Trump vs Clinton: Choosing Between Political Correctness And The Truth

AS THE RACE to find the 45th US President enters the final stretch, it looks increasingly likely America — and the world — will be lumbered with the most unfit candidate to ever hold the office. A Hillary Clinton presidency is not and will not be a triumph, but a disaster; such an outcome is not a victory for women, but a curse upon them. In a turgid race pitting leftist fantasies of political correctness against a potty-mouth, a certain casualty is the truth.

Today’s post is as much an opportunity to “share” as an opinion piece in its own right; as we recommence the discussion in this column I’m mindful there are many issues we have missed, and with a known two-day hiatus starting off the new week, I want to try to get a separate piece up in time for Monday morning readers in addition to this one.

But the electoral contest playing out in the United States offers perhaps the most uninspiring choice of candidates ever seen at arguably the most important US election since Dwight Eisenhower triumphed in 1950, if ever; this election actually matters — not just to the USA, but to the rest of the world — and has become, like everything Hillary Clinton touches, a filthy slugfest between an allegedly rotten enemy that must be destroyed at any and all costs, and a tawdry set of “principles” to which unconvincing lipservice is paid but which are utterly disconnected from the reality of their so-called champion.

At the outset, I want to emphatically note that I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, even if the practical effect of my position could be construed as marking me out as exactly that; on the contrary, I am flatly, resolutely and implacably opposed to the Clintons — be it Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, or the army of quislings who do their bidding — and can more accurately be described as sitting in the “anyone but Hillary” cohort.

Indeed, one of the despairing laments those around me have heard over the past couple of months is that it’s a shame (an almost criminal shame) that the independent candidates in the field, and Gary Johnston in particular, do not seem to have their shit together; the imperative of barring Hillary Clinton from the Oval Office far transcends any jumped-up indiscretions on the part of Trump, but through the negligence and selective amnesia of most of the American press, the sins of the latter seem certain to pave the way for the ascension of the former: with her own, far more reprehensible track record simply skated past and ignored.

The explosive revelation some weeks ago that Donald Trump had engaged, 20 years ago, in what he described as “locker room banter” but which at root was a filthy diatribe about what he would physically like to do to women he found attractive were inappropriate, abhorrent, and distasteful in the extreme, although I should note that a) were he not a candidate for the US presidency, they would never have come out, and b) if you show me a heterosexual male who has not articulated sexual desires toward a woman at some point, however foolishly, I will show you a liar. It doesn’t make it right, or justifiable, or even tolerable in the context of the election campaign, but it should also be noted that these sentiments — tasteless or not — were nothing more than words.

Of course, the Clinton campaign has followed up the salacious and scandalising revelations by producing a stream of aggrieved women with accusations of actual sexual “misconduct” against Trump; curiously enough, every one of these accusations has died out within a few days. Some have been allowed to quietly slip when contradicted by credible third-party witnesses; others when irrefutable proof has emerged that Trump was geographically nowhere near the woman in question at the time the alleged misconduct occurred.

The strategy is simple; operating from the grimy platform of the Clintons’ own debased standards (which we will come to presently), to paint Trump as a monster not dissimilar to the former US President in their own midst.

Just because Bill Clinton is a predator and a monster in his own right does not mean Donald Trump, by extension, must also be a predator on account of the fact he has dared to range himself against the Clintons in an electoral contest.

But if you are a Clinton, this is the mentality that underpins your words and deeds; Hillary is “a champion” of women and of women’s rights, and the “agent of change” who will encourage women across America and the world to speak out about their experiences at the hands of evil men, safe in the knowledge their grievances will be believed and assured that whomever they accuse will have the living shit kicked out of them by society, public opinion, and the law.

It doesn’t matter, in the jaundiced and warped Clinton world, that their own reality could not be more disconnected from this nirvana of women’s rights and the damnation of men at the merest denunciation, however fallacious; in fact, this outlook is a heinous and unforgivable slight upon those women who really have been raped, or assaulted, or otherwise physically mistreated by men who are never brought to account.

But when you are a Clinton, such distinctions are treated with contempt, for the only thing that matters is power: and if that means using a few women as pawns, or trashing a few men guilty of nothing more than a few loose (if grotesque) words along the way, then so be it.

