Backing Hillary Over Trump?

I had been thinking for a while that with the choices before us, people should be cut a lot of slack in how they chose. I still tend to hold to this, but recent news has caused me to modify my thinking a bit. Over the past couple weeks, I’ve seen people just get downright silly in how they are viewing the Trump vs Hillary campaign. People are increasingly staking out extreme positions on both sides and as heels dig in, minds shut down.

Even in the worst set of alternatives, it is up to people to think carefully over the entire situation and try to come to a conclusion based upon a rational understanding of all the facts. There are facts – about Hillary and Trump as well as the other candidates – which even if they can’t immediately determine the best course of action, can at least tell us what the worst course of action would be. In two bad alternatives, one is going to be worse than the other. Even in the thinking that Trump and Hillary represent heart attack and cancer, you can still make a choice – heart attack might immediately kill you, but if you can survive the immediate attack, you’ll be ok. Cancer won’t immediately kill you, but it is much harder to cure than a heart attack. If forced to choose one, you’re going to just have to figure what set of risks you are willing to undergo in the hopes that in the long term you’ll be ok. Now, add in this: the heart attack happens whens someone is there to immediately call 911 and get you to a hospital – the cancer, on the other hand, is already metastasizing and this latest bit is going to get into your lymph nodes. Choose.

Someone did – and they appear to have chosen the cancer.

One-time GOP gubernatorial candidate and current Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. The stated reason for this being that Trump is a budding Hitlerian nightmare who will destroy American democracy. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who’s commitment to the truth and to scrupulously following the laws enacted by American democracy is so well known.

I can’t, of course, look into Whitman’s mind and soul and see the real reason she’s decided to back the hopelessly corrupt, completely dishonest and incompetent Hillary Clinton. I could easily understand why Whitman would refuse to vote for Trump – but her stated reason for backing Hillary against Trump simply isn’t rational. I can only suspect that Whitman’s actions are motivated by sheer stupidity…or that her allegiance was never to the Republican Party, but rather to the Ruling Class of which she is a member. I do discount stupidity as the motivator as her successful business career indicates she’s at least literate (given her advantages, the mere ability to read would ensure she rose high in the corporate world) and thus has been able to read the papers and know that the person she’s going to vote for – and raise massive amounts of money for – is corrupt to the bone.

People do ask me what I’m going to do on November 8th – I always answer the same way: I don’t know who I’ll vote for, but I certainly will not vote for Hillary. This is because of the candidates for President (including minor party candidates) Hillary is clearly the worst possible choice (with some exceptions to be listed below). Trump has done a lot of very disreputable things over the years – some very fast and lose activities in business which an honorable man wouldn’t do. Additionally, he has made a lot of statements which are simply unacceptable. On the other hand, Hillary has deliberately and maliciously lied over and over again to the American people and these lies have served to protect and advance her quest for wealth and political power. A bit of sharp practice by Trump to make a buck simply does not compare to the kind of behavior that Hillary has engaged in – and his vulgar statements, bad as they are, are just words…stupid words, bad words, words which ought not to be spoken…but, just words. Words don’t hurt any man or woman with any sense of self respect.

Outside of moral questions, even putting it in terms of who will be most baleful to the eventual attempt to restore American greatness still comes down on Trump’s side. Hillary has already participated as First Lady and an elected and appointed official of government in undermining the rule of law in the United States. She has already weakened America’s position in the world. She has already coddled America’s enemies and dismayed America’s allies. The direct consequences of policies she advanced led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. The direct consequences of policies she advanced have Iran taking over Iraq, ISIS on a rampage in the Middle East and a flood of refugees into the West…with the real refugees having to flee their homes because of failed policies Hillary backed, and fake refugees taking advantage of the crisis to infiltrate western nations. Trump has never held elective or appointive office – what he may do while in office is unknown. He might turn out as bad or even worse than Hillary but no one can possibly know this. We know what Hillary has done. She is giving every indication that she will keep on doing what she has done. What she has done has proven disastrous to the United States and the world. Putting Hillary into office means ratifying certain disaster. Putting Trump into office means rolling the dice.

Times come where there is no fast and easy answer to a question. This is one of those times. You can choose your heart attack, or your cancer. You can choose a bout of the ‘flu (Green Party), or a bad hangover (Libertarians). You can also choose to not decide – don’t vote for anyone, or write in a name. You still can vote for Hillary for rational reasons – these being either in hopes that the GOP will then clean up in the 2018 midterms; that as the economy is likely to enter recession and it’d be better if a Democrat caught the blame for it; that the GOP is finished and it is better to burn it down in 2016 in hopes of a new party by 2020. If any of those are your reasons, then I’ve got no problem with your choice. But whatever you choose, don’t try to sell me on the notion that Trump is so demonstrably bad that Hillary is a better choice. He’s not and she isn’t.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “Backing Hillary Over Trump?

    • M. Noonan August 3, 2016 / 5:21 pm

      #NeverHillary at least in the sense that no rational person can assert she is the morally superior choice…I know our Progs will try to do that, but it’ll always run up against the facts of Hillary’s actions.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 9:17 am

        “….no rational person can assert she is the morally superior choice…” or the politically rational choice, either, unless your political goal is increasing the death spiral into complete Socialism and your economic goal is continued if not increased stagnation and your educational goal is absolute instead of relative indoctrination into Leftist dogma and your Constitutional goal is “Make it go away”.

