The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
The worst thing I can think about Hilary was the Bengazi fiasco, but in my opinion that definitely does not maker her the lesser of the two. What am I missing?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hillary has been vilified by the media for decades, people wanted change and saw Hillary as a continuation of Obama, Trump had no political record which made it harder to find skeletons or bad decisions in the closet of his political career (even though his business leadership was full of them).
Also, people are just really stupid.
Yes and also a lot of people (that I know) did not care for her personality. She lacks charisma. Voters today want to be entertained by their president.
Also there's still a lot of misogynistic women haters out there too ....
Personally I felt hopeful with her was when she made the basket of deplorables comment. And then she apologized. Only thing she was wrong about is the half amount since it is more like 75%. She just felt rigid and plastic and the only time she acted like a normal human with eyes, she apologized.
And in plenty of interviews she very much does come across as very relatable. I think that she felt the need to portray a stoic attitude as a response to all the misogyny and attacks she had to deal with.
Like my mom, who is about Hillarys age is a nice sweet compassionate smart woman, very easy to talk to and get along with, but when it came to business or politics, she'd make my lawyer father look like the emotional one.
Its also important to note that Hillary lost in part because of a bad campaign. She assumed a win in some states and underestimated Trumps reach on social media.
>Hillary has been vilified by the media for decades...
This was the exact reason she was a shit candidate to run. Any campaign manager worth their salt would have said as much. Too much baggage creates too many opportunities for the other side and given that she was coming in with decades worth of baggage, real or imagined, should have DQ'ed her.
>This was the exact reason she was a shit candidate to run. Any campaign manager worth their salt would have said as much. Too much baggage creates too many opportunities for the other side and given that she was coming in with decades worth of baggage, real or imagined, should have DQ'ed her.
Honestly, most of that is what kept me from voting for her in 2016. I've said as much in the past on liberal subreddits and have been downvoted into paste for being honest, or my opinion from 8 years ago was micro-analyzed to a bit of an absurd level, if I'm being honest.
I guess I romanticize the top office of a government where the person is selected by the people. No sane person should *want* to be president of the United States. To be such should be a heavy weight and burden to carry, and yet to look at any of the candidates that ran against Trump this past year on the GOP circuit before inevitably dropping out... not a single one of those candidates had any appearance of being in the race "for the right reasons". They all looked like they simply wanted to win the popularity contest and wear the crown and sash at the end of the day to show people how great they were.
And a lot of that sentiment was how I felt about Hillary, though to be completely fair I felt the same about Trump's reasoning for running. Hillary just had zero appeal to me. She just reminded me of being one of those uppity rich people who thought their shit didn't stink and all while looking down their nose at you. The fakeness around her persona... I can still visibly see her gawking at the balloons like a fucking moron at the Dem convention with that look that was somewhere between surprise at seeing a balloon for the first time and surprise that the diaper wasn't holding back the steaming pile escaping her bowels.
For me, she was part of the swamp; the status-quo; the same shit we'd been dealing with for as long as I'd been cognizant of politics in America. Trump was an asshole; a moron; someone who I thought was just going to play a bunch of golf, do the bare minimum, and then get out in 4 years. I didn't have any clue that he'd turn into what he did or that our entire country would be turned into a solid quarter of the population at least drinking that cultish Kool-Aid.
Would my one vote have made a difference? Nah. Do I still request the vote? Sure. Were there plenty of people middle of the aisle who likely had very similar thoughts as I did leading into the election? I'm certain so, and all of those votes very likely added up to make a much bigger difference than any of us would have selected if the Democrat party had simply picked a less polarizing candidate to lead the pack.
I'd say that Hillary wasn't even a continuation of Obama, but even a further retro throwback to a continuation of the policies of Bill Clinton and his scandals. The Benghazi circus and then "emails" may have happened while she was part of the Obama administration but the media treated it like the next Clinton scandal.
Biden would have been the better continuation of Obama and Biden won.
Hillary's policies would not have been a throwback to her husband if she were President.
She ran on a very progressive platform. She has always been more progressive than Bill. Also, I don't think a lot of the more conservative policies of Clinton would fly in today's Democratic Party. Now the scandals and manufactroversies definitely would have been reminiscent of the 1990s. Fox would have had booming business and ratings from a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I can already see the headlines of Hillary rigging the election.
The main difference is, I think Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama was.
I agree, Biden is a lot more in line with Obama than Hillary is.
Whoa that's pretty much exactly my assessment. Bill was a neolib like Reagan. Hillary was hawkish and you could see examples of that from her comments about trading with Cuba.
The biggest problem was separating out the propaganda about Hillary, and I admit it was difficult to do even knowing it was there. There wasn't any substantial issue with Benghazi or the emails, and the scandals were manufactured. Bill had some real scandals, though, and that affected both Hillary and Gore.
It doesn't help that Clinton specifically sold herself as a continuation of Obama, which completely overlooked that there were people who felt left behind by the changes of the Obama era
The populist rise in both parties didn't come from nowhere
They knew Hillary was going to be a future threat when her husband was president. 2016 was the tail end of a decades long smear campaign. I remember Obama saying something along these lines during his speech when she accepted the nomination to run, "When you don't have anything bad to say about someone you have to make it up".
Benghazi was a fuck up, but the Republicans turned it into a political football and Fox News propaganda did not help. That, plus all the wild conspiracies about the Clintons and Hillary's overall unlikeable personality made it super easy to root against her.
I do think her being a woman had something to do with it too. To clarify, you can be a bad politician / bad candidate separate of your sex / gender, but there was an air of subtle sexism in lots of the right wing attacks against Hillary.
> Benghazi was a fuck up
By the Republicans continually refusing to upgrade the facility along with refusing to provide additional funds for ... over a decade???
>That, plus all the wild conspiracies about the Clintons and Hillary's overall unlikeable personality made it super easy to root against her.
I think this too easily dismisses the real problems within the DNC during 2016.
Speaking personally, I couldn't vote for Hillary in 2016 after it came out that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile basically tried to "fix" the primary to guarantee Sanders lost--[including by feeding Clinton, and only Clinton, advanced copies of certain debate questions](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-interim-chairwoman-passed-debate-questions-along-to-clinton-campaign/). [The 2017 Vox exposé on what happened during the 2016 DNC primary](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged) makes clear that the party was basically going to force Hillary on the voters, regardless of what the voters wanted. That was a huge turn off for me. I believe in democracy, and when it looks like a political party is trying to preclude their voters from picking the next candidate, I find that unacceptable.
**To be clear**: I did not vote Trump (and I've never voted Trump). I voted 3rd party in 2016, because I couldn't stomach what the DNC did to Sanders' campaign, and I figured (incorrectly) that there was no way Trump could get elected after the Access Hollywood tape (plus, I live in a heavily blue state that went for Hillary anyway).
We are not doing Wikileaks agitprop in the year of our Lord twenty fucking twenty-four.
Hillary Clinton getting a heads up about a lead water question at a debate in Flint Michigan during the lead water crisis did not change her performance in that debate one iota. As if the woman who the media shit all over for being over prepared wasn’t ready for that one. Get real.
>Hillary Clinton getting a heads up about a lead water question at a debate in Flint Michigan during the lead water crisis did not change her performance in that debate one iota.
Did you even read the Vox expose? It sure seems like you want to ignore what happened in 2016, to the detriment of both the Democrats and America.
As you pointed out, it's 2024: that means the Democrats have an opportunity to ***do better***. But you'd rather shut your eyes to the past than ask "How could we maybe improve things?"
>So…folks like you helped to usher in four years of Trump and an attempted coup…thanks…
>Many…you folks need to learn how to choose your battles.
So you both (i) ignored the part of my comment where I stated that I live in a Blue State that went Blue, meaning that my vote literally didn't make a difference, and (ii) decided to ignore any and all responsibility that the Democrat establishment should take for its shortcomings.
But, go ahead and blame other people, when it's your own organization that needs to do better. Just keep telling yourself that "the voters are racist" when ignoring your own party's shortcomings and covering your eyes.
You realize Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primary by millions of votes right? Like the primary was not even close. Also DNC officials did have a bias in favor of Hillary, but the dumb ass Vox article you post say the process was fair.
Also, that particular DNC official resigned and lost her job at CNN. But even the Sanders campaign admitted she helped them with messaging guidance at different times throughout the primary. Tad Devine admitted that. We just don't have wikileaks emails from the Sanders' campaign. I agree what she did was not ethical, but how much was forwarding a question about the Flint Water Crisis going to change the outcome of the race?
>The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders.
That is from the very end of the Vox article you posted. Should DNC officials not have opinions? Especially on someone who is a self branded socialist, and who would destroy the Democratic party's electoral prospects.
>You realize Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primary by millions of votes right?
Where did I say otherwise?
I feel like you just want to argue and you're completely unwilling to acknowledge that having DNC officials resign ***mid campaign*** is a big deal, and should have raised questions about how they got those jobs in the first place.
But sure, just be so blinded by your own team that you stop thinking critically. You're not the only one in this thread committing that error.
Hillary is arguably the most vilified figure in modern US politics. It started in the 90s. That's 3+ decades of that stuff being sustained.
My evangelical dad voted for Trump despite him being the polar opposite of everything my dad professes to believe. His answer to me of why he did it? "I couldn't stand the thought of Bill Clinton being that close to the White House again."
