Tuesday, October 18, 2016

another option

This morning, I woke up thinking about the options we have for November. We are told we have to vote for one of the two major party candidates as anything else is wrong. Some comedians are good at ridiculing any third party option, as the argument goes-- those candidates can't win, don't really have responsible plans, and so to vote third party is throwing away your vote.

Yes, the third parties cannot win this time. But it's not throwing away the vote. Electoral College determines the next President, but numbers do get counted. If the minor parties get enough votes, they get a small percentage of matching funds in 2020. You don't vote for one for '16, which is probably decided. You vote to grow a third party option so that maybe the next time we choose a President, there will be a viable third option. This is especially true in a state where the majority is so great for one or the other party that your vote won't change things-- but the numbers do.

If someone is happy with the Democrat or Republican this go round, then great. You are fortunate. But when not, think about the possibility of voting for someone who has your views on issues, can't win, but would be a good addition to the discussions next time around.

Many of us don't like either party, but we keep voting for them because we think there's no alternative. Currently that's right, but I don't think it has to stay that way.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

it's a terrible year

Most of what is below I remember pretty well as I was paying attention during those years. Only one thing on there do I think has been at least partially refuted [Snopes on the gifts]. If you know of others which have been proven false, please post it in comments.

When I vote on issues, hoping she will do what she said, I am not going to feel good and yet the alternative on issues is a man who I disagree with almost all of what he said he'd do.

The only way anyone can vote on ethics is to not vote for either. I know again the left ignores her past on so many counts. If there hadn't been a stain on a blue dress, they'd have gotten totally away with the intern lies. As for Hillary, even her present is suspect-- given the emails that she had deleted to hide anything embarrassing or illegal. Truthfully, who believes over 30,000 were only about yoga and weddings? I am just sickened by this election.


 Posted in Facebook by Donna Bauer, shared in my newsfeed by my husband's cousin.

How quickly we forget! If you’re over 35, take a walk with me down memory lane—you won’t believe what you have forgotten. If you’re under 35, read on—I promise you that you will be amazed at what you missed! (By the way, sadly, this isn’t a joke. I wish it was.)
(January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001—two terms)

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care. Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.

This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."
(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)
Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.

After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.

However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.

She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency. Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.

She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.

Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."
So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.
Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.

Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?
But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?"

Saturday, October 08, 2016

not sure how many this makes but this is a rant!

Every time I get to thinking the political season can't sink any lower, it does. As I've written other places, the attacks aren't just on the candidates but anyone who dares vote for one of them.

So Trump said something crass, bragged about something he may never have done, but if he did, the women will likely come forward now to say-- yep, he did it to me. I won't go into what he said as it's everywhere, the headline of all papers and blogs are full of outrage. Any woman who was ever assaulted has just taken this personally. It might well be the end of his chance to win.

Conveniently for the Clinton campaign, it came out at the same time as the Wikileaks on her emails and speeches before the bankers, etc. That was totally swamped by the outrage. 

I have a question though. How come these same people continued to support Bill Clinton? Where was the feminist outrage over the women who said he assaulted or raped them? Why was it okay for Hillary to call those victimized by him trailer trash and demean their character? It wasn't all consensual but the outraged lefties know that. Because that was the Clintons and they are immune from criticism from lefties?

Right now I am angry too but at a system like ours and yes at the ones who would accuse me, if I was voting for Trump, of being deplorable and a supporter of molesters (which we don't yet have an accusation from a woman that Trump was). His statement was crude and stupid. If that's how men talk in locker rooms, they are disgusting. But isn't Bill Clinton in the same category and yet it was okay with Hillary to stay with him, attack the women, and now act outraged that a man would say something crude. My gosh, she never dreamed that was possible. Broaddrick on this subject

There likely aren't many women who didn't have someone grope them inappropriately. I experienced it from a cousin and yes, I still remember it. But the difference between me and the outraged who still support Clinton, I see Clinton for what he is and likewise Hillary, who is just as ego-driven, vengeful, and deceptive as Trump but she's better at hiding it. Does that make it better?

I may not vote this time, even though I always have, from the very first time I ever voted (which happened to be for Lyndon Johnson, and we later learned he was also pretty good bad at crude talk and molesting). I find it increasingly difficult to vote for either of these two candidates. I don't pray, but if I did, I'd pray for our country when either of them get in power. :( 

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

taking deep breaths

I vote on issues. Because I do, voting for Trump is pretty unlikely, but I have to say the media is so distorting every situation that it makes me wonder what we'd get if we have Hillary. What is it that she will do that makes them want her so much? What can we trust on the issues where it comes to her???

