How to get self-righteous Hillary supporters to shut the hell up.

I have a knack for sniffing out bullshit and elections provide an endless supply of it.  One recurring theme this year is the way in which the media narrative of the two anointed ones are presented to us.  Donald Trump, the verifiable douche, is supposed to stand in contrast with Hillary Clinton, the “strong woman” with “experience” who has been “fighting for equality all her life.”

Elections are cute to me because I remember what it was like back when I was a political virgin who thought the theatrics and slogans of modern American elections were based upon something resembling the truth.  You see, that was back before I was a critical thinker, before I became skeptical of government, and before I developed the ability to sense, recognize, and accurately identify bullshit.  Now I feel like the older kid telling the younger ones that Santa Claus isn’t real.  Oh well, you gotta grow up some day!

******To be clear, I am not a Donald Trump supporter.  I would never vote for Donald Trump under any circumstances.  I’m just tired of the self-righteous attitude that many Hillary supporters have when they try to shame you into voting for her with preschool level logic******

The next time you hear anyone speak to you in a condescending way about why you’re not voting for Hillary Clinton (or God forbid, you dare to criticize her), and how you are a “sexist” and “misogynist” for not supporting her, and how you are “voting for Trump” if you don’t vote for Hillary, just ask them about women’s rights in Libya.  That’s all you have to do to get them to STFU.  If they ever try to stray from the topic you always have to bring them back to her failed war in Libya.

You see, in a normal world, being a war criminal is supposed to disqualify someone from being the “Leader of the Free World.”  But alas, we don’t live in a sane world, we live in the early 21st century where it’s still perfectly normal for one country to bomb the shit out of another in order to make the wealthy Westerners in the aggressor nation “feel safe again.”  And let’s face it, that’s the only reason these kinds of policies are still tolerated by the voters in the first place.  It’s the same reason why Americans are willing to get groped by a largely useless bureaucracy that probably has not prevented a single terrorist attack.  Their desire to “feel safe again” outweighs the right of civilians not to die for the crime of being born in the wrong country.  What is most ironic about all of this is that these wars invariably have nothing to do with keeping Americans safe and are based upon long standing geopolitical objectives of the US foreign policy establishment — and Hillary is considered a great ally.  She is by all accounts “the” war hawk presidential candidate.

Like the Iraq War which she supported, Libya wasn’t even about protecting Americans.  As Hillary’s leaked emails show, Libya was a classic textbook case of Western imperialism.  Curiously absent from these emails were any mention of humanitarian reasons for bombing Libya — even though that is the story that was sold to the gullible American public just a couple years after the previous president sold them another phony war.

“But Hillary was not the President!”  “She can’t be held responsible for that!”  Yes, well, neither was Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Donald Rumsfeld, but nobody seriously doubts their leading role in the decision to invade Iraq.  That’s like saying Joseph Goebbels was not Der Fuhrer.  The Nuremberg Standard makes it quite clear that people in positions of power don’t necessarily have to be the supreme leader in order to be responsible for war crimes, since aggressive war is invariably a group effort.  What’s more is that there isn’t even a dispute about the fact that Hillary was the main voice which was the deciding factor in America’s involvement in the war.  Indeed, she openly boasts about her role in the decision.

“But Hillary was never convicted of war crimes!”  This is a particularly deceitful argument because it ignores the fact that in the time and place that we are living (early 21st century) the leaders of powerful countries are not held accountable by the law.  Indeed, Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, Obama refused to prosecute anyone in the Bush Administration, and NOBODY in the US government has yet apologized for America’s aggressive war in Vietnam which was also based upon lies.  Only the defeated enemies of Western powers are ever charged with war crimes, but that doesn’t mean that the leaders of these powers aren’t themselves war criminals.  By that logic, Hitler was not a war criminal since he was never even charged with war crimes, let alone convicted.  Does anybody seriously doubt the fact that Hitler was a war criminal?  No?  Then how could you possibly use that as an argument for saying that Hillary is not a war criminal?  Surely we can take a look at her actions and see whether they would qualify as war crimes without her actually having to be charged with war crimes.  Dick Cheney was never charged with war crimes but that doesn’t make him any less of a war criminal.

