Can you explain why Hillary sucks?

[InquiringMind]

I can see that a lot of people here like Hillary. I don't. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, and my top pick for president was Elizabeth Warren, but she didn't want to be President.

I don't trust Hillary, and I believe that she is somewhere between a narcissist and sociopath. It's not so much that that she overtly lies about stuff that can be fact-checked, because she's way too savvy to do that. It's more in the subtleties of what she does and doesn't do. She's supposed to be a Democrat, and is supposed to represent working people ("labor" in the battle between labor and capital.) But she gave paid speeches to Wall Street banks and she won't disclose what was in those speeches, which tells me where her true loyalties are. She works for the banks, and for big money interests, not for working people. We know what she really wants, and if you look carefully at the discrepancy between her highly-polished political rhetoric and what she actually does, it's clear that she has no intention of doing anything to help regular people. She works for Wall Street.

And there's the book Crisis of Character by a former White House secret service agent, which exposes some serious problems the Clintons had in their relationship.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point is, we don't know all the reasons they stay together. Power? Probably. But is that the only reason? Maybe they are good friends who have found a person who they can talk to and seek support from outside the bedroom. That's a valuable thing in a relationship.


Hillary is undeniably power-hungry though, but so is anyone seeking this position. ANYONE, even Bernie,. This still feels to me like judgement because she's female, and power hungry females seem off to most people, even other females. We are taught this sort of thing from birth, so I'm not saying you are a misogynist or anything, just that I really think it affects people more than they might even realize.

No, it's not because she's female, and I don't appreciate your insinuation, especially considering it's based only upon a "feeling" and it's about someone you don't know and rarely interact with.

Simply because you don't agree with my emphases doesn't give you the right to slur me.

[ReptilianPeon]

First thing to do is it might be helpful to list just some of the female politicians that I do like to allay any charges of sexism.  There's a long list of principled women that I respect. There are many women who I wouldn't think twice about voting for because we have lots of agreement. Others on the list I like enough to list them, but maybe not enough to vote for them.

---

Caroline Luca MP
Molly Scott Cato MEP
Jill Stein
Leanne Wood AM
Nicola Sturgeon MSP
Rosa Luxemburg
Anne Widdicombe (former MP)
Theresa May (she's a refreshing change from David Cameron I think, but I wouldn't vote for her)
Dilma Rousseff (former president of Brazil)
Unlike the women I listed here, Hilary only speaks clichés and platitudes. The women I listed have clear policy ideas.

---

It's silly that I should have do that. There are women that I would vote for and Hilary isn't one them. But why not? The fact that I have to do that shows that Hilary's charges of sexism minimizes cases of real sexism.

I hold Hilary responsible for this for example. Barrack said Libya was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Hilary pushed for the bombing of Libya and is wanting to repeat the mistakes of Iraq, Afghanistan  and Libya in Syria.

People get so outraged at Ralph Nader because he supposedly let George Bush become president (many Democrats in Florida voted for Bush and Al Gore won the recount anyway so it doesn't matter) and meanwhile Hilary Clinton is boasting about having the support of Bush era neo-cons. She will literally let the people who mislead the America and its allies into invading Iraq back into the White House.  But people are somehow not outraged by that even though they are outraged about 2000?

Now that Bush's neo-cons support Hilary the Hilary Henchpeople no longer care about their crimes. They are now supposedly "smart Republicans" for supporting Hilary. They haven't changed one bit: They are still as cruel and heartless as ever. The fact that Hilary actively went after these people and wanted their support says a lot about her.

Hilary wants a no-fly-zone over Syria and she wants Assad gone which is terrible foreign policy. Millions of Syrians are fleeing the terrorists the Obama Administration gave guns to. The fact that the Justice Department abruptly dropped the case against Murc Turi shows that there is evidence weapons from the United States found their way into the hands of terrorists Syria:

---

Poltico Reports:
Obama DOJ drops charges against alleged broker of Libyan weapons
"Arms dealer had threatened to expose Hillary Clinton’s talks about arming anti-Qadhafi rebels."

It turns out, the arms broker, Marc Turi, was going to make Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton look terrible. When Wikileaks said they have evidence Hilary had weapons sent to terrorists, such as al-Saud's henchmen (DAESH), I knew they were serious. Apparently the Obama Administration is worried about such evidence coming out.

Quote:

The deal averts a trial that threatened to cast additional scrutiny on Hillary Clinton’s private emails as Secretary of State, and to expose reported Central Intelligence Agency attempts to arm rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.

...

A Turi associate asserted that the government dropped the case because the proceedings could have embarrassed Clinton and President Barack Obama by calling attention to the reported role of their administration in supplying weapons that fell into the hands of Islamic extremist militants.

“They don’t want this stuff to come out because it will look really bad for Obama and Clinton just before the election,” said the associate.

---

We're bound to get more scenes like this no matter who is president; Hilary is no better than Donald on foreign policy (and she certainly doesn't care about "the Muslims"; they are only a voting block to her because she will happily bomb millions of Arabs into oblivion):

---

---

Hatians are upset with the Clintons too. Huffington Post:

The Clinton Foundation’s Legacy in Haiti – “Haitians are more than upset…

And to the OP:

I hear a lot of people talking about how this election is just a culmination of two horrible candidates. But I just don't get it. Why is Hillary so untrustworthy? The email scandal? She did the exact same thing many politicians have done. Mitt deleted emails in mass when he left the governorship in Mass. I just don't get it. She is boring and a wonk. I am truly trying to understand why she is hated so much. I'd post this on a righty website but I doubt I'd get much substance

New York Post Reports:
The FBI’s Hillary email probe is looking even more like a coverup

It turns out, James Comey allowed Hilary to get away with deleting evidence or allowing evidence to go missing. Like the thirteen-destroyed BlackBerry mobiles which the NSA said she couldn't have or the over 30,000 deleted e-mails.

