The big picture that everyone is ignoring

[komodozer]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

[SirMuxALot]

So not one Republican has sincere disagreements with philosophy of governance and policy prescriptions?

If there were no racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Democrats would win with greater percentages of the vote than third world dictators?

[komodozer]

So not one Republican has sincere disagreements with philosophy of governance and policy prescriptions?

If there were no racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Democrats would win with greater percentages of the vote than third world dictators?

Correct.  The fact that Donald Trump is the GOP nominee in 2016 confirms this.

Since when are Republicans anti-free trade, anti-"establishment", and anti-capitalism?

My post above explains this perfectly. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

But... but... but... Lincoln freed the slaves.

[Lyin' Steve]

So not one Republican has sincere disagreements with philosophy of governance and policy prescriptions?

If there were no racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Democrats would win with greater percentages of the vote than third world dictators?

This post is true and the other ones in this thread are dumb.

[komodozer]

But... but... but... Lincoln freed the slaves.

Lincoln would be a liberal Democrat today.

On the political spectrum, he would be the lovechild of Dennis Kucinich and Terry McAuliffe.  

[SirMuxALot]

I always try to instruct my fellow Republicans that almost virtually every Democrat out there is promoting a viewpoint that they sincerely believe is in the best interests of the country and it's people.

Curious if you think there was ever a time when disagreement was sincere?  Hamilton and Madison perhaps?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I couldn't give less than a crap that she's a woman. The problem is her past, just like Trump's.

[eric82oslo]

On the political spectrum, he would be the lovechild of Dennis Kucinich and Terry McAuliffe.  

I didn't know they had love children together, but I'm happy they are gay at least. And shwowing such affection for one another.

[Gustaf]

I always try to instruct my fellow Republicans that almost virtually every Democrat out there is promoting a viewpoint that they sincerely believe is in the best interests of the country and it's people.

Curious if you think there was ever a time when disagreement was sincere?  Hamilton and Madison perhaps?

I think that notion was significantly more credible before you nominated Trump.

[Ogre Mage]

Republicans have legitimate policy reasons to oppose Clinton, but all that got wiped away when you nominated an unqualified, unhinged raging misogynist who brags about sexual assault, been accused of sexual assault by a dozen women or more and calls women "slobs," "dogs," and "pigs/Miss Piggy."  Nor is this an aberration.  We all remember Todd "legitimate rape" Akin in 2012.  Akin also said Sen. McCaskill was not "ladylike" which reminds me of Trump's "such a nasty woman" comment.

[Adam Griffin]

"I'd like to see a black man in the White House - but NOT THAT ONE" - 2008
"I'd like to see a woman in the White House - but NOT THAT ONE" - 2016

Yes, it always comes down to principled disagreement on policy and nothing else!

[Wade McDaniel]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

This is what?  What is "this?"  Tell your liberal professor he's wrong.

[Person Man]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

This is what?  What is "this?"  Tell your liberal professor he's wrong.

On this side of the aisle, what you see is what you get. Not spponfed things from Briebart, Uncle Rick's Facebook feed, or a bathroom stall. It is hard to understand that but you will sooner or later.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why should a partisan Republican have wanted Barack Obama to be President?  Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter?

The "woman" thing?  What if the candidate for 2016 for the GOP were Michelle Bachmann and the Democratic candidate were Joe Biden? 

The issue with Hillary Clinton is the kind of person she is.  She is the most Nixonian nominee either party has chosen since Nixon.  This goes beyond partisanship, and Nixon didn't end well.  I could go on and on, but this sums up my view on HRC, all things considered.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

How come that black female Obama has much higher fav/unfav rating than white male Clinton (and female as well, in fact).

It should be racism and sexism against white males. amIrite?

[mencken]

Glad to hear the implicit acknowledgement that all attacks against Sarah Palin in 2008 were motivated by sexism against the first female candidate for Vice-President with a chance to win more than one state.

[HisGrace]

If there were no racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Democrats would win with greater percentages of the vote than third world dictators?

In a normal election, not necessarily, against Trump, absolutely.

[AuH2O Republican]

So not one Republican has sincere disagreements with philosophy of governance and policy prescriptions?

If there were no racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, Democrats would win with greater percentages of the vote than third world dictators?

Correct.  The fact that Donald Trump is the GOP nominee in 2016 confirms this.

Since when are Republicans anti-free trade, anti-"establishment", and anti-capitalism?

My post above explains this perfectly. 

You do know that political parties can go under realignments, right?

[Seriously?]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

No. It really isn't. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are unethical. They are immoral. They are unfit.

And that's not even scratching the surface on the actual policy differences between Democrats and Republicans that allow us to agree to disagree on politics in this country. To call Republicans sexist, racist and anti-Catholic because we do not believe high-tax, big-government policies are the way to run the country really is uncalled for.

I don't care if the Democrat nominee is a blind black woman with a disability or a white male. I do not buy what your party sells. Ever. Which is why I am a Republican.

[Dr. Arch]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

No. It really isn't. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are unethical. They are immoral. They are unfit.

And that's not even scratching the surface on the actual policy differences between Democrats and Republicans that allow us to agree to disagree on politics in this country. To call Republicans sexist because we do not believe high-tax, big government policies are the way to run the country really is uncalled for.

Bill isn't running for President. Everything you just pegged on Hillary is speculation at best since she has never actually been charged with anything.

Trump, on the other hand, fits all of those adjectives snug as a bug, yet he's the one you're supporting. A lot of rich BS on the Hillary accusations.

[Seriously?]

The #1 reason you see such venemous (and borderline irrational) hatred from the right directed at Hillary Clinton is simple.

Here is the simple reason why:

In 1960, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first Roman Catholic President.

In 2008, the Democratic Party nominated (and elected) the nation's first black president.

In 2016, the Democratic Party nominated the nation's first female candidate on a major party ticket.

Can anyone else see why there is such shrill, hostile rage and anger directed at Hillary Clinton? 

This is why. 

No. It really isn't. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are unethical. They are immoral. They are unfit.

And that's not even scratching the surface on the actual policy differences between Democrats and Republicans that allow us to agree to disagree on politics in this country. To call Republicans sexist because we do not believe high-tax, big government policies are the way to run the country really is uncalled for.

Bill isn't running for President. Everything you just pegged on Hillary is speculation at best since she has never actually been charged with anything.

Trump, on the other hand, fits all of those adjectives snug as a bug, yet he's the one you're supporting. A lot of rich BS on the Hillary accusations.

One candidate wants to raise taxes (by her own admission). The other wants to cut them. I am not sure how you can say that that accusation is "rich BS."

[rafta_rafta]

To be fair, the GOP was the first political party to nominate an Orangutan for President

[The Dowager Mod]

They hate Hillary because JFK was Catholic?

[ApatheticAustrian]

cutting taxes for the rich always means cutting something else.

would love to hear what parts of the democratic state donald wants to abolish...but this question is rarely asked in US politics.

kudos for wallace to call donald out on this in the primaries.