One of my favorite jokes was Republicans pull their shades and draw their drapes at night but probably don't need to. Democrats don't pull their shades and draw their drapes at night but probably ought to. But things have changed, and it turns out that Republicans are at least as sex crazed as Democrats, if not more so.
The joke was ruined during the call for impeachment of President Clinton by Idaho Republican Representative Helen Chenowith who, it turned out, had a 6 yr relationship with a married man. The charge was led by Republican Representative Henry Hyde who had a 5 yr “youthful indiscretion" when he was in his 40s. Of course these individuals found excuses claiming their cases were different. The story continues. When I turned 40 I thought I was middle aged.
Democrats are really bending over backward and going after former comedian and current Sen. Al Franken who 6 yrs ago had a picture taken in Afghanistan of a pretend grope (his hands weren't touching her) of a woman's breasts as she was napping while wearing a flack jacket. Who would do such a grope? It would be like groping a wall. I think it was kind of funny, but it is the type of thing that, if you have to explain it, you might as well not bother.
At any rate Franken, the “groper,” has effusively apologized for the not-funny joke. She also said he French kissed her without her permission which is more serious, but he has apologized for that too although he says he remembers the incident differently The woman who brought up the incident has forgiven him, but certain Democrats say that is not enough as he has committed a crime. Give me a break. Well the woman involved has now got her revenge. If it should turn out that Franken is expelled from the Senate, women will have lost a strong male advocate for women's rights. That's the way these things go.
Personally IU think they should go after the "major league" sexual predators like Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump and Judge Moore.
Why was the picture released anyway? I wonder if someone was trying to blackmail him, but no matter.
I am certainly not a member of the current "hook up" generation. In my day, the man-woman thing involved the giving of subtle hints. As I have Asperger's Syndrome, I was never good at guessing what people were thinking. When I thought I had a "hint" figured out, it turned out that I was wrong.
I probably never would have gotten married except I had people coach me. On my first wife, there was a woman who was bound to get me married and a physicist graduate student who was not married. They gave me some suggestions that I couldn't believe, but they worked. On my second wife, I was coached by a woman I was interested in but who was "taken. She too gave me some suggestions that I thought would be repelled, but they weren't, much to my surprise.
When my second wife died of a stroke, I was on my own. There was a woman I was interested in who had a stroke and was learning to talk again. I was trying to help her, and we became fond of each other. Several times I did things that I thought had ruined our relationship, but I guess she was interested in me which helped getting over these faux pas.
Democrats are going after Bill Clinton* again and saying he should have resigned. I feel that his case is quit different. I don't understand it as the young woman came onto him so it was a consensual relationship as she admitted. There was a hazard to his marriage, but it was a matter for his wife to decide. There were those who were upset that Hillary didn't get a divorce., but the Clinton's worked it out Whatever happened to "Until death do us part?" I have covered all this before (See the references.).
But I feel there is something disturbing about women saying that it is immoral for a powerful man to have an affair with a young woman of 22, even if she came onto him. They talk about the young woman as if she is a child. At what age are women grown up? It's as if women have a fatal attraction for a powerful man? Is that true? Was my problem that I wasn't rich or famous (It aklso helps to be handsome.)? If anyone told me that I was still a child at 22, I would have wanted to bust them in the nose.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/08/politicians-and-sex.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-still-with-us.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/10/some-men-have-it-most-dont.html
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
THAT'S GRATITUDE FOR YOU
So President Donald (The Bully) Trump has fired the FBI Director James Comey allegedly for how he treated Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That's a laugh, make that a double laugh. First of all Donald (The Bully) Trump praised Comey multiple times on how he managed the Clinton e-mail affair and, second, Comey's behavior over the matter is why Trump became President. That's gratitude for you.
I slept better last night knowing that Sec. Mattis was head of our armed forces and Trump's National Security officer Lt. Gen. McMaster was to be informed if the "Red Button" was pushed to initiate a nuclear war. Incidentally there are those who are out to get Lt. Gen. McMaster also.*
Of course no one (make that only a few) are fooled by the firing as Comey and the FBI is getting uncomfortably close to the real reasons behind Donald (The Bully) Trump's dealings with the Russians.
But actually, it was the FBI organization getting uncomfortably close and not just the Director. Lindsay Graham assures us that the FBI investigation will continue (but will the Justice Depart. act on their findings?). The investigation is not on The Bully but does hit more than one of his associates, and this might lead to Trump. So The Bully is getting nervous.
What good is a 10 yr term, if the President can fire him at any time? So any time the FBI Director does anything that disagrees with the President, the job of the FBI Director is in jeopardy.
Note May 11, 2017: Two reasons for the firing of Comey are bandied about. One is that Comey said it gave him mild nausea to think he might have influenced the election, and two that he went to the Justice Dept and asked for more resources to concentrate on the Russian probe and participation by the Trump campaign. If Trump thought this would squash the Russian collusion probe, he is sadly mistaken. Now Trump says he fired Comey because he is a showboat and grandstander! Comey was getting too much attention and getting more famous than the president. I can understand Trump couldn't tolerate that.
Notes added May 14: Now there are claims that Comey never asked for more resources to pursue the Russian "affair" (my italics):
Given Rosenstein’s legal expertise and 27-year Justice Department career, I would have expected him to produce a detailed and comprehensive rationale for Director Comey’s firing including input from the agents and staff who worked with Director Comey.
But instead of a document that provides meaningful analysis, the memo reads like political document. It includes quotes from op-eds and television appearances that are as old as six months. It doesn’t include any contemporary insights from inside the FBI. The memo appears to have been hastily assembled to justify a preordained outcome.****
* http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/09/the-knives-are-out-for-hr-mcmaster-trump-bannon-nsc/
** http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-asked-for-more-resources-for-1494434774-htmlstory.html
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Nance
**** http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-feinstein-rosenstein-s-memo-reads-like-1494511819-htmlstory.html
I slept better last night knowing that Sec. Mattis was head of our armed forces and Trump's National Security officer Lt. Gen. McMaster was to be informed if the "Red Button" was pushed to initiate a nuclear war. Incidentally there are those who are out to get Lt. Gen. McMaster also.*
Of course no one (make that only a few) are fooled by the firing as Comey and the FBI is getting uncomfortably close to the real reasons behind Donald (The Bully) Trump's dealings with the Russians.
But actually, it was the FBI organization getting uncomfortably close and not just the Director. Lindsay Graham assures us that the FBI investigation will continue (but will the Justice Depart. act on their findings?). The investigation is not on The Bully but does hit more than one of his associates, and this might lead to Trump. So The Bully is getting nervous.
What good is a 10 yr term, if the President can fire him at any time? So any time the FBI Director does anything that disagrees with the President, the job of the FBI Director is in jeopardy.
Note May 11, 2017: Two reasons for the firing of Comey are bandied about. One is that Comey said it gave him mild nausea to think he might have influenced the election, and two that he went to the Justice Dept and asked for more resources to concentrate on the Russian probe and participation by the Trump campaign. If Trump thought this would squash the Russian collusion probe, he is sadly mistaken. Now Trump says he fired Comey because he is a showboat and grandstander! Comey was getting too much attention and getting more famous than the president. I can understand Trump couldn't tolerate that.
Notes added May 14: Now there are claims that Comey never asked for more resources to pursue the Russian "affair" (my italics):
But a Justice Department spokesman denied that Comey had made the request.“Totally false,” said Ian Prior.
Comey “never made the request for more resources and money for the Russia investigations.”**
Now it is suspected by counter-terrorism expert Malcolm Nance*** on a news program this morning that Rosenstein may not have even written the memo. Diane Feinstein said:Comey “never made the request for more resources and money for the Russia investigations.”**
Given Rosenstein’s legal expertise and 27-year Justice Department career, I would have expected him to produce a detailed and comprehensive rationale for Director Comey’s firing including input from the agents and staff who worked with Director Comey.
But instead of a document that provides meaningful analysis, the memo reads like political document. It includes quotes from op-eds and television appearances that are as old as six months. It doesn’t include any contemporary insights from inside the FBI. The memo appears to have been hastily assembled to justify a preordained outcome.****
* http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/09/the-knives-are-out-for-hr-mcmaster-trump-bannon-nsc/
** http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-comey-asked-for-more-resources-for-1494434774-htmlstory.html
*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Nance
**** http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-feinstein-rosenstein-s-memo-reads-like-1494511819-htmlstory.html
Sunday, December 11, 2016
FRIENDS AGAIN !
So we are going to be friends with the Soviet Union/Russia again. Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton had there reset with Putin for which Hillary was roundly criticized by the Republicans. Now they seem to be all right with it. I guess it matters who does it. But it confuses me.
Prior to WW-II a lot of people in the U.S. turned to Soviet-style Communism in a hangover from the Great Depression (or were we still in it?). Then in WW-II they were our friends that seemed a bit strange, but I understand that the enemy of our enemy is our friend so it was OK. Also they took the brunt of WW-II as the main front though it was difficult enough what we and our allies did.
