9/17/2017: While my endorsement of Trump – only relative to Clinton – was heavily qualified in this pre-election post, I feel that at this point the subject needs revisiting. I characterized Clinton as a known quantity and Trump as something of a wild card, who might be at best moderately better and at worst mildly worse. So was I wrong? Not really, since the results seem to have fallen in the mildly better to mildly worse than Clinton range, and are certainly not much worse; Trump appears to be the relatively centrist, pro-military-intervention Democrat he was for the decades before he started playing Republican, ironically not far from the Clintons politically. People who believed Clinton represented the avoidance of a Trump disaster or a meaningfully positive direction were far more wrong than I ever may have been on the subject, as anyone who believes either party establishment (the Republican of which at least appeared to be strongly against Trump, the Democratic of which was heavily for Clinton) could be remotely good for the country lacks an understanding of what is going on behind the scenes. At least Trump talked a good game in many respects (minus the Islamophobia and jingoism) by being the first two-party candidate since JFK to publicly lambast the real government: the banking-media-intel complex. It’s generally better for the public to get burned by a pretender than to willingly submit to someone like Clinton.
What made the particularly abysmal two-party situation worse is that there were no remotely palatable third-party options. The Libertarian ticket was the worst in my lifetime, and endorsing such a mediocre party leadership might be counter-productive, since there was zero chance for a win and such a vote’s protest value in future elections would become diminished. Stein and Sanders, while good on most other fronts, had an economic platform that was totally out of touch with investors and business owners, the people who direct the flow of capital and control most job creation, and in the case of Stein rejected the ‘post-economic’ system of ‘green decentralism’ I could support in favor of the Democratic establishment’s approach of soft-handling corporate behemoths (who due to their closeness with government and the fraud-based banking system are no longer market entities with private property rights or any other rights due to individuals) in exchange for piddling tax cessions to fund social welfare, an approach perhaps even worse than Republican crony capitalism since it would permanently entrench and enshrine corporate governance and dependence and reduce the chance of long-term change, the people content enough with their iPhones and other table scraps; under crony capitalism people might actually get abused enough to eventually revolt.
Most people would probably not imagine me to be a big fan of Donald Trump, and I’m not one. When people say he is a bad candidate, a blowhard, and someone who shouldn’t be in the White House, members of my own family included, I don’t disagree (though to be clear, I don’t think any President for at least the last 100 years should have been in the White House), and when he is bashed I readily and genuinely join in myself. Unfortunately, that must often come with the caveat that my conviction that Hillary Clinton should not be President is much stronger. Many Democrats and a minority of independents who disagree with my position see the worst in Trump, but view Clinton through the rosiest of glasses. As I’ll explain below, an honest comparison between both candidates’ positions (and personal backgrounds) will demonstrate that Trump’s actual policy proposals are far better for the country than Hillary’s, and just as detailed beyond his ‘Great Again’ slogan. (Trump’s campaign has been said to lack content, but I’d be interested to know how small a minority of Hillary’s supporters could explain even one of her proposed policy reforms. Like Obama’s substanceless ‘Yes We Can’ message, Hillary’s public platform consists of little more than meaningless mantras like ‘Forward’ and the touting of apparent qualifications like ‘She is a change-maker’ and ‘She knows what she’s doing.’ The campaigns of Obama and Hillary had to be empty because the candidates themselves are just vessels for the complex, ever-changing, and deeply unpopular interests of the establishment.) Rhetoric and personal appearance aside, Trump’s core platform has considerably more in common with that of Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders than of Hillary. In fact, Stein and Sanders are closer to Trump than even Johnson is on the few but highly important policy fields a President can directly control or influence, namely foreign and trade policy, and to a lesser extent monetary policy.
