Less than a year ago, I responded to a series of what I regarded then (and now) as irresponsible expressions of support, bias and denial by Hillary Clinton supporters with ten questions designed to rescue them from corruption. At the time, the possibility that an even worse candidate would (or could) be nominated by the Republican Party never crossed my mind.
Although it was largely buried over the last week in the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, Clinton’s e-mail fiasco was further exposed as the deep evidence of long-term Clinton corruption that it is. One of the most damaging e-mails handled on her private server, for example, was not turned over to the State Department (Hillary has sworn repeatedly a that ALL State Department business-related e-mails were turned over, raising the rebuttable presumption that she had other State communications among the 30,000 or so that her personal lawyers had destroyed.) We also learned that State Department staffers struggled in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from the improper server, causing State staffers to temporarily disable security features on the government’s own systems, thus making them more vulnerable to attack.
In a deposition under oath, Clinton’s IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a central figure in the set-up and management of Clinton’s personal server, invoked the Fifth more than 125 times. Meanwhile, the shadowy Clinton Foundation machinations came to the fore once again. An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as Secretary of State identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors, corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded. The calendar omissions naturally reinforce suspicions that she sought to hide possibly improper or even illegal uses of her influence and position to raise funds for the foundation. While the news media tried to spin Donald Trump’s statement in his attack on Hillary last week that “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation,” his statement was accurate. For a change.
What was striking about the ten questions, looking at them again, is how little I would alter them today. The major change is that the arguments of those who claimed that evidence of Hillary’s unethical conduct was partisan or inconclusive look even more desperate and dishonest than they did last August. For the same reasons, the passage of time makes Clinton’s shameless and insulting lies seem even more shameless and insulting. The Democratic Party also looks worse and more corrupt: it rigged the nomination for this woman of demonstrably untrustworthy and venal character, as well as of dubious skills. Nothing can surpass the complete abdication of its duty to the United States by the Republican Party and its voters, but this was a betrayal by the Democrats.
Here is the list. I’ll have a few observations along the way, in bold.
“Ten Ethics Questions For Unshakable Hillary Voters”
1. Hillary did what she did, regardless of how it is ultimately defined. If she is charged with a crime, will that change your attitude? What if she is convicted? If she knew what she was doing might be determined to be a crime, but assumed she wouldn’t be caught, what difference does it make whether or not she is charged or convicted?
No candidate for high office should continue to run while under indictment by federal authorities. I’m sure Hillary would though.
2. Hillary could have said, when this first arose, “I am sorry. I was foolish and irresponsible, and I never should have used a private system for official business. It was a serious breach, and I will cooperate completely by turning over all of my e-mails to the State Department.” That she didn’t can only mean 1) that she has something really bad to hide, 2) she isn’t sorry, 3) is stupid, 4) just reflexively lies whenever she is in trouble, and arguably all of them. Do you think someone like that should be President under any circumstances?
We now know the answers almost certainly are 1) that she has something really bad to hide, 2) she isn’t sorry, and 4) just reflexively lies whenever she is in trouble.
3. Do you think that it is a serious problem when a Presidential candidate describes the duty to handle official documents carefully and securely as “nonsense”?
4. Do you think the habit of lying to the news media and the American people for purely personal gain, rather than in the national interest, should disqualify someone for elected office?
5. If you, as a feminist, support Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, what woman, if any, wouldn’t you support? Melissa Harris-Perry? Rosie O’Donnell? Rep. Shiela Jackson Lee? Kelly Osbourne? Paris Hilton? Any woman? Why isn’t that sexist by definition? And why are any of those women less trustworthy than Hillary Clinton?