But shortly after armistice of WW-II the Soviets/Russians became our enemies again. Remember the "Cold War?" then in the early 1970s, President Nixon started a "Détente" and the Soviets/Russians were our friends again. I was confused by this but "what the 'hey " I was offered a science prize and went over to give a couple of lectures during a "hard" freeze on foreign travel by the U.S. government. I had to get myself to London and they did the rest (see "You couldn't Have Been On That Plane - Parts I- III:" http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-couldnt-have-been-on-that-plane.html). Everything was very nice and I had to spend all the prize money in the Soviet Union/Russia so I went first class on everything that, was none too good in some cases.
Then came along President Reagan and the Soviet Union/Russia became the "Evil Empire," in 1983 - remember? This felt better to me.
Reagan was followed by President George H.W. Bush who negotiated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union/Russia. Under these conditions, it was not surprising that we became friendly with the Soviet Union/Russia again as they tried to convert to Capitalism. Give them a chance, so to speak.
This friendly relationship extended into President Clinton's* years, although he took several Eastern European counties into NATO that created a stir, but
Clinton also supported the besieged leadership of Russian president Boris Yeltsin as well as the funneling of billions of dollars in loans to Russia from the International Monetary Fund.In 1999, Clinton's support for financial aid to Russia came under attack in the face of mounting evidence that much of the borrowed money may have been stolen by an organized criminal syndicate which included members of Yeltsin's own family. However, supporters of Clinton's pro-Yeltsin policies credit his administration with an important achievement not easily measured in dollars or in the short run: the security of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Working through the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act, the administration provided extensive technical assistance and funding to the former Soviet states in the safeguarding of nuclear power plants and dismantling of nuclear weapons—an astounding achievement in view of the animosity that once existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. By the end of the Clinton presidency, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers was almost nonexistent.
However, the failed "reset" in the Obama/Hillary Clinton period sort of drifted back to hostility to the Soviet Union/Russia which is where we are now with about a month to go in the Obama Administration tour. There seems little reason for a change in attitude. The Soviet Union/Russia is still occupying parts of the Ukraine and has taken over the Crimea. The Soviet Union/Russia still supports the leader of Syria and won't agree to a cease fire in Aleppo. What's changed ?
Nonetheless, President-Elect Trump will try his own reset. He has been very friendly to Putin and gives every indication of continuing that friendship into his administration. After all why not ? Putin has said nice things about him, and helped Trump win the election by leaking things about his opponent through WikiLeaks. His National Security Adviser, Gen. Flynn, is also is cozy with Putin.** He is considering a candidate for Secretary of State who is also friendly with Putin and has done business with him (Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil). Even the leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell has gotten onboard.
[Note added December 13: It appears thaMcConnel has had a change of heart and now supports an investigation into the the Soviet Union/Russian hacking and says that the Soviet Union/Russia is not a firend of ours.***].
So it looks like "Here We Go Again" regarding friendship with the Soviet Union/Russia. Perhaps Trump at least can build a hotel in Moscow (and maybe one in St. Petersburg as a bonus) and Tillerson can get his deep drilling contract for oil in Siberia out of it.
* http://millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-foreign-affairs
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.4f2c30d0cedd
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.53cc9b92e806
Prior to WW-II a lot of people in the U.S. turned to Soviet-style Communism in a hangover from the Great Depression (or were we still in it?). Then in WW-II they were our friends that seemed a bit strange, but I understand that the enemy of our enemy is our friend so it was OK. Also they took the brunt of WW-II as the main front though it was difficult enough what we and our allies did.
But shortly after armistice of WW-II the Soviets/Russians became our enemies again. Remember the "Cold War?" then in the early 1970s, President Nixon started a "Détente" and the Soviets/Russians were our friends again. I was confused by this but "what the 'hey " I was offered a science prize and went over to give a couple of lectures during a "hard" freeze on foreign travel by the U.S. government. I had to get myself to London and they did the rest (see "You couldn't Have Been On That Plane - Parts I- III:" http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-couldnt-have-been-on-that-plane.html). Everything was very nice and I had to spend all the prize money in the Soviet Union/Russia so I went first class on everything that, was none too good in some cases.
Then came along President Reagan and the Soviet Union/Russia became the "Evil Empire," in 1983 - remember? This felt better to me.
Reagan was followed by President George H.W. Bush who negotiated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union/Russia. Under these conditions, it was not surprising that we became friendly with the Soviet Union/Russia again as they tried to convert to Capitalism. Give them a chance, so to speak.
This friendly relationship extended into President Clinton's* years, although he took several Eastern European counties into NATO that created a stir, but
Clinton also supported the besieged leadership of Russian president Boris Yeltsin as well as the funneling of billions of dollars in loans to Russia from the International Monetary Fund.In 1999, Clinton's support for financial aid to Russia came under attack in the face of mounting evidence that much of the borrowed money may have been stolen by an organized criminal syndicate which included members of Yeltsin's own family. However, supporters of Clinton's pro-Yeltsin policies credit his administration with an important achievement not easily measured in dollars or in the short run: the security of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Working through the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act, the administration provided extensive technical assistance and funding to the former Soviet states in the safeguarding of nuclear power plants and dismantling of nuclear weapons—an astounding achievement in view of the animosity that once existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. By the end of the Clinton presidency, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers was almost nonexistent.
However, the failed "reset" in the Obama/Hillary Clinton period sort of drifted back to hostility to the Soviet Union/Russia which is where we are now with about a month to go in the Obama Administration tour. There seems little reason for a change in attitude. The Soviet Union/Russia is still occupying parts of the Ukraine and has taken over the Crimea. The Soviet Union/Russia still supports the leader of Syria and won't agree to a cease fire in Aleppo. What's changed ?
Nonetheless, President-Elect Trump will try his own reset. He has been very friendly to Putin and gives every indication of continuing that friendship into his administration. After all why not ? Putin has said nice things about him, and helped Trump win the election by leaking things about his opponent through WikiLeaks. His National Security Adviser, Gen. Flynn, is also is cozy with Putin.** He is considering a candidate for Secretary of State who is also friendly with Putin and has done business with him (Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil). Even the leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell has gotten onboard.
[Note added December 13: It appears thaMcConnel has had a change of heart and now supports an investigation into the the Soviet Union/Russian hacking and says that the Soviet Union/Russia is not a firend of ours.***].
So it looks like "Here We Go Again" regarding friendship with the Soviet Union/Russia. Perhaps Trump at least can build a hotel in Moscow (and maybe one in St. Petersburg as a bonus) and Tillerson can get his deep drilling contract for oil in Siberia out of it.
* http://millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-foreign-affairs
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.4f2c30d0cedd
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.53cc9b92e806
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
AMERICA NOT READY FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT
So the first woman candidate for president by a major party loses to a con man.* As I wrote in August of 2016:
There is nothing quite like trying to con the public into voting for you for president when you have no qualifications. Even Obama had a few. What is the old saying: You can fool all of the people some of the time., you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Well Donald Trump is trying.
Look on the bright side. It could have been Ted Cruz.
I realized even in 2015 that Donald Trump tailored his campaign to appeal to the Deplorables. and it worked. Here is what I wrote in December of 2015:
ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc. It isn't pretty folks but there it is. You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump. It will still be out there, as Trump is following these people, not leading them.**
Well we will find out just how much Trump believed in his message.
I do have big worries about Trump's love affair with Putin.*** I'm surprised people went along with this, And twice he said that American labor is paid too much, but the Deplorables ignored this.
In the end, all sorts of people voted for Trump including college educated women. Yes, Hillary got a larger vote from them, but not nearly as big as expected. Frankly, I don't know how any woman could vote for Trump, but I conclude that being a womanizer is now off the table as an issue in running for president, just as being divorced is. This opens the door to a lot of men for the future.
I think that Hillary ran as fine a campaign as possible. I don't know what she could have done better. She did loads of appearances. She raised loads of money. She had a great ground game. I don't know what she could have done better. She had a popular president behind her, she had celebrities for her, and she had a fine crew of surrogates, including Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, and Tim Kaine (her running mate), among others . She spoke well. She had an upbeat message until she felt it necessary to get down in the mud with Trump.
My take away form this is that we have found that it is very difficult to beat a well known entertainer. At least Ronald Reagan knew how to act presidential.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-biggest-con.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/12/donald-trump-final-comments-i-hope.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-putin-love-affair.html
There is nothing quite like trying to con the public into voting for you for president when you have no qualifications. Even Obama had a few. What is the old saying: You can fool all of the people some of the time., you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Well Donald Trump is trying.
Look on the bright side. It could have been Ted Cruz.
I realized even in 2015 that Donald Trump tailored his campaign to appeal to the Deplorables. and it worked. Here is what I wrote in December of 2015:
ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc. It isn't pretty folks but there it is. You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump. It will still be out there, as Trump is following these people, not leading them.**
Well we will find out just how much Trump believed in his message.
I do have big worries about Trump's love affair with Putin.*** I'm surprised people went along with this, And twice he said that American labor is paid too much, but the Deplorables ignored this.
In the end, all sorts of people voted for Trump including college educated women. Yes, Hillary got a larger vote from them, but not nearly as big as expected. Frankly, I don't know how any woman could vote for Trump, but I conclude that being a womanizer is now off the table as an issue in running for president, just as being divorced is. This opens the door to a lot of men for the future.
