What are the best criticisms of Hillary

There are only two people in the running for president right now. What others did doesn’t really matter.

Agreed. Like Obama’s stance on gay marriage, Hillary only jumps on the social liberal bandwagon once there is a solid consensus. There are very few issues, particularly economic ones, where she is truly trying to lead people and convince them on something that they are unsure or hesitant about.

More specifically, her Syria no-fly zone policy is poorly thought out and only vaguely sounds good to those who have been clamoring for Obama to be more active in Syria to stop Assad. Hillary’s suggestion in the third debate that a no fly zone could be negotiated was ludicrous since Assad would never agree to that and Russia would have no reason to. It would likely be a very short time before any announced no fly zone would be tested, likely by a Russian military transport so they could claim it was an unarmed transport carrying wounded or medical supplies or something.

Proposing a no-fly zone is only useful if you are prepared to shoot anything down in that zone. Russian anti-air S-300 and potentially S-400 systems are already in Syria, making any enforcement of a no-fly zone a very deadly risk to U.S. and Coalition pilots (assuming any other country was even willing to go this far). And these SAM batteries could make existing air strikes against Da’esh very risky and much more complicated, precisely at the time that Da’esh is under more pressure than ever with the Mosul offensive.

I’m not trying to shoot down your argument (I voted for Bernie in the primary), but why exactly is she a republican?

Aside from the Iraq war vote and coziness with wall street, she seems pretty strongly in the democrat column.

Her stance on health care, taxes, labor unions, climate change, abortion, guns, education, infrastructure, etc. are all pretty solidly democratic and at odds with what republicans believe about these things.

To me she is a democrat who supported Bush’s war in Iraq. That was a huge mistake, but I don’t think that makes her a republican. 29 out of 50 democratic senators voted for the resolution.

I’ve heard this from multiple sources also. Books written by insiders, people who claim to have met her in person, etc.

However as long as it doesn’t affect her ability to lead, build coalitions or make decisions, I’m not really worried about it.

Her Iraq vote and coziness with Wall Street are not nothing. Also, add to that her pandering to white middle class fears (super predators, “young people think work is a four letter word”, fear mongering over video games) and you pretty much have a George H.W. Bush era Republican.

As I said, I will never forgive her Iraq vote, not because it was a mistake, but because she knew it was the wrong vote and she made it anyway. I believe she made that vote because she wanted to shore up her hawk credentials for a future run at the White House. If she had to vote to blow up some brown people so she could be president, I’m sure she was able to rationalize it away as just one vote out of many, it was going to pass anyway. When confronted with an opportunity to put country first and take a difficult stand, she instead made a craven political calculation.

I spent some time in Iraq. I lost friends there. As I said, I will never forgive that vote.

The biggest problem with Clinton winning is the further empowerment of the media to get what they want. Lets imagine a Bizarro America. A media that spends a minute or two for at most a few days about Trump’s women. Instead they spend weeks going over the wikileaks demanding Hillary apologizes for everything her staffers say. Spends endless hours reviewing every physical problem she has shown. Weeks discussing what her ailments really are. Going after her endlessly about the E-mails. Spending little time on the Trump problems. The polls would be a whole lot different. The media gets what they want. They craft and mold public opinion. If you don’t think the media can do this, why do companies spend millions on advertising? The right wing tends to think the media is the puppet of the Democratic party. Its more the other way around, corporations and the media are probably controlling both parties. Since I don’t think it matters in the long run who wins, neither is worth a $h1t, I will vote for Trump hoping to knock the smug expressions off the talking heads faces. And finally, for decades I’ve heard that each presidential election is the most important election of our lifetime. Its not, and the hysteria is getting a bit old.

The extent of her involvement in the running of the Clinton Foundation can be a bit hard to pin down, so it is not entirely clear how much of the criticism related to the CF should fall on her shoulders. But there have been reasoned criticisms of mismanagement by the Clinton Foundation and related organizations with involvement in Haitiand Colombia.

