The purpose of this is to convince the reader that Hillary Clinton is NOT dishonest, evil, warmongering, moneygrubbing, and all the other stuff that is preventing people from voting for the most qualified person to run for the presidency. It’s a lot, but it is easy to skim to find the issues and concepts that interest you. It’s all a bit sloppy. I wrote this for friends, but would now love for others to read it.

Anyway, here goes…

ACCOMPLISHMENTS For a straight-up, easy-to-skim list of her life’s accomplishments, please see this page.


THOSE GODDAMNED E-MAILS! First, the bottom line: She was never hacked. That is because she picked the system that was most difficult for anyone to hack. She had a personal server, and a personal staff to maintain the server, able to detect immediately when anything went wrong. Government servers that have been hacked: State Department, CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, White House, NASA, IRS, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Postal Service, NOAA.

Who in the U.S. gov’t has not been hacked? Hillary Clinton.

CNN: Sources: State Dept. hack the ‘worst ever’

And yes, people tried, but they failed. Because if they made a dent, they were detected by her personal, up-to-date, with-it staff.

From Business Insider: “In a section detailing the FBI’s look into potential intrusions of the server, Bryan Pagliano, the IT worker who helped set it up, told agents that the server had no security breaches, but it had many failed log-in attempts, which he characterized as ‘brute force attacks.’”
Business Insider: Hackers compromised at least one account on Clinton’s server NB: “compromised” used to mean “attempted to hack”

She is notoriously close-mouthed about this issue, aside from saying it was a mistake and apologizing for it, and, on occasion, as during at least one of the debates, noting that she was the only one who has never been hacked. Do you really think a woman, who has been in politics for decades, who has been hounded by the right, looking for any little scandal to exploit, did not think she was doing what was most efficient and, objectively, made the most sense? And do I need to repeat that after a thorough investigation she was found to have done nothing wrong, that others had also used their own servers, and that our government runs on jaw-droppingly outdated technology?

PC World: U.S. government agencies are still using Windows 3.1, floppy disks and 1970s computers
PBS Newshour: Government wastes billions of dollars on old computers, report says

Deleted e-mails: She deleted stuff in 2014, before this shit hit the fan, and she says they were personal e-mails. E-mails are often deemed “classified” after they have already been exchanged and time passes, and “classified” is actually a very loose term when it comes to gov’t documents. Famously, things are classified willy-nilly, the bane of many a political reporter’s existence. In any case, Bush “lost” 22 million emails and it never made the headlines, and there are plenty of other examples of that.

Ultimately, none of this points to a sinister motive. But I know, she is evil and somehow thought she could make herself Trump-rich by extorting world leaders. That’s why she’s surrounded by gold-covered everything, owns multiple pleasure palaces, and takes so many expensive vacations. Except, she doesn’t.

Update: Hopefully no need to mention that the letter from Comey about the Weiner e-mails is meaningless. It is nothing but “Oh, more e-mails, not even from Clinton, but someone should look them over.”

SHE IS A WARMONGER Here are a few concepts to put things into perspective when it comes to U.S. intervention:

· We could have refused to intervene in WWII as Hitler was committing genocide, or we could have entered much, much sooner and attempted to prevent millions of deaths. · When Bill Clinton was president, he was roundly criticized for not helping the people of Rwanda when hundreds of thousands were being killed. · Saddam Hussain had rape rooms, would execute babies in front of their parents, gouged out people’s eyes, and would kill people by dipping them in acid, along with a low-ball estimate of executing 250,000. · There are estimates that the Islamic State has killed 10,000 innocent people, are torturing thousands and raping possibly thousands of sex slaves, and they have not been around very long.

In each case it must be considered: How do the atrocities taking place affect the region? Is there anything the U.S. can do to help people? Are there reasons that interventions would be counterproductive? Will intervention save lives or cost more lives, now and in the future as events develop over months or years?

Has the U.S. ever kept genocide from escalating, saving thousands or even millions of lives and incalculable suffering? Defeating Hitler and Stalin probably helped. We’ll never actually know about other cases because we can’t accurately predict how alternate histories would have worked out.

