Why hillary Clinton isn't considered trustworthy.

[Bubzer]

Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)

hillary Clinton has a propensity to change her mind on big issues. She has reversed her positions on gay marriage, immigration, gun control, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, mass incarceration and the Iraq War, and some believe her recent stand on the Keystone XL pipeline constitutes a flip, too.

Everybody agrees that changing facts can justify a change in one’s view. But Clinton’s insistence that learning about “new” or “better” information propels her reassessments prompts this question: What was the new information?

To my knowledge, no new “information” about gay marriage emerged from the day she endorsed civil unions for same-sex couples to the day she demanded the right to same-sex marriage. The immigration, gun control and mass-incarceration issues have been similarly unrippled by shocking new findings. Likewise, the information required to make a stand against the Iraq War was not hidden. Other senators found it and took that position! Perhaps the anti-war information escaped Clinton’s notice—in which case, bad on her—or perhaps she viewed it and decided not to act on it—in which case, double-bad on her. And who among us had a better vantage from which to assemble an encyclopedic view on the Trans-Pacific Partnership than Clinton? She praised it endlessly while secretary of state, but pulled a moonshiner’s turn last week to skedaddle away from it.

If Clinton lived in Gobles, Michigan, had no library card and no Internet connection, we could accept her new-information excuse. But for the past 25 years, Clinton has had some of the best researchers at her disposal—a private staff, a campaign staff, the wizards at the State Department staff, a senatorial staff, the busy beavers from the Congressional Research Service and the White House staff. And, in fact, every indication and story we know about Hillary Clinton’s policy work belabors just how much she studies and learns. So if new or better information has been the impetus for her policy shifts, she must concede that she has a fat history of taking the wrong position in the early going and then requiring a re-do. The constant need for re-dos appears to indicate that she’d make a lousy surgeon and a bad 3 a.m. president.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-flip-flop-213247#ixzz3tq10neLB

Article citations;

hillary's flip-flop on same sex marriage:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/

hillary's flip-flop on immigration
http://theweek.com/articles/556421/hillary-clinton-already-crushed-republicans-immigration

hillary's flip-flop on gun control
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/04/1427635/-Hillary-Clinton-s-2008-position-on-gun-control-wasn-t-what-it-is-now

hillary's flip-flop on the TPP
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

hillary's flip-flop on mass incarceration
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8522259/hillary-record-criminal-justice

hillary's flip-flop on the Iraq War
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/whats-missing-from-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-apology/372427/

hillary's flip-flop on Keystone
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/democratic-debate-fact-check-october-000277

[peacebird]

1. The new fact is the recent polling on each topic. When politically expedient, she flips, or flops...

[bvf]

8. Yep. n/t

[Bubzer]

26. +1

[daleanime]

30. +1

[hifiguy]

46. This and nothing but

I don't trust her any farther than I can throw the Sphinx. Safire was right.

[roguevalley]

49. great post. I knew the war was a lie. I live

In rural alaska with a modem.

[Betty Karlson]

60. She's a follower, NOT a leader. eom

[modestybl]

85. That's why she lost to Obama...

...when she lead him by similar margins she now leads Sanders.

[Scootaloo]

114. So long as it polls at 53% or better, she's on board

[firebrand80]

2. Because the RW has been trying to bring down the Clintons for 20 years

When people hear enough of these fake "scandals," they start to believe that Hillary must be hiding something.

The difference now is that we see the some on the left joining the GOP in their attacks. I'm just glad a majority of Democrats aren't buying it.

[Hepburn]

7. Fake scandals?

Yeah, the faking about Monica L. is what lead to impeachment.

[emulatorloo]

12. What does HRC have to do with Monica? Nothing.

While we are at it, do you believe a blow-job is an impeachable offense?

[Hepburn]

20. They LYING is what which lead to the impeachment.

She stood by him like the dutiful wife during and after the fact and watched him lie. I could not have done that. A man like that? Wash that man right outta my hair.

[emulatorloo]

32. Other people's marriages are none of my business

I don't have the right to judge Hillary for her decision to stay with Bill. Lots of marriages survive infidelity.