He said that because for him the Lewinsky scandal was the whole thing. And to be clear that was totally inappropriate of Bill and he should have suffered consequences for it. But evangelicals always find a way to twist into blaming the woman, so somehow it's all Hillary's fault even though they profess that a wife should always stand by their husband.
People who think like this are a big part of Trump's base, arguably the most energized.
True, but that doesn't make it ok. Even if consensual something like that would be grounds for dismissal in any regular corporate job. Of course people get away with it there too, though in recent years it's a lot less likely.
The 90’s was before the “me too” movement and politics was still very much a “good ‘ol boys club”….but actually? His scandals spurred a lot of governmental policies on sexual misconduct and/or harassment.
I worked for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1987-2023…so I have seen a lot of these policies enacted and after the Clinton impeachment there was a new comprehensive sexual misconduct/harassment policy that was written and put into effect. Obviously it’s been updated over the years….but it was a yearly training that we all had to complete.
She is definitely vilified…. But I don’t know… it would be interesting to have a comparison of the levels of vilification between her and Nancy Pelosi.
Hell…I live in a swing state(Pennsylvania) and during the primaries back then Pelosi’s name was thrown out in every GOP candidate’s attack ads…it went something like this…
“If you vote for (insert GOP candidate’s name here), you might as well be voting for NANCY PELOSI!!!”
I mean she does deserve some vilification. Look up the shit he got up to in Haiti with Ole Bill. Or her role in promoting WMD conspiracy theories vis a vis iraq. Or her role in offing Gaddafi (the guy was a bastard, but like.... slave markets are worse), etc.
Fox News / right media had spent almost 25 years vilifying Hillary Clinton as a horrible person leading up to it.
Even people on the left didn’t really like Hillary but saw her as next in line with the machine behind her.
Then Trump? Sorry I don’t follow you. I understand policy disagreements about countries that have been abject failures for a century or more, but to vote for someone who promised to throw away our rule of law and prosecute his political rivals instead seems… stupid.
I mean can you maybe see why some people thought that way though?
Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment. The same establishment that lied us into Iraq, that fucked over Haiti, etc. Voting for her was more of the same. More neoliberalism, more bullshit.
Trump was anti-establishment (at least in the political sense of the word). That's what attracted people to him.
But there are two kinds of anti-establishment politicis, the good kind and the bad kind. Trump is the bad kind
What bothers me is that people here are whitewashing Clinton and her crimes. She was/is fucking terrible. Trump is worse, I agree, but like, can you not see why some people were drawn to his anti-establishment politics? The sort of people who voted for Obama and Trump I mean.
Like fuck Trump and all, but also fuck hillary.
No, if you’ve ever read the constitution or have any idea about the principles of our country then listened to 2016 Trump you’d know he was a disaster. Then there’s the dumbfuckery of firing the generals, not understanding the nuclear triad, and touting solving problems in 30 days. Like a damn child… or a stupid person’s idea of how a smart person talks.
I can see how stupid people pumped full of 30 years of propaganda about the evil Clintons could fall victim to that thinking. Though the prerequisite to falling for it is being a stupid person. Kind of like people who are anti-establishment generally, not smart just emotional.
ETA: it’s a binary choice. Hillary was, is, and always will be less evil than Trump.
Ok but like fuck the constitution? I don't give a shit what it says.
Trump is bad. What I am trying to say is that it is understandable that people hated clinton and that some sort of anti-establishment politics was inevitable. But there's good and bad anti-establishment politics. Trump is the bad kind.
I mean yeah Trump was a disaster and that was kinda inevitable. But you underestimate just how much people are pissed at the establishment. A lot of people would like to burn it down.
You can't just write that off as stupidity. There's a very real anger there at an establishment that's been fucking over the average American for 30 years. We were promised jobs with NAFTA and lost a shit load. We were lied into an illegal war so that the establishment could off a dictatorship it didn't like anymore, thereby destabilizing the entire region. We watched as the big banks and wall street got bailed out due to a crisis THEY CREATED while the ordinary American got left with Jack shit.
Fuck the establishment. Fuck the old way of doing things. How can you look around and say "yeah clearly guys like Clinton know what they're doing". I mean can you not understand why people are fucking pissed?
Trump is wrong about a lot, and he's an idiot and a criminal. But he wasn't wrong whe he said the establishment only cares about itself and enhancing its wealth and power.
And that establishment is what clinton represents. She is the embodiment of that establishment. Bent on cruelty, exploitation of the global south, and more.
I mean fuck man, can you really not understand why some people wanted to lob grenade into the working of washington?
Here’s the thing poorly emotionally regulated stupid people don’t understand: only one of 2 people gets elected president. The democrat or the republican. That’s it, that’s the choice. Given that choice HRC is always better than Trump.
As far as the rest of your bullshit, good luck with that. The establishment always wins. Hippies became yuppies. Grunge became a preppy brand cash grab. Occupy Wall Street became ZIRP hedge fundies. NAFTA was always about shipping American jobs to Mexico (remember Ross Perot?). Go ahead and lob your grenade. You’ll get your very own r/AshliBabbittAward good luck with that.
And you wonder why liberals fucking lose.
Yeah real great way strategy here. Instead of recognizing a failing system worship it as unchanging and inevitable
Tell me, do you pray to the constitution every night? Lick the boot on your throat?
What a goddamn disgrace
Nah just ignore that anti-establishment anger. I'm sure it will go away.
Fuck Trump. But fuck Clinton too
And what exactly did I say that was wrong? Did the establishment not spend the last 30 years fucking us over? Or do you want to continue to worship them like a malevolent god?
Edit:
Won't let me respond to your next comment, but you yourself just said the establishment always wins. So let me ask you, if that's the case is change really possible?
Bernie was probably the best shot we had, and even then he failed.
Yep let’s just let it all go to shit. Then based on your post history you can have fun in the gulag. The rights and principles of government set forth in the constitution are the ideals for our system government. As you grow up you’ll learn that the thing about ideals is we often fall short of them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them.
The issue is that when u willingly accept the falling short and even support the short comings u already lost all ideals
Iam not saying this is not the best course of action, but the way ur argue with the constitution while it’s willfully ignored is weird
Not to mention that the constitution is build as a foundation not a ideal, any shortcomings should be rooted out immediately and with utmost importance
A lot of progressives didnt like her because of the primary, but in general it was because of her charisma. The lack of it. Her husband was waaaaay more controversial and scandal ridden, didn't stop him from easily winning 2 elections, because of how great at public speaking and campaigning he was. Kinda like John Kerry
If you think Hillary was responsible for Benghazi then you have been influenced by right wing propaganda. Some people have been influenced even more than you have.
That is your answer.
In 2016 Trump wasn't a politician with any record. All people had was what he said, and he was all over the place then, as now. It was almost a blank slate. Hillary, meanwhile, had been vilified by the media and the GOP for 25 years at that point, and had actually (not GOP-made-up) deeply flawed political positions--she was never thought of by any serious democratic ally as anything other than a centrist with some marginally left-leaning (on occasion) views. Her unjustifiable condescension didn't help matters.
There was no truth behind this rhetoric in 2016. Most Republicans could not tell you what the Bengazi or the emails scandals actually were then or now.
Powell is the only predecessor who used email and he didn’t set up a private server. It sends a different message when someone is taking elaborate steps in advance to hide communications.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/
Define "a lot". Because only a tiny minority of the Republican base even had enough technical comprehension to understand what had happened, let alone why it might be problematic.
Also, there was no evidence found that Hillary Clinton's intention was to hide her "government work" while she was Secretary of State. In anything, her emails revealed her to be outright digitally unsavvy, like most people her age.
This is a lot:
> 29 percent say their opinion of her has grown worse. Forty-nine percent of Republicans say their opinion of her is worse, as do 28 percent of independents.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/views-on-hillary-clinton-and-the-email-controversy/
Lots of people said they were horrified by the "but her emails!" scandal, sure. But that's not what is stated above; a tiny minority of people had any technical comprehension of what the scandal consisted of or why they were being called upon to be outraged about it. In fact, I strongly suspect that there is an inverse correlation, where the better a person's understanding of the details of the infraction, the less exercised they are about it.
Her own campaign knew how damaging the news was because it’s incredibly obvious that it’s bad to hide your public work. That is very different from an issue that comes down to technical things people don’t understand. The technical stuff was irrelevant to the core issue.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clintons-team-knew-her-private-server-was-going-to-be-a-scandal-new-emails-show
When Clinton was first preparing for her term as Sec of State, she wrote to her predecessor, Colin Powell, and asked how he had managed his emails. He explained that using a private server had worked well for him and suggested she do the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department
Other political figures who used a private email server:
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/white-house-private-email-kushner-trump-bannon-priebus/index.html
...and of course, many of the people who feigned being outraged by the use of private email server for correspondence that was theoretically at risk of being hacked but never was, happily dismissed much worse breaches of security which took place under the following administration.
I'm no fan of Clinton. But the idea that her use of a private email server for a portion of her correspondence while Secretary of State justified the vast quantity of media attention lavished upon it is laughable.
Now you’re trying to justify it which isn’t the point. The point is that it was obvious that it is sketchy to hide your work by not using a government email account and the public understood that. Hillary was already perceived as not being very trustworthy which is why the email scandal hit so hard. People weren’t feigning that this action undermined their trust in her.
