An old Warren Zevon song sums up the severity of our situation nicely—somebody needs to send Lawyers, Guns and Money. I hasten to add that I am of course speaking metaphorically.
We have gotten to levels of brazenness that are hard to comprehend. Before a particular lie is exposed, we still have enough of the old order functioning that it is possible for someone to chide you for being a “conspiracy buff” if you say you don’t believe it. That is not where the brazenness comes in. The brazenness appears when the lie is exposed—rather when the seventeenth lie in a row is exposed. When everyone just shrugs and goes on because “that’s politics,” we are asking for more of the same. We are pleading for more of the same. When the liar shrugs it off, and “the lied to” shrug it off also, the only conclusion you can draw is that it is a game that both want to play.
Let us take Hillary Clinton’s health. First, does anyone seriously think that if Hillary really did have a serious medical condition that the Clinton campaign would have been open and forthright about it? And if anybody does really think so, we should really ask them what the weather is like on the Planet ShinarX2. The primary issue is not Hillary’s health. The primary issue—as it always is with the Clintons—is the thoroughbred triple-crown mendacity.
Hillary Clinton’s doctor had this to say:
“My overall impression is that Mrs. Clinton has remained healthy and has not developed new medical conditions this year other than a sinus and ear infection and her recently diagnosed pneumonia. She is recovering well with antibiotics and rest. She continues to remain healthy and fit to serve as President of the United States.”
Some people dance like nobody’s watching, but other people parse like everybody is. A number of observers noticed—the way a duck on a June bug notices—the phrase “has not developed new medical conditions this year.” That kind of stood out to me also, the way a ten-foot neon sign that’s on fire stands out, but I also tripped over “my overall impression.” Impression?
The obvious mendacity involved means that the Clinton camp is positively inviting speculation, and it is not giving way to conspiracy fever to try to piece the public elements together. Here is one shot at it.
I’m sure her undisclosed health records are only about things like yoga therapy.
When you think about it, that congers a mental image that one just wishes not to see.
Well. I’m with the guy on the video until his closing statement, we simply have to have a president who is mentally fit for the job. Call me crazy, but I think we’ve just survived 8 years with one who wasn’t.
One may question Obama’s decisions, his politics, and his values, but I think it would be hard to make the case that he is irrational or unintelligent.
Well, I have to concede that. But that kind of irrationality is so common among politicians that I have to see it as a species of spinelessness instead. The question would be, did Obama actually think empty threats would work (which would make him irrational) or was he just sabre-rattling in the hope of buying more time. (But if someone offered me a Coke and held my hand, it would probably endear them to me forever.)
Keep the Kraft Dinner coming and we’re capable of anything.
Never. There can only be one Justin at a time.
Send one of the Justins to the Northwest Territories.
He’ll take Nunavit.
Nunavut would work; I’m thinking one of those remote and desolate far northern islands.
Justin T would survive that better than Justin B! I speak as one who survived five years at the 60th parallel, which was quite north far enough.
Well, when considering the BHO / HRC administration, in addition to “irrational”, nieve and comically concieted seem to fit as well! ; – )
There is another — and better option — he is intentionally working to undermine the interests of the US.
Yeah, that surely is an accurate depiction of Obama’s approach to Isis.
Of all the issues this year, I don’t get the importance of either candidate’s health. The president who got us through both the Great Depression and World War II never got in or out of a car without assistance. Lincoln and JFK both had major health problems while in office. For that matter, Reagan probably had dementia his last year in office. If a president is no longer able to do the job for health reasons, the 25th Amendment kicks in and either Tim Kaine or Mike Pence take over. Plus, even a 25 year old who is as healthy… Read more »
She lies like a Clinton.
……oh, wait. ????
… and rugs around the world mourn that fact.
You really don’t think that being healthy enough to do a job is something that someone in a hiring position should consider? Reagan’s issues, as you note, developed AFTER he was elected the last time, so it has little to do with the question of what a candidate, and the people who vote for him, should do with serious health questions. Lincoln’s and JFK’s health issues were unknown to the general public. Roosevelt’s inability to walk alone did not affect his ability to function, he just needed assistance with mobility. And his run for the president the last time was… Read more »
I disagree about this. There are many people in their seventies who have the physical stamina and intellectual sharpness of the average 50-year-old. But there are also many who don’t. It seems to me entirely legitimate to pay extra attention to the question of elderly candidates’ physical and mental fitness to withstand the extraordinary pressures of the presidency. If there are any relevant pre-existing health conditions in either candidate, they shouldn’t be concealed from the public. I learned that much from the first three seasons of The West Wing.
