Tag: Donald Trump

Categories
ballot access general freedom government transparency media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

A Brexit Effect?

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

Before the Brexit vote, the likelihood of British secession from the European Union garnered a mere 25 percent chance. That was according to European betting markets, which are usually more accurate. In June, the Brits voted Brexit.

Donald Trump has made much hay of this, understandably.

On Tuesday, the odds of a Trump victory hit the same mark: 25 percent.

Gwynn Guilford’s report on this was drolly titled “Donald Trump has the same odds of winning as Jon Snow ruling Westeros, according to betting markets.”

On June 11, Business Insider had reported that Hillary was increasing her lead; on October 18, it exulted that the Irish betting markets had “already declared a winner” — not Trump. On November 1, the news aggregator merely noted that Moody’s is calling the election a landslide for Clinton.

But BI is also covering the scandal that has disturbed the Clinton camp. There’s no love lost between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice, explains Natasha Bertrand in “‘The Antichrist personified’: ‘Open warfare’ and antipathy toward Clinton is reportedly fueling the FBI leaks.” The meat of her representation is that “much of the agents’ frustration … may boil down to partisanship”; the FBI is “Trumpland.”

Yet the article ends quoting another FBI official insisting that both Trump and Clinton are awful candidates.

A plausible judgment.

Whether late-​in-​the-​game revelations of Clinton corruption and FBI probing can defy current odds and produce a Clinton defeat remains to be seen. As of Thursday evening, polls-​only forecasts placed the odds of winning at 67/​33 in favor of Mrs. Clinton, while electionbettingodds​.com placed them at 70.2/29.2.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

N.B. Late-​breaking Brexit news: The United Kingdom’s high court ruled yesterday that Parliament must vote to approve Brexit before the secession can proceed.

Printable PDF

gamble, betting, HIllary Clinton, Donald Trump, president, presidency, election, voting, illustration, creative commons

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility too much government U.S. Constitution

Pigs in Pokes

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

On Tuesday, Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld exhorted Americans to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

The Donald, he asserted, is dangerous because too touchy, too childish in his egoism, to withstand the pressures of the presidency of these United States. “In the statement, Weld made no mention of Clinton,” writes the AP. He focused on Trump and the GOP, instead.

Both progressive and conservative outlets interpreted this as a de facto endorsement of voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton — an uncomfortable conclusion, considering that Weld is Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson’s VP running mate.

Looking at the statement itself, it is apparent that Gov. Weld prefers The Devil We Know to The Devil He Fears.

Which is where he loses me.

One need not like Trump to understand his appeal. Trump is a smoking sack of Who Knows What placed upon the doorstep of the Establishment, the insider classes running the federal government and the Fourth Estate. By taking offense at Trump but not Clinton, Weld sides with the insiders. My longtime respect for Weld aside, how can one plausibly do that?

We know what the Establishment wants most: perpetual war, permanent debt, and secure power.

Meanwhile, the ostensible Republican has been awfully vague on policy. Voting for Trump is buying a pig in a poke.*

The Democratic poke is fairly well known. But Hillary, the war-​monger who accuses Trump of being Putin’s “puppet” and repeatedly plays chicken with the world’s other great nuclear power, puts her own policies in a poke by proclaiming her personal prerogative of telling the voters one thing and her insider crowd another.

Neither sack of …  uh, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Old idiom: synonym for swine in a sack.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, war, danger, president, illustration

 

Questions Answered:
Who is Gov. William Weld most fearful of this election year?
How plausible is a preference of Hillary over The Donald?
What can we make of Hillary’s and Donald’s foreign policies?

Ask the next question. --Theodore SturgeonThe Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

The Best Case for Trump Isn’t

Supreme Court, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, election, illustration

I support neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump for the presidency. Still, I do understand several reasons to vote for Trump, including, most obviously, “he’s not a Clinton.”

The most persuasive strategic reason given for voting for the man, however, and the one that has most purchase with me, is that he would appoint better Supreme Court justices than would Mrs. Clinton.

Note: if the Democrats gain hold of the U.S. Senate, an elected Donald Trump would “negotiate.” And the next set of Supremes might be quite bad.

But is all this irrelevant? It does not look like Trump will be elected, so any vote thrown at him will be just as “wasted” as a vote for Johnson, Stein, or Mickey Mouse.

More importantly, if Hillary wins, no biggie on the Supreme Court front IF (a big “if”?) the Republicans maintain congressional dominance.

