The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Guard Dog]

OK, this is huge. It's YUUUGGEE. The Chicago Tribune has become the 6th Newspaper to endorse Gary Johnson. But this is big. This is the third largest news organization in the country. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html

 

 

As Nov. 8 looms, a dismayed, disconsolate America waits and wonders: What is it about 2016?

 

How has our country fallen so inescapably into political and policy gridlock? How did pandering to aggrieved niche groups and seducing blocs of angry voters replace working toward solutions as the coin of our governing class? How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation's political mainstream? And the most pressing question: What should tens of millions of voters who yearn for answers do with two major-party candidates they disdain?

 

Polls show an unprecedented number of people saying they wish they had another choice. This is the moment to look at the candidates on this year's ballot. This is the moment to see this election as not so much about them as about the American people and where their country is heading. And this is the moment to rebuke the Republican and Democratic parties.

 

The Republicans have nominated Donald Trump, a man not fit to be president of the United States. We first wrote on March 10 that we would not, could not, endorse him. And in the intervening six-plus months he has splendidly reinforced our verdict: Trump has gone out of his way to anger world leaders, giant swaths of the American public, and people of other lands who aspire to immigrate here legally. He has neither the character nor the prudent disposition for the job. The mystery and shame of Trump's rise — we have red, white and blue coffee mugs that are more genuinely Republican — is the party's inability or unwillingness to repulse his hostile takeover. We appreciate the disgust for failed career politicians that Trump's supporters invoke; many of those voters are doubly victimized — by economic forces beyond their control, and by the scorn of mocking elitists who look down their noses to see them. He has ridden to the White House gate on the backs of Americans who believe they've been robbed of opportunity and respect. But inaugurating a bombastic and self-aggrandizing President Donald Trump isn't the cure.

 

The Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton, who, by contrast, is undeniably capable of leading the United States. Electing her the first woman president would break a barrier that has no reason to be. We see no rough equivalence between Trump and Clinton. Any American who lists their respective shortcomings should be more apoplectic about the litany under his name than the one under hers. He couldn't do this job. She could.

 

But for reasons we'll explain — her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust — we cannot endorse her.

 

Clinton's vision of ever-expanding government is in such denial of our national debt crisis as to be fanciful. Rather than run as a practical-minded Democrat as in 2008, this year she lurched left, pandering to match the Free Stuff agenda of then-rival Bernie Sanders. She has positioned herself so far to the left on spending that her presidency would extend the political schism that has divided America for some 24 years. That is, since the middle of a relatively moderate Clinton presidency. Today's Hillary Clinton, unlike yesteryear's, renounces many of Bill Clinton's priorities — freer trade, spending discipline, light regulation and private sector growth to generate jobs and tax revenues.

 

Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Clinton's plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Spending just on debt interest would rise by $50 billion. Personal and business taxation would rise by $1.5 trillion. Sort through all the details and her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion.

 

Now as in the primary season, Clinton knows she is proposing orgies of spending, and taxing, that simply will ... not ... happen. She is promising Americans all manner of things she cannot deliver. That is but one of the reasons why so many Americans reject Clinton: They don't trust what she says, how she makes decisions, and her up-to-the-present history of egregiously erasing the truth: In the wake of a deadly attack on American personnel in Libya, she steered the American public away from the real cause — an inconvenient terror attack right before the 2012 election — after privately emailing the truth to her daughter. The head of the FBI, while delivering an indictment minus the grand jury paperwork, labeled her "extremely careless" for mishandling emails sensitive to national security. In public she stonewalled, dissembled and repeatedly lied — several were astonishing whoppers — about her private communications system ("There is no classified material," "Everything I did was permitted," and on and on). Her negligence in enforcing conflict-of-interest boundaries allowed her family's foundation to exploit the U.S. Department of State as a favor factory. Even her command and control of a routine medical issue devolved into a secretive, misleading mission to hide information from Americans.

 

Time upon time, Clinton's behavior affirms the perception that she's a corner-cutter whose ambitions drive her decisions. One telling episode among the countless: Asked by a voter if she was for or against the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, she replied, "If it's undecided when I become president, I will answer your question." As we've asked here before, will Hillary Clinton ever get over her consuming fear of straight talk?

 

Taken together, Trump and Clinton have serious flaws that prevent us from offering our support to either of them. Still, come Nov. 8, tens of millions of Americans will make a draw that they consider beyond distasteful.

 

We choose not to do that. We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president — regardless of his or her prospects for victory — than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates.

 

With that demand for a principled president paramount, we turn to the candidate we can recommend. One party has two moderate Republicans — veteran governors who successfully led Democratic states — atop its ticket. Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible. "Most people are Libertarian," Johnson told the Tribune Editorial Board when he and Weld met with us in July. "It's just that they don't know it."

