Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump

I read the most absurd opinion piece yesterday, written by Peggy Drexler and published by CNN (of course), entitled “The Surprising Secret to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Marriage“. It was quite possibly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read, and that is truly saying something. The point and purpose of the article was to outline how the Clinton’s marriage is the ideal modern role model for marriage, and how people can look at how they have walked through many challenges and difficult times and yet stayed together as proof that if she can keep her marriage together, then should she win the presidency the country is in capable hands.

I was literally dumbfounded as I read this. When Hillary Clinton announced she was running for president in the 2016 election cycle, the strength and example of her marriage was not something that I, nor any sane person in America, would ever have assumed would have been one of her selling points. Americans know that Bill Clinton is a chronic womanizer and has had numerous affairs on his wife. They know that women have accused him of sexual assault and even rape. And many assume that the only reason Hillary stayed with him was for her own political gain (Drexler calls people who have made that assumption “cynical”. The word “realistic” also works.) In fact, it was kind of taken as a give-in that anyone supporting Hillary for president would just kind of overlook her marriage, or not focus on it, or state that it is not a deal-breaker in their support for her. All of those are actually fine arguments to make. No one in their right mind would have thought that you would have people actually coming out with articles talking about what a wonderful marriage they have, built on love and mutual respect. For most Americans, a spouse who has committed infidelities throughout a couple’s marriage is not exemplary of what marriage should be. Having a husband who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault is not just the normal everyday challenges that most couples face. She uses the term “modern” marriage, as if that makes it any more acceptable. No, Ms. Drexler, this is not and should not be exemplary of any marriage in America, now or ever.

However, this article just further proves something that I have been saying about our society for a long time: Americans have a bad habit of forming our opinions of situations based on the people involved, and not on the actions or facts. We have a bad habit of defending the indefensible when the person committing the act is an ally, and condemning the actions when the person committing them is an adversary. The fact that so many women in America who claim to be feminists, claim to fight against “rape culture“, claim to be for women’s rights, can support and be excited about Hillary being the first woman president, and also have a positive view of Bill Clinton, is a shining example of this problem.

For the last 8 years, this has been my biggest problem with Obama’s supporters. No matter what he said, what he did, what situations in our nation or in our world came to, his proponents defended him, with only a few exceptions. His supporters have defended his unconstitutional executive orders, even though the courts have struck them down. They have defended his politicizing of our country’s tragedies, while simultaneously condemning conservatives who speak about political issues too close to a tragedy. They have defended his foreign policy, even through the rise and spread of ISIS, and the disasters that are Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria. They defended him when it took 5 entire days to order the flags in the country down to half staff after the military murders in Chattanooga, but was able to light up the white house in rainbow colors the night of the Supreme Court Gay Marriage ruling. There are even people who are still defending his “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” promise that was a complete and utter lie.

In the 2016 election cycle, this mentality has now spilled over to both sides of the aisle. This weekend Hillary Clinton was on Chris Wallace’s Sunday show and flat out said, and I quote, “Director Comey said my answers were truthful” when referring to what she told the American people about sending classified information over her unsecured email server. No, no he didn’t. In fact, he blatantly said just the opposite. But as I sit and listen to her flat out lie, once again, directly to the American people, I ask myself, “how can she get away with it?”.

The answer is this: Tomorrow, when some of the media are critical of her on her lies, she will have her people go out and spin it, and her ardent followers will believe the spin and continue to defend and justify what she said. The TRUTH is that she told a flat out lie. James Comey said the direct opposite of what she claimed. But it doesn’t matter. Her people will defend all her lies, while calling out any time Trump lies, because she is their candidate and he is not.