In the case of Saddam Hussain, we know the war was started under false pretenses and then was carried out without the allies that every military expert felt was necessary, and which would have resulted in a very quick entry and exit. Bush threw a terrible, utterly inefficient war, and we are living with the horrifying, wide-reaching aftermath to this day, obviously. What if Gore had been president? Could he have sent a massive coalition of international troops and taken Saddam out with minimal casualties and maximum negative repercussions? Could a better president have set the Middle East on a positive track, without us looking like the blood-thirsty bad guys? Yeah, maybe.

What we want in a president is someone who wants the least amount of bloodshed while preventing the rise of new Hitlers and Stalins. That’s pretty obviously the best-case-scenario goal.

That means we want someone who understands the past and will thoroughly evaluate all future situations and make the best possible decisions.

These decisions are not as simple as everyone likes to imagine them to be. The decisions Clinton has made that people point to as “warmongering” are way way way more complicated than is explained in all of the Hillary-bashing articles. In Libya, she personally met with one of the top rebels fighting Qaddafi’s forces, Mahmoud Jibril, a political scientist with a PhD from the University of Pittsburgh, then a rebel leader. She did not make these decisions based on money, or power, or a hunger for war (she was a Vietnam protester even when she was a young Republican). She went into it after going into the trenches and talking with the people involved, plus experts like Samantha Power and other well-respected humanitarian thinkers, and making a judgment call as best she could. These are basically lose-lose scenarios in the first place. Her job is to try to make it as lose-light as possible. Qaddafi was a murderous asshole who tortured and murdered innocents and allowed mass rape of hundreds of women by his soldiers. There was not much of a “best case scenario” in this situation. I don’t think you can ask much more of a SoS than to go into the trenches and speak with the people on the ground and evaluate the situation. It is entirely possible that the least-worst outcome was the result of our intervention. We will never know for sure. It’s a messy and cruel world.

Same for Honduras. I had urged everyone to read her book Hard Choices. That was basic reading for any voter, just as reading Obama’s memoirs was seen as an important tool for making decisions. Hard Choices is 600 pages of her explaining her decisions as SoS. To imagine that every recommendation by the SoS in the war-infused, violent, hate-filled world is going to turn out roses and rainbows is naïve.

I also believe that Obama has been less than careful about his use of drones, and do think that Clinton will use them less and more strategically. Can I give you any solid evidence of this? No, just her career of trying to spread world peace in the most strategic possible way.

SHE VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR That vote was not a vote to go to war. It was a vote that Bush manipulated as an excuse to go to war. No one voted for that saying “yes” to war. It was mainly presented as a way to get Iraq to allow inspections. She made a speech making it very clear that this was a dangerous vote that should be used with the utmost caution by our president, and that if a showdown were to take place, we should only go to war with the full backing and participation of many of our allies (which, of course, did not happen).

From Slate: “President Bush, she told the audience, had made a ‘very explicit appeal’ that ‘getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.’ In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word — he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
“The evidence is clear. On October 10, 20o2, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or ‘with any allies we can muster.’ Such a course, she said, ‘is fraught with danger,’ in part because ‘it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,’ legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.
“’So,’ she continued, ‘the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States — and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.’
She went on to say that there was ‘no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma’ and that ‘people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.’ But, she concluded, ‘I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution’ that calls ‘for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded’ from Saddam.
“’If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,’ Clinton added, ‘disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.’ This international support is ‘crucial,’ she added, because, ‘after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.’”

The Iraq War was a Bush thing. It was literally drummed up and then executed, almost solely, by Bush and his closest people. If Gore had been elected, it would not have happened. Or if it had happened, it would have happened with a coalition of international allies, and it would have been a very brief, effective, low-casualty war. People in swing states who voted for “NOT GORE” allowed this to happen.

SHE IS A CORPORATE SHILL When she was trying to get healthcare for all while her husband was president, the health industry threw millions or billions of dollars into strategies to stop her (paying her foes, etc.). Even Sanders could not come up with one clear example of her doing something for a company that paid her for something.

WALMART She was on their board from 1986 to 1992.

