She's easy to dislike for a large number of specifically documented reasons.

If Trump wins it is not liberals' fault for having higher standards...it's America's fault for a) not voting, b) not paying attention as swaths of voters are disenfranchised both mechanically and legally, c) being assholes who need the cleansing fire a Trump administration would inadvertently bring to fix their broken fucking worldview by obviating it via the inevitable pain and suffering that would follow.

I'm telling you, she's going to come back in a surprise upset at the end of the title match against trump and win the belt, but that'll just be setting up Trump to win the 2020 grudge match. Neither of them would be a two term candidate on their own but by combining Hillary's experience with Trump's gift for gutting a masterful promo they can collaborate to secure 8 years in the white house between the two of them.

Seriously though, the crash has to be a pretty tough one for her since it was Bill who really got the deregulation that ended up leading to it underway. Bush certainly didn't help things but he was running with what Clinton had started.

What makes you think Hillary and Trump would be different, SDC?

Also, why do you feel that Hillary's extremely well-documented connections to the globalist financial establishment is an "incredibly vague" reason for the informed voting public's distrust towards her?

EH: I'm not even gonna touch that "How do you know Hillary would govern differently than Trump?" question because it's on par with "Can you prove the U.S. is a ftreer country than North Korea?" in terms of really dumb questions masquerading as a highbrow thought experiment.

But yes. I do consider it vague. I consider the entire phrase "globlist financial establishment" maddeningly sloppy and euphemistic, as though anti-establishment fervor has hit such a fevered pitch that people think just making a vague connection qualifies as an argument.

It's a loathsome byproduct of the Internet coming of age: Fucking EVERYONE thinks they're part of the learned, educated elite and that everyone else is lazy, ignorant, and uninformed. So when they look at our broken political system, rather than viewing it as an impossibly complex machine with innumerable moving parts in need of a technical solution, these "educated, high-information" citizens vote against their own interests in hopes of the One True Candidate arriving to show all those other poor fools the error of their ways. Bernie will sweep all 50 states and have free college within a year! The Republican party wil collapse, your uncle will apologize for all those forwarded emails, and a Great People's Awakening will usher in a thousand centuries of peace and prosperity.

My point is the entire notion that just having ties to the "globalist financial establishment" (psst, you know her husband was President, right?) is some sort of damning charge is indicative of everything wrong with our modern political discourse.

"Remember when the Left prided itself on intellectual honesty and a commitment to facts?"


I was born in 1978, so not really. Things were already pretty fucked on the left by the time I was in high school.

But thanks for sourcing that stuff!

Ah, good ol' context. 5 for evil I guess.

if this is your concept of 'the left' you are fuckin hopeless

i think it's even worse in context.

"... Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy."

based on her tone, that period in the transcript after "over their heads" should be a semicolon. she's putting homebuyers and real estate speculators in the same basket.

Interesting, Maru, how you're contemplating a semicolon like a Talmudic scholar trying to divine the will of the almighty, yet you completely ignore how the video editor simply disposed of 90% of what Hillary said, you know, the part where she did in fact call out Wall Street directly for their role in the housing crisis.

If Rush Limbaugh did something like this you'd recognize it immediately as reckless disregard for the truth.

Fortunately, other people are better about this:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/12/9716034/hillary-clinton-nasdaq-s peech

yeah, there was plenty of lipservice, so what? she still insisted honest homebuyers take part of the blame for the crisis, as opposed to simply being the most immediate victims of it. how is it any different than a long speech about college rape that blames the jocks, the frat boys, the school administrators, and then finally the girl who got drunk at the party and was raped?

Drunk college girls are incapable of giving consent to sex. It's not that they were tricked into consenting to sex; rape constitutes a forcible violation against the victim's will.

Victims of financial scams, on the other hand, do consent to the scam. They might not fully understand what they're consenting to, but they do sign the paper and hand over their money. They're the ones putting their quarter in the slot and pulling the lever. It's true that perhaps other reasonable people would have fallen for the same scam, and, as Hillary said, there's plenty of blame to be shouldered by the con-artists. But consenting to a gamble that turns out to be longer odds than advertised, and being overpowered and violated, are two incomparable scenarios.

A better comparison to a rape would be a mugging: the non-consensual and forcible theft of a person's money against their will.

Off-topic, but can we put a moratorium on comparing things to rape? It's become the new Gowin's Law.

Godwin's*

"she still insisted honest homebuyers take part of the blame for the crisis"

She very clearly did not. Homebuyers who pay a fee so they can get away with claiming they make vastly more than they actually do (with the almost certain intention of speculation) are by no definition "honest".

... Well, possibly by the sort of definition that would find this video honest. "Hillary said all the words in question and if you cut them up and rearrange them like you were composing a ransom note, that's honest, right?"

Look, why don't you just say you have an irrational hatred of Hillary and you will believe any doctored recording of her that makes her look bad, no matter how conclusively it has been shown that she said the opposite of what you wish she had.

There may be places where you can legitimately find Hillary saying what you wish she said here; go find some of them and post them. But if they're shit propaganda like this was and you didn't do due diligence before posting it, I'll do the legwork for you and you'll be reduced to bad arguments again.

you can absolutely rape by deception.

also if you're lied to, you're a victim of something called "fraud." what are you guys, carnies?

hillary 2016 -- "it's not "rape", it's just a mugging!"

they weren't shortsighted, they were actively lied to and deceived.

See above where I presented the full context of the lines in question. Now think about the person who decided to ellipse out all of Hillary's speech except for the parts he or she could make to put Hillary in a bad light.

Now ask yourself whether that person has ny interest at all in doing something about Wall Street. I don't believe they do: if they did, they'd look at this speech and say, "oh, Hillary isn't exactly antagonistic to Wall Street, but she does at least want them to do their part". Instead they said "screw whatever Hillary actually thinks, I can use this with some deceptive editing."

I don't know who exactly put this together -- it could have been a Republican, it could have been a Sanders supporter -- but whoever they are, they have no interest in doing what's right for the common man. They might even believe they do, but they don't; anyone who makes this deliberate of an effort to lie, is guaranteed to not have your best interests in mind.

Easy, Bort. I'll still get out and vote for her if she gets the nomination. No Presidential candidate is ever "perfect" and it's long since I stopped hoping for one.

I still don't like her, though. I'm talking about on a personal level. I don't like Bill, either. They both just seem so...I don't know...not "sleazy" exactly.

What's a grade better than sleazy? They're just slightly not sleazy.

Hillary's a wonk who doesn't know how to be a politician, and that rubs me the wrong way too. Basically, some people aren't cut out for sales, and she doesn't know she's one of those people. If she just spoke her mind she'd probably do better than she does now, where she tries to make a sales pitch when the truth (or something close to it) would generally do the trick.

Oleaginous.

A lot of people are just not good with numbers. The problem is the lack of regulation. Up here there is no "not proving your income"; it's the bank's responsibility to make sure you can actually fit the payments into your budget or no loan.

You can't blame a stupid person for being stupid, you can only try to limit the damage they can do to themselves and others.

That's how banks down here work for the most part too; a bank will make you prove your income, run your credit, look at your finances and make sure you have a strong chance of being able to make good.

But in the unexpurgated version of Hillary's remarks, the homebuyers she had a problem with were speculators who were able to lie about their income (because they paid a fee of some kind to do so), then buy more houses than they could afford with the expectation that it wouldn't be a problem because they'd sell them off quickly at a profit.