The strongest Trump supporters do the exact same thing. In the Michelle Fields incident, when Fields accused then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski of grabbing her roughly by the arm and pulling her away from Trump, Trump’s campaign came out and said the incident never happened, that Fields was lying and that Lewandowski never touched her. Then a video emerged showing Lewandowski grabbing Michelle Fields by the arm and pulling her away from Trump. The Trump supporters proceeded to say that Fields exaggerated the incident, that he didn’t grab her that hard and that it was hardly a situation worth filing a police report over. Ok, maybe… but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the Trump campaign flat out LIED about the incident to begin with. If you would have told most of Trump’s supporters two years ago that there was a candidate running for president in 2016 that said that George W. Bush lied to get us into Iraq, those people would have assumed it was the Democratic candidate saying that, and probably would have ridiculed that person for “blaming Bush for everything”. If you would have told most of Donald Trump’s supporters two years ago that someone running for president would have said that John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured, those people would have been infuriated. But throughout the primary, when Trump said one ridiculous thing after another, his supporters not only stuck with him, but actually defended the ridiculous things he was saying.

So many Americans are unhappy with our two choices of candidates in this election, but the truth is that it is our fault that we have come down to these two people. Americans need to stop making excuses for terrible behavior just because the person committing the act is someone we like, while simultaneously condemning the person we don’t like for their bad actions. We need to make judgments and stand up for a set standard of morals, values, and principles, and call out everyone equally for doing things that are offensive to those standards. I can respect someone who says honestly that Trump’s actions in the Michelle Fields case were out of line, that acknowledge that his campaign clearly lied, but who says that based on Trump’s policy positions, and their fear of a Hillary Clinton presidency, they will choose to support him anyway and not make that a deal breaker. I can respect someone who acknowledges Hillary Clinton is a liar and is corrupt but says they will vote for her anyway because her policies are more closely aligned with theirs. I may disagree, but I can respect that. After all, realistically, one of these two is going to be president, so our options are extremely limited. What I cannot respect, what I cannot understand, are how so many Americans can defend the bad actions of these two candidates because they are choosing to support them. No candidate is perfect, and you are not going to agree with everything a candidate says or approve of everything a candidate does. This is true. However, it seems that in today’s society, we are moving further and further away from acknowledging and calling out the candidates, even our own, for bad behavior, and moving to a point where we are defending ridiculous and sometimes even criminal behavior, just for the sake of politics.

The fact that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the two candidates we ended up with in this election cycle is a direct result of this behavior on the part of the American people. We pick a side, and defend that side at all costs, including the cost of our own values, principles, and integrity. As long as Americans engage in this practice, as long as we allow double standards to take place, as long as we have political pundits putting out spin for their candidates that Americans blindly repeat, we will continue to have terrible politicians representing us.

Hillary Clinton Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

After wasting far too much of my time arguing with a friend of a friend on Facebook about whether Hillary Clinton did anything wrong with her email situation (in which time this gentleman told me that classified markings mean nothing because he considers his address and his grandmother’s pie recipe classified…), he proceeded to tell me that I should be happy if Hillary Clinton becomes the first woman president because “I will finally be represented”. He is a liberal, so I proceeded to ask him if Donald Trump won the presidency he would be happy since he would represent him as a man. He didn’t seem to have a good answer for that one.

Liberals think that they are immune from being sexist or racist or bigoted because they are liberals. Conservatives in America are expected to watch every word we say and make sure nothing said can be remotely construed as any of these things because we will be pounced on, but liberals believe that just in the mere fact that they are liberal, they can say whatever they want and no one can challenge them on it. In this particular case, he said that it was meant as a compliment because he was commenting on her ability to be a good president. Because as a woman, we need extra compliments from men to acknowledge that a female could do the job of leading this country. The condescension is extreme, and they are shocked when they are called out on it.

For any man (or woman for that matter) who wants to say Hillary Clinton represents me simply because she is a woman, I pose the question, does every man who runs for political office represent all men in America? Do we really put all policy matters, world views, and intellectual opinions aside because we share the same biological parts? So if Leslie Van Houten decided to run for president, she would represent me and I should vote for her?