I think that Hillary ran as fine a campaign as possible. I don't know what she could have done better. She did loads of appearances. She raised loads of money. She had a great ground game. I don't know what she could have done better. She had a popular president behind her, she had celebrities for her, and she had a fine crew of surrogates, including Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, and Tim Kaine (her running mate), among others . She spoke well. She had an upbeat message until she felt it necessary to get down in the mud with Trump.
My take away form this is that we have found that it is very difficult to beat a well known entertainer. At least Ronald Reagan knew how to act presidential.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-biggest-con.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/12/donald-trump-final-comments-i-hope.html
*** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/08/trump-putin-love-affair.html
Monday, September 19, 2016
TRUMP BEST REPUBLICAN?
The reason I feel Donald Trump is the best Republican for president is that so many people who know him say they are surprised at the way he is behaving in the election season. I have long felt I know he has tailored his political approach to appeal to what has become known as the Deplorables, a term they have in fact adopted.* As I have said before, he is not leading a group of people, he is following them:**
ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc. It isn't pretty folks but there it is. You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump. It will still be out there, as Trump is followingthese people, not leading them.
Although Trump is the Flip Flopper In Chief, his overall stance seems to be in line with Republican values. He has a problem with establishment Republicans in that he says out loud what most Republicans believe but think should be only said in private because it doesn't sound good. Trump favors a tax plan that will enrich the wealthy. Paul Ryan favors a tax plan that favors enriching the wealthy. Trump believes that women that have abortions should be punished some way. Paul Ryan believe that abortion should be illegal. And so it goes. The Libertarian Party was established by Republicans that don't follow the Evangelicalism of the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see how this attempt evolves. Right now it seems to take more votes from Democrats than Republicans, most of whom seem to accept their party become a religious party.
That said, Trump has fabricated a Hillary who is a genuinely bad person. Fortunately, that Hillary is not the Hillary running for president. Hillary Clinton is the one who is running for president, and she has been a long-time advocate for children's upbringing (It Takes A Community To Raise A Child), children's health, etc.), women 's rights, and We Are Stronger Together. After Barack Obama was nominated for president, Hillary worked hard on his campaign for president, was his Secretary of State, and has wrapped herself in Obama on her current candidacy for president. That a couple of Hillary's aids in her run for president in 2008 explored the birther issue is mute. She never espoused it and certainly has not pursued it since. It was no excuse for Trump to the promote the birther issue for five years since. It is incredible that Republicans think it is,
We are well into the silly season in American politics, and I plan no further discussion of this election cycle. In fact, I try to avoid all dnews of politics during the rest of this period. We will see if I can hold onto this.
*http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/09/im-deplorable_15.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/12/donald-trump-final-comments-i-hope.html
ALL his comments are carefully crafted to appeal to this large group of people who believe Obama was born outside the U.S., that he is a secret Muslim, that all Hispanic illegals should be deported, that we should build a wall on our southern border, that Muslims should not be allowed to enter America (I suspect many would find the idea appealing that all Muslims should be deported or placed in detention camps.), etc., etc. It isn't pretty folks but there it is. You aren't going to solve this hate by getting rid of Trump. It will still be out there, as Trump is followingthese people, not leading them.
Although Trump is the Flip Flopper In Chief, his overall stance seems to be in line with Republican values. He has a problem with establishment Republicans in that he says out loud what most Republicans believe but think should be only said in private because it doesn't sound good. Trump favors a tax plan that will enrich the wealthy. Paul Ryan favors a tax plan that favors enriching the wealthy. Trump believes that women that have abortions should be punished some way. Paul Ryan believe that abortion should be illegal. And so it goes. The Libertarian Party was established by Republicans that don't follow the Evangelicalism of the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see how this attempt evolves. Right now it seems to take more votes from Democrats than Republicans, most of whom seem to accept their party become a religious party.
That said, Trump has fabricated a Hillary who is a genuinely bad person. Fortunately, that Hillary is not the Hillary running for president. Hillary Clinton is the one who is running for president, and she has been a long-time advocate for children's upbringing (It Takes A Community To Raise A Child), children's health, etc.), women 's rights, and We Are Stronger Together. After Barack Obama was nominated for president, Hillary worked hard on his campaign for president, was his Secretary of State, and has wrapped herself in Obama on her current candidacy for president. That a couple of Hillary's aids in her run for president in 2008 explored the birther issue is mute. She never espoused it and certainly has not pursued it since. It was no excuse for Trump to the promote the birther issue for five years since. It is incredible that Republicans think it is,
We are well into the silly season in American politics, and I plan no further discussion of this election cycle. In fact, I try to avoid all dnews of politics during the rest of this period. We will see if I can hold onto this.
*http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/09/im-deplorable_15.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2015/12/donald-trump-final-comments-i-hope.html
Thursday, September 15, 2016
I'M DEPLORABLE
Yesterday, I saw some photos of women wearing T-shirts that said, "I'm Deplorable." Yes, you can buy such T-shirts. See the figures below. Do these people really like to admit they are, "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it." and proud of it or that they love such people? I hope these people wearing such T-shirts are joking, but it is unfortunately a sick joke.
(Click to enlarge)
Apparently there are also T-shirts that says, "Deplorable Lives Matter."
Of course, people are ignoring the other basket of Trump supporters that Hillary talked about: "Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but they are not America but the other basket … are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures. They are just desperate for change … they don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different."*
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pense has ignored this part of Hillary's speech and enlarges the her basket of half the Trump supporters who are Deplorables to say that she said the entire American people. But I suppose this exaggeration is just good clean American political fun.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/10/hillary-clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-belong-in-basket-of-deplorables.html
** http://www.bustle.com/articles/183648-donald-trump-supporters-are-wearing-deplorable-lives-matter-shirts-its-just-not-that-clever
Apparently there are also T-shirts that says, "Deplorable Lives Matter."
Of course, people are ignoring the other basket of Trump supporters that Hillary talked about: "Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but they are not America but the other basket … are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures. They are just desperate for change … they don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different."*
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pense has ignored this part of Hillary's speech and enlarges the her basket of half the Trump supporters who are Deplorables to say that she said the entire American people. But I suppose this exaggeration is just good clean American political fun.
* http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/10/hillary-clinton-half-of-trump-supporters-belong-in-basket-of-deplorables.html
** http://www.bustle.com/articles/183648-donald-trump-supporters-are-wearing-deplorable-lives-matter-shirts-its-just-not-that-clever
Monday, August 29, 2016
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BUSINESS INTERESTS
If you watch any news programs at all, you will see how the news media wants to destroy the Clinton family Non-Profit Foundation. if Hillary becomes president (and even want her to Do It Now). As the Clinton's do not get any monetary benefit from the foundation, the cause is to destroy any emotional benefit the Clinton's get from guiding a Non-Profit Foundation in their name.
The news media seems unconcerned about Donald Trump becoming president and not doing anything to separate him from his For-Profit Business Operations. Does the news media really believe there are no conflicts of interest for a president owning far flung business operations while he is president? Is it really all right for a president operating far flung for-profit business operations while president but not all right for the president being associated with a Non-Profit Foundation? I find this to be weird. I think our country has its priorities all screwed up.* Even if such a president doesn't do things to favor his companies, do we really want a part-time president?
Let's say that the news media becomes concerned about Trump's business operations after all and would Trump's business operations be put in a "blind trust." Is a blind trust with his family running it really all right? Perhaps, but the news media doesn't like the idea of Chelsea Clinton, Hillary's daughter, remaining on the board of their Non-Profit Foundation.
Some suggest that the Clinton Foundation be folded into another Foundation like the Gates Foundation. Well The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, has done the equivalent of this and donated billions of dollars to the Gates Foundation. So their is some justification for doing it. But I believe he sits on the board of the Gates Foundation. I'm not sure the Gate's would like to have Bill Clinton on their board, but maybe it could be worked out. Would this give the Clintons the same emotional rewards? Would this satisfy the news media?
An update after writing the above. It seems like the Clintons are in the process of folding up their foundation, or most of it. The Gates Foundation won't take it because the Clinton Foundation is a active foundation, i.e. they actually distribute medications (e.g. AIDS and diarrhea) and things whereas the Gates foundation is a grants (pass-trough) foundation.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-does-this-mean.html
The news media seems unconcerned about Donald Trump becoming president and not doing anything to separate him from his For-Profit Business Operations. Does the news media really believe there are no conflicts of interest for a president owning far flung business operations while he is president? Is it really all right for a president operating far flung for-profit business operations while president but not all right for the president being associated with a Non-Profit Foundation? I find this to be weird. I think our country has its priorities all screwed up.* Even if such a president doesn't do things to favor his companies, do we really want a part-time president?
Let's say that the news media becomes concerned about Trump's business operations after all and would Trump's business operations be put in a "blind trust." Is a blind trust with his family running it really all right? Perhaps, but the news media doesn't like the idea of Chelsea Clinton, Hillary's daughter, remaining on the board of their Non-Profit Foundation.
Some suggest that the Clinton Foundation be folded into another Foundation like the Gates Foundation. Well The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, has done the equivalent of this and donated billions of dollars to the Gates Foundation. So their is some justification for doing it. But I believe he sits on the board of the Gates Foundation. I'm not sure the Gate's would like to have Bill Clinton on their board, but maybe it could be worked out. Would this give the Clintons the same emotional rewards? Would this satisfy the news media?
