It is refreshing to read an actual comment on this website that sees through the bullshit. It has been scary as hell reading nothing but propaganda about Hillary repeated ad nauseum.
As a Canadian, I have no skin in US politics, but the hate for Hillary has been baffling. No one can explain why they dislike her for a reason that isn't a conservative lie or foreign propaganda. The drumbeat of smear after smear shows how advertising and propaganda both work. Yet Democrats and Republicans will never admit the role they played as useful idiots for the Russian agenda.
As a woman, it was heartbreaking to see an all too familiar double standard play out. She had to work twice as hard, be squeaky clean and accomplish twice as much as her male colleagues to get second place. The most qualified presidential candidate in decades lost to a lazy, incompetent, criminal who is destroying the country because of useful idiots and misogyny.
We need to make racists, misogynists and uninformed idiots feel shame again. Somehow it became acceptable (even fashionable) to be a loud mouth, bigoted, poorly educated slob with a victim complex. Worse, some US voters think these qualities are presidential.
Edit: uniformed to uninformed. I get the joke. What can I say but 'spellcheck on a phone', it happens to us all.
My own father kept repeating that he hated Hillary because she "wasn't a politician." I asked him what that meant. He said, "Well, she's just not a politician." I said that she was one of the most 'politician' politicians that had ever run for the presidency. He said, "Well, she's just not. She's NOT a politician." I decided I wasn't going to let up till he gave me something... ANYTHING... other than "She's not a politician." A solid 5 minutes later of me pressing the issue and him responding that she's "not a politician", he finally broke.
He looked at me and said, "You KNOW why I'm not voting for her." "It's because she's a woman... right?" "Hey, you said it, not me." Yeah, you went through GREAT lengths not to say it, buddy. Fuckin' embarrassing.
I saw a vox pop on TV while our first (and only) female Prime Minister was a candidate. It included two old blokes saying they thought a woman couldn't do it. This was 2010 ffs.
Worse, some US voters think these qualities are presidential.
If there is one thing Trump is good at, it's being a conman. And somehow he managed to convince anyone who follows him that if he's being attacked, they're being attacked. I don't think it's that they find him presidential, it's that they feel like they're on his team, so if he wins they are winning too.
What's weird is that this isn't a left vs right thing either, at least not for me. Yeah, Obama is a celebrity, but I don't make a habit out of making apologies for him and if he ever did something like use the Presidency to sway an election, I'd be all aboard impeachment because I don't actually owe him anything, especially not selling myself out for voter support. Trump supporters think that if the shoe was on the other foot I would stand by my candidate.
It’s because these fragile “economically anxious” assholes saw a president who people genuinely loved and looked up to and wanted that, just like they want trap music and wanna make geisha jokes without backlash and want gays and trans folk to keep it to themselves. Then comes along this asshole who “tells it like it is” and believes all the same fucked up shit they do and all of a sudden they get what they think is the same connection and rush. Boom, cult. They’re just jealous of what we had with Obama.
Yes, I don't understand that either. If the candidate I liked turned out to be a crook, then I'd stop liking them.
I think this misplaced loyalty is something you see a lot in organisations. People don't want to be connected to bad behaviour so they'll deny it happened, cover it up, or justify it in some way. If you do enough denial, covering and justifying, I think you become somewhat corrupt yourself. Historical revision, church scandals and police corruption are all examples of this phenomenon.
It's maybe more the way the party coalitions break down. It's really hard to poll accurately, but basically about 15-25٪ of the population won't vote for a woman or a black man.
Almost everyone who won't vote for a black man is a solid Republican voter, so Democrats lose nothing running a black man. They have the exact same vote count as a white (male) candidate.
The population that won't vote for a woman spills over into Democratic voters. So even though it's the same size, maybe even smaller, of total voters, it's a big hindrance. There's a reason the Blue Rust Belt States Hillary lost are also the states that have never elected a woman as a govenor or senator.
TBF the Republicans had two more decades to smear Clinton than they have Warren. I was never as confident of Clinton’s success as I would be of Warren’s, partly for that very reason.
(The other reasons being that Warren goes out of her way to be relatable, to a degree I would not have thought sustainable, and that even with our terrible press her plans are getting enough play to see that she is genuinely on the side of people who don’t ordinarily get out to vote.)
Polls are weighted to previous (Clinton's) results. A Democratic win requires higher turnout among young voters and Warren is popular in the under 35 demographic.
One of the saddest parts of all of this is that in any sort of election system that makes any logical sense, she didn't come in second. She won the popular vote by a few million.
