Except the author really makes no logical arguments here. They simply wave their hands and cast many assumptions without coherent reasons for why anyone should believe any of this is so.
The best they can proffer is some hope that Hillary will somehow remain gridlocked by a GOP-controlled Congress and thus not be able to get anything done. Yet Obama has already empirically demonstrated that he can get what he wants, GOP Congress or not. And the GOP Congress demonstrates time and again that they’ll effectively do nothing to stop him.
I doubt a Hillary presidency will be any different from this sort of pattern. There’s also no telling if the GOP will be able to retain control of Congress come 2018 and beyond.
So, yeah. I’d take my chances pulling the lever for Trump > Hillary.
This nomination is, at its core, anti-GOP Congress. It makes no sense to nominate a member of the GOP Congress that did very little to stand in the way of the president’s agenda. Rubio and Cruz can only promise to reverse the policies of Obama that *they permitted* to get through Congress!
Other than TDS, there seems to be no real point to this article. The scope is myopic. What about foreign policy? Do you want an oversized government with Trump with an armed forces to defend the nation or an oversized government with Hillary with a Palistinean Authority consulate in the West Wing?