Hillary Clinton

The Most Ridiculous Argument for Hillary Clinton That You'll See Today

Take a bow, Jonathan Alter!

|

There's a thin line between political passion and a traumatic brain injury, and Jonathan Alter may have just crossed it:

The problem here isn't the Daily Beast pundit's worry that the Donald might start a war. For all his sporadic anti-war rhetoric, I can certainly see why you wouldn't want a man with Trump's thin skin and hot temper to have access to nuclear weapons. But rallying around Clinton because you want to avoid a war is like rallying around Sanders because you want to avoid a corporate tax hike. Of all the major candidates still in the running, only Marco Rubio rivals her in his eagerness to use armed force.

nom nom nom
Valeriy Osipov/Creative Commons

Hillary Clinton has backed every major American military conflict of the last quarter century. She was among the architects of one of those wars—the bombing campaign in Libya—and she still defends it despite its disastrous consequences. Her most notable difference with the current administration is her belief that it should have intervened earlier in Syria. If Sanders fans "will have blood on their hands" if they fail to fall in line behind Clinton, just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?

Advertisement

NEXT: Memo to Presidential Hopefuls of Both Parties: Guest Worker Programs Are Not Indentured Servitude

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *shrug*

    So nothing in political rhetoric has changed since I was a wee bairn.

    1. Aye.

      *nods, wanders off looking for haggis and whisky*

      1. If you find some Haggis let me know.

        You can keep the whiskey.

        1. Do you just hate everything that’s good, or what?

  2. Hillary Clinton has backed every major American military conflict of the last quarter century. She was among the architects of one of those wars?the bombing campaign in Libya?and she still defends it despite its disastrous consequences. Her most notable difference with the current administration is her belief that it should have intervened earlier in Syria.

    I’m guessing Mr. Alter is referring to a war-war when Trump is in office, not a kinetic action that marks the Obama-style conflict.

    1. All goodfulthinkers know there are no wars going on right now. Hillary and Barry’s kinetic military action is smart power at its best!

      1. smart power, the impetus behind the re-set button photo op

    2. Is Cruz-o-Matic style carpet bombing not considered war around here?

      1. Righhht? Bernie is the only remotely convincing anti war candidate left in the running.

        1. And he’s not very convincing. In the improbably event he got elected, what are the odds he’d pull an LBJ and let the war-hawks have their fun in return for support for his domestic programs?

          1. When was Johnson an non-interventionist?

  3. It’s pretty funny, right after this:

    …just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?

    pops up an embedded ad for Heinz ketchup.

    1. I thought it was going to be an add for menstrual cups.

      1. I’m certain that Huma’s menstrual blood on Hillary’s finger was the mental image Jesse intended for us.

        1. *gags and applauds at the same time*

    2. If it weren’t for Heinz we wouldn’t have 57 States.

      1. You don’t necessarily need 57 States while children are going hungry.

    3. Oh, great, now I’m going to get ads for Kerry ’04, aren’t i?

      1. Wait, wait, wait …. I’m counting how many politically correct readers cannot grasp the connection between blood and …. WAR.

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

        1. Tiresome Hihn is tiresome.

          1. Obviously, one of the confused ones.
            Even obvious facts PISS THEM OFF
            Into ad hominems

            1. Are you honestly admitting that you can’t spot a joke?

              Are you an objectivist? Because that would explain it.

              1. What do you get when a Stallion Does your Ass?

                A Hihny

                1. jarflax|
                  What do you get when a Stallion Does your Ass?A Hihny

                  But he’s not an aggressive bully.

                  Citizen X
                  . He’s also like 104 years old and is kept alive only by his own self-righteousness.

                  But he’s not an aggressive bully, Or self-righteous.

                  BigT
                  He’s just objectively stupid. But he’s not an aggressive bully,

                  They don’t tll like 12-year-old kids. They don’t travel in packs like wild dogs. They’re not thugs and bullies.
                  And the moon is made of green cheese.

                  But they keep proving me right about them.

                  1. And, just like that, the lucid moment is over.

              2. Michael Hihn is the One True Libertarian, $park?, it is known. He’s also like 104 years old and is kept alive only by his own self-righteousness.

