"You Don't Have to Like Her": You Do Need to Vote

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 08:57:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Oprah on the TD Jakes Show, to air Thursday.

There really is no choice people. All the people sitting around talking about they can't decide...You hear this all the time, people saying "I just don't know if I like her." She not comin' over to your house. You don’t have to like her. You do not have to like her. Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. (my emphasis)
“Do you like freedom and liberty? Do you like this country? Okay. Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue? Okay, there you go.

I happen to like Hillary Clinton. I've met her a few times, asked her questions at campaign and blogger events and heard her speak in person up close at house parties and in big crowds many times over the past decade.

But for those of you who don't like her, Oprah is right. Please don't let your emotions about someone you've never met and probably never will meet put our nation's future and our children's future in jeopardy. [More...]

This election matters, on every issue, from our Supreme Court justices and federal district and appeals court judges, to health care, immigration, the economy, social security, Roe v. Wade, education and foreign policy. Donald Trump would be the most unqualified and disrespected President in the history of our nation. He is mocked around the world for good reason. We deserve better than (in my opinion) a narcissistic, carnival barker who doesn't treat all people as equal and just makes stuff up as he goes along, either because he doesn't have the attention span to learn about even the most fundamental issues or he can't be bothered.

Tell Donald Trump with your vote that our country is not for sale to the shrillest politician. Let him buy his media company and start his news channel. Let him bring his lawsuits. Someday he will learn that revenge is a dish better served cold. I hope his media company is a colossal failure, and I suspect anyone foolish enough to invest will lose their money because it will fail to generate ratings after initial curiosity wears off and he will follow his typical path of putting the business into bankruptcy. This may just be speculation, but there is a sucker born every minute. Please don't be one of them.

Don't think for a minute your vote doesn't matter. Donald Trump's supporters, however dwindling in number, are delusional and filled with hate and they will vote. Make sure you do too.

We get the government we elect. The right to vote is precious. Please use it. Our democracy and freedom, for generations to come, depend on it.

< U.S. Sailor Killed During Battle to Retake Mosul | Trump Begins Nightly "News" Coverage of His Campaign >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"You Don't Have to Like Her": You Do Need to Vote | 117 comments (117 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i found this quite interesting (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 03:06:05 AM EST

a literally un-American take on our election

it's based partly in Lacanian psychoanalysis

the comments raise some good points, too

: Nice (none / 0) (#115)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Oct 29, 2016 at 04:37:34 PM EST

The elite from both parties need to be drummed out

The liberal anti-fascism of Clinton has achieved a remarkable class solidarity, not through genuine worker and populist platform that would undercut Trump, but a solidarity of experts and the policy establishment terrified for their jobs. Trump might be right for the wrong reasons

What is truly the greatest horror of Trump's fascism is that he will not employ the best and brightest in his administration. Trump was very clear about this in his first major foreign policy speech: `We have to have new people ... because many of the old people frankly don't know what they're doing ... [They] have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies.' To the Thomas Friedmanns of the world, such rhetoric is a call for brownshirts to evict people of merit from their homes in Georgetown, Vienna and Bethesda, and consign them to fly over country as penance.

i like her too. heck, i've always liked her, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by cpinva on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 03:15:12 AM EST

since I first encountered her (on tv, not in person) during the 92 campaign. she's smart, compassionate, funny, and actually knows what she's talking about. heck, what's not to like? if I'd been given a choice, as to who I wanted as a big sister (I have no sisters, so I'm not hurting any feelings here), she'd have been the one.

yeah, I'd always have been compared to her, as far as school and accomplishments go (I had to put up with that with my older brother), but there are worse things in life. sure, she's not perfect, but who is? by comparison to Donald Trump, she is damn near perfect.

I proudly voted for her in the primary, and i'll leave the voting booth next month, with a grin on my face, having voted for her in the general.

the whole "LIKE" (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 06:40:06 AM EST

thing is really lazy analysis.

Worse than "lazy" (none / 0) (#28)
by Andreas on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 03:28:54 PM EST

Both are representatives of US imperialism. Trump is a fascist and Clinton is preparing (nuclear) war against Russia and China. Opponents of imperialism will vote and act against both.


hi Andreas! are you Greek? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:31:27 PM EST

i do feel your sentiments. but i would like you to consider a point that Noam Chomsky recently made. this is a two party system (in america) and one of the two party candidates will win and refusing to pick the "lesser of two evils" is negligent because a third party candidate cant win. he also stated that you are not "voting your conscious" but rather "voting your confort" because making a choice of conscious means weighing the impact of your decision on others. does that help?


Noam Chomsky (none / 0) (#42)
by Andreas on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:08:18 PM EST

I am aware of the position of Noam Chomsky and oppose it. Chomsky in Chicago: The thin gruel of lesser-evil politics


: oh (none / 0) (#44)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:15:44 PM EST

im sorry.

Such "opponents of imperialism" ... (none / 0) (#32)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:18:11 PM EST

... are hyperbolic purity ponies who are in love with the sound of their own braying.


A little more "purity" and, or wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by jondee on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:30:53 PM EST

and compassion influencing the thinking of our policy makers would be far from the worst thing that could happen..

We already have more than enough ruthless, self-interested Machievellian and Free Market purity influencing policy thinking..


