# Hate for Hillary - from where and why. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 26, 2019, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550 "2019-05-26T13:40:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/101 "2019-05-28T16:53:50Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ve always written directly and straightforwardly. You may believe that, but that doesn’t mean that you always come across direct and straightforward. I see iiandyiiii as always writing directly and straightforwardly as well. > [@](#): > > If there is a question that says, is the answer A, or B? And the response is, well, it could be A, and it could be B. I’m going to say that is a meaningless answer. And that’s the type of thing you’ve offered. If you believe that that the world is black and white, and that you can pigeonhole all answers into a binary proposition, then I think I may have found your problem. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/102 "2019-05-28T17:00:56Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > So it appears from this thread, that people who dislike Clinton are largely misogynistic, chauvinistic or worse. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not sure this is so, and my posts don’t indicate this. Oh? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think it dates back to the 90s and the Clinton campaign and administration. She put herself forward as policy advisor (even a policy maker) and equal, and many (those with misogynistic and chauvinistic tendencies) found that highly objectionable. Others knew they could take advantage of widespread misogyny and chauvinism to make Hillary an “easy” target. When she ran for office, that took off into even higher gear, with the expectation that she would eventually run for president. Maybe you two are disagreeing on the “reasonable” meaning of “largely”? As far as the rest of the thread: > [@bobot](#): > > What iiandyiiii said. > [@Ulfreida](#): > > Misogyny. If there is one thing the Right can agree on, it’s that powerful women are inspired by Satan. > [@Ukulele\_Ike](#): > > Hillary is just so _shrill._ > [@Biotop](#): > > An older woman at my bridge club recently said she didn’t like Hillary Clinton because she “is so pushy. She’d knock you over to get at what she wants.” When I asked her if she’d say the same thing about a man she had no response. > > It was the same old prejudices that were fanned by those who knew how to exploit them. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I’ve run into a few of these. If you want to have a little fun, say something like, “Oh, so you have no problem with a woman being president, just not Hillary Clinton?” You are sure to be met with quick agreement. “So what woman would you find acceptable to be president?” > […] > Pushy woman. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > She is, and continues to be, a member of the female gender. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/103 "2019-05-28T17:03:40Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ve read summaries [of the book It Takes a Village]. Even what you’ve said right here is objectionable enough. I don’t want Clinton’s vision for the children of America… > Things I don’t care about wrt Clinton:…[ul] > [li]taking policy positions as a first lady[/li][/ul] Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village” was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton’s time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady. (And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people _know_ that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as _proof_ of her derangement) ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/104 "2019-05-28T17:07:28Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Lots of great reasons to hate Hillary. > > Cattle Futures . . . > > She helped cover up and enable Bill Clinton’s treatment of women . . . > > She lies and covers up during investigations . . . > > Healthcare Debacle . . . > > She is paranoid . . . > > She is greedy . . > > She supports whatever is necessary to get power . . . Thank you. This is the type of thing I was wondering about when I posted the OP. Whether it’s mostly true or not seems not to be the issue. But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren’t particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it’s mostly because she’s an ‘unlikeable’ woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/105 "2019-05-28T17:08:38Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village” was published in '96, right smack dab in the middle of Clinton’s time as First Lady. So I guess you do care about her policy positions as First Lady. > > (And the answer to the OP, as has already been pointed out, is that there has been a multi-decade smear campaign against Clinton, such that people _know_ that she is corrupt without really knowing why, and such that typical or mundane activity is viewed as _proof_ of her derangement) You seem to have misunderstood. The act of taking policy positions I don’t care about. I care about what those specific policy positions are. This is in response to the idea expressed in this thread guessing that people felt the First Lady shouldn’t participate in a leadership role. If the person advances agreeable ideas, it doesn’t matter from where they come. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/106 "2019-05-28T17:15:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’ve regularly called you on your lack of substance labeling things you agree with as reasonable. It’s a meaningless word that is fundamentally wishy washy and lacking in substance. Watch, I’ll illustrate: > > _There are plenty of reasons for substantive dislike of Hillary Clinton. In my experience, tons of people who hate Hillary Clinton openly say that they dislike her because of the way she comes across on television, or some variation of that, rather than anything substantive. For this latter group, it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that this is shorthand for policy disagreements and may have something to do with their attitude about her._ I use that word in an effort to try and determine our “starting points” – i.e. “this seems reasonable to me – if it’s also reasonable to you, then we can move from this starting point. If not, then let’s determine your starting point so we can try and drill down to the point of fundamental disagreement.” IIRC this has worked many times, both with you and other posters, to determine the fundamental point of disagreement. It’s meant as a way to try and further the debate, not to end it. > [@](#): > > Or like this: > What does this even mean? It’s crafted in a way to allow deflection of any counter example. Disagree with actual policy, oh then not that type of dislike. It’s like a True Scotsman took up residence and filters everything that comes out the front door. If people dislike a certain politician, they are going to use whatever material sticks to attack them. In this particular example, I’m trying to focus on the Rush Limbaugh-style vitriol against HC. Based on the language he uses, it comes across to me as extremely misogynistic. And in my understanding, Limbaugh (and others like him) are very influential with the conservative “rank and file”. These are general statements – it’s almost impossible to get hard data on phenomena like misogyny relating to views on a public figure. Of course it is possible to see listener numbers for Limbaugh and others like him, and I think those numbers support my statements (but I don’t have links handy). Do you disagree with these general statements? If so, which part? We can have further discussion on the points you disagree with, or the points you think need more focus or clarification. > [@](#): > > Here’s a more benign example. I don’t like Billy Bob Thorton as an actor. I don’t like his looks, his voice, his mannerisms, the way he delivers lines, pretty much if he’s in a movie, it’s harder for me to watch it. I can level these criticisms about him and it has nothing to do with his gender, or being a misandrist. Can the same be said about a female actress without drawing scrutiny for misogyny? This is an interesting point that’s been present in many similar sort of discussions – how do we calibrate the perfect level of sensitivity for forms of bigotry like misogyny and racism? It will never be perfect, but is it worse to occasionally miss/ignore instances (and accusations) of bigotry, or occasionally overstate instances and accusations of bigotry? IMO, because bigotry is so incredibly common and powerful in our society, the latter is preferable in the present moment – fighting bigotry is so important that it’s better to catch every instance (which we’re still not doing, IMO) than be sure to avoid the occasional overstatement. > [@](#): > > And then as has been mentioned, you fall back on one of a couple schticks. The first is claiming that criticism of your position isn’t actually related to what you’ve said. Talking past each other is a very common problem on the Dope. I’ve probably been guilty of it at times. And I’m not a perfect communicator, and sometimes my message is misunderstood. > [@](#): > > The second is the ‘golly gee’ attitude which is also on display here (trigger warnings). It’s fine, if you want to respond in an unserious way, then you get unserious responses. I mean, I’m glad you mock trigger warnings because they are fucking bullshit, but trust me, I’m not triggered. Your response so far has been mostly serious, and I appreciate that. As for trigger warnings, they can indeed sometimes be “fucking bullshit”, but I know some trauma victims who are greatly appreciate when they avoid triggering content – and since they cost nothing to exercise, I don’t think they ought to be thrown out entirely when it comes to certain triggers (i.e. the kinds of things that victims of trauma can find re-traumatizing). > [@](#): > > I’ve always written directly and straightforwardly. If there is a question that says, is the answer A, or B? And the response is, well, it could be A, and it could be B. I’m going to say that is a meaningless answer. And that’s the type of thing you’ve offered. Things are very rarely so simple, IMO. Perhaps I sometimes don’t go into enough detail on the complexity of how I see an issue. In such instances, please let me know, if you’re interested in further discussion. I am happy to try and provide further explanation of how I feel about something. Thank you for the substantive criticism! Criticism of this kind is very important to improving one’s self, and I really do want to be a better poster. Hopefully we can move forward in a spirit of friendship (golly gee! ;)) and have more productive and satisfying discussions going forward. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/107 "2019-05-28T17:18:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Oh? > > Maybe you two are disagreeing on the “reasonable” meaning of “largely”? The title of the thread is “Hate…” not “Dislike…”. But I could have explained myself better, and made it clear that I was speaking of the sort of vitriol found online and from right-wing infotainers like Limbaugh, which I believe is widespread and explains a large amount of the “hate” directed at Hillary (but not necessarily the “dislike”). Thank you for probing questions and substantive criticism. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/108 "2019-05-28T17:20:18Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I apologize for misunderstanding. Would you like to clarify why you believe people are afraid of a reasoned discussion? I never said anything about reasoned discussion. I talked about one specific poster’s use of the word “reasonable” to describe their own position. Hope that clarifies. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/109 "2019-05-28T17:21:54Z")
At a certain point, something simply is. Asking why people hate Hillary Clinton is like asking why people hate spiders; they just do. It doesn’t matter if the spiders are harmless, or eat several hundred million tons of harmful insect pests a year, or are beneficial to the ecosystem, or whatever; etc. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/110 "2019-05-28T17:26:05Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I never said anything about reasoned discussion. I talked about one specific poster’s use of the word “reasonable” to describe their own position. Hope that clarifies. You haven’t yet responded to the post in which I try to clarify how and why I use “reasonable”. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/111 "2019-05-28T17:34:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I see iiandyiiii as always writing directly and straightforwardly as well. Thank you for the kind words! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/112 "2019-05-28T17:41:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’ll have to illustrate how the two are different. Clinton pushed the 1994 AWB. She wanted to eliminate the PLCAA - in an effort to bankrupt gun manufacturing in the US. She thought Heller was wrongly decided - meaning she wanted to also be able to ban handguns. If she’s middle of the road, well, we see the road completely different. > … Here is Bookers list:\*Keep guns out of the wrong hands with gun licensing: … Here’s how it would work: Individuals could seek a gun license at a designated local office, widely available in urban and rural areas, similar to applying for or renewing a passport. They would submit fingerprints, provide basic background information, and demonstrate completion of a certified gun safety course. Bring real regulation and oversight to gun manufacturers:… End legal immunity that prevents victims of gun violence from seeking justice:While civil liability can be applied to sellers and manufacturers of nearly every product, as a result of a 2005 law the gun industry is immune from nearly all lawsuits. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) allows the gun industry to ignore public safety implications of the misuse of their products, such as gun trafficking. Cory will fight to end gun industry immunity by repealing PLCAA and allow victims of gun violence to have their day in court when a gun dealer or manufacturer has acted negligently. Require handgun microstamping:… Close the “Boyfriend Loophole”:… Ensure a background check on every gun sale by closing the loophole on guns show and online sales and the so-called “Charleston Loophole”:… Ban assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks:Provide dedicated funding for research on gun violence as a public health issue:… Modernize and strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF):… Support extreme risk prevention order laws:… Limit gun buyers to one handgun per month:… Require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms:… Ramp up funding for community-based violence intervention programs:… Increase trauma support for survivors and communities impacted by gun violence: Call on the IRS to conduct an investigation into the NRA’s tax status:… Finally, beginning on Day One in office, Cory will take executive action to build on ongoing efforts and take concrete steps forward — closing dangerous loopholes in gun sales, cracking down on unscrupulous dealers and gun manufacturers, and investing in communities impacted by gun violence."\* **THAT** I consider “vehement”. Compared to the rest of the Dem candidates, Hillary was “moderate”. Mind you i disagree with her ideas, but still… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/113 "2019-05-28T17:44:30Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > So it’s the “takes a village crap” and _ **GUNS!!** _ Those are the ONLY reasons we’ve come up with for the Hillary hatred. > > … No, I explained clearly, Hillary is **hated** due to a concentrated propaganda campaign by the GOP and the Kremlin. True, she is a Democrat, and a Woman, and someone with strong beliefs. All of those would cause many on the GOP side to dislike her, no doubt. Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/114 "2019-05-28T17:54:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I… > I think Clinton lost for a number of reasons, of which her policy positions were a part. With less than 100K total votes across three states, do I think her vehement anti-gun rhetoric may have influenced less people to go to the polls that would have otherwise, and more people to go to the polls that would not have otherwise? I don’t know the answer to that and I don’t know if there is a single _‘but for’_ reason. I would like the answer to be yes. I would like the answer to be a definitive yes with such magnitude as to make her policy positions radioactive for any future politician and that if anyone were to take up her mantle they would be severely punished electorally. But I don’t know. > > Bloomberg comes to mind. If not for him, most gun control groups would have floundered and he is probably the single most influential person in the gun control movement. So yeah, fuck that guy. > … The main reason Clinton lost was the FBI letter. Then the fake news campaign by the Kremlin, then her bad choice of where to campaign, and finally her policies. So, I dont think her policies were critical. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/115 "2019-05-28T18:26:41Z")
The FBI letter wouldn’t have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill’s whoring around. Probably the most disastrous campaign promise that could have been chosen - “It’s Her Turn”. We don’t have quotas for the Presidency. Just because we elected a black guy doesn’t mean that next we are obligated to elect a woman, and next a gay person, and then a transgender, and then who knows what. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Doesn’t that tell you anything? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/116 "2019-05-28T18:36:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The FBI letter wouldn’t have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill’s whoring around. > > Probably the most disastrous campaign promise that could have been chosen - “It’s Her Turn”. We don’t have quotas for the Presidency. Just because we elected a black guy doesn’t mean that next we are obligated to elect a woman, and next a gay person, and then a transgender, and then who knows what. > > She lost to Donald Fucking Trump. Doesn’t that tell you anything? That cutting off your nose to spite your face is more widespread than we thought, and that Republicans believe the ends justify the means. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/117 "2019-05-28T18:43:54Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > None of that produced any evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary Clinton’s part. Well, it didn’t produce proof of culpable wrongdoing. (Freakishly improbably commodity trading results and the mysterious disappearance and re-appearance of law firm records certainly can be considered evidence.) But this discussion is about sources of anti-Hillary sentiment. The lack of proof does not equate to a lack of negative opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/118 "2019-05-28T18:44:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The FBI letter wouldn’t have hurt her if it had not confirmed what we knew already - that she was arrogantly paranoid, and with the attitude that rules and subpoenas and campaigning were for lesser mortals - she was engaged in Important Business. And nobody really liked her, certainly not enough to overlook it, as they did with Bill’s whoring around. So as others have said, the toll of 25 years of Republican lies and propaganda succeeded in building a false narrative about her in the public’s mind. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/119 "2019-05-28T18:44:41Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > . . . But even if it is, the hate directed toward her for so long and with such fanaticism, for behaviours that aren’t particularly rare among powerful people, seems exceptional. The consensus here (with some exceptions) is that it’s mostly because she’s an ‘unlikeable’ woman who also committed the sin of being a possible, and then actual, Democratic presidential candidate. The consensus is that here on this solidly left leaning message board posters believe that criticism of Clinton is more than wrong, it requires some level of evil intent to be explained. Not likening a major political figure is not only an issue with the right as one may have believed if they only read from this site. The left hated Nixon, and then Reagan, then Bush, and Bush again with similar vitriol. This is just one of many “have you stopped beating your wife yet” threads that allow for the affirmation that the right is in the wrong. That’s your consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550/120 "2019-05-28T18:46:01Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > ^^^ 100% of that describes Trump, so none of those can possibly the reason for the vitriol directed towards Hillary. Right - because no vitriol is ever directed at Trump. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-for-hillary-from-where-and-why/834550.md?page=7)