As I told one of my friends during the primaries, “I like Bernie’s ideas, but I think Hillary’s snowball has a greater chance of making it through Hell than his does.”
The electoral lock? I know Carter wasn’t a particularly good President, but that’s no reason to ignore him. Also, Congress was owned by the Democratic Party for decades. Electoral lock, indeed.
So, for the record, I am wasting my vote this election cycle. I will not vote for either of them, and I openly admit it without reservation.
I think that’s a rather apt comparison with the important caveat that Hillary does have a moral compass and Nixon had none whatsoever. But they were both regarded suspiciously because of their aggressive ambitions leading people to believe they might be less than ethical in their pursuit of power. And they both chose a life of public service despite appearing somewhat awkward and uncomfortable when in the public eye. Hillary’s crafted language and speaking style suggests a lawyerly obsession with effect rather than the ease of speaking simple truths, and that, plus her unearthly cackle, adds to the aura of suspicion.
And it doesn’t help that she’s such a contrast with Obama – he exudes an honest authenticity, he has one of the most sincere warm smiles I’ve ever seen on anybody, and when he pauses to choose his words you get the sense that it’s just a president being careful with language and not an attempt to mislead.
Still, I think she’s well qualified to be president and most of the problems are ones of perception rather than substance.
Hey septimoo.
My response:
Some of the foaming at the mouth is indeed ridiculous. However, she is very unlikeable for much more legitimate reasons.
I dislike Hillary Clinton on a personal level due to the debates I’ve seen her in, and in interviews, where she avoids answering tough questions directly, gives generic politician answers, and really forces a polished politician’s smile. She oozes insincerity. If you’d like, I can link you some clips. It’s not just how she’s saying, it’s what she’s saying and what she avoids addressing. You’d think she’d be comfortable in “liberal” media settings like late night talk shows, the Daily Show appearances, or being interviewed by liberal-leaning networks, and she looks and feels uncomfortable and it makes me feel uncomfortable just watching her. That’s the skeevy vibe I get from her, which I’m aware is just a visceral reaction and also one I should set aside. It factors very little in how I vote. Had she a record of speaking the honest truth in spite of how she makes me feel when she speaks, or had she a more progressive and less centrist or late-to-the-scene political record on social issues, economic issues, and so forth, I’d swallow my personal dislike of her much, much more. What matters are what she says, what she means, whether she’s trustworthy, and where she stands. I don’t have to like someone on a personal level to support them. John Kerry, for example, has all the charisma of a urine soaked rag, and I still supported him.
On policy positions, she has essentially the exact same political positions as Barack Obama, and I strongly supported Obama over her, because Obama did support more liberal policies than Hillary, and did much, much better in debates and interviews. The difference between her and Bernie Sanders is even more pronounced. Her campaign’s tactics and her debate performances between her and her Democratic opposition shows her to be more concerned with political power for herself than her own dedication to the truth, liberal policies, or even the good of the country. The way the party establishment prefers her, and given how closely linked she is to Donald Trump, makes me feel more and more like the system is just a shell game. Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, one donated to the other repeatedly, the other attended the former’s wedding and sat in the front row. So despite their current rhetoric, I do not trust either of them. I would prefer a candidate that has more principled stands against their supposed opposition, and is not supported by an establishment that continually obstructs needed reforms on campaign finance and voting laws, and totally ignores the working class and “starvation wages” as Bernie correctly called them, considering how much is needed in food stamps to support those on those wages. The establishment Republican and Democratic party insiders help themselves and do little for anyone else, and she’s very much a Democratic party insider.
For those very legitimate reasons, I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton.
I will be voting for Hillary, because she will not pack the court with the conservative coat hanger brigade. If she continues along the same lines as Obama, with less charisma and popular support, she represents a whole lot of the status quo for the next several years, which isn’t progress, but it is much better than Trump. Not for anything special on her part, though. Simply because the opposition is that much worse.
They clearly can and do make a ton of money in their private lives due mostly to the political connections, exposure, fame, and demand for their books, what they charge in terms of paid speeches or public appearances. Given the dirty and money-grubbing nature of our politics, I don’t automatically admire someone for choosing this path. It is a path paved with money, connections, and power. Hardly charity work. I’m not impressed by serving in office alone. Republicans serve as career politicians and it’s not charity work for them either, but lucrative business. They’re quite rich and it has everything to do with what they do.
