Had she won, Clinton supporters would absolutely have had to accept that they supported the USA's appalling use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere.Would it be fair to say though that someone who voted for hillary for any reason at all, fully supports drone murder? That their intention is to kill syrians? That we should hate them for this?
It would be fair to say exactly what I said in that quote. They supported it. Would it be fair for a victim of a drone bomb to hate Clinton's supporters? I could certainly understand that. I haven't said that we should all hate Trump voters, I've said they have to accept their complicity in a most dangerous kind of bigotry.
Given that, I'd say it's fair to say that you support the continued use of drones to commit targeted killings if you support Clinton.
Yes, of course you do. If you hold your nose and vote for someone, you have to take the bad with the (in Clinton's case) less bad. But you can't make the 'lesser of two evils' argument when the candidate you're defending is, by any historical comparison, the greater evil.
I would have more sympathy if criticism of Clinton had focused more on her foreign policy and less on her bloody eeeeeeeeemails.
Here's Trump saying some stuff about nuclear weapons. I said he wanted to nuke ISIS - I apologise for that overstatement*. In fairness, he's at pains to make it clear that nuclear would be a last resort. In context he merely said he wouldn't rule it out for the Middle East, or Europe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCHQPCXbt1w
He was subsequently pressed on these issues and stood by his insistence that "Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table.", and boasted of his unpredictability as a businessman.
That's not as clear cut as I made out. But it's hardly a case of warmonger versus peacemaker.
*or to put that apology in Trump's voice: "I never said that. Huge lie. It's really terrible this lying media, folks. Real shame."