In Vietnam I had the opportunity to visit the War Remnants Museum (formerly Exhibition House for Crimes of War and Aggression) where I witnessed firsthand the effects of America’s aggressive war in Vietnam.  While there were many tragic exhibits, one really stood out for me, and that was a quote from the International Tribunal’s judgement of Nazi war criminals.  The quote reads:

Nuremberg, 1945.

Nuremberg, 1945.

This statement is rather unambiguous in that it clearly states that waging a war of aggression is a war crime.  The Nazi defendants in this judgement were later convicted and executed under that definition.  The Nuremberg Principles were later codified by the UN, with Principle VI also clearly stating that aggressive war is a crime against peace.  Principle III also makes it clear that acting as a Head of State or responsible government official does not absolve one of responsibility for the crime.

But alas, in the early 21st century, politically powerful people are simply not held to the Nuremberg Standard, so she will likely never face a trial, nor will Dick Cheney, nor will Vladimir Putin, nor will King Salman of Saudi Arabia who has financed 20% of her campaign.  Thus, war apologists can always hide behind the “he/she is not a war criminal until he is convicted in an international court” defense because they know the international political situation is such that powerful people will likely never be brought to justice.

So to avoid a lengthy discussion about the Nuremberg Standard, just don’t even use that term.  Just ask them to explain the dead women and children in Libya and the current Islamic fundamentalist regime in control of the country.  Whenever they talk about Hillary and women’s rights, ask them how women are doing in Libya right now.  When they discuss her “experience” and “strength” as a “leader,” ask them if they are talking about her decision to help bomb Libya.   Don’t let her apologists stray from the facts, you always have to re-direct them back to Hillary’s actions in Libya.  Forget “Benghazi,” retarded Republicans are too stupid to figure out that the only crime that occurred in Benghazi was when our government bombed it to smithereens, destroyed both their military and police, and in the confusion attempted to run guns to Syria (Ambassador Stevens was acting as an arms dealer at the time with his CIA buddies who died with him — he’s no saint).  That’s what should have been investigated, but the problem with that is Republicans support all of that, especially the neoconservatives who are in love with Hillary.


I enjoy reading a good book, candlelit dinners, and long walks on the beach.

2 thoughts on “How to get self-righteous Hillary supporters to shut the hell up.

  1. Bronson conveniently overlooks the only reason why we should vote for Hillary even if holding our noses and his oversight is beyond naïve:
    Three (count ’em 3) lifetime appointed Supreme Court Justices who will f__ you and your kids and grandkids for the next thirty years.. And if you think Clinton will appoint the same conservative Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas type judges that Trump will, Bronson is more that silly- he is literally ignorant (and again, I do not use the word disparagingly, I use it literally. )
    Three Supreme Court judges historically can do more good (and conversely more damage) than any five Presidents. Think on it.

    1. That same argument is brought up in every election and it’s more or less a way to enable to the status quo to continue doing what they are doing because otherwise [insert some exaggerated threat and apocalyptic consequences if we don’t vote for who they tell us to vote for]. Hillary is a neoconservative Democrat. There is no reason to suggest that she would appoint someone to the Supreme Court that would be particularly controversial. Donald Trump on the other hand, isn’t even a conservative, so we don’t really know who he would appoint, but there is no reason to suggest it would be a conservative.

      So once again that argument doesn’t hold up.

      “Three Supreme Court judges historically can do more good (and conversely more damage) than any five Presidents. Think on it.”

      Ummmm no lol, that’s hilariously inaccurate and the irony of you calling me ignorant is almost tangible. We’re on different orders of magnitude when it comes to political information.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *