Support NeoGAF

[ebullientprism]

I'm a progressive. Absolutely would describe myself as a very left leaning liberal.

And if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting for her. Fuck that shit.

Spoiler

Not an American.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

yes, how dare the Democrats defend the rights of minorities and women

I like how you are twisting my words. Obviously, I am somehow worse than Trump and not a true Scotsman for not thinking social issues are more important than fiscal and foreign policy.

I am a Democrat. I am not saying defending the rights of minorities and women is a bad thing. I am saying that it shouldn't be the ONLY thing. A rising tide floats all boats. It will be a hell of a lot easier to fix social issues with the proper fiscal policy in place.

 

[Dangansona]

Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.

I'm so sick of this sexism nonsense. I know it is said everytime, but I would absolutely vote for Elizabeth Warren. Who I don't want to vote for is someone who takes money from Wall Street, Corporations, and lobbyists; someone who flip-flops and lies on the issues to get votes; someone who gets her husband to block polling places; someone who is in bed with the DNC and has their backing (and the media) making it impossible for another candidate to stand a chance.

It's everything about her and what she has done, not what sex she is or how I am a sore loser if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

 

[dLMN8R]

To disregard any criticism of her as those two things is really sad.

I'm not responding to criticism. I'm responding to someone who quite literally said he "just doesn't like her"

I'm so sick of this sexism nonsense. I know it is said everytime, but I would absolutely vote for Elizabeth Warren. Who I don't want to vote for is someone who takes money from Wall Street, Corporations, and lobbyists; someone who flip-flops and lies on the issues to get votes; someone who gets her husband to block polling places; someone who is in bed with the DNC and has their backing (and the media) making it impossible for another candidate to stand a chance.

It's everything about her and what she has done, not what sex she is or how I am a sore loser if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

It is absolutely reasonable to claim sexism as a possible reason when someone says "I don't like her" without saying any specific reasons why.

I didn't call you sexist because of the reasons you specifically brought up. So back off a bit?

Though I'm sure that if you had to elaborate on very specific examples of the broad strokes you're describing, many of them would come up short in the "facts and context" department.

Not all of them, to be sure, but almost every specific criticism of Hillary Clinton I see can be debunked when you put it into wider context instead of specific sound bites.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Of course it hurt him, but that's not to be blamed on Nader or people that felt a vote for him was more appealing. Be a better candidate, win your own home state and the Florida fuckery doesn't happen.

Winnable (granted that demographics are different to varying degrees now) states Gore lost, any of which would have won him the election:

Nevada ( Clinton won both cycles)
Colorado ( Clinton win 1992)
Ohio (Clinton won both cycles)
Florida (Clinton won 1996, granted JEB! in office)
West Virginia (D lost for first time since 1984)
Tennessee (Clinton won both cycles)

The only one of those states where Nader votes potentially mattered was Florida. You can't assume that people that voted Nader would have voted for Gore, or even voted at all.

Alright, but what i was getting at:

-Did Nader running help the progressive agenda for the 8 years that followed? I can't see anyone arguing that it did.

-Does anyone think that those that voted for Nader would've done so differently if they knew what followed?

why those two points, you ask? Because there are Bernie supporters that are arguing that they wont vote for Hillary. Fine, but the last time there was a significant amount of voters that either sat out or voted for a third party on the left we had 8 years of Bush to eat as part of that (Again, not putting it all on them, i haven't done so in any part of my Nader discussion).

Nader running was part of the myriad things that put bush into office. Maybe his ~3 million voters would've helped matters, maybe it wouldn't have. But if Bernie supporters want to see a possible result of their petulance, all they need to do is see how those 8 wonderfully shitty years of Bush in office looked like.

 

[Mael]

Yes, 60% of eligible voters would be ideal. The specific number isn't terribly important; what's important is reaching a threshold wherein the media and the international community can no longer deny that the U.S. government is illegitimate. This isn't a strategy that I'm invested in - I spend most of my energy on activism/direct action - but it would be a significant blow to corporate control of our government. If you want to see the end of the type of corporatism we are currently living under, it's extremely important not to endorse one of their representatives during elections. Voting for a Clinton or an Obama or a Bush sends the signal that you consent to be governed by the 1%.

