|
People hate Hillary for three reasons: 1) She's  2) She's absolutely the most qualified and well-connected candidate who has had deep policy involvement for decades and has tacked slightly to the left of the American center for fifty-ish years, and in the 21st century the only candidates anyone seems to like are inexperienced "outsiders" whose positions are a wild departure from the political mainstream 3) Because they don't know anything about her except for unsourced, third-hand, out-of-context smears that have been circulating since before they were born, and don't care to learn anything about her and her record except for what her opponents say
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
HorseLord posted:that's a sincere offer. couple hundred thousand dollars, somewhere to live and a US visa and i'll absolutely dedicate my life to american revolutionary politics with a party office and political education lessons and serve the people programs and poo poo, because that's a coherent idea, that's a thing that i (or you! you're already in america!) could conceivably do. "PAY FOR PLAY!!! Self-proclaimed socialist revolutionary reveals that he was personally paid hundreds of thousands of 2016 dollars (equivalent to 93 million 2046 ration cards) to crusade against political corruption and push other people's political views" - Supreme Judgebot 9000, 30 years from now, just before sentencing you to the worst and most inhuman punishment available to the judicial system: living the rest of your life in a realistic neural simulation of being Donald Trump's campaign manager Majorian posted:I mean, it seems to me that a lot of people really, genuinely believe that the deck is stacked against progressive Democrats. I'm not sure that anyone is specifically "lying" about any of it. They could be wrong, that's a reasonable thing to assert. There could be some hyperbole in their argument. But it strikes me as unfair of you to immediately leap to, "You're either lying or are making a misogynist argument." And the right believe that the deck is stacked against far-right Republicans and non-establishment candidates, in spite of the fact that the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus have grown enough to become a significant force in Congress and the current R presidential candidate actively sticks his thumb in the establishment's eye at every opportunity. It's just really attractive to believe that the reason the candidate you and all your friends supported lost anyway was because the system was rigged. Some Guy TT posted:So is everyone who sided with Obama over Hillary in 2008 an They didn't care about his qualifications to do the job; they voted Obama because his history was enough of a blank slate and his pronouncements were vague enough that people could project their own progressive opinions onto him and ignore any actions he took that contradicted the 2008 perception of him as a progressive wunderkind. And unfortunately, we've been suffering from that mistake for the past eight years, as a combination of centrist moderation and insufficient ability to keep Congress under control have paralyzed to this country to the point where perpetually teetering on the edge of government shutdown is the new normal and leaving a Supreme Court seat vacant for eight months isn't even worth reminding people about. If there's anything we should have learned from the 21st century, it's that we need a LBJ, not a Carter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
gnarlyhotep posted:I just love the fact that there are so many men out there who poo poo their pants because a woman might be president. AHHAHA what a bunch of loving idiots! They don't "poo poo their pants", they just declare that something about her just "doesn't look presidential". It's like when a cop murders a black guy for being black - what you hear on the cameras isn't "holy poo poo a black guy, let's kill him", it's "that guy looks mighty suspicious, based entirely on his appearance I bet he's a bad dude, let's go gently caress with him".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
call to action posted:Yes, he's got very bad rhetoric, that's for sure. That's all it is. How does bombing Libya with drones compare to, say, closing off Fallujah and bombing the hell out of it for an entire month while helicopters and ground troops strafed or sniped anyone who left a building? If your contention is that Trump is "just" a regular old Republican who'll do standard Republican things, you're going to have to take a look at what those standard Republican things are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:Hate is a strong word; I don't hate Mrs. Clinton. But I can't reward her with my vote for either going along with or actively participating with the DNC. Well, anyone who promises you universal healthcare in the next four or even eight years is an excellent liar, so I guess that means you're voting Trump? What did the DNC do that makes you so mad at them? What did the Clinton campaign "go along with" that makes her so unvotable? The thing that gets me about the DNC attack is that people don't even try to put any substance behind it. It always ends up being "a staffer said bad things about Bernie in an email long after it was clear Hillary had clinched the nom already, therefore the evil DNC single-handedly stole the election that Bernie would have easily won otherwise". TomViolence posted:The whole inevitability thing is a really good stone to cast against her, though the others are spurious at best. She was competing when Barry was up for the nom and it really does feel like she'll endlessly put her name in to give the Clinton dynasty