 

Theirs is small-L libertarianism, built on individual freedom and convinced that, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, official Washington is clumsy, expensive and demonstrably unable to solve this nation's problems. They speak of reunifying an America now balkanized into identity and economic groups — and of avoiding their opponents' bullying behavior and sanctimonious lectures. Johnson and Weld are even-keeled — provided they aren't discussing the injustice of trapping young black children in this nation's worst-performing schools. On that and other galling injustices, they're animated.

 

We reject the cliche that a citizen who chooses a principled third-party candidate is squandering his or her vote. Look at the number of fed-up Americans telling pollsters they clamor for alternatives to Trump and Clinton. What we're recommending will appeal less to people who think tactically than to conscientious Americans so infuriated that they want to send a message about the failings of the major parties and their candidates.

 

Put short: We offer this endorsement to encourage voters who want to feel comfortable with their choice. Who want to vote for someone they can admire.

 

Johnson, who built a construction business before entering politics, speaks in terms that appeal to many among us: Expanded global trade and resulting job expansion. Robust economic growth, rather than ever-higher taxation, to raise government revenue. A smaller, and less costly, federal government. Faith in Americans' ability to parlay economic opportunity into success. While many Democrats and Republicans outdo one another in opposing the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, we're amused by this oddity: Today the nation's two most ardent free-traders arguably are Barack Obama and Gary Johnson.

 

That said, Obama and Johnson are but two of the many candidates we've endorsed yet with whom we also can disagree. Johnson's foreign policy stance approaches isolationism. He is too reluctant to support what we view as necessary interventions overseas. He likely wouldn't dispatch U.S. forces in situations where Clinton would do so and where Trump ... who can reliably predict?

 

But unless the United States tames a national debt that's rapidly approaching $20 trillion-with-a-T, Americans face ever tighter constrictions on what this country can afford, at home or overseas. Clinton and Trump are too cowardly even to whisper about entitlement reforms that each of them knows are imperative. Johnson? He wants to raise the retirement age and apply a means test on benefits to the wealthiest.

 

What's more, principled third-party candidates can make big contributions even when they lose. In 1992 businessman H. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote on a thin but sensible platform, much of it constructed around reducing federal deficits. That strong showing by Perot the relative centrist influenced how President Bill Clinton would govern.

 

We wish the two major parties had not run away from today's centrist Americans. Just as we wish either of their candidates evoked the principles that a Chicago Tribune now in its 170th year espouses, among them high integrity, free markets, personal responsibility and a limited role for government in the lives of the governed. We hope Johnson does well enough that Republicans and Democrats get the message — and that his ideas make progress over time.

 

This year neither major party presents a good option. So the Chicago Tribune today endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States. Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles — and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

So, if I may allow me to summarize the last three pages.

 

48% of posters think Hillary sucks but at least she isn't Donald Trump

47% of posters think Trump sucks but at least he isn't Hillary Clinton

2% of posters think Hillary is awesome, should be made President for life and obviously every negative story about her must be just a right wing conspiracy. 

1% of posters are going on about lost causes and that Johnson guy.

1% of posters believes the world is ending and we should be prepared to watch it burn (that's YOU KP!)

1% of posters not longer give a damn.

 

 

Oh, and 100% secretly with this was just hurry up and be over.

 

1% of posters (me) wants Trump to win to see the rivers of liberal tears flowing through memes and American Universities.

 

Well, there is always that. I must admit it would be pretty funny. At least until he's inaugurated and actually started doing stuff. 

 

It would only be seen as funny if you dont care about the overall positive sustainability  of the USA

 

People like Hiro dont care if Trump harms the USA, in  fact there are some forum members who think it would be a good thing to see the USA lose prestige and relevance 

 

The majority of USA forum members  may have some support for Trump but fundamentally dont want the USA to become weaker. I reject any political development in the USA that will weaken it because the USA represents a critical part of the foundation of Western ideology which matters to me

 

As we have discussed Trump wont be able to destroy the USA but he can lesson the positive influence the USA plays in the global world for the next 4 years which is enough reason for me to not want him to  be president

 

So in summary your view on Trump and him becoming president is not the same as Hiros because you do care about the USA, this is not the same thing as thinking some forum members living outside the USA care about the political developments in the same way

[Guard Dog]

Bruce, it seems I have finally driven this point home to you. In my opinion, and not just mine, please read the text of the Chicago Tribune I posted, Both Trump and Clinton are EQUALLY unacceptable, There is nothing positive I can say about either of them. Neither is fit to be the President of the United States and anyone who actually CARES about the health and prosperity of the country will vote for someone else. 

