No Best Out There
This is as hard as trying to decide which of the two totally dishonest and unqualified candidates would make the worst President. The question now is how to categorize the millions of voters who enthusiastically support either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
What best describes them? Are they gullible, naive, innocent. inexperienced, born yesterday, easily deceived, easily taken in, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, ingenuous, unworldly, green, lacking of street smarts, or just wet behind the ears?
How can one believe the Obama Administration story about the four American prisoners who were allowed to leave Iran after 400 million dollars worth of untraceable foreign currency were delivered in an unmarked airplane. President Obama explained that it was pure coincidence that the evacuation plane lifted off simultaneously with the money plane landing at the same airport.
According to the White House spokesperson, no ransom was involved. Are those who believe this fairy tale gullible or naive, or were they just born yesterday?
Oddly, a few days later President Obama endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
Even more odd, a few days after that endorsement, FBI Director James Comey read a list of misdeeds by Hillary Clinton while serving as Secretary of State but concluded that none of the misdeeds rose to the level of criminal conduct.
The meeting of Bill Clinton with the Attorney General, the endorsement of the President, and the conclusion that Hillary Clinton would not face criminal charges are just pure coincidences. Right?
Then there are Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton. According to Hillary, they were dead broke when they left the White House. Now, just eight short years later, they are worth 150 million dollars. During that run, the only full time employment by either Hillary or Bill was Hillary’s four years as Secretary of State.
But, Hey! these are honest, honorable people. Or so millions of voters believe. Should those believers be called a little naive or maybe inexperienced green horns?
Hanging over that 150 million dollar estate is another multi-million dollar Clinton Foundation. A substantial portion of that bank roll came from foreign nations seeking favor with Secretary of State Clinton.
Oddly, there is never a discussion of what percentage of the donated dollars goes for “administration” and how many of the Clinton family and close friends administer the funds.
The great news here, though, is there was no pay for play. That has to be true, because the Clintons assure you that’s the way it was.
Were the believers of this charade just born yesterday or are they just uncontrollably in love with the Clintons?
Let’s not leave Trump out. What’s the best description of those who believe that he is not a bigot? His claim that an American born Mexican judge cannot be fair in the case involving his fraudulent Trump University must be just an acknowledged fact that all Mexicans hate Trump because he says he will build a wall over the entire border with Mexico.
Those who agree with Trump about the impartiality of the Mexican heritage judge are also eagerly awaiting the start of that wall. The members of this camp illustrate their own inexperienced, impressionable knowledge of the federal government. Massive construction projects of that kind require Congressional approval through appropriations.
Oh, just forgot. Trump is going to make Mexico pay for the wall. How?
Believing that Trump is a nice, smart man when not in front of a camera requires the same kind of naiveté that supports a belief that Hillary Clinton is not a tyrant who believes she is above the law when she is not on the campaign trail.
There are, however, two sides to this coin.
There are millions of voters on one side of the coin who believe anything and every word that comes out of a politician’s mouth. The other side of the coin features the politicians who recognize the gullibility of that huge block of voters and are more than willing to exploit it.
So here’s the perspective.
This is a selected, abbreviated description of the pablum fed to voters by politicians past and present.
The most disturbing thing about this brief list of “coincidences,” however, is the millions of voters who are gullible or naive enough to believe that they are really just that--coincidences.
Those voters will be going to the polls in full agreement with the fairy tales told by their favorite politicians.
This gullibility is what brought us the nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way that discerning voters can put this derailed train back on the tracks.
Today, it is even hard to hope for the best. There seems to be no best out there.
enough
