Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 22 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Hi, it's Vince with ClintSpiracy...

Just in case this starts to rear its ugly head further, someone on Imgur posted the Vince Foster conspiracy death list. As of writing, it has over 8,500 points and has been viewed over 300,000 times. I'm not sure where all the traffic is coming from -- probably not Reddit as I'm not seeing any highly upvoted versions of it there. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've cut out some of the more hysterical mona-isms.

The Primary race is over, and the "how these scandals will sunk her in the primary" section has been overtaking the article for too long now. I've cut out some of the most absurd, hysterically conspiratorial or just flat-out wrong parts. Typhoon (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You added "Leftist Bona Fide" to her page which needs to be expanded and have more cites. OnTheIssues isn't an objective source.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 18:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor is your association fallacies when you try to smear her by finding any republican who doesn't think she's the Devil, or when you're dredging up shitty "newsites" that are just oversized blogs for your conspiracy theories.Typhoon (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Those neocons aren't supporting her by accident; all of them support her for one reason and that reason is because she is a warhawk. Also, what "shitty newsites" am I using?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 07:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so what if we deleted all mention of neocons who support her, why would it matter? I think that paragraph is important because it reinforces the point that she is a neocon; by showing that prominent neocons support her we are able to show that we aren't cherry-picking examples of her foreign policy positions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Concentrate on what Hillary believes, not on what others believe about Hillary. The GOP is right now in a state of meltdown due to Trump, so there'll be even more Republicans jumping in to support Hillary just to avoid a madman like Trump. That however doesn't mean that Hillary is now a Republican. Typhoon (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean, for fucks sake, Bernie ,a huge anti-neocon, is going to support Hillary very soon. What will you do then? Me? If you continue insist on this association fallacy, then I will insert her support from prominent doves, so that your upside-down approach will be seen for everyone. Typhoon (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But they aren't merely supporting her because she isn't Trump they are endorsing her foreign policy positions. Also, I would be interested in reading the statements by these doves.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 09:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If they're endorsing her positions, then why don't you just write about her positions instead of trying to project positions of other people on her? Your gallery of handpicked neo-cons is a dishonest tactic since none of them has Clinton responding to about their "support". Oh and regarding the doves supporting Clinton, you're gonna see them very soon at the DNC. Sanders will be leading them. I can't wait! Typhoon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Great so no actually refs. You do realize that those doves are supporting her despite her hawkishness, right? As I have said before, it doesn't matter whether Clinton responds to them because Clinton doesn't get to determine whether her foreign policy is neoconservative just like Ted Cruz doesn't get to determine whether his tax policy would create a VAT. I am not "projecting" positions on her because these are policy wonks who endorse neoconservativism. It would be an association fallacy only if I argued that Clinton must be in favor of payaday loans since she supports DWS who has helped to prevent regulations on payday loans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 06:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit war & page protection

Reluctantly, I have temporarily locked both the Hillary & Bernie pages at moderator level. I haven't checked which versions I locked it at, & I don't care. Both sides need to talk it out on the talk pages. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

They'll just call me a shill in love with vaginas. Discussion is impossible with them. Meanwhile the article remains vandalized after mona removed source from politifact. Mona has a seething hatred of Hillary and only intends to vandalize this article. Typhoon (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's true I have a "seething hatred of Hillary Clinton." I'm like that will all people who are Republican Lite, who support flag burning amendments, who never saw a country full of brown people they didn't want to bomb, who think banksters are the salt of the Earth and make millions secretly pandering to them, and who never met a civil liberty (except abortion) they didn't want to curtail. Yup, guilty as charged. However, when editing articles, and on these talk pages, I nearly always stick to substantive discussion of edits. So, please set forth what exactly, what specifically, you find objectionable about my edits.---Mona- (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you see it, Weaseloid? She can't go a moment without shitting on her. She's a zealot. Mona, you've removed an entire section sourced from dailykos and politifact due to your anti-Hillary bias. Return it. Typhoon (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is the content in dispute: comments about paid speeches she made since being First Lady, and about her calls for Wall Street regulation during the financial crisis. Could you guys try discussing these topics & why they do or don't belong in the article, instead of sniping at each other? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already said that both pieces are properly sourced. There's nothing more I can do now. Typhoon (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This bit is so misleading as to be false and has got to go:

Bernie was unable to give even one concrete example of how these speeches corrupted Hillary Clinton, proving this Wall Street attack is nothing more than an artful smear; designed to raise questions where there are none. [removing reference]

Bernie isn't arguing that giving the speeches "corrupted" Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is corrupt, which is why she gets paid huge amounts to give secret speeches to Goldman Sachs. No progressive argues that banskters pay that kind of money to people who are unfriendly toward their interests; the contrary notion is literally preposterous. The system, as it currently exists, is inherently corrupt, and Hillary is a happy and devoted proponent of the system as it is.

Typhoon, if you disagree, please state a progressive argument for Wall St. and Goldman fucking Sachs lavishing Hillary Clinton with several million dollars. Or, alternatively, we will simply include that Hillary Clinton is not a progressive. Which would you prefer? (I'm not done yet with critiquing this section and Typhoon's version, but that will do for now.)---Mona- (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're seeing things black and white. This is absurd behavior from you and is the reason why I don't believe that talks will lead to anywhere. That Hillary didn't give speeches while she was in office is FACT. That Bernie can't give any proof of the speeches corrupting her is FACT. That this is all a smear is detailed in the linked source. That Hillary called for regulations on Wallstreet is FACT, and the politifact source is also a FACT, that you removed because it goes against your massive anti-Hillary bias. Typhoon (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, Typhoon. I don't deny any of those FACTS, and also do not care about them. Now my dear, really, you are going to have to actually address the arguments I made, and not simply spew again what I do not contest, and more hysteria about my purported motives. So Typhoon, what is the progressive reason that Goldman Sachs would pay millions of dollars to a person who was widely expected to run for President of the United States, hmm?---Mona- (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice job of ignoring everything I wrote. You have zero proof of any corruption going on. You're not addressing your removal politifact and dailykos links. I've been saying before that you're not interested in any talks, and I'm now being proven right. Typhoon (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Bernie can't prove that the speeches corrupted her", well of course because he if he did he would have proven that she was bribed to change her choice on an issue. No, if someone excepts that kind of money their opinion is going to change. These people are investors and they want her to think like they do and they will pay her lavishly so that she will give them a positive speech about them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 07:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No it won't change. You're suffering from a black and white/evil vs good worldview. There are liberals on Wall Street too. And paying a former secretary of state for giving a speech is what companies and associations do when they want to feel important, not when they want to influence legislation and regulations. They have lots of other ways to do that.