The simplest answer on why I support Trump over Hillary Clinton is that (I believe) Trump does not hate America and most Americans, and I believe Hillary viscerally does and has for most of her life. This isn’t a McCarthyist witch hunt against vaguely ‘un-American’ people, or any kind of attack on dissidents. By hating America I don’t mean being critical of parts of its history like slavery and discrimination, or aspects of its contemporary governance or society, which would include my own sentiments. I mean being deeply antithetical to its most fundamental tenets: its Bill of Rights and other underlying principles and ideals, which can be summed up as ‘do what you want as long as you aren’t demonstrably physically or financially hurting anyone else,’ with some room for legislation on quality-of-life and moral issues at the state and local levels. Progressives like Bernie Sanders support Constitutional liberties but have a broader understanding of liability for harm, the merits of which can be debated another time. But Hillary is no Progressive, and if she ever was, she hasn’t been for decades; to her the Constitution is a dead letter. She is a neoliberal imperialist (or proponent of what I call ‘privatized mercantilism,’ where international banks and corporations have become the only ‘mother nation,’ and citizens are just natural resources to be politically and socially ‘stabilized’ and economically exploited), and any ideals she may still hold onto are eagerly surrendered for money and power.
To go into further detail, Hillary Clinton is committed to carrying out a long-running plan by an international cabal made up mostly of bankers and businessmen to embroil the US in a world war (quite possibly with Russia and/or China) or other catastrophe that might well kill large numbers of people and would be used to end all national sovereignty and usher in a world government; or to incrementally moving us towards that goal if war is not yet in the cards, as Obama has attempted (and mostly failed thus far) to do. What could be more dangerous (to use a frequent anti-Trump epithet) than that? No lasting damage Trump might blunder his way into could approach what Hillary already has in mind. While Trump is an offensive person in some ways, his policy proposals are actually not that bad compared to the other available party platforms (and Hillary’s are the worst of the four by far). Most of them are rather good within the framework of ‘reality’ where we currently operate politically: not just in terms of physical limits to action, but also of the mentalities and the mass delusions of our day (about who or what is a threat and how great; who is running the system, what would happen if we opposed them, what kind of economic and political system would best benefit us) that one must play to in order to get elected and get laws passed.
I voted for Ron Paul (in the primaries) and Gary Johnson in 2012, and normally vote for a candidate who comes reasonably close to reflecting my ideals, or don’t vote if no one does. Jill Stein is an excellent candidate in many respects, but her domestic economic agenda is too disjointed from the needs and concerns of small and large businesses, and she is not friendly to the Second Amendment. This rules Stein out as a protest vote, but if I thought she could win I’d certainly vote for her over Trump. Since partnering with William Weld, Johnson has become problematic for several reasons, the least of which are his recent gaffes: he has reversed his position on and now supports the TPP, he backs mandatory vaccinations, opposes an audit of the Federal Reserve (because he thinks it could cause a panic), has variously called for and rejected a carbon tax, and just a few months ago described Hillary as a ‘wonderful public servant.’ I believe he also may have a minor substance-abuse problem (specifically, too much MJ). His running mate William Weld is worse on all these points, minus the last.
In my lifetime there has never been a reason to consider voting either Democrat or Republican since the destructive agendas and enacted policies of both parties have been virtually identical, campaign-time rhetoric notwithstanding. Though far from perfect, Trump’s proposed policies (even if only a few pass) represent enough of a positive departure from the status quo where this is not the case. The hard truth is that either Hillary or Trump will be elected the week after next and will be President on January 20th of next year, unless some kind of disaster interferes. As bad as Trump is in a few regards, he is so much better than Hillary that I have recently decided I will be voting for him, barring significant developments. As noted above, the main reason is that I believe Hillary intends on fulfilling an existing plan of starting or moving further towards a world war immediately after taking office. But it’s not just about war, she also has the worst possible position on a host of other issues.
I wouldn’t blame anyone for voting for Stein, who is immeasurably better than Clinton and better than Trump in many respects, but he or she should do so with the understanding that Stein has no chance whatsoever of being elected President in next week’s America, and that only Clinton or Trump will win. But a Stein vote can still be described as a vote of principle. A vote for Johnson is a waste; it is no longer a vote for a coherent set of libertarian principles and thus fails as a protest vote, and, shockingly, according to non-libertarian neoconservative William Weld himself, Johnson’s running mate, a vote for Johnson is meant to be a vote for Hillary. Weld’s bad intentions aside, I suspect Johnson may be taking almost as many votes from Hillary Clinton as he is from Trump.
