After all, on the Saturday before Christmas, people are starting to shift into high gear for The Day. They're getting ready to travel over the river and through the woods to Grandma's. They're in panic mode over the last minute shopping for gifts and food and starting to plan menus and fend off the kid's questions. They are not, at this point, paying attention to politics and an election that's still a year away. So it was (quite a lot more than) a bit of obfuscation on the part of the DNC and Clinton campaign.
It's inevitable, no matter what anyone says, that Hilliary is going to be The Anointed One for the Democrat ticket. Sanders and O'Malley are only there as props to kind of try to hide the fact that Hilliary is The Anointed One.
Watching Berns again the other night, the best I can say is that he is weak-willed and limp-wristed. He has no drive or interest in winning the nomination. If he did, if he really wants to win the race, he would attack Hilliary, not suck up to her. He would slam her over the e-mail server and Benghazi. He wouldn't skim over issues like that. He wants to be VP so he can promote the things that interest him without the pressure of being in The Big Chair, and that's as high as his aspirations go.
Besides, it's a done deal. After the debate another one of the endless polls was taken and Hilliary won the debate among the 760 poll respondents, by a LOT.
When asked, the respondent's answered 62% to 30% that Hilliary won.
http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/
So we're almost certainly going to have another Clinton in the fight for the White House. Somehow, I don't think this is what the Founders envisioned. They set up the government model so one family or two would not dominate the landscape. Still, we've had the Bush Dynasty - GHW and GW. I'm grateful Jeb is doing as poorly as he is. We do not need Royal Families running this country. So we just have to worry about Hilliary and Bill - the Clinton Dynasty.
However, Hilliary is hauling around an entire trainload of baggage and it's all open to question and ridicule. Except no one is questioning or ridiculing and that's a bit disturbing. It's also one of the reasons I hope Trump wins the GOP nomination.
He will not be afraid to take her on and call her out on all the garbage with its swirling clouds of flies. After all, he has nothing to lose - so many in this country don't like her, so to see her brought down would please a lot of people, even if they will be among those who vote for her when the time comes. They'll vote for her for the wrong reasons - being The Anointed Democrat Candidate and Having Ovaries. Party lines are strong, after all.
As far as Hilliary and her baggage train goes, there was the White Water financial scandal which led to the savings and loan crash that shook the U.S. financial markets for more than a couple of years. In that, there were questions about Hilliary's participation and knowledge. She was elbow deep in the mess and records from the Rose Law firm where she worked were subpoenaed. For nearly a year she denied knowing where they were or having them in her possession, yet they "magically" appeared a year after the subpoena in her White House office.
Vince Foster, one of her associates at the Rose Law firm who was embroiled in the White Water scandal ended up dead in Fort Marcy Park outside of Washington DC. Even though it was ruled a suicide, there are still unanswered questions about it. However, it's twenty-two years in the past now, and not highly relevant - except for the questions relating to Hilliary Clinton that were raised at the time.
There was Filegate, the FBI's record collection of political opponents (specifically Republicans) by her hubby's administration. According to the Wiki article, quoted below, she hired the guy who obtained them and she read the files.
It is old news, but it's telling about the ethics, morals and character of a woman who will do and say anything in order to get elected and advance her political agenda.
In the case of Filegate, there was a man - Craig Livingstone - who was hired at the recommendation of Hilliary not because he was qualified or had experience, but because she knew the man's mother. This man was given security clearance and was at the center of the Filegate controversy.
Allegations were made that senior White House figures, including First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, may have requested and read the files for political purposes, and that the First Lady had authorized the hiring of the underqualified Livingstone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy#Who_hired_Livingstone_issue
Then there was Cattlegate. No matter what anyone says, Hilliary was involved up to her broad hips with Wall Street. She was plenty cozy with Wall Street back then. Cozy enough to get special treatment.