Edit: Voting for Trump is an endorsement of nativism at best, fascism at worst, obviously.

I've got bad news for you.
We have elections in Europe where there's more than 60% of people just sit out of the election (european parliamentary election).
You know what happens? No one gives a shit and it's business as usual.
Even if you have 80% people who just don't vote, the media and the people won't really care.
Apathy is just that, it's not a platform for revolution.

Voting in the U.S. is not a political act.

If voting isn't a political act, nothing is.

 

[WEGGLES]

Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.

Certainly better than literal dog shit.

 

[televator]

People really don't understand that the Donald is campaigning on just that, and not getting that if he wins then lots of people get the shit covered in vomit and disease that they have to eat and still deal with years later.

Not to say Hill dawg is as bad as Trump, but you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary won't have any negative repercussions to deal with years later.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm not responding to criticism. I'm responding to someone who quite literally said he "just doesn't like her"



It is absolutely reasonable to claim sexism as a possible reason when someone says "I don't like her" without saying any specific reasons why.

I didn't call you sexist because of the reasons you specifically brought up. So back off a bit?

Look, I'm with you on the idea that a lot of Hillary criticism is based in sexism, but targeting people as "possible sexists" is not cool unless there's some solid reasoning behind it (like, for instance, if they called Hillary a harpy or a bitch or something).

Not to say Hill dawg is as bad as Trump, but you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary won't have any negative repercussions to deal with years later.

I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't, but we can't forget that the EIU ranked Trump as being as harmful to the global economy as ISIS

 

[jtb]

I like how you are twisting my words. Obviously, I am somehow worse than Trump and not a true Scotsman for not thinking social issues are more important than fiscal and foreign policy.

I am a Democrat. I am not saying defending the rights of minorities and women is a bad thing. I am saying that it shouldn't be the ONLY thing. A rising tide floats all boats. It will be a hell of a lot easier to fix social issues with the proper fiscal policy in place.

eh, I think that this has been the main division between Sanders and Clinton supporters this election cycle. my belief is a rising tide floats all boats unequally and I have absolutely no problem with Democrats prioritizing policies that protect the key members of their coalition because, well, that's democracy.

Not to say Hill dawg is as bad as Trump, but you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary won't have any negative repercussions to deal with years later.

you could literally say this about every elected official in the history of government

 

[Omegasquash]

To disregard any criticism of her as those two things is really sad.

Are you saying the majority of anti-Clinton dispositions aren't based in either misinformation or unconscious sexism? She absolutely can be criticized, but to nitpick her when the opposition is General Hux seems silly.

That's not to say that you're a Trump voter. I'm just saying that I think most folks do have an unconscious bias or have taken the bait by being beaten over the head with it for years.

 

[Omegasquash]

Not to say Hill dawg is as bad as Trump, but you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary won't have any negative repercussions to deal with years later.

We'll be even more in the bankers' pockets, but we won't be in their pockets and denying the right to protest safely, or trying to build walls, or any of the vile things that Trump campaigns on.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.

Maggots are a legit source of protein. So at least we know we're healthier with it.

 

[Melkezadek]

Not to say Hill dawg is as bad as Trump, but you're kidding yourself if you think Hillary won't have any negative repercussions to deal with years later.

Again, this down playing of the negative in a Trump presidency is ridiculous.

There are are always negative repercussions to electing an official to office. Somewhere out there, someone is negatively effected by the AHCA. That doesn't mean it will conceived out of any malice or bigotry. Trump's entire campaign is directed towards race and demagoguery. He promotes violence against those he aims in his rhetoric.

People are trying to turn this into an argument where people are claiming Hilary is a saint. No one is seriously arguing that point.

 

[Odrion]

Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.

More like a vegan burger. Not really appetizing at first glance, but will be better than you think, and while it won't revolutionize your body's health you'll still be healthier for it and it'll pave the way to a healthier future. Also the burger is $10.