                He lost his sense of humor in the War. Not that war, the other one.

                1. You Bully! Why are you aggressing?

              3. He’s just objectively stupid.

                1. BigT|3.10.16 @ 3:12PM|#
                  He’s just objectively stupid.

                  Challenge me on any issue, instead of being a thug

              4. Free Market Socialist
                Are you honestly admitting that you can’t spot a joke?

                I can see you.

            2. Christ, you’re so pathetic you even get the haiku structure correct.

              1. *incorrect.

        2. Protip: the balance of probability favors that you are clueless rather than that everyone else is

          1. The problem is he has no idea what any of us are saying. He is arguing with the voices in his head using our posts as a format. With the Hihnflower it is not a strawman, it is a delusion.

            1. jarflax
              The Government should shrink itself, repeal 90+% of the laws and actually provide neutral arbiters of contract disputes, police who protect lives and property at risk of their own, and defend the country from invasion. This would do more to solve our problems.

              How do we cause that to happen?

              The Government should promote the values of individual liberty and responsibility by ceasing to undermine them.

              How do we cause that to happen? How do you explain that to friends and acquaintances?

              Many people in the abstract favor libertarian positions. The difficulty is that people tend to get much more outraged when a program or policy they like gets cut than they get happy when a program they don’t care about is cut. In other words, when you get to the specifics of legislating you lose more votes by cutting a program than you gain.

              That’s because the enemy has actual proposals instead of “Government should ” or “I want.”

              Actual activists quickly learn you can’t beat a something with a nothing … or with theories. Sharon Presley said the same thing.
              “The libertarian movement is not really going to go too far forward until they get a better idea of how to talk to the average person. Because the average person doesn’t give a flying handshake about theory, or Austrian economics.”

              Even Ayn Rand knew better. You’re all alone with the other purists

              1. You telling anybody they don’t know how to talk to people is taking a lack of self-awareness to new heights.

                You keep dispensing advice about how to become a better activist to people that aren’t activists. You should probably turn your enviable powers of persuasion towards converting the purists towards activism rather than jeering at them that they’re doing activism wrong.

                Besides, why should they listen to you anyway? Because you won a board of ed seat in Cleveland 48 years ago? Yeah, we should all listen to THAT guy. He surely has his finger on the beating pulse of America.

                1. HIHNSANITY!

                2. One mote fucking retard

                  You keep dispensing advice about how to become a better activist to people that aren’t activists.

                  When and where, thug? You just screeched against self-defense of aggression.

                  You should probably turn your enviable powers of persuasion towards converting the purists towards activism rather than jeering at them that they’re doing activism wrong.

                  When and where? Responding to repeated assaults is self defense.

                  Besides, why should they listen to you anyway? Because you won a board of ed seat in Cleveland 48 years ago?

                  When have I ever said that, punk?

                  (vomit)

              2. “all alone”…. “with the other purists” ???

                Logic is hard.

                1. Ship of Thesues
                  “all alone”…. “with the other purists” ???

                  Logic is hard.

                  Only if you never heard of Ayn Rand and Sharon Presley.
                  Ignorance is easy.

              3. Hihnflower my sweet, I am not sure aggression can be stretched to include comments on Reason, but if it can be I suspect the aggressor would be the person who initiated the insults. It is ok my delicate flower, I forgive you your aggression. I understand that the voices sometimes get so loud that you need to giggle and rant. I still love you.

                1. Hihnflower my sweet, I am not sure aggression can be stretched to include comments on Reason,

                  (snicker) It’s called “verbal; aggression” dumbass.
                  Every time you abandon mere insults, you humiliate yourself.

                  Verbal aggressiveness in communication has been studied to examine the underlying message of aggressive behavior and to gain control over occurrences. Infante and Wigley (1986) defined verbal aggressiveness as “a personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication”.[1] Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

                  http://bitly.com/227CrVd

                  Stalking me on 5 pages. Because he was humiliated. Welcome to Reason Comments, the only unmoderated major political site where thugs travel in packs, like brownshirts (count them). Readers are advised to meet some REAL libertarians. Non-aggression. And literacy.