For "normal" people, you have to have a minimum amount of money in an options or futures trading account before you can trade. It's to ensure that if things go south you don't lose more than you can afford to lose. Hilliary didn't. Most people who invest in futures and options for the first time don't make a boatload of money relative to their initial balance in their trading account. Hilliary did. She made quite a tidy sum from her trading. About $100,000 in all - even though the rules were definitely "bent" for her.
Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 1994; Page A01
Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.
The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.
The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
Yeah. Human error. Uh huh. A convenient explanation, isn't it?
Her husband was impeached - http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/20/us/impeachment-overview-clinton-impeached-he-faces-senate-trial-2d-history-vows-job.html?pagewanted=all
But now he's going to be back in the White House as First Lady and primary adviser to a woman whose morals and ethics are worse than his - he's been caught twice while she's done equally questionable things and has consistently dodged the bullets. To me, that indicates a thick coating of slime and cunning. It also comes down to whether you ascribe to the old truism "birds of a feather".
There was Travelgate and Vince Foster, Benghazi and the e-mail server, a total of twenty-two scandals of greater and lesser import. Just about one a year since they hit the national political radar. Heck, Google "Hillary Clinton Scandals" and you'll get a list of stories and links from Washington Times, The Atlantic, The New York Post and other reputable news outlets.
If you Google Donald Trump scandals you get things from Salon - a leftist web-based outlet that is unapologetically in Obama's hip pocket. Liberalamerica.org also has stuff - gee, I wonder how fair and balanced that one is? What there is - about two things - also seem to be pure speculation and made-up stuff.
Doing a Google of 'Hillary Clinton Scandals' I came up with a long and varied list, including this link:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
So the question is: with this woman being the leading contender for the Democrat party, what does this say about the character, morals, ethics, values and intelligence of the Democrats? Seems to me there's a gigantic flashing "Vacancy" sign atop the twin pillars of Honesty and Decency at DNC headquarters.
Personally, I find morality and ethics to be keys to a quality human being.
If someone lies to me, I don't trust them again. If they lie to someone else, I don't trust them after that, either. After all, if they lie, how can I be sure that anything else they say is the truth?
I do not affiliate or associate with people of questionable character. If I can't trust you to do the ethically right thing no matter what the situation, how can I trust you at my back, at all? I can't and therefore I don't want you around.
In my life I have a standard for my behavior. I don't lie. I don't cheat. I don't steal. It's straightforward. Therefore, given that outlook, I don't associate with people who do lie and cheat and steal. I deliberately and decisively steer well clear of them.
Given my moral compass and ethical standards, it seems to me that the Democrat National Committee and the Democrat leaning PACs lack anything that remotely looks like any standard at all. Just look at the "character" of the woman they're pushing to lead their party.
Now, is Donald Trump pure as the driven snow? Probably not. But I also think that he has integrity. If he didn't he wouldn't be successful in a business where large parts of the transactions are based on trust. After all, if you're investing in a new development, putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the line, there is a lot of trust there - and if he lied to people, no one would trust him. He wouldn't be successful, but he is - and that says a lot about his character.
Closer to home, do you embrace people who have no moral compass whatsoever? Do you embrace liars and cheaters and thieves? Do you call them friend and trust them to do the right thing no matter the circumstance?
Probably not, yet it seems to me that many of those who back Hilliary, regardless of her lying and cheating and utter lack of anything resembling ethics, are lacking a major part of their character, too. They must be if they willingly support someone who has proved to be untrustworthy, a liar and a cheat. Then again, maybe that's just me. Then again, maybe it's not because even the Washington Times has this story from back in August, and things haven't noticeably changed if you Google "Hillary Clinton Trustworthy".
But voters overall gave Mrs. Clinton a negative 44 percent/51 percent favorable/unfavorable split and said by a 59 percent to 35 percent margin that she is not honest and trustworthy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/7/hillary-clinton-not-honest-and-trustworthy-florida/?page=all
Food for thought though and this is the season for feasting so get to it.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
No comments:
Post a Comment