They can charge whatever they want, and more power to them.
But, if the issue is something like regulating industries, or getting a living wage, if you receive huge donations from those who own or work for extremely wealthy and massive corporations, and you accept massive speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, there is a legitimate question as to whether you are the best person to fight the political fight on behalf of the people who cannot afford to pay you such fees or donate those sums of money.
I trust Bernie on those issues, and never Clinton. She is not a Warren, or a Frank, or a Sanders. She is a Clinton and is very comfortable accepting money from those who use all their political and financial power to shaft the general public and the working class in particular, and you won’t find her on the front lines of the fights for those key issues that matter most to me. She may, incidentally, support regulation or wage increases, if and when there’s political support from the Democratic party and such legislation makes it through Congress and it lands on her desk. Maybe. But she will not lead on those issues, or take risks to push those issues forward. She’s not a leader on any of the key issues that matter to me, her original stance on Healthcare not included. I did admire her proposal for universal healthcare in the 90s.
As you can see, it is not blanket hatred of Hillary that drives me. These are nuanced, intelligent, learned positions based on the facts. And I can see when and where Hillary has been an ally to my political interests. But, just like with Obama, I can also see where he or she has been a poor leader or has lagged behind others, or has been too milquetoast and compromised too much.
Her Senate record wasn’t actually that great. She essentially occupied the space, she was not a leader. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not aware of anything she really did while she was in the Senate. I admit, however, I haven’t invested a lot of time looking, so I welcome a correction. However, I am familiar with Sander’s record in the Senate and it is beyond impressive.
Obama’s position in opposition of the Iraq war was more pronounced than Hillary’s, and one of the main deciding factors when I made that decision in 08. I am not very impressed by Hillary’s stance or voting record on that matter. I do trust her more than I trust most Republicans on this issue, but not more than many Democrats.
No, she has poor charisma but I’d suffer it compared to Donald. My main objection to her is the collusion, the lying, her party insider and pro-establishment nature, her history of defending the status quo. She has parts where she’s ok, on women’s issues and children’s issues, as you say. But that simply puts points on the board, while she has too many negatives for me to support her except when compared to worse candidates. I know she will more often than not represent the interests of parties I am opposed to, and thus, am not supporting her. I am simply voting for her.
One last thing: The argument that Hillary will get things done, while Bernie is too pie in the sky to get anything done, ignores Bernie’s record of being one of the most productive Congressmen.
Google Sanders record in Congress. He gets a massive amount of amendments through even in a Republican controlled Congress.
Sorry, it’s a myth that he’s too liberal or too idealistic to get anything done. His record is much better than either Hillary’s or Obama’s, to be frank, better than almost any Democrat.
Despite his liberal leanings, he is bipartisan, and a gentleman, and is passionate about the issues but very rarely negative. He is very likeable, and the rest of the Senate gets along with Bernie anytime they aren’t in the middle of running for office and have to distance themselves from an actual liberal.
Clinton is a sometimes liberal, mostly status quo, mostly centrist, calculating, habitual liar. She has some qualities offsetting those negatives, but it’s not enough to make me like her. Donald Trump *is *an utter cesspool. No question, no argument there. That’s kind of why I wish the choice wasn’t between the Donald and someone often associated with the Donald.
I like you bruh, but if you paint all opposition to Hillary as irrational, you’re being irrational yourself.
You make several statements here I disagree with and aren’t supported by anything but your own conjecture. If you have something to argue, please argue it. This is just empty rhetoric.
He doesn’t have a ton of foreign policy experience. Neither did Obama. I trust Obama and Sanders more than Clinton on foreign policy primarily because of Iraq.
Where the hatred seems to be coming from is a resolute belief among certain parts of the population that both Clintons have a) repeatedly broken federal laws of some sort and somehow avoided being prosecuted by the skin of their teeth and b) lie more frequently and about more important things than other politicians. I don’t happen to subscribe to either of those beliefs, but there they are.
