Clinton vs. Trump, what really matters

Columnist Jahred Nunes

Columnist Jahred Nunes

The countdown has begun. You can almost taste the rising tension in the air. Shifts in the political climate come like gusts of wind and no one knows what to expect as we inch closer and closer to Nov. 8. After all, it’s election season, and all bets are off.
Recently, the political compass has been off-balance as it’s almost impossible to navigate the internet without hearing concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health.
But are these concerns valid? At the 15th anniversary memorial service for 9/11, Clinton fell ill and departed to rest at daughter Chelsea Clinton’s Lower Manhattan home. Later that day Clinton emerged smiling and waving.
In a response, Donald Trump went as far as to refer to her as “weak” and “unfit” for office, then followed with the convenient release of his own medical records showing him to be in good health.
Many reports have recently come out since the 9/11 memorial incident stating Clinton coughed at least once this election year, tripped on a stair, and pauses suspiciously long during her speeches. The possible implications are staggering.

npr.org

npr.org

Realistically, determining the meaning of Clinton’s coughs should not be a concern whatsoever, especially because prior to her recent diagnosis of pneumonia (which is a very common lung infection), she was given a complete clean bill of health from physician Lisa R. Bardack. In 2015, Bardack stated Clinton was in “excellent health and fit to serve as president of the United States.”
More importantly, the fact that the media has gone to such great lengths to discredit Clinton as a candidate is pitiful and it speaks volumes to the way women are viewed in society today. It’s as if people will do anything, even scour through hours of speech footage just looking for instances that may or may not point to her having some sort of illness, just to prove that a woman is not fit for office.
If this election was solely based on political experience and gender stereotypes were off the table, Clinton would be the obvious choice, simply because the opposing candidate has no political background whatsoever. It’s the presidential election, and this is what we’re choosing to focus on? In no way should the decision be this superficial.
Yet while the nation continues to debate over whether or not Clinton’s next sneeze should determine her eligibility for presidency, The Washington Post recently foundTrump used over $250,000 from his non-profit foundation, The Donald J. Trump Foundation, to pay off legal fees and other personal expenditures.
A $20,000 “donation” from the foundation to an artist to paint a portrait of Trump and another $12,000 for a football helmet autographed by Tim Tebow were just a few of the unusual transactions taking place within Trump’s foundation.
Legal experts found connections between the foundation’s donations and Trump’s personal businesses and said that he may have violated tax regulations that prohibit using nonprofit charities for private interests, some of which dated back to 2007.
It’s completely asinine that Trump is just now being held accountable for the misuse of the funds of his foundation. If anything was to point to the untrustworthiness of a presidential candidate, it would be this.
It all seems like a joke. Staunch Republicans would sooner put Donald Trump in the White House than see a woman get anywhere near it. so much so they would not only ignore instances of his insensitivity towards race, religion and gender, but also ignore the countless times he’s discussed topics like gun control or immigration that have hardly proven him to be what is considered republican.
With all of this political brouhaha, it’s hard to believe the time to decide who is the most fit for the oval office is well on its way.
The first debate between Clinton and Trump aired last night with the next one scheduled for Sunday Oct. 9 and is likely to be another one for the record books, or maybe just another opportunity for a good laugh.