She was considered a “thorn in their side” for trying to make improvements in worker gender equality and in supporting the concept of unions. They were happy to see her go.

From The New York Times: “Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business.”…
“’Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No,’ said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign. ‘But,’ Mr. Mauro added, was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes.’”

Let us note that she obviously absorbed a lot of insight about how corporations are run, which is valuable for a politician. Anyone has any evidence that she promoted anything evil during her time at Walmart, please forward that to me. Pretty sure you can’t.

GOLDMAN SACHS She gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs, being paid around $200,000-$250,000 for each.

Here’s excerpts from one of the three speeches. It is from a conference called Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women: Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs. The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth.

Of another speech, one quoted witness described the speech as this: “It was one smart person talking to another smart person about global macroeconomics.”

All of her speeches were at themed conferences. Goldman Sachs holds these all the time.

Other people who give paid speeches to Goldman Sachs: Samantha Power, Rep. and civil rights leader John Lewis, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Madeline Albright, environmental scientists, Pres/CEO of Wildlife Conservation Society, clean energy leaders, Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson to discuss his efforts to strengthen the relationship between communities, law enforcement and the criminal justice system, NAACP CEO and ordained minister Cornell Brooks discusses his path to ministry and the legacy of the civil rights movement, Barry Scheck is the co-founder of The Innocence Project, and many other goody-goodies who talk about poverty, disease, diversity, LGBT rights, etc.

But, but…she’s letting Goldman Sachs people influence her politics and what she does as a politician. She does? Some guy who is peripherally associated with GS was hired by her for some minor position. She’s going to know people who have, at some time in their lives, been connected with this gargantuan corporation. So far there is no evidence that she would side with them or let them influence her decision-making. Examples to contradict this are welcome. Send them my way.

Also, $200,000-ish is not a ton of money for someone of her stature for this kind of thing, and often she forwards that money to charity, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

OTHER SPEECHES FOR MONEY According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made eight speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis. EVIL!!!!

The reality: Between 2013 and 2015, Hillary was not secretary of state, nor was she a senator. She was a private citizen, and was not working for anyone in particular. Keeping a high profile by giving speeches is not exactly the devil’s work, especially when she has some much to say about the subjects of women’s rights and place in work and politics, poverty, children, etc. She has spoken to companies of every stripe, from entertainment to human resources to universities to eBay.

Should she be speaking for free? Well, women tend to be asked to do stuff for free, so that would make sense, right? And should she publish all of her speeches? Well, that would lower the worth of her speaking in public, right? Is it possible she said anything like “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims…These are people who pay no income tax…and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”? Well, if you have been paying attention to her life’s work, and listening to her words since she was a young adult, you’d know that it’s not bloody likely.

BONUS: Hillary Clinton defended her fees in a 2014 interview with ABC’s Ann Compton. She claimed that all of her speaking fees are turned over to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the public charity that the family controls and operates. The foundation’s mission: “to improve global health, strengthen economies, promote health and wellness, and protect the environment by fostering partnerships among governments, businesses, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private citizens to turn good intentions into measurable results.”

WIKILEAKS Here’s the worst they could find. If you think these statements, which were in the contexts of many many other words, reveal her to be evil, then I don’t know what to tell you.

“My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing,” she said in the remarks. “…And now, obviously, I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven’t forgotten it.”

In a 2013 speech, when speaking about a global green economy — this was about clean energy and things related to that — Clinton told an audience that her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

“I am not satisfied with the status quo, I am not telling you everything is peachy keen,” Clinton said about trade in a July speech in Philadelphia. “I am telling you we have made progress but we have work to do.”

THE CLINTON FOUNDATION The government, high profile politicians, and businesspeople of Saudi Arabia and other countries that make us uncomfortable give to all presidential foundations, including Reagan, Bush and Carter. The Clinton Foundation started in 1997 and became a juggernaut of an organization, doing tremendous amounts of good works all over the world. That they take money from all countries and leaders is nothing new, and there is no evidence that this has ever led to favors. To close down the entire foundation when Hillary became SoS would have meant the enormous loss of good works that were in progress. It would have been absurd. Also, turning down money from allies that give to all of these presidential charities would be, in itself, a diplomatic move in a negative direction. The money for the Clinton Global Initiative and its branches goes toward helping people, and as a charity it is considered very solid and genuinely helpful.