  1. Retired Spook August 3, 2016 / 5:13 pm

    Sometime last summer I, along with a number of others including some notable media outlets, posited the theory that Trump’s candidacy might be a ruse to get Hillary elected. Apparently that theory has not gone away. Hardly a day goes by that it doesn’t appear that Trump is deliberately TRYING to lose.

    • M. Noonan August 3, 2016 / 5:19 pm

      I’ve seen that – I don’t believe it. Who would go through that just to help someone else get into the White House? Unless deep down inside Trump is just some sort of committed supporter to Hillary…which doesn’t seem realistic as all the Clinton’s have ever had is cronies looking for a payoff.

      Meanwhile, the NY Times is reporting that Trump is rapidly closing the fundraising gap via a flood of small donations…Hillary is getting hedge fund money, Trump is getting the people’s money. As I’ve said for a while, Trump’s only hope of winning is to bring into the process people who have been out of it because they are alienated from both parties…if he’s doing that it (a) won’t show up in polls and (b) will carry him to a rather stunning victory. I rate it as about a 10% chance because most of those who don’t vote are simply bad citizens…but if there’s 5 or 6 million good citizens in the mix? We’ll see.

      • Amazona August 3, 2016 / 5:45 pm

        We need good messaging. That is what it is going to come down to.

        We need to get the information about Hillary out there, and out there in such a clear and concise manner that no one can claim to be ignorant of it. We need to set the stage so definitively that it is clear that any vote for Hillary is a vote of approval for corruption and heinous crimes.

        And no, constantly repeating “Corrupt Hillary” is not only not going to do it, it is counterproductive because it masks the truth. It is stupid, simplistic and annoying and gives people an excuse for tuning out.

  2. Amazona August 3, 2016 / 5:42 pm

    Mark, yours is a good analysis. But my exchange with Bob pushed me into widening my perspective. This actually started when Obama finally openly came out for Hillary and made comments such as handing off the baton to her, and her continuing the work he started. I’ve known for many years about the International Left, but I never actually saw its hand on the levers till Obama, and now with the open admission that Hillary is just going to continue what he started I realized that I have been overlooking a lot by focusing on just her.

    As I said to Bob, while Trump is an idiot, any mistakes he makes are likely to be errors in judgment, not the result of a carefully planned assault on constitutional government. With Hillary, there is a game plan, an agenda, and it is clearly written out in one Leftist manifesto after another.

    It’s true that if a nuke is set off because the guy with the button was just lurching to try to catch his coffee cup before it spills or because the woman with the button has reached that page in her manifesto, the end result is pretty much the same, and to quote the woman, “What does it really matter, anyway?” But when you are looking ahead to the possibility of that button being pushed, it matters a whole lot. It is the only thing that matters. The clutz is not guaranteed to spill his coffee: The ideologue is guaranteed to try to advance her agenda.

    What matters is intent. Someone with a highly focused intent to accomplish certain things, backed by serious and skilled political operatives and a worldwide propaganda program, obviously poses a greater threat than someone who vacillates among various vague concepts of generally right-wing ideas but who is not only ignorant of political ideology he doesn’t really care.

    As for Whitman, if she is so politically illiterate she doesn’t recognize the true threat to American democracy as shown and vividly illustrated by the Obama administration, she has no business making any kind of political statement at all. Trump’s “threat” is that he is used to being the boss and probably thinks he can run the government the same way he runs the businesses he owns. It is not only not an ideological commitment to a certain form of governance, it exists in a little bubble of ignorance about how things are done.

    Most important, Trump is not backed by a party dedicated to tyranny, as is Hillary. I don’t think it is possible to overstate the importance of that difference.

    • M. Noonan August 3, 2016 / 7:04 pm

      On the same day I read of Whitman’s endorsement of Trump, I read a NY Times story showing that small donors are pouring money into Trump’s campaign. Say what you want about Trump, his bedrock of support is just regular, middle and working class American people…who are now, per all of the left and plenty of the right, nothing but a bunch of hill-ape, racist morons. I’d like to know how Conservatism is supposed to triumph if we’ve just said that at least 35% of the American people (and 60%+ of any winning Conservative coalition) are socially unacceptable in politics?

      I also don’t get how Conservatives can’t see that by going after “Trumpism”, all they are doing is ensuring that each and every future GOP Presidential candidate is a “Trumpist” who all good Conservatives must oppose…it won’t matter who is the GOP candidate in 2020, he or she will be tarred with that brush…even if the person is an open borders, amnesty backer if there’s anything in their proposal which doesn’t provide immediate citizenship to illegals, then the left will be, “wow, what a hate-filled, Trumpist position – didn’t you Conservatives learn in 2016?”. And on and on and on it will go. This is not to say Conservatives should get out there and defend Trump when he makes an asinine statement…but we should shy away from ever confirming even an iota of Progressive propaganda.

      • Amazona August 3, 2016 / 10:32 pm

        I don’t think conservatives are stupid enough to call Trumpists stupid, etc. I think what will happen is that, first, Trump will not want a second term, and second, all we need to do is point to things that the Republican Congress has been able to accomplish without an obstructionist president, thank Trump for what he has done, and then mildly point out that we need to continue moving back toward constitutional governance. Conservatives should be the training wheels on a Trump presidency, not speed bumps.