Why?

Our Senators are not required to vote for any of a president’s appointees. But, alas, that is not what Democrats are saying now! Forget such self-​serving nonsense. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court. It is nine now, sure, but the Highest court in the land was first manned by five justices, then seven.

So, after the election, unpack the court.* Back down to seven, at least.

And then let’s talk terms for the currently “serving for life” justices, and term limits.

In any case, the best case for Trump isn’t so much a case for him, as a plan of action no matter who is elected.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*This notion is more doable, I think, than Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous court packing scheme, in which he threatened to put more justices in to over-​rule those justices who thought his “New Deal” program unconstitutional. Congress, not required to vote in any proposed Supreme Court candidate, could balk at all and then, by law, reduce the number, even removing one justice from office if need be.

Printable PDF

Supreme Court, Congress, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, election, illustration

 


Questions Answered:
Does the best reason to vote for Donald Trump really hold water?
Does the Constitution specify the number of justices that should be on the Court?
Is Congress really at the mercy of any bully who occupies the Oval Office?

Ask the next question. --Theodore SturgeonThe Next Question:
Will voting for someone other than Trump be more of a “wasted vote” than voting for Trump himself, if, as polls indicate, he loses?

 

Categories
meme

There must be…

there must be a less excruciating way, president, Hillary, Donald, Clinton, Trump, meme

There must be a less excruciating way to find the least qualified person in the country.

Categories
general freedom insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

We Take the Bullet

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration

“[I]f someone puts a gun to your head,” argues David Boaz of the Cato Institute, “and says you have to choose between Clinton and Trump, the correct answer is, take the bullet.”

Then, proving the axiom “it can always get worse,” came Friday’s twin revelations: the Washington Post broke the story of Donald Trump caught on a hot microphone bragging about groping women, and WikiLeaks released hacked emails with unflattering revelations about Hillary Clinton “principled” duplicity.

The Clinton camp huffs about the hack of campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, but denies nothing.

In those speeches for which Wall Street firms paid her millions, Clinton’s progressivism evaporates. She suggests Goldman Sachs and other large financial firms should regulate themselves, because they “know the industry better than anybody.”

While publicly bashing the rich, she privately complains before her wealthy audience about the “bias against people who have led successful … lives.” Moreover, Hillary explains that it’s bad “if everybody is watching” public policy being made, adding: “[Y]ou need both a public and a private position.”

And to think some folks don’t trust her.

Mr. Trump likewise confirmed our worst fears. During a 2005 taping of a television soap, he boasted that “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

And then gave a “rapey” example of what “anything” means.

This man deserves political power?

Forget which is worse. Note how much alike they are. Both seem to think they can say — even do — anything. Without consequences.

Without caring one whit about the rest of us.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

debate, Hillary, Donald Trump, the scream, bullet, illustration

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets moral hazard national politics & policies too much government

Trump’s Road Rage

infrastructure, shovel ready, government, roads, illustration

There is no reason why the states shouldn’t handle their own infrastructure. Not only in funding, but in direction and method of production and “distribution.”

But politicians aiming for the presidency tend not to even consider that heresy. And journalists, of course, tend to rah-​rah for the nationalist planning notion, too. It’s easier to cover everything from Washington. I remember much talk of “our crumbling infrastructure” back in the 1980s.

Thankfully, Shikha Dalmia has not jumped onto that bandwagon. The Reason writer notes that Trump is trumping Obama’s fling with “shovel-​ready jobs,” demanding that the federal government spend up to a trillion in infrastructure “stimulus.”

Forget for the moment the obvious contradiction: pretending to be an outsider, Trump is pushing as “insiderish” a program as imaginable.

I wonder: is Trump playing the cuckoo here, placing an alien idea into his constituents’ nests? Are his supporters about to be “cucked”? (As alt-​rightists like to put it.)

Trump looks abroad for models of beautiful roads and bridges and trains and all the rest. If you travel “from Dubai, Qatar, and China,” he bemoans, our biggest cities give off a certain “Third World” vibe.

Dalmia blanches: “the countries Trump is praising as models for a better America are all autocracies that have made a complete hash of things.”

Boy, we do not need to find another way to make a complete hash of things here in the States. And our federal budgets are strained (and pushing us further into debt) as it is.

Besides, it is not written in stone, concrete, or even asphalt, that these United States’ roads and bridges must be made the federal government’s business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

infrastructure, shovel ready, government, roads, illustration