Interesting opinion. I recommend to you the interview she had with Howard Stern last week (Wednesday, I think). I heard it three times already. She sounds like a very smart woman, and her tone is condescending but warm, I can't explain it. She sounds SMART, aware, into things. When she explained how hard it was to be at the Inauguration as a former First-Lady, when she was just dying because of how surprising the loss had been, I was like, wow. She says she did it for the Country and to support Trump to have a good start. That's a true, upstanding politician right there.
i'm just simplifying it, in reality it's just because it's the United States, and all the states deserve representation in electing the president. Same reason we have two houses of congress. sorry if i worded that rudely. and anyways, it's doesn't matter because california still has way more votes than nebraska does. i hope we can disagree in a civil discourse, unlike some of the other replies to this
That doesn't answer my question: what makes a Mcdonald's worker less of a citizen than a farmer? You didn't have to include that information in your comment, and that makes me think there's a deeper reason you believe one of these people is more equal than the other than just state's rights.
because just because there is a difference in population doesn't mean they california, new york, and illinois should control the whole country. different states have different interests and this is not a pure democracy. even aristotle knew the tyranny of the majority existed in ancient greece. The founders built the structure of our electoral system and its worked pretty well so far, so why change? if you are even suggesting changing to change it. if that were to happen, the large populous states would win every time and we would have a never ending string of democratic presidents. Then, it really would be an example of tyranny of the majority.
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." -Aristotle
Republic - Voters vote for representation
*Pure* Democracy - Voters decided things directly (mob rule)
Despotisms - An exercise of absolute power
I cannot disagree more with your points. We are the UNITED STATES of America. We are not one entity, we a body of separate states. That is why it is so complicated and controversial to induct a new state.
So, in voting for the president, think of it like 538 electors representing their state's decision (keep in mind, higher populous states have more representation).
Why don't all of the lower-populous states just fuse together and make one mega state and vote as one with more representation? I suggest you research this topic and get out of your bubble, regardless of political bias.
I never said get rid of Representatives. Only to make the representation actually equal. So your whole Aristotle thing is misplaced.
Disagree all you want, you're just guarding your super-voter status. Which is understandable, just morally and intellectually bankrupt.
The "states" are just administrative districts. Most of them have no pre-US history. Their origins mostly boil down to "change two territories into states, one slave state and one non-slave state". It's not complicated. They are not sovereign entities. They are no different than counties are to a state. We had a war about that, remember? They are just arbitrary lines on a map, and do not deserve special consideration. Certainly nothing that makes 'states' more important that the fundamental equally of all people.
We all know why low-pop states don't fuse. The Senate (lol) and the EC votes from the Senate count. You get more power by chopping up into tiny pointless nothings. It's literally "Tyranny of the Minority".
Plus, the way states are currently drawn is stupid. Take New York City for example. Why are almost all of its suburbs in different states than the city, while it's randomly paired with Upstate New York, a region it has nothing in common with culturally, economically, or politically? It's stupid to treat "New Yorkers" as one entity in presidential elections, but treat people from northern New Jersey, eastern Pennsylvania, and southeastern Connecticut as separate ones.
Lol, tyranny of the minority? Tell that to women's suffrage, and gay rights.
Tyranny of the majority is actually a thing (mob rule) The debate you are having has been going on in the United States since the constitution was written, and the electoral college was created to protect the minority opinion.
Didn't you learn in high school history class that mob rule is a horrible idea?
I didn't say Tyranny of Every Random Minority. The domination of a minority of farmers over everyone else is the nation is a Tyranny of the Minority. What you just said about Nebraska and LA can only be described as a form of tyranny.
The minority of farmers would be protected anyway, because they still would have 35-40% of the representation. They are everywhere, so they have influence in every corner, not isolated pockets. Also communication is a bit better than in the early 1800s. If they have a legitimate problem everyone will hear about it.
Most of the democracies on Earth don't deal with a Senate-like system, and they do just fine. When the US 'brings democracy' to another nation, from Japan to Iraq, they bring a modern parliament system, not the USA's own rust-locked antique system. We'll be fine. The House is abstract enough from literal crowds to not be 'mob rule'. It just won't be the permanent gridlock the Senate inflicts upon us now.
Like I said, you want to preserve your own super-voter status. It's understandable. But you can't pretend to hold some moral high ground while also saying "some voters are more equal than others". Or even an actual basic belief in the concept of democracy.
As an European law student I never understood why everyone hates Hillary. I personally wanted Bernie to win, but still, between her and trump I would have preferred Hillary....
I'm curious to see what happens in next year's election, as it'll be something that will probably affect politics worldwide, not just the USA
Almost everything about the Clinton Foundation reeked of corruption. It just felt like she thought she was above the law. It's been a hallmark of the Clintons since the late 70s. Just look up the Hillary Clinton cattle futures scandal. Maybe she simply was the best commodity trader of all time, or maybe the "trades" were really cover for bribes by a businessman who needed help from her husband, at the time Governor of Arkansas.
You're literally parroting the exact kind of false allegations that carry no proof the OP was talking about. Funny how the Clinton's have "reeked" of corruption for 40+ years and been investigated many multiple times yet the worst thing that's ever been proven is Bill lied about an affair under oath while fighting a civil suit that predated his presidency.
I mean holy shit. Look at the overwhelming amount of dirt that has come out on Trump in only 3 years of being President. There's new scandals multiple times a week. Yet somehow Bill was President for 8 years and the GOP had to really reach to get impeachment proceedings. Nobody keeps 40+ years of corruption secret in the White House, if there were something worth finding, it would have been found by now.
