With the 2016 presidential race in full swing, it has become apparent that uninformed, seemingly unthinking, fanatical supporters like those who have stood steadfastly by Barack Obama since the 2008 election and are now gathering behind Hillary Clinton are not found only among Democrats.
A surprisingly large number of Republican voters are demonstrating similar mindless, unwavering support for Donald Trump, in spite of his total lack of presidential qualifications.
Caught in the middle of these two mobs are those voters, of all persuasions, whose thoughts are actually guided not by pure emotion but by a logical analysis of the facts regarding the candidates’ records — and stated positions — as they relate to the major issues involved in this extremely important election. They are bewildered and appalled by what they see happening in the presidential primaries. How, they wonder, is it possible for the odds to be better than even that Clinton and Trump will be the Democrat and Republican nominees, respectively?
Think about it. Out of a population of over 320 million Americans, are Clinton and Trump really the two best presidential candidates we can find? Even Hollywood at its worst couldn’t conjure up a more improbable scenario.
Clinton is a self-proclaimed proud Progressive. Progressive. That label has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Ah, but don’t be fooled by the clever merchandising misdirection. There is nothing nice about progressivism.
If you want to know what it really is, just do a little research. For the real truth about this insidious political movement, go to the Hillsdale College website. Search for Hillsdale’s free online course entitled “Constitution 201.” Scan the content. You will find what the progressives don’t want you to know.
And then we have Trump, the consummate bloviating New York huckster. Any attempt to nail down “The Donald” regarding his stand on an issue is like playing verbal Whack-a-Mole.
In the fog of his vague and rambling hyperbole, he frequently changes his position within the confines of a single sentence. Nobody can be sure he actually has a position on anything. (To be fair, Clinton also is not averse to changing her position on relevant issues when it plays to her advantage at a given time and place, but usually not in the same sentence.)
If these two clowns actually are the nominees come November, the presidential ballot will, in essence, present the voters with the following lose-lose choice:
“Which lying, incompetent, narcissistic, egotistical, pompous ass do you choose to replace the one who currently resides in the White House?”
Sad, isn’t it?