DU Anti Hillary posts: I don't get how such factually incorrect nonsense gets spouted day after day

[factfinder_77]

Feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I see people calling Hillary "center right" and "conservative" and other types of nonsense. HOW CAN THEY EVEN SAY THIS?! I mean if you just read her website for 10 minutes she is a progressive on every single issue!! I just don't get how such factually incorrect nonsense gets spouted day after day; it truly boggles my mind

She was the 11th most Liberal Senator while she was in the Senate. ( more liberal than Obama)When you see Hillary supporters complain about 'Purity Tests' this is the attitude we're speaking about, btw.

Her voting record in the Senate is nearly identical to Sanders. They agree on 93% of the issues. I don't have any issues with people disagreeing with each other, but what is wearying to a lot of Hillary supporters are those Sanders supporters (not all of them! not even most of them!) who insist on doing so in a fact-free environment based on propaganda and Weaver-generated talking points.

This is what really kills me, I don't understand how a politician evolving on their views is a bad thing. She went in the right direction. Change is GOOD. Who the hell wants a leader so steeped in their beliefs they can't listen to other viewpoints? (Rhetorical question, lol.)

Basically, the people that say these things don't believe that she's actually changed her viewpoints (or at least that some of them may not have changed), but that she's just saying what people want to hear.

Or put another way, they know what her stances are on the website, they just don't believe she'll fight very hard for those things, especially campaign finance reform.

Personally, I feel her generals performance and whether or not she pivots will determine if those people come around or not. Checking google for recent stuff, it appears she's looking for a progressive VP and isn't planning on pivoting to center, so if that's true, a lot will eventually come around.

Maybe it It goes all the way back to Goldwater Girl.

Not once have they recognized the problem with attacking a woman who was raised as a good little Republican girl by her father, in a very different generation for gender roles, for not changing her party before she could legally drink?

We should embrace anyone who switches from Republican to Democrat in COLLEGE, especially if they were raised Republican, especially if they were female and had extra social pressure, and most especially if they did it after volunteering for campaigns and coming to an educated decision on a mismatch in values

Personally I feel this is a distant second to knowledge about Hillary's basic history. All they seem to know is Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs speeches. If they all just read a biography on her, even a very critical one, they would have to take their mental gymnastics to an Olympic level to still make the statements they do about her character.

Honestly, I think it is in Hillary's best interest to have a scathing film played on TV, so long as it is a complete history from like age 13 on. Let them repeat the insinuations with Vince Foster, etc. I think Hillary will gain more votes from bernie supporters than lose if they actually see her entire life evolve in primarily public interest roles instead of ONLY hearing the same 10 attacks every day for 6 months.

Ironically, I think a similar film about Bernie, done neutrally or slightly positive, would make many in his base disillusioned and asking for their donation back (assuming the objectivity was accepted, something I admit is unlikely considering how everything is a conspiracy these days)

Actually she is more transparent than Bernie. She's released 30 full years of tax returns. That's how we even know she gave private speeches to various groups. It's all itemized.

Her campaign funds are public record, just like Bernie's. That is the law. And, she happens to have only had one FEC letter two pages long concerning a few procedural errors which were queried in Feb. Bernie on the other hand has had 4 FEC campaign finance violation notifications, the last being 650 pages or so long detailing illegal acceptance of foreign donations, donations over the campaign limit and refunded donations to individuals which exceed the donated amount.

He still refuses to release his tax returns, even though it's been common practice since the 1930's for presidential candidates to do so. The one 2014 return he finally released is not even complete, there is no breakdown of his deductions.

Then there's the question of whether he flew his family to Rome on a personal trip (so he claims) using campaign funds (which there are strict rules about) in excess of $500,000.

When are people going to start holding Bernie to a similar standard of scrutiny

Hillary Clinton has been more honest and transparent about her sources of income than literally any other candidate this cycle. The reason people tout Sanders's honesty is because he continually tells his followers that everyone else is corrupt, not because he's some epitome of honesty and plain dealing.

Also, the cliche of women as the gender that lies and cheats and schemes is as old as the written word, so believing that the dichotomy between Sanders and Clinton in terms of honesty and transparency has nothing to do with sexism is naive at best.