An update after writing the above. It seems like the Clintons are in the process of folding up their foundation, or most of it. The Gates Foundation won't take it because the Clinton Foundation is a active foundation, i.e. they actually distribute medications (e.g. AIDS and diarrhea) and things whereas the Gates foundation is a grants (pass-trough) foundation.
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-does-this-mean.html
Sunday, August 21, 2016
DONALD TRUMP'S BIGGEST CON
There is nothing quite like trying to con the public into voting for you for president when you have no qualifications. Even Obama had a few. What is the old saying: You can fool all of the people some of the time., you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Well Donald Trump is trying.
Just last night he generically "regretted" saying certain hurtful things.* What things and to whom? After he made his statements about the Khans, he was asked if he had any regrets and he said no. He was also asked after his statements about McCain whether he regretted his comments, and he said no (Though Trump eventually endorsed McCain.). Just what did he regret? What he has been saying is carefully constructed to appeal to a certain group of people, mainly in the Republican Party. So finally he appears to be making a pivot to being more reasonable, but the bar is set so low that his unreasonable statements are now endorsed as reasonable. He is really saying the same things but in a more pleasant fashion. He said that he would never lie to you which is maybe his biggest lie.
He added: "But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth."
Perhaps he is regretting his showing an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz as he has said that he wouldn't have sent it if he had it to do things over, but earlier he always has said that he has no regrets on everything else.
Soon after saying this he said he was financing his own campaign. Just last July (2016), he was bragging about how he had raised $80 million for his campaign in just a few days.
My opponent on the other hand wants a 550% increase in Syrian refugees. Her plan would bring in roughly 620,000 refugees from all refugee-sending nations in her first term, on top of all other immigration. Hillary Clinton is running to be America’s Angela Merkel, and we’ve seen how much crime and how many problems that’s caused the German people.**
It is really something for the Great Liar to call Hillary Clinton a liar, this from a man who is said to make a misstatement (lie) very 5 min.***
I am unable to confirm that Hillary Clinton plans to bring in 620,000 refugees from "all refugee-sending nations in her first term." This is certainly a lie. First of all, the figure is totally unrealistic to do in four years or even eight years because of our immigration policies. It might be possible for her to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees (the 550% increase from 10,000) in her first term, but it is most unlikely as Obama has been unable to get close to his goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year.
Donald Trump says that he plans to end American Nation building of other countries. Well, George W. Bush (Bush-43) said that and Obama said that . I think both were sincere when they said it, but when it comes down to it, we can't seem to resist.
And now Donald Trump is trying to con African Americans into voting for him while speaking to totally white audiences (or close thereto). Lots of luck with that, Donald.
Working people should keep in mind that Donald Trump has said that the American worker is overpaid. For example:****
"Taxes too high, wages too high," he later added. "We're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and they have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it."
The one thing I am sure of the Donald Trump wants to do is build the Great Wall of Trump on our Southern border to compete with the Great Wall Of China.
But will the Great Con work and yield him the presidency?
* http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/trump-i-regret-sometimes-saying-wrong-thing/
** http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-never-lie-227183
*** http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730 (We chronicled 4.6 hours of stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis. The result: more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one misstatement every five minutes on average.)
**** http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-wages-too-high
Just last night he generically "regretted" saying certain hurtful things.* What things and to whom? After he made his statements about the Khans, he was asked if he had any regrets and he said no. He was also asked after his statements about McCain whether he regretted his comments, and he said no (Though Trump eventually endorsed McCain.). Just what did he regret? What he has been saying is carefully constructed to appeal to a certain group of people, mainly in the Republican Party. So finally he appears to be making a pivot to being more reasonable, but the bar is set so low that his unreasonable statements are now endorsed as reasonable. He is really saying the same things but in a more pleasant fashion. He said that he would never lie to you which is maybe his biggest lie.
He added: "But one thing I can promise you is this: I will always tell you the truth."
Perhaps he is regretting his showing an unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz as he has said that he wouldn't have sent it if he had it to do things over, but earlier he always has said that he has no regrets on everything else.
Soon after saying this he said he was financing his own campaign. Just last July (2016), he was bragging about how he had raised $80 million for his campaign in just a few days.
My opponent on the other hand wants a 550% increase in Syrian refugees. Her plan would bring in roughly 620,000 refugees from all refugee-sending nations in her first term, on top of all other immigration. Hillary Clinton is running to be America’s Angela Merkel, and we’ve seen how much crime and how many problems that’s caused the German people.**
It is really something for the Great Liar to call Hillary Clinton a liar, this from a man who is said to make a misstatement (lie) very 5 min.***
I am unable to confirm that Hillary Clinton plans to bring in 620,000 refugees from "all refugee-sending nations in her first term." This is certainly a lie. First of all, the figure is totally unrealistic to do in four years or even eight years because of our immigration policies. It might be possible for her to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees (the 550% increase from 10,000) in her first term, but it is most unlikely as Obama has been unable to get close to his goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year.
Donald Trump says that he plans to end American Nation building of other countries. Well, George W. Bush (Bush-43) said that and Obama said that . I think both were sincere when they said it, but when it comes down to it, we can't seem to resist.
And now Donald Trump is trying to con African Americans into voting for him while speaking to totally white audiences (or close thereto). Lots of luck with that, Donald.
Working people should keep in mind that Donald Trump has said that the American worker is overpaid. For example:****
"Taxes too high, wages too high," he later added. "We're not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is. People have to go out, they have to work really hard and they have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete with the rest of the world. We just can't do it."
The one thing I am sure of the Donald Trump wants to do is build the Great Wall of Trump on our Southern border to compete with the Great Wall Of China.
But will the Great Con work and yield him the presidency?
* http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/trump-i-regret-sometimes-saying-wrong-thing/
** http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-never-lie-227183
*** http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730 (We chronicled 4.6 hours of stump speeches and press conferences, from a rally in Concord, N.C., on Monday to a rally on Friday in St. Louis. The result: more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false – the kind of stuff that would have been stripped from one of our stories, or made the whole thing worthy of the spike. It equates to roughly one misstatement every five minutes on average.)
**** http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-wages-too-high
Friday, July 29, 2016
INDIVIDUALS VS GROUPS
For a long time I think I have seen a difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Republicans tend to like the "self made man" whereas Democrats think of "groups." It used to be that Republicans nominated the "self made man" for President . Think of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. All of these came from humble beginnings. Although the Republican Party is considered the party of the wealthy, Democrats used to favor wealthy people to nominate for President. Think of Roosevelt and Kennedy. True there were Truman and Johnson who came from humble beginnings but both were accidental presidents with Truman acceding to the Presidency with the death of Roosevelt and Johnson with the assassination of Kennedy.
More recently, things have changed with the Republican Party nominating wealthy men such a George H.W. Bush and George Bush as well as Mitt Romney with Donald Trump probably the most wealthy of all, whereas the Democrats have gone with men of more modest beginnings like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. While Hillary Clinton may be wealthy now, she did come from modest beginnings. (I'm not sure how to classify Michael Dukakis whose father was a physician but as of Greek heritage, they were certainly looked down on by the Boston Brahmins) The sampling size is small so maybe it is just a coincidence.
But look at the two candidates for president now. You have the individual Donald Trump who says, "believe me, I am the only person that can save you "and Hillary Clinton who wrote a book called
It Takes A Community To Raise A Child and has the current motto of Stronger Together as she runs for president. People say she is stealing the Stronger Together from Reagan although she has long preached this concept in her book.
Who will win? Will it be the women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the LGBT or the angry American white males? We'll know in November, probably.
More recently, things have changed with the Republican Party nominating wealthy men such a George H.W. Bush and George Bush as well as Mitt Romney with Donald Trump probably the most wealthy of all, whereas the Democrats have gone with men of more modest beginnings like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. While Hillary Clinton may be wealthy now, she did come from modest beginnings. (I'm not sure how to classify Michael Dukakis whose father was a physician but as of Greek heritage, they were certainly looked down on by the Boston Brahmins) The sampling size is small so maybe it is just a coincidence.
But look at the two candidates for president now. You have the individual Donald Trump who says, "believe me, I am the only person that can save you "and Hillary Clinton who wrote a book called
It Takes A Community To Raise A Child and has the current motto of Stronger Together as she runs for president. People say she is stealing the Stronger Together from Reagan although she has long preached this concept in her book.
Who will win? Will it be the women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the LGBT or the angry American white males? We'll know in November, probably.
Monday, July 25, 2016
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS HITS A NEW HIGH
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a congressman from Florida and, for the time being, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.* She has been under fire for a long time by Bernie Sanders for being pro-Hillary when she is supposed to be impartial. Well, I guess Debbie really wants to see a woman president so I suspect Bernie is correct. The result is Debbie is going to resign from the Democratic National Committee after the convention. The well known TV commentator Morning Joe wants her to resign NOW and not speak at the convention that she put together. As they say in Washington, D.C., "If you want a friend, get a dog."
