So now you have totally sunk into ad hominem attacks.
Lon Shapiro
11

You are seriously bringing up the Iraq War?

With relation to Hillary Clinton?

Are you a low enough information voter (you didn’t know about her arms sales) that you don’t know that she voted for the Iraq War?

Let me guess: Bush has responsibility for the Iraq War. Hillary, who voted for it, bears none. Did I do a good job of figuring out how your mind works?

As far as Hillary’s Iraq War vote, there are three possibilities, as I see it:

1) She believed Bush on WMD. In that case, the most qualified, prepared, blah, blah, blah, candidate in history was duped by a garden variety drunk from Texas. Nice.

2) She didn’t believe Bush on WMD, but decided to vote for the war out of political expediency, deciding that the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives was acceptable in the hopes of bettering her chances of being president in the future. That’s about as low as you can get, isn’t it?

3) She didn’t know whether or not to believe Bush on WMD. Similar to 2), but at least she has the defense of being stupid in this case, rather than calculating.

Or is there a fourth possibility that you see?

The problem with people like you, who Google everything and have little life experience, is that you have a canned, false perspective on history. You write about Nixon and Reagan, etc., but I lived through their presidencies. Their corruption was not exposed at a single blow. It filtered out, in bits and pieces, over long periods of time. Always, their obvious corruption was challenged by people that were, well, a lot like you. Maybe Edward Snowden is a recent enough example for you to understand. Were there people yelling and screaming years before he said anything about the NSA? Yes. I was one of them. But for some people, NSA corruption dates from the time of Edward Snowden’s revelations. That is a distorted view of history. The corruption started long before Snowden said anything. Most people weren’t listening, even though the signs were obvious.

Similarly, with Hillary, what in the name of God are you waiting for to decide that her corruption “counts?” Do you need a court case to determine that selling arms to the Saudis while taking millions of dollars from them is corruption? Why? If you saw a robber enter a bank and shoot somebody, would you wait until he was convicted to decide that you had seen a murder? Hillary’s corruption is staring you in the face, but you need for it to have legitimacy from outside sources, or it never happened. Give me a break. Weak. Beyond weak.

Let me give you a tip, from a long-time political organizer. I am going to estimate, conservatively, that I talked to at least 100,000 American citizens in my life while canvassing for peace, social justice, and environmental organizations. The number is probably far higher. If you want to convince anybody of anything about Hillary, you have to acknowledge her faults. Even she knows this. She hinted at it with her, “just don’t know what to make of me,” comment in her acceptance speech. The reason is simple. There are two kinds of people you, as a Hillary supporter, should not be interested in talking to. The first is a dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporter, lock-her-up guy. That should be self-explanatory. You have no hope of convincing that guy of anything. The second is the, “I LOVE Hillary!” person. She has all the bumper stickers, an email with the most recent talking points straight from the DNC. You know, “Putin did it…, little girls were watching on T.V. and crying!…it’s all the result of sexism and longstanding, unwarranted republican criticism…” The Hillary lover is already signed up to drive 43 of her Hillary-supporting neighbors to the polls on election day. She collects a small paycheck from Correct the Record and clicks the heart on posts like yours. Sure, it might be tempting for you to bask in the glow of a kindred spirit and talk to Hillary lover for a while, but you really shouldn’t. Why? Because it’s a waste of your time. You already have her vote. It’s the same reason Hillary won’t campaign much in New York or California. There’s no point. She’s going to win there. But where will she spend her time? Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc., because the outcome is in doubt there. And you need to convince people in the middle that Hillary is OK. The problem you have is, we already know she’s corrupt. That horse is out of the barn. Look at the poll numbers for untrustworthiness. And we know that she’s corrupt because it’s a fact. You can go on until you’re blue in the face that selling arms to dictators while accepting multi-million dollar donations does not substitute serious corruption, but you have no chance of convincing anybody of that. Because it’s not true. We’ve all seen it too many times in our lifetime, not only in federal government, but also the mayor getting kickbacks and so on. That’s who Hillary is. Nobody is misconstruing anything. The arms sales and the donations are documented. And getting back to where I was a couple of posts ago, if you continue to maintain that Hillary’s corruption is minor or didn’t happen, it undermines the points that you have to make that ARE true. Why would you want to do that? Just tell the truth. It’s easier on everybody. Best.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Robert Barber’s story.