> This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. "false equivalence" is a non-argument used by Hilary supporters to sidestep proving that she is ob

> This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. "false equivalence" is a non-argument used by Hilary supporters to sidestep proving that she is objectively better than Trump, after it is correctly pointed out that she is not an angel from heaven either. > No way Hillary would have implemented this ban. This is a misleading statement that you can't even prove, because it requires you to either be a mind reader or being able to travel to an alternate reality. For the sake of argument though let's assume that she wouldn't have performed this action, can you prove that she wouldn't have done worst things? She gets money from Saudi Arabia, you would have a hard time proving that she can do no bad.