According to an article on aplus.com, Ashton Kutcher's media brainchild, Hillary Clinton should be elected president. The column, A Grain of Saul, claims there were many arguments to electing the former senator and state secretary to the White House.

First, the way the writer refers to Donald Trump shows two things. He uses the pathos appeal to make his argument. Mostly because most of the bad of Trump are things he agrees with Clinton on.

Also, he falsely claims to believe Trump is an outsider, despite being a Democratic big donor since the 1990s, a big donor for the Clinton Foundation even after 2011, being a long-time lobbyist for Democratic issues, and being a corporate welfare recipient who couldn't operate a business with the protections of the very government Clinton fosters, at the taxpayers' expense.

Second, the qualifications thing. It is twisted. The Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket of the Libertarian Party is the most executive-experienced ticket in a hundred years, and one of the most experienced tickets, as is the Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine ticket.

Unlike the latter, the former was not part of the problems. Clinton and Kaine have voted for wars and war funding, neither have held presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama accountable for their war crimes, both have voted for the economic primers that lead to financial crises, and not to mention both are deep insiders.

(Also, Clinton was a proven corrupt lawyer during the '70s, and being First Lady of a state is not an indicative accolade - and as first lady of the country she agreed with world leaders on very anti-civil liberties policies, especially with China and Saudi Arabia)

President George H.W. Bush had as much experience as Clinton - does that mean Democrats preferred him to then-governor Bill Clinton? Of course not. Or how about Richard Nixon over vice president Hubert Humphrey for that matter?

Weld was a prominent lawyer who actually fought crime, famously against public corruption. He was twice a president Ronald Reagan appointee in the Justice Department, worked with Clinton during Watergate investigations, was a popular two-term governor, and was even a popular appointee for ambassador from Bill Clinton, but his corruption-fighting past upset enough corrupt Republicans to kill the appointment.

Johnson was a popular two-term governor who started his own businesses from scratch, including the first cannabis corporation, is a world-renowned mountain climber who disproved government medicine, and started one of the biggest libertarian organizations with a national outreach with Our America Initiative. Marking the Johnson/Weld ticket very qualified, unlike what the biased article proclaims.

Third, the history of Clinton's healthcare fights is revisionist. Liberal Republicans not only fought alongside Clinton on healthcare, but even after she gave up on it. Texan Rick Perry being a popular, but not only, example.

And her 9/11 efforts are minuscule compared to the fact her husband helped create the environment that would lead to it (he neglected the terrorist "allies" that the U.S. had there, in favor of bombing other countries, and thus incentivized them to help al-Qaeda). Then as senator, she voted for more war and bloodshed.

Fourth, her time as state secretary is very revisionist in the article. She supported countries which violated human rights, helped Obama fund terrorists, supported more war, and put more U.S. troops in danger (all proven facts).

Notice how Johnson and Trump are in a statistical tie for contributions from members of the U.S. armed forces (in 2008, Obama and Ron Paul held this distinction). Republicans elected liberals is as bad as Democrats electing warmongers. And, she opposes progressivism, to boot. Always has. To say otherwise is to lie.

Fifth, the author reveals his ignorance of the political process by claiming Clinton had to win over Obama. It is not only common, but expected, to offer major competitors a piece of the pie. No exception. Going back to H.W. Bush again, him and Reagan hated each other - still did after being elected - as did Kennedy and L. Johnson.

Clinton and Obama didn't win each other when she was appointed state secretary. (And mentioning bin Laden is silly, since her husband literally let him go as president, and she didn't say anything as first lady).

Sixth, Benghazi is just another bad decision she made. It could have otherwise been a slam-dunk case had Republicans not politicized it (just more evidence both parties are on the same side underneath it all). But yes, she does share the blame with her fellow Democrats and Republicans. The fact she shows no remorse for her actions about it speaks volumes about her character.

Seventh, the author admits Trump's attacks were personal and weak. By writing, or even reading, that paragraph it is obvious Clinton and Trump's personal friendship is shining bright. Why stick with weak insults when there is a plethora of bad policies and decisions that the establishment, anti-progressive Clinton has done? Even by GOP standards, which are already pretty low, Trump is throwing it.

Eighth, towards the end of the article, Mr. Saul blatantly makes it obvious he is using pathos appeals, not facts or logic. If she is so strong like he claims (not to be confused as an allusion to her coughing or fainting fits) then why treat her emotions like she is caught between being an id-ridden child and a teenager with PMS?

Secretary Clinton is opposed to the progressivism of both Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, pro-war much to the antiwar's silent dismay, and a firm ally of Wall Street cronyism. By supporting her, liberals are taking their anti-war and progressive movement backwards.