Some on the political fringes may even claim to want to see Hillary Clinton elected in order to sidestep what they see with certainty as Trump’s futile reformism and to accelerate the over-extension and collapse of US economic and military imperialism, which might benefit the rest of the world. But what if that takes decades? What if one’s prediction about the long-term consequences of doing that is wrong, and it in fact bolsters those projects? Ideology and global analysis have their limits when it comes to real life, today. Better to focus on promoting physical and psychological independence from the ground up, in your local area and via your own personal contacts, both online and in the real world, than to play games with a system of a size and complexity beyond all our comprehension. And when a significant improvement over the status quo may be able to be effected by voting in elections, to use that practical tool in hopes that reforms can and will succeed, something none of us know for sure since our political, societal, and economic circumstances have never existed before.
One of the most disturbing things about this election is how some independents and members of both parties seem to yearn for nominees of the past: ‘Of all the people out there, we end up with these two.’ This could imply that previous nominee outcomes were better than Trump. Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, even Reagan, any of the Republicans of the last 30 or more years were worse than Trump, because they carried out or sought to carry out the same treasonous policies all the Democratic presidents and nominees of the last several decades have, just couched in different rhetoric during campaign season. People need to understand that virtually anyone of moderate intelligence and executive ability and generally good intention who is not committed to these kinds of policies is better than someone who is, better than a cabal member in good standing. Who wants an experienced, competent, and steely betrayer of the American people? The establishment have not been keeping order or protecting us, rather they are the primary authors of chaos and bloodshed in the world and our greatest obstacle to long-term peace and prosperity. The world (without them leading it) is not that dangerous a place, people everywhere are generally good, trustworthy, and moderately orderly when left to their own devices, and conflicts that arise between them tend to be local and small-scale. Were humanity to stumble forward without the ‘guidance’ of our malevolent rulers, we’d have a more peaceful, sane, and sustainably prosperous world than we do now. As Iceland and the UK have recently shown, fearmongering around withdrawal from the globalist project and direct threats of grave consequences for their doing so and supposedly ‘blowing the system up’ all came to nothing, and both countries have become wealthier and more independent since. Sadly though, many Americans, gripped by a vague dread, are committed to staying on the establishment’s roller coaster ride to hell, no matter what alternatives emerge.
Voting for Trump might be called a crapshoot if a vote for Hillary did not mean aligning the government with the worst and darkest forces in our world. As good or bad as a Trump presidency might turn out, one could be confident things would have ultimately been worse under Hillary Clinton, or one of her near-term successors.
Whether voting in a jurisdiction as enormous as ours has any legitimate political authority at all (when democracy has for most of history been practiced at the family and small-community level) is the subject of another post (putting aside secondary questions of whether the easily compromised electronic counts in our election system are accurate, and whether candidates could be said to be chosen for us rather than by us). Ideally no one would vote next Tuesday, and the two-party charade that passes for representative democracy would lack any popular mandate and have to come to an end, but that’s also not going to happen this time around.
Here is a comparison of the two candidates on major policy issues that illustrates why Trump is far and away the better candidate:
Relationship with Federal Reserve and banks: major advantage Trump
Has called for audit of Federal Reserve, which has never been undertaken and would in all likelihood lead to major reform or abolition of the predatory, ill-conceived institution. Has not taken money from any large banks. Reforming the banking and money system is the most important political, economic, and perhaps social issue of the 21st century. Stein and Sanders have also vociferously advocated for an audit, as did Ron Paul in 2012. Since joining with career politician William Weld, Gary Johnson has remarkably wavered in his support for an audit.
Supports Federal Reserve status quo for long-term. Earns almost all money from speaking fees from large banks or bank-owned corporations. Unquestionably more beholden to banks than any candidate in US history.
