Had Hillary been elected would she be doing as bad as Trump?

[PositivePlatypus]

Obviously worse for the same reasons many listed here as positives.

Is there anything from my list that sticks out to you? We seem to be on opposing ends, which is fine. I like to hear specifics about opposing view points. For reference (excuse my obvious bias. ):

• She would have upheld/amended the ACA instead of trying to destroy it completely.

• She would have at least maintained funding to public educational systems instead of nominating someone to slash it.

• Funding to the DOI/EPA would have been maintained. Call me crazy, but I rather enjoy our planet.

• She has a more rounded understanding of various cultures allowing her to be more flexible and genuine.

• She has more political experience allowing her to be more efficient at her job.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think Clinton would have continued Obama's progress, carrying forward his ideas pretty much.

And I'm perfectly okay with that-- I prefer slow changes anyway.

But compared to the trumpGrabEm? A nice toaster oven would do better than he is doing.

For one thing? The toaster oven would not tweet all the time, instead of doing it's job.

For another? You can make a nice piece of toast-- in contrast to the sh--- storm that trumpnazi is doing right now...

"I'd like a Presidential Toast, please. Whole wheat, with black current jelly. Thanks."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Probably better, at this point. Although, to be fair, this is kind of like asking whether Peter Dinklage would make a better NBA center than Warwick Davis.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Probably better, at this point. Although, to be fair, this is kind of like asking whether Peter Dinklage would make a better NBA center than Warwick Davis.

Well, yes-- but Dinklage could bring ... Dragons. Right? Imagine trying to do a lay-up, when a fire-breathing dragon is guarding the goal...!

>.<
U

 

[columbus]

Probably better, at this point. Although, to be fair, this is kind of like asking whether Peter Dinklage would make a better NBA center than Warwick Davis.

I am not big on the sports analogies.
Is NBA the big orange one or the brown pointy one?

But to follow, assuming that you are talking about what Americans call football, I see the difference as between Joe Namath and Dean Underwood.
Joe had a lot of baggage, he made pantyhose commercials for Pete's sake. Dean was a hot shot captain of the football team at a small high school in my home town, with a rich daddy and married the prom queen. He inherited money and did well and thinks he knows everything important because he does.
Everything important to him. Including why Trump is so much better than all those lying politicians. It's different when Trump lies, because Trump isn't a politician. When Trump says something demonstrably false it's being smart. Lying about his tax returns, lying about the economy, lying about Obama and Clinton, lying about being a Christian, it's smart to lie.

Sometimes.

The proof is in the pudding! He's president isn't he? And a billionaire and has a hot trophy wife. Lying is good.

Not that Dean will say that out loud, exactly. He says "It's smart".
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, we would be talking about inappropriate pant suits rather than inappropriate Russian liasons, so that's something.

... or we'd be talking about assassination attempts.

Edit: while I don't think this is reflective of the average Trump voter, I think there's enough overlap between the group of idiots who bought Trump's pre-election rhetoric about voter fraud and the group of idiots who thought that aiming rifles at police during Cliven Bundy's standoff was a good idea that a President Clinton would have had to deal with enough Timothy McVeigh wannabes that her life would have been in serious danger.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Obviously worse for the same reasons many listed here as positives.

Good Gods, let's go over some of them and find out where you really stand.

1. She would have upheld/amended the ACA instead of trying to destroy it completely.

How - I repeat HOW - is providing healthcare for people a bad thing?

2. She would have at least maintained funding to public educational systems instead of nominating someone to slash it.

How - I repeat HOW - is providing EDUCATION for people a bad thing?

3. Funding to the DOI/EPA would have been maintained. Call me crazy, but I rather enjoy our planet.

How - I repeat [REDACTED] HOW - is protecting the Earth a bad thing? How is assaulting our healthcare entirely, reducing education and capitalizing it with bully-tactics to a frightening degree, and allowing corporations to LITERALLY destroy our planet while DENYING that any damage is being done a GOOD [REDACTED] THING!?!?!

 

[Politesse]

I'm trying to picture anyone bungling the job worse than the president himself, and failing. God knows I am no fan of "conservative" policies (as anarchism has been redefined of late), but even if I were, I would be dismayed at his failure to execute any of his grandiose promises. Most presidents at least manage to keep half the country happy. Of course, they've still got a persecution narrative going, but with a Republican Congress and an ambivalent court, it's an odd claim.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hillary would have maintained the status quo, business as usual politics. No hope, no change. Not for the better anyways.

She's a do nothing politiction.

 

[Revoltingest]

... or we'd be talking about assassination attempts.

Edit: while I don't think this is reflective of the average Trump voter, I think there's enough overlap between the group of idiots who bought Trump's pre-election rhetoric about voter fraud and the group of idiots who thought that aiming rifles at police during Cliven Bundy's standoff was a good idea that a President Clinton would have had to deal with enough Timothy McVeigh wannabes that her life would have been in serious danger.

Isn't this jumping the gun (pun intended)....bemoaning speculative assassination attempts?
Being a pretend victim will earn no sympathy.
This is especially true of she who imagined she "landed under sniper fire".

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillary would have maintained the status quo, business as usual politics. No hope, no change. Not for the better anyways.

She's a do nothing politiction.

I disagree.
Her experience & can do nature were problems, given what she was prone to doing.
So I voted for the misspelled option.

 

[columbus]

Hillary would have maintained the status quo, business as usual politics. No hope, no change. Not for the better anyways.

She's a do nothing politiction.

Conservatism in nutshell.
Ideally, IMHO, she would have been elected with a small majority in Senate and a minority in the House. Then she could advance her agenda in tiny bits, with the constant threat of obstruction looming to keep her in line and not going overboard.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

Conservatism in nutshell.
Ideally, IMHO, she would have been elected with a small majority in Senate and a minority in the House. Then she could advance her agenda in tiny bits, with the constant threat of obstruction looming to keep her in line and not going overboard.
Tom

That's why I think Trump is better. He makes the better stick of dynamite than Hillary.

After this, maybe people wake up finally that this perpetual gridlock cannot continue on If we still want a prosperous 1st nation country in the future. Both, the people and their Goverment.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Hillary would have maintained the status quo, business as usual politics.

I see this used a lot, with little to no substance. Yet even "business as usual" is a far cry better than "blow it all to hell." BAU doesn't **** off dangerously volatile nations with Twitter wars.

 

[Willamena]

This is not about what you thought at the time you voted, but in considering everything Trump has done since being elected, do you think Hillary would be doing as bad, worst or better than Trump?

Would a seasoned politician of 25 years do a better job than ... Trump?

 

[columbus]

That's why I think Trump is better. He makes the better stick of dynamite than Hillary.

I am old and I remember how that worked last time.

Yet another Bush took office. A few years later the economy was in melt down, the Middle East was on fire, the federal deficit was shooting through the roof, constitutional freedoms were being weighed against security concerns(and losing).....
Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt, ....

I don't want any more sticks of dynamite, especially when the package is marked " Christian Republican President with a solidly Republican Capitol Hill "

Thank you, but no.
Capture and Contain

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Would a seasoned politician of 25 years do a better job than ... Trump?

Reminds me of Hillary too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't this jumping the gun (pun intended)....bemoaning speculative assassination attempts?

If you have a problem with considering hypotheticals, you're in the wrong thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you have a problem with considering hypotheticals, you're in the wrong thread.

Hmmmm....I hadn't intended to broach the subject of crazed loser lefties likely plotting
to assassinate Trump. They're no doubt bent upon revenge, fueled by media claims
that Trump is Hitler. It raises the old dilemma about whether a time traveler should kill
the baby Adolf. Trump, as the nascent Nazi leader would be a perverse quasi subrogation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmmm....I hadn't intended to broach the subject of crazed loser lefties likely plotting
to assassinate Trump.

Like Timothy McVeigh, the crazed losers intent on assassination tend to be on the right... at least in the US.