Good day all. Last night Cankles gave her acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. I didn’t watch it, but from what I’ve been reading, it wasn’t a stem winder. Basically it boils down to “Barack Obama, Hope and Change! Hillary Clinton, More of the Same!”
The Democrats have a real problem with the Bernie Sanders supporters. A fair number of them will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. A fair number will go to Jill Stein, a few will go to Donald Trump, one or two will go to Johnson and a large number will just sit it out.
The Democrats are pushing for things like repeal of the 1st Amendment protections on free speech because of the Citizens United decision. They are also looking to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban the private possession of firearms. Clinton’s platform also promises massive increases in taxes, regulations, open borders, and amnesty along with citizenship for millions of illegal aliens.
Clinton has also announced that she doesn’t support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which is an 180 degree change in her stand not to long ago. However, reports have come out that she will, if elected, embrace the TPP whole heartedly along with all the other free trade agreements that have actually hurt our economy. She’s also said she will go after Wall Street, but no one really takes that seriously.
Donald Trump’s platform is quite different, if not the usual “Conservative” list. To begin with, he’s going to scrap the TPP, look into all the other “Free trade” agreements and scrap those that do not benefit the United States. His stated goal of building a “Beautiful wall” along the southern border along with getting rid of illegal aliens has the left and the globalists in the Republican party outraged.
This brings up another thing I read this morning. This election, according to the Economist, is no longer about left verses right. It’s about “Open verses Closed.”
AS POLITICAL theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that offers a Trumpian mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries. So far, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has been the anti-globalists’ biggest prize: the vote in June to abandon the world’s most successful free-trade club was won by cynically pandering to voters’ insular instincts, splitting mainstream parties down the middle.
The Economist is a rather left wing, European Union supporting periodical. As you can see from their quoted comments, anyone who believes in national sovereignty is evil and wrong. Bluntly, the Globalists such as the American Chamber of Commerce, the ruling elites in western Europe and the Economist have completely missed the problem. In Europe, with the unfettered immigration from the Middle East, they are now seeing a wave of Islamic terrorism by people who’s goal is to institute an Islamic caliphate.
In the United States, we’re seeing some of that, but the major issues are millions of illegals who not only are not a benefit to the United States, they are an actual drain on our resources. Both groups, in Europe and here, have no interest or intention of assimilating. They’re also responsible for a significant crime problem.
On the trade front, as mentioned, Cankles is all in favor, (despite her recent politically motivated denials), of so called “Free Trade” agreements. Donald Trump is interested in Fair trade agreements, and there is a difference. The free trade deals we’ve been getting for the last 25+ years have not actually helped the average American. In fact, it’s hurt us. Only the so called “1 Percent” have really benefited. Basically, the free trade agreements have freely sent American jobs overseas and allowed foreign nations to freely send their products to us. Of course, they won’t buy anything we make and in many cases, actively block American goods.
The Fair Trade deals Trump will probably make will be designed to help America first, but also help whoever we’re making the deal with. It will be designed so that the country we’re make a deal with won’t block our goods from being sold. There will be real competition. (Hopefully)
The next issue will be foreign policy. Here we have Cankles crowing about her time as Secretary of State. Of course, she isn’t talking about her email scandal, how her decisions helped cause the rise of ISIS and the collapse of Libya and Syria, her utter incompetence and the apparent selling of her office for donations to the Clinton Slush Fund Foundation.
One major problem is that both candidates aren’t liked. With Donald Trump, from what I can see, he low ratings seem to be due to outright misrepresentations by the media, the NeverTrumpers and the RINOS4Hillary. Many reports of how he actually helps people are either ignored or buried. Trump’s public persona doesn’t help matters. He does tend to be loud and doesn’t suffer fools gladly. He’s also a very hard hitting counter puncher. The biggest ding against him, the reasons so many “Republicans” hate him is that he “Isn’t one of us.” By this, I mean he doesn’t move around the Beltway cocktail circuit, he didn’t go to “All the right schools” and he actually pays attention to people.
Compare this with Hillary Clinton. She has been in the public eye for 30 years. This, in and of itself isn’t that big a deal for most people. However, Hillary Clinton has a load of baggage that needs several trucks to move. The biggest thing is her need to get money by literally any means she can. We have things like her cattle futures trading, Whitewater, and since leaving the White House in 2001, (after trying to loot it), using the Clinton Foundation as her own piggy bank.
Her actions in going after anyone she perceived as a threat to herself, (usually due Bill Clinton’s going after anything in a skirt), has caused her to be seen as a conniving, vicious harpy. Her first instinct is always to utterly destroy anyone who gets in her way by any means necessary. Rumors abound that this has included threats and acts of violence. It’s always amazing how people who pose a threat to the Clintons seem to wind up dead.
This election is going to be interesting. Polls so far this year have been, in many cases, dead wrong. As a campaigner, Hillary Clinton has come off as wooden, distant and robotic. Donald Trump is the one, like him or not, who is coming across as vibrant, exciting and not only willing to engage people, but actively doing so.
This election is probably the most important one in over a century. Frankly, I am of the opinion, and I’m not alone in this, that if Hillary Clinton wins, the odds of an outright civil war increase exponentially. Why? Basically, Hillary Clinton has the same mentality of the typical Third World tyrant. She is greedy, power hungry, paranoid, (Vast right wing conspiracy anyone?) and a pathological liar.
Couple this with the current mindset of the Democrat party, which is totalitarian, anti-American, anti-Constitution and collectivist, you can see why many people fear a Clinton administration. Two terms of Obama have done inestimable damage to the United States, both internally and externally. The odds of surviving Hillary Clinton as a united, prosperous, free nation are not good.
This is why I’ve been supporting Donald Trump since last winter. He may not be a great Reagan style president, but then all he needs to do is be a good president and keep his promises.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]
