What if everything printed this year about Donald J. Trump was 100% true, yet Hillary Clinton still wound up being the greater evil?
What then America?
If the American people are to purchase a product, then do they not have a right to know just how much lesser this "evil" actually weighs versus the name brand?
Like those seasonal Cadbury Cream Eggs that old familiar product has returned to the shelves: lesser evil, with more fat and toxins this year than ever. This repackaged, re-branded item is what many Americans claim to want every four years, the only thing they ever want or care about politically, and they attack those who refuse to purchase it. It's rather like a Black Friday zombie frenzy descending on Walmart, but we are told by TV that this is "democracy." It's not. It's oligarchy with bread and circuses.
The so-called "lesser evil" political philosophy is the only political philosophy these people seem to comprehend, but the core of the concept is overlooked. Their candidate of choice will admittedly commit evil acts. Do they not want to know what this alleged lesser evil entails?
Seems like self-deception is intrinsic to supporting this little house of cards. Perhaps if the phrase was amended to "evil but possibly lesser," which is in fact more accurate, the public would spend a few seconds thinking about it when these Novembers inevitably roll around.
Is a nuclear holocaust "evil?"
I suppose that's the crux of the debate we face today. One of those big two evil candidates has repeatedly, and irrationally, tried to provoke hostilities against nuclear-armed Russia, as part of some unstated agenda: the real agenda that has been torching the Middle East for decades. Wars of western conquest, which turned millions into hamburger, didn't just happen by themselves. Certain interests wanted to dismantle the oil-rich nations that considered themselves independent of Washington and the EU. The chaos of failed states was preferred to organized regimes that could form an independent bloc or fight back in any way.
According to Hillary R. Clinton, we should all be frothing at the Russians, and at Vladimir Putin for some set of vague claims without the substance that evidence would provide. Hillary and the Democratic National Committee were caught bloody-handed stealing the 2016 Democratic Party primary election from Bernie Sanders. Fraud. The only response she has mustered is the single word "Putin." Yeah, sure: Putin did it. Repeated so often the word has lost all meaning here in the states, but abroad these quite undiplomatic slights do not pass unnoticed.
The Russians unveiled their next generation ICBM, "Satan 2," capable of wiping out the central east coast of America, or all of France, or the UK, or most of California. You get the idea, but does Hillary Clinton?
She insists on a "no-fly zone" in Syria, which the Russian military has already imposed against the invading US coalition , the one which has been arming and funding multiple armies of mass-murdering terrorists!
Clinton privately told Goldman Sachs:
"They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk you're going to kill a lot of Syrians... So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."
In the name of protecting civilians HRC wants to kill a lot of civilians and attack Russian-supplied air defense systems, and Russian military personnel of course. The fraud that Hillary Clinton and the interests she represents care in any way about dead Syrian civilians is laughable on its face. US foreign policy has never, ever been based upon protecting the lives of foreign nobodies. To believe such a fairy tale would require complete, absolute historical ignorance. But then again we're talking about the American public.