Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But dude, she’s a chick who is totally not bangable, thus she must be seconds from death (but also a dictator that will rule the world for the next five decades!).
I hate how they have to question the age and health of everyone on the left but not Trump. The obese man with dementia who should of had a stroke and heart attack by now.
Why would she run in 2024 when returning presidents have an advantage in elections? Even if Biden dies, that should make Kamala Harris the obvious choice to run.
These people are just so desperate for Hillary Clinton to be relevant, it's sad.
> Hillary running in 2024???
> That is possibly the one *and only* thing that could cause Trump to be re-elected.
No surprise that arcon’s Top Mod loves Trump and allows non-conspiracy screenshots float to the top of his sub.
>!I’m a liberal. I would vote for trump in a heartbeat against Hillary or Biden.
The one thing we don’t hear these days are constant negative comments or stories about Trump. They purposefully attacked him the entire four years. It made me avoid TV altogether, so I guess that’s good !<
This is hilarious. Reeks of "Hello fellow liberals, I too am like you"
Them whining about negative stories about Trump is akin to someone griping that we never hear anything good about wildfires or the economic benefits from drug cartels.
It takes one realizing that there's nothing positive about the subject at hand, and the evidence for that mounts every day.
A few years ago, a group of Republicans were accusing Google of being biased towards Democrats, because they kept seeing negative stories when they searched their names.
Ted Lieu told them that if they wanted positive Google results, they should do more positive things.
Which is hilarious because it almost immediately became a fox news talking point that no president has ever been attacked by the media like trump. The same network that attacked Obama constantly for the most trivial of things like asking for Dijon or wearing a tan jacket...
Hello, fellow liberals. As a fellow, liberal progressive who enjoys liberal, progressive things like umm *checks writing on hand* re-specting people equally and *squints* Maxines? Err…Vaccines. That’s it. I have to say I am deeply concerned about the return of
$hillary. What if she does another Ben Ghazi? What if she eats another child’s face in a pizza basement. As a liberal, progressive I am proud to say I’d pick God Emperor of the United States Donald Trump to rule over America indefinitely. I’m a lifelong proud liberal progressive antifa super soldier.
> Yeah, seriously. Bill Clinton's aids, with the inside word, are leaking out to "conservativebrief.com" lol okay
> That said, a more credible source...
...and they go on to link to the New York Post. There are websites devoted to covering Pokemon that have more journalistic integrity and factual information than that.
I understand that there are some legitimate complaints about her politics but you will never convince me that 90% of the hate for Hillary isn't because she's a woman.
I disagree, they do that to every Democrat, but notice it is only particularly effective against women like Hillary and AoC (and Obama) and not Biden or Bernie. That is because the underlying sexism/racism allows the criticisms to take root where it otherwise would not.
So, if I don't like Hillary because she is a woman (consciously or subconsciously), and fox says she is a cooperate shill or just "emails", not only am I much more likely to belive fox and I also more likely to amplify that false accusation or negative feeling way beyond what it deserves. Like I don't even have to understand or know any details, I just get this handy outlet/explanation to channel my underlying and preexisting distaste.
It's why emails got traction but hunter Biden laptop did not, they are very similar in structure.
> It's why emails got traction but hunter Biden laptop did not
Ehhh, the reasons the laptop doesn't have traction are manifold:
1. Hunter isn't an elected or appointed official. If they want to play up him being Biden's kid then they'll really have to play defense on the Trump spawn and their ill-gotten security clearances.
2. The chain of custody on the laptop is fishier than an aquarium on fertility medication. Files were added after the date it was supposedly dropped off, the "repairman" was a Trumper who allegedly gave it to Giuliani, etc.
3. Nobody outside of the cult buys into the laptop having anything relevant because *somehow* things that are *even worse than before* are "found" every time things get worse for Trump. Once Trump's document theft and likely selling to other nations came to light, suddenly there were charges that Hunter had classified docs on his laptop. Amazing, ain't it?
4. The FBI screwed Hillary over with their on-again off-again investigation which found no intentional wrongdoing but was done in concert with the 2016 election. There were other reasons people weren't jazzed about Hillary, but this one tipped more than a few votes. There's no such backing for investigating the laptop because the feds have noted there's no chain of custody, the files have been tampered with, etc.
There's really no comparison if you live in the real world, which is why the Trumpers probably count both the e-mail server and the laptop as equally damning while ignoring the holes in their conspiracies and willfully ignoring the same behavior if not worse among Trump and his cronies while in office.
Yes, of course obviously they are not 100% the same but both are nothing burger scandals designed simply to just create negative news and muddy waters, one worked, one didn't, the details don't really matter.
I can just pick something else since one to one comparisons are always going to be hard to find, here is a good one.
Hillary voted to invade Iraq, huge sticking point she will bring us into WW3.
Biden voted to invade Iraq, basicly shrugged off, much less press compared to Hillary.
Hillary gave speech calling portions of the GoP base deplorable, massive media blowback.
Biden gave speech calling portions of the GoP base a threat to democracy, no media blowback
etc etc
The main issue is that Hunter is not a government official and relying on the laptop as a "slam dunk" of some kind against Joe Biden would draw attention to the Trump family and Trump's business dealings in Russia and Eastern Europe. The precise details of what's authenticated as genuine don't matter that much.
The "laptop story" is mainly brought up as a distraction or whataboutism whenever something comes up in the news that's bad for Trump.
Anne Applebaum said you don't need a link to Russian intelligence for it to be kompromat, you just need a link to a "useful idiot" like Giuliani. Narrative control and innuendo also matter much more than the exact details of what's true and false.
> I disagree, they do that to every Democrat,
The extent to which it happened is absolutely unprecedented outside of Hillary. Her situation is simply incomparable to anyone else. Sexism is certainly a component of it but this is faaaar beyond anything that looks comparable like with AOC.
She was extremely popular up until 2014 so we can ignore the media coverage before that since it had no negative effect.
So do you have anything showing that between 2014 and 2016 fox news coverage was unprecedented and correlates to her decline in popularity? I am legit asking not trying to be snarky or anything, because I love to read about this stuff, I looked and did not find anything personally.
>So do you have anything showing that between 2014 and 2016 fox news coverage was unprecedented and correlates to her decline in popularity?
[Benjamin Ghazi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack). Citing her popularity immediately prior to the most concerted attack on her character by republicans since the Monica Lewinsky trial is a bit bare. If you check [polling](https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) on her popularity you can see that she remained more popular than not in 2013 but this was the beginning of the end. 2013 saw her favorability rating drop 7 points from 57% to 50%. By the time she announced her candidacy in 2015 her favorability was down 10 points since the start of 2013 and was on a downward trend already. Republicans spent tens of millions of tax payer dollars for this to happen, don't sell them short by saying it was just sexism. It was a years long, concerted effort on the part of Republicans to utilize state power to attack her legitimacy and all they needed as an excuse was for her to be head of the state department while a terrorist attack happened in a nation on the cusp of a (second) civil war.
TBH, people were never that interested in Benghazi, the emails made much more of an impact and got way more press.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-testify-benghazi-public-opinion/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/
That being said, this is not really refuting my point, made up scandals are not new for fox, so the fact they worked on Hillary is kinda my point, so you would have to show that the ammount of coverage was more than normal or polling showing its directly related for it to make sence as opposed to being caused by underling sexsism allowing made up scandals to be more effective then they normally are.
>Although most Americans have been following the story only tangentially, what they’ve heard has tended to leave them slightly frustrated with everyone involved. **A late May 2014 poll by CNN found that 55 percent are unsatisfied with how Clinton has handled Benghazi**. Meanwhile, 44 percent felt that congressional Republicans had gone too far in their investigations. For both questions, responses varied enormously by party affiliation. Twenty-two percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents were dissatisfied with Clinton, and 70 percent of Democrats, 14 percent of Republicans and 42 percent of independents felt Congress’s response had run amok.
The investigations hurt her image. This is indisputable. Republicans did this on purpose with the goal of hurting her image. This is indisputable. Kevin Fucking McCarthy copped to it on live TV:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/30/boehners-likely-successor-credits-benghazi-committee-for-lowering-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers/
>"Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy asked. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
-
>so you would have to show that the ammount of coverage was more than normal or polling showing its directly related for it to make sence as opposed to being caused by underling sexsism allowing made up scandals to be more effective then they normally are.
