Hillary Clinton Derail From Religion Of Libertarianism

[Koyaanisqatsi]

36% approval rating is lower than Cheato's.

Not among Democrats and left-leaning Independents. When you look at their numbers, her approval is around 89%. Sill low for her generally, but not unexpected considering there is very clearly a vocal minority that is still throwing undeserved feces at her, as is evidenced daily in this forum.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

 

[angelo]

Undeserved feces? Hello! WTF have you been for the past decade!!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

Which is funny, because I--and others--have systematically disproved any such assertions and instead of conceding the facts, it's this endless repetition of undeserved feces.

- - - Updated - - -

Case in point! Benghazi lies from agenda-monkeys....

Undeserved feces? Hello! WTF have you been for the past decade!!

Or back to the fact that you posted a source supposedly in support of your claim that everyone fucking hates her, or words to that effect, and of course I concede it was probably meant hyperbolically, yet the source you posted actually proved that upwards of 89% (77% Dems; 12% Indies) approve of her.

And since that's 89% of 50% of all registered voters (i.e., the percentage of total registered voters that vote Dem), compared to Trump's 82% of 26% (=pro-Trump total registered Republicans) plus 31% of 37% (=pro-Trump total registered Indies) against 42% total registered voters (i.e., percentage of total registered voters that vote Repug), that's still math I can't really do properly.

 

[Bloodnf]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

You still haven't shown why she deserves feces. Just because she lost an election?

 

[Bloodnf]

Oh I understand. What that means that any Democratic candidate with experience and a record is vulnerable.

Still not getting it. That should be "any Democratic candidate with experience who has been vilified, threatened and denigrated to cheering crowds, with a record that has been viciously misrepresented for thirty years, is vulnerable"

I understand that you don't think it should be that way, and I agree. But that's how it IS.
The good news, is that NOBODY has that much baggage - except Hillary.

What I understand is that you are blaming and punishing the victim of what you admit is lies and threats. That you want such a person to be disqualified from running for President.
Democratic voters have a choice. They can choose among the nominees freely. Hillary is not entitled to win the Presidency or even the Democratic nomination.
But she is also not disqualified from running because Republicans have thrown crap at her and some stupid Democratic voters and left wingers buy their propaganda.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How about some specifics of horrible things Hillary has done? It's still pretty vague IMHO.

 

[ZiprHead]

Most Americans recognized that Trump was a blowhard, an adulterer and a narcissist long before election day. That wasn't the problem. The problem what that most Americans settled for voting on one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections. IMO, the least deplorable scumbag won but that doesn't mean they aren't still a deplorable scumbag....or continue to be one. Trump's attack of the media after the attempted bombings is just one example.

Donald Trump only got elected on his policies of populism and anti-globalism and nothing more.

Hillary would have been an effective globalist leader and nothing more. She would have done exactly what the globalist corporate cabal wanted from her and she would have probably even fixed her hair to look pretty doing it. She might have skimmed some more money off her foundation but other than that would have basically stayed out of trouble.

But that just isn't what the people wanted this time around. It was a simple as that.

Agreed. They also didn't want a continuation of the Obama Administration's policies.

Citation, please.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Most Americans recognized that Trump was a blowhard, an adulterer and a narcissist long before election day. That wasn't the problem. The problem what that most Americans settled for voting on one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections. IMO, the least deplorable scumbag won but that doesn't mean they aren't still a deplorable scumbag....or continue to be one. Trump's attack of the media after the attempted bombings is just one example.

Donald Trump only got elected on his policies of populism and anti-globalism and nothing more.

Hillary would have been an effective globalist leader and nothing more. She would have done exactly what the globalist corporate cabal wanted from her and she would have probably even fixed her hair to look pretty doing it. She might have skimmed some more money off her foundation but other than that would have basically stayed out of trouble.

But that just isn't what the people wanted this time around. It was a simple as that.

Wait what? Since when did globalism become a dirty word? Except in the heads of radical extremist nutcases? Globalism is good. Everybody wins.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wait what? Since when did globalism become a dirty word? Except in the heads of radical extremist nutcases? Globalism is good. Everybody wins.

Yes, but everybody winning means that the people I hate can win as well. That's worse than me losing.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Most Americans recognized that Trump was a blowhard, an adulterer and a narcissist long before election day. That wasn't the problem. The problem what that most Americans settled for voting on one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections. IMO, the least deplorable scumbag won but that doesn't mean they aren't still a deplorable scumbag....or continue to be one. Trump's attack of the media after the attempted bombings is just one example.