So latest is supposedly Trump insulting the veterans. Biden and others are out there saying he said the ones with PTSD are not strong. That is not what he said. How many people read the actual quote which was in answer to a question by a veteran who said he didn't take it at all as the media has twisted it.
"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it ...

"You know when you hear the 22 suicides a day, it's a big part of your question, but when you hear the 22 suicides a day, that should never be. That should never be. So we're going to be addressing that very strongly.

"And the whole mental health issue is going to be a very important issue when I take over, and the VA is going to be fixed in so many ways, but that's gonna be one of the ways we're gonna help. And that's in many respects going to be the number one thing we have to do because I think it's really been left behind."
Where did he insult veterans? Whoever I end up voting for, I am so down on the media that I may never trust any of the major ones ever again.

Monday, September 26, 2016

A lot of opinions out there but this is a different one

This link was interesting to me. I don't plan to comment on it unless someone here comments, but it was interesting to me as to his reasoning.

Saturday, September 03, 2016

issues and candidates

I was going to post this comment on another blog, a political blog, and then realized, that I was writing a LOT and I wanted it here as to how I am feeling right now about the issues and candidates. Being a moderate, an independent in how I see many issues, I won't suit either party and am fine with that. The photo is Ranch Boss and me taken in July :). Level headed, gun toting, truck driving, often leaning left, country folk!

Currently, I am thinking of voting for the libertarian (something I'd never have done in the many years I've voted) as the more that comes out on how Clinton ran the State Department, the more she looks intolerable to me. Her carelessness with her laptops and phones, along with her lies, seem more irresponsible and even ignorant the more we learn. Her secretiveness has been a character trait since the Clinton Presidency and it's nothing desirable in a President-- at least not in my view.

I know libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson was a Republican and have heard him speak a few times but the alternative parties never get much attention from the media. I am looking for a candidate with honor and they do exist... just not many of them. They don't generally make it far in a run for President. Even though I disagreed with Bernie on many issues, I voted for him in the primary based on my belief he was authentic-- and that based on hearing him on radio over many years speaking on issues. It's funny how even the left went after him on buying a beach house (after his wife sold a property that had been in the family) but never seem to worry about all the Clintons have and how they got it.

Hillary got into the senate out of a combination of sympathy and support of the Democratic party. If she had not had Bill Clinton as a husband, who knows what she'd have achieved. If charisma is required, she doesn't have it on a large scale although I guess she can be charming to those she wants to be around. I have read she worked hard in the Senate, but we know she intended to be President from the time Bill was out; so it all had a purpose that would get her what she felt she deserved.

Then she got the Secretary of State because of Obama. As Secretary of State, I am not that impressed by what she did, as the Arab Spring turned out to be a big mistake in assuming that countries, long ruled by dictators, would gain from rebellions and civil war. Libya is a good example of how disastrous it turned out for the Libyans. The question of Africa and the Middle East is a long way from settled.

With what's been coming out, it seems most likely that Hillary wanted that private server as part of her secretive nature and to keep off the record the connection between her role as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. For big donors, she allowed access to herself and important leaders. How many times does that also happen after a Senate/Representative campaign when the donations to help the politician win now enable someone access to make a pitch. We have a pay for play system and Americans should be enraged over it and yet get more upset as to who wins one of the TV shows. Most seem under-educated as to what's going on and for some that's purposeful-- done for mental health.

The Clinton Foundation makes its accomplishments murky. I've read they employ 2000 people-- some at high salaries. They have causes for which they work. So did reforesting Haiti actually happen? How much money did it cost of the vast amount available-- often from foreign entities? My guess is that it'll take many years to figure out the value of that Foundation, whether it really saved lives as Carville claimed or gave the Clintons a lush lifestyle, which by all accounts they have-- whether connected to it or the speeches they give because of their connections.

Some of the claimed Trump's 'lies' are misstatements by the press (they twist what he says a lot) or sort of irrelevant like the cheering New Jersey Muslims after 9/11. Match that one with Hillary under sniper fire and you ask yourself-- why do those two say such things and don't they know about video tape??? If someone listens to Trump in context, it often sounds nothing like what the press reports.

