RU-vid has reduced ads on this video for CoNtRoVeRsY, so consider supporting the channel on Patreon: www.patreon.com/WhatWhyHow Also join the Discord to vote on the next video: discord.com/invite/XB7MWEemeW
I think Hillary would escalate the war in Syria and maybe lead to a crisis with Russia earlier in this timeline compared to our timeline when that was the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. I also think that since relations with Russia may deteriorate earlier the Clinton admin may increase support for Ukraine’s defense earlier as well with the goal not of giving Ukraine a better shot in a potential war but rather to deter a future invasion
Trump also armed Ukraine & put harsher sanctions on Russia to appease the Dems with their 'Russiagate' garbage, this proxy war was inevitable no matter which of the two won because they both do, generally, the same foreign policy.
My take: If it wasn’t Trump, it was going to be someone else. I think Trump ironically came too early in some regards. He started a revolution in American politics and the standing worldwide, but this was going to happen eventually given our trajectory economically and demographically (population collapse). The right seems intrigued by Bernie Sanders despite despising him. Perhaps he or someone like him would have been Trump instead?
She'll get blamed for Covid response. DT would probably win 2020 and will blame Hillary for the war on Ukraine. DT won't support Ukraine and probably focused more on the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan which if successful could get him re-elected. If somehow Hillary did won 2020, just look what Biden is doing now. Now I'm not an American but I do enjoy what if American politics and I'd say this channel is pretty much fair and open to ideas.
I do have some questions, would the me too movement still happen? How would this effect groups like BLM? Does this scenario effect Americas political divisions (by the sounds of it, it does not)? If it does effect Americas political division, would Charlottesville still happen?
Good questions. I think a Democrat president would sap the support out from popular left-wing movements like BLM, since those were partially a reaction to Trump. I could see Charlottesville being either bigger or smaller, it's hard to say.
Things would definitely be worse. Donald Trump didn't really accomplish anything for better or worse, but she would meant a majority democrat congress, a democrat supreme court, and a democrat president. Hillary Clinton, Queen of the Swamp, would have basically been able to do anything she wanted and would have magically gotten a lot richer for it.
@@jthecool9225 attacks on the 2nd amendment left basically unchallenged for one. Plus it would have been possible for the green new deal to potentially pass. Having a single party on either side have absolute control of all three branches of gov will never be good because most people are not far right or left
@@Demonicpurity Thanks for elaborating on some of your sentiments. I'm under the impression the Green New Deal in it's form at that time certainly would not have passed, and people agree it still won't pass even if full Dem control happens here in the future. It's a pretty extreme measure that majority of Dems wouldn't be on board with, including Hillary at the time. While I prob don't agree with your concerns on the 2nd Amendment, I respect your sentiment. Out of curiosity, are you in favor of this infrastructure bill the Biden admin passed here recently? Cheers 🍻
@@DemonicpurityWhy do you perceive passing the GND as a bad thing? Do you think the interstate highway act was a bad thing? Or Teddy Roosevelt’s development of our national park system as a bad thing? Every American has directly benefited from these big government programs, and in fact the creation of America itself was a big government program.
My only complaint is a minor visual thing, which I'm sure wasn't meant to be too serious: one of the districts in Wisconsin that flips red in your 2018 midterms bit is the Dane County area, which votes Democrat at 70-80% pretty much every election. Like I said, very minor, and overall I think this makes a lot of sense and I don't see Hillary Clinton getting much done with a Republican Congress and we all know what can happen when a Democratic president overpromises and Congress ensures they don't achieve the grand sweeping change they campaigned on.
My only complaint is a minor verbal thing. As opposed to synonyms like "furious" or "not happy", a colorful metaphor was chosen for 9:28. I came for entertaining alternate history speculation, and I would stay for entertaining alternate history speculation, not the language. But other than that...
@@CadetGriffin Don't be a dick. It was just a particularly obvious element of graphics over reality that I noticed. It's not like I'm offended by it or anything, just a minor note for people who aren't as cognizant of Wisconsin politics.
@brandonsmidt3436 alternate history is imaginary, but we don't have to imagine a Uninted States where candidate Hilary Clinton had more popular support than candidate Donald Trump. That actually happened.
@@angelogarcia2189 "has more popular support" means nothing. California is a braindead shithole that is driving millions of its own people out. Just because Democrats are master urban slumlords who own all the media outlets and the entertainment industry does not mean they dictate terms to the rest of the country. The reason elections work the way they do is to prevent cities from running the country.
Inevitably. But nowhere near as bad as in some areas. Trump is the reason why we can still enjoy conservatism. If you push progressive agendas, expect the opposite effect. The Ying Yang effect is there for a reason.
Hillary is and was a corporate neoliberal democrat. She would be bought by big business donors like all the presidents before her, but the US might at least have had a green new deal, no/fewer tax cuts for the rich and much fewer people dead from covid. The US wouldn't have come as far as it has into becoming a fascist state.