This brings me to an excellent video editorial by New York media identity, former prosecutor and judge, Jeanine Pirro, from her programme on Fox News three weeks ago at the height of the fallout from the initial reportage of the Trump remarks; with surgical precision (and whilst failing to excuse what Trump said in any way, shape or form), Pirro made the case — irrefutably — that far from a defender of women, Hillary Clinton is in fact a destroyer of them; far from a champion of women’s rights, Hillary Clinton is a serial malevolent whose only priority has been to further her own (and her husband’s) political agenda even if it means actively compromising the very cause she has the audacity and gall to claim, po-faced, to be the greatest advocate for that America has ever seen.

Take the few minutes to watch this, folks. It isn’t intended to exonerate Trump, but those wedded to the imbecilic notion of Hillary Clinton as a President who might add any value whatsoever to the lot of women cannot reasonably adhere to such a misguided notion after an exposition of the case against her, laid out with forensic exactitude, such as this.

(That clip is pinned to the top of my Twitter feed, and will remain there until election day in the US; I urge readers who use Twitter to visit me @theredandblue and retweet it to their followers, and to encourage them to do the same).

But more broadly, why are 300 million Americans apparently determined to select a President based on this issue at all?

With the exception of Fox News (and even then, not unilaterally), the bulk of the US press appears singularly determined to simply ignore the shocking record of the Clintons where misdemeanours against women — actual, physical, often allegedly criminal misdemeanours — are concerned.

The complete whitewash of anything remotely negative in connection to Hillary Clinton is reminiscent of the treatment given to Kevin Rudd in 2007 by the Australian press; despite “a rich seam of shit” on Rudd, as I put it to a former senior Liberal frontbencher at the time and which was later validated by events more thoroughly than any of us hoped or believed, the media in Australia had simply decided who they wanted to win that year’s election and proceeded, blindly and unthinkingly, on that basis. The same phenomenon is in evidence in America today.

And without putting too fine a point on it, this election matters, for reasons that far transcend issues of women’s rights and the politically correct railings against an indisputed potty mouth with an apparent penchant for talking dirty.

The warnings by 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney about the resurgent threat posed to the United States by Vladimir Putin’s Russia have proven disturbingly correct, so much so that the very real prospect of nuclear conflict over Syria, or over any move by Russian forces into the disputed Baltic states, is now growing; eight years of abjectly pathetic Democratic management of foreign affairs have signalled a weakening of American prestige and resolve on the world stage, with Iran widely perceived to have walked all over Barack Obama in striking a deal on nuclear security that left it open to developing nuclear weapons, and with a plethora of other international flashpoints — North Korea, Syria, and the scourge of Islamic State — seemingly beyond the capacity of the Americans to deal with.

Domestically, the US faces intransigent challenges in healthcare, immigration, crime, the moribund state of its economy, and the haemorrhaging federal budget: all issues for which Clinton has exhibited a cavalier disregard.

And Clinton’s own record — with unresolved allegations of criminality over her misuse of classified emails, Benghazi, and the supposedly charitable Clinton Foundation, amongst others — is seemingly being overlooked by the mainstream media altogether.

It is instructive to note that Wikileaks — curiously, looking as if it wants to torpedo Clinton — has been unearthing an avalanche of damning evidence against Clinton that is failing to register with American voters, presumably because the mainstream press simply isn’t interested.

But what is equally telling is that the Clinton camp and its adherents — who in the past lauded Wikileaks as a “hero” whenever it took aim at George Bush, or John Howard, or Stephen Harper, or a swathe of other Right-of-Centre leaders — is now letting it be known that the document leaking portal is “a disgrace.”

I don’t resile from my long-held view that Wikileaks is nothing more than a criminal outfit: a front for the commission of treason, sedition, and other violations of the national security of sovereign states. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and the only thing protecting Clinton is the apathy of the press, which is relentless in striving to achieve her election as President.

In an ideal world, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and even the independent candidates on the ballot who seem incapable of capitalising on the horrendous choice provided by the major parties would all be absent from this contest; it is the most lacklustre field in living memory, and makes the likes of Barry Goldwater and Walter Mondale appear positively statesmanlike by comparison.