                  (my tone is self defense of repeated aggression)

            2. …But the Paulista Christian death cult!!!!1!

              1. We’ve all seen the videos and drawings
                Up to a dozen people standing in a circle,
                kicking and beating the shit out of someone on the ground,

                This is how they look in real life.
                Emulating the Nazi Brownshirts.

              2. Ship of Theseus|3.10.16 @ 4:28PM|#
                …But the Paulista Christian death cult!!!!1!

                Not a death cult, silly. But Christofacists abusing and attacking equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, supported by mostly Alex-Jones conspiracists, racists and homophobes. Anti-constitutional..

                1. Am I right to compare my stalkers with Nazi Brownsirts? Judge for yourself

                  jarflax|3.10.16 @ 2:14PM|
                  What do you get when a Stallion Does your Ass? A Hihny
                  ((is this an adult?))

                  Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 2:22PM|
                  Michael Hihn ? 104 years old and is kept alive only by his own self-righteousness.

                  BigT|3.10.16 @ 3:12PM|
                  He’s just objectively stupid.

                  Red Rocks Rockin|3.10.16 @ 2:56PM|
                  Christ, you’re so pathetic

                  jarflax|3.10.16 @ 3:44PM|
                  The problem is he has no idea what any of us are saying. He is arguing with the voices in his head

                  Citizen X|3.10.16 @ 4:18PM|
                  HIHNSANITY!
                  ((adult?))

                  Ship of Theseus|3.10.16 @ 4:29PM|
                  Logic is hard.

                  jarflax|3.10.16 @ 4:48PM|
                  I understand that the voices sometimes get so loud that you need to giggle and rant.

                  8 attacking one,just in this thread. They travel in a pack, like wild dogs. None has a single word of content. The very definition of aggression and bullying.

                  Imagine people visiting Reason to learn about libetarianism and seeing thugs running wild in the only unmoderated major political site on the web. When libertarianism is ANTI-aggression, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, aka tolerant of opposing viewpoints (gasp)

                  The defense rests.

                  1. . jarflax
                    But you obviously have policy proposals in mind, lay them on me.

                    One more time, we go nowhere without a comprehensive policy platform, where we now have NOTHING, which you defend??

                    Medicare vouchers increase competition in the wrong market, insurers. We have competition in healthcare delivery, but seniors have no skin in the game. DUH. Give seniors a share of what they save and they’ll save more in the first year than think tanks and bureaucrats would save in five years. Several ways to do that. Just two:

                    1) A version of Medical Savings Accounts. Give them a list of costs in their market and share the savings. Competitive bidding.

                    2) Our healthcareis costly because we can spend $250,000 for six months of life. Living Wills are subsidizing the entire healthcare system, and get nothing. Seniors in good enough health would get a cash death benefit for heirs. Younger folks might combine a Living Will’s cheaper healthcare costs with a special life insurance. If they’re at death’s door and change their mind, the life insurance can pay for the medical procedure instead of the death benefit that would be paid ANYHOW,

                    Finally, a combination of THREE flat taxes with a modified version of Reagan’s New Federalism, but VOTERS in each state force state and federal to compete. (Other policies onsite)
                    http://libertyissues.com/taxfed.htm

                    Tell me again why you ridicule any need for specific policies.

            3. Beg pardon, but I’m relatively new to this site and have a question; is it a regular feature here to bait and taunt Mr. Hihn into a state of apoplexy? That seems to happen whenever a poster seems to take themselves a tad [too] seriously.

              1. wFt|3.11.16 @ 12:30PM|#
                Beg pardon, but I’m relatively new to this site and have a question; is it a regular feature here to bait and taunt Mr. Hihn into a state of apoplexy? That seems to happen whenever a poster seems to take themselves a tad [too] seriously.

                Do you really see those policy descriptions and examples as apopiexy? I don’t think they take themselves too seriously, unless you mean that to include being so thuggishly authoritarian.