The issue is not the issue. Both sides are eager to use any stick to beat a snake.
Yeah, the issue is not health, at the core, it is the whole “thou shalt not lie” thing.
As was pointed out in the video Roosevelt’s problems were not the same as what Clinton’s potentially are, not the same impact. I think ditto for JFK. Reagan many have suffered the onset of Alzheimer’s his last year in office, but that was his last year in office. Your point regarding Presidential succession was a thought that occurred to me too. The 25th Amendment is comforting, except it is isn’t crystal clear what constitutes “no longer able to do the job for health reasons” or who gets to say that is so. I could imagine the issue being contested, and… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote:
Hillary was already disqualified because of her various sinful and wicked political agendas. Her poor health is hardly the deciding factor for me, but it still doesn’t follow that a candidate’s health is unimportant.
I would think “I Was In The House When The House Burned Down” would be a more appropriate Zevon title.
(Or maybe “Trouble Waiting To Happen”…)
I’m glad my doctor, much as I neglect her, doesn’t treat me on the basis of her “overall impression.” She examines me and does bloodwork and stuff, and then if there are specific things wrong, she treats them.
Meanwhile, Trump just reduced the size of his tax plan as part of his effort to out liberal Hillary.
Trump fans should all be praying for Hillary. If he has a chance in this race it is because the democrats picked the worst possible candidate.
One of the genuinely good aspects of Trump and his campaign is that he has so effectively ripped the masks off of so many people and entities. A lot of people who really thought Fox news was fair and balanced see now that it is as much agenda driven as the other networks. The battle for nationalism versus globalism has been drawn by his campaign, albeit rather crudely. Is he left of center? I believe on social issues he definitely is. Certainly many of the faults you have highlighted are sadly accurate. Having said that however, whether you or I… Read more »
You do realize that being anti-free trade is a liberal union policy and is really dumb economically right? That is just one of many issues that exposed Trump as not a real conservative. You are correct that he is left of center on social issues but he has also always been left of center on fiscal issues too. He supported single payer. He supported wealth redistribution through higher taxes on the rich. He supports eminent domain. He is a liberal fiscally. As far as whether he is going to win…. I highly doubt it. Even with Hillary’s horrible horrible week,… Read more »
I’m not arguing whether his policies are conservative or not. I am telling you it is highly likely that he is going to win. You are arguing based on reason, but this campaign season has little to do with reason. Trump has captured a vast swath of Americans’ hearts. People of all ethnicities are beginning to believe that America can lead the way again and be respected by the world. He has given them a vision and a reason d’être. He has created the ultimate us versus them scenario, and the people who have had to helplessly live through TARP,… Read more »
Hi JL, among my multi-ethnic neighbors Trump is viewed with suspicion. His comments about blacks, Hispanics, and Jews have not won their respect or their allegiance. I am wondering which ethnic groups you have in mind. I also wondered what you meant about being respected by the world. Unless it means respected for our virtue, I’m not sure it is even a Christian goal. I get very nervous when any prospective leader is seen as a hero to fight evil giants unless it is Churchill and you are facing a Nazi invasion (and even then it should have limits). It… Read more »
Which comments? Obama’s own preacher said things like “There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.” (In reference to Uncle Tom or “sheep dog” blacks in his words.)
Did that kind of thing bother you neighbors as well?
Obama did denounce those statements in the speech he gave “A More Perfect Union.” He said they were distorted, unfair, and did nothing to help race relations in America. I think remarks like that are awful. But it is also true that some people, even on this board, despise blacks and openly wish for a return to segregation. Is it fair to expect black people never to notice? I know Jews who were offended by Trump’s comment that they will not vote for him because they can’t control him with their money. This is pure ethnic stereotyping that plays into… Read more »
Your first quote was from a 1991 book and it’s someone else’s recollection of what Trump said. Given Obama’s mentors, such as Frank Marshall Davis, I’m pretty sure he’s said some ugly things over the decades. If someone alleged he said something 25 years ago, though, I doubt it would get much press.