 

[A Link to the Past]

It helped me out well enough against the Sharks

 

[televator]

eh, I think that this has been the main division between Sanders and Clinton supporters this election cycle. my belief is a rising tide floats all boats unequally and I have absolutely no problem with Democrats prioritizing policies that protect the key members of their coalition because, well, that's democracy.



you could literally say this about every elected official in the history of government

Not every elected official goes to war.

 

[Dangansona]

It helped me out well enough against the Sharks

Lol.

Help me out, what did your GAF avatar used to be?

 

[A Link to the Past]

Lol.

Help me out, what did your GAF avatar used to be?

a spooky skeleton

 

[boiled goose]

And if you want to change that, you know what you have to do?
Engage in politic and make your candidate at the local/state level be elected so that your representative can change this.
Or you can sit on your ass and complain that you don't like your president.

And thus we have the explanation for Tea Party's success.

Huh? I am extremely active politically. I have been canvassing and constantly message my state reps regarding local bills. Who are you talking to here? me??

I did vote in 2010! Again, who are you even talking to??? I was saying that there were reasons why 2010 was much less appealing than 2008, and it had to do with what happened between 2008 and 2010.

Also, the tea party was funded and propped up by special interests. I wasn't just a glass roots movement. Look at their funders. You will see familiar names prop up..

 

[Muffdraul]

Seriously. Voting for a candidate you approve of is obviously the preferred thing to do. But voting for whoever it takes in order to combat the opposition taking things straight to hell is the top priority. If Trump gets into the WH in Nov, you fucks will be held accountable.

 

[televator]

Again, this down playing of the negative in a Trump presidency is ridiculous.

I'm not down playing anything. I'm simply clarifying that Hillary is not an especially appealing candidate for many lefties these days.

What I find ridiculous and sometimes down right disturbing, are people biting into the maggot sammich and swearing it's the best thing ever. Savoring every list bit, and then shaming people who don't agree.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I'm not down playing anything. I'm simply clarifying that Hillary is not an especially appealing candidate for many lefties these days.

What I find ridiculous and sometimes down right disturbing, are people biting into the maggot sammich and swearing it's the best thing ever. Saboring every list bit, and then shaming people who don't agree.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.

i mean, to keep this analogy straight (even if i don't agree with it entirely)

sanders is a gourmet pizza. high cost, very high reward.

clinton is a fast food burger of your choice. you're probably not happy with it, but it gets the job done.

trump is a pile of horse manure, marinated with vomit, infested with every disease known to man, and topped with a giant orb of shrieking rage, and if he wins the giant orb spreads the vomit to every non-white person in the country. why the hell would you eat this?

 

[dLMN8R]

Once again - Hillary Clinton's voting record is out there in public. You can scrutinize it for yourself.

But while liberals who hate her look at unfortunate votes like for the Iraq War, I look at 99.9% of her other votes that show she's more liberal than Obama.

While liberals who hate her (rightfully) point out that she's too hawkish most of the time, especially as described in the fantastic Obama Doctrine I happily read last weekend, I consider it and it pushes me toward Bernie. But if Bernie isn't the nominee, I don't dwell on it forever. It doesn't negate the fact that the Republican alternative is exponentially more dangerous on foreign policy. And it's not just a "lesser of two evils" thing, considering that she has actually accomplished quite a few great and positive things when it comes to foreign policy and general relationships abroad.

When liberals who hate her claim that she's too tied to Wall Street, I point out that she wants to repeal Citizen's United, and that was nearly two years ago, not just a response to Bernie. She's simply too ambitious to take the easy road and enact legislation in favor of big banks. What does she have to gain from doing so?

And again, when liberals who hate her point out that notorious Elizabeth Warren video regarding her alleged flip-flop around a mortgage bill after meeting with big banks, simply look at the wider context of the story and what she actually did and why. The claim is bullshit, and I'm really angry with Warren about this.


Hillary Clinton is not the perfect candidate. And she's a worse campaigner. But she's also not the "lesser of two evils" you should vote for just to prevent the other guy from getting in. She's genuinely a proven liberal with a voting record and public supporter of liberal legislation to back it. She's just made some (sometimes big) mistakes along the way.