The conflicts would exist if

1. The Clintons themselves became wealthy via their foundation

2. If it was shown that favors were given by the SoS in exchange for donations.

No one has found evidence of either.

And someone asking for something and then being turned down does not, obviously, count as a “favor.” it was refused. There are lots of examples of people asking for favors. That’s to be expected, and is unsolicited.

From Slate: “The primary charge lobbed by the AP story [on the subject], of course, is not specifically that the Clinton Foundation has unsavory donors, but that Hillary gave donors special access when serving as the country’s chief diplomat. Given American politics’ constitutionally protected focus on pay-to-play access, this allegation may sound plausible — but in reality, it’s ludicrous. The AP’s best evidence of unethical behavior is that Clinton attempted to assist foundation donor Muhammad Yunus when he was being investigated by the Bangladeshi government. Yunus is a renowned philanthropist who revolutionized microcredit as a means of lifting women in developing countries out of poverty. He has received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal. The Clintons have worked with Yunus since the early 1980s, and the Bangladeshi government was investigating him because it feared he might establish a powerful opposition party.
“In other words, Clinton used her position as secretary of state in an effort to assist a globally celebrated philanthropist reportedly facing unfair government intimidation. And that is the AP’s smoking gun.”
From Vox: “Here’s the bottom line: Serving as secretary of state while your husband raises millions of dollars for a charitable foundation that is also a vehicle for your family’s political ambitions really does create a lot of space for potential conflicts of interest. Journalists have, rightly, scrutinized the situation closely. And however many times they take a run at it, they don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.”

BENGHAZI Benghazi is in Libya, and it is the city where we have U.S. government facilities, a “diplomatic compound,” including our ambassador and a CIA annex. The facilities were attacked on September 11, 2012 by the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia. Four people died, including our ambassador Chris Stevens.

Initially the CIA instructed top U.S. officials that the provocation may have been stimulated by an anti-Muslim video. Later, investigations revealed that the attack was premeditated by at least some portion of the very large group. It is likely that many joined spontaneously in reaction to the video. It was a huge mob, so it is impossible to understand the motivations of every individual. One captured suspect, Ahmed Abu Khattala, confirmed that for he and others it was a reaction to the video.

Clinton is blamed by haters for the following:

1. For saying, immediately following the incident, to people that included victim’s family members, that the attacks seemed to have been provoked by the anti-Muslim video, instead of defining it as a premeditated attack.

2. The state department denied requests for additional security for the facilities prior to the attack, and she is blamed for that.

On the first point: The information about the attack was coming from the CIA. It is probable that the attack was both premeditated, by some, and spontaneously against the video by others. It was a mob. It was September 11, a provocative day for all. That’s how stuff works. Situations are complex. Clinton was probably correct in mentioning the video. In any case, the idea that she was “covering up” to protect radical Islamists is, when you think about it, pretty nonsensical, and if that was what she wanted to do, talking about the video was not exactly covering up. Either way, bad people did bad things in reaction to whatever it was that made them feel like they had a right to murder. To project that Clinton had some kind of evil intentions when bringing up the video, before anyone really knew anything about what exactly took place, is quite a stretch. And yet it is repeated over and over and over, as if it is one of the worst things any human ever did.

On the second point: No matter how good the intentions of leaders, they cannot prevent every tragedy at every location around the world from happening. There are thousands or millions of dangerous situations going on at all times. Clinton was close to Chris Stevens. Pretty sure she would not have wanted him and the others to die. She took responsibility for not providing enough security even though the investigation showed that, in the chain of events, she was not actually the one to make that decision. There are divisions that have to do with security. She never said, “No, please don’t do anything to help people in a vulnerable position.”

Also, for perspective, please please please read the article below, about the events around Beirut during Reagan presidency. Again, every president or SoS or other political leader cannot prevent every terrible thing that happens. Terrible things will always happen. Under Reagan, more than 250 people, including top-ranking officials, were killed at a Marine compound in two subsequent events.

