• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

I can see why so many say Hillary is unlikable

If she comes to my city, I'll go see for myself. Right now, all I have are pictures and video. Who really knows? The rumors may be true. She may be immortal, like the time-traveling ghost of Nelson Mandela. Make something real into a conspiracy all you want. The woman looks sick.

My point was that all I know is that I'm seeing, and I'm seeing a feeble person. Americans will not vote for a weak person. Even if she isn't weak, looking weak in pictures and video MAKES her weak.

Her physical health isn't my concern. It is, because I like her as a person, but it isn't. My concern is for how she looks in pictures and video. Pictures and video are all we really have. I'm hoping she will come to my city, so I can check her out myself. I'm concerned.
 
Axulus said:
I haven't watched many of her campaign speeches, but came across this one on the trending video list. She comes off as unlikable, completely lacking in charisma, in this speech. I can see why there are so many people who have a negative opinion of her. I can't believe this is the best the democrats could come up with:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8tMk-ZOx8[/youtube]

I say this as I dread a Trump presidency. This seems like the easiest guy to beat, unless you pick one of the most hated candidates the Democrats could muster to run in opposition.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why I am suppose to like my president. I would think that it is vastly more important to elect a competent person who can run the government and who can handle foreign affairs.

I have met Hillary Clinton, before she was the first spouse, she was on the board of directors of my best customer. I made a presentation to their board including Clinton. She asked a couple of astute questions that impressed me. She has a really good mind, but I never particularly liked her. She is a very good lawyer, which is probably why she is not very likeable, she qualifies every answer that she gives, to prevent the answers from being misunderstood and being used against her. This makes her sound shifty and underhanded, especially to people who aren't use to lawyers.

Add to this, conservatives have been demonizing the Clintons for more than twenty five years, by lying about them, accusing them incorrectly of everything from murder to treason.

This is the problem with conservatives. They need a constant stream of lies to justify the status quo, to say that the problems that we have aren't due to the status quo. When one lie runs its course it has to be replaced by another often more outrageous one. In the case of Hillary we heard that she was denying that terrorists weren't responsible for Benghazi to that she stopped the Army Rangers from rescuing the ambassador to that she was personally responsible for the attack and the deaths. As each was disproven repeatedly then another was dreamed up to replace it. When Benghazi played out after six years it pivoted to her use of a private email server, firmly establishing the principle that the number one requirement for our leaders is a solid knowledge of email security protocols, without establishing any such knowledge on the point for any of their candidates.

I liked George W.Bush. He had a certain frat boy charm. But he was an incompetent president. There is absolutely no question that we would have been better off if Gore had been our president for those eight years. In spite of Gore's having said that he invented the Internet, or any of the lies that were told about him in the 2000 election. Gore wasn't likeable.
 
Derec said:
Juma said:
You wouldnt say this bullshit about "Unlikable" about a man. hillary is a atrong woman and you cant handle it.
Click to expand...
Of course we would. Do you remember Bush v. Gore? Much of the discussion centered on how unlikable and wooden Gore came across.
For example SNL's parody of their debate.
Even Simpsons got in on the fun:


I find it ridiculous that if one talks about a male politician being unlikable, that's fine, but it's "sexist" for a female politician.
Or that if one talks about a male politician being fat, that's fine, but it's "sexist" for a female politician.
Or that if one talks about a male politician getting expensive haircuts, that's fine, but it's "sexist" for a female politician.
Or that if one talks about a male politician's clothes, that's fine, but it's "sexist" for a female politician.
Or that if one talks about a male politician's health, that's fine, but it's "sexist" for a female politician.
And so on.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you babbling about now?
 
I saw Lewis Black perform last night. He had this bit about Hillary Clinton that captured this thread theme perfectly. He said "Hillary Clinton's problem is she has been in the public eye too long. First she is in the White House for 8 years. Afterwards, most people just go away, but she has to come to my state and get elected Senator. How does that happen? Then, she runs for President. Now most people who lose that race just go away. She becomes Secretary of State. Now she is running for President again.

Hillary Clinton is the women in your car pool for the last 10 years. When you go to pick her up, you think FUCK".
 
There's a doctor on youtube who is making the case that HRC is showing signs of Parkinson's disease. He has made several videos about it. He makes mention of her loud voice on this particular video and says it may be due to an improperly adjusted earpiece that is specially designed for Parkinson's patients who have trouble speaking in the presence of background noise. I'm not a doctor, but assuming he knows his stuff, it does kind of add up. He's saying to watch HRC's eyes during the debate:

 
thebeave said:
There's a doctor on youtube who is making the case that HRC is showing signs of Parkinson's disease. He has made several videos about it. He makes mention of her loud voice on this particular video and says it may be due to an improperly adjusted earpiece that is specially designed for Parkinson's patients who have trouble speaking in the presence of background noise. I'm not a doctor, but assuming he knows his stuff, it does kind of add up. He's saying to watch HRC's eyes during the debate:

Click to expand...


Not really. It's also probably a breach of medical ethics for an MD to claim a diagnosis of someone without an actual examination.
 
SimpleDon said:
I don't understand why I am suppose to like my president.
Click to expand...

Clearly we're not supposed to care about a candidate's morality because "no one is perfect", so why should we give a shit about whether they're likable anyway.
 
beero1000 said:
thebeave said:
There's a doctor on youtube who is making the case that HRC is showing signs of Parkinson's disease. He has made several videos about it. He makes mention of her loud voice on this particular video and says it may be due to an improperly adjusted earpiece that is specially designed for Parkinson's patients who have trouble speaking in the presence of background noise. I'm not a doctor, but assuming he knows his stuff, it does kind of add up. He's saying to watch HRC's eyes during the debate:

Click to expand...


