What is so bad about Hillary Clinton?

amother

Periwinkle

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 9:53 am

fmt4 wrote:

wait, so these low information voters who are voting for Hillary - you're saying that if they get more information they would vote for trump? Can you please fill me in on the information I'm missing that would convince me? Which news sites do I need to visit? Please, help me get my hands on that elusive information that will transform trump into the better candidate.

When I say low information voters I'm referring to people who really don't understand or care about anything but realize that they will get more free stuff if Hillary is elected. For example Hillary made a campaign promise that families with income under $125,000 will get free college education. This would theoretically apply to over 80% of families. Nevermind who will pay for this massive program. So to the many millions of black people that are hopelessly stuck and missing basic education this program means nothing and they will vote Hillary to continue their benefits. To the many middle class people who would like to go to college and can't afford it, this program is great. Many of those voters will look at it that Hillary is literally putting tens of thousands of $$$ in their pockets by sparing them college costs, will switch to her side. Will this program be implemented? Most experts say no, but who cares? By the time we realize that in a few years she will already be in office thinking about more baloney promises she can make to influence voters for her re-election.

amother

Dodgerblue

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 10:37 am

amother wrote:

You are misrepresenting the issue.

What has been stated as a goal is that all families with incomes below $125,000 are promised a free education at a PUBLIC university.

And what is wrong with that. It is not so many years ago that City College was free to EVERYONE and should I list the huge number of poor people who took advantage of that and made immeasurable contributions to humanity. And not to mention the many poor people who were able to join the middle class and become professionals - doctors, lawyers. How many Jewish immigrants were able to become teachers in the generation after WW II because of free City College education.

Until very recently, state universities were free or almost free to residents of that state. I know because I was able to attend a SUNY school for a ridiculously small amount and graduated WITHOUT DEBT and my parents were the epitome of middle middle class. The California state universities were free (or so cheap that they were effectively free) and community colleges were also free.

There is a tremendous benefit in having a college educated population. Expertise creates the kind of work force and innovation that is necessary to compete in the modern economy and create good jobs.

Also, when kids now graduate college with $100,000 or more in student debts, it creates a ripple effect on the economy in terms of their ability to launch themselves - buy houses and create families for example.

I would ask exactly what programs Trump has proposed specifically except to build a wall funded by Mexico - not going to happen and not even effective - or ban Muslims - unconstitutional as well as probably having counter productive impact on terrorism. Oh yes, a tax break on the top 1%. Any other specific proposals to analyze except that he will solve everything because we should trust him - trust a failed businessman with a string of bankruptcies, lawsuits.

I am not sure why there is such a double standard in terms of judging Clinton versus Trump - there is almost not a day that goes by without Trump being shown to have lied - verifiable lies on tape. And many of them seeming to serve no purpose and/or being the default.

I could care less that three emails NOT MARKED classified out of hundreds of thousands were sent on a private server. And Colin Power also used a private server when he was Secretary of State. To me it's as much of a non-issue as White Water or any other hot buttons that right wing people keep raising including Benghazi. What is it, 8 completely partisan investigations into Benghazi and no wrong doing found except that the usual fog of war surrounded the events as they occurred in real time. By that measure, why not blame Bush for 9/11 since it appears that critical intelligence was ignored by his team in the months leading up to that day.

farm

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:10 am

Op, I fear her burning, all encompassing, stop at nothing ambition to be president. It scares, horrifies, and angers me. It makes me cringe and avert my eyes or change the channel when I see her or hear her speaking.
You know how First Ladies have their pet projects during their White House tenure? Michelle Obama grew her vegetable garden and tried to get American kids to eat better? Laura Bush travelled the country reading books to school kids and tried to get American kids to increase and improve their literacy? When she was First Lady, clinton's first pet project was healthcare reform. She had the whole Obamacare (Hilliaryhealthcare?) thing ready to go by her husband's first day in office. She was and has has been angling to be The Boss at least as far back as then.
The Benghazi fiasco is a shameful example of this dangerous ambition. Instead of losing face or having an American foreign scandal uncovered, she let American representatives be killed by terrorists on protected American soil under her watch. She Ignord their pleas for increased security. And then when the tragedy was all said and done, she went to family members and LIED TO THEIR faces about it. I still shake with rage at the shamefulness.
I could maybe understand that the private servers were a misunderstanding or oversight, but the ease and finesse used to attempt to cover it up after the fact at all costs is not to be believed. This is a person I am delegating to protect my best interests? She would rather purge classified information than let anything (the truth) stand in the way of her campaign.
I can never vote to support this person's candidacy. Her blind ambition to advance her own power hungry agenda makes her dangerous.

