13 good reasons NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton

[spinningtutu]

9. Hillary Clinton is homophobic. Despite typical Democrat rhetoric about "gay rights", both Clintons have clearly demonstrated that they have serious issues with queers. For example, the "Don't ask/ don't tell" policy which has hurt more than it has helped. Better yet, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which was Bill's offspring, tho has been consistently upheld and supported by Hillary. The DOMA defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and effectively bars gays against marital rights. Yep, the process of legalized gay marriage has actually progressed MORE under Bush's Administration than it did under the Clinton one. Seriously. Clinton has gone on record as saying homosexual acts are "immoral"... Hence, she tries to strattle the political version of "love the sinner, hate the sin" regarding queers.

The Clintons lost the queer vote in 1993. This time around, the queer vote should optimally support Obama...

 

[catlover]

On that we disagree, Paxi. I like Ann Coulter very much, though more as a political humorist than as a serious commentator.

She's horrid-that lady cannot even be called a lady-the way she accused Edwards and the 9-11 widows of enjoying the deaths of loved ones was sickening.

 

[catlover]

I'd agree with that up to a point. A certain amount of Machiavellianism is required to be a successful politician, and I'm willing to be tolerant of that much. But I see the Clintons going far beyond that. IMO they take corruption and ruthlessness to a whole new level, one not usually seen in American politics, a level more typical of organized crime and Third World dictatorships. And that I am not willing to tolerate, not in American politics.

I have to disagree Izdaari she is really no different than the Bush's when it comes to the strive for power. People do not come to power by being nice-and politics in America can be just as bad as 3rd world countries.

Of course people would label me as a nut because I believe the gov't had much to do with JFK's and Martin Luther King's death-

This country can be just as guilty of injustice as any 3rd world dictator.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I have to disagree Izdaari she is really no different than the Bush's when it comes to the strive for power. People do not come to power by being nice-and politics in America can be just as bad as 3rd world countries.

Of course people would label me as a nut because I believe the gov't had much to do with JFK's and Martin Luther King's death-

This country can be just as guilty of injustice as any 3rd world dictator.

Mmm, I don't think so. There are some cesspools of notoriously dirty politics in America -- New Jersey, Louisiana and Arkansas among them -- but the whole country has not generally gone there... nor will it for long if the press and the voters will do their part.

Btw, I'm not just another armchair political junkie. I've been high up in a national issue advocacy organization, a state party officer, a delegate to a national convention, and I've been part of political campaigns above the volunteer level, even once as the candidate, for what all that's worth. The point is simply that I've been in a good position to gauge the level of corruption and dirty politics, and while there definitely is some -- and I'll admit to having engaged in a few dirty tricks myself -- it isn't at Third World levels, not even remotely close.

OTOH, I've always suspected LBJ had a hand in the JFK assassination, so maybe I'm a nut too. But IMHO LBJ was as bad as the Clintons, and maybe even worse.

 

[catlover]

Mmm, I don't think so. There are some cesspools of notoriously dirty politics in America -- New Jersey, Louisiana and Arkansas among them -- but the whole country has not generally gone there... nor will it for long if the press and the voters will do their part.

Btw, I'm not just another armchair political junkie. I've been high up in a national issue advocacy organization, a state party officer, a delegate to national conventions, and I've been part of a good many political campaigns above the volunteer level, even once as the candidate, for what all that's worth. The point is simply that I've been in a good position to gauge the level of corruption and dirty politics, and while there definitely is some -- and I'll admit to having engaged in a few dirty tricks myself -- it isn't at Third World levels, not even remotely close.

OTOH, I've always suspected LBJ had a hand in the JFK assassination, so maybe I'm a nut too. But IMHO LBJ was as bad as the Clintons, and maybe even worse.

Ohhhh you naughty woman you using dirty tricks in politics...

That's life-you do not want mealy mouths in politics you have to be bold and not afraid to make affiliations with those well what's that politics love hate bed fellows?