Donald Trump only got elected on his policies of populism and anti-globalism and nothing more.

Hillary would have been an effective globalist leader and nothing more. She would have done exactly what the globalist corporate cabal wanted from her and she would have probably even fixed her hair to look pretty doing it. She might have skimmed some more money off her foundation but other than that would have basically stayed out of trouble.

But that just isn't what the people wanted this time around. It was a simple as that.

Wait what? Since when did globalism become a dirty word? Except in the heads of radical extremist nutcases? Globalism is good. Everybody wins.

Bolded is the answer. I think it's also part of the conspiracy theory about the NWO seeking to take over the world by controlling national economies.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

You still haven't shown why she deserves feces. Just because she lost an election?

Several things (from the (f)right wing perspective: 1) she's well, a woman; 2) her last name is Clinton.

These make her an easy target for the mouth breathing knuckledraggers that make up most of the GOP base.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Throwing feces, yes. Undeserved feces? Not so much.

You still haven't shown why she deserves feces. Just because she lost an election?

Several things (from the (f)right wing perspective: 1) she's well, a woman; 2) her last name is Clinton.

These make her an easy target for the mouth breathing knuckledraggers that make up most of the GOP base.

Yes, that's a big part of it. But don't forget (3) she also got cucked and stood by Bill after he did it. I dunno why, but getting cucked is a badge of shame for these kuckledraggers you speak of.

Of course, it should also be said that these 3 points are not the entirety of why Republicans don't like her. The biggest factor is that she's a Democrat who ran for President against their team in a general election. They hate Obama too.

And also of course, that's the knuckledraggers, not Tom. There are reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton from the left as well. She isn't much of a liberal these days.

 

[ZiprHead]

And also of course, that's the knuckledraggers, not Tom. There are reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton from the left as well. She isn't much of a liberal these days.

Clinton focused her candidacy on several themes, including raising middle class incomes, expanding women's rights, instituting campaign finance reform, and improving the Affordable Care Act.

In March 2016, she laid out a detailed economic plan, which The New York Times called "optimistic" and "wide-ranging".[59] Basing her economic philosophy on inclusive capitalism, Clinton proposed a "clawback" which would rescind tax relief and other benefits for companies that move jobs overseas; providing incentives for companies that share profits with employees, communities and the environment, rather than focusing on short-term profits to increase stock value and rewarding shareholders; increasing collective bargaining rights; and placing an "exit tax" on companies that move their headquarters out of America in order to pay a lower tax rate overseas.[59] Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), supports the U.S. Export-Import Bank, and holds that "any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security".[60][61]

Given the climate of unlimited campaign contributions following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment to limit "unaccountable money" in politics.[62] In July 2016, she has "committed" to introducing a U.S. constitutional amendment that would result in overturning the 2010 Citizens United decision.[63][64]

She believes in equal pay for equal work, to address current shortfalls in how much women are paid to do the same jobs men do.[65]

Clinton has explicitly focused on family issues and supports universal preschool.[62]

On LGBT rights, she supports the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.[62]

Clinton holds that allowing undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship "s at its heart a family issue."[66]

Clinton has expressed support for Common Core.[67] She says, "The really unfortunate argument that's been going on around Common Core, it's very painful because the Common Core started off as a bipartisan effort. It was actually nonpartisan. It wasn't politicized.... Iowa has had a testing system based on a core curriculum for a really long time. And [speaking to Iowans] you see the value of it, you understand why that helps you organize your whole education system. And a lot of states unfortunately haven't had that, and so don't understand the value of a core, in this sense a Common Core."[68]

In a December 7, 2015 The New York Times article, Clinton presented her detailed plans for regulating Wall Street financial activities and related.[69] She proposes reining in the largest institutions to limit risky behavior, appointing strong regulators, and holding executives accountable.

Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East. She opposes Trump's call to ban Muslims from the United States as "shameful" and "dangerous". She also claimed Trump's statement was "a reflection of much of the rest of his party", as "many GOP candidates have also said extreme things about Muslims."[70]

She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."[71]

Can you point out which parts of her platform aren't liberal enough for you?

 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can you point out which parts of her platform aren't liberal enough for you?

Ok. I'll indulge you. But first, I'll say talk is cheap. Her actions and voting record matters more, and they show her transition over time from an actual liberal back when she was first lady pushing for universal health care, to the corporate democrat and hawk that she was in 2016.

Now, I'll do a 2 for 1 for you, and tell you why her platform and herself are not liberal or leftist enough for me.

