What's the deal with people who hate Hillary?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What's the deal with people who hate Hillary?

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Hillary Clinton has been an assault on traditional ideas of femininity since the late 70s. She was a working lawyer who kept her maiden name as governor's wife, and radically changed the perception of the office of first lady.

She also is part of a two decade smear campaign by the GOP towards her husband

Finally, she is simply not a very warm or emotive person. She is clearly a bit stand-offish and cold and because she is a woman people find it unbecoming

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 05:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:35

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

gnarlyhotep posted:

sounds like you're kind of a dick

I am not sure why you say that. Misogynistic stereotypes of femininity require women to be meek and warm and submissive. Clinton is stern and a bit cold. It's not a problem with her character, because that is exactly as a president should be. However, you cannot challenge gender roles like that and not receive push back from traditionalists.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 05:09

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

I worry about over-generalizing but really I think a vast majority of it comes from gender.

Like one of the biggest criticisms people seem to have of her is that she is a single-minded careerist who will do anything to get ahead. If she were a man, people would just say she was ambitious. Hillary Clinton represents one of the realest pushes against gender roles in modern society, and of course people are going to hate that. poo poo bro, you were a GBS mod, you have seen first hand how some people act about politically motivated women. Compare the public persona of Hillary Clinton to every other first lady, and you will see why she gets so much negative feedback.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 05:17

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

gnarlyhotep posted:

Your statement "Compare the public persona of Hillary Clinton to every other first lady" might as well be "Calculate the number Pi to 50 digits".

I don't know, that's why I created the loving thread.

Fair enough.

This is a good article to let you see how the first lady was viewed when she entered the national stage in 1992

http://qz.com/762881/the-blatantly-sexist-cookie-bake-off-that-has-haunted-hillary-clinton-for-two-decades-is-back/

A highly decorated lawyer was forced to bake cookies for a women's magazine in order to be appealing to the public. Think about how insane that is.

Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, and even Michelle Obama to an extent have all been warm feminine maternal figures who did photo ops and smiled with children in the rose garden. Hillary wasn't, and that upset people because of how shocking it was.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 05:25

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

call to action posted:

Can we just cut out all the bullshit and say what we want to say, which is that "if you're against military adventurism or economics that favor the investor class, you're a sexist and probably a racist"

Lol

# ¿ Oct 3, 2016 21:51

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

instead of being with the horrible lady you could be with the sturggle to reform america into a democracy instead

ok cool which candidate is that

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:02

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

sean10mm posted:

If he says Jill Stein this is the worst version of The Aristocrats joke I've ever seen.

Like, legit, it occurred to me the other day that even if I actually considered third party candidates viable, Clinton would still get my vote. Forget Trump, she is also a way better candidate than Johnson or Stein.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:12

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

rudatron posted:

You're a moron. 'Anyone older than 30', give me a break. Either you're buying into 'if you live in a racist society you are racist' claptrap (which, weirdly, is only ever used to rationalize facile & unjustifiable allegations of racism), in which case that includes everyone, or you're using the normal person definition of racism, in which case Sanders isn't racist either. You can't have it both ways.

oh poo poo we triggered him

I have seen where this goes, abandon ship

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:26

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

have you ever considered that "most qualified and well-connected" in the contest of american imperial politics is actually terrifying rather than appealing

and also that you're hella dumb if you wanna go all earplugs and say the haiti stuff or the honduras stuff, or the contents of her own speeches are just "smears"

what candidate should I vote for then

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:48

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

OwlFancier posted:

In before "None and start the revolution"

lol nice try

HorseLord posted:

organized civil disobedience along with a black panthers-esue revolutionary movement

ok cool how about something that will actually happen

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:50

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Tell you what, give us a nice five-point ten year plan about how we can start the revolution given the current state of the American electorate

How do we create a significant destabilizing movement for democratic usurpation of the oligarchy given that the vast plurality of voters are unlikely to want it?

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 00:53

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

That's a job for Americans, not me. Maybe if you weren't so loving lazy as to want everything handed to you, you'd have done it already.

