Why Millennials Hate Hillary Clinton

Why Millennials Hate Hillary Clinton

Dear Hillary Clinton, dear Amy Schumer, dear Clara Jeffery and dear fake leftists everywhere, I am a millennial and I hate Hillary Clinton.

I watched a BBC interview of Amy Schumer. She was asked about the election and the hatred Hillary Clinton. Schumer responded “That’s what I am saying with the not being informed because those people aren’t informed. You know, they, if you go, why don’t you like Hillary? They’ll go she lied about her emails. What else is she gonna lie about? People get one fact and that’s what they latch on to about a candidate. They go you know she lied about that. I’m like, Donald Trump has a fake college. Donald Trump doesn’t pay his workers. He won’t release his taxes. There has never been a nominee who has ever not released their taxes. I haven’t had a conversation with anyone who doesn’t like Hillary where they’ve had anything meaningful to say.”

Mother Jones Editor in chief Clara Jeffery sent out this tweet.

Dear Hillary Clinton, dear Amy Schumer, dear Clara Jeffery and dear fake leftists everywhere, I am a millennial. I hate Hillary Clinton. I want to explain to you why us millennials hate Hillary Clinton. I am going to give you meaningful legitimate reasons as to why millennials won’t just “fall in line” and vote blue. I’m tired of seeing non-millennials explain why millennials hate Hillary. You non-millennials need to stop. PLEASE, you are embarrassing yourselves. We millennials won’t fall in line and follow the grand queen because we are not sheep. Ms. Schumer, we don’t dislike her because we are uninformed. We dislike her because we are very informed. That’s why many millennials are looking at other options. We know Donald Trump is a buffoon and a disaster but Hillary Clinton is also a massive disaster. We will not choose between which candidate is less of a disaster.

Amy Schumer said she has yet to have a conversation with someone who has anything meaningful to say as to why they hate Hillary. I understand that there are idiot far right wingers who scream “BENGHAZI” to the mountain tops and make up conspiracy theories about her. Throw that out of the window. We are not right wingers. We don’t hate Hillary because of those obviously false conspiracies. We hate her because she is a horrible candidate. Here is what makes her a horrible candidate:

  • She voted for the illegal war in Iraq that killed a minimum of 100,000 civilians. By 2053, the Iraq would cost the US taxpayers $7 trillion dollars. She was in favor of killing hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent civilians but she claims we will never have universal healthcare which is much cheaper. She said the Iraq war should be viewed as a “business opportunity.” She was in favor of a war on terror that costs trillions of dollars that has made us less safe and that has created more jihadist and terrorist. That’s what democrats, progressives, and millennials are supposed to support?
  • She is in favor of more intervention and is extremely hawkish. She said that she learned from her errors in voting for the Iraq War yet she wants to create a No Fly Zone in Syria. If Russian planes fly over Syria, they will be shot which could potentially lead to a Third World War. Only 17% of the country still want to be involved in the wars that we are involved in now. Hillary wants to get involved in more war.
  • She voted for the Patriot act. The Patriot Act essentially says “ the Fourth Amendment? LOL, what’s a fourth amendment? Constitution? Pleeeeease. You have no protection from unreasonable search and seizures. The government is allowed to collect your metadata and watch everything you do.”
  • While she was Secretary of State, she gave an exemption to South Sudan for their child soldiers so the US could continue to give them arms because they are our allies. Let me say that again. Hillary gave South Sudan exemptions so they could continue to arm child soldiers. Does she fight for children?
  • In a 1996 news conference she infamously called black youth “super predators” and said they must be brought to “heel”. When a young black woman held up a sign of her infamous quote “We have to bring them to heel”, and asked Hillary to apologize to black people for mass incarceration, Hillary responded by brushing her aside and continuing with her speech. The youth black woman was escorted out of the room and Hillary said: “ok, back to the issues”. She is essentially saying the mass incarceration and the war on drugs that have destroyed black communities are not an issue.