Foreign Policy: major advantage Trump
Wants to restore diplomatic relations with Russia, and end isolation and economic sanctions of the nation. Has pledged to eliminate (Western-intel-manufactured-and-managed) ISIS with the help of Russia, i.e. abandon the century-long project of Western destabilization of Syria and the wider Middle East. Offered noncommittal support for Iraq War briefly (‘I guess so’) in 2002, then went back on stance in the months before the war began, calling for broad UN approval (not just Security Council-) of any invasion, which the US government never obtained. Appears to oppose interventionist foreign policy and related spending. Supports forcing foreign governments to either cover or share the cost of US military ‘protection,’ or fund their own militaries, i.e. abandoning the role of the US as global policeman. Sure, we might go to war under Trump, but it likely wouldn’t be with Syria, Russia, or China, and at least Trump doesn’t appear to be fixated on the idea of military intervention and provocation, as Hillary is. Stein, Johnson, and Sanders have adopted similar non-interventionist platforms and eschewed nation-building and the role of the US as (ostensible) righter of all wrongs.
Likens Putin to Hitler. (As Trump has noted, how can she back off those kinds of statements and negotiate with the country later? She can’t.) Continuously villainizes Russia and ‘the Russians.’ Has pledged to openly attack Syria as a first order of business or alternatively declare a no-fly zone over Syria, a foreign nation, which itself is nothing less than a direct act of war that would likely mean conflict with Syria’s chief ally, Russia. Echoes power structure’s obsession with removing democratically elected President Assad. Has promised that ‘we will attack Iran and completely obliterate them’ if a false flag attack blamed on them occurs; a real attack would be beyond insane and never happen; Iran has attacked no other nation for over 250 years. Eagerly supported wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Led propaganda offensive around non-existent Iraq WMDs in 2002 and was key figure in engineering of bipartisan support for the war. The interventionist foreign policies of Clinton, Obama, and Bush were in no way inept or misguided as Johnson and Trump have characterized them, they have been the well thought-out plan of a shadow government that runs this country and many other countries.
Note on Syria: It is clear that the West, primarily the US and UK, have only one (near-term) goal in Syria and vicinity, and that is to remove Assad from power. ISIS opposes Assad, and US has fiercely opposed Russian air strikes against ISIS targets. The US has threatened to go to war over Russia’s interruption of ISIS oil sales, the group’s primary funding mechanism. Again, the US shields ISIS’s military targets and protects their primary funding mechanism, without which they couldn’t exist. (The US tried to save face by conducting one small air strike on an ISIS oil convoy. Meanwhile convoys to Turkey continue unimpeded on a daily basis.) The US also openly funds and actively partners with Al Qaeda secessionist groups in Syria, previously our supposedly greatest global enemy, who have occupied large portions of Syrian territory, mainly around Aleppo. It is thus eminently obvious that the US is not at all interested in removing ISIS from power or fighting extremist groups, only in fracturing Syria, manufacturing a civil war there, and removing its secular, democratically elected government from power, thereby furthering its century-long mission of destabilizing the wider Middle East. A secondary but important motive for overthrowing Syria’s government is to run a Qatari-Saudi oil pipeline through Syria to Europe, which is opposed by Syria at the behest of its ally Russia, and also in the interest of protecting the country’s own oil export trade. Comparing the candidates’ platforms on Syria, Trump wants to cut off ISIS’s primary funding source, increase tactical strikes against ISIS targets, defund Al Qaeda in Syria, and to not seek to overthrow Syria’s democratic government. Hillary Clinton wants to increase support for Al Qaeda groups in Syria, preserve ISIS’s primary funding source, help overthrow the Syrian government, and generally promote instability in Syria, as she helped do in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and other nations in the region. She has also indicated that if elected she will either have the US military openly attack Syria, or commit an act of war by declaring a no-fly zone over the foreign nation, both of which could easily lead to war with Syria’s closest and strongest ally, Russia, as well as potentially with some of Russia’s chief allies, e.g. China and Iran.
Trade Policy: major advantage Trump
Seeks to improve trade balance not by instituting protectionism, but by restoring tariff and regulatory reciprocity with all nations, in particular with certain large trading partners: Mexico, China, and Southeast Asian nations. These are the so-called ‘deals’ frequently mentioned in his speeches. Non-favored partners must currently pay tariffs and face regulatory barriers, while favored ones don’t or pay much lower tariffs. Take China, where it is difficult and costly to export goods to the country, but relatively easy to import from it. Imbalanced treatment with the largest trading partners has resulted in large trade deficits and the offshoring of production. NAFTA-style managed-trade agreements like the TPP, which Trump opposes and Hillary supports, will worsen these imbalances. Trump has also pledged to institute reciprocal treatment on imports from US companies with foreign operations (effectively foreign companies whose products should be subject to normal tariffs) or their re-domiciled, ‘inverted’ foreign headquarters. Stein (and Sanders) has a similar position to Trump on trade. Johnson has toed the Washington line by pretending these artificial arrangements for offshoring and supranational corporate governance somehow represent free trade.
