Clinton and Trump are not equally bad, period
To say that voting in this election is choosing from two evils is foolish, and here’s why
Hillary Clinton is not dangerous. What makes people believe so are the politically-motivated inflations of her shortcomings.
Iread a comic strip the other day. In it, one character asks another, “Do you want to microwave this baby or blend it?” while holding up an infant. The response is “neither,” and the inquirer follows up with, “Dude, throwing away your vote is not cool.”
This mentality exists in the minds of students at HHS as well. Last week, I overheard, “Voting in 2016 is like choosing between cancer or AIDS.”
Hillary Clinton is not dangerous. What makes people believe so are the politically-motivated exaggerations of her shortcomings.
For years, Clinton has been the subject of exaggerated controversy and a relentless crowd seeking the downfall of her reputation. She’s been investigated by multiple groups including the FBI, all of which found no evidence of wrongdoing by her. The nitpicking and negligence that comes with this clingy dissension are egregious and a waste of resources.
The “Hillary Clinton is a liar” mentality was first center-staged by conservative writer William Safire in his book “Blizzard of Lies” during Clinton’s Whitewater scandal, a series of investigations involving the Clintons’ involvement in a failed real estate business.
In late September, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton, citing her “intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service.”
Additionally, the board said that Clinton has “shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests.”
I understand if you believe that Clinton is not to be trusted. She accepts donations from special interests and nations that operate under principles opposite ours. She’s been involved in multiple controversies over the last couple of years, the most recent being her private email server. Her charity foundation has, in theory, served as a giant special interest program. She fails to relate to young people and appears desperate for the millennial vote.
Nevertheless, she is perseverant, experienced, brave and intelligent unlike her opponent, a man who is something much worse and someone significant more dangerous.
Throughout this campaign and his entire career as a con and a bigot, Donald Trump has been the field day of many journalists. A man who cracks jokes about his own penis and a moderator’s menstrual cycle shouldn’t be celebrated, he should be condemned.
A man with incredibly thin skin, a man with a fifth grader’s mental composure, a man who insults women, a man who belittles minorities, a man who cons those less fortunate than him out of business, and a man who may have avoided paying income tax for 18 years shouldn’t even be taken seriously, much less eulogized as a major party nominee.
I acknowledge that Trump speaks for a lot of people, that he’s not afraid to express his beliefs and that he inspires many with little. However, such a mindset neglects almost a century of social and economic progress and nationalizes its own regional view of the country.
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Trump Foundation (Donald Trump’s charity organization) had used over a quarter of a million dollars in charity money to settle lawsuits against Trump businesses. In August, the Post laid out a summary of the issues brought up against Trump in a deposition, issues consisting of falsehoods and blatant lies on business dealings claims.
In May, the New York Times ran a jaw-dropping story featuring the interviews of several women who alleged that Trump had behaved inappropriately with them (ex: groped, advanced on and/or sexually assaulted), objectified them and then bragged about doing so to the press.
Moreover, regarding the recent string of protests in Charlotte over the death of Keith Lamont Scott, Trump said that drugs could have played a major role, which is not only an insensitive degradation of the real, legitimate issues that are being protested about but also a lucid representation of Trump’s attitude toward systematic racism.
[Black lives: the fourth state of matter]
On Sept. 24, the New York Times analyzed over 30 untruths that Trump had made over the preceding week. The following day, Sept. 25, Politico released a fact check that revealed that “Trump averaged one falsehood every 3 minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks.”
So in addition to being a self-serving demagogue, an egotistical vulgarian and an insensitive misogynist, Donald Trump is also an unapologetic liar.
At one point during the campaign, Trump’s methods became so unprecedentedly outlandish that documentary filmmaker Michael Moore wrote a piece exploring the possibility that the Donald was purposefully sabotaging his own campaign.
Other Trump scandals include his ripoff college Trump University, his employment of undocumented Polish immigrants, 1970s discrimination of African Americans in his housing empire, his refusal to pay workers and contractors that worked on his casinos and hotels, his employment of undocumented models in his beauty pageants, his connection to the New York mob.