All well & fine to have personal principles. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:34:10 PM EST

But if we desire to actually be effective and accomplish things, then we need to transcend our penchants for intellectual self-gratification and learn to operate with our feet grounded in the real world, rather than planted firmly in midair on some ethereal philosophical plain.

Andreas's hyperbolic claim about Hillary Clinton preparing for nuclear war is both deliberately self-marginalizing and laughably stupid on its face. There's no wisdom or compassion there! On the contrary, it's so noxiously polarizing as to strongly suggest that despite what he may believe about himself, there really is no "us" in him. Therefore, I'm under no obligation to either respect what he says or take him seriously.

Aloha.


that's it! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 12:25:18 AM EST

"laughably stupid on its face."

that's the line I was looking for the other day, in responding to some nimrod going on about how HRC is basically the second coming of Attila the Hun, or some such nonsense. last I checked, Ms. Clinton hasn't started a war, nor urged the starting of a war, and neither has Obama. the last guy that did that was, um, help me out here....................George Bush! you know, mr. I'd like to have a beer with this guy.

as the Commander In Chief, you have the entire US military at your fingertips, they all follow your orders. at the same time, you have a responsibility to them, their families and all the rest of us, to use that power judiciously, because real lives are really at stake. a lesson Bush the younger wasn't bright enough to ever figure out: sometimes, the best use of overwhelming military power is to not use it. Pres. Obama figured it out while in the Senate, HRC figured it out while First Lady/Senator/SoS. there is exactly zero in her history that legitimately concerns us that she might go off on a pre-emptive attack mode, nothing.


You Have Got to be Kidding (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by RickyJim on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:13:58 AM EST

The Iraq war wasn't preemptive attack mode? A good review of Hillary's neocon history by somebody who (in desperation) is voting for Jill Stein.


Given Saddam's history and duplicity, ... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 07:27:04 PM EST

RickyJim: "You have got to be kidding. The Iraq war wasn't preemptive attack mode? A good review of Hillary's neocon history by somebody who (in desperation) is voting for Jill Stein."

... I will freely admit that there was good reason to seek the re-entry of UN weapons inspectors into Iraq for the purpose of determining whether or not he had in fact reconstituted his regime's WMD programs. That was the ostensible rationale which was presented to Congress by the Bush administration for the Iraq AUMF resolution of October 2002. In fact, the administration clearly said that supporting the AUMF was NOT a vote for war. And by making that claim, they deliberately misled Congress because their subsequent actions proved otherwise.

Those members of Congress who voted against the AUMF did so because they were wary of the administration's actual intentions regarding Iraq. As it turned out in obvious and ultimately tragic retrospect, they were entirely right to not trust George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Because once the UN inspectors had re-entered Iraq and had pretty much determined by late February 2003 that Saddam's WMD programs no longer existed, Bush and Cheney decided to pre-empt them before they could make their findings public, invaded Iraq anyway.

The Iraq War was never about WMD, even though that was its stated rationale. Rather, it turns out that it was really all about the re-establishment of Anglo-American military hegemony and corporate control over the world's second largest known reserves of oil.

Hillary Clinton freely admitted her regret for the 2002 vote for the AUMF resolution in her autobiography, noting that she was wrong to have taken the Bush administration at its word in the fall of 2002, and that her misplaced trust was far and away the biggest mistake of her entire political career.

For the Mona Lisas of the Left who keep harking back to that one particular moment in the woman's nearly 40 years on the public stage as though it should define her in toto and forevermore, and then cite that moment as their reason to vote for Jill Stein, I say fine, whatever. Do whatever it takes to keep your emotional virginity intact, even if you have to bend all the way forward and shove your own head up your arse in order to do so. Just please don't insult OUR intelligence by then insisting that the view is actually quite lovely up there.

And don't look too closely at Dr. Stein's trolling of the ignorant anti-vaccination crowd, or her own robust defense of Russian President Vladimir Putin on the subject of his country's human rights abuses against the Russian LGBT community, journalists and environmentalists, or her vandalizing of private construction equipment at the North Dakota pipeline project and then blaming the very same Lakota Sioux that she was supposedly there to support.

Because perfection is the enemy of the good, and hypocrisy has long been Jill Stein's middle name. And such knowledge likely won't sit too well with the holy sopranos and blessed contraltos of the Purity Tabernacle Choir. Then, they'll have no choice but to vote for the guy who thinks Aleppo is one of the Marx Brothers, and who couldn't name a single current foreign leader when asked by a reporters.

Re: Stein (none / 0) (#82)
by Yman on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 07:47:11 PM EST

Not to mention the fact that she's clueless about how to fund her signature issue - paying off student debt. Or her indulgence of the 9/11 truthers.


As Hillary said (none / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 08:07:35 AM EST

What does it matter now?

Hillary Clinton freely admitted her regret for the 2002 vote for the AUMF resolution

She supported Obama's decision to remove US troops thus creating an atmosphere that birthed ISIS.

And yes I know that Bush had negotiated the SOF agreement.

But Obama was not bound by it. We had the forces in Iraq and Iraq could not have forced us out.

And it was a political decision. Obama's military urged him to stay.

As Antony is reputed to have said when asked about why he was in Egypt.

"I am here to enforce the law. And I have 10 legions to make it legal."


WTF? Of course, Obama was bound by it. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 01:57:37 PM EST

JimakaPPJ: "And yes I know that Bush had negotiated the SOF agreement. But Obama was not bound by it. We had the forces in Iraq and Iraq could not have forced us out."

