Hillary Clinton

[Strange]

... part of the course

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/par_for_the_course

[DrmDoc]

I have never said she wasn't qualified for the job of President.

 

I'm not suggesting that you have. As I've said, my question regarded those with criticisms unique to Mrs. Clinton that render her least qualified.

 

My own personal problem with her and the DNC is the underhanded way she was favored for the nomination.

And the fact that B. Sanders has forgiven her and the Democrats says more about his character than hers.

 

Does this make Hillary least qualified in your opinion? I'm also interested in your answer to Swansont's as to whether Hillary's responsible for the actions of the DNC? It's my understanding that no evidence of collusion between Mrs. Clinton and the DNC has been found. If true, Bernie has nothing to forgive Hillary for.

 

Other members may have different priorities, and to them, the lies, health, e-mail, Bill, or even her testosterone are valid concerns.

This thread was specifically set up for voicing those concerns, and I don't think telling them their concerns are nonsense is very American.

( maybe the other thread concerning rights should be expanded to include opinions, and when/if you can have one )

 

Granted, members may have concerns both rational and irrational and, equally, valid and invalid. If I've labeled certain opinion "minor" relative to Hillary's overall qualifications and labeled other opinions as based on political "tripe" or propaganda, I'm not infringing on their right to express and have those opinions. Criticizing an opinion isn't un-American, neither is implying a person is un-American for doing so.

Edited September 19, 2016 by DrmDoc

[imatfaal]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/par_for_the_course

 

I was shortening / alluding to "part of the normal course of events in such circumstances"

[Arete]

Do you believe that because she's the better candidate she should get a free pass from criticism, or that her foibles can be excused because D. Trump's are so much worse ?

 

No, but even the most strident advocate of the particular arguments occupying most of this thread can't justify why they don't simply amount to an ad hominem hatchet job.

 

That's not to say I particularly like Clinton - whenever I do a political compass test I wind up virtually on top of Nelson Mandela's ideology in the libertarian left - advocating socioeconomic equality, economic liberalism and a belief that education and healthcare are basic human rights. Clinton is center right, representing a pronounced drift of the entire American political apparatus to the authoritarian right - we're ideologically opposed. She's also been part of the Democratic political machine for decades, and unlikely to change the fact that special interest lobby groups have over-representative influence on US politics.

 

The notion that she's somehow more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates is not supported by fact, and is ultimately ad hom logical fallacy. A more astute criticism is that a Clinton administration is likely to be largely business as usual for the US government - anathema for anyone desiring fundamental political change.

[DrmDoc]

 

No, but even the most strident advocate of the particular arguments occupying most of this thread can't justify why they don't simply amount to an ad hominem hatchet job.

 

That's not to say I particularly like Clinton - whenever I do a political compass test I wind up virtually on top of Nelson Mandela's ideology in the libertarian left - advocating socioeconomic equality, economic liberalism and a belief that education and healthcare are basic human rights. Clinton is center right, representing a pronounced drift of the entire American political apparatus to the authoritarian right - we're ideologically opposed. She's also been part of the Democratic political machine for decades, and unlikely to change the fact that special interest lobby groups have over-representative influence on US politics.

 

The notion that she's somehow more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates is not supported by fact, and is ultimately ad hom logical fallacy. A more astute criticism is that a Clinton administration is likely to be largely business as usual for the US government - anathema for anyone desiring fundamental political change.

 

I like Clinton and I like this commentary because it provides a criticism specific to Mrs. Clinton candidacy, which is her representing the status quo where some voters desire change. Donald is a departure from the status quo. However, representing the staid system is not, in my opinion, a disqualifying factor for POTUS. In America, fundamental change doesn't occur without revolution and a support of the majority. We are not yet at that stage for change. We are a capitalist society where money and personal wealth sway public opinion. Our system works as long as a majority of our businesses remain profitable. I think, a majority of the American public don't want change if it's viewed as adversely affecting their financial stability or pursuit of wealth. Money and wealth is integral to our political system, it's how the most powerful politicians get elected. We elect politicians whom we believe will best defend our way of life which, in America, is the pursuit of wealth.

Edited September 20, 2016 by DrmDoc

[MigL]

And I challenge you to find one of my posts where I've said that she's more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates.

As a matter of fact, I have stated the total opposite at every occasion, Arete.