Two other factors comes into play: a real belief that the electoral system is indeed rigged (a general antipathy towards dynasties, in particular a Clinton dynasty), and a notion that there really are simple answers to complex political questions.
And then of course, there’s the fact that she’s a shape-shifting alien reptile.
Authenticity? Like when he claimed that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?
For all my dislike of Hillary on a personal and political level, no one could ever possibly get me to agree with any kind of criticism leveled against Hillary for what Bill did, nor her own private personal decision to stay with him.
That is very much not her fault and none of our business. Can’t reasonably attack Hillary that way.
So, I was correct in guessing that the Hillary Haters never read that speech. Where I went wrong was thinking you might have the attention span to read a few excerpts. ***Obviously you couldn’t even do that!
I should have just provided a TL;DR for simpletons: Hillary voted for S.J. Res. 45 not because she wanted Bush to pursue a stupid preemptive war in Iraq but because she didn’t.
I do especially admire the smallish number of politicians, including Gore, Obama but very few others (and certainly not Trump) who strongly opposed that foolish war, but Hillary lays out strong reasons why, given the actualities of the Bush-Cheney outlook, the Resolution was the best of poor choices. This is not the thread for detailed discussion of our Iraq Misadventure but I wonder if some of you ignoramuses thought Saddam was an OK guy who’d done nothing wrong. :smack:
Looking at Bernie’s non-shifting policy positions over 30 years, his follow-through on his attempts to pass legislation and meet his campaign promises, his commitment to avoid negative attack ads, and the statements he makes which are almost always true, with the notable exceptions being in statements where it’s more likely that he didn’t have all the facts, rather than simply slandering someone… (check his Politifact, versus Trump or Clinton)
Trump or Clinton have much worse records on truth-telling, policy consistency, and are worse on sticking to substance and the issues. The entire “Bernie Bros” thing is right up there with Swift Boating in terms of connection to the truth or reality, and it was invented by Bernie’s opponents. Bernie doesn’t do that kind of crap.
Some of the rhetoric is overblown, but as a recent example, Hillary lied repeatedly and very substantially about her emails. The controversy, in my opinion, is pretty tame and mostly ginned up by her opponents, but as a point of fact, she did lie, a lot, when questioned about it. This isn’t something that even Hillary supporters can dispute.
And she’s lying about something related to her government activities, to the American people, to protect herself. That is the worst kind of lie you can tell in politics, in my view.
Just don’t like her. I got beefs with her and her husband and all the rest of the Clintonistas who took the Dem party to be Republican Lite. I have some ear to give the argument that it was necessary if any opposition at all were to be maintained. Defensive, rear guard action.
That perhaps professional, lifelong politicians may actually know more about this shit than I do. Still pisses me off.
Thing is, I kinda like Bill, even as I figure he was at least as much responsible as Hillary, maybe even more so. But I don’t like her. So, its a bias. Has to be.
A whole lot of my people… who are pulling on the same end of the rope as I am, in this Tug-of-Whores that is our politics…a whole lot of them like her, to the point of enthusiasm. Most of them!
Well, OK, then. Shrug, spit on my hands, get back to the pulling. Not the only time I’ve been wrong, was wrong in '68, when I thought I had made a mistake. Voting for Humphrey might have been a mistake, voting against Nixon…was not.
She’ll at least delete it before the shoe drops.
I’m pretty sure that comment was aimed at “The Clintons” as a unit, which includes Bill. This was contrasted as “The Obamas” as a unit, which was presented as a better example of a great American family.
Actually, you were wrong about that, much like you are wrong about Hillary being a decent choice for President. If you bothered to read the few sentences made in reply (rather than spending that time trying to come up with insults), you would see that I rejected your interpretation of that speech as a defense for her actions.
Voting to authorize military action in order to stop military action from taking place showed an enormous lack of judgement on Hillary’s part. This would be true even if Jesus Fucking Christ himself was the President asking for the authorization.
That’s probably because you’re too feeble-minded to understand that there’s a world of difference between being someone who isn’t “an OK guy” and being someone that we should go to war against. There was no justification for the Iraq War, nor for any vote to authorize it.
Agreed, any statements she makes about Iraq war authorization, versus her actual vote, she could have voted no. So it wasn’t the least bad option. The correct answer was still no, and that was a vote she could have made. Or she could have abstained if she wanted to be cowardly about it.