What an incredibly silly thing for you to say! Why would any country ever even bother to negotiate agreements of any kind with us in the future, if such agreements were only binding on the administration which first negotiated them?

Oy.


So if Trump is elected and (none / 0) (#110)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 28, 2016 at 04:19:27 PM EST

negotiates fully disarming but let's Russia keep their's......

You'd be against a new president dumping that???

Okie Dokie


Okie Dokie.. (none / 0) (#112)
by jondee on Fri Oct 28, 2016 at 05:50:36 PM EST

since we're positing hypotheticals completely divorced from reality, what happens if Hillary's "0pen Borders" policy leads to those tentacle-heads from the Sirius-5 galaxy invading earth and taking over?

You DO realize that ISIS first congealed as a fighting force amidst the chaos in Syria, don't you, Jim?

No, I don't think you were aware of that.

Would a Trump administration have championed sending U.S forces into Syria? Not hardly.


You do realize that (none / 0) (#113)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 29, 2016 at 10:44:38 AM EST

ISIS's expansion and success was into Iraq..


I'm just pointing out (none / 0) (#114)
by jondee on Sat Oct 29, 2016 at 01:33:18 PM EST

that the wild-swinging Trump and his minion's description of the genesis of ISIS is a gross, simpleminded distortion.

Like most of his other explanations of events.

He likes to grab reality roughly by the p*ssy and you folks just can't get enough of it.


Yes, it is simplififed (none / 0) (#116)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 29, 2016 at 04:50:47 PM EST

but accurate in the scheme of things.


: "Simple"', yes (none / 0) (#117)
by Yman on Sat Oct 29, 2016 at 07:14:35 PM EST

Accurate - -in terms of what you're suggesting and where you assign blame?
Not even anywhere near the universe of reality.

: It's an accurate example of how (none / 0) (#118)
by jondee on Sun Oct 30, 2016 at 10:10:03 AM EST

the Right substitutes bumper stickers for the intelligent, constructive analysis of events..

If you're going to talk about (none / 0) (#95)
by jondee on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 11:42:12 AM EST

"the atmosphere" that birthed ISIS, you need to go back to the original Iraq invasion.

But, your decision not to do that is, as you say, a political decision. One that fools no one.

Dear God (none / 0) (#111)
by Yman on Fri Oct 28, 2016 at 05:12:06 PM EST

And yes I know that Bush had negotiated the SOF agreement.
But Obama was not bound by it. We had the forces in Iraq and Iraq could not have forced us out.
And it was a political decision. Obama's military urged him to stay.
As Antony is reputed to have said when asked about why he was in Egypt.
"I am here to enforce the law. And I have 10 legions to make it legal."

The armchair warriors and their "might makes right" logic. Yes - just ignore your own international agreements/SOFAs, destroy the credibility of the United States, violate international law and the sovereignty of a foreign government, ,while causing the Iraqis to turn against us en masse, because Trump and some of his idiotic followers think they have a clue.

Hillary's vote for the AUMF (5.00 / 2) (#108)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 05:59:49 AM EST

was a vote to let the inspectors back in period. It was an attempt to stop the war from happening. If Edwards and others had made the same arguments she did we might have avoided the war. Go listen to her speech to the senate and then listen to his. He was all warhawk and she was all about trying to prevent the war. Yet idiots on the far left rushed to support him in 2008 as some liberal savior because of his ridiculously phony apology "we all made a mistake".
John Edwards, talk about someone with zero character.


: Hey, Teresa, nice to see you. (none / 0) (#109)
by caseyOR on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 01:42:58 PM EST

Been a long time since your last visit. How's it going?

She's preparing nuclear war? (none / 0) (#104)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 05:36:32 AM EST

ridiculous


Planning on voting for Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by CoralGables on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 12:31:27 PM EST

when early voting opens in the morning in Florida. Can't take the chance of dying before Nov 8 and not getting a chance to have my vote recorded for the best presidential candidate of my voting lifetime.

spending the weekend (5.00 / 4) (#27)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:36:14 PM EST

phone-banking for Hillary

calling voters in OH, AZ & NV


: Great! (5.00 / 4) (#33)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:27:55 PM EST

So are we, all the way to Nov. 7. And the odds are pretty good that we'll likely be adding Texas -- Texas!! -- to our call lists.

Just (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by FlJoe on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 03:54:04 PM EST

chalked up my vote, zero wait. Took a virgin voter with me, she claimed to be more interested in medical MJ, but she had a sparkle in her eye when she talked about voting for Hillary.


I have my mail-in FL ballot ready (none / 0) (#68)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 11:30:31 AM EST

to fill in sometime this week. I think I will bring it right to the post office.

So happy to fill it in for Hillary!


Put my ballot in the mail (none / 0) (#69)
by caseyOR on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 12:25:26 PM EST

last week. Now it is all about the waiting for me.

PS, ruffian, how about those Cubs?


: Looking for an open thread! (none / 0) (#71)
by ruffian on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 01:18:26 PM EST

Ruffian, watch out for (none / 0) (#77)
by fishcamp on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 04:19:51 PM EST

the solar energy vote. Just read Carl Hiassen's article, and a yes vote means no. A yes vote means FPL gains more power and costs us money.