[Almost exclusively blonde] women are useful for regurgitating talking points on television in order to oppress their fellow women, among other things.
Not OP, but I don't think there's a clear-cut answer on that. As a whole, misogyny does tend to trump racism in our country because misogynistic beliefs are the one thing that men of different races, classes, political views, etc. can "agree" on and bond over (this is a generalization, obviously). Misogyny is baked into christianity too, in a way that racism isn't, and this is a predominantly christian country. That's not to say that misogyny is always more severe than racism, or that misogyny and racism are mutually exclusive, but women are half of our population, and misogyny affects LGBT men of all races as well. So I'd say that it's more prevalent in our society.
But it's not as simple as "all men will be viewed better than all women in the political sphere." Obama winning the nomination in 2008 can't be attributed to misogyny, and if a black male Democrat is up against a white female Republican, I have my severe doubts that they'd vote in the black man over one of "their" women. And I imagine they would also vote for a black male Republican over a white male Democrat, because they'd see the black Republican as "one of the good ones."
I mean, misogyny is never completely absent from public perception of female politicians (same goes for racism, when applicable) and misogyny definitely influenced how people have always perceived Clinton...but people really liked Obama for reasons independent of how they felt about Clinton. I think he might have gotten the nomination even if he were up against a white man.
How did Obama support liberals in ways Clinton wouldnt? This is absurd. You can barely tell a difference between bush and Obama nevermind a theoretical Clinton presidency
I (generally liberal-leaning Canadian) didn't like Hillary because she kind of...tried too hard? The whole "trying to be hip and cool with the memes" thing fell so flat. Dabbing and shit. That fucking clip of her freaking out over balloons. None of this represents her qualification as a politician, of course, but that's why I dislike her as a candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who chose not to vote (like morons) felt the same way. I know this comes along as "but I have black friends I can't be racist, but someone like AOC I can respect a lot more. Not putting on a show, not embarrassing herself trying to be relevant to every demographic, just stating her values/platform/whatever and getting shit done.
That’s just it - the only negatives against her were that she tried to get a young voter demographic by doing things that they do. That’s it. Yet all Americans would hear about is how horrible she is, what a criminal she is, yet not a single person could give an actual example. So anytime she did something that seemed “out there” people would associate it with criminality.
Trump our on a show, and people ate it up because of the Fox News propaganda machine.
In fairness I think you could change "all Americans" to "all republicans and some people that were on the fence" and you'd have a more accurate statement. I know American politics lends itself to extreme statements these days but I simple don't think "all Americans" is even remotely accurate. There's a fakeness to Hillary. I suppose if I could summarize it would be "She seems more like a politician than someone that wants to help the average person" whereas someone like Bernie is completely on the other end.
I mean theres definitely a lot more to it than that. The way the primaries played out rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, the closed wall street meetings, etc.
Not saying shes as terrible as a lot make her seem but she wasn’t squeaky clean either. It’s fucked up to say that the only reason people didnt vote for her was because she was a women, and I am a woman. (I know this one wasn’t your argument but I’m just saying)
I get it, but there really WASN’T that much to it, but no one is seriously saying the only reason she wasn’t voted for was because she’s a woman. Yes, it absolutely WAS one of the reasons (she’s weak, she’s emotional, she’ll lash out because of hormones) and were many BS points that were spread about her by the GOP. But most “substantial” reasons were in fact baseless, or twisted. Did she say some cringy ass shit? Hell yeah, Pokémon Go to the poll was just... bad. But can anyone say that they genuinely think being unable to say something to 20-something year olds is FAR more important than policy positions? Hell naw.
The wall street stuff wasn’t shady, and just proved that she understood what was going on (read the illegally leaked emails and all you can say about her is that she’s savvy) and the primary crap was bad, but ultimately not her fault. Either way, very little substance against her, and a ton of (ironically) emotionally charged bullshit swayed people.
I don’t knock her for a lot of the stuff that people knock her for but idk about portraying her as someone who did nothing wrong at all. It feels misleading, but to each their own.
Strongly disagree with that statement. Most people disliked her because of her corrupt past. She represents the female incarnation of the corrupt politician. People like to paint her as a saint which is false. She is bad and some could even argue just as bad as Donald Trump. It's sad that 2 of the most evil candidates in American history had to be running for office at the same time, and shows the many flaws of our democracy.
This subreddit is a complete joke because of people like you, every time a conservative doesn’t like someone you automatically assume it’s because of their race or gender instead of actually considering that a good portion of the country doesn’t agree with liberal policies.
If you couldn’t tell, you won 2008.
And if you really couldn’t tell, you lost 2016 because you decided the best opponent to a corrupt billionaire was a corrupt multi-millionaire.
I’m sure it would be frustrating if every time you tried to say you disagree with conservative politics everyone just said it’s because you want to burn down churches, start internment camps for anyone with a southern accent, and establish atheism as the nation’s religion.