The linked article on the Clinton Foundation’s involvement in Colombia came from Fusion, a joint venture of Univision and ABC News. It quotes a prominent Colombian labor leader in the oil sector thusly, "They are doing nothing for workers,” he said with disgust. “I don’t even know what they are doing in this country other than exploiting poverty and extracting money.”

A small businesswoman who took up the help of a local Clinton Foundation sponsored organization (the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative) to get a contract selling fish to a large hotel was left disappointed. She was awarded a contract and relying on that took out a bank loan to grow her business. But after the cameras left the CGSGI head came back to tell her she would no longer sell direct to the hotel… she was to sell direct to the CGSGI which would now sell to the hotels and reap much of the profits. She was left struggling to pay a loan and without the expected profits. And this story of Sandra Valdivieso is the featured success story on the Clinton Foundation’s website as linked above.

Throughout Haiti there has been a steadily drumbeat of criticism of the Clinton Foundation involvement in Haiti Earthquake relief efforts. This has extended to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund and Bill Clinton’s involvement as a special UN appointed representative. While local housing projects failed, Hillary Clinton’s brother received a gold mining permit* (one of only two issued in the last 50 years in Haiti). Development efforts to aid poor and displaced Haitians were sidelined while a large Clinton Foundation backed industrial complex was built in the north, far from the earthquake affected regions. And business development efforts were lacking for poor Haitians, though two luxury hotels were built with Clinton Foundation backing to the financial benefit of foreign investors.
*The permit was suspended after much criticism.

Fair enough.

As far as the term super-predators (since that came up), why do people find that offensive? As someone who has read the biographies of various gang members in the 70s and 80s (Kody Scott, Stanley Williams, a few others whose names I’ve forgotten), that is a pretty accurate term. I believe a tiny fraction of gang members commit a disproportionate number of the crimes.

The term super-predator may have been misinterpreted by white nationalists to describe every black male under 30. However, they were (and to a lesser degree, still are) a major threat in the inner cities. The tiny minority of criminals who commit over half of the serious crimes.

Clinton is your typical politician who sometimes becomes too obsessed with campaigning to the extent that she forgets what she’s supposed to be campaigning for. She’s your typical political pragmatist. After Iraq, after the Great Recession, people want results, not strategy.

First, it was pretty clear super predator meant black criminal, the term wasn’t used to conjure up the image of Michael Milken. Secondly, the speech was in support of a bill that increased incarceration for drug use and expanded the use of the death penalty. It was all about pandering to white fear of wild eyed negroes hopped up on crack and rap music.

Honestly, I think we need a more muscular foreign policy, though something far short of Bush. One big gripe I’ve had about Obama is that he’s way too cautious on foreign policy. The backing off his red line thing with Syria over their chemical weapons made me throw up my hands and think that he’s just too cautious and didn’t really want to do anything there. His wavering on how many troops to leave in Afghanistan is another example. If he had listened to Biden, he would have removed all troops pretty quickly, so I’m glad he didn’t, but he seemed to go back and forth too much. He’s doing nothing to counter the Philippine president’s aggressive idiocy in trying to push the US away and pull China and Russia closer (or whatever he’s really trying to do)

There was an article in the Washington Post I think a week or so ago that there is a bipartisan team of foreign policy advisors who are strategizing on where to take foreign policy in the next administration because they think Obama was way too cautious, and make it somewhere in between Obama and Bush, and that that fits in with Clinton’s outlook. I think I agree with that outlook to some degree. More but not too aggressively more

While I agree that her style is not to speak bluntly and plainly, I don’t believe people want someone who is simply sincere and shoots straight and tells it like it is.

What they want is someone who **appears **to be sincere and to shoot straight and who tells it like they think (or want to believe) it is.

It seems pretty evident at this point that she misconfigured an e-mail server. And a (very) few statements she’s made have been rated “pants on fire” lies by the fact checkers. She wore white after Labor Day. None of these things are really in dispute.

