I think it is more complicated than that but… yeah - she is a soulless robot who would do, and say, ANYTHING to win. For instance, does anyone at all think that she actually carries around hot sauce in her purse everywhere that she goes? She said that, but she did not mean it. She is a politician and she LIED.
Also, Trump was not a politician, but he LIED too - remember when he said, before the primary, that if he won it then he would change the rules? However, immediately after that he said “why should I bother - I WON!?” Also, I seem to recall some chant of “lock her up”, but then immediately after that he was all like “why would do that? she’s nice people - she came to my wedding” Also, the Bob Woodward interview where he told him that he was going to lie in the future, saying that covid was not transmissable by air, and yet it was. Also… well, there’s a lot of examples, just like with her. So Hillary does not have a monopoly on lying.
Even so, her actions do tend to back up what she said: she tended to listen to experts, and the pandemic would have killed far fewer people if she had been in charge. She lies so often that sometimes she even tells the truth, just by accident? :-P So I think she would have followed up on that topic just as she said - not b/c she cared but just b/c it would be most politically expedient to have done so.
That said, she didn’t seem to genuinely care for anything but her own fame & glory (hey, remember when the Supreme Court told her to send over all of her emails, and she told them to take a hike? well, more precisely she told them that she’d do it when she felt like it, but only AFTER she removed all the ones that she didn’t want them to see - THAT IS WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID!?!?!?!). Though again, how was Trump any different? They are both shitty people, it’s just that Americans knew more about her than we did him, hence why the vote wasn’t so much “pro-Trump” as it was “anti-Hillary”, and we basically just rolled the dice to see whatever anti-Hillary would end up doing. It did not work out well, though it may not have worked well under her either - Congress would still have been flat-out broken either way, and neither would have helped heal the divide in this nation. Both sides need to stop putting up these jokers and put up someone who MAKES SENSE! :-(
Yes, he does answer questions more simply - if that were the only criteria for someone to be President then he should have won, in fact it’s a large part of why he did. And she answers questions with more weasly-worded phrases that mean nothing so as to let the medium-IQ people delude themselves into thinking that they are high-IQ ones (“hey, she said the thing that I wanted!? I’m so smart to have figured that out” - uh… no she didn’t, in fact if you pay attention, she ended up saying nothing at all). But if the question is “what is 1+1?”, then the answer is neither -1000000000000 (Democrats) nor “ur stUpId” (Republicans), so I firmly believe that neither side is working in our bests interests. On the other hand, one side is ready to literally overthrow the Constitution of the United States of America, even while claiming to do it out of love for that very document (which many admit to never having read in the first place).
I’m going to say something possibly controversial: not only do dumb people have just as much right to vote as smart ones, but smart people are not better people. That said, I am not looking to have a beer with the President of the United States, I want them for their role as a LEADER, for which yes a minimum level of intelligence should be required. Like in a football game, a certain minimum level of athletic prowess should be mandatory? So why look out into the audience and choose one of them, ignoring the ones who have trained for many years to become great at it? The only answer I can come up with is that people hated Hillary THAT MUCH - hence why she is the one who put him in office, arguably much more than he did. He was just trying to promote his latest reality TV show:-P.