Clinton focused her candidacy on several themes, including raising middle class incomes, expanding women's rights, instituting campaign finance reform, and improving the Affordable Care Act.

I immediately notice she isn't calling for universal single payer or "medicare for all".

Clinton proposed a "clawback" which would rescind tax relief and other benefits for companies that move jobs overseas; providing incentives for companies that share profits with employees, communities and the environment, rather than focusing on short-term profits to increase stock value and rewarding shareholders; increasing collective bargaining rights; and placing an "exit tax" on companies that move their headquarters out of America in order to pay a lower tax rate overseas.

That's all good, but I don't believe she'd actually make it into law. I believe this is politics for her. She'll latch onto whatever she thinks will sell, ans she isn't great at making that assessment. She backed the Iraq war. She backed don't ask don't tell. She was initially against gay marriage. She's a political chameleon. But still, the words are appreciated. Thumbs up for that.

Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

After she supported it strenuously, because she saw the switch as politically expedient.

Given the climate of unlimited campaign contributions following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment to limit "unaccountable money" in politics.

That struck me especially hard in her debate with Sanders. He kept saying "get money out of politics". She kept replying "Yes, get dark money out of politics". She likes money in politics. She wants money in politics. She needs money in politics.

She believes in equal pay for equal work, to address current shortfalls in how much women are paid to do the same jobs men do.

A myth, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and an identity politics angle she tried to push. "There's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton" - Albright.

Clinton has explicitly focused on family issues and supports universal preschool.

That's good. Would she actually have pushed for it? Doubtful. But still, that's good.

On LGBT rights, she supports the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.

Even most Republicans support that now.

Clinton holds that allowing undocumented immigrants to have a path to citizenship "s at its heart a family issue."

That's good, though the path shouldn't be easier than documented immigrants. Why people think the opposite is the liberal or the left position I do not know. I would like to see your immigration generally be far more open to all. But if you are going to insist on being so restrictive, at least apply the rules evenly and fairly. Don't discriminate against those who follow the law and reward those who break it.

In a December 7, 2015 The New York Times article, Clinton presented her detailed plans for regulating Wall Street financial activities and related.[69] She proposes reining in the largest institutions to limit risky behavior, appointing strong regulators, and holding executives accountable.

Right before the election. She went and told her donors to "cut it out".

Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East.

How is that liberal?

She opposes Trump's call to ban Muslims from the United States as "shameful" and "dangerous".

She's right. But again, it hardly sets her aside.

She also claimed Trump's statement was "a reflection of much of the rest of his party", as "many GOP candidates have also said extreme things about Muslims."

That's like her labeling people "deplorables". Her tactics of fear, division, and negative message are all conservative tactics, not liberal tactics. In reality there were plenty of Republicans who stood against Trump on his Muslim ban. Obama would have built off of that instead of trying to paint the other as in Trump's camp.

She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."

That's definitely not liberal.

 

[Worldtraveller]

There's plenty of legit criticism for Hillary from the left. I wouldn't ask JP for it, though.

The common core thing is one of them. She's way too pro-business (mostly in wanting to relax banking regulations), which was one of the big draws for Bernie. She's rather hawkish, although she'd be way better for foreign policy than the current shitgibbon in charge. And she's much to pro-Israel.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She's rather hawkish, although she'd be way better for foreign policy than the current shitgibbon in charge.

Maaaybe. I like to think you are right. He has stupidly created rifts with your allies (former allies?) and alienated you from the world. That's bad. But Hillary is a hawk. There is a chance she would have started or pushed towards another war. Trump hasn't done that. Trump actually sucks up to your enemies and alienates your friends. It is weird and does a lot of damage, but it does minimize the likelihood for war.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She's rather hawkish, although she'd be way better for foreign policy than the current shitgibbon in charge.

Maaaybe. I like to think you are right. He has stupidly created rifts with your allies (former allies?) and alienated you from the world. That's bad. But Hillary is a hawk. There is a chance she would have started or pushed towards another war. Trump hasn't done that. Trump actually sucks up to your enemies and alienates your friends. It is weird and does a lot of damage, but it does minimize the likelihood for war.

But he has ramped up the murder of civilians by the US military quite drastically.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ok. I'll indulge you. But first, I'll say talk is cheap. Her actions and voting record matters more, and they show her transition over time from an actual liberal back when she was first lady pushing for universal health care, to the corporate democrat and hawk that she was in 2016.

So cite things from her voting record then. As you say, talk is cheap.

I immediately notice she isn't calling for universal single payer or "medicare for all".