        If Trump is elected and is a mess, then his supporters will be embarrassed. If he does some good, then we thank them for what they have accomplished and promise to build on it. If he loses the election, we engage in a short term of “I TOLD YOU SOs” and then start to explain what went wrong.

        I’ve seen a lot of anti-Trumpism quiet down now that he is the nominee. Most Republicans want him to win, and don’t want to contribute to a loss. The truly stupid ones, like Whitman, are in the minority and can easily be shunned and distanced from the party.

        A lot is going to happen in four years, and a lot of that is going to involve extreme acts of terrorism around the globe, galvanizing nations into action against Islam. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and I think so many things are going to change that trying to predict the political climate for the next election is a real crap shoot. If serious action must be taken against Islam, the Dem appeasement/support/encouragement process is going to be hard to justify, and if there are race wars the Obama contribution to racial discord and violence is going to be laid firmly at the feet of the Dems.

        Again, if we can stay on message.

        We haven’t even explained why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi or why he and those other men posed a threat to Obama and Clinton if they had come back home and talked about what was going on over there. There is so much we have not gotten out to the American public.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 3, 2016 / 10:51 pm

        Why on Earth would Trump not want a second term. Only one man in U.S. history has willingly turned away more Presidential terms and I do not see Trump being as noble as that guy was.

        As to the idea that Conservatives will thank him for his service and he will step aside, you already see right now how Trump reacts to that sort of thing. Whatever deal he and Ryan made after he numerically clinched the nomination – presumably to pivot to the GOP message in exchange for GOP leadership endorsements – has been completely mowed over by the nominee’s tiny feet.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 3, 2016 / 10:53 pm

        OK, I was really stretching for a crappy tiny feet joke there. Sorry, folks. Won’t happen again.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 9:24 am

        So sorry, Bob—I missed the memo about the only reason for only wanting one term is “nobility”. I was thinking of other possible reasons, like gratification of ego goals, age, too much work, too much harassment, loss of freedom as president, etc. For most people the presidency offers a level of opulence and luxury they have never experienced, as well as fame, but for Trump it will be a step down, and there are other aspects of the presidency he will no doubt find chafing.

        But hey, who knows? On one hand we complain that he is totally unpredictable, and on the other we try to predict him. I just factor in the possibility that as an ego-driven man, lacking true ideological fervor and already living a life more extravagant than that of the president, Trump could conceivably say “I’ve made my point, I’ve done what I set out to do, and now I’m going back to a better house and a better plane and the business I love”.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 9:29 am

        And BTW, you got it backward. I never said that Conservatives would thank him for his service and THEN he would “step aside”. No, you have muddled together two separate ideas. One was that Trump could very easily say one term is enough, and the other is that Conservatives could handle a Trump presidency and the need to move on to a new candidate with a certain amount of style and intelligence by thanking Trump for his service and thereby not insulting Trumpists.

        Two things. Different. Separate. First needing a new candidate, whether at the end of Trump Term #1 or Trump Term # 2, and second how best to move on to a more conservative candidate without offending those who love Trump. Sequence is important.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2016 / 11:29 am

        Amazona

        Sorry I reversed the order of things. Bad on me.

        As regards why Trump would stay? The same reason every leader clings to power. Power.

        Sure, the White House is a step down in opulence from his penthouse decorated by Saddam Hussein, but having genuine global power, as a President wields, far outweighs that.

        Has modern history seen a world leader step down because private life is better? I can’t think of anyone (and no, being King of England in modern times is not a position of power). Power is always better.

        Trump, if elected, will ride it out as long as he can, which hopefully will remain limited to two terms.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 3:32 pm

        Speculating on what Trump might do, or might not do, or what motivates him now, or what might motivate him in the future, is a silly and pointless exercise.

        Yes, power is addictive. But to someone who already has a lot of power, in running a big and prestigious company and worldwide fame, the power of being president with its accompanying constant carping from the public and the press, the restraints imposed by Congress (if there are any) and the restrictions on his time might possibly balance that.

        I was thinking of the Goal Gradient Theory. While the theory itself is that the closer one is to a goal the faster or more energetically one moves, there is a corollary, the post-reward reset phenomenon, “…where motivation has a tendency to initially drop to the baseline after a goal has been reached. This is the case even if there is a second reward on the horizon…”

        So it would all come back to what is or was the goal. If the goal is, as would be the case with Hillary, to continue the fundamental change to this country, moving it more and more to the Left, motivation would increase as the goal becomes closer. If the goal is to achieve an ego boost, prove that someone is loved by millions, and/or any of the other possible motivations of Trump, then if he has met any or most of or all of those goals the “post-reward reset” could kick in. The motivation would no longer exist, the goal would have been met.

        If the goal is to be a new Hitler of the ages, then the motive would still be there. If the goal is to bask in the unique power and status of the presidency, it would still be there. And so on. But if the goal was to prove something, it might be diminished after achieving it.

        Lots and lots of “ifs” and “maybes” in there. Many of them are clearly based on prior bias against Trump leading to conviction that he will do the worst possible thing for the worst possible reason. This is why every possibility is just put on the shelf to see how things shake out.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2016 / 3:42 pm

        Amazona

        I’m not sure we are using the same definition of the word “speculative” here. That word usually means “to make estimation of the future from inadequate information.”