Weirdly, the big turning point is some thousands of e-mails (every thing today is in the thousands whether it is e-mail on closing of a bridge or a party chair ) have been made public by WikiLeaks, one of which reads as follows:
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.**
This is being broadly interpreted as an anti-Jewish e-mail that to be an atheist would be better than being a Jew, but, I read it the other way around, in that to be Jewish would be better than an atheist. We are talking Southern Baptists here. Do they really interpret having no belief in God is better than being a Jew with a belief in God?*** The person who wrote this might have just Googoled Bernie Sanders to find the result.
And then, no one seems to note that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is Jewish.* At least "they" are not clannish if she is anti-Jewish. No, she is pro-woman. At any rate she knows she can retire from her position with a woman running for president on a major party.
I really wonder what to think of Bernie Sanders. First off he wasn't a member of the Democratic Party. Some like me think it was very nice of the party to let him come in and run for the presidential nomination of their party. Then he spends the whole time bitching. Lost in all this was Obama winning the nomination against the same Hillary Clinton that Bernie lost to using the same rules.
Hillary got more of the popular vote, won more states, and got the most super-delegates. Remember that Obama faced the same obstacles as Bernie, yet Obama won against the same opponent.! Sorry Bernie, but you lost the nomination. You really did. Bernie did win on some things like a plan for free college tuition and some others on the platform so he did get something. Fortunately, Bernie has an even lower opinion of Donald Trump so he keeps saying that Trump must lose. I hope he sticks to it.
Now some of Bernie's "people" want to trash the vice-presidential pick for the Democratic nomination. What's happened to the Republican party Well as Will Rogers said a long time ago, "I'm not a member of an organized party. I'm a Democrat." Nothing has changed.
Bernie doesn't like the idea of super-delegates, but I don't like the idea of caucuses where only a small fraction of the potential voters actually vote. And if it wasn't for the caucuses, Bernie would not have been anywhere. Caucuses can turn the tide in favor of one candidate while the voters want a different one as shown by Washington State that had both.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz
** https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him
*** Though raised Jewish, Sanders says that he is "not particularly religious," nor is he a member of any congregation or synagogue. "I am not actively involved in organized religion,"......"It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely," said the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate.
Weirdly, the big turning point is some thousands of e-mails (every thing today is in the thousands whether it is e-mail on closing of a bridge or a party chair ) have been made public by WikiLeaks, one of which reads as follows:
It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.**
This is being broadly interpreted as an anti-Jewish e-mail that to be an atheist would be better than being a Jew, but, I read it the other way around, in that to be Jewish would be better than an atheist. We are talking Southern Baptists here. Do they really interpret having no belief in God is better than being a Jew with a belief in God?*** The person who wrote this might have just Googoled Bernie Sanders to find the result.
And then, no one seems to note that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is Jewish.* At least "they" are not clannish if she is anti-Jewish. No, she is pro-woman. At any rate she knows she can retire from her position with a woman running for president on a major party.
I really wonder what to think of Bernie Sanders. First off he wasn't a member of the Democratic Party. Some like me think it was very nice of the party to let him come in and run for the presidential nomination of their party. Then he spends the whole time bitching. Lost in all this was Obama winning the nomination against the same Hillary Clinton that Bernie lost to using the same rules.
Hillary got more of the popular vote, won more states, and got the most super-delegates. Remember that Obama faced the same obstacles as Bernie, yet Obama won against the same opponent.! Sorry Bernie, but you lost the nomination. You really did. Bernie did win on some things like a plan for free college tuition and some others on the platform so he did get something. Fortunately, Bernie has an even lower opinion of Donald Trump so he keeps saying that Trump must lose. I hope he sticks to it.
Now some of Bernie's "people" want to trash the vice-presidential pick for the Democratic nomination. What's happened to the Republican party Well as Will Rogers said a long time ago, "I'm not a member of an organized party. I'm a Democrat." Nothing has changed.
Bernie doesn't like the idea of super-delegates, but I don't like the idea of caucuses where only a small fraction of the potential voters actually vote. And if it wasn't for the caucuses, Bernie would not have been anywhere. Caucuses can turn the tide in favor of one candidate while the voters want a different one as shown by Washington State that had both.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz
** https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him
*** Though raised Jewish, Sanders says that he is "not particularly religious," nor is he a member of any congregation or synagogue. "I am not actively involved in organized religion,"......"It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely," said the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate.
"You know, everyone practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings."(http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/bernie-sanders-religion/)
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
I'm 85 yrs old and have been through a lot of elections. My opinion is that at this time, voters are playing around so that polls are not particularly accurate. They will say that anyone is better than my party's candidate so I'm going to vote for the other party, but when the time comes to pull the lever, they just can't stand to pull the other party's lever. People begin to get serious maybe 4 days before the election and many will decide in the voting booth. So I wouldn't put too much stock in today's polling.
About 35% of the voters will vote Republican no matter what, likewise about 35% will vote Democratic. The only way you can affect these voters is to convince them not to vote. Among the independents, a large number are Right leaning and a similar number are Left leaning. There is hope of swaying these voters and that decides the election. Democrats have a particularly hard time getting their voters to come out on mid-term elections. On-the-other-hand, Republicans are more emotional and come out for all elections. The result is divided government.
Lots of working people are with Donald Trump because of the way he talks. They think he is with them. but they should be very careful. After all, Donald Trump on at least two occasions has said that he thinks American wages are too high.* You have to remember that he is a con man and he will con you if he can. So he may not be as sympathetic with the workers as he sounds as he has studied what they want to hear (Like President Obama is not an American born citizen.).
But as I survey the Republican field (and I include Paul Ryan in this), Donald Trump looks like the best Republican candidate with the exception of John Kasich. Jeb Bush may be a bit better than some of the others, but he is awful when it comes to the Right To Life and single-handedly kept Teri Schiavo on life support systems for years after she was brain dead.** Even after a couple of bad weeks for Donald Trump, he is only a few points behind Hillary Clinton in the polls (fewer than 10 points in any poll).
My point is that it is still very early in the election cycle, and, so far as I am concerned, the winner is still open. Remember that Hillary is doing rather well because she finally is officially the Democratic presumptive Democratic nominee and is getting a bounce from that.
* http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-explains-wages-too-high-comment/
** http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/t/schiavo-autopsyshows-irreversiblebrain-damage/#.V2lSRPkrKM8
About 35% of the voters will vote Republican no matter what, likewise about 35% will vote Democratic. The only way you can affect these voters is to convince them not to vote. Among the independents, a large number are Right leaning and a similar number are Left leaning. There is hope of swaying these voters and that decides the election. Democrats have a particularly hard time getting their voters to come out on mid-term elections. On-the-other-hand, Republicans are more emotional and come out for all elections. The result is divided government.
Lots of working people are with Donald Trump because of the way he talks. They think he is with them. but they should be very careful. After all, Donald Trump on at least two occasions has said that he thinks American wages are too high.* You have to remember that he is a con man and he will con you if he can. So he may not be as sympathetic with the workers as he sounds as he has studied what they want to hear (Like President Obama is not an American born citizen.).
But as I survey the Republican field (and I include Paul Ryan in this), Donald Trump looks like the best Republican candidate with the exception of John Kasich. Jeb Bush may be a bit better than some of the others, but he is awful when it comes to the Right To Life and single-handedly kept Teri Schiavo on life support systems for years after she was brain dead.** Even after a couple of bad weeks for Donald Trump, he is only a few points behind Hillary Clinton in the polls (fewer than 10 points in any poll).
My point is that it is still very early in the election cycle, and, so far as I am concerned, the winner is still open. Remember that Hillary is doing rather well because she finally is officially the Democratic presumptive Democratic nominee and is getting a bounce from that.
* http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/donald-trump-explains-wages-too-high-comment/
** http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/t/schiavo-autopsyshows-irreversiblebrain-damage/#.V2lSRPkrKM8
Monday, May 30, 2016
WHO GETS THE LIBERTARIAN VOTE?
My take is that the Libertarian Party will mainly take votes from Hillary Clinton.
The reason is that Republicans are not social libertarians, far from it. They want to control what we can or can't do in our bedrooms and really want men to control women's lives. They also seem to want to return to the days of Jim Crow for African Americans. Furthermore, Republicans have become a religious party and want to use religion to be free to discriminate against various people. So I can't see them going libertarian.
Democrats, however, are close to being social libertarians, and I think the idea of fiscal responsibility is not offensive to them. So Democrats are closer to being libertarians though the Democrats value of regulations on industry is probably offensive to Libertarians. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be against free trade.
The above said, Libertarians have tended to side with the Republican Party (e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, etc.) perhaps because of the Republican ideal of small government in spite of being socially regressive. I am unsure just how many Libertarians are in the Republican Party, but certainly not a controlling number. Still they are the wild card in this current political mess because I can't see a Libertarian being at ease with the Republican social repressions.
Like Republicans, Libertarians are anti-labor in that they actually favor the wealthy by giving them free reign whereas Democrats are pro-labor and want some control over the influence of the wealthy. The reason, however, that so many white laborers are Republicans is that they think the Democrats over-favor women, minorities, and homosexuals. Their hope is that the Republicans will keep "them" in their place. Republicans have convinced labor to disarm and reject unions with the result that their incomes have declined for over several decades. The Golden Age of American labor is over, and I don't see either party having a solution to this decline.
