Before we talk about Hillary Clinton, let’s talk briefly about Donald Trump. I’m not in the camp that believes he’s definitely going to lose the election despite all of the media indicators such as polls and buzz. That doesn’t mean I’m calling this election rigged, but I’m also not going to fall victim to the experience and common sense that told us long ago Trump couldn’t win the nomination, either. This is a weird election year, so dismissing Trump before the fat lady sings is foolish.
In the classic movie, The Princess Bride, we find our hero trying to save his love from the hands of the evil Vizzini. He challenges him to a battle of wits where Vizzini must discern which cup has poison and which is safe. Then, both will drink and the winner is the one not dead. The trick was on him, though. Both cups were poisoned. Wesley, aka Dread Pirate Roberts, had developed a tolerance for the poison, so regardless of which cup Vizzini chose, he would die and Wesley would live.
Some are reporting that there could be 100 million people watching the first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Moderator Lester Holt will be alone in his duties of asking the questions. We’ll all be paying attention to the answers, but the questions themselves are actually equally or more important.
Communist-style state-run journalism is alive and well in the United States. We’ve seen the Trumpeters at Breitbart and Drudge make a mockery of their “conservatism” by hopping on the Trump train hard. We’ve seen CNN this week fire Dr. Drew after he questioned Hillary Clinton’s health. Now, Huffington Post has joined the attack on dissenting views by terminating David Seaman and removing his stories that also questioned Hillary’s health.
Arguably the most prominent argument made by pro-Trump conservatives is that Hillary Clinton will load up the Supreme Court with activist liberals if she’s the President. This is partially true, but there’s a more important thing to consider: the scenarios. Let’s look at those scenarios to understand why the best-case-scenario among likely outcomes in this election cycle for the Supreme Court is if Trump loses by a huge margin.
It needed to happen. The media refuses to point out that a person who has spent nearly over two decades in Washington DC has accomplished pretty much nothing, but the people know the truth (some of us, at least). Now with it trending on Twitter, we get to see just how people feel about Hillary Clinton’s lack of substance.
Pundits often like to look at the past and make comparisons, particularly in Presidential elections. They don’t always look at the circumstances, so we’ll do that before getting to the meat of the issue. I’ll keep it short to keep my blood pressure at bay.
Any other year, this would be a headline that Republicans would be cheering over and sharing with all of their liberal friends. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton’s dismal 33% unfavorable rating is only the second worst in the 60 years that Gallup has surveyed with this question. The worst is her Republican nemesis. Donald Trump’s unfavorable is 42%, To put it into perspective, it’s almost double what Mitt Romney had in 2012 and is more than double what John McCain had in 2008.
In the movie The Untouchables, FBI prohibition officer Eliot Ness played by Kevin Costner had to form an autonomous squad of agents who could pursue Al Capone without risk of being corrupted. This dramatized retelling of real events highlights a time in law enforcement history when such things were required, but we’re well beyond the need for such a task force today, right? In a world with the Clintons, “untouchables” are exactly who we need.
Hillary Clinton should have been removed from office within a month after Benghazi. Then, she should have been thoroughly investigated along with anyone in the State Department, CIA, and U.S. military who allowed it to happen as it did.