  • Hillary Clinton claims to fight for women’s rights while she armed Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, women are second class citizens. Women must cover up from head to toe and they aren’t allowed to drive. Saudi Arabia is bombing women and children in Yemen RIGHT NOW with weapons that Hillary supplied. How can you claim to fight for women’s rights when you are arming a nation where women don’t matter? Oh, I get it, Hillary fights for women and children as long as they are not brown women and children.
  • She supported NAFTA and CAFTA which are outsourcing deals that cost America millions of jobs and is the reason Detroit collapsed and is no longer a great city.
  • She supported Wall Street deregulation which caused the subprime mortgage crisis and the great recession. Then she turned around and blamed home owners for the subprime mortgage crisis.
  • She pushed for the TPP 45 times before she said she was against it.
  • She hired Tim Kaine as her VP who a corporatist, supports the TPP, supporters right to work laws which destroy unions and lowers wages, is supported by Wall Street and large banks, he is in favor of fracking, he voted for more money in politics… pretty much, he is a male Hillary Clinton.
  • She was against the Bankruptcy Bill as the First Lady and was able to convince Bill Clinton to veto the bill. After she became a senator and took money from the credit industry who wanted the bankruptcy bill passed, the bill was reintroduced. She then voted in favor of that bill.
  • She was a big believer in universal healthcare. Once she took money from the health care industry she said “we will never have universal healthcare.”
  • Hillary was coronated by the DNC and the mainstream media. Before WikiLeaks revealed that the primaries were rigged against Bernie Sanders towards Hillary Clinton, Sanders supporters screamed about that and were told that they are crazy conspiracy theorist. Now that the cat is out of the bag, instead of admitting their wrongdoing and apologizing to Sanders supporters and progressives, the DNC and mainstream media blamed Russian hackers instead of taking responsibility for the wrong that they did.
  • She is in favor of the Keystone Pipeline and promoted fracking all across the world.
  • The Clintons in their lifetimes have raised over $3 billion dollars from special interest groups

There are many more reasons why millennials dislike Hillary. The biggest reason we dislike Hillary is not because we are uninformed, it’s because we are very informed. Unlike the older generations, we do not get our information from the corrupt mainstream media outlets. We have the internet. We don’t wait until the 10 o’ clock nightly news for the news anchors to lie to us. We instantly check the internet. We have video evidence of Hillary consistently lying to us. More importantly, an entire generation of voters who voted for the first time was told to sit down and shut up. Our vote didn’t matter. The DNC did everything they could to make sure our vote didn’t matter as a result; we are stuck with the worst democratic candidate in history.

We understand that Trump is a horrible candidate. I believe that Trump is a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton by a margin but Donald Trump being a horrible candidate does not make Hillary any less horrible. If Hillary Clinton wants young people to vote for her, she has to earn our votes. She is not entitled to our vote. We will not come out for candidates because one is less bad than the other. That will only continue to get us horrible candidates that don’t represent us. Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media are content saying that if Hillary loses, it is our fault. Those people are operating under the premise that the only the people can fail the politicians and the politicians can never fail the people.

Hillary, if you were actually liberal and you were actually progressive, millennials would have no problem voting for you. But the fact that you are a lying, corrupt, corporatist, neo-con parading as a liberal and progressive, actual liberals and progressives won’t vote for you even in the face of an orange faced, buffoon, fascist like Donald Trump. The DNC showed us our vote didn’t matter during the primaries and the mainstream media published stories saying Hillary doesn’t need our vote to win. Now that millennials are not voting for her, the DNC has collectively shit the bed because we are not voting for a candidate who they said didn’t need us. A vote for Hillary Clinton is like watching someone spit in our food and being told we have to eat it anyway because the other meal has rat poison in it. We choose not to eat either meal when we can buy something else because we have other options. Those other options are Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. We not only have the right to vote, we have the right to know who we can vote for. That’s why on November 8th, 2016, I will cast my vote for Jill Stein because it is time to reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it because they do. Those are the reasons us millennials hate Hillary Clinton. It is not because we are uninformed, it’s because we are very informed. Clara Jeffery, don’t hate millennials for hating Hillary Clinton, you should hate her for being a horrible candidate.