        I believe it is far more speculative for you think Trump – or anyone for that matter – would choose a return to private life than my presumption that he will act like everyone who has ever held such power, to remain in power.

        Can you name a leader of a major power in the last 200 or 300 years who acted as you think Trump may?

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 4:31 pm

        Bob, my point is that because Trump is unlike any previous leader of any major power in any history of which I am aware, there is absolutely no way to predict what he might or might not do based on looking at any of those prior leaders.

        I have read comments from people who know Trump who have suggested that he might drop out of the race for the nomination once he had made his point, then that he could even step aside after being elected/sworn in for the same reason. The only things leading toward a possibility of him stepping down are the ways some people who know him have read his personality and his goals, and a general concept of how ego-driven people operate.

        No, I am not going to get drawn into a pissing match over whether he would or would not step down, because there is simply not enough actual data to support either side. There are hunches, but no data. You seem to love quibbling over the trivial, while I find it a waste of time. I was very briefly intrigued by the question of who would win in a conflict, pirates or ninjas, but that was solely because of the humor and some of the creative cartoons, and even that wore thin very quickly. This has not even had the attraction of entertainment value.

        As you seem to be one of those people who will hound others till you have achieved some sort of “victory” here is yours on this topic. I withdraw my statement that I think Trump might not pursue a second term. Shazaam. It is gone. I no longer think that. I no longer assert that. I refuse to try to justify its fleeting and evidently erroneous existence. I have no opinion one way or another. None. I care even less. Non-issue. Non-starter. Non existent. Complete draw.

        NOW can we talk about something real and concrete and worth wasting bandwidth on?

        BTW, we WERE using the same definition of “speculative”—-““to make estimation of the future from inadequate information.””

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2016 / 4:53 pm

        It is not the case there is no evidence one way or the other of what Trump will do. On the one hand, there is the actions of every person that has risen to power and on the other hand is your notion of “wouldn’t it be nice if…”

        It is not speculative to say Trump will hold onto power, that is the default. To think otherwise, that Trump would be as noble as Washington in relinquishing power, is beyond speculative.

        As to discussing more important topics, the most important topic is whether Hillary is a bigger threat than Trump or vice-versa. My fear of Trump is based on history – he is rising on populism is a manner that mirrors Hitler and he will remain in power as long as possible, as every other leader has done. You feel Trump will be manageable and will draft conservative judges, despite all evidence to the contrary.

        This topic is the bedrock of whether Conservatives should seek to fix the GOP or move elsewhere. I want to convince you and others that it is time to move on, even though that means losing overall power for several election cycles. Maybe you will convince me to go the other way. Either way, THIS is the topic to discuss. Everything else is a side issue, in my (overinflated) opinion.

      • M. Noonan August 4, 2016 / 11:31 pm

        No one can “hold on to power” – all the paranoid stories of, say, Obama cancelling the election and retaining power are just moonshine. Obama’s terms ends at noon Eastern time on January 20th, 2009…at that point, he won’t have the authority to do anything. Military and law enforcement are sworn to the Constitution, not Obama…he can give all the orders he wants as 12:01pm Eastern January 20th and they’ll hold no authority whatsoever. The President cannot cancel the election, either – elections are run by the States and the President has no authority over the time or manner of those elections happening…and each State is entirely in charge of deciding how Electors for the Presidency are chosen. Suppose there was a meteor strike on the United States which blasted us so bad that not enough Electors could be chosen to elect a new President…that is also covered by the Constitution: the House then decides who gets to be President. Come heck or high water, at noon on January 20th, someone other than Obama will start to exercise the powers of the Presidency. And so it would be with Trump…he could not under any conceivable set of circumstances continue to exercise the powers of the Presidency beyond his term of office. Presidential powers are legally vapor-ware…they last only for a set amount of time.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 7:40 pm

        I don’t accept your “default”. It is an opinion.

        I asked myself some questions:

        (1) When did Donald Trump start to show an interest in gaining political power?

        (2) When did Hillary Clinton start to show an interest in gaining political power?

        (3) What is Donald Trump’s political ideology? How long has he had it? In what ways does it influence his life?

        (4) What is Hillary Clinton’s political ideology? How long has she had it? In what ways does it influence her life?

        (5) What is Donald Trump’s political support system? Party, party platform, influential donors and advisers and their parties and platforms, political histories, etc.

        (6) What is Hillary Clinton’s political support system? Party, party platform, influential donors and advisers and their parties and platforms, political histories, etc.

        (7) What is the nature of the promises Donald Trump is making in his effort to get elected?

        (8) What is the nature of the promises Hillary Clinton is making in her effort to get elected?

        To achieve the malignant outcome of a Donald Trump presidency you predict he would have to renege on every campaign promise. To achieve the malignant outcome of a Hillary Clinton presidency I predict she would have to honor every campaign promise. Why do you believe the first is more likely than the latter?

        Your “…fear of Trump is based on history – he is rising on populism is (sic) a manner that mirrors Hitler.” Yet it is based on someone else’s history, not on his, and on superficial similarities of public appeal, not on similar ideologies. My fear of Hillary is based on real history –she has risen on precisely the same ideology that produced Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Castro, just to name a few.

        You say “You feel Trump will …… draft conservative judges, despite all evidence to the contrary…” yet there is no evidence to the contrary. The only evidence in play at this time regarding Trump’s judicial choices is a written list of potential candidates and a verbal promise made in front of millions that he will choose from that list. Anything else is mere guesswork.