Yes, Lousianna has some dirty 3rd world politics don't know a lot about Arkansas politics other than the Clintons came from there and I will throw in New York politics with 3rd world because bribes in 3rd world countries go hand and hand and you had the mafia involved in New York politics.

Yeah-LBJ was a bad bad man with The Vietnam War and JFK's assasinaion

 

[catlover]

P.S I went to the caucus for Obama and Clinton.

Do you know how they did it in my town?

They had us line up on either side of the room. Those for Clinton on that side those for Obama on the other...then they counted us..small town America.

They wanted to pick deligates to go to Augusta no way I could have done it with my schedule.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

P.S I went to the caucus for Obama and Clinton.

Do you know how they did it in my town?

They had us line up on either side of the room. Those for Clinton on that side those for Obama on the other...then they counted us..small town America.

They wanted to pick deligates to go to Augusta no way I could have done it with my schedule.

Yep, that's pretty much how those work. The one Democratic caucus I went to, we met in someone's house. We sat and talked and voted, no physical lining up. That was 1972. I was actually a Libertarian and a Republican, but I crossed over to support WA's favorite son, Sen. Henry M. Jackson, whom I had always liked.

 

[BlackLamb]

I'm not interested in supporting her because she's an advocate of video game censorship. People might think that's a frivolous reason not to vote for someone, but I want to get into the industry, so it's kind of a big deal for me.

To be fair, I'm not interested in supporting Obama or McCain either. Don't know what I'm going to do this coming election

 

[catlover]

Yep, that's pretty much how those work. The one Democratic caucus I went to, we met in someone's house. We sat and talked and voted, no physical lining up. That was 1972. I was actually a Libertarian and a Republican, but I crossed over to support WA's favorite son, Sen. Henry M. Jackson, whom I had always liked.

I like the way the caucus works in Westerly RI you get a private ballot.

 

[Speculative]

Actually, some conservatives DO like Hillary & many liberals have good reason NOT to like her... and this point brings me to my next set of points/reasons against her...

The only conservatives that like Hillary Clinton are those who are upset that McCain hasn't always followed their extreme agenda in lock-step, and those that think McCain has a better chance of beating her than he does of beating McCain. They don't really like her or support her policies of improving America.

And although the Clintons could've done better to support LGBT rights, 'don't ask, don't tell' and the support of DOMA were both political compromises. In the case of "Don't ask, don't tell", Bill initially came out in support of full LGBT rights in the military, and quickly realized he was not going to get it--if he had not made this compromise, there would have been no progress at all.

Yep, the Clintons are politicians, and they played politicians with gay rights, but I seriously doubt McCain would do as well (and certainly not better). And, of course Barack Obama has stated his opposition to gay marriage. So, I can't really see any valid reason to single out Hillary Clinton on this issue.

I'd also like to address this charge of Hillary being "shrill" and "divisive" and "ruthless" &c.

If Sen. Clinton was a male, she'd be called "decisive", "confident" and "a hard-working go-getter"--all positive qualities one would expect in a president. Her manner is perfectly consistent with what we all have admired in male presidents, and I see no reason to hold it against her that she acts too presidential.

As far as charges of corruption are concerned--perhaps people have a point--but no more so than any other politician, IMO.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'd also like to address this charge of Hillary being "shrill" and "divisive" and "ruthless" &c.

If Sen. Clinton was a male, she'd be called "decisive", "confident" and "a hard-working go-getter"--all positive qualities one would expect in a president. Her manner is perfectly consistent with what we all have admired in male presidents, and I see no reason to hold it against her that she acts too presidential.

As far as charges of corruption are concerned--perhaps people have a point--but no more so than any other politician, IMO.

I deny that my characterization of her in those terms has anything to do with her gender. I love strong, decisive, confident, ambitious women... such as Margaret Thatcher.