Does anybody on this forum know what happened to the laptop Hilary sent in the mail? It's disappeared off of the face of the Earth. Why?

Bloomberg Politics:
FBI Says a Laptop That Held Clinton’s E-Mails Has Gone Missing.

Meanwhile, Chelsea Manning is in jail. As is Jeffrey Sterling. Hilary walks free despite doing things far worse than either of those people. Much of the supposedly "left wing/liberal" media are public relations firms for the Clintons.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed -- her foreign-policy stance is another reason I don't care for her. I don't buy the Libya accusations, because action in Libya required Pentagon agreement, which they had. But no one in the American military establishment nowadays offers active intervention as a solution to Syria's civil war -- indeed, no one in the world, I think, has any possible solution and the willingness to pursue it except for perhaps Putin in supporting Assad, sad as that fact is. Yet any idea of safe zones, which Hillary supports, would require 30,000 troops on the ground -- yet another involvement in a Mid-East war which we cannot afford and really don't have the stomach for anyway.

I'm not an isolationist, but I certainly think we would do well to withdraw from extraneous commitments, such as selling arms to both Saudi Arabia and Israel, attempting to police sea-lanes not vital to our own interests, and certainly not setting up another round of deployments to the Mid-East which will have a unifying tendency to the extremists there.

Let them fight each other and be above the fray ourselves -- and decide in the aftermath which winner, if any, merits support. Injecting ourselves into an internecine war has very little positive possibility for us Americans.

[ReptilianPeon]

Yes, let them fight it out in Syria. Many Syrians actually like Assad. To put it in simple terms: he's the lesser evil. The difference between Assad and terrorists (DAESH) is I guess like the difference between Donald and Hilary. On domestic policy at least Hilary is admittedly better than Donald. But I'd still rather vote for the greatest good than the lesser evil. Ron Paul, perhaps oddly, said he too thinks that Jill Stein is the best person to become president (though he didn't endorse her).

[Thumpalumpacus]

Her domestic policy is stronger, but don't fool yourself -- Trump too has come out for interventionism in Syria, and worse, with loose talk about nukes in that context.

I will probably vote for neither; Texas still leans large towards Trump, meaning a vote for Clinton is not going to stop him -- which is my first consideration in this election. Given that my single vote won't change my state's electoral college stance, I will most likely vote for Johnson, despite his apparent ignorance. In that manner I can register my dissatisfaction with both parties, without risking putting a knucklehead into the Oval Office.

[ReptilianPeon]

The first thing to say is to remember the adage: "Actions speak order than words". Donald has rhetoric whereas Hilary has record. She advocated for a wall as Senator, she pushed (unapologetically) for Iraq and Libya. The impression I get from watching the presidential debates is both candidates want to live in an Orwellian police state.

When NBC News interviewed President Assad they asked him if he was worried about Donald Trump, adding that Hilary (supposedly) has all this experience. Assad replied (paraphrasing): "What experience? The Democrats and Republicans both conduct wars but different ways but they're both pyromaniac." it's been a while since I watched the interview. He also said that he didn't know enough about Donald Trump and would withhold judgement on him.

The second thing to say is, the Obama Administration has wanted to extend the war in Syria. If the terrorists never got the weapons in the first place then Donald Trump wouldn't be saying Syria should be bombed. Obama and Hilary created enemies for people to bomb. Donald Trump, we're told, is friends with Putin so unlike Hilary (who is currently blaming everything on the Russians) his administration should work with the Russians on Syria.

[GrandizerII]

I don't trust Hillary, and I believe that she is somewhere between a narcissist and sociopath.

Which may be the case for pretty much most politicians ...

[Whateverist]

My point is, we don't know all the reasons they stay together. Power? Probably. But is that the only reason? Maybe they are good friends who have found a person who they can talk to and seek support from outside the bedroom. That's a valuable thing in a relationship.


Hillary is undeniably power-hungry though, but so is anyone seeking this position. ANYONE, even Bernie,. This still feels to me like judgement because she's female, and power hungry females seem off to most people, even other females. We are taught this sort of thing from birth, so I'm not saying you are a misogynist or anything, just that I really think it affects people more than they might even realize.

No, it's not because she's female, and I don't appreciate your insinuation, especially considering it's based only upon a "feeling" and it's about someone you don't know and rarely interact with.

Simply because you don't agree with my emphases doesn't give you the right to slur me.

Here is a news flash: people lie to themselves all the time.  When they do, they don't always know that they're doing it.  I'm not familiar with the gunshots you refer to but it might well be a case of someone believing something false.  I just don't know.  To declare that "no, she knew, she's a pathological liar" - that is a slur and I don't appreciate you slurring her.

I don't think Aurora suggesting that there may be some unresolved internal conflict in you regarding women seeking power is any kind of slur.  It is a very natural thing to consider when trying to understand one another.

[Whateverist]

Yes, let them fight it out in Syria. Many Syrians actually like Assad. To put it in simple terms: he's the lesser evil. The difference between Assad and terrorists (DAESH) is I guess like the difference between Donald and Hilary. On domestic policy at least Hilary is admittedly better than Donald. But I'd still rather vote for the greatest good than the lesser evil. Ron Paul, perhaps oddly, said he too thinks that Jill Stein is the best person to become president (though he didn't endorse her).

https://youtu.be/Q9jeK5W5mHA