Tag: Hillary Clinton

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

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

Accountability insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

The Democracy Now

Donna Brazile, CNN, Hillary Clinton, question, illustration, Common Sense

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was fondly referred to as “The Democracy.”

But that was a long time before the Clintons took control of the party’s heart and soul. It’s certainly been an insider’s game since.

Case in point? The deliberate scuttling of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz lost her chairperson-ship of the Democratic National Committee because of her (WikiLeaked email) collaboration with the Clintons over the dirty tricks that made sure Bernie got nowhere near the top levers of power.

And now we have Donna Brazile, covertly doing all she can to ensure the election to the Presidency of arguably the most corrupt politician of our time.

This political operative left CNN’s talking head ranks under a cloud — she had leaked to Clinton campaign communication director Jennifer Palmieri details about a question to be asked at a CNN-hosted presidential debate. Though CNN is not for nothing popularly known as the Clinton News Network, even CNN muckety-mucks felt betrayed.

But when interviewed by the indefatigable Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Brazile defended herself from the charges — “as a Christian woman” who understood “persecution”; she also compared her interviewer to a thief, and blamed Russian hackers.

Now, as a result of another WikiLeaks email exposure, Brazile has been caught again. The network has severed ties with her, and she’s defending herself with lines like “I try to learn as much as I can, share as much as I can.”

Unquestionably.

Having proven her loyalties, it looks like Ms. Brazile’s on track for a job in the new administration.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Illustration based on original (cc) photo by Tim Pierce on Flickr

Tags CNN, Common Sense, Donna Brazile, Hillary Clinton, illustration, question

folly government transparency ideological culture media and media people nannyism national politics & policies

The Problem with Ruth Marcus

Post author By CS Admin
Post date October 31, 2016
No Comments on The Problem with Ruth Marcus

Channeling The Sound of Music’s Mother Superior, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus asks, “How do you solve a problem like Bill Clinton?”

Marcus means Bill’s problematic possible return to the White House, the scene of his crimes, as First Dude in a new Clinton Administration — specifically his difficulties with “the twin minefields of sex and money.”

Starting with sex, Marcus argues that, “Trump’s misbehavior with women is a far more important topic than Clinton’s” because “Trump is on the ballot; Bill Clinton is not.”

True, except that Mrs. Clinton has promised to place Mr. Clinton “in charge of revitalizing the economy,” which Mrs. Marcus called “crazy.” Maybe, but it wasn’t Trump’s idea to ballyhoo the old two-for-one Clinton couple “advantage.”

“There is no condoning a record that reflects not just serial adultery, but abuse of power,” writes Marcus. Yet, she does precisely that by adding, “Clinton was a successful president who deserved the two terms for which he was elected, but his misbehavior would disqualify him from a third term even if the Constitution allowed it.”

What?! Quite a convenient drawing of the line, eh?

Of course, the problem isn’t merely Bill, as the columnist admits: “[I]t has become clear that they cannot be trusted to appropriately navigate ethical boundaries between their private interests and public responsibilities.”

Complaining about the “incessant schnorring for private jets, luxury vacation lodging, expensive trifles” by the Clintons, Marcus warns that, “It cannot happen in a new Clinton White House, especially with a Republican Party already drooling over the prospect of congressional investigations.”

But, Ruth, how will electing Hillary Clinton the next president cause Bill & Hill to change their ways?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Bill Clinton, Clinton Administration, ethical, ethics, ethics violation, Hillary Clinton, revitalizing the economy

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

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?

The Next Question:
If pigs could fly, which one would you vote for?

Tags danger, Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, war

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

The Best Case for Trump Isn’t

Post author By CS Admin
Post date October 27, 2016
4 Comments on 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

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?

The 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?

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump, election, Hillary Clinton, Supreme Court

Accountability media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

A Leaner Bear

Russia is being painted as Enemy No. 1 by Hillary Clinton, despite her predecessor’s mocking of the same notion four years ago, when Republican Mitt Romney said it.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton is just using Russia as a distraction from her conspiracies and crimes and inadequacies as revealed by WikiLeaks.

What’s more worrying is Russia’s military adventuring, surely.

Before we wander into the morass that is foreign policy, maybe we should consider the Russian military itself . . . and its supporting economy.

Last year, TASS confidently informed us that the military budget was going up 0.8 percent in 2016, with $750 million slated for nuclear weaponry. I still hear talk of the latter fact; not much of the former factoid, that shockingly modest increase.

Even last year it was commonly noted that Russia’s military budget was getting “squeezed” . . . by hard times. Lack of revenue.

Now the hammer has fallen on the sickle: “Russian defence budget set to drop by 12%” in yesterday’s IHS Jane’s 360 article by Craig Caffrey.

First, don’t be alarmed: “defence” is how Brits misspell “defense.”

Second, take heart: Russia simply cannot do all it may want even in its darkest hearts.

Third, take caution: a weaker Russia is still dangerous, in some ways more so. We might see increased (and relatively cheap) cyber-warfare, of which Mrs. Clinton is so particularly mindful.

Finally, let’s acknowledge that American politicians have never focused rationally on the Russian threat, often hyping it gratuitously to enhance their own power, or, for that same reason, ignoring the threat entirely, as when smirking at Romney’s wise concerns.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Questions Answered:
Is Russia a threat?
Why are Democrats obsessed with Russia?
Why is Russia reducing its military budget?

Ask The Next Question:
What kind of defense should a free people insist upon?

