‘October surprises’ still less bad than what’s right out in the open

 

So this weekend we have before us the spectacle of the group of political tribalists who support “family values” defending sex talk, and the tribalists who claim to support women preparing to defend the enabler of an alleged rapist. As a twitterer observed:

I just want you all to realise that this isn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back.
We’ve all just been staring at a dead Bactrian camel for months like something good was going to happen.

But it’s not, is it.

Did you ever think American democracy would get here, to this place? Or get here this soon?

It makes you think seriously about Gary Johnson’s unofficial slogan: Make American Sane Again.

But still, when what candidates say in public is so bad – promoting protectionism, boondoggles, foreign policy disasters & domestic expulsions -- does it truly matter what they say in private?

And how ironic, or revealing (of both her and how she views voters), that the candidate presently leading the polls thinks it only safe to say in private that she dreams of open markets and open borders – something she would never ever say in public.

So how on earth would you judge this sorry pair of charlatans?

Philosopher Stephen Hicks proposes a score sheet to help choose between the three leading candidates, which you may weight any way you wish, .

You may find yourself wondering for example whether or not it’s possible to give ‘minus’ marks. If so, you have my blessing – especially when it comes to character.

PS: I don’t know about you, but I see no value in watching the carny show this afternoon that they call a “debate.” It’s bad enough having to hear about it …

.