I recently read your publication of BridgeND's article entitled “This Election is too Important” and I must say that while I have read some frightfully pitiful defenses of Secretary Clinton, this meagre effort makes the French defense of the Maginot Line in 1940 look positively formidable.
The author of this article is of the opinion that Secretary Clinton's “greatest scandal seems to be moving confidential emails to her private email server” and defends Secretary Clinton by arguing “with a job as hectic as secretary of state, I cannot say I blame her for wanting to streamline her tasks and improve efficiency.” She goes on to argue that it is reasonable for a former first lady, senator and secretary of state to “not fully understand the pitfalls of their technology” because after all it’s “the same crime of which many people’s parents are guilty.”
This is nothing more than a heaving pile of totally nonsensical balderdash. Except balderdash doesn’t result in Americans coming home in body bags. What the author neglects in her flippancy is that Secretary Clinton’s use of an unsecured private server put American national security and lives at risk, a crime for which the “many parents” of whom she spoke would be thrown in jail. What’s more, there actually are military members who have been demoted, fined and even imprisoned for this crime. The name Petraeus springs to mind. Even by her own words, she puts forth an argument supporting the notion that the former secretary should be behind bars as gross negligence is a crime in this instance, and it would appear that the secretary did “not fully understand the pitfalls” of a private server. I must apologize to the author for my indecorous bluntness, particularly in print, but it was her job to understand.
It should also be mentioned that at no point in her article does the author mention a single policy position put forward by Secretary Clinton. Given that she described this election as “too important,” one would hope that there would have been at least a modicum of policy analysis in an effort to swing the vote towards the secretary. Instead the focus is on persona, and even then there is no mention of the myriad of health problems rendering Secretary Clinton literally unfit for office.
The reason for this is simple: The policy positions put forward by Mr. Trump are vastly superior to those put forward by Secretary Clinton. While Mr. Trump would put this country on the path to energy independence and end the eco-socialistic war on coal instigated by this Democratic administration, Secretary Clinton vowed to double down and shamefully proclaimed to the harpies surrounding her that she would “put coal miners out of business.” Mr. Trump would protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms while Secretary Clinton would seek to write this amendment out of existence. Mr. Trump would construct trade deals that put the American worker first, while Secretary Clinton would continue to use the government of this country to construct trade deals that would advance the interests of those who donated to her “foundation.”
Need I continue? Mr. Trump would lower your taxes (because he believes in the radical idea that people should keep more of the money they earn, quelle horreur!) while Secretary Clinton would raise them to fund yet more government intervention into the economy, expanding the fraudulent waste that has come to define the Obama budgets. Mr. Trump would secure the border, while Secretary Clinton would continue to allow the influx of illegal immigrants to drive down the wages of the working American. The list goes on.
The author is correct that Donald “J.” Trump is a “Jackass,” and I would actually go further, asserting that he is living proof that money can’t buy class. Whether it is the gauche private jets emblazoned with his name or the fact that his New York apartment is dripping in the gold of the nouveau riche, Donald Trump is indeed a jackass. He may not have been my first choice, but given the options of a “jackass” with some sound policies or an unhealthy criminal whose policies are determined by a sick notion of leftist elitism designed solely to satiate her lifelong lust for power, the choice is clear. I am not with her, I never have been with her and I never will be with her. One year ago, I would never have guessed that I would utter this phrase, but I will vote to Make America Great Again. Looking at the policies of the options available, it should hardly be considered surprising.
Dylan Stevenson
Notre Dame College Republicans, vice president
senior
Sept. 13