four more years until she croaks. Machine politics is mucky business. This one I don't get either? She's bad because she ran for President, lost, and then ran for President again? Or is she bad because her husband was previously the President? Or is she just bad because she's an experienced high-level politician who's been in high political offices for so many years? Saying that she's bad because she acts like a Clinton presidency is "inevitable", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, sounds only slightly more substantial than claiming that her voice is too shrill, or that her smile is scary, or that she's not entertaining enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:It's a bit slippery and intangible I'll admit, but it leaves a definite bad taste in the mouth that she's been a regular fixture in the Business As Usual for a good decade at least, because as a result she must necessarily have been a part of the banal evil of American policy for so long. Admittedly, Bernie has been in politics maybe for longer than her, but he's always been a peripheral figure on the fringes. Hillary is bad because she seems entirely happy to work within a completely broken system. I wouldn't say she's happy to work within the system, but she's been fighting the system far too long to think she can change it, and she believes she can make more of a difference working within the system to influence it in a more humane direction than she can sitting outside the system complaining about it. You might as well say that she supports sexism because she's experienced it for decades and has yet to issue a blanket ban on sexism: having faced it firsthand, she knows better than to think she can personally end sexism forever, and instead focuses her energies on pushing pro-women policy. CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:Mad? I'm not mad, I'm just not going to reward them with what they want from me, just like I'm not going to reward Mrs. Clinton, who I absolutely do not hate, with what she wants from me either. But what are you punishing her and the DNC for? What misconduct did they commit? You said you hate Hillary because the DNC did bad things. What bad things did they do? TomViolence posted:This year is the year that should prompt some soul-searching at least. Hillary "isn't perfect" and maybe folk should start wondering why things "aren't perfect." You know, rather than complacently continuing the same old patterns of thought thinking that somehow by electing the same shitbags over and over again that HOPE and CHANGE are coming because your president is black or female now, nevermind that it's just white power with a black face or patriarchy with a uterus. Things aren't perfect because progressives think political involvement is for chumps and suckers, so half of them only show up at the polls on prez election years to make a protest vote at the very top of the ticket, and the other half sit at home and bitch about how bad politics is while they whine about how a national-scale progressive movement isn't springing up out of thin air.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:All the candidates are bad *because* everyone just keeps voting for the lesser evil. They have no incentive to be anything else. How is this not super obvious to everyone??? All the candidates are bad because progressives sit at home and whine about how there aren't any good candidates, and also because evil people make up the majority of the voters in this country. Candidates don't spring forth, fully-formed, from a hell-womb in the depths beneath Washington D.C.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I can't, but since her policies will reverberate around the world with the force and significance of a gunshot I still consider my opinion worth hearing, if not listening to. Dubya and Barry have done a hell of a lot to destroy any faith the world at large has in America and I don't see Another Clinton or, god forbid, Trump doing much better. The future should not be an American boot stomping on every human face it can find forever and until its leaders are made properly accountable that's the way it's probably gonna be. Are you kidding me? The history of the US has been imperialism and war since before any of us were born. The world has always had faith in America to do one thing: make the world safe for capitalist exploitation. Who's going to lose faith in the US? The British, who asked for US intervention to prevent Iranian democracy from nationalizing their oil monopoly? The French, who dragged us into their futile colonial war in Vietnam? An America that doesn't drop a single bomb and doesn't shoot a single foreign civilian for eight whole years would be fairly unprecedented in the modern era, I think, and a massive departure from worldwide foreign policy orthodoxy dating back to the Victorian era. It's not like the US has some great legacy of peace that presidents randomly decided to start making GBS threads all over as soon as you were old enough to start watching the news. CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:I never said I hated Hillary. How did you come to that conclusion? "If I'm not with you I'm against you" is an interesting way to think. You're posting about why you don't like Hillary in the "why do people hate Hillary" thread. Also, the reason you don't like her has absolutely nothing to do with her or her campaign and isn't even a real thing at all. Also, you're making veiled accusations that people in this thread are literally paid shills for her. That's why I'm assuming you hate Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:What incentive is there to radically change anything, though, if the current system in its current configuration is the one that keeps you in power? I guess it's the same old, same old debate of reformism versus revolution. I reckon we both get where the other is coming from and disagree mainly on the method of realising change. I guess it's too bad a progressive can't just, you know, become a politician. It's a real shame, since that would be so much easier than trying to convince existing politicians to abandon beliefs held by the majority of Americans in order to cater to a smaller fringe group.