Why is Clinton Bad

[zoogs]

I've seen arguments from progressive skeptics that she will be a resolutely status quo President (at this point, at least it's not burning the house down) and liberal hopefuls that she's poised to accomplish some fairly significant agenda items in her time in office.

 

It reminds me of some of the wrangling over Obama's legacy. All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose! For instance, on some grounds, he really is disappointingly status quo. On others, he's made tremendously consequential progress. I suspect such back-and-forth debates aren't atypical for a president.

 

For myself, I think I admire Obama more -- perhaps by a lot -- but he's set a really, really high bar. I do wonder if Hillary won't be a more effective political leader, however, by having less ambitious goals but getting more things done while including more viewpoints, some of which I'm certain to find distasteful personally. She could also, of course, be so continuously stricken with (half-baked, but half self-exacerbated) scandals that she ends up without any political capital to expend.

 

I'm not certain what we will see. Of course, I hope it's the former.

[Landlord]

 

 

She will do everything she can, to abolish the second amendment.

 

 

No. She won't.

 

She will impose strict standards, that will make it hard to buy guns and ammo. This is, basically a backdoor means, to abolishing the second amendment

 

 

 

No it isn't. No rights exist absolutely within a vacuum. The right to bear arms will continue to exist, and hopefully, if we really care about our country, it will continue to exist with whatever preventative measures and common sense requirements are needed to help ensure that that right is an overwhelmingly positive one with as little negative consequence as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, as far as her having never accomplished anything (read: I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter), she's accomplished more than any of us likely will in our entire lifetimes combined. Has she accomplished more or less than your average 20+ year politican? I don't know. I don't really care. There's no such thing as solo victories in the United States government and she seems to have a lot of respect and praise from many in Washington on both sides of the aisle (read: I'm probably not a fan of many of them either).

[Danny Bateman]

I've seen arguments from progressive skeptics that she will be a resolutely status quo President (at this point, at least it's not burning the house down) and liberal hopefuls that she's poised to accomplish some fairly significant agenda items in her time in office.

 

It reminds me of some of the wrangling over Obama's legacy. All in the eye of the beholder, I suppose! For instance, on some grounds, he really is disappointingly status quo. On others, he's made tremendously consequential progress. I suspect such back-and-forth debates aren't atypical for a president.

 

For myself, I think I admire Obama more -- perhaps by a lot -- but he's set a really, really high bar. I do wonder if Hillary won't be a more effective political leader, however, by having less ambitious goals but getting more things done while including more viewpoints, some of which I'm certain to find distasteful personally. She could also, of course, be so continuously stricken with (half-baked, but half self-exacerbated) scandals that she ends up without any political capital to expend.

 

I'm not certain what we will see. Of course, I hope it's the former.

Leave it up to hardcore progressives to bitch that a status quo of a major push towards universal healthcare, a global climate agreement, and a major push to reform criminal justice in an inclusive manner and end for-profit prisons is not sufficient.

 

I think we're already trying to implement some really liberal policies, most of them are just stifled by Congress. Improving their numbers there and no doubt a liberal SC Justice would go a LONG way towards improving that.

 

At that point, even if you just bought her as a third term of Obama candidate, isn't that enough? I'm assuming the skeptics you mention are of the "she's basically a Republican" ilk?

 

Well said, though. Your views on her align pretty closely with mine. She's not a perfect candidate. But she is very qualified. She's got numerous personality flaws I don't like, and some of them manifest themselves as questionable judgment at times.

 

Luckily, the only other alternative is in no way a serious candidate for president, and his judgment is in a whole other universe of bad.

[zoogs]

Well, I can see the argument, but the sides are talking about different things. It doesn't take such a 'hardcore' progressive (or even a progressive) to be dour on a potentially hawkish foreign policy with more military entanglements, a continuing drone war, an ever more deeply entrenched security state and so on.

 

On the other hand, protecting the already negotiated Paris treaty, protecting and tweaking the ACA in lieu of starting over with single payer, and continuing the current push for ending private prisons -- these are important achievements, even if they tend to be defenses. With a Republican-dominated House, a great deal of defense playing is probably necessary.

 

Hillary optimists would point out that there are so many things on her agenda she's unlikely to risk military escalation. Hillary pessimists would say she's developed a distorted sense of when something might be politically costly to her, and that wars tend to keep incumbent parties in the White House, anyway. That a combination of her instincts and priorities would prevent her from replacing the tough-on-crime Merrick Garland nomination (I tend to think Garland should go through). And so it goes...

 

I'm not sure where I stand on all of that, just trying to outline things. And now I've dragged a lot more policy into this thread; oops, sorry, OP!

