all the anti-hillarys out there, give me your reasons

Linzyhop · 01-09-2008, 10:31 AM

Okay I really don't have anything against her (other than she didn't leave her husband when she found out he was cheating on her), but as far as politics go, I really don't know hers. I know the democratic party is looking for someone to take the anti-hillary vote, so my question is, if you're anti-hillary, what are your reasons?

garbagemanlb · 01-09-2008, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

Okay I really don't have anything against her (other than she didn't leave her husband when she found out he was cheating on her), but as far as politics go, I really don't know hers. I know the democratic party is looking for someone to take the anti-hillary vote, so my question is, if you're anti-hillary, what are your reasons?

Her position on the Iraq War.
Her blatant pandering to various special interest groups (most notable example that I can think of being AIPAC)
She has completely changed from the early nineties concerning her healthcare proposal. She now courts the HMOs and drug companies who continue to screw the American people.

Overall I just don't think she is an honest and truthful person. Trust is a big deal, and I just feel she will do absolutely anything to get what she wants.

I think it is really sad that we have to actually question her 'tears' yesterday. When that happens, you know that you have issues.

If she wins the Democratic nomination I will be writing in a name or voting third party.

garbagemanlb · 01-09-2008, 10:41 AM

She is also divisive, and I think we can use someone who can unite us after this horrendous presidency.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 10:41 AM

Lots of personal attacks, anyone who has been in the spotlight for almost 2 decades as a national figure of liberalism and the Democratic Party...

If FDR didn't have a stroke and die...and if Reagan didn't go senile in his 2nd term, then go into seclusion and die...they both would have been villified in their lifetimes (both were to some extent but not to any extent it hurt their agenda)

Linzyhop · 01-09-2008, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Lots of personal attacks, anyone who has been in the spotlight for almost 2 decades as a national figure of liberalism and the Democratic Party...

If FDR didn't have a stroke and die...and if Reagan didn't go senile in his 2nd term, then go into seclusion and die...they both would have been villified in their lifetimes (both were to some extent but not to any extent it hurt their agenda)

so wait, you're not against her, you're just explaining why people hate her?

Ardentfrost · 01-09-2008, 10:47 AM

I hate her because she has a vagina.

no, j/k. She's just another socialist to me.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 11:01 AM

I don't think anyone could "unite the country" when 35-40% are completely opposed to the other 35-40%...there is no room for compromise on all the top issues of our day, no matter who we elect they're going to have to sit on their hands and play ping pong all day, or divide the country

I don't see how trying a real liberal thorough universal healthcare package, seeing it can't pass Congress or gain popular approval, and then modifying it to the next best thing is some sort of flaw...

Depending on what you call "pandering" everyone ever involved in politics has and thus we can't elect anyone under those standards

Her position on the Iraq war...lets take her senior senator as an example...Schumer has no national ambitions, he knows he will never be president, and he has enough seniority in this blue state that he has the senate seat for life...so he didn't "cave" because it would win him some polling points

Same with Hillary, she represented NYC who just had 3,000 people murdered, the president was flooding them with false intelligence and demanding a quick vote, the Senators had mountains of documents they couldn't even see, and in particular New York voters were crying out for blood...but the vote was only to authorize the president to use force...a big threat they hoped, and inspections were working, after what the Senate did, and the inspections did, we shouldn't have went to war, Bush went off the deep end and invaded anyway, before anyone could object, we had US soldiers dying, then Baghdad fell and everyone was celebrating US troops and the media/public was giving Bush huge approval, by the time things became obvious, it was so many months from the vote that it would look incredibly weak to do anything more than demand accountability, which is what the Democrats and Hillary did

I'm sorry I don't see any solid grounds on these points

And I question how you label yourself progressive if you're willing to do a 2000 and vote Nader...and watch a Republican like Rudy McRomney install Alito-like judges who will strip away the right to privacy and give the new GOP dictator the power to arrest any US citizen he claims is a threat, and whisk them away to be tortured and imprisoned for life

I guess some of us spoiled guys don't realize that we're not poor females who have just been drugged at a bar/party and now pregnant...it's the coat hanger and dying in a back alley abortion

America got 8 years of Bush thanks to stubborn "nobility", I guess we'll get 8 more due to more self-righteous Naders

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

so wait, you're not against her, you're just explaining why people hate her?

correct

JaJae · 01-09-2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

Okay I really don't have anything against her (other than she didn't leave her husband when she found out he was cheating on her), but as far as politics go, I really don't know hers. I know the democratic party is looking for someone to take the anti-hillary vote, so my question is, if you're anti-hillary, what are your reasons?