: I knew there was a good reason ... (none / 0) (#85)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:15:45 PM EST

... to oppose NextEra Energy, Inc.'s attempted takeover of Hawaiian Electric. They tried the same double-speak out here, too. Fortunately, we prevailed in our contested case hearing before the state's Public Utilities Commission.
Good luck.

Arrived 40 minutes before the polls opened (none / 0) (#80)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 05:50:40 PM EST

and still only managed being 5th in line. When leaving, it was about 60 people deep outside. There were about 50 voting slots. Had never seen that many at my early vote location before. They are definitely ready for an onslaught of voters in Miami-Dade.


Jon Ralston in Las Vegas reports ... (none / 0) (#83)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:07:56 PM EST

... that early voting in Clark County is running well ahead of that during the 2012 election, and that it's favoring Democrats by wide margins. BTD also reports that Duval County, FL has heavy Democratic turnout which is offsetting GOP mail-in ballot effort.


: Duval County (none / 0) (#86)
by CoralGables on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:27:50 PM EST

historically votes Republican but not by much lately. If Clinton wins Duval, it's safe to say Florida easily falls into the Clinton column.

Hillary isn't 'likeable enough' (4.75 / 4) (#5)
by honora on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 08:53:44 AM EST

Oprah went on and on about the inspirational Obama in 2008. It really turned me off. He was all historic and Hillary was chopped liver. So much for Oprah's empowering women. This Hillary comment puts the nail in the coffin. Hillary is the most qualified person ever to run for office. She is funny, compassionate, pragmatic and smart as a whip. What are people really asking for? Why a man, of course. Reminds me of all that wanting to have a beer with Bush crap. No one ever mentioned that the guy didn't drink, but we supposedly all wanted to have a beer with him. I will be more excited about voting for Hillary for president than I ever have been voting for anything in my lifetime! I am ecstatic about Hillary and disgusted by Oprah. She used her platform to diminish Hillary. At least, she didn't do the vote for Hillary to protect Obama's legacy crap.

: my sense (none / 0) (#36)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:36:33 PM EST

re: "but we supposedly all wanted to have a beer with him"
is that males wanted to have a beer with him while watching sports and cooking on the grill. that there was a feeling they were understood and accepted.

: obviously more people wanted to have a beer (none / 0) (#105)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 05:42:33 AM EST

with Gore.
I used to be a huge Oprah fan until she made such a huge deal over Obama. Her ratings dropped and her new channel has struggled too. It seems white women were carrying her.

The argument works for both (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 08:13:47 AM EST

you don't have to like Trump. You just have to believe in his policies.

The Difference is With Trump (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 09:29:16 AM EST

you have less confidence that he could implement his policies. You also have to worry about his short attention span and inability to seriously evaluate advice from his advisors due to his mistaken belief in the extent of his own knowledge.


Then the question becomes.... (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 10:39:55 AM EST

Should I vote for Hillary because I like her policies?

And that I should not vote for Trump because he can't implement or that he doesn't take advice.

On the implementation issue I don't think that Trump's supporters believe he can implement without Congress. What they do believe is that he will try and depend on his supporters to pressure Congress on the individual issues.

On the taking advice side you have a point. But doing things his way has proved successful for him. Will it work for the election?? Well, the talking heads all tell us no and they may be right. But as Curly said, "The day ain't over yet."

On a side note I think that both base groups like the candidate and are engaged in trying to convince everyone else that the opponent is mean and nasty. The media works this daily.


Unfortunately in the reality-based world ... (none / 0) (#12)
by Erehwon on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:41:11 AM EST

only one opponent has been mean and nasty all his life.


That's your opinion (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:54:07 AM EST

but I've seen lots of stories about the good things Trump has done. Accurate? Don't know. Don't care.

It's his stated policies on immigration, foreign policy and the economy that attracts me...

On a personal note... I broke a tooth this morning. I will be in my dentists chair, hopefully, at 8:00 AM tomorrow. He's quite a cad and has some other traits I don't like.

But he is one fine dentists with a record that shows his ability.


The funniest part ... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Yman on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 12:19:02 PM EST

On a personal note... I broke a tooth this morning. I will be in my dentists chair, hopefully, at 8:00 AM tomorrow. He's quite a cad and has some other traits I don't like.
But he is one fine dentists with a record that shows his ability.

... is you're using this as an analogy for why you're voting for Trump. If Trump was a dentist, he would be the one who's never seen the inside of a human mouth, has no interest in learning about the human mouth, doesn't prepare for a discussion about the human mouth, and makes commercials claiming he can cure all their dental ailments by some magical dental tool filled with pixie dust.

On a side note, there's another obvious reason you may want to avoid dental analogies. I'm thinking given his own statements and the number of accusations against him - "Dr." Trump would probably have trouble attracting many female patients.


You're so eager to be nasty (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:27:49 PM EST

that you ignore my point that I don't care about the personalities of the people I hire.

Which is the plea of all of Hillary's partisans...and of Trump's... ignore mine but not my opponent's.


: Speak for yourself (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Yman on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:52:38 PM EST

I'm perfectly fine with Hillary's personality, so don't pretend to speak for her supporters. Although I understand why you can't help but acknowledge you're embarrassed by Donald's. Who wouldn't be?
BTW - Donald's temperament (or lack thereof) is extremely relevant to whether he should be POTUS. Care to place a bet on whether he follows through on his promise to sue these women?