Once again, she never gave a paid speech while she was in a political office. Her policy positions in regards to Wall Street are for regulating it, not letting it loose on Americans. She was for regulating Wall Street even before the economic crisis hit. ALl of this was properly sourced and Mona is removing it for biased reasons. Typhoon (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well Clinton was assumed to run for office so they could have easily assumed that she could be influenced. A good example, IMO, is Dan Coats he was a senator of Indiana who left to become a lobbyist, he then ran a second time so I think it would be fair to assume he was influenced by his position as a lobbyist. But, even if I don't agree with you about that kind of money corrupting her I think we ought to mention her speeches. Most people see her as a candidate who is close to Wall St. and Trump has used said ties against her; this issue has also been used to attack her for her lack of transparency.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Assumptions" wont help you win this argument. And I'm not arguing for removing the entire section about her speeches, I'm arguing for the inclusion of sources such as Politifact and to prevent wild conspiracies from going unchallenged. Typhoon (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am merely showing you went their intent may have been since you are assuming that they don't have any intent to manipulate her opinion. I am not against adding any sources btw.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no fucking proof that "they" are manipulating her view. The reason for these speaches is far more mundane, as the Washington post tells:

You want to know why they paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech? It’s because I’m famous and important, and the people who have that kind of money like to brush up against famous and important people. The executives want to get their picture taken chatting with me so they can put it up on their “brag wall.” They want to tell their buddies on the golf course, “Well here’s what I told Hillary Clinton …” It feeds their egos. And the money? Yeah, it’s hard to turn down that kind of money. So I go, I talk for an hour about the complex challenges America faces in an ever-changing world, blah blah blah, do the grip-and-grin and get a six-figure check. You would too, if you could.

Typhoon (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, I never said there was proof that she was manipulated only that hey may want to manipulate her. I actually trust Clinton when she says why she does those speeches but don't you think that when you act within that bubble you become less likely to radically change it?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 09:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No? Not everyone lacks principles like you think. Typhoon (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying she is lacking a prinicple her but her financial reform plan isn't that strong. When a system favors you, you aren't likely to turn that system upside down.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 01:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Hillary Clinton lacks genuine, long-lasting principles. Unlike Bernie Sanders, she has constantly been catching up to the political cutting-edge by feeling the winds and going with the polls. As soon as gay marriage became popular with the majority, she switched her view; that's just one example. I think she's a pretty good establishment politician, better than Romney at covering up all of her past misdeeds. PBfreespace (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Question begging

This bit also needs to be jettisoned:

And according to sources in the industry, there is nothing unusual about someone with the name value of Hillary Clinton being able to charge so much.

Oh how nice. In the financial industry it is normal for someone like Hillary Clinton -- who was long expected to run for presieent -- to demand millions in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. This, of course, ignores the question: Should she be doing that? Should any progressive? How is this not an inherently corrupting dynamic? What is the progressive case to justify Hillary demanding and being paid this amount of money from these particular eneitites? (I have sources I'll eventually provide setting forth why Wall St. expects to do fine with President Hillary, and quotes from Wall St. honchos saying they like her fine, and know she's in their corner. How, pray tell, does that make her anyone a progressive should support?)---Mona- (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know progressives were against people being rich - well I mean, they probably are according to Mona's incredibly unhinged standards, because we all know Mona is the ultimate authority when it comes to what people actually think despite anything they might say or do, also I possess the same mind-reading powers she has and I can tell you that there's definitely something sexual about her Bernie fanatisicm - or against banks out of principle. Should Bernie have dumped radioactive waste on a poor hispanic community? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For your cherry-picked Wall Street quotes, I'll be responding by including her proposals for regulating Wall Street; proposals and policy positions that go many, many years back. She's been consistent about this, as the politifact article you're censoring proves. Typhoon (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh and that sentence you want to erase is directly quoted from the reference. It's gonna stay there as long as the reference is there. Typhoon (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Opening Quote

What does that have to do with quote mining again? Nerd (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"What does that... do... again?" Why that's a great question Nerd, I dunno what it does, I can't really be sure what you're referencing there, hmm, but clearly this is what you wrote, so, good luck! XD Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I am asking why a big part of the opening quote of this article was crossed out and internally linked to quote mining. I'm not quite sure what the writer is trying communicate. Nerd (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon probably added it to fit with her delusion that Hillary represents the proletariat. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's speech about Wall Street reform was butchered to make it say the opposite. That's all I pointed out. Typhoon (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What on earth is going on with that unreadable quote with a line through most of it? Is that really how you want to start the article? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That quote shouldn't be there in the first place, but if I just removed it the resident Bernouts would revert war over it. So I instead decided to point out how big of a quote mine it is. But OK, I'll remove it entirely, and wait for the anger to begin. Typhoon (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, if it's actually a quite mine, I can't see how it is relevant. The version in which the next phrase is crossed out also doesn't really add anything.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

About this by her about the Wall Street

I remember, that it is quote a piece of quote mining, but am too lazy to go through these masses of page history to find the clarification Typhoon (?) posted.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 18:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Association fallacy garbage

There's tons of text and speech by Clinton we're she appears as a neocon that could be used. Adding a collection of Republicans that don't completely hate the GOP boogywoman is a lame attempt at association fallacy. With Trump going wild we're gonna see even more Republicans deciding to support Hillary, but that doesn't make Hillary a Republican. Owlman's shitty list of neocons would be acceptable if every one of them was followed with Clinton's view about them. Unsurprisingly, you would find that she hates them all. Typhoon (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand what an association fallacy is. If I added info about her support for DWS who supports payday loans and asserted that this means she supports payday loans. But pointing out how her foreign policy has been praised by neocons as the "right way to things" is not an association fallacy. How is it fallacious to point out that David Duke supports Trump's immigration plan because "it is the best way to remove the other" (paraphrased)? It doesn't matter whether or not Trump denounces Duke because Duke can and will still support his plan and not him. As I have said before, if Ted Cruz can't get to choose whether his tax plan would effectively be a VAT, then Trump can't determine whether his immigration plan is racist and Clinton can't prove that her foreign policy plan isn't neo-conservative.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 18:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ross Perot

This page repeats the claim that Perot gave the 1992 election to the Democrats, even though there is little evidence for it and some evidence for the contrary... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I added some sources. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan comment

I am game for deleting this since it was a short-lived controversy that was caused by a misspoken comment. It was definitely appalling but it isn't all that notable. Though, if we delete this section then the "Lying about AIDS" section on Sanders page ought to be removed since it was a minor scuffle.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 16:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RMV both, focus on issues. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue. That Clinton is apparently so ill-informed/amnesiac about events that took place in US society during her political career - and/or is willing to sell out the LGB community in order to appeal to Republicans - are things that should be remembered. Keep it in. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I agree that it was an issue and certainly an ignorant misstep but it was quite short. I think if we are going to keep it we ought to merge it with other LGBT controversies she has been involved in.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also a issue that Sanders is willing to shit all over people suffering from aids by making it harder for them to get necessary drugs, and his shitty lying about the meeting with aids activists. IMHO, I find that much more deplorable than Clinton's faux pas but I'm not gonna push deleting it.Typhoon (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have wanted this changed a long time ago, but good luck with the mobacracy. Sandflapjack (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what I just realized?

I think a lot of the contentiousness of this and other politics articles is how little of our criticism centers on our big 3: authoritarianism, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories. Obviously, regular day-to-day political disagreement is gonna be a problem. Because people really do have differences of opinion for legitimate reasons. Is there any hope of refocusing the article to ratwiki relevance? Probably not, right? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you know? Hillary is an authoritarian pawn of the oligarchs, is involved in all sorts of nefarious conspiracies, and promotes tons of pseudoscience and woo, unlike Sanders, who is innocent of all those charges. I have that on the highest authority from Sanders supporters.

