The Hillary Haters

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

The Hillary Haters

Post by Econoline »

Here's an excellent and revealing article from Slate. It's quite long, so I'm only going to quote a few paragraphs...but it's well worth reading the whole thing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _most.html
The Hillary Haters

Few figures in American political life have inspired such deep and decades-long contempt. But why?

By Michelle Goldberg

In 1996, the New Yorker published “Hating Hillary,” Henry Louis Gates’ reported piece on the widespread animosity for the then–first lady. “Like horse-racing, Hillary-hating has become one of those national pastimes which unite the élite and the lumpen,” Gates wrote. “[T]here’s just something about her that pisses people off,” the renowned Washington hostess Sally Quinn told Gates. “This is the reaction that she elicits from people.”

It might seem as though nothing much has changed in 20 years. Many people disliked Hillary Clinton when she first emerged onto the political scene, and many people dislike her now. She is on track to become the least popular Democratic nominee in modern history, although voters like Donald Trump even less.

But over the last two decades, the something that pisses people off has changed. Speaking to Gates, former Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan described “an air of apple-cheeked certitude” in Clinton that is “political in its nature and grating in its effects.” Noonan saw in Clinton “an implicit insistence throughout her career that hers were the politics of moral decency and therefore those who opposed her politics were obviously of a lower moral order.”

Noonan’s view was a common one. Take, for example, Michael Kelly’s 1993 New York Times Magazine profile, mockingly titled “Saint Hillary.” “Since she discovered, at the age of 14, that for people less fortunate than herself the world could be very cruel, Hillary Rodham Clinton has harbored an ambition so large that it can scarcely be grasped,” Kelly wrote. “She would like to make things right. She is 45 now and she knows that the earnest idealisms of a child of the 1960s may strike some people as naive or trite or grandiose. But she holds to them without any apparent sense of irony or inadequacy.” Kelly’s piece painted Clinton as a moralist, a meddler, a prig.

Few people dislike Hillary Clinton for being too moralistic anymore. In trying to understand the seemingly eternal phenomenon of Hillary hatred, I’ve spoken to people all around America who revile her. I’ve interviewed Trump supporters, conventional conservatives, Bernie Sanders fans, and even a few people who reluctantly voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary but who nevertheless say they can’t stand her. Most of them described a venal cynic. Strikingly, the reasons people commonly give for hating Clinton now are almost the exact opposite of the reasons people gave for hating her in the 1990s. Back then, she was a self-righteous ideologue; now she’s a corrupt tool of the establishment. Back then, she was too rigid; now she’s too flexible. Recently, Morning Consult polled people who don’t like Clinton about the reasons for their distaste. Eighty-four percent agreed with the statement “She changes her positions when it’s politically convenient.” Eighty-two percent consider her “corrupt.” Motives for loathing Clinton have evolved. But the loathing itself has remained constant.
Read the whole article here. Whatever your own person feelings about Hillary Clinton, I'm sure you'll find it interesting. (Spoiler alert: there is no one, simple answer.)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

I believe I'll pass on the article Econo, if it's all the same to you...

Seems to me we've beaten this topic into the ground around here...

But I'm sure it will make fine reading for anyone who feels a need to grasp for some "explanation" for why Hillary is disliked beyond the simple fact that she has said and done so many unlikeable things...

Personally I don't have this need but it certainly seems there are some folks around here who do... 8-)

For example to me it seems pretty obvious, (in fact inescapably so) that the reason she is seen as "dishonest" is because of, well, her proven track record for dishonesty...

There is in fact a "simple answer" and that is it...

But for those who can't bring themselves to accept the simple and obvious answer, there is certainly no shortage of creative and imaginative alternatives being touted that one can choose to believe in...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Econoline »

Actually, you're exactly the sort of person who should read the article, especially if you think that Clinton's "57% unfavorable" rating (or whatever it is right now) means that 57% of the electorate agree with you. Yes, of course you have a "simple and obvious" reason for disliking Hillary...and it turns out that many, many others have a "simple and obvious" reason for disliking her--except that it also turns out that their "simple and obvious" reason is probably not the same as your "simple and obvious" reason, or even the same as each other's "simple and obvious" reason. It's also interesting to find how different people's reasons have changed over the course of two and a half decades, without changing their overall unfavorable opinions.