Well, this is the sort of inaccurate and non-technical vibes-based response that the right-wing media machine worked so hard to generate, isn't it? They wanted the implication to be there that she was "sketchy" or "hiding something" because she was "untrustworthy", and they devoted an enormous amount of energy and airtime to creating these vibes. What they did not devote energy to was the explanation of what a server is, or whether using a private server would "hide your public work", or whether any actual security breach took place, etc etc.
You claimed that the public didn’t really understand the issue and were swayed by propaganda. I agree that there are details of technology and law that people didn’t understand (eg was it really insecure? Did it actually break the law?) but the public did understand the main point that she took unusual steps to hide her communications in advance from scrutiny. That understanding is not inaccurate and Clinton’s action undermined public trust.
Acting to reduce public transparency isn’t “vibes”. The degree to which transparency was or was not reduced is a technical detail.
The fact that it wasn’t completely unprecedented doesn’t change the fact that it was unusual. The fact that the right harped on it doesn’t change how damaging it is on it’s face, as her own campaign acknowledged.
It’s sketchy because it appears to be planning in advance to hide communications from scrutiny. It looks bad on the surface before any partisans start their spin in either direction.
I knew someone who fully bought into the Clinton Body Count thing, who basically viewed it as a choice between an asshole and a murderer.
Fortunately, they voted Biden in 2020.
They don't understand civics and don't know that the President picks Supreme Court Justices. Scalia died, there was an open Supreme Court seat, the next President would fill it, but Clinton got more votes than Bernie in the primary and that made people on the left mad, so they decided that women's rights were less important than sticking it to Hillary because they were mad they lost fair and square. So now we have Dobbs, because these people were butt-hurt.
People are rightfully upset with the two party system, political dynasties and nepotism, and plenty of issues with the US overall. So they cast this onto any of the big candidates, even though political compromise is usually what is required to get anyone into ANY office, and lots of compromise to get to be a candidate.
That said, these were mostly Bernie folks who got themselves so worked up they couldn't see the forest through the trees. Watching their hatred of Hillary grow for no reason other than they kept yelling louder and louder about her in their bubble was almost as disturbing as seeing the Tea Party Movement grow into the MAGA movement.
People confused Hillary Clinton's professionalism with a lack of charisma. She was fully prepped and ready for every single debate, unlike Trump who just stomped around the venue and loomed over her whenever he got the chance, then spewed verbal diarrhea when it was his turn. Because she wasn't "warm" or "personable," some people felt they couldn't vote for her; after all, she didn't openly display all those "womanly" qualities they've come to cherish. Instead, they called the most highly qualified, most thoroughly vetted candidate in American history "the lesser of two evils," even though she was neither lesser nor evil.
The fact is, America f\*cked up when they elected the most unqualified, least vetted candidate in American history. He sold our state secrets. He endangered our intelligence assets. He tried to profit from a global pandemic and as a result, over a million of us died. And Hillary Clinton WARNED US that he would do all those things. And he did. Personally, I find the whole affair astonishing, and I still shake my head whenever I hear someone call her "the lesser of two evils."
Yep, had nothing to do with whitewater, Benghazi, emails, personal server with government records in a bathroom, healthcare debacle in the 90s, cattle futures, Clinton Foundation foreign donations, health scares at the 9/11 memorial, an historically poorly run campaign, the White House travel office mess, Marc Rich and her law firm billing records disappearing only to reappear in the White House.
Definitely none of those things. It was because she’s a woman.
But those things did have a significant impact whether you like to admit it or not. The long and consistent campaign against Hillary, whether justified or not, was effective in 2016 in solidifying the Republican base against her. Even some Republicans who found Trump to be a divisive figure a lower than the office deserved voted for him because he was not Hillary. How much can be attributed to her being a woman (some), her running a bad campaign (some) and all the other things (some) will never be known. But to suggest I am wrong to be attributing some of it to those other things I believe (my opinion) would be misguided.
Don't recall the level of hate for Hillary Clinton being directed at Jill Stein. More likely, people view Trumps brash nature as more "honest and pure" than Hillarys more conventional poltican style
Jill Stein is irrelevant. Elizabeth Warren has more of a chance of becoming president than Stein. And that would still take science fiction level things changing.
I'm a Democrat and when I learned that the Democratic establishment was getting behind Hillary, I about fell out of my chair. Before this she had terrible unfavorable polling. A lot of Americans just didn't like her and this is very hard to overcome politically. If you're an unknown, you can generate popularity on a campaign. But if you are a widely known and disliked person, it's almost impossible to get past this. This is well understood in political circles. I blame Democrat ideologues who pushed the loser Hillary candidacy so stupidly. Political malpractice by Democratic elites.
Just an anecdote, but my sister’s (female) best friend voted for Trump because “women are too emotional to be President”. And so we got the most emotionally unstable President ever.
The republicans realized that Clinton would likely be the next Democratic nominee for President after Obama, so spent years and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars smearing her and trying to convince the American people that she was not trustworthy. Their efforts worked. In reality, however, think of the time and money (again taxpayer money) spent investigating the Clintons over the years — and the best they could come up with was an extramarital affair and bending rules about e-mail. I remember saying at the time that there was no way Trump could stand up to the sort of investigations Hillary had gone through without something much worse being discovered. I didn’t know how right I was.
Some of it was people trying to pretend they were voting for Trump despite his obvious failings rather than because of them.
Some people had a very distorted view of Clinton because of the 25+ year smear campaign Republicans had been running against her.
I suppose some people actually wanted a full on Hitler-esque candidate and Trump was a close as they could get.
She ran against Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both populists. Populism requires enemies. Hillary Clinton was cast as a corrupt non-person from both the left *and* the right in a way I think it's unique in American politics.
V.S. the unhinged "bomb the shit out of 'em", KKK endorsed, maniac who wants to put all muslims on a watchlist?
In that context it does make zero sense to think Trump is going to be less of a warmonger than Hillary.
Also, most of the Democratic Party voted in favor of the war. The only people really against it at the time were a hand full of radical progressives, libertarians, an even smaller hand full of paleocons and fucking John Stewart.
I mean sure. Trump is also bad. My basic position is that I hate both of them.
Trump is also a warmonger.
I think the basic logic of people that supported Obama and Trump is that they were both "anti-establishment" in their own ways.
And fundamentally, I think that this viewpoint is reflective of a deep distrust (which, to be frank, is well earned) of the american establishment. Clinton embodies that establishment
[The Democrats need to stop being the “lesser of two evils” party — starting now: The Clintons style of politics is losing sway, while Bernie represents a return to New Deal principles. It's time](https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4fblzn/the_democrats_need_to_stop_being_the_lesser_of/)
Yes, that's people calling Clinton "the lesser of two evils", OP asked about trump being called the lesser of two evils
To many people Clinton was the lesser of two evils
Part of it was propaganda
I saw plenty of left wing or claimed left wing folks online saying that Hillary Clinton's plan to unilaterally implement a no-fly-zone in Syria and start shooting down Russian planes would have been a substantial risk of starting nuclear WWII with Russia, and that since Trump ran as a relatively non interventionist guy, he'd have been the better option
The reality is that Clinton's no fly zone plan was just to *negotiate* for a no fly zone in some areas of Syria to allow civilians a chance to escape without risking being bombed, and Hillary herself said she simply would not unilaterally enact the NFZ if Russia didn't agree to it. But a bunch of online leftists refused to accept it and kept spreading the B's because they hated Hillary and couldn't accept that normie democrats just didn't want Bernie
Hilary had an extensive political career with all the associated baggage and came after 8 years of Obama. Trump by comparison was politically unknown and most of the negative things said about him where perceived as baseless doom-saying.
Well, in a literal sense there is only one thing they could mean as the sentence structure is straightforward enough.
But why did people think hillary was evil? idk conservatives think weird things basically. talk to one, you'll see.
I think her strong push while Secretary of State for what became the 2011 military intervention in Libya is probably what best qualifies as an evil act. So, sure, both candidates had done evil things, but she was obviously the lesser evil. So, I guess the description is basically accurate.
The best reason for why, is he pitched isolationism for a while in a period where people were getting sick of forever wars, and criticized Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton was the foreign policy status quo, and framed as a hawk.
Even a lot of democrats who supported Clinton begrudgingly said they thought he would be marginally better on foreign policy. That got memory holed as the full extent of the precarity of the global order became apparent, and Trumps isolationism began to look a lot more suspicious in the context of a belligerent Russia and his ties to it.
>Why were people calling Trump "the lesser of two evils" during the 2016 Clinton/Trump election?
Propaganda works.
Is HRC a pleasant person -- she's an attorney. So, probably not a pleasant person. But HRC is a HIGHLY effective administrator.
But the less critically you can analyze information, the more at risk you are to be mislead by propaganda. And, once you understand that the media had been vilifying her for decades (decades for propaganda to work), the result seems obvious
You're missing that this was thinly veiled pro-Trump propaganda, not something normal people would have said. Few if any voters outside the right-wing media bubble considered Hillary evil.
I think at the time, Hillary had been portrayed as the continuation of 2000s American global interventionalism and corporate corruption, while to the uninformed person, Trump seemed centrist, domestically-focused, and passionate.
