The price of "real" change

It has been six years of  President Obama and Congress attempting to outdo each other in setting fires that soon expire for lack of suitable combustible material—merely the expectoration of a lot of hot air that quickly dissipates in cold reality. It has been like trench warfare—a lot of facing off of sides, maybe lobbing over a missile or two to let the other know they are still around just in case they try to attack, only to be mowed down by a lot of heated rhetoric and running back to the safety of their battlements. 

The country seems to desire a radical change of direction. 45 percent of both Republican and Democratic voters want this change, although their aims only intersect directly on trade issues. Even the reports are that now Republicans are resigning themselves to the probability that Donald Trump will be their candidate.  This is not good news for Hillary Clinton; these voters don’t want what Hillary Clinton offers, which is neither left nor right nor anywhere, but simply a megalomaniacal acceptance in her own gender “entitlement.” If half of Bernie Sanders supporters refuse to vote for Clinton due to their intense detestation of her corrupt, unethical and unprincipled cupidity in her unbridled grasping for power and ill-gotten wealth, it is highly unlikely that Clinton can be elected no matter how many polls the Clinton News Network releases. 

Worse for Clinton is if they choose to vote for someone else, in the perhaps mistaken belief that some “tasteful” change can overcome the “distasteful”—which is generally the case with white voters, who are generally not the targets of the distasteful part. What does Clinton offer that overcomes the desire for decisive change of direction? Maintenance of the status quo, which basically is what her “realism” equates to? Or in the face of a Republican majority in Congress, it is either more trench warfare, or Clinton does what the Clintons have always done: cave in to the Republicans—or is it merely exposing their true selves—and support legislation that serves the “needs” of well-off whites, to the detriment to the low-income and minorities. Of course, Clinton might support such “liberal” causes that are part of the radical white feminist/misandrist agenda, but these have more to do with self-serving tyranny than any “progressive” impulse. 

I think Clinton must be prevented from achieving the White House, because she has no respect for law or lawful behavior, to the point being pathological. I think she has some serious psychological issues. There is no doubt that if Bill Clinton had not been elected president in 1992, both he and Hillary would have been so embroiled in and even convicted of numerous charges stemming from Whitewater and the Madison Guaranty scandals that they would never have been serious candidates for president. It is just a horrible circumstance that the preferred opportunity of achieving this, Bernie Sanders, is being lost because the media has repeatedly failed to expose Clinton’s long record of corruption, perjury and hypocrisy, supporting her merely because of gender while pretending she represents something else.