In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Planet on the Ballot," Paul Krugman begins by observing:
"We now have a pretty good idea who will be on the ballot in November: Hillary Clinton, almost surely (after the South Carolina blowout, prediction markets give her a 96 percent probability of securing her party’s nomination), and Donald Trump, with high likelihood (currently 80 percent probability on the markets). But even if there’s a stunning upset in what’s left of the primaries, we already know very well what will be at stake — namely, the fate of the planet."
The probability of Hillary winning the Democratic nomination is 96 percent? Oh really? Doesn't it depend on whether or not the FBI recommends indicting her? True, there are those who would vote for her even if she was convicted.
The probability of Trump winning the Republican nomination is now 80 percent? Does this take into account his failure to repudiate David Duke's endorsement? In fact, there are those who don't care if Trump has the support of the KKK.
Save the planet? Both Hillary and Donald are guilty of making excessive use of private jets, which poison the environment with carbon emissions. They both "stink" on the environmental issue.
My fervent wish is that Donald goes back to hosting reality shows and Hillary returns to giving speeches to financial institutions, provided they are still willing to pay her if she is no longer a presidential aspirant.
But if worse comes to worst and there is no third party candidate, Hillary's election merely spells the end of the rule of law in America. Also, her foreign policy recommendations as secretary of state were tragic. The alternative? I cannot even begin to imagine allowing Trump's index finger anywhere near the launch button of America's nuclear arsenal. Yes, there is someone worse than Hillary.
No comments:
Post a Comment