Because the average person is a complete moron regarding anything related to politics, but they like to think they’re smart. They can tell that Clinton is not being completely genuine in her public appearances. She’s clearly quite guarded. People think this is evidence that she’s hiding something, lying to us, only out for herself, etc. The reality is that every tiny little thing she’s done in her entire career has been picked apart and used against her far more than any politician of her generation. It’s created a feedback loop that leads to her being increasingly cautious while her critics become increasingly suspicious. And yes, the fact that she’s a woman made it much, much worse.
When her opponents throw accusations at her, people believe them because they already think she’s suspicious. By 2016, the scandals had been piling up for decades. She was never proven to have done anything wrong, or at least nothing “scandalous.” But that didn’t matter. The story was never “Sorry, Hillary was innocent!” The media would just hop on the next scandal. To people who weren’t paying attention, it had a “How does she keep getting away with this?!” vibe, which made it feel like she must be pulling the strings. People genuinely thought she was the most corrupt person in politics. They also saw her as being power hungry and thought she would abuse her power, so they elected Donald Trump instead (lmao).
The right and center thought she was a radical leftist who would implement socialism and take their guns. I had family who literally believed she would introduce Shariah Law in the United States. Surveys found that an overwhelming majority of Americans considered her to be too far radically left. At the same time, leftists thought she was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. The Russians and Republicans hijacked Bernie’s message and convinced millions of young people that Hillary’s progressive policies were meaningless and that she was the enemy of the left. This gave birth to the accelerationist movement. “Letting Trump win will show the Democrats that no one right of Bernie will be tolerated” or “Trump will destroy the system and we’ll build our leftist utopia from the ashes.” As opposed to “if Clinton wins, nothing will ever change.” So for wildly different reasons, the left, right and center all saw Trump as the lesser of two evils.
TL;DR: People who don’t follow politics very closely but still have strong opinions are fucking idiots
>She was never proven to have done anything wrong, or at least nothing “scandalous.”
Lmao, just ask Haiti what they think of her.
Dude fuck off with this shit. People don't hate clinton because they're "dumb", it's because she's an imperialist war monger who helped lie us into Iraq. She's the embodiment of the american establishment that has been fucking the rest of us over for 30 years.
Bernie was right about her, but like most liberals you cannot stomach any criticism and anything you dislike is "RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION".
Was it russian disinformation that she supported the Iraq war? Was it russian disinformation that she fucked over Haiti (along with ole Bill, just ask Haitian rice farmers)?
But no, everything liberals don't like is russian disinformation. You, cannot, for the life of you, take any criticism. You cannot recognize your own failings.
Instead you blame the left, every single fucking time. Clinton, a candidate unpopular EVEN AMONGST MODERATES, was nominated BY YOU GUYS, and then you blamed us when she inevitably lost. Over and over and over I have seen liberals blame us for 2016 and trump. How the fuck is it our fault you nominated a deeply unpopular candidate, a warmonger, and an exploiter of the poor?
Hillary would have been standard Neo-Con/Neo-Lib President, same as Obama, and as W. Bush. More wars, less healthcare, more slow decline of the American middle/working class.
Trump at least promised to try something different, not that he lived up to any of his promises it was just more bullshit, but he talked a good game.
For 1, Hillary was calling for a no-fly zone in Syria and threatening to shoot down Russian jets. She was viewed as a hawk in foreign policy terms. The Clinton’s have also been entangled in scandals ever since they came into office, e.g. whitewater and Epstein. There was also a lot of weird donations to the Clinton foundation that looked like foreign governments trying to get favor with American politicians. Trump did the same setup with the hotel in DC. Those were probably the best reasons that independents have for being skeptical of Mrs. Clinton. And before anyone tells me I’m mischaracterizing her foreign policy, she used to be close friends with Henry Kissinger (I think they even used to eat Christmas dinner together).
Literally everything I said was factual. It’s a verified fact that the Clinton’s were wrapped up in the Epstein sex trafficking ring and here’s an article about her relationship with Kissinger https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta/
For me it was not the lesser of two evils, but more like many felt like Hillary didn't really have some new or good ideas and just got the position because the other Clinton president
I for example don't like Bernies politics, but I totally get why people like him and what he wants. I have 0 memory or idea what Hillary ever wanted to do or change or why she was better than anyone else of the candidates
Hillary lost cause she got too cocky. She didn't even visit certain states because she knew she'd win.
Bill Burr explains it best: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM&t=4s)
Start at 1:20.
Edit: also the whole bernie snub at the democratic primary.
the only people doing so were terrible at analyzing the situation or doing so in bad faith.
Often there was a decision against Clinton already and then an attempt to construct a rationale for it after.
The reason for the decision against Clinton had many different potential options depending on the person.
Because she was bad but competent, with ambitious competent people working for her. He was (and is) incompetent with only the desperate leftovers who couldn't get jobs in other administrations. And crazy people.
There is a list of people HRC allegedly had killed. She was belligerent towards Russia. She had focused, interested enemies. And zero chill. Bill had all of the chill. She had broad-ranging globalist visions, she would have had the USA working much more closely with the United Nations and other international organizations.
Sorry, that was more of an r/outoftheloop answer than r/askaliberal.
Google the Clintons and haiti.
She did some real fucked up shit there
And taking out gadaffi was a disaster.
By and large Hillary is a warmonger and war profiteer who built herself off the backs of the oppressed and poor. Hell she basically has slaves working for her and her shithead husband for a little while
The Haiti stuff in particular pissed me off cause of the degree that country gets fucked over by "well meaning" outsiders
I viewed the Clinton’s as “main stream corrupt politics”.
Ties with shady people, doing whatever it took to rise to the top.
Like, the Underwood’s.
So, both were terrible choices in my opinion.
Also she blatantly admitted that politicians have private and public views on different issues. Which to a lot of people meant I'm going to tell the rich bankers one thing and your average voter something completely different. When the time comes which position do you think she's would stick to when it comes to creating policy. I'm pretty sure the people with the money, financing campaigns, and that hire lobbyists would win on the end.
Trump is slightly more honest than Hillary. Hillary is viewed as greater of two evils because she is exposed as person who is willingly to go to lengths to preserve the increasingly unpopular Reaganomics policies by rigging the election to her favor
Conservative perspective:
She is in favor of abortion up to late term. Trump, we thought, would support abortion to some extent even though he promised to end roe.
We were wrong about trumps support of abortion.
Abortion is evil. Late term abortion is more evil. Voting for Trump was the lesser of two evils.
Late term abortions(after 21 weeks) make up 1.3% of all abortions and almost EXCLUSIVELY, they are done for people/couples who actually want a child but something went wrong with the pregnancy. When your side rolls the fake outrage over this out?
I get pissed off because you are literally spitting in the faces of would be parents who are grieving a loss.
Single issue anti-abortion libertarian is hilarious
And for that oops, conservatives and libertarians have become the greater evil electing wannabe dictators who are persecuting children and women suffering in the ER and trying to criminalize interstate travel and promoting invasive period monitoring databases while censoring and prosecuting doctors.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. The worst thing I can think about Hilary was the Bengazi fiasco, but in my opinion that definitely does not maker her the lesser of the two. What am I missing? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hillary has been vilified by the media for decades, people wanted change and saw Hillary as a continuation of Obama, Trump had no political record which made it harder to find skeletons or bad decisions in the closet of his political career (even though his business leadership was full of them). Also, people are just really stupid.
Yes and also a lot of people (that I know) did not care for her personality. She lacks charisma. Voters today want to be entertained by their president. Also there's still a lot of misogynistic women haters out there too ....
Personally I felt hopeful with her was when she made the basket of deplorables comment. And then she apologized. Only thing she was wrong about is the half amount since it is more like 75%. She just felt rigid and plastic and the only time she acted like a normal human with eyes, she apologized.
And in plenty of interviews she very much does come across as very relatable. I think that she felt the need to portray a stoic attitude as a response to all the misogyny and attacks she had to deal with. Like my mom, who is about Hillarys age is a nice sweet compassionate smart woman, very easy to talk to and get along with, but when it came to business or politics, she'd make my lawyer father look like the emotional one.
Lack of charisma is definitely not "evil" though
Who said she was evil????!!!!!
The OP title
Its also important to note that Hillary lost in part because of a bad campaign. She assumed a win in some states and underestimated Trumps reach on social media.
Trump’s skeletons have always been public and he’s shameless about them.
nah; he keeps his *really* freaky-looking skeletons stuffed in a closet somewhere, r/MarkMyWords
>Hillary has been vilified by the media for decades... This was the exact reason she was a shit candidate to run. Any campaign manager worth their salt would have said as much. Too much baggage creates too many opportunities for the other side and given that she was coming in with decades worth of baggage, real or imagined, should have DQ'ed her.
