HILLARY CLINTON’S TEPID SUPPORT FROM FEMALE MILLENNIALS IS ROOTED IN A QUICKLY DEVELOPING REALIZATION THAT SHE HAS A PATTERN OF ATTACKING VULNERABLE GIRLS AND WOMEN
Hillary Clinton has the lukewarm support of many of Bernie Sander’s former candidate base, but a sizable number of them do not support her. The entrancement of their old foe by Sander’s loyal is tepid for several reasons, but it could not possibly help that Clinton has referred to Sander’s people as lazy, uninformed, losers who live in the basement of their parent’s home. Granted, Clinton drew these conclusions during the throws of a tightly contested primary, but many in this liberal base are unforgiving because they believe that Clinton was exhibiting her real character: She will say or do anything to win.
As the millennials continue to get deeper into the fray of politics, they are learning about Clinton’s past. Most were either not old enough during the Clinton scandals, or they were not politically active. But now, many are hearing for the first time that Hillary Clinton was very anti-women during this tenure– while she was the President’s (William Jefferson Clinton) wife or after she became First Lady. But Hillary’s denouncement of women started as far back as her sexual scandals in Arkansas.
The Clinton’s past is not just about sexual escapades on the part of both of them; it digs far deeper into the fundamental gray regions of their brains. It is true enough that Bill Clinton, similar to many convicted sex offenders, has used his positions of authority to have sexual relations with many vulnerable girls and women– including the seduction of a youngster inside the Oval room of the Whitehouse. It cannot be ignored, however, that Hillary Clinton aided and abetted her husband in these sexual conquests– if not before the act (although common sense dictates that she had to be aware of these “events” either before or during the acts– there were simply too many of them for this not to be true).
Assuming arguendo, that Hillary Clinton was never complicit in the sexual acts themselves, she was after them– Hillary viciously attacked these victims with the sole intent to discredit their veracity. She essentially accused these girls of being “trailer trash” and “bimbos.” In short, Hillary sought to destroy the girl’s credibility to protect HER ascendancy to higher political office through Bill because she knew her time would come.
In a criminal trial, a defendant’s character is generally not admissible into evidence to show that she is acting in conformity therewith for purposes of her current offense. The goal is to prevent a defendant from being convicted simply because she has committed bad acts in the past– she did it before, therefore, she must be guilty now. There are exceptions to this general rule. One of the exceptions permits a prosecutor to introduce evidence of prior bad acts to show “lack of mistake”. Another exception permits evidence of a victim’s pattern of fabrication about issues material to the case. Again, the purpose of the criminal rules is to ensure fairness. Hillary’s prior bad acts are fair and relevant to this election.
The election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is not a trial, but the millennials can (and seem to be) apply these common sense principles when assessing the veracity, integrity, and motives of Hillary Clinton. She is, as many influential folks have said, a congenital liar who will say and do anything to be President. She is no friend to women or African Americans (She called young black males “super predators”) except and unless she is asking for their vote to secure her dishonest efforts to achieve ultimate power at any cost.