Why I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton for President:

Her record as Secretary of State scares me:

- Liberals rightfully hammer Republicans for the wars of the George W.
Bush Presidency, yet we give Obama a pass on his drone strikes and I
hardly ever hear criticism of Bill Clintons refusal to act in Rwanda.
Another legitimate fear that I think is pushing liberals to support
Clinton is the hypothetical of Trump having his finger on the button.
Yes, that is incredibly scary, but lets tone down the hyperbole a little
bit, and not just assume that Trump is going to begin nuking countries
willy-nilly. If you really believe that the United States military, the most
powerful in the entire history of the world, a bureaucratic behemoth, is
just a chess piece for a man like Trump to use at his own discretion,
then I disagree with you. Wars begin with public support, not unilateral
action (Drone strikes happen through unilateral action, and the
genocide in Rwanda was exacerbated in part through unilateral
inaction). Additionally, who is to say that Hillary Clinton would be any
better of a Commander-in-Chief? Lets examine her record on conflict:
1. As Secretary of State, it was Clintons personal advice that led to
Obama deciding to oust Qaddafi in Libya (this groupthink, by the way,
is one of the dangers of technocracy, which Ill get to later), something
that Obama views as the biggest mistake of his presidency. Libya is
now in complete chaos, and a terrorist haven. The whole Benghazi
thing aside, Clinton is more responsible than anyone for what is
happening in Libya, and never seems to want to take any responsibility
for her mistakes. She even laughed off Qaddafis slaying in a CBS News
interview, by saying we came, we saw, he died. As scary as Trump is,
why is that worldview not just as troubling?
2. Her State Department intervened in Haiti when the country wanted
to think about a potential wage-hike (from a robust $0.24 per hour to
$0.61 per hour). The only organizations that are ever opposed to a
wage-hike are large corporations that benefit from the cheap labor
theyre able to exploit there. Additionally, Clinton intervened in the
Haitian elections just a few years later. Suspending a democratic
election in a sovereign country is not something I think the United
States should stand for, and is reminiscent of Reagans policies in
Nicaragua and Guatemala, which those countries still have not
recovered from.
3. We chose not to stop the coup in Honduras, which led to a massive
amount of bloodshed, human rights abuses, and mass child migration
from the war-torn countries to the shores of the United States. Clinton
also initially supported sending these children back to their country,

even though she has walked that statement back during her
presidential campaign.
4. The Arab Spring was an incredible opportunity for legitimate
reform in the Middle East. However, Clintons State Department made
some horrific mistakes that may be irreversible without putting actual
troops on the ground. Clinton was the foremost proponent for arming
Syrian rebels in order to oust Assad, something that has still not
happened. We should have learned from our previous mistakes in
Afghanistan that arming rebel groups we know little about is usually
bad foreign policy. Low and behold, many of the weapons that we
flooded into that region are now in the possession of ISIS.
5. The US has sold an incredible amount of advanced weaponry to
Saudi Arabia, which are now being used in their war against Yemen. UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has been outspoken about the horrible
human rights abuses that the Saudi army is performing on the Yemeni
people, including the killing and maiming of children. I believe we
should not support these things.
This record on foreign policy is incredibly frightening to me, and while
Donald Trump is a complete wild card in terms of foreign policy, Clinton
shows that she has no problem supporting oppressive regimes in
developing countries. Trump is a complete unknown, but if were going
to use this against him and dream up doomsday scenarios, we also
have to be fair and say well maybe he just wont accomplish anything
in his foreign policy. So the argument that I should vote for Clinton
because of what Trump might do as Commander-in-chief does not
resonate with me at all.
The Clintons have been bad for black communities:
- No President in American history oversaw a greater expansion of the
prison system than Bill Clinton. The types of laws he supported in order
to be perceived as tough on crime are completely illogical (like the
100 to 1 crack sentencing rule which disproportionately affected
blacks in the inner cities). Should Hillary be held responsible for her
husbands mistakes? Thats a matter of opinion, but I believe that she
should be, and heres why:
1. Hillary redefined what it meant to be First Lady, and she has been
lauded for it. There are some great things that she was able to
accomplish, and many Hillary supporters give her credit for these
achievements and use them as evidence for why she would make a
great President. If were going to be fair, then we also need to hold her
accountable for supporting the 1994 crime bill, the 1996 welfarereform, and referring to black youth as super-predators. She was
immensely involved in the welfare reform bill it was probably the first

