Image tends to be very different from reality: when we see a cartoon on television, we don’t think twice about it being fake, unreal. However, when we see other humans speaking on television or our laptops, especially other humans in positions of power, those who have become household names to us, there seems to be an unquestioned certitude that the information we are receiving is truthful.

I am growing nervous over the upcoming presidential election. I am afraid that we, both as conservatives and liberals, have allowed the allure of image overcome our perception of what is actually sitting right in front of us. Of the three major presidential candidates who remain, most rational voters will say that two of the three candidates are sane enough to vote for. It has gotten to the point where right leaning independents and even hardcore conservatives are being forced to reconcile the idea of voting for the once dreaded, Hillary Clinton.

In the hustle and bustle of Trump’s presidential clown show, I believe that we have forgotten about how dangerous Hillary Clinton’s political stances and personal values are: and also, how very similar to Trump and the republicans she is.

So, for this week’s post, I have decided to give my friends in California, who are about to participate in what will likely turn out to be a very important election, a few reasons to rethink their support of Hillary Rodham Clinton: to try and show that there really is only one presidential candidate who is sane enough, tough enough, true enough, to vote for. And it is not Hillary Clinton.

1: Is she even a liberal...?

As figured in the graph above (Political Compass), collected from her voting record, Clinton is an authoritarian: a money-seeking, power lusting, privileged elite posing as liberal, which can be as damaging, if not moreso, than a privileged conservative elite. By maintaining an image of herself which is wholly different from her who and what she truly is, Hillary Clinton has been able to swindle the votes of those who would likely not agree with her stances, if they actually knew what those stances were.

In the past decade, she has gone from full rejection, to full support of such important issues as gay marriage, immigration reform, foreign policy , financial policy, and domestic policy. Time and again, as many have complained of Trump, Clinton has switched her stance on key issues from conservative to liberal, and back again.

This phenomena can be seen most clearly in the 2016 election cycle, wherein Clinton has been pandering to young progressives and leftist voters: calling herself a liberal democrat, adopting and taking credit for the core policies of her democratic opponent, and denouncing the right for the very political tactics and ideologies which have brought her both monetary and public success.

By being quick to dismiss the views of all others as either extreme (see Hillary Clinton's "Evisceration of Donald Trump") or unviable (see Hillary Clinton's attacks on Bernie's Healthcare, College, and the Minimum Wage), Hillary Clinton has allowed herself to take discreet pieces of other's policies, which she deems best for her own benefit, and use them to masquerade herself as a shining singularity: a part apart from the whole. However, as the veneer of her image begins to crumble due to outside forces, as it is now, we will find that in all which she denounces can we see what she truly is: that in all of the policies she flip flops on, can we see what she is hiding from.

2: Nobody should wear flip flops. Not even during the summer.

In her decades as a public celebrity and politician, Clinton has flip-flopped on issue after issue, and this is a fact which cannot be disputed. In recent years, Clinton has been seen as a proponent of gay rights, as a proponent of gender equality, and a proponent of environmentalism, amongst many other things: but it is hard to believe these positions are how she truly feels when she has come to the correct side of these issues because it would favor her in the polls.

It feels, very often, that Clinton supports issues which are politically expedient: when Bernie was talking about the 15 dollar minimum wage, Clinton had to match that, and so she was present at the signing of New York's 15 dollar minimum wage bill, which she hadn't been a part of. Or, the fact that she now uses the federal legalization of gay marriage as just another feather in her hat.

Clinton is, as author of Empathy Exams, Leslie Jamison, would put it, an 'emotional tourist': she will use the plight of others, of minorities, of the poor, of the working class, in order to support her points, but her points only lead to increased hardships for those very same oppressed groups. The rhetoric Clinton uses is both predatory and passive aggressive: 9/10ths lie, with a little bit of truth to allow reasonable doubt.

This sense of pandering and flip-floppery is one thing, possibly innocent on its own, for a politician: however, when combined with a darker underbelly fueled by power and money, this misdirection of public perceptions can be incredibly dangerous.

3: Hundred Dollar Voice

21 million dollars. 21,000,000.00. That is more money than you or I, most likely, will ever make in our lives.

Hillary Clinton made this much money in 2 years, for 91 speeches.

The speeches she made were to big banks, entertainment companies, and big pharma.

This is a serious problem for several reasons. The first thing which raises flags is that she will not release any of the transcripts of her speeches, and the only video of her speech is a weak, heavily edited segment, which is more than likely not indicative of the entire speech. If the speeches were to any other sector of society, public health, education, workers, etc., then the witholding of the speeches would probably not be too alarming. But the fact of the matter is that the person who wishes to be president of the United States has been paid millions of dollars by corporations with special, selfish interests, who are actively seeking to undermine the democratic process in order to advance their own means.

That is not OK.

4: To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet

Clinton wears many masks: the mask of a feminist, the mask of a civil rights activist, the mask of a progressive, the mask of someone with fresh ideas to promote democracy. The masks are born of political expediency, judging demographic interests through focus groups and polling, with the intention of using whatever words necessary to win the race.

The problem with these masks, is that they do not allow the voter to know exactly who they are voting for: are they voting for the Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq war with intentions of national security? The one who came up with great visions of a large scale "business deal"? Or the one who regrets her vote for the war altogether? (IB Times)

War is a profit machine: should the person in charge of our country, with the largest army in the world, really be so closely tied to the institutions which profit most from war?

5: The EMAIL (dun dun dunnnnn...)

I understand: you are tired of hearing about that god damn email server. But the problem is, for the past two years, the dialogue we have been hearing in defense of Clinton's use of private email has all been a sham.

This is a key example of Hillary's misrepresentation of the truth in order to suit her own needs: she wanted to be president, so she denied denied denied until arriving 200 delegates ahead of her major competitor, early in June. But, with the recent release of the IG report, it is time to face the facts: Hillary Clinton has been deliberately lying about her knowledge and use of private email. She has time and again, and again, and again, told the american public that her use of private email for government documents was something she was unequivocally allowed to do, and told us this quite convincingly too. However, at the very moment when it seemed the american public was ready to turn their backs on the issue out of pure distaste, we were given undoubtable proof of Hillary Clinton's crime against the american public.

I believe Clinton will find a way to distract from this issue, unfortunately: and this is one of the reasons I fear our potential candidate, Miss Clinton. We do not know who she is, we do not know what she stands for, and we do not know when she is telling the truth: we will have just one more president, female or not, in a line of presidents who worked to advance the needs of the few, at the expense of the many.

6: Friends in high places

From her personal and monetary relationships with hedge fund managers, politicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and lobbyists of the oil and gas industries (Washington Post), to her relationship with both superdelegates and DNC committee members (Huffington Post), to her past friendship and continued financial interactions with the current republican candidate, Donald Trump, the one thing that we can tell about Hillary Clinton: she has friends in high places. Friends in high places who donate millions to her and Bill Clinton's campaigns, allowing the couple to amass over 3 billion dollars in funds over 40 years.

As has happened in election after election since the Citizen United decision, Hillary Clinton has netted the most amount of money, and has kissed the rumps of enough of the right people, in order to have started this race with a sense of certitude in the air of her victory: liberal institutions, especially the media, promoted Hillary Clinton from the beginning. Only now are institutions, who have been in support of Clinton through everything from the beginning (such as MSNBC), starting to shy away from the clearly toppling Clinton: coming to realize that, like in the 2008 election, she has counted her opponent down and out too early in the race.