6. The Obama Administration has been a textbook exhibition of how bad big government, progressive policies can be. The EPA, which just polluted an entire river, is the latest catastrophic example out of the Obama Administration. The Education Department successfully eliminated due process on college campuses. The Veterans Administration is killing veterans. The Justice Department has refused to deliver equal and non-partisan justice. The Treasury Department has allowed the IRS to corrupt the power of taxation with partisanship. The TSA is incompetent and useless. Health care costs keep rising, and the Affordable Care Act made the insurance of millions of American unaffordable. The GSA couldn’t protect its computers. Job growth is stagnant; more American are receiving public assistance and fewer are paying federal taxes than ever before. The Secret Service is a disaster. The NSA is out of control, and it can’t protect its data either. Race relations are the worst they have been since the days of Bull Connor; after years of decline, urban violence is rising. The entire law enforcement system appears to be breaking down. Illegal immigration is being encouraged. The power of big government has been used to push unprecedented incursions on privacy and due process. The United States’ ability to restrain chaos abroad has been reduced to a dangerous level. When Americans are hideously abused abroad, the government makes no response that will send a message that it is intolerable. The deficits in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, long ago agreed to be unsustainable, have not been addressed. Neither has the national debt, which has exploded under this administration as no other. There is much more, but this suffices to lay the foundation for this question:
What is it about this performance is so appealing that it makes you willing to vote for a cynical, venal, lying incompetent who contributed to it and who promises more of the same?
7. One of the main reasons Clinton used a private server, critics believe, is to cover-up her efforts to get Clinton Foundation donations from foreign powers seeking to influence her decisions and policies once she moved into the White House. Do you not believe having a high government official like a Secretary of State or a President being indirectly paid money by foreign governments is wrong and dangerous? If not, why not?
Four months laster, this remains as one of the most important questions, and the one that most exposes the corruption of Hillary’s true-blue supporters.
8. It is generally agreed that among the most crippling and damaging developments in society has been toxic political polarization, partyism, and an inability of the parties and their supporters to work together in the national interest. Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in American political history. Why would you believe it makes sense to elect such an individual at this time in our history even if she were not demonstrably dishonest and untrustworthy?
This is the one question that is rendered moot by the fact that Donald Trump is likely to be her opposition.
9. Please list the tangible achievements, positive accomplishments and evidence of leadership ability in Hillary Clinton’s life that you believe suggest that she should be President or is likely to be a competent and effective one.
This is the question that is given insufficient weight by the Clinton-enabling media. The fact that recitations of her qualifications keep defaulting to her work for the Children’s Defense Fund and tenure as First Lady should be a throbbing tell.
10. What the hell is the matter with you?
This question only applies to those who really want Hillary as President, as opposed to people like me, who have to accept the reality that this awful human being is still infinitely preferable to the reckless, blabbering fool the Republicans seem poised to nominate.
74 thoughts on “Revisiting The “Ten Ethics Questions For Unshakable Hillary Voters””
1. Heard much on this score lately? Me either. You mark my words, that investigation is going to vanish from the media, and MAYBE get a brief mention on the inside of the papers after the election that the president-elect did nothing wrong.
2. Irrelevant after #1.
7. It’s out there and no one seems to care.
8. Unfortunately true.
9. I’ve heard PLENTY of tell of her achievements as Secretary of State, though most of it is just blather and veneer.
10. Sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways. You think she is an awful person, awful manager, and all around bad, BUT, you’ll still vote for her over Trump. Sometimes bad is just bad, and you are within your rights to opt out completely, because voting for Hillary means you vote for all that follows, and you do it knowingly.
But bad isn’t just bad—that’s a rationalization too, to justify an irresponsible choice. I’d take Stalin over Hitler, Jack the Ripper over Ted Bundy, Buchanan over Pierce, and Clemens over Bonds. AND Hillary over Trump.
You are the one justifying the irresponsible choice.
Do you think the media would expose a Clinton presidency the way they expose a Trump presidency?
It’s not an irresponsible choice to say that there are certain lines you won’t cross.
We have found the one valid reason to vote for Trump: The press would dog his every move, but would give Clinton cover for hers.
