Neither Trump nor Clinton is worth our vote

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next four years.

…As secretary of state, Clinton carried out foreign-policy decisions that led to major setbacks for American interests as far as the eye can see — whether in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea or China. This is the kind of ”experience” we don’t need to see repeated in the White House.

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

People, we are SO screwed.

Neither presidential candidate is worth our vote. In 1996, William Safire wrote an essay in which he characterized Hillary Clinton as a congenital liar. HillBillary’s estrangement from the truth is well known,
beyond dispute
. Her election to the White House will introduce into the Oval Office Satan. She is an abomination, stench in the nostril’s of God, so to speak.

As for Donald Trump, the primaries are over. Speeches and rants on Twitter will not work in the general election… Instead of focusing upon the lousy economy and Hillary’s difficulties with veracity, Trump insults individuals and groups. He constantly shoots himself in the foot with a cannon.

In the Ohio primary, I voted for Trump because I believed he could beat Clinton in the general election and Governor Kasich could not. In my opinion, Trump wants to win but would be satisfied with a close election because it would enhance his brand.

For many months, I supported the candidacy of Donald Trump…no longer.

article that compared Trump’s mental acuity with Dubya convinced me that Trump is a fool. Simply put, Trump needs some clues. For example, the jobs he thinks he can bring back from China and Mexico are GONErobotics.

In sum, Donald Trump’s personality is flawed while Hillary Clinton’s character is execrable.

Manufacturing shed 5 million jobs after 2000, giving way to welfare, drugs and despondency. The number of Americans receiving welfare of one kind or another exploded from 42 million (or 18.8 percent of Americans) in 1983 to 109 million (or 35 percent) in 2012. As America added 83 million citizens, then, it added 67 million welfare recipients — during a period of massive wealth creation. (Per-capita income rose from about $30,000 in 1983 to over $52,000 in 2012.)

The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

jimsteinberg1 7:37 PM EDT

This WP “disdain for Trump and Clinton” trope is 100 percent bovine excretion. Clinton is a good and decent woman, who has worked all her life for noble causes. I can’t believe the frenzied hatred from wack-right extremists — and their tools — who even try wickedly to use Bill Clinton’s meandering against Hillary Clinton. These people lack all judgment, class, respect, basic human decency and compassion. The more obviously they reveal their mean core, the more the Republican Party shrivels in its death throes.

eochen24551 5:28 AM EDT [Edited]

In the eyes of Trump supporters, he can do no wrong and Hillary can do no right. In short, their minds are made up.
However, most voters are asking themselves if Donald Trump is fit to govern our nation. How they answer that question for themselves will determine the 2016 election.
I personally find Donald Trump simply appalling:
– his rude behavior,
– his coarse language,
– the utter shallowness of his grasp of diplomatic relations,
– so sure of himself,
– priding himself on his ignorance of the global economy and how it works,
– his “ability” to make friends and influence people.
– an ignorant American billionaire who believes that he will be America’s Greatest President.–and-they-dont-care/2016/06/06/05005210-28c4-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html

5/29/2016 11:28 PM EDT [Edited]

She’s 2 personalities, and most folks know it. (See “Why Is Hillary Clinton Disliked?” By David Brooks in The New York Times last week.) The Hillary Clinton public persona stages herself as a resumé of experience in executive positions, which is false upon examination. The semi-private Hillary Clinton persona shows that she is a mean, demanding, egotistic, deluded power-mad, corrupt woman who will do anything, say anything, and believe anything false to overcome the Clinton couple’s scandalous record.
Hillary really wants to erase the image of her and husband Bill as our country’s first and only dysfunctional first family in both the ceremonial and executive roles of our Presidency. And she will lie, lie, and lie again if that is what it takes. Hence her apologies for any “mistake” is just another way she manages to forgive herself for them, turning the tables as it were, on any one offended. ——As though it’s our problem for holding the mistake against her—-for missing “the context” that gives her a pass as she has just reminded us! Like a thief who steals from her office because she couldn’t otherwise pay off gambling debts or live the life to which she feels she is entitled.

Michael Gerson commentary: Clinton the untrusted now takes on Trump the unfit

Monday August 1, 2016 5:00 AM

Hillary Clinton’s convention week featured two of the most effective communicators in the Democratic Party offering different images of the nominee. In Bill Clinton’s version, she is a “change-maker” who has “never been satisfied with the status quo.” In Barack Obama’s telling, she has the “intelligence” and “judgment” to carry forward his administration’s ideals into a third term, because the status quo is pretty darn good.

When the spotlight finally came, the nominee was very much herself — a tenacious plodder, advocating half-a-loaf liberalism. This is closer to Obama’s description than her husband’s. In Philadelphia, she made the high-stakes decision to present herself as conventional, normal and safe, in sharp contrast to a small, unstable man “moved by fear and pride.”