        “This topic is the bedrock of whether Conservatives should seek to fix the GOP or move elsewhere.” No, it isn’t. The discussion of whether to reform the GOP or abandon it preceded Trump’s nomination, which you would know if you were actually involved in the political process on a deeper level than arguing on a blog.

        “Either way, THIS is the topic to discuss.” Yet your version of “discussing “ it is to simply announce that you are fine with losing all political control and influence during an undetermined period of time in which some as-for-now nonexistent political party is invented, grows, becomes established, and has enough influence to make a difference. That is not a discussion. That is just a statement that the facts and concerns of others don’t matter to you because you have made up your mind and that is all there is to it.

        The only reason you have for walking away from the GOP and turning the nation over to the Left for an undetermined length of time is that you have decided the GOP cannot be reformed. The only reason you think the nation can be reclaimed, or rebuilt, after this fantasy party is developed and becomes strong is that, well, you just do.

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 8:33 pm

        Some people, when they restate or paraphrase what someone else has said, clarify it.

        When you do it with what I have said, you change it.

        Stop that.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 4, 2016 / 10:25 pm

        I find it odd that you are the first to cry “foul” over a colloquiallism like “head in the sand” but are the first to dis me on my lack of political work outside blog posting. Perhaps I’m very involved, perhaps not at all, but not knowing which it is you plow Trumplike into attack mode.

        Oh, and if you need help identifying what snark looks like, refer to your petty marking of typos with “sic.”

      • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 11:02 pm

        My goodness, Bob, you are pretty tightly wound, aren’t you? Did I truly “…cry “foul” over a colloquiallism like “head in the sand” ?” Doesn’t sound like me, as I think it is a perfectly good phrase and one I have often used. Right here on this blog, as a matter of fact, over the years, if memory serves me right.

        No, I didn’t “dis” you for your “… lack of political work outside blog posting…” but for the lack of knowledge that is its result. The discussions about starting a new party for conservatives has been going on for a long long time, and you act as if you suddenly gave birth to the idea after Trump was nominated. I personally don’t care if you are involved at all in politics, but I do take note when you say something that shows that you are not while posturing as a political commentator.

        You are obviously far too delicate and fragile for political discourse, if your default reaction is to assume that something is an “attack” every time you say something that is wrong. This is going to be a problem until you start being right. I am sure you would prefer to just spread your ideas around with no feedback, but that ain’t gonna happen. If you can’t back them up, you might consider giving them a little more thought, maybe doing some research, before airing them here.

        As for “snark”, when I copy and paste a quote instead of retyping it, I follow the basic rules of grammar and note an error so it is not thought to originate with me. That goes for typos, misspellings, etc. That is what the notation is for. If you insist on treating that like you treat everything else, as a personal attack, then go for it. It seems to comfort you. I wasn’t making fun of you, or criticizing you, or “dissing” you. If this is such an issue with you, if I ever respond to you again I will be sure to retype a quote instead of copying and pasting, and correct any silly errors like that—-if you think you could handle being corrected.

        I have given you the respect of acting as if you truly want to engage in discourse and just aren’t very good at it, but it is increasingly clear that you just want to bicker.

      • Amazona August 5, 2016 / 11:38 am

        Mark, at the risk of being slammed for launching a vicious personal Trump-like attack on you, I’m pretty sure you meant to say that Obama’s term would end in 2017. 😉

        You quite correctly say “… elections are run by the States and the President has no authority over the time or manner of those elections happening..” However, after the Florida debacle in the Bush/Gore campaign and some other examples of oddities in how states run presidential elections, I think we should change the law to impose a uniform national standard for ballots and voting for the president. We saw the Democrat committee in Florida purposely design a confusing ballot, and then they hired a firm to start calling people in the middle of the voting day to tell them they might have accidentally voted for Bush when they meant to vote for Gore. We saw the mess this created.

        I’m all about state sovereignty when it comes to state matters, but in a national election I think we need uniformity and consistency, so the part of the ballot that covers votes for the presidency is the same in every state.

        Of course, I’m also in favor of tightening up the whole voting process to make it actually mean something. That includes purging all voter registration rolls of dead people, illegals, and duplicate or multiple registrations. (Send out forms to the last registered address of the citizen, not allowed to be forwarded but only returned if the person is not at that address. To remain on the rolls, fill out and sign a document, clearly stated to be under penalty of perjury with a significant penalty laid out for lying, in which the person says he or she is a citizen, is legally qualified to vote, and is registered in only that one single precinct. Naturalized citizens have to provide the information on their naturalization. Those who have moved will have ample notice of this process and can get themselves re-registered at their new addresses. All returned questionnaires will result in those people being removed from the rolls and no one can vote in those names.)

        It includes stopping Motor Voter and same-day registrations, allowing absentee or mail-in voting only for people with a good reason for not being able to get to the voting booth in person, ending early voting, and requiring photo ID to vote. It also includes a strict requirement to count EVERY vote received, as now most military votes are not counted if a decision is made that statistically it is not likely that they would change the outcome of the election based on the votes counted. This is a gross injustice to our military, and should not be tolerated. And there has to be a way to verify votes cast. No translators at the voting booths—-Americans speak English and naturalized citizens have passed a basic English test. Voter intimidation is a federal crime with severe penalties. Election officials who “find” ballots later face severe penalties for misconduct or incompetence.