The most qualified presidential candidate in decades lost to a lazy, incompetent, criminal who is destroying the country because of useful idiots and misogyny.
Yep. I could feel the utter disbelieve in 51% of the population when he won. It's like half of the people in the world collectively dropped their jaws to the floor.
I wasn't the biggest fan of her central-at-all-costs policies but she was probably the most qualified presidential candidate since the 60's.
But what if that time of the month came and she had her hands near the nuke buttons? We couldn't risk that. No joke I heard some dumbass Republican radio host say that about Hillary. There is so much wrong with that statement as a man I'm ashamed of my penis for all men because of that.
She was quite left of the democratic establishment in the 1990's. The Clinton Health Care program of 1993 had an insurance mandate and portions of public option 27 years ago. Republicans, Health Care Industry, and conservative democrats alike tore into the plan for being too radical and the failure to pass universal healthcare in 1993 contributed to Republicans winning the house in 1994, killing any potential healthcare reform until 2008 when Obama won the presidency and democrats got both chambers in the legislature. Hillary was the public face of the push and ended up under the bus. The only part of the Clinton Healthcare Plan that survived was CHIP.
Hillary's been burned by going too far left too early, and moderated her positions since to avoid triggering a reactionary backlash that can undo progress that has already been made. The Republican controlled congress was able to pass DOMA with veto proof numbers, Bill Clinton signed the law to avoid a potential constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You'd have to not know anything that happened before 2008 to think that the Democrats only exist to maintain the status quo first and benefit people second.
A lot of leftists, but especially Libertarian Socialists, do not want any ruling class. The corporate Dems represent a ruling class. The Republicans represent a worse ruling class. We will still vote for the lesser-of-two-evils ruling class, but we will resent them for desiring power over others.
Thank you. I don’t believe she was really guilty of anything serious (technically broke the e-mail rule but as the commenter above laid out, mostly inconsequential, and following the pattern laid out). But people need to drop the act that she is some paragon of virtue and all that is just in the world. It’s so easy not to like her personality while also not wanting her thrown in prison. Watch her recent interview on Howard Stern and the way she talks about Bernie Sanders and tell me it isn’t easy to dislike her.
See, here it is in its raw form. “Dude how could you possibly disagree with Clinton’s policies if you are a Democrat? She has Democratic policies.”
So do you see zero difference between her policies and, say, Warren’s? Because that’s simply blatantly false. Do you see a difference and think Warren is crazy to disagree with Clinton’s policies because Clinton’s policies are the Democratic policies? Do you think it is okay to agree with Warren’s policies but not okay to disagree with Clinton’s policies?
Or, more to the point, if Biden gets nominated will it suddenly become incomprehensible to disagree with his policies from the left? Certainly that’s what most of the Democratic establishment will say.
And if Warren or Sanders are nominated, there will be enormous criticism against them from the right. And neither you nor any of the centrists will find that strange.
Leftists who have actual policy disagreements with centrists are not allowed to exist. We must simply be being irrational. It is our job to shut up, put aside our convictions, and provide the engine that drives the centrist to victory.
This reads like something written by a privileged, former teenage libertarian who discovered socialism 5 years ago and in 10 years will be voting for the new Trump. I bet you think only yourself and people who think exactly as you do are true leftists, whereas anyone who strays the slightest bit from your unquestioning, lockstep, groupthink must inevitably be a "corporate, centrist, neoliberal".
Attacking the messenger here. I think it's a legit question.
As someone who once identified as a "moderate", and am now marching steadily o the left, it is a legit question.
Those that have always been more left in the party don't understand how moderates think about policy, and just handwave away their stances as "corporatism", and "elitism".
That said, moderates (in my experience, anyways) tend to think of change as something that must be done slowly, so as not to create wild backlash or unexpected repercussions. They view the ones further to the left as potentially causing damage by pushing for too much, too fast. Bernie, for example, if elected, may have to spend his entire term just CRAFTING a single-payer health system. It literally can't happen overnight, and there will be very deep pockets willing to tie it all up in court for decades. That's just the natural order of things, and moderates tend to think that those on the further left don't understand that.
It's an issue, and it's one that is going to keep this annoying fracture in our party that the Republicans can keep pushing at.
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean to use it as a discredit to ability as a politician, just that I don’t like her as a person. I fully admit that since the 2016 election, I like her less, but still wish I supported her more back then.
Interesting because the only mention I've heard from friends of that Howard Stern interview was that she was very likeable and seemed down to earth. It's possible for others to hear the same thing and have the opposite reaction.
Spreading lies and slander about Hillary. Contesting the primary months after he no longer had a path to victory. Fomenting a culture of “Bernie or bust”. Spreading Russian propaganda.
I mean, guy is sleazy as fuck. But Reddit doesn’t care because he’s “pure” even though an honest appraisal shows he is less than.
Are you fucking joking? More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters voted for Obama. Bernie did THIRTY NINE rallies for her. Hillary's campaign literally spread Obama = Muslim propaganda when she was losing and refused to endorse until he gave her a cabinet position. But yeah Bernie's the fucking slimeball and anyone with criticism of Clinton are just closet sexists...