[JaneyVee]

1. Politifact rated her the most honest candidate of 2016.

[Baobab]

20. They take advantage of lack of knowledge.

and hide big important things. Hillary is not a progressive on the core issues which involve economic policy. I'll leave it at that. Have a good day!

[metroins]

2. The Bernie trip to the Vatican was an

All around bad idea.

I don't know what he was thinking, he might have to pay that bill and everybody knew it wouldn't help his campaign by going.

[edgineered]

3. I mean if you just read her website for 10 minutes - hehe, good one!

[pengu]

6. I chuckled at that too

The problem is her god awful record not her website. Iraq, Patriot Act, Syria, Libya, 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, Fracking, Welfare reform (she whipped votes for it)... I could go on and on and on and on and on.

[auntpurl]

4. "a fact-free environment" = most of GDP at the moment

It's really disheartening. When I woke up this morning and saw Bernie supporters were willing to align themselves with thugs who screamed "Who gives a shit, bitch?" at Democratic Senator BARBARA BOXER, I was genuinely shocked. Who ARE these people? They are not Democrats.

And that's probably what should be kept in mind perusing GDP these days.

[Baobab]

21. People who pretend to be in a group when they are not and deliberately act in such a way that they

elicit a negative or crushing response are

Commonly used to turn peaceful groups into "terrorists" in the eyes of the media.

So agreed, its likely.

'manufacturing consent' in a shallow manner.

[factfinder_77]

5. Top GOP Benghazi Investigator Debunks Conservative Myths: Nothing ‘Could Have Been Done Differently’

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027835309

These statements undermine one of the GOP’s most heavily recycled — and completely unfounded — talking points about the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans. Republicans have repeatedly and baselessly claimed that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the military to "stand down" and not respond to the attacks.

[LexVegas]

7. A lot of it is simply sexism. nt

[aikoaiko]

8. Yahne Ndgo: "We don't trust what she says and we don't like what she has done."

[timmymoff]

9. and a larger part of it is her own words and stances

or evolutions as some call them. The continual evoltutions and shape shifting leave very few trusting her as shown by her negatives.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. factually incorrect nonsense:

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."


Horrific, insulting, outlandish revisionism.

[Matt_in_STL]

11. TL;DR

I am sure it was just as fascinating as your transparency page though.

[Agschmid]

17. When all you've got is an ad hom.

Nice...

[Scuba]

12. Pro-war, pro-private prison, pro-fracking, pro-TPP does not equate to "progressive."

You seem to be confusing Hillary's rhetoric with her actions.

[IdaBriggs]

13. You are ignoring facts which don't fit your narrative. IWR is a big one.

Once she participated in that lie, she did not take steps to FIX HER MISTAKE (like working to prosecute the people who lied us into a war).

You ignore her lack of action on issues like unions at Walmart while she was a highly compensated board member, then what appears to be Clinton "pay to play" with them donating the corporate jet for Bill's travel during his first presidential run, followed by his implementing trade policies that benefitted Walmart while screwing American manufacturing.

You ignore her publicly lying to the American people while she was First Lady ("vast right wing conspiracy" versus lying dog of a husband), and the self inflicted scandals during that term. "Lost" billing records that magically turned up? Fired travel staff, reinstated after a lawsuit? The Lincoln bedroom debacle?

You might call her a "liberal" senator, but some of her "non-liberal" positions were flat out horrific - the cluster bombs that were killing children are particularly egregious and that whole "flag burning" thing was just stupid.

You ignore that her tenure at Secretary of State is appalling. The emails showing she was lying to the public by pretending to want to restore the democratically elected president in Hondorus while actively working behind the scenes to make sure that didn't happen are an embarrassment to this country. Libya is another example of her errors in judgment and the videos of her "embracing our Libyan partners" followed by "we came, we saw, he died" is simply sickening. Her tenure made the world less safe and thirty seconds of googling gives examples from all political spectrums.

You ignore her flouting the law and holding herself above it while SoS by not complying with the Federal Records Act (inclusive of Obama's memos, etc.) and the FOIA laws, and that is assuming you want to ignore her pretence of ignorance about how the internet works and the clear instructions on safely managing government communication she was given by staff ("don't use a blackberry or private email&quot .

Lastly, you ignore the reality that she is currently under a year long INVESTIGATION by the FBI which investigates public corruption and dangers to national security. You ignore her lack of candor about the topic by referring to it as a "security review", a phrase which was accurate for five minutes before the FBI decided the "review" warranted "investigation". You ignore the fact a key witness -- Hillary Clinton's IT guy -- pleaded the fifth amendment to avoid INCRIMINATING HIMSELF before being given IMMUNITY from CRIMINAL charges. That's not an "oops" -- that is a Red Flag that the FBI is investigating CRIMES. You also ignore the 38 civil lawsuits that resulted from her actions so far, and so far two judges have indicated she is going to be testifying under oath in the cases that are at discovery so far -- only 36 more to go!

So your post decrying "factually incorrect" posts is laughable on its face, because the only way you can make your claims is by ignoring any facts that you don't like. Hillary's website, which you are relying on, is a marketing tool. I suggest you head over to Wikileaks and start reading her damn emails to see what she was really saying, or watch the New York Times video on her and Libya or spend fifteen minutes reading some of the information googled on "Hillary foreign policy failures" so you can learn why most of America doesn't want her anywhere near the White House.

The information is out there, "but there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see" so odds are good you won't do it, and will thus remain confused as to why people who have done their homework are so outright hostile to her.

And that makes your post unbelievablely sad.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. When you lift stuff from websites, give attribution, else it's nothing more than common thievery!

.


This OP violates TOS, since it takes more than four paragraphs, and even does so without attribution!


https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/comments/4jj1gg/do_bernie_supporters_actually_know_any_of/t1_d376ec6


Here's just some of the lifting...

[–]QQueenBee 17 points18 points19 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

It goes all the way back to Goldwater Girl.

Not once have they recognized the problem with attacking a woman who was raised as a good little Republican girl by her father, in a very different generation for gender roles, for not changing her party before she could legally drink?

We should embrace anyone who switches from Republican to Democrat in COLLEGE, especially if they were raised Republican, especially if they were female and had extra social pressure, and most especially if they did it after volunteering for campaigns and coming to an educated decision on a mismatch in values.

Blackstream 10 points11 points12 points 8 hours ago* (1 child)

Basically, the people that say these things don't believe that she's actually changed her viewpoints (or at least that some of them may not have changed), but that she's just saying what people want to hear.

Or put another way, they know what her stances are on the website, they just don't believe she'll fight very hard for those things, especially campaign finance reform.

Personally, I feel her generals performance and whether or not she pivots will determine if those people come around or not. Checking google for recent stuff, it appears she's looking for a progressive VP and isn't planning on pivoting to center, so if that's true, a lot will eventually come around.

.

[cwydro]

15. It doesn't matter who posts what about anyone.

Neither side pays any attention.

Some posters here just love to sling mud.

[Agschmid]

18. Yup.

[forjusticethunders]

16. The main issue with Hillary is that

she's a pragmatic progressive and sometimes pragmatism means taking actions that appear or can be construed as "selling out" in order to keep power, or at least, keep power AWAY from the right. That's how she survived the Republican tide of the 80s and 90s, particularly after the 94 midterms. To her, the worst thing that can happen is that Democrats,even the most moderate or conservative Dems, lose, and are replaced by Republicans who are at BEST 10x as bad as the Shulers and Landrieus of the world.

Thus, the Hillary you get depends on the political environment she's in. Is it as "principled"? No. But is it effective? Yep. And to her, the principle of "protect America from the crazy Republicans as much as you can even if you have to placate some of their funders" 90s Hillary is pretty much irrelevant to 2016 Hillary, because 2016 is a different year.

That's why grassroots organizing, that's why moving the base of America is so important because politicians need SPACE to be progressive -when the "middle of the country" thinks that taxes are evil and greed is good, where's the progressive space? When the bulk of America doesn't know who Kissinger is and most of the people who do think he's a genius, where's the progressive space? Progressives have not been successful at mainstreaming the alternative view of American military history, and until that happens, there's no upside and a lot of downside to rejecting people like Kissinger. Unprincipled? Yes, very much so. But pissing off the American deep state is never a good idea no matter who you are. The way around this is to build the kind of class consciousness and awareness that was built in the 30s and 40s, but you can't do that in one election cycle, and you can't do that circlejerking on alt media.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Also, Bill Clinton has somehow switched from being liked and admired here

to being a despised figure on a par with Nixon, Reagan, and George W Bush.

Weird times.