Has backed every ‘free trade’ deal since George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s NAFTA and CAFTA. Ardently supported and promoted both the TTIP and TPP, which will offshore profits and production respectively. Has expressed ‘dream’ of continental economic and currency union as step towards an unelected world government. Like the below tax policy, the trade policy of Clinton and her ilk has been intended to hollow out the US economy and weaken its national sovereignty.
Tax Policy: major advantage Trump
Flagship proposal is to lower federal corporate income tax rate from 39% (highest in world even before the addition of state corporate income tax) to 15%, and incentivize repatriation of offshore corporate cash with a one-time 10% tax. No one pays 39% currently except for small-to-medium-sized companies that are too small or unsophisticated to implement complex tax reduction strategies. Larger companies go through pains to attribute income as foreign in order to qualify for 10-20% tax rates in other countries, which is why there is $3-4 trillion in corporate cash currently sitting offshore. Were the US rate competitive, the money would come home and the outsourcing being done to mitigate onerous taxation would stop. Lowering the rate to 15% would increase corporate tax receipts (currently only 10% of federal budget) and grow the GDP, since most of the profits and activity currently being outsourced would remain in the US; it would not ‘add $20 trillion in debt’ as Clinton has repeatedly claimed.
Keep business tax rates highest in world (and probably raise them further). According to Clinton, we ‘tax everything that moves and doesn’t move [and should].’ I believe the 39% rate was intentionally set in place by Clinton’s ilk to eliminate the domestic competition of multi-nationals who play by different rules, and to erode US sovereignty, opening the door to global corporate government. Wants to tax ‘the rich,’ i.e. eliminate competition from moderately high earners and up-and-coming companies, not tax the super wealthy individuals and entrenched companies who control the system (including by funding Hillary) and have the means to dodge taxes altogether, regardless of what the rate is.
Immigration and ‘Travel Policy’: advantage Trump
Described some illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants as rapists, criminals, and ‘not the best.’ Has hired thousands of immigrants from these countries, who he claims were all legal. Expressed worry that some Middle Eastern refugees may be terrorists, which is unfounded since all Islam-related terrorism in the West has been staged, though a reasonable concern if one believes the US government’s own intelligence reports that consistently echo Trump’s opinion. Has pledged to deport all ‘illegal’ immigrants, which will never happen. Trump’s full body of comment on the subject concedes that he has no intention or ability to deport 12 million people. Only felons and perhaps those with standing deportation orders will be attempted to be deported. (I support the right of all people to travel and work anywhere in the world, but only when welfare and voting rights are not immediately given to immigrants, i.e. the immigration policy from the nation’s founding until the 1960s, which has no prospect of being reestablished in the near future, therefore we need to enforce the border until and unless reforms to that effect are made.) Has pandered to nativists who seek to largely ‘shut the door’ on immigration, hypocritical since all Americans except blacks and American Indians descend from immigrants. There are admittedly some immigrants in my family tree who may well have been ‘illegal,’ and there are in the background of nearly all Americans if one digs deep enough. When the Mayflower passengers landed, they too were illegally occupying lands later officially recogized as having been part of Indian nations. As for one’s legal immigrant descendants, signing a book at Ellis Island, undergoing a brief health exam, and then receiving legal admittance cannot be compared to the $10,000-15,000 in legal fees and years of bureaucracy with no certain outcome that today’s immigrants must endure. For that reason, I dislike the term illegal immigrant. All immigration is inherently lawful and ethically neutral or positive given the above conditions are met, though I avoid using the term ‘undocumented’ since it smacks of a political agenda I don’t support.
