The “lesser evil”?

     Many of my ostensibly liberal/progressive acquaintances support Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. They support her, if I read between the lines of their arguments (or the tea leaves) correctly, not necessarily because she is a better candidate for that high office but because she isn't Donald Trump, the bogeyman of the Republican Party. 

         So, Ms. Clinton is the only “anybody but Trump” Democrat candidate still on her feet. (Bernie Sanders is, apparently, soon to be on his knees bowing to the Empress of Chaos.) None of these people may “like” Ms. Clinton, but they claim they are supporting the “lesser evil”. Although, it seems to me, evil is evil, no such thing as lesser or greater—unless you look at numbers, say, of people killed. In which case, Hillary is responsible for far more corpses than the Donald—which makes a mockery of the “lesser evil” argument for supporting her.

        Be that as it may, however, there is a much better body-less reason to posit that Ms. Clinton is no such thing as a “lesser evil”. She will almost beyond doubt (or some unforeseen event or scandal) become the next POTUS, and it will be the “indispensable” power's business as usual—neo-liberal economics and neo-conservative foreign policy. In other words the chaotic status quo of the world we now live in will be maintained and most likely expanded under the Clinton II presidency. 

        But, I digress, back to what makes Ms. Clinton the status quo candidate. It is well known that the Republican Party poohbahs have their skivvies all in a twist over the Donald's bombastic, free publicity grabbing rhetoric, because he says openly and blatantly what they only say in code words. In other words they are royally pissed off that he has spilled the pot of beans. They have not been able to unseat him either by mockery, public criticism or party politics and he will most likely vie for the presidency with Ms. Clinton, the ostensible “lesser evil” (unless some unforeseen event or scandal occurs).

        So, guess who's coming to dinner at the Democratic banquet table in retaliation? The Republican poohbahs are falling over themselves to line up in support of the Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton herself. It is said, in some circles, that the US two-party system is a “duopoly”--two sides of the same coin. Can we say Demicans or, maybe, Repubocrats? Obviously, it makes no difference to the mice leaving the sinking SS Trump. Democrat, Schmemocrat, Hillary is the ONE, the one to uphold the status quo. The status quo's the thing, wherein we'll snuff out the campaign of the Trump.

        Here's a short list of prominent (neo-liberals and neo-cons all) Republican gentlemen flipping the coin:

Henry Paulson - former Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs

Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State under George W. Bush, triggered the notorious Plame Affair

Brent Scowcroft - Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush – criticized the Iraq invasion at first, but went along because he was a “friend” of the Bushes.

Robert Kagan – called the leading neo-conservative, calls himself a “liberal interventionist”, PNAC founding member, husband of Victoria (“fuck the EU” and Hillary friend) Nuland

Max Boot – member of the PNAC, advocates “American might to promote American ideals” (his own words)

        These are only a few of the 1^st magnitude right wing “stars” in Hillary's crown.

        The “lesser evil”?