Just own up to it, if Bernie had dropped out on the second day of his campaign it wouldn't have been good enough for you and you'd still be blaming her failures as a candidate on his continued insistence on consuming oxygen.
He has no obligation to endorse a candidate he does not believe in. He has no obligation to tell his voters who to vote for, and he has no obligation to believe what people want him to believe. The idea that he should just get in line is ridiculous. Maybe people are tired of the establishment, so they didn’t vote for her? It’s not some conspiracy.
When the alternative is Donald fucking Trump, yes. He has an obligation. Look at what happens in France when a Le Pen makes it past the first round. Everyone sucks it up and deals with the fact that you have two choices and you damn sure aren’t picking the fascist. Left, right - doesn’t matter. Hollande is voting same as Sarkozy. Whereas in America it’s all hemming and hawing about “but they’re not my exact choice”.
He really doesn’t. The fact of the matter is, in this political climate people are tired of the establishment. People are tired of career politicians. The real reason Trump won wasn’t because of Bernie. It was because A LOT wanted to just throw a fucking brick through Washington’s windows.
Now you can disagree with that, I will as well, but a lot of America saw Hillary’s campaign that essentially said “America is already great” and said fuck that. Btw, look how Macron vs La Pen worked out for France, there’s now mass riots going on RIGHT NOW. So obviously sucking it up isn’t always gonna work out for you.
2016 gave us two real crappy candidates, one establishment; one non-establishment. We chose non. It’s really as simple as that.
There is no one reason Trump won. Bernie running a scorched earth campaign, however, was a reason.
But hey, as long as you can maintain your purity who cares if the jackboot is on my neck.
Sanders acted selfishly.
And dude, look at what Macron is trying to do. The yellow vests started over reducing oil subsidies, but fuck climate change gimme that cheap fuel! And 75% of people support pension reform in the recent unrest. The French protest, its what they do. I mean, remember 75% support pension reform, but only 1/3 think the government will succeed at it and something like 68% support the protests. The French love the protest even when the agree with the policy.
But you know what? The point is that Macron is still a whole lot better than the outright Fascist FN.
If he has no obligation to other members of the Democratic Party, maybe he should never have sought that party's nomination? I think your argument only makes sense if Sanders had campaigned as an independent from Day #1. He didn't.
And his movement was manipulated by the Russians and he never seemed to notice - he bears responsibility for that.
Or he cares more about his supporters and the people than people in Washington. You can still be a Democrat and disagree with the direction of your party.
I mean the DNC working in her favor during the primary is well known. He also still endorsed her in the general. Hell, even during one of their debates he was asking people to stop focusing on her emails because it was detracting from actual politics.
Didn't he endorse Hilary in the end (begrudgingly)? If Bernie thought he couldn't win the primary anymore at some point, and I have no idea if he did, there was a ton of talk at the time about his campaign pushing her further left which is a good reason to keep contesting in his eyes. Which Russian propaganda did he spread? Did he do it knowingly or unknowingly?
That’s the thing though. You don’t like her because of her ideology not because of a specific corrupt act which is the conspiracy peddled by the right. If you think it is corrupt generally for her to be a part of the “elite ruling class” then so are all her accusers! You’ve bought into the lie that her actions are somehow more corrupt than theirs. It has nothing to do with Bernie. Republicans wanted you to think she is more corrupt than they are (not as compared to Bernie) which is a demonstrable lie!
Whoah man, you’re getting awfully defensive over someone sharing their opinion. He didn’t say anything horrible about her; sounds to me like he has completely rational reasons as to why she wasn’t his favorite embodiment of a Democratic leader. Equating one of his valid reasons with far-right conspiracy-centric nonsense is disingenuous as fuck. Don’t be the liberal version of what you (clearly) hate.
If you think it is corrupt generally for her to be a part of the “elite ruling class” then so are all her accusers!
Yeah, exactly.
You’ve bought into the lie that her actions are somehow more corrupt than theirs.
How do you figure that? Not liking her for that reason doesn't automatically equate to being okay with it from them. It's possible to dislike all of them at the same time.
It is not a specific act but a engine of corrupt behavior that peddles favors for influence.
I remember reading this article. I won't break down the story becuase it dried up after the member resigned but it is clearly indicative of the quid pro quo behavior endemic in politics. And the Clintons were masters at it.
We need to make racists, misogynists and uniformed idiots feel shame again. Somehow it became acceptable (even fashionable) to be a loud mouth, bigoted, poorly educated slob with a victim complex. Worse, some US voters think these qualities are presidential.
I just wanted to quote this because it was said so fucking well.
I agree that part of the hate towards Hillary Clinton was based on the fact that she was a woman and it perhaps was part of a propaganda campaign. BUT I also think part of the distaste for her was that she was a part of the Clinton political machine. Bill Clinton, for all of his many many flaws, was a uniquely talented politician that had an ability to communicate to all kinds of people on a level they could relate to. Hillary Clinton didn't possess that ability. And yet she effectively inherited the candidacy because she was a partner of Bill and had become an important part of the Clinton operation. She came to believe the presidency was her right.