I’m glad she might have handled the application of the war better than Bush did if she was in charge of it, but she wasn’t, and she gave Bush authorization willingly. She could have and should have opposed it.
By itself, not a factor that would make me not vote for her, especially since so many others got snowed on the issue. But, if you compare Clinton to Sanders or Obama, it’s a fairly striking comparison. So those who attack Bernie on foreign policy are on weak ground.
I hate to say it, but the claim that Sanders was a more effective Senator than Hillary is also ignorant.
[QUOTE=Trent Lott, prominent ex-Senator (R)]
I think Hillary … would be much better [than Obama] about reaching out and actually trying to work with the Congress.
[/QUOTE]
Hillary teamed with Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to reform the adoption and foster care system.
She teamed with Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) to combat human trafficking.
She teamed with Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to ensure proper treatment of wounded veterans.
As First Lady, she teamed with Newt Gingrich (R-Geo.) for children’s health insurance.
Et cetera, et cetera.
[QUOTE=Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.)]
I found Hillary to be very reasonable and very interested in working on projects that mattered to my district, but I also saw some of my Republican colleagues say the same thing. Watching her, she knew the process of how to get people involved, earn consideration of her issues and work to get support of her issues. Great lawmakers on both sides of the aisle know how to do that.
[/QUOTE]
As Senator, she worked hard to advance her core causes. The right-wing N.Y. police and firefighters started out hating her, but ended up among her biggest admirers.
TL;DR: The claim that Hillary wasn’t an effective Senator who reached out for bipartisan support shows pitiful ignorance.
I like Bernie. I’ve explained why I think Hillary would make a better President though that question is now irrelevant. I do note, from the Alternet cite upthread,
[QUOTE=Barney Frank (D-MA)]
Bernie’s holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.
[/QUOTE]
I also notice that the Alternet article trots out the same “$22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program” we see over and over when Sanders’ legislative accomplishments are the topic. I’m sure it’s a good program and Sanders is to be commended. But, let’s face it, $22 million in a $20 trillion economy doesn’t cause heart palpitations.
But fine. Let’s stipulate that Sanders is great. That has nothing to do with the thread topic. What’s with all the irrational Hillary Hatred?
I’m sure the Trump campaign will appreciate your wasted vote. Any vote, or non-vote, for anybody other than Hillary is a vote for that dangerous psycho, and I thought you were smart enough to know that, for the sake of your nation, you need to put your spite aside and do the right thing.
That’s one of my motivations, the other is that I will probably keep shaving, not wanting a beard to obscure my amazing chin. Shaving involves a mirror.
The position is based on what I hear fact-checkers say about her legislative record.
Debunks the idea that Clinton was particularly effective at rallying Republicans to support her proposed amendments.
She didn’t do nothing in the Senate, but the idea that she transforms Republicans from opponents to colleagues is out of touch with the reality of her record. If she didn’t introduce the legislation, or the amendment in question, and simply has her name on it along with others who voted for it, it’s a stretch to claim credit.
Her voting record is fine, it’s a standard Democrat’s record. But the widespread myth that she was someone who transcended politics and brought Republicans together with her on issues, in a way that was better than the average Democrat, is patently false. She wasn’t better. The idea that because she’s more centrist than Bernie and thus more palatable to Republicans makes sense in theory, but that’s not what history shows. She didn’t do any better than the average Democrat, and doesn’t even touch Bernie’s record.
But sure, there is a lot of irrational Hillary hatred coming from the Trump camp, and from some die-hard Bernie or nobody supporters. That has a lot to do with politics being emotional rather than rational for what seems like a clear majority of voters, and that’s worrisome. Trump is clearly better at manipulating emotions.
The premise of democracy isn’t that it is more rational, more efficient, or even smarter. Its more just that people participate in their own government. And that’s all you get. You pays your life, you takes your chances. I’m in.
Bahhh…
If you are so fucking bad / unlikeable / untrustworthy that people that are nominally on your side are willing to vote for someone ELSE and risk the other EVIL opposition winning…
Well, you fucking suck donkey balls and the onus on loosing is as much on you as it is on the “traitors”.