This is reassuring?

I have to question what reasoning would promote a feeling of security (really?) from a candidate who was out-debated by his second and whose behavior was directly counter to the headlining hashtags of not so long ago this year. I also have to question how much genuine enthusiasm there is for this choice of a second, when some prominent sources paint a more enthusiastic picture than others. How is a person noted for work in law enforcement truly faring in an environment that supports movements that oppose her work? I'm inclined to believe in the existence of a double standard here.

These ideologues who would cancel a parade they don't like, even as they profit by kowtowing to those who cancel everything else, don't make sense to me. Neither does voting for the people these ideologues endorse, especially when the primary reason isn't because of their confidence in the candidates' readiness for the post, but because the candidates are not the incumbent.

On a side note -

Either grant the man's family some closure, ma'am, or prove innocence and make a potential case for slander. (9/24 - Never mind, that case's covered.)