|
I think the main reason people hate her is because the media has been portraying her as a super terrible person for literal decades at this point, causing it to sort of seep into people's minds through cultural osmosis. As for why people might dislike (or at least "not like") her, there are a variety of reasons, some reasonable and most not so much. Personally I will be voting for Hillary and think that she will be a pretty good president (significantly better than Obama judging from her platform). But I don't really think she is a particular good person who personally cares deeply about these issues and it seems like her campaign has shifted significantly to the left at least partially due to the success of Sanders' campaign (which isn't a bad thing; it's good for a politician to be responsive to changes in the views of the electorate, particularly if those changes are good). The two main reasons for this that come to mind are: 1. Her paid speaking events with major investment banks (and the Clintons' close relationship with Goldman Sachs in general). I don't think she's a shill or anything, but I do think that she probably likes these people and is unlikely to do anything that they would strongly disagree with. While the speaking events certainly aren't bribery, they do mean that there's at least some financial relationship between her and the banks, which makes her less likely to do stuff they don't like. 2. Her kind of questionable/bad foreign policy decisions (for example Iraq). Regardless, I don't think any of this stuff makes her any worse than most Democratic politicians (if anything, she's better than most). The main reasons she receives so much disproportionate hate are the aforementioned media attacks on her and the fact that she is a woman who does not behave in a way that misogynists believe women should behave.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:26 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:The former will be debatable simply because she's a politician, but she's been actively working on left-of-center causes since like 1968 or some poo poo. Her actual behavior for the most part shows that she cares more about these issues than just about any motherfucker alive. Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I'm sure that she cares in a general sense about "making things better for Americans." What I meant is that her recent shift towards more leftist policy* is likely more due to broader electoral support than her actually having a personal passion to, for example, increase the minimum wage to $15/hr. It's basically the same reason you'd assume that someone who has always advocated for more leftist policy is likely to be more personally invested in those goals than someone who only recently shifted towards those views. There is definitely nothing wrong with the latter - in fact, it's a good thing. But at the end of the day the former is still preferable, if only because you can more comfortably believe that person will continue to hold views you agree with in the future. *I'm mostly using Bill Clinton's presidency as a starting point here, since it's kind of irrelevant if she were more left-leaning before that and then shifted towards more third-way/centrist views during her husband's presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Also her voting record being something crazy like 93% the same as Sanders. This statistic may or may not actually be useful. If the majority of Democrats vote the same on the vast majority of bills, this doesn't actually mean that agreeing on 93% of votes makes their politics similar; it just means 90+% of bills are ones where the vote is obvious (at least for Democrats). If only 5% of bills actually represented significantly left-wing policy, for example, that statistic wouldn't be useful. I'm not saying the statistic isn't saying something useful; just that, by itself, it is not adequate evidence of their politics being almost the same. It would be more useful if her voting record were also compared with more centrist Democrats. (For the record I'm assuming she probably is more liberal than the average Democrat; that statistic just bugs me.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It disarms the "well obviously she's in bed with bankers, look at her voting record" argument. That's the point. Well, it doesn't necessarily if you have no frame of reference. If, for example, 5% of bills were stuff relevant to the financial services industry, she could have a 95% identical voting record to another congressman despite voting differently on most/all bills related to that specific topic. That's a very exaggerated example, but the point is that the statistic is useless unless you know what the bills actually were and how other Democrats voted on them. If the vast majority of bills passed are uncontroversial bills that most Democrats agree about, then you can make literally any member of congress look like his/her political views are the same as another's. Ultimately, if you're trying to determine someone's "left wing credentials", all you should really care about is how someone votes on bills that are actually considered left-wing (or if they're voting against stuff that is notably right-wing). If you give a statistic based on the entire voting record, it just muddies the waters and is not remotely useful unless you also have information about the voting record of other members of congress and which bills people are differing on. All this being said, I guess you could use that statistic against an explicit argument that Clinton usually votes differently than Sanders or something, but that's not usually the context in which I see it used. It is usually used to prove Clinton's liberal/left-wing credentials, when it isn't adequate for doing so (at least by itself).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 22:34
|
|