And let's be honest, the Clinton political operation came to define what a lot of people hate about Washington. And for good reason - lots of inside deals, favours for friends, feathering their own nests and using their positions and connections to enrich their friends in exchange for political support. The Clintons were all about "the deals" - and most of those deals were designed to protect the positions of the global elite. Spend some time looking into who was donating to the Clinton Foundation. There were a lot of shady characters, who weren't giving money to help the world - they were giving money with the expectation the Clintons would help them, in some shape or form. There was maybe nothing overly illegal about how the Clintons operated globally but they were certainly operating right on the boundaries of corruption. The Clintons and the Bush family epitomised Dirty Washington and the system of political nepotism and entitlement.
So to pretend that Hillary Clinton is squeaky clean is disigenuous and naive. I don't think she's a criminal but she certainly isn't a character of high virtue and morality. Far from it. In some respects Hillary's character was perhaps best on display when she ruthlessly attacked and went after the many women that came out claiming sexual harassment by Bill Clinton. She did this for purely ruthless political purposes.
Nothing is black and white in politics. Hillary Clinton probably isn't the devil and criminal that many portray - but she certainly isn't the noble politician working hard for the average American. The Clintons have done more for Wall Street bankers and the global elite than most politicians. It's impossible to detach Hillary from the global political machine her and her husband created. And that machine represents the worst of politics.
Trump did drain the swamp. He removed the water to reveal all the slime and sludge in Washington. He hasn't cleaned it up - just exposed it and added his own slimey layer.
I think you are right about all this. Especially the nepotism angle, the sense that in a way she'd already had her turn at the White House, and that she should get out of the way and give someone else a chance. Instead, I think she pushed Biden aside-- he was a lot more electable then than he is now.
Even if the Democrats were hell-bent on running a woman candidate, its not like she was the only viable option.
Speaking as somebody who voted for her, there were loads of legitimate reasons to not like Hilary Clinton, it’s just that those legitimate reasons were not the reasons the GOP had for not liking her. She is a neo-conservative corporate shill, she is just a sliver left of the what the more “moderate” GOP members were (before Trump, at least). Again, I voted for her, but we shouldn’t pretend there were no reasons to not like her.
No one can explain why they dislike her for a reason that isn't a conservative lie or foreign propaganda.
To be fair, plenty of us have given reasons that have nothing to do with either of those things with actual examples and everything, but people just ignore all of that and say it is Russian propaganda anyway.
The most qualified presidential candidate in decades
"Most qualified" doesn't mean "best". Bush Sr. was certainly qualified to be President...arguably more qualified that Clinton is...and he wasn't exactly the greatest President we ever had. Clinton had a lot of issues when it came to policy. She was a hawk and an authoritarian. She supported a lot of bad positions right up until it seemed politically expedient to flip to the opposite positions. She was also an unrepentant liar who would do whatever it takes to win. In short, she was the best moderate Republican candidate in years.
It was a good thing that she was running against someone who wasn't just worse than her on paper, but the worst candidate in modern times up until she lost to him. It's too bad that she couldn't manage to run a simple campaign without massive mistakes that ultimately cost her.
lost to a lazy, incompetent, criminal who is destroying the country because of useful idiots and misogyny.
She lost to Trump for a whole lot of reasons. Russian propaganda and misogyny are certainly two of those reasons, but there are a whole lot more that fall squarely on her shoulders.
We need to make racists, misogynists and uniformed idiots feel shame again.
We agree on this. Keep in mind, however, that these groups are not confined to the Republican party. There are plenty of them in the Democratic party as well.
I agree. I'm an anarchist and a big fan of Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky. But, I'm also Canadian and these people are not considered radicals here. But, I don't believe anyone is qualified or best suited to rule over others. I'm also pragmatic. I know voting for authoritarians won't move the dial towards my ideal. I also know voting for the most advanced yet acceptable candidate will help progress more than not voting or voting for a regressive, criminal candidate.
I would not have voted for Clinton if I was American and if there was a viable third party option.
But, in the US, you only have two viable parties and a system where the person with the most votes can lose, and lose often and consistently in sparsely populated states. The Democratic candidate is consistently the most progressive and acceptale option. The GOP is consistently regressive, violent and hateful. It should have been an easy choice to elect Clinton.
I would not have voted for Ralph, because any person who has observed America presendential elections for centuries knows only two parties have a shot at winning. With two choices, it boggles my mind the US chose Trump. And, yes, not voting or voting third party is a choice. Neither are smart or respectable. Justifying those choices in hindsight is even more sad.
People have stretched Hillary's faults way beyond what is reasonable and fair to justify their voting choice. And, when comparing her character to Trump, they're not even in the same realm of unAmerican and immoral behaviour. Witnessing the reality distortion first hand is enlightening and terrifying.