Amarante

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:25 am

farm wrote:

And you know what she accomplished - the passage of CHIPS. I wonder how many people just on this forum take advantage f the program this demon spearheaded.

I am suspicious that you are against her because she is an ambitious accomplished woman who made some faux pas regarding her non traditional views of what a woman's place is like saying that she wouldn't be baking cookies.

And no male presidential candidate is ambitious? Anyone who runs for President is ambitious.

Last edited by Amarante on Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:29 am; edited 2 times in total

farm

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:35 am

fmt4 wrote:

hey, people who were asking earlier in the thread about why women would be afraid of another woman being in power - look at the comment above me for a perfect example.
Some people are so turned off by the idea of a woman being ambitious and wanting to be the leader of the free world that they can't even watch it on tv!
Some people think that the First Lady being interested in actually accomplishing somehting meaningful like healthcare reform instead of planting veggie gardens is a BAD thing!
So there you have it. There are really women out there who think women should stick to the silly stuff and let men do the real work. It's just too disgusting and off putting to watch a woman with ambition.

And some people think that it's not appropriate for the First Lady (or man) to be pushing legislation from that position. It's a conflict of interest, misuse of power, and distasteful. Planting a garden doesn't require a vote in congress. Healthcare reform does. It involves heavy duty politicking and networking and currying favors and campaigning. Not within the scope of the president's first person. No where did I state having the slightest problem with the fact that she is a woman. I would have a problem with any person whether man or woman with this track record.

Amarante

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:46 am

farm wrote:

The position of first person has no stipulated duties. I am not understanding what interest it is in conflict with since it is a policy that is supported by the Presdent and a someone is willing to lend their time and abilities to supporting such a plan.

A conflict would be if the first person worked in the private sector and lobbied against plans supported by the administration or even worse worked in the Heath insurance business.

Eleanor Roosevelt who is widely acknowledged as the greatest First Lady was greatly involved in policy. Hilary greatly admired her and attempted to model her stint after her.

I would be much more concerned with Trumps bromance with Putin.

amother

Purple

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 11:49 am

Raisin wrote:

The obvious way to reduce death by terrorists (and other people) is to have better gun control. But strangely the NRA is supporting Trump. So Trump supporters only care about the tiny percentage of people who are killed by muslim terrorists?

Only Anon because I talk about this IRL. A lot.

Gun control won't help. It only takes guns out of law abiding citizens but the criminals always can get them!
So using an illegal gun gets a mandatory 20 year sentence. Big deal when they are committing suicide (or suicide by cop) or are killing enough people to get life without parole. "So I am going to commit X crime that gets me 90 years. Or death row. But I won't do it with an illegal gun because the extra 20 years is a deal breaker"--- says no criminal/terrorist ever.
Let them enforce the laws on the books before creating new ones (that won't stop violence anyways).

Amarante

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:25 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Saying that someone who doesn't vote for Hillary is automatically a misogynist is like saying that anyone who didn't vote for Obama is automatically racist.

Both might be true, or they might not, depending on the individual in question. As blanket statements, they are complete fallacies.

I am sure that a lot of misogynists would swallow their bile and vote for a woman who they could truly trust and believe in, just as I believe a lot of racists voted for Obama because they could not trust McCain.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that voters today tend to not be so focused on the surface of the candidate, and are more willing than ever to look at the substance behind the person. Content of character, and all that stuff.

There studies which do show correlation with racist thoughts and voting patterns.

I don't mean to be snarky but if you truly believe that racism didn't underlie the intense effort to DELEGITIMIZE the first AA President, I have a bridge to sell you.

The intense effort to claim he wasn't a citizen, was a traitor, had a hidden agenda etc.

I can't think of a white President where there was such absolute intent by a significant segment of the population to DELEGITIMIZE the presence. This wasn't and isn't merely a difference in political opinion but raising issues as to the constitutionality of his ascension to office.

And I am not even raising the even more overt racist jokes, pictures etc about Obama.

I am not sure why people are so reluctant to acknowledge the deep strain of racism in the US. Why is it so offensive to people. I have heard and seen racism among so called nice people. And no one here has ever heard or seen anything resembling racism?

