Is Hillary the anti-Christ?

Accusations against Hillary by my friend Steven

“Let’s be clear. She’s a war criminal and committed treason by compromising national security. The reason she’s safer than Trump is because Trump doesn’t care if you like him so he can say and do whatever crazy thing he wants. Hillary is a career politician. She’ll do whatever it takes to get a vote, which since she’s the Democratic nominee means she has to be progressive. If she wants to stay in power she will continue to do so. You can watch countless videos of her changing her opinion depending on the audience she’s pandering to. She won’t do as much harm not just because she’s qualified but because she has to act on the stances she takes once she gains office if she intends to be re-elected. But simply saying she rubs you the wrong way is an understatement of epic proportions.”

So Steven, at risk of starting a friendly war – please respond with both barrels. Let’s do this.

Let’s be completely clear. Your opinion may be that she has done things you wouldn’t do or you don’t think is right but to be a criminal you have to be convicted of a crime, something that has not happened. You can’t just declare something is so because you wish it to be so.

Secondly, there has been no proof that she compromised national security. Give me one example of an incident that was caused or created by Hillary compromising national security. Again, stating something doesn’t make it so, it has to be backed up by facts.

But for the for the point of argument, let’s talk about her emails. Was it wrong? Yes. Was it an error in judgment? Yes. Should she have used a secure server? Yes. Have you ever made a mistake? Yes. Was her mistake treason? No, it was a mistake.

But again for the sake of argument, let’s say it WAS done deliberately. Let’s say she is an alien sent to earth to destroy America. Would you agree that the punishment given to a woman committing this act should be the same as the punishment a man would receive for the same act? I assume you would agree with that statement because I know you to be a progressive thinker and to value women as equal to men.

SO then let’s talk about Colin Powel, Condoleezza Rice and John Kerry (Secretary of State) all used private email servers to deal with “classified” information. Nothing happened to them so why are we singling out Hillary? Oh wait, they were all republican so that makes it ok then.

“Hillary Clinton agrees with her predecessor that his emails, like hers, are being inappropriately subjected to over-classification. She joins his call for these emails to be released so that the public can view the contents for itself.”
Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada called the findings “a watershed moment”, adding: “If we’re to believe Republicans, we would have to criminally charge Secretary Rice, Secretary Powell, the senior staff and everyone else who received these emails.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-private-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton

The problem seems to be more about classifications and how they are defined than it is about Hillary. I am not denying that the conversation needs to be had but I think the subject needs to be changed from “Hillary is evil” to “how are documents defined as classified and when would it be appropriate to use a personal email server instead of a government one”.

I would agree with your statement that Hillary is safer than Trump.

You stated that she was a “career politician”. It seems you think that is a bad thing. You are a “career” musician. It simply means that you have dedicated yourself to being good at your craft.

Do you seriously want someone who has NO experience in politics in the highest political office in the state? Really?

You stated…

She’ll do whatever it takes to get a vote, which since she’s the Democratic nominee means she has to be progressive. If she wants to stay in power she will continue to do so. You can watch countless videos of her changing her opinion depending on the audience she’s pandering to.

All politicians will do what it takes to win your support and get your vote within the reason of their platform. But she is wrong to do so? Are we dealing with sexism here? Name one politician that you would support that that statement wouldn’t apply to. One.

Countless videos of her changing her opinion. I see that as a good thing. As one gets more information, as one listens to the voice of the people, you change your opinion. So what. Like you have never changed your mind. If it was happening daily, that would be one thing but in researching the video’s you mentioned, I saw a women in her 30’s with one opinion and a completely different opinion in her 50’s. I would expect that from someone who was engaged in her world. I shutter to think what I believed in my 20’s and 30’s compared to what I believe now. We evolve and so does our opinion.

You are implying that she is talking out both sides of her mouth. Maybe you need to send me the links to those videos because I couldn’t find them.

You said
She won’t do as much harm not just because she’s qualified but because she has to act on the stances she takes once she gains office if she intends to be re-elected.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Again this applies to anyone in politics. It is the safety of the system when used properly. It means that I can be a liberal, with very liberal left wing views but if I am elected to represent a district, I have to represent that whole district which would include those on the right, so I have do the things that will make the most sense for the majority of people. This tempers my left leaning and makes me a more balanced person.

And yes, I do think she is qualified, as you said.

Now I am going to throw something new into the mix. Sexism.
As a strong, independent woman with a voice, I am very sensitive to sexism. It has affected my entire life and career. Every job I had and every client I have ever taken has is one way or another expected me to act a certain way solely because of my sex. This is something men experience only as observers. (Not saying men don’t have equally messed up things to deal with – they do but that is not the topic of the moment).

As an observer only, you would not be as attuned to the nuances of sexism like someone who dances through that line mine every day of her life.

Even the most progressive thinkers and out of the box learners would be surprised to find how pervasive our thinking is when we face women seeking power. She is judged by her tone, her stance, her shoes, her hair, her voice, her determination, the lift of her eyebrow, how loudly she responds (or quietly), how much of a bitch she is or how subservient she is, every single nuance of her life is judged. Is she a good mother? How many kid? Did she stay home? Did she breastfeed? Is she overweight? The list goes on and on.

He is judged by his intelligence, his ability to public speak, his height, his looks, his voice.

How many kids does George Bush Jr. have?

How many kids does Trump have? (we might have a better shot at naming them because they follow him around everywhere and love the public eye).

The point is that men in politics are judged very differently than women.

Every accusation that has been leveled at Hillary has been committed by a man without comment.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/

And this is the crux of the original Facebook post.

Men don’t like her because she “rubs them the wrong way.” This is a statement that has been made often and where does that come from. Let me make a suggestion here….

“And this is the crux of the gender issue for Clinton. An extensive body of research has shown that women who seek leadership positions often encounter resistance from both men and women if they violate gender norms by acting in stereotypically masculine ways, like being competitive, assertive and self-promotional. This is known among social psychologists as the “backlash” effect, and examples abound. For instance, though there are more women in middle-management positions in the business world today than there were in previous generations, just 4.2 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies are female. The backlash effect extends to politics, too. Dozens of women have run for president in the U.S., but Clinton is the only one who’s ever come close.
“The more female politicians are seen as striving for power, the less they’re trusted and the more moral outrage gets directed at them,” said Terri Vescio, a psychology professor at Penn State who studies gender bias. “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” she continued. “If you’re perceived as competent, you’re not perceived as warm. But if you’re liked and trusted, you’re not seen as competent.”

That is simply unacceptable.

I have not problem with judging so long as the playing field is level. Women are gaining ground in demanding a level playing field, including the political playing field.

http://www.people.com/article/matt-lauer-sexism-female-moderators-debates

So am I a die hard, koolaid-drinking fan of Hillary Clinton.

No.

I am a Bernie Supporter.

My point is that you can’t just say something and pretend it is so. You have to back up your opinions with facts and this time I don’t believe the facts are on your side. I stand to be proven wrong and am happy to read or watch anything you send me but the operative work here is PROVEN.