She's been interested and involved in politics for a long time starting out as an activist. She was a full blown socialist and a feminist in her early years and today she shares much of those principles packaged on an electable pallet.

I could go on forever about campaign contributions, scandals such as Whitewater, etc. But in the end she's basically an uncompromising socialist who has changed her positions slightly to make herself electable. The difference between her and someone like Obama is evident in their healthcare plans. Obama wants government mandated healthcare for children and wants to sit down with the healthcare industry and government and come up with a viable solution that takes everyone's needs into consideration and in the end will likely still give people choice. Hillary criticizes him for this by saying his plan "doesn't cover everyone." That's right you socialist moran, his plan isn't as Marxist as yours, that's a good thing. Hillary does not want to give people choice on healthcare. She wants the government to mandate it for everyone. She wants to take away people's ability to choose for themselves and she wants to choose for them. This mentality goes right across the board on her political views.

She's also very anti-corporate and essentially believes businesses serve as a profit generators for the government to redistribute their wealth.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 11:23 AM

The mandate is a more conservative, less liberal/socialist viewpoint, and it's just funny to hear you sounding like a radical liberal from the 90s...and I know it's just because you hate Hillary

Listen, the mandate requirement is put in place to save money, otherwise you have a huge risk of people scamming the system, and you can get healthcare from anywhere you like, you have all the choice in the world...in the 90s people like Hillary were so afraid the poor would be hurt by a mandate that she excluded it, and fiscal conservatives came in saying the poor would scam the system and she had to mandate...she refused and that was one of the reasons it collapsed

Also, you throw around the word socialist like:
A) It was a curse word
B) It applies to anything that isn't libertarian

It is my opinion that both are wrong, and what's wrong with feminism? I've met many strong women and I don't feel threatened by them...in fact I encourage shy women who desire more in life to get noticed by being aggressive

JaJae · 01-09-2008, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The mandate is a more conservative, less liberal/socialist viewpoint, and it's just funny to hear you sounding like a radical liberal from the 90s...and I know it's just because you hate Hillary

Listen, the mandate requirement is put in place to save money, otherwise you have a huge risk of people scamming the system, and you can get healthcare from anywhere you like, you have all the choice in the world...in the 90s people like Hillary were so afraid the poor would be hurt by a mandate that she excluded it, and fiscal conservatives came in saying the poor would scam the system and she had to mandate...she refused and that was one of the reasons it collapsed

Also, you throw around the word socialist like:
A) It was a curse word
B) It applies to anything that isn't libertarian

It is my opinion that both are wrong, and what's wrong with feminism? I've met many strong women and I don't feel threatened by them...in fact I encourage shy women who desire more in life to get noticed by being aggressive

I could care less what her reasons are for it. It's a socialistic policy, plain and simple. Your views of why I call it socialism are as irrelevant as the attempts to redefine it as a "curse" word.

I never said anything was wrong with being a feminist. I'm stating the political ideologies and organizations she was involved in. They're relevant considering she's running for president...

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I could care less what her reasons are for it. It's a socialistic policy, plain and simple. Your views of why I call it socialism are irrelevant as are defenses for it.

Mandating that people get private insurance is not socialist in any term I'm familiar with...

I mean, I got jury notice last month...socialists! You know who sent me the jury notice...the government! Guess who wants to take me away from my job, the government! And who is paying for all this, the government! I have to then listen to...the goverment make it's case!

I swear, the whole thing was like a trip to Communist China, I don't know which is worse, China's human rights record, or our brutal communist jury system

ballz2wallz · 01-09-2008, 05:07 PM

She's so socialist it's not even funny. She wants the government to fix EVERYTHING.

