooting herself in the foot in order to reinforce the trust issues that a lot of people have of her.  But, come on.  Is she qualified, and will probably do an adequate job?  I would say yes. 

Either way, no matter who is elected, we can look forward to one side or the other completely losing their shit for the next 4-8 years.  Which means I guess that things will pretty much stay the same. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2016, 10:02:13 AM »
Quote
We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks fucked him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

But this is precisely what doesn't make her uniquely bad.  She used the same play book that Obama used to defeat her, and others before that.   To expect that she is somehow supposed to change the rules mid game would be unique.  Bernie understands that. 


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2016, 10:10:10 AM »
We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks
Spoiler: show
fucked
him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

What were these "dirty tricks" that you referred to?

Mobilizing the entire DNC against him, obviously. We won't find emails directly linking her to any of the specific unethical tactics, of course, but those acts were done in her name. Even if she didn't ask for it, she accepted it, and that makes her culpable.

Ok... again seeking to clarify, what "unethical acts?"  Saying that the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; Sanders wasn't even elected as a democrat. There's certainly no legal requirement that they give equal treatment to all candidates, which means we back to the ethics.  Both candidates' rhetoric got pretty nasty at times, so I don't think you're talking about things said on a stump speech. 
So, again... what specific acts did you object to?

2Cent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 745
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2016, 10:14:37 AM »
If you've watched house of cards, I feel she is like that. A complete fake who is just telling what people want to hear, but will in the end only do whatever serves her purpose, no matter the cost. For instance, I feel she would start a war just to get a better chance of getting re-elected.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2016, 10:23:22 AM »
Quote
We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks fucked him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

But this is precisely what doesn't make her uniquely bad.  She used the same play book that Obama used to defeat her, and others before that.   To expect that she is somehow supposed to change the rules mid game would be unique.  Bernie understands that.

The entire DNC was biased and actively trying to undermine Obama in 2008? Citation, please.

Saying that the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; Sanders wasn't even elected as a democrat. There's certainly no legal requirement that they give equal treatment to all candidates, which means we back to the ethics.

Failing to give equal treatment to all candidates is unethical, full stop.

For that matter, having so much of our public political process controlled by nominally-"private" political parties, with extensive support from the State, is also unethical. It doesn't matter whether Bernie was a "real" Democrat or not; he was running as a Democrat and met the rules to qualify as a Democrat, and that [should have] entitled him to equal treatment.

It is wrong for political parties even to exist in the first place, really:

Quote from: George Washington
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2016, 10:58:54 AM »
Quote
We had a real chance for one of those exceptions to become President this time around, but Hillary's dirty tricks fucked him over. That makes her "uniquely bad" compared to a hypothetical "poll-tested" but ethical opponent.

But this is precisely what doesn't make her uniquely bad.  She used the same play book that Obama used to defeat her, and others before that.   To expect that she is somehow supposed to change the rules mid game would be unique.  Bernie understands that.

The entire DNC was biased and actively trying to undermine Obama in 2008? Citation, please.

Saying that the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; Sanders wasn't even elected as a democrat. There's certainly no legal requirement that they give equal treatment to all candidates, which means we back to the ethics.

Failing to give equal treatment to all candidates is unethical, full stop.

For that matter, having so much of our public political process controlled by nominally-"private" political parties, with extensive support from the State, is also unethical. It doesn't matter whether Bernie was a "real" Democrat or not; he was running as a Democrat and met the rules to qualify as a Democrat, and that [should have] entitled him to equal treatment.

It is wrong for political parties even to exist in the first place, really:

Quote from: George Washington
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

I think you're dramatically over stating just how much power the DNC (or RNC for that matter have).  They aren't these monolithic entities pushing the scales in the shadows.  In today's era of dark money and Citizens United the party committees are weaker than they have ever been.  All you have to look at is how little Obama cared at all about exerting his influence over the DNC the past 8 years to realize just how little it matters. 