Do you think she would veto Medicare for all?

Clinton proposed a "clawback" which would rescind tax relief and other benefits for companies that move jobs overseas; providing incentives for companies that share profits with employees, communities and the environment, rather than focusing on short-term profits to increase stock value and rewarding shareholders; increasing collective bargaining rights; and placing an "exit tax" on companies that move their headquarters out of America in order to pay a lower tax rate overseas.

That's all good, but I don't believe she'd actually make it into law. I believe this is politics for her. She'll latch onto whatever she thinks will sell, ans she isn't great at making that assessment. She backed the Iraq war. She backed don't ask don't tell. She was initially against gay marriage. She's a political chameleon. But still, the words are appreciated. Thumbs up for that.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a huge step in rights for gays in the US.

And no, she didn't back the war in Iraq. She voted in favor of this.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Clinton opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

After she supported it strenuously, because she saw the switch as politically expedient.

Citation? And in what way is it a liberal or conservative position?

Given the climate of unlimited campaign contributions following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Clinton has called for a constitutional amendment to limit "unaccountable money" in politics.

That struck me especially hard in her debate with Sanders. He kept saying "get money out of politics". She kept replying "Yes, get dark money out of politics". She likes money in politics. She wants money in politics. She needs money in politics.

So you have your fever-brained idea that she really, really didn't mean it.

She believes in equal pay for equal work, to address current shortfalls in how much women are paid to do the same jobs men do.

A myth, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and an identity politics angle she tried to push. "There's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary Clinton" - Albright.

Albright isn't the subject of this discussion.

Whether it's a myth or not is still in dispute and it's definitely a liberal position.

Clinton has explicitly focused on family issues and supports universal preschool.

That's good. Would she actually have pushed for it? Doubtful. But still, that's good.

Again, you're substituting your rectal emanations for her position.

On LGBT rights, she supports the right to same-sex marriage enshrined in the constitution.

Even most Republicans support that now.

Highly doubtful, but if you can cite a poll that supports that Republicans support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing marriage equality, I'll concede. I'll wait.

In a December 7, 2015 The New York Times article, Clinton presented her detailed plans for regulating Wall Street financial activities and related.[69] She proposes reining in the largest institutions to limit risky behavior, appointing strong regulators, and holding executives accountable.

Right before the election. She went and told her donors to "cut it out".

And that means what?

Clinton is in favor of maintaining American influence in the Middle East.

How is that liberal?

What is the liberal position on relations with middle eastern nations and how does Hillary diverge from it?

She opposes Trump's call to ban Muslims from the United States as "shameful" and "dangerous".

She's right. But again, it hardly sets her aside.

The question you raised is whether she is liberal enough, not whether she's unique. Goal post movement noted.

She also claimed Trump's statement was "a reflection of much of the rest of his party", as "many GOP candidates have also said extreme things about Muslims."

That's like her labeling people "deplorables". Her tactics of fear, division, and negative message are all conservative tactics, not liberal tactics. In reality there were plenty of Republicans who stood against Trump on his Muslim ban. Obama would have built off of that instead of trying to paint the other as in Trump's camp.

Yes, so much fear and division in her platform, it's literally a call for pitchforks and torches. Liberals aren't afraid of calling nazis nazis.

She told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "America can't ever be neutral when it comes to Israel's security and survival."

That's definitely not liberal.

Hey, finally one I agree with you on.

Frankly, most of your complaints about her is that you just don't believe her. That's your problem, not hers.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There's plenty of legit criticism for Hillary from the left.

I wish someone would present the evidence for any of it.

She's way too pro-business (mostly in wanting to relax banking regulations)

Ambiguous (what does it even mean to be anti-business in a Capitalist country?) and the second part is clearly contradicted by the facts of her doubling down on Dodd-Frank, which she correctly noted--and Sanders evidently agreed (since he invoked it as well as the mechanism to "break up the banks")--was already comprehensive, it just needed tweaks. As any intelligent regulatory structure needs from time-to-time.

Iow, it was doing the job, but still needed to be updated to keep pace with the times.

She's rather hawkish

Ambiguous. Her record clearly shows she's no more "hawkish" than any other previous Democratic President in the past fifty years and that she thinks in terms of surgical, limited strikes and only as a last resort.

As Commander in Chief, no matter who sits in the chair, they are necessarily going to be "hawkish." It's a requirement of the job. Literally.

And she's much to pro-Israel.

Also ambiguous, but her actual record shows her to be supportive of our allies (Israel being a strong one), but always advocating for a two-state solution.