So, no, we're only going to get the shitshow. Might as well appease the Bernies. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly think that definitely Sanders brought out some of the conspiratorial left. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ayup. It don't matter any. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, where is the controversy over pseudoscience and conspiracy theories? I don't see any edit wars over homeopathy or Alex Jones. The only time I see edit wars is regarding socio-political issues - gamergate, this election, etc. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What's a gamer gate? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate. No offense, but we have pages on the articles you ask for.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC) 19:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of gates, I prefer this one. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:07, 23 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Trying to get your shitshow by conspiracy minded bigots into the vague umbrella of "leave politics alone!"? Well, fuck you. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything about gamergate is absolute bullshit and almost 100% of that bullshit falls under the purview of rationalwiki's mission. The things most contentious about Clinton/Sanders are far more day-to-day disagreement. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Ikanreed is right here: the GG edit wars were from trolls, fanatics, and Ryulong. Mostly Ryu. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ok just a few things

As a Hillary supporter this article seems pretty fair, with some exception

"such as organizing for Barry Goldwater"

this is kinda misleading.

and idk, this article's tone is weird. like, it accuses Hillary of shit and then 2 paragraphs later it explains why that's not *exactly* what happened.

For example:

"She's the Democratic Mitt Romney: unpopular with the base, flip-flops on convenient issues"

"Despite her reputation as a flip flopper, Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview[29], Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — but still less so than Clinton." --86.127.236.45 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Republican support for her foreign policy

Her foreign policy positions have attracted many of the traditionally Republican neocons to support those positions such as Max Boot, a self described "American imperialist", Jamie Weinstein, the neoncon writer at the Daily Caller, Jennifer Rubin, a neocon writer for the Washington Post who has advocated against the Iran nuclear deal since it was signed in 2015, Robert Kagan, the founder of the Project for the New American Century, Dick Cheney, Dubya's Vice President and fellow war criminal who still endorses the use of torture, and Henry Kissinger, Nixon's Secretary of State who orchestrated various war crimes and helped to slaughter millions of innocent people by carpet bombing Cambodia and endorsing political purges in South America.

In each case, did the Republican support Clinton because of her foreign policy, or was that merely one of the factors? B/C currently it implies only' FP. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a great question. I think Clinton's being the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party is an opportunity they would not miss. Donald Trump is simply uncontrollable, whereas Clinton not only shares many views with them but also can be nudged towards one way or the other. I also think it is only a matter of time before she "pivots" for the general election. Nerd (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

This "support" is only happening because Trump is a walking dumpster fire. I find it most hilarious that one of the sources for "support" still compares Hillary to malaria. Hillary is hated by those people, and she hates them too. Either way, this is some stupid association fallacy, how about we concentrate on what Hillary says and believes herself? Typhoon (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

But doesn't she support hawkish positions herself? Nerd (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I'm telling you. Write about her own positions, not the positions of other people. Typhoon (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a bit disingenous to associate Clinton with the Republicans. Although both favor interventionism, they favor it for different reasons -- in short, Clinton wants a liberal global order, and the Republicans mentioned want a powerful American order. Moreover, as Typhoon mentions, it's difficult to sort out "I really fucking hate Trump" and "I love Clinton". I'd remove it.

Also, can I just note that this was a nice, productive edit war discussion? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur. Nerd (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference is there between a "global order" and an "American order"? Is the US going to stop providing weapons to autocratic regimes, dangerously forcing regime change on countries that oppose the US, or ignore human rights violations by our allies? No, neither Clinton nor the assorted neocons want to actually want a collective decision making and Clinton has repeatedly said she wants America to "lead the world", which sounds like she wants American dominance to me. We should mention these neocons because they are endorsing her foreign policy will maintain their status quo even if they think her plan doesn't go far enough.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC) 18:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Owlman here. The outcome they seek and the means they want to use to get there are not that different. Nerd (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference isn't as subtle, though. For example: Obama and Clinton both push for allies to step up their own military expenditures and do some of the lifting. (There's a reason Japan is moving towards a real military, and it's Obama. That EU integration that Brexiteers worried about? Obama.) Neocons are generally far less comfortable with this, because it requires America to ask (one might say, collectively decide) other nations for help when preparing attacks. As another example: Obama and Clinton are both are more reserved in their pushes for attacks. (Clinton is less reserved than Obama; eg, she wanted boots on the ground against ISIS and in Syria in 14-15) Neither thinks that bombing Iran's reactors or North Korea's anything makes sense -- they prefer diplomatic resolutions. (Again, Clinton would be more willing to fight if diplomacy wasn't working -- but some Neocons wanted bombs even when it was working.) Perhaps this is a difference of degrees and not of qualities, but it's distinct nonetheless. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 04:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather get shot than guillotined, but that doesn't mean either could be construed as anything other than bad. This is not a choice between two bad things, this is the choice not to do bad things. Though Hillary's foreign policy views do appear on the surface to be marginally better than Trump's, there's a reason why I am skeptical. For one, Trump's rhetoric is all over the place, so it's hard to quantify him, but he seems very hawkish on ISIS, yet doveish on regime change in most other places. Hillary happens to have a record by which we can judge her hawkishness: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. I feel she is more hawkish than she lets on, hiding her views to deceive the Democratic base that dislikes war. She actively overthrew the Libyan government, throwing the country into chaos, letting armed gangs run rampant, and allowing terrible tribal warfare and lawlessness to dominate. She gave supplies and weapons to Islamist rebels in Syria to overthrow the Syrian government solely because it is aligned with Russia/Iran/Hezbollah, and thinks the US should shoot down Syrian and Russian airplanes bombing ISIS. She wants to send ground troops to the Middle East again to fight ISIS, despite the fact that we're already winning the war solely from the air. Given this information, I'm not voting for her. I don't think anyone should. PB (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel she is more hawkish than she lets on, hiding her views to deceive the Democratic base that dislikes war.- Pbfreespace3

I think it's rather presumptuous to assume that the general Democratic base dislikes war. That has not been my experience, either with Democrats in the South or elsewhere. My particular social circle that are Democrats are anti-war; the majority I meet in business or other public activities are definitely interventionist in nature. This whole "anti-war" business seems to be pretty much confined to the hippy/burner segment of the Democratic base.

She actively overthrew the Libyan government, throwing the country into chaos, letting armed gangs run rampant, and allowing terrible tribal warfare and lawlessness to dominate.- Pbfreespace3

Sadly, necessary to prevent the oil fields from being fired by Qaddafi. The national security and continued economics of the EU were threatened by it. All things being equal, it is my considered opinion that the US/EU alliance on the matter did not go far enough. France should have reasserte its suzerainity over Libya, designating it as a French or EU protectorate, until such time as it was stabilized and oil production was assured.

She wants to send ground troops to the Middle East again to fight ISIS, despite the fact that we're already winning the war solely from the air.- Pbfreespace3

You cannot win a war solely from the air. That's a myth. Unless you are committed to bombing for the next century or so, you have no way of securing the territory you just bombed.

