Posts
Even though Americans are facing “the worst presidential
choice” of their lifetimes the Wall Street Journal has not, as of yet, endorsed
a candidate. This morning the Journal assesses the dangers that will befall the
nation during a Clinton presidency.
Here is the conclusion:
… if
she [Hillary] does win on Tuesday, the manner of her victory would damage her
ability to govern. Rather than win a policy mandate, she has chosen to destroy
Mr. Trump personally. She would face a Congress that wants to investigate her
from the first day and an electorate that is polarized and doesn’t trust her.
Her instinct would be to lean even more on the left for political support,
making compromise with Republicans in Congress even more difficult.
We’re
as optimistic as anyone about the resilience of American democracy, but four
more years of aggressive progressive rule would more deeply entrench the
federal Leviathan across ever more of the economy and civic life. The space for
private business and nonpolitical mediating social institutions would shrink.
The
case for Mrs. Clinton over Donald Trump is that she is a familiar member of the
elite and thus less of a jump into the unknown, especially on foreign policy.
The case against her is everything we know about her political history.
10 comments:
WSJ: … if she [Hillary] does win on Tuesday, the manner of her victory would damage her ability to govern. Rather than win a policy mandate, she has chosen to destroy Mr. Trump personally. She would face a Congress that wants to investigate her from the first day and an electorate that is polarized and doesn’t trust her. Her instinct would be to lean even more on the left for political support, making compromise with Republicans in Congress even more difficult.
Really, is Donald Trump really destroyed, personally? That's not very nice. Of course, really was was destroyed personally was the dozen Republican candidates for president. Perhaps Hillary should have played their game too, rather trying to provoke him and then step back to watch the show? Does ANYONE have any doubt that Trump is incapable of controlling himself under personal attacks? Does ANYONE have any doubt that Hillary is quite capable of dealing with personal attacks?
But indeed, it does seem like at least the Republicans in congress are champing at the bit to spend the next 4 years trying to "destroy Mrs. Clinton personally" and given the popularity of the "Hillary for Prison 2016" T-shirts, she's the perfect lightning rod for any member of congress who is not interested in government, but instead interested in getting paid to do nothing. Or perhaps we'll have another 4 years of votes in the House to repeal ObamaCare.
And assuming the election Gods give the Democrats the majority in the Senate, do you think the republicans will try to filibuster ANY candidate Hillary puts forward, no matter how ordinary and centrist? And do you think the Senate Democrats will use their nuclear option after disallowing a vote for a third or fourth candidate for SCOTUS?
My own best hope for the SCOTUS is have Ginsberg offer to retire, and then Hillary can show her good faith, and propose two candidates for two open seats, one candidate who will make Republicans happy, and one candidate to make Democrats happy. Or perhaps that would just solidify the perception that Justices are partisan creatures? Still, it could be done with sufficient tact that we could still convince ourselves both candidates are primarily interested in avoiding close-minded ideology and instead are interpreting the Constitution and law as faithfully as possible.
Anyway, we can agree Obama was a poor bridge between the Democrats and Republicans, and no matter how much he was willing to throw the democrats under the bus to placate the republicans, they would have none of it.
So Hillary, Sly as a Fox, as they say, if anyone has the experience to bridge a partisan divide, surely Hillary Clinton stands tall.
HECK, how many republicans will be voting for her next week? (And how many will be secretly voting for her, when the curtain is closed?)
And while the WSJ is too cowardly to endorse, Canada is pleading with a greater than usual urgency against Trump.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/dear-america-please-dont-vote-for-donald-trump/article32655412/
---
We understand some of the reservations about Hillary Clinton. That she violated arcane government email protocols, a tempest in a tiny teapot if there ever was one, is no reason to vote against her. But the chain of donors and employees running through government to the Clinton foundation and back again should concern you – as it points out how Washington, on both sides of the aisle, is rotten with the whiff of money and influence-peddling.
But in terms of education, experience and temperament, Ms. Clinton is exceptionally well-qualified to be President. Her policies, foreign and domestic, are far better than the Republican alternative. As a politician, however, something about Ms. Clinton has always rubbed a lot of Americans the wrong way, and the Democratic Party’s decision to nominate her was a political error. She’s the one candidate able to get independents and moderate Republicans to overlook Mr. Trump’s overwhelming unfitness for the job.
---
"That she violated arcane government email protocols, a tempest in a tiny teapot if there ever was one..."
If you're tempted to think I'm quoting Ares, you would be wrong. I'm quoting The Globe and Mail.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/dear-america-please-dont-vote-for-donald-trump/article32655412/%3fservice=amp
You're quite the deep thinker, Ares. No wonder you're sympathetic to Clinton behavior. Cut from the same cloth, as it were.
Having been on the Human Reliability Program, http://energy.gov/ehss/human-reliability-program-handbook, and held security clearances at various levels the rules for the protection of data and information are NOT arcane. I was also an Assistant Systems Security Officer for computer systems so I do know what I am talking about. I have aided in the R&D and fielding of military computer systems.
The fact that Hillary did not take seriously this aspect of her job is almost treasonous. Notwithstanding the number of lives she has put at risk or the people who may have died because of her flippant attitude towards security. OPSEC anyone.
And one wonders why we are beginning to worry about a WMD being initiated in this country and the fact that this stupidity is rampant is a reason to fear for our existence.
Ares you are just smart enough to be dangerous to yourself and everyone else. My hope is that one day you might actually know what you are taking about. And you wonder why some of us have questions about your thoughtfulness and the ability to deal with reality. Normally I would ignore you.
My GOD you are plain dangerous or as they say, "Ignorance is bliss." and bereft of knowledge.
The most corrupt politician ever to run for President, and there is proof. If America votes for this criminal they deserve what they get.
Trump is easily the better candidate between the two.
I spent 20 years in the AF. Security of classified material is not arcane. That IS a reason to vote against her. The cronyism and influence-peddling is even more reason to vote against her, but I suspect Ares will vote for her, anyway.
Just piling on here, I held a clearance for Naval acoustics research, and I concur there's nothing "arcane" about it. But who cares what the Canadians think about it, anyway.
When a former Secretary of State claims ignorance about what a classification marking means, that can be roughly translated as "Wal, ah'm jus' a li'l ignernt! Cain't hep m'sef."
No wonder she needs a minder.
I don't have and never have had a security clearance, but one of my kids got his pulled just for waffling a bit on a routine lie-detector test - by admitting he was troubled once about whether he had made the right choice about something that was, basically, totally benign and inconsequential. The event would not even have bothered most people, but he's honest and (sorry, Stuart) very empathetic (overcompensation for being on the Asperger's scale), so he over-thought the situation.
He got another job with a smarter HR department (is that an oxymoron?) and is doing fine, but -- what Hillary did is not just close to treason, it IS treason, considering who's been rifling her files.
PS anyone seen this one? Ares, these are the people you are in bed with.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/10/28/video-liberals-assault-homeless-woman-defending-trump-star-walk-fame/
"A homeless woman quietly demonstrating in support of Donald Trump near his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Thursday was violently harassed and abused by a group of people who surrounded her, yelled insults at her and appeared to knock her to the ground....
In the videos, men can be seen shouting and cursing at the woman before taking things from her cart. One man accuses the woman of “spewing hate.”
“You spewed hate and you got hate,” one man tells the woman as she lies on the ground, with bystanders ripping up her signs. “You got exactly what you were dishing out. I told you. I warned you.”
...
The apparent assault happened one day after Otis, wearing a construction worker’s uniform, repeatedly struck Trump’s star with a pick-ax, destroying it. . "
What I think frightens me most about the Left is their total lack of empathy or concern, and their complete inability to recognize irony.
PPS If you are wondering about Trump's demographics, read some of the comments.
I like the "spewing" thing. Leftoid's are always accusing anyone, right or left, who dare disagree with their silly nostrums as "spewing". And you may have noticed they're always "troubled" by "spewing". Anyone whose "spewing" "troubles" them needs an "intervention". The utility of "interventions" was discovered by Soviet psychatrists, who conducted "interventions" to relieve citizens of their "issues" about "sharing".
Sounds to me like you have "issues", AF. That's very "troubling".
"If you know anybody who's thinking about voting for Trump... Well, first of all, stage an intervention"
--- Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton
Post a Comment