I dislike her because I believe she is an egotistical megalomaniac who thinks she knows how to spend my money better than I do, and feels entitled to her position (for whatever reason) at the head of the government to see damn well to it that she can enforce that will and is willing to lie, cheat, dodge responsibility and do basically whatever it takes to get there.
But, hey, that’s just my opinion.
Among other things, she’s a warmonger. She engineered the destruction of Libya after we had already learned in Iraq that toppling a secular Muslim dictator would result in ongoing civil war and Islamic extremists gaining power. Then she laughed on camera, adapting the a phrase by Julius Caesar, about Gaddafi being raped to death (also on camera) by rebels whom we assisted. (“We came we saw, he died.”) And she wants to do the same thing in Syria. Maybe the third time’s a charm?
If Putin organized a rebellion that raped the the President of Mexico (or let’s say Venezuela) to death, and laughed about it on camera while implying that he was Julius Caesar (or a Tsar, or Stalin) he would be seen as an insane, dangerous lunatic.
And there’s the appearance of massive corruption, with the Clinton Foundation taking donations from foreign companies and governments while she was secretary of state, as well as her and Bill’s speaking fees.
I suspect she is a decent person but am not particularly fond of her political career. I mean, she voted for the fucking AUMF in '02. On that point alone, anyone who calls her a liberal is either too far to the right to know what conservative means or is smoking crack. After all, in '64, she was a Goldwater Girl (though, compared to today’s Republicans, Barry Goldwater was a liberal).
She is just too far to the right for my liking. And you know what they say, given the choice between a Republican and a Democrat in Republican clothing, most people will pick the Republican.
Politicians are hated. It goes with the territory. People hated JFK and celebrated his assassination, too, but was Margaret Thatcher accused of stinking literally of the sulphur of hellfire? Proportion, my friend, proportion. The visceral hatred of Hillary is archetypal.
Moi, I thought that she pretty well embodied the stereotype of a modern politician. I would normally support a demo candidate, but she seemed way to hawkish and globally belligerent to me. And I didn’t think she was in touch with liberal thinking. – not that I always agree with liberal thinking, but she seemed like a democrat in name only, and a symptom of spreading oligarchy. A let-them-eat-cake democrat.
More responses! Yay!
Let’s recap then…
*A vote for misogyny
*A thread to the 1st and 2nd Amendment
*Another vote for sexism
*A bad first impression and a dissonance (again) about traditional gender roles
*The lack of security behind the email scandal and the disregard that allowed it
*Entitlement
*Cheater
*Warmonger
*Corrupt
I think that’s all. Now, to address some of these so hopefully I’ll understand more. I feel we’ve gotten a pretty good grasp on the misogyny/ sexism angle, so moving on, let’s first tackle…
Free speech
Is this one of those “she encouraged idiotic college safe spaces” type things. Backed bills promoting hate crime legislation? Something else? Free speech just seems like such an ingrained way of life in our country that I can’t ever imagine anyone attempting to curb it in any way and gaining much traction. Could you elaborate, Bone?
Also, while you’re here, as far as the
2nd Amendment
goes, was she pushing harder for more control? Harsher penalties for misuse? Prevention of attaining certain kinds? Outlawing them entirely? Responsibility for manufactures in someone’s death? Help me know nothing out, please.
Next, would it really be a thing to hate her for
defying gender norms?
Nowadays? I get that maybe some fundamentalist moms somewhere might really feel threatened by that and probably more than a few “stay barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” old geezers, but again, is that an issue that would raise that much ire? I see it as more of a tongue clucking, “That hussy!” way to think than seriously, but I’m open to being wrong. Which is why I’m here.
rowrrbazzle touched on the
email problem.
Could you flesh that out more? Because from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, that was mostly hand-waved away by us Dems as “everyone does it and none of THEM are ever prosecuted for it.” With a subtext of “it ain’t no big deal anyway” on top. Is what elevates this for many is because she was SoS at the time? Is it the private server in general? Why has the FBI (repeatedly?) investigated this and still not brought charges if it’s so dire?
All right, Gato brought up her sense of
entitlement
and the fact that she’s a cheater. I’m mostly curious about the former. Hasn’t the same thing been said about Trump, Bush II, Kennedy and a whole host of other men? If the predictions from the left bear any resemblance to reality of what the future might hold, is something like that enough of a turnoff (if you will) to vote for Trump instead? And does it rise to the level of hatred? Is there anyone else you feel that way about for comparison?
