I have three questions for you: 1.

  1. Is there a politician who is not a liar? One doesn’t need to place their trust in someone to cast a vote for them. It’s really more like a bet about what the candidate will do. If I bet on a horse in a race, do I need to trust the horse? Or do I just need to believe that my bet will be beneficial? It’s the same with Trump, except since I don’t know the man personally, it would only be beneficial to me if it were beneficial to the vast majority of Americans. And that’s why I’m voting for him. One doesn’t need to be a saint in order to do something beneficial for the country, in fact, in a game as dirty as politics it’s probably better not to be saintly.
  2. Trump is already the bowling ball. I just want to help send him farther. He is the only viable candidate to break from the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy in 40 years. If you’re reading a site like WIB, then you’ll know that however well/ill-intentioned our foreign policy may be, it hasn’t produced good results. Whether the rationale is neo-con or neo-lib, military interventionism has failed the American public, and also failed the world. It’s time to reevaluate, and Trump’s the only viable candidate willing to do so. He’s also the only viable candidate I’ve ever seen speak so candidly on a debate stage about corruption in politics, even going so far as to provide accounts of personal involvement. That too, is pretty bowling-baller. Worst case scenario — once elected, Trump forgets all the rhetoric that got him elected, but guess who won’t forget: The American public who voted for him, and a grudge-holding media-industrial-complex looking for any excuse to crucify the man. It’s a win/win situation.
  3. The US is in decline. It’s a part of the life-cycle of hegemony, and it’s not irreversible at this point. So there’s no reason to mourn, but it may be wise to consider a new course. That’s what this election is about. We’ve been voting in party-establishment candidates for decades, and we’ve been in decline for decades. Many voters think there may be a correlation there. America tried a relatively new and earnest political face in 2008, and he appeared to give a sincere effort for the first couple of years, in reforming washington, but the machinations of politics proved insurmountable. Maybe electing someone who DGAF might help. At this point, knowing the direction we’re headed by looking at graphs, and wondering if we can afford to squander another 8 years on failed policies of incremental change, many think it probably couldn’t hurt.
Like what you read? Give Solomon a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.