I think I get it here: irony happens when the Republican "base" is so angry, so shortsighted, so backward, and quite simply so damn dumb that they vote in the primaries for the ONLY person that will most disadvantageously lose to Hillary Clinton. With the possible exception of T Cruz, I think ANY one of the other guys had bona fides enough to win the general election this year. Trump may be rich (on paper), but he is so lacking in integrity that the ball won't bounce his way - ever again.
Hillary Clinton is the most prepared, qualified person for president in a long, long time. She's not perfect-- who is? Everyone running for anything has a few skeletons in the closet.
Shouldn't that be "Chauncey Gardner"?
I find myself nodding, nearly in agreement, with Danehy. He appears to recognize that Clinton is a seriously deeply flawed candidate who has earned the distrust of a majority of voters. And I can't argue with anyone who sees Trump, not the Republicans or conservatives in general, as a bombastic fool, an indictment of our system of selecting presidential candidates.
"People who want viable third-party candidates should come up with viable third parties." Really? We obviously do not have viable political parties (unless the term refers to sharks and cockroaches). We have two inbred mega-organizations representing the political interests of minorities of voters surviving on the largesse of the most wealthy and powerful.
How about viable (like adaptable and strong) Democrat and Republican parties as a first step? I've been around long enough to say I've never seen a presidential election offering two choices, one worse than the other, to slither from the pit and take the reins of power.
And lousy presidents.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation