1) The entire ______ issue is just another made up controversy created by the GOP to attack Hillary Clinton

This is perhaps the most used argument used by Clinton and her supporters. From Benghazi to Whitewater, it’s been used each and every time Clinton is attacked in her long political career. However, it holds less and less weight each time it is used. The argument is actually pretty good at deflecting blame for up to 2-3 accused controversies, but it can logically be turned around to attack Clinton beyond that point. Which makes it my favorite argument to propose to Clinton supporters.

After someone gives the argument that whatever you are discussing is just another GOP controversy, ask why is that the GOP only goes after Clinton and not any other prominent Democrat. If they really have the power to create controversies from nothing then shouldn’t they use it against Biden? Against Elizabeth Warren? Against Sanders? Against Harry Reid? Against Pelosi? Against Obama!? Against literally any other Democrat that’s been serving as long as Hillary?

Why are they not using it for anyone else!?

Each of those people has maybe 1 controversy, but most likely, 0 serious controversies in their long careers in politics. Hillary Clinton has 75+? Why was the GOP so obsessed with Clinton when there are so many other more powerful and influential democrats to attack in the 1980-2000’s? Why focus only on her? Makes no sense, she was pretty inconsequential up until 2008.

The shear amount of controversies surrounding Clinton at this point is quite damning. There is literally no other politician on this earth with anything close to the amount Clinton has. Either the GOP is the most effective organization on Earth at creating controversies and only uses this incredible power on Clinton or there may be some merit to many of the controversies. Which one is it?

2) Clinton is the most experienced candidate for President

You can probably win this argument pretty quickly by pointing out that not too long ago, most presidential nominees had much larger list of experiences than they do now. Take George H.W. Bush for example, he was Vice-President, Ambassador to the UN, Director of the CIA, Congressman, Envoy to China, and Chairman of the RNC all before becoming President.

But, I find it way more fun to catch people off guard by agreeing to their argument and then turning it around on them. This is one case where this is possible.

So simply agree with them. Yes, she is. No other candidate has been First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State in the careers. However, because of this, she also happens to be the candidate with the most wasted experiences of anyone running for president.

For all her time in public office, what has she used her time to do? Push for war with Libya as Secretary of State? Create the Clinton Foundation that uses less than 20% of it’s immense funds to help charities or initiatives? Sponsor 3 bills that renamed highways and buildings? Heck even Rahm Emanuel (the supposed heartless and corrupt Chicagoan politician) in his first year in Congress sponsored and passed a Great Lakes Cleanup Bill. The best Clinton could in 8 years in Congress was to rename two buildings and a highway?

Of the 7 of the greatest accomplishment’s Hillary herself claims, only 1 is actual specific accomplishment. Even if you allow Clinton and her supporters to have this accomplishment, doing 1 specific thing in 30 years can be argued to be like quite the waste of time of you positions of power.

This one is really only for Bernie supporters, but I’m sure many of you reading this are.

3) You should vote for Hillary because Bernie voted the same as her 90% of the time

This one is quick and easy.

Just answer “Sure, except for the whole war hawk thing, wall street bribes, making secret deals, and lying to the public, they are basically the same”.

4) Hillary is better than Trump

This one is a little bit harder, I must admit. It’s the argument used when all arguments fail from the Clinton supporters. In fact, it’s the main argument being using currently in the media. But I gotta admit, it’s hard to argue against Trump being a selfish and money grubbing narcissist. But honestly, both candidates are horrible, so it’s like arguing who’s shit smells worse. But luckily, I think Hillary’s does smell a little bit worse.

I digress though. There are a few ways to counter this argument. One way is to deflect the conversation and another is to actual argue why Hillary could be worse than Trump.

Clinton supporters will inherently believe that Trump is racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, etc… You can escape this argument by trying to argue that Trump isn’t a racist or sexist by pointing out illegal Mexican immigrants aren’t a race and all those other things are because Trump doesn’t have a PC filter and if you look at the original statements he said, they make some sense. Many of them have been done by Clinton herself too (building a wall, making jokes about black people, making fun of mentally challenged people, etc…). However, this deflection will usually fall upon deaf ears and probably will just end up in both sides getting mad because most Clinton supporters will not question their own present notion that Trump is racist. However if it comes to that point, you can say “Oh, so you won’t even listen to what Trump has to say?”. They’ll respond with something like “Of course not, I would never listen to a racist bigot”. at that point just say “Not listening to an other viewpoint is the definition of being a bigot”.

But that’s low brow argumentation right there.

Take the higher road and counter this argument by taking it straight on. State that Trump would unquestionably be a better choice than Hillary. One of the largest problems in the US is the media not informing the people. If Hillary were to become President, the media would never report on any of the horrible things she is doing. She could invade Canada and the media would spin it as necessary. Trump on the other hand, would be the target of the media for his entire presidency. He wouldn’t be able to step outside without creating some kind of controversy and we would all hear about.

Expand on this though process and eventually paint the argument as being between having a president that will be accountable to the people of the USA or one that will never be. You can make quite the convincing argument by showing that we have a lot more to fear from someone that can do whatever they please rather than someone that draws the intense examination of every action from the public.

5) You must vote for Hillary because of Supreme Court justices

This one is a favorite of Hillary supporters. It’s actually a pretty solid argument. The only way I’ve found to make Clinton supporters question this argument is by injecting “fear of the unknown” into the line of thought.

As of right now, Clinton has not released a list of potential supreme court justices. Trump has. We know what to expect from Trump, but have no idea what Clinton is thinking…yet again.

This fact can be turned around to ask, why hasn’t she? Why is she hiding her potential list of supreme court nominees if they are in fact much better than Trump’s? She should be making this argument the #1 issue on the campaign trail and if she released a list, it would be very hard to convince any progressive to not vote for her. So why hasn’t she released it? What is she hiding?

The answer is probably that the justices will be moderate. They won’t be the progressive champions that progressives are hoping for. They won’t vote to overturn Citizen’s United. Clinton realizes that the House has a majority of Republicans that will lose their seats to even crazier right-wingers if they vote for a left-leaning justice. The only way to get her nominee approved by a possibly even more right-leaning congress (in the next congress) is to nominate moderates and maybe even republicans to the bench. Obviously this would go against everything progressives believe in, and it the exact reason why I believe Clinton has not released her list of potential nominees nor making this the top issue on the campaign trail.

Basically keep injecting “fear of the unknown” into the discussion and keep questioning why she wouldn’t release a list unless there was something she wanted to hide. Much like the wall street speech transcripts. If it was all fine and dandy, she would’ve released the list awhile ago.

BONUS REBUTTAL

If all else fails, you can just post this image below and point out which responses they use.

I.e. If you see a photo on facebook and a comment below says “Typical Bernie Bro, this is nothing new, its just a fake GOP controversy”. Add the photo and simply say “G1, I3, N1, so close!”

It comically shows how limited the arguments are from the Clinton camp