 

But this is a thread about H. Clinton and if you want to discuss your dislike of her centre right political stance, you are more than welcome and I won't accuse you of doing a 'hatchet job' on her.

That's what this thread is for.

To discuss what we approve of, and what we don't, about a person who will hopefully be the next American President.

[Arete]

And I challenge you to find one of my posts where I've said that she's more dishonest and untrustworthy than other candidates.

As a matter of fact, I have stated the total opposite at every occasion, Arete.

 

Apologies - it wasn't a comment specifically directed at you, more directed at the arguments themselves.

[Phi for All]

 

I like Clinton and I like this commentary because it provides a criticism specific to Mrs. Clinton candidacy, which is her representing the status quo where some voters desire change. Donald is a departure from the status quo. However, representing the staid system is not, in my opinion, a disqualifying factor for POTUS. In America, fundamental change doesn't occur without revolution and a support of the majority. We are not yet at that stage for change. We are a capitalist society where money and personal wealth sway public opinion. Our system works as long as a majority of our businesses remain profitable. I think, a majority of the American public don't want change if it's viewed as adversely affecting their financial stability or pursuit of wealth. Money and wealth is integral to our political system, it's how the most powerful politician get elected. We elect politician whom we believe will best defend our way of life which, in America, is the pursuit of wealth.

 

There are a lot of people with exaggerated expectations of their own proficiency. Like folks who are willing to take a 60% cut on their lottery winning to get it all up front, assuming they'll somehow be suddenly able to manage lots of money when they couldn't manage a lot less.

 

Is it this hubris that blinds them to the benefits of heavily taxing insane profits? There's always so much pushback when, for example, we start talking about putting a 90% marginal tax rate on income above $10M/year. Is Joe Sixpack voting against high marginal rates because he plans on winning the lottery? We could make a lot of revenue from taxing the top earnings, but this is one area where Hillary didn't learn from Bernie. The media also doesn't seem to be interested in explaining that no, you will not be paying 90% in taxes Mr Sixpack. Only on your income above $10M.

[DrmDoc]

 

There are a lot of people with exaggerated expectations of their own proficiency. Like folks who are willing to take a 60% cut on their lottery winning to get it all up front, assuming they'll somehow be suddenly able to manage lots of money when they couldn't manage a lot less.

 

Is it this hubris that blinds them to the benefits of heavily taxing insane profits? There's always so much pushback when, for example, we start talking about putting a 90% marginal tax rate on income above $10M/year. Is Joe Sixpack voting against high marginal rates because he plans on winning the lottery? We could make a lot of revenue from taxing the top earnings, but this is one area where Hillary didn't learn from Bernie. The media also doesn't seem to be interested in explaining that no, you will not be paying 90% in taxes Mr Sixpack. Only on your income above $10M.

 

I agree, sharing more of the wealth is certainly a good idea but it will require a substantial change in the mindset of our electorate. The problem, as I see it, is that people generally don't have the right idea about wealth and taxes. Most of us don't understand that our government is every bit our dependent as the people we support with our wages. As our dependent, our taxes support the services, programs, and protections our government provides, which makes possible our pursuit of wealth. There's no wealth without government. The problem the wealthy appears to have with paying more taxes is that they, in my opinion, feel no obligation to invest in a system with no direct financial return on their investment. That's particularly true with the perception of fraud and waste of big government. To the wealthy, paying more taxes is like flushing money down the toilet.

[Willie71]

There are a lot of people with exaggerated expectations of their own proficiency. Like folks who are willing to take a 60% cut on their lottery winning to get it all up front, assuming they'll somehow be suddenly able to manage lots of money when they couldn't manage a lot less.

 

Is it this hubris that blinds them to the benefits of heavily taxing insane profits? There's always so much pushback when, for example, we start talking about putting a 90% marginal tax rate on income above $10M/year. Is Joe Sixpack voting against high marginal rates because he plans on winning the lottery? We could make a lot of revenue from taxing the top earnings, but this is one area where Hillary didn't learn from Bernie. The media also doesn't seem to be interested in explaining that no, you will not be paying 90% in taxes Mr Sixpack. Only on your income above $10M.

I hit the down button by accident when I meant to hit the up vote. My apologies. Can a mod fix this please?

[waitforufo]

I think to be qualified to be president, the electorate needs to believe you are truthful. Hillary is not believed to be a truth teller.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.80e74832f6ca

 

The Washington Post is pay walled, but you can view this article by switching to an incognito window.