Nevertheless, I can't see myself voting for him based on just Scalia as his idea for an archetype of a desirable Supreme Court justice. Trump to me is a wild card as to what he'd do once he got the power. Could he be a great president? Maybe. Some of the things he favors, like making sure Muslims are not connected to extremist groups before they are allowed to immigrate here-- that's not racist despite how it's been painted and actually, as i understand it, Homeland Security is supposed to be doing that now but failed with the San Bernadino shooter/wife who was connected and allowed in. I also would like to see our immigration policies be responsible regarding where Visas can't be overstayed and when someone enters here illegally, we do what Mexico would do... well, we don't arrest them but we do deport them.

As to how we deal with those here for 20 years, I see that as the fault of Americans who wanted cheaper labor, allowing businesses too often to mistreat in the workplace, and now a moral dilemma without easy answers. Those who tried to do things legally have not been rewarded. That fence by the way was passed by Congress some time back, but whether it would keep anybody out is debatable (for wildlife on the border it seems bad) but the border regions (we have a second home in Tucson) have changed a lot from when we lived down there and my husband was in grad school. You go into the rugged country north of the border with a watchful eye as the coyotes who bring across drugs and workers are tough and can be ruthless. The cartels, that have spread up here, behead Mexicans who stand against them. Due to the drug trade, those cartels are in most of our big cities now.

To me, for foreign workers, better would be workplace enforcement of valid papers and allowing in needed worker with cards to protect their rights. Possibly with ways to earn the right to remain if they so wish but when they don't, the card lets them go back and forth without the coyotes. If amnesty meant legal rights here but no voting for 20 years, how interested in it would Democrats be? Democrats seem to feel they'd get those new voters-- they could be wrong.

On Hillary and guns, which she makes no secret of her desire to make it a big issue, she wouldn't need to get laws changed. The Second Amendment is so easily interpreted-- either way-- that a Supreme Court could change whether Americans had a right to own guns or even would be forced to join state run militias (it happened in our early history)...

As a gun owner, I am all for well-regulated. I would be fine with background checks and getting rid of the right to own easily modified semi-automatic rifles and extended magazines. For home and ranch protection, they aren't needed. But a Supreme Court against gun rights could change a lot as we have seen with other issues that people thought would be legislated and instead were judicially decided. Of course, the Supreme Court is also why I don't like the idea of Trump as president. Sarah Palin on the court? lol It's funny but not impossible to imagine him doing.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Turning it around

My father died in 1980, but we used to talk politics. One of the things he said would come to pass someday was a war between the have and have-nots. He believed people would shoot strangers just because they were enraged at what they regarded as unfairness. We have seen a lot of that come to pass-- sometimes using religion or race as an excuse. He had lived through the Great Depression and understood tough times, but the problem he saw was an unfairness gap.

We are currently seeing an odd time where we have political candidates that so divide people that they end friendships. Not that this has never happened before but with an ever-present media, we know so much more and maybe too much. Is there such a thing as an unbiased media? I don't personally think so. Facts always are interpreted and there is where bias comes in.

This article by Peggy Noonan described what I also believe we are seeing, but it's not just wealth as another kind of elitism. She describes a situation of elites who have no loyalty to country but only to class.

We hear it in this current political campaign in the US where Trump calls out for nationalism and the media tears him apart for being a selfish racist and Hillary talks up globalism and she's praised as sensitive to reality. Which is reality? She says she won't support Obama's TPP but who believes that once she gets in office?

Elites don't have to be wealthy. They can be intellectual elites. They are those isolated from different ideas and those who aren't from their 'class' with the end result a widening gulf. 

In any interview program, before someone opens their mouth, we know what side they will be on and their ability to explore problems in their own side ain't happenin'. Last night I watched a cable news channel where the host tried to get one of the partisan defenders to discuss a problem their candidate had. At every attempt, the defender turned it around-- everybody does it or that other candidate is worse. Never once did they explore their own candidate's problem. I still don't know if they recognized it but refused to discuss it or simply didn't see it.

If there is no way to turn this around, with elites running things and having zero compassion for those who disagree, where do we end up? Can we have a nation without borders or rules? If we have rules, who makes them?

Yes, this is a rant and it's worse for having no idea how to fix this as I see both candidates for the US Presidency to be flawed-- and not one worse than the other. Both in different ways. The more I learn, the worse I see this all as being. Whoever wins in November, I think the American people are screwed and along with them a lot of the world. What is happening here, as the example of Germany makes, is happening elsewhere-- sometimes with not just emotional but physical violence.