Continued from Part I.
Richard Hanna is voting—for the other party’s candidate
Richard Hanna’s reasons for not voting for Trump have a lot to do with Trump’s ability to rally up something that resembles more of the Jerry Springer show audience rather than a presidential nominee’s gatherings. Hanna’s just not a big Springer fan, quite frankly, or of the United States becoming anything like the crowd on that show. He’s no fan of #Hillary Clinton, but he’s voting for her because she’s not Trump.
As a Congressman from New York, Hanna was one of the first in his party to speak out against Trump, feeling that Trump’s an unfit representation of his party. Come on, Mr. Hanna, there’s nothing wrong with a certain candidate having a little fun with hypocrisy, and bigotry in America, is there? Nor is it against the law to be making up fake scare tactics to insult entire ethnicities, countries or religions while having unstable emotional problems and running for the most powerful office in the world. Also, instigating one's wife to sue a paper for a defamation insult that she was an “escort” rather than a nude model or whatever her obscure job title was sure seems stable and smart. That is, if you’re crazy and don't understand our judicial process. It’s not like that paper’s insult seems more on target than any of this certain candidate's uneducated generalizations about (insert long list of minorities insulted here that this candidate forgot had the right to vote). And let’s not forget about those darn terrorists this candidate told us about--those immigrants and children of immigrants (note all Americans are basically children of immigrants, so great all-voter put down there). Sure, this candidate's political campaign has insulted a massive number of people by using uneducated generalizations and stereotypes, and that isn’t illegal at all, either. Yet. He might be setting up a precedent for a lot of lawsuits coming his way if his wife wins for defamation regarding a comment about her that seems closer to the truth than any slur coming out of this candidate's mouth. But that’s not my problem. So sue away).
Lindsey Graham said Trump would destroy us
Graham once said, “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…and we will deserve it.” However, he didn’t mention what it cost Hillary Clinton in excess of selling her soul to Satan to barter for one presidential election—because we all know her soul can’t be worth that much anymore. (She must have thrown in the Clinton Foundation paying for the Devil’s cost to rent out Hades every year and scored a bonus write off for her). After Trump made his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curio, Graham commented that Trump’s actions represented the most un-American thing he could recall since McCarthyism and the Communist witchcraft trials of the 1950s. Let's not forget Trump loves the Eisenhower era and those good ol' days before the Civil Rights Movement.
Trump’s wants us all back in the 1950s when we did such wonderful things like internment camps and separate but equal schools. (Back then, the definition of separate was the same, but “equal” was really rewritten to mean something along the lines of “we’ll make your schools so horrible you’ll never get a shot to be equal with whites in this country.”)
When I think of what makes America great (again), I think not about the Eisenhower era but how far our society has come since and still needs to go with cultural acceptance. What will make us great again in the U.S. is getting rid of racism, not capitalizing on it to stir false fear. It’s a little disappointing the past two elections are the first time in history we’ve had some variety to pick from with presidential candidates. And to clarify--I’m disappointed not because it happened, but because it should have happened sooner. It sure took the country of equality a long time to appear slightly more equal with its major leadership office, and certainly long enough to where I wouldn’t want it to go backwards. #Donald Trump #Election 2016