Ah yes, the classic Marxist mantra of "Class warfare is restricted to geopolitical borders. The proletariat of other nations are on their own"

Workers of the specific nation and only that nation - unite! - Carl Marks

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 01:01

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

tell you what, you buy me a plane ticket and somewhere to live, as well as a cash fund big enough for 10 or 20 years, and i'll start you another american communist party. i'm not sure why you'd expect someone to found your next revolution from a bedsit in england?

wow look at Che Guevara over here lol

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 01:15

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Uranium Phoenix posted:

To add to this, it's interesting to note how the thread quickly tilts from "why people on the left hate Hillary" to her supporters immediately deflecting criticisms with demands for alternative candidates, or refusing to acknowledge she has any flaws and that the only possible reason anyone could hate her is misogyny, her political experience, and lies they heard. Well, people have listed a bunch of reasons they don't like her that aren't those, and no one's bothered to defend the policies on their merit, so they're legitimate criticisms. It's possible to criticize a politician and not have a good alternative candidate. Progressive ideologies will not advance if candidates are not allowed to be criticized. Hillary should be criticized precisely because an attack from the left would hopefully make her tack that direction to secure votes and support.

I am a firm believer in once its election season, find the best choice and help them win. Once they win, they are the enemy until they are up for re-election again. I've seen where feet dragging about the candidate not being "good enough" leads. It leads to the other guy winning and things being objectively worse.

The reason why we say "name another candidate" if you want to call her a neo-liberal warmonger is to point out that, even if your criticisms are true (I don't acknowledge this btw), she is still the best choice out of the 2 (or 4). The primary season is the time for challenging candidates to try and push the platform into your direction, and that is exactly what happened. Hillary's platform is demonstrably influenced by Bernie Sanders. But its no longer the primary. You have your choices. Pick the best one or get the gently caress out of the way.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 03:23

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

this is hilarious because it's "we can try to go left next time, but this time we have to vote against the greater evil" which you idiots have been saying every single election since your country was founded. you're stuck in a loving time loop and it's by choice, you morons. do something else

we can't all start the revolution whining from our bedrooms bro

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 13:52

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

HorseLord posted:

it sounds really dumb and embarrassing way to refer to your career and makes you sound like you're a janitor

and if anyone knows about looking dumb and embarrassing online, its HorseLord

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 15:56

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

lol somebody maaaaaaadddddd

# ¿ Oct 4, 2016 16:25

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

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.

What candidate of any party currently running is better than Hillary though?

Imagine ever party was equally likely to win, who is the better choice?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 01:36

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

That there might not be a better candidate is damning enough. Even if Hillary was the best candidate, why would that absolve her?

Because nations are fundamentally unethical institutions and there is no realistic way to dissolve the nation as primary political state of the modern world so the only choice is to pick the best option provided.

I don't think it absolves anyone of anything, but realistically geopolitics do not allow for moral action

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 01:43

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

the trump tutelage posted:

You can stay home or you can deliberately spoil your ballot. Your vote is an endorsement.

What is the point of letting the world burn just so you can go "Well at least I didn't vote for it"

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 01:54

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Eifert Posting posted:

Tell me about all these wars started by Democratic leadership.

Hillary being too hawkish is a valid complaint, I don't like a lot of her foreign policy. That said, lol, Trump.

careful bro

I like your avatar

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 01:58

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

the trump tutelage posted:

Because the alternative is a decision about the number of logs you're putting on the fire, not between stoking it or smothering it.

If your actions can lessen harm in any way, inaction is not virtuous

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:01

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

The other issue I have with "we don't get real candidates who represent real progressive values" is that radical leftists think somehow the majority of the nation actually agrees with their specific sense of global and political morality, despite the fact most leftists cannot even agree amongst themselves

There is this weird delusion that "real" progressiveness is being repressed by a two party system. Its like the leftists and communists in Iran who thought removing the Shaw would lead to the people creating a modern progressive democracy. They never seem to get that the silent majority is probably much worse than the status quo, not better.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:11

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

And this is a defence of American democracy because...

I mean if the silent majority is actually terrible, then why should that mean A) they'll vote for Hillary and B) that'll be a good thing?

