"Moral Considerations"??

Yah, MORAL considerations vis-a-vis this damn election.

I've had three Stages of Trump.  The first was along the lines of "Huh?  He's a TV twit with bad hair!  You're kidding, right?" 

The second was "The guy has some interesting things to say, but he says them very badly." 

The third was "NEVER THIS IDIOT!!"  You remember:  'judges write laws', 'those NRA people' (not 'we'), the crass (look up the word!) braggadocio, the serial-monogamy stuff, the mouth-and-brain-in-gutter stuff....we could go on.

Yah, well. 

Now it's possible that I'm in the fourth stage:  "It can NOT be Hillary."

Most of you do not remember the size of the original American Spectator, but I was reading it when it was about 12" X 18" and still headquartered in Indiana.  They ran a multi-part, exhaustive, series on Bill and Hill.  There are some differences between those two and La Cosa Nostra, but not many.  Actually, La Cosa members might be insulted to read that, so I'll ameliorate it a bit:  La Cosa Nostra was not into baby-killing and they did not dare to dream with the avarice of Hillary and Bill.  That's only possible when the US Armed Forces, the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS are at your disposal as was (and is) the case with the Clintons.

But given all that, Bill Clinton was a damn good politician.  He knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em (except with women). 

Hillary, on the other hand, has zero political smarts.  Outer space is warmer and angry cobras are more empathetic.  She will never fold 'em; she'll simply Schmeiss her opponents (look that up, too.)  And the courts will find it to be legal.

There's something else:  the last four years of Bush and all eight of Obozo separate the 'good old days' of Bill Clinton-ism from today.  The State has grown exponentially due to those two.  SCOTUS is completely out of control; Earl Warren and John Kennedy would be puking blood at what the courts and the Presidency have become.  (What remains of the Mafia is green with envy.)  Finally--and even more frightening, if that's possible--Hillary would love to have a war with Russia.  Wars always increase the power of the President, even without a declaration of martial law.  Ask George Bush, or FDR.

Trump has no cohesive plan for anything, of course.  He's a 'transaction' guy, buying today what he'll sell tomorrow and maybe he'll buy it back in a few years, too.  There is no linear progression to his plans, and no principled foundation to the man, nor what he will do as President.  The worst part of a 'deal-maker' President is that he's 'dealing' with your money (and your country).  But that's offset by the fact that no matter who has a majority in whichever house of Congress, Trump will ALWAYS have opposition.  He'll be pushed and/or forced to play nice, at least some of the time.

It will be a tumultuous four years and--frankly--if nothing happens in DC, that's a win compared to what HRC will do, which is anything to get what she wants.  And she can do it to you, your family, and your friends just like she did it to our men in Benghazi.  With a smile, eyeballs jumping from their sockets and coughing uncontrollably like any proper witch.

So, morals. 

If I know that an HRC Presidency will take the country into oblivion with odds of 4 to 1, (a reasonable bet), and I know that a Trump Presidency will take the country into oblivion with odds of 50/50, (also reasonable), which is the better choice?

First, a word from Gelernter:

...A vote for anyone [other than Trump] or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump. It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced....(HT:  RenMan)

How about "all of the above," Mr. G.?

I'm not done yet.

The forces who find it convenient to have the President of the U.S. cornered, or in their pocket, will not disappear with the election of Trump.  They will simply put on different faces and clothing and find the weakness (with Obozo, it was streaming from every pore.)  If you haven't read "A Man in Full" by Tom Wolfe, you should read it now, because Wolfe laid it out plain.  Theirs is a long game, and Trump's is a short one--which is what I meant by 'transactional.'  Thus, it is even more important to get many more men like Cruz, Lee, and Jordan into Congress, with the fervent hope that they will hold their ground and prevent disaster. 

For Trump is really a disaster-in-waiting.  HRC is disaster-now.  It's like the Army's gas warfare:  CN, or CS.  (Cry now/Cry sooner.)

Your choice!