: The tendency to dishonesty, hypocrisy (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:09:56 PM EST

and ruthless double-dealing are "personality components" that would certainly influence the commitment to and enactment or non-enactment of "stated policy"..
So personality traits aren't a factor that should be so cavalierly discounted.
But then, someone with a personality component that would compel them to support a used kitchen appliance for President if the GOP nominated one, is going to have some blind spots when it comes to someone like Trump.

the difference is (5.00 / 5) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 03:43:28 PM EST

Trump lacks competence and experience at governing.
Would you let a podiatrist fix your tooth? Would you hire your estate lawyer to defend you on a murder charge? He's running for the top executive position in the country and commander in chief. He's unacceptable to any rational person.


There are several ways to look at this (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:17:27 AM EST

If you are looking for Executive Experience then Trump has more than any President in our history.

Certainly more than Hillary, Obama, GHW Bush, Kennedy, Nixon, Truman.

OTOH G Bush was a governor as was Carter and Reagan.

A rather mixed bag.

My point is that when selecting a dentist, podiatrist, lawyer, or anyone for a specific task in which won't have to have a personal relationship, you should look at competence, not personalities.

We disagree regarding the competence of Trump and Hillary.

Hillary's actions re emails, irregardless of what anyone else has done, defines her competence and and judgment. (Judgement is actually part of competence.)

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

You're in apples and oranges land, Jim (none / 0) (#58)
by jondee on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:01:04 AM EST

someone who ran a successful plumbing company for forty years may have more "executive experience" than any general, but that doesn't qualify him to be head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You must be, on some level, dimly aware of that fact..


And then there is bad executive experience ... (none / 0) (#74)
by Erehwon on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 02:57:27 PM EST

Trump has driven enough businesses to bankruptcies that we should not let him have the keys to the US. He thinks it's just a matter of filing Chapter 7 or 11 or else. Heck, he's already talked about negotiating down the national debt ...

Trump supporters are flailing ... what else can they do?


: If you go to a site like Breitbart (none / 0) (#75)
by jondee on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 03:14:30 PM EST

it's hard to tell if they're churning the water into froth or just frothing at the mouth.
Either way, they're going down.

i'm sorry to hear about your tooth jim (none / 0) (#37)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:39:06 PM EST

these say all about you that could possibly (none / 0) (#52)
by cpinva on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:48:49 PM EST

be said:

"but I've seen lots of stories about the good things Trump has done. Accurate? Don't know. Don't care.

It's his stated policies on immigration, foreign policy and the economy that attracts me..."

well, there was that one time he didn't attempt to grope a woman standing near him, so that could conceivably count as a "good" thing. although, the fact that she had a bodyguard, pointing a semi-auto 9mm right at Mr. Trump's temple may have had something to do with it. accurate? don't know, don't care.

Mr. Trump's "stated" positions on both domestic & foreign policies change with the direction of the wind, with one exception, lower marginal tax rates for he and his wealthy peers. because, as history has demonstrated, a lower marginal tax rate for the wealthy raises all levels of economic ships. oh, wait, that's not quite true, they don't. they also create exactly zero jobs. oh well, thought I had one for you there, for just a nano-second. then it went away, as we all hope Mr. Trump does on Nov. 9th.

I am curious about one thing Jim, does it ever get tiring being the William Kristol of this here blog? you know, being wrong every single time, on every single subject. you have taken the hobgoblin of a boring consistency, and made it disgusted with itself. way to go!


Actually (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:29:49 AM EST

If I thought a position was wrong I would change it. Which I have done through out my life. I am continually seeking new information.

Question. Will Trump's tax plan lower your taxes and will Hillary's raise them? And if you think the government needs more money why don't you just send in a check?

Trump's plan is not trickle down based on tax cuts. Although putting more money in people's hands will spur the economy.

Although Obama's economy is stalled at 1% despite the stock market soaring and the rich getting richer.

Why you would think he was a Repub.

It is stopping the job flight and reframing trade agreements to actually be fair.

And we have proof that Hillary either believes in globalism and open borders or she was lying when she made the speech or is lying now.

Which is it?


Neither (none / 0) (#57)
by Yman on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:47:22 AM EST

It would be your candidate that is lying about her position on "open borders." This false claim has been debunked numerous times by numerous factcheck erst.

But you already knew that.


She said what she said (none / 0) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 10:28:47 AM EST

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

She now claims that she was only speaking about energy.

Consider that she was speaking to bankers. The very class that has grown rich on NAFTA and other unfair trade deals and cheap labor.

Examine her other positions re immigration.

And you get her position. She is for open borders.

Or perhaps she should have said, I am for open borders only for energy.

lol


She did indeed (none / 0) (#66)
by Yman on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 11:01:25 AM EST

Your problem is - as noted by every one of the fact checkers who's debunked this Trump lie - she didn't say what Trump (and you) are falsely claiming.

Oops!


a fair reading (none / 0) (#93)
by pitachips on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 10:58:46 AM EST

of those comments would lead you to believe she was talking about borders. The thing is that this doesn't necessarily mean that's what she's going to propose as a policy. She's smart enough to know that this would be a non-starter. If I remember correctly she was speaking to a Brazilian bank. My sense is that she was adjusting her speech to what these people wanted to hear.