The reason is that Republicans are not social libertarians, far from it. They want to control what we can or can't do in our bedrooms and really want men to control women's lives. They also seem to want to return to the days of Jim Crow for African Americans. Furthermore, Republicans have become a religious party and want to use religion to be free to discriminate against various people. So I can't see them going libertarian.
Democrats, however, are close to being social libertarians, and I think the idea of fiscal responsibility is not offensive to them. So Democrats are closer to being libertarians though the Democrats value of regulations on industry is probably offensive to Libertarians. On the other hand, Democrats seem to be against free trade.
The above said, Libertarians have tended to side with the Republican Party (e.g. Ron and Rand Paul, etc.) perhaps because of the Republican ideal of small government in spite of being socially regressive. I am unsure just how many Libertarians are in the Republican Party, but certainly not a controlling number. Still they are the wild card in this current political mess because I can't see a Libertarian being at ease with the Republican social repressions.
Like Republicans, Libertarians are anti-labor in that they actually favor the wealthy by giving them free reign whereas Democrats are pro-labor and want some control over the influence of the wealthy. The reason, however, that so many white laborers are Republicans is that they think the Democrats over-favor women, minorities, and homosexuals. Their hope is that the Republicans will keep "them" in their place. Republicans have convinced labor to disarm and reject unions with the result that their incomes have declined for over several decades. The Golden Age of American labor is over, and I don't see either party having a solution to this decline.
Friday, May 20, 2016
HILLARY CLINTON AND THE COMPETITION
Remember month's ago when it was feared that Hillary Clinton would not be tested in the Democratic nomination process? Now the worry is that the party cannot be brought back together.
In Kentucky, Clinton took the cities and Sanders took the rural areas, especially the coal country. I don't know why the coal country favored Sanders over Clinton as Sanders is as much against coal as Clinton, maybe even more so.
Hillary's two opponents - Trump and Sanders - surprisingly share a number of viewpoints such as:*
Both being against foreign trade such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal;**
Both opposed the Iraq War;
Both flip-flopped on gun control;
Both are against big money in politics (though Trump's claims of self -funding are false);
Both want to get rid of Obamacare (ACA) and replace it with a single-payer plan;
Both want to increase taxes on some or all of the wealthy (Trump notes " carried interest" of Hedge funds);
Both support maintaining or expanding the current levels of Social Security benefits;
Both are concerned about the effect of illegal immigration on American jobs.
Both Trump's and Sander's claim the system is rigged and their followers have gotten violent or said violent things.
But of course there are differences also. I'm not sure how serious Trump is to deporting all the illegals, but I think he is serious about building the wall on our Southern border. with Mexico. I say this because Trump likes to build things. Just think, "The Great Wall of Trump" to compete with The Great Wall of China.
* http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/what-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-have-in-common/422907/
** Though Hillary recently has come out against TPP, I suspect that she will flip back when (if?) she becomes president.
In Kentucky, Clinton took the cities and Sanders took the rural areas, especially the coal country. I don't know why the coal country favored Sanders over Clinton as Sanders is as much against coal as Clinton, maybe even more so.
Hillary's two opponents - Trump and Sanders - surprisingly share a number of viewpoints such as:*
Both being against foreign trade such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal;**
Both opposed the Iraq War;
Both flip-flopped on gun control;
Both are against big money in politics (though Trump's claims of self -funding are false);
Both want to get rid of Obamacare (ACA) and replace it with a single-payer plan;
Both want to increase taxes on some or all of the wealthy (Trump notes " carried interest" of Hedge funds);
Both support maintaining or expanding the current levels of Social Security benefits;
Both are concerned about the effect of illegal immigration on American jobs.
Both Trump's and Sander's claim the system is rigged and their followers have gotten violent or said violent things.
But of course there are differences also. I'm not sure how serious Trump is to deporting all the illegals, but I think he is serious about building the wall on our Southern border. with Mexico. I say this because Trump likes to build things. Just think, "The Great Wall of Trump" to compete with The Great Wall of China.
* http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/01/what-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-have-in-common/422907/
** Though Hillary recently has come out against TPP, I suspect that she will flip back when (if?) she becomes president.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
DEBATE DIFFERENCES
There is a curious difference between the Republican and Democrat debates. Except for John Kasich who is clearly the best qualified person to be president (and look where he is in the polls), Republicans emphasize their lack of qualifications to be president whereas in the recent Democratic debate, every candidate emphasized their qualifications to be president. Frankly I found the latter to be a more satisfying debate.
There seems to be a dichotomy in the response to the Democratic debate whereas all the pundits feel that Hillary was the clear winner whereas focus groups right after the debate favored Bernie Sanders. I think the focus groups much appreciated Bernie Sanders comment that the American people are sick and tired of Hillary's e-mail, and that he wants to discuss the major issues.
Curiously, a number of pundits, including the liberal Mika Brzezinski (who I guess feels she must bend over backwards to be "fair."), said that Bernie flubbed his comment which, they say was actually to be an insult, that if it wasn't for Hillary's personal e-mail server we could be discussing the real issues. I've now listened to Bernie's comment three times, and I believe he said it as he meant to as there was no hesitation in his voice in saying it. And does anyone believe that the Republicans wouldn't find something to assassinate Hillary with if she hadn't done the e-mails on her own server, even if it wasn't true? I'm sure that Bernie's comment the way he said it led to the large influx of donations as I believe that the public is sick and tired of politicians continuously assassinating their competitors.
The media seems to like Marco Rubio among the Republican candidates for president in spite of his stand of no exception to no abortions and a tax plan that favors the rich the most.*
As the candidates plans on the issues come out, it seems that Donald Trump isthe best of a bad lot of Republican candidates (with the exception of John Kasich) in spite of his crazy immigration plan and a tax plan that favors the rich.
* Mr. Rubio, [who was brought up in a family living "paycheck to paycheck'] in New York for fund-raising at the time of the interview, offers an example. He proposes a significant new tax credit for households with children. But he would also cut the top federal income tax rate to 35 percent, from nearly 40 percent, and eliminate levies on capital gains, dividends and multimillion-dollar estates. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/tax-plans-of-gop-favor-the-rich-despite-populist-talk.html?_r=0)
There seems to be a dichotomy in the response to the Democratic debate whereas all the pundits feel that Hillary was the clear winner whereas focus groups right after the debate favored Bernie Sanders. I think the focus groups much appreciated Bernie Sanders comment that the American people are sick and tired of Hillary's e-mail, and that he wants to discuss the major issues.
Curiously, a number of pundits, including the liberal Mika Brzezinski (who I guess feels she must bend over backwards to be "fair."), said that Bernie flubbed his comment which, they say was actually to be an insult, that if it wasn't for Hillary's personal e-mail server we could be discussing the real issues. I've now listened to Bernie's comment three times, and I believe he said it as he meant to as there was no hesitation in his voice in saying it. And does anyone believe that the Republicans wouldn't find something to assassinate Hillary with if she hadn't done the e-mails on her own server, even if it wasn't true? I'm sure that Bernie's comment the way he said it led to the large influx of donations as I believe that the public is sick and tired of politicians continuously assassinating their competitors.
The media seems to like Marco Rubio among the Republican candidates for president in spite of his stand of no exception to no abortions and a tax plan that favors the rich the most.*
As the candidates plans on the issues come out, it seems that Donald Trump isthe best of a bad lot of Republican candidates (with the exception of John Kasich) in spite of his crazy immigration plan and a tax plan that favors the rich.
* Mr. Rubio, [who was brought up in a family living "paycheck to paycheck'] in New York for fund-raising at the time of the interview, offers an example. He proposes a significant new tax credit for households with children. But he would also cut the top federal income tax rate to 35 percent, from nearly 40 percent, and eliminate levies on capital gains, dividends and multimillion-dollar estates. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/tax-plans-of-gop-favor-the-rich-despite-populist-talk.html?_r=0)
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
BENGHAZI - WHO CARES?
Well it turns out that that there is still a Benghazi committee in congress. There was a committee long ago that made 29 recommendations to the Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary at the time, said that she was accepting all recommendations. Maybe because of this or other reasons, there have been no more embassy, consulate, or other foreign service locations since then and now 3 9/11's have gone by without incident. Of course it turned out that the spark for the Benghazi attack was the anti-Mohammad movie trailer after all.* Although the Benghazi attack was probably not the State Department's finest hour, it was one of the smaller attacks as attacks on State Department and DOD facilities go.*
Of course, now it is leaked that the committee's true function is to hurt Hillary Linton's presidential bid.***
For other comments on Benghazi, see**
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/09/it-was-movie-trailer-after-all.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/11/potpourri-medical-expenses-benghazi.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/05/benghazi-irs-associated-press.html
*** http://time.com/4055534/kevin-mccarthy-hillary-clinton-benghazi/
Of course, now it is leaked that the committee's true function is to hurt Hillary Linton's presidential bid.***
For other comments on Benghazi, see**
* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/09/it-was-movie-trailer-after-all.html
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2012/11/potpourri-medical-expenses-benghazi.html
http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/05/benghazi-irs-associated-press.html
*** http://time.com/4055534/kevin-mccarthy-hillary-clinton-benghazi/
Monday, June 15, 2015
ATTACK YOUR OPPONENT'S STRENGTH
Carl Rove in 2004 developed what seemed to be a strange and self defeating strategy in the 2004 reelection bid of President George W. Bush against Democratic hopeful John Kerry. that is, attack your opponent at his strength. In Kerry's case it was to demean the value of military medals in what became known as Swift Boating. The approach seemed to be effective though it annihilated military honors as being worthless.
