I disagree on your definition of "most people." Most people are not as liberal as Clinton. Polls show that. Sanders is the least bipartisan member of the Senate, which is why absolutely every elected Senator is more like a Republican than he is. You saying that is as meaningful as "nearly everything on earth is not as cold as absolute zero."
I misspoke a bit. She is not a moderate compared to Bernie, but she is considered more moderate, and has had her share of more moderate views like agreeing to go to Iraq.
Columbus, Ohio (CNN)Hillary Clinton confessed Thursday to something liberals have long suspected: being a moderate Democrat.
"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."
Publicly, people have had to write articles about how she is not moderate, but is more liberal overall than the average democrat. And I agree to that. They weren't saying she was a republican, and I stand by my claim that you are exaggerating. Link But I go back to the point... I honestly don't see the whole "everyone online lied and called her a republican." Because that is what we are talking about. Everyone lying to you. Who? Someone in a comment section on reddit? Also, using only partisanship, when there are so many factors like amendments, is a little short sighted. Even further, Hillary has in a sense, padded her resume with sponsorship to greatly increase her bipartisanship ratings. Politifact did quite some digging and dug through a lot of her bills. Link. Is she republican like? Nope. Is she more moderate than Sanders? Yes. Is she better at crossing the isle than Sanders? That's up for debate, and depends on what factors you account for.
So did most people. So did Sanders. The fact remains that she supported civil unions with the same protections as marriage before the average American did. She also supports open service of transgender individuals right now, and despite the majority opinion.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out again, that "Found out that most of what I had been fed was lies" doesn't add up. You seem to like to spin stuff on Bernie and point out his flaws. You say 'lies', I say cherry picking at best, then you point out a problem with Bernie?
And, I mean, if you want to play the who did it first game... Link Sanders believed (pt before 2009) that on a federal level we should use civil unions, but he wanted his state to not have any laws against dating back to the 70s.
Okay, I was born when Reagan was president. She's absolutely less hawkish than Bush, Bush Sr, Reagan, and her husband. If I'm uncharitable and say she's more hawkish than Obama, then that's still four out of five she's less hawkish than. That's progress. Maybe not as fast as you'd like, but it's progress.
WaPo predicted the rise of someone like Bernie Sanders because of how "hawkish" (gees that word is annoying to type, let alone read repeatedly...) Hillary is.
Past that, you could have been born in the 1920s. It still doesn't change her interventionism policies.
Also, you might want to look at the actual costs of war. This even cuts off at 2010/2011. So the Iraq numbers are much higher now.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf
The Iraq vote lead to a war that was more expensive than any other war since WWII. So she supported a more expensive and extensive war than Reagan, Bush, Bush Sr, and her husband.
You're completely off base on that one.
If you want to look at money spent on war since 2001, we are at around 2.4 trillion? Give or take. You'd could combine Korea, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf, and still wouldn't get to half that number. (Yes, my numbers are adjust for inflation).
They're isolationists. I'm not.
Again, another opinion, not internet lies.
Why on earth would she not? She, like most Democrats, finds that winning is actually more important than ideological purity. I don't have a problem with that. Particularly since her opposition to a decision that was entirely about attacking her is completely guaranteed, and every Democrat knows that Republicans have benefited far more from the decision than Democrats.
True, it gives an advantage to incumbant Democrats over insurgent Democrats. But that's really small fries when it comes to how badly it disadvantages all Democrats in general elections.
More opinions. People 'hate' Citizens United. It's not like they want to turn the other cheek. Polls continue to show that it is a big issue. If it was as you said, it wouldn't be polling so high on issues.
Fine, here's a speech she gave on income inequality back in March of 2015. My point stands: she's been talking about that sort of thing for a long time.
There is a difference between talking about it, and making it one of your main campaign issues. I mean, you did months of research, obviously not into Sanders, because you acted like Hillary brought it to the light in July before anyone even knew Bernie Sanders?
Even when someone points out that you are doing the same thing you spoke out against, "fine."
None of her lower staff have been indicted either. It requires intent. They can't prove it.
Last time I checked, we were talking about Hillary having a file server in her house. She didn't have one in her lower staff's house. Also, she was directing them. So she is responsible for their actions in regard to her emails. This is a pretty odd claim you are making that doesn't really make any sense.
If my girlfriend, who was an FSO, kept a server at her house with top secret, and classified information on it, she would be going to prison.
I go back to my original point...
Found out that most of what I had been fed was lies
This is why I like to talk stuff out. None of the things you listed were lies that ' most of the internet' told you. Maybe some random person in a comment section on reddit or some psycho blog like The Salon.
But you weren't lied to by any credible source online. In fact, you actually tried to pass off a few lies yourself here. About how progressive she is with interventionism, her main campaign focuses, how little people care about CU, as well as the level of seriousness of her email DOJ issues.
You seem to fall back a lot on how you are older and wiser, born when Reagan was president. That doesn't mean anything though. I mean, I'm older than you are? After months of research, you still have a lot of 'facts' mixed up with 'opinions.'