moment people started to see her as a politician and has not taken
responsibility for the damage it has caused in black communities in the
United States. She has repudiated many of her past positions, such as
the super-predator comment or her support for NAFTA, but she
hasnt backed away form the 1996 bill. A bill which the Urban Institute,
at the time President Clinton was considering signing it into law,
released a study explaining how the bill would actually impoverish 2.6
million more people. I specifically remember reading about people on
welfare in Milwaukee that were required to show up to a factory for 8
hours a day and assemble childrens toys, only to have them
disassembled at night so they could do the same thing the next day.
This was their job that they had to do in order to receive their welfare
check each month. I cant even imagine how demeaning that is for
someone to go through.
2. Hillary would not be in the position she is right now if she was not
married to Bill Clinton. She has also piggybacked off the public
perception which I believe is wrong that her husband was a great
president. So, yes, if she is going to benefit from her association with
the accomplishments of her husbands presidency then she should also
be held accountable for his massive failures, especially on policies she
overtly supported.
Clintons relationship with Big Pharma:
- Of all the candidates in the 2016 primaries, Clinton received more
donations from pharmaceutical companies. How much more? More
than all the rest of the candidates put together. Despite some of her
antipharma rhetoric, she still raked in cash from those companies.
- The beef I have with this issue is deeply personal. Ive seen too many
people in my life struggle with opiate addiction, a problem that has
been exacerbated by pharmaceutical companies misrepresenting how
long their drugs actually stay active for (theres a great LA Times study
on this fact that you should check out if interested). Now I understand
that the heroin problem in the United States runs far deeper than the
pharmaceutical companies, but they do share some responsibility for
what has developed into one of the largest epidemics in this nations
history. Im not being conspiratorial when I say that drug companies
have a financial incentive for their drugs to continue to be prescribed.
This worries me, and it worries me when the candidate for my party of
choice accepts money and stays silent on the issue.
I do not agree with what I think is her philosophical view of the
American political system:
- Shes a technocrat, believing that we can achieve social change
through the work of a small group of experts, whether this comes to

fruition through her cabinet, chosen advisors, Supreme Court

nominations, etc. I think Clinton, like Obama before her, believes that
there are certain types of people that deserve high positions in the
American government. An example of what I mean by that can be seen
on our Supreme Court. Every Justice attended one of three law schools
(and Ginsburg spent much time at Harvard during her studies at
Columbia) and not one Justice even attended a public undergraduate
university. Technocracy is an ideology that is almost antithetical to a
government by the people, for the people, and typically lower and
middle class citizens are forgotten under these types of regimes.
- An interesting anecdote that I think exemplifies my point here is that
fact that Bill seriously considered nominating Hillary for the Supreme
Court before he eventually settled on Ginsburg. Is this House of Cards?
Thats a bit scary, and requires a level of megalomania that I dont
want in a leader.

I am very troubled by Hillarys response to Bills infidelity:

- Bill Clintons relationship with Monica Lewinsky was disgusting
beyond words, and I dont quite understand why many liberals have
seemed to so easily forgive him. What is also disturbing are the reports
of Hillarys disdain towards Lewinsky, as well as the other women that
accused her husband of sexual assault. Calling women claiming to
have been sexually abused trailer trash or a narcissistic loony toon
is not what I would expect from a champion of feminism, which is what
our first woman President should be. There are many more allegations
from women that I recommend you research, because the things they
have to say about Hillary are particularly illuminating.