Looks like Hillary was right about the Basket of Deplorables

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Why not throw Kamala being right about Trump's Twitter too?

[Badger]

If only she knew how to win a political race.

If only Trump voters did t bave such universally bad judgment.

[Rand]

She was wrong about one thing: it wasn’t a basket, it was a boatload.

[Hermit For Peace]

Let's quit with the rehabilitation of Hillary.

 Let's not.

 People had a choice between an experienced, capable, and intelligent woman and instead chose a conman, racist, crude scumbag who doesn't respect America and its rules and norms. That was always a reflection of the voters who chose Trump more than saying anything about Clinton.

I thought we were talking about Hillary.  Granted, she would've been better than Trump, which is why I held my nose and voted for her in the 2016 general election, but even the most trollish of Atlas posters has more political skill than her. She was an okay technocrat, but the only reason she ever rose to political prominence was Bill. Without marrying him, Ms. Rodham would at most be some anonymous staffer on Capitol Hill.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the vitriol directed her way is justified; it exists and it is why she never stood a chance of being elected President. Indeed, if she hadn't been running against Trump, she probably would've lost the popular vote.  (I know that I personally would have probably picked some third-party candidate in 2016 instead of her to receive my vote had the Republicans nominated someone else.  I didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, I voted against Trump, and a third-party vote doesn't serve the purpose of voting against one of the two major-party candidates. Indeed, depending on who the Republicans picked if they hadn't gone for Trump, it's possible, but not very likely, that I'd have voted GOP as an anti-Hillary vote in 2016.)

I really get tired of listening to talk like this.

Where would Bill be without Hillary? See, that goes both ways.

True, without her standing by her man in 1992, he might well have never made it to the Presidency, but he stilk would've been Governor of Arkansas and that's far further than she'd have ever gotten on her own.

You don't know that. Hillary had a brilliant career ahead of her in her own right. She would have made a name for herself...she didn't need Bill. That's my view.

Bill needed her to get where he got. She got what she got because of her association with him, but without Bill, she would have forged a trail of her own. She is one of the strongest women in politics.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If only she knew how to win a political race.

If only Trump voters did t bave such universally bad judgment.

Ha ha, has there been one of my posts you haven't trolled, Badg? 

[Catalyst138]

Let's quit with the rehabilitation of Hillary.

 Let's not.

 People had a choice between an experienced, capable, and intelligent woman and instead chose a conman, racist, crude scumbag who doesn't respect America and its rules and norms. That was always a reflection of the voters who chose Trump more than saying anything about Clinton.

I thought we were talking about Hillary.  Granted, she would've been better than Trump, which is why I held my nose and voted for her in the 2016 general election, but even the most trollish of Atlas posters has more political skill than her. She was an okay technocrat, but the only reason she ever rose to political prominence was Bill. Without marrying him, Ms. Rodham would at most be some anonymous staffer on Capitol Hill.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the vitriol directed her way is justified; it exists and it is why she never stood a chance of being elected President. Indeed, if she hadn't been running against Trump, she probably would've lost the popular vote.  (I know that I personally would have probably picked some third-party candidate in 2016 instead of her to receive my vote had the Republicans nominated someone else.  I didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, I voted against Trump, and a third-party vote doesn't serve the purpose of voting against one of the two major-party candidates. Indeed, depending on who the Republicans picked if they hadn't gone for Trump, it's possible, but not very likely, that I'd have voted GOP as an anti-Hillary vote in 2016.)

Nah, Trump was the absolute best candidate to run against Hillary. He was able to attack her in ways that more mainstream Republicans couldn’t as well, and get more voters out where it mattered. I fully believe Hillary would have won against anyone else.

I do agree that Hillary’s 2016 campaign was very flawed and that she is overhyped by some people in this thread, but really her biggest flaw in 2016 was not knowing how to beat Trump. As a politician she was just okay, not great but not awful either.

[Person Man]

Let's quit with the rehabilitation of Hillary.

 Let's not.

 People had a choice between an experienced, capable, and intelligent woman and instead chose a conman, racist, crude scumbag who doesn't respect America and its rules and norms. That was always a reflection of the voters who chose Trump more than saying anything about Clinton.

I thought we were talking about Hillary.  Granted, she would've been better than Trump, which is why I held my nose and voted for her in the 2016 general election, but even the most trollish of Atlas posters has more political skill than her. She was an okay technocrat, but the only reason she ever rose to political prominence was Bill. Without marrying him, Ms. Rodham would at most be some anonymous staffer on Capitol Hill.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the vitriol directed her way is justified; it exists and it is why she never stood a chance of being elected President. Indeed, if she hadn't been running against Trump, she probably would've lost the popular vote.  (I know that I personally would have probably picked some third-party candidate in 2016 instead of her to receive my vote had the Republicans nominated someone else.  I didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, I voted against Trump, and a third-party vote doesn't serve the purpose of voting against one of the two major-party candidates. Indeed, depending on who the Republicans picked if they hadn't gone for Trump, it's possible, but not very likely, that I'd have voted GOP as an anti-Hillary vote in 2016.)

Nah, Trump was the absolute best candidate to run against Hillary. He was able to attack her in ways that more mainstream Republicans couldn’t as well, and get more voters out where it mattered. I fully believe Hillary would have won against anyone else.

I do agree that Hillary’s 2016 campaign was very flawed and that she is overhyped by some people in this thread, but really her biggest flaw in 2016 was not knowing how to beat Trump. As a politician she was just okay, not great but not awful either.

That’s a pretty hot take.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let's quit with the rehabilitation of Hillary.

 Let's not.

 People had a choice between an experienced, capable, and intelligent woman and instead chose a conman, racist, crude scumbag who doesn't respect America and its rules and norms. That was always a reflection of the voters who chose Trump more than saying anything about Clinton.

I thought we were talking about Hillary.  Granted, she would've been better than Trump, which is why I held my nose and voted for her in the 2016 general election, but even the most trollish of Atlas posters has more political skill than her. She was an okay technocrat, but the only reason she ever rose to political prominence was Bill. Without marrying him, Ms. Rodham would at most be some anonymous staffer on Capitol Hill.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the vitriol directed her way is justified; it exists and it is why she never stood a chance of being elected President. Indeed, if she hadn't been running against Trump, she probably would've lost the popular vote.  (I know that I personally would have probably picked some third-party candidate in 2016 instead of her to receive my vote had the Republicans nominated someone else.  I didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, I voted against Trump, and a third-party vote doesn't serve the purpose of voting against one of the two major-party candidates. Indeed, depending on who the Republicans picked if they hadn't gone for Trump, it's possible, but not very likely, that I'd have voted GOP as an anti-Hillary vote in 2016.)

I really get tired of listening to talk like this.

Where would Bill be without Hillary? See, that goes both ways.

True, without her standing by her man in 1992, he might well have never made it to the Presidency, but he stilk would've been Governor of Arkansas and that's far further than she'd have ever gotten on her own.

You don't know that. Hillary had a brilliant career ahead of her in her own right. She would have made a name for herself...she didn't need Bill. That's my view.

Bill needed her to get where he got. She got what she got because of her association with him, but without Bill, she would have forged a trail of her own. She is one of the strongest women in politics.

She has shown little skill in politics outside of behind-the-scenes interactions, but I will agree she would've likely had a successful career without Bill; it just wouldn't have been in politics.

[Hermit For Peace]

Hillary should have been a professor. People don't have to like them to get great knowledge from them.