“There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation — but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding ‘very serious errors in judgment’ by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.”
New Yorker: Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi

More than 250 people. Dead, under Reagan. But conservatives act as if Benghazi reveals Clinton to be a murderer and a liar. It is the perfect example of how she is unfairly persecuted, and reflects so many, if not all, of the other scandals.

More info on Benghazi here: “The State Department was asked repeatedly for additional U.S. security staff in Libya. But we see no evidence that Clinton herself was made aware of those requests. For example, there’s no “direct cable” that automatically appears on the secretary of state’s desk. Instead, all cables would have carried her name, and only those passed up the chain by staff would have reached her. She says they didn’t. Paul’s office didn’t provide evidence linking requests for security directly to Clinton.”

ALL THE OTHER VARYING SCANDALS Here’s a few lines from Vince Foster’s suicide note:

“The GOP has lied and misrepresented its knowledge and role and covered up a prior investigation…The public will never believe the innocence of the Clintons and their loyal staff…The WSJ [Wall Street Journal] editors lie without consequence…I was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.”

Oh, right, unless Hillary murdered him.

If you read up on Whitewater, Travelgate, cattle futures…they all add up to nothing. Whitewater is probably the most frequently cited older scandal, and the Clintons were shown to be completely innocent. But even if they had not been, it was barely anything anyway, as far as any illicit actions on their part. But they were dragged so thickly through the mud, Bill Clinton’s childhood friend and business cohort, who had severe depression problems in the first place, killed himself under all the pressure. It’s actually quite a sickening story of harassment from the GOP. Blood was on their hands.

A dry summary from the ultra-conservative, Clinton-hating Washington Examiner:
“In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Bill and Hillary Clinton were associates of Jim and Susan McDougal in the Whitewater Development Corp., an Arkansas real estate investment firm that went under when McDougal’s Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan was closed by federal regulators for illegal accounting. Taxpayers lost $73 million due to Guaranty. The Clintons lost an estimated $67,000 on their investment, but McDougal helped pay off Bill Clinton’s campaign debts, and Hillary Clinton’s law firm received an unknown sum in fees for representing a Guaranty project that also failed.”

After an insanely thorough investigation, the Clintons were completely cleared. But it is repeated over and over and over and over. And so it sticks. That’s how this stuff works.

SHE IS GOING TO OPEN THE FLOODGATES OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Conservatives: Yes, illegal immigration has been a problem for decades. I don’t know why liberals don’t see this, but I think it is mostly lack of information. They don’t know what goes on in many communities, and have not been following the news in Mexico for the past few decades.

A reality check: Schools in many, many communities in the U.S. are way overcrowded, and all affected kids lose out on a good education. Hospitals have been put out of business for treating illegals, hit-and-runs in these communities (because of lack of license, etc.) are tragic for the families of the victims, property is damaged by the mass migration (costing some people their livelihoods), most likely wages are brought down and jobs taken by illegals. And yes, Virginia, Central America and Mexico are actually a mess when it comes to crime, as anyone who has read any news out of those countries for the last several decades knows. Trump is a fucking idiot and creep for his blunt way of publicly stating things — his “rapists” speech — but yeah, rape and murder (and torture and beheadings and mass graves and and…) are rampant in Mexico and Central America. It is, in fact, objectively horrifying to think that any of those involved can easily come here and commit crimes when you know the facts. It is also completely understandable why so many good Mexicans have wanted to get the hell out of Mexico. Also, yes, radical Islamic terrorists can enter the country with ease via the South border.

(And I’m all for legalizing all drugs, but no, these cartel assholes are not going to suddenly become florists and kindergarten teachers if that happens.)

I am pro-immigration and yet I agree with all of that. What should have happened in the past is that it should have been easier for good people to enter the country, and harder for criminals to enter the country. Every country on the planet understands this reasonable concept except us. Not sure why.

But, my conservative friends, it was Reagan who opened the floodgates in the eighties, and he made it much harder to control all of this. Ironic but true. So quit liberal-blaming.

