Search KoopaTV!


Monday, October 31, 2016

It Would Be SCARY To Have Hillary Clinton Be President

By LUDWIG VON KOOPA - Did anyone dress up as Hillary for Halloween, or is that redundant with dressing up as a witch?

Today was one of the worst days of the year, Halloween. Yippee. Everyone is celebrating the scary & spooky. But I think that we should avoid that kind of thing, not champion it. Keep it under the bed... and out of the White House.

What makes Hillary Clinton such a scary proposition? Besides being wrong on just about every policy front, she's particularly wrong about foreign policy. And, in terms of changing the hearts and minds of Hillary supporters (though, many are just doing it because “FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT OMG!”), I think the best point to use is that foreign policy. 

Particularly the certainty that she will be the catalyst for World War III.

I've made the point that Hillary is pro-World War III several times on this website, from it affecting my decision-making for Team Past vs. Team Future in the Splatoon Splatfest, to stating she is by far the most eager to go to war of any candidate running, to her more-or-less admitting she is aware that her No-Fly-Zone policy in Syria would cause World War III but she doesn't care about it.

Right now, there's a meme being spread around social media known as #DraftOurDaughters, which combines Hillary's support for foreign entanglements with drafting women (for equality) to the army to fight for her. It's absolutely brilliant, and it's the kind of meme-making that this organisation should be making. Read that as: Ludwig is jealous.

Here's another:

The fact of the matter is, is that Hillary Clinton is constantly rattling sabres with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump's approach is to try to work WITH Russia to “knock out ISIS”, asking how great it would be if America and Russia could “get along.” That seemed to be President Barack Hussein Obama's approach when he made fun of Mitt Romney for identifying Russia as America's greatest geo-political foe.

You should replace Mitt Romney as the target of Obama's derision with Hillary Clinton for that above video. If you did not support Mitt Romney, why would you support Hillary Clinton? They have the same incorrect, neo-conservative viewpoints. (Unless, of course, you're not voting based on policy. In that case, you shouldn't be voting at all.)

But it's not just Donald J. Trump and President Barack Hussein Obama that view Hillary's foreign policy record and plans as disastrous and destabilising. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate and actually-honest-progressive (and she's a woman, too!), believes that Donald Trump has a steadier, safer foreign policy than Hillary's ghoulish pro-war one. (Of course, she believes to have the best policies of them all.)

I cannot fathom why so many people want to elect a vile, nasty woman whose first instinct is to intervene in other countries and get America into war, than elect a guy who is a truth-telling jerk. I'd rather have the jerk. And they have the nerve to say that Hillary has the temperament to be president? Her instincts are deadly and her judgment is horrific. Not to mention her secrecy and total lack of ethics.

There's no question that Hillary is pro-war. Her enthusiastic support for the Iraq War as a United States Senator was the reason why Senator Barack Hussein Obama managed to beat her in 2008. It, and more examples of pro-intervention that she made as Secretary of State, including Libya and Syria, is the reason why Bernie Sanders got so close this time. Democrats know this fact already. How far will the Democrats go to have the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT in 2016? Why does that surpass the need for a world without a nuclear war?

Hillary Clinton Mii Gamer Ludwig Von Koopa Super Smash Bros. For Wii U 5-Volt
There will be no joy in a post-Hillary world. Only destruction and MADNESS. (And sadness.)

There are times where it's actually the correct decision to go to war, like when the nation's existence is at threat. Does Bashar al-Assad in Syria killing his own dudes count as an existential threat to the United States? If it does, what WOULDN'T count as an existential threat? Do you feel like it's worth your life to fight in the total mess of the Syrian civil war? Hillary Clinton not only wants to decimate the Middle East, but she wants to bring potential ISIS members (posing as refugees) to the United States. She claims she'll only bring over the ones that she can vet, but it's commonly accepted that the refugees that are still stuck over in Syria don't have any paperwork or any means of vetting them, and they're certainly illiterate welfare leeches. While Donald Trump accepts that fact, Hillary Clinton does not. How do I know? Because she set a goal for the number of refugees she wishes to bring over (65,000). What if there are less than 65,000 people she can ensure are good? Is she just going to dump random people (terrorists) to match her fixed goal?

It's extremely scary, and I'm personally worried about what happens if I happen to be the residing ruler in Koopa Kingdom's Alberta territory, just north of the United States, during the next several years. What will I do if Hillary Clinton starts World War III over an irrelevant-to-the-USA threat in Syria, and suddenly there are nukes flying every which way?

Hillary Clinton Mii Gamer Ludwig Von Koopa Super Smash Bros. For Wii U
The universe is not safe with Mad Queen Hillnard!

But you folks who actually live in the United States and can affect the outcome of the election with your vote (do NOT take that power for granted) ought to fear the consequences the most. You have the most to lose. Your own lives, your children's lives, your future-children's lives...

Don't squander your responsibility, and please make the correct choice.

Ludwig advises that you early-vote this year, if you can, because the lines are going to be YUGE. Look up your state's early voting process (if it's one of the majority of states that have it) by Googling it. Your state's Secretary of State's website should be a great resource.

Ludwig trashed Halloween last year, and also shared that Senator Rand Paul dressed up as the National Debt, which Hillary would dramatically increase by trillions with her wars.
Those anti-Hillary memes are probably the kinds of memes that Palmer Luckey intended to fund.
KoopaTV has had only limited experience with meme-making, but it did end up spreading.
Bernie Sanders used to be the voice of honest progressive values, but ever since he guest-wrote an article for KoopaTV, he's changed for the worse.
Hillary Clinton being the face of the horrific woman in the Gamer stage for Super Smash Bros. For Wii U telling you to stop playing videogames is extremely fitting given her role as the author of the Family Entertainment Protection Act.
Mitt Romney dressing up as Mario for Halloween is also spooky.


  1. By now I thought for sure you were going to vote for Hillary. I can't believe that you are still voting or already voted for the egomaniac, who by the way DID support the Iraq War. There's no evidence that Hillary will initiate WWIII. In fact, it's far more likely that Trump would go to war over a tweet that provokes him. All of your arguments are simply against strawmen-you are attacking positions that she doesn't have. Why would Hillary want to bring terrorists in the country? Trump's refusal to bring in any refugees is more likely to incite terrorists to further their cause by reaching out to the disfranchised. Building a wall is also ridiculous. It will cost the country billions of dollars and it will not be effective. If people cannot climb over it, then they will simply dig tunnels or catch a plane or a boat to go around it. Trump has many policies but it is all just talk. Hillary, on the other hand, has policies that will make the U.S. and the whole world safer. For that reason, #ImWithHer.

    1. Establishing a No Fly Zone in Syria and trying to beat ISIS and Assad at the same time is her actual position, not a straw-man. (Or in Hillary's case, a straw-woman.)

      The different between Hillary's support for the Iraq War and Trump's “support” is as follows:
      Hillary Clinton was an actual member of the Senate, had exclusive information/intelligence that normal people didn't have, and voted for it.
      Donald Trump was more or less a random dude off the street on a comedy radio show whose supportive statement was literally expressed as “Yeah, I...I guess so?” after a question about his wife in bed. Then he had big arguments with Sean Hannity about interventionist/non-interventionist foreign policies.

      The difference between Trump's support and Hillary's support is also the lesson learned.
      Hillary claims she believes her vote in the Iraq War was a mistake, but then she wants to go and repeat the same mistakes with the rest of her interventionist foreign policy. See Syria. See Libya. See Egypt. That's what she did as Secretary of State and it's what she still wants to do.
      Donald Trump clearly has no desire to go after these relatively harmless-to-us dictators.

      Besides the Trump tweet thing being a Hillary talking point, is there any evidence that it's far more likely that Trump would unilaterally go to war over that? (Not that the United States government really allows that to happen — Congress is supposed to declare war.)

      As for Trump's refusal to bring refugees resulting in that: No, I disagree for two reasons.

      1. If Hillary is to be believed, most of these disenfranchised refugees are women & children anyway, which are, according to Hillary's logic, impossible to be terrorists wherever they are.
      2. If we did what Hillary wants and only took select members of people's families and brought them to the USA, we'd be doing what she does not want to do with the illegal immigrants in the country: Break up families. Even worse, we would be bringing children over here who don't know English and don't know the culture at all. They would be totally lost here.

      Donald Trump's refugee policy is to NOT bring them over to the USA where they are either going to be: A. Terrorists B. Leeches off our resources, but to establish safe zones within Syria, within their own culture and norms, where they can be safe. That would be less expensive (probably) and more humanitarian than Hillary's proposal, along with better serving America's interests.

      We didn't mention the wall in this article. But since you brought it up, it will cost this country billions of dollars... and then Mexico will reimburse us. Donald Trump laid out his plan for how Mexico will do that, and I don't see any flaws in it.

      Donald Trump's immigration plan also already addresses the tunnel/plane/boat things. It's more than just the wall. You're right that, for now, Trump's policies are just talks, but if he gets into office, he'll be in a position to put those into action.

      Meanwhile, Hillary has been in a position to implement her policies for decades, and they've only made America, and the world, worse.

  2. I didn't dress up for Halloween, but tomorrow I plan on wearing my Link for President t-shirt when I go vote. Even if he doesn't speak at all, Link would still be a better president than Hillary. He just maybe even be better than Trump.


We embrace your comments.
Expect a reply between 1 minute to 24 hours from your comment. We advise you to receive an e-mail notification for when we do reply.
Also, see our Disclaimers.

Spamming is bad, so don't spam. Spam includes random advertisements and obviously being a robot. Our vendor may subject you to CAPTCHAs.

If you comment on an article that is older than 60 days, you will have to wait for a staffer to approve your comment. It will get approved and replied to, don't worry. Unless you're a spambot.