As for corruption and ruthlessness, I didn't say Hillary was those things. I said the Clintons are. That is, Bill shares in them just as much. They are both corrupt and ruthless to a level found in America only in the worst regional cesspools of dirty politics, and Arkansas is one of them.

IMHO a full generation needs to pass before we consider another Clinton or Bush for the White House. Perhaps Chelsea or George P., but that's maybe 20-30 years away, and that's a good thing.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

I just want a different option than the ones we've had the past 16 years. Looks like Obama is that option.

To be entirely honest though the whole premise of this thread makes me as uncomfortable as negative focused campaign advertising. I'd much more like to see a "13 reasons to vote for candidate Z."

 

[Albion]

I just want a different option than the ones we've had the past 16 years. Looks like Obama is that option.

Well....that's what he says he is. Thing is, there's nothing in his political history, or even in his proposals, that amounts to that (unless I've missed something that someone can point to). He doesn't have a record of reaching out to the other party; his voting record is almost entirely party-line; he has no legislative accomplishments that be pointed to as evidence; and he's played footsies with crooked backers and favor-seekers at least at much as the average politician.

Anyway, I commend everyone on a nice discussion that hasn't wandered into sniping at 'the other guy' for holding a different perspective on such a hot topic as this one.

 

[spinningtutu]

8. Through media censorship, Clinton wants to impinge on our freedom of speech.

 

[spinningtutu]

IMHO a full generation needs to pass before we consider another Clinton or Bush for the White House. Perhaps Chelsea or George P., but that's maybe 20-30 years away, and that's a good thing.

AMEN!

 

[spinningtutu]

7. Hillary Clinton is unrepentedly pro-abortion. Now, I know that none of the candidates for the White House this year are really likely to do _anything_ about abortion. So, Clinton isn't being singled out. But the truth still remains - she is pro-choice and, if elected, will do everything she can to make sure as many more babies are killed as is possible.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

The premise of my campaign against Hillary Clinton is that she is intentionally trying to deceive/ wreck/ ruin the political Left by a two-fold agenda:

a) Lie through her teeth regarding where she really stands (i.e. her actions will continue the Bush legacy).

b) be a complete ***** in the primaries, so as to either cheat her way into the presidency, or, if she can't, make sure that Obama won't make it either.

You're making some claims in several posts, but not giving us any quotes, sources, etc. to substantiate them. How do you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[spinningtutu]

let me know what you specifically want a source/quote for, and I'll provide

Most of this information is readily available courtesy of www.ontheissues.org
where you can read pages and pages of direct quotes from all the candidates on all the issues.

Now, if I wanted to start pushing off crackpipe theories about the Clintons... which, I won't use this as one of my official 13 reasons...
cuz I know it can't be "proved", but a lot of rumor has it that the Clintons made most of their billions off of drugs during the years Bill was governor of Arkansas.
Personally, I do believe they are druggies

and I also believe they were/are part of the behind-the-scenes 9/11 plot, right up there with the Bush family. I think Hillary getting to be the senator of NY and moving there shortly before 9/11 was part of the setup and I think she got rich off the deal.

The Clintons are very much a part of my conspiracy theory... I think this all started with the first Bush in the 80s and I think Hillary is very adamant about continuing the fiasco. So, if anyone was waiting for me to say something really out there, I just said it. But, no, I won't include any of this in my official 13 reasons.

 

[spinningtutu]

6. Hillary Clinton voted FOR the US Patriot Act! Thus, she has officially aided the Bush Administration in taking away our civil liberties. Now she would have us believe she will give them back.

 

[spinningtutu]

5. Hillary was overwhelmingly supportive of our invasion of Afghanistan at the end of 2001. This shows that she is indeed pro-war. As a so-called liberal humanitarian, she sees violence as an effective means to 'liberate' people. For example, if she had her way, she would push her own understanding of feminism onto conservative non-violent Muslim women who would want nothing of it. That isn't liberation and that isn't freedom of religion.