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:You're assuming that if I'm not in lockstep with you, I hate Hillary Clinton. This is not a good train of thought. I thought Trump was the fascist. Then stop acting like it? I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you have any reason for your hatred of Hillary Clinton besides "she beat the candidate I liked, fair and square", and you're not helping very much with your silly denials! Ze Pollack posted:there were those couple of people who said "oh come on it's not like we hosed up Libya THAT much," putting themselves in the ignominious position of setting up a Stalinist to dunk on them. Libya was pretty hosed even before we got involved, and was basically the least bad of our foreign interventions. A much better target for bitching would be Syria, where we went ahead and decided that since we didn't like either side, we wouldn't let either of them win, and then stood around looking shocked when the civil war got worse and worse. Of course, if we hadn't intervened in either conflict, progressives would be complaining about the US implicitly supporting dictators and failing to do anything about the slaughters in the Middle East (just like they complain about the fact that the US didn't intervene in the Egyptian coup and now happily stands by while Sisi merrily butchers and oppresses Islamists).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Libya was the least bad of your foreign interventions. As opposed to our stunning successes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and more? Our tacit support for the Turkish and Egyptian coups? Our rampant bombing in places like Yemen and Pakistan? boner confessor posted:oh right, all the racist whites and low-information voters Don't forget the minorities, there's lots of those in the South and Bernie did a pretty bad job with them. I guess that might mess up the "only bad people voted for the candidate I don't like" narrative you were clearly going for, though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
CAPT. Rainbowbeard posted:She sort of kind of adopted his platform in an attempt to win back the people who didn't care for her. I wasn't joking about voting for whoever will promise me Universal Health Care. And I wasn't joking when I said this means you're promising your vote to a good liar, because no one who promises UHC in the next eight years is telling the truth. Hillary Clinton knows that better than anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Vehementi posted:What are some other reasons besides the jobs hostage situation? They feel like their problems are the worst problems, and they both resent and distrust efforts to help people poorer than them because they feel like they're being neglected. Peanut President posted:Yeah minorities always are a strong voter base in the South. Remember when they supported Strom Thurmond? Primary electorates are different, as there's a lot of self-selection going on. Pretty sure most of the Southern whites were voting in the Republican primary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Yeah, a poor white person who finds that every job opportunity has dried up is not someone who is going to be sympathetic to minorities entering america, as that directly impacts their livelihood for trying to find a job. Not only that, but he's going to oppose affirmative action, anti-discrimination rules, anti-poverty measures whose cutoff is too low for him, anti-poverty measures targeted at vulnerable groups, foreign aid, science research, and more. He neither acknowledges nor cares that anyone else might possibly have worse or more important problems than him - his problems are the only problems that matter, his vague solution (which usually boils down to "make things the way they used to be when things were better") is the only solution that could possibly work, and any government money that is spent on anything else is wasted until he feels like his life is on the right track again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:You know Hillary and the 'woman card' issue? The same meritocratic system that penalizes people for being "outspoken feminists" who believe women are unfairly disadvantaged?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Maybe I don't know any outspoken sexists, but it's actually pretty nice that almost all the hatred I hear towards her is entirely based on her awful politics and voting history rather than any sort of "a woman can't be president!!" sort of poo poo, so at least in that respect it's nice that we've evolved as a culture to that point. Not a whole lot of people openly declared that a black man couldn't be president, either - instead, they concocted a series of elaborate conspiracy theories about how the black man was foreign-born or in league with non-white foreigners. Similarly, when people say that Hillary is "shrill", or too ambitious, or too fake, or too real, or too weak and frail, or doesn't smile enough...those are the same attacks women have faced in the office for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 23:22
|
|