In fact, i yearn for the old days when the DNC or RNC actually had some power or influence. Those institutions are actually regulated and monitored!  Now, thanks to the Supreme Court our elections will now be decided by a few people funneling anonymous billions worth in 'free speech' into innocuous sounding political committees.  Progress!! 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2016, 11:11:08 AM »

Saying that the DNC favored Clinton over Sanders shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; Sanders wasn't even elected as a democrat. There's certainly no legal requirement that they give equal treatment to all candidates, which means we back to the ethics.

Failing to give equal treatment to all candidates is unethical, full stop.

For that matter, having so much of our public political process controlled by nominally-"private" political parties, with extensive support from the State, is also unethical. It doesn't matter whether Bernie was a "real" Democrat or not; he was running as a Democrat and met the rules to qualify as a Democrat, and that [should have] entitled him to equal treatment.


You are still not giving any actual examples to back up your claims of unethical treatment, or Sanders being 'screwed-over' by Clinton.

Leaving aside the necessity and function of political parties in a large country such as the United States for a minute, I cannot get behind your assertion that all candidates within a party deserve equal levels of support.  The reason why is alluded to in your second paragraph - whether or not Sanders was a "real" Democrat or not.  Political parties exist to further their platforms. If one candidate exemplifies the ideals of the party more than another it is logical that the party should give their support to that person. It's also worth noting that the party itself is beholden to its members. Those in charge were put there by earlier members for the explicit goal of supporting candidates who will further the party's agenda.


Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2016, 11:34:07 AM »
I think you're dramatically over stating just how much power the DNC (or RNC for that matter have).  They aren't these monolithic entities pushing the scales in the shadows.  In today's era of dark money and Citizens United the party committees are weaker than they have ever been.  All you have to look at is how little Obama cared at all about exerting his influence over the DNC the past 8 years to realize just how little it matters. 

In fact, i yearn for the old days when the DNC or RNC actually had some power or influence. Those institutions are actually regulated and monitored!  Now, thanks to the Supreme Court our elections will now be decided by a few people funneling anonymous billions worth in 'free speech' into innocuous sounding political committees.  Progress!!

I agree.  If the RND and DNC had that much control, a candidate like Trump would never have been allowed in the first place (let alone win the nomination).  And on the DNC side, Bernie would have been neutered before it ever got close.  But clearly that didn't happen because the RNC and DNC are not all that powerful.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2016, 11:44:03 AM »
You are still not giving any actual examples to back up your claims of unethical treatment, or Sanders being 'screwed-over' by Clinton.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-dnc-wikileaks-emails/

The chairman of the DNC is Clinton's campaign manager (and has been covertly from the beginning), for crying out loud! That's an unethical conflict of interest all by itself even before considering any specific corrupt actions. But yes, there were specific corrupt actions, ranging from the unfair debate schedule to all the stuff in the emails. Note that the article quotes O'Malley's campaign complaining about it, so this can't be swift-boated as a "bernie-bro" thing -- this DNC corruption was sabotaging even other long-time Democrats, not just Sanders!)

Leaving aside the necessity and function of political parties in a large country such as the United States for a minute, I cannot get behind your assertion that all candidates within a party deserve equal levels of support.  The reason why is alluded to in your second paragraph - whether or not Sanders was a "real" Democrat or not.  Political parties exist to further their platforms. If one candidate exemplifies the ideals of the party more than another it is logical that the party should give their support to that person. It's also worth noting that the party itself is beholden to its members. Those in charge were put there by earlier members for the explicit goal of supporting candidates who will further the party's agenda.

I don't know about you, but I live in a state where general election ballots have "(D)" and "(R)" next to the candidates names, and where the taxpayers pay for primary elections on behalf of the Democratic and Republican parties. As long as that is the case, the rightful "members" of both parties are all citizens and the parties should exist to benefit the public as a whole!

If the DNC wants to be a private club, then it needs to fuck off and quit stealing tax dollars to support its operations. (Ditto for the RNC, of course.)

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2016, 11:51:27 AM »
But clearly that didn't happen because the RNC and DNC are not all that powerful.
I'm still not sure if this is the best or worst thing to come from this election cycle.
On the one hand it means that the election isn't really a rigged game decided by shadowy men in smoke filled rooms.
On the other hand it means we have a future of rabble-rousing reality-TV candidates
 

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2016, 12:18:15 PM »
You are still not giving any actual examples to back up your claims of unethical treatment, or Sanders being 'screwed-over' by Clinton.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/the-dnc-wikileaks-emails/

The chairman of the DNC is Clinton's campaign manager (and has been covertly from the beginning), for crying out loud! That's an unethical conflict of interest all by itself even before considering any specific corrupt actions. But yes, there were specific corrupt actions, ranging from the unfair debate schedule to all the stuff in the emails. Note that the article quotes O'Malley's campaign complaining about it, so this can't be swift-boated as a "bernie-bro" thing -- this DNC corruption was sabotaging even other long-time Democrats, not just Sanders!)

Leaving aside the necessity and function of political parties in a large country such as the United States for a minute, I cannot get behind your assertion that all candidates within a party deserve equal levels of support.  The reason why is alluded to in your second paragraph - whether or not Sanders was a "real" Democrat or not.  Political parties exist to further their platforms. If one candidate exemplifies the ideals of the party more than another it is logical that the party should give their support to that person. It's also worth noting that the party itself is beholden to its members. Those in charge were put there by earlier members for the explicit goal of supporting candidates who will further the party's agenda.

I don't know about you, but I live in a state where general election ballots have "(D)" and "(R)" next to the candidates names, and where the taxpayers pay for primary elections on behalf of the Democratic and Republican parties. As long as that is the case, the rightful "members" of both parties are all citizens and the parties should exist to benefit the public as a whole!

If the DNC wants to be a private club, then it needs to fuck off and quit stealing tax dollars to support its operations. (Ditto for the RNC, of course.)

I think your issue is more with America's two party system than anything else.  The actual DNC or RNC don't receive or 'steal' tax dollars to support their committee operations.  That simply doesn't happen.

Now, for sure, the two parties have exerted their control in other ways.  For instance, in many states, it is incredibly difficult for third party candidates to get onto a ballot because of signature, or other onerous requirements that give the two major parties built in advantages.  The two parties are certainly invested in keeping third parties at bay. But this is hardly criminal. 

Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't the campaign manager.  She was made a campaign chair after she resigned.  Its basically a ceremonial position. Maybe, one she shouldn't have gotten, but that's not our choice. 

And the people who make up the DNC aren't required to be non-biased.  The Democratic National Committee isn't just one chair in DC- its made up of various state political committees- all of whom have state party chairs, vice chairs, etc.. who by virtue of their position are delegates at the national convention, and spend much of their time supporting one presidential candidate over another, and trying to get other people in the party to do the same.  State parties also have different positions on supporting competing Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.  Being in a leadership position at the Democratic Party does not mean taking a vow of neutrality. 

Sure- the national staff (and with likely direction from the chair) at the DNC display some poor judgement in pushing anti-Bernie stuff in the press, and not being totally 'impartial'.  Sure.  But its hardly that big of a deal when you consider the full scope of what the DNC actually is and what its comprised of. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2016, 12:40:15 PM »
+1 to what "Pokey" said - far more eloquently than I normally can.

REgarding the debate schedules; that seems the very essence of a compromise.  Clinton didn't want to have formal debates against Sanders, and Sanders wanted to have a lot.  So they settled on six. It's also worth considering that it's not in the party's best interest to have their own candidates beat each other up so badly that they hand over tailor-made attack ads to the opposing party.

There has never been an expectation or requirement that various leaders be neutral.

I'll agree that the two-party system leaves a lot to be desired, but so far there's neither the political will nor a comprehensive proposal to limit or eliminate their roles in all levels of government.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2016, 12:40:49 PM »
The actual DNC or RNC don't receive or 'steal' tax dollars to support their committee operations.  That simply doesn't happen.

So you're saying the DNC and RNC fund their primary elections? I believe that is incorrect.

Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't the campaign manager.  She was made a campaign chair after she resigned.  Its basically a ceremonial position. Maybe, one she shouldn't have gotten, but that's not our choice. 

Excuse me: campaign "undercover operative" then! The point is, it's obvious that she was working for the Clinton campaign while she was nominally DNC chair and that she was given that 'overt' position as reward for services rendered. It's blatant corruption -- quit making excuses for it!

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2016, 12:58:52 PM »
The actual DNC or RNC don't receive or 'steal' tax dollars to support their committee operations.  That simply doesn't happen.

So you're saying the DNC and RNC fund their primary elections? I believe that is incorrect.

Also, Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't the campaign manager.  She was made a campaign chair after she resigned.  Its basically a ceremonial position. Maybe, one she shouldn't have gotten, but that's not our choice. 

Excuse me: campaign "undercover operative" then! The point is, it's obvious that she was working for the Clinton campaign while she was nominally DNC chair and that she was given that 'overt' position as reward for services rendered. It's blatant corruption -- quit making excuses for it!

Ok- so it sounds like your for non-partisan elections.  That's cool. 

I'm not trying to make excuses for corruption.  But, this isn't corruption. You're making boogeymen from something that just isn't there.  When we start calling stuff like this corruption, it really just waters down the word. Calling this stuff corruption is really an insult to the people out there who are actually committing corruption. 

I 100% guarantee you that Waserman-Schultz has been more a thorn in the campaign's side than an asset.  Now, her and Clinton might be personal friends, but she's not running anything, and furthermore wouldn't know how to run anything if asked. 

This article pretty much sums it up:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352'

Quote
After Clinton won the nomination in June, her campaign moved quickly to try to take control of the DNC. But when Brandon Davis, former political director of the Service Employees International Union, was brought in to the DNC by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to be the campaign’s eyes and ears in the party office, Wasserman Schultz made comments both in introducing him to the full staff and in private conversations encouraging people to see him as working for her. Wasserman Schultz couldn’t stop Davis’ hiring. But when the campaign tried to bring in a senior communications aide who’d be supervisor to Miranda, she dug in against the move, infuriating the Clinton campaign anew, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Quote
Frustration within the DNC, the White House and the Clinton campaign was exacerbated by Wasserman Schultz’s efforts to raise her own profile by appearing more often on national television.

Are people doing dumb stuff?  Definitely.  But let's not give these people more credit than they deserve. 

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2016, 01:07:07 PM »
I 100% guarantee you that Waserman-Schultz has been more a thorn in the campaign's side than an asset.  Now, her and Clinton might be personal friends, but she's not running anything, and furthermore wouldn't know how to run anything if asked. 

This article pretty much sums it up:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352'

That's one narrative; this is another:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707446/PIERS-MORGAN-Hillary-devious-DNC-disciples-stab-good-man-like-Bernie-trusted-keys-White-House.html

Captain FIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2016, 01:18:35 PM »
My dad is a staunch Republican and in his opinion, he's forced to choose between an "incompetent" and a "criminal".  He will talk all day about how if he had done what Hilary did with her email servers, he would have been jailed.  He doesn't feel that she can be trusted as a result. 

The truth though, is that he hated Hilary before this all came out.  I'm not quite sure why, but I think has to do largely with hating Bill Clinton and his programs/ideas, and Hilary's of course closely associated with Bill.  I'm not sure whether he will manage to vote for anyone this year.  It was a great disappointment to him that Bloomberg refused to run.

I personally agree with an earlier comment that I wish it weren't a Bush/Clinton choice every year.  We live in a theoretical democracy; it was never intended that we have a War of the Roses between two "ruling" political families.  Starting with Bush seniors vice presidency, that means that between 1981-potentially 2025, we'd have had only 8 years of NOT having one of the two of them in office (and that's if you don't count Hilary's time as senior advisor as Secretary of State).  I'd be equally opposed to Jeb Bush as President (well, more so as I don't agree with his politics).  I don't like that Hilary is my best option, but I will make the best of it.