Trump’s indifference to truth and irreverent mission to serve himself are not what a presidential candidate should have. If you are thinking about voting for Trump or if you think that Hillary Clinton is just as bad as he is, consider your options here.
I’m not going to argue that Clinton’s record is pristine because it’s not. There has always been some event, some conspiracy, some inflated controversy or some accusation dragging her down and her ability to stand unwavering is what makes her the stronger candidate.
I urge to take a look at your options here.
Jill Stein is skeptical about vaccinations (Trump believes that they cause autism). Gary Johnson can’t name a single world leader. I concede that Hillary Clinton isn’t clean. She wasn’t my first choice either. But saying #ImWithHer and voting for an intelligent, experienced and courageous individual who has dedicated her life to public service is not picking the lesser of two evils, it’s choosing the greater good.
Note: If you have any questions, concerns or challenges regarding my article, feel free to comment. I’m happy to debate you in an open and respectful manner.
adviser • Oct 5, 2016 at 3:52 pm
Dear readers,
We are open to taking letters to the editor in response to this article or any other articles we have published. We gladly accept differing opinions from our writers. Please send any letters to [email protected].
– The Epitaph
Anonymous • Oct 5, 2016 at 9:48 am
You also forgot that Bush negotiated with the Libyans for disarmament. Also Obama and Clinton were the ones supporting a coup in Libya and they are doing the same in Syria. The Libyan government could have retained control of it were not for Obama and Clinton. Either way it doesn’t concern the US greatly.
Mark Lu • Oct 5, 2016 at 5:17 pm
Bush negotiated with the Libyans for disarnament regarding CHEMICAL weapons, an agreement that was inducted 2003 in the form of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the UN passed. This has nothing to do with the other hundreds of thousands of non-chemical, non-nunclear machine guns and technicals still circulated the country.
Obama did secretly authorize help for Libyan rebels and I believe that he did the right thing. Tyranny of the Libyan government should not be tolerated, especially if UN intervention did not work out in March of 2011. You can read about both here:
Obama authorizing secret help: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331]
UN Intervention failure: [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle]
Regarding your statement about Syria, Clinton did have a point. The world doesn’t like to cooperate, especially with the recent news that a US-Russia intervention plan failed in Syria. If organized Western values can’t prevent a tyrannical government from terrorizing their citizens, why not give the citizens the edge? They are the ones who want change, no? Additionally, the current refugee crisis is the result of a lack of intervention, and if the two most powerful countries in the world cannot solve it.
Are you saying that you support the Libyan government before their revolution? If so, you should totally support Trump.
Anonymous • Oct 4, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Many generals in the us military have gone to jail for doing the exact same shady nonsense with their emails as Clinton. As for Benghazi, she was the Sec of State. If the AF Qrf wanted to hit targets they would need permission from her. It was her operation. Not the government. Why is the CEO of Wells Fargo responsible for what his subordinates do
Mark Lu • Oct 4, 2016 at 9:01 pm
Okay, I’ve heard about U.S. generals being prosecuted for disclosing classified documents (ex: Chelsea Manning) but I haven’t heard of those who had gone to prison for using a private email server. The only possibility that people can even be prosecuted for classified document related issues is under the Espionage Act of 1917, which cannot be applicable to Clinton, since she didn’t release any documents to the press.
If you have links or articles I can read, I’ll definitely continue this conversation.
Basically, Clinton was careless in using a private email server without seeking permission from her superiors, but the classified documents that went through her private address were not compromised in any way. The only possibility I can think of right now was the DNC email hack (most likely by Russian hackers), which definitely was not detrimental to anyone other than Clinton herself.
Here’s the thing. Clinton didn’t commit a crime. You can read FBI reports, GOP reports, Senate investigation reports, and DOD reports across the Internet (most are public record) and you’ll find no real evidence against her.
The reason she isn’t being prosecuted isn’t because she’s an authority figure or power-mongering demagogue, it’s because she simply did nothing wrong. Was she careless? Yes. But there was no breaking of the law.