PBS Newshour: Today’s immigration debate rooted in ‘Reagan amnesty,’ experts say

Trump supporters have made this issue front-and-center, and although Hillary is fighting against the hateful and divisive rantings of Trump on this subject, she also certainly understands that she needs to keep this country safe, and that there are ways of doing that that are compassionate instead of civil-war-inducing. In fact, under Obama, more people have been deported than under Bush or any president, ever. Obama is sometimes referred to by immigration groups as the Deporter in Chief. Between 2009 and 2015, he deported 2.5 million people, which does not include people who were turned away at the border. So having Clinton, a Democrat, as president does not mean “more illegals” by any means. Creating a fair path to citizenship for those who are contributing to this country while deporting bad actors is a better, more practical and far less expensive idea than creating a civil war by somehow attempting mass deportation of everyone.

SHE WILL LET THE REFUGEES POUR IN And as far as refugees, it is clear she is going to have a tough screening process, and that we are all now on high alert on the subject. Yes, there have been major problems in Europe, and she and everyone who actually keeps up on this stuff can see that. She’s not going to ignore this issue. But she’s also not going to offend good Muslims with her language, and she’s not going to undiplomatically talk about banning any entire categories of people. She is conciliatory but strict and efficient, and that is what we need right now.

Refugee vetting system:

SHE WILL ESCALATE A WAR ON COPS This is an even touchier subject, and again, I am a liberal who is not sure why liberals don’t see why we have a severe, escalating problem of demonizing law enforcement, causing death and a rise in inner-city crime. (Yes, overall, it is lower, but tell that to Chicago, etc.) The press has shirked their duty in the most horrifying, egregious, irresponsible way and tend to blast cops even when many of the cases that come to light are justifiable self-defense. People apparently have no idea what it is like to be in an emergency situation with possible weapons in neighborhoods where violence takes place constantly and police are seen as the enemy.

There is definitely a lot of racism on the police force, and it is a major problem that needs correcting. But there is also a strange reverse-racism PC-ness that is dangerous, allowing people like Mike Brown to be compared to the real martyrs of the civil rights movement. Brown was an asshole who robbed, assaulted someone, and then tried to kill a cop. All evidence, including many witnesses, reveals that the shooting was unfortunate but understandable. Holding him up as a martyr is part of why people don’t trust the press, and have an anger at liberal PC protectionism of people who mean harm. And as cases are exaggerated, the hatred between communities grows. Also, crying wolf actually emboldens real cases of racism on the force. It is lose-lose.

Somehow people have a hard time accepting that two things can be true at once: There can be a big problem of racism on many police forces, and there can be good cops who are in the force to protect lives, and who are up against communities that have, among all the good and innocent people caught in the crossfire, a “stop snitching” gang culture with exaggerated hatred of police and a desire to protect criminal acts. Every case needs to be examined carefully, and cops need to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty. A witch-hunt against cops does not help the good people in these communities that have to live with this gang culture. It also does not efficiently clean up the police force. It emboldens the bad cops.

Hillary is, again, a bridge-builder, and made clear she was very much supportive of law enforcement at the Democratic convention.

Trump is not going to make this nightmarish situation that we are in any better. He can only make it worse, with his inability to speak diplomatically and his seeming enjoyment of riling up people in a hateful way. Clinton is undoubtedly aware of the problems, since she has been studying this stuff and working in criminal law since her youngest years. She’s been in the trenches. And yes, Obama largely blew it when it comes to this stuff. I don’t know why. But Clinton is actually more likely to help this situation.

SHE SUPPORTED BILL WHEN HE WAS BEING A SEXUAL PREDATOR All evidence shows that she married Bill, after refusing him at least two times, because she did love him, and because she wanted the same things as him. She knew he was a philanderer. She accepted that. She is married to her best friend and work partner, and apparently she is, more or less, at peace with that. There is no evidence that she threatened any woman who was involved with him, and the story about threatening Broaddrick could not be more flimsy. (She grabbed her hand and thanked her for all she does for them, after Broaddrick had, in fact, done things to support Bill’s political activities.) There are a few other accusations. None are proven. We know he is a philanderer, but we have no proof whatsoever that he actually assaulted anyone. As a high profile person, he has not been shown to be disrespectful to woman, as Trump or, say, Ted Kennedy were. When it comes to non-consensual abuse: Ted Kennedy, Donald Trump — concrete evidence of actions, words, and character (in the case of Trump, scads of it); Clinton — a few accusations without much supporting evidence.