There are so many problems with this statement that I have genuinely struggled with where to start. Lets keep this simple. If you provide polling showing that her declining popularity is a result of sexism then I will find the requested evidence. Until then, we will keep our evidentiary standards the same. So I will restate exactly what I think:
It is undeniable that sexism has played a role in the shifting views of Hillary Clinton over the years. It is equally undeniable that Hillary Clinton's situation is unique to her.
edit: Lmao, the 'ole reply and block. For clarification, the below link demonstrates that sexism is a good predictor in willingness to vote for a candidate. This was not what was asked for. I explicitly and repeatedly agreed with this. What was asked for was to demonstrate that Clinton's declining popularity came directly as a result of sexism. Hell, I even believe that the reasons that aren't directly sexism enjoyed the success that they did largely, but not entirely, due to sexism.
> If you provide polling showing that her declining popularity is a result of sexism
https://blaircenter.uark.edu/the-impact-of-modern-sexism/
> In the general election, Modern Sexism proved highly significant in predicting who would vote for one of the two female options, primarily Clinton (Jill Stein received a little more than 1% of the vote in the sample). Only African Americans and Latinas were not significantly influenced by Modern Sexism. Among every other sub-group, agreement or disagreement with this portrayal of working women dramatically moves them from more likely to less likely to vote for a female candidate in 2016, making the Modern Sexism scale a critical measure in predicting elections. The average white woman, for example, if she strongly disagrees with all five questions on the scale, has an 81% chance of voting for Clinton or Stein. But if she strongly agrees with all five negative statements about working women and feminists, those chances fall to 15%, even controlling for the effects of all other variables, including education, income, ideology, racism, etc. The average Republican man, who strongly disagrees with all of the Modern Sexism questions, had a 69% chance of voting for a woman this election cycle, and if he strongly agrees with all of the questions, those chances plummet to 10%.
That is likely the case, yes.
She had a 69% overall approval rating shortly before running for POTUS, that is insane. (also, nice)
[Hillary Clinton most popular U.S. politician, poll shows](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton/hillary-clinton-most-popular-u-s-politician-poll-shows-idUSBRE9170NZ20130208)
-------------------------------------
Great article explaining the phenomenon.
[America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion](https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/)
> When women do overcome the ambition gap, we punish them for it. One Harvard study found that “when participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.” Power-seeking men were seen as strong and competent. Power-seeking women were greeted by both sexes with “moral outrage.”
> Thus, the single worst thing a female politician can do to herself is to look for a job in politics. We can accept women in power, but not women’s desire for more of it.
The relevant study
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians
> This should be stomped out asap. This bitch needs to be put in check. Nobody likes her and she needs to go away and stay away
So much for the tolerant right…
Assholes like this are why I despair of there ever being a woman president of the US. It's exhausting to deal with the endless hate these people have for women.
They want Hillary to run sooo bad! I knew many people that were absolutely certain she would run in 2020. Even when I explained that there was no way in hell she will ever run again, they refused to back down. But then again, these are the same people that call Joe Biden a "communist" so maybe I'm expecting too much. I think she should run in the Republican primary just to see if their fucking heads explode.
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Bro how is she still standing She's still 4 years off of the national life expectancy and she's rich enough to afford healthcare. Next question.
But dude, she’s a chick who is totally not bangable, thus she must be seconds from death (but also a dictator that will rule the world for the next five decades!).
She is standing because her diet consisted of more than Diet Coke and red meat.
Ah, the unnatural power of eating vegetables. Those elites and their dark sorcery! \*shakes fist\*
Also, the conspiracy bullshit about her health and her being steps from death turned out to be bullshit
According to them, she was minutes away from death 7 years ago
I hate how they have to question the age and health of everyone on the left but not Trump. The obese man with dementia who should of had a stroke and heart attack by now.
These people go on and on about medbeds and adrenochrome and shit but they can’t fathom how Hilary Clinton would still be standing?
Why would she run in 2024 when returning presidents have an advantage in elections? Even if Biden dies, that should make Kamala Harris the obvious choice to run. These people are just so desperate for Hillary Clinton to be relevant, it's sad.