 

What I'm finding from a surprising number of people I consider smart and serious is that they have at least a little buy in to the idea that Hillary is a corrupt criminal. Even the perception of that seems like a huge potential weakness to me. As for the woman herself, I think the opposite. I get the impression that she will doggedly pursue what she is able to get done; a realist driven by her personal instincts. Whether there's a very liberal streak there or not, I really can't say.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

She will do everything she can, to abolish the second amendment.

 

No. She won't.

She will impose strict standards, that will make it hard to buy guns and ammo. This is, basically a backdoor means, to abolishing the second amendment

As a gun owner...I have to say, it's sad that so many people have bought into the best marketing scheme in world history.

 

The fire arm manufacturers have promoted this myth so much that it's amazing what happens to their sales when someone like Hillary is elected.

 

I know people who will go buy a gun now that Hillary will win. And the manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank.

[greenmonkey51]

Smith and Wesson and Rugers stock prices have tripled since 2012. Obama has been the most gun friendly president ever, and Clinton will like continue that.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

She has been connected to way too many scandals. Her nomination is a total scandal, too. She has no real accomplishments other than being married to Bill.

 

She will not effect change, but she will carry on, the status quo. She will nominate, and produce the most liberal SCOTUS we have ever seen.

 

She will do everything she can, to abolish the second amendment.

So once again nothing, and I'm pretty sure getting through a more liberal Supreme Court would produce a pretty large change.

 

Yeah, change we don't need.

 

 

It would help get Citizens United overturned, which in of itself would make this whole crapfest of an election cycle tolerable. And it's a change that's needed in the worst way if we don't want to keep having crap elections and candidates going forward.

[TGHusker]

 

First off, that which follows is not an endorsement of Trump! Both candidates are deplorable in their own unique ways. Since this thread is about Hillary, I'll rant on her.

Repeat of 1990s drama - drama seems to follow the Clinton's into every decade. 1980s cattle future investments, white water, sexual harassment (not including all of the wild conspiracy theories from that time period), 1990s too many to mention - these aren't all of the "vast right wing conspiracy' doing. 2000s - Clinton Foundation fundraising - influence peddling, 2010s email gate, blaming the embassy attack on a video.

Too many occurrences of scandal to not believe their isn't some well protected 'fire' because of all of the smoke.

 

She is the purest form of a politician - everything is calculated on what is good politically for herself. She cannot be trusted. She is hypocritical - says one thing to wall street and another before voters. She has changed positions on a number of issues - depending on which way the political wind is blowing. Poor judgment - the mess in Syria, Ambassador Stevens (she blew her chance to pick up that 3am phone call) and the email server which potentially compromised national security. I'm also concern that she has the media in her back pocket as evidence by the wiki links releases. Will the media give us the honest truth about what she does and why she is doing it as president or will it be a mouth piece of her administration?? Lack of significant accomplishments outside of riding on her husband's coattails. She and Bill have built a formidable political machine so I will give her that - and with that the ability to make the Clinton Foundation a money making machine.

She doesn't inspire, she is shrill, and I think her laugh will drive me crazy for the next 4 years.

From a policy point of view. She isn't the change we need (neither is Trump). I know I won't agree with who she will appoint to the SC - she will appoint activist judges of the most liberal tilt & dramatically change the balance on the court. Congress better confirm Obama's choice as he will be much better than anyone Hillary will nominate. She will continue the middle east policies - leading from behind. She supports Obama Care which is becoming a huge failure and even more so next year as rates will conveniently explode as Obama leaves office. She says she will make it better - it needs to be redone in total. If it was politically acceptable, she'd prefer One Payer which would not be good.

 

She and Trump are both not qualified for president. Trump due to lack of experience, temperament, and so many areas, Hillary because of lack of trust and poor judgment - as clearly evidence in email issue, and because she is a self serving pure politician of the highest order. If the Clintons could sell political favors through their foundation and via stays in the Lincoln bedroom while Bill was President, who knows what she is capable of once they become residence of the WH again.

 

Let me add this thought: If stability or status quo is the goal, then Hillary will be the better choice on many issues. This may be a 'time to punt' election. Reset during 4 years and come up wt some good candidates in 2020 who can actually garner trust and who have experience who are moderate right. And speaking strictly as a conservative, I however fear what will happen on the SC in that short time - I see the SC become extremely unbalanced. That is my biggest concern wt Hillary as president. I see the Obama appointees, other than the pending one, being extremely political appointees. Hillary's will be even more so.

Edited October 17, 2016 by TGHusker

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

She has been connected to way too many scandals. Her nomination is a total scandal, too. She has no real accomplishments other than being married to Bill.