Given this information, I'm not voting for her. I don't think anyone should.- Pbfreespace3

My two choices will be Trump or Clinton. I'm curious to know which you think I should choose. No, please do not suggest 3rd parties or other non-mathematically-viable vote options; you already know I won't do that. I will either be voting for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate. Which should I vote for? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of Obama's influence on Japan's remilitarization which is increasing their ultranationalism; I think Obama is playing with a fire he can't control but that is a different debate. Clinton and Obama are essentially using these countries as proxies so the US's forces aren't spread out; you can see this strategy with Japan since they have become an important part of Obama's Pivot to Asia which is the brainchild of Clinton. I don't think neocons are too perturbed by coalitions since none of them ragged on Bush for his coalition building to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and when he failed to form a coalition for Iraq they shamed those countries. Regardless, their endorsement of her policies should be concerning and they tell the reader what to expect when she totes herself as a hawk. These neocons see Trump as a dangerous policy maker who threatens to overturn the legacy they have built while they see Clinton as an imperfect ally who will stay the course.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 05:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of Obama's influence on Japan's remilitarization which is increasing their ultranationalism; I think Obama is playing with a fire he can't control but that is a different debate.- Owlman

Interesting. What would you prefer to Japan's rearmament? Should the US continue being their military, or do you have another option in mind? Just curious.

Clinton and Obama are essentially using these countries as proxies so the US's forces aren't spread out- Owlman

Yes. The Cold War is long over. We can no longer afford to have our forces spread out providing a military to modern nations. Time for them to shift for themselves. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

FCP, you are being far too reasonable. Everyone knows Hillary just wants to murder brown people. By the way, PB, you're lying once more - no, wanting a no-fly zone, whether you agree with it or not, is not the same thing as stating that "we shoould shoot down Russian and Syrian airplanes bombing ISIS". It's about as fucking stupid as saying that disarming a country's army and killing them all is the same thing. The aim might be sensibly the same, but the means are drastically different. The rest of your gripes are blatantly warped. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cast I have no problem with a rollback of our forces from most of the world; I would also like to end most military aid to various countries. I think pushing for a more hawkish Japan is incredibly dangerous since they will not only challenge China but also South Korea. Japan has had various disputes with South Korea when it comes to their use of comfort women in WW2 to territorial disputes from Korea's colonial days; the same disputes are seen with China when it comes to territory and Japan's atrocieties in China. I don't see any reason for us to be alienating China when they can assist us against terrorism; this alienation risks pushing them towards an uneasy alliance with Russia.

@NFH PB may be misrepresenting a no-fly zone but it would certainly be used to protect rebel forces we are assisting. The question is what do we do when Russia or Syria violate that no-fly zone? Do we bomb their ground forces, destroy their aircraft, or let them get away with their actions? The first two oppositions will help ISIL while the last makes the no-fly zone useless.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 04:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not a strategy expert of any sort, besides it ain't as if Hillary is advocating /only/ for a no-fly zone. Iraqi NFZs existed for more than a decade and yet only a handful of planes were shot down during that time. I don't see any reason to believe Russia or Syria would egregiously violate it... As for Obama: He's not in any way responsible for Japan's "hawkishness". It's not something he has the slightest bit of control over, and if Japan can get its military independence, the sooner the better. You're blaming him for stuff outside his control, you're gonna alienate /someone/ by doing anything, that's how it works in foreign poliy. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that Obama isn't in anyway responsible for Japan's hawkishness. Obama played a role in PM Hatoyama's resignation after he promised to oppose the US's attempts to relocate and expand its military base on Okinawa. Hatoyama certainly had his issues, though, since he suffered from money scandals but Obama's threat of alienation forced him to renege on his promise and secure a military deal with the US. Obama has also been arming Shinzo Abe, the current right wing PM. Abe's leadership has eroded civil liberties, increased racism against Koreans, and allowed a more aggressive military strategy. Obama may not be responsible for Japan's increasing xenophobia but he has legitimized by establishing closer military ties to Japan just like he has helped legitimize Netanyahu's policies. Of course, you are going to alienate countries but to what advantage does that alienation provide?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about "threats of alienation" in this article. Even if Obama had a role in his resignation, it is extremely minor compared to the fact that Hatoyama largely brought it upon himself - It's not Obama's fault that Hatoyama made gigantic promises he couldn't keep. I didn't pretend that alienation provides any advantages: but this is the real world, countries have different and sometimes opposing interests, you are fatally going to displease someone no matter what you do - it's diplomacy's role to smooth things over, but no one is perfect. Japan has been a longstanding ally of the United States in this area, both politically and economically, if shows of goodwill in their direction are going to piss the Chinese off, so be it. Establishing closer military ties to a country has noting to do with legitimazing their internal policies, that's only in the heads of dishonest wingnuts. It's a balance effort, but I'm sure Bernie would have conquered all with his Bernie magic and turned international relations into a Carebears episode. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Bernie was a hawk so no he wouldn't have cut the US's overseas bases. How are you not legitimizing a regime by creating a military pact? If the US made a defensive pact with North Korea then the US would be clearly stating that they were unconcerned by NK's human rights abuses. When the US sells weapons to Saudi Arabia they have to expect that those weapons will be used by the Saudis suppress their people or that those weapons will be given to Islamist militias. We are contributing to their internal problem when we allow our allies to commit human rights abuses.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The US hasn't made a defensive pact with NK - you're taking the most absurd example possible. Japan is still a democratic country respecting civil liberties and with a high quality of life: if you're gonna refuse to interract with another country just because of some xenophobic jolts that litterally happen in every country once in a while, you're not gonna have much success in your international policy. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously Japan is still a democratic country and the US would never ally itself with NK but my point is that you do legitimize domestic policy through foreign policy. I am not saying the US ought to renounce our relations with Japan, only that the US should be careful encouraging Japan's militarization. There is no need to isolate China or force them to become defensive.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 08:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Nerd" reverting me over POV pushing on Israel

It seems that this is a tht eheart of the conflict. "Nerd" has even blocked me for almost four days before a saner voice prevailed. Please let us have rational debate here instaed of edit war!^{— Unsigned, by: ‎62.212.73.246 / talk / contribs}

Nerd (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think this is inclined to make people take your point of view?^{— Unsigned, by: ‎62.212.73.246 / talk / contribs}

Do you think incessant whining and harassing will? Nerd (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay AIPAC is a lobbying group that pushes the US to have a more favorable foreign policy towards Israel. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out The Forward is a Jewish-American newspaper. Clinton is a relevant feminist icon who ignores the struggle Palestinians face so it is relevant to have a Palestinian feminist's criticisms.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If AIPAC is so EVULLLLL, why don't we have an article on it? After all, exposing the Jewish conspiracy seems to be what this page has become about.^{— Unsigned, by: ‎62.212.73.246 / talk / contribs}

I never said AIPAC is "EVULLLLL", I said that they were lobbying for a more favorable policy towards Israel. What part of that section shows a "Jewish conspiracy"? To respond to your comment below I have already given a defense to that opinion piece by that Palestinian feminist. Also, On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard of "lobbying" as a positive term. Also this Layali something woman is too irrelevant to have a wikipedia article. Why should we cite her character assassination of Hillary Clinton? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cite the character assassination and then your claims will be taken seriously.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So if some idiot with a blog criticizes the stance of Bernie Sanders on Western Sahara we have to give them the light of day for two paragraphs? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If that "idiot" happens to make a valid criticism that happens to resonate, I don't see why not. Nerd (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Both the "valid" and the "resonate" could be independently verified, right? eight thousand google hits seem to tell me the opposite... 62.212.73.246 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"Valid" means evidence-based; "resonate" means having a strong effect. In this context, the latter means the criticism cannot be easily dismissed. The number of Google hits is irrelevant. It is perfectly acceptable to find uncommon sources, provided those are accessible to other viewers and editors and prove to pertinent to the article. Nerd (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I kinda like that when he was told to cite the character assassination, instead of doing that, this guy has instead chosen to dodge the question... almost as if he has no actual argument at all. Nergali (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have been locked out of the debate

So after he could not make the block stick, I am now excluded from editing the page.. Please add a wikipedia link for "The Forward" so people can see for themselves what kind of publication it is without a need to ominously mention its Jewishness but nothing else. Furthermore the relevance of the opinion piece of that one woman has yet to be established.^{— Unsigned, by: ‎62.212.73.246 / talk / contribs}

Can you people stop it with the page protection already?