If this is a normal election — in which the composition of the electorate and the turnout of various groups roughly match recent presidential contests — Clinton’s argument should be enough. If this is an anti-establishment wave election, she has the worst possible political profile — boasting of her royal resume during the French Revolution.

There is no doubt about Clinton’s ideological framework. Down with Citizens United! Climate change is real! Raise the minimum wage! Free college for everyone! Clinton called this agenda “bold,” which is true in the same way as Donald Trump calling himself “a really smart person.” She said nothing creative from the podium that would have offended your average Bernie Sanders supporter (except the ones who believe America should defend itself with truculent self-righteousness rather than weapons).

Clinton missed her best opening when it came to describing America’s unifying ideals. In Cleveland, Republicans — shockingly, disturbingly — left this rhetorical ground unoccupied. In his convention speech, Obama skillfully took this ground. But Clinton could not hold it. She strained mightily, consulted a Broadway musical and produced a slogan: “Stronger Together.”

I get that inspiration is not Clinton’s “thing.” But a candidate has weeks and months to produce a memorable convention speech. Clinton’s speechwriting process — which includes some fine writers and too many political overseers — delivered the functional equivalent of a State of the Union address.

In making her case about America’s future, Clinton highlighted her book (“It Takes a Village”) published in 1996. The liberal communitarianism found in those pages does not seem particularly well-suited for outreach to working-class whites, if that is one of her goals. In her attempt to identify with a cartoon version of the blue-collar everyman, her focus was on economics. The progressive version of homo economicus leaves out cultural matters entirely. What assurance did Clinton provide that Democratic elites even tolerate more conservative views on, say, abortion? What was her version of school uniforms or welfare reform — her husband’s symbols of outreach to cultural conservatives? As a policy matter, Democratic centrism is still dead.

Clinton’s defense of the honor of the military against Trump’s ridicule was effective and needed. But it does not count as innovative policy outreach.

The speech shined in attack mode — dismissing Trump as the outsourcer in chief, the breaker of alliances, the purveyor of casual misogyny, the Twitter troll who must be denied the nuclear codes. It says something that the most negative aspects of Clinton’s remarks were the most memorable. She is a fighter.

In the speech, she put her finger on the most frightening element of Trump’s appeal: “Our Founders fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution so America would never be a nation where one person had all the power.” It is fair to say that the Founders would have held the main thesis of Trump’s candidacy — the promise of a man on horseback to save a frightened and supine nation — in utter contempt. It also says something that one of the strongest attacks on the Republican nominee is the defense of self-government.

This is an extraordinary political moment. Any reasonable Republican presidential contender other than Trump probably would be beating Clinton handily. Any reasonable Democratic contender other than Clinton probably would be beating Trump handily. The parties, in their wisdom, have chosen the untrusted against the unstable, the uninspiring against the unfit. Take your pick, and take your chances.

Charles Krauthammer commentary: Clinton’s run is a campaign without a mission

Friday July 29, 2016 5:00 AM

“The best darn change-maker I ever met in my entire life.” So said Bill Clinton in making the case for his wife at the Democratic National Convention. Considering that Bernie Sanders ran as the author of a political revolution and Donald Trump as the man who would “kick over the table” (to quote Newt Gingrich) in Washington, “change-maker” does not exactly make the heart race.

Which is the fundamental problem with the Clinton campaign. What precisely is it about? Why is she running in the first place?

Like most dynastic candidates (most famously Ted Kennedy in 1979), she really doesn’t know. She seeks the office because, well, it’s the next — the final — step on the ladder.

Her campaign’s premise is that we’re doing OK but we can do better. There are holes to patch in the nanny-state safety net. She’s the one to do it.

It amounts to Sanders lite. Or the short-lived Bush slogan: “Jeb can fix it.” We know where that went.

The one man who could have given the pudding a theme, who could have created a plausible Hillaryism was Bill Clinton. Rather than do that — the way in Cleveland Gingrich shaped Trump’s various barstool eruptions into a semi-coherent program of national populism — Bill gave a long chronological account of a passionate liberal’s social activism. It was an attempt, I suppose, to humanize her.

Well, yes. Perhaps, after all, somewhere in there is a real person. But what a waste of Bill’s talents. It wasn’t exactly Clint Eastwood speaking to an empty chair, but at the end you had to ask: Is that all there is?

He grandly concluded with this: “The reason you should elect her is that in the greatest country on Earth we have always been about tomorrow.” Is there a rhetorical device more banal?

Trump’s acceptance speech was roundly criticized for offering a dark, dystopian vision of America. For all of its exaggeration, however, it reflected well the view from Fishtown, the fictional white working-class town created statistically by social scientist Charles Murray in his 2012 study “Coming Apart.” It chronicled the economic, social and spiritual disintegration of those left behind by globalization and economic transformation. Trump’s capture of the resultant feelings of anxiety and abandonment explains why he enjoys an astonishing 39-point advantage over Clinton among whites without a college degree.