I may delete this so I'm not subscribed to the thread, but feel free to quote.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2016, 01:26:13 PM »
That's one narrative; this is another:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3707446/PIERS-MORGAN-Hillary-devious-DNC-disciples-stab-good-man-like-Bernie-trusted-keys-White-House.html

When your 'source' starts with a title of "....devious DNC disciples stab good man like Bernie..." it really doesn't even feign objectivity (though bonus points for alliteration!).

You keep using words like Corruption, Under cover operative, stealing and unethical. Yet what you are describing is people being petty and sometimes even stupid.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2016, 01:33:32 PM »
When your 'source' starts with a title of "....devious DNC disciples stab good man like Bernie..." it really doesn't even feign objectivity (though bonus points for alliteration!).

Objectivity? That died with Walter Cronkite.

a plan comes together

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 80
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2016, 01:42:54 PM »
Republicans, for worse, have done an amazing job of putting a microscope on non-issues and making them issues. When a partisan interest creates/controls the news cycle, people start to believe that it is the general consensus. They literally funded 9 Bengazhi investigations, and each one of those created a news cycle (even though none of them found any legitimate wrongdoing, just the fact that it was in the news for years makes people assume guilt). They've created memes, and people believe them.

Same goes for the email server shit. She had the same setup as the prior 2 Republican Secretary of States. Are Republicans calling for their heads as well? No.

Then Fox News, radio hate show hosts, politicians and others magnify the news Republican politicians have created. WHEN YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE PLATFORM TO HELP ANYONE, DRAGGING DOWN YOUR OPPONENT AND FEAR-MONGERING IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN WIN.


Let's not forget that she's been in the highest public spotlight for 25 years - and this is the worst shit they can manufacture? Meanwhile, Trump has an infinitely worse list of grievances in just the last year, but it's cool, b/c.... Trump. It's a total hypocritical double standard.

Also - Bernie did an effective job in highlighting her speaking/fundraising background, but every major politician aside from Bernie fundraises this way. Still, it hurt her among the left purists.

Also - let's not pretend there isn't some severe gender bias going on out there (similar to the racial bias against Obama).

P.S. "Hillary" isn't the most likable name. I wonder what public opinion would be if her name was "Anne"?



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2016, 01:44:23 PM »
When your 'source' starts with a title of "....devious DNC disciples stab good man like Bernie..." it really doesn't even feign objectivity (though bonus points for alliteration!).

Objectivity? That died with Walter Cronkite.

Oh please, stop with the hyperbole already.  It does nothing for your arguments, and makes them sound glib.

NewPerspective

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2016, 01:51:06 PM »
This is a good summary of Clinton scandals:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

I support Hillary and have also been trying to understand exactly why she is so despised.  It seems  A LOT of the more fervent Trump supporters absolutely believe she lies all the time, has covered up Bill's rapes and has potentially even killed people.  Evil seems to be the most popular descriptive in certain circles.

This is an article discussing the fact that Hillary is actually more honest than most politicians when it comes to the statements she makes publicly.
http://americannewsx.com/politics/why-cant-you-believe-hillary-clinton-is-inherently-honest/



Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2016, 01:58:39 PM »
Also - let's not pretend there isn't some severe gender bias going on out there (similar to the racial bias against Obama).

Good point -- there did seem to be a lot of people on the left who dismissed Bernie out of hand just because his opponent had a chance to be The First Woman PresidentTM.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17500
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2016, 02:10:21 PM »
P.S. "Hillary" isn't the most likable name. I wonder what public opinion would be if her name was "Anne"?

Huh.  I have never once thought about her name as being unlikable.  It isn't like her name is tied to a lot of other famous people/characters the way that Donald is tied to a duck.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1549
Re: What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?
« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2016, 02:11:38 PM »
Another reason I'm not a Hillary fan: she's a lifetime politician. For me, she's been around way too long, which means she's too entrenched in "the system."  And on a more personal level, albeit related to the "lifetime politician" part, I'm just plain sick of her. I want something/someone new. (The other choice is just so unfortunate...)