I am not saying that Obama has never said mean stuff about white people. I have not read such statements, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And I didn’t know the Trump quote was so old, and I agree that it does not sound as if it has been adequately verified. But, if you were a member of a minority group, would you tend to believe,on the basis of recent statements, that he views you with respect? Or would you tend to believe that he sees you simply as a group, and that his view of you is driven… Read more »
Hey jillybean, I wasn’t presenting my point of view or anecdotal evidence. I was presenting my observation of stats from various polls showing that Trump is capturing much more of the black, Hispanic and Asian populations than Romney and more than one would think given the media’s spin. My understanding of what has motivated people to vote for Trump comes from friends, neighbors, various blogs and forums. These are not all Christians, and there seems to be a lot of nostalgia for some, revitalization of manufacturing for others and security for most. The idea that America could be viewed as… Read more »
The most reliable poll I could find showed him getting at most 5% of the black vote as of last month. Do you have a link to a better poll?
Here’s one from today.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
In the coming days President and Mrs. Obama will be trotted out to give strident speeches to the black community, and incredible pressure will be put on the black voters in order to stop the loss. Too late though; they are off the plantation and nothing will bring them back.
Same for Hispanics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/among-democrats-deep-concern-about-clintons-hispanic-strategy/2016/09/18/38d3b99a-7c54-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html
What I read is that they are not supporting Trump over Clinton. But they are not enthusiastic about going to the polls. She can’t rely on the Hispanic and black turnout Obama got. I think this might also apply to the youth vote. My daughter would have campaigned for Sanders, but I don’t think she will for Clinton.
Agree with BJ here. The free trade issue is complicated. Now I am pro- international free trade (but I am not fool enough to think that the Pacific or Atlantic trade agreements are about free trade). Though it seems that some economists have argued that free trade benefits the poorer country over the richer.
So I think that if someone is pro free trade within a country, his position on free trade between countries can’t really be used to call him a liberal.
Seriously? Why are free markets good? Because they benefit both parties. I will not give you something (good or service) unless I get something I want more in return (cash, good or service). Therefore it always benefits both parties. A free market gives more wealth to both parties.
Got that? How the heck does that change because of a border?
Read Henry Hazlitt. Anyone who thinks trade restrictions are good is supporting government management of the economy. That is Bolshevism in my mind.
Settle.
I have read Hazlitt. And I am pro-free trade internationally and nationally.
I am saying that there are free trade advocates who claim that free-trade of goods relates to the free movement of labour. And if we don’t have free movement of labour (which a closed border is) then the arguments for free trade are affected.
Now you can disagree with this (though it seems that it is complex). But doubt you can brand a free-trade advocate a liberal just because he claims that international free trade is detrimental because…
Explain how, restricting labor movement, a trade freely made does not benefit both parties.
Do you always run at your allies, ax in hand?
This is not my position. Nor do I claim that it is true. I am merely saying that some pro free trade advocates believe for reasons related to the free movement of labour (or not) that the assumptions of free trade are valid or invalid.
I am sure you can read both sides around the internet.
Sorry. I am sort of in ax mode right now. Lots of racists on this page and I have been more than a little worked up with them. Trump bums me out and the adoption of liberal policies by people I thought were on my side because Trump said so has been pretty stunning to see. Sorry about that. I realize that there are two sides to absolutely every argument. I think that the arguments against freedom of trade and markets are weak (even if labor movement is restricted). I really do not think it ever makes sense to have… Read more »
And that is my position as well. I don’t mind small tarrifs as the government taxes anyway and I am more concerned about excessive income taxes.
I would add that if the benefit of international free trade were shown to be more beneficial to the poorer nation than the richer nation I don’t mind, I think increased wealth for the poor benefits them and is good.
What constitutes benefit is a pretty nebulous idea when you are talking about the exchange of goods and services (do I benefit from more from the Vietnamese restaurant down the street giving me good food or do they benefit more by getting my money?). But free markets work on the unavoidable truth that no trade would take place unless both sides walk away better off than they were prior to the trade. Nothing changes when you expand the borders (other than that there are more people able to offer goods that you might be interested in). Look at all the… Read more »
When 65,000 people turn up to a Trump rally and only 3,000 turn up to a Hillary rally, me doubts the honesty of the polls.
I’m not sure rally attendance translates directly to voter turnout, there are probably a significant amount of people who will vote for Hillary that would never attend her rally.
True. Probably true on both counts. Most people probably don’t attend the events.
People said that about Palin too. She used to draw huge crowds and everyone said (almost word for word) what you just said. McCain got blown out.
So, in your view does that mean that the polls (and perhaps the voting system itself) are untrustworthy or that large visible crowds of supporters are untrustworthy as a signal of popularity?