This argument is the epitome of sexism. It is, by definition, sexist. This is not me throwing out that word because I do not like someone’s political argument. To tell me that I should support someone or be happy if someone wins the presidency simply because she is a woman and I am a woman is the definition of sexist.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she has liberal/socialist policies, and I am a conservative/capitalist.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she believes it should be legal to murder babies up until birth, and I am pro-life.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she accepted donations from governments who treat women like second class citizens, and I believe women should be treated equally to men.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because her incompetence lead to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, and I think that DOES make a difference.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I believe in the right to bear arms, and she would abolish the second amendment if she could.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she has paid her female staffers less than her male staffers, and I believe that is wrong.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she supports Planned Parenthood and public funding of abortions, and I do not.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I believe that All Lives Matter.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because I do not believe we should shame and discredit rape victims.

Hillary Clinton does not represent me because she is a liar, and I am not stupid enough to fall for her lies.

The truth is that apart from our XY chromosome, Hillary Clinton and I have absolutely nothing in common. We are two people who have entirely different world views, who believe in different things for the future of our country, and who live by completely different sets of standards, morals, and principles. I would never vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe she is corrupt, incompetent, a liar, and a power-hungry, greedy, terrible person. But according to this liberal man, I should ignore all of these facts and be happy if she wins the presidency because she is a woman, and I am a woman. And the sad thing is that he is not an extreme outlier. There are many liberals in America, and liberal women, who believe that all women in America should vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Madeleine Albright believes that. She essentially said if I did not support Hillary, there is a special place in hell waiting for me. Well as a strong conservative woman with a mind of my own, I reject that notion. I do not buy into identity politics. I will support candidates for political office who I feel will be good leaders, and who will move our country in the direction I believe we should go in, regardless of their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. And I think a lot of liberals in America need to take a good hard look in the mirror to examine their own personal intolerances and bias.

Jamiel Shaw Sr - RNC 2016 - Credit: Barbara Davidson, Los Angeles Times

On the first day of the Republican National Convention, the theme and the focus was “Make America Safe Again”. In my opinion, this was a smart theme to dedicate a full day of the convention to because in truth, Americans do not feel safe. In the last month alone there have been three major terror attacks in the world, as well as two massacres of police officers. And these are just the big headline stories. These do not include the stories of police who have been attacked all over the country, or people who have been shot and killed in the inner cities. Crime in California, for example, is up 10% this year thanks to Governor Jerry Brown’s bright idea to reform the criminal justice system, which essentially just means letting bad guys out of jail early.

Let’s just put this in perspective for a moment: Our government leaders are failing miserably to keep us safe, both at home and abroad. They are letting criminals out of jail, letting anyone and everyone into the country without properly vetting them to make sure they are not gang members or terrorists, and then they are telling Americans that we need to give up our guns in order for them to protect us. And they wonder why people are so uneasy (and so unwilling to give up our guns).

One of the people who spoke yesterday at the convention was Jamiel Shaw Sr. His son was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant gang member who was a member of a gang known to target black people. His speech was powerful and emotional. Today, one of the local news stations posted an article on Facebook about his speech. And as usual, the comments section was a cesspool full of people basically calling him everything from a racist against hispanics to someone who was speaking out to profit off of his son’s death. Many of the commenters also made the not-so-intelligent and completely heartless point that this man’s speech meant that he would have rather his son been killed by a legal American.

First of all… anyone who says this man would have rather his son been killed by a legal American is either willfully missing the point or completely ignorant. I suppose both are an equal possibility. But I do believe that more people in America are choosing to be willfully ignorant every time someone stands up to present facts and evidence of a case that goes against their politics. No, this man would not have rather his son been killed by a legal resident. He would rather his son be alive. The point that he and the other two parents who spoke at the convention who lost children to illegal immigrants criminal behavior were making was that in all three of these cases, the illegals in question had rap sheets a mile long. The same was true in the Kate Steinle case. Not only should they not have been in the country in the first place, but based on their ACTIONS, they should have all been in jail or deported from our country. As in, they should have never been free to roam the streets and commit the crimes they committed that took innocent lives. But to the pro-illegal immigration side of it, this is all dismissible. To them, the fact that the people responsible for the deaths of these innocent people were not supposed to be in America in the first place is irrelevant, because people who are here legally commit crimes too.

