Beware A Clinton Presidency
I've made no secret of hating Hillary Clinton's guts, so it would be hypocritical of me to say presidents don't matter much, then turn around and say it would if we had another Clinton presidency. With that in mind I still found this Washington Examiner article a good read. The author notes that while Trump is bad, a Clinton presidency has the potential to be much worse:
"Donald Trump, if he had his way, would be a strongman president — an American Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez.
But Trump won't have his way, and so his brand of authoritarianism is at most a faint threat. It's Hillary Clinton's authoritarianism we most need to worry about....
Unlike Trump, Clinton will have broad elite support in her campaigns to trample individual liberty."
He's got a point and I hadn't thought of it that way. It's unlikely you'll have media or those in congress effectively criticizing her, should they criticize at all. The writer goes further in saying Trump will likely face stiff resistance whatever his agenda might be:
"Nearly the entire media (including most conservative commentators), all of academia, and most corporate leaders would resist Trump's efforts to curb the freedom of the press, circumvent due process and revive "Operation Wetback." Trump probably wouldn't have the follow-through, the knowledge or the institutional support even to get these initiatives off the ground."
More good points. He makes a good case. We live in scary times, indeed.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:11 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
haters got to hate!
Always good to know where the Moonies stand (Washington Examiner owned by Rev. Sun Yung Moon).
Attack the message, Mola, not the messenger.
Nailed it!
Hillary Clinton's authoritarianism?
Oh, Fred, I'm afraid you're drifting into the need of custom made tinfoil millinery.
One's religion does not give them the right to dismiss the Constitution and refuse to grant equal rights to all Americans.
You are free to follow a religion that believes in human sacrifice. But you are not allowed to practice human sacrifice in the United States.
Constitutional rights come before religious rights.
Do you really think that we should allow the sale of guns to people we view too dangerous to allow on airplanes?
(Yes, there are probably a lot of people on the no-fly list who don't belong there. That's a bookkeeping problem)
Braveheart wrote, "Jeees, Bob. It took you this long to comment on the Clinton post? I thought you'd be among the first."
Italics were supposed to be on Braveheart's comment.
To think Trump's strongman ethic wouldn't succeed is to have learned nothing from the past 8 years in how radicalized Congress has become. There is a civil war in the Republican party, and Trump is a symptom of it. There is a gulf between moderate Republicans and the far right, and the far right is winning control.
Let me guess- Eight years ago you claimed our Kenyan-born Muslim president would set up 'death-camps' and take all our guns away too, right? He'd better hurry! Still waiting for Jade-Helm too btw.
Bob thinks a no fly list is based on due process of law?
Not at all.
We have people who we won't let on planes even after we put them through a careful search for weapons. But we have no problems selling them deadly weapons and then letting them walk around among us.
What's up with that?
That's called sweet talking the ignorant into shredding the constitution. If they're guilty of crimes, why are they travelling freely instead of locked up? Most people know that fertilizers, needles, vests, shoes, should be on the list, not self defense weapons. If it weren't for the cc people, there would be more crime, more terror. The no fly list will put all good people on the list eventually, especially after all good guys are no longer in office.
If they have committed crimes, they need to be locked up, not listed.
Post a Comment
<< Home