Skip to main content

Voting anti-establishment doesn't always bring positive change

The only argument I can understand as to why some people still insist on voting for Donald Trump is out of protest. That's it. They see the man as an outsider to the federal government (which isn't entirely true), are angry at the government, and want to see a big shake-up by providing a couple of middle fingers to this nation's capital. In saying that, however, while I can understand these individuals' feelings on the matter, allow me to just say that the "anti-establishment" candidate isn't always the "change-for-the-better" candidate.

Let's think about this for a moment here. With Hillary Clinton, we basically know what she's going to bring to the table as president. Yes, with some slight differentiation, she will bring to Washington a third Obama term. Is that really so bad, though? Under President Obama, we've gone from losing 800,000 jobs a month to regularly gaining 200,000+ jobs per month. We've gone from a large percentage of people without health insurance to a record low percentage of people void of healthcare. We've gone from stagnant wages and increased poverty to increases in wages and decreases in poverty (since 2014). We've gone from a housing crisis to a housing shortage due to how quickly they're selling. We've gone from a war-first and highly-disrespected country to a diplomacy-first and more-respected country. Stocks are up. Equality is improving, especially in the LGBT community. We've attained greater awareness with regard to several causes: Discrimination, police brutality, the criminal justice system, drug reform, global warming, gun violence, etc. So, really, would another 4 such years be THAT bad?

On the other side of the aisle is Donald Trump - a wild card if there ever was one. Sure, he might cast himself as an "outsider," as the "anti-establishment" candidate, but what specifically comes with those labels? The problem is we don't really know. The man has no voting record as a senator or congressman to which we can refer for some guidance on where he's likely to take this nation. He's changed party affiliations more times than he's swapped wives. The man contradicts himself more than Death Valley sees high temperatures in the summer months. Trump's so-called strength - his business record - is spotty at best. So how on earth are we to know what he'll propose if he's elected president, and how is that a good thing? While I can see unpredictability being an occasional positive in a relationship - to maintain some level of excitement which tends to fade with time, I have a difficult time seeing that as a positive when it comes to the leader of the free world. When I vote for a president, I'm voting for him/her because, based on what I've heard/read/researched/thought about, I feel they're the best person for the job in leading this country forward; I'm not voting for them as a flip of the coin, saying, "Heads they'll make America great again; tails they'll destroy the world. I'm willing to take that chance." Do we really want to take that kind of chance with not only our futures, but our children's futures?

If this were a job interview, who would you honestly want to hire? A person with 30+ years experience; a reputation for working with all people; someone who possesses an even temperament; an individual known for a good work ethic, excellent listening skills, and impeccable preparedness; or a person with no experience; someone who often loses their cool (and rather quickly); and someone not known for their work ethic, listening, or preparation? The former, of course. Based on Donald Trump's words, the following is very possible if he wins the November 8th election: 1) Roe v. Wade gets overturned and women lose reproductive rights in the process; 2) Obergefell gets overturned and LGBT couples lose their marriage rights as a result; 3) The Affordable Care Act gets repealed and 20+ million people are again without health insurance; 4) Financial regulations are gutted and we leave ourselves more prone to another recession; 5) We go back to being a war-first country; 6) Citizens United has no shot at being overturned and we continue trending toward an oligarchy; 7) Gun violence and global warming continues being ignored; 8) Discrimination becomes further legitimized; 9) Conspiracies are given precedent over fact-checkers; etc.

I can fully understand why some people are angry at the federal government. I am too to a certain extent, namely with Congress. However, while I supported an "anti-establishment" candidate in Bernie Sanders during the primaries, I will not do so in the general election. Hillary Clinton may be the "same old, same old," but if that means four more years of what we've seen over the past 8, I'll take that any day over the unpredictability of a wild card like Donald Trump. As far as I see it, the choices are quite simple: Further job creation; further expansion of people's rights; and think first, act second (Clinton) vs. another possible recession; the regression of people's rights; and act before thinking (Trump). While I can understand wanting an anti-establishment candidate to be elected president, Donald Trump is not that candidate. Whether we love or loathe her, Hillary Clinton is by far and away the better choice of the two. If we want to see continual progression; to see love Trump hate; and for truth to Trump fear, vote Hillary Clinton.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"