        Our election process is a mess. Elections are very serious business, and we treat ours with little or no oversight or concern for their validity.

  3. Amazona August 3, 2016 / 5:51 pm

    “Hillary has already participated as First Lady and an elected and appointed official of government in undermining the rule of law in the United States.”

    This is where we need to start. There will be much gnashing of teeth at tying her to the illegal foreign campaign contributions to Bill, but as “co-president” who is touting her years as First Lady as “experience” she shouldn’t be allowed to duck it. That pattern of illegal contributions has continued unabated, from the Chinese busboys “donating” hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cattle futures scheme to the pardoning of terrorists to the renting of the Lincoln Bedroom to the Clinton “Foundation” and the Pay to Play pattern of her Secretary of State position, it is an unbroken line of corruption and graft.

    That is one message Trump CAN give—“I made my money. I never had to sell out my country to get rich.”

    • M. Noonan August 3, 2016 / 7:08 pm

      Trump is a bit bizarre in that he’s been handed, on a silver platter, all the means he needs to wreck Hillary’s campaign – of course, until just now, he hasn’t had the money to really exploit Hillary’s weaknesses. His July fundraising gives him that money (and shows that no matter what happens, the GOP won’t dump Trump at this point…he’s got the cash to run and no replacement could at this point possibly raise up enough money). We’ll see if he can get on message and stay on message – but, beware! He really is no Conservative and a lot of what he says isn’t designed for Conservative ears, at all…the fights he’s picked with Ryan and McCain are deliberate, in my view…he’s separating himself from the old-line GOP in a clear bid for Democrat and Democrat-leaning, Big Government voters…while Hillary is collecting endorsements and cash from big GOP donors, Trump just might be collecting Hillary’s voters. We won’t know for a while, of course…but that appears to be his plan.

      • Amazona August 3, 2016 / 10:20 pm

        “…no matter what happens, the GOP won’t dump Trump at this point…”

        No, they kept slamming the doors on every possible opportunity to back someone else and by the convention all non-Trump ships have sailed.

        I’m fine with his strategy of convincing squishies that he is not part of the GOP Establishment. After being anointed by that Establishment, protected by that Establishment, and in general groomed for the nomination by that Establishment, he needs to do whatever he can to convince people he really doesn’t like them and is not like them.

        What is so funny, in a sad head-shaking way, is that it was Cruz and Ryan who repesented (and still do represent) the forces truly fighting the GOP Old Guard and trying to push, pull, nudge, goad, drive and force the party back to conservatism.

        I hold no hopes whatsoever for a conservative presidency. I just want the Supreme Court protected by putting in several young dynamic conservatives who will guide the Court for many many years to come, lifting of most of Obama’s Executive Orders, and paring down the new Agency Branch of Government. I would like an AG who acts like a law enforcement officer, and want a president who will sign Republican-supported bills that make it through Congress. I will be very happy with a fairly inactive president.

  4. Amazona August 4, 2016 / 9:45 am

    Let’s just set down the Trump Crystal Ball for a moment and look at some of the things we might like a Republican Congress to accomplish and then have signed by the president.

    Given the rise in size, scope and power of federal agencies, making them a de facto fourth branch of government which is pretty much carved in stone given the Civil Service laws, I have been advocating a complete overhaul of Civil Service rules. The inability to fire government employees has the obvious effect of having our necessary functions impaired by incompetence, lethargy or both.

    But there is another reason to make it easier to oversee federal employees:

    “Civil service laws have made it nearly impossible to remove government bureaucrats from their jobs. President Barack Obama has a chance to place many of his political appointments in these secure positions for life and make it difficult for a new president with a different agenda to enact reforms.

    It’s a process commonly known as “burrowing,” in which political appointees move into career government status. Unlike political appointees, federal workers in the civil service system are difficult to fire, are hired through a merit system, and carry over throughout administrations, Republican or Democrat.”

    Federal agencies populated by oppositional ideologues can create a politically motivated impediment to government processes or the advancement of policies antithetical to the agendas of the incumbents.

    “….when (von Spakovsky) served in the George W. Bush Justice Department, a former political appointee of President Bill Clinton had transferred to the position of a civil service DOJ lawyer. The attorney’s legal briefs were “completely untrustworthy” and meant to undermine Bush administration policies.”

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/03/how-obamas-influence-could-continue-after-his-term-through-his-political-appointees

  5. Retired Spook August 4, 2016 / 10:17 am

    Good article by Brandon Smith at Personal Liberty Digest this week. There are some aspects of this political season plus the unique place in history in which we find ourselves that he nails. The video clip from the BBC show The Big Questions is especially illustrative.

  6. Amazona August 4, 2016 / 10:17 am

    Here is something for the Hillaryites to consider. Remember, she has been handed the baton in what has now been officially recognized as a Democrat relay race. She has been presented to the world as the successor to the Obama Legacy as its flag bearer and designated continuer-of-its-policies.

    Hillary has already been an active participant in Obama policies, including the fiasco in Benghazi. Even CNN has come around to accepting the ugly truth that Hillary Clinton’s State Department, acting under the direction of Barack Obama’s Presidency, was actively involved in shipping arms to Syria, where they were then accessible to al-Qaida. (emphasis mine)

    “CNN is reporting lawmakers are speculating on the possibility U.S. agencies operating in the Benghazi compound attacked Sept. 11, 2012, were secretly helping to transfer weapons from Libya, via Turkey, to the rebels in Syria.

    That possibility was first reported by WND two weeks after the Benghazi attack, when the news agency cited Egyptian security officials who said murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens played a central role in arming and recruiting rebels to fight Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
    In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels, which included weapons shipments being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/cnn-confirms-wnd-reporting-on-gun-running-in-benghazi/#IoAr0s5zLygRgvMH.99

    Lots to learn here, but basically the Obama administration, with the help of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was involved in providing weapons to anti-American terrorists. CNN is still coyly referring to this as “speculation” on the “possibility” that this was going on, but the evidence is overwhelming. (And BTW, it also leads to an explanation of the failure of the administration, from the Oval Office on down, to intercede in the bloodbath that killed four Americans at that “…. U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels…” Here is where speculation comes in. Did they just hope it would turn out OK? Did they think it beneficial to their cover-up to have these people die so they could not talk about what they had been doing there? This is where it gets murky. But the basic facts are not.

    To move on:

    “Once again, Obama found a way to go around a U.S. law that got in the way of him doing what he wanted to do. In this case, the administration was hell-bent on legacy building, and Obama wanted as part of his legacy a nuclear deal with Iran, a deal we suspected then and now know was much more beneficial to Iran than the U.S. and our allies.

    Iran, for its part, wanted money. That’s because economic sanctions were working and making it harder for Iran to get access to free flowing capital that they could then pass along to their pals in Hezbollah and Assad in Syria. Terrorism isn’t a cheap business.

    But, for good reason, it is illegal under U.S. law to make any transaction with Iran that involves U.S. dollars. So the Obama negotiating whiz team found a way to break the spirit of the law without actually breaking the word of the law. They sent U.S. dollars to banks in Switzerland and the Netherlands, had them changed to foreign currencies, including euros and Swiss francs, and then put them on a plane and shipped them to Tehran. Perhaps not a textbook example of money laundering, but you get the idea.”

    http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/03/hostage-deal-is-latest-example-of-obamas-sell-out-to-iran
    …………………………………………..

    My question to Hillary converts is why they think she would be a better choice for the nation, given her history and ideology. She’s already been in bed with Islamic terrorists and has been named as the successor to the Obama policies of aiding terrorists. One would think that the CEO of a top electronics firm making computers would be able to do a little online research to find out what her new presidential choice really means for the country.

  7. Retired Spook August 4, 2016 / 10:25 am

    CNN is still coyly referring to this as “speculation” on the “possibility” that this was going on, but the evidence is overwhelming.

    It’s extremely likely that hacked emails confirming this will be coming from Wikileaks sooner rather than later.

  8. Retired Spook August 4, 2016 / 1:09 pm

    One of the headlines on my home page today says Obama’s approval rating has risen to 54% or the highest since Bill Clinton’s 57% nearly 20 years ago. Well, the ol’ BS meter clanged and buzzed and just plain went tilt. I recall seeing a Rasmussen poll a couple days ago showing the right track/wrong track sentiment among Americans is 29%/66%. So either Obama is completely immune from the damage he’s done to this country or his approval numbers are just pure propaganda BS.

    • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 3:36 pm

      Well, we have ample proof that love of Obama is completely devoid of rational thought.

      The main thing contributing to this disconnect is that Obama’s many misdeeds are simply not reported by the Complicit Agenda Media, whose primary job is to protect, promote and defend Leftism and all its advocates.

      The other is the success of the brilliant (and carefully aided, see CAM comment above) propaganda machine of the Left, which have convinced so many people that the problem is really the obstructionist Right that just won’t let Obama accomplish the wonderful things that would make a wonderful difference and make life wonderful for everyone.

      Again, a necessary message that will probably never be articulated in this election cycle.

    • 02casper August 5, 2016 / 7:30 pm

      “So either Obama is completely immune from the damage he’s done to this country or his approval numbers are just pure propaganda BS.”

      Or it could be that people are tired of a Republican congress that does nothing.

      • Amazona August 5, 2016 / 8:36 pm

        Casper, as you work as a teacher, you undoubtedly know how to do online research. Please inform us of:

        How many potential bills Reid blocked from reaching the floor for a vote when he was the Senate Majority Leader:

        How many bills were passed by Congress and vetoed by President Obama;

        The elaborate process for getting a prospective bill up for an up-or-down vote and the ability of various committees to interfere with this process:

        and how many efforts were made in the last eight years by Republicans to get bills up for a vote, and/or signed by the president;

        Surely you know how easy it is to demagogue raw data, without knowing the actual details that lie behind the numbers, and surely you would not want to be part of a misleading and dishonest perception of Republican Senators and Representatives.

        While you are at it, you might tell us how many bills were passed and signed by the president when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. We know about Obamacare—-what were the others?

        What would really be interesting would be an analysis of what efforts were made by the president to legislate from the Oval Office via Executive Orders. Come on, Casper—you might have some spare time before school is back in session to do a little learning of your own.

      • Amazona August 5, 2016 / 10:53 pm

        Who is this “we”? What voters are so “upset” about what you call “least productive”?

        What would you consider “productive”? Why is passing a lot of new bills a good thing? In a nation awash in and crippled by the burden of excessive regulation, why is it automatically a bad thing to not add to that burden?

        What bills did Obama veto? Were they bad bills? What would you (plural “you” of course as you are speaking for so many people) want Congress to pass? Why? How many of them can you say, with a straight face, you think Obama would have signed?

        Do you think Congress should have wasted time in passing bills they already knew would be vetoed? Would you find value in that? Would more vetoed bills make you feel the Republican Congress had been more “productive”?

        While you are at it, you might tell us how many bills were passed and signed by the president when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. We know about Obamacare—-what were the others? Were they “productive”? Did they make life better for Americans? Did they improve the country?

        Your complaint, unless you can back it up with something relevant and meaningful, just sounds like more of the blah blah blah blah blah sound machine of the Left, trying to create negative impressions in the gullible they can count on to do no research into what they say. It does seem to go over well with the Kool-Aid drinker Leftist sheeple.

      • Amazona August 5, 2016 / 11:05 pm

        “The recent budget compromise left many Republicans with a bad taste and continued frustration with the party’s leadership. Gallup cites that frustration as a reason for Republicans’ less positive view of Congress in comparison to Democrats.”

        Yet the article does not mention the structure of the legislative process, the fact that the bill was put together by Boehner, or most important of all that Ryan had a clear and coherent explanation for why the bill had to go through as structured and that immediately, as in the next couple of days, he put forth dozens of proposed amendments to the bill to fix the many defects the bill contained.

        Facts seem to have no place in the process by which most Americans come to what they call “decisions” but are really just destinations to which they have been herded by the selective information fed to them by the Complicit Agenda Media.

  9. Marc Lee August 4, 2016 / 1:38 pm

    UN Backs Secret Obama Takeover of Police
    International org calls for federalization of U.S. law enforcement to be ‘beefed up,’ cover all of America http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/un-backs-secret-obama-takeover-of-police/

    Obama Administration and UN Announce “GLOBAL POLICE FORCE” to Fight “Extremism” IN US CITIES – See
    more at: pamelageller.com/…/#sthash.1tJEPpv2.dpuf

    Strong Cities Network Should Raise Alarms for Liberty Advocates
    http://www.oathkeepers.org/…/

    Obama Administration and UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight ‘Extremism’ In U.S.
    http://www.breitbart.com/…/

    Please understand that there is much more at stake in this election. Obama has only ever acted as an agent of the U.N., implementing those things he’s signed us up for in the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, T.P.P. , immigration mandates etc. What we see as no longer having a rule of law or refusal to enforce U.S. law, a failure to honor his oath of office, is in fact Obama enforcing U.N. law and our Congress not stopping him. As Jeff Sessions warned on the floor of Senate and his reason for being the first to endorse Trump is to try to regain our national sovereignty and adherence to our U.S. Constitution and existing laws.

    • Amazona August 4, 2016 / 10:20 pm

      And Hillary is formally named as the person who will continue what he has started, after being complicit in much of it, and more, when she was Sec of State.

  10. Amazona August 4, 2016 / 10:17 pm

    Here are the most well established political parties in the United States, other than the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians and the Greens. Each name is followed by the year in which it was established, and some by the name it used to go by.

    I notice that although socialism is a significant component of the Democrat Party and should, therefore, support a vibrant and growing party in its own name, the Socialist Party USA, for example, founded in 1973, hasn’t made much of a blip on American political radar. Nor has the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919. It appears that even when a party represents the ideals of millions, when it starts its own party those new parties don’t seem to mount much in the way of competition with the established parties of the Democrats and Republicans. Even Independents can’t get traction with America’s Party, which was started as America’s Independent Party.

    (My favorite name is the Transhumanist Party. I wonder how many members it has, and how you qualify for membership.)

    Kinda makes you wonder how long it would take for yet another party to become powerful enough to take away enough voters from the top two to make a difference.

    America First Party 2002
    American Conservative Party 2008
    American Freedom Party 2010 American Third Position Party
    American Solidarity Party 2011 Christian Democratic Party USA
    America’s Party 2008 America’s Independent Party
    Black Riders Liberation Party 1996
    Christian Liberty Party* 1996 American Heritage Party
    Citizens Party of the United States 2004 New American Independent Party
    Communist Party USA 1919 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties
    Freedom Socialist Party 1966
    Humane Party 2009
    Independent American Party 1998
    Justice Party 2011
    Modern Whig Party 2007
    National Socialist Movement 1974 National Socialist American Workers Freedom Movement World Union of National Socialists
    New Black Panther Party 1989
    Objectivist Party 2008
    Party for Socialism and Liberation 2004
    Peace and Freedom Party 1967
    Prohibition Party 1869
    Reform Party of the United States of America 1995 United We Stand America
    Socialist Action 1983 Fourth International
    Socialist Alternative 1986 Labor Militant Committee for a Workers’ International
    Socialist Equality Party 1966 Workers League
    Socialist Party USA 1973
    Socialist Workers Party 1938 Pathfinder tendency (unofficial)
    Transhumanist Party 2014
    United States Marijuana Party 2002
    United States Pacifist Party 1983
    United States Pirate Party 2006 Pirate Party International (observer)
    Unity Party of America 2004
    Veterans Party of America 2013
    Workers World Party 1959

Comments are closed.