So with Hillary Clinton we see the attack on the Clinton Foundation, an organization developed to try to do good. To what extent this procedure will have on the value of non-profit organizations remains to be seen, but I hope it does not annihilate non-profits as being self service organizations.
This attack seemed to be too much for even some conservatives who came to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.*
By Christopher Ruddy,* founder of the conservative Newsmax: I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
...........................................................
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
...........................................................
But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/
So with Hillary Clinton we see the attack on the Clinton Foundation, an organization developed to try to do good. To what extent this procedure will have on the value of non-profit organizations remains to be seen, but I hope it does not annihilate non-profits as being self service organizations.
This attack seemed to be too much for even some conservatives who came to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.*
By Christopher Ruddy,* founder of the conservative Newsmax: I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.
...........................................................
After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing "tangled" and "blurred" are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them.
...........................................................
But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-cash-controversy/2015/04/27/id/640856/
Friday, March 6, 2015
HILLARY'S E-MAILS
So it turns out the Hillary Clinton kept her e-mails on a private server while she was Secretary of State, contrary to the rules. It is said that she has turned over 55,000 (!) e-mails to the State Department for their review. As one who was in the Senior Executive Service (SES) a long time ago, I think the controversy is overblown. When I got out of my SES position, my hard copy records were to be turned over to the archives, but they were disposed of. Frankly I was a bit disappointed in this. There certainly was no effort to keep my e-mails. I had kept some of them on floppies so I have some sort of a record that frankly, I only accessed once that I remember in the 25 yrs since the job.
But what I want to consider is the 55,000 Hillary e-mails (and there is some thought that there may be more). Let's see, she was Secretary of State for 4 yrs which comes to 13,750 e-mails a year which comes to 37.67 e-mails a day, including Saturdays and Sundays, or 1.57 e-mails an hour 24 hrs a day. Let's say she worked 12 hrs a day so that comes to 3 e-mails/hour seven days a week or one every 20 min. I don't know about you, but I find this to be incredible. After all there must have been meetings of various kinds where she didn't e-mail. These e-mails presumably did not involve classified information so classified documents adds to the total as do any letters.
I continue to be amazed at the number of e-mails and other records seem to be involved in government work. Even on the "bridge-gate" scandal of Chris Cristie's governorship there were apparently thousands of e-mails and other documents: The report relied on documents provided by the governor's office and interviews with 75 witnesses,[148] including Christie and others from his administration, but no one interviewed had been at the Port Authority at the time of the lane closings.[207] The interviews were not under oath.[208] The report also was based on more than 250,000 documents, many of them emails and text messages.[207] Transcripts of the interviews and the names of the interviewees were not released at the time the report was made public.[146] It has been estimated that the tax-payer funded report cost more than $1 million.[208]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
But what I want to consider is the 55,000 Hillary e-mails (and there is some thought that there may be more). Let's see, she was Secretary of State for 4 yrs which comes to 13,750 e-mails a year which comes to 37.67 e-mails a day, including Saturdays and Sundays, or 1.57 e-mails an hour 24 hrs a day. Let's say she worked 12 hrs a day so that comes to 3 e-mails/hour seven days a week or one every 20 min. I don't know about you, but I find this to be incredible. After all there must have been meetings of various kinds where she didn't e-mail. These e-mails presumably did not involve classified information so classified documents adds to the total as do any letters.
I continue to be amazed at the number of e-mails and other records seem to be involved in government work. Even on the "bridge-gate" scandal of Chris Cristie's governorship there were apparently thousands of e-mails and other documents: The report relied on documents provided by the governor's office and interviews with 75 witnesses,[148] including Christie and others from his administration, but no one interviewed had been at the Port Authority at the time of the lane closings.[207] The interviews were not under oath.[208] The report also was based on more than 250,000 documents, many of them emails and text messages.[207] Transcripts of the interviews and the names of the interviewees were not released at the time the report was made public.[146] It has been estimated that the tax-payer funded report cost more than $1 million.[208]
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
Monday, January 5, 2015
ELIZABETH WARREN'S ONLY CHANCE?
Elizabeth Warren, a so-called liberal politician who cares about the consumer, is often mentioned as a 2016 presidential candidate, although she has repeatedly said she is not running. She was born June 22, 1949, an early Baby Boomer, and will be 67 years old on election day in 2016. So if she is going to run for president, she will have to do it in this next presidential election.
Even if whomever is elected in 2016 serves only one term, Elizabeth Warren will be 71 by the 2020 election, probably too old to run. Democrats in particular tend to think that 70 is too old to run for president.
Republicans, however, are different in that Bob Dole and John McCain, both Republicans, ran for president when older than the age of 70, but neither was elected. Ronald Reagan ran for president over the age of 70 but that was for a second term. He was 69 when he took office for his first term. More likely whomever is elected in 2016 will probably serve two terms because that is what we have been doing lately. Beginning with Ronald Regan, 4 of the five presidents have been elected for two terms so Elizabeth Warren would be 75 by 2024.
Hillary Clinton is the favorite among Democrats to run for president at this time. She was born October 26, 1947 and would be 69 on election day in 2016, and, if elected would also be 69, about the same age as Ronald Reagan. Although Republicans favor older candidates, I presume they will make the argument that she is too old, if she runs. If for some reason Hillary does not run, my guess is that Elizabeth Warren will.
Jeb Bush seems to be the favorite of the "establishment" Republicans. He was born February 11, 1953 so will be only 63 at the time of the 2016 election. Chris Christie was born September 6, 1962 so will be only 54 at the time of the next presidential election. The oldest of the Republican hopefuls is Mitt Romney who was born March 12, 1947 and is slightly older than Hillary Clinton. If he is the Republican candidate, it will be hard to say Hillary Clinton is too old. Other main Republican hopefuls seem to be younger than Jeb Bush.
Even if whomever is elected in 2016 serves only one term, Elizabeth Warren will be 71 by the 2020 election, probably too old to run. Democrats in particular tend to think that 70 is too old to run for president.
Republicans, however, are different in that Bob Dole and John McCain, both Republicans, ran for president when older than the age of 70, but neither was elected. Ronald Reagan ran for president over the age of 70 but that was for a second term. He was 69 when he took office for his first term. More likely whomever is elected in 2016 will probably serve two terms because that is what we have been doing lately. Beginning with Ronald Regan, 4 of the five presidents have been elected for two terms so Elizabeth Warren would be 75 by 2024.
Hillary Clinton is the favorite among Democrats to run for president at this time. She was born October 26, 1947 and would be 69 on election day in 2016, and, if elected would also be 69, about the same age as Ronald Reagan. Although Republicans favor older candidates, I presume they will make the argument that she is too old, if she runs. If for some reason Hillary does not run, my guess is that Elizabeth Warren will.
Jeb Bush seems to be the favorite of the "establishment" Republicans. He was born February 11, 1953 so will be only 63 at the time of the 2016 election. Chris Christie was born September 6, 1962 so will be only 54 at the time of the next presidential election. The oldest of the Republican hopefuls is Mitt Romney who was born March 12, 1947 and is slightly older than Hillary Clinton. If he is the Republican candidate, it will be hard to say Hillary Clinton is too old. Other main Republican hopefuls seem to be younger than Jeb Bush.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
BENGHAZI (RIP)
Now that a couple Senators have shown their ill manners to Hillary Clinton over Benghazi, maybe this issue can be put to rest. Maybe congress will supply more funds for security (If it is a real issue.) or maybe they won't. A number of Republicans insist on trying to make Benghazi a huge political issue, but it didn't work in the presidential election and it is not working now; they just can't get public notice in spite of much media support. But I'm sure the issue will come up again if Hillary runs for president in 2014.
I thought that in her testimony it was interesting that closing the consulate in Benghazi had been discussed, but the option had been discarded by the ambassador and Clinton because it was felt that some contact was needed with the "home" of the group that has taken hold of the country in spite of its dangers. In view of this, perhaps more security should have been provided, but just how many has never been discussed that I know of. Since the attacking force was estimated to be a couple of thousand, it seems to me that the security would at least have had to be in the hundreds, which probably would have been impossible. I suspect that though the area was known to be dangerous, no one expected such a large force to attack the consulate. This turned out to be wrong, of course, and is unfortunate. But life moves on.
Ronald Reagan had an embassy bombing and the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and an embassy bombing in Kuwait; yet, many feel he was a great president. So I suspect that in the end, Clinton will be forgiven what turned out to be a bad choice in a distinguished career.
Some people seemed to be surprised that Hillary could fight back against ill manners, but they don't know the group of women who came of age at the beginning of the women's rights era. They may have had a velvet exterior, but, if that didn't work, they were all nails underneath. I saw it in geology. Though a trickle of women geologists already existed, those in the 60s and 70s were still pioneers. And they had to have a lot of determination and iron will to go into "man's" fields. It would be wise to remember this.