On a side note:

The upcoming presidential election is much more than just an election. It is a fight for our democracy. Whether you are a Clinton supporter, Trump supporter, Stein supporter or a Johnson supporter, it is important that you have the right to vote. Please Join Unity for democracy on October 23rd, 2016 in Washington DC to March take back your democracy and prevent America from becoming the corporatocracy that it is well on its way to becoming. This is a nonpartisan event that is committed to making sure that your voice and your vote will always matter. To learn more information, you click here to visit the Facebook page. If you can't make it but you would like to help fund the event, you can donate by clicking here. You matter. Make sure your voice and your vote makes a difference.

Cover Image Credit: Youtube.com

Popular Right Now

The Dangers Of Ideology And The Importance Of Free Speech & Debate

Universities are currently policing thought, indoctrinating students into a radical egalitarian ideology, and crushing dissenting opinion.

It’s truly amazing to consider how quickly the culture on college campuses has changed over the last several years. Once staunch defenders of speech and academic freedom, modern universities are quickly turning into ideological echo chambers, indoctrinating students into a radical left-wing egalitarian worldview, while crushing dissenting opinion.

The disturbingly Orwellian trend to quell free expression on campuses can best be illustrated by an event that unfolded last year at James Madison University’s freshman orientation, when “student leaders” distributed a list of 35 things that incoming students should avoid saying, including phrases such as “you have a pretty face,” “love the sinner, hate the sin,” “we’re all part of the human race,” “I treat all people the same,” “people just need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps,” among other expressions.

You might find yourself laughing this off as nonsense, an isolated set of events perpetuated by a select group of fringe radicals. Unfortunately, I can assure you that this is not an isolated incident. In addition to the slew of protests that erupted at universities last year in response to conservative speakers being invited to campus, these kinds of events are indicative of a larger, and more pernicious attempt by the radical left to control the linguistic territory.

At universities across America, the campus left now demands that people accept certain preconditions for discussion. Not the kind of reasonable preconditions such as “treat people with respect,” or “don’t resort to personal attacks.” Rather, It is demanded that you accept a neo-Marxian worldview, rooted in the notion that the world is nothing more than a power struggle between two groups of people: those who oppress and those who are oppressed. They demand that people accept notions like white-male privilege as axiomatic – not to be debated – and force people to acknowledge how they've been privileged by the current socio-economic structure.

Refusing to accept these presuppositions not only bars someone from participating in the discussion. To challenge an idea, such as white privilege, is to reject the fact that racism and bigotry exist in our society. To challenge the notion that being white necessarily means you must be more privileged than a person of color is akin to blasphemy. To push against the idea that certain classes of people in America are ‘victims of systemic oppression’ is to deny the humanity and individual experiences of people of color, women, and other minority groups.

The campus left emphatically espouse the notion that “the personal is political.” Thus they believe, unequivocally, that the primary responsibility of the University should be to ensure students from “diverse cultural backgrounds” feel safe – and by safe they mean “not having their identities challenged;” and by identities they are referring to their belief systems – the lens by which they perceive the word.

From the perspective of a radical leftist, to participate in debate is not seen as merely engaging in criticism of some abstract idea. To challenge an idea is to challenge someone’s identity, and to challenge someone’s identity is to debate their humanity.

And that is one of the axiomatic rules of the campus Left – you cannot debate someone’s humanity.

Indeed, with more than a fifth of college undergrads now believing its okay to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive or hurtful statement,” the future of the First Amendment itself is currently uncertain.

What exactly is so dangerous about this movement?

For starters, the freedom of speech has wrongly been construed as just another value that we in the West hold in high regard. But it is more than a Right that we share as citizens of this nation. It is, ultimately, the mechanism by which keep our psyches and societies functioning.

See, most people just aren’t that good at thinking. I don't mean this as a sleight against anyone, but we’re all insufficient and we have limited awareness of most things because we just can’t know everything. We rely on communication with one another to facilitate the process of learning about things outside our realm of knowledge. Often we have to, first, stumble around like the blithering idiots we are, espousing our biased beliefs in a public forum, and subjecting our ideas to criticism before we can properly orient our thoughts.

