Super Tuesday 2016: Choosing the Lesser of...

A Brief History

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, voters in nearly a dozen U.S. states vote in their states’ Democratic and Republican primaries to choose their parties’ candidates for the next U.S. president to replace out-going President Barack Obama.

Digging Deeper

Unfortunately, those running this year have serious flaws that ultimately make voters’ decisions a classic case of choosing the lesser of…well, “evil”, may be too harsh a term and we do not seriously think the candidates are necessarily “evil”, but they do make feeling enthusiastic about any of them quite difficult.

You may find these maps helpful for determining the likely nominees for each party:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

3. http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-primary-delegate-count/

As you can see, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders 544 to 85 in terms of delegates. Donald Trump has more than the other Republican candidates combined.

Most recently, Trump won Nevada and Clinton won South Carolina, giving them sound momentum going into Super Tuesday on March 1st. If they come out of Super Tuesday clearly ahead, it is really unlikely that they will not be their parties’ eventual nominees. If, however, they are not clear cut winners on Super Tuesday, then Sanders on the Democratic Party’s side and Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio on the Republican Party’s side could have a chance of pulling off an eventual upset.

Policy-wise, among other things, as an avid gamer, I disagree with Clinton on her video game censorship policies, but Trump has said things that are so ridiculous, he has been considered “jerk of the year” for 2015. For example, regarding U.S. military veteran John McCain, Trump said, “I like people who weren’t captured”. Say what you will about McCain’s policies as a senator (and we do not agree with many of them), he nevertheless, was tortured as a prisoner of war and did brave things during that time.

Consider the circumstances of McCain’s capture. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi. McCain fractured both arms and a leg ejecting from the aircraft, and nearly drowned when he parachuted into Trúc Bạch Lake. Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him. Given the same circumstances and injuries, would Trump (who was NOT a veteran of any war) have somehow avoided capture?

Moreover, the North Vietnamese offered McCain early release because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes, and also to show other POWs that elite prisoners were willing to be treated preferentially. McCain turned down the offer; he would only accept repatriation if every man taken in before him was released as well. And that was after McCain had been tortured!

McCain may have supported policies we disagree with (such as wanting to ban the Ultimate Fighting Championship…), but Trump attacking someone (McCain) who indeed behaved bravely in the face of torture when Trump has nothing that occurred in his life to compare with McCain’s military history is just absurd and insulting to actual veterans.

By the way, please see our favorite McCain campaigning moment:

You HAVE to watch this video!!

So, again, it is hard for us to actually feel enthusiastic about either likely candidate and these are just two of numerous examples of things we take issue with.

Then we have to consider everything they and their rivals for their respective parties’ nominations claim they want to accomplish. Sanders, for example, is getting criticism for making unrealistic claims with regards to health care reform. Of course, historically practically all U.S. presidential candidates tend to promise things, they do not or cannot (due to the other party’s congressional opposition) deliver on.

You may also wonder how the candidates treat their children. Well, as Cruz said, “Was Secretary Clinton awake or asleep when four Americans were being murdered? We don’t know to this day. We do know Hillary told her daughter Chelsea, ‘Well gosh, I knew it was a terrorist attack,’ while we were out telling the American people it wasn’t. You know, I’ll tell you, in my house, if my daughter Catherine, the 5-year-old, says something she knows to be false, she gets a spanking. Well, in America, the voters have a way of administering a spanking.” Cruz, who may not even be eligible to be president due to his foreign birth, received criticism for this comment regarding Clinton. Nevertheless, fun fact, according to Spanking Facts & Research, “In the book, Bill & Hillary, it was mentioned that Hillary`s strict father, Hugh Rodham, would frequently administer Corporal Punishment to his daughter. The book also states that Hillary could expect a spanking from her father when he arrived home from work if she`d misbehaved at school, he would say: ‘if you get in trouble at school, you get in trouble at home’.” Contributors to the same site, also claim that “it was mentioned on the Donahue show that Chelsea`s mother Hillary spanked her when she was seven years old” and that “Chelsea was spanked by her parents at home up to the age of 17.”

While Hillary Clinton does appear to have some child rearing skills (we are not aware of anything major she has done wrong by Chelsea), Hillary Clinton has an apparent lack of understanding about gun violence and the cause and effect of guns and gun laws on crime. She and others have consistently advocated for measures that control, punish and limit the rights of law abiding gun owners, while ignoring those steps needed to actually punish and limit criminals.

Despite constant calls for the outlawing and confiscation of “assault weapons” (a term totally misunderstood by these non-gun savvy people), the fact that literally tens of millions of these semi-automatic military looking guns have flooded the market in the past 25 years with no rise in crime, murder, or the use of these weapons in crimes.

In fact, it is the misguided “gun control” efforts of otherwise fine people such as President Obama and President and Mrs. Clinton that has triggered an incredible buying frenzy of guns and ammunition in the US.

Calls to increase background checks for each and every sale or transfer of each and every gun mean by necessity that every single gun in the US has to be registered and records kept of all these transfers. Fathers passing guns to their children would require such reporting, to microscopic potential good. Seriously, criminals do not obey the law, that is why they are criminals! These goofy laws leave the rest of us with ponderous and onerous bureaucracy to deal with, and that costs tax money.

What about taxing guns and ammunition severely to limit their purchase? This arrangement results in only wealthy people and criminals able to acquire firearms, and normal law abiding people unable to engage in hunting and shooting sports, let alone self defense. That does not sound morally correct or constitutional.

Gun free zones? Criminals call them target rich opportunities with little chance of the criminal himself being shot or stopped before he can kill or rob as many people as possible. Studies prove the more honest people that have guns, the lower the crime rate because crime becomes a risky business, a reality, not a theory. Otherwise, how could the Anti-gun crowd explain the long slide in numbers and rate of violent crime and murder in spite of the greatest amount of gun sales in history?

The Founding Fathers made themselves clear in writings other than the wording in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers among other works. Thomas Jefferson himself clearly stated that he though it essential that the military never have more firepower than the public at large. The Founding Fathers did not know about machine guns and bazookas? No, but they were specifically referring to military weapons at the time, not hunting and target shooting guns. They wrote in the context of a Europe that did not trust their common citizens with guns.

For some unknown reason the Federal government is hesitant to prosecute felons for attempting to purchase a gun when they are caught by the background check requirement. Why not? Certainly this step would be a good place to start controlling illegal guns instead of the legal ones. Another positive step would be improved mental health methods and facilities in this great country, as these are sorely lacking.

Finally, what about the issue of civil liability of gun manufacturers and dealers? Should they be sued and ruined because a criminal uses their product illegally? Incredibly, Hillary Clinton thinks so and says she will make this the law of the land! Does a knife manufacturer or a car maker get sued when their product is used feloniously to kill or hurt someone? Only if that product is defective, which would be the same liability for a gun maker or dealer. Come on Hillary and Barack, you are smart people and well educated, so either you choose to learn nothing about the reality of firearms and society or you are pandering to the anti-gun crowd and pretending to be ignorant. Banning guns did not reduce crime, but allowing people to carry concealed weapons with a permit has. To deny this reality is as egregious as those that deny climate change, and just as silly.

Question for students (and subscribers): Are you voting on Super Tuesday? If so, who are you voting for? Regardless, who do you think will or who do you want to win? For what it is worth, we begrudgingly endorse Trump for the Republican nomination and Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Please let us know your thoughts in the comments section below this article.

If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!

Your readership is much appreciated!