And in a final demonstration of the contemptible double standards of the Clintons, their “outrage” at suggestions by Trump that he “might not accept” the election result if Hillary wins warrants a look no further than the behaviour of the Al Gore campaign — aided and egged on by the Clintons — when it dragged the USA through a protracted legal dispute that lasted for weeks when George W. Bush narrowly triumphed in 2000.

Yet whoever emerges, the tragic casualty is likely to be the truth: and if Clinton is elected, the USA and the rest of the world will soon regret the day she was ever selected by her party to run against Trump, let alone handed the keys to the White House.

Trump may have proven little better than a filthy gnome during this campaign, but that pales in comparison to the actual misdeeds of Clinton, and the genuine threat a second Clinton presidency would pose to international security and to the United States itself.

In this sense, the least worst of the available candidates is, in fact, Donald Trump: something it gives me no joy whatsoever to opine.

Yet unless an outburst of reality and commonsense quickly afflicts the American press — and the tens of millions of voters who depend on it to provide a balanced assessment of all relevant aspects of this campaign, and not just the sanitised PC blather of the Clinton junta — then a Clinton presidency is exactly what America will get.

Should it come to pass, then fair-minded and rational people the world over will have ample reason for alarm.

God help the United States of America.



4 thoughts on “Trump vs Clinton: Choosing Between Political Correctness And The Truth

  1. Just to put things in perspective
    The Unequally Terrible Election
    There seems to be a meme wandering about.
    “Both candidates are equally terrible!” it goes.
    Lotta entries there, huh?
    “Both Candidates are equally terrible!” bleats the anguished cry.
    Oh yeah?
    Let’s just examine that carefully for a moment, shall we? Hrmm.

    That’s so stupid that…
    Okay, now that I’m properly fortified against the brain death of others… let’s just take a look…

    * One Candidate is an unindicted career political criminal with a verifiable record of political and personal corruption and illicit activity stretching back more than a decade before her ascendance to her first major political position by virtue of marriage of convenience to an even more charismatic and electable political criminal.

    The other Candidate is a multi-decades long figure who’s been in the world wide media and public scrutiny for longer than some hostile media figures have been out of diapers about whom the worst that has been dug up and exposed is that he’s filed for bankruptcy a couple of times and that he once said “pussy” in a taped conversation. Oh, and he has tiny, vulgar hands, too. So there.

    * One candidate is a professional political figure who’s major accomplishment is that with the visible aid of a compliant national media from both sides of the political divide has managed to claw her way to her party’s nomination by effortlessly walking over a half a dozen lackadaisical Primary opponents that most voters have never heard of, and who barely managed to withstand a Primary challenge from a 72 year old National Socialist from her own party.

    The other Candidate is a non-politician who managed to snag his party’s Nomination by handily defeating sixteen other professional politician Primary contenders while being scoffed at by everyone from lowly voters to high profile media figures to supposedly “Right-wing” pundits and vehemently opposed by entire might of the monetary and political apparatus of his own Party. Doing so while spending a minuscule amount of finances on campaigning. Despite having apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has managed to successfully turn a prestigious Wellesley College education and a political marriage into a successful career that has netted her millions of dollars of income from political largess and monies skimmed from a visibly corrupt charity and who has somehow managed to claw her way from humble beginnings into possession of one of the largest unearned political fortunes in existence by dint of never meeting a donor she couldn’t soak for everything he was worth, and via grasping unerringly at every opportunity to squeeze a dishonest dollar from the Federal machine.

    The other Candidate managed to turn a million or so dollar parental loan and a Wharton School of Finance and Commerce education into a multi-billion dollar net worth, multiple successful businesses, a lucrative career in the public eye as a celebrity figure and television star – all in the private sector – while building successful and lucrative hotels and casinos in one of the most competitive business fields in existence. While somehow managing to find time to apparently say “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has collected and spent tons of millions of dollars in donations from wealthy donors, the banking industry, Wall Street, the DNC, various lobbying groups and PACS and Super PACS – but apparently none from her own pocket – on political ads, TV spots, and campaigning… just so that she can shrink to even up or barely ahead in the race (depending on which media sources and polls you believe.)