Regarding the so-called ‘Muslim ban,’ it refers to the profiling of non-American Muslim nationals at US borders, and a temporary travel ban for non-American nationals from a handful of Middle Eastern countries ‘until we figure out what’s going on,’ which I take as euphemism for ‘until Western intelligence stops funding ISIS and groups like it, destabilizing the Middle East, and staging terror in the West.’ It has never meant expelling or regulating travel of Muslim Americans. Still, the proposed ‘ban’ on foreigners from some countries is unethical and strongly misguided since all terrorist events blamed on Muslims in the West on and since 9/11, including all ISIS-related events, have been staged or faked outright. As unjust as this policy would be, it hardly overwhelms the rest of Trump’s advantages over Hillary.
On his comments on the Mexican judge who was handling his lawsuit, they were not tactful or politically prudent. Let’s be honest though: were we to hold Trump’s position on Mexican immigration and have publicly uttered his inflammatory, easily misunderstood, and arguably ill-intentioned comments about it, would we not fear some bias from a judge with two Mexican-immigrant parents? I think most of us would. It’s not something we’d expect from a politician and it undermines notions of equal treatment under the law, but it wasn’t necessarily racist as far as I’m concerned. And let’s be honest about ‘equal treatment:’ when 98% of charges end in plea deals and Hillary Clinton gets away with open-and-shut felonies, it’s clear that the federal-level justice system in this country is characterized by kept jurors and selective prosecutions and is undeserving of presumptions of sanctity or impartiality.
Supports immediate amnesty, welfare, and voting rights for all immigrants. Seeks to use uncontrolled immigration to expand dependent class of federal aid recipients that overwhelmingly supports the Democratic Party. When more immigrants arrive than jobs exist, welfare rolls are inevitably expanded, whether they consist of the immigrants themselves or displaced American workers. The Democratic Party’s (and mainstream Republican Party’s) immigration policy does not seem to be linked to the nation’s economic need for immigrants, and the market forces that governed immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries are no longer in play.
Education: major advantage Trump
Seeks to dismantle the newly created Common Core curriculum. Most public school teachers I have met dislike Common Core, and it puts your children’s education in the hands of an expanding army of federal bureaucrats acting at the behest of Bill Gates and other private ‘philanthropists’ who created the program. Teachers do the work in educating children, not the increasing number of high-paid administrators, coordinators, and vice presidents who take up half of school budgets and get paid while essential spending gets cut. Some administrators are necessary, most aren’t. Private schools operate with a small fraction of public schools’ administrative staff. Stein and Johnson also call for the abolition of Common Core.
Expand Common Core, increase ‘federal funding’ (i.e. proceeds from tax increases thrown back to begging localities as table scraps, on the condition they follow all the accompanying federal dictates) and involvement in education.
Second Amendment Rights: major advantage Trump
Supports the amendment, i.e. the non-infringement of the right to bear firearms. Would probably stop fake shootings like the Sandy Hook event (see also) from continuing (A Trump presidency is said by opponents to be insane, but what’s crazier than fake shootings and bombings?), whoever is responsible for them now.
Will likely fully support the continued perpetration of fake ‘mass casualty events’ that have happened recently in the US and some NATO countries. Contrary to recent campaign-trail lies, previous comments indicate she opposes the individual right to bear any kind of arms, and supports incremental dismantling of gun rights while a total ban is not feasible.
Civil Liberties: advantage Trump
Has not addressed the topic of unconstitutional spying. Has called for punishment of ‘Snowden’ for treason, as has Hillary. May not support staging of terror events to erode civil liberties.
Ardently supported Patriot Act and all other measures that have violated the Constitutional rights of Americans since 9/11. Requested that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange be ‘droned’ for exposing the government’s crimes and misdeeds. Is committed to continued staging of terror events to erode civil liberties.
‘Social Issues:’ Abortion, Gay Marriage, Equal Pay for Women, ‘Race Relations’:
Has variously supported and opposed partial birth abortion, otherwise supports right to all forms of abortion. Supports nationwide legalization of gay marriage. Says supports equal pay for women but hires mostly men and pays women less for same work. Policies would worsen comparatively dismal economic situation of most black Americans.
Trade, immigration, and tax policies would benefit black Americans as a group more than those of any other recent President or nominee. Prefers matters like abortion and gay marriage be left to the states, as required by the Tenth Amendment. Has only recently identified as pro-life, and is probably exaggerating stance to please base. If Roe v. Wade were overturned due to Supreme Court appointments by Trump, at least half of all states would permit abortion as they currently do, and even the most conservative states would allow it in cases of rape, incest, or risk of death of the mother. Having to travel to a neighboring state for an abortion would generally not constitute an insurmountable obstacle, and groups like Planned Parenthood could help cover the minimal costs involved if they so wished. Regarding gay marriage, even very conservative states would offer civil unions and partners’ rights for gay couples as they do now, and at least half would allow for marriage. (The Tenth Amendment was included for this reason, so that contentious issues in this realm could be left out of national-level campaign debate, allowing voters to focus on more universally applicable issues and more easily achieve common ground on them. Leaving these matters to the states would force national candidates to differentiate themselves on issues other than gay marriage, abortion, Christmas displays, etc.) Has not commented on questions of equal pay for women, but has for decades hired a much larger-than-average percentage of women for highest-level executive positions in all his companies and paid them competitive salaries.
Personal Background: major advantage Trump
Caught on tape saying he tried to sleep with a married woman when he was not married. Was recently accused of groping or unwanted kissing by nine women from the 1970s to 1990s, several of whom have been proven to be lying. Has made comments that indicate he has beauty-pageant perspective on some women, though apparently trusts women with business empire. Has gaudy style. Is not substantially indebted to any special interests. Does not abuse drugs or alcohol. Appears to be in good health. Makes politically incorrect and sometimes offensive statements, particularly towards women and illegal Hispanic immigrants, though they do not appear to reflect very strongly on actions. While it’s important to note that many of Trump’s offending statements were recorded when he wasn’t married (and in interviews with Howard Stern, which are bound to head in that direction), he can still undoubtedly be characterized as a boorish person when it comes to women. (I view his ‘grab them’ comments as theoretical boasting (to a man in his 20s), though it is the kind of talk you’d more expect to hear in a high-school or college locker room.) Taking into account all of Trump’s personal transgressions and apparent immaturity in some aspects of life, it immeasurably pales in comparison to the hardcore criminality (again, including serial murder and fraud against senior citizens, the long list of felonies she committed in office aside) of Hillary Clinton, who would be imprisoned for centuries (not running for President) if we did not have multi-tier state and federal justice systems. If you’re going to vote for Trump or Clinton and not abstain or vote third party, the two need to be considered in light of each other and not in a vacuum.
Has murdered dozens of political and personal enemies via hitmen (at least five people were killed just this past summer in apparent relation to the DNC leaks and other anti-Clinton activities), many in cooperation with Bill Clinton, who is a mass murderer in his own right (also via hitmen), absentee father of Danney Williams, and serial rapist. Is a serial philanderer (in a sham political marriage) with women and men (according to numerous pieces of testimony by Bill Clinton, as well as testimony of others) including Webb Hubbell. Disdains Americans who are not part of the international political or economic elite. Described by several security agents as an extremely abusive person with a furious and unpredictable temper; assignment to her detail is widely reported to be the harshest possible punishment for officers in the Secret Service. Reported to be prolific cocaine user, which fits characterization by others of temper and personality. Conned dozens of senior citizens of their homes in the Whitewater scheme. Flagrantly committed insider trading to earn initial wealth. Earns tens of millions of dollars per year giving speeches to banks and large corporations she will surely be indebted to if elected. Suffers from seizures and has major neurological problems, stumbles and faints repeatedly, needs help to climb one step, disappears for days on end apparently to rest. Lies to the public about having all of these health issues.
Ending this on the above note, some are worried that a personality like Trump’s in America’s highest office would hurt our global image. But what about the horrible reality of Hillary, misconceptions and denial about who she is (held by a rapidly decreasing minority) aside? I’d rather be ‘represented’ by Trump, though I don’t accept the notion that he is representing me at all. He is simply temporarily holding a political office, which is supposed to be ‘presiding’ over Congress. Does anyone really think David Cameron represented Britons, or Merkel represents Germans? At the end of the day, we represent ourselves. If Trump is elected, be like yourself and not him in your daily life, and you will do your small part in dispelling any illusions about who you and other Americans are.