When the open exchange of ideas is allowed, you get the opportunity for multiple people to put forward their biased oversimplifications and engage in debate that raises the resolution of the particular question and answer at hand. Ideas are hit with hammers, combed for contradictions, inadequacies and even falsehoods. On an individual level, this kind of scrutiny sharpens the schema you use to navigate the world because other people can tell you things you can’t know by yourself.

Maybe it’s an opinion espoused, or a behavior that manifests itself, or a misconception you hold- in any event, subjecting your beliefs to criticism is, in the short term sometimes painful because we often learn things about the world and ourselves that are uncomfortable; but, in the long term, it is the only way method we have for moving closer towards something that more closely resembles truth – and if not anything true, at least something less wrong. As a result, the lens by which you look at the world becomes clearer.

Further, it is also through a collective process of dialectic that we identify problems in our societies, formulate solutions, and come to some sort of consensus.

Thus the right to say what you believe should not just considered as "just another value." It's a conical value, without which all the other values we hold dear, that people have fought so hard, in such an unlikely manner, to preserve and produce all disappear.

Without it, there can be no progress. Without it, individuals abdicate their responsibility to engage in the sacred process of discovery and renewal. Without it, we can’t think. Without it, there can be no truth. Without it, there can be nothing but nihilistic psychopathology. The end result is a populist that is not only afraid to say what they think, but that doesn't even know what they think because they haven’t been allowed to stumble around in the dark to find some tiny fragment of light.

Therefore, when we consider placing restrictions on the freedom of speech we must do so with the most extreme caution. By setting ridiculous preconditions for discussion, the campus left not only makes the process by which we solve the problems with our society more difficult, but also, if taken to its extreme, it can lead to totalitarianism.

In the wake of dozens of campus protests last year, universities are now in a position where they have to choose between two incompatible values: truth or social justice. The former will lead us to a greater understanding, while the latter can only divide.

Cover Image Credit: Teen Vogue

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being An English Speaker Is A Privileged Status

Multi-lingual is the way to go

English is not the official language of the United States of America. But even if it was, a country apparently founded on the idea of valuing every citizen as a free individual could do a much better job welcoming people who do not speak English.

While it is natural that one language became the most common, and that this has simplified many processes, this same simplification is not afforded to those who do not speak the language.

Language barriers can reduce one’s job opportunities, meaning that even if one has degrees and plenty of experience, many jobs are simply not available. Many employers are unfortunately unaccepting of those who do not speak English fluently, and some even discriminate against those who do not natively speak English.

Education becomes extremely complex for non-English-speakers. On the student side, while many schools offer English as a Second Language programs, which is wonderful, it should be acknowledged that these students face more work and less support than students who are native English speakers. To add to this, if parents do not speak English, communication from the school or with teachers becomes harder to access.

One of the greatest privileges of English speakers lies in healthcare. They can be sure that they will find a doctor who speaks their language and can clearly explain their medical situation in that language. The same goes for psychologists, social workers, and others in the health professions.

This becomes especially complicated for those who speak languages that are not commonly studied.

A friend of mine who teaches was mentioning recently that while there are many students and families in her district who speak Arabic, there are so few people working in psychology, social work, or other support services who speak the language that for the district to access them is not only difficult but expensive.

This too often means that schools fail to offer students and parents speaking these less-commonly studied languages sufficient aid.

So what is the answer? To adopt English as an official language would be so wrong in our country full of diverse and wonderful languages, backgrounds, and cultures. Instead of attempting to make English more and more widespread, we should focus our efforts on ensuring that people in this country who do not speak English can receive all of the same support as those who do speak English.

Some of this lies in ensuring that systems and institutions offer resources in several languages and that employers will not discriminate against those who are not native English speakers.

Much of the solution, however, is on us, especially if we are students entering a people-oriented profession. In fact, in all professions, becoming multi-lingual does not merely open doors for us but creates a society where more people have access to the services they need.

Cover Image Credit: Maialisa

Related Content

Facebook Comments