On this front, one of Clinton’s campaign promises is to raise infrastructure funding by “closing overseas tax loopholes”. I have a hard time imagining how that is going to work out in a way that isn’t a net corporate tax cut.

For instance, a lot of de-facto US companies have huge piles of cash parked in foreign subsidiaries. Now, these companies do want to have this cash usable in the US, and the US government should get some tax revenues in the process. One of the proposals I’ve seen discussed basically is a one-time tax on repatriated cash. Corporations will only take that offer if the US tax is favorable, compared to the foreign tax rates and opportunity costs of sitting on big cash reserves. So I suspect the repatriated cash will be taxed at a rate significantly lower than US corporate tax rates. Enough so that every corporation will end up with a decent return on investment for playing these tax avoidance games…

And going forward, for every “loophole” closed, several new ones will be opened up. Again, the long term net result will probably be lower corporate tax rates.

Pragmatically, this is a win for the corporations, a short-term win for the US government. And I suspect even a short-term win for the rest of the US economy, as those huge cash reserves are spent in the US.

But it’ll be a long-term loss for progressives, and a big win for the political clout of huge corporations.

It’s Reddit, but this is a decent list of Hillary critiques from a left POV. Most of these could be applied to generic liberals: corporatism and support for the security state at home, interventionism abroad.

More of a prediction, but given Hillary’s secretive nature I suspect she’ll give Obama a run for his money when it comes to punishing whistle blowers and resisting government transparency.

This is one of the few areas where Obama seemed to have the right idea and learned from Libya (as opposed to Hillary, who has only seemed to learn a little), despite his gross misjudgment about boxing himself in with a red line in the first place. Lobbying a few or many missiles, air strikes, etc. wouldn’t have been able to outright destroy Assad’s army and regime, only fatally weaken it at best against the opposition (which would have also meant weakening it against Da’esh too). Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost because we didn’t intervene. Since Assad has intentionally done his best to turn the civil war into a sectarian war, potentially many more would have been lost if he was outright toppled and the Shia/Alawites were slaughtered. Even Hillary, who still has some pretty reckless foreign policy ideas, doesn’t seem to want to actually topple Assad or fatally weaken him directly at this point.

I think Obama (and ironically Hillary and even Trump, who haven’t seemed to bring it up at all) are playing it right. Most of the controversy, aside from Duterte’s open slaughter on all drug addicts/dealers, has just been over Duterte’s words. He apparently hasn’t really followed through on them by actually having his administration make the formal requests for U.S. advisors to leave, joint military exercises to be cancelled, or to withdraw from the U.S.-Filipino mutual defense treaty or the visiting forces agreement for U.S. troops. He’s only signed some investment agreements with China. The U.S. would risk permanently damaging relations with the Philippines if it reacted too rashly to Duterte’s self-sabotaging posturing and stupidity, particularly if it unilaterally withdrew from the treaty or itself started to call into question whether it would live up to defending the Philippines. A PR war that tried to match Duterte’s crude chest-beating would likely trigger the very treaty-breaking the U.S. does not want. Even if Duterte does start to act on all of his statements and actually sever ties with the U.S., if the U.S. does not try to escalate the situation, it leaves open the possibility that all ties could be restored when Duterte’s successor takes office.

Her announcing of the 4-minute time for nuclear launch steps in the protocol was an alarming breach of sensitive info. This breach was *after *that whole 30,000-emails kerfuffle, which should have made her know better.

Of course, Trump would be 10x worse at this sort of thing. But it still shows sloppiness or disregard for secrecy by a woman who’s been in high-level politics for decades and wants to be POTUS.

What’s next - “We have fifteen spies working undercover in the Syrian government right now, some as far back as 2006?”

I disagree. It’s public knowledge.

She is a phony.

Her speeches are shrill; her laugh cringeworthy.

But she will make an adequate president for 4 years.

What a terrific basis for choosing a President.

21 old rolleyes salute.