    The other Candidate has comparatively spent a mere pittance – most from his own pocket – on 1) defeating sixteen other politically well funded (by donors) Primary candidates, 2) managing to stay even or somewhat slightly ahead in most states ahead of his opposition, and 3) withstanding a visibly and blazingly negative media assault from both Left and nominally “Right” wing media for over a year, and on a few small commercials and billboards. Let us not forget that he also may well have said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has repeatedly demonstrated through her career a staggering level of criminal incompetency of such a magnitude that the only thing that’s kept her from being prosecuted for her private Federal level server misuse and her cavalier leak and hack prone treatment of Classified documents and information – a Federal crime that would have anyone else buried under Leavenworth in short order – is a Justice Department and FBI head that appears determined to doggedly look the other way despite any evidence that’s dropped under their noses.

    The other Candidate… apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago. Oh, and he has tiny, vulgar hands, too.

    * One candidate manages – barely – to fill an audience with a few hundred supporters at events (for relative values of “fill”) and who has become notorious for staying out of the public and media eye (and spotlight) while holding as few public events and press conferences (read: “nearly zero”), and is currently on hiatus from campaign events while discussing her non-participation in the upcoming and final Presidential Debate.

    The other Candidate holds several rallies a week in states across the United States that have an attendance of tens of thousands – with more tens of thousands turned away for lack of room, has maintained a gruelling public appearance and interview schedule since his entry into the Primary race, and constantly maintains a high profile and vastly entertaining presence on social media. He also apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate is a demonstrable and self avowed Internationalist who has never met a foreign entanglement that she didn’t like and couldn’t turn to her financial advantage, even if it kills U.S. Ambassadors in the doing.

    The other Candidate has stated an intent to return America to its former greatness, bring back American industries, curb illegal immigration, withdraw from foreign entanglements that do not further U.S. interests, and has an avowed intent to place American national interests first. Oh, and he apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has publicly stated an intent to multiply tenfold the current Administration’s Islamic refugee resettlement in the U.S. within her first year in office, and has stated openly that she intends to abolish the concept of a United States border during her administration.

    The other Candidate has stated repeatedly that he intends to call for a temporary halt on Muslim entry and immigration into this country until we can examine the situation and figure out how to deal with it, and has stated that he intends to shut our southern border and build a border wall while strengthening our Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and deport aliens (criminals) who are currently here illegally. But, while he may have called illegal immigrants “criminals”, there’s zero evidence that he ever referred to any of them as a “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate favors illegal immigrants and wants them to vote for her.

    The other Candidate marries legal immigrants and raises families and businesses with them. He also may have said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has vowed publicly and in print that she intends to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and remove privately owned guns from American hands.

    The other Candidate vows to “fully support and back up the Second Amendment.” He also apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago, but it is unknown as to whether he ever said “pussy” in conjunction with anti-Gun advocates.

    * One candidate apparently thinks that a war with Russia over Syria, Turkey, cyberspace, and the Ukraine is just a swell idea.

    The other Candidate has said openly that he thinks Vladimir Putin is a great guy and a leader and someone he can deal with to the mutual benefit of both Russia and the United States. He also has apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago, however, reportedly not in connection with Vladimir Putin. We strongly suspect that Vladimir Putin may have said “gnoyevidnyy” at some point, probably in conjunction with the word “Obama”.

    * One candidate supports the EU, and opposes Brexit.

    The other Candidate supported Brexit and prefers to promote national and American interests over supporting international organizations like the European Union. We strongly believe that there is no truth to any rumors that he once apparently called anti-Brexit voters “pussies” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate managed to expertly get a United States Ambassador killed while holding a United States Presidential Cabinet level position.

    The other Candidate has apparently never managed to get anyone killed, despite having apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago. By this point in our lives, we’re reasonably certain that as of this date, no one has ever died from hearing or reading the word “pussy”. (If we’re wrong and this essay kills you, do please email and let us know.)

    * One candidate is a lifelong professional politician, having started out in her political life at thirteen years old in Chicago before going on to marry a successful and charismatic politician and use his professional coattails to build a lucrative career as First Lady, followed by a Cabinet Position, and now very nearly to within shouting distance of the Oval Office.

