4 ms·

She did but she's no longer the issue. And in voting against Hillary, people voted for Trump, a worse alternative - morally corrupt. People fight over whether H

She did but she's no longer the issue. And in voting against Hillary, people voted for Trump, a worse alternative - morally corrupt. People fight over whether Hillary was really corrupt or not, with Trump that's not the issue. We know he's a compulsive liar, exaggerator, we know that he's mean and petty and vain and that all he cares about are his name/brand and how many millions he has in his bank account. This is not a guy who'll fight for the masses, me or you, this a guy who'll fight to keep himself and his friends rich and makes no apologies for that. So not being a Clinton but being a Trump is not better, it's so much worse. It's the same in Brasil, voting against PT, Bolsonaro might be president, but he's so much worse. Despite absolutely hating someone you still have to keep your eyes open to what the alternatives are and if they're worse or better. Or you might end up with someone that'll make you more worse off.

chrisco255 8y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#620c61467a16 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bil... The Clintons are super rich, $240 million net worth, despite a life of "public service". I wonder how that works out? It's like Robin Williams said, "Politicians are like babies, they should be changed frequently...and for the same reason." It was high time the Clinton dynasty ended.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  Trump is allegedly richer so if we're going with the "wealth = corrupt" attack here then Trump was still a worse choice than Clinton. >Clinton dynasty ended. 2 people isn't a dynasty.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    I wasn't the one who claimed wealth is equivalent to corruption. That was OP. And I think it's rather dubious to believe that more wealth equals more corruption. Trump's wealth was made in the private sector. The Clinton's wealth was made through their public sphere influence. Besides holding the presidency from '93 to '01, the Clintons moved on to the Senate, where Hillary sat for 8 years, before joining Obama as Secretary of State for 4 years. The Clintons have had deep influence in the Democrat party for the last several decades.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Orange man bad.

chrisco255 8y ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#620c61467a16 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bil... The Clintons are super rich, $240 million net worth, despite a life of "public service". I wonder how that works out? It's like Robin Williams said, "Politicians are like babies, they should be changed frequently...and for the same reason." It was high time the Clinton dynasty ended.

lawlessone 8y ago
Trump is allegedly richer so if we're going with the "wealth = corrupt" attack here then Trump was still a worse choice than Clinton. >Clinton dynasty ended. 2 people isn't a dynasty.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  I wasn't the one who claimed wealth is equivalent to corruption. That was OP. And I think it's rather dubious to believe that more wealth equals more corruption. Trump's wealth was made in the private sector. The Clinton's wealth was made through their public sphere influence. Besides holding the presidency from '93 to '01, the Clintons moved on to the Senate, where Hillary sat for 8 years, before joining Obama as Secretary of State for 4 years. The Clintons have had deep influence in the Democrat party for the last several decades.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Orange man bad.