I would comment on Donald Trump’s latest outrage where he seemingly implied that some Second Amendment full gun rights advocate should assassinate Hillary Clinton but it hardly seems worth it. Trump is a train wreck, a nightmare, a very dangerous man.
Okay, I’ll comment: he says anything and then when criticized just explains it away like a little kid by saying he was just joking (some joke), or he claims his remark was misinterpreted. I won’t bother to rewrite the quotes on his latest idiotic and dangerous statement (they are available on video on the web). But there is no way of interpreting it all without coming up with a most chilling meaning.
(I don’t know if Trump himself has explained this one away but I read that his staff is trying to.)
And on to Hillary: although I am no fan of hers (not against her, just not a fan) I feel I have perhaps a better understanding of her after reading a piece in the New York Times this morning that attempts to explain her quest for riches (hobnobbing with the rich and powerful and speaking fees and so on).
I guess there is a reason she wears those pants suits so much. She’s been wearing the pants in her marriage for a long time. According to the Times account, while her husband was out politicking (and, well, other stuff the story only briefly alludes to but we all know about) someone had to make the money in the family. The couple actually had fairly modest incomes by any standard much of their lives. His salary was low for being a governor; we’re talking Arkansas. And as a lawyer in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton’s actual salary was modest. But playing the cattle futures market (with the help of those savvy to the tricks of the trade — legal or otherwise?) augmented that.
Well I won’t go into the whole story, but what came to my mind is that to have any influence with the movers and shakers or the elites that control so many things in this nation and world, one can find it necessary to join their ranks. The Clintons, as far as I can see, are not super wealthy, but enough so that they have gained entrée into the inner circles of those who really pull the strings. Of course it does not hurt that Bill Clinton was president and that Mrs. Clinton a U.S. Senator from New York and then Secretary of State and now of course a candidate for president — but neither of them would have got there perhaps without the efforts of Mrs. Clinton who worked for a time as a corporate lawyer and cultivated support and obtained financial backing for both private and political use, and I suppose charitable (Clinton Foundation) too.
So the question is, do they, does she, hold to her principles (equal opportunities for all, a level playing field, some control over corporate greed, civil rights, and just plain looking out for the welfare of the masses as opposed to those who actually need no help)?
I think Mrs. Clinton is a pragmatist both in her personal and public life.
She has her faults for sure.
The Donald is one big fault.
A third-party candidate could be appealing, but he or she would find her or himself with little to no power upon arriving at the White House. I’m not even sure how much Trump would have, even though he is on the ticket of an established party. But he would instantly have control of our nuclear capability and our military — that is a scary thought.
Over time, if a third party could develop itself at the lower levels and gain public support things might change, but for now it seems we are offered the choice between Republican and Democrat.
Interestingly it seems the Republican Party, though, is evaporating before our eyes — but maybe once the Trump conundrum is past things will right themselves.