FranticFrummie

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:35 pm

Amarante wrote:

I never denied that any of these things happened, and I never said that they were OK. You are doing exactly what my point was, making blanket statements. Just because X amount of people are racist, does not mean that ALL people are racist.

Obama is the first president who may or may not have been born in the US. All other presidents were clearly born in the US, to two American citizens, who stayed in the US. I'm not a "birther", I'm saying that there was a tiny shadow of a doubt, and yes, some people latched onto that.

I find a lot of his policies, broken promises, attitudes towards Israel, and friendships with Islamists to be extremely problematic, and I can understand how someone could question his loyalty to America.

Racist jokes are never OK, EVER. If you want to call someone out on their behavior, or their statements, that is fine. Mocking someone for the skin they were born in is absolutely abhorrent, and I will never stand by and let that pass.

BTW, my first husband was Black. I think I have a fairly good metric of how racist the average American is, thankyouverymuch.

sushilover

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:36 pm

Amarante wrote:

Oh please
20% of Americans think Obama was actually born in Kenya
22% of Americans think Bush directly caused 9/11
Race has nothing to do with conspiracy theories

I'm not racist because I think Obama is a terrible president
I'm not misogynistic because I think Clinton would be a terrible president
And I'm certainly not 'anti-orange-people' because I think Trump is a buffoon

amother

Amethyst

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:45 pm

This is a little OT, but a few posters brought this up as a problem with Obama- that he didn't fulfill his campaign promises. Why is this a bad thing (for conservative voters)? I voted against Obama both times because I did NOT want him to enact his preferred policies and I do NOT like his vision for America. I'm unhappy with the executive orders and his signature legislation, the ACA. But I'm thrilled that he was not able to do more damage by getting other problematic policies written into law. I'm happy he wasn't able to enact most of the "hope and change" he promised. I understand the disappointment of liberal voters, but why do I hear from many conservative voters that "he's no good, he didn't do what he said he'd do"? That's wonderful news for anyone who didn't want him to do those things!

Amarante

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:45 pm

I never stated that anyone who did not support Obama was a racist nor do I think everyone who doesn't support Hilary is a misogynist. I merely stated that studies have shown a correlation between racist thoughts and voting patterns.

That is not to say that everyone in the US is a racist but I can't believe anyone would deny racism is alive and well as well as s*ex discrimination. That doesn't mean 100% of people just that there are.

And when I hear that Hilary is "ambitious" or has a "shrill" voice, I just can't help but wonder why these same negatives aren't applicable to a random male candidate.

Do people also believe anti-Semitism doesn't exist in the world or even in the US. I would suspect there would be a correlation between someone who harbors anti-Semitic thoughts and voting patterns in terms of Jewish candidates. But saying that is not the same as saying everyone person who voted against Joe Leiberman was anti-Semitic.

Please don't put thoughts in my head.

I still don't understand why people can't stand the idea that racism still exists in the US as well as other less than "politically correct" prejudices.

ETA - I thought Bush's policies were terrible but I never thought he was a traitor and FWIW, given that he didn't have the popular vote and the Supreme Court gave him the election in terms of the Florida debacle in a split decision along political affiliation, there is certainly a greater case for questioning his constitutional legitimacy which I don't nor did anyone except possibly the lunatic fringe. Gore graciously conceded defeat rather than appeal when he could have because he didn't want to put the country through more trauma.

fmt4

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 12:56 pm

amother wrote:

Because that way Obama can never win- if he does enact his policies he's a communist Muslim Psychopath, and if he didn't, he's a pathetic incompetent lying loser. Either way conservatives get to hate him! Yay!

Amarante

Thu, Aug 04 2016, 1:04 pm

amother wrote:

I think there would be a tremendous rise in public safety if there were the "sane" plans enacted.

For example, illegal to sell assault rifles. Of course, they would still be available as the supply slowly dries up but it would become much more difficult for someone to buy them. As well as being significantly more expensive as that is just basic economics in terms of blackmarket products.

Or what about not enabling someone on the no-fly list to buy an assault weapon?

What about closing loopholes so that criminals and crazy people can't easily buy weapons including assault weapons.

There most certainly is a correlation between places that have significant gun control and rates of homicide by gun. It takes much longer to kill someone with a knife.

Why do most police forces support sane gun control. I would suspect their beliefs regarding the impact of gun control laws on homicide versus someone spewing NRA propaganda.