It's just to ensure your echo chamber does not have to deal with outside sanity, isn't it? 62.212.73.246 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Contradictions

That's probably the least critical article on the whole internet about Clinton (especially compared to Bernie Sanders'), just as one would expect. Though not even you can pave over the glaring inconsistencies of her statements. Some material to incorporate:

1. She claimed she "did not email any classified material to anyone [...] there is no classified material" (march 10). When the investigation was in full swing she added a bit of smokescreen "I'm confident that I never sent, nor received information that was classified at the time" (July 25). It turns out some were and are still classified. Someone put together material (from MSBNC material etc). Video 1.
2. Here's a another comical cut that juxtaposes her statements with those from the FBI. "110 emails, in 52 email chains had been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information" (Director FBI James Comey). Video 2.
3. And here's a bit older one, containing more Clinton juxtapositions exposing her duplicity, also on the email thing but more (compare that to the recent situation and you can see how she changes her story, piece by piece as needed). And we are expected to believe that she did this merely out of convenience? Neither the republicans did this out of convenience, nor does Clinton. They are from the same mindset and this mail thing is more akin to Capone's tax fraud. Video 3.
4. And here's a Edward Snowden tweet (you add tweets of MadMurd3rSkull337 when it suits you, so why not his).

And perhaps, you should try to get away from the massive spin you apply to topics. I know some are against this, too, but it's one thing to have a healthy bias that is within reason, and a full scale reality twisting operation going on. ~ Aneris ✻ 13:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you capable of not lying when it comes to Hillary Clinton? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You clearly don't even know what a lie is. The new information is: according to some manual the “classified” has to be in header, and not merely in the body text. I didn't know this, and it doesn't change anything in the substance (especially not regarding the reality bending nature of the RW). Clinton still evaded scrutiny, but the handling of classified material moved from clearly intentional to maybe clueless (we don't how apparent the classified status was, since we don't know know the mails — if they contain obviously confidential material, a reasonable person can still know its classified, without a “by the manual header”. ~ Aneris ✻ 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the local Shillary zealots actually believe that this page is "biased against Clinton" and the Sanders page is controlled by "BernieBros," despite literally every other non-campaign affiliated site out there having a harsher view of Clinton and a nicer view of Bernie. Of course, the zealots never let reality get in their way. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

They know well what they do. The methodical card stacking on controversial topics is deliberate and organized, and the connections are not a secret (you must have noticed this by now). For example, on every given subject, no matter how random, if the atheist-skeptics SJ Corner has an opinion on it, it will absolutely line up the exact same way on the RationalWiki. It so happens that PZ Myers is also a big Clinton fan, going as far as believing that the thing was "a ‘controversy’ ginned up by right-wing liars" (source). The interesting thing with these people is that they have no "reasonable cushion". Things are either 100% this way, or 100% the other way. There are no nuances, grey areas or disagreements. If you say something they don't like and they found a supporting fact, you are 100% a "liar". Most of the time, they are not even wrong, which they ride out with the familiar edit war narrative control tactics. Especially with people, there simply cannot be a halfway critical thing on their heroes and heroines. They are absolute saints (as a matter fact, they then project their unhealthy attitude onto others when they claim that e.g. Richard Dawkins had the same status among his fans, which is patently untrue). ~ Aneris ✻ 21:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins had some rather extreme and fundamentalist fans, IMO. One of the silliest long running edit wars on Wikipedia was a drive to make sure that Richard Dawkins must not mention his appearance on the South Park cartoon, which was stupid the way it usually was, but was easily verified and was probably the first exposure many people had to his name. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You can always find nuts. Though what is rare on one end, is commonplace on the other, here is some evidence. ~ Aneris ✻ 18:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny. By doing this, you're calling yourself a nut too. Typhoon (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I have rejected this implication, and specifically since only a few people determine what goes into articles. This is done in a strongly card stacking manner, typically handwaved away as liberal bias (which is simply untrue). ~ Aneris ✻ 20:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see how it is

Now that Saint Bernard gives praise to clinton, THEN the obviously bias opening quote is taken out, not, like, any other point people tried to edit it out. For fucks sake. Sandflapjack (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary vs. Bill

Bill was, and is, more conservative than Hillary. To state otherwise is blatant historical revisionism. Nate Silver:

Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

Sometimes I wonder whether people are confusing Clinton with her husband. Bill Clinton’s statements have been far more moderate. He has also had a more moderate donor base, according to Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores.

If you guys keep adding shit like "Goldwater Girl", you might as well say that the KKK supported the Democratic party, therefore liberals are the real racists. Typhoon (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Those sites are fundamentally flawed because they rate her among other Democrats who aren't particularly progressive. You ought to judge Clinton on her positions like her support for the death penalty, her previous refusal to endorse gay marriage, her push for censoring violence in games, her push to ban flag burning, and her hawkishness which are not progressive positions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC) 20:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you ought to judge Hillary on her entire record and stated positions, not something she's changed her mind about or fairly minor stuff from ten years ago and that no one has asked her about since. Even then she's quite liberal with some more moderate positions, which, y'know, a lot of Democrats are alright with. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and when you judge her entire record you find that she is not a leftist and Bernie's endorsement doesn't make her one.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 18:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

None of what you just said is factual. People like Nate Silver have gone through her record and have concluded with confidence that she is a leftist. You, Owlman, think that just because she isn't a 100% leftist means she can't be a leftist at all. Her positions make her a left-winger. Typhoon (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, I'm actually curious on this on. Considering her current and previous votes, how is she NOT on the left? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Everyone even slightly to the right of Bernie is not a true left-winger. That's his problem. It's the classical fallacious purity test that ideological extremists use to weed out no-true-scotsmen.Typhoon (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary would at best be a centrist within most European center-left parties. And if you look at all the Podemos and Syriza and other left wing rebellions there you'd know that this does not mean much. She might be to the left of many elected officials in the US, but that's only because you cannot get elected office in the US without spending insane amounts of money. And they have to come from somewhere. Now she is a highly skilled and qualified politician and to the left of her husband, but she is not an "über-leftist" as some seem to try to portray her as. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My longer response to this is basically that it's wonderful that she's centrist in Europe, but we're talking about the USA here, which has a different definition than Europe of what is right and left. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said that she's an "über-leftist". In fact, I even wrote that she's to the right of Bernie. My whole point is that she's a leftist and a liberal, and anyone saying otherwise is completely wrong. Typhoon (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is a liberal but not a leftist. Again, comparing her voting record to other Democrats voting records is faulty because Democrats are mostly Rockfeller Republicans these days. I am judging Clinton based on her beliefs and very few of her beliefs are leftist. Clinton is a neocon on foreign policy, she believes in workfare, she supports mass surveillance, she supported Obama's mass deportation, she supported censorship, etc, these are not leftist positions. Elizabeth Warren is to the right of Sanders on Israel but I still consider her to be a leftist. Regardless, my issue with that secction is that it doesn't rovide any info about her supposed leftism; where are the bills she fought for that would have been leftist?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 01:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

stares You do understand that everyone who is liberal is considered to be Left in the USA, according to USA politics, right?

I mean, I understand that you don't agree with anything to the right of progressive liberal politics, but you're completely wrong about those viewpoints not being leftist. Mass surveillance, mass deportation, censorship - these are all characteristics of many Communist regimes, all of which are far more left than you are. So how does that fit into your definitions? Do you deny Communists are leftist? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well as I hate the political spectrum I would say yes. I think anti-authoritarianism is an important part of "progressivism" in my definition. Liberal also means different things in the US since a significant amount of Americans believe that socialism and communism are the same thing and that they are extreme forms of liberalism; neoliberalism, the form of liberalism Clinton subscribes to, is opposed to social liberalism, which I consider to be progressive. Nonetheless, if you look at the "Leftist bona fide" section for Sanders you find that it mentions multiple positions he has held.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 04:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, Owlman, (and I mean this with all due seriousness) progressivism is a small minority of liberal America. It's a faction, nothing more. Neoliberalism IS a leftist policy. Anyone on the right will tell you that. Progressivism is not the end-all, be-all of leftism or liberalism. Being progressive is not part of the criteria for being leftist. And so to use it as criteria is incorrect; you're essentially demanding that anyone who wants cred as a leftist has to adhere to this tiny faction to be the one true way. That makes it no different than Tea Partyism.

Much as you dislike or hate it, it's better to go with political science's definition of "left" than your own personal idiosyncratic definition. And by the official definition, Clinton is a leftist, and her stances and votes, in accordance with On The Issues, are primarily left. So on the basis of that, I'd have to say Typhoon's edits are correct and your reversions are symptom of an extremely biased minority viewpoint. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ There are several 'liberalisms' and 'leftisms'. HRC's liberalism often uses the standard neoliberal ploy of using identity politics as a distraction from material inequality. “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, and I will if they deserve it…would that end racism?” [5] No, because the two are separate problems, and one is more properly the work of government than the other. Hillary's version of 'liberalism' is comfy with income inequality and the neoliberal Social Darwinism of 'adapt or die'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The left is a spectrum. Liberalism is a section on the spectrum. Now either Hillary is a leftist or a rightist; which is it? Which side does she - and the majority of American Democrats - belong on? --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I'll go with what Nate Silver and many more people in the media and politics say, and keep her record in the article. Owlman and his censorship can go to hell. Typhoon (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now added DW-NOMINATE to the section. After every time that Owlman goes on a tantrum and deletes the entire section, I will add more sources to it. Typhoon (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Y'know it really isn't that hard to provide speeches or letters she has supported while a senator but I have changed the title since all you can do is provide a comparison of her voting record with other senators.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, except the sources I provided also lists her political statements, not just her voting record. Are you even reading the section? Typhoon (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Her voting record

Citing her voting record is largely useless info; citing anyone's voting record is largely useless info. As a senator, she tended to vote with Democrats which should be absolutely unsurprising in an age of extreme partisanship. I don't think any mainstream American believes she isn't a liberal, at least on social issues. She isn't a Blue Dog, she is a New Democrat and New Democrats are neoliberals who are concerned about racism and sexism but most of her page already points out her opposition to racism and sexism in other sections.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC) 00:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Does the word "leftist" trigger you when used to describe Hillary? None of what you just said makes any sense because her voting record is to the left of her democratic colleagues in the senate. You're not bothering to read my sources at all. Again for you, I'm not citing just her voting record, but also her public statements and positions. Typhoon(talk) 06:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah and Democrats were very conservative when she was elected. You are only citing her voting record because you aren't giving any details on her speeches or positions while as a senator.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 01:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for once again confirming that you haven't actually read anything in the section. I've repeated myself multiple times and yet you still ignore the ontheissues.org source that lists her statements, speeches and positions. The extent of your 'Hillary derangement syndrome' is boundless. Typhoon (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that you need to flesh out the section. What did she actually say, what were her actual positions? You cite ontheissues as rating her as a "hardcore liberal" but you don't give any actual info on why they do that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

As well as Typhoon's arguments, I disagree entirely. How you vote is your politics; it's the practical effect. In fact, how you vote is the only meaningful guidepost as to what you truly believe. Actions speak louder than words. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you tired of trying to find reasons to call Hillary Clinton a big fat mean conservative, Owlman? Knock it the fuck off, sources have been given, you're repeating the same stupid argument over and over again. Mona's gone, you don't need to try and match her when it comes to attrition tactics and bad faith. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The section is needless. If you look at the above paragraphs you find that it describes her votes against the Bush tax cuts, Bush's SCOTUS nominations, and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It also tells us that she voted for the bankruptcy bill, immigration reform, the PATRIOT ACT, and both of Bush's wars. It even tells us what bills she had written herself so the section Typhoon keeps putting has no use.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Owlman is now removing Bernie's quote because he can't stand seeing a socialist explaining how Hillary has leftist beliefs. Hilarious. Typhoon (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have already explained that the quote isn't related to her Senate record.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, everything mentioned in the quote was policies she fought for as a Senator. Typhoon (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware that she fought for a $15 dollar minimum wage as a senator.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the quote doesn't mention "$15 dollars" anywhere, this is another example of you failing to read what you're erasing. Typhoon (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you think he means by a "living wage".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times and consistently voted to support it. Over the course of her time in the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton cosponsored bills to raise the federal minimum wage in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007. This makes Sander's quote relevant to her senate record. Stop attempting to spin it. Typhoon (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, it is almost as if you should've added those details to the that section. Also, unless she is trying to increase it tho $15 then no it isn't the "living wage" Sanders is talking about.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep spinning it. The quote never mentioned any numbers, and It's hard for me to add anything when you're constantly deleting everything in your tantrum. Typhoon (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Right because you totally meant to add details about her support for the minimum wage before this edit war. Again, ytou can ignore the context all you want but that is what Sanders is talking about. He is endorsing her presidency not her senate race.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, that Daily Kos link you cited has this great quote "Comparing votes is hardly a perfect way to measure ideology". I wonder if I was arguing that point earlier.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Comparing votes is hardly a perfect way to measure ideology, but it is by far the best method available to bring a measure of quantitative rigor to this inherently subjective topic, and political scientists and statisticians have long relied on DW-NOMINATE for insights about politics and voting behavior. (Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight.com make extensive use of it to power their own results, for example.)" - Bolded are the parts you intentionally ignored. How dishonest of you. Typhoon (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not selectively citing that quote in order to advocate for the removal of that section but to advocate for it to mention actual policies instead of solely relying on these sites that measure voting behaviors.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have mentioned multiple times on this talkpage that the ontheissues link in the section already contains ALL the statements and policies from her. When will you finally read it? Typhoon (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

(facepalm) The reason you should mention legislation she supported is so the average reader doesn't have to read a site for all that info. All you need to do istalk about the notable positions she held as a senator and then the reader can look at the source for more info.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We might as well delete this page and link Wikipedia's article on Hillary, if you want to mention (and edit war over) every single thing she said. Linking "ontheissues" is fine, and most of our readers aren't lazy Hillary haters like you. I saw you deleting your comment that the "crooksandliars" website didn't mention what I cited. You're terrible at reading. Typhoon (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it because crooksandliars doesn't mention her support besides a single sentence telling us to remember her support for that policy but it doesn't link to her actually doing that. Since you are too lazy to look into her policies as a senator I will rewrite that section myself. Also, it is hilarious that you now expect our readers to read links when you have deleted sections on neocon support for Clinton and have whined about a snarky graphic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 23:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is bad editing to copy and paste material from a source like you did with the crooksandliars link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 09:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's literally one sentence. Typhoon (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah you copyed and pasted most of of the Daily Kos article too.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 23:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Goldwater Girl" image

Fucking desperate of Aneris to dig up this lame shit on her. Why not cover the article on the Democratic party with images comparing it to the KKK? It's just as outdated and idiotic as this attempt. Does Aneris constantly call Robert Byrd a KKK member too? Typhoon (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And once again, Owlman and Aneris prefer to edit war instead of talking it out in here. Typhoon (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What edit war? I added the image once. And then many edits later (without my involvement) found it gone without reason, and edited it back in, once. You, on the other hand, are all over the fossil record. However, this is just another instance of your attitude of viewing what is true as merely optional. ~ Aneris ✻ 15:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The image can go but it seems mostly snarky.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

One thing is being snarky, another is peddling false smears. Typhoon (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It is literally a play on her and Goldwater's arrow under a section on her early career. I don't see how that is a smear.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's an attempt to paint her as continuing Goldwater politics, even though she completely abandoned the Republican party almost 50 years ago. Typhoon (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You can still remove the image but it's not like Clinton has stopped supporting workfare.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're so fine with removing it then why are you still reinserting it? And Goldwater is more than just workfare. Typhoon (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It comes with the rollback, the same result if I undid the edit. Goldwater may be more than just workfare but it doesn't deviate from the idea of "rugged individualism".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So you admit that you're reinserting it just because you're too lazy? Typhoon (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Good job at reading. You do realise you are also reverting grammar fixes, right? I mean you wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What grammar mistake? "supposed progressive" is fine. Typhoon (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I won't rag on you for that since they are minor but they are just hyphens and removal of misused commas.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, workfare is not only a Republican ideal. There are many liberal supporters for workfare. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I do realise workfare isn't a Republican ideal but it is a rugged individual ideal.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we not just keep it in the article, at least until consensus is given for its removal? I get why some users may deem the image a bit unfair but it does appear to be mostly snark, and somewhat satirical/parodical. (Disclaimer: I do not think Hillary Clinton, as she currently stands, is in any way comparable to Barry Goldwater). – AOAPJM ^(talk) 15:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Snark" isn't an excuse for adding blatant falsehoods, and this image was inserted by a Slymepitter with the exact intention to imply connection between her current campaign and Goldwaters'. Typhoon (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Both are/were American campaigns for President. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But the article fully addresses the issue, and makes it clear that Clinton's "Goldwater girl" image is in the past. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 16:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So now instead of Mona's "Reds Zionists under the bed" you got "Slymepiters under the bed"?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 17:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 17:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not just Goldwater she has lied about - she and this article would have us believe (a) she campaigned for the anti-war candidate Gene McCarthy in the Spring of 1968 and (b) she quit the GOP by convention time that Summer. Wheras THE FACTS are she was working for Richard Nixon's first Defense Secretary Melvin Laird at the time. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you deny Aneris is a Slymepitter? To say he is one is a factual statement. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@RobSmith So is this Snopes article wrong? Because that's where those comments are sourced to, and that is what the article says... – AOAPJM ^(talk) 22:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Snopes is following the Clinton line reiterated here in 2007 and even somewhat walked back here in 2015 that says she only "questioned" Laird. Laird link above says Mel Laird was the architect of Vietnamization (the Nixon Doctrine); Laird personally accredits Hillary in that link as assisting his criticism of Johnson (and the Democrats) war policy. If Hillary opposed the war in the Spring of 1968, it was not as a McCarthy supporter, it was more in line with Nixon and Laird's approach (later Henry Kissinger too). The New York Times piece says she was sent into Laird's office to pose as an as an infiltr a tor, something liberals and progressives see clearly now, that Hillary's views and rhetoric don't always match up with her actions and ideology. nobs^{Bern baby bern} 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious how Typhoon praises "snark" on the Bernie article but any on the Hillary article is "blatant falsehood." Of course, it's clear that Typhoon views anything negative about Hillary as a "blatant falsehood." Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I love it. The Ryulong is strong in this one. And of course, if it doesn't exactly agree with their opinion.... it's.... come on Castaigne... ~ Aneris ✻ 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a lie. Stop lying. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That was the word I was looking for, a mean, blatant, outrageous, vile lie. ~ Aneris ✻ 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I like how they're completely incapable of self-reflection. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Arrow Turning right?

It's bizarre to lob this accusation on Hillary when even her critics are now admitting that her campaign is going more and more to the left. Typhoon (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also highly dishonest to continue to use pro-Bernie hack writers on Salon as source, while attacking raw data from Nate and DW-NOMINATE. Typhoon (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What data was attacked? And, again, that picture is in her early years section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 08:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Some Bernout medium link was added that removed blue dogs and moderate democrats to make it seem like Hillary isn't as liberal. Typhoon (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Then remove the link but don't delete the whole section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 09:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove the link, as compromise. Typhoon (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

ontheissues.org

What is the consensus on completely removing this massive source on Hillary's political positions, and replacing it with a cherry-picked collection of info from Wikipedia? I'm asking because apparently Owlman believes there is consensus on this. This is news to me and I challenge anyone to defend this blatant bias. Typhoon (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The section was removed because all you did was copy and paste from crooksandliars and the Daily Kos. Nate Silver includes the ontheissues and other aggregate sites on his link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Vox Copypasta

It's quite topical, though.

A simple scorecard, assembled by a non-partisan nuclear nonproliferation group called Global Zero compared Clinton's "Republican War Hawkishness" to three remaining, at that time, Republican candidates for president. On every issue that Global Zero measured, Clinton is indicated as far less hawkish than all three of the Republican candidates, and as basically tied with Bernie Sanders. She supports the Iran nuclear deal; the Republicans all oppose it. She supports using diplomacy to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis; John Kasich is the only Republican to do so. She supports negotiating with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; no Republican candidate does.

Clinton's policies and past record suggest that her vision of power includes military force as well as diplomacy, so that while she is more likely to act in foreign affairs, she is also more likely to do so peacefully.

Clinton, as first lady, supported her husband's 1990s military interventions in Yugoslavia. She voted in 2002 in support of the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she supported the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and a 2012 proposal to arm Syria's rebels.

