Liberals are falling all over themselves these days in their professed outrage over Donald Trump’s comments and actions, most of which took place decades ago. Not only liberals, but even Republicans are cutting and running from Trump after his “vulgar” language during a private conversation with Billy Bush came to light this week. But in this election, we’re forced to make a decision between two unappealing candidates and the question remains: is Trump worse than the Clintons? The answer is no.
Liberal creeps like Joe Biden are calling Trump’s statements a sexual assault, which is pretty bizarre given that Trump is running against Hillary Clinton. Has Biden and everyone else forgotten that Hillary is married to accused rapist Bill Clinton? There’s a long list of women alleging sexual assault by Bill Clinton beginning in 1969 and running up to 1993 (see here). And this doesn’t include his sexual abuse of a young White House intern in the Oval office itself. And during all of this, Hillary not only supported her pig husband, but attacked the credibility of his accusers. It was a regular tag team effort against these women – first Bill and then Hillary. Trump would seem to win on this issue.
Before this latest media derangement, liberals attacked Trump because his businesses lost over $900 million in the mid-90s, and as a result, he may not have paid income taxes for a number of years. We have to say “may” because the New York Times has no evidence, and speculated that the ability to carry the losses forward helped Trump in later years. In any event, even small businesses can carry losses forward and the policy properly recognizes that business cycles may extend beyond any one calendar year. While in the Senate, neither Clinton nor Tim Kaine attempted to change the carry-forward rule because, you know, it’s reasonable.
Speaking of the candidates’ finances, the Clintons are among the 1%, yet have created nothing of value to justify their wealth. Let’s see, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs . . . Bill and Hillary Clinton? Hah. We know the kind of value that Gates and Jobs have created (by the way, we can add Mitt Romney and even Donald Trump to the list of the rich who create value), but the Clintons clearly can’t hold a candle to any of these guys. Giving speeches doesn’t quite do it. No, the Clintons are economic parasites and the fact that firms have paid more than $200,000 for Hillary’s idiocies contains more than a whiff of corruption. So Trump seems to win on this issue also.
Although Trump wins on these two recent “character” issues, no one knows what policies he might follow as president. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he falls short of Clinton. After all, the policies of the Obama administration have succeeded in reducing economic growth in the U.S. to about 60% of the norm since 1945. Remarkably, Obama did this on the heels of a major recession where recovery should have been at double the normal growth rate. Clinton promises more of the same, even suggesting that Slick Willie will oversee the economy. So, if Hillary is elected, we probably shouldn’t be surprised when the growth rate hits zero. Hard to see how that makes her better than Trump. (And let’s not even talk about the foreign policy disaster that Clinton helped create and will continue).
Liberals celebrate the possibility that Trump’s candidacy will destroy the Republican party, but if Clinton is elected, it may be the Democrats who are destroyed. When the growth rate goes negative after three terms of liberal control of the presidency, the voters may decide that enough is enough (that is, if the arrogance and incompetence of liberals doesn’t trigger a civil war before then). The Democrats may not see the presidency again for decades. Of course, liberals are working hard to import voters to support their welfare state, but an open border policy may not be enough. The demise of liberalism is the silver lining in the repulsive prospect of a sickly Hillary and Bill Clinton getting back into the White House.