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.

9 comments:

Rain Trueax said...

Caught this article about who has had access to Mrs. Clinton this summer. She's not been reaching out to the plebeians but to the aristocrats. Have an extra $100,000, you 'might' be able to meet her and even ask a question. Hillary Clinton fundraising. So who do you think she'll be serving once she gets in?

Dave Dubya said...

Rain,

We share the many views and the same concerns for the truth. I appreciate your insight and thoughtfulness too. I think we have room for discussion, so please pardon me if I get a bit long winded.

Despite our mutual distrust for Trump and Clinton, our spouses support one of them. I think maybe we are both displaying some spousal sympathy in our assessments of the two candidates. We don’t want to believe our mates to be blind ideologues, so we temper our condemnation for their preference. Perhaps? Just a feeling.

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??? Could he be a great president? Maybe.

That’s quite generous towards Trump and appears out of the realm of possibility for Clinton. The probable fact is neither can, nor would, be a great president. Hillary is another corporatist neoliberal and neocon. Her stance is antithetical to democracy. Trump is liar too, and his lies represent something quite apart from Hillary’s lies.

I still question the equivalence of the two lies you present as examples. You’re correct about questioning why those two say such things. Is it likely Hillary at one time landed in a zone with recent sniper activity? It could be she misremembered, and as far as I know, didn’t repeat the lie. I think she was defensively, and clumsily, trying to show how tough she can be. The point being, that lie is of no consequence.

Trump, on the other hand, reveled in repeating the lie about the dancing Muslims on 9-11. This kind of lie only fuels anger, bigotry, hate and fear. So did his calling Obama a foreign born usurper. Racists love that crap, like they love Trump saying an American-born judge with Mexican roots cannot perform his duty fairly.

“Obama founded ISIS?” Not at all the makings of a great president. How this can be seen as anything but hate-mongering eludes me.

I’m not so sure a single Supreme Court decision can reverse all the previous ones on the Second Amendment. There’s just too much precedent. I can’t see that particular scenario any more than the “Obama’s coming for our guns” hysteria. Like with so many issues, we tend to respond more emotionally than rationally. Hillary would be impossibly lucky to just get the same restrictions you and I support, background checks and limits on military style rifles with high capacity magazines. Nobody has ever needed a thirty round mag for hunting or self defense.

I used to be a moderate, gun owning type from a small town in the big woods. I voted for Gerald Ford. Now I’m radical left. Why do I say this? In today’s government/politics, democracy itself has become the radical concept. You understand this.

We have a pay for play system and Americans should be enraged over it…

Both Trump and Clinton are such players. Lose/lose there.

Dave Dubya said...

Continue...

As to how we deal with those here for 20 years, I see that as the fault of Americans who wanted cheaper labor.

Thank you for not blaming liberals for this. ;-) Of course the same corporate suits who support the Republican party are the same who profit from that cheap labor. Yes, even Trump.

Immigration is tough issue. No wonder it elicits such emotional reactions. Most of the blame goes to liberals and Mexicans. No surprise there. The blamers are perfect and good Fox-informed Americans. Or so they may believe.

An outright ban on all Muslims tells the world we are intolerant hypocrites, spouting values like freedom of religion, but only for the politically correct Christian Right type. It feeds into ISIS propaganda about the West versus Islam. That is dangerous. Vetting is important, It is being done, although by definition cannot be flawless and needs to be improved.

“First they came for the Muslims. Then the atheists, etc.”

Trump hammers on the priority of deporting criminal immigrants. His base howls in approval. Well, that is today’s policy. Obama has deported more than any president. Such facts are lost on most Americans and all Trump supporters.

Trump once again evokes nativist and nationalistic fever.

"We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,"

“Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include, and this is so important, especially if you get the right people -- and we will get the right people -- an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people,“ Trump said.


Something tells me “our values” means whatever Trump’s are. Scary. Not as scary as an “ideological certification” also to be specified by Trump alone.

Of course ending the failed and cruel war on drugs would stop all drug smuggling at the border.

“Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

Well, Donald, you’ll have to leave. You have promised to suppress the right of a free press if they say unflattering things about you. Without bigotry and hatred your base would be a fraction of what it is.


Rain Trueax said...

hi Dave and I have seen that often those who disagree on issues can discuss them anyway without insulting each other. That's a win/win, i believe. Unfortunately lately it's gotten rare.

There are a lot of disturbing things about trump including his thin skin. Sometimes it's amazing what he feels he needs to respond to like a high school kid for maturity not.

I go left on some issues and right on others. Abortion is an example where i don't believe in allowing abortions for the whole length of a pregnancy as why not do a c-section when you get to viability? If it's murder to kill the newborn, what makes it okay to do it in the womb when it could be delivered? Still in the first four months, I want abortion legal and available at the woman's choice without government interfering.

Some with guns where I'm fine with increased regulations, banning who can own a gun, what type can be out there, but want the gun rights to stay as they are. Even though I have a concealed weapon permit, I rarely carry. I though do not like open carry and if someone walks into a store where I am shopping with a rifle over their shoulder, I am out the door.

On immigration, a lot of the countries have much stricter regulations than we do. I want illegal immigration stopped and don't see that as racism but about laws. Do we have them or not? And to me it's simple commonsense to stop those with radical ties to not be allowed in. I live in an area where I see many people of different ethnicities and feel it's fine but just let's follow the laws.

Thanks for coming and putting forth your views. I think debating issues can be very healthy. The sad part in this election is how it's about ethics as much as issues since many of us trust neither of them. Is that a sign that only those who are unethical can rise to the top? Sad if so.

Rain Trueax said...

Oh and I agree on changing the drug laws to make it less profitable for those in the illegal drug trade. Oregon went for legalizing recreational use of marijuana and I voted for it never having even tried pot. (I did after it was legal but wasn't impressed) *s*

Ingineer66 said...

There is a reason the Koch Brothers are supporting Hillary over Trump. She can be bought and paid for. He has money so he doesn't need it support his lavish lifestyle like she does.

Rain Trueax said...

You're right on that. What gets me with her is her admiration for celebrities and the wealthy, how she caters to them in these fundraisers like the ones she had to send Bill instead after revealing she had pneumonia, which she only allowed to be told to Americans after she had a fainting spell. I feel she can't be trusted at all and yet the left defend everything she does. And saying anything against her ends up with attacks.

Ingineer66 said...

Very true. Her supporters have such a fervent admiration of her they are often rude or downright mean if anybody disagrees. I still say that those emails could have video of her clubbing baby seals and people would still support her and say "but she will be the first woman President".
Maybe Biden will get in and have his wife for a running mate.

Rain Trueax said...

They would admire her for being tough ;). The thing is a lot of what isn't right about her never even makes the left wing media. They have so totally proven themselves to be non objective. The only way you hear the other side is foreign press or Drudge. I am thoroughly disgusted. When she gets in, she will get back to those who stood against her. She's as thin-skinned as Trump-- just more experienced and better at hiding it. :( Very worrisome for the next four years no matter who wins.