I think even the largest crowd is a very very very small percentage of the American population. If 50,000 show up to a Trump venue that is not even a half of a percent in most states. With millions of people voting for both democrats and republicans, counting how many people show up to see a guy means very little. Maybe (emphasize maybe) it speaks to the enthusiasm of the faithful. I generally have no interest in going to speeches by the politicians I vote for. Does my lack of interest in seeing Ted Cruz or Rand Paul in person… Read more »
Second worse. You must always leave room for more worseness when it comes to American politics.
Do you think people who think she is the worst possible candidate would have had even more trouble with Biden?
I don’t know enough about him to say.
I concede that many on the right champion Trump. However, I note a significant number of right leaning Christians here (and elsewhere) criticise Trump. Whereas this seems to be a dearth of left leaning Christians criticising Clinton. I have one liberal Christian friend who posts links to criticisms of Clinton (and to Trump).
Am I reading in the wrong places or is this phenomenon real?
‘B, there might be an oxymoron in one of your above terms! ; – )
I know many Christians who are left leaning. I think that they are economically mistaken and that they give too much credit to the state (and are not nearly suspicious of it), but they definitely love and follow Jesus. I think that most right policies (economic and social) are more consistent with the Christian worldview. And I think commitment to left policies can tempt one away from the truth. However I do not think that one’s political allegiance defines one’s faith. There are plenty of right leaning church attenders who have not love and whom Jesus has never known. And… Read more »
No; while it true that one may be “right leaning” and not a genuine Christian, it just isn’t possible to be both a genuine Christian and “left leaning”.
Well we are going to need to establish what you and I mean by left leaning before disagreeing here because I know a large number of Christians who I would consider left leaning and I have no doubt that they are Christian. I think any government welfare (save famine relief) is intrinsically left leaning. I include superannuation, dole, sickness benefits, and corporate subsidies in that. A large number of Christians have little problem with some or all of those things. I think that progressive taxation and high taxation are left leaning and yet I know Christians who support it. I… Read more »
I agree with you about this. I think that leftist-leaning politics have become inseparable from support for positions no Christian can support, such as abortion. But think of the early Labor governments in England. They built on support from working class Christians who would have been repelled by legal abortion, easy divorce, and, no doubt, gay marriage. Is it possible to say that support for government social welfare programs is inherently unchristian? The provincial premier who first introduced free hospital stays for British Columbians was a devoutly conservative Protestant. I can see rejecting modern leftism because of its current sponsorship… Read more »
Could you tell me why, llion?
For starters, there is the inherent collectivism of leftism: most of the horrors that leftists of all stripes have inflicted, and continue to inflict — and will always inflict — upon people follow inescapably from their refusal to treat people as persons rather than as representatives of some class or other. When a person subscribes to a Big Idea, and it turns out to be a bad idea, it is no excuse to say, “Well, he meant well” or “But at least he was sincere” — it is the moral duty of everone who to subscribes to a Big Idea… Read more »
Those are both really good points. Thanks, llion.
I can’t speak to the liberal side, but your observation on the division of the right leaning Christians is spot on. I’m curious to know how many of the Trump critics supported Cruz.
Our host
Our long suffering host. :)
I’m glad that I apparently don’t fall in the left-leaning camp in your eyes.
How would you categorise yourself Jonathan?
Politically? Can’t stand any of them and don’t have hope in the system.
Religiously? Conservative but not beholden to any single denomination’s extra biblical dogma, including my own.
Socially? Christian radical or something like that. It gets called “leftist” by some because I have a strong critique of state and economic worship, gets called “conservative” by others because I have both goals and methods that at some point are not compatible with anything other than obedience to the Kingdom of God under Jesus Christ.
I think that until Clinton became the official candidate, there were plenty of left leaning Christians (and others) willing to criticize her. Almost all my liberal friends preferred Sanders whom they saw as more personally honorable (even though unelectable). But then it became time to circle the wagons (is that an offensive expression nowadays?), and most Dems are keeping their thoughts to themselves.
“But then it became time to circle the wagons (is that an offensive expression nowadays?)”
It would be ironic for a defensive posotion to be considered offensive.
Good one!
“Overall impression” sounds like hedging. Doctors aren’t omniscient. “no new conditions this year” sounds equivalent to “nothing new to report”. There are very few 70+ year olds without any medical conditions at all.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
“This year” is a little odd I think. No chronic (or long term, or significant) medical conditions a preferable statement.
For what it is worth, I don’t have an opinion on whether she has Parkinsons and I don’t think that Parkinsons disqualifies someone (though there are related conditions that could).