Here is why it is relevant. We DO have crime in America committed by legal residents and citizens. And it is enough to keep the hands of our law enforcement officers very busy. We DO have people committing acts of terror who were born and raised in America, so many so that the FBI is finding it harder and harder to find and stop them. We DO have major crime in our inner cities that is claiming thousands of lives annually. We DO have jails that are overcrowded and a criminal justice system that is taxed to it’s limits. And now, thanks to the left’s war against police, we are having a harder time than ever recruiting people to actually take on the challenges of becoming law enforcement officers. We have our hands full. Why should we also take on the task of finding, prosecuting, and jailing criminals from other parts of the world? Why should we make it so easy for wanna-be terrorists to enter our country, when we do not have the power or the resources to vet them and keep track of them? Why are we ok with accepting gang members from other countries, when we are working so hard to rid our streets of gang members who were born and raised here? How can people not see that if a person is a criminal and we have the ability to keep them out of the country, therefore preventing them from even being here to commit a crime on American soil, that IS a relevant and intelligent way to help keep Americans safe? It is not racist, it is efficient.

But we ignore all of these facts. We ignore the logic and the evidence. We take a person like Jamiel Shaw Sr. and we accuse him of being bribed into having his opinion and point of view. Because a black man standing up against illegal immigration or standing for a Republican candidate cannot possibly be doing so of his own accord, his own convictions, and his own intelligence. He must be bought and paid for. He must have an ulterior motive.

The real problem here goes back to the deep divisions that we have in America, where over every single issue, people run to their respective corners every time someone challenges their point of view, instead of listening to the arguments on the other side and considering what people have to say. If you disagree with me, it cannot be because your son was killed by an illegal immigrant and you are devastated and speaking out against it. It must be because you are being bribed to say what you are saying. Never mind the fact that we throw out accusations like that without any actual evidence or proof. Evidence, facts, proof, and logical thinking are all taking a back seat in America today. Everyone is controlled by their emotions and their politics. If you are pro-open borders, then everyone who wants the rule of law enforced must be either racist or paid off. Even a man whose son was murdered. When did we get to a point in our country where no one can stop and say, “Even if I disagree with you on policy, I can understand why you are taking the position you are taking”? When did we get to a point in our country where we alone are pure in our motives, and everyone who disagrees with us must be doing so out of the worst possible intentions? I am, for example, a big proponent of the second amendment and the right for law-abiding citizens to have the means to protect ourselves. But there are many people in our society who have lost loved ones to gun violence who are a part of groups pushing for more gun control. While I can respectfully disagree with their ideas and policy suggestions, I can understand why they are taking the stances that they are taking. I can argue why I believe they are wrong in their proposed solutions, but I would never accuse them of being bought and paid for by the gun control lobbies. We can, in fact, take someone’s motives and sincerity at fact value, and believe their intentions to be good, even if we disagree with them. That is something that is, in fact, possible to do.

We will never bridge the divides in our country or solve any problems as long as we have the attitude that if you disagree with me, your motives must be ingenuous. We will never make any improvements in our society if every time we disagree, we shout unfounded accusations, shout racism or sexism or bigotry. Those responses are the easy way out. It gets us out of having to do the real work of listening and finding solutions, especially if those solutions are difficult ones.


I'm Just an American
I’m Just An American - RNC 2020 In Review

This episode we talk about the Republican national convention and the media’s reaction to the speeches and tone that were presented.

Listen on your favorite podcast app:

#RNC2020 #RNC #DonaldTrump #TrumpPence2020 #Trump2020