Here’s a question for LiveFree: You don’t like Hillary. Do you REALLY think that Trump is a good person??
This will show how good you are at judging someone while putting your political affiliation aside. Let’s see if you can.
Yep, just as non-sensical the other way as well.
She’s lived a life of public service, and she’s famously funny. Good enough for me.
I agree. Clinton is a much better person than Trump.
But I don’t think electing a President should be based on who’s a better person. It should be based on who would make a better President. And Clinton would have been a far better President than Trump has been.
The relevance of Trump within the question, ISTM, is that the Clintons have a long standing friendship with him.
Can it be even possible to be friends with someone like Trump and still be a good person?
Not in general, no. But there’s a level of “not a good person” that is so far down that you don’t think they would even have the interests of the country in mind at all. Someone who is so bad he just antagonizes others and thus cannot actually get anything done.
Before Trump, I never would have thought that any candidate could go below that line.
This is hopeless.
Politics is not about deciding who is a “good person”. It’s about deciding who is more qualified to do the job, and more reliable about what job they claim they’re going to do. It’s about deciding “good person” in the context of the job.
I believe Hillary was the most political experience of anyone in recent memory. I believe she has always clearly said what she’d do when running for office, and I believe she’s done that within realistic constraints. I believe she’s generally a good person… she may have tried to minimize her husband’s sexual misconduct, but she didn’t pay off a porn star with a shady lawyer running shell companies to hide an affair while she had a young child at home. She most certainly was a thorn in the side of Russia’s criminal enterprise, whereas Trump is actively going to bat for Russia and Saudi Arabia. And Hillary would never cheer while border patrol assaults barefoot children with CS gas.
In the context of a black-and-white choice (which is of course the only way you conservatives do things, and the way we had to vote), Hillary is a saint compared to Trump, who is a garbage-eating sociopathic cretin.
She’s far more competent and rational than Donald Trump. She lied about being shot at in Bosnia because of her ego, yet she’s still far more honest and rational than Trump. (Trump started his presidency with lies about the size of his crowd because… his ego is even bigger.)
Trump is getting into the news for giving the military permission to shoot Latin American refugee claimants, when the military doesn’t even want, that power a few years after complaining about Mexican “rapists” and other criminals trying to cross the border. So he’s a racist who wants to abuse his power to kill Latin Americans.
That’s just Trump’s irrationality on one issue.
I don’t believe Hillary Clinton is less honest than other politicians. She’s just the victim of a very effective smear campaign, was a poor electoral candidate, and was too entitled to realize that a private email server looks bad at minimum.
“Good” is a relative adjective, not an absolute one. She’s more good than some people, and less good than other people. What threshold should I use?
Given the context, the obvious comparison is Trump. And yes, she’s more of a good person than Trump is. That’s easy.
I really appreciate blindboyard (about ten posts up) actually presenting (bad) foreign policy things that happened when Hillary was Sec of State. I voted “yes” in this poll, and might quibble with a couple of blindboyard’s points, but it is SO refreshing to see someone criticize Hillary for actual, important actions, rather than invented bullshit, unimportant personality flaws, or “I just don’t like her” misogyny.
<hammers a “WATER POISONED - DO NOT DRINK” sign next to this well>
I don’t know if Hillary is a “good person”, particularly as the OP has provided exactly zero criteria for what a “good person” is. She has certainly accomplished good things for many people (I refer you to the advocacy for women and children already cited above), unlike Trump who promises much and delivers little to nothing. She’s fairly ruthless but that’s true of all power players at her level and doubly so for women at that level. She is, as also noted, heavily corporatist and has hawkish tendencies. She’s a politician, with all that that implies.
Whether this makes her a “good person” overall is debatable and she was not my first choice in the 2016 primaries but going by all available evidence she is a far better person and would have been a far better president than Donald Trump.
“So the one time she’s had power over people she used it to shed epic quantities of blood, destroy democracy and cackle over the deaths of her enemies.”
I agree. This type of dispassionate, objective, purely fact-based analysis is sorely lacking on this forum and in online discussions in general.
Hillary has always been secretive and that’s often gotten her into **trouble. There’s this perception that you never know where she actually stands on anything. She’ll say what people want to hear to get elected.
**The email server is a classic example. We’ll never know why she felt a need to communicate outside the official & secure resources already established. Her hubris dictated she could do what she wanted without consequences.
Hillary is just not a warm and likeable person. Certainly no one I’d want to meet or elect to office.
Is she less noxious than Trump? Well, of course she is not as bad as him. But, that’s not saying much. Practically anyone else is better suited to office than Trump.
Agreed! I’d still want to verify whether (a) she’s really to blame for those things, and (b) whether they might not be unintended consequences of her trying to do the right thing, before pronouncing her “a bad person” over them, but as far as I can tell, blindboyard is the only one to even try to make an actual case against her.
Sentence two: “We’ll never know why she did this.”
Sentence three: “Here’s why she did this.”
Well no, it was rock-throwing migrants he hinted could face deadly force (and then contradicted himself a day later).
Meantime we have Hillary telling European nations to curb immigration and in turn being accused of promoting xenophobia to fight xenophobia.
It’ll be a fun time leading up to 2020. :dubious:
This is yet another effort at the “false equivalency” that worked so well for the Republicans in 2016. “There are some negative things about Hillary Clinton, therefore I will vote for Trump or not vote at all because she is no better than Trump.”
WRONG. I think the intervening two years have proved without a doubt that theory to be a total fallacy.
In my opinion, I think these two years have proved that Hillary Clinton is a MUCH better and MUCH more experienced politician than Trump. She also has a lot more respect for the office and much more regard for the principles of democracy that this nation supposedly represents.
Also, consorting with a hostile government to affect the election process of your own nation is a far, FAR, more serious accusation than using an improper email server. In fact, any attempt at a comparison is a total joke as far as I’m concerned.
This sounds exactly like all those gawd-awful Facebook posts with a picture of an abused puppy saying “I’ll bet no one reposts this!”
As the OP is just a snarky attempt to promote your own Hillary-hate, I’m going to respond that in the spectrum of Good Person, on a 1 to 10 basis, it goes:
-1 = Trump
0 = LiveFree
7 = Hillary
Somehow I don’t think this went as well as the OP thought it would.
What we’re really talking about is charisma. The natural ability to draw people’s attention, confidence and trust.
It has nothing to do with gender.
Hollywood calls it the Q score. It’s a critical rating for any actor or actress’ career. Especially if they are being considered for a lead role. They have to be able to draw audiences and get high ratings.
Politicians have to be charismatic. JFK and Reagan both had it. Bill Clinton is charismatic. I’d assume Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir had those qualities. These are people who were natural leaders.
Hilary’s visibility & popularity as First Lady helped her win a Senate seat. I wish she had kept it. She would be finishing her third term and certainly a very influential voice in the Senate.
I can’t see her ever getting enough support to win the the Presidency. There are many people in Congress in the same situation. They just don’t have the popularity & public trust to win the highest office.
Sure - good enough, as far as politicians go. Apparently pretty entitled. Out of touch on some matters. And more warlike than I would prefer. But no more “dishonest” or other negative characteristics than the vast majority (not all) of other politicians and wealthy people, and generally comes down on the correct side of most social issues as far as I’m concerned.