Staff Reports
As the day of decision approaches, everyone, including your neighbor’s overly opinionated cat, weighs in on this year’s election. All Americans—especially those prone to talking to their houseplants—must take a deep breath, pop some popcorn, and engage in bipartisan reflection. Are you planning to cast your vote for an “orange-color demagogue,” or will you bravely support the ultimate candidate whose campaign has become synonymous with chaotic proclamations? The answer seems as slippery as a politician avoiding a straight question.
Let’s not beat around the bush here; with election season in full swing, we’re faced with candidates and a circus of rhetoric that makes clowns look reasonable. In one corner, we have the ever-enthusiastic Donald Trump, a man whose words can ignite a firestorm of media debates faster than you can say “fake news.” In the other corner, we stand in awe of Vice President Kamala Harris, who has mastered the art of laughter—but perhaps not the art of policy. It’s a veritable contest of who can make the absurd seem normal.
Interestingly, forgetting to read between the lines will land you knee-deep in quicksand. Take it from the well-meaning explorer grasping for clarity—you’ll be left with little more than a pith helmet and a half-finished map. The brain can often flood with emotions during such turbulent times, and soaring rhetoric can blind voters faster than a bad blind date at a dimly lit coffee shop. We can’t afford to lose our wits over elaborate metaphors of quicksand or return to the tarnished days of past administrations when communing with the complexities of rational choices is the task at hand.
Let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment. While a breath of fresh air for some, Kamala Harris hardly ranks as our nation’s quintessential choice unless your aspirations align with TikTok fame or amateur sociology through an absurd lens. We remember her “all-laughs, no substance” approach, which would turn many into nighttime Noahs, dreaming darkly of Jokers lurking in closets. Meanwhile, should we grant Trump four more years? Well, that’s a question worth pondering over cocktails, but can we trust the media’s portrayal of every libertine comment he makes? Are we ready to endure four years of CNN claiming he single-handedly brought Armageddon upon the land? The idea is startlingly appealing yet confoundingly perplexing.
In the spirit of true conservatism, let us consider practicalities. What will it be: inflation more reliable than your refried beans or the consistent humor of bureaucratic blunders that only Harris seems equipped to encourage? A potential Harris administration could see a glorious return to that “fair share” narrative, where billionaires—who worked hard to earn their dough—would happily fund college degrees in “feminist studies” and TikTok dance choreography. Meanwhile, if Trump pulls America back from the brink of war while you treat yourself to discounted groceries, you may find yourself swirling in a sea of conflicting beliefs.
So in this dos-e-doe of orange, it might make sense to take a good, hard look at the policies and character of both contenders while keeping your personal biases in check. Sure, voting for one may promise a burst of enthusiastic chaos, while the other might rake you through the mud of biennial grievances—who knew decisions could be so delightfully complex? Strap in, America; it will be a bumpy ride filled with laughter, jabs at the Deep State, and politicians using colors they can’t escape. Choose wisely because, as we know, both candidates are indeed orange, but only one has a background in flipping burgers, while the other could very well be shoveling hot air.
