Now that Bernie Sanders has shown he'll believe a bridge in Brooklyn is for sale by believing anything Hillary says about the Democratic platform, and endorsing her, it is time to examine the issue: Who is really more dangerous, Hillary or Trump, as president?

After thoroughly cheating her way to her pledged delegate count and stealing primary after primary, Hillary Clinton is now cast as the bad alternative to an even worse prospect, that of Donald Trump as president of the United States. In what Americans have gotten used to as the "lesser-of-two-evilisms," Donald Trump is now the boogyman "fascist" extraordinaire, straight from central casting to scare voters in swings states into "sucking it up" and voting for the Wall Street, Monsanto, and fracking industry favorite.

In the meantime the real fascists, the Bush administration Neocon architects of the Iraq invasion, are lining up behind Hillary, not Donald Trump. Project for a New American Century members Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, and Robert Kagan have all sung Clinton's praises. Upon hearing that Obama had nominated Clinton as Secretary of State in 2008, Perle said he was "relieved," and remarked “There's not going to be as much change as we were led to believe.”

Clinton's Secretary of State predecessor Condoleeza Rice said Clinton was doing a "fine job" as the top diplomat as Clinton ran guns to opponents of Muammar Gaddafi.

There has been no other candidate in many a year with Clinton's virtuoso talent for saying one thing and doing another, a talent which will be required in abundance to push through the next round of wars, and to complete once and for all the slow Chinese torture of dismantling the American middle class for the benefit of the one percent.

Hillary is bad, the cocktail party meme goes, but Trump is dangerous. As with many memes worked by Team Hillary, the truth is exactly the opposite. During the primary campaigns, Hillary repeatedly claimed that she was the most "electable" against Trump, when every poll showed Bernie Sanders to be the candidate who beat Trump soundly, while Hillary lagged.

Saying the opposite of the truth is simply no problem, ever.

Regardless of how mean and nasty Donald Trump is, making all kinds of offensive and obnoxious utterances on almost a daily basis, the fact remains that there are three branches of government in our system. What Trump is running for represents only one. It is historically true that the Executive Branch is the weaker of the two law-making branches of government, the Congress having the power of the purse, as the Founders intended, from which all legislation must originate and be passed if it survives the endless wrangling.

At Salon.com, which describes itself as an "Online journal of arts and culture and politics with a liberal bent," Walker Bragman writes in "The Liberal Case for Donald Trump":

"his wall — paid for by Mexico — is never going to happen. Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.? Not a chance."

Trump is an outsider to Washington and a stranger to its ways, in a town where even savvy political operators find it a challenge to get what they want.

But most importantly, Trump is a man without a party. The Republican establishment hates him as much, if not more, as the Democrats do, and no one man in Washington can pass legislation, or even put someone on the Supreme Court, which requires a two-thirds majority confirmation of the Senate.

As politically popular as Ronald Reagan was, he failed to get confirmation for his Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, when Republicans crossed party lines to stop him. In the present Senate, Democrats have more than enough votes to block any Supreme Court nomination, even if all Republicans lined up behind Trump, which would be unlikely.

The fact is that Trump, with the enemies he has made in both parties, would be fairly lucky not to get impeached within a year, as the language of Article II is deliberately vague enough to make staying in office virtually a popularity contest. You can tick off one party, or you can tick off the other, but you can't tick off both.

The situation Trump would find himself in would be similar to the one Jimmy Carter found himself in, the last partyless president. Although a Democrat, the governor of Georgia was very much an outsider, and his own party would do nothing for him except sabotage his program, led by crafty House Speaker Tip O'Neill. This culminated in a primary challenge to a sitting president, by Senator Ted Kennedy.

There are a million and one ways to stop a president from doing what he wants, and the political animals in Washington know all of them.

On the other hand, as Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein says, many of the "scary" things Trump has said, Hillary actually has a "track record" for. Stein said:

"Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and ignoring the climate. Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things,"

Hillary has blood on her hands, as an enthusiastic cheerleader for US intervention in Libya and the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, when she joked gleefully, "We came, we saw, he died." Hillary's gun-running for Syrian rebels, and role in creating ISIS is well-known, as is her influential vote for the Iraq invasion.