This is just the sort of information I would expect someone (like you) who really wants to understand the polling numbers needs to look at as we head into the final stretch. Different demographics will be changing their opinions for different reasons; I'm sure Team Clinton understands this even better than the author of that Slate article. Hillary will probably want to concentrate on changing one or two demographics' perceptions of her, rather than changing the perceptions of *ALL* the Hillary-haters--or even changing your own personal perceptions. ;)
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Burning Petard
Posts: 4596
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Burning Petard »

I think the emotional revulsion (to? from? ) Ms Clinton comes first and a rational reason for the reaction is then created to justify it. Reality and circumstances surrounding the Democrats choice for the next president change, but the revulsion continues and the rational is modified to fit.

snailgate

kmccune
Posts: 455
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 10:07 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghanies

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by kmccune »

All this for the next POTUS (BTW its time for a woman Prez,two terms ago it was ripe for a Black President ,now conditions are right for a Woman )While Mr Trump is a strong contender(if He could just keep mum on a few issues) its another case of the GOP grazing their feet. IMO :D

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

I saw Hillary interviewed by Chris Wallace this morning...(It was her first appearance on FOX News in five years; another clear sign that she is definitely going after the disaffected Republican and conservative vote, which Drumpf has so obligingly made available to her...)

She did fine through most of it, (her convention must have really given her a lift; she seemed much more animated and at ease then she has when being interviewed in the past...)

Until they got to the questions about her emails, where (instead of taking my good advice to simply refuse to talk about it any more) once again she lied her tush off....

She repeated the lie that she had not sent or received classified material that was was classified at the time she sent and received it, and she even brazenly lied that Comey had found no conflict between the evidence his investigation developed and her public statements (even when film clips of Comey testifying that a whole series of claims she had made were false were shown)

And then for good measure, she once again threw her former state department subordinates under the bus....

These are all very unlikeable things for a person to do, and easily explain why she gets such low marks for being honest and trustworthy....

She simply cannot address this topic without being a lying liar who lies...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Long Run »

Lord Jim wrote: She simply cannot address this topic without being a lying liar who lies...
The Atlantic must have read your post :) : http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ng/493841/
Why Can't Hillary Clinton Stop Lying?

The Democratic presidential nominee came off a successful convention week in Philadelphia and landed right back in hot water with another fabrication.

This is a note to Clinton Democrats—a desperate plea, actually. Your candidate staged a winning convention in Philadelphia: big stars, tight messaging, and a compelling case against her rival, Donald Trump.

The Republican nominee followed up by smearing a war hero’s family, revealing his ignorance about Russia’s incursions into Ukraine, denying a relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had previously claimed, and failing to quell suspicions that his team changed the GOP platform to protect Putin’s interests.

Hillary Clinton may be rising in the polls as a result, which is good news for people like me across the political spectrum who find Trump to be vacuous, soulless, and temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

Yet I’m not angry at Trump; I expect him to be repugnant. I am angry at Clinton, because she followed up her convention with another unnecessary lie; another excuse for people to distrust her; another thin reed upon which undecided voters could justify a belated allegiance to a man who former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called “a dangerous demagogue.”

On Sunday, the former secretary of state told FOX News’ Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey cleared her of misleading the public about her rogue email server at the state department: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

That’s wrong and she knows it, which makes it a lie.

“Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server,” wrote Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who awarded Clinton the maximum four “Pinocchios” for her whopper. “This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation.” * * * *

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

Why can't she simply stop lying about this?

Why can't she simply say, "What I did was a mistake and I apologize for it , and I would never do it again, and I accept the conclusions Comey reached, and it's time to move on...

"Now let's talk about Donald Trump..."

That seems like a much better strategy...
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by rubato »

In context Comeys remarks exonerated her of anything more then trivial error.

Get over it.

Yrs,
Rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21467
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Liar
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9607
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Econoline »

Burning Petard wrote:I think the emotional revulsion (to? from? ) Ms Clinton comes first and a rational reason for the reaction is then created to justify it. Reality and circumstances surrounding the Democrats choice for the next president change, but the revulsion continues and the rational is modified to fit.

snailgate
That's a little oversimplified, but that's one possible takeaway from the Slate article. Think about it: all politicians lie (that's part of the job description), but what what people have usually objected to first and primarily about a President--be it Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., or Obama--is his policies or his proposed policies or his political philosophy, not his personality or character. In Hillary's case it's the other way around: what comes first is the personal dislike, and then the political objections.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

rubato wrote:In context Comeys remarks exonerated her of anything more then trivial error.

