OMG, Trump claims to hire only “the best people” but look at the people he hires. Saturday’s announcement was that Trump’s advisor on foreign policy issues is Michele Bachmann. You know, the woman who said “What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty. You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord.” Her own backyard must be foreign to her.
And about his string of campaign managers. First there was Corey Lewandowski, the former lobbyist whose campaign strategy seemed to mainly consisting of roughing up people at campaign events. He was replaced by Paul Manafort, another lobbyist who specializes in dictators and other strongmen,but his strong ties to Russia were his undoing. Third is Stephen Bannon who ran alt-right rag Breitbart News. How’s he doing?
It has been less than two weeks, and already Bannon has multiple scandals. First were reports of anti-Semitic remarks: objecting to a private school for his daughters saying he “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews” because they “raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats’.” Then it turns out that Bannon, who crusades against voter fraud, is registered to vote in swing state Florida, even though he doesn’t live there (he actually lives in California). Which is against Florida law.
And remember Trump’s doctor, who claimed that “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”? Well, he’s now backed down from that. So we don’t actually know if Trump has any health problems. After all, he would be the oldest person ever elected to the presidency.
Trump doesn’t seem to do any vetting of his employees, which includes criminals, people with big scandals, and the plain incompetent.
I think you and most of the commentators on this blog have virtually hammered Trump to smithereens at this point. Any more would just be piling on, though far be it from me to quell the enthusiasm and still more than happy to add my spoonful as the spirit moves. The guy does have it coming, after all.
But I also think there’s a deeper message to be had from this election cycle in terms of the state and health of our democracy. Against Trump, Clinton is a shoe-in and is guaranteed my vote, but in a healthy democracy (by any standard definition) she would hardly be my second or third choice. But here we are, for better or worse.
Here’s a clip from waaaaay back in May, but still holds water, I think, when it comes to expressing the nature and state of our electoral system and how broken it appears to be. In one short rant.
The inside joke in that scene is it being a takeoff from one in the HBO series “The Newsroom”, where Jeff Daniels plays a (conservative) broadcaster who answers a question from the audience during a discussion session in a not so conventionally conservative way.
So yeah, what he says! WTF happened? You tell me.
But even after everyone has been piling on Trump, about 40% of the population still supports him or would vote for him. What does that say about the cognitive abilities of the voters?
Also It’s still not entirely clear why she’s not liked. Only reason being bad optics and people not taking the time to understand the actual facts. Lifelong service and hard worker even at this age http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/30/what-i-learned-reading-3721-pages-of-hillary-clintons-schedule.html
Other than Obama, I can’t think of anyone else I would vote for over her.
Jonah – there’s hardly a politician (or anyone with a pulse for that matter) who doesn’t have some warts or otherwise less than admirable qualities we can point to, so singling out Hillary for being less than perfect is not really the issue, at least with this voter. I have no reservations that she will make a fine President given her background and experience. She knows all the gears and levers in DC and how they work (or don’t) and is battle hardened as a former First Lady, Senator and SoS. So yeah, the resume is beyond reproach. How effectively she’ll be able to work with the new Congress to actually get things done is something of a wild card and will largely depend on its political makeup when the dust settles after the election, but that of course is beyond her control.
But people do have questions about certain incidents and aspects from her past and present that raise legitimate concerns about her forthrightness and transparency as an elected (or as SoS, appointed) official. We don’t need to re-litigate them here again, but things like the e-mail scandal, her chummy, rewarding and secretive ties to Wall St. (speech transcripts please!), and the Clinton Foundation (a laudable charity organization or lucrative conduit for special interests? Or both?) understandably give even staunch Democrats pause and is largely the source of her high unfavorability ratings. Her earlier attempts to reform healthcare under the auspices of Bill during his tenure was predicted to fail even before it emerged from behind closed doors, in no small part because it was seen as an opaque and undemocratic process, and in any case established her modus operandi to the public as basically secretive and less than forthcoming until backed into a corner.
She hasn’t had a bona fide press conference in nearly a year. Her and Bill’s reluctance to turn over the Foundation’s reins to an independent board only when, or if, she’s elected only adds to concerns about her motives and ethics. It basically shouts, “hey big spenders, pledge now to reserve your seat before the election!”. After all, people have a right to know and be confident in no uncertain terms that their President is not bought and paid for (like most of Congress).
So like I said, I trust she’ll do fine as President. But as Ronnie Raygun would say, “trust but verify”.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ with it!
Ralph, understandable. I feel that it would be great to find a politician with a really clean past and Obama (at least for me) was a close one. The reality is anyone competent enough is going to have some baggage. I’m curious though who could be a better candidate. Even if Hillary wins democrats (and hopefully the republicans too) should start lining up viable candidates for the future. Sadly I just don’t see anyone from the democratic side who is pragmatic, centrist, reasonably charismatic, smart and competent and also not morally corrupt.