                You force me to admit that they baiting is entirely mine. I should perhaps feel a smidgen of guilt that I enjoy baiting thugs. But this is a libertarian site, eh?

  4. Whoa, I made the mistake of visiting Alter’s tweet thingy. Just leaving this here:

    “Btw, did you visit clinics and hospitals in Cuba? I did and they were badly under-equipped and substandard tho more equitable. Thus complex.”

    I’m not sure if the ‘thus complex’ makes everything right again.

    1. Equitable in that everyone gets same shoddy equipment?

      Because no uninsured in the Us ever run up bills they cant possibly pay on the good equipment.

      1. I read a bit further down on his tweet thingy and he seems to be mocking Bernie’s blind faith in the Cuban system, so this seems to be a tepid critique of the Cuban healthcare system. So… I’m not going to ride Alter for worshiping at the…altar of Cuban healthcare.

      2. I presume “equitable” means 8 (12? 16?) beds to a ward with no private rooms.

        Or maybe “equitable” means “all people of same social status go to same hospitals.” Not like, that rich (or insured) guy can upgrade to private room. Those guys go to their own hospitals, where private rooms are standard.

        1. “I presume “equitable” means 8 (12? 16?) beds to a ward with no private rooms.”

          I don’t like that the numbers are keeping us contained.

          1. And why do we insist on bourgeois furniture like beds?

            1. But beds are great! Beds can be counted, enumerated and staticsed in a standardized way!

              “We have 400 beds (20% increase from three years ago), with 98% occupancy and average 3-day clearing rate (down 25% from three years ago). Our next three year plan is to increase occupancy by X beds (budget estimate included) while reducing the clearing rate to 2.5 days. This will require 15% increase in staffing (budget estimate included).

              Signed, Director Looking For Promotion Because My Numbers”

              See, much better than fucking with whiny patients and their “complaints”. Would insert Yes, Minister link about “one of top hospitals in country” but you can’t enact my labor.

    2. I think the “thus complex” makes it apparent how evil these people really are. “Hey, the place is really miserable – but at least everybody’s equally miserable so it’s got that going for it.” That you can even entertain the notion that equality in misery might possibly be preferrable to inequality in not-misery takes some truly grotesque mental gymnastics.

      1. Not really. It’s all about envy. And poverty is romantic. So it is better to live in a romantic state of poverty without any rich people to envy than to be unequally wealthy. No mental gymnastics involved, because that implies an actual thought process. There’s no thought here. It’s all about the feelz.

        1. Amazing how poverty gets more romantic the richer Daddy is

          1. The Trustafarians.

          2. Yep, poverty is only romantic second or third-hand. In person, it mostly sucks. I’ve never been desperately, grindingly poor, but I’ve been close enough to know I want no part of it for myself, and I certainly wouldn’t want to inflict it on others.

            1. Sarcasmic is never actually serious. He tells us that with his handle.

    3. Well, he’s an idiot if he thinks the nomenklatura goes to the same facilities as the proles. I guarantee you there are poshy facilities for them, and chartered flights to real hospitals when they need them.

      Yeah, equitable as hell.

    4. If everyone in America were starving to death, we’d all have no food but would be more equal, thus it would be a complex situation.

      Who’s to say if that would be good or bad?

    5. No, it’s the “more equitable” part that makes everything OK. Doesn’t matter how shitty their healthcare is as long as it’s equitable. As long as everyone’s equally miserable…

  5. Jesse, did you mock him directly on twitter? If not, why not?

    1. I did. And then I felt I had some more mockery stored up, so I came here.

      1. Trolling idiots on Daily Beast and great alt-text. Well done, sir!

      2. bitteranagram ?@bitteranagram
        @notjessewalker Can’t smash a glass ceiling without getting a little blood on your hands.

        Not bad.

      3. Someone in your feed mentioned that Jonathan Alter once came out in support of torture.

        “Some torture clearly works. Jordan broke the most notorious terrorist of the 1980s, Abu Nidal, by threatening his family. Philippine police reportedly helped crack the 1993 World Trade Center bombings (plus a plot to crash 11 U.S. airliners and kill the pope) by convincing a suspect that they were about to turn him over to the Israelis. Then there’s painful Islamic justice, which has the added benefit of greater acceptance among Muslims.”