I looked at factcheck.org and their analysis was that in context she was actually talking about free trade, when Hillary's own campaign said it was about green energy. That's just silly.


: Not sure what you think is "silly" (none / 0) (#102)
by Yman on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 07:01:56 PM EST

She was discussing both energy and trade when she was talking about "open borders". Factcheck said the context of her earlier speeches suggested she might have been talking about trade, but the full text of the speeches in question was not released, so they couldn't say. What they could conclude was that she was NOT talking about regulation-free immigration, which is what Trump and Jim were falsely claiming:

The Clinton campaign has not released the full text of Clinton's Wall Street speeches, despite our request. So we don't know the full context of Clinton's comments.
But based on the abbreviated excerpt contained in the WikiLeaks documents, it is clear that she was not talking about open borders for immigration. Nor is there any evidence that Clinton would "surrender to global governance with no controls over trade or immigration," as Trump put it. Trump's comments about Clinton's support for trade agreements -- which by definition place controls on trade -- contradict his own claim.
Your opinion that it's silly means nothing.

BTW - Answer (none / 0) (#60)
by Yman on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:15:31 AM EST

Hillary's tax plan will make a tiny reduction in taxes for those making less than $250K, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Donald's will give small reductions to the middle class and poor, while giving the wealthy am average tax break of $215,000. Of course, his plan will balloon the deficit by 7 trillion dollars to pay for those tax cuts, passing the cost to our children and grandchildren.


This is the part (none / 0) (#61)
by jondee on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:20:00 AM EST

where he sinks down into the swamp to resurface in another spot hours later.


Trump's plan would reduce (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 10:43:32 AM EST

Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers:
Less than $75,000: 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
More than $225,000: 33%
*Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts

Taxes across the board.

: Yep (none / 0) (#67)
by Yman on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 11:07:45 AM EST

As always with you Republicans, the poor and the middle class get a few, token bucks, while the wealthy can buy a nice vacation home and a couple luxury cars with their tax break. Of course, the kids and grandkids are left with the 7 trillion dollar tab.
But the link to Trump's campaign site was sooooooooo persuasive!
LOL!

Policies????? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Chuck0 on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 07:20:59 PM EST

hahaahahahaha!


the policies expressed (none / 0) (#19)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:07:27 PM EST

in his so-called Gettysburg Address yesterday are largely foolish, incoherent, & (best part) impossible to implement


: what were those policies? (none / 0) (#38)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:43:05 PM EST

but his policies (none / 0) (#20)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:10:19 PM EST

are often foolish, incoherent, & impossible to implement anyway


They are Both Scary (none / 0) (#7)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 10:28:43 AM EST

Ross Douhat has a good column today on why he is concerned about the next presidency. But I think even he will admit that Hillary is less scary.

So what he is saying (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 10:49:50 AM EST

is that Hillary will do nothing to change the direction and will go along with the group think that has got us here.

I think we all knew that.

The question is do we accept where we are and were we are going?


: We just have to change the Congress (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Steve13209 on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 02:03:43 PM EST

Then we can move forward.

: You do realize that a democracy means (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 02:37:31 PM EST

We are governed by group think right? I'm trying not to break out laughing here Jim

Conservatives (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:00:44 AM EST

generally are saying both are scary because of Trump's obvious unfitness for office and they know Hillary will pretty much destroy conservatism. Most conservatives know this is the end of the line for them and they certainly are scared of that fact.


For Me, It's Her Interventionism (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by RickyJim on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:20:22 AM EST

that scares me. I see little restraint in her history of using American military power for vague benefits to the US. As Douhat put it,

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

And her Putin bashing in the last debate didn't inspire confidence either.


Oh, boy (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:14:47 PM EST

George W. Bush is responsible for Iraq. The buck stops there. I find it interesting that people have been screaming at Obama for being "weak" are now terrified of someone who is a "hawk".


WaPost article on foreign policy elite (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by pitachips on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 08:28:34 PM EST

and their hopes for a more "muscular" foreign policy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2 016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html


Question RickyJim (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 08:14:43 AM EST

Did you support Kerry or Edwards in 2004 (later Kerry/Edwards)? They voted for the AUMF that led to the Iraq War.

And she shouldn't bash Putin? Should she embrace him like Trump has??


My Fear of Clinton's Foreign Policy (none / 0) (#94)
by RickyJim on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 11:12:25 AM EST

is well summed up by Paul Street in this article. I see little to be gained by bringing the views of John Kerry or Donald Trump into that discussion.


My point was (none / 0) (#96)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 12:06:15 PM EST

Did you fear it with Kerry? If not, then why now?

And Trump is most definitely relevant as your only other realistic choice.


: That is Not What I Think (none / 0) (#101)
by RickyJim on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 04:27:14 PM EST

I voted for Kerry thinking he was less of a neocon than Bush (as a matter of fact, less than I thought Clinton was). I have crossed Trump off the list before I considered who is left.

Putin should be bashed at this time (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 05:47:18 AM EST

he is bombing hospitals in Syria. When and if he stops acting like a monster Hillary will stop bashing him.
Or maybe you would prefer putin's puppet.


Trump's base is not conservatives (none / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:42:40 AM EST

Never has been.

He appeals to conservatives on some issues.

Hillary none.

His base position is that the elites of both parties have done their best to maintain the status quo and that it is all an argument over who get the best parking places.

As I have said before. The Republican party is either drastically changed...if Trump wins...or replaced by a new party if Trump loses.

And the Democrats continue their movement to becoming an identified and embraced Socialist Party. Bernie showed us that the young voter wants that.


A lot of his base fits neatly into ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Erehwon on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:54:34 AM EST

the basket of deplorables.

And I assume none of those various Bush/Reagan appointees, who are supporting Hillary, are no longer conservative. Right?

Why's Brooklyn Bridge not available for sale when I want to buy it?


"basket of deplorables" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:16:48 PM EST

even Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hillary's mentor & good friend, said that this remark is the worst thing she's ever heard in politics

because Trump himself is so appalling, those words won't hurt Hillary as much as they probably would if she had a more conventional Republican opponent


Norton's personal scope and historical memory (5.00 / 3) (#39)
by jondee on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:49:27 PM EST

must be incredibly and laughably narrow if that really was literally "the worst thing she's ever heard" in politics..

I mean really.

"Basket of deplorables" was worse than, say, all the years and years of crypto-racist dog whistling the Right has done, and all the irresponsible, grandstanding, sabre rattling both Repubs and Demos have done in the last few decades?


"Basket of deplorables" is worse ... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 05:05:23 PM EST

... than THIS? Seriously?

Moreover, since none of the "more conventional Republican opponent(s)" even came close to winning the GOP nomination this year, your observation about Hillary Clinton's Les Deplorables comment is irrelevant in that context.

Had any one of them somehow become the Republican nominee, she quite obviously would've likely never said it, because her opponent wouldn't be sounding like the mutant spawn of Lester Maddox and Eugene "Bull" Connor.

Trump is clearly the preferred candidate of Auntie Bellum and her extended family of neo-Confederate veterans and neo-Nazi sympathizers, because he gives voice to their warped anti-social perspectives and historically obsolescent points of view.

Not only does Trump NOT disavow these yahoos, he's been openly courting their support. They certainly comprise at least half his base and maybe even more, now that so many of his erstwhile supporters have lately been running for the hills in the wake of his "locker room talk" and the resultant fallout.

Yeah, Trump's white wingbats are deplorable. And quite frankly, they've long been calling us much worse, so good for Mrs. Clinton for not channeling Lily Tomlin's "The Tasteful Lady" as far too many others do. If anything, as some on the media have pointed out, she needs an even bigger basket.

And if these lily white-wing sissy ninnies have a problem with their open bigotry finally being called out publicly by the Democratic nominee for what it truly is and their feelings are hurt, then perhaps they'll think twice next time, Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform and in the future, keep such vile and despicable thoughts to themselves.

Donald, excellent words, and (none / 0) (#79)
by fishcamp on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 05:29:14 PM EST

with your permission I will use them with the gym guys, because I do need help in that area. Most of us know there's nothing we can say that will change them, or us for that matter.

Speaking of the locker room talk, I rather doubt The Donald has ever been in a locker room, unless of course it was the women's.


: Go for it, sir. (none / 0) (#84)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 08:09:09 PM EST

;-D

you should read up (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by The Addams Family on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:31:07 PM EST

on the history of US conservatism in the post-World War II period before you presume to "assume" anything else in public about today's conservatives

i say this as a lifelong liberal, that is, as someone who values constructive discussion, which often depends on at least some familiarity with an ideological opponent's intellectual grounding & point of view, not to mention the maturity to respect the fact that two opposing points of view may both be legitimate


Who Trump's base is (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 01:20:33 PM EST

is basically cultural conservatives who want the old way back. Their problem with Hillary appears to mainly be cultural and you couldn't find a more "elitist" candidate than Trump who has ripped people off like the ones that are voting for him. They think Trump will blow everything up and they'll once again be on the top of the heap. They should study history if they believe that.


trumps base (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 03:46:32 PM EST

is the marginalized angry unhappy extremists in our society who think the world owes them something, and those with irrational Clinton Degrangement syndrome.

We've heard your view numerous times in this thread. Please don't be a blogclogger and move to another one..


In that regard, NBC's John Harwood notes that ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:59:53 PM EST

... per an ABC News poll, Trump is the overwhelming choice of white males without a college degree, 60-29%. But amongst everybody else, Hillary Clinton is opening a can of whoopass on him, 55-33%.

And per John Ralston in Nevada, initial reports from record early voting turnout in Clark County (Las Vegas) -- where 75% of that state's population resides -- could portend an ominous trend and resultant fate for down-ballot Republican candidates running for both Congress and the state legislature. While it's obviously still early, Mrs. Clinton's campaign is showing potential of some very serious coattails.

: That is excellent news (none / 0) (#107)
by TeresaInPa on Wed Oct 26, 2016 at 05:52:11 AM EST

thank you for sharing it.

Thanks Jeralyn, (none / 0) (#54)
by fishcamp on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 06:01:45 AM EST

can't wait to use that one at the gym.


Trump's base aren't conservatives.. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by jondee on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:47:50 AM EST

Yes, why didn't any of us see it before?

Trump tricked us all into thinking his supporters were conservatives based on his positions on abortion, the 2nd Amendment, the global warming "hoax", "over-regulation", and tax cuts for the wealthy as a universal panacea for the economy..


Ross Douthat is a right-wing a$$hat. (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 11:48:23 AM EST

He is a converted Roman Catholic who's gone so far as to suggest that Pope Francis is perhaps heretical, for desiring that the Church be less dogmatic on LGBT, family and women's issues and more concerned about the plight of the poor.

Never mind that Douthat has absolutely no theological qualifications for writing on the subject of church doctrine. Rather, the inherent problem with his unyielding view of Roman Catholicism is that it is entirely subordinate to a politically partisan narrative, one which actually has very little to do with the core essence of faith itself.

Likewise, Douthat's divisive and systematic demonization of liberals and progressives often borders on outright slander, and represents the sort of unyielding populist demagogy that Jeralyn and others are warning against.

i am bewildered (none / 0) (#40)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 04:51:41 PM EST

by the inclusion of the convert reference. is RD more divergent that Traditionalist Catholics or SSPX?


Converts like Douthat and Newt Gingrich ... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:12:35 PM EST

... tend to embrace their adopted faith with an intensity and fervor which I often find to be annoying and worse. Gingrich himself wrote a book a few years ago, in which he offers his own criteria for being a good Catholic. If you recall, I wrote about this on Friday in the Open Thread, in which I dismissed them as "more Catholic than the Pope."


i do recall (none / 0) (#45)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:18:51 PM EST

that's why i commented. it felt like a re-occuring theme (smile).


Douthat is a hardline conservative. (none / 0) (#47)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:50:24 PM EST

Now, there's nothing wrong with being politically conservative. But Douthat is so stubbornly doctrinaire that his presence onstage is generally counterproductive to public debate.

You're never going to solve problems by demonizing whole segments of society, and restricting the pool of political consensus to only those who so happen to agree with you.

From the standpoint of public policy development, that's a formula for inflicting some very serious grief on the country at large, and escalating the potential for a real disaster to occur.

did you read the article? (none / 0) (#49)
by linea on Sun Oct 23, 2016 at 05:58:07 PM EST

i didnt get any sense of that, any of that, from the article referenced.


: I did - but I really needn't have bothered. (none / 0) (#70)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 01:02:49 PM EST

First off, Ross Douthat is a very predictable right-wing flamethrower. Second, anyone who thinks that Pope Francis is heretical is someone with some screws loose. The NYT op-ed's headline pretty accurately described its contents as typical Douthat hyper-partisan BS. It's yet another example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Early voting starts today in MA (none / 0) (#63)
by CST on Mon Oct 24, 2016 at 09:56:35 AM EST

This is the first year we've ever had early voting. I've never had long lines at my polling place previously - probably doesn't hurt that when I moved 5 blocks away I got switched to a new polling place - that was directly across the street from the old one. Nevertheless, I'm pretty excited, so if the lines aren't too long I'll go vote at lunch time.

Even though the presidential race is pretty much set in stone here, none of our house races are competitive, and neither senator is up for re-election, we do have some pretty big ballot questions. Legalizing and regulating pot, expanding charter schools, expanding gambling to one additional slot parlor which could only possibly be for a particular location and the business person who wants it there, and mandating cage free eggs. At this point I think I'm coming down yes, no, no (not anti-gambling, just anti using ballot questions for this purpose), and no (I eat cage free eggs already, but it's expensive enough to live here and I'm not going to eliminate a cheap source of protein for others, sorry chickens).

If I still lived in MA, (none / 0) (#91)
by itscookin on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 08:49:22 AM EST

I think I'd just enjoy my lunch. Is there anything on the ballot that isn't a foregone conclusion?


The questions (none / 0) (#92)
by CST on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 08:56:21 AM EST

Have at least been cause for contentious debate and some close polling. Particularly the Charter School question and pot legalization. Both sides have launched pretty broad ad campaigns.

There were long lines yesterday at city hall around lunch time, but they moved quick enough. I think a lot of that is just due to the novelty of it all and finally having early voting.


: I'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by itscookin on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 12:59:23 PM EST

Cambridge, Concord, and Amherst will vote to free the chickens? :-)

Illinois has both early voting, which (none / 0) (#97)
by caseyOR on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 12:13:54 PM EST

has started, and vote-by-mail of a sort. That means that anyone can request an absentee ballot, no reason needed, but one must complete a new absentee ballot request form for every election.

My absentee ballot went in the mail back to the elections commission last week.

Now I can sit back and, hopefully, watch the Cubbies win it all.


: Not gonna lie (none / 0) (#98)
by CST on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 12:33:57 PM EST

There's something bittersweet about Theo Epstein and Terry Francona being in the world series - against each other - and no Red Sox. This city has a lot of love for both of those guys.
That being said - definitely rooting for the cubs to break the streak. Good luck!

Bf and I (none / 0) (#87)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 07:53:56 AM EST

: (Sorry, hit "post" too soon) (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by jbindc on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 07:59:04 AM EST

BF and I voted on Saturday in blue Arlington, VA. There was a line, maybe only 10 people, but it was steady, even as we left. I was voter 325 at noon.

Is there a blue wave amassing? (none / 0) (#103)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 25, 2016 at 09:06:09 PM EST

Yesterday was the first day of early voting in Texas, and Dallas County saw record turnout with 58,329 having cast their ballot by 5:00 p.m. with who knows how many still standing in line. This is an astonishing 59% increase over 2008, when Obama took 57% of the vote in Dallas County and the first day of voting that year saw 34,514 show up at the polls.