Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Hillary Clinton

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
Editorial notes
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>

Ross Perot[edit]

" George H.W. Bush probably would have sailed to an easy reelection if Perot hadn't entered the race and siphoned off Republican votes."

This is literally contradicted in the second paragraph of the Ross Perot page:

"Many claim that he acted as a spoiler, costing Bush the 1992 election. Exit polls from the election show that his support came evenly from potential Clinton and Bush supporters, with a significant amount of his support abstaining from a hypothetical two-way election.[1] Furthermore, the portion of the race during which Perot was absent, from July until the start of October 1992, had Clinton ahead of Bush in all major national polls[2] and in the electoral college tally. In those Perot-less polls, Bush often polled close to the 37% he ultimately won. Bush's approvals in 1992 were consistently in the low 40s and upper 30s, a range similar to Jimmy Carter's in 1980.[3] Perot's political views on hot-button social issues such as gay-rights, abortion, and free-trade were characterized by the left-of-center bent.[4]"

Clinton's record for political expediency....[edit]

... is actually quite well documented in the text of the rest of the article. There is no reason to add a {{fact}} template to the lead section. Repeated attempts to do so are both pointless, and appear to be consistent with the persistent attempts to whitewash this loser. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Foundations[edit]

Is no one going to mention the fact she took money from her foundation for her daughters wedding?--King RimuruRimuru Slime.png 23:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Because they didn't do so according to theWashington PostAriel31459 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Israel" section[edit]

Am I seeing ghosts or has this been written by someone who bears a grudge against either Clinton, Israel or both? Evil Zionist (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Horseshoe Theory is proven correct[edit]

I was a regular visitor, and concessional contributor to this site years ago but I found myself slowly drifting away as RW gradually became overran with imbecilic Bernie bros with an outrageous axe to grind against centrist politics, moderate Dems and the Clintons in particular. The far left seems to care more about fighting moderates, centre-leftists, liberals and anyone else who doesn't subscribe to their ideologically pureness of what the left should be. The real enemy is Trump and his nationalist fascist buddies who want to ruin our globalised world. Oh, but that's right. The far left also hate liberal progressiveness and would prefer a world where ultra-nationalism returned. Fucking idiots. The lot of you. Oriel (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Clintondroids really are something uh? Tuxer (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
What's the problem this time?... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
We are too far left I think? — Dysk (contribs) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
That'll be news to the communists... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite a track record[edit]

If you look closely, this woman has been behind every divisive national tragedy for six decades:

  • Watergate
  • Iran Contra
  • Whitewater
  • Clinton impeachment
  • Iraq war
  • Trump-Russia

An impressive track record. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What does Hillary have to do with Watergate? 72.138.43.190 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hillary was on the staff for the impeachment inquiry into Nixon. What nobs seems to be implying is that since she had a job in government or law when sketchy things happened, she must be behind it all. CAPSlOCKrOXX (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If by "behind" you mean "alive at the time," that would be correct. Otherwise I have no fucking idea what you mean. e.g., The Iraq War? What could you mean? The War resolution? The resolution that passed in the senate 77 to 23? Ariel31459 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Shadow Government"[edit]

http://webofslime.com/thegreatconspiracy

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2004%20of%2036/view

Page 56, "The 7th Floor Group" or "The Shadow Government". Some guy called The Web Of Slime brought it up on Reddit and Im curious about this because he keeps rambling about more bullshit like The Finders. I have my reasons for disliking Hillary but I want to make sure its not because of some crank shit. I feel like this is worth researching. Spoony (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This person appears to be a conspiracy theorist, right-wing crank. Their web-page appears to be thrown together in a haphazard fashion placing images, texts and headlines incoherently in a collage done in a music-roll format. Among the buzz-words are "triggered", "fake news," "gaslighting", "mind control," "great Conspiracy," etc. It is like seeing Glenn Beck on his worst day. How could you look at that and think, "this guy might be on to something?" Ariel31459 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
He is absolutely not onto something, this guy is even nuttier than his site come across after talking to him. He just brought up the Shadow Government thing, which appeared to be a nickname for some group of people. I'm specifically talking about what im referring 2 on the page of the fbi files I linked to, im curious what the files are referring to. — Unsigned, by: Spoony / talk / contribs

Update[edit]

What critics of today fail to understand is that these were policies that the black community actually wanted at the time. Like many tough-on-crime policies that have been passed in the U.S. since the late 1960s, the law enjoyed the support of many black activists and political leaders, who saw it as an imperfect but necessary measure to combat pervasive violence in poor black urban neighborhoods. Gang violence was out of control in the early 90s and there was perception that no one seemed to care until Bill Clinton was elected. This is in general why older (i.e. the most reliable block of primary voters in the electorate of any race) black voters refused to hold it against Hillary. Even with the dog whistles and the mass incarceration

Yah, keep selling this bullshit to yourself. Was Cory Booker one of the black political activists that who was for it? Let's clean it up; no one seemed to care until Bill Clinton was elected; nah, Biden was pushing for it with his butt buddy Strom Thurmond since 1984. That's probably why he dropped out of the 1988 race in 1987. But it wasn't the Clinton's who cleaned up the Superpredators off the streets, it was Biden. Time for a rewrite. I especially want to see how you phrase the part about Black's wanting to destroy Black families and throw their children in jail,. nobsFree Roger Stone! 22:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) nobsFree Roger Stone! 22:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)