Amen, Other Fred. At this time, the country needs the weakest president possible. Donald would fill that role for as long as he could hold office, which would not be for long. But, his brief time in office, combined with the disruption of Executive Branch functions and contentions for power that would accompany his removal, would well set the stage for any successor to be similarly weak (or to be forced to be so). Hillary is the absolute worst possible person to empower with the presidency. Jack has self-blinded.
Makes no sense whatsoever. Weak Presidents are Presidents who can’t make decisions, are careful and afraid to confront. You really thinks that describes Trump? My field is leadership, long before ethics. I know weak, and it’s very different from bad, reckless and irresponsible. Take your own blindfold off.
No, I see with unobstructed clarity. You and I do not use “weak” the same way, at least, not here. Your use refers to the person; mine refers to the office, the presidency, the administration. A Trump administration would be ineffectual and brief, a virtual abortion. Its termination would generate potential for constructive reconciliation and reconstruction. A Hillary Clinton administration would be agonizingly, disastrously, possibly interminably long, with effects consistent with multiple disasters from which the government and the society would never recover – including far too many instances of that other, “human-involved individuals” kind of abortion.
Again, that’s not an argument for Trump, that’s an argument for how others will respond to Trump. As I will write in a long post eventually, the one thing that could change my mind to believe that Trump is less dangerous is that the trappings of Trump and his followers reek of stupidity, and the trappings of Hillary and her allies are redolent of totalitarianism.
“Stalin over Hitler”
Did Stalin not kill more people under Russian authority and Communist ideology than Hitler did people under German authority and Nazi ideology…?
Nope. At some point you have to bow out of the ‘mandated’ options and *fight* for a third way, regardless of if you lose…especially since both options are not just lose-lose, but lose badly – lose badly. And fight well enough, you may just start a firestorm that eventually grows to a real victory. Anything else is ethics surrender.
Why? He wasn’t a racist, he didn’t engage in genocide, he wasn’t crazy, and he didn’t destroy his country. If your only criteria is murder, sure. But Hitler didn’t live long enough for that to be a fair comparison.
I think when Stalin killed many more millions than Hitler did, the victims could have cared less that they were selected based on race than on any other reason. It’s a moot point. But to be clear, you are wrong. Stalin did single out ethnicities and culture groups for genocidal punishment (Holodomor).
But if you can’t have that, who cares if Hitler’s motivations were racist and Stalin’s were based on orthodox belief in the State… that’s pretty moot when the numbers crest the 7 digit mark.
I’m not sure what evaluation of history leads you think Stalin wasn’t crazy.
Didn’t destroy his country? Have you had a look at Post Stalin USSR? And if you want to make the argument that those destructive effects were the result of the war, then by all means, you have to give up the argument that Germany was destroyed by Hitler…as it was actually destroyed by the Allies.
I don’t think you are taking a step back and looking at this from a higher objective view. You are surrendering to a false dichotomy and deciding “well I guess I better ally with Beelzebub since the ‘only’ other option is Satan”.
Yeah, Jack’s “Stalin over Hitler” is a stunner to me, too. In fact, I have said aloud many times in the past year that Hillary is the most brazen criminal on the world scene since none other than Stalin. Jack’s position has me suspecting that he’s doing his own Vegas-style hedging, so that when the Clintonian censorship shite really hits the fan, he won’t be shut down.
You owe me an apology for that.
And a simple understanding of math and history supports Stalin over Hitler. I’ve been to Russia, and a large proportion of the public still admires Stalin, and is not ashamed to say so. This is not true of Germans and Hitler. And the little detail that Hitler fought the US and killed thousands our soldiers while Stalin was an ally of the US should count for something, I’d say. Well, you know best.
Your leaving my favorite pant suited, funny hair do Korean – Mr. Kim out of this. Come on…give some cred to Mr. Kim.
Jack, what do I owe you an apology for? For suspecting? For expecting a Hillary Clinton administration to be censorious – especially censorious of Internet content, especially of blogs’ content? I won’t even go into Russian popular mythology about Stalin. I’m not the blogger; you are. I do hope you will do whatever you can to stay on line, even after HRC is elected.
You owe–still owe—me an apology for THIS: “Jack’s position has me suspecting that he’s doing his own Vegas-style hedging, so that when the Clintonian censorship shite really hits the fan, he won’t be shut down.”
In a few respects I am just like my Dad, who risked military courts martial more than once and lost jobs and promotions speaking truth to power. I have lost jobs, money and friends by doing the right thing when penalties loomed. I do NOT hedge my bets as you suggest, I resent that insinuation, and my record here in approaching 7000 post is unimpeachable. Whether I get shut down by either Donald’s jack-booted thus or Hillary’s self-righteous corrupt progressives, there will be no surrender from this sector.
So hard to rank! An argument could be made that without Stalin, Hitler would have killed many more millions. Also, without Stalin, we might not have been able to prevail on our front. But you’re right, Stalin (in the end) killed more, but primarily because he had more time to do it. I’m not sure who would have won that awful title given equal time.
But I would take Mussolini over both of them.
Sure. Or Castro. Or Vlad the Impaler.
Terrible argument. Stalin was an ally of the US, and helped us defeat Hitler. That makes him better all by itself.
Stalin was a sociopath. He wasn’t crazy.
“It’s not the worst thing, so I’ll vote for Hillary over Trump, because Trump is the worst thing.”
-Jack Marshall, justifying his complicity in making Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States of America
“It’s the best option of the three viable candidates that are on the ballot in all 50 states. He represents many of my views and I believe the departures in our views will be met with negotiation and inventive leadership.”
-Tim LeVier, justifying his vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson to become the next president of the United States of America
Though – at this juncture, I would say that I’m starting to swing toward Trump as the “lesser of two evils”. (I’ll still vote Johnson.) I’d rather have Trump filling in some Supreme Court nominations for Scalia and Thomas than Hillary Clinton.
If there are two candidates, and one is clearly worse than the other, then “it’s not the worst thing” isn’t being used as rationalization. And one clearly IS worse than the other.
I am amused that anyone assumes that a man who appoints “the best people” like Katrina Lanette Pierson and Roger Stone—who might be the most unethical political hack alive, even including Dick Morris, can be trusted to appoint competent SCOTUS justices.
And voting for Johnson helps Hillary as much as voting for Trump…it just provides plausible deniability.
But there aren’t two candidates. There are three and one is clearly much better than the other two.
There are two candidates who can become President. You might as well say there are five, or ten, or 100 million. It’s a non-functional theory, without practical force.
And there will NEVER be a 3rd option with attitudes and intentions you display.
Don’t think the 2 main parties will put forward anything better from here on out.
The Republicans could, but Trump has already done the damage to that brand that is necessary.
There is still a faint chance that the GOP will realize that if Hillary-detesters like me won’t vote for Trump, they have to find someone else. And they still can–and any of them will be more viable than Johnson-Weld. Your position, however, encourages them to continue to be irresponsible.
Agreed. And Gary Johnson is not necessarily better than the others, just irrelevant enough to avoid anybody bothering to find out.
As for plausible deniability, for me, it’s not just plausible, I am denying my vote to both Hillary and to Trump because neither of them would make a good president. I am voting for, who I believe, to be the most competent candidate. I also believe he can win. Do I think he can win in a conventional way? No, but I believe if he could win a state or two and help ensure that no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, that he could convince the republican controlled state delegations that comprise the House of Representatives to choose him over Donald Trump. Heck, even if he doesn’t win a single state, it could always end up 269 to 269 anyway and that vote would still take place.
The question is, when the House of Representatives gets to that point of deciding between the top 3 candidates, who do you want to be their 3rd choice? Gary Johnson or Jill Stein?
But – of course, what a great way to legitimize Elizabeth Warren to be your 46th president.
Running Trump, even if he isn’t elected, is a great way to legitimize anyone not calling themselves a Republican for the foreseeable future.
“and one is clearly worse than the other”
That’s a matter of contention. I haven’t seen very many cant-free meme-free arguments that one is worse than the other…and if they one scores 1 out of a 100 while the other scores 1.25 out of a hundred. Nope, they’re both too awful of options.
Clearly! The proof, AGAIN: Trump has proven himself capable of every form of bad conduct Clinton has shown herself capable of. Every one. However, Clinton has no indicated that she lacks all decorum, professional dignity, civility, the inability to reason in a straight line or make a coherent argument. She is not a misogynist, she has not advocated torture. she understands the judiciary and how the Constitution works. She does not terrify foreign governments and diplomats; she has experience dealing with Congress.
She would not, for example, repeatedly go on the radio or the phone and pretend to be her own publicist (though if she did do something that moronic, she would, like Trump, lie about it. There are many, many, respectable, experienced people who would work in a Clinton administration; there are very, very few such people who would work for Trump. And again, explain the discrepancy in the quality and experience, and the ability to form fucking sentences in their mouths, between Trump’s appointed spokespersons and Clintons, as much as the latter are lying sycophants.
That’s cant free and meme free, and you know it. Clinton has some..very few, but some…bare, minimal, qualifications to lead that Trump does not, and Trump, being unstable and a con artist, has no virtues or abilities that Clinton lacks. He can’t even claim courage. He’s a coward, running from Megyn Kelly, refusing to admit dumb lies when he’s caught red-handed.
Don’t do this, Tex. I’ve supported my unpleasant but unavoidable verdict with substance, not cant or memes. Nobody, including you, has come up with any genuine substantive pluses for Trump other than “he’s not Hillary”—understandable, because there aren’t any. P.J. O’Roarke stated in exactly right: Hillary is unfit, but in ways within the range of traditional unfit leaders. Trump is unfit on a completely different plane, and the possible consequences of such a leader go far beyond what the nation has experienced or should risk.
CLEARLY. If you can rebut that, go ahead, but the threshold is: what is so unimaginable in a US leader that Hillary would do or say, and Trump wouldn’t. Cross THAT line, and we’ll talk about the next one.
Don’t do what? Pick a 3rd way? I’m not the one engaging in ethics surrender here.
That’s a good long list of Trump’s sins. Hillary has pretty sinful rap sheet herself. So Hillary might be the one that scores 1.25 out of a 100 against Trump’s 1?
not voting for her.
Everybody does it, we can’t stop it, it will work out for the best. At least I’m not voting for Trump. It’s not my fault the 2 major parties put these 2 candidates forward, I have no choice! These are not ordinary times when the viable candidate is from a major party and ethics is not a luxury we can afford right now. All the smart people know not to vote for a viable third option and we’ve had success doing it this way. Why should I be among the level headed people and vote for the underdog? The situation is what it is and it’s incredibly complicated, but it won’t matter what I do, even if I do the right thing and nobody cares what I do in the polling booth anyway. I’m alright with my decision and the right thing to do is to ignore other viable candidates.
“Don’t vote Republican because the Whigs and the Democrats are the only game in town.”
Boy, you’re loading up on terrible analogies today. Gary Johnson isn’t even John Fremont, much less Abe Lincoln.
Good thing Gary Johnson isn’t running against John Fremont or Abe Lincoln. He’s running against the miserable candidates of Trump and Clinton. Tell me why Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Gary Johnson?
She won’t. In a fair, three way race, I’d vote for Johnson in a trice, though he’s nothing special, he also supports drug legalization, which makes my head explode. I know Weld well, and he’s an odd duck too. Also, they both have died orange hair. But it’s like voting for Elmo or my dog (Rugby, who I voted for as VA governor), and every vote that isn’t for Hillary makes it easier for Trump to be elected. I’ll prove it: has Johnson been mentioned in the national news at all lately? (He’s getting some local press in Indiana, because he’s speaking there.) No. He won’t get covered, and I bet he won’t be in the debates.
And every vote that isn’t for Trump makes it easier for Hillary to get elected.
That assumes that electing an unstable, boorish, untrustworthy idiot is a reasonable alternative to a corrupt technocrat. It isn’t. the argument boils down to base-level partyism.
It is, as Christopher C. Morton had explained.
Wait…how does a women who cannot figure out how to “wipe a hard drive” come to be a technocrat?
Is a puzzlement…
Maybe she should contact a tech expert like Al Gore?
After all, he invented the internet.
Every vote that isn’t for Hillary also makes it harder for Hillary to be elected. Every vote that is for Gary Johnson makes it easier for Gary Johnson to be elected.
Look – at this stage, we aren’t even talking about votes, but about influence and campaigning. I think I’ve got you admitting that the better viable candidate is Gary Johnson, but he doesn’t have a shot because he can’t get a lot of the vote. He can’t get a lot of the vote because he won’t be a part of the debates. He can’t be a part of the debates because he’s not polling as well as he should. He’s not polling as well as he should because people won’t consider not voting for the main two parties. He’s at 11% now. If he can hit 15% he can debate. If he can debate, he has a shot at making the other 2 clowns obsolete. Isn’t that a dream worth pursuing at this early stage? If he doesn’t get to 15% with your support behind him and the debates go on without him, fine, vote your conscience. But support and nourish him now. It’s a viable alternative to otherwise horrendous options.
Additionally, it’s well and good that you’re sending a message to the GOP that they’ve lost your vote and you’re voting Clinton – but deep down they truly believe they can swing you back to their side at the very end. How will they do that? The way it’s always been done…fear. They know you really don’t want to vote Clinton, so they just have to play into that, give you some more fear and maybe one day Donald will have a string of pearls put together in his soundbite library that makes you reconsider who the greater evil is.
–what is so unimaginable in a US leader that Hillary would do or say, and Trump wouldn’t. —
That’s a tough one, but I submit the following response: Knowingly and deliberately breach high level national security protocols, and expose highly classified information to our nation’s enemies. (Mostly because he wouldn’t be allowed to.)
That’s all I got at this point.
I fear that the damage that Hillary could do to this country is infinitely worse than if the idiot Trump is elected. First, she would be a position to fill Supreme Court vacancies and I have suspicions about who would be on her short list. Second, her long time pattern of corruption and deceitfulness would not change. No, the USA does not need a wicked queen on her throne running this country.
This is definitely an election for the Supreme Court.
Do you let an American hating Left-winger backed by an Ideology that hates the constitution, due process, and essential liberties select those justices, or do you let a celebrity buffoon make those selections?
This is still the analogy of a pilot that wants to wreck the aircraft fly versus a pilot that either doesn’t know how to fly or is drunk fly.
(or have some principle and go a third, possibly losing way, possibly long-range winning way)
I suppose there were some in Leonidas’ camp that figured “hey, we could just retreat and hope the other Greeks stop the Persian advance or maybe we could just sell out to the Persians NOW and secure a somewhat better subjugation for ourselves.”
Probably a good thing they picked a 3rd way.
Of course, I still have reasonable suspicions that the pilot that wants to crash the plane specifically asked the drunk pilot to stand up as competition so everyone will avoid the drunk pilot…
My wife – The Lovely Cynthia – intends to vote for Hillary even if she was the Anti-Christ, which, to me, is a distinct possibility. Her reasoning is that Trump is such a meathead there is no conceivable way she would grant him a vote. Cynthia has no illusions about Hillary and considers her even more flawed than I am – trust me, folks that is a serious condemnation.
I cannot convince her to vote for my favorite candidate – Blank. Nor will she grace any of the obscure parties with her vote.
On her head be the consequences.
How can anyone vote for either? Alternate candidates are certainly a possibility, but both parties need a message and that could be my candidate Mr. Blank getting a million or so “votes.”
I am starting to view the 22nd Amendment as one of the most important.
I have begun to soften in my “I’ll have a toe-tag before I vote for Trump” stance, mainly because the whole Brexit thing has truly shown me the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would occur amongst certain parts of the punditry if Trump won.