 

She will not effect change, but she will carry on, the status quo. She will nominate, and produce the most liberal SCOTUS we have ever seen.

 

She will do everything she can, to abolish the second amendment.

So once again nothing, and I'm pretty sure getting through a more liberal Supreme Court would produce a pretty large change.

 

Yeah, change we don't need.

 

 

It would help get Citizens United overturned, which in of itself would make this whole crapfest of an election cycle tolerable. And it's a change that's needed in the worst way if we don't want to keep having crap elections and candidates going forward.

 

I will agree wt that point.

[Undone]

Quite possibly the biggest issue for me right now in American politics is foreign policy. I honestly believe that the situation in Syria is a large-scale disaster waiting to happen.

 

I don't like Clinton's brand of diplomacy with Putin. And I don't like her cavalier attitude towards the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya. She said, "We came, we saw, he died." She seems to have the same attitude towards the situation in Syria.

 

I am seriously worried about it. As in, it's on my mind a lot. I'm really afraid that she's going to put boots on the ground in Syria that will lead to a relatively massive regional war that will drain our resources, put us even further into debt, and weaken our military. And I have good reason to believe that a lot of this stems with some sort of delusion of wanting to team up with the Saudis to build some sort of an oil pipeline through Syria into Eastern Europe in another attempt to diminish Russia's oil influence with their pipeline in the baltic sea.

I'm not really the type at all to say, "Let's have the government subsidize this thing and then everything will be ok." But seriously, I'd much rather use the billions of dollars we're wasting over in the sandbox to put it into a guy like Elon Musk and figuring out how to get off of oil dependency altogether.

I know that started to go on a rant. I don't know what Trump would do. He's a wildcard and totally clueless - maybe he'd be even *more* war-happy than Hillary. But I can tell you this - And I despise Hillary - If she was saying that she'd pull out all troops and stop the interventions in the Middle East, I am not kidding - I'd vote for her. And I've never once voted for a democrat in my life. That's how important I feel our foreign policy is towards the Middle East situation right now.

[cm husker]

For me, I don't like her because (a) I find her untrustworthy in general, mainly because she does what's politically expedient rather than explaining what is policy sound - I think she lacks intellectual integrity, and (b) I'm tired of the "american aristocracy" that has taken hold during the past 30 years.

 

She's so far superior to Trump, though, that's it's not even amusing.

[TGHusker]

Another policy issue wt Hillary is that she will most likely increase regulations that will drive more and more businesses overseas - just when we don't need it. The misguided idea of the rich not paying their fair share instead of working with businesses has made our economy a shell of what it was previously. Slow to no growth - and this after the 'great recovery'.

 

Here is one economist's view:

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.

Morici: Deutsche Bank, Hillary Could Ignite Another Economic Crisis



According to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the economy is in great shape and safe from another financial crisis. And more liberal policies to better distribute the benefits would deliver Americans into another golden age but the facts belie all this.

The facts belie all this.

Obamacare, state and local minimum wages laws, new federal overtime rules, and disincentives to work imposed by the recent buildout of federal social programs have raised the cost of hiring workers. Higher businesses taxes — especially for smaller enterprises — and tougher regulations have pushed up the cost of deploying capital.

Consequently, Americans are suffering through one of the weakest recoveries on record, and conditions in Europe are no better.

The U.S. Justice Department is proposing Deutsche Bank pay $14 billion to pay for its role in a mortgage securities scandal that contributed to the 2008-2009 financial meltdown, and other European banks still await their medicine. Even a settlement one-third that size would require the bank to sell new stock to replace lost capital, and it is not well positioned to do so.

The largest bank in Europe’s largest economy has a balance sheet still burdened by dodgy securities and is badly run and not very profitable.

Virtually all European banks are suffering from slow growing economies and ultra-low interest rates that make moving bad loans sitting on their books from the financial crisis tough, and identifying suitable candidates for new loans and earning profits even tougher.

About 17 percent of loans held by Italian banks are underwater, whereas at the height of the financial crisis the figure for U.S. banks was only 5 percent. The picture is pretty bleak elsewhere on the continent too.

We are told over and over again, Deutsche Bank is no Lehman Brothers. It can’t pull down the global financial system, because the European Central Bank stands ready to lend virtually unlimited amounts of cash against the bank’s assets.

However, as was the case with Greek banks during their crisis, the ECB likely would require the German government to cosign those loans — essentially, underwrite the kind of bailout German Chancellor Angela Merkel has firmly denounced. As importantly, many of Deutsche Bank’s assets are derivatives and difficult to value securities that could prove hard to peddle in a crisis.