Vote for Bernie now if you'd like - I might also do so. But you really need to look at yourself in the mirror if you truly think it's a good idea not to vote for her in the general election if she ends up the nominee.

 

[Valhelm]

Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.

There are tomes of legitimate criticism to be written of Hillary Clinton from the left. She's a centrist, plain and simple, with no willingness to even push the boundary of social progressiveness until the public has already changed accordingly. She has valiantly fought bigotry, but never advocated for any policies or issues that were not already popular among many Americans, as shown by her delayed leftward shifts on gay marriage and justice reform. But more importantly, her attitudes on foreign policy and the economy (which are really the two most significant issues for any politician) are not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. Hillary Clinton has more in common with the Tories than Labour when it comes to policy, and her being a woman does not change this.

 

[Mael]

Huh? I am extremely active politically. I have been canvassing and constantly message my state reps regarding local bills. Who are you talking to here? me??

I did vote in 2010! Again, who are you even talking to??? I was saying that there were reasons why 2010 was much less appealing than 2008, and it had to do with what happened between 2008 and 2010.

Also, the tea party was funded and propped up by special interests. I wasn't just a glass roots movement. Look at their funders. You will see familiar names prop up..

I'm not talking about you specifically, if you're already involved in local/state politics you're already pushing your PoV and pushing for the changes you want.
Looking at the constant insurrection on the right since 2008 I'd say they did a pretty good job making sure their ideals are represented at all stages of the government (with the white house eluding them).
That's the difference with the left and the right, the right is outraged at the state of the country and the left is not happy either but they're calmer.
The message the TP is sending is also quite clear and easy to understand and it clearly worked.
When the left will manage to make inroads in the same way they have a shot at pushing the country on the left.

 

[Melkezadek]

I'm not down playing anything. I'm simply clarifying that Hillary is not an especially appealing candidate for many lefties these days.

What I find ridiculous and sometimes down right disturbing, are people biting into the maggot sammich and swearing it's the best thing ever. Savoring every list bit, and then shaming people who don't agree.

Are people shaming the fact that others don't like Hilary or are they shaming the "no voting/write in third party"?

There is a monumental difference.

 

[ApharmdX]

Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.

Are primary voters who go for Hillary over Bernie Sanders antisemitic? Stop, just stop, please.

 

[How About No]

My greatest emotional statement toward her is "Eh, she's fine I suppose. If she were president I don't think any end-times cataclysm would happen. I'd vote her if Bernie doesn't make it". Haven't really been paying much attention tho

a spooky skeleton

WAIT what happened to A Link to the Snitch?!?

 

[kame-sennin]

If voting isn't a political act, nothing is.

No. Voting is literally the most passive form of political 'participation' there is. It's so sad that Americans forgot this.

 

[Mael]

Are primary voters who go for Hillary over Bernie Sanders antisemitic? Stop, just stop, please.

Well if his criticism were all about how he's jewish and has ties to Israel you might have a point.
Just look at Trump 1rst attack ad on Clinton and compared what's being usually said about Sanders.

No. Voting is literally the most passive form of political 'participation' there is. It's so sad that Americans forgot this.

Voting is the culmination of the political participation, it's the direct expression of your thought on policies in condensed form.
If your political participation is just voting you're indeed doing it wrong, if you're not voting at all you've lost the plot entirely and you're inherently ok with whatever direction the country is taking.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't think it's okay to just accuse people of being sexist for disliking Hillary, but it's perfectly okay to point out the very real issue of people hating on Hillary for her gender.

My greatest emotional statement toward her is "Eh, she's fine I suppose. If she were president I don't think any end-times cataclysm would happen. I'd vote her if Bernie doesn't make it". Haven't really been paying much attention tho



WAIT what happened to A Link to the Snitch?!?

A Link to the Snitch is no more

 

[Valhelm]

The siren song of keeping social issues in the spotlight over fiscal and foreign policy is so powerful. You throw out words like Social Justice or Pro-life and the basic uninformed voter from both sides has something easy to comprehend to get worked up over. What percentage of Democrats even care about let alone know of Glass-Steagall?