His solution is to beat up on foreigners for “stealing” our jobs. But while trade is a factor in the loss of manufacturing jobs, even more important, by a large margin, is the emergence of an information economy in which education, knowledge and various kinds of literacy are the coin of the realm. For all the factory jobs lost to Third World competitors, far more are lost to robots.

Hard to run against higher productivity. Easier to run against cunning foreigners.

In either case, Clinton has found no counter. If she has a theme, it’s about expanding opportunity, shattering ceilings. But the universe of discriminated-against minorities — so vast 50 years ago — is rapidly shrinking. When the burning civil rights issue of the day is bathroom choice for the transgendered, a flummoxed Fishtown understandably asks, “What about us?” Telling coal miners she was going to close their mines and kill their jobs only reinforced white working-class alienation from Clinton.

As for the chaos abroad, the Democrats are in see-no-evil denial. The first night in Philadelphia, there were 61 speeches. Not one mentioned the Islamic State or even terrorism. Later references were few, far between and highly defensive. After all, what can the Democrats say? Clinton’s calling card is experience. Yet, as secretary of state, she left a trail of policy failures from Libya to Syria, from the Russian reset to the Iraqi withdrawal to the rise of the Islamic State.

Clinton had a strong second half of the convention as the Sanders revolt faded and as President Barack Obama endorsed her with one of the finer speeches of his career. Yet Trump’s convention bounce of up to 10 points has given him a slight lead in the polls. She badly needs one of her own.

She still enjoys the Democrats’ built-in Electoral College advantage. But she remains highly vulnerable to both outside events and internal revelations. Another major terror attack, another email drop — and everything changes.

In this crazy election year, there are no straight-line projections. As Clinton leaves Philadelphia, her lifelong drive for the ultimate prize is perilously close to a coin flip.

Inside the Failing Mission to Tame Trump’s Tongue

And, indeed, for all of the litigation Mr. Trump has attracted or spawned, for all of the times he has been accused of ruinous dishonesty, the legal and regulatory record is surprisingly bare of official findings by judges, juries or regulators that Mr. Trump engaged in perjury or improper deception or actual fraud.

Mr. Trump is also the beneficiary of miraculously well-timed memory lapses. In suit after suit, the man who claims to possess one of world’s best memories suddenly seems to have chronic memory loss when asked about critical facts or events.

Such was the case when Mr. Trump filed a libel lawsuit against Timothy L. O’Brien, the author of “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald.” Among other things, Mr. Trump asserted that “TrumpNation” cost him a “deal made in heaven” with a group of Italian investors, men he had met and who were on the brink of signing a business partnership that would have made him hundreds of millions of dollars. Their names? He could not recall. “TrumpNation” also cost him a hotel deal with Russian investors, he said. He could not remember their names, either. He was certain the book also ruined a deal with Turkish investors. Again, he could not recall any names. Polish investors also got cold feet after they read Mr. O’Brien’s book. Their names escaped him, too. The book also scared off investors from Ukraine. Alas, he could not think of their names either.

Mr. Trump’s lawsuit was dismissed.

Trump changed parties seven times between 1999 and 2012, starting when he left the GOP to consider a run under the Reform Party banner. After registering as a Democrat in 2001, he switched back to the Republicans in 2003. He became a Democrat again in 2005 and a Republican in 2009. He chose not to be affiliated with any party in 2011. Asked what he would say to critics who saw the constant party-switching as proof that he had no core beliefs, Trump responded: “I think it had to do more with practicality because if you’re going to run for office, you would have had to make friends.”

What we know about Donald Trump and his taxes so far

eochen24551 5:28 AM EDT [Edited]

In the eyes of Trump supporters, he can do no wrong and Hillary can do no right. In short, their minds are made up.
However, most voters are asking themselves if Donald Trump is fit to govern our nation. How they answer that question for themselves will determine the 2016 election.
I personally find Donald Trump simply appalling:
– his rude behavior,
– his coarse language,
– the utter shallowness of his grasp of diplomatic relations,
– so sure of himself,
– priding himself on his ignorance of the global economy and how it works,
– his “ability” to make friends and influence people.
– an ignorant American billionaire who believes that he will be America’s Greatest President.–and-they-dont-care/2016/06/06/05005210-28c4-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html

About Jerry Frey

Born 1953. Vietnam Veteran. Graduated Ohio State 1980. Have 5 published books. In the Woods Before Dawn; Grandpa's Gone; Longstreet's Assault; Pioneer of Salvation; Three Quarter Cadillac
This entry was posted in What I Think and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 4 = two

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>