Tags Hillary Clinton, Putin, Russia, Wikileaks

nannyism national politics & policies political challengers too much government

Precedents for Hillary

Hillary, Nixon, president, awkward, hated, illustration

That grin. That cackle. Please: No more!

While there is much to be said against Donald Trump, and I’ve said some of it, the sheer unlikability and . . . distastefulness . . . of Hillary Clinton is . . . precedented.

Historically, she reminds me of two past Republican presidential candidates: Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994) and James G. Blaine (1830-1893).

Nixon was a power-lusting careerist — just like Mrs. Clinton. Both made runs for office and were brushed aside before ultimate success. Clinton lost the Democratic nod to Obama in 2008; Nixon famously lost the presidential race to John F. Kennedy in 1960, and then went on to lose a governor’s race in California — to the current governor’s father.

But he got in when the Democratic Party was divided over the Vietnam War. If Clinton gets in it will be largely the result of Republican disarray, not her own sparkling personality and charm.

‘Crooked’ Hillary, like ‘Tricky Dick,’ demonstrates extreme social awkwardness as well no small trouble keeping her temper, and being likable. Both are probably best defined as misanthropes. That was Florence King’s judgment of Nixon, and I’d concur regarding Hillary.

But, in terms of corruption, could Hillary be worse than Nixon?

Surely, she’s not as corrupt as James G. Blaine was. Indeed, it was this Maine politician’s outrageous corruption that led to his undoing, and to the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland — despite Cleveland’s sex scandal.

Win or lose, Hillary will have made history, but it won’t be for her gender. Instead, for her striking similarity to past . . . deplorables.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags awkward, awkwardness, distrust, hated, Hillary Clinton, Nixon, temper, trust

Accountability folly media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

Post author By CS Admin
Post date October 24, 2016
5 Comments on The Un-gaffe-able Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Mosul, Syria, Turkey, illustration

What a troublesome election season. My wife and I have argued for days . . . over which one of us first blurted out that Clinton’s statement about Mosul, Iraq, in the final presidential debate, was flat-out wrong.

Geographically. Map-wise.

Iraqi and Kurdish troops (with U.S. “advisors” and air cover) have set out to re-take Iraq’s second-largest city, under Islamic State control since June 2014. So both presidential candidates were questioned about it.

“What’s really important here is to understand all the interplay,” stated the former Secretary of State, authoritatively. “Mosul is a Sunni city. Mosul is on the border of Syria.”

The problem for Sec. Clinton?

Mosul is not on the Syrian border.

Syria is 100 miles to the west; Turkey, 75 miles north. Mosul is actually closer to the border of Turkey than Syria.

“It going to be tough fighting, but I think we can take back Mosul and then move on into Syria and take back Raqqa,” Mrs. Clinton asserted. “This is what we have to do.”

Really?

“Mrs. Clinton’s comments were uttered in the context of her strategic plan to take on ISIS,” explains Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com. “If she really thinks that taking Mosul will somehow provide a gateway to ‘press into Syria,’ then she is in for a big surprise.”

Over at Reason.org, Anthony Fisher found that “Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy gaffe at Wednesday’s debate was noticed by almost no one in the mainstream political commentariat.”

Libertarian Gary Johnson of “What is Aleppo?” fame sure noticed, dubbing the massive coverage of his gaffe and the complete non-coverage of hers “a very hypocritical double standard.”

(Psst — they want her to win.)

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Gary Johnson, Hillary Clinton, media bias, Mosul, Syria, Turkey

meme

There must be. . .

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

Tags democracy, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, meme, president

Accountability insider corruption media and media people national politics & policies responsibility

Hillary Futures

Hillary Clinton, lies, truth, untrustworthy, immigration, trade, drug war, war, Bosnia, Surveillance, Gay Rights, illustration

Trust must be earned; Hillary Rodham Clinton hasn’t earned it.

And yet, if the polls hold, Mrs. Clinton will be elected the next president of these United States — the first-ever female commander-in-chief, sure, but viewed by a clear majority of Americans as untrustworthy.

Part of the problem is her husband Bill. The former president has been accused of inappropriate sexual advances and liaisons . . . and even sex crimes. Hillary’s campaign rightly keeps reminding people that he is not on the ballot. But wasn’t Hillary going to have Bill “run the economy”?

Besides, what’s most relevant is how she defended her philandering husband against his women accusers, with threats, intimidation, and a decided lack of feminist solidarity.

Older folks remember “Travelgate” (a self-serving gaucherie); even Millennials should recall the Bosnian “sniper fire” (self-aggrandizing fib). Then there’s Benghazi. Documents obtained by Congress show Mrs. Clinton immediately telling her daughter that the attack was a planned terrorist attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate. Nonetheless, Hillary publicly blamed the attack on an Internet video.

It was “extremely careless” for Hillary to have set up a private email server, vulnerable to foreign hacking. But how sly to use BleachBit to destroy her hard drive, erasing any money trail. And then, she responded to reporters asking if she wiped her server: “Like with a cloth or something?” Chutzpah.

Ugliest, though, was one of the earliest: cattle futures.

Evidence convinces me that Hillary took a nearly $100,000 bribe disguised as profits from trading cattle futures that she did not actually trade. James Blair, “who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas’ largest employer,” helped Clinton supposedly “out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client.”

The windfall profit was more than lawyer Hillary and Attorney General (and then Governor) Bill earned together annually from their two fulltime jobs. Quite a risky “gamble.” Does Hillary seem like a reckless gambler?

So many scandals and lies. From the next president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Bosnia, emails, Hillary Clinton, lies, president, Travelgate, trust