Yeah, it's a fucking travesty that liberals (in an academic or Marxist sense) have hoodwinked Americans into believing that issues of social liberation are the only ones that matter. Ending institutional racism or homophobia won't liberate black people and queer folk if they're still being oppressed by neoliberal policy.

But while liberals who hate her look at unfortunate votes like for the Iraq War, I look at 99.9% of her other votes that show she's more liberal than Obama.

Obama is a centrist, even within the incredibly limited constraints of the Democratic Party, so being to his left should be the bare minimum we expect of liberal politicians. But looking at voting record alone is disingenuous, because Barack Obama promised progressive changes throughout his campaign and followed through on most of them. Clinton doesn't seek to revolutionize this country, and doesn't seem very interested in very much reform. This is a problem.

 

[mattiewheels]

Do conservatives even have this dilemma? They just militantly vote every 2 years and don't wring their hands about their pick not being the perfect one, right? Why is this such a liberal problem?

 

[smurfx]

i've learned to just ignore these people as they obviously want attention. this becomes especially obvious when looking at some posts on gaf.

 

[Maledict]

There are tomes of legitimate criticism to be written of Hillary Clinton from the left. She's a centrist, plain and simple, with no willingness to even push the boundary of social progressiveness until the public has already changed accordingly. She has valiantly fought bigotry, but never advocated for any policies or issues that were not already popular among many Americans, as shown by her delayed leftward shifts on gay marriage and justice reform. But more importantly, her attitudes on foreign policy and the economy (which are really the two most significant issues for any politician) are not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. Hillary Clinton has more in common with the Tories than Labour when it comes to policy, and her being a woman does not change this.

I know I've posted this before, but we Europeans really do make ourselves look bloody stupid when we post that Clinton and Obama are more like the conservatives than labour. Not only does it show a shocking lack of understanding of how basic politics works, it's also frankly completely untrue and even the barest glimpse at Hillarys voting record or her current campaign platform would show that she absolutely is a left wing candidate who wouldn't be in the Conservative party.

It's one of the more depressing aspects of this primary fight - it's revealed an incredibly arrogant, and completely ignorant, side of European left wing politics that seems to have no basis in truth or reality.

 

[Mael]

Do conservatives even have this dilemma? They just militantly vote every 2 years and don't wring their hands about their pick not being the perfect one, right? Why is this such a liberal problem?

on the right it's simpler, if they don't like someone they just elect someone else to do what they want.
Apparently doing the same on the left is harder.
People are all about how corruption is really bad and whatever but the east coast still elect the same corrupt dems into office.

 

[boiled goose]

Yeah, it's a fucking travesty that liberals (in an academic or Marxist sense) have hoodwinked Americans into believing that issues of social liberation are the only ones that matter. Ending institutional racism or homophobia won't liberate black people and queer folk if they're still being oppressed by neoliberal policy.

Obama is a centrist, even within the incredibly limited constraints of the Democratic Party, so being to his left should be the bare minimum we expect of liberal politicians. But looking at voting record alone is disingenuous, because Barack Obama promised progressive changes throughout his campaign and followed through on most of them. Clinton doesn't seek to revolutionize this country, and doesn't seem very interested in very much reform. This is a problem.

Yup.
and Yup.

My biggest frustration with Hillary as a candidate this election is that I don't know what her vision of America is other than more of the same. She uses rhetoric about equality and god given potential, but behind the rhetoric I don't see a vision I like. If Obama campaigned on transformative change and we got 5% change. Some good some bad, and Hillary is campaigning on 5% change, what the fuck are we gonna actually get??

 

[A Link to the Past]

Yup.
and Yup.

My biggest frustration with Hillary as a candidate this election is that I don't know what her vision of America is other than more of the same. She uses rhetoric about equality and god given potential, but behind the rhetoric I don't see a vision I like. If Obama campaigned on transformative change and we got 5% change. Some good some bad, and Hillary is campaigning on 5% change, what the fuck are we gonna actually get??

It's diminishing returns. If Obama campaigned on 100% and gave us 5%, then Hillary would likely give 5%, if not more. You can't equivalize the drop.