 

 

 

Today, the American people agree. A recent NBC News poll found that just 11 percent of Americans say Clinton is honest and trustworthy. To put that in perspective, 14 percent of American voters believe in Bigfoot. In other words, more Americans believe that a large, hairy, hominoid creature inhabits the forest of North America than believe that Hillary Clinton tells the truth.

[DrmDoc]

I think to be qualified to be president, the electorate needs to believe you are truthful. Hillary is not believed to be a truth teller.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.80e74832f6ca

 

The Washington Post is pay walled, but you can view this article by switching to an incognito window.

 

 

So, is it your opinion that not being believe as truthful is a criticism unique to Mrs. Clinton that specifically renders her least qualified to be POTUS?

[waitforufo]

 

So, is it your opinion that not being believe as truthful is a criticism unique to Mrs. Clinton that specifically renders her least qualified to be POTUS?

I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified.

[Phi for All]

I think to be qualified to be president, the electorate needs to believe you are truthful. Hillary is not believed to be a truth teller.

 

I know that you don't like to talk about you-know-who in Hillary's thread, but you could at least acknowledge that, according to your own source, the other candidate only rated 2% above Bigfoot. 16% to 11% for honest and trustworthy. Good grief, our country is in much better shape than our leadership would reflect. This system needs changing.

[DrmDoc]

I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified.

 

I presume you are interested in electing the most qualified candidate for the job? Sorry, but nothing you've said renders Mrs. Clinton least qualified, though that is not your interest. If lack of truthfulness--which isn't a quality specifically unique to Mrs. Clinton--is your interest or measure, what is it about that issue that disqualifies her most. Notice I've made no reference to other candidates. Clinton's email scandal did not compromise our security, which would have be a prosecutorial offense. Mrs. Clinton's Benghazi responses were reasonable for the information she had at that time. As far as I know, prosecution of a suspected criminal (Billy Dale?) was not within Hillary's purview as Sec. of State. Just to be clear, one-sided politically inflated issues of truthfulness is insufficient evidence for disqualification.

[Willie71]

There are two lines of thinking here. One is talking about Clinton, her real or perceived flaws, low favourability, and perception of being the face of corruption, whether real or not, and the truth is somewhere between, she is Satan, and the criticisms are just mysogyny. The second line of thinking is who is better, Donald or Hillary? Somehow Donald being worse is a free pass for Clinton.

[Ten oz]

In 2000 everyone paying attention (people who followed politics) understood Clinton would eventually run for President. The GOP started their campaign against her then fearing a 04' run. After she did not run in 04' her run in 08' was all but guaranteed. Then after she failed to secure the nomination it was widely assumed she'd run again now in 16'. With all that in mind the GOP has slandered Clinton and questioned her character since 2000. So it isn't a surprise that Clinton's image, trustworthiness, likability, or whatever superficial word one would would prefer is her biggest and perhaps only challenge.

[Willie71]

In 2000 everyone paying attention (people who followed politics) understood Clinton would eventually run for President. The GOP started their campaign against her then fearing a 04' run. After she did not run in 04' her run in 08' was all but guaranteed. Then after she failed to secure the nomination it was widely assumed she'd run again now in 16'. With all that in mind the GOP has slandered Clinton and questioned her character since 2000. So it isn't a surprise that Clinton's image, trustworthiness, likability, or whatever superficial word one would would prefer is her biggest and perhaps only challenge.

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. We all know much of Clinton's image problem is from bs smears, but the country is much more anti establishment this election than any time in the last 30 years. Some of the smears are legitimate though. Clinton is a pro establishment third way democrat. If that was the country wanted, she would be unbeatable. That's not the desired candidate this election.

[swansont]

I believe the is sufficient evidence in both her past and present to convince any thinking person that Hillary Clinton is not truthful. Her lack of truthfulness extends into important issues like national security (email), defending American soil (Benghazi), and pursuing criminal prosecution of an innocent individual (Billy Dale). I don't care if she is the "least qualified" I simply care if she is qualified or not. I think she is not truthful and therefore not qualified.

 

 

 

But that's circular logic.

 

No charges were brought for the email, and despite numerous Republican probes, they found no wrongdoing for Benghazi. So how are they examples of "lack of truthfulness" unless you had already concluded that she was not truthful, before assessing those events?