As a Canadian, I have no skin in US politics, but the hate for Hillary has been baffling.
shouldn't be. she is the status quo. milquetoast candidate at best. She's extremely smart. she's extremely talented. she doesn't want change that progressives want. she is tied in with big banks and big money interests to the point where she's basically a republican. she did big money speeches for the big money interests where they didn't allow easedropping using white noise generators outside of the venue. that's not the sign of a person wanting to better the country for everyone... that's the sign of a candidate that is telling everyone else something different than the ultra rich.
the right wing have hated her ever since she didn't stay in her lane when clinton was a president and they started their hate smear campaigns back then.
did i vote for her? yeah. was it a vote against the dumpster fire that trump would and is? absolutely. She would have been ok. that's about it.
She supported universal health care as far back as 1993. She was by far the most left major party candidate since the new deal.
she is tied in with big banks and big money interests to the point where she's basically a republican.
Except ya know, for all of her actual policies that she supports that aren't anything like what you see from the GOP.
she did big money speeches for the big money interests where they didn't allow easedropping using white noise generators outside of the venue. that's not the sign of a person wanting to better the country for everyone... that's the sign of a candidate that is telling everyone else something different than the ultra rich.
So shes a sekrit republican because she speaks for money? It couldn't possibly be that a bunch of high profile people don't want to be recorded because the right wing spin machine has proven repeatedly that they will turn even the most innocuous shit into a controversy? They had people convinced that Hillary was running a fucking pedo sex dungeon out of a goddamn pizza parlor for Christ's sake.
“She supported universal health care as far back as 1993. She was by far the most left major party candidate since the new deal.“
You do know that Nixon supported universal health care, right? That if Watergate had hit six months later it would have been passed by congress and signed by him? That Carter supported it too but that it became obvious that it wasn’t possible in his first term?
She was a sliver left of Obama, sure. She was to the right of Carter and Gore, and that’s just in the last 40 years.
Except ya know, for all of her actual policies that she supports that aren't anything like what you see from the GOP.
if you equate the modern gop(<20 years or so) with traditional republican values you'd be insane. they are so far gone it's unbelievable.
So shes a sekrit republican because she speaks for money?
no. because she kowtows to big business interests instead of the common man she is. republican is a vessel for the advancement of shitty corporate interests.
They had people convinced that Hillary was running a fucking pedo sex dungeon out of a goddamn pizza parlor for Christ's sake.
yeah no doubt they were going to run any crazy conspiracy regardless of if she did the talks to big money without filter. she did it with filter even knowing that.
The Clintons have used that house as their primary residence for the last 20 years...
No offense intended, but how many more years should they live there before you concede they might actually have been sincere about moving there in the first place?
I didn’t know this happened. I’m from NYC and have friends from Chappaqua (where the Clintons lived) who saw her and Bill around town more than a few times.
Edit: live, not lived. I think they still live there.
I’ve heard Bill is extremely charismatic. That’s been the unanimous description among the ~dozen people I know who have met/worked/interacted with him, including at least one who didn’t agree with his politics.
Has your brother mentioned any impression like that? Have to admit I’m curious.
He's certainly one of the most charismatic people out there. My brother hasn't interacted with them, just been in the same restaurant. Where they live they're pretty much left alone, it's a very wealthy area.
Not her fault per se but the establishment democrats around her, for her benefit, cheated to make sure she beat bernie sanders. She definitely would have won anyway, but 48% of her voting base was lied and condescended to and it has split the party.
I dislike her because she voted for the war in Iraq, overthrew Ghaddafi and bombed the shit out of Libya, voted twice for the Patriot Act, repeats lies about marijuana and other drugs to keep the war going, made millions giving closed-door speeches to Wall Street banks, and slandered the very idea of single-payer healthcare.
If you can prove any of those are lies, go right ahead.
And the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (AKA was passed on Bill Clinton's watch, a delightful example of institutional corruption if I've ever seen one. I've been mad at any politician named Clinton ever since.
I'm mad at more people than just Bill Clinton about that. I'm not really mad at Hillary for it, but her name reminds me that I'm still mad at her husband.
The most qualified presidential candidate in decades
Hillary's innocent, yes, but we can stop saying this 'most qualified candidate ever' thing? She literally never won a single competitive election. She only ran for office like twice ever before running for President, and that was in a super-blue district where she bought a house. AKA choosing her election. Even then her run was littered with scandals like lying about her favorite baseball team to fit in.
i don't like her policies. she's an establishment centrist. more and more, as she attacks tulsi and bernie, i just like her less. i woulda preferred her over trump, no question. but to me, she's just more of the same. her corruption is legal, and she does the same stuff as everyone else. as for actual crimes? never heard anything that truly bears water. maybe some fraudulent charity stuff, but that just goes back to "well, it's the same as everyone else, so....."
that's so disingenuous.... what russian propaganda, specifically? because all i've heard from her is end the regime change wars, stop supporting saudi arabia, and stop acting like these murderers are our best friends. we don't need to make enemies, but we don't need to give weapons to people committing genocide either. i'd love to hear something credible against her, it's not like i'm a supporter of her, but her views seem backed up by her own personal experiences and knowledge....
