Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Let's start with the biggest and longest lasting attacks against her (in no particular order).
1. She called black kids "super predators." This is, of course, false, yet it still persists to this day. As I noted in several other threads, "super predator" was specifically referring to gang members, not African-Americans or African-American youths. From the transcript (emphasis mine):
As with just about everything Hillary Clinton ever says on camera, disingenuous agents take it completely out of context and then use it against her.
2. She's against "gay" marriage. Also false, yet still persists as exemplified in this POLITICO piece: Hillary Clinton’s changing position on same-sex marriage from 2015. What she has always stated is that, as a personal matter, she believed that "marriage" was between a man and a woman, but that her personal opinions are not relevant and would not ever get in the way of her commitment to equality in regard to civil unions.
Iow, she consistently delineated her personal beliefs separately from her stronger opinion that the government had no business in preventing any couple the same rights as are granted to same sex couples, even going so far as to oppose something her husband signed into law:
That fundamental position never changed. What gradually changed was her personal beliefs, not her political stance, yet not even POLITICO made that distinction clear, when in fact, that distinction was the most important one for people to hear at that time; i.e., that what someone does or does not personally believe has NO PLACE in regard to wielding the power of the government.
It's the exact same argument that drives literally everything fundamentally "good" about America; you can hold whatever personal beliefs you choose (as a fundamental right), but you cannot use the power of the government to impose your personal beliefs onto others or to deny others the same governmental rights you enjoy based on your beliefs.
Your personal beliefs define "marriage" a certain way? Fine. But you cannot deny others the same governmental benefits you enjoy that come as an adjunct to those particular beliefs.
3. "Basket of deplorables." As I have pointed out numerous times, this is yet another instance of her words being selectively, deliberately taken out of context as the very next thought in regard to the "deplorables" comment was to focus on the other half of the Trump supporters:
Her approach has always been the same. She appeals to the shared emotions in the room, let's the audience in on her personal stance to show empathy toward their own personal stance and that she understands what the issues are and then explains the other half of the coin and why we need to focus on the positive, not the negative and how government should (or should not) be involved in such matters.
In short, she starts by pointing out shared feelings and then explains why those feelings are not a matter for government intervention.
And her detractors flip that against her.
4. She's a "corporate whore/friend of wall street." Usually this is tied to her speeches, in spite of the fact that being paid for giving speeches is a mundane and ubiquitous vocation for all manner of politicians, celebrities, people of interest, etc. and in no way could have been considered a "quid pro quo" since she was out of office at the time she gave those speeches. She also gave dozens of them to many other institutions that had nothing to do with Wall Street--and in many cases was paid a LOT more from the other institutions--yet somehow those are just ignored and/or not automatically implied to be nefarious. You give a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, and then that just automatically means they own you for all eternity and not that they simply paid you for your expertise or opinions.
In regard to being a "friend to Wall Street" I don't even know what that means. I know what it implies, of course, but what it actually means is never made clear, particularly since there is no such monolithic entity. I have worked over fifteen years in the financial wealth advisory field in New York City and I can readily tell you that there is no such entity as "Wall Street" and that the people that work in that industry are identical to you. Yes, there are crooks and corrupted individuals just as there are in any other field, but what that has to do with Hillary Clinton is likewise never articulated.
The assumption seems to be the same as being a "corporate whore;" that mere interaction with anyone in a C-Suite position is just axiomatically corrupting, but no one can ever point out how. It's always a vague notion of the rooster watching the henhouse. Just one instance of a quid-pro-quo would suffice to start the discussion on that point, yet, never an instance always just an argument from incredulity, in spite of such things as Obama saying fuck you to Goldman Sachs after being his biggest donor in 2008 and turning their attention to Mitt Romney in 2012.
But in some people's minds, mere association is all that it takes to generate false equivalence and conspiracies.
What seems to get the most ire is the idea of working with people from the industry in order to advise on how to change or regulate the industry. What is never mentioned in that argument, of course, is that anyone who might be brought in as an adviser is acting in just that capacity; as an advisor. They help others write the legislation at times, but at least in regard to Democrats, they are never simply given carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to do. At least I've never been able to find a single instance where that has actually been the case when you scratch even the thinnest of surfaces.
But arguing that they are just axiomatically corrupt is like arguing that any expert in any particular field is axiomatically corrupt simply because they are experts in their particular field. So if someone can show just once instance of where Hillary Clinton simply allowed some corrupt businessperson or banker take control over her own policy in a nefarious way, by all means I'd love to see it. Keeping in mind, of course, that a politician's job is to ALSO come up with regulations that have a realistic chance of being implemented. So compromise is not only inevitable, it is how the game is played and anything ever actually gets done.