 

As for Billy Dale, you state he is innocent, presumably based on the fact that he was acquitted. But for Benghazi and the email situation, no charges were even filed. So in the opinion of the lawyers and the legal system, there was less evidence against Clinton for these alleged transgressions than for Billy Dale with his. And yet he's innocent in your eyes, and she's guilty. That's a hell of a double standard.

[DrmDoc]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. We all know much of Clinton's image problem is from bs smears, but the country is much more anti establishment this election than any time in the last 30 years. Some of the smears are legitimate though. Clinton is a pro establishment third way democrat. If that was the country wanted, she would be unbeatable. That's not the desired candidate this election.

 

The only "legitimate" claim against Hillary is that she is an establishment candidate and a lot of people still have sore feelings over the primary loss of Bernie. The people who still want change will have to set aside their anger for now and decide who among their current choices for POTUS is best for our country and most likely to win. Voting for one candidate to spite another is destructively selfish and potentially harmful to the future they hope to one day establish. Sure, express your displeasure but vote your conscience.

[Ten oz]

I think it goes a bit deeper than that. We all know much of Clinton's image problem is from bs smears, but the country is much more anti establishment this election than any time in the last 30 years. Some of the smears are legitimate though. Clinton is a pro establishment third way democrat. If that was the country wanted, she would be unbeatable. That's not the desired candidate this election.

Politics is always evolving. I too have criticized Clinton for being too hawkish and center of the road. I have come to realize that it isn't accurate. What liberal is in 2016 isn't the same as it was in 1992. Reagan had been popularand the country didn't have the hangover from Reaganomics yet. We were in a different place. Clinton's prior positions dont feel progressive and fresh because they are old and part of a different political era. Her positions today, if we can look at them in isolation, are pretty good.

[MigL]

I, on the other hand, have always thought that those qualities ( center of road ) might make it easier for her to work with Republicans; to actually get some things done.

I may have wanted a 'reformer' like B. Sanders to make the US more 'Canadian', but always thought he would get too much push-back, as has happened to B. Obama every time he tried to implement something.

[Willie71]

I, on the other hand, have always thought that those qualities ( center of road ) might make it easier for her to work with Republicans; to actually get some things done.

I may have wanted a 'reformer' like B. Sanders to make the US more 'Canadian', but always thought he would get too much push-back, as has happened to B. Obama every time he tried to implement something.

I would have agreed if it was anyone but Clinton. Cooperating with Clinton would be political suicide after the decades long witch hunt. No self respecting republican could cooperate with Clinton without having to endure an exorcism afterwards.

[Willie71]

The only "legitimate" claim against Hillary is that she is an establishment candidate and a lot of people still have sore feelings over the primary loss of Bernie. The people who still want change will have to set aside their anger for now and decide who among their current choices for POTUS is best for our country and most likely to win. Voting for one candidate to spite another is destructively selfish and potentially harmful to the future they hope to one day establish. Sure, express your displeasure but vote your conscience.

 

What is it with Clinton supporters and their inability to accept that people are critical of Hillary independent of having hurt feelings from the primaries? Is it the argument from incredulity, or some sort of projection? In the era of bought out corporate media, and partisan independent media, the "truth" can be elusive. We do the best we can based on sources we trust, trying to filter out the crap. Some are so sure that their sources that say Clinton is fine are presenting the unbiased truth, but cannot accept that there might be some whitewashing going on. How can you be so sure? I am just as critical of those believing the Benghazi crap, or the gun grabbing crap. There is, however, pretty compelling evidence that at least sipuggests a pretty possible/probable level of corruption, pay to play, and allegiance to moneyed interests. It takes pretty strong blinders to explain it all away. Nothing conclusive, but if there was that much suggestion someone's spouse was cheating, we would tell them to at least be cautious, and vigilant.

 

I'm not making an argument regarding who is worse, Trump or Clinton. I'm simply discussing the topic of the OP, Clinton on her own merits. I'll get it out of the way. Trump is worse.

[swansont]

There is, however, pretty compelling evidence that at least sipuggests a pretty possible/probable level of corruption, pay to play, and allegiance to moneyed interests. It takes pretty strong blinders to explain it all away.

 

 

Well, what's the evidence that there is corruption? And by corruption, I mean something illegal rather than what is seen in pretty much every politician.