Here’s the perfect quote for today:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” – Bill Clinton, President of the United States
To be perfectly clear, the fact that Bill Clinton is the person who said it is not the point. The point is that those words were said by a Democratic President who, when his on-the-record lie and the activities relating to it were discovered, retained the full support of liberals and feminists, including the whiny-assed liberal crybabies who now believe that Trump’s off-the-record, private statements somehow disqualify him from the presidency. You can not have supported Clinton then and oppose Trump now without being a complete and total hypocrite.
A tougher nut to crack are so-called conservatives who have sided with the liberals on this. I’m not talking about people like that miserable double-crosser Paul Ryan. Politicians like him make a career out of being slime, so it’s no surprise when they live up to that expectation.
No, I mean ordinary, conservative voters who are somehow so offended by Trump’s remarks as to act as if they believe we would be better off with a criminal in the White House. So, let’s ask the question: Would we? Would we be better off with an obvious criminal as President of the United States?
There are a lot of other pointed questions I could as as well. More than I can even think of offhand, really. But here are just a few:
Would we be better off with someone in the White House whose political career wouldn’t even exist if she hadn’t married the right man, and who, amazingly, believes that this gives her the right to be this nation’s first female president? Do we actually want our first female president to be someone who so clearly does not deserve that honor?
Do we really want a President who seems to actually desire a shooting war with Russia?
Do we really want a President who’s made a career of selling her influence to the highest bidder, and who has been better at it than any other politician in history?
If elected, Clinton is going to get the chance to nominate up to five liberal justices to the Supreme Court, not to mention putting liberals in lower level federal courts. These are all lifetime appointments, virtually unimpeachable, and all of these courts have the power to override any state law that they want to. Liberal judges have demonstrated time and time again that the Constitution means whatever silly damned thing they say it means, and how dare we question their superior wisdom? The Supreme Court can even override Congress, which makes a Hillary Clinton presidency genuinely dangerous to the long-term viability of this nation as a free republic. Is that what you want?
Would we be better off with the ratification of the TPP? Do you understand how that is an infinitely more important issue than all of this made-up “Trump is a bad, bad man!” horseshit, which not one person in the press ever said anything about until his candidacy threatened to upset their pre-planned succession to the presidency?
And, as long as I’ve mentioned that, since when does the press get to decide who is president in this country, anyway, and why exactly should we allow them to get away with it? If some liberal reporters at the Washington Post had given Trump the exact same level of consideration that the press had given Bill Clinton back in the 1990’s, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. The Post released this information because they want to make sure that the American people don’t make the “wrong” choice in November. They believe that they and all the other educated liberal elites are the only people who really, truly understand what is good for this country, and the fact that they are only a small minority of the electorate is of no concern to them. They know right and wrong far, far better than us ordinary people ever will, so we better just shut up and let them decide for us, right? I ask again: Since when do liberal reporters get to decide what is right and wrong for this country? Who the hell gave them the right to do that?