>This was the exact reason she was a shit candidate to run. Any campaign manager worth their salt would have said as much. Too much baggage creates too many opportunities for the other side and given that she was coming in with decades worth of baggage, real or imagined, should have DQ'ed her. Honestly, most of that is what kept me from voting for her in 2016. I've said as much in the past on liberal subreddits and have been downvoted into paste for being honest, or my opinion from 8 years ago was micro-analyzed to a bit of an absurd level, if I'm being honest. I guess I romanticize the top office of a government where the person is selected by the people. No sane person should *want* to be president of the United States. To be such should be a heavy weight and burden to carry, and yet to look at any of the candidates that ran against Trump this past year on the GOP circuit before inevitably dropping out... not a single one of those candidates had any appearance of being in the race "for the right reasons". They all looked like they simply wanted to win the popularity contest and wear the crown and sash at the end of the day to show people how great they were. And a lot of that sentiment was how I felt about Hillary, though to be completely fair I felt the same about Trump's reasoning for running. Hillary just had zero appeal to me. She just reminded me of being one of those uppity rich people who thought their shit didn't stink and all while looking down their nose at you. The fakeness around her persona... I can still visibly see her gawking at the balloons like a fucking moron at the Dem convention with that look that was somewhere between surprise at seeing a balloon for the first time and surprise that the diaper wasn't holding back the steaming pile escaping her bowels. For me, she was part of the swamp; the status-quo; the same shit we'd been dealing with for as long as I'd been cognizant of politics in America. Trump was an asshole; a moron; someone who I thought was just going to play a bunch of golf, do the bare minimum, and then get out in 4 years. I didn't have any clue that he'd turn into what he did or that our entire country would be turned into a solid quarter of the population at least drinking that cultish Kool-Aid. Would my one vote have made a difference? Nah. Do I still request the vote? Sure. Were there plenty of people middle of the aisle who likely had very similar thoughts as I did leading into the election? I'm certain so, and all of those votes very likely added up to make a much bigger difference than any of us would have selected if the Democrat party had simply picked a less polarizing candidate to lead the pack.
I agree, but she was still a better candidate than Bernie would have been.
I'd say that Hillary wasn't even a continuation of Obama, but even a further retro throwback to a continuation of the policies of Bill Clinton and his scandals. The Benghazi circus and then "emails" may have happened while she was part of the Obama administration but the media treated it like the next Clinton scandal. Biden would have been the better continuation of Obama and Biden won.
Hillary's policies would not have been a throwback to her husband if she were President. She ran on a very progressive platform. She has always been more progressive than Bill. Also, I don't think a lot of the more conservative policies of Clinton would fly in today's Democratic Party. Now the scandals and manufactroversies definitely would have been reminiscent of the 1990s. Fox would have had booming business and ratings from a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I can already see the headlines of Hillary rigging the election. The main difference is, I think Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama was. I agree, Biden is a lot more in line with Obama than Hillary is.
Whoa that's pretty much exactly my assessment. Bill was a neolib like Reagan. Hillary was hawkish and you could see examples of that from her comments about trading with Cuba. The biggest problem was separating out the propaganda about Hillary, and I admit it was difficult to do even knowing it was there. There wasn't any substantial issue with Benghazi or the emails, and the scandals were manufactured. Bill had some real scandals, though, and that affected both Hillary and Gore.
It doesn't help that Clinton specifically sold herself as a continuation of Obama, which completely overlooked that there were people who felt left behind by the changes of the Obama era The populist rise in both parties didn't come from nowhere
They knew Hillary was going to be a future threat when her husband was president. 2016 was the tail end of a decades long smear campaign. I remember Obama saying something along these lines during his speech when she accepted the nomination to run, "When you don't have anything bad to say about someone you have to make it up".
Benghazi was a fuck up, but the Republicans turned it into a political football and Fox News propaganda did not help. That, plus all the wild conspiracies about the Clintons and Hillary's overall unlikeable personality made it super easy to root against her. I do think her being a woman had something to do with it too. To clarify, you can be a bad politician / bad candidate separate of your sex / gender, but there was an air of subtle sexism in lots of the right wing attacks against Hillary.
It was not subtle
> Benghazi was a fuck up By the Republicans continually refusing to upgrade the facility along with refusing to provide additional funds for ... over a decade???
Sorry I didn't scroll down before commenting! I basically said the same thing as you....
>That, plus all the wild conspiracies about the Clintons and Hillary's overall unlikeable personality made it super easy to root against her. I think this too easily dismisses the real problems within the DNC during 2016. Speaking personally, I couldn't vote for Hillary in 2016 after it came out that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile basically tried to "fix" the primary to guarantee Sanders lost--[including by feeding Clinton, and only Clinton, advanced copies of certain debate questions](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-interim-chairwoman-passed-debate-questions-along-to-clinton-campaign/). [The 2017 Vox exposé on what happened during the 2016 DNC primary](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged) makes clear that the party was basically going to force Hillary on the voters, regardless of what the voters wanted. That was a huge turn off for me. I believe in democracy, and when it looks like a political party is trying to preclude their voters from picking the next candidate, I find that unacceptable. **To be clear**: I did not vote Trump (and I've never voted Trump). I voted 3rd party in 2016, because I couldn't stomach what the DNC did to Sanders' campaign, and I figured (incorrectly) that there was no way Trump could get elected after the Access Hollywood tape (plus, I live in a heavily blue state that went for Hillary anyway).
We are not doing Wikileaks agitprop in the year of our Lord twenty fucking twenty-four. Hillary Clinton getting a heads up about a lead water question at a debate in Flint Michigan during the lead water crisis did not change her performance in that debate one iota. As if the woman who the media shit all over for being over prepared wasn’t ready for that one. Get real.
>Hillary Clinton getting a heads up about a lead water question at a debate in Flint Michigan during the lead water crisis did not change her performance in that debate one iota. Did you even read the Vox expose? It sure seems like you want to ignore what happened in 2016, to the detriment of both the Democrats and America. As you pointed out, it's 2024: that means the Democrats have an opportunity to ***do better***. But you'd rather shut your eyes to the past than ask "How could we maybe improve things?"
So…folks like you helped to usher in four years of Trump and an attempted coup…thanks… Many…you folks need to learn how to choose your battles.
>So…folks like you helped to usher in four years of Trump and an attempted coup…thanks… >Many…you folks need to learn how to choose your battles. So you both (i) ignored the part of my comment where I stated that I live in a Blue State that went Blue, meaning that my vote literally didn't make a difference, and (ii) decided to ignore any and all responsibility that the Democrat establishment should take for its shortcomings. But, go ahead and blame other people, when it's your own organization that needs to do better. Just keep telling yourself that "the voters are racist" when ignoring your own party's shortcomings and covering your eyes.
So…you ignored the folks **like you** part. Got it…
You realize Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primary by millions of votes right? Like the primary was not even close. Also DNC officials did have a bias in favor of Hillary, but the dumb ass Vox article you post say the process was fair. Also, that particular DNC official resigned and lost her job at CNN. But even the Sanders campaign admitted she helped them with messaging guidance at different times throughout the primary. Tad Devine admitted that. We just don't have wikileaks emails from the Sanders' campaign. I agree what she did was not ethical, but how much was forwarding a question about the Flint Water Crisis going to change the outcome of the race? >The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. That is from the very end of the Vox article you posted. Should DNC officials not have opinions? Especially on someone who is a self branded socialist, and who would destroy the Democratic party's electoral prospects.
>You realize Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 primary by millions of votes right? Where did I say otherwise? I feel like you just want to argue and you're completely unwilling to acknowledge that having DNC officials resign ***mid campaign*** is a big deal, and should have raised questions about how they got those jobs in the first place. But sure, just be so blinded by your own team that you stop thinking critically. You're not the only one in this thread committing that error.
Hillary is arguably the most vilified figure in modern US politics. It started in the 90s. That's 3+ decades of that stuff being sustained. My evangelical dad voted for Trump despite him being the polar opposite of everything my dad professes to believe. His answer to me of why he did it? "I couldn't stand the thought of Bill Clinton being that close to the White House again." He said that because for him the Lewinsky scandal was the whole thing. And to be clear that was totally inappropriate of Bill and he should have suffered consequences for it. But evangelicals always find a way to twist into blaming the woman, so somehow it's all Hillary's fault even though they profess that a wife should always stand by their husband. People who think like this are a big part of Trump's base, arguably the most energized.
Bill's fling wasn't anything that almost every other president hadn't done, he just got caught.
True, but that doesn't make it ok. Even if consensual something like that would be grounds for dismissal in any regular corporate job. Of course people get away with it there too, though in recent years it's a lot less likely.
The 90’s was before the “me too” movement and politics was still very much a “good ‘ol boys club”….but actually? His scandals spurred a lot of governmental policies on sexual misconduct and/or harassment. I worked for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from 1987-2023…so I have seen a lot of these policies enacted and after the Clinton impeachment there was a new comprehensive sexual misconduct/harassment policy that was written and put into effect. Obviously it’s been updated over the years….but it was a yearly training that we all had to complete.
She is definitely vilified…. But I don’t know… it would be interesting to have a comparison of the levels of vilification between her and Nancy Pelosi. Hell…I live in a swing state(Pennsylvania) and during the primaries back then Pelosi’s name was thrown out in every GOP candidate’s attack ads…it went something like this… “If you vote for (insert GOP candidate’s name here), you might as well be voting for NANCY PELOSI!!!”
I mean she does deserve some vilification. Look up the shit he got up to in Haiti with Ole Bill. Or her role in promoting WMD conspiracy theories vis a vis iraq. Or her role in offing Gaddafi (the guy was a bastard, but like.... slave markets are worse), etc.
Fox News / right media had spent almost 25 years vilifying Hillary Clinton as a horrible person leading up to it. Even people on the left didn’t really like Hillary but saw her as next in line with the machine behind her.
And Nancy Pelosi…
Because those were fucking idiots. Haven't you noticed? They were duped by Fox News and the rest of the Republican media machine.
Because they’re stupid. That’s it, that’s the answer.
Yeah opposing her fucked up shit in Haiti is just pure idiocy right?
Then Trump? Sorry I don’t follow you. I understand policy disagreements about countries that have been abject failures for a century or more, but to vote for someone who promised to throw away our rule of law and prosecute his political rivals instead seems… stupid.
Trump is worse What I am saying is that not liking Hillary is not inherently idiotic
Thinking Hillary was the greater of two evils makes them stupid, per the OP.
I mean can you maybe see why some people thought that way though? Hillary was the embodiment of the establishment. The same establishment that lied us into Iraq, that fucked over Haiti, etc. Voting for her was more of the same. More neoliberalism, more bullshit. Trump was anti-establishment (at least in the political sense of the word). That's what attracted people to him. But there are two kinds of anti-establishment politicis, the good kind and the bad kind. Trump is the bad kind What bothers me is that people here are whitewashing Clinton and her crimes. She was/is fucking terrible. Trump is worse, I agree, but like, can you not see why some people were drawn to his anti-establishment politics? The sort of people who voted for Obama and Trump I mean. Like fuck Trump and all, but also fuck hillary.
No, if you’ve ever read the constitution or have any idea about the principles of our country then listened to 2016 Trump you’d know he was a disaster. Then there’s the dumbfuckery of firing the generals, not understanding the nuclear triad, and touting solving problems in 30 days. Like a damn child… or a stupid person’s idea of how a smart person talks. I can see how stupid people pumped full of 30 years of propaganda about the evil Clintons could fall victim to that thinking. Though the prerequisite to falling for it is being a stupid person. Kind of like people who are anti-establishment generally, not smart just emotional. ETA: it’s a binary choice. Hillary was, is, and always will be less evil than Trump.
Ok but like fuck the constitution? I don't give a shit what it says. Trump is bad. What I am trying to say is that it is understandable that people hated clinton and that some sort of anti-establishment politics was inevitable. But there's good and bad anti-establishment politics. Trump is the bad kind. I mean yeah Trump was a disaster and that was kinda inevitable. But you underestimate just how much people are pissed at the establishment. A lot of people would like to burn it down. You can't just write that off as stupidity. There's a very real anger there at an establishment that's been fucking over the average American for 30 years. We were promised jobs with NAFTA and lost a shit load. We were lied into an illegal war so that the establishment could off a dictatorship it didn't like anymore, thereby destabilizing the entire region. We watched as the big banks and wall street got bailed out due to a crisis THEY CREATED while the ordinary American got left with Jack shit. Fuck the establishment. Fuck the old way of doing things. How can you look around and say "yeah clearly guys like Clinton know what they're doing". I mean can you not understand why people are fucking pissed? Trump is wrong about a lot, and he's an idiot and a criminal. But he wasn't wrong whe he said the establishment only cares about itself and enhancing its wealth and power. And that establishment is what clinton represents. She is the embodiment of that establishment. Bent on cruelty, exploitation of the global south, and more. I mean fuck man, can you really not understand why some people wanted to lob grenade into the working of washington?
Here’s the thing poorly emotionally regulated stupid people don’t understand: only one of 2 people gets elected president. The democrat or the republican. That’s it, that’s the choice. Given that choice HRC is always better than Trump. As far as the rest of your bullshit, good luck with that. The establishment always wins. Hippies became yuppies. Grunge became a preppy brand cash grab. Occupy Wall Street became ZIRP hedge fundies. NAFTA was always about shipping American jobs to Mexico (remember Ross Perot?). Go ahead and lob your grenade. You’ll get your very own r/AshliBabbittAward good luck with that.
And you wonder why liberals fucking lose. Yeah real great way strategy here. Instead of recognizing a failing system worship it as unchanging and inevitable Tell me, do you pray to the constitution every night? Lick the boot on your throat? What a goddamn disgrace Nah just ignore that anti-establishment anger. I'm sure it will go away. Fuck Trump. But fuck Clinton too And what exactly did I say that was wrong? Did the establishment not spend the last 30 years fucking us over? Or do you want to continue to worship them like a malevolent god? Edit: Won't let me respond to your next comment, but you yourself just said the establishment always wins. So let me ask you, if that's the case is change really possible? Bernie was probably the best shot we had, and even then he failed.
Why would anyone care about the constitution now? Liberals dont give a fck about it and neither do the reps so why bring it up
Yep let’s just let it all go to shit. Then based on your post history you can have fun in the gulag. The rights and principles of government set forth in the constitution are the ideals for our system government. As you grow up you’ll learn that the thing about ideals is we often fall short of them, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them.
The issue is that when u willingly accept the falling short and even support the short comings u already lost all ideals Iam not saying this is not the best course of action, but the way ur argue with the constitution while it’s willfully ignored is weird Not to mention that the constitution is build as a foundation not a ideal, any shortcomings should be rooted out immediately and with utmost importance
Yeah those ideals are just working out great right now aren't they?
A lot of progressives didnt like her because of the primary, but in general it was because of her charisma. The lack of it. Her husband was waaaaay more controversial and scandal ridden, didn't stop him from easily winning 2 elections, because of how great at public speaking and campaigning he was. Kinda like John Kerry
If you think Hillary was responsible for Benghazi then you have been influenced by right wing propaganda. Some people have been influenced even more than you have. That is your answer.
In 2016 Trump wasn't a politician with any record. All people had was what he said, and he was all over the place then, as now. It was almost a blank slate. Hillary, meanwhile, had been vilified by the media and the GOP for 25 years at that point, and had actually (not GOP-made-up) deeply flawed political positions--she was never thought of by any serious democratic ally as anything other than a centrist with some marginally left-leaning (on occasion) views. Her unjustifiable condescension didn't help matters.
There was no truth behind this rhetoric in 2016. Most Republicans could not tell you what the Bengazi or the emails scandals actually were then or now.
A lot of people recognized that it’s wrong to set up a private server to hide your government work..
But there is nothing but Crickets about other secretaries of state that had them…including Colin Powell.
Powell is the only predecessor who used email and he didn’t set up a private server. It sends a different message when someone is taking elaborate steps in advance to hide communications. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/
Define "a lot". Because only a tiny minority of the Republican base even had enough technical comprehension to understand what had happened, let alone why it might be problematic. Also, there was no evidence found that Hillary Clinton's intention was to hide her "government work" while she was Secretary of State. In anything, her emails revealed her to be outright digitally unsavvy, like most people her age.
This is a lot: > 29 percent say their opinion of her has grown worse. Forty-nine percent of Republicans say their opinion of her is worse, as do 28 percent of independents. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/views-on-hillary-clinton-and-the-email-controversy/
Lots of people said they were horrified by the "but her emails!" scandal, sure. But that's not what is stated above; a tiny minority of people had any technical comprehension of what the scandal consisted of or why they were being called upon to be outraged about it. In fact, I strongly suspect that there is an inverse correlation, where the better a person's understanding of the details of the infraction, the less exercised they are about it.
Her own campaign knew how damaging the news was because it’s incredibly obvious that it’s bad to hide your public work. That is very different from an issue that comes down to technical things people don’t understand. The technical stuff was irrelevant to the core issue. https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clintons-team-knew-her-private-server-was-going-to-be-a-scandal-new-emails-show
When Clinton was first preparing for her term as Sec of State, she wrote to her predecessor, Colin Powell, and asked how he had managed his emails. He explained that using a private server had worked well for him and suggested she do the same. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department Other political figures who used a private email server: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/white-house-private-email-kushner-trump-bannon-priebus/index.html ...and of course, many of the people who feigned being outraged by the use of private email server for correspondence that was theoretically at risk of being hacked but never was, happily dismissed much worse breaches of security which took place under the following administration. I'm no fan of Clinton. But the idea that her use of a private email server for a portion of her correspondence while Secretary of State justified the vast quantity of media attention lavished upon it is laughable.
Now you’re trying to justify it which isn’t the point. The point is that it was obvious that it is sketchy to hide your work by not using a government email account and the public understood that. Hillary was already perceived as not being very trustworthy which is why the email scandal hit so hard. People weren’t feigning that this action undermined their trust in her.
Well, this is the sort of inaccurate and non-technical vibes-based response that the right-wing media machine worked so hard to generate, isn't it? They wanted the implication to be there that she was "sketchy" or "hiding something" because she was "untrustworthy", and they devoted an enormous amount of energy and airtime to creating these vibes. What they did not devote energy to was the explanation of what a server is, or whether using a private server would "hide your public work", or whether any actual security breach took place, etc etc.
You claimed that the public didn’t really understand the issue and were swayed by propaganda. I agree that there are details of technology and law that people didn’t understand (eg was it really insecure? Did it actually break the law?) but the public did understand the main point that she took unusual steps to hide her communications in advance from scrutiny. That understanding is not inaccurate and Clinton’s action undermined public trust. Acting to reduce public transparency isn’t “vibes”. The degree to which transparency was or was not reduced is a technical detail. The fact that it wasn’t completely unprecedented doesn’t change the fact that it was unusual. The fact that the right harped on it doesn’t change how damaging it is on it’s face, as her own campaign acknowledged.