The reason why the CEO of Wells Fargo is seen as responsible for “what his subordinates [did]” is because there is a speculation that he was the one directing his subordinates. He walked away with millions of dollars, played dumb at multiple Senate hearings, and did not seem a bit apologetic on behalf of his own company. Sure, investigations aren’t complete, but the very suspicion makes him a target. I’m not saying he’s guilty, but there’s a reason why people are skeptical.
Anonymous • Oct 4, 2016 at 10:13 pm
Problem, just because the justice department deems you not guilty, it doesn’t make you right. OJ?, Robert Durst? Operation Paperclip? Are you telling me that the Nazis weren’t criminal? Going by just what the court says isn’t always a good idea. Are you telling me that Darren Wilson and the other officers cleared of charges of police brutality or violence are not guilty in the slightest degree? Because the court documents and statements say otherwise, and BLM and many other groups say otherwise as well.
Mark Lu • Oct 4, 2016 at 10:58 pm
I agree that if the Justice Department feels the need to investigate you, you’re probably somewhat guilty or have led the system to feel that you’re guilty. However, in contrast with the trials of OJ, Robert Durst, or the Nazis, the investigations of Clinton involve politics and are sometimes politically-motivated (especially now, when Hillary Clinton is running for president). And also unlike the aforementioned trials, Clinton’s investigations aren’t crystal clear or overly obscene.
Darren Wilson’s case and others similar are simply representative of the justice system’s favoritism of cops. These cannot be compared to national-scale investigations in an entirely different justice disposition.
Anonymous • Oct 4, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Another point, the ceo of wells Fargo acting dumb did the same thing Clinton did. During court hearings (publicly available videos), she doesn’t answer many questions, she pleads the fifth or plays plain dumb. She also knew that there was a militia forming. To add to the point, you don’t randomly set up mortar teams and start pouring directly accurate fire into the AO. The US marines usually have to spend a couple of spotter rounds then make corrections. What I would like to know is why were they able to set up so fast without the US being able to react. Also when there is a build up of technicals, Amy military general knows that there is going to be problems. Another point. She didn’t allow a qrf to be sent to rescue the Americans. F16s were on standby. Yet they weren’t allowed to strike
Mark Lu • Oct 4, 2016 at 11:15 pm
The CEO of Wells Fargo benefitted from the scandal and walked away scot-free, millions of dollars in hand. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, claimed responsibility and apologized to the country, probably never having a role in denying help to Bengahzi, which I will elaborate on.
The reason why mortars were set up in Benghazi was because a) the Libyan revolution that led to the whole mess of insurgents and extremists throughout the nation left a significant amount of weaponry (which the Bush administration had provided during the revolution), and b) the insurgents had a head start. They could have set up the mortars and gotten the coordinates beforehand without the CIA ever noticing.
The answer to your inquiry about technicals is in the previous paragraph.
Now, to the part that you made a mistake on. Hillary Clinton absolutely DID NOT prevent rescue from reaching Benghazi. Before J. Christopher Stevens arrived in Libya, the State Department deemed the situation “dangerous”, but Stevens decided to go anyway, because, you know, him being a good person and all.
To be honest, I don’t know why the F16s from either Monaco, Italy or the Libyan capital, Tripoli weren’t dispatched, but it was definitely not the fault of Clinton.
In the film “13 Hours”, there’s a scene showing the State Department give a “stand-down order”, which is probably what you were referring to, or something you read online. It has been found to be untrue by multiple investigations as well as a former CIA officer. The Chicago Tribune reported on this in January:
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-cia-chief-benghazi-michael-bay-13-hours-20160115-story.html]
Now that we’ve established that Clinton played no role in disrupting the incoming rescue mission to Benghazi, I’d like to address your claim that she knew that a “militia was forming.” That’s not true.
There was no organized militia that formed; the insurgents that first attacked the compound, then the covert base was an attack spiraled out of control from a demonstration. That’s what happens when a nation filled with leftover weaponry from the revolution starts protesting in front of a barely-secure diplomatic flat.
Why was there no security?
The Hill published an article shortly after the events of Benghazi that talks all about why. Previously, the GOP had voted to create massive budget cuts in embassy security, including that in Benghazi, so if you’re looking for someone to blame for the lack of security at the diplomatic outpost where four Americans were killed, you have an entire party to choose from.
