Even if she won, she was still the Secretary of State that gave us more predator drones, more bombing and served under a president that spent every day at work (the first president in history).
I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties, they just toss a few pandering policies here and there to get people angry, or spin things differently.
I think it doesn't matter which side you see it from, democracy in the US is completely broken. In most states your vote doesn't matter. Both parties ended up with candidates that were disliked by more people than liked. Trump keeps bringing up Hillary because she probably is the only candidate who makes him even remotely look good to anyone meanwhile even most Democrats didn't want her. Both parties had to fight off what in essence were third party candidates because it's more viable to hijack one of the big two than running as a third party. And that's completely ignoring that once in office completely unpopular measures get pushed through my either site. It's completely broken!
Some dudes I work with went nuts over Obama being a tax burden when he stopped in Hawaii and it was reported he was stoked to have a plate lunch. To be fair though, they kept talking about Hawaii like they didn't realize it's a state.
> I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties
So what? Even if one accepts the unimaginative premise that all politicians are equally corrupt, there are very clear differences in the policies they enact, so it is a rational decision to make discerning choices between them; the implied suggestion that it's all a wash is very obviously incorrect.
If you look at the primary abuses of the plutocracy in the States (ie War Complex, Wall Street & Central Bankkng, psrticulsr kinds of constitutional abuses) there is little difference. For example, Goldman Sachs wins with unelected powerful positions after every election(1). Obama was anti war and said he would protect whistle blowers, but prosecuted more whistle blowers than any president in history, and dropped over 25,000 bombs, primarily targeting Muslims. He also didn't stand up to the healthcare lobbies, or use any seriois political capital to end unconstitutional Guantanamo. So you can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world. All the huffing and puffing is just targeted at people's emotions to keep them occupied with political battles other than going after the plutocracy.
> You can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world
Without delving into the subjective can of worms that underpins "what really matters in the world", none of what you said refutes the fact that it is still rational to make choices since those choices have consequences that matter to citizens. There are other things going on in the world besides whatever it is you believe "really matters", but you're free to abstain from the political process until the time comes when nations stop fighting wars.
Just to make it abundantly clear, by "what matters" I'm referring to the topics I addressed in my post such as (1) who gets killed? (2) who does the killing? (3) who ends up with the money? (4) who has constitutional rights?
I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties, they just toss a few pandering policies here and there to get people angry, or spin things differently.