Donald Trump, uncharacteristically, has recently stayed on script. He hasn’t put a foot in his mouth lately, but stuck to a populist message aimed at the Clintons as well as Bushes. Once trailing by close to 15 percent in the polls, Clinton’s lead recently was down to the low single digits.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton keeps ignoring the latest WikiLeaks embarrassments. She doesn’t respond to them. She doesn’t hold press conferences. No matter what issue is raised, she has her campaign flunkies default to criticizing Trump. It is a strategy that seems to have worked through much of the campaign. But now, toward the end of the match, it is getting long in the tooth. She is like a basketball or hockey team whose big lead is evaporating and now is hoping that the clock will run out and she’ll win, even if it is by the skin of her teeth.

But no matter what happens, nothing can change the egregious nature of this gosh awful presidential campaign. It is a campaign that has made the case for neither candidate. Rather, it has shown Americans the corruption and the win at all costs of the two big parties. They are backed by their enablers in the mainstream media, whose representatives pretend that Clinton and Trump are the only choices. It has proven that the nation desperately needs new parties. However, the two ruling parties have done their best—despite their seeming disagreements—to perpetuate this two-party tyranny. For instance, why weren’t we able to hear from the minor party candidates in any of the debates and why did mainstream media do its best to ignore them?

Who Can Debate? The People in Power Decide

Well, in the case of the debates there is a simple answer: The debate commission that runs the debates is solely comprised of democrats and republicans. And while they may not agree on a lot of things, there is one thing they certainly do: Set up criteria that makes it well-nigh impossible for the voters to hear from the third parties.

So, while we had some entertaining and, at times, idiotic debates between Clinton and Trump, we were never able to hear from the mavericks who could make us think in different ways. (And remember, J.S. Mill in “On Liberty” says the maverick serves a public purpose even when he is wrong—he forces us to think about why we believe certain things) That was our loss. But do the major presidential candidates care?

They do not.

What do Trump and Clinton care about?

Promise Her, Him, Anything and Get the Votes

They care about winning at all costs, no matter how ridiculous their behavior, no matter how dishonest their promises. (In the earliest days of the republic, this kind of promise everything campaigning was considered undignified. Today it is de rigueur. Major party candidates compete to see how low they can go.). Here are a few examples of the ridiculous.

Hillary Clinton, who is calling for a major expansion of a bloated welfare state that has run up some $20 trillion in official debt (That is with the government counting the numbers, which is tantamount to when an ethically challenged golfer keeps his own score), yet she insists that no one, save the richest of the rich, will pay higher taxes. This is more than dishonest. This a mathematical impossibility. But don’t tell that to true blue Hillary believers who are expecting their “free” college education and health services and God knows what else.

The Donald’s Numbers Don’t Add Up

But Trump is not to be outdone by Hillary Clinton’s economic moonshine.

He is calling for big tax cuts. But there’s a problem: Trump is calling for no spending cuts to finance the cuts. He won’t touch entitlements, which are taking up a bigger and bigger part of the federal government’s budget as more people live longer and fewer young people start working to pay for these welfare programs. At one time, there were a dozen workers or so paying into the flawed Social Security program for each person collecting. Today those numbers have greatly declined to about three or two to one. The system, which for many years was running a surplus, now runs in the red. This is a development that is expected to continue for many years as more people live longer. It also is a potential problem facing every advanced welfare state.

What has Trump and Hillary said about all that?


Ignoring an Issue of National Security

And how about the serious problems of radical Islamic terrorism. What are their plans to defeat that?

Neither of them has discussed this incredible problem in any detail. They’ve been too busy wallowing in the political mud to consider serious issues. Both Trump and Clinton, in different ways, have shown themselves unqualified for the presidency, yet one of them will win.

It is a shame.

 434 total views

Gregory Bresiger
Gregory Bresiger

Gregory Bresiger is an independent financial journalist from Queens, New York. His articles have appeared in publications such as Financial Planner Magazine and The New York Post.