A. Its not a defense of American democracy? Its a critique of the belief American democracy is repressing progressivism

B. Because history has proven time and time again that large swarths of angry and disenfranchised people are more willing to buy into easy and dangerous answers like Nationalism than they are to buy into progressive ideas. The idea that if we destabilize the status quo we will somehow push America in a better direction is wishful thinking. Reshuffling the deck of a stable political system is far more likely to push that country backwards than it is going to push that country forwards. Progressive reform is more likely to come slowly in a stable democracy than it is to become quickly in a destabilized system.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:18

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bob le Moche posted:

I didn't see anyone in this thread advocating for accelerationism or voting for the republicans.
The whole history of the southern strategy switch is an interesting thing to bring up though. Because I think it's important to be informed and realize that political parties exist only to be elected, that they can be made to change, and that unwavering loyalty to one is probably a bad idea

I don't see anyone advocating unwavering loyalty to one party either

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:29

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

the trump tutelage posted:

Stretched out over any kind of time frame, US politics-as-usual is probably the greater harm.

Explain how a destabilized US is better off in the long term for the world than a stable one

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:44

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

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.

Yes, but even then, posit a future in which its not someone's boot. As I said before and you never responded to, nations are fundamentally unethical. The very concept of the nation is an unethical conceit. The US is only unethical in its power because it has power. Any nation put into the position of a global superpower would be as bad as us, if not worse, because it is the nature of nations to exploit those weaker than themselves.

You cannot simply remove America from the equation of global power and expect a better world because someone else will just fill that vacuum and considering the nations likely to fill that void, I would not be thrilled with the replacement. The best way to make the world better is to push the established power bases as far left as you can. However, that is not going to happen through any sort of radical event. You push for the best choice in the primary, and then pick the best remaining choice in the national election. It's not a great solution, but I have not seen a pragmatic solution that is better.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:50

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bob le Moche posted:

Bernie Sanders actually showed better chances against Trump than Hillary did in the polls.

Bernie Sanders also never had his policies vetted on a national stage like Clinton did.

Bob le Moche posted:

The large swarths of angry disenfranchised people want socialism, not barbarism.

Hello, allow me to introduce you to the Tea Party

Bob le Moche posted:

Fascism is what happens when you let the "moderate" party of liberal capitalists completely suppress any and all leftist alternatives to it.

This might be an interesting point if it were not completely wrong and ahistorical

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:53

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

I dream of one day allowing people in western Pakistan to have open air weddings again. Some day in the far future, of course, because America just isn't ready yet.

Because if America was gone Pakistan would be safe from foreign intervention?

menino posted:

Except for that 14 month primary thing. He has a 91% awareness and +25 favorability.

A primary is not a meaningful vetting of the feasibility of a platform on the national stage

See: Donald Trump

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 02:57

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

the trump tutelage posted:

A destabilized America may prompt election reform.

But most likely won't

TomViolence posted:

Everywhere in the world would be much safer if the Great Satan just hosed off yes. That's not even remotely controversial.

Why do you imagine America loving off would leave a power vacuum that would remain unfilled?

Do you really think China or Russia would just leave the world alone in our absence?

There has never been a point in world history where a superpower has not exploited weaker nations. Removing America from the equation doesn't end imperial exploitation any more than removing England and France in the early 20th century did. No matter what there is going to be imperialism in a global economy. Push to make the system fairer and better, don't just reshuffle the deck.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:04

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Eifert Posting posted:

I was waiting for someone to take my alley oop

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:05

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bob le Moche posted:

Hillary Clinton is making no effort at all to distance herself from the ideological basis of movements like the tea party. The tea party exists because the American ruling class, democrat and republican, have been feeding a nationalist, bourgeois-worshipping, white supremacist ideology to them since forever and they end up believing it.

ok sure bro

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:06

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

Nice exceptionalism you've got there.

How is it exceptionalism to agree that America is the current dominant superpower? That's exactly what you have been saying this entire time.

quote:

I'd much prefer a multipolar world rather than everywhere outside of the US being treated like a backyard full of abused toys personally. I mean maybe things are different, living in America, being dripfed constantly the idea that your nation is a world unto itself and the wild Mad Max-like wasteland beyond its fringes is something that needs to be managed and contained via the blunt instruments of a belligerent and overbearing foreign policy.

We live in a multipolar world already. US is the strongest, but China and Russia are also carving up their own portions of the globe to exploit. Removing the United States doesn't make geopolitics multipolar, it turns a three way struggle into a two way struggle. If you think the US is the only one currently exploiting the globe with overbearing foreign policy you are irreparably ignorant.

TomViolence posted:

I didn't think you guys still bought that World Police bullshit. I thought we were at least somewhat on the same page.

I don't know how you got "world police" from pointing out that contemporary geopolitics will inherently birth exploitative superpowers whether or not its the US. We're not arguing the US should be uniquely responsible for governing the world, we are pointing out that removing America wouldn't change the nature of imperialism, just change the players.

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 6, 2016

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:12

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Bob le Moche posted:

If Hillary Clinton comes out and makes statements along the following lines:

- America is not the best nation on earth
- The founding fathers are not heroes
- Capitalism is not good for workers
- America stands on indigenous territory and was built by slaves

Then she will have my vote. Otherwise I consider her a collaborator and part of the reason why the Tea Party and Trump exist

Ok cool, enjoy riding your ethical superiority to historical irrelevance I guess?

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:21

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

TomViolence posted:

Oh, the system is there and I can't dispute that. I can, however, argue that the existence of such a system should not by itself justify itself. America, China, Russia, these empires do not get to be empires just because "contemporary geopolitics" dictate, that system of contemporary geopolitics is a product of their imperial staus. I can and will get cancer because of the laws of science, it shouldn't mean that cancer has to be accepted and that efforts should not be undertaken to cure it. It also means I'm well within my rights hating cancer and wanting it to gently caress off and considering my life better without it.

We agree on the basic principle though.

Yes, steps should be taken to cure it. The difference of opinion is here is that I do not think you are going to cure the problem by simply removing the result and not the cause. US, Russia, and China are not the cause of global exploitation. They are the result of the nature of modern geopolitics. You are not going to cure it by simply removing these nations from power, because the global system is set up that someone somewhere will take over.

Let's take your cancer metaphor. If you wanted to be cured of cancer, would you rather the doctor already be experienced with the type of tumor and know how it works, and try to cure the disease he understands or would you rather he randomly replace your tumor with a different cancer and just kind of hope it won't be as bad?

Its going to be easier to push towards a better global system with stabilized and understood political powers in place than just reshuffling the deck and hoping for the best.

sarmhan posted:

Bullshit. Any system of ethics would call this out for being lovely behavior, because you're putting personal hangups over the general good.

I was being facetious

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:28

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

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.

Pretty much. My issue with revolution is that it almost never works. How many revolutions lead to more bloodshed and instability than solved it? There is a certain romantic idea by revolution, and I used to be all about it, but I ended up seeing more people burnt by the sun* than saved.

*-bonus points to who gets this reference

Like, I get you. Reform is slow and awful and nigh unforgivable in that it leaves injustices to thrive much longer than should be ethically tolerable. I just cannot conceive of a better system.

You are right though, America is not going to willingly give up power itself. The danger of a democracy as a global superpower is that it is impossible to get a majority to agree to give up its hegemony. The US has to be made, along with Russia and China, to abandon imperialism and exploitation. However, I think the world stands a better chance of de-escalating exploitation in a stable geopolitical environment than it does in a chaotic one. At least the world knows Russia, China, and the US and their allegiances and behavior are understood. Work against the enemy you know.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 03:37

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

canepazzo posted:

Shouldn't surprise anyone but:

https://twitter.com/PaulHRosenberg/status/784037259972444160

Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche? Only valid for whites.

Cross-posting from USPOL

# ¿ Oct 6, 2016 15:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:35

Mel Mudkiper: Jan 19, 2012; At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Pharohman777 posted:

Too ambitious and too fake are actual reasons for why somone would not like hillary, independient of being a woman.
Hillary is a career politician who got the DNC to rug the primaries in her favor based on the DNC leaks. Then she refuses to do public press confrences for over a year, while trump has done multiple ones.

She always acts like she is hiding something.

And to think I got a loving avatar for saying people like this exist

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Oct 8, 2016

# ¿ Oct 8, 2016 00:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What's the deal with people who hate Hillary?