1. A Feminist Apology for the Presidential Ascension of Hillary Clinton

In order to become the supreme authority of a corrupt society it is necessary to be a corrupt individual. It is sexist to criticize Hillary Clinton for succeeding in that ambition, because such criticism is sour grapes by those who resent a woman outdoing men at their own game.

Hillary Clinton is the icon of a successful woman that many millions wish to emulate. To denigrate Hillary Clinton is sexist because it denigrates, by association, those women who live vicariously through her, and who follow her examples of attitude and behavior in their own efforts to increase feminine participation in the elite circles of wealth and power.

To criticize Hillary Clinton for being untruthful is hypocritical because it is a principle of our society that you can not rely on honesty to insure success. If you tell people the complete truth they are most likely to act on it in their own best interests. But, their best interests are not necessarily in your best interests, and that jeopardizes your chances of manipulating things to turn out the way you want them to turn out.

In our society, no public campaign for financial gain and career promotion can rely for success on factual honesty and transparency. The public understands and embraces this principle in their own lives, which is why we have the society we do. To criticize a woman, Hillary Clinton, for recognizing this societal truth, and masterfully outdoing men in its use, is both hypocritical and sexist.

2. My Response to Importuning Hillary Clinton Partisans

There are three valid reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton:
1. your personal gain,
2. to help advance Hillary Clinton’s career and personal gain,
3. because you share Hillary Clinton’s values.

The paragraph above also applies to Donald Trump, if you substitute his name for that of Hillary Clinton.

There is one invalid reason to vote for Hillary Clinton – fear:
you dread the alternatives to Hillary Clinton over any catastrophe she could possibly cause.

This last reason is invalid because it is illogical, being a fearful emotional reaction of avoidance rather than a positive vote “for” something in the way of policy and character. This reaction would allow for fallacious justifications like: “I’d rather have Hillary Clinton start the next nuclear war than let Donald Trump do it!”

Again, this invalid reason could be used by Trump voters who cast Hillary Clinton as the greater evil.

One red herring fear thrown out by both Democratic and Republican partisans is that the opposing party’s candidates for the Supreme Court would undermine the pet social agenda items of “their” voters. This doesn’t matter. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect capital and property from popular democracy. People are chosen as Supreme Court judges – by either party – with this purpose in mind. The biases of the Supreme Court judges can always be overcome by popularly backed legislative majorities, ultimately by Constitutional Amendments. The only sure way to protect “your” social agenda items is from the bottom up: get enough of your countrymen and countrywomen to also believe in them, and enshrine them in law by overwhelming votes. There is no reliable Big Daddy for the protection of social attitudes.

Another fallacious guilt trip thrown out by Hillary Clinton faithful to Bernie Sanders voters, and Jill Stein voters, is that by “not voting” for Hillary we “are voting for” Donald Trump. Hogwash, of course. Had the Democratic Party really been concerned about beating Donald Trump in the November election they would have nominated Bernie Sanders, who is heavily favored over Donald in just about every electoral district, and in every single poll taken on that question (still). But, the Democratic Party regulars and the Clinton faithful are far more concerned about preserving their own situations of personal gain, and they did not want to “lose control” of the Democratic Party to the “popular will” (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) for the good of the country.

If Donald Trump does actually win the November election it will be because of all the Democratic Party regulars and Clinton faithful, who “voted for him” by late July, by voting for Hillary instead of Bernie: that is to say by rigging the voting processes, and collusion with corporate media to sabotage the Sanders campaign, in addition to simply casting their votes for Hillary during the primary elections and at the Democratic Party convention. The best hope for Clinton’s election is currently being provided by Donald Trump’s obvious sabotage of his own campaign.

In my case, there is no valid reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, and I reject the invalid reason. Similarly, there are no valid nor invalid reasons for me to vote for Donald Trump.

I will vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party because they reflect my values as regards public policy and as regards honesty, integrity and character. This is the same reason I supported Bernie Sanders. Similarly, I will only vote for Democratic Party candidates who supported Bernie Sanders during the primary season, and who now campaign on his public policy agenda, and who have not endorsed Hillary Clinton (mainly new folks).

It is not necessary for me to criticize the logic (actually, lack of logic) of people who continue to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, because that would be futile. Whatever the outcome of the election in November, and whatever the course of events during the next presidential administration, these people are guaranteed to rationalize (fantasize) their way into preserving their bubble visions of their chosen personality cults and the ideologies and biases associated with them. This has certainly been the case with too many of Bill Clinton’s, George W. Bush’s, and Barack Obama’s voters. I’m done with such people.

“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don’t want and get it.”