Does the CEO of a bank want regulations that favor their bank? Of course they do. Does that just automatically mean they will get those regulations? Not in the slightest as has been proved countless times, but that's all very boring of course and doesn't make the headlines the way something corrupt or with the appearance of corruption will, so you never hear about it.
But in regard to Hillary Clinton, she has consistently argued for intelligent regulations and even proposed a bill that, had it succeeded to get through Congress would have seriously mitigated the effects of the 2008 housing collapse before it happened, to the point where it may have actually prevented it, but certainly would have provided significant funding to help bail out ordinary people who got foreclosed upon as a result of the collapse. As others have previously pointed out when I make that observation, that was just her knowing that it wouldn't pass so it looks good on her record. When pressed as to how they could possibly know that, it's, once again, an argument from incredulity and she's a "corporate whore" circularity and the like.
Similarly, her arguments for financial reform (originally championed by Elizabeth Warren no less) and improving Dodd-Frank--the mechanism that Sanders was going to use, btw, to "break up the banks"--were among the smartest and most bipartisan, meaning they actually were accepted by both sides of the aisle. Did it stop all Republicans in their tracks and never again do we need to worry about their corrupting influence? Of course not, because nothing can do that. It's always an endless battle.
5. She was so bad, she couldn't even beat Donald Trump. Except that she did, in spite of all of this and by almost three million votes (upwards of ten million when you count the expressed preference of eligible voters who nevertheless did not cast a ballot for various non-partisan reasons).
She never gets credit for being up against a true "witch hunt" in regard to Benghazi and the nonstarter of her emails and having the head of the FBI be her October surprise, etc., etc., etc. But the focus is always on her personality in spite of the fact that she surmounted all of those issues (and more, sexism being a prime component) to win in a record setting turnout.
The reason Trump is in the white house is because he cheated. Basically. And the evidence points to a combination of primary factors that have little to nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or her policies and much more to do with the perception of Hillary Clinton as molded and stilted by these very issues above.
That or some variation of blame the victim. She must have done something in order to garner such hatred. Yes, she did. She championed beneficial programs that would have helped millions of the "wrong" kinds of Americans in the eyes of the right and has been relentlessly punished for it.
1. She called black kids "super predators." This is, of course, false, yet it still persists to this day. As I noted in several other threads, "super predator" was specifically referring to gang members, not African-Americans or African-American youths. From the transcript (emphasis mine):
As with just about everything Hillary Clinton ever says on camera, disingenuous agents take it completely out of context and then use it against her.
2. She's against "gay" marriage. Also false, yet still persists as exemplified in this POLITICO piece: Hillary Clinton’s changing position on same-sex marriage from 2015. What she has always stated is that, as a personal matter, she believed that "marriage" was between a man and a woman, but that her personal opinions are not relevant and would not ever get in the way of her commitment to equality in regard to civil unions.
Iow, she consistently delineated her personal beliefs separately from her stronger opinion that the government had no business in preventing any couple the same rights as are granted to same sex couples, even going so far as to oppose something her husband signed into law:
That fundamental position never changed. What gradually changed was her personal beliefs, not her political stance, yet not even POLITICO made that distinction clear, when in fact, that distinction was the most important one for people to hear at that time; i.e., that what someone does or does not personally believe has NO PLACE in regard to wielding the power of the government.
It's the exact same argument that drives literally everything fundamentally "good" about America; you can hold whatever personal beliefs you choose (as a fundamental right), but you cannot use the power of the government to impose your personal beliefs onto others or to deny others the same governmental rights you enjoy based on your beliefs.
Your personal beliefs define "marriage" a certain way? Fine. But you cannot deny others the same governmental benefits you enjoy that come as an adjunct to those particular beliefs.
3. "Basket of deplorables." As I have pointed out numerous times, this is yet another instance of her words being selectively, deliberately taken out of context as the very next thought in regard to the "deplorables" comment was to focus on the other half of the Trump supporters:
Her approach has always been the same. She appeals to the shared emotions in the room, let's the audience in on her personal stance to show empathy toward their own personal stance and that she understands what the issues are and then explains the other half of the coin and why we need to focus on the positive, not the negative and how government should (or should not) be involved in such matters.
In short, she starts by pointing out shared feelings and then explains why those feelings are not a matter for government intervention.
And her detractors flip that against her.
4. She's a "corporate whore/friend of wall street." Usually this is tied to her speeches, in spite of the fact that being paid for giving speeches is a mundane and ubiquitous vocation for all manner of politicians, celebrities, people of interest, etc. and in no way could have been considered a "quid pro quo" since she was out of office at the time she gave those speeches. She also gave dozens of them to many other institutions that had nothing to do with Wall Street--and in many cases was paid a LOT more from the other institutions--yet somehow those are just ignored and/or not automatically implied to be nefarious. You give a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, and then that just automatically means they own you for all eternity and not that they simply paid you for your expertise or opinions.
In regard to being a "friend to Wall Street" I don't even know what that means. I know what it implies, of course, but what it actually means is never made clear, particularly since there is no such monolithic entity. I have worked over fifteen years in the financial wealth advisory field in New York City and I can readily tell you that there is no such entity as "Wall Street" and that the people that work in that industry are identical to you. Yes, there are crooks and corrupted individuals just as there are in any other field, but what that has to do with Hillary Clinton is likewise never articulated.
The assumption seems to be the same as being a "corporate whore;" that mere interaction with anyone in a C-Suite position is just axiomatically corrupting, but no one can ever point out how. It's always a vague notion of the rooster watching the henhouse. Just one instance of a quid-pro-quo would suffice to start the discussion on that point, yet, never an instance always just an argument from incredulity, in spite of such things as Obama saying fuck you to Goldman Sachs after being his biggest donor in 2008 and turning their attention to Mitt Romney in 2012.
But in some people's minds, mere association is all that it takes to generate false equivalence and conspiracies.
What seems to get the most ire is the idea of working with people from the industry in order to advise on how to change or regulate the industry. What is never mentioned in that argument, of course, is that anyone who might be brought in as an adviser is acting in just that capacity; as an advisor. They help others write the legislation at times, but at least in regard to Democrats, they are never simply given carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to do. At least I've never been able to find a single instance where that has actually been the case when you scratch even the thinnest of surfaces.
But arguing that they are just axiomatically corrupt is like arguing that any expert in any particular field is axiomatically corrupt simply because they are experts in their particular field. So if someone can show just once instance of where Hillary Clinton simply allowed some corrupt businessperson or banker take control over her own policy in a nefarious way, by all means I'd love to see it. Keeping in mind, of course, that a politician's job is to ALSO come up with regulations that have a realistic chance of being implemented. So compromise is not only inevitable, it is how the game is played and anything ever actually gets done.
Does the CEO of a bank want regulations that favor their bank? Of course they do. Does that just automatically mean they will get those regulations? Not in the slightest as has been proved countless times, but that's all very boring of course and doesn't make the headlines the way something corrupt or with the appearance of corruption will, so you never hear about it.
But in regard to Hillary Clinton, she has consistently argued for intelligent regulations and even proposed a bill that, had it succeeded to get through Congress would have seriously mitigated the effects of the 2008 housing collapse before it happened, to the point where it may have actually prevented it, but certainly would have provided significant funding to help bail out ordinary people who got foreclosed upon as a result of the collapse. As others have previously pointed out when I make that observation, that was just her knowing that it wouldn't pass so it looks good on her record. When pressed as to how they could possibly know that, it's, once again, an argument from incredulity and she's a "corporate whore" circularity and the like.
Similarly, her arguments for financial reform (originally championed by Elizabeth Warren no less) and improving Dodd-Frank--the mechanism that Sanders was going to use, btw, to "break up the banks"--were among the smartest and most bipartisan, meaning they actually were accepted by both sides of the aisle. Did it stop all Republicans in their tracks and never again do we need to worry about their corrupting influence? Of course not, because nothing can do that. It's always an endless battle.
5. She was so bad, she couldn't even beat Donald Trump. Except that she did, in spite of all of this and by almost three million votes (upwards of ten million when you count the expressed preference of eligible voters who nevertheless did not cast a ballot for various non-partisan reasons).
She never gets credit for being up against a true "witch hunt" in regard to Benghazi and the nonstarter of her emails and having the head of the FBI be her October surprise, etc., etc., etc. But the focus is always on her personality in spite of the fact that she surmounted all of those issues (and more, sexism being a prime component) to win in a record setting turnout.
The reason Trump is in the white house is because he cheated. Basically. And the evidence points to a combination of primary factors that have little to nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or her policies and much more to do with the perception of Hillary Clinton as molded and stilted by these very issues above.
That or some variation of blame the victim. She must have done something in order to garner such hatred. Yes, she did. She championed beneficial programs that would have helped millions of the "wrong" kinds of Americans in the eyes of the right and has been relentlessly punished for it.