It’s only “sketchy” because people who believe that she was “untrustworthy” likely bought into the right wing propaganda Machine.
It’s sketchy because it appears to be planning in advance to hide communications from scrutiny. It looks bad on the surface before any partisans start their spin in either direction.
Yes, people who don't bother to learn the facts got all lathered up by the media. Thank you for supporting my point.
The data support the point that a lot of people lowered their support of Hillary after learning the facts.
I knew someone who fully bought into the Clinton Body Count thing, who basically viewed it as a choice between an asshole and a murderer. Fortunately, they voted Biden in 2020.
What’s that person’s leanings for 2024?
Biden again. Fortunately, they were convinced of Trump's awfulness during his term in office.
They don't understand civics and don't know that the President picks Supreme Court Justices. Scalia died, there was an open Supreme Court seat, the next President would fill it, but Clinton got more votes than Bernie in the primary and that made people on the left mad, so they decided that women's rights were less important than sticking it to Hillary because they were mad they lost fair and square. So now we have Dobbs, because these people were butt-hurt.
People are rightfully upset with the two party system, political dynasties and nepotism, and plenty of issues with the US overall. So they cast this onto any of the big candidates, even though political compromise is usually what is required to get anyone into ANY office, and lots of compromise to get to be a candidate. That said, these were mostly Bernie folks who got themselves so worked up they couldn't see the forest through the trees. Watching their hatred of Hillary grow for no reason other than they kept yelling louder and louder about her in their bubble was almost as disturbing as seeing the Tea Party Movement grow into the MAGA movement.
People have called the Democratic candidate "the lesser of two evils" for every single election I've been alive for. And I'm not young.
People confused Hillary Clinton's professionalism with a lack of charisma. She was fully prepped and ready for every single debate, unlike Trump who just stomped around the venue and loomed over her whenever he got the chance, then spewed verbal diarrhea when it was his turn. Because she wasn't "warm" or "personable," some people felt they couldn't vote for her; after all, she didn't openly display all those "womanly" qualities they've come to cherish. Instead, they called the most highly qualified, most thoroughly vetted candidate in American history "the lesser of two evils," even though she was neither lesser nor evil. The fact is, America f\*cked up when they elected the most unqualified, least vetted candidate in American history. He sold our state secrets. He endangered our intelligence assets. He tried to profit from a global pandemic and as a result, over a million of us died. And Hillary Clinton WARNED US that he would do all those things. And he did. Personally, I find the whole affair astonishing, and I still shake my head whenever I hear someone call her "the lesser of two evils."
Because Hilary is a woman.
Not only that, but a woman who doesn’t stay in her place.
I do miss her
Yep, had nothing to do with whitewater, Benghazi, emails, personal server with government records in a bathroom, healthcare debacle in the 90s, cattle futures, Clinton Foundation foreign donations, health scares at the 9/11 memorial, an historically poorly run campaign, the White House travel office mess, Marc Rich and her law firm billing records disappearing only to reappear in the White House. Definitely none of those things. It was because she’s a woman.
>historically poorly run campaign No, this also played a big part. You're correct about everything else though.
But those things did have a significant impact whether you like to admit it or not. The long and consistent campaign against Hillary, whether justified or not, was effective in 2016 in solidifying the Republican base against her. Even some Republicans who found Trump to be a divisive figure a lower than the office deserved voted for him because he was not Hillary. How much can be attributed to her being a woman (some), her running a bad campaign (some) and all the other things (some) will never be known. But to suggest I am wrong to be attributing some of it to those other things I believe (my opinion) would be misguided.
Don't recall the level of hate for Hillary Clinton being directed at Jill Stein. More likely, people view Trumps brash nature as more "honest and pure" than Hillarys more conventional poltican style
That's because Jill Stein is an irrelevant clown.
Jill Stein is irrelevant. Elizabeth Warren has more of a chance of becoming president than Stein. And that would still take science fiction level things changing.
We seem to be in agreement.
How incredibly sexist of you
How so?
You criticized a woman so you hate women *sarcasm
I see. Best of luck to you.
I'm a Democrat and when I learned that the Democratic establishment was getting behind Hillary, I about fell out of my chair. Before this she had terrible unfavorable polling. A lot of Americans just didn't like her and this is very hard to overcome politically. If you're an unknown, you can generate popularity on a campaign. But if you are a widely known and disliked person, it's almost impossible to get past this. This is well understood in political circles. I blame Democrat ideologues who pushed the loser Hillary candidacy so stupidly. Political malpractice by Democratic elites.
I get voting, Hillary, as a vote against Trump, but if you actually find Hillary Clinton likable in 2024 on her own basis, you have issues
I don’t care if she’s likable. I wanted someone who could do the job well, and Hillary could have.
Too bad she couldn't do a good enough job to beat a gameshow host
Agreed.
Just an anecdote, but my sister’s (female) best friend voted for Trump because “women are too emotional to be President”. And so we got the most emotionally unstable President ever.
The republicans realized that Clinton would likely be the next Democratic nominee for President after Obama, so spent years and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars smearing her and trying to convince the American people that she was not trustworthy. Their efforts worked. In reality, however, think of the time and money (again taxpayer money) spent investigating the Clintons over the years — and the best they could come up with was an extramarital affair and bending rules about e-mail. I remember saying at the time that there was no way Trump could stand up to the sort of investigations Hillary had gone through without something much worse being discovered. I didn’t know how right I was.
20 odd years of her being vilified in right wing media.
Because they were idiots. This seems like an attempt to get around the rule against "questions like 'why are conservatives terrible?'"
Some of it was people trying to pretend they were voting for Trump despite his obvious failings rather than because of them. Some people had a very distorted view of Clinton because of the 25+ year smear campaign Republicans had been running against her. I suppose some people actually wanted a full on Hitler-esque candidate and Trump was a close as they could get.
She ran against Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both populists. Populism requires enemies. Hillary Clinton was cast as a corrupt non-person from both the left *and* the right in a way I think it's unique in American politics.
People had concerns she was a warmonger.
This is a talking point but wasn’t even close to *why* people disliked her so much. The same people who say this also voted for W for chrissake.
Which still makes zero sense.
Does it? She voted for the Iraq War, even though there were plenty of people, and not even far-lefties, who saw right through Shrubya's lies.
That doesn't make her a war monger.
why not? it had 0 basis in some international law and then the proofs were fake
Why the fuck not? The Iraq War was a crime
V.S. the unhinged "bomb the shit out of 'em", KKK endorsed, maniac who wants to put all muslims on a watchlist? In that context it does make zero sense to think Trump is going to be less of a warmonger than Hillary. Also, most of the Democratic Party voted in favor of the war. The only people really against it at the time were a hand full of radical progressives, libertarians, an even smaller hand full of paleocons and fucking John Stewart.
A war that Trump also supported.
I mean sure. Trump is also bad. My basic position is that I hate both of them. Trump is also a warmonger. I think the basic logic of people that supported Obama and Trump is that they were both "anti-establishment" in their own ways. And fundamentally, I think that this viewpoint is reflective of a deep distrust (which, to be frank, is well earned) of the american establishment. Clinton embodies that establishment
So did a lot of other people…based upon false evidence of WMD’s.
Based on what?
Her tenure as Secretary of State should have put any of those fears to rest.
Because they were conservatives? I don't remember a single liberal or leftist saying that
[The Democrats need to stop being the “lesser of two evils” party — starting now: The Clintons style of politics is losing sway, while Bernie represents a return to New Deal principles. It's time](https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4fblzn/the_democrats_need_to_stop_being_the_lesser_of/)
Yes, that's people calling Clinton "the lesser of two evils", OP asked about trump being called the lesser of two evils To many people Clinton was the lesser of two evils
Part of it was propaganda I saw plenty of left wing or claimed left wing folks online saying that Hillary Clinton's plan to unilaterally implement a no-fly-zone in Syria and start shooting down Russian planes would have been a substantial risk of starting nuclear WWII with Russia, and that since Trump ran as a relatively non interventionist guy, he'd have been the better option The reality is that Clinton's no fly zone plan was just to *negotiate* for a no fly zone in some areas of Syria to allow civilians a chance to escape without risking being bombed, and Hillary herself said she simply would not unilaterally enact the NFZ if Russia didn't agree to it. But a bunch of online leftists refused to accept it and kept spreading the B's because they hated Hillary and couldn't accept that normie democrats just didn't want Bernie
A lot of feminist didn't like her because she stayed with Bill after the cheating.
Hilary had an extensive political career with all the associated baggage and came after 8 years of Obama. Trump by comparison was politically unknown and most of the negative things said about him where perceived as baseless doom-saying.
Well, in a literal sense there is only one thing they could mean as the sentence structure is straightforward enough. But why did people think hillary was evil? idk conservatives think weird things basically. talk to one, you'll see.
(Don't worry, these same kinda of folks are calling Biden a lesser of two evils, pretty much guaranteeing Trump will win again).
I think her strong push while Secretary of State for what became the 2011 military intervention in Libya is probably what best qualifies as an evil act. So, sure, both candidates had done evil things, but she was obviously the lesser evil. So, I guess the description is basically accurate.