She offered her campaign to babysit for caucus-goers in Iowa. Nanny-statist!

Scrum · 01-09-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Mandating that people get private insurance is not socialist in any term I'm familiar with...

I mean, I got jury notice last month...socialists! You know who sent me the jury notice...the government! Guess who wants to take me away from my job, the government! And who is paying for all this, the government! I have to then listen to...the goverment make it's case!

I swear, the whole thing was like a trip to Communist China, I don't know which is worse, China's human rights record, or our brutal communist jury system

lol

Rouger2 · 01-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Mandating that people get private insurance is not socialist in any term I'm familiar with...

I mean, I got jury notice last month...socialists! You know who sent me the jury notice...the government! Guess who wants to take me away from my job, the government! And who is paying for all this, the government! I have to then listen to...the goverment make it's case!

I swear, the whole thing was like a trip to Communist China, I don't know which is worse, China's human rights record, or our brutal communist jury system

Government forcing you to take private insurance is government involvement in the market place socialism.

thewise1 · 01-09-2008, 09:01 PM

First, I don't hate her. I don't understand why people hate her when her platform isn't really much different from Obama's or many other Democrat platforms, but don't hate them with the same vehemence.

That said, I do hate her policies.

She is essentially a socialist.

To be a socialist means that you enslave those who produce to support those who do not produce. You guilt them into it by somehow convincing them that it is their duty to support their fellow man who does not support them. You use their virtue against them.

I personally believe this is fundamentally wrong, but I have more to say than just my personal belief here.

Furthermore, our country can't afford it. If you take our financial situation and project out to 2040, the comptroller general says that we won't be able to do anything but pay out medicaid and social security at that point. No military, no roads, no foreign aid, no universal healthcare, no nothing.

At this point, even raising taxes aren't going to be enough because to my understanding, he's saying that we simply don't/won't produce enough to pay it, even if everyone gave 100% to the government.

We cannot afford socialism. We cannot afford to pay for universal healthcare. We cannot afford to keep living like the idiot who buys a $1000k home on a $50k/year income using a negative amortization "not even quite interest only" loan.

That is the main reason I can't support her.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2008, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Government forcing you to take private insurance is government involvement in the market place socialism.

I think you guys mess up the words "socialism" and "governmental"

By the standards you guys lay out, anything the government does is socialist

People have been arguing about socialism for a long time, Eugene V. Debs ran as a socialist and won 6% of the popular vote, read their party platform for 1912, this is American Socialism:

The Socialist party declares that the capitalist system has outgrown its historical function, and has become utterly incapable of meeting the problems now confronting society. We denounce this outgrown system as incompetent and corrupt and the source of unspeakable misery and suffering to the whole working class.

...the means of their production and distribution shall be socially owned and democratically controlled

Collective Ownership

The collective ownership and democratic management of railroads, wire and wireless telegraphs and telephones, express service, steamboat lines, and all other social means of transportation and communication and of all large scale industries.
The immediate acquirement by the municipalities, the states or the federal government of all grain elevators, stock yards, storage warehouses, and other distributing agencies, in order to reduce the present extortionate cost of living.
The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.
The further conservation and development of natural resources for the use and benefit of all the people . . .
The collective ownership of land wherever practicable, and in cases where such ownership is impracticable, the appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all the land held for speculation and exploitation.
The collective ownership and democratic management of the banking and currency system.

That is American socialism...I don't know what word you guys are throwing around, but whoever does just bought GOP propanganda from the 90s about anything they didn't like

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952

By your own standards, Republican Eisenhower is a socialist...

SoFlaJDM · 01-09-2008, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

She offered her campaign to babysit for caucus-goers in Iowa. Nanny-statist!

JaJae · 01-10-2008, 12:04 AM

Anyone who has been following Clinton's campaign realizes that she has stated time and time again that her plan is meant to be a baby step into full blown socialist healthcare. Her long term plan for healthcare and many other issues is clearly socialism. The fact that she's running on a moderate facade to get elected is one of the reasons I dislike her.