Why is it, and how is it, that Republicans aren’t able to disagree with Hillary Clinton about policy and about her vision for America without calling her a criminal?

I quite agree. Propaganda at its "most singleminded". Maybe it is echoes of that other propaganda about her putting soldiers in harms way despite a Republican investigating committee having cleared her completely on that.

Well I agree that it does make political debate less sophisticated. Though the fact is that bitch is a criminal and it makes her policies irrelevant.

If you believe such accusations are propaganda, well that's your decision to make. Though a lot of people sincerely believe it and with good reason. I believe the Clintons are guilty of high crimes including murder, drug trafficking and treason. I'm not trying to smear her. That's what I believe.

Without the use of words such as "generally" or "some" or "a few" or "many" or "a majority of", your premise suggests that all of the people within the group espouse that point of view. That would be akin to saying that all Democrats say the exact same thing, which is not true.

There are some Republicans who do not call Hilary Clinton a criminal.

~

1. Why? They are trying to cover up Trump's inadequacy about foreign policy, which is very evident.
2. Trump doesn't even know Russia already invaded Ukraine! That's going around on Twitter this morning.
3. I think he gave an interview on ABC with George Stephanopoulos.
4. Trump should be given a briefing because he is weak on geography and foreign leaders info.
5. People are also asking why he hasn't been arrested for espionage, since he encouraged Russia to spy on us. That's a serious charge!

And what evidence do you have?

Because they have the biggest jerkoff representing them and need to point the finger elsewhere lest it gets pointed where it really belongs.

Many political partisans in the US have a problem.

Fundamentally, what most of them find objectionable in contemporary US politics (the domination of money and special interests, the rigging of the economy in favor of the rich/corporate, the lack of action on illegal immigration, etc.) are bipartsan and structural issues. It doesn't really matter who gets elected between major party candidates, the broad structure of American policy will be roughly the same.

That leaves such partisans with three main options:

A) Vote for a more ideologically-oriented third-party candidate (e.g. Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, etc.) which is essentially throwing a vote away.

B) Frame their vote as a Lesser of The Two Evils choice. I freely admit if I lived in a contested state where Trump had any chace of winning, I would vote for HRC for just this reason. This is a practical, but emotionally unsatisfying option.

C) Demonize the opposing candiate to sastify the need for a narrative where one's vote is part of a Manichean struggle of Good vs. Evil.

The "Jail Hillary" crowd is largely engaging in C)  not because they have good evidence HRC's actions actually are criminal, but because many of her actions (e.g. her Goldman Sachs speech fees) are typical of government officials in both parties in contemporary America. The difference is the Vast Right-Wing Echo Chamber has been demonzing HRC since the early 1990s, so people are familiar with her "crimes" while other government officials' similar behavior hasn't been given the same level of public scrutiny.

Sadly most people cannot discuss politics. On either side without disrespecting the asker. The questions on here are proof.

It depends what you mean by evidence exactly. It depends what you consider a credible source of evidence. You can't expect the establishment to investigate itself. The Clintons are above the law.

HRC is not just a left wing politician she's a senior establishment figure. She is protected from up on high. All investigation into her is whitewashed. It has nothing to do with party lines. Republicans will not expose her corruption because many are involved in it themselves and she has enough dirt on them to ensure their silence. Good people in the FBI etc have tried to expose her, though it's not easy.

So in the absence of any authority to facilitate discovery and give weight to the evidence, we have to just listen to the testimony of individuals and make a judgement call.

You should watch documentaries like the Clinton Chronicles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHIMuUdeESA

I've always been a very good judge of character. People can't get away with lying to me when I look them in the eye. I'm good at poker. When I look into HRC's eyes I see a sadistic psychopath. When I look into the eyes of the people in the Clinton Chronicles I believe they're telling the truth.

If  you think it's all propaganda, that's your judgement call to make. I've made mine and I stand by it.

"When I look into the eyes of the people in the Clinton Chronicles I believe they're telling the truth."

You believe they're telling the truth because you wish to believe it, and you wish to believe it because it fits your narrative and opinion. Finding any objective reality apparently doesn't matter to you.

I could accuse you of doing the same. We are ALL vulnerable to seeing what we wish to see.

Though believe it or not I don't actually wish it to be true. I find it quite disturbing that such scum could reach such high office. I'm not biased along party lines either. I believe massive corruption exists in both parties. The Bush family is another major player that are just as bad. The Clintons are so close to the Bushes they often vacation together.

You are no more objective than I am. You have made a judgement call, just as I have.