Hillary Clinton on many occasions and consistently said that as President she would impose a no-fly zone over Syria, as she and President Obama had done in 2011 in Libya. She said this though Russian planes and missiles have been flying over Syria since 30 September 2015, at the invitation of the legitimate and universally recognized government of Syria, whereas the U.S. and its allies are only invaders in Syria and in that country would be killing not only Syrians but also Russians. (By contrast: Russian planes weren’t defending Muammar Gaddafi’s government.) She said this though America’s imposing a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean the U.S. shooting down Russian planes and missiles, and Russia shooting down American planes and missiles, thus constituting the first-ever direct warfare between Russia and the United States.
What would happen once one side or the other is about to be defeated in that conventional air-war? Would the soon-to-be-defeated side surrender, or would it instead initiate a nuclear attack against the prospective winner of that conventional war, which would be the only way to avoid defeat?
Obviously, the likely outcome if Hillary Clinton were to have been elected President would be nuclear war between Russia and the United States. Her policy to impose a no-fly zone over any portion of Syria would almost certainly have led to nuclear war. Nuclear weapons exist in order to prevent defeat, and this is the reason why there has never yet been a conventional war between nuclear powers — but Hillary Clinton was committed to starting a conventional war between the two nuclear superpowers.
Consequently, the 47% of American voters who voted for Hillary Clinton were voting for (regardless of whatever else they were voting for) nuclear war against Russia.
90% of voters who said the country is going in “generally the right direction” were.
60% of voters whose most important issue was “Foreign policy” were.
84% of voters who approve of Obama’s job-performance were.
90% of voters whose “most important candidate quality” was “has the right experience” were.
82% of voters who said Hillary Clinton would be the “Better commander in chief” did.
59% of voters who expect the next generation to have a “Better life than today” were.
Either those voters didn’t know what they were doing when they voted, or they actually wanted nuclear war.
And Hillary Clinton wasn’t just pro-nuclear-war in only the matter of a no-fly-zone over Syria; she also consistently supported two other policies that would greatly increase the probability of nuclear war against Russia, but neither of those policies would virtually assure a nuclear war, like the U.S. imposition of a no-fly zone in Syria would. Donald Trump stood opposed to Clinton on all three of her policy-positions that would have been leading us into a nuclear war. No major-Party U.S. Presidential candidate has ever been even nearly as fully committed to a U.S. invasion of Russia as Hillary Clinton was, but she almost won the U.S. Presidency, despite that fact.
One therefore must wonder: if the voters for Hillary Clinton had known that they were voting for nuclear war, would they have voted for her? Do they simply not care whether there will be a nuclear war within the next few months or years? And how could they say that Hillary Clinton would make the “Better commander in chief” and say that the next generation would have a “Better life than today” if she were President, than if Trump were? Did somebody tell them that type of foolishness? Who told them that? Why did they tell them that?