For Christ's sake, mate, would you learn to spell "Hillary" correctly. There are two L's in her name. And about the bolded, I'm not so sure about that. She was a dynasty, out of touch candidate, who has been riding on Bill's coattails, while feeling she was "owed" the presidency, then has been making excuses ever since she lost. She was a bad example for abused women, as an example. As a candidate, she ran a poor campaign, then lost. Because of that, we got Trump, another POS candidate. So we had two bad candidates and one of them won. One resonated with enough voters to win the electoral college, the other didn't. That simple.
But, I'm interested in hearing how you're worse off. Have you been negatively effected, economically? Do you feel we are less secure? What is this "better off" you're making reference to?
Pardon interjecting, but I think I can offer a good retort here.
Everything you say about Hillary is true; she was still an exponentially better candidate than Trump.
For one, she was an experienced politician. As we've seen from Trump, the "fresh thinking" of a total novice is
not a good thing; it leads to many unfilled positions and rookie mistakes. Hillary might not have made brilliant choices, but she would have had a complete administration and offered a baseline level of competency that doesn't exist with Trump.
Yes there was a dynasty, and yes she put up with a lot of crap from Bill. But here's the thing: she wasn't going to appoint people who were complete mismatches for roles, or were actively interested in undermining the divisions they ran (see: Scott Pruitt, Ajit Pai). She wasn't going to remove anti-discrimination measures purely out of spite, or undercut support for women. And she certainly wasn't going to treat politics as a matter of mindless loyalty, considering the free press, law enforcement and intelligence agencies as enemies simply because they told unpleasant truths.
Oh, and she wouldn't be pandering to dictators while waging economic wars against her erstwhile allies.
Whether or not a politician is good isn't just about whether or not you, personally, are seeing a short-term economic benefit. We're worse off because Trump is instituting deregulation that could easily lead to another financial crisis years down the road (some of the rules removed were ones instituted in response to the 2008 crisis). We're worse off because Trump is trying to stifle climate science and renewable energy, both of which have short- and long-term effects on quality of life. We're worse off because Trump and the GOP are courting the rich while doing nothing to help (or in some cases, explicitly harming) lower-income families. We're worse off because of tariffs that will raise prices and inflation without fostering American manufacturing or creating jobs. And of course, we're worse off because Trump is giving Putin the discord and weaker security that he wants.