Aside from Trump’s eccentricities, the other most-talked about side of the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections is Hillary Clinton’s alleged misdoings.
Misdoings might be a tame way to put it, since most the allegations hurled to the former Secretary of State are more than just technical misdemeanors, some are outright criminal.
Yet the mantra of the Clinton camp is that the only crime the Democratic Party nominee is guilty of is that she is a woman – framing the investigations as a tasteless sexism, nothing more.
Those arguments are downright ignorant and insulting. To say that the only grievance people would have with Hillary Clinton is her gender is simply naive.
Take the mess in Syria for example, which has been going on for five years now. In 2012, UN ambassador Kofi Annan presented a peace plan that would have resulted in a ceasefire that year.
Obviously, there was no cessation of hostilities in 2012 and Clinton was to blame for thwarting Annan’s efforts that year.
Read what Huffington Post, known sympathizer to millenial causes had to say about Clinton and Syria in 2016 – when she was still going against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries:
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence – Clinton’s intransigence – that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats.
Moving on to the environment. While the progressive mantra is strongly for the shift to renewable and “green” energy, Clinton has a record of pushing a pernicious energy source, fracking, not only in the U.S. but to the world during her stint as State Secretary as well.
In 2014, left-leaning website Mother Jones reported several incidences where Mrs. Clinton, in her capacity as State Secretary, sold fracking to various world leaders.
An example clearly stated was in Bulgaria, where she helped lobby for American oil giant Chevron to secure a multi-million dollar fracking deal in the eastern European nation.
This charge was repeated numerous times by the Sanders campaign during the primaries, sadly those charges coming from the left have gone silent ever since Clinton had snatched the nomination.
To further demonstrate her ties with the fracking industry, a major fundraising event for Clinton this election cycle was hosted by the businessman Charif Souki who had amassed his wealth from the very practice that Clinton campaigned she would go against.
Early on in the presidential campaign, Green Party nominee (and progressive favourite) Dr. Jill Stein shocked the latte-sipping, hipster socialist base by declaring that “Clinton is more dangerous than Trump.”
To that demographic, Trump is the anti-thesis to Bernie and to progressive causes. In truth, Trump and Sanders have more in common than they each do with Hillary Clinton.
Which is why it came as a huge disappointment to them to hear Bernie’s heir-apparent (as the fighter for progressive causes) condemn Mrs. Clinton, who is THEIR perceived heir to Bernie’s formidable supporter base.
Dr. Stein had this to say regarding Clinton: “Hillary has the potential to do a whole lot more damage, get us into more wars, faster to pass her fracking disastrous climate program, much more easily than Donald Trump could do his.”
Therein lies the reason why a Hillary Clinton presidency is a lot more grim compared to Trump’s – she is actually politically astute, competent and experienced.
She can negotiate the passing of legislation more cunningly than Trump, these could be useful pieces of legislation or malicious ones. Clinton is well-connected in the corporate world, just look at her list of donors; who knows what kind of concessions she will give to them?
Let us also remember that in 2008, Clinton promised to attack Iran in the case of a provocation and just last year declared the U.S. was ready to engage in a war with them if the nuclear deal did not pass.
The United States constitution mandates a congressional vote for the President to be able to declare war. Trump can barely string together a coherent speech, to successfully negotiate a war with Congress is highly unlikely.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s adroitness in politics and connections with legislators from both the major political parties would make a war more probable.
The links she has to corrupt corporations involved in fracking, banking and the military-industrial complex will motivate her to pass malicious laws aimed at helping those entities.
Does this not sound similar to the anxieties people have over a Trump presidency? Where it is feared he could run the country in a way that is friendlier to corporations than people, that would result in the demise of the environment and the advent of a new major war?
The difference is that with Hillary Clinton, there are solid links that make such scenarios possible – that is scary.