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WAS RIGGED Just like they did in 2008, right? They were absolutely fawning over Obama in 2008, not Clinton, so that’s just delusional. In fact, the Democratic party dismissed any and all primary votes in Florida and Michigan. No one remembers that. In the 2008 primary, FL and MI did not vote, because of technicalities around primary dates, which was insanely suspicious and odd. And Hillary may very well have carried those states. I went down to DC to protest this decision, but it was mostly glossed over by the press because the press was all in for Obama. Whatever you think Sanders went through, trust me, it all happened to Hillary in 2008, and much more. This is what they do every four years. Discussion in DNC e-mails with preferences for candidates is a non-story. If the RNC was more with it, God knows they would have pushed for some other candidate rather than Trump, we all know that by now.

THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ARE BETTER CANDIDATES There’s a lot to say about this, but no time. John Oliver kind of covers a fair amount of it.

THE ISSUES Trade, healthcare, etc. What do you actually want in a president? You want a president who will make life easier for citizens and try to keep the world an orderly, fair and peaceful place. Hitler could have done this. If Hitler was a wonderful guy, he could have, as a fascist, made sure that all humans in Germany were treated with respect, worked to make Germany prosperous via smart, fascist moves, and create peace by being a peaceful fascist. Fascism is a bad idea because most likely, whoever is ruling is going to be a bad person, but if Jesus or the Buddha had been Chancellor of Germany in the 1930s and 40s, things would be different, no?

Socialism, communism, parliamentary governing, democracy — they would all work perfectly if there were no such thing as rotten people gumming up the works, and politicians who either do nothing or are corrupt. We want efficiency, order, hard work, expertise, fairness and morality. Someone who wants to be president because they want to help people, because they want to be in the service of people, to make the world a better place. So no matter where you stand on issues, realize that what we want is the most efficient path to prosperity, healthcare, education, world peace, etc. We want things to work out. So we need to hire the kind of person who is most likely to achieve positive results.


SHE HAS WORKED HARD TO HELP PEOPLE HER ENTIRE LIFE SEE: ACCOMPLISHMENTS She has done way more good in this world than Sanders, Stein and (snort) Trump, or any other current candidate ever has, and that includes being an activist, working directly with the disadvantaged, and as a politician. She is a hard worker and efficient. What she wants is results that make the world a better place. Her motivation is a better world. Her goal is improvements in quality of life for people here and abroad. That is the kind of human being you want as president. Or if it’s not, then maybe you should think about what it is you want and why, because it may not be in the interest of anyone but yourself.

WOLRD LEADERS EITHER LOVE HER OR HAVE ENORMOUS RESPECT FOR HER. SHE KNOWS THEM. SHE IS ALREADY AT THEIR TABLE. She also knows more about the nuances of foreign policy than most people on Earth.

SHE WORKS WELL WITH REPUBLICANS Since she was First Lady, she has always made an effort to be on good terms with Republicans, including going to church services with them and being generally very friendly and understanding. Females are like that. She is not macho, she does not butt heads and hold grudges. She has clearly the best shot at keeping our government at an even keel, despite the make-up of the senate and congress, than any other politician. This is the only way things can get done.

WE NEED A MOTHERFUCKING FEMALE AS PRESIDENT We have had 230 years of presidents. Half of us are female. The president of the United States is considered by many as THE world leader. Women are, by far, the most oppressed category of human beings, and have been since the beginning of civilization, oppressed by every category of men. There is still a LONG way to go for this planet to see women to be as equally valuable as men. WE NEED A MOTHERFUCKING FEMALE PRESIDENT. Also, study after study shows that when women lead, they lift their society, while men, not so much. You may be judging Hillary in a way that you judge male politicians, making assumptions about her, because that is mostly all you know. Male politicians who have giant egos and want power and want to lead while getting blow jobs under the table. Women are not so much like that. Think outside the box. Or inside the box.