      4. You do God’s work in one of the biggest shitpiles of the Internet. Thank you.

        I meant Twitter, not H&R comments section, but after a moment’s thought…

  6. I propose the “prog” as unit of measurement for hysteria.

    I’d rate Alters’ comment at around 10 progs.

    1. Can we get 10 scowling SJW icons to represent your prog meter?

  7. “Cartman, that’s the dumbest thing you’ve said… this week.”

  8. just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?

    The blood of Donald Trump? The blood of Ted Cruz? The blood of 100 million libertarians?

    1. You misspelled librarians. There aren’t a 100 million libertarians in the whole world.

      1. Not even if you count all the socks in H&R?!

        1. 100 million Tulpae. [shudders]

        2. Once you round up one sock, the others aren’t hard to find. They stick together.

          1. (horrific mental images of socks lying on copy of 1996 Hustler under teenager bed)

      2. But I was told – by Reason no less – that libertarians were 27% of the Amrican population. In very round numbers that is 100 million. See – I have evidence.

        1. I assume that includes the millions of libertarians under age 12 that it would have to include for that stat to work.

          1. Because the precise numbers are what’s important.

  9. Alter is an idiot. Always has been, always will be.

  10. Democrats have noble intentions when they start wars while Republicans do it to enrich their defense contractor buddies. That makes them like totally different and stuff, you know?

  11. I’m reading lots of noise on Hillary investigations picking up momentum – and possibly looking at the Clinton Foundation, not just the email server.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03…..orruption/

    1. She’ll just pardon herself when she wins the election.

      1. “We need to put all this old news behind us”

        *signs self-pardon*

      2. Be funny if it was a joke.

      3. You can’t impeach the first black female president.

        1. Yeah. Discredit comes first.

      4. I’m wondering if their not planning on sacking the head of the FBI and replacing him as director.

        “The aggressive posture of the FBI under Director James Comey is becoming a political problem for the White House.

        The FBI’s demand that Apple help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers has outraged Silicon Valley, a significant source of political support for President Obama and Democrats.

        Comey, meanwhile, has stirred tensions by linking rising violent crime rates to the Black Lives Matter movement’s focus on police violence and by warning about “gaps” in the screening process for Syrian refugees.
        Then there’s the biggest issue of all: the FBI’s investigation into the private email server used by Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of State and the leading contender to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

        A decision by the FBI to charge Clinton or her top aides for mishandling classified information would be a shock to the political system.”

        http://thehill.com/policy/cybe…..akes-waves

        The simplest way to make this go away would be to remove Comey.

    2. That’s all it is, noise.

  12. The Most Ridiculous Argument for Hillary Clinton That You’ll See Today

    You really underestimate my Facebook feed.

    1. Are we counting ridiculous arguments by Hillary? Because I’m pretty sure she trots out that “most-transparent ever” argument in one form or another just about every time she opens her mouth. If she hasn’t said it yet today, she will.

      1. My favorites are how “experienced she is” and how “she is the only serious candidate”.

        1. Does she pull trains regularly?

          1. “Does she pull trains regularly?”

            No, but she’s one of several candidates that would likely put you on one.

        2. Do they count her marriage as part of her professional experience? Or just her short stay in the Senate, and her failure as SecState?

      2. Invariably starting with “You know….”

  13. I also like that he used the term Bernie Bros when the Bernie Bros meme has repeatedly been proven to be false. Hillary supporters just wanted to pretend Bernie supporters are all sexists, so they ignored all the young anti-Hillary women.

    1. My wife – a weak Democrats – does not like Hillary. At all.

    2. They ignore them except when they say they’re going to hell.

  14. HILLARY FIGHTS GOOD WARS YOU HORRIBLE REPUBLICAN BROPERSON

    1. Is that secret code for B ROPER SON?

  15. Here, I’ll give you an even more ridiculous one to help you get over it.

    The American President shall be the politician of which none greater can be imagined. It is impossible to imagine a politician greater than Hilary Clinton. Therefore, Hilary Clinton shall be the American President.

