[dataflow]

No, you're just conflating things horribly.

What Clinton (and I would bet most other folks that you're alluding to from the years prior) had meant by "stolen" elections or "illegitimate" president was emphatically not the same as Trump's wild allegations. She was not claiming "people cast fraudulent ballots" or "the votes were counted incorrectly" or the like. She was not denying what actually happened. Rather, she was using "stolen" to refer to things like "you can get the most votes but still lose the electoral vote, and thus the presidency", or "they make it difficult for your supporters to vote", or things like that. It's unfortunate she used the word "stealing" to refer to that, given that that apparently gave some people a very convenient opportunity to paint a false equivalency between both sides, when in reality she was using that word to make a factual statement about how votes are cast and counted in the system, whereas her opponent was using that word to to hurl unsupported (and "unsupported" is incredibly generous here) allegations of fraud.

Imagine if you were about to get a heart transplant. Someone grabs the donated heart sitting in the operating room and runs. "She stole my heart!", you panic. "Oh don't worry honey, my wife stole my heart too. It's pretty common! It happens to all of us." Imagine the sheer exasperation when you're on life support and now have to spend the remainder of your energy replying to that as a serious comment.

[pyuser583]

I understand the big difference between Trumps delusions, and Clinton’s opinions.

But you’re giving Clinton too much credit.

For one thing, neither Clinton nor Trump received over 50% if the popular vote. It’s tempting to think the Green and Libertarian voters wanted Clinton more than Trump - but third party voters have weird ideas.

Winning the presidency by getting the majority of the electoral college isn’t a steal.

If there were concerns about disenfranchised voters, maybe she would have a something.

But it was low turn out, plain and simple.

The election wasn’t stolen in any way shape or form. Nothing fishy happened. It wasn’t insanely close like in 2000.

She simply lost.

Not as bad as Trumps insanity. But not innocent either.

[dataflow]

I'm not giving Clinton any credit for anything (if anything, I'm denying her credit—for things she didn't do), and nobody is saying Clinton was innocent. You just distorted what had happened and are now twisting what I said.

If you "understand [as you admit; emphasis mine] the big difference" between what Trump and Clinton were referring to and merely intended to argue "Clinton is not innocent", then by all means, go ahead and say that directly, instead of casually leaving an incredibly misleading comment claiming Trump's allegations were "not a unique claim" because Clinton and others have been making "similar" claims. "Big difference" and "similar" are not only dissimilar, they're about as diametrically opposite as you can go.