Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BayGBM on June 25, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
-
When it comes to Trump, a Republican Treasury secretary says: Choose country over party
By Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Henry M. Paulson Jr. is chairman of the Paulson Institute and a former U.S. treasury secretary and chief executive of Goldman Sachs.
Republicans stand at a crossroads. With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States’ great political parties. The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump.
I’m not the first Republican to say Trump is a phony and should not be president, and I expect there will be many more to come. But as a former chief executive and treasury secretary, I hope to bring an additional perspective to the discussion.
Let’s start by talking about his business acumen. When Trump assures us he’ll do for the United States what he’s done for his businesses, that’s not a promise — it’s a threat. The tactics he has used in running his business wouldn’t work in running a truly successful company, let alone the most powerful nation on Earth.
Every good businessman or -woman carefully analyzes all the available facts before making a decision. Trump repeatedly, blatantly and knowingly makes up or gravely distorts facts to support his positions or create populist divisions.
He excels at scorched-earth tactics in negotiations during bankruptcy proceedings. Here, the “Art of the Deal” businessman is a master at advantaging himself over his fellow stakeholders and partners. In essence, he takes imprudent risks and, when his businesses fail, disavows his debts. He has branded himself as a business genius by flaunting and exaggerating his wealth. He is adept at leveraging his brand through licensing agreements that enable him to slap his name on anything he can. But while marketing and self-promotion may translate on the campaign trail, they have little relevance in running our country. And although his business dealings have allowed him to increase his inherited wealth, none of us knows by how much — we have only his word for it.
Now let’s talk about Trump the prospective president. Are we to believe that Trump, with his intensely divisive rhetoric and behavior, could bridge our country’s partisan divide? The American people are disgusted with business as usual in Washington, and it’s not hard to understand why. They feel as though they are being left behind or are afraid that they will be. They aren’t getting honest answers, and they believe that the most important problems are not being solved. This is not the fault of one political party; it’s the fault of too many partisans and ideologues on both sides who are unwilling or unable to work together.
I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if a divisive character such as Trump were president during the 2008 financial crisis, at a time when leadership, compromise and careful analysis were critical. The only reason we avoided another Great Depression was because Republicans and Democrats joined together to vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program — a vote that they knew would be politically unpopular but in the best interest of our country. Critical to that effort was the leadership of President George W. Bush. As I led Treasury’s efforts to fashion a difficult, imperfect, controversial but essential solution with bipartisan support, I was — and still am — grateful to have had President Bush at the helm.
Today’s challenges include economic stagnation and disruptions in the labor markets — driven to a large extent by technological advances moving at warp speed — that are widening income disparity, destroying jobs and hollowing out the middle class. And populists on each side are playing to fears and frustrations, pointing fingers at scapegoats and creating boogeymen: blaming the banks, greedy companies or foreigners for our problems. But the politics of grievance is not the answer.
Now is the time for a bipartisan approach to policy solutions that address our most difficult domestic problems. This requires a president who exhibits an ability to compromise — and basic civility — neither of which Trump displays.
There are two key principles that the next president must address to maintain our economic competitiveness and security. Populists in both parties are demagoguing these principles, with Trump leading the way.
First, we need to maintain the United States’ fiscal strength by reforming entitlements. There’s no example of a nation continuing as a great power if its fiscal strength is lost. Anyone, whether Republican or Democrat, who has studied our entitlement programs and can do basic math knows they are unsustainable in their present form. If not fixed soon, they threaten our nation with a debt burden that would undermine the retirement security of young Americans and future generations. It doesn’t surprise me when a socialist such as Bernie Sanders sees no need to fix our entitlement programs. But I find it particularly appalling that Trump, a businessman, tells us he won’t touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Second, we need to welcome rather than shrink from trade and economic competition. Trump calls our current trade deals “disgusting, the absolute worst ever negotiated by any country in the world.” This is simply false. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics , the average American household income is roughly $10,000 higher because of the postwar expansion of trade. Because of trade, we add jobs and foster innovation and competitiveness. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t losing jobs and suffering in certain industries. However, it is wrong to tell the American people that we can turn back the clock and win, with merely 4 percent of the world’s population, by walling ourselves off from the remaining 7 billion people and the markets they represent. Instead, we need to fix the programs that help U.S. industries and workers transition to new and better jobs. We need better training, new education programs and a more robust safety net. The policies Trump endorses would destroy, not save, U.S. jobs.
Simply put, a Trump presidency is unthinkable.
As a Republican looking ahead to November, there are many strong conservative leaders in statehouses across the United States and in Congress, whose candidacies I am actively supporting. They have a big job to do to reinvent and revitalize the Republican Party. They can do so by responding to the fears and frustrations of the American people and uniting them behind some common aspirations, while staying constant to the principles that have made our country great.
When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote. I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I’m not alone
-
I like the tacit admission by Paulson that the usual choice for Republicans is Party before Country
-
The troublemakers, idiots, fuckheads, scumbags and other assorted assholes are lining up to back Hilary.
Tell us something we don't know.
-
For the first time since the 1960s the DMN Editorial board has declined to endorse the GOP candidate.
Donald Trump is no Republican
By Dallas Morning News Editorial
What does it mean to be a Republican?
For generations, the answer had been clear: A belief in individual liberty. Free markets. Strong national defense.
But what does it mean to be a Republican today? With Donald Trump as the party's new standard-bearer, it's impossible to say.
Even before Trump's name reached the top of the GOP presidential ticket, the party was pulled in different directions. Many Republicans held fast to the good-governing principles of the past, while a growing wing of the party yanked hard from the right to force a conscripted definition of conservatism.
Inexplicably, the presidential candidate who emerged from that ideological tug of war was the one who thumbed his nose at conservative orthodoxy altogether. Trump is — or has been — at odds with nearly every GOP ideal this newspaper holds dear.
Donald Trump is no Republican and certainly no conservative.
Individual liberty? Trump has displayed an authoritarian streak that should horrify limited-government advocates. This impulsive, unbridled New York real estate billionaire and reality-TV star wants to deport people who were born in the U.S. and don't meet his standard for loyalty. He has proposed banning all Muslims from entering the country, even those escaping Islamist rule, and won't rule out creating a database of Muslims already living here.
His open admiration of Russia's Vladimir Putin is alarming.
Free markets? Economic conservatism? Ronald Reagan once said that "protectionism is destructionism." Trump, on the other hand, has called the Trans-Pacific Partnership "a rape of our country."
Businesses who invest overseas, he says, should pay a hefty fine on imports. (We'll leave aside for a moment his hypocrisy in pretending that investing in hotels abroad, as he does, is somehow different from a manufacturer investing in foreign car factories.) His protectionism would likely force the U.S. into trade wars, increase the deficit and sink the U.S. economy back into a recession.
Trump's idea of fiscal conservatism is reducing expenses by financing mountains of soul-crushing debt.
Strong national defense? Trump pledges to make our military "so big, so powerful, so strong that nobody — absolutely nobody — is going to mess with us." But what does he want to do with that military? He says he supports killing the families of Muslim terrorists and allowing interrogation methods "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." And if the military balks at obeying such orders? "If I say do it, they're gonna do it," he says.
His isolationist prescriptions put sound bites over sound policy: Invite the Russians into our elections. Bomb the Middle East into dust. Withdraw from NATO.
It's not easy to offer a shorthand list of such tenets, since Trump flips from one side to the other, issue after issue, sometimes within a single news cycle. Regardless, his ideas are so far from Republicanism that they have spawned a new description: Trumpism.
We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory.
Trump doesn't reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn't reflect the GOP of the future.
Donald Trump is not qualified to serve as president and does not deserve your vote.
-
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Kaine. Hillary will be president for a few days, then probably kick to bucket.
-
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Kaine. Hillary will be president for a few days, then probably kick to bucket.
I think she immediately moved to wheelchair, bi-monthly radio or limited seated tv interviews, and eventually, steps down.
kaine, like Pence, is very smart and pretty likable too.
-
We recommend Hillary Clinton for president
By Dallas Morning News Editorial
There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton.
We don't come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation's highest office since before World War II — if you're counting, that's more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party's over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country's ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense.
We've been critical of Clinton's handling of certain issues in the past. But unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has experience in actual governance, a record of service and a willingness to delve into real policy.
Resume vs. resume, judgment vs. judgment, this election is no contest.
In Clinton's eight years in the U.S. Senate, she displayed reach and influence in foreign affairs. Though conservatives like to paint her as nakedly partisan, on Capitol Hill she gained respect from Republicans for working across the aisle: Two-thirds of her bills had GOP co-sponsors and included common ground with some of Congress' most conservative lawmakers.
As President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, she helped make tough calls on the Middle East and the complex struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. It's no accident that hundreds of Republican foreign policy hands back Clinton. She also has the support of dozens of top advisers from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Paulson, John Negroponte, Richard Armitage and Brent Scowcroft. Also on this list is Jim Glassman, the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.
Clinton has remained dogged by questions about her honesty, her willingness to shade the truth. Her use of a private email server while secretary of state is a clear example of poor judgment. She should take additional steps to divorce allegations of influence peddling from the Clinton Foundation. And she must be more forthright with the public by holding news conferences, as opposed to relying on a shield of carefully scripted appearances and speeches.
Those are real shortcomings. But they pale in comparison to the litany of evils some opponents accuse her of. Treason? Murder? Her being cleared of crimes by investigation after investigation has no effect on these political hyenas; they refuse to see anything but conspiracies and cover-ups.
We reject the politics of personal destruction. Clinton has made mistakes and displayed bad judgment, but her errors are plainly in a different universe than her opponent's.
Trump's values are hostile to conservatism. He plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best. His serial shifts on fundamental issues reveal an astounding absence of preparedness. And his improvisational insults and midnight tweets exhibit a dangerous lack of judgment and impulse control.
After nearly four decades in the public spotlight, 25 of them on the national stage, Clinton is a known quantity. For all her warts, she is the candidate more likely to keep our nation safe, to protect American ideals and to work across the aisle to uphold the vital domestic institutions that rely on a competent, experienced president.
Hillary Clinton has spent years in the trenches doing the hard work needed to prepare herself to lead our nation. In this race, at this time, she deserves your vote.
-
These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump.
Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorses Hillary Clinton
On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
Her opponent
The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.
An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let's say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation's future, about each candidate's experience and abilities. But those Republican hopefuls have been vanquished. To choose the candidate who defeated them - fairly and decisively, we should point out - is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.
Any one of Trump's less-than-sterling qualities - his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance - is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, "I alone can fix it," should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.
It's telling that so many Republicans have distanced themselves from their party's nominee. That sizeable list includes a number of prominent Texans, Bush family members foremost among them, as well as Sen. Cruz and House Speaker Joe Straus. These stalwart Republicans are concerned not only about the future of their party (and, with the exception of the two Bush presidents, their own political careers), but, more important, they're concerned about the future of this nation.
It would not be surprising to discover that these experienced politicians and public servants share the existential concern that first lady Michelle Obama raised in her powerful speech on behalf of Clinton at the party convention in Philadelphia: "Because when you have the nuclear codes at your fingertips and the military at your command, you can't make snap decisions. You can't have a thin skin or a tendency to lash out. You need to be steady and measured and well-informed."
Experience
Americans know Hillary Clinton; post-Philadelphia, they're even better acquainted with "the real Hillary Clinton," as her husband phrased it. After her quarter century and more in the public eye, they know her strengths and her weaknesses. Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention to her experience as first lady, as U.S. senator, as secretary of state and as candidate for president will have at least a general notion of her positions on the issues. As President Obama noted, she's the most qualified person in years to serve as president - "and that includes Bill and me." The only candidate to come close is George H.W. Bush.
Whether voters like her personally is almost irrelevant at this "moment of reckoning," to use Clinton's words. She herself concedes that she's not a natural campaigner. She lacks Obama's oratorical gifts or her husband's folksy ability to connect with crowds. Too often she comes across as calculated, inauthentic. We're confident that she is, indeed, "steady and measured and well-informed" and that she would be a much better president than a presidential candidate.
The issues
On the issues, there's no comparison in terms of thoughtfulness, thoroughness and practicality. Acknowledging the influence of erstwhile competitor Bernie Sanders, for example, she will focus as president on repairing an economy that has left many working people behind and struggling. She will address income inequality and wage stagnation and will work to create jobs. She'll work with Congress to end tax loopholes, noting as she did on CBS's "Sixty Minutes" last weekend that an executive shouldn't be paying the same tax rate as his secretary. She also will push for equal pay for women, increasing the minimum wage and expanding tax credits for poorer families.
Immigration reform
Rejecting the ridiculous border-wall notion her opponent famously touts, she'll push for comprehensive immigration reform, building on a sensible plan that passed the U.S. Senate three years ago, only to be held hostage by a rump group of tea-party opponents in the House. She has said she intends within the first 100 days of her administration to introduce a path for the undocumented among us to earn citizenship.
Health care
Health care has been a decades-long issue for Clinton, at least since her days as the first lady of her adopted state of Arkansas. As first lady in the White House a few years later, her failed health initiative led to the creation of CHIP, the immensely successful children's health insurance program. She will work to improve the Affordable Care Act, not abolish it.
Energy
On energy, an issue of importance to Houston, she acknowledges the seriousness of climate change, the most "consequential, urgent, sweeping" problem the world faces. She has said she wants the United States to be the "clean energy superpower of the 21st century."
She also acknowledges that clean-energy reforms will result in economic casualties, among them the coal industry. She has proposed a $30 billion plan to revitalize communities where coal production is in decline and, as Bill Clinton mentioned in his convention speech last week, she intends to dispatch him to West Virginia to help struggling families and communities build a viable economic future.
Hillary Clinton has said she sees natural gas as a bridge fuel and foresees a new economy built on rapidly increasing shares of renewable energy. She has a record of supporting fracking, and she supports the Paris agreement on climate change.
Foreign affairs
On trade, another vital Houston issue, we have our differences with the Democrat. Although she now says she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal we support, we're confident she will be adept at negotiating deals that would grow wages and jobs and that would protect American workers. Despite his vaunted deal-making claims, her opponent, we suspect, would be lost at sea trying to meet the nation's trade goals.
On foreign affairs, the former secretary of state is knowledgeable, dependable and trusted worldwide, unlike her blusterous opponent whose outrageous remarks last week about Russia were merely the most recent bizarre outburst to unsettle our allies. Needless to say, Clinton supports NATO, unlike Trump who, in the words of columnist Timothy Egan, "now stands ready to repudiate nearly 70 years of security for our European allies under an 'America First' banner."
Temperament
We could go on with issues, including her plans for sensible gun safety and for combatting terrorism - her policy positions are laid out in detail on her campaign web site - but issues in this election are almost secondary to questions of character and trustworthiness. We reject the "cartoon version" of Hillary Clinton (again to borrow her husband's phrase) in favor of a presidential candidate who has the temperament, the ability and the experience to lead this nation.
These are unsettling times, even if they're not the dark, dystopian end times that Trump lays out. They require a steady hand. That's not Donald Trump.
The times also require a person who envisions a hopeful future for this nation, a person who has faith in the strong, prosperous and confident America we hope to bequeath our children and grandchildren, as first lady Michelle Obama so eloquently envisioned in Philadelphia. That's not Donald Trump's America.
It is Hillary Clinton's, who reminded her listeners Thursday night that "When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit."
America's first female president would be in the Oval Office more than a century and a half after a determined group of women launched the women's suffrage movement, almost a century after women in this country won the right to vote. It's a milestone, to be sure. Few could have imagined it would be so consequential.
-
Sizing Up the Next Commander-in-Chief
Neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military or the use of force.
by Bob Gates
You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.
Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.
Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.
Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation.
Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.
On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.
Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.
There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.
The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.
No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).
North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.
On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.
Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.
While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country.
Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.
Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East.
Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?
Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the senior-most advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and, further, failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq. She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.
When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families; for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership and for Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent successes against terrorism. He also has said he is for using defense spending by NATO allies as the litmus test on whether the U.S. will keep its treaty commitments to them; for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan and for the latter two developing nuclear weapons—a highly destabilizing prospect.
Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. He has a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military, which he called a “disaster.” He has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat. As of late, he appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.
Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.
All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.
The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.
I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.
Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.
At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Gates served eight presidents over 50 years, most recently as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
-
Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.
What is she going to do, promise to tell the truth from now on? ::)
-
When it comes to Trump, a Republican Treasury secretary says: Choose country over party
By Henry M. Paulson Jr.
Henry M. Paulson Jr. is chairman of the Paulson Institute and a former U.S. treasury secretary and chief executive of Goldman Sachs.
[/u]
I'm surprised!!!! (Not really)
(https://i.redd.it/hhlv2s8wromx.jpg)
-
.
-
75 retired senior diplomats sign letter opposing Trump for president
By Karen DeYoung
A group of 75 retired career Foreign Service officers, including ambassadors and senior State Department officials under Republican and Democratic presidents over nearly a half-century, has signed an open letter calling Donald Trump “entirely unqualified to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief.”
The diplomats said “none of us” will vote for Trump. While they said not all of them agreed with every decision made by Hillary Clinton, they said they all supported her candidacy.
“Because the stakes in this election are so high,” the letter said, “this is the first time many of us have publicly endorsed a candidate for President.”
The letter is the latest in an unprecedented number of joint public statements signed by retired high-level government officials and military officers this election cycle. Most have focused on national security, and most have been against Trump.
The most prominent exception was a letter early this month signed by 88 retired generals and other military officials who endorsed Trump as a “long overdue course correction in our national security posture.”
Last spring, more than 100 Republican national security experts signed a petition, even before Trump won the GOP nomination, saying they would never work for a Trump administration. Last month, 50 more Republicans, including former top aides and Cabinet members for the George W. Bush administration, signed a letter saying Trump would be “the most reckless president in American history” and that none of them would vote for him.
Most of the diplomats who signed the new letter have never been publicly associated with a political party. In their letter, they wrote that they “have proudly represented every President since Richard Nixon as ambassadors or senior State Department officials in Senate-confirmed positions. We have served Republican and Democratic Presidents with pride and enthusiasm.”
They had decided to speak out, the signers said, because “very simply, this election is different from any election we can recall.” Trump, they said, “is ignorant of the complex nature of the challenges facing our country, from Russia to China to ISIS to nuclear proliferation to refugees to drugs, but he has expressed no interest in being educated.”
The Trump campaign responded on Thursday that the country needs “an America First foreign policy.”
“How terribly weak and ineffective for a bunch of career overseas bureaucrats to send a letter or cable saying they want to keep things exactly as they are now and that they’re rallying around fellow insider Hillary Clinton,” the statement said. “The world has become a more dangerous place on their watch and they need to step up and own it.”
Although the idea for the letter was initiated by Nelson Cunningham, a former adviser to Democratic administrations, and James Keith, a former ambassador to Malaysia — both of whom now work for the international consulting firm McLarty Associates — many signers said they first saw it as it was widely distributed from friend to friend among the retired foreign policy community.
In interviews, several diplomats expressed broadly divergent reasons for signing. “As a normal issue,” former ambassador Ryan Crocker said, “generals or their civilian equivalent shouldn’t be making endorsements. I served six times as ambassador — three Republicans, three times for Democratic administrations — and I’m proud of that.”
“At the same time, looking at this campaign as I do through a national security optic, I am concerned enough to break my established position as nonpartisan,” said Crocker, whose ambassadorial posts included Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. “I know Hillary Clinton a bit from my time in Afghanistan. I thought she was a terrific boss. She’s smart, focused, she knows how to make decisions.” The next president, he said, “is going to be dealing with a world of hurt, quite literally.”
“I don’t know Donald Trump,” Crocker said. “I don’t know what he’d do. But based on what he’s said, I know I don’t want to find out. This is scary.”
John Maisto, former ambassador to the Organization of American States, Venezuela and Nicaragua, who also served on Bush’s National Security Council staff, said the letter was “the first time I’ve ever done anything like that. I’m a registered independent.” His reasons, Maisto said, “are pretty straightforward — what the letter says.”
“The Republican candidate, as so many of my Republican friends have said, does not have the qualifications to do the job, across the board. In any way. And the Democratic candidate does have the qualifications. . . . She’s not perfect, but nobody is,” Maisto said.
Some said they signed for specific policy reasons. Edward Marks, the Ronald Reagan administration’s ambassador to Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau, said, “I am very upset by the fact that Trump as a candidate has formally said he will use torture [and] . . . collective punishment as elements of U.S. policy. Those two pull him outside the normal U.S. political boundaries.”
Dan Kurtzer, former ambassador to Egypt and to Israel, said he objected to Republican support for a measure allowing U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments, which President Obama has said he would veto. He said he signed “not for the politics part, but literally for the protection that it [the measure] would strip away” from U.S. diplomats working overseas.”
Others have already publicly indicated a preference for Clinton, including Laura Kennedy, Bush’s ambassador to Turkmenistan, who has volunteered for the Clinton campaign. Nicolas Burns, undersecretary of state for Bush and a former ambassador to Greece, is rumored to be on a short list for Clinton’s secretary of state.
The letter’s signees also include Thomas Pickering, a veteran ambassador and senior diplomat who began his government work under President Harry Truman, and Marc Grossman, former ambassador to Turkey, who served as assistant secretary and undersecretary of state under Bush.
In statements about foreign countries, the diplomats wrote, “Mr. Trump has expressed the most ignorant stereotypes of those countries; has inflamed their people; and has insulted our allies and comforted our enemies.” And “shockingly, he has even offered praise and admiration for Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia whose international activities and reported intrusions into our democratic political process have been among the most damaging actions taken by any foreign leader since World War II.”
By contrast, they said, “Hillary Clinton’s handling of foreign affairs has consistently sought to advance fundamental U.S. interests with a deep grounding in the work of the many tens of thousands of career officers on whom our national security depends.”
-
Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President
Donald Trump is a man who dwells in bigotry, bluster and false promises.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.
From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.
Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.
Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.
A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government?
Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.
Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.
Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.
A straight talker who tells it like it is?
Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.
Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.
Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.
He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.
Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.
An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?
His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.
If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.
In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.
A change agent for the nation and the world?
There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.
The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.
Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.
Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?
-
Meh
-
if hilary is physically weak tomorrow, a whole lot of 'settle for trump' people are going to magically settle for biden competence.
his policy is similar to hilary, but the major knock on him "he said bonehead things" is not something repubs can ever bitch about again lol. Trump has said 10000x worse things, and repubs are lining up the HJs for him.
-
Hillary Clinton for President
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.
The next president will take office with bigoted, tribalist movements and their leaders on the march. In the Middle East and across Asia, in Russia and Eastern Europe, even in Britain and the United States, war, terrorism and the pressures of globalization are eroding democratic values, fraying alliances and challenging the ideals of tolerance and charity.
The 2016 campaign has brought to the surface the despair and rage of poor and middle-class Americans who say their government has done little to ease the burdens that recession, technological change, foreign competition and war have heaped on their families.
Over 40 years in public life, Hillary Clinton has studied these forces and weighed responses to these problems. Our endorsement is rooted in respect for her intellect, experience, toughness and courage over a career of almost continuous public service, often as the first or only woman in the arena.
Mrs. Clinton’s work has been defined more by incremental successes than by moments of transformational change. As a candidate, she has struggled to step back from a pointillist collection of policy proposals to reveal the full pattern of her record. That is a weakness of her campaign, and a perplexing one, for the pattern is clear. It shows a determined leader intent on creating opportunity for struggling Americans at a time of economic upheaval and on ensuring that the United States remains a force for good in an often brutal world.
Continue reading the main story
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton’s occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Mrs. Clinton’s record of service to children, women and families has spanned her adult life. One of her boldest acts as first lady was her 1995 speech in Beijing declaring that women’s rights are human rights. After a failed attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system, she threw her support behind legislation to establish the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than eight million lower-income young people. This year, she rallied mothers of gun-violence victims to join her in demanding comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and tighter reins on gun sales.
After opposing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention. Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position.
Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-free college and small-business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans. They would also depend on passage by Congress.
That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her. Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle.
When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good. Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters.
Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.
Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration’s unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration’s foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial. She led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran, which eventually pushed it to the table for talks over its nuclear program, and in 2012, she helped negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
Mrs. Clinton led efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar, persuading its junta to adopt political reforms. She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt. Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to reset relations with Russia, though far from successful, was a sensible effort to improve interactions with a rivalrous nuclear power.
Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression.
Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, governed during what now looks like an optimistic and even gentle era. The end of the Cold War and the advance of technology and trade appeared to be awakening the world’s possibilities rather than its demons. Many in the news media, and in the country, and in that administration, were distracted by the scandal du jour — Mr. Clinton’s impeachment — during the very period in which a terrorist threat was growing. We are now living in a world darkened by the realization of that threat and its many consequences.
Mrs. Clinton’s service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it’s had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we’ll argue in detail on Monday.
Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime’s commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297737-trump-endorsed-by-immigration-officers
:D
-
Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead
Editorial board
The Arizona Republic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.
That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president.
What Clinton has (and Trump doesn’t)
The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting.
Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Trump does not.
Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Trump does not.
Clinton knows how to compromise and to lead with intelligence, decorum and perspective. She has a record of public service as First Lady, senator and secretary of state.
She has withstood decades of scrutiny so intense it would wither most politicians. The vehemence of some of the anti-Clinton attacks strains credulity.
Trump hasn’t even let the American people scrutinize his tax returns, which could help the nation judge his claims of business acumen.
Her flaws pale in comparison
Make no mistake: Hillary Clinton has flaws. She has made serious missteps.
Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State was a mistake, as she has acknowledged. Donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State raise concerns that donors were hoping to buy access. Though there is no evidence of wrongdoing, she should have put up a firewall.
Yet despite her flaws, Clinton is the superior choice.
She does not casually say things that embolden our adversaries and frighten our allies. Her approach to governance is mature, confident and rational.
That cannot be said of her opponent.
Clinton retains her composure under pressure. She’s tough. She doesn’t back down.
Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads.
That’s beneath our national dignity.
When the president of the United States speaks, the world expects substance. Not a blistering tweet.
Whose hand do you want on the nuclear button?
Clinton has argued America’s case before friendly and unfriendly foreign leaders with tenacity, diplomacy and skill. She earned respect by knowing the issues, the history and the facts.
She is intimately familiar with the challenges we face in our relations with Russia, China, the Middle East, North Korea and elsewhere. She’ll stand by our friends and she’s not afraid to confront our enemies.
Contrast Clinton’s tenacity and professionalism with Trump, who began his campaign with gross generalities about Mexico and Mexicans as criminals and rapists. These were careless slaps at a valued trading partner and Arizona’s neighbor. They were thoughtless insults about people whose labor and energy enrich our country.
Trump demonstrated his clumsiness on the world stage by making nice with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto only a few hours before appearing in Phoenix to deliver yet another rant about Mexican immigrants and border walls.
Arizona’s been there on immigration (it doesn’t work)
What’s more, Arizona went down the hardline immigration road Trump travels. It led our state to SB 1070, the 2010 “show me your papers” law that earned Arizona international condemnation and did nothing to resolve real problems with undocumented immigration.
Arizona understands that we don’t need a repeat of that divisive, unproductive fiasco on the national level. A recent poll shows Arizonans oppose both more walls and the mass deportations Trump endorses.
We need a president who can broker solutions.
Clinton calls for comprehensive immigration reform, a goal that business, faith and law enforcement leaders have sought for years. Her support for a pathway to citizenship and her call for compassion for families torn apart by deportation are consistent with her longtime support for human rights.
Clinton’s equality vs. Trump’s lack of respect
As secretary of state, Clinton made gender equality a priority for U.S. foreign policy. This is an extension of Clinton’s bold “women’s rights are human rights” speech in 1995.
It reflects an understanding that America’s commitment to human rights is a critically needed beacon in today’s troubled world.
Trump’s long history of objectifying women and his demeaning comments about women during the campaign are not just good-old-boy gaffes.
They are evidence of deep character flaws. They are part of a pattern.
Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration.
Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals.
A centrist or a wild card?
Many Republicans understand this. But they shudder at the thought of Hillary Clinton naming Supreme Court justices. So they stick with Trump. We get that. But we ask them to see Trump for what he is — and what he is not.
Trump’s conversion to conservatism is recent and unconvincing. There is no guarantee he will name solid conservatives to the Supreme Court.
Hillary Clinton has long been a centrist. Despite her tack left to woo Bernie Sanders supporters, Clinton retains her centrist roots. Her justices might not be in the mold of Antonin Scalia, but they will be accomplished individuals with the experience, education and intelligence to handle the job.
They will be competent. Just as she is competent.
If a candidate can’t control his words
Trump’s inability to control himself or be controlled by others represents a real threat to our national security. His recent efforts to stay on script are not reassuring. They are phony.
The president commands our nuclear arsenal. Trump can’t command his own rhetoric.
Were he to become president, his casual remarks — such as saying he wouldn’t defend NATO partners from invasion — could have devastating consequences.
Trump has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, a thug who has made it clear he wants to expand Russia’s international footprint.
Trump suggested Russia engage in espionage against Hillary Clinton — an outrageous statement that he later insisted was meant in jest.
Trump said President Obama and Hillary Clinton were “co-founders” of ISIS, then walked that back by saying it was sarcasm.
It was reckless.
Being the leader of the free world requires a sense of propriety that Trump lacks.
Clinton’s opportunity to heal this nation
We understand that Trump’s candidacy tapped a deep discontent among those who feel left behind by a changed economy and shifting demographics.
Their concerns deserve to be discussed with respect.
Ironically, Trump hasn’t done that. He has merely pandered. Instead of offering solutions, he hangs scapegoats like piñatas and invites people to take a swing.
In a nation with an increasingly diverse population, Trump offers a recipe for permanent civil discord.
In a global economy, he offers protectionism and a false promise to bring back jobs that no longer exist.
America needs to look ahead and build a new era of prosperity for the working class.
This is Hillary Clinton’s opportunity. She can reach out to those who feel left behind. She can make it clear that America sees them and will address their concerns.
She can move us beyond rancor and incivility.
The Arizona Republic endorses Hillary Clinton for president.
-
Bay are you voting for Killary because of her rumored lesbian affairs?
-
‘National Security for Dummies’ is no way to learn the presidency, John Warner says as he endorses Clinton
By John Wagner
When it comes time to pick a commander in chief, preparation is essential, retired senator John W. Warner of Virginia said Wednesday, explaining his decision to buck his party and endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
“You can’t pull up a quick text like ‘National Security for Dummies,’ ” Warner, the maverick Republican, quipped at a news conference in Alexandria, where he was joined by Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), Clinton’s running mate on the Democratic ticket.
Warner, 89, is a World War II veteran, a former U.S. Navy secretary and a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and his comments focused heavily on military and national security issues.
He mixed war stories — literally, in some cases — with praise for Clinton and political jabs at Trump, a real estate executive, saying he felt compelled to share his thinking on the presidential race particularly for “those people still struggling with how to vote.” That included, he said, those in Virginia, a presidential battleground state.
With a backdrop of U.S. and Virginia flags, Warner recalled that during her days a junior senator from New York, Clinton came prepared to meetings that he led of the Armed Services Committee with papers “stuffed under her arms and dribbling onto the floor.”
When military witnesses appeared before the committee, Clinton was always “respectful,” Warner said, adding: “That’s one word that’s totally lacking from the other ticket.”
On foreign affairs, Clinton, a former secretary of state, has “a foundation of [her] own to build upon” as president, Warner said. “The other candidate, in my judgment, does not.”
Warner, who remained popular among his Virginia constituents throughout his five terms, said he’s been “distressed” by comments Trump has made about the state of the military and about military families.
“We have today the strongest military in the world,” Warner said. “No one can compare to us. … It is not in shambles. … No one should have the audacity to stand up and degrade the Purple Heart, degrade military families or talk about the military being in a state of disaster.”
After wrapping up at the lectern, he decided to return for one more shot at Trump, mentioning him by name for the first time. During his training in the Navy, Warner recalled, one lesson was “drilled into us.”
“Loose lips sink ships,” he said. “Got that Trump? Loose lips sink ships.”
Perhaps best known by some for marrying actress Elizabeth Taylor, Warner also has a history of parting ways with his party.
Warner famously opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, as well as the 1994 Senate candidacy of Oliver North of Iran-contra notoriety. He endorsed Democrat Mark R. Warner over Republican Jim Gilmore to fill his own seat in the U.S. Senate.
But until Wednesday, Warner had never endorsed a Democrat for president.
Both Kaine and Mark Warner, who was also on hand Wednesday, showered praise on the retired senator before he spoke — and recounted the ways their lives and political careers were intertwined in the state.
“He’s always put country and commonwealth above anything else,” said a beaming Kaine.
-
Steve Case: Why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton
by Steve Case
I’ve been involved in policy for three decades, since AOL played a pivotal role in getting the nation online in the early days of the Internet. Initially, my focus was on commercializing the Internet, expanding access and putting appropriate rules of the road in place. In the past decade, my focus shifted to encouraging pro-growth policies that foster innovation, generate jobs, help start-ups and create opportunity. I was proud to work with a Democratic president and a Republican House to help get the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act passed four years ago, and I have spent countless hours meeting with members of both parties on immigration reform, patent reform and pro-start-up economic ideas.
Despite my active engagement on policy, however, I’ve tried to steer clear of politics. I’ve avoided endorsing candidates or making big contributions to campaigns. I’ve wanted to be nonpartisan, able to work with people on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, I’ve been troubled by the hyper-partisanship that has defined our politics of late, and by the resulting gridlock that has set in. The United States faces many challenges, but in my view our greatest threat may not be external forces but rather our inability to work together to move our country forward.
So my inclination is to continue to stay out of politics and continue to quietly build working relationships with both Republicans and Democrats. I’d prefer to be positioned as a builder of bridges and consensus.
But I’ve decided to make an exception this election. I have concluded that I cannot sit on the sidelines this year. At this pivotal time, the choice is too important.
I’ve decided to back Hillary Clinton for president for four reasons.
First, I think she’d be better for our economy, especially with respect to innovative technology and start-ups. Donald Trump knows business, but his campaign has been backward-looking on the economy and oddly absent of ideas to spur creation of the jobs of the future. Clinton understands what we need to help start businesses and will invest in education, advanced manufacturing and basic research. She’s not promising a return to a bygone era — she’s focused on making our economy strong for our children and their children. These forward-leaning policies are essential to ensure continued U.S. economic leadership.
Second, Clinton is right on immigration. To win in the global economy, our country must win the global battle for talent. Immigrants don’t take U.S. jobs; they create them. More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children: Think how many fewer jobs we’d have in the United States if these entrepreneurs and their parents had been kept out by a wall. Trump’s harsh policies will cost us jobs, and his even harsher rhetoric will chase away immigrant families whose children could grow up to be the next Steve Jobs (whose father was a Syrian refugee) or Sergey Brin (an immigrant himself).
Third, while Trump has been largely silent on technology issues facing the new economy, Clinton has put forward an agenda that has won considerable acclaim among technology leaders. She wants to appoint a chief innovation adviser, expand science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, education and more. And she shares my view that it’s not enough to support a booming Silicon Valley — we need policies that promote the “rise of the rest”: a spread of start-ups to all parts of our country. We need to level the playing field so anybody, anywhere, has a shot at the American dream.
Fourth, I agree with Clinton on the need to control the deficit. Despite his populist rhetoric, Trump wants to give huge tax breaks to people like me, the very folks who have benefited greatly from the innovation economy, while many others have been left behind. In the process he would blow up our deficit and make the economy more unequal. I agree we need to simplify the tax code, but if we are going to give tax relief, let’s make sure it is in incentives for start-ups to grow and create jobs.
I think I get why Trump has been such a potent political force this year. I am well aware that millions of people are angry about their prospects and fearful that the forces of globalization and digitization have left them behind. I also recognize many are frustrated by politics and feel we need an outsider to shake things up. But I don’t think Trump is the answer, for those people or for the country.
I don’t agree with everything Clinton has said and done. I take issue with some aspects of her platform, and I worry about her inclination to all too often view the government as the solution to problems. If she becomes president, I’m sure there will be plenty of times I will disagree with her. But for 2016, I believe Hillary Clinton represents the best choice for the United States — and our best hope to remain the most innovative and entrepreneurial nation in the world.
Steve Case, a co-founder of America Online, is chairman and chief executive of Revolution and author of “The Third Wave: An Entrepreneur’s Vision of the Future.”
-
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
by the Editorial Board
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”
He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.
His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.
He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.
He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.
We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.
Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.
Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.
Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
-
USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'
by the Editorial Board
In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.
From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.
Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.
We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:
He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.
He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”
He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.
His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.
He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.
He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.
He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.
He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.
We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.
Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.
Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.
Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.
Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.
Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.
"USA Today is owned by Gannett Co. Inc. (GCI) and like the New York Times is a publicly traded newspaper. They are a part of Hillary's Wall Street buddies. GCI has seen their stock drop from 17.91 to 11.59 this year and are expected to see a growth rate of negative 5% over the next five years and will be relying on Hillary's large corporation Wall Street favors (at the cost of regular Americans) to help them out. Zacks Tale of the Tape Aug 2016 reccomendations for Gannett Co. Inc - "One such stock that you may want to consider dropping is Gannett Co., Inc. (GCI - Free Report) , which has witnessed a significant price decline in the past four weeks, and it has seen negative earnings estimate revisions for the current quarter and the current year. A Zacks Rank #4(Sell) further confirms weakness in GCI. A key reason for this move has been the negative trend in earnings estimate revisions. For the full year, we have seen 1 estimate moving down in the past 30 days, compared with no upward revisions. This trend has caused the consensus estimate to trend lower, going from $1.53 a share a month ago to its current level of $1.31. Also, for the current quarter, Gannett has seen 2 downward estimate revisions versus no revisions in the opposite direction, dragging the consensus estimate down to 17 cents a share from 31 cents over the past 30 days.
The stock also has seen some pretty dismal trading lately, as the share price has dropped 12.1% in the past month. So it may not be a good decision to keep this stock in your portfolio anymore."
-
Trump IS unfit.
People can argue hillary belongs in a prison cell, and there will be no argument from me.
But it's 3am... 4am... 5am... Five weeks before the election... Obama is giving a eulogy across the world... and Trump is calling a woman disgusting, berating her for the 4th straight day, and worst of all - encouraging people to check out her sex tape.
Is Trump presidential? No, he is not.
-
Four Years ago, the Sentinal Editorial Board Endorsed Romney. :-\
Why Trump is a terrible choice
by the Editorial Board
Donald Trump unquestionably is a force in politics. But he's not a force for good. His candidacy is fueled by far, far too much hate and anger.
Hillary Clinton is not perfect. But unlike Trump, she is thoroughly qualified and completely fit to be president. Given the choice between the two, it is impossible to recommend that voters choose Trump.
We'll briefly catalog Trump's major faults in a moment. But first, let us acknowledge his appeal.
Trump speaks to a lot of people who feel bypassed in today's economy, especially older workers. But it's simplistic for him to lay the loss of manufacturing jobs squarely on trade deals, which to be fair, have also saved or created a lot of jobs here at home. The bigger truth is that the Internet age, automation and technology, and the global marketplace have forever changed how we work. And Trump cannot change that reality by building walls, strong-arming manufacturers into staying in America or placing prohibitive taxes on imports.
A lot of people also find Trump appealing because they see him as some great businessman. But there's the myth of Trump and the reality of Trump. And his spotty record — think Trump University, Trump Tower Tampa and the Trump casino in Atlantic City, to name a few — shows Trump looks out for Trump, not the little guy.
Trump speaks to a lot of people who feel bypassed in today's economy, especially older workers. But it's simplistic for him to lay the loss of manufacturing jobs squarely on trade deals, which to be fair, have also saved or created a lot of jobs here at home. The bigger truth is that the Internet age, automation and technology, and the global marketplace have forever changed how we work. And Trump cannot change that reality by building walls, strong-arming manufacturers into staying in America or placing prohibitive taxes on imports.
A lot of people also find Trump appealing because they see him as some great businessman. But there's the myth of Trump and the reality of Trump. And his spotty record — think Trump University, Trump Tower Tampa and the Trump casino in Atlantic City, to name a few — shows Trump looks out for Trump, not the little guy.
Even if he were a successful businessman, that doesn't equate to being a successful political leader. In business, your role might be to get the advantage over the other guy. But if the leader of the free world decimates the other guys economically, who is going to buy our products?
Perhaps that's why the prospect of a President Trump has made the stock market quake. By contrast, Hillary's strong debate performance gave it a bounce.
A lot of people also find Trump appealing because they think he will shake up Washington. But it's hard to see how the Republican nominee could end partisan gridlock when he can't get a lot of people in his own party to stand with him.
Trump's promises are an illusion, but the hate and anger that make him unfit are real. We'll begin with the "birther" issue because that was the beginning of Trump's political prominence.
Trump in 2011 became the most important popularizer of the conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in this country and therefore is not an American citizen. Until just a few days ago, Trump refused to disown this blatant lie, which is an insult to all African-Americans.
Even after Trump finally conceded that Obama is an American, he repeated the lie that Hillary Clinton started the birther conspiracy theory. Clinton was right during the first debate to label Trump's shameful "birther" behavior racist.
And that is not the only evidence of longstanding questionable racial attitudes. His early days in real estate saw his company successfully sued for discrimination against minorities. He insisted during the campaign that blacks today live in the worst conditions "Ever. Ever. Ever," which speaks to his astonishing inability to understand the deep scars of slavery and Jim Crow. Add to this his embrace of "stop and frisk" tactics ruled unconstitutional because they discriminated against minorities.
Trump also shows a disqualifying hateful streak toward women, whom he has called "pigs" and "fat slobs." During his current campaign he made an issue of the appearance of primary opponent Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz's wife Heidi. Trump's "blood" comments about Fox's Megyn Kelly were outrageous.
Trump's hate extends to Hispanics, Muslims and even the disabled. It's bad enough he called former Miss Universe Alicia Machado "Miss Piggy" for gaining weight, he also called her "Miss Housekeeping" because she is a Latina.
Trump infamously characterized Mexicans as criminals and rapists. He suggested a judge ruled against him in a Trump University lawsuit because of the American jurist's Mexican heritage. Then there's the wall Trump has pledged to make Mexico pay for and his hazy yet callous plans for deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
Trump's attitude toward Muslims is just as awful, from his pants-on-fire claim to have seen "thousands and thousands" of people in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks, to his un-American plan to exclude immigrants from America if they are Muslims, to his disparagement of a Muslim father and mother whose son was killed in Iraq while serving in the military.
Then, of course, there is the video of Trump mocking the convulsive body movements of a reporter who has a disability that severely restricts his arm movements.
With all that in mind – plus his tendency to urge supporters at his rallies to rough up protesters – imagine Trump trying to offer comfort after a national tragedy.
Trump refused to admit that he mocked the reporter, and he refused to admit that he couldn't have seen "thousands" of people celebrating in New Jersey. Those refusals provide a transition to another of Trump's disqualifying traits – his apparent inability to admit a mistake. A person who cannot admit a mistake cannot learn from his mistakes. Such a person would make a very dangerous president, indeed.
The most infamous example is Trump's continued claim – repeated in the recent debate – that he opposed President George W. Bush's 2003 decision to invade Iraq. On this issue and others, Trump either is knowingly lying or is delusional.
Against that backdrop, Trump's refusal to release his tax returns raises bright red flags. He lent credence to the suspicion he has paid no federal taxes by remarking during the debate that getting away with paying nothing in prior years "makes me smart."
If middle class voters need another reason not to trust Trump, how about the fact he congratulated himself for planning to cash in on the real estate collapse that triggered the Great Recession in which so many people lost their jobs. "That's called business," he said.
Clinton has a self-inflicted trust issue of her own, most seriously because of her email scandal. But, folks, to this point the number of lies Trump persists in telling dwarfs Clinton's truth problem. Clinton, at least, has admitted that she's made mistakes.
In addition to those problems of judgment and temperament, Trump is lacking in basic knowledge and experience. It shows in his foolish comments suggesting that the United States might ignore threats against certain of our NATO allies. It shows in his "bromance" with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. It shows in his dangerously shallow understanding of nuclear policy.
That latter failure is downright scary. Trump has indicated he wouldn't be upset by significant nuclear proliferation. In a debate during the primary he did not know (until Marco Rubio told him) that "nuclear triad" refers to America's ability to deliver nukes via planes, subs and missile silos.
Even in the most recent debate he seemed uncertain both about what America's nuclear policy is and about what his own nuclear policy would be. Trump said that he "would certainly not do first strike," but he also said that "I can't take anything off the table." In other words, he is on both sides of this issue.
Trump's nuclear ignorance is terrifying.
There are many other issues for which Trump's knowledge and experience deficit is serious. And alarmingly, as we saw in the debate, he doesn't put a premium on preparation.
Trump can't overcome his deficits by surrounding himself with top advisers because he wouldn't listen to his advisers. For one of the worst things about Trump is that he is convinced he always knows best.
Copyright © 2016, Sun Sentinel
-
Hillary Clinton for president
By Editorial Board
IN THE gloom and ugliness of this political season, one encouraging truth is often overlooked: There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.
In a moment, we will explain our confidence. But first, allow us to anticipate a likely question: No, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms. Clinton’s chief opponent is dreadful.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is true — uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well urge you to vote for her anyway — that is how strongly we feel about Mr. Trump. But we would also tell you that was our judgment.
Fortunately, it is not.
We recognize that many Americans distrust and dislike Ms. Clinton. The negative feelings reflect in part the bitter partisanship of the nation’s politics today; in part the dishonest attacks she has been subjected to for decades; and in part her genuine flaws, missteps and weaknesses.
We are not blind to those. Ms. Clinton is inclined to circle the wagons and withhold information, from the closed meetings of her health-care panel in 1993 to the Whitewater affair, from the ostensibly personal emails she destroyed on her own say-so after leaving the State Department to her reluctance to disclose her pneumonia last month. Further, she and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, are not the first to cash in on the speech circuit, but they have done so on an unprecedented and unseemly scale. And no one will accuse Ms. Clinton of an excess of charisma: She has neither the eloquence of President Obama nor the folksy charm of former president George W. Bush or, for that matter, her husband.
But maybe, at this moment in history, that last weakness is also a strength. If Ms. Clinton is elected, she will attempt to govern an angrily divided nation, working with legislators who in many cases are determined to thwart her, while her defeated opponent quite possibly will pretend her victory is fraudulent.
What hope is there for progress in such an environment — for a way out of the gridlock that frustrates so many Americans? The temptation is to summon a “revolution,” as her chief primary opponent imagined, or promise to blow up the system, as Mr. Trump posits. Both temptations are dead ends, as Ms. Clinton understands. If progress is possible, it will be incremental and achieved with input from members of both parties. Eloquence and charm may matter less than policy chops and persistence.
It is fair to read Ms. Clinton’s career as a series of learning experiences that have prepared her well for such an environment. As first lady, she failed when she tried to radically remake the American health-care system. Instead of retreating, she reentered the fray to help enact a more modest but important reform expanding health-care access to poor children.
Her infamous “reset” with Russia offers a similar arc. We have not hesitated to criticize the Obama administration’s foreign policy, including its lukewarm support for Ukraine in the face of a Russian invasion, but criticism of the “reset” is off-base. When Ms. Clinton launched the policy, Dmitry Medvedev, not Vladimir Putin, was president of Russia, and nobody — maybe not even Mr. Putin — knew how things would play out. It was smart to test Mr. Medvedev’s willingness to cooperate, and in fact the United States and Russia made progress under Ms. Clinton’s leadership, including in nuclear-arms control and in facilitating resupply of U.S. troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory. As Mr. Putin reasserted himself and Russia became more hostile, Ms. Clinton was clear-eyed about the need to adjust U.S. policy.
She was similarly clear-eyed after winning election to the Senate in 2000. You might have expected her to hold some grudges, especially toward Republican legislators who had lambasted her husband in the most personal terms during his then-recent impeachment and Senate trial. But colleagues in both parties found her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.
Professionals in the State Department offer similar testimonials about her tenure as secretary during Mr. Obama’s first term: She reached out, listened to diverse points of view and, more than many politicians who come to that job with their own small teams, was open to intelligent advice. She was respected by employees and by counterparts overseas. She set priorities, including ensuring that “women’s rights are human rights” would rise from slogan to policy.
Her 2016 presidential campaign offers one more case study of lessons learned — a model of efficiency and of large egos subordinated to a larger cause — after her far less disciplined 2008 effort.
Ms. Clinton, in other words, is dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart. Unlike Mr. Clinton or Mr. Bush when they ascended, she knows Washington; unlike Mr. Obama when he ascended, she has executive experience. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done.
So what would she do? Her ambitions are less lofty than we would like when it comes, for example, to reforming unsustainable entitlement programs, and than many in her party would like, in their demand, for example, for free college tuition. But most of her agenda is commendable, and parts may actually be achievable: immigration reform; increased investment in infrastructure, research and education, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy; sounder family-leave policies; criminal-justice reform. In an era of slowing growth and growing income inequality, these all make sense, as do her support for curbing climate change and for regulating gun ownership.
Ms. Clinton also understands the importance of U.S. leadership in the world, her campaign-year anti-trade epiphany notwithstanding. Inside the Obama administration, Ms. Clinton was a voice for engagement on behalf of democracy, human rights and stability. At times (the surge in Afghanistan), Mr. Obama listened. At times (Syrian intervention), he did not — and the world is far more dangerous because of that. Ms. Clinton can be faulted, perhaps, for excessive loyalty; though the hyper-investigated Benghazi affair proved to be no scandal at all, Ms. Clinton should have argued more persistently to help stabilize Libya after its dictator fell.
But her foreign-policy inclinations were sounder than her president’s. It is telling that, even as she tacked left to survive the primaries, she did not give ground to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the core value of American engagement in the world. Allies would find her more reliable than the incumbent and far more dependable than her opponent. The world would be more secure as a result.
No election is without risk. The biggest worry about a Clinton presidency, in our view, is in the sphere where she does not seem to have learned the right lessons, namely openness and accountability. Her use of a private email server as secretary was a mistake, not a high crime; but her slow, grudging explanations of it worsened the damage and insulted the voters. Her long periods of self-insulation from press questioning during the campaign do not bode well.
The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good in the world, but Ms. Clinton was disturbingly cavalier in allowing a close aide to go on its payroll while still at State, and in failing to erect the promised impenetrable wall between the foundation and the government. She would have to do better in the White House.
Even here, however, Mr. Trump makes her look good. She has released years of tax returns. She has voluntarily identified her campaign bundlers. The Clinton Foundation actually is a charitable foundation, not a vehicle for purchasing portraits of herself. She is a paragon of transparency relative to her opponent.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies. As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.
Rather than dwell on that danger here, we invite you to visit wapo.st/thecaseagainsttrump. There we have assembled a timeline of Mr. Trump’s most alarming statements, accompanied by video and linked to some of the most trenchant commentary from our columnists, guest contributors, editorial writers and cartoonists over the past 16 months. This closing argument is far from exhaustive, but it is horrifying enough. If you have any doubts about Mr. Trump’s unfitness, please take a look.
Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton underlined her fitness for office in what was essentially the first major decision of her potential presidency: her choice of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) as running mate. Rather than calculate how best to assuage or excite this or that part of her base, Ms. Clinton selected a person of sound judgment, with executive and legislative experience and unquestionable capacity to serve as president if necessary.
That presages what Americans might reasonably expect of a Clinton presidency: seriousness of purpose and relentless commitment, even in the face of great obstacles, to achievements in the public interest. We believe that Ms. Clinton will prove a worthy example to girls who celebrate the election of America’s first female president. We believe, too, that anyone who votes for her will be able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.
-
A major newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has finally endorsed Donald Trump (virtually every other major paper in the country has endorsed Clinton). The Review-Journal is owned by Sheldon Adelson.
EDITORIAL: Donald Trump for president
These are turbulent times.
More and more Americans express frustration and disillusionment today with the political institutions that govern the nation. They clamor for an alternative to the incestuous and pernicious atmosphere dominating the capital. They see a vast array of lobbyists, elected officials and entrenched interests manipulating the levers of power for their own enrichment at the expense of ordinary citizens.
The discontent isn’t confined by ideology or political philosophy. As Donald Trump confounded the pundit class in ignoring convention and protocol on his way to securing the Republican presidential nomination, a long-time socialist generated throngs of enthusiastic supporters on the left and almost derailed the Democratic coronation of Hillary Clinton.
“Change is in the air,” activist Marianne Williamson wrote, “as old patterns fall away and new energies are emerging.”
And so it is.
History tells us that agents for reform often generate fear and alarm among those intent on preserving their cushy sinecures. It’s hardly a shock, then, that the 2016 campaign has produced a barrage of unceasing vitriol directed toward Mr. Trump. But let us not be distracted by the social media sideshows and carnival clatter. Substantive issues are in play this November.
Our allies on the world stage watch nervously as America retreats from its position of strong leadership leaving strife and conflict rushing to fill the void. The past eight years have pushed us $20 trillion into debt, obligations that will burden our children and grandchildren. The nation’s economy sputters under the growing weight of federal edicts and regulations that smother growth and innovation. Obamacare threatens to crash and burn. The middle class struggles. An administration promising hope and unity instead brought division.
Yet Hillary Clinton promises to lead us down the same path. She’ll cuddle up to the ways and perks of Washington like she would to a cozy old blanket.
Mr. Trump instead brings a corporate sensibility and a steadfast determination to an ossified Beltway culture. He advocates for lower taxes and a simplified tax code, in contrast to his opponent’s plan to extract another $1 trillion from the private economy in order to enlarge the bureaucracy. Mr. Trump understands and appreciates the conditions that lead to prosperity and job creation and would be a friend to small business and entrepreneurship. Mrs. Clinton has spent most of her adult life on the public payroll.
Of particular importance is the U.S. Supreme Court. The next president may be charged with filling multiple vacancies, shaping the court’s direction for a generation. Mr. Trump prefers nominees who recognize the Constitution’s checks on federal authority as a bulwark against tyranny. Mrs. Clinton would be a disaster in this regard.
Protections enshrined in no fewer than five amendments in the Bill of Rights could be eliminated or diminished under a progressive high court. Mrs. Clinton has already expressed support for empowering censors to regulate political speech — and even ban movies and books — by rewriting the First Amendment under the guise of campaign finance reform. Count on this to be a litmus test for her high-court nominees.
Expect the Second Amendment to fare no better. The individual right to bear arms would be a likely casualty of a Clinton presidency. In addition, it’s not hard to envision a liberal court further eroding the Fifth Amendment’s restrictions on government confiscation of private property and simply pulling the plug on the Ninth and 10th amendments, which have long been on life support.
Make no mistake, a Hillary Clinton administration would indulge the worst instincts of the authoritarian left and continue to swell the bloated regulatory state while running the nation deeper into the red in pursuit of “free” college and health care.
Yes, Mr. Trump’s impulsiveness and overheated rhetoric alienate many voters. He has trouble dealing with critics and would be wise to discover the power of humility.
But neither candidate will ever be called to the dais to accept an award for moral probity and character. And we are already distressingly familiar with the Clinton way, which involves turning public service into an orgy of influence peddling and entitlement designed to line their own pockets — precisely what a disgruntled electorate now rises up to protest.
Mr. Trump represents neither the danger his critics claim nor the magic elixir many of his supporters crave. But he promises to be a source of disruption and discomfort to the privileged, back-scratching political elites for whom the nation’s strength and solvency have become subservient to power’s pursuit and preservation.
Donald Trump for president.
-
A major newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has finally endorsed Donald Trump (virtually every other major paper in the country has endorsed Clinton). The Review-Journal is owned by Sheldon Adelson.
EDITORIAL: Donald Trump for president
These are turbulent times.
More and more Americans express frustration and disillusionment today with the political institutions that govern the nation. They clamor for an alternative to the incestuous and pernicious atmosphere dominating the capital. They see a vast array of lobbyists, elected officials and entrenched interests manipulating the levers of power for their own enrichment at the expense of ordinary citizens.
The discontent isn’t confined by ideology or political philosophy. As Donald Trump confounded the pundit class in ignoring convention and protocol on his way to securing the Republican presidential nomination, a long-time socialist generated throngs of enthusiastic supporters on the left and almost derailed the Democratic coronation of Hillary Clinton.
“Change is in the air,” activist Marianne Williamson wrote, “as old patterns fall away and new energies are emerging.”
And so it is.
History tells us that agents for reform often generate fear and alarm among those intent on preserving their cushy sinecures. It’s hardly a shock, then, that the 2016 campaign has produced a barrage of unceasing vitriol directed toward Mr. Trump. But let us not be distracted by the social media sideshows and carnival clatter. Substantive issues are in play this November.
Our allies on the world stage watch nervously as America retreats from its position of strong leadership leaving strife and conflict rushing to fill the void. The past eight years have pushed us $20 trillion into debt, obligations that will burden our children and grandchildren. The nation’s economy sputters under the growing weight of federal edicts and regulations that smother growth and innovation. Obamacare threatens to crash and burn. The middle class struggles. An administration promising hope and unity instead brought division.
Yet Hillary Clinton promises to lead us down the same path. She’ll cuddle up to the ways and perks of Washington like she would to a cozy old blanket.
Mr. Trump instead brings a corporate sensibility and a steadfast determination to an ossified Beltway culture. He advocates for lower taxes and a simplified tax code, in contrast to his opponent’s plan to extract another $1 trillion from the private economy in order to enlarge the bureaucracy. Mr. Trump understands and appreciates the conditions that lead to prosperity and job creation and would be a friend to small business and entrepreneurship. Mrs. Clinton has spent most of her adult life on the public payroll.
Of particular importance is the U.S. Supreme Court. The next president may be charged with filling multiple vacancies, shaping the court’s direction for a generation. Mr. Trump prefers nominees who recognize the Constitution’s checks on federal authority as a bulwark against tyranny. Mrs. Clinton would be a disaster in this regard.
Protections enshrined in no fewer than five amendments in the Bill of Rights could be eliminated or diminished under a progressive high court. Mrs. Clinton has already expressed support for empowering censors to regulate political speech — and even ban movies and books — by rewriting the First Amendment under the guise of campaign finance reform. Count on this to be a litmus test for her high-court nominees.
Expect the Second Amendment to fare no better. The individual right to bear arms would be a likely casualty of a Clinton presidency. In addition, it’s not hard to envision a liberal court further eroding the Fifth Amendment’s restrictions on government confiscation of private property and simply pulling the plug on the Ninth and 10th amendments, which have long been on life support.
Make no mistake, a Hillary Clinton administration would indulge the worst instincts of the authoritarian left and continue to swell the bloated regulatory state while running the nation deeper into the red in pursuit of “free” college and health care.
Yes, Mr. Trump’s impulsiveness and overheated rhetoric alienate many voters. He has trouble dealing with critics and would be wise to discover the power of humility.
But neither candidate will ever be called to the dais to accept an award for moral probity and character. And we are already distressingly familiar with the Clinton way, which involves turning public service into an orgy of influence peddling and entitlement designed to line their own pockets — precisely what a disgruntled electorate now rises up to protest.
Mr. Trump represents neither the danger his critics claim nor the magic elixir many of his supporters crave. But he promises to be a source of disruption and discomfort to the privileged, back-scratching political elites for whom the nation’s strength and solvency have become subservient to power’s pursuit and preservation.
Donald Trump for president.
That guy really does look like a bag of smashed assholes
-
Colin Powell Says He’ll Vote for Hillary Clinton
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
Colin L. Powell, the Republican former secretary of state, said on Tuesday that he planned to vote for Hillary Clinton for president as he condemned her rival, Donald J. Trump, at an event on Long Island.
Speaking before the Long Island Association, a trade group that frequently hosts political figures, Mr. Powell divulged his intentions come Election Day.
“I am voting for Hillary Clinton,” he said, according to Matthew Cohen, a spokesman for the association. Mr. Powell went on to praise Mrs. Clinton for her skills as a leader and her experience.
Paule Pachter, a Long Island Association board member, said that Mr. Powell was blunt.
“He said he would support Hillary Clinton and he also elaborated on several reason why he felt that Donald Trump was not the right candidate,” he said. “He spoke about his inexperience, he spoke about the messages that he’s sending out every day to his supporters, which really paints our country in a negative light across the globe with all our allies.”
The comments were a change from Mr. Powell’s tone in hacked emails from his inbox that were made public in September. In the emails, Mr. Powell criticized Mr. Trump but also expressed bitterness at Mrs. Clinton for repeatedly pointing to Mr. Powell’s email habits to explain away her own use of a private email server while she ran the State Department.
Mr. Powell’s comments make him the latest member of the Republican foreign policy and national security establishment to openly condemn his party’s nominee, and to say that Mrs. Clinton is the preferred choice.
But Mrs. Clinton came under harsh attack on Tuesday from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who echoed in more pointed language Mr. Trump’s recent assertions that Mr. Clinton should be jailed.
“When I see her, I see her in an orange jumpsuit,” Mr. Giuliani, a former United States attorney, said on a Philadelphia talk radio station, WPHT. “I’m sorry, or at least a striped one. I’d have prosecuted her a year ago and probably convicted her by now.”
-
HAHAHAHA! We don't want you! Go back to the swamp Nikki!
-
Many will secretly vote for Trump, but never admit to it. Some will even lie and say they voted for Hillary.
Pretty sad when admitting to voting for Trump is politically incorrect, but saying that you voted for a criminal it's okay and socially accepted.
-
Many will secretly vote for Trump, but never admit to it. Some will even lie and say they voted for Hillary.
Pretty sad when admitting to voting for Trump is politically incorrect, but saying that you voted for a criminal it's okay and socially accepted.
Who knows?
BUT, one thing I find odd is the failure of Trump supporters to accept/ believe some of us really think Hillary is the best choice.
I had a woman in the gym tell me she didn't really believe I voted for Hillary.
She laughed and waved her hand saying she knew I was joking and walked away.
Here on this and other forums, a few Trump supporters claim I have buyers remorse for my early vote for Hillary. WTF?
It's perfectly normal to disagree during any election. BUT to refuse to accept people feel good about voting for the other side is odd.
-
Who knows?
BUT, one thing I find odd is the failure of Trump supporters to accept/ believe some of us really think Hillary is the best choice.
I had a woman in the gym tell me she didn't really believe I voted for Hillary.
She laughed and waved her hand saying she knew I was joking and walked away.
Here on this and other forums, a few Trump supporters claim I have buyers remorse for my early vote for Hillary. WTF?
It's perfectly normal to disagree during any election. BUT to refuse to accept people feel good about voting for the other side is odd.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=612604.0;attach=694112;image)
is that 240?
-
Many will secretly vote for Trump, but never admit to it. Some will even lie and say they voted for Hillary.
Pretty sad when admitting to voting for Trump is politically incorrect, but saying that you voted for a criminal it's okay and socially accepted.
Are you talking about yourself? Did you just make this up out of thin air? If not what are you basing it on?
-
KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president
By Peter Holley
Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.
It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.
Under the banner "Make America Great Again," the entire front page of the paper's current issue is devoted to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement.
"'Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"
"While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?'" the article continues. "The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were.
"America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."
The Trump campaign sharply and swiftly criticized the article. "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form," the campaign said in a statement Tuesday evening. "This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign."
Reached by phone, Robb told The Washington Post that while the Crusader wasn’t officially endorsing Trump, his article signaled the publication's enthusiastic support for the Republican billionaire's candidacy.
"Overall, we do like his nationalist views and his words about shutting down the border to illegal aliens," Robb said. "It’s not an endorsement because, like anybody, there's things you disagree with. But he kind of reflects what’s happening throughout the world. There seems to be a surge of nationalism worldwide as nationals reclaim their borders."
The 12-page quarterly newspaper calls itself "The Political Voice of White Christian America!" and has a well-known white supremacist symbol on its front page. The latest edition includes articles about Jewish links to terrorism, black-on-white crime and a man who claims to be Bill Clinton’s illegitimate child. An article near the end of the paper says that Trump’s candidacy is "moving the dialogue forward."
The publication's website says that its "number one goal" is to "stop white genocide."
Since the earliest days of his presidential bid, Trump has attracted the support of prominent white nationalists across the country, setting off fears that a dormant fringe faction of the GOP base — one steeped in xenophobic and white supremacist rhetoric — would be folded back into mainstream politics.
In the early months, white nationalists said they were reluctant to publicly throw their support behind the controversial billionaire for fear of harming his strengthening campaign. But white nationalists said as Trump became more emboldened, they did too.
In January, Jared Taylor — editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance — lent his voice to a robo-call recording urging registered voters in Iowa to back Trump. Those potential voters, Taylor told The Post, are part of a silent majority who are tired of being asked to celebrate diversity but are afraid of being labeled bigots.
A month later, Trump was embraced by former KKK grand wizard David Duke, which led to a controversial exchange between CNN’s Jake Tapper and the Republican candidate. Asked by Tapper to "unequivocally condemn" Duke, Trump pleaded ignorance.
"Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, okay?" Trump said.
Tapper pressed him several more times to disavow Duke and the KKK, but Trump again declined.
"I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," Trump said. "So I don't know. I don't know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
That same month, Rachel Pendergraft — the national organizer for the Knights Party, a standard-bearer for the Ku Klux Klan — told The Post that Trump's campaign offered the organization a new outreach tool for recruiting new members and expanding their formerly dwindling ranks.
The Republican presidential candidate, Pendergraft said at the time, provided separatists with an easy way to start a conversation about issues that are important to the dying white supremacist movement.
"One of the things that our organization really stresses with our membership is we want them to educate themselves on issues, but we also want them to be able to learn how to open up a conversation with other people," Pendergraft said.
Using Trump as a conversation piece has been discussed on a private, members-only website and in “e-news, stuff that goes out to members.”
In addition to opening “a door to conversation,” she said, Trump’s surging candidacy has electrified some members of the movement.
"They like the overall momentum of his rallies and his campaign," Pendergraft said. "They like that he's not willing to back down. He says what he believes and he stands on that."
In August, the American Nazi Party’s chairman, Rocky Suhayda, agreed, declaring on his radio show that Trump offers "real opportunity" to build the white nationalist movement.
More recently, Trump's rallies have been marred by a series of racially charged incidents.
Last week, a black Trump supporter was booted from a North Carolina rally after he was mistaken for being a protester. Trump’s security detail escorted a man out of the rally as the audience cheered.
“You can get him out,” Trump said, making a sideways motion with his thumb. “Get him out.”
The person in question turned out to be C.J. Cary, a North Carolina resident, who claims to be a longtime Trump supporter.
Cary, in a phone interview, said Saturday that he had gone to the rally because he wanted to hand-deliver a note to the Republican presidential nominee. He made his way to about 20 to 30 feet from the stage and shouted “Donald!” while waving his note around to try to catch his attention.
“Everyone else is waving Trump signs and I’m waving this white letter,” Cary, 63, said. He said that, coupled with the fact that he was wearing sunglasses during an evening rally to deal with his sensitivity to light, may have been what set people off.
Cary said a security official noticed he appeared to be a supporter but said he should not have disrupted the rally.
“He asked me, ‘What happened? You have on a GOP badge,’ " Cary said. “I said, ‘I’m yelling at Donald, and he thinks I’m a protester.’ ”
Days later, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, forcefully disavowed a supporter as “deplorable” for chanting “Jew-S-A!” at a weekend rally, the latest incident of anti-Semitic rhetoric used by some of the GOP nominee’s backers, according to Post reporters Jose A. DelReal and Sean Sullivan.
“[The man’s] conduct is completely unacceptable and does not reflect our campaign or our candidate. Wow,” Conway said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That man’s conduct was deplorable. And had I been there, I would have asked security to remove him immediately.”
The Saturday afternoon incident in Phoenix was captured on video that showed a man confronting reporters at the rally with shouts and a three-fingered hand gesture that resembled hate symbols flagged by the Anti-Defamation League.
“You’re going down! You’re the enemy!” the man yelled. As the rest of the crowd broke into a chant of “USA! USA!,” the man repeatedly chanted, “Jew-S-A! Jew-S-A!”
Conway agreed when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked whether the man’s behavior was "deplorable" — a reference to controversial comments made last month by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who was criticized for casting "half of Trump’s supporters" as a "basket of deplorables." Clinton later expressed regret for suggesting that half of his supporters were racist or xenophobic.
As DelReal and Sullivan reported, the "Jew-S-A" incident revived long-standing anxieties about xenophobic and white supremacist rhetoric used by a fringe faction within the GOP nominee’s base.
Anti-Semitic slogans and language, they wrote, have become common among self-identified members of the "alt-right," a fringe conservative movement that fashions itself as a populist and anti-establishment alternative to the mainstream Republican Party. Many within the alt-right have enthusiastically embraced Trump’s campaign message, which has included calls for mass deportations of undocumented Latino immigrants and for barring foreign Muslims from entering the United States.
Many of Trump's critics have accused him and his campaign of stoking racial grievances as a political tool. Those accusations have intensified since Stephen K. Bannon stepped away from running Breitbart News — which he has called a "platform for the alt-right" — to become the Trump campaign’s chief executive.
"I wouldn’t want to tar and feather every Trump supporter with the anti-Semitic comments of one person, but it is the case that the Trump campaign has been embraced by the radical right in an unprecedented way this season," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Trump came under fire over the summer for retweeting an image of rival Hillary Clinton alongside $100 bills and a Jewish star bearing the words “most corrupt candidate ever!” Trump later claimed that it was a sheriff’s star.
Trump’s son, Donald Jr., also drew attention for doing an interview with a white-nationalist radio host this year; he later told Bloomberg News that he did not realize the interviewer was going to be looped into the conversation. He was also blasted for posting an image on social media he said he got from a friend that included Pepe the Frog, a figure that has been appropriated by white supremacists. He told ABC News that he did not know about the association.
-
Are you talking about yourself? Did you just make this up out of thin air? If not what are you basing it on?
Not talking about myself, and I did not make this up out of thin air.
I'm basing it on what I've heard others say, on and off TV, I've read it somewhere before.
Google "secretly vote for trump"
-
KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president
By Peter Holley
Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.
It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.
Under the banner "Make America Great Again," the entire front page of the paper's current issue is devoted to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement.
"'Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"
"While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, 'What made America great in the first place?'" the article continues. "The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were.
"America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great."
The Trump campaign sharply and swiftly criticized the article. "Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form," the campaign said in a statement Tuesday evening. "This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign."
Reached by phone, Robb told The Washington Post that while the Crusader wasn’t officially endorsing Trump, his article signaled the publication's enthusiastic support for the Republican billionaire's candidacy.
"Overall, we do like his nationalist views and his words about shutting down the border to illegal aliens," Robb said. "It’s not an endorsement because, like anybody, there's things you disagree with. But he kind of reflects what’s happening throughout the world. There seems to be a surge of nationalism worldwide as nationals reclaim their borders."
The 12-page quarterly newspaper calls itself "The Political Voice of White Christian America!" and has a well-known white supremacist symbol on its front page. The latest edition includes articles about Jewish links to terrorism, black-on-white crime and a man who claims to be Bill Clinton’s illegitimate child. An article near the end of the paper says that Trump’s candidacy is "moving the dialogue forward."
The publication's website says that its "number one goal" is to "stop white genocide."
Since the earliest days of his presidential bid, Trump has attracted the support of prominent white nationalists across the country, setting off fears that a dormant fringe faction of the GOP base — one steeped in xenophobic and white supremacist rhetoric — would be folded back into mainstream politics.
In the early months, white nationalists said they were reluctant to publicly throw their support behind the controversial billionaire for fear of harming his strengthening campaign. But white nationalists said as Trump became more emboldened, they did too.
In January, Jared Taylor — editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance — lent his voice to a robo-call recording urging registered voters in Iowa to back Trump. Those potential voters, Taylor told The Post, are part of a silent majority who are tired of being asked to celebrate diversity but are afraid of being labeled bigots.
A month later, Trump was embraced by former KKK grand wizard David Duke, which led to a controversial exchange between CNN’s Jake Tapper and the Republican candidate. Asked by Tapper to "unequivocally condemn" Duke, Trump pleaded ignorance.
"Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, okay?" Trump said.
Tapper pressed him several more times to disavow Duke and the KKK, but Trump again declined.
"I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists," Trump said. "So I don't know. I don't know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists."
That same month, Rachel Pendergraft — the national organizer for the Knights Party, a standard-bearer for the Ku Klux Klan — told The Post that Trump's campaign offered the organization a new outreach tool for recruiting new members and expanding their formerly dwindling ranks.
The Republican presidential candidate, Pendergraft said at the time, provided separatists with an easy way to start a conversation about issues that are important to the dying white supremacist movement.
"One of the things that our organization really stresses with our membership is we want them to educate themselves on issues, but we also want them to be able to learn how to open up a conversation with other people," Pendergraft said.
Using Trump as a conversation piece has been discussed on a private, members-only website and in “e-news, stuff that goes out to members.”
In addition to opening “a door to conversation,” she said, Trump’s surging candidacy has electrified some members of the movement.
"They like the overall momentum of his rallies and his campaign," Pendergraft said. "They like that he's not willing to back down. He says what he believes and he stands on that."
In August, the American Nazi Party’s chairman, Rocky Suhayda, agreed, declaring on his radio show that Trump offers "real opportunity" to build the white nationalist movement.
More recently, Trump's rallies have been marred by a series of racially charged incidents.
Last week, a black Trump supporter was booted from a North Carolina rally after he was mistaken for being a protester. Trump’s security detail escorted a man out of the rally as the audience cheered.
“You can get him out,” Trump said, making a sideways motion with his thumb. “Get him out.”
The person in question turned out to be C.J. Cary, a North Carolina resident, who claims to be a longtime Trump supporter.
Cary, in a phone interview, said Saturday that he had gone to the rally because he wanted to hand-deliver a note to the Republican presidential nominee. He made his way to about 20 to 30 feet from the stage and shouted “Donald!” while waving his note around to try to catch his attention.
“Everyone else is waving Trump signs and I’m waving this white letter,” Cary, 63, said. He said that, coupled with the fact that he was wearing sunglasses during an evening rally to deal with his sensitivity to light, may have been what set people off.
Cary said a security official noticed he appeared to be a supporter but said he should not have disrupted the rally.
“He asked me, ‘What happened? You have on a GOP badge,’ " Cary said. “I said, ‘I’m yelling at Donald, and he thinks I’m a protester.’ ”
Days later, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, forcefully disavowed a supporter as “deplorable” for chanting “Jew-S-A!” at a weekend rally, the latest incident of anti-Semitic rhetoric used by some of the GOP nominee’s backers, according to Post reporters Jose A. DelReal and Sean Sullivan.
“[The man’s] conduct is completely unacceptable and does not reflect our campaign or our candidate. Wow,” Conway said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That man’s conduct was deplorable. And had I been there, I would have asked security to remove him immediately.”
The Saturday afternoon incident in Phoenix was captured on video that showed a man confronting reporters at the rally with shouts and a three-fingered hand gesture that resembled hate symbols flagged by the Anti-Defamation League.
“You’re going down! You’re the enemy!” the man yelled. As the rest of the crowd broke into a chant of “USA! USA!,” the man repeatedly chanted, “Jew-S-A! Jew-S-A!”
Conway agreed when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked whether the man’s behavior was "deplorable" — a reference to controversial comments made last month by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who was criticized for casting "half of Trump’s supporters" as a "basket of deplorables." Clinton later expressed regret for suggesting that half of his supporters were racist or xenophobic.
As DelReal and Sullivan reported, the "Jew-S-A" incident revived long-standing anxieties about xenophobic and white supremacist rhetoric used by a fringe faction within the GOP nominee’s base.
Anti-Semitic slogans and language, they wrote, have become common among self-identified members of the "alt-right," a fringe conservative movement that fashions itself as a populist and anti-establishment alternative to the mainstream Republican Party. Many within the alt-right have enthusiastically embraced Trump’s campaign message, which has included calls for mass deportations of undocumented Latino immigrants and for barring foreign Muslims from entering the United States.
Many of Trump's critics have accused him and his campaign of stoking racial grievances as a political tool. Those accusations have intensified since Stephen K. Bannon stepped away from running Breitbart News — which he has called a "platform for the alt-right" — to become the Trump campaign’s chief executive.
"I wouldn’t want to tar and feather every Trump supporter with the anti-Semitic comments of one person, but it is the case that the Trump campaign has been embraced by the radical right in an unprecedented way this season," said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Trump came under fire over the summer for retweeting an image of rival Hillary Clinton alongside $100 bills and a Jewish star bearing the words “most corrupt candidate ever!” Trump later claimed that it was a sheriff’s star.
Trump’s son, Donald Jr., also drew attention for doing an interview with a white-nationalist radio host this year; he later told Bloomberg News that he did not realize the interviewer was going to be looped into the conversation. He was also blasted for posting an image on social media he said he got from a friend that included Pepe the Frog, a figure that has been appropriated by white supremacists. He told ABC News that he did not know about the association.
Why are you pasting this bullshit? Thats all you do like you're some intellectual giant when in fact you're just some uneducated serf. Really just nonsense this bullshit you post. So who cares what the KKK endorses, you act like Trump has some kind of magical power on what people want and say.
How about this, you post why blacks and gays are so up Hillarys ass. You post why YOUR PEOPLE(S) are so into a woman who has done nothing for them. Because the rest of the educated people can't figure it out.
Maybe you're attracted to her because she looks like a man? Maybe because the black population are just plain ignorant on how the politcal system work and just follow the leader. Why do gays follow the gay groups?
Instead of posting your bullshit you really should post shit that maybe you can answer or speak on.
-
Why are you pasting this bullshit? Thats all you do like you're some intellectual giant when in fact you're just some uneducated serf. Really just nonsense this bullshit you post. So who cares what the KKK endorses, you act like Trump has some kind of magical power on what people want and say.
How about this, you post why blacks and gays are so up Hillarys ass. You post why YOUR PEOPLE(S) are so into a woman who has done nothing for them. Because the rest of the educated people can't figure it out.
Maybe you're attracted to her because she looks like a man? Maybe because the black population are just plain ignorant on how the politcal system work and just follow the leader. Why do gays follow the gay groups?
Instead of posting your bullshit you really should post shit that maybe you can answer or speak on.
Stay positive!!!!!1
-
Bay you're grabbing for straws at this point. Many people just might decide to vote for who seems the most honest and trustworthy after this week....you better hope not. Haha.
-
Why are you pasting this bullshit? Thats all you do like you're some intellectual giant when in fact you're just some uneducated serf. Really just nonsense this bullshit you post. So who cares what the KKK endorses, you act like Trump has some kind of magical power on what people want and say.
How about this, you post why blacks and gays are so up Hillarys ass. You post why YOUR PEOPLE(S) are so into a woman who has done nothing for them. Because the rest of the educated people can't figure it out.
Maybe you're attracted to her because she looks like a man? Maybe because the black population are just plain ignorant on how the politcal system work and just follow the leader. Why do gays follow the gay groups?
Instead of posting your bullshit you really should post shit that maybe you can answer or speak on.
If you think what I am posting is bullshit why are you reading it? Why are you reading threads (by me) that you are ostensibly not interested in. Presumably you have something better to do with your time. The gym perhaps. ::)
-
If you think what I am posting is bullshit why are you reading it? Why are you reading threads (by me) that you are ostensibly not interested in. Presumably you have something better to do with your time. The gym perhaps. ::)
Answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do blacks and gays support Hillary like she's the second coming of Christ?
While you're at it, pronounce these words:
1. God
2. Police
3. Ask
4. McDonalds
5. Ambulance
6. Shrimp
7. Library
8. Teeth
REMEMBER...ANYTHING WITH A TH SHOULD NOT BE AN F
FUCK OFF
-
-
-
Another gratifying repudiation of the mainstream media.
-
Not talking about myself, and I did not make this up out of thin air.
I'm basing it on what I've heard others say, on and off TV, I've read it somewhere before.
Google "secretly vote for trump"
El Profeta nailed this. Like a boss.
-
El Profeta nailed this. Like a boss.
Good times.
-
El Profeta nailed this. Like a boss.
;D