As for being a
cheater,
has anyone ever uncovered facts that support this feeling? I see it used against her a lot, but most of what I’ve encountered seems to exonerate her after many years of having her personal life delved into. So, I’d love to see what dirt is actually out there. I think it will help solidify me making even more informed choices next go around.
Lastly, I believe the claims of warmongering, because as an ally of Wall Street, I think the bottom line is what’s always best for business. Which they say war is. However, I thought all the whispered indictments against the Clinton foundation had been proven false. I know on Charity Navigator its rating is still pretty high and not a whiff of impropriety is listed anyway. Perhaps that’s not the best source, so I look forward to being shown what I need to know and fighting my own ignorance.
That wraps up this post. Thanks so much everyone for helping me. I’m really learning a lot.
Whoops! Forgot this.
Yeah, I don’t get it either. She would’ve been damned if she left and she was damned for staying. To me, the very essence of feminism is supporting a woman’s right to choose whatever path she decides. Maybe she stayed for Chelsea. Or however many years they’d been together were more important than any indiscretion. Maybe they secretly had an open marriage and it was better to keep that way. Perhaps she planned on leaving, and he begged her to stay on the condition he’d change, and she loved him enough to believe him. Whatever the reason, why is what she chose on that front anyone’s business? Certainly to the extent that someone could hate her over it. Or use it as a reason to vote against her over Trump.
Here is a decent articlethat documents some of Clinton’s positions regarding certain actions that implicated free speech. It’s reason.com so if that’s not your thing then…ok.
Pushing harder for more control: Yes
Harsher penalties for misuse: hard to say with this criteria as it’s vague. I’d say tentative yes, but only so much as to increase what was categorized as misues
Prevention of attaining certaini kinds: Yes
Outlawing them entirely: Vague as well, you’d probably say no and I’d say a tentative yes, but only for certain classes though she paid lip service to bans and Australian style gun control which was confiscation.
Responsibility for manufacturers: Yes
More: Yes.
This has been informative.
Re 2nd amendment: I read something astonishing in the New York Times today. Sorry I don’t have the cite at my fingertips. The reporter was going around and asking people why they voted for Trump. One young guy, a Mormon in Utah, said he was afraid there wouldn’t be any jobs for him if Hillary got in (even though he wants to be a policeman, which strikes me as a pretty stable job opportunity), and “He worried that Mrs. Clinton would pass gun restrictions that could disarm law enforcement.”
My bold.
He’s worried that Hillary would not only take away the guns of private citizens (which she had no intention of doing) but would take guns away from police, too? 
How does that make any sense?
Quite simply, Clinton is the most thoroughly corrupt, immoral, untrustworthy person (by a very large margin) ever to run for president.
If you step back and think about it for a few minutes, you’d realize that everything in the above post could be applied to many politicians, including her recent opponent. And the one you bolded could be applied to virtually every one of them in both parties.
So I have to conclude these aren’t the real reasons you hate her. Or if they really are, then the words “double standard” come to miind.
Forgot to mention that Cecil took on this subject
In order:
An extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance noticeable from the first time anyone saw her during the run up to Bill’s election in the early 90s.
The “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies…” crack, which appeared condescending and insulting toward stay at home moms and housewives.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
Her attempt to function as unelected co-president (a role her husband never let the electorate in on during his campaign) and commandeer the development of a government healthcare program and to attempt to construct it behind closed doors and away from scrutiny. This was a biggie for a lot of people, myself included.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
Her attempt to deflect guilt away from her husband’s blowjob and cigar-stuffing relationship with Monica Lewinsky by attributing the hubbub over it to a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband by the Republicans.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
Her reputation as an angry, hateful and foul-mouthed bitch to Secret Service men and pretty much everyone who wasn’t a Democrat/liberal. People knew this about her long before Newt Gingrich’s mother was goaded into voicing his opinion of her by Connie Chung. It came as a surprise to no one. (And please spare me the claim that she was only acting like a man. I’ve never heard of any male politico behave so insultingly and demeaningly to their protectors and/or anyone on the opposite side politically. Any man who acted that way would be thought of as an asshole, and yet none have that reputation.)
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
The way she and her husband defied investigators and stonewalled and claimed they couldn’t find certain documents, etc. In other words, using their inside knowledge as lawyers to circumvent and thwart attempts to get to the bottom of their various nefarious activities.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
Like her husband, she’s a prolific liar and a bad one at that. And to go along with that indisputable observation is the fact that she’s developed a well-earned reputation for phoniness and an eagerness to assume any role and pretend any belief if she thought it would result in votes and/or benefit her politically in some way.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
The role many people, myself included, feel she played in the character assassination and demonizing her husband’s administration inflicted on the many women who came forth with tales of having been sexually assaulted by her husband, and the widespread belief that she knew all along of Bill’s sexual behavior and couldn’t care less about it because all that mattered to her was her political ambition.
Her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance.
And then of course there’s Bengazi and the private server, her claim of being virtually penniless when leaving the White House, the way she and her husband have enriched themselves with speaking fees and pay-for-favors among contributors to their foundation.
Oh, and and lastly, did I mention her extraordinarily smug, arrogant and superior countenance? A huge, huge turnoff.
You’ll note that none of these things pertain to disdain for her as a woman but rather to dislike of the way she behaves as a person.
I think it’s a combination of anti-feminism, being in the spotlight for so long, and a lack of major charisma. Once the right glommed on to her as scapegoat, she could have shrugged it off if she had been as charming as some born politicians are (specifically, I’m contrasting to Reagan and Bill.)
But once the ball got rolling, it became a right-wing meme, and so any little fake scandal, with or without a kernel of truth, became another grain of sand in her unlikeability pile. And since she had been in the national spotlight for 25 years, it just kept accumulating.
Her broad stretch of deep unlikeability amongst conservatives couldn’t help but rub off on some casual independents who think where there’s smoke there must be fire (which again she could have deflected had she been more charismatic.)
Myself, I think the opposite: sure, there may be substance to some of her so-called scandals, but if she had been as bad as the conservative memes had it, she wouldn’t have lasted so long in the crosshairs of the right without anything actually sticking.
That’s some of the rationalization.
From what I’ve seen, she was the regular weekly target of 30 straight years of photoshopped bad picture Breitbart postings with the same tired accusations and lies over and over again.
It was like hate cheerleading between two old rival college football teams. It got to the point where even the stupidest idiots receiving them could spout back the four-word propaganda cheers on comand.
Couldn’t happen?
What’s on a McDonald’s Big Mac?
Two whole beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a What bun?
See, propaganda brain-wash marketing does work…
It’s been shown over and over again that negative political advertising works like crazy. If Jesus Christ Himself came down and said he was running for President, the opposing party could have gone to any major advertising agency for help and the only question would be “And what’s our budget?”
So, misogyny. We get the message, even if you try to hide it.
How happy you must be to see the wholesome Donald ready to set the country back to 1950!
I don’t like a lot of Hillary’s policy positions, but I think she’s genuinely a good, warm, and caring person. That said, any reasons people give you about why they HATE her are BS. Nobody reasons themselves into hate.
Why do people hate Obama? George Soros? Why did Breitbart celebrate the death of a guy the rest of us probably haven’t even heard of?
Everyone lives in a bubble of some sort, and there’s a certain bubble, call it the alt-right conspiracy bubble, that has cultivated these bogeymen. Clinton is one of them. Inside this bubble, the bogeymen are the cause of all your problems, and it’s not enough to hate their policies, you must fear them at a visceral level. Like a cult, any rational thoughts are naturally selected against; groupthink reigns supreme, and the group thinks that the bogeymen are pure evil. You can’t get page clicks or views or the time of day in the bubble if you’re not trying to outrage everyone.
If you live in this bubble, even if you exist on the periphery, these raw feelings are going to seep out and affect you. That’s just the way emotions work. There’s no good answer here. There’s no reasons, other than to say some people just need a villain in their lives.
eta: Of course, to people inside the bubble, being ask to list out reasons why they hate certain bogeymen is odd, like someone confusedly trying to ask you to explain why you wouldn’t want to have your fingernails ripped out. And to people outside of the bubble, the reasons just sound petty and small, as though someone’s trying to explain why they’d rather die a painful and bloody death than be forced to eat something they’re not terribly fond of.
There’s also a bubble called the SDMB who hates its own bogeymen. Those bogeymen being Those People. Those People hate Hillary because she’s a women, they hate Obama because he’s black, they hate illegal immigrants because they’re racist, etc.
This is how it works -
So it goes.
Regards,
Shodan
And you think that Trump’s demeanor isn’t similar or worse? At least Hilary apologized for her deplorables remark.
I agree that she has a bad countenance. But in 2016 that certainly wasn’t a disadvantage to others with the same issue.