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.