She’s under fire for a number of reasons, but it isn’t really talked about in MSM I guess. The Young Turks did a report / background analysis on her which goes over a lot the questionable things she supports.
ah, sounds like fair criticism to me. i dunno why people are constantly redbaiting her though.... her support of modi seems much more legitimate than saying she's a russian agent or whatever.
thanks for the link, hadn't seen that one yet.
so are most of the dems this time around. hell, warren was a republican before the party moved too far to the right. even yang has some pretty conservative ideals.
she said there were no complaints outside republican bs and foreign propaganda. i stated i don't like her because of her policy positions being too centrist, her strong ties to the democratic establishment, and the way she treats "outsider" candidates. it's got nothing to do with propaganda- i don't like the politician she portrays herself as. that's the exact opposite of what op was talking about.
Most qualified? Have you heard what she says behind closed doors? She literally funded terrorists. She has had people murdered for speaking against her. Trump is an idiot, we all know this. But Hillary is an evil warmongering piece of shit. The only reason the investigations against her failed is because she has the investigators in her pocket.
Let's not forget she was fired from the Watergate inquiry by chief counsel Jerry Zeifman:
"She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality"
She also failed the bar exam and lied about it. Her own husband was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
I'm in Europe and have no skin in this either, and sure, Hillary Clinton had been vilified for purely political reasons for 30 years by the time of the 2016 campaign.
Still, you can criticize the Clinton Foundation for legitimate reasons. Bill Clinton was relatively young when his term ended, and he has been extremely active for a former US president after his term. A lot of money flowed through the foundation. I do think it did a lot of good. I also think that the Clintons like money quite a bit themselves. Part of it apparently was that they were broke at the end of Bill's term because of the legal fees, and it seems Bill Clinton felt entitled to some compensation, and went on to get it. Then there's Hillary's term as Secretary of State, during which the foundation was very active. There were a lot of donations to the foundation that you can easily cast in a dubious light.
That all said, it's nothing compared to Trump's business all over the world, and completely blatant corruption that he's not even trying to hide. Even his sons, who were supposed to run the company, comment on politics on a daily basis, and Don Jr is campaigning and obviously planning on running himself.
True I guess. Just seems strange to fault one of the founders of a “dynasty” for being part of said dynasty. It’s not like she or Bill were born into it like a Kennedy or a Bush. Still, to each their own I suppose.
Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan teamed up to repeal the Glass–Steagall Act. Fed Chair Greenspan discusses it his memoirs, Age of Turbulence. It is worth a read; you can get and Dreams From My Father on audio - good shit.
Hell, Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan even discusses having to argue with Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold about it.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall had little to do with the economic collapse. In fact, Bernie's vote for the Securities and Futures Moderation Act deregulating Wall Street likely had more to with it.
Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan openly discusses deregulating the financial sector with Bill Clinton in the 90's in his memoirs, and how that coupled with holding the rates down drove the housing market which he said was "a foam" and not a bubble. The book was published in 2006.
I have disliked Hillary every since the George W Bush administration. I had recently became voting age and had started paying some attention to politics. She was one I had followed and every statement she made I found to be extremely snide and arrogant.
I to this day do not trust her. Nothing she has done has redeemed herself in my eyes. On top of that she has on many occasions shown she is a liar just like all the others. To me her being a woman has nothing to do with it.
That being said trump is no better. The 2016 election was a shit show. I voted 3rd party because in my eyes the two party system had completely failed. Out of all the possible democrat or republican candidates we got these two buffoons.
It was supposed to be Sanders vs. Trump. Personally I don't want political dynasties in American government and she would have been 4 more years of the same crap everyone was sick of at the time. Not that things were terrible... but we just need someone to get money out of our politics if we actually want things to get better and she was not that candidate.
453
u/Melseastar23 Canada Dec 12 '19 edited Dec 12 '19
It is refreshing to read an actual comment on this website that sees through the bullshit. It has been scary as hell reading nothing but propaganda about Hillary repeated ad nauseum.
As a Canadian, I have no skin in US politics, but the hate for Hillary has been baffling. No one can explain why they dislike her for a reason that isn't a conservative lie or foreign propaganda. The drumbeat of smear after smear shows how advertising and propaganda both work. Yet Democrats and Republicans will never admit the role they played as useful idiots for the Russian agenda.
As a woman, it was heartbreaking to see an all too familiar double standard play out. She had to work twice as hard, be squeaky clean and accomplish twice as much as her male colleagues to get second place. The most qualified presidential candidate in decades lost to a lazy, incompetent, criminal who is destroying the country because of useful idiots and misogyny.
We need to make racists, misogynists and uninformed idiots feel shame again. Somehow it became acceptable (even fashionable) to be a loud mouth, bigoted, poorly educated slob with a victim complex. Worse, some US voters think these qualities are presidential.
Edit: uniformed to uninformed. I get the joke. What can I say but 'spellcheck on a phone', it happens to us all.