[Raithe]

[BruceVC]

Bruce, it seems I have finally driven this point home to you. In my opinion, and not just mine, please read the text of the Chicago Tribune I posted, Both Trump and Clinton are EQUALLY unacceptable, There is nothing positive I can say about either of them. Neither is fit to be the President of the United States and anyone who actually CARES about the health and prosperity of the country will vote for someone else. 

That is a very good article, it explains cogently why people in the USA can and should vote for Johnson. You guys have mentioned similar reasons but the article takes a relevant holistic view of the current  US political system and summarizes the good and bad of the various candidates in a way that is candid and objective 

 

I learnt something new and pertinent so thanks for posting it 

 

It also highlights why my support for Clinton is not shared by many US forum members. I can summarize it in the following way.

 

Clinton may indeed greatly increase Federal spending as the article explains in the  paragraph below 

 

 "Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Clinton's plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Spending just on debt interest would rise by $50 billion. Personal and business taxation would rise by $1.5 trillion. Sort through all the details and her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion " 

 

 

So the articles most serious criticism of Clinton is around how she will increase the overall US debt through enhanced Federal spending, I can understand this concern and it is valid

 

But my greatest concern is not US debt but a US under Trump where the US globally becomes less influential and more isolationist and countries like Russia and China automatically become more relevant. Considering the pressures on the EU created by BREXIT  this would be the natural  outcome as the two most important Western powers, the USA and the EU, would be less likely to oppose either Russia or China in various areas

 

So a global world where Russia and China are now ideologically dominant may not seem relevant to anyone in the US but it would have a major negative outcome for every country that does believe in the strength and importance of what a Democracy stands for and the various institutions that are part of what defines Western ideology, like free media and respect for human rights

 

This type of world would eventually impact the USA in worse way than increased debt. So that is my  real concern

[Meshugger]

Hahahaha

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3816822/Send-Nigel-Trump-flies-Farage-help-sharpen-debating-skills-clash-Hillary-Clinton.html

 

 

 

[redneckdevil]

BruceVC, I really think that's were most of the country is split up and it's more focused on 2 things. Do the average voter want more money or do they want to push equality/standards/etc. The problem is under both, neither will happen.

USA will not get richer under neither Trump NOR Hillary, and the influence we are/have been currently spreading is actually a double edged sword and not something to boast about currently.

The influence we are/have been spreading seems like it's one thing, but we are doing it in a way to appear we are doing so but in actualluality we are just trapping and bringing people down to the same level. It appears a lot of what we are spreading/doing is raising up but we are doing so by bringing down the other side.

I know that doesn't make sense right now (welfare is big clue) and to worn out to explain coherently, but neither side is getting what they think they are getting with either candidates.

[Raithe]

[Malcador]

Hahahaha

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3816822/Send-Nigel-Trump-flies-Farage-help-sharpen-debating-skills-clash-Hillary-Clinton.html

 

 

 

Hopefully he flies by helicopter with better results this time.

[Meshugger]

^Everything ok? Need a hug?

 

But anyway, friendship depends on political alliance and all that:

 

[Bokishi]

#BasementDwellers

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

Trump may be ruthless when he thinks it's necessary, but I don't think he's a nasty guy.

 

Now maybe I'm wrong about this, but I heard he cheated on his former wife with a married woman; then boasted about it. Seems nasty to me.

 

You're not wrong, but cheating and boasting doesn't make someone nasty, although certainly you would hope for better from your leaders. But as I keep saying, you have to choose the lesser evil, and Trump will be far better on the Supreme Court, open borders, national security and a host of other issues. Hilzilla will finish the destruction that Obola has wrought. I'm not comparing Trump to either man, but Churchill certainly had a ton of faults and was considered eccentric and a buccaneer, and even the sainted George Washington had some very questionable business dealings: https://books.google.com/books?id=o6NoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=george+washington+enlisted+men+land+grant&source=bl&ots=mif3j1QUYF&sig=eNR6Ie9L7hsqj0ECiGA8AzN1jxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUqY_vi7rPAhUn6oMKHeRnC_IQ6AEIOTAF#v=onepage&q=george%20washington%20enlisted%20men%20land%20grant&f=false

[Guard Dog]

Well infidelity does not disqualify someone from being President. Even a nasty personality does not. Franklin Pierce makes Trump look like a nice guy by comparison and he got elected. 

 

My biggest complaint with Trump is 1) No relevant experience.  2) Does not seem to have a clue what the President does and can and can't do and 3) Doesn't even seem to know what HE is going to do aside from rounding up Mexicans, building walls, and bombing the s--t out of ISIS. 4) None of thse three things are particularly good ideas by the way.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

To all my Republican leaning friends out there:

 

[Meshugger]

^I would like to add that the reasons were mostly due to foreign/financial policy. This time it is a culture war. I think we have to go back to Reagan/Carter in order to find a proper parallel. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well infidelity does not disqualify someone from being President. Even a nasty personality does not. Franklin Pierce makes Trump look like a nice guy by comparison and he got elected. 