    The other Candidate managed somehow to parlay a Wharton School of Business education and a starting position working for his father’s company into a successful multi-billion dollar career as an American businessman, television producer, author, politician, and the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election, while building multiple hotels, casinos, public buildings, and offices and still having somewhere found the time to have apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate had an apparent health crisis, stumbled, and possibly nearly passed out before having to be helped into her van and cancelling her visit to the 9/11 events and is rumored (by me) to have been seen sucking out the soul of a small child in order to regain her lost hit points.

    The other Candidate reputedly has a clean bill of health and has been seen publicly maintaining a grueling campaign and appearance and interview schedule that would probably kill a number of younger men. He’s also never been known to have devoured the souls of children, although he reputedly has said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate is apparently irresistible to flies, and indifferent to their presence upon her skin.

    The other Candidate apparently doesn’t produce enough bullshit to attract flies, a true rarity in a political campaign. He also reputedly may have said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago, which just goes to show that there’s no flies on the man.

    * One candidate quite possibly may have a pussy, according to unsubstantiated reports. We are told that she is remarkably lifelike under certain lighting. We are pretty certain, however, that no sane male would want to grab her by that orifice, not even Bill, who is “sane” only by the most generous definition of the word.

    The other Candidate has apparently said “that if you’re a Star, you can just grab them (women) by the pussy and they’ll (women will) let you do anything” in an interview eleven years ago – a statement that no male has ever been able to sucessfully refute, and that women are unable to prove to be empirically wrong. (We think he meant “women”. He may have been discussing grabbing pussies like Obama and Jonah Goldberg by the, ah… whatever and making them do anything, and we are still unable to either disprove or disagree with that statement.)

    * One candidate has used her public and political position to bully, intimidate, harrass, ridicule, and persecute women who have been sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted by and in some cases reputedly outright raped by a major political figure.

    The other Candidate apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate is married to Bill Clinton and has a child who may or may not be the daughter of Webb Hubbell.

    The other Candidate is married to a Supermodel and has multiple successful children from that and previous marriages, presumably all his own, despite apparently having said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago. One might be tempted to think that saying “pussy” is no barrier to getting “pussy”.

    * One candidate has a reputation for being vile to her Secret Service detail and other aides and employees.

    The other Candidate has yet to be accused of being mean to his employees in well over a year and a half of political campaigning and intense media scrutiny. He also has apparently never called any employee a “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate shames women merely by existing.

    The other Candidate once fat shamed a beauty pageant contestant that he was paying to stay slim and competitive. He also apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago.

    * One candidate has possibly never met a military veteran or hero she liked.

    The other Candidate… well, actually, he seems to have just about as high an opinion of John “War Hero” McCain as I do, so that would be a wash, except that he demonstrably does like and support the military and military vets. And he did apparently said “pussy” in an interview eleven years ago, so he’s got that going for him.

    And so on and so forth. That’s only a partial list. I could add more entries – a lot more.

    And so, I just gotta say: both Candidates are equally terrible? Seriously?

    Dafuq are you people smoking, anyway?


    And don’t even get me started on the “Trump is a spectacularly unserious Candidate!” bullshit.

    Bite my narrow Texican ass now, y’hear?

    Because Fuck You

    • I’m glad you posted it – I had seen it and went looking for it again before I published the article to add it as a link. It, too, captures my point, just as Judge Jeanine does.

      • The polls the MSM quote are manipulated, as is shown in the Wikileaks dumps.
        This one has a good track record, and shows the race currently neck and neck
        With more Wikileaks and Project Veritas yet to come, it is a mistake to jump to election conclusions.
        Witness the size of the rallies Trump is doing. (Three today) Billary could do hers in a phone booth, and she isn’t doing any more.

  2. If everyone is talking about Trump saying pussy like the media wants, nobody will be talking about Obama using fake ID to communicate with Hillary on her unsecure server. If everyone is talking about the porn star ‘assaulted’ by Trump, nobody will be talking about the Project Veritas tapes which make Watergate look like a Teddy Bear’s Picnic. If everyone is talking about Trump and pussy maybe none of them will notice that the world’s mainstream media has decided to influence the US election by not reporting but propagandising. But who cares, Trump said ‘pussy’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s