[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny]
I really like your comment. It’s forced me to read more about what I believe in, but I still stand adamantly with my previously established opinion.
Thanks for your comment, it’s intelligent, it’s scrutinizing, and it’s critical. We need more of that nowadays.
Edward Zen • Oct 4, 2016 at 8:43 am
When I spoke with Miss Taiwan Railway (Taiwanese Train Mascot), she believes that Donald Trump is worst of the worst, whereas Hillary Clinton would have better relationships with Taiwan. Plus, Trump has been acting like Hitler.
Anonymous • Oct 3, 2016 at 9:05 pm
The article has a strong pro-Hillary bias. I have nothing against being pro-Hillary or pro-Trump, but an article devoted entirely to defending Hillary Clinton is not a balanced one. To many, both candidates are equally evil (not going to speak for myself). I would humbly suggest the title to be “OPINION: Why choosing between Hillary and Trump is not choosing between two evils . Why Hillary Clinton is the better candidate.” Otherwise, I see this article as extremely biased especially with the third party candidates. And yes, there are numerous crimes all candidates have committed, especially Hillary. There is a way to challenge “lesser of two evils,” but this is a terrible way to do so. The article is completely, a “Hillary for President” article, which is really skewed. Again, I have nothing against expressing views, but to say “Hillary is best” is completely different from saying “I like Hillary best.” I hope you see the other side when posting such articles.
Mark Lu • Oct 3, 2016 at 11:42 pm
I agree with you that this article doesn’t enunciate its identity of being one person’s identity but instead takes the form of a wholesome claim that may not be accepted by outside parties. However, as an opinion writer, I am free to get my point across in any that I feel is adamant and informative.
I disagree with your claim that Hillary has committed more crimes than Trump, “there are numerous crimes all candidates have committed, especially Hillary,” which is simply not true. What you should have said was “There are numerous crimes all candidates have committed, especially Trump.”
If you want more clarification, my article published here had to be cut down a lot, but there is a more lengthy and information-rich article detailing the investigations of two major Clinton scandals: Benghazi and her private email server, on my personal blog: [https://marklublog.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/clinton-and-trump-are-not-equals-period/]
My point is, Clinton doesn’t commit as many crimes as you think she does, and certainly not as many as Trump. There’s no reason why she should be indicted for criminal activity or prosecuted by anyone other than that of the GOP, and even then, investigations cost tax dollars that are going into the bin if said investigation doesn’t reach its goal.
Additionally, your claim that it would have been better to phrase this article as “I like Hillary best” is fairly condescending. In order to write an effective opinion article, you cannot simply establish that it is only your honest opinion, you must take an authoritative and steadfast stance, and then back up said stance with evidence. You cannot just say “This is just my opinion,” “I think this,” or “I don’t speak for everyone.” My job is to convince the reader, not to comment on a social media post.
I did see the other side when I wrote this article, having acknowledged her shortcomings multiple times throughout this piece.
The entire disposition of an opinion article is to take a position, a bias, if you will. I’ll concede that my article isn’t as perfect as it could be, but many of your claims are simply untrue.
Anonymous • Oct 4, 2016 at 5:35 pm
Okay, I see your point, but about third party candidates, I see you give one sentence reasons for why third party candidates are bad at the end. I personally would write about the merits and demerits of all candidates and evaluate them because proving that the competition is not about two evils is best (in my opinion) expressed by showing that all the candidates are good in many ways (and bad in many ways) and let the readers evaluate it. But that’s how I would write it. When I mentioned about saying “I like Hillary best,” I was suggesting that in your case because it did not begin as an opinion article. I am fine with anyone expressing opinions, but it did not come out that way when you started it with your title. I suggest writing “OPINION:” before your title, otherwise, it seems like you are stating your opinion as a fact, which may not come across well to many. I have no condescending intentions when I say this, I just don’t like seeing articles with a bias presented as a fact, because it’s opinion. I hope you understand. I see you also talk about how the candidates are not a waste of a vote. It’s a great idea to mention that, but make it clear that you are evaluating Hillary, rather that connecting it to her being the best choice. I hear too much about Hillary, and little about others, which comes across as narrow-minded (not judging you). This is just how I feel about the article. I hope I haven’t offended you, because that is not my intention.
