If there is one sure thing about the presidential candidates this time around it is that neither is liked very much by the voting public. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have disapproval ratings that are off the charts when compared with previous elections. It’s like each one is campaigning with a grizzly bear following them around, just waiting to attack.
It’s not hard to see why Trump is disliked by so many. He is outspoken, often verbally abusive, and has vehemently expressed views that many consider nothing but racist. Clinton, on the other hand, has not done anything in particular that would offend anybody, but has a track record of being involved in questionable incidents that create an aura of mistrust.
Perhaps Donald’s most egregious proposal in the much talked about wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Frankly, whether you are a Trump fan or not, the wall does make sense. Our country is swamped with illegal immigrants, many of whom do in fact transport dangerous drugs and horrific violence across the border. Building a wall does not prohibit Mexicans from entering the U.S. They would just have to do it legally. It’s hard to take a position against that.
No one seems to have a problem with that fact that there has been a fence along the border for decades. So one has to ask…what is the fence there for? Hmmm, seems like it’s there to protect the border. Or, more simply put, to keep people out. So how do you argue against the logic of building a wall that would do a better job of accomplishing the same? Those who are against building the wall seem to think that it’s ok to build a fence to secure our border, but not ok to build a wall for the same reason. Kinda like it’s ok to keep people out, but not really. I see nothing in Trump’s plan that is anti Mexicans. If we were being overrun by Canadians bringing drugs and violence into the U.S. he would no doubt place the wall across the northern border instead.
Trump’s other ‘racist’ idea is to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. I don’t believe he has any particular agenda against Muslims. His fight is against terrorism. If we were being threatened by fanatical religious Jews or Mongolians I’m sure his plan would be similar, it would just apply to a different ethnic group.
Clinton, on the other hand, comes with a litany of baggage that establishes her as being untrustworthy. Whitewater, Travelgate, Bengazi, and the emails come to mind. The Clinton’s were never found guilty of any wrongdoing in the Whitewater mess. Hillary’s involvement in the Travelgate scandal is still questioned. Did she really do anything wrong with regard to the Bengazi disaster? Maybe. Maybe not. And what about the email issue? At the very least she exhibited some terrible judgment. But did she do anything illegal? Maybe. Maybe not. Additionally, there are those who still wonder if there are any ties to the Clintons and the ‘suicide’ of Vince Foster. And why would she accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street big wigs for a speech, but refuse to let the public in on what she said to them?
The issue with Clinton is not that she has ever been found guilty of wrongdoing in any of the above. The issue is that, for many people, she just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Once upon a time there were two men going hiking in the woods. One was wearing hiking boots while the other was wearing track shoes. The hiking boots guy asked the other why he was wearing track shoes. “I want to be able to run if we encounter a bear”, he replied.
“You can’t outrun a bear”, said the boots guy. “I don’t have to outrun the bear”, came the reply. “I just have to outrun you!”
It is a sad commentary on the state of politics that with so many senators, representatives, and governors, the best candidates for president we can come up with are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But it is what it is.
The question is…which one is wearing the track shoes?