I thought that in her testimony it was interesting that closing the consulate in Benghazi had been discussed, but the option had been discarded by the ambassador and Clinton because it was felt that some contact was needed with the "home" of the group that has taken hold of the country in spite of its dangers. In view of this, perhaps more security should have been provided, but just how many has never been discussed that I know of. Since the attacking force was estimated to be a couple of thousand, it seems to me that the security would at least have had to be in the hundreds, which probably would have been impossible. I suspect that though the area was known to be dangerous, no one expected such a large force to attack the consulate. This turned out to be wrong, of course, and is unfortunate. But life moves on.
Ronald Reagan had an embassy bombing and the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and an embassy bombing in Kuwait; yet, many feel he was a great president. So I suspect that in the end, Clinton will be forgiven what turned out to be a bad choice in a distinguished career.
Some people seemed to be surprised that Hillary could fight back against ill manners, but they don't know the group of women who came of age at the beginning of the women's rights era. They may have had a velvet exterior, but, if that didn't work, they were all nails underneath. I saw it in geology. Though a trickle of women geologists already existed, those in the 60s and 70s were still pioneers. And they had to have a lot of determination and iron will to go into "man's" fields. It would be wise to remember this.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS
Conservatives don't like change, except possibly when it is to their advantage. As change happens, conservatives regret it and want to "turn back the clock." Liberals love change and are likely to plunge into changes where the unintended consequences are not thought through. Liberals are not content with the status quo.
Certain ideals of conservatives are certainly admirable such as taking responsibility for your actions. This is a basic tenant of the Twelve Step Programs, for example. They also want strict sexual social strictures, especially for others. In practice, obeying these turns out to be very hard to do for many conservatives. Liberals do not have sexual strictures. There is an old joke that conservatives pull their shades and draw the curtains at night but probably don't need to, whereas liberals don't pull their shades or draw their curtains at night but probably ought to. But liberals do have strictures and can have a hard time obeying them. Liberals want low-cost health care for all, but they refuse to reform torts that drive up the cost of medicine.
Liberals want to allow a "reasonable" amount of personable irresponsibility so that a person's life is not damaged permanently by some small indiscretion. A problem is when does "reasonable" turn out to be "unreasonable?" The boundary is ill defined. Liberals tend to be social libertarians whereas conservatives tend to be unfettered business libertarians.
A true conservative does not believe in debt, either in their personal lives or for government. Many will not borrow money under any conditions: not to buy a car or even a home. Though they might say otherwise, many liberals dote on debt, both in their personal lives and especially for government. Thus conservatives are wary of big government and liberals feel that big government is needed to handle big problems and is a social good.
All this led me to develop a phrase many years ago that "Liberals may want to get into our wallets but conservatives want to get into our bedrooms." Liberals gravitate to the Democratic Party, conservatives gravitate to the Republican Party. One has only to look at the present election to see this phrase in action.
As an aside, what about libertarians? They are torn between the Democratic Party where the social libertarian strictures are and the Republican Party where the unfettered business oriented libertarians are. There is a Libertarian Party, of course, that is not very influential. It turns out, therefore, that libertarians congregate in the Republican Party where the anti-government, unfettered business faction is.
More recently, I have discovered another definition that has a lot of merit: liberals emphasize groups (Blacks, women, Hispanics, unions, lawyers) and community whereas conservatives emphasize individualism, family, and community. You can see this when Hillary Clinton wrote a book "It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us." On the other hand, Bob Dole in his acceptance speech for Republican candidate for President said "... it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child." There is much to be said about what I call the Kansas conservative, a rugged individualist, but when someone's barn burns down, the community rises to rebuild it. As one farmer said, "We were doing all right before 'gimmie' politics." If a community is destroyed by something like a natural disaster, liberals have government step in to help restore the community. It is the difference between the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake where the Federal government did not get involved and the 2005New Orleans Hurricane Katrina where the Federal government got heavily involved in the recovery.
You can see it again in President Obama's statement when he said "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." ** This created a firestorm among many "self-made" business people who worked very hard to create their business, and thus feel they did it all by themselves. Creating a successful business IS HARD, and I doubt that President Obama would dispute that. Only 51% of new businesses last more than five years*** So I wish President Obama hadn't used a phrase like "you didn't do that" and "somebody else made that happen." He could have made the point less insulting, I believe (e.g "We stand on the shoulders of giants," for example). But without the community, we wouldn't be nearly the advanced nation we are now. The internet was developed by the USAID.**** Another modern marvel is GPS that was developed by the DoD. But once again see the difference between a group/community centered approach (liberalism) and individualism/community (conservative).
What about wanting a strong military? This issue is complex. When the Solid South was in the Democratic party, they were the war party: WW-I, WW-II, Korea, and the big buildup in Viet Nam. The Republican Party tended to be isolationist; however, when the Solid South became the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party, the Republican Party became the war party but the isolationist wing is still there too. I think maybe that conservatives feel that you cannot be too safe and therefore approve of a strong military far beyond what is needed.
Note added August 31,2012: The conservative (center right) columnist David Brooks has written an op=ed piece for the NY Times that seems to be in agreement with much of the above: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/party-of-strivers.html?ref=davidbrooks
For a further commentary on liberalism, see "In The End Liberalism Wins" (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-end-liberalism-wins.html)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village
** http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/17/foxification_rescuing_romney.html
*** http://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
Certain ideals of conservatives are certainly admirable such as taking responsibility for your actions. This is a basic tenant of the Twelve Step Programs, for example. They also want strict sexual social strictures, especially for others. In practice, obeying these turns out to be very hard to do for many conservatives. Liberals do not have sexual strictures. There is an old joke that conservatives pull their shades and draw the curtains at night but probably don't need to, whereas liberals don't pull their shades or draw their curtains at night but probably ought to. But liberals do have strictures and can have a hard time obeying them. Liberals want low-cost health care for all, but they refuse to reform torts that drive up the cost of medicine.
Liberals want to allow a "reasonable" amount of personable irresponsibility so that a person's life is not damaged permanently by some small indiscretion. A problem is when does "reasonable" turn out to be "unreasonable?" The boundary is ill defined. Liberals tend to be social libertarians whereas conservatives tend to be unfettered business libertarians.
A true conservative does not believe in debt, either in their personal lives or for government. Many will not borrow money under any conditions: not to buy a car or even a home. Though they might say otherwise, many liberals dote on debt, both in their personal lives and especially for government. Thus conservatives are wary of big government and liberals feel that big government is needed to handle big problems and is a social good.
All this led me to develop a phrase many years ago that "Liberals may want to get into our wallets but conservatives want to get into our bedrooms." Liberals gravitate to the Democratic Party, conservatives gravitate to the Republican Party. One has only to look at the present election to see this phrase in action.
As an aside, what about libertarians? They are torn between the Democratic Party where the social libertarian strictures are and the Republican Party where the unfettered business oriented libertarians are. There is a Libertarian Party, of course, that is not very influential. It turns out, therefore, that libertarians congregate in the Republican Party where the anti-government, unfettered business faction is.
More recently, I have discovered another definition that has a lot of merit: liberals emphasize groups (Blacks, women, Hispanics, unions, lawyers) and community whereas conservatives emphasize individualism, family, and community. You can see this when Hillary Clinton wrote a book "It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us." On the other hand, Bob Dole in his acceptance speech for Republican candidate for President said "... it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child." There is much to be said about what I call the Kansas conservative, a rugged individualist, but when someone's barn burns down, the community rises to rebuild it. As one farmer said, "We were doing all right before 'gimmie' politics." If a community is destroyed by something like a natural disaster, liberals have government step in to help restore the community. It is the difference between the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake where the Federal government did not get involved and the 2005New Orleans Hurricane Katrina where the Federal government got heavily involved in the recovery.
You can see it again in President Obama's statement when he said "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." ** This created a firestorm among many "self-made" business people who worked very hard to create their business, and thus feel they did it all by themselves. Creating a successful business IS HARD, and I doubt that President Obama would dispute that. Only 51% of new businesses last more than five years*** So I wish President Obama hadn't used a phrase like "you didn't do that" and "somebody else made that happen." He could have made the point less insulting, I believe (e.g "We stand on the shoulders of giants," for example). But without the community, we wouldn't be nearly the advanced nation we are now. The internet was developed by the USAID.**** Another modern marvel is GPS that was developed by the DoD. But once again see the difference between a group/community centered approach (liberalism) and individualism/community (conservative).
What about wanting a strong military? This issue is complex. When the Solid South was in the Democratic party, they were the war party: WW-I, WW-II, Korea, and the big buildup in Viet Nam. The Republican Party tended to be isolationist; however, when the Solid South became the Southern Strategy of the Republican Party, the Republican Party became the war party but the isolationist wing is still there too. I think maybe that conservatives feel that you cannot be too safe and therefore approve of a strong military far beyond what is needed.
Note added August 31,2012: The conservative (center right) columnist David Brooks has written an op=ed piece for the NY Times that seems to be in agreement with much of the above: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/party-of-strivers.html?ref=davidbrooks
For a further commentary on liberalism, see "In The End Liberalism Wins" (http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-end-liberalism-wins.html)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village
** http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/17/foxification_rescuing_romney.html
*** http://www.businessknowhow.com/startup/business-failure.htm
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