Mark Lu • Oct 4, 2016 at 9:17 pm
I don’t know about being narrow-minded, most of this article is belittling Trump. He has no merits that I consider valuable unless being rich is one. He’s not a successful business man, he’s not intelligent, he’s not mature and he’s a con.
If you want more indication that this is an opinion article, perhaps regard the fact that this article is in the opinion section of The Epitaph? This honestly isn’t even presented as fact. The very fact that I used the word “I” throughout this article should tip you off that this is an opinion article. It’s my opinion, not a news story.
The reason I didn’t focus on Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is because a) they both don’t stand a chance, and b) nobody really talks/knows about them enough to utter the words, “This is like choosing between cancer or AIDS or herpes or a ringworm.” Instead, the general consensus is that “This is like choosing between [option 1] and [option 2].”
I feel like you’re confused as to why I seemingly published this as a fact article, when it’s actually in the opinion section. Thanks for commenting, and don’t worry about offending me.
Anonymous • Oct 4, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Not mentioning the third party candidates is belittling them. If they do not stand a chance, does that mean they are hardly to be mentioned? And you are saying there are no merits in Trump! Look deep enough and you’ll find merits and demerits in ALL candidates. Stop viewing things in an entirely pro-Hillary liberal bias and you’ll see that ALL candidates have good and bad ideas. Also, you do not address the people who believe that choosing a candidate is like choosing an STD. This further shows your bias. Finally, wherever you’ve learned to frame an opinion article as fact one, it does not make it a fact. Sure, it’s in the opinion section, but the problem I have is that you are placing your rant and disguising it as a research article. You are making it sound as if your opinion is the fact, which is honestly indicative of a low level or reporting. This is not a low piece of writing, but stating that is all entirely your opinion is necessary when writing opinion articles. Saying that the idea that these are two evils is foolish distracts from the point of your article, which is to criticize Trump and champion Hillary. I feel like you should mention that voting for Hillary is a good choice for those who are cynical of the election. This is what I thought of it, thanks for addressing my concerns and for sharing your opinion.
Mark Lu • Oct 4, 2016 at 10:49 pm
Give me one merit in Trump. I’ll debunk it.
I’m not viewing this election on a pro-Hillary “liberal bias”. Why make it all about partisanship? I’m not favoring Clinton simply because she’s liberal, I favor her because she is simply the more qualified candidate out of all four.
I never said that by framing an opinion as fact, I make it a fact. That’s not true. I’m allowed to say, “I did the research, and here is my opinion based on said research.”
By criticizing Trump and championing Hillary, I’m effectively ANSWERING the question I posed, which was the predicament of people considering both options for the presidency to be equally detrimental. That’s the entire point of the article.
I’m not going to deny that this is a rant, but I did do my research, in fact, two weeks of it. Don’t belittle my article by implying that I didn’t effectively study what I have an opinion on.
The third party candidates are not what this article focuses on. Read my previous comment on this thread for clarification. This article is addressing the concerns that people have regarding the two major party nominees by proving that one side is better than the other.
Anonymous • Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm
The partisanship is quite evident in your article. Your way of addressing focuses on Hillary being the better candidate, but that is not an established fact, it is just your opinion. I just disagree your way of showing that the election is not about 2 evils. I just believe that the better way to prove it is to show the merits of ALL candidates. If your opinion is grounded solidly on “Hillary is best” and “There are no merits in Trump,” I am disappointed because even as someone who doesn’t like Trump can find merits in him, same with Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. I will disclose that I’m critical of all the candidates and disappointed about the election, and I see your article as trying to convince people like me that Hillary is the best and others suck. There is no doubt that you are viewing the election in a pro-Hillary liberal bias. If you were to truly prove that saying the election is not of 2 evils, you would mention that all of the candidates have a positive vision, which differ. With that, you would mention negative aspects in a balanced way. I see the “balanced” aspect in your article missing. I’m not saying that you did not do research, but your research is extremely one-sided, which I see is not a good thing.