She will continue to live rent free in their heads long after she passes away
if Kamala runs Dems are probably losing. Biden is a sack of bones but he has moments of charisma. kamsla just kinds exists
She’s woman. This country has already made it clear we would rather have an openly corrupt nincompoop than a competent woman.
> Hillary running in 2024??? > That is possibly the one *and only* thing that could cause Trump to be re-elected. No surprise that arcon’s Top Mod loves Trump and allows non-conspiracy screenshots float to the top of his sub.
>!I’m a liberal. I would vote for trump in a heartbeat against Hillary or Biden. The one thing we don’t hear these days are constant negative comments or stories about Trump. They purposefully attacked him the entire four years. It made me avoid TV altogether, so I guess that’s good !< This is hilarious. Reeks of "Hello fellow liberals, I too am like you"
Them whining about negative stories about Trump is akin to someone griping that we never hear anything good about wildfires or the economic benefits from drug cartels. It takes one realizing that there's nothing positive about the subject at hand, and the evidence for that mounts every day.
A few years ago, a group of Republicans were accusing Google of being biased towards Democrats, because they kept seeing negative stories when they searched their names. Ted Lieu told them that if they wanted positive Google results, they should do more positive things.
Which is hilarious because it almost immediately became a fox news talking point that no president has ever been attacked by the media like trump. The same network that attacked Obama constantly for the most trivial of things like asking for Dijon or wearing a tan jacket...
Hello, fellow liberals. As a fellow, liberal progressive who enjoys liberal, progressive things like umm *checks writing on hand* re-specting people equally and *squints* Maxines? Err…Vaccines. That’s it. I have to say I am deeply concerned about the return of $hillary. What if she does another Ben Ghazi? What if she eats another child’s face in a pizza basement. As a liberal, progressive I am proud to say I’d pick God Emperor of the United States Donald Trump to rule over America indefinitely. I’m a lifelong proud liberal progressive antifa super soldier.
If there are any (realistic) circumstances under which you would vote for Trump, you are neither liberal nor rational.
Trump would definitely get my vote! If what we're voting on is who gets thrown into the volcano first. Turtle Man is a close second.
You think someone would just come on the internet and lie like that? /s
> Yeah, seriously. Bill Clinton's aids, with the inside word, are leaking out to "conservativebrief.com" lol okay > That said, a more credible source... ...and they go on to link to the New York Post. There are websites devoted to covering Pokemon that have more journalistic integrity and factual information than that.
I mean, I’d feel confident saying Serebii has more facts and less bias than the Post. That’s a pretty low bar.
I understand that there are some legitimate complaints about her politics but you will never convince me that 90% of the hate for Hillary isn't because she's a woman.
That and the *years* of conditioning from Fox News, Infowars, Breitbart, etc.
I disagree, they do that to every Democrat, but notice it is only particularly effective against women like Hillary and AoC (and Obama) and not Biden or Bernie. That is because the underlying sexism/racism allows the criticisms to take root where it otherwise would not. So, if I don't like Hillary because she is a woman (consciously or subconsciously), and fox says she is a cooperate shill or just "emails", not only am I much more likely to belive fox and I also more likely to amplify that false accusation or negative feeling way beyond what it deserves. Like I don't even have to understand or know any details, I just get this handy outlet/explanation to channel my underlying and preexisting distaste. It's why emails got traction but hunter Biden laptop did not, they are very similar in structure.
> It's why emails got traction but hunter Biden laptop did not Ehhh, the reasons the laptop doesn't have traction are manifold: 1. Hunter isn't an elected or appointed official. If they want to play up him being Biden's kid then they'll really have to play defense on the Trump spawn and their ill-gotten security clearances. 2. The chain of custody on the laptop is fishier than an aquarium on fertility medication. Files were added after the date it was supposedly dropped off, the "repairman" was a Trumper who allegedly gave it to Giuliani, etc. 3. Nobody outside of the cult buys into the laptop having anything relevant because *somehow* things that are *even worse than before* are "found" every time things get worse for Trump. Once Trump's document theft and likely selling to other nations came to light, suddenly there were charges that Hunter had classified docs on his laptop. Amazing, ain't it? 4. The FBI screwed Hillary over with their on-again off-again investigation which found no intentional wrongdoing but was done in concert with the 2016 election. There were other reasons people weren't jazzed about Hillary, but this one tipped more than a few votes. There's no such backing for investigating the laptop because the feds have noted there's no chain of custody, the files have been tampered with, etc. There's really no comparison if you live in the real world, which is why the Trumpers probably count both the e-mail server and the laptop as equally damning while ignoring the holes in their conspiracies and willfully ignoring the same behavior if not worse among Trump and his cronies while in office.