Get over it.

Yrs,
Rubato
It's that kind of idiocy that keeps this story alive...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

The ironic thing here, is with Trump as the GOP nominee, I want Hillary to win...

I really wish she would stop lying about this...

It undermines her candidacy, and plays into Trump's tiny hands....

I understand why she can't tell the truth about it....

The truth is something along the lines of "having personal control over my communications was more important to me then national security, and I'm Hillary Clinton and the rules that apply to others don't apply to me"

I don't expect her to to cop to that....

But at least she could stop lying and simply refuse to talk about it any more...
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by rubato »

Lord Jim wrote:
rubato wrote:In context Comeys remarks exonerated her of anything more then trivial error.

Get over it.

Yrs,
Rubato
It's that kind of idiocy that keeps this story alive...
No, its your lack of perspective which makes bullshit seem interesting to you.

Comey said that nothing she did rose to the level of a real crime. Pull your head out of your ass and move on.




yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

Comey saidthat nothing she did rose to the level of a real crime.
Pure horseshit...
"I don't believe we had enough evidence to prove a crime to the legal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; that is the standard I used..."
That was the standard Comey used...

Image
ImageImageImage

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21467
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

rubato wrote:Comey said that nothing she did rose to the level of a real crime.
Liar.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

From Long Run's link to the Atlantic article:
Her dishonesty could push an unknown number of independent and undecided voters into Trump’s camp or toward a non-major-party candidate. If too many swing voters walk away from Clinton because she destroyed her credibility or because they don’t want to condone her behavior, the nuclear codes go to Trump.

That is why Clinton’s advisers, senior Democrats, and members of the liberal media need to stop covering for Clinton. Stop repeating her spin. Stop spreading her lies. Stop enabling her worse angels. It’s too late for Clinton to come clean, but honorable Democrats should at least insist that she stop muddying the water.

Please, for the sake of the country, tell her: Stop lying.
Stop lying, and stop sending your campaign manager, and your campaign press secretary, and other surrogates out to lie about this too...

Just STFU about this, and tell everyone connected to your campaign to STFU about it as well....

If you don't, as that article points out, you could wind up electing Donald Trump...( if you don't, you'll wind up with just the votes of hardcore partisans and people as brain dead as rubato, and that wont be a majority)

Repeat after me:

"I made a mistake. I've apologized. I certainly wouldn't do it again. Mr. Comey concluded what he concluded, and I'm not going to get into an argument about it, I've said everything I have to say about it, I have nothing further to say.

Now lets talk about Donald Trump..."
ImageImageImage

rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
rubato wrote:Comey said that nothing she did rose to the level of a real crime.
Liar.
No, that is a true synopses of what he said. he agreed that she should not face criminal charges.
F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email
...

But on a day of political high drama in Washington, Mr. Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a private email address and server. He raised questions about her judgment, contradicted statements she has made about her email practices, said it was possible that hostile foreign governments had gained access to her account, and declared that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could have faced disciplinary action for doing what she did.

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”


... "
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/po ... comey.html

The need to hysterically inflate the importance of everything Hillary does, especially by people like yourself who cannot produce any cogent reason for hatred of her, is limitless.

But YOU are a liar which you can correct by admitting that you were wrong (driven by evil emotions, no doubt)


yrs,
rubato

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Lord Jim »

Once again, rube proves that not all the stupid people are Trump supporters...
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8990
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: The Hillary Haters

Post by Guinevere »

Ahem

Re: The Drip Drip Drip...

Postby Sue U » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:22 pm

Jim, I notice you left out the part of Comey's statement coming immediately after the quote you highlighted:



Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.


You can try to spin that any way you want, but the plain words say there was no evidence of intentional or wilful mishandling of classified information. To the extent there may have been some "evidence of potential violations of the statutes," it was insufficient to sustain a charge. "Reasonable doubt" is a jury determination made at the end of a trial; by contrast, sufficiency of evidence to go forward with filing a charge is a threshold question that a judge would decide on a motion to dismiss at the outset. If you don't have enough to get past an initial MTD, you don't file. That's the "reasonable prosecutor" determination.
This is not too fine a point for those who post here to understand, unless they are being willfully ignorant . . .
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply