How can anybody seriously argue that Hilary Clinton would make a good President? Watch

zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1



her bad sides:

1) she used to argue feverishly *against* gay marriage and now, suddenly, when it gets popular, favours it. what made gay marriage wrong back then compared to now? mob-mentalities? career-politician mentalities? when mitt romney (who was a bad candidate, of course) flip flopped like this, everybody attacked him for this, yet when hillary clinton does it, where are the cries of "flip flopper"? this really just gives out the message that she's willing to whore herself out to publish opinion - if she, perhaps, was in favour of gay marriage *before* the LGBT movement became widely accepted, I wouldn't be saying this. if she perhaps was a cause of gay marriage being something supported in the US, again, I wouldn't be saying this. she seems, based on this, nothing but a band-waggoner, and a sheep, not a leader.

2) she voted strongly for the iraq war back in 2003, which cause the death and torment of hundreds of thousands for an absolutely flawed, arbitrary and even non-existent goal, while obama, to his credit, did not

3) she is a part of the former clinton circle - she will essentially be a revival of a past president and the creation of a political dynasty/tradition in one sense, bringing nothing remotely "fresh and new". this is because bill clinton will obviously be a huge influence on the way she operates as her husband. to all those who complain about jeb bush (such as myself) potentially becoming the republican candidate, you are being totally two-faced if you are willing to let hillary slide for no good reason. I cannot stress enough how much she belongs to the status quo/elitist "establishment" and not for any kind of good or honest cause when charging $200,000 for "speaking engagements".

4) she has limited respect for free speech when she actually supported a bill to ban burning of the US flag. remember the fact that she was the reason grand theft auto san andreas was censored as much as it was back in 2004?

5) oh yeah, and benghazi (saw that one coming, huh?) - the causation of many murders of americans in libya, thus causing her to step down from the US executive. surely it would be weird that she would stand for *president* when she didn't last even as a first secretary of state, for very negative reasons?


her good side:
1) "she's a woman" and "represents a breaking of barriers"
....can't think of anything else, really. at least barack obama, for all his "black privilege" in his election(s), had some positive aspects but I honestly can't say much about barack obama *before* he became president like hilary apart from a) his lack of experience (perhaps), and b) his opposition to gay marriage

can somebody actually present the case of hillary clinton actually making a good president who would actually do good or bring "change"(tm)? how does the fact that she has a vagina and boobs make her significant? it's cosmetically singificant in the sense that there's never been a female president, but if she's a bad president, what will that do for the message of women presidents in america? maybe they'll say "oh well her gender's got nothing to do with her being a bad president" - yeah? well why the hell does her gender matter so much *before* she becomes president? why this blatant jet of pure hypocrisy which will obviously follow?
1
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
She's a politician. What do you expect?

Still, whatever her faults, at least she has a brain. With the possible exceptions of Chris Christie and George Pataki, all of the Republican candidates so far appear to be utterly insane.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by Arbolus)
She's a politician. What do you expect?

Still, whatever her faults, at least she has a brain. With the possible exceptions of Chris Christie and George Pataki, all of the Republican candidates so far appear to be utterly insane.

Posted from TSR Mobile
what about bernie sanders or joe biden? why hillary clinton? that's my question
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
She seems like another Obama.

'if in a swing seat vote for her but be under no illusions what you are voting for, otherwise vote in protest'

Wonder if her election campaign will win best product marketing like Obama's did. Modern democracy for you...

Her being a woman is part of that marketing like how Obama being black was.
0
reply
looseseal
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
Bernie Sanders is the better choice if Americans want to have any chance of reversing the plutocracy that's taken hold of the American political system.
0
reply
bottled
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Erm, excuse me.
I want a women in the white house

if we had more women in power we'd have less wars and more fashion shows >: (
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by bottled)
Erm, excuse me.
I want a women in the white house

if we had more women in power we'd have less wars and more fashion shows >: (
are you being sarcastically sexist or...? :| because she voted for iraq...
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
I prefer Bush over Clinton but my opinion..

1) She's a populist who lacks conviction. Not a good thing but not really a big thing.

2) I support the Iraq War. I'll never agree with the libertarians and pacifist on such things though.

3) I'm not massively against this.

4) Agree with you here.

5) I'm not sure she can be blamed for the cultural inferiority of the Libyans.

1) I don't much care is she's a man or woman.
0
reply
Toussaint
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
She won't.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Rakas21)
2) I support the Iraq War. I'll never agree with the libertarians and pacifist on such things though.
how was being against the iraq war, a non-provoked war, "pacifism"? if we need to pwn all non-allied countries with WMDs which iraq didn't have, do we need to pwn north korea now?
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
how was being against the iraq war, a non-provoked war, "pacifism"? if we need to pwn all non-allied countries with WMDs which iraq didn't have, do we need to pwn north korea now?
I should have separated them, libertarians tend to adopt the 'its not our problem' rather than violence is always wrong attitude.

North Korea can't be touched due to its location. Iraq was in my mind, the completion of the first Gulf War.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Rakas21)
I should have separated them, libertarians tend to adopt the 'its not our problem' rather than violence is always wrong attitude.

North Korea can't be touched due to its location. Iraq was in my mind, the completion of the first Gulf War.
1) what do you mean "can't be touched" though? if our missiles (US/UK) is limited by that distance, does that mean half of the world is protected from us?
2) "completion of the first gulf war"? by killing saddam, you mean?
0
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
Maybe not the best Democrat, but light years less bad than any of the Republican candidates...
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
1) what do you mean "can't be touched" though? if our missiles (US/UK) is limited by that distance, does that mean half of the world is protected from us?
2) "completion of the first gulf war"? by killing saddam, you mean?
It shares a border with China. You don't play next to a dragons head.

Yes. He's a genocidal tyrant and it was a mistake to obey the UN in not crushing him in 91.

...

Out of interest, what's the Libertarian take on obeying the UN.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rakas21)
It shares a border with China. You don't play next to a dragons head.
I wouldn't say that sharing a border means that it cannot be attacked to a capacity proportional to its size, because even the atomic bomb from WWII would ruin them if a few of them were dropped and I can't see it affecting china unless it was literally upon their border

Yes. He's a genocidal tyrant and it was a mistake to obey the UN in not crushing him in 91.
is that really our business as a nation state though? is that really our mess to clean? many nations today (and in the past during the cold war) massacre their citizens and we don't do anything about that so why is genecide worse than politicide/massacres?

Out of interest, what's the Libertarian take on obeying the UN.
it's an influence but not an absolute legal~ authority from this libertarian's perspective
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
I wouldn't say that sharing a border means that it cannot be attacked to a capacity proportional to its size, because even the atomic bomb from WWII would ruin them if a few of them were dropped and I can't see it affecting china unless it was literally upon their border

is that really our business as a nation state though? is that really our mess to clean? many nations today (and in the past during the cold war) massacre their citizens and we don't do anything about that so why is genecide worse than politicide/massacres?

it's an influence but not an absolute legal~ authority from this libertarian's perspective
Unfortunately, China is one of the few nations i'd not risk irritating in their locale.

If you believe that the UK has a moral duty to the world as i do then Yes. It was'nt worse than others but in this case we had the support of a large coalition.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
Unfortunately, China is one of the few nations i'd not risk irritating in their locale.
their locale isn't their nation though - france isn't our property just because it's very close, for example

If you believe that the UK has a moral duty to the world as i do then Yes. It was'nt worse than others but in this case we had the support of a large coalition.
I don't really know on what basis you can say we have a "duty" to the world
0
reply
minor bun engine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Bernie Sanders is probably the best shot the US has. If it has to go the Republicans then probably Rand Paul.
0
reply
driftawaay
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by zippity.doodah)



her bad sides:

1) she used to argue feverishly *against* gay marriage and now, suddenly, when it gets popular, favours it. what made gay marriage wrong back then compared to now? mob-mentalities? career-politician mentalities? when mitt romney (who was a bad candidate, of course) flip flopped like this, everybody attacked him for this, yet when hillary clinton does it, where are the cries of "flip flopper"? this really just gives out the message that she's willing to whore herself out to publish opinion - if she, perhaps, was in favour of gay marriage *before* the LGBT movement became widely accepted, I wouldn't be saying this. if she perhaps was a cause of gay marriage being something supported in the US, again, I wouldn't be saying this. she seems, based on this, nothing but a band-waggoner, and a sheep, not a leader.


3) she is a part of the former clinton circle - she will essentially be a revival of a past president and the creation of a political dynasty/tradition in one sense, bringing nothing remotely "fresh and new". this is because bill clinton will obviously be a huge influence on the way she operates as her husband. to all those who complain about jeb bush (such as myself) potentially becoming the republican candidate, you are being totally two-faced if you are willing to let hillary slide for no good reason. I cannot stress enough how much she belongs to the status quo/elitist "establishment" and not for any kind of good or honest cause when charging $200,000 for "speaking engagements".
She never argued 'feverishly' against gay marriage. And Hillary has been a big supporter of gay rights for a very, very long time. She marched in the NYC Pride Parade in 2000 and and that same year she said gay people need to be able to have registered domestic partnerships. Even back in the late nineties she spoke out against the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy that the Clinton administration passed into law and said it needs to be repealed. She spoke at gay events and spoke about advancing gay rights in several of her speeches even 15 years ago. In 2006 she voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
She has a long history of being an ally.

Yes she did 'flop flop around the subject' and so did others. Obama also voted for same sex marriage in the 90's and then when he became president suddenly he only supported civil partnerships. But you know they are politicans and politicians do lie sometimes and sometimes they have to. It was a risky thing to support gay marriage even as recently as 2008 so Obama, Clinton etc chose the middle ground to appeal to the redneck population and the southern racist grandma types as well. You have to have a strategy to win an election... the reason most people easily forgive Hillary & Obama for this sort of stuff is because we are smart enough to realize that they aren't actually homophobes, they just play their cards rights. It was always obvious they would both come out and say they support same sex marriage when Obama's second term came.

And you cannot possibly compare Obama and Clinton to someone like Mitt Romney, as I said Obama and Clinton both have a strong track record of supporting gay rights and speaking up for gay people even in the 90's. Mitt Romney would never speak up for gay rights and wouldnt give a **** if all gays were lined up and shot in the head. That is the difference.

On the subject of her being a revival, well, that might seem like a negative thing to you, but remember that Bill Clinton is generally regarded as one of the better presidents of recent history, his ratings are high even among Republicans, so Hillary being a revival is a positivity for a lot of her older supporters who liked Bill Clinton as president and would like him to be a background figure. This does not mean she will not bring anything 'fresh and new'.

I dont think it makes sense to argue about whether she belongs to the 'establishment' etc, do you think there will be a president who doesnt belong to the establishment? Like who? I dont know what you are expecting. It is politics. Presidents will always belong to the Establishment.
1
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by driftawaay)
She never argued 'feverishly' against gay marriage. And Hillary has been a big supporter of gay rights for a very, very long time. She marched in the NYC Pride Parade in 2000 and and that same year she said gay people need to be able to have registered domestic partnerships. Even back in the late nineties she spoke out against the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy that the Clinton administration passed into law and said it needs to be repealed. She spoke at gay events and spoke about advancing gay rights in several of her speeches even 15 years ago. In 2006 she voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
She has a long history of being an ally.

this was only in 2004! she used religious language to deny gay people their right to marriage and simply uses downright offensive ideas about how only straight people can raise kids. if this was in the 90s I'd not be nearly as outraged

Yes she did 'flop flop around the subject' and so did others. Obama also voted for same sex marriage in the 90's and then when he became president suddenly he only supported civil partnerships.
that's how you can see if he is a lying-politician or not who is an opportunist with his own truth. clearly he is simply a lying politician.

remember this event? remember that politician who yelled out "you lie!" and was forced to apologise? he wasn't actually wrong - obama did lie about what he was talking about

But you know they are politicans and politicians do lie sometimes and sometimes they have to.
no they don't. that's absurd! no politician should mislead or deceive their electorate - that's not how legitimate democratic politics works. this is a disgraceful idea that politicians can simply lie like this as if this is nothing - the only reason why people have such huge resentments of politics and democracy *is* the fact that these incessantly untruthful individuals get elected into office and profit from these feats of unfaithfulness - sometimes it's at the expense of completely innocent people, either gay people or iraqi children, so the proper job of a good politician is to change people's minds, not to tell people they're right when they're wrong and get elected on the back of it!

It was a risky thing to support gay marriage even as recently as 2008 so Obama, Clinton etc chose the middle ground to appeal to the redneck population and the southern racist grandma types as well. You have to have a strategy to win an election... the reason most people easily forgive Hillary & Obama for this sort of stuff is because we are smart enough to realize that they aren't actually homophobes, they just play their cards rights. It was always obvious they would both come out and say they support same sex marriage when Obama's second term came.
if they weren't going to get elected simply for telling the bloody truth then they never should have came to power or entered politics in the first place if it didn't truly belong to them. if everything these snivelling people say to you is "a matter of playing their cards right" then quite frankly they don't deserve your respect or trust

And you cannot possibly compare Obama and Clinton to someone like Mitt Romney, as I said Obama and Clinton both have a strong track record of supporting gay rights and speaking up for gay people even in the 90's. Mitt Romney would never speak up for gay rights and wouldnt give a **** if all gays were lined up and shot in the head. That is the difference.
how did bill clinton of all people support gay marriage? I'm not seeing a shred of evidence for this - give me a link or two
and who's saying mitt romney is better? he's a disastrously untrustworthy man.

On the subject of her being a revival, well, that might seem like a negative thing to you, but remember that Bill Clinton is generally regarded as one of the better presidents of recent history, his ratings are high even among Republicans, so Hillary being a revival is a positivity for a lot of her older supporters who liked Bill Clinton as president and would like him to be a background figure. This does not mean she will not bring anything 'fresh and new'.
I fail to see how you're presenting me a good argument here - bill clinton is yesterday's news. if we applied yesterday's policies to today, they wouldn't fit *our* problems like they fitted those prior problems (especially given the fact that the US economy while obama was there was terrible). he was also a liar (a massive liar too - it almost got him impeached). he did relatively nothing economically yet the economy did well. he was simply there when the economy boomed. republicans don't support him, they simply tolerate him because of how the economy was doing well and he didn't *seem* to do anything against it (although the later recession in my opinion may have *possibly* had things to do with bill clinton's policies)

I dont think it makes sense to argue about whether she belongs to the 'establishment' etc, do you think there will be a president who doesnt belong to the establishment? Like who? I dont know what you are expecting. It is politics. Presidents will always belong to the Establishment.
ron paul, perhaps? - he has never lied, for example, and has always had the same views - people always credit him with that. he is a huge supporter of anti-establishment measures while many like hillary clinton compared with him are labelled corporatists

0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are your favourite crisps?

Kettle Chips (45)
17.24%
McCoys Salt and Vinegar (19)
7.28%
McCoys Flame Grilled Steak (17)
6.51%
Walkers Prawn Cockail (28)
10.73%
Monster Munch (20)
7.66%
Pringles (70)
26.82%
Walkers Oven Baked Crisps (15)
5.75%
Walkers Beef and Onion (3)
1.15%
Thai Sweet Chili Sensations (44)
16.86%

Watched Threads

View All