However, as secretary of state, she supported and led the "reset" with Russia — a diplomatic effort that is still derided by Republicans as weak. She met Chinese aggression in the South China Sea by organizing regional diplomatic organizations to counterbalance China. In 2009, she met with Mutassim Qaddafi, the highest-level meeting between Libyan and American officials in years, as part of an outreach to the country. In 2012, she quietly opened talks with Iran, which would culminate in the nuclear deal.

These diplomatic efforts are worth considering as counterweights to the narrative of Clinton as a down-the-line hawk. In dealing with hostile or adversarial regimes, she has tended to prefer conciliation and compromise over confrontation.

Any way to rewrite? Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 23:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Really not sure at the moment, although I do think that this is important to note in the article (Side note: the actual Vox article is here; this might be necessary as many of the citations given for this section were just aggregates from the original article – not referenced in the article text – and don't actually support the statements given, in and of themselves.) – AOAPJM ^(talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say cut it down and add it to her foreign policy section. Add her support for intervention in Yugoslavia under her first lady section. Anything that relates to her time as secretary of state should go into that section. Furthermore, that Sanders quote is way to big and should be removed; the is no reason for it since Obama and Warren have all made similar statements that relate more to her candidacy rather than some personal admiration. The DW-Nominate is already mentioned in the 538 link that is cited under her senate section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 00:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also completely with you on the Sanders quote. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 01:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

List of organizations supporting Kaine

Do we really need the quotes supporting Kaine for Clinton's running mate, especially in an article this big? – AOAPJM ^(talk) 16:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. This article is about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps we should just list one of them as an example. Nerd (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nerd Which org would you say would be the best example? I personally would have just listed the organizations, but removed the quoteboxes. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 16:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest the American Federation of Teachers. They mention many of the big issues facing the US today. "While the GOP ticket masks irrational ideas behind a morally bankrupt message of fear, bigotry and hatred, a Clinton-Kaine ticket will be focused on helping people see higher wages, lower student debt, good jobs, successful public schools, and safety and security here and abroad." Nerd (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't mention any organizations at all. It was determined that even policy experts support shouldn't be mentioned when we deleted the neocons who support Clinton's foreign policy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 23:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree; I wasn't involved in any of the previous talk on policy experts, but I think that the American Federation of Teachers' quote should stay. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 23:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Why? Quotes mean nothing compared to the issues someone supports.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 23:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

For illustrative purposes? Nerd (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

But what does it illustrate? The Barney Frank quote about Sanders being so idealistic that he creates an enemy if you are against him illustrates a flaw, the quotes from her book illustrate her views on issues like sex.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 00:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sander's comments

I am going to remove that whole section. The quote is far too big and it makes no sense to be quoting Sanders as if he is some litmus test.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 23:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, although I do think that the section as it stands now is overly-negative to Hillary and doesn't include Sanders' positive comments. But the massive quote was waay over the top. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 23:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! We should only include a summary of Sanders' endorsement speech at most. Nerd (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how Sanders comments are somehow more important than Warren's or Obama's. Regardless, no of their comments turn her into a liberal progressive, the issues she supports do.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point, and that's why I wrote "at most". Nerd (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've added a summary of Clinton and Sanders' comments towards one another. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Sanders did relatively well by out-lefting Clinton; his support shows that she's truly a leftie, not just Trump with a vagina. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I certainly never said she was "Trump with a vagina" and she is clearly not a blue dog but quotes don't really do anything. If you have to add a quote then it needs to relate to the topic at hand and be summarized. I find it odd that you are arguing for these quotes since you were against mentioning neocons who supported her foreign policy; what difference is there between mentioning neocons who support her foreign policy and Sanders supporting her prez campaign?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, part of his endorsement is already mentioned on the 2016 prez candidacy so why do we need to mention it again?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 00:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The major difference is that Sanders was her primary challenger. I'm not arguing for the whole quote or a long quote -- but perhaps 3 sentences from Sanders on her leftism in a cquote would do. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that but, as I said before, his endorsement is already mentioned. You could move it but it feels odd to use Sanders's record as a litmus test for how progressive one is.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC) 00:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders endorsement is the kind of pixie dust Clinton needs to get more voters, especially to win over more from the Bernie or Bust corner. In general, it's dubious to cite advertisement uncritically and a testimonial is advertisement. ~ Aneris ✻ 06:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Menstrual blood

Is this strawman really necessary? Plutoniumboss (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is menstrual blood even mentioned in the current text? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"bleed over the freshly painted White House". Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't oppose it - I think it could stay. I believe Typhoon was the one who added it originally, IIRC. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Id hate to break your little anti-typhoon circlejerk, but i wrote it. Its a joke about how some crazies legit think that she will be crazier sometimes because women pms or something. Sandflapjack (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I just said I didn't oppose it, so what I said certainly wasn't anti-Typhoon. I was trying to give credit to whoever wrote it, and if it was Typhoon, the credit would've been hers. So relax, buster. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You really put your foot in it now, RPB. You shouldn't be so quick to coddle your little editors. At least have the wherewithal to read the page history. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you come with a translator or something? Because I am getting something like every five sentences you say to me these days. I literally don't know what you are on about right now (not much, I suspect). Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"I don't oppose it." You can set your watch by it.

Maybe you should try being a little objective instead of showing your friends a good time. This isn't a jungle gym, it's a wiki. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"Setting my watch?" "Jungle gyms?" You're not making any sense. And besides the fact that we have an overt bias at this site (and that we also specifically condone humor, such as the precise snark contested by you here) - who would even stoop to describing their own outlook as "a little objective"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's try a different track: It ain't funny. Plutoniumboss (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Who knew humor was objective Sandflapjack (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly not serious, and clearly snark-parodying those who are against Clinton because she is a woman. Not sure whether this will be adding fuel to the fire, but RW also isn't seriously calling Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary" or "Killary Klinton". If you want objectivity and humorlessness, go to Wikipedia (although that's debatable anyway...) – AOAPJM ^(talk) 12:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You state this like it's a matter of protocol. In reality, it comes down to the sysop. I've lost count of how many times Gerard blanked me for adding a joke or an opinion he disagreed with. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

But it is a matter of protocol for anyone who has read the introductory material to the site. Further, despite what you say, Gerard has given fairly plain reasons for reverting you in the past. Like the one he gave you here: "Your editing is bad enough and people have to revert it all the time". This is only him disagreeing with your sense of humor if your sense of humor is based on you making bad edits that people have to revert all the time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's unpack this paragraph:

Loathing Clinton is a favorite pastime for many Republicans and assorted wingnuts despite her policies appealing to them more than other Democratic candidates.

True, but the preceding paragraph said the same thing. Unless you're taking the Trumpian track of say everything twice.

Their often sexist remarks

Which remarks? The intent may be sexist but the terminology is not. Actually, most of the criticism on this very article is policy-based.

women can't be presidents because they'll bleed over the freshly painted White House

Colorful, but I'm not sure what this sentence serves, other than to smear anyone who dislikes Clinton as sexist. I say this as a Clinton supporter so don't even start with that.

Of course, since she's also detested by many left-of-center people

Change the record. You already said that!

she should be preferable to Republicans over most other Democrats.

Another grain of truth from Typhoon. She can be taught! Pity it isn't supported by the wild claims of sexism. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)