Is lying about sex an impeachable offense? That's what the Republicans and Ann Coulter claimed. But of course they are lying hypocrites.

IMHO Lots of things to go after when it comes to HRC's policies. Need not recycle "monicagate."

Take care and have a great day!

[merrily]

53. Lying under oath about anything is serious for the person who swears to uphold the laws of the US

He was impeached for two counts of perjury and one of obstruction of justice. The fact that a Democratic Senate acquitted him does not mean he would have been acquitted in a court of law. To the contrary, almost everyone in the world knows he lied under oath.

You can try to trivialize that however you like, but it ain't nothing.

[Beacool]

102. Yes, he lied under oath about getting his penis sucked by a more than willing woman.

Who gives a flying f*ck, other than RW a-holes, and apparently, Left Wing ones too????

Where are we, on a RW site? How low will some of you go to try to push your candidate to the forefront?

It won't work. The only thing you are all doing is pissing Hillary supporters to the point of no return.

[merrily]

104. See Reply 53. That would be the same one you just replied to, which already addressed your "points"

except for the stupid personal insults, of course.

[Beacool]

101. What you do in your marriage is your business.

How Hillary handles her marriage to Bill is none of anyone's business. The nerve of some of you.......

[comradebillyboy]

33. Well said friend

Who will be swayed by blaming Hillary for Bill's infidelity?

[baldguy]

19. Yes, god damn it! FAKE SCANDALS!!! The latest being Benghazi & the emails.

The Berniestas should stop repeating vicious RW conservative talking points while they're claiming to be progressives.

[Hepburn]

22. Yep...

...

[baldguy]

29. And you think **HILLARY** has a problem with the truth?

Pot meet kettle.

[Bubzer]

97. I can only assume your speaking to a mirror...

[merrily]

59. Neither Bengahzi nor emails appears in the OP.

[Dawgs]

74. What does that have to do with the OP? n/t

[peacebird]

80. Taking the lords name in vain, and during the holiday season no less...!

[artislife]

119. I am just replying to your post to kick the OP.

Thanks!

Oh. About the talking points. I don't care that Bill cheated on Hillary. They have a different kind of union.

[Beacool]

100. Seriously????

This place has jumped the shark. It has become another Free Republic when it comes to the Clintons. What's next? Hillary killed Vince Foster or a rehash of Benghazi?

[jeff47]

9. So the right wing forced her to oppose same-sex marriage?

And forced her to not only vote for the Iraq war, but push many others to vote for it too?

And forced her to call the TPP the "gold standard" in treaties?

Wow...what a terribly weak candidate.

[firebrand80]

15. No

I'm saying that I disagree with the idea that changing policy positions is the reason people don't trust her.

[jeff47]

21. If only there was some way to ask people. We could use statistics.

And then we find the right-wing scandals are actually a minority of reasons people don't trust third-way Democrats, including Clinton.

Naaaaaah. It must be that enormous numbers of Democrats spend all their time watching Fox.

[firebrand80]

31. If there is any data out there showing I'm wrong

I'd be happy to change my opinion.

[jeff47]

34. If that were true, you would already have changed your opinion.

But you've made it clear data does not actually affect your opinions.

[Bubzer]

107. Dozens of times over.

Wait...no, that's Hillary.

[Bubzer]

23. You can disagree...but disagreeing doesn't make you right.

All those polls your compatriots ballyhoo so much? Well, there have been polls aplenty showing for a long time that a majority of Americans don't trust her. And her tendency to flip-flop more than most other politicians is major reason why.

[Smarmie Doofus]

89. I could use a link on this part:

>>>but push many others to vote for it too? >>>>>

I don't doubt you.... I just want a link. Or more specific info.

Thx.

[jeff47]

91. Her speech before the Iraq war vote. Linked on DU many, many times. (nt)

[peacebird]

10. Sniper fire at the airport was no right wing fake scandal. Nor was "we were dead broke"

[firebrand80]

17. I wouldn't call either one a "scandal"

and I don't think those kinds of things are the reason people don't trust her

[roguevalley]

50. my nephew was there as a soldier. I call her

Remarks cowardly lying bullshit

[peacebird]

58. Me too. Plus mindblowingly stupid. She knew the ceremony was videotaped, & still lied about snipers?

[merrily]

66. Sorry, a Presidential candidate and former first lady lying about having been shot at is a scandal,

no matter how many times you deny it.

[Bubzer]

24. Right!

[merrily]

65. Nor was a "vast right wing conspiracy" the only reason people were talking about Lewinsky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy

The marine recruiting officer story is internally inconsistent, too.

[Bubzer]

14. Are you serious? These have been long standing concerns Dems have had.

You really need to engage in some actual "fresh thinking"

[firebrand80]

25. Having concerns is one thing

Joining in on the RW attacks is something else entirely.

But, like I said, it won't work. She still has the support of a large majority of the party.

[Bubzer]

28. As I said before, these are long standing issue Dems have had with her.

Characterizing them as RW attacks doesn't make it true.

[merrily]

76. So, all your comments boil down to stop criticizing Hillary. I thought so.

TT

[Hepburn]

81. IF (big "if") Hillary has the support of the "large majority" of the party, then...

...there is something wrong with the Dem party.

JMHO

[840high]

82. There is something wrong.

[Hepburn]

86. Unfortunately, IMO, you are correct.

When did we stop being FDR Dems?

[truebluegreen]

38. I see what you did there.

The post isn't about "scandals", fake or otherwise. The post is about policies I and many others find objectionable. But nice try.

[zalinda]

39. No attacks

just careful research. Hillary supporters must hate youtube, because Hillary is her own worst enemy. No one has to go to RW sites to find things to post. Every time she says something, all you have to do is go to youtube and find she said the opposite just a few years, months, weeks ago.

It's her own words, coming out of her mouth, that damn her. "We came, we saw, he died. LOL"

Z

[Old Codger]

40. Delusional

Pretty hard to ignore facts, but you are doing a great job of it...

[modestybl]

43. A very Clintonian BS response... the subject isn't fake scandals...

... it is HRC's ever shifting positions on issues that Progressives have been pushing for years... it is about her DONOR base that she absolutely relies on for her campaign to exist whose interests are NOT the interests of the working and middle classes...

But typical smearing of Progessives by HRC supporters with false equivalences...

[MaggieD]

45. The subject absolutely is fake scandals and fake smears

IMO, it's embarrassing that some segments of the left buys into it.

[modestybl]

56. Going over HRC's record is NOT buying into fake scandals...

...she has her votes, her speeches, her donor base and even her stunning defense of too-big -to-fail Wall Street banks using 9-11... her ties to these big banks is exactly why nothing will change with her in the WH...

However, the shrill and disengenuous arguments from HRCs supporters only underlines the fundamental weakness of her candidacy...

[MaggieD]

77. Ok, you run with that

I don't see anything "shrill" about my post, but it is a good example of how his supporters tend to put a smearing spin on things. But whatever, just realize that the majority of Dems just don't buy into the smears on her anymore than they buy into the day in and day out smears on Obama. And are not going to in the future either.

[modestybl]

83. I have given you examples of HRC's record, and you come back with .... smears...

The rebuttals of the HRC crowd here just keep making my point for me...

[MaggieD]

84. Must be frustrating for you

That Bernie isn't winning then, huh?

[Bubzer]

108. Welcome to the democratic party, where facts have a liberal bias.

If these scandals are fake, and are merely smears, you should be able to provide supportive evidence. I have yet to see a hillary supporter be able to refute those issues with anything substantive.

[merrily]

67. +1

[merrily]

51. IOW, you didn't read the OP past the headline.

[chervilant]

62. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

The irony is rich. Do you not think that the "RW" is going to intensify their efforts to "bring down" Hillary if she is our party's nominee? There are many more "real" issues Clinton needs to address now in order to circumvent this, so that we don't have to tolerate a Republican POTUS after the next election.

Too many people have heard enough of these "fake" scandals, and they BELIEVE them. Furthermore, in a recent poll by Quinnipiac University, "liar" is the word most associated with Clinton. This certainly doesn't bode well.

I find it most disheartening that Clinton's supporters double down whenever anyone brings up REAL issues (her vote for the illegal invasion of Iraq, the sniper fire deceit, until VERY recently supporting "civil unions" instead of marriage for our LGBT brethren...the list could go on and on).

I may have to vote for Clinton in the primary, and I am well aware of the likelihood that too many people in the US, including the "RW" that so hates her, will be successful in preventing her from becoming our next POTUS. This is a most legitimate concern, no matter how much you want to deny it.

[hedda_foil]

92. They seem to truly believe that a billion bankster bucks will overcome her terrible trust ratings.

And they believe it despite the fact that she is trusted so little even before the real RW attacks have begun.

This does NOT translate into electability.

[chervilant]

110. Do you feel,

as do I, that this is a critical election in terms of scotching the corporate megalomaniacs' continued assault on our democracy? That, in and of itself, is a deal breaker for me: that Hillary is so closely tied to these hedonistic psychopaths.

I intend to continue to campaign for Bernie, with the fervent hope that he's our next POTUS. Oh, BTW, one of my former art students, who is now a first year student in college (I am SOOOOOOO very proud of her!), has made it clear that she and most of her peers are supporting Bernie. I love that he appeals to our younglings, and that he has helped engage so many of them in the political process!

[hedda_foil]

112. I completely agree with you.

Actually, I think 2008 was the optimal time to reverse course from the path laid out by the oligarchs, and by voting for Obama, most of us fully expected that major correction to take place. Unfortunately, we misread him. Now, I believe that Bernie's election as President is the only remaining option to restore even a modicum of power to the 99.8%. And I'm very uncertain as to whether it can still be done at all.

[Scuba]

111. How did they fake her vote for the IWR? That must have been some con!

[Hepburn]

4. No brainer why Hillary is not considered trustworthy.

Bottom line: She has a problem with telling the truth.

[JaneyVee]

5. Hillary and Obama both get attacked by the far right and the far left....

Which means they're doing something right.

[TIME TO PANIC]

13. What far left?

[roguevalley]

52. far left code for liberals

[merrily]

69. Not even code for liberals, but falsehood about traditional Democrats.

[CoffeeCat]

16. The far left worked hard to get Obama elected...

The reason that Obama won the 2008 primary was because he represented the left, and we flocked to him when he ran against Hillary.

I consider myself part of the left and I am very proud of President Obama. Hillary, not so much.

You've highlighted a huge problem with Hillary. Nearly all Republicans consider her the devil; and the left wing of our party doesn't want her as our nominee. So much so, that they're fighting tooth and nail to get Bernie elected. I just read that Hillary is polling at about 6 percent with Independents.

No way in hell can she win a general election.

The centrist faction in the Democratic party cannot carry her over the finish line by themselves.

Say hello to President Trump if Hillary is our nominee.

[cali]

37. What banal nonsense.

The facts speak for themselves.

[modestybl]

47. A dishonest and spiteful characterization...

The "far right" is now the mainstream Repub Party, and they attack pretty much anything Fox News reviles... the "far left" as you would put it, fights for living wage, universal healthcare, strengthening and expanding SS, an FDR style public works program... what 60-80% of Americans support when asked outside of a partisan context, and what HRC opposes and dismisses.

So... the ideology of the Far Right and the New Deal are completely analogous in your mind? Only with a corporatist mentality...

But this is the M.O. Of the HRC campaign... she has the big money and the corrupt Democratic establishment solidly behind her, and an honest politician like Sanders is utterly anathema to their view of how politics should work.

[hifiguy]

48. Sure. Whatever.

"Far left."

[cosmicone]

6. I sincerely hope

you felt better posting that OP.

[CoffeeCat]

11. Hillary could have fought against the TPP...

...and made a real impact in helping that to go down in flames.

The TPP is such a horrible piece of legislation. I just read that Mexico has deemed that tuna cans that read "dolphin safe" create a "barrier to entry" for their country. So, ALL tuna-fish companies will be banned from continuing dolphin-safe practices. Hundreds of thousands of dolphins have been saved, but now hundreds of thousands will die.

This is one tiny sliver of what the TPP will do. Hillary called it "...the gold standard of trade agreements" and never fought against in, the way Elizabeth Warren fights against Wall Street.

We need a fighter like Bernie to stop this nonsense. Not someone who throws meaningless rhetoric at a huge problem.

A week before the TPP passed, Hillary came out against it. In effect, she could claim that she was against it, when she stood by and did nothing to help stop it.

Symbolism over substance. So wrong.

[comradebillyboy]

35. Hillary, as Obama's Secretary of State

should have under cut the President she served, really? Loyalty has to count for something.

[CoffeeCat]

36. Wasn't Hillary undercutting Obama when she came out against the TPP?

She's all over the map--making hollow decisions based on what will get her elected.

If the foundation of her decision to be pro-TPP was due to "loyalty" then why did Hillary come out against it?

Clearly, loyalty to Obama is not the common thread here.

The common thread is Hillary being loyal only to Hillary---while saying and doing anything during a campaign, in order to get herself elected.

[merrily]

70. She's "undercut" him a number of times and, if the nominee, will do more of that in the general.

Bank on it.

[questionseverything]

109. how about some loyalty for WE THE PEOPLE?

[LexVegas]

18. Ya'll must HATE Barack Obama. nt

[libdem4life]

27. I didn't read all of the links...sorry...but my take is her "listening" now is to Bernie's positions

and lifelong principles that people are flocking to see and hear and trying to re-weave them as hers. Not sure it's going to work.

[merrily]

72. Bernie and Warren both. The draft Warren movement could not have been comforting to Hillary.

Ditto Bernie's drawing crowds of nearly 30,000. However, now that her polls number seem great, she has been moving right and will continue so to do.

[George II]

41. She's not considered "trustworthy" by only a small segment of the electorate.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. untrue statement. nt

[MaggieD]

44. I consider her trustworthy

If other people don't it is because the media and lots of extreme leftists and also right wingers have spent a lot of time smearing her to get just that result. I don't buy into that nonsense. The fact that they are so desperate to take down a Dem icon is telling.

[morningfog]

55. Dem icon? lolol

[bread_and_roses]

117. What "extreme leftists?" Where? Define

Extreme leftists where? I am quite sure that i am one of the leftiest people on this board, and there's no way in any reality I could be defined as an "extreme." You will not, for instance, find a post from me calling for the abolition of all private property or the dissolution of all government. THAT's "extreme left - not advocating for universal health care - a standard among other developed countries - or greatly expanding social security, strong public services, FAIR (not "free&quot trade, decent wages and the right to organize a union. Even advocating for a guaranteed national income is not "extreme left."

So where's the "extreme left" on this board or among Bernie supporters posting here? The very term makes me LOL in this context.

[elljay]

54. Differentiating

After decades of observing American politics, I fully expect just about every politician to flip-flop when expedient. The system is set up such that large donors and institutions have disproportionate influence over our leaders and it is clear that positions will change according to their requests. The media, both right and pseudo-liberal, have been on Hillary's case for 30 years and it is difficult to not let all of that advertising permeate one's thoughts. However, she is no less trustworthy than most others; we've just been deluged with the message that she is. That being said, I am voting for Bernie because I agree with his positions, and believe he is the rare politician who is honest and not beholden to the special interests. If he is not the Democratic nominee, I will gladly vote for Hillary as there is absolutely no doubt that the Supreme Court nominees from a Clinton administration will be highly superior to those from a Trump administration. Spend a few minutes thinking about Trump appointees.....it is scary.

[merrily]

75. Sorry, but anyone who has been paying attention will not be sanguine about the SCOTUS if Hillary

becomes POTUS.

The SCOTUS is no longer a no-fail shibboleth. We had New Democrat President Clinton appointing a corporatist like Breyer and New Democrat President Obama appointing Kagan and also considering nominating a Republican and the next thing to a Republican, IMO, Cass Sunstein. (Breyer and Kagan both joined the Republicans in invalidating a portion of ACA, rather arbitrarily, IMO.)

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=863294.

On the other hand, two of the most liberal Justices in the entire history of the SCOTUS were Warren and Stevens, nominated by Eisenhower and Ford, respectively. Warren had made his national political bones as AG of California, implementing internment of the Japanese and, to a much lesser extent, Germans and Italians. Kennedy, nominated by Reagan, has a number of times crossed over to vote with the Justices nominated by Democrats, including in the gay rights/equal marriage cases. On those, he has seemed a lot less shaky than Kagan, who before Obama nominated her, had stated flat out that there was no constitutional right to equal marriage.

So, it appears New Democrats are not necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Justices likely to make liberal decisions and not even necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Democratic Justices. On the other hand, it seems sitting on the SCOTUS bench can change Justices as it did Warren and Stevens. If New Democrats and DINOs want to keep using the SCOTUS to scare liberals into voting LOTE, they need to stop considering Republicans and corporatist DINOs as SCOTUS nominees.

However, no one is advocating electing a Republican President because you confused SOTU and SCOTUS or for any other reason. This is a primary. We are choosing between one Democrat or the other. And, when it comes to nominating a Justice likely to decide as I hope, New Democrats have proven unreliable. And that is another reason why Sanders, not Clinton, is my primary candidate. As discussed elsewhere, fewer Republicans, Indies and Democrats who flat out hate Sanders is another, as it portends a better shot in the general. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=878212

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=853599 (SCOTUS POTUS).

[turbinetree]

87. Well Said.....................................

Honk--------------------for a politcal revolution Bernie 2016

[merrily]

88. Thanks. If they're not going to nominate Justices who are both Democratic and reliably left,

they can stop with the politics of instilling terror over the Supreme Court. I'm over it.

[turbinetree]

93. Me too............................

from a very longtime ago, if you don't walk the walk or talk the talk, you are just another plastic hypocrite.
Did you read Ian Millhisers book on the Injustices, it nailed everything



Honk-------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[merrily]

94. No, I haven't. I won't promise to read it because my list of must reads is already way too long.

Maybe if live to 346.....

[turbinetree]

113. If and when you get a chance ......................

I think it's a very good book about the U.S Supreme Court

take care talk to you soon




Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[merrily]

115. Thanks for the recommendation. I do appreciate it.nt

[turbinetree]

118. Your welcome.......................................

Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[AzDar]

57. K & R

[Babel_17]

61. That was a good summary (nt)

[askew]

63. She isn't trustworthy because she is a complusive liar who has been caught too many times

telling lies.

[99Forever]

64. A .Weathervane's....

....gotta blow in the wind.

[SmittynMo]

68. WOW

Never saw so many panties get in such a bunch before. The weird part it's all over Hillary. WTF

[FloridaBlues]

71. 20-30% polling over Bernie

[merrily]

90. And nonetheless polling as dishonest and untrustworthy. The OP is about the latter.

[Nitram]

73. Bubzer, your headline is misleading.

It should read, "Why Hillary Clinton isn't considered trustworthy among Republicans and some Bernie supporters."

[merrily]

78. She rates poorly on trustworthiness and honesty even among people who plan to vote for her.

Denying it doesn't change it.

[merrily]

79. Leave Hillary aloooooone!

[Bubzer]

95. *Snort*

[Thinkingabout]

96. Hillary does not have her feet in cement and unable to assess issues which come up every day.

The inability to change opinions leaves one stuck in yesterdays.

[bvar22]

98. Hillary hasn't changed her mind on those issues.

She has only changed her campaign rhetoric, which is one BIG reason she is afraid to debate Democrats who KNOW her record.

I fully expect a Full 180 spin if she gets elected.

[d_legendary1]

106. But...but...Sanders is pushing her to the left

Or so we're told.

[olddots]

99. I trust Hillary explicitly !!!!!!!!!

to follow the path of oligaechy .

[Beacool]

103. I know Hillary and I trust her.

Furthermore, I don't give a rat's tail end what any of you here may think about it.

Hillary WILL be the nominee. No matter how low some of you go to try to trash her. She will be the nominee for the simple reason that she has the support of the majority of Democratic voters. Therefore, the only thing these endless anti-Hillary posts have achieved is to anger her supporters and firm up their support for her.

[Major Hogwash]

116. I just hope this is the last time she runs for political office.

It's really getting annoying to have to fight for every vote just because she wants to be President so bad.