Maddow’s head would almost literally explode, and I also like the idea of Sally Kohn sobbing on live TV…
Right. Make a suicidal vote because of who it will most annoy. That’s about as rational as any other argument for Trump.
I completely agree with you. However, do you mind if I play devil’s advocate for just one moment?
Is it possible to believe that Trump is far less qualified to be president, but also less dangerous? That is, Hilary is a seasoned politician and actually capable of getting stuff done.
Trump has no experience with politics and could be completely constrained by the Legislative Branch of the government.
Basically, I’m asking, if both are incredibly bad choices (which they are), isn’t there some logical value to selecting the really bad individual you can reasonably determine will be least effective at the position?
I like my mean spirited, narcissistic presidents to be as ineffective as possible at what they are trying to accomplish. Trump will be less effective than Clinton, and perhaps, therefore, less dangerous.
I still think we have to go Clinton because Clinton’s worst isn’t as bad as Trump’s worst, and I don’t have a lot of faith in our Congress to stop a meglo-maniac like Trump. If I felt I could trust Congress to act with courage and integrity, though, I might change my mind. Alas, I can’t. (See the recent actions in regards to gun control).
They will stop Trump because neither Republicans nor Democrats like him much, while Clinton will have the loyalty of Democrats in Congress.
Is it possible to believe that Trump is far less qualified to be president, but also less dangerous?
No. He is head of the military. That answers the question.
Not really, Ashton Carter is now Secretary of Defense and I haven’t heard a lot of bad things about him. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense under Clinton so he’s experienced. Trump might well appoint someone who is knowledgable in this area and listen to him regarding military matters as he currently knows little in this area.
Wait, how is that even coherent? POTUS is Commander in Chief. the fact that Obama has chosen to abdicate that job (Glenn Reynolds calls Carter “President Ash Carter” ) doesn’t mean Trump will and the fact that Obama has another competent SOD doesn’t mean Trump will appoint one or know one if he sees it. He knows little in ANY area relevant to government leadership, unless you consider bribes. Sure, he MAY appoint someone competent and listen to him. he may also dress up like a horseshoe crab and sing La Traviata from Abe Lincoln’s lap.
Now Jack, that’s a little cynical. Even a fool sometimes does something right. Anyway, maybe Cristy or some one he trusts will give him the lowdown on a good choice.
You find “he MAY appoint someone competent and listen to him. he may also dress up like a horseshoe crab and sing La Traviata from Abe Lincoln’s lap” cynical?
The best reason I’ve heard to vote for Trump is that at least the media would actually tell us about the shit he pulls… and doesn’t pull, but I’m already used to picking out the made up crap. With Hillary, everything she does will be hidden as much as possible.
I’m still voting third party most likely.
I will be doing what I can to keep Hillary from being elected. If that requires me to vote for Donald, then I’ll vote for Donald. For now, all I can expect to do to indicate how I intend to maximize the clout and value of my lone vote is to say, “I will vote for the Republican [Gagging! Vomiting!] Party nominee.”
After this year, I will probably never again vote for a Republican – just as I have kept my vow since the 1990s never to vote for a Democrat, due to the earlier person also named Clinton. If this country and its people are ever to put themselves constructively back on a trajectory to sustainable, lasting respectability, prosperity and security, both major parties must be destroyed.
luckyesteeyoreman said, “If this country and its people are ever to put themselves constructively back on a trajectory to sustainable, lasting respectability, prosperity and security, both major parties must be destroyed.”
Your “must be destroyed” is currently in process. Trump has effectively destroyed the Republican Party and the Progressives are in the process of destroying the Democratic Party.
It’s not the system or even the political parties that’s the problem, it’s the general lack of morals and ethics of the people intentionally gaming/abusing the system that’s the problem. When you get a flat tire, cracked windshield, or need an oil change do you junk the vehicle and have it hauled to the boneyard; HELL NO, you fix the f’ing problem and drive on! At least with a vehicle we know how to fix it; it’s not so easy to fix a slew of politicians when society is what made them the way they are.
What’s next for the USA?
“Your “must be destroyed” is currently in process. Trump has effectively destroyed the Republican Party and the Progressives are in the process of destroying the Democratic Party.”
Yes. It’s nice for the Republican Party to be first, for a change.
“It’s not the system or even the political parties that’s the problem, it’s the general lack of morals and ethics of the people intentionally gaming/abusing the system that’s the problem.”
It’s all of those, and all of them affecting each other, such that neither one can be isolated for a fix that would lead to a fix for any of the others. So it’s more complicated than how you wrote it.
We the American People have an historic opportunity to win by divide-and-conquer. But, continuation of a coalition of the Left, plus the Nutty Left, plus whatever moderates are left, er, remaining, that is, in the Democrat[icyickyuckupchuck] Party, poses the greatest threat to the Republic and The People at this time. Neither the Right, nor the Nutty Right, nor the TEA Party, nor the massive muddled middle (many of who are falling for Trump) can destroy the D party. It must destroy itself. It must disintegrate beyond all possibility of ever again being as monolithic as it is now.
Look for growing calls for proportional representation. Those will be signs of impending, if not accomplished, destruction of one or both of the current, two-in-one, racketeering political forces which have been running the country downward to ruin for decades. Instead of a winner-take-all scheme, the racketeers will have to settle for a loser-take-only-some scheme. A redistributionist scheme for power. HAH! Not a pretty way to avoid totalitarianism, and maybe ultimately not a permanently successful way – but at least, a way that staves off totalitarianism for a time.
You seem to think that replacing the morally bankrupt and unethical people that are current gaming/abusing the system with ethical and moral people won’t fix the problem? You are welcome to your own opinion, but I honestly don’t think you understand the root cause?
“You seem to think that replacing the morally bankrupt and unethical people that are current gaming/abusing the system with ethical and moral people won’t fix the problem?”
No, I am talking about a pathway to possibly something better for a time, but not a guaranteed fix for all time. Zoltar, you must not forget the aberration that has been America, for so many decades: without a monarch, or military dictator. Surely you must see how the concept of the American republic and its democratic, representational architecture are running against millennia of winds of authoritarianism in virtually every preceding society, none of which has endured. The track record of the human race at producing Americas like was had in this country as recently as, say, 1900, is not very good. If you ask me, I say the odds of the people in this part of the world avoiding a totalitarian government for all time are exactly ZERO – the same odds as people in all other parts of the world. I just hope not to have such a government in my or my grandkids’ lifetimes.
Long sentence coming… I think that a period of political chaos in the U.S. – a time of fracturing of old political alliances and coalitions into a bubbling stew-pot of true and uncompromising minorities, until the coolest heads in the most rational camps re-constitute the social order – would diminish the power of the current crop of morally bankrupt and unethical racketeers, to the point where moral and ethical people would have a fighting chance to seize power previously monopolized by the crooks, and reverse the country’s current decline. My hope is that if nothing else good comes of it in the long term, then at least the chaos will be more affirming in the short term of the basic human need and motivation to breathe freely, rather than the base human drive for security by way of the imposed order of “strong men,” control freaks. I’m going to stop using that term, “strong men,” and use “despots.” Or “tyrants.” Because the truly strong (and stronger) man leads a society without having to focus on imposing his will on everybody. Still, the inexorable course of humanity is toward tyranny.
Again; you’re welcome to your opinion.
Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump are the only ones left standing and that says a LOT about our society as a whole; I can’t vote for any of them.
I currently have no viable options, so I’m going to write in Jack Marshall’s name.
If this incites the Democrats to dump Hillary Clinton, this would be an improvement. Even Martin O’Malley, whose greatest “accomplishment” was handing the Maryland governorship to the Republicans in a gift-wrapped box and unwrapping it for them, would not be as bad.
Jack is smart enough not to take the job. Sadly, most folks who are smart enough to do the job are also smart enough not to run.