Deutsche Bank may have to resort to a “bail-in” as recent European bank reforms require. That is, compel bondholders to take stock to replace their claims and bear huge losses in the bargain.

As panic spreads among bondholders elsewhere in Europe, the potential for a general economic collapse is enormous. In Italy, for example, ordinary depositors have been encouraged to purchase bonds in the manner that Americans invest in certificates of deposits. Bail-ins would impose huge losses of household savings and purchasing power, and a contagious recession that could easily undo Europe’s fragile welfare state economy once and for all.

American regulators may believe Dodd-Frank regulations make U.S. banks less vulnerable to a meltdown in Europe but don’t bet on it. Deutsche Bank has wide interconnection with banks around the world, including our venerable towers of finance in Manhattan.

Cumbersome new compliance requirements have substantially reduced lending and driven down profitability. And those require big banks to write living wills that specify how they would sell off assets in a crisis. But like Deutsche Bank and U.S. banks in 2008-2009, most of their assets and stock could prove unmarketable should the economy turn south.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton’s administration would likely double down on these regulatory measures. If Congress permits her to do so and expand Obamacare, impose a national $15 percent minimum wage, finance broader subsidies for child care and college tuition, and impose other new regulatory burdens — such as, federalize the California Fair Pay Act — that would likely cook the goose.

Together, those would further reduce bank lending, raise the cost of capital and labor, discourage entrepreneurs from forming new businesses, and drive existing businesses to move more operations offshore.

All that could easily push the economy from slow growth into another recession.

[TGHusker]

For me, I don't like her because (a) I find her untrustworthy in general, mainly because she does what's politically expedient rather than explaining what is policy sound - I think she lacks intellectual integrity, and (b) I'm tired of the "american aristocracy" that has taken hold during the past 30 years.

 

She's so far superior to Trump, though, that's it's not even amusing.

I agree wt the 'American aristocracy' whether named Clinton, Bush or Kennedy.

 

And your last statement - is such a shame. When the lessor of 2 evils is still a disaster. Our political system has greatly let us down - or maybe it was a Alex Jones conspiracy: Clinton/Media/globalist(including Bush RNC friends) conspiracy , all along and Trump willingly played the foil. To be revealed in Trump's next reality TV show "Fooled Voters, Make Millions$$".

[cm husker]

The reality is, through gerrymandering and other systemic allowance made by the two in power parties, our system has inevitably moved to one that almost guarantees results like this.

 

We need a paradigm shift to "fix" the situation.

 

My first preference is to eliminate the popular vote as the method for electing a president. I'd rather take the focus of the American people away from the "Super Bowl" election by requiring a super majority of Congress to select a President who would still retain all Art. 2 powers. The stick would be that if the Congress failed to agree upon a reasonable, intelligent, capable POTUS, none of the sitting members would be eligible for reelection when their time came.

 

Alternatively, I'd like to see an approach similar to corporate boards employed. That is, I'd like to see something like a ranking system of voting used - really, it's not unlike how a Heisman winner is picked. Each place on a ballot is assigned an amount of points. For example:

 

A First choice would be 4 points, Second would be 2 points and Third would be 1 point. So a ballot might read:

 

1. Clinton

2. Johnson

3. Sanders

 

another ballot goes:

 

1. Trump

2. Johnson

3. Rando

 

another ballot goes:

 

1. Sanders

2. Johnson

3. Cllinton

 

In the scenario, Johnson tallies 6 points, Clinton tallies 5 points, Sanders tallies 5 points and Trump tallies 4 points.

 

In the end, we'd have someone selected who was most people's second choice, but fewer people's last choice. I think that would shake up the "two-party" system as much as anything.

[TonyStalloni]

 

For me, I don't like her because (a) I find her untrustworthy in general, mainly because she does what's politically expedient rather than explaining what is policy sound - I think she lacks intellectual integrity, and (b) I'm tired of the "american aristocracy" that has taken hold during the past 30 years.

 

She's so far superior to Trump, though, that's it's not even amusing.

I agree wt the 'American aristocracy' whether named Clinton, Bush or Kennedy.

 

And your last statement - is such a shame. When the lessor of 2 evils is still a disaster. Our political system has greatly let us down - or maybe it was a Alex Jones conspiracy: Clinton/Media/globalist(including Bush RNC friends) conspiracy , all along and Trump willingly played the foil. To be revealed in Trump's next reality TV show "Fooled Voters, Make Millions$$".

 

I wondered this when Trump started winning some primaries. It could be that the Dems saw which group of Repub voters were most angry and willing to oust the RINO candidates then sent Trump to clean up.