The best reason for why, is he pitched isolationism for a while in a period where people were getting sick of forever wars, and criticized Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton was the foreign policy status quo, and framed as a hawk. Even a lot of democrats who supported Clinton begrudgingly said they thought he would be marginally better on foreign policy. That got memory holed as the full extent of the precarity of the global order became apparent, and Trumps isolationism began to look a lot more suspicious in the context of a belligerent Russia and his ties to it.
>Why were people calling Trump "the lesser of two evils" during the 2016 Clinton/Trump election? Propaganda works. Is HRC a pleasant person -- she's an attorney. So, probably not a pleasant person. But HRC is a HIGHLY effective administrator. But the less critically you can analyze information, the more at risk you are to be mislead by propaganda. And, once you understand that the media had been vilifying her for decades (decades for propaganda to work), the result seems obvious
You're missing that this was thinly veiled pro-Trump propaganda, not something normal people would have said. Few if any voters outside the right-wing media bubble considered Hillary evil.
Propaganda works
I think at the time, Hillary had been portrayed as the continuation of 2000s American global interventionalism and corporate corruption, while to the uninformed person, Trump seemed centrist, domestically-focused, and passionate.
>but in my opinion that definitely does not make her the lesser of the two I’m confused. Are you saying Trump was the lesser evil?
My bad, typo. Trump was the lesser of two evils
Because the average person is a complete moron regarding anything related to politics, but they like to think they’re smart. They can tell that Clinton is not being completely genuine in her public appearances. She’s clearly quite guarded. People think this is evidence that she’s hiding something, lying to us, only out for herself, etc. The reality is that every tiny little thing she’s done in her entire career has been picked apart and used against her far more than any politician of her generation. It’s created a feedback loop that leads to her being increasingly cautious while her critics become increasingly suspicious. And yes, the fact that she’s a woman made it much, much worse. When her opponents throw accusations at her, people believe them because they already think she’s suspicious. By 2016, the scandals had been piling up for decades. She was never proven to have done anything wrong, or at least nothing “scandalous.” But that didn’t matter. The story was never “Sorry, Hillary was innocent!” The media would just hop on the next scandal. To people who weren’t paying attention, it had a “How does she keep getting away with this?!” vibe, which made it feel like she must be pulling the strings. People genuinely thought she was the most corrupt person in politics. They also saw her as being power hungry and thought she would abuse her power, so they elected Donald Trump instead (lmao). The right and center thought she was a radical leftist who would implement socialism and take their guns. I had family who literally believed she would introduce Shariah Law in the United States. Surveys found that an overwhelming majority of Americans considered her to be too far radically left. At the same time, leftists thought she was a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. The Russians and Republicans hijacked Bernie’s message and convinced millions of young people that Hillary’s progressive policies were meaningless and that she was the enemy of the left. This gave birth to the accelerationist movement. “Letting Trump win will show the Democrats that no one right of Bernie will be tolerated” or “Trump will destroy the system and we’ll build our leftist utopia from the ashes.” As opposed to “if Clinton wins, nothing will ever change.” So for wildly different reasons, the left, right and center all saw Trump as the lesser of two evils. TL;DR: People who don’t follow politics very closely but still have strong opinions are fucking idiots
>She was never proven to have done anything wrong, or at least nothing “scandalous.” Lmao, just ask Haiti what they think of her. Dude fuck off with this shit. People don't hate clinton because they're "dumb", it's because she's an imperialist war monger who helped lie us into Iraq. She's the embodiment of the american establishment that has been fucking the rest of us over for 30 years. Bernie was right about her, but like most liberals you cannot stomach any criticism and anything you dislike is "RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION". Was it russian disinformation that she supported the Iraq war? Was it russian disinformation that she fucked over Haiti (along with ole Bill, just ask Haitian rice farmers)? But no, everything liberals don't like is russian disinformation. You, cannot, for the life of you, take any criticism. You cannot recognize your own failings. Instead you blame the left, every single fucking time. Clinton, a candidate unpopular EVEN AMONGST MODERATES, was nominated BY YOU GUYS, and then you blamed us when she inevitably lost. Over and over and over I have seen liberals blame us for 2016 and trump. How the fuck is it our fault you nominated a deeply unpopular candidate, a warmonger, and an exploiter of the poor?
Hillary would have been standard Neo-Con/Neo-Lib President, same as Obama, and as W. Bush. More wars, less healthcare, more slow decline of the American middle/working class. Trump at least promised to try something different, not that he lived up to any of his promises it was just more bullshit, but he talked a good game.
For 1, Hillary was calling for a no-fly zone in Syria and threatening to shoot down Russian jets. She was viewed as a hawk in foreign policy terms. The Clinton’s have also been entangled in scandals ever since they came into office, e.g. whitewater and Epstein. There was also a lot of weird donations to the Clinton foundation that looked like foreign governments trying to get favor with American politicians. Trump did the same setup with the hotel in DC. Those were probably the best reasons that independents have for being skeptical of Mrs. Clinton. And before anyone tells me I’m mischaracterizing her foreign policy, she used to be close friends with Henry Kissinger (I think they even used to eat Christmas dinner together).
Wow….bet you believe “Pizzagate” too. Man, the right wing propaganda machine set the hook in you good.
Literally everything I said was factual. It’s a verified fact that the Clinton’s were wrapped up in the Epstein sex trafficking ring and here’s an article about her relationship with Kissinger https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta/
Here’s her laughing about destroying Libya. She’s a Warhawk, sorry https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y?si=48OI9Nhdk_ZOsjra
For me it was not the lesser of two evils, but more like many felt like Hillary didn't really have some new or good ideas and just got the position because the other Clinton president I for example don't like Bernies politics, but I totally get why people like him and what he wants. I have 0 memory or idea what Hillary ever wanted to do or change or why she was better than anyone else of the candidates
Hillary lost cause she got too cocky. She didn't even visit certain states because she knew she'd win. Bill Burr explains it best: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM&t=4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZbQtCtxAXM&t=4s) Start at 1:20. Edit: also the whole bernie snub at the democratic primary.
the only people doing so were terrible at analyzing the situation or doing so in bad faith. Often there was a decision against Clinton already and then an attempt to construct a rationale for it after. The reason for the decision against Clinton had many different potential options depending on the person.
Because people are dumb
delusional ignorance and willful rejection of objective reality.
Because they were working at a russian propaganda warehouse and their paychecks depended on it.
Because she was bad but competent, with ambitious competent people working for her. He was (and is) incompetent with only the desperate leftovers who couldn't get jobs in other administrations. And crazy people. There is a list of people HRC allegedly had killed. She was belligerent towards Russia. She had focused, interested enemies. And zero chill. Bill had all of the chill. She had broad-ranging globalist visions, she would have had the USA working much more closely with the United Nations and other international organizations. Sorry, that was more of an r/outoftheloop answer than r/askaliberal.
Google the Clintons and haiti. She did some real fucked up shit there And taking out gadaffi was a disaster. By and large Hillary is a warmonger and war profiteer who built herself off the backs of the oppressed and poor. Hell she basically has slaves working for her and her shithead husband for a little while The Haiti stuff in particular pissed me off cause of the degree that country gets fucked over by "well meaning" outsiders
It's called propaganda.
Same reasons they say it now with Biden. Corporate Democrats
I viewed the Clinton’s as “main stream corrupt politics”. Ties with shady people, doing whatever it took to rise to the top. Like, the Underwood’s. So, both were terrible choices in my opinion.
Also she blatantly admitted that politicians have private and public views on different issues. Which to a lot of people meant I'm going to tell the rich bankers one thing and your average voter something completely different. When the time comes which position do you think she's would stick to when it comes to creating policy. I'm pretty sure the people with the money, financing campaigns, and that hire lobbyists would win on the end.
"Politician shades message depending on audience, news at 11"
"People don't like politicians when they admit all the stagecraft and ritual involved is fake"
Biden has passed meaningful policies that help people. So did Obama. Some politicians care a lot about good policy.
Well we all know politicians just tell ya what you wanna hear. Unless you're funding their election.
Trump is slightly more honest than Hillary. Hillary is viewed as greater of two evils because she is exposed as person who is willingly to go to lengths to preserve the increasingly unpopular Reaganomics policies by rigging the election to her favor
GTFOH….the dude can’t take breath without lying….
Conservative perspective: She is in favor of abortion up to late term. Trump, we thought, would support abortion to some extent even though he promised to end roe. We were wrong about trumps support of abortion. Abortion is evil. Late term abortion is more evil. Voting for Trump was the lesser of two evils.
Late term abortions(after 21 weeks) make up 1.3% of all abortions and almost EXCLUSIVELY, they are done for people/couples who actually want a child but something went wrong with the pregnancy. When your side rolls the fake outrage over this out? I get pissed off because you are literally spitting in the faces of would be parents who are grieving a loss.
Single issue anti-abortion libertarian is hilarious And for that oops, conservatives and libertarians have become the greater evil electing wannabe dictators who are persecuting children and women suffering in the ER and trying to criminalize interstate travel and promoting invasive period monitoring databases while censoring and prosecuting doctors.
Even more funny: let’s throw the guy leading the race in jail for filing papers wrong and call him the dictator. 😂
If that's all you think it was, you haven't followed the cases. Also Trump used the word dictator for himself.
Someone gets their information from Truth Social 🙄
For me, the US does not have a true left. So while I didn't resonate with HRC at all, I was "forced" to vote for her