I really agree with jwb 100% on Hillary.

I think I personally had a visceral reaction to her at a very specific point that touched on the core reason she was and is so despised. You can say no it’s misogyny, misanthropy, or just a hatred for the rich and powerful status quo on my part or sexism and conservative bias on society’s part but I’m quite positive my reaction to her at that time was very widespread and not related to politics at all. It was a big moment but I can’t remember exactly what but something like accepting her nomination at the DNC. You could tell that even she was shocked by how intense the enthusiasm in the room was. These were people that really wanted her to become president. People who felt like her success was their success and a profound universal win for womankind in general. Whether her supporters had valid reasons or not wasn’t what repulsed me so deeply though.

It was her ****ing face. This maniacal hackling grin that clearly betrayed a lust for approval and especially power that looked positively vampiric. She had no ability to feign humility whatsoever. No politician, talk show host, rock star, pro-athlete, kid who just won a national spelling bee... no human being I ever saw came off worse... to me. I’m sure others, deep inside, were more power hungry but no one had ever once appeared more so to me, ever.

There was no way after that that I would ever vote for her. Not against Trump. Not against Hitler. Even if her entire platform had been based on bringing herself and Chelsea down to Florida to suck my dick and give me money I still ... well ... in that case she would’ve had my vote.

But along with other points that jwb has made she was simply intensely unlikeable. Not everybody had that reaction to her and those that didn’t will probably find it inexplicable except by turning it on me but I’m telling you it was some version of that that was widespread enough to cost her the election. My non-policy based reason for HATING her wasn’t unique. Millions of people felt enough of it, just had a negative gut reaction to her that made it impossible to vote for her. Period. No ****ing way.

You gutless little bitch. If she knows, and you know she knows, and does nothing she's complicit. **** that evil ****.

From a policy standpoint she represents a form of capitalism that is killing all life on earth.

If “considered progressive” equals death it’s not much of an improvement on Trump. Seeing as to how I can only get so dead.

I’d prefer neither

High level of turnout makes a Dem win more likely; is that what you' re saying in the bold bit? It seems like you're belittling Biden's win by saying, "That's just because he's the head of the party that's more popular."

I think there is great benefit in having a well-informed public; an ideal shared by everyone who ever picked up a newspaper or watched a news broadcast. As you point out, hacking prob goes on all the time; this story has hit the headlines because of how serious it is. Lucky you weren't a reporter when the Titanic sank, Anteater: "The public don't need to know about this; boats sink all the time."

Prior to Trump, presidents were labelled as "Healer in Chief", I think, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who respond to a kind word from a President even though, as you say, "it doesn't solve anything one way or the other". There are plenty of other motives for speaking beyond "solving things".
At one level, the idea in bold is true, on the other hand, it's not; people do listen to the government - especially when there is clear, consistent messaging. One reason why or one example of Americans are doing what the Hell they want is on the issue of masks: a bewildering lack of direction, so people do what they want. An example of consistant messaging: smoking damages your health. Not everyone, but plenty of people have followed the government's advice on that.

Why won't a news story ever stay simple? Thanks for the article, Anteater.

I found this comment a little troubling. It seems to be an exercise in Conspiracy Theory 101: the statistics don't support my belief, therefore the truth has been hidden.
Here's another example: Stats on genecide of Jews during WWII:
Germany under Hitler: approx 6 million killed
England under Churchill: approx 0 killed
Following your logic, we should therefore conclude that Churchill was better at hiding his policy of Jewish genecide than Hitler.
In one sentence, you take us from facts to fallacy; what's alarming is just how easy and how popular this kind of argument has become.

That’s a bit rich considering the classic Nazi false equivalency you just used.

I know, I think you're projecting things I didn't imply. I'm not saying that anyone would like her if she were a man, I'm not even claiming that being a woman hurt her more than it helped her. You guys were discussing where the Hillary hatred comes from, and I just think you left out this aspect. I'm not defending her or sympathising with her in any way.

About why people like AOC: she's hot. She also doesn't have the other unlikeable aspects that hillary has, of course. My general point is that being a powerful woman clashes with some key things a woman is supposed to be, like pleasing and such. It's very difficult to navigate that without being labelled a detestable shrew; only a few women manage but they're exceptions.

You hated her because she couldn't fake not being humble. Why do you expect her to be? Do her male equivalents seem humble? Of course she's a monster, but I think she gets more **** for it than the male monsters around her. Which doesn't mean people are too hard on her, they're just not willing enough to see through those men and condemn them as much. (I'm talking about the average person here, not about you)

And coincidentally, the second paragraph I'm quoting here is a great example of how deeply ingrained the mentality is that women should please.

Anyone who is aware of child ****ing and does or says nothing is complicit. What's so hard to understand about that? Bill Clinton is scum and so is his wife.