Not really. It's also probably a breach of medical ethics for an MD to claim a diagnosis of someone without an actual examination.
Click to expand...


Did you watch the video? He says specifically he is not making an actual diagnosis of Parkinson's, since he doesn't have access to her medical records, and that there could be other explanations for her health anomalies.
 
thebeave said:
There's a doctor on youtube who is making the case that HRC is showing signs of Parkinson's disease. He has made several videos about it. He makes mention of her loud voice on this particular video and says it may be due to an improperly adjusted earpiece that is specially designed for Parkinson's patients who have trouble speaking in the presence of background noise. I'm not a doctor, but assuming he knows his stuff, it does kind of add up. He's saying to watch HRC's eyes during the debate:

Click to expand...


Fuck off with this speculative bullshit. Go work for a tabloid if you want to do this shit.
 
thebeave said:
beero1000 said:
Not really. It's also probably a breach of medical ethics for an MD to claim a diagnosis of someone without an actual examination.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video? He says specifically he is not making an actual diagnosis of Parkinson's, since he doesn't have access to her medical records, and that there could be other explanations for her health anomalies.
Click to expand...

I watched the first couple of minutes where he shows a couple of grainy frames at off angles of Hillary looking around as she addresses a crowd. I didn't see the part where he says he isn't making a diagnosis but I'm not surprised because, like I said, it would be a breach of medical ethics. Trying to lay out 'evidence' of a diagnosis while claiming to not be making a diagnosis is a weaselly way to get around that while letting everyone in the know know exactly what you mean. Dog whistle indeed.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
thebeave said:
There's a doctor on youtube who is making the case that HRC is showing signs of Parkinson's disease. He has made several videos about it. He makes mention of her loud voice on this particular video and says it may be due to an improperly adjusted earpiece that is specially designed for Parkinson's patients who have trouble speaking in the presence of background noise. I'm not a doctor, but assuming he knows his stuff, it does kind of add up. He's saying to watch HRC's eyes during the debate:

Click to expand...


Fuck off with this speculative bullshit. Go work for a tabloid if you want to do this shit.
Click to expand...


 
beero1000 said:
thebeave said:
Did you watch the video? He says specifically he is not making an actual diagnosis of Parkinson's, since he doesn't have access to her medical records, and that there could be other explanations for her health anomalies.
Click to expand...

I watched the first couple of minutes where he shows a couple of grainy frames at off angles of Hillary looking around as she addresses a crowd. I didn't see the part where he says he isn't making a diagnosis but I'm not surprised because, like I said, it would be a breach of medical ethics. Trying to lay out 'evidence' of a diagnosis while claiming to not be making a diagnosis is a weaselly way to get around that while letting everyone in the know know exactly what you mean. Dog whistle indeed.
Click to expand...

Watch at least the first two minutes of this one. He makes things a bit more clear. He further expands on his "non-diagnosis" throughout the rest of the video:

 
thebeave said:
beero1000 said:
I watched the first couple of minutes where he shows a couple of grainy frames at off angles of Hillary looking around as she addresses a crowd. I didn't see the part where he says he isn't making a diagnosis but I'm not surprised because, like I said, it would be a breach of medical ethics. Trying to lay out 'evidence' of a diagnosis while claiming to not be making a diagnosis is a weaselly way to get around that while letting everyone in the know know exactly what you mean. Dog whistle indeed.
Click to expand...

Watch at least the first two minutes of this one. He makes things a bit more clear. He further expands on his "non-diagnosis" throughout the rest of the video:

Click to expand...


You do realize that it doesnt matter what he says, because it is YOU that says that he says she looks like having parkinson?

Drop that shit.
 
thebeave said:
GenesisNemesis said:
Fuck off with this speculative bullshit. Go work for a tabloid if you want to do this shit.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...


I would agree that Hilary is a few negative things but how come a doctor is making a diagnosis just from youtube. A lot of healthy people have difficulty speaking with noise in the background.
 
Axulus said:
I haven't watched many of her campaign speeches, but came across this one on the trending video list. She comes off as unlikable, completely lacking in charisma, in this speech. I can see why there are so many people who have a negative opinion of her. I can't believe this is the best the democrats could come up with:

I say this as I dread a Trump presidency. This seems like the easiest guy to beat, unless you pick one of the most hated candidates the Democrats could muster to run in opposition.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the female factor. We're trained to think of women as subservient and in support roles for strong men. So we're bound to think of women in power negatively. Remember Margaret Thatcher. She solved it by pretending to be a man. Angela Merkel is similar to Hillary. She's the new generation. Powerful women who dare to be women. Carly Fiorina, is a good example of a powerful woman who dared to be a woman. But she came too early. She was fired in 2005, basically, because she refused to be submissive, while still dressing feminine. Had she been a man she would still be at the top of HP.

I think we're in for a siesmic cultural shift. Or I hope we are. I don't think it'll be long before we've stopped thinking of powerful women as inherently unlikable. Our world needs Hilary Clinton to win. My two cents.
 
whichphilosophy said:
thebeave said:
Click to expand...


I would agree that Hilary is a few negative things but how come a doctor is making a diagnosis just from youtube. A lot of healthy people have difficulty speaking with noise in the background.
Click to expand...

Well, if we are going to play 'I saw it on the internet' then we might as well talk about Trump being a rapist and a participant in child sex rings. Never mind that a very serious and real lawsuit is in progress over his defrauding lots of victims with his fake university.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom