The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-04-2019, 12:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, one could have "assumed" how immoral Trump would be as POTUS, but no one could assume how Hills would have been.

As to the rest.. It pretty much supports exactly what I said about ignoring warts to take the high ground. The vast majority of folks realize Hills was the most flawed opponent anyone could have trotted out to take on Trump. And any attempt to suggest she is "more morale" is just silly. 

Based upon Hillary's performance as Senator and Secretary of State, one could assume she'd be a steady hand on the tiller of state. Our allies wouldn't be shaking their heads in disbelief at trashing the Iran Deal or two empty NK Korea summits. She wouldn't be tweeting nonsense about ugly men, announcing policy and firing officials on Twitter.  Russia would be on its guard. One could expect scandals, but they'd be of he daily faux Fox variety that nagged Obama.

Hillary won the primary because she was so knowledgeable about policy and good at debating. She lost because for many Americans, those were no longer interesting qualities in a presidential candidate.

What "vast majority" could you be refering to?  She beat Trump by almost 3 million votes.  I don't see another Dem candidate who could have done that.   The "most flawed opponent" you see is basically Fox Hillary--the one you think told her daughter that the Benghazi attack was "planned."

So no, it is not "just silly" to suppose she was more moral than the p-grabber who was setting up payments to silence a porn star through his "fixer" while the Russians circulated a story about Hillary's child trafficking ring to make sure their guy won.

The Russians could  tell which candidate had the least integrity; why are you having such difficulty?