Posts Tagged politics

Trump’s foreign policy experience Obama 2008?

“Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world” In a 2008 New York Times article candidate Barack Obama made this statement in an effort to counter accusations that he lacked foreign policy experience. In the 08 election, Obama cited his ties to relatives in poor villages in Kenya and growing up in Indonesia as some of his real life experiences that was his education in foreign policy. Arguably, his opponent in the primary Hillary Clinton had more foreign policy experience. As did his general election opponent Senator John McCain. But despite his lack of traditional foreign policy experience candidate Obama won both races to become President Obama.

Fast forward to the 2016 election we have Hillary Clinton with all the traditional foreign policy experience and Donald Trump who has zero experience. But does he really? Comparing to President Obama’s living in another country or having family in a foreign land?  Trump has made some scary statements that is for sure! . But with that said, comparing his foreign business dealings with living abroad, I see some difference. To argue that Trump may have more than Obama did in 08? Trump has invested money in foreign countries. Dealt with government officials in some form or another in getting deals done. Wouldn’t this experience help in gaining knowledge of a countries customs and ultimately becoming versed in some type of foreign affairs?

image source:en.wikipedia.org

image source:en.wikipedia.org

We may not agree on Trumps positions such as making the North Korean President disappear. And we might view it and some of his other statements as reckless (which I do!) But in the end when they say “Trump has NO foreign policy experience.”? Back in 08 former Obama policy advisor Susan E. Rice said that “Mr. Obama’s experience provides a different kind of insight.” Can we make the same argument for Trump’s experience? “a different kind of insight” Let us not have a convenient memory when the president and other Clinton supporters cast these stones.

 

 

, , , , ,

No Comments

Media’s use of fear begins in protection of Clinton say no to third-party voting

Now that Bernie Sanders is gone the media is on the mission of trashing third-party candidates. And not just one, as we have two major (though minor) third-party contenders, Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). The fear is not that either of them will win. The fear is they will siphon off enough votes so their candidate will lose. Hillary Clinton is the candidate most likely to be hurt by the third-party vote. Especially if the voter turnout is low.

 

A few days back I commented on an article posted on a major media outlet on how Jill Stein Green Party has no chance of winning. I don’t comment on others work very often but my compulsion to do so I could not resist. The article more or less was sheep-herding, attempting to scare the sheep who have escaped with fear of what a fascist dictator a President Trump will be. “Your wasted vote” will be the reason why your rights will be repealed and freedoms gained by all citizens in this country will disappear and so on. Your VOTE, “DON’T WASTE IT! By the looks of the responses I received in return, some sheep have already scurried back to the pen and some may have never left.

Presidential candidate Jill Stein

Pic: defenderofthemiddleclass.com

My Comment: If 32 million voters said: “I can’t vote Hillary or Trump, I’m voting for Jill Stein” would she have a chance? We the People could make change if we stopped with the “a third-party would never win” one vote, one person, is all it takes. 

Some of  the comments responding:

(This my favorite)

  1. Paul Betzler All that kool-aid you’ve drinking will kill you soon enough, Paul, so you will be denied the “virtuous” end you find so attractive I fear. Plenty of us know fresh water and fresh air when it is offered to us and our choice is to go on living and becoming stronger together.

(So Hillary Clinton is now fresh air and water?)

2. With zero green party members in Congress, how would any of the green party initiatives ever get anywhere? Do these people have any idea of how laws are actually made?

(How many Independents are in Congress? Isn’t Bernie Sanders an Independent?)

3.  Paul Betzler, you sound like one of the undercover Russian trolls trolling on behalf of Putin’s boy, fascist Nazi Trump

(Some real fear seems to be residing in the person who wrote this)

4.  In 2012 Obama and Romney both got 50 million plus. Jill got 534,000.

(Math will make you vote differently. So we had 103 million voters in last election. If we take my statement of “IF Jill Stein received 32 million votes. we have left 71 million left for Clinton and Trump. That is if we have the same voter turnout and Gary Johnson Libertarian gets zero votes. I did say Jill Stein would have a chance didn’t I?)

5.  The Green party candidate and the Libertarian candidates are not going anywhere. Although one might like them, none of them have a chance of getting 10% of the vote. So, votes for them are wasted votes. So, I would rather my vote be more meaningful than pure.

(More meaningful than pure. Good point and if you are on the side of purity, you certainly are not voting Clinton or Trump.)

These are just a few of the responses, the rest of the responses basically were of the same sentiment. Wasting your vote and I am a nut. And maybe I am nuts as I do not want to be herded into a pen and told when to eat, when to shit, when to drink (of the not so pure water). Although I am disappointed in the outcome of the Bernie Sanders campaign and his subsequent endorsement of Clinton he did wake me up. As I stated in my comment, 1 person equals 1 vote. I get it that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have ZERO chance of winning the election under our current system. The system of big money and big business leveraging their power to win elections and frame outsiders as lunatics, or left-wing or right-wing nuts. But if I am to define myself as a person in one word that word would be leader. I have educated myself on the issues and I value my vote. You may not think so with my opinion and that’s fine. After election day and for the next four years I will wake up and look in the mirror and know, I didn’t allow myself to be herded in to the pen. I voted my conscience, I voted for a better life for the country. I did my civic duty unswayed by the bias bought and paid for by the mainstream media and big business.

 

{ In total the original comment received 27 likes. Negative comments I reprinted 5 of 153.}

, , , ,

No Comments

Degrading your name, a Trump, Clinton endorsement

endorse> to declare ones public approval of. Oxford dictionary

Trump or Clinton who has received the endorsements? Why are we endorsing? Now that the primary season is over the endorsements are rolling in. From Bernie Sanders to Scott Baio to the AFL-CIO public declarations of approval. Yes, approval! New Jersey Governor Chris Christie did it way back in February for Trump. Christie has been rewarded for it as an “advisor to Trump”. As of today Christie will be in charge of his transition team, that is if Trump wins. After, who knows what Governor Christie will get from a President Trump. Trump lists many endorsements on his campaign web-page, some meaningful and some meaningless as in Scott Baio.

On the Clinton side, she has rolled up endorsements from the beginning of the campaign. Bernie Sanders recently capitulated and endorsed, with his intent being to unify the party. Sanders endorsement upset quite a few of his loyal supporters (myself included). With some time to digest his endorsement, I did some thinking, “why endorse?” In many cases as in Scott Baio’s , most people don’t give a shit about an endorsement. To be honest, outside of my small circle, many don’t give a shit what I think and that is fine. Declaring ones approval publicly, seems to be rather easy for many. The AFL-CIO endorsing Clinton, she is a Democrat and nearly all the time they endorse Democrats regardless if they truly support their cause. The why, crumbs do fall from the table. Clinton’s record toward the working-class is not all that good but it probably will be a shade better than Trump.

fingercandymedia.com

fingercandymedia.com

The definition of endorse is short and to the point, declaring approval. Endorsements don’t have an asterisk next to them with “she or he is the best we got” The endorsement goes down in history as YOU or your organization supports what the candidate stands for, what their platform stands for. Endorsing for the sake of endorsing, doesn’t that devalue the endorser? Or are the endorsements just self-serving? It may be time that organizations like the AFL-CIO look long and hard at the practice of endorsing for the long-term interest of their supporters. Sitting one out may be a benefit.

 

, ,

No Comments

Should Bernie Sanders soften his criticism on Clinton

Is it time for Sanders and Clinton to soften their tones? The upcoming California and New Jersey primaries are important for both Democratic candidates. Clinton can seal the deal with wins and Sanders needs landslides to make his case for the nomination. Sanders has been tough on Clinton as has Clinton on Sanders. While the Democratic nomination drags on Trump had began to sharpen his attacks on the front-runner Clinton. With a slim chance at securing the nomination should Sanders soften his tone? He has been very critical of Clinton on trade, the minimum wage and her support of war. Continuing the harsh tone does it only benefit Trump? Trump leading in some polls. another indication it may be time to play nice.

source: enwikipedia.org

source: enwikipedia.org

Sanders has come a long way in his attempt to win the nomination. Softening the blows will hurt him and he can ill afford lost opportunity. With the last of the primaries coming up we will know by the tone if Sanders really believes he can win.

 

 

, ,

No Comments

Early voting benefits the establishment candidates

Early voting, good or bad for democracy? Today, we are witnessing a historic push back against the establishment. Hillary Clinton being the sure thing Democratic nomination no longer looks like a sure thing. (Though the Democratic Party would like you to believe differently). Way back when Bernie Sanders first declared he had little name recognition. Clinton was the anointed candidate from the beginning with support from all in the Democratic Party. Winding down the last of the primaries, Sanders has won enough delegates to still  be in position to win the nomination (very small chance). Sanders has done well on the day of voting. Connecting to the people with his message, and winning despite poll numbers (Michigan).

Early voting, the issue, are getting uneducated votes. 18 months ago who outside really knew and understood the platform of Bernie Sanders? With single digit support to start the election he was considered a fringe candidate. So the early voters cast their ballots up to 45 days before election day depending on your state. with limited to no information on lesser known candidates. Does the early voting change projections by the media? One assumes that the counting hasn’t begun and information on early voting is not leaked. But what of polling? Can a poll ask the right questions and get a cross-section of early voters? Sure can!

Access and getting people to vote is the goal for early voting. And YES, participation is and always should be a goal. How we vote and when? This is what needs to be addressed. National voting standards also needs to be an objective. Just getting someone to vote shouldn’t be the only goal. Informed voters also should be an objective. As time moves on we are discovering that the more information a voter has they tend to lean away from the anointed of the party. Would Sanders have benefitted from no early voting? Does the early voter have any buyers remorse? So is early voting bad for democracy? Yes and No. What do you think?

 

, , ,

No Comments