 

[ApharmdX]

Well if his criticism were all about how he's jewish and has ties to Israel you might have a point.
Just look at Trump 1rst attack ad on Clinton and compared what's being usually said about Sanders.

Have there been many (any?) attack ads bashing Hillary for having XX chromosomes this election season? I honestly haven't seen one.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't care what flimsy reasoning you have. There is NO EXCUSE for letting the Supreme Court become more conservative at a time when it could be swung in the direction of your preferred ideology for the first time in decades. If you can't even see that, you are either ignorant of how the government works or you hate Clinton personally so much that you'd be willing to give up 30 years of court rulings just to spite her.

Either way, I don't see any reasoning whatsoever to justify this behavior. This isn't about Clinton anymore as far as I'm concerned. This is about the impact of the court. If Obamacare was barely upheld, what do you think is going to happen to Sanders' proposals one day with 6-3 conservative courts? What do you think is going to happen with Citizens United with a 6-3 court? It sickens me to see such blatant disregard for something so important.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Do conservatives even have this dilemma? They just militantly vote every 2 years and don't wring their hands about their pick not being the perfect one, right? Why is this such a liberal problem?

the Tea Party suggests that, yes, they very much have an issue wrt the party being radically shifted from the center

 

[Mael]

Yup.
and Yup.

My biggest frustration with Hillary as a candidate this election is that I don't know what her vision of America is other than more of the same. She uses rhetoric about equality and god given potential, but behind the rhetoric I don't see a vision I like. If Obama campaigned on transformative change and we got 5% change. Some good some bad, and Hillary is campaigning on 5% change, what the fuck are we gonna actually get??

That's a good reason to not be excited for Hillary but when the alternative is a time machine to 1950 at least...

Have there been many (any?) attack ads bashing Hillary for having XX chromosomes this election season? I honestly haven't seen one.

Trump's ad is attacking Clinton for being irrational, if you haven't seen any sexist ad don't worry Trump will have some for you.

 

[God Dayumm]

More like a vegan burger. Not really appetizing at first glance, but will be better than you think, and while it won't revolutionize your body's health you'll still be healthier for it and it'll pave the way to a healthier future. Also the burger is $10.

Apt comparison because the bolded is Food Babe bullshit

 

[televator]

Well if his criticism were all about how he's jewish and has ties to Israel you might have a point.
Just look at Trump 1rst attack ad on Clinton and compared what's being usually said about Sanders.

You might also have a point if the comment weren't a complete generalization implying that people who don't like Hillary are usually sexist mysoginists.

Also, with headlines like these, who needs Donald Trump or Fox News?

 

[xxracerxx]

Have there been many (any?) attack ads bashing Hillary for having XX chromosomes this election season? I honestly haven't seen one.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/

Not a downplay on her being a woman, but fucking close.

 

[Valhelm]

Do conservatives even have this dilemma? They just militantly vote every 2 years and don't wring their hands about their pick not being the perfect one, right? Why is this such a liberal problem?

The left is fractious by nature. We generally want to further equality, but everybody has their own boundary of acceptability. Many progressives are content with just legalizing gay marriage and reducing racism. Others want the complete abolition of hierarchies. Because we all want different things, it's very easy to see people with differing views as ideologically impure or just too idealistic. Almost every progressive cause has been harmed by the most powerful faction purging people deemed to be too progressive or not progressive enough.

Generally, right-wing parties simply want to keep things the way they have been. There's not much concern for ideological purity, because everybody agrees that systems that have "proven to work" (capitalism, institutional misogyny, or slavery) should be maintained. We only see the right split when a reactionary faction emerge, as reactionaries (like ISIS or Trump supporters) seek to recreate an imagined past, rather than maintain the status quo. This imagined past often has to be forged through violent revolution. In this way, Trump's campaign is more unusual than Clinton's.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BDBS8bYGhWr/

Not a downplay on her being a woman, but fucking close.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-VDinz3d_w

 

[Mael]

You might also have a point if the comment weren't a complete generalization implying that people who don't like Hillary are usually sexist mysoginists.

Also, with headlines like these, who needs Donald Trump or Fox News?

WTF IS THAT daily beast article!