    With respect to Descartes.

    1. She is experienced Sparky. She worked on the Watergate Committee, she ran healthcare policy for her husband, she was a senator from New York and she was Secretary of state.

      Only a sexist rethuglican would mention that she was fired from the Watergate committee, her healthcare plan cost the Democrats Congress and never was passed, she accomplished nothing as a Senator and screwed up everything she touched as Secertary of State.

      She has all this experience. She just hasn’t been promoted to her level of competence yet.

      1. Peter Principle=Prison laundry.

        1. Peter Prison Principle = fucked with a broomstick.

  16. Here’s the question… Is Alter just being a good Hillary hack, or does he really believe this?

    And which makes him look better in, like, a human being sense?

    1. He believes it. The idea that only Republicans start wars and any vote for a Republican is a vote for war is almost genetic code for people like Alter and his readers.

      1. I was thinking this as I read a pro-Trump column this morning. The gist is that Trump will be better than Hillary on judicial nominations, so we should vote Trump in the general election. But, how could we possibly know that? Given that he has absolutely no track record in office and is a very heterodox Republican (to say the least), how do we know that Trump won’t appoint somebody as bad or worse? Because he’s a Republican and Hillary’s a Democrat! That’s how we know!

        1. You couldn’t. Who knows what the hell Trump would do. The problem is you can’t know what Cruz or any of the Republicans would do. For whatever reason, justices never go from liberal to conservative. They either stay as they are or are appointed as conservatives and turn out to be liberals. So there is no guarantee that any of the Republicans will get it right. Trump is less likely to get it right but none of them are sure things because no conservative appointee can ever be a sure thing.

        2. Well, in a game theory sense, they are right.

          We know that Hillary’s noms will be terrible. There is not a question and it is a 100% certitude. An actual plank of her campaign is that overturning the first amendment (though they call it “Citizen’s United”) is the number 1 priority.

          Donald Trump may very well be terrible. However, if there is even a 1% chance Trump isn’t terrible at judicial nominations, his election in that regard would be a +EV.

          1. Trump might do the right thing even if it is for the wrong reason. Hillary will most certainly do the wrong thing.

        3. Trump could randomly pick justices out of the phone book and we’d get better than what HRC is going to be striving to emplace. She wants to significantly restrict American rights under the 1st and 2nd amendments. That’s a stated policy goal.

  17. Sanders is clearly the least pro-war person running, probably followed by Ted Cruz. If Cruz was running against Hillary, I think Cruz would be less likely to around starting random wars than Hildog.

    So would Alter argue that we must support Ted Cruz in that scenario or we’ll have blood on our hands?

    1. He totally would. The Republicans could run Ron Paul and Alter and his ilk would convince themselves voting for him was voting for war.

    2. Methinks carpet bombing is still war.

    1. I like how people are basically giving away used hardcover copies to anyone willing to pay shipping.

  18. Walker rounds third, heading for home … SCORES … an inside-the-park home run!!!!
    (the crowd goes wild)

    1. I LUV YOU MIKUL HEN YOU ARE TEH BESTEST OF ALL!!!!!

    2. Where exactly do you fall on the spectrum?

      1. I’m guessing you don’t mean the political spectrum.

        1. If Asperger’s is a political party, then yes.

          1. Believe me. It’s no party.

  19. If we are to be ruled by Wellesley, why not go the whole hog and clone Madame Chiang Kai Shek?

  20. just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?

    Menorrhea?

  21. “The Most Ridiculous Argument for Hillary Clinton That You’ll See Today”

    “Challenge accepted!” /Hillary supporters

  22. I don’t know, Kasich seems pretty eager to invade everywhere and reopen every old war, including Korea.

    1. Moar labelz!

  23. Consequently, Bernie bros who WILL back Hillary if she’s nominee will have blood on their hands when Pres. Clinton starts a war.

  24. What an idiot – or should I say “shill”? Even the American Conservative magazine ranked Clinton as less “restrained and realistic” on military interventionism than Trump.
    http://www.theamericanconserva…..port-card/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.