 

My biggest complaint with Trump is 1) No relevant experience.  2) Does not seem to have a clue what the President does and can and can't do and 3) Doesn't even seem to know what HE is going to do aside from rounding up Mexicans, building walls, and bombing the s--t out of ISIS. 4) None of thse three things are particularly good ideas by the way.

Building walls is an excellent idea. Hilzilla has experience, but her experience is setting areas of the world on fire, compromising national security, and selling out the country. At least Trump ran a multi-billion dollar empire, that's relevant experience, by contrast Obola wouldn't be even able to run a McDonald's. Johnson isn't viable, so his qualifications are irrelevant, not that he has any.

[HoonDing]

Here I was thinking Carter lost only because of the Iran Embassy debacle.

[licketysplit]

^Everything ok? Need a hug?

 

But anyway, friendship depends on political alliance and all that:

 

 

 

....She just isn't clever.

 

Hilarious that Trump connected with Farage. I love that guy. 

[HoonDing]

He should fly over Wilders too while he's at it. And keep the idiot there.

[Guard Dog]

 

Building walls is an excellent idea. Hilzilla has experience, but her experience is setting areas of the world on fire, compromising national security, and selling out the country. At least Trump ran a multi-billion dollar empire, that's relevant experience, by contrast Obola wouldn't be even able to run a McDonald's. Johnson isn't viable, so his qualifications are irrelevant, not that he has any.

 

Gotcha... being governor or a State for eight years does not qualify someone to be President. I'll let George W Bush, Jimmy Carter, and  Bill Clinton know next time I see them. I'm sure Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and a few others will want to hear it to. 

[Malcador]

^Everything ok? Need a hug?

Aside from Farage still alive, pretty much.

 

 

Well infidelity does not disqualify someone from being President. Even a nasty personality does not. Franklin Pierce makes Trump look like a nice guy by comparison and he got elected.

 

My biggest complaint with Trump is 1) No relevant experience. 2) Does not seem to have a clue what the President does and can and can't do and 3) Doesn't even seem to know what HE is going to do aside from rounding up Mexicans, building walls, and bombing the s--t out of ISIS. 4) None of thse three things are particularly good ideas by the way.

Building walls is an excellent idea. Hilzilla has experience, but her experience is setting areas of the world on fire, compromising national security, and selling out the country. At least Trump ran a multi-billion dollar empire, that's relevant experience, by contrast Obola wouldn't be even able to run a McDonald's. Johnson isn't viable, so his qualifications are irrelevant, not that he has any.

 

Why haven't you come up with a lame ass butchering of Johnson's name yet, man ?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Malcador

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

^Everything ok? Need a hug?

Aside from Farage still alive, pretty much.

 

 

Well infidelity does not disqualify someone from being President. Even a nasty personality does not. Franklin Pierce makes Trump look like a nice guy by comparison and he got elected.

 

My biggest complaint with Trump is 1) No relevant experience. 2) Does not seem to have a clue what the President does and can and can't do and 3) Doesn't even seem to know what HE is going to do aside from rounding up Mexicans, building walls, and bombing the s--t out of ISIS. 4) None of thse three things are particularly good ideas by the way.

Building walls is an excellent idea. Hilzilla has experience, but her experience is setting areas of the world on fire, compromising national security, and selling out the country. At least Trump ran a multi-billion dollar empire, that's relevant experience, by contrast Obola wouldn't be even able to run a McDonald's. Johnson isn't viable, so his qualifications are irrelevant, not that he has any.

 

Why haven't you come up with a lame ass butchering of Johnson's name yet, man ?

 

Isn't his name already a joke? Also I don't take him seriously enough to bother, besides I don't really hate him, I just think he's a loon.

[Guard Dog]

It's alright WoD. You are the flip side of the same coin as the Hillary supporters. You are all in favor a giant all powerful government as long as it oppresses the people you want it to oppress, punishes who you want punished and denies freedom to those you don't think should have it. Just like the Democrats only with different targets.

 

I've been inclined to support the Republicans myself in the past because they are pro-liberty and pro-small government more often than not. But not all the time. Not even close to all the time. One day I realized that wasn't good enough.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, I want the giant evil government to oppress terrorists and criminals. Targets do matter.

[Volourn]

You make thre same excuses the demo supporters do. 'Oppression is okay if it is sokmebody you hate'. Using 'terrorist', 'criminals', and 'chidlren' as a smokescreen to grab more power and control.

 

 In somewhat similar news. Saw a story on my  national news of schools literally stealing food  from kids that parents packed for them because they were deemed 'unhealthy'. LMFAO

 

Talk about pure Nazism.