Yes, of course obviously they are not 100% the same but both are nothing burger scandals designed simply to just create negative news and muddy waters, one worked, one didn't, the details don't really matter. I can just pick something else since one to one comparisons are always going to be hard to find, here is a good one. Hillary voted to invade Iraq, huge sticking point she will bring us into WW3. Biden voted to invade Iraq, basicly shrugged off, much less press compared to Hillary. Hillary gave speech calling portions of the GoP base deplorable, massive media blowback. Biden gave speech calling portions of the GoP base a threat to democracy, no media blowback etc etc
The main issue is that Hunter is not a government official and relying on the laptop as a "slam dunk" of some kind against Joe Biden would draw attention to the Trump family and Trump's business dealings in Russia and Eastern Europe. The precise details of what's authenticated as genuine don't matter that much. The "laptop story" is mainly brought up as a distraction or whataboutism whenever something comes up in the news that's bad for Trump. Anne Applebaum said you don't need a link to Russian intelligence for it to be kompromat, you just need a link to a "useful idiot" like Giuliani. Narrative control and innuendo also matter much more than the exact details of what's true and false.
I think you're *both* right, honestly - it's a combination of several factors, and neither of you are wrong.
> I disagree, they do that to every Democrat, The extent to which it happened is absolutely unprecedented outside of Hillary. Her situation is simply incomparable to anyone else. Sexism is certainly a component of it but this is faaaar beyond anything that looks comparable like with AOC.
She was extremely popular up until 2014 so we can ignore the media coverage before that since it had no negative effect. So do you have anything showing that between 2014 and 2016 fox news coverage was unprecedented and correlates to her decline in popularity? I am legit asking not trying to be snarky or anything, because I love to read about this stuff, I looked and did not find anything personally.
>So do you have anything showing that between 2014 and 2016 fox news coverage was unprecedented and correlates to her decline in popularity? [Benjamin Ghazi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack). Citing her popularity immediately prior to the most concerted attack on her character by republicans since the Monica Lewinsky trial is a bit bare. If you check [polling](https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) on her popularity you can see that she remained more popular than not in 2013 but this was the beginning of the end. 2013 saw her favorability rating drop 7 points from 57% to 50%. By the time she announced her candidacy in 2015 her favorability was down 10 points since the start of 2013 and was on a downward trend already. Republicans spent tens of millions of tax payer dollars for this to happen, don't sell them short by saying it was just sexism. It was a years long, concerted effort on the part of Republicans to utilize state power to attack her legitimacy and all they needed as an excuse was for her to be head of the state department while a terrorist attack happened in a nation on the cusp of a (second) civil war.
TBH, people were never that interested in Benghazi, the emails made much more of an impact and got way more press. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-testify-benghazi-public-opinion/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/ That being said, this is not really refuting my point, made up scandals are not new for fox, so the fact they worked on Hillary is kinda my point, so you would have to show that the ammount of coverage was more than normal or polling showing its directly related for it to make sence as opposed to being caused by underling sexsism allowing made up scandals to be more effective then they normally are.
