Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...


Few politicians/elected officials actually get charged with anything. I can remember a few congressmen, a couple of senators. Each individual views things differently, candidates, political parties, events, you name it. It is all a matter of personal perspective. A majority of Americans disagree with your perception of Hillary.

During 2016 she gave me the perception of being aloof, an elitist, that she deserved the presidency only because she was a woman. She had it in the bag. You're perception is entirely different. The e-mail scandal was my main reason for nixing her. I know she was never charged, given a free pass. Being a presidential candidate, one could expect nothing less.

I also know spending 21 years on active duty and another 26 working for the army as a department of the army civilian, that any Sp/4, sergeant along with any civilian was caught with that many classified messages, including TS SCI SAP material on an unclassified server or computer would have immediately lost their security clearance and probably would have been sent straight to Leavenworth. forget that many, not reporting one classified message that shows up on NIPR would be enough to lose your clearance. Automatically. We're talking SIPR and SCIF, SCI, TS netowrk stuff. By the way there is no way to move material from NIPR, SIPR or any of the TS networks to the other without having to copy and retype.

But that is old stuff, ancient history. What was important was how Americans as a whole viewed her on election day, 2016. 56% of all Americans viewed her negatively, this was made up of only 15% of democrats, 70% of independents, 92% of republicans. Question 10. If you want to compare favorable/unfavorable of Hillary against Trump, his is question 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

As time has passed, according to Gallup, Hillary's favorable's are still very low. Democrats give her a 77% favorable vs. 30% for independents and 4% from Republicans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Fact is outside of her supporters, mostly democrats she wasn't liked or wanted. Trump was in the same boat, he wasn't liked either outside of his supporters and Republicans. Independents hated both or at least disliked both. 54% of all independents which make up around 40% of the electorate disliked both candidates and wanted neither one to become the next president.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

My personal thinking, opinion, feeling is that in 2016 almost any other Democratic candidate would have trounced Trump. Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Biden especially if he had entered. Would have won easily. That didn't happen and there is now no way to prove it. Just a feeling, mostly going by the favorable numbers of each vs. Trump. Where independents held both Trump and Clinton in disdain, they gave positive numbers to the rest I mentioned.
_________________________
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.