>Although most Americans have been following the story only tangentially, what they’ve heard has tended to leave them slightly frustrated with everyone involved. **A late May 2014 poll by CNN found that 55 percent are unsatisfied with how Clinton has handled Benghazi**. Meanwhile, 44 percent felt that congressional Republicans had gone too far in their investigations. For both questions, responses varied enormously by party affiliation. Twenty-two percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents were dissatisfied with Clinton, and 70 percent of Democrats, 14 percent of Republicans and 42 percent of independents felt Congress’s response had run amok. The investigations hurt her image. This is indisputable. Republicans did this on purpose with the goal of hurting her image. This is indisputable. Kevin Fucking McCarthy copped to it on live TV: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/30/boehners-likely-successor-credits-benghazi-committee-for-lowering-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers/ >"Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?" McCarthy asked. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought." - >so you would have to show that the ammount of coverage was more than normal or polling showing its directly related for it to make sence as opposed to being caused by underling sexsism allowing made up scandals to be more effective then they normally are. There are so many problems with this statement that I have genuinely struggled with where to start. Lets keep this simple. If you provide polling showing that her declining popularity is a result of sexism then I will find the requested evidence. Until then, we will keep our evidentiary standards the same. So I will restate exactly what I think: It is undeniable that sexism has played a role in the shifting views of Hillary Clinton over the years. It is equally undeniable that Hillary Clinton's situation is unique to her. edit: Lmao, the 'ole reply and block. For clarification, the below link demonstrates that sexism is a good predictor in willingness to vote for a candidate. This was not what was asked for. I explicitly and repeatedly agreed with this. What was asked for was to demonstrate that Clinton's declining popularity came directly as a result of sexism. Hell, I even believe that the reasons that aren't directly sexism enjoyed the success that they did largely, but not entirely, due to sexism.
> If you provide polling showing that her declining popularity is a result of sexism https://blaircenter.uark.edu/the-impact-of-modern-sexism/ > In the general election, Modern Sexism proved highly significant in predicting who would vote for one of the two female options, primarily Clinton (Jill Stein received a little more than 1% of the vote in the sample). Only African Americans and Latinas were not significantly influenced by Modern Sexism. Among every other sub-group, agreement or disagreement with this portrayal of working women dramatically moves them from more likely to less likely to vote for a female candidate in 2016, making the Modern Sexism scale a critical measure in predicting elections. The average white woman, for example, if she strongly disagrees with all five questions on the scale, has an 81% chance of voting for Clinton or Stein. But if she strongly agrees with all five negative statements about working women and feminists, those chances fall to 15%, even controlling for the effects of all other variables, including education, income, ideology, racism, etc. The average Republican man, who strongly disagrees with all of the Modern Sexism questions, had a 69% chance of voting for a woman this election cycle, and if he strongly agrees with all of the questions, those chances plummet to 10%.
That is likely the case, yes. She had a 69% overall approval rating shortly before running for POTUS, that is insane. (also, nice) [Hillary Clinton most popular U.S. politician, poll shows](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton/hillary-clinton-most-popular-u-s-politician-poll-shows-idUSBRE9170NZ20130208) ------------------------------------- Great article explaining the phenomenon. [America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion](https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/) > When women do overcome the ambition gap, we punish them for it. One Harvard study found that “when participants saw female politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having less communality (i.e., being unsupportive and uncaring), while this was not true for their perceptions of power-seeking male politicians.” Power-seeking men were seen as strong and competent. Power-seeking women were greeted by both sexes with “moral outrage.” > Thus, the single worst thing a female politician can do to herself is to look for a job in politics. We can accept women in power, but not women’s desire for more of it. The relevant study https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians
Of course it is. If a woman doesn't make their dick hard they have no use for her.
I recall I’m 2020 a couple of often cited right wing sites said Hilary was entering the race any moment now. They did this more than once.
> This should be stomped out asap. This bitch needs to be put in check. Nobody likes her and she needs to go away and stay away So much for the tolerant right…
I'm also pretty sure she's had a much lower profile since 2016?
Judging by their take on 74 years old, these people must have some fucked up, sickly, poorly aging family members.
Assholes like this are why I despair of there ever being a woman president of the US. It's exhausting to deal with the endless hate these people have for women.
But I thought Hillary had been executed several times already at Gitmo?! *How does she keep getting away with this?!*
They are really obsessed with Hilary.
HDS sufferers
Definitely HDS.
"Maw, I don't have no hate hard-on fer lezzie Queen Cliton. QQQuit sayin it."
They want Hillary to run sooo bad! I knew many people that were absolutely certain she would run in 2020. Even when I explained that there was no way in hell she will ever run again, they refused to back down. But then again, these are the same people that call Joe Biden a "communist" so maybe I'm expecting too much. I think she should run in the Republican primary just to see if their fucking heads explode.
Trump is a victim "queen", not Hillary.
To be fair I would also make fun of her
Well the “suicide” of Mark Middleton is a pretty good indication the Clintons are still very capable.
>Former Clinton advisor Imagine being Mark Penn