21st Century Wire says…
Now that the Democratic Party establishment has finally put all its cards on the table and declared Hillary Clinton their ‘presumptive’ nominee for President, the public at large is finally coming to grips with the prospect of a Trump vs Clinton election race come November.
Rather than asking who is best fit to hold the highest office in the land, most pundits are instead asking the other question now: who is worse?
To be absolutely fair, both of these personalities have their annoying and often infuriating attributes.
There is one marked difference between these two political animals. While Trump is an unknown quantity in terms of politics and public service, Madame Secretary has a track record already, but not a great one.
As the old adage goes – no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in…
Thus far, we can say this much about Donald: he is consistent in that he will consistently make brash, off-the-cuff, shallow, offensive and often completely insane remarks on the campaign trail – remarks that should kill his opinion polls and finish his presidential run once and for all. Somehow though, he survives, and even thrives in the controversy. Most experts are still ‘speechless’ for comment.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fronted at least one major war of aggression with the decapitation of the nation state of Libya in 2011. Since the US-led take-down of that country, things have gone from very bad to beyond the pale. Few will remember though, that Hillary Clinton was also fronting the US-UK-led “Friends of Syria” (2011-2012) Middle East & European regime change road show – where western leaders colluded with Gulf Kings and oil magnates to discuss the take-down and destruction of Syria.
Regarding Israel, Clinton’s record is completely pro-Israel with no caveats. She does not call for end to occupation of Palestine by Israel, nor will she publicly recognize the native Palestinians’ collective right of self-determination, or their refugees right of return. She is also anti-Iran and will happily give succour to any and every Israeli desire on that issue.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has made numerous public declarations including one on national TV about his intention to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the native Palestinians.
Does this mean Hillary will be worse than Donald? Not necessarily, because Washington has a way of grinding every political operator down to the same reprehensible level it seems.
What it does mean is that with Hillary you know what you are getting, while with Donald, you don’t.
For those leaning towards Clinton in this Hobsons Choice simulation, this means the next default position is: better the devil you know.
Once again, Americans seem forced into that tired old electoral cliché, forced to choose between “the lesser of two evils”…
(leave your thoughts and comments below)
Marc Joffe
Fiscal Times
In 1991, Louisiana voters faced a difficult choice. In the runoff gubernatorial election that fall, the candidates were Democrat Edwin Edwards and Republican David Duke. The notoriously corrupt Edwards had already served three terms as governor and faced bribery charges. (When it turned out, after Edwards was acquitted in that case, that some of the sequestered jurors had stolen towels from their hotel, Edwards reportedly quipped that he had been judged by a “jury of my peers.”) Edwards would later be convicted on 17 counts of racketeering, extortion, money laundering and fraud.
Duke’s story was even worse; he was a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and was still active in white supremacist circles. Mainstream Republicans lined up behind Edwards. In the heat of the campaign, which Edwards went on to win, it became common to see bumper stickers that read, “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.”
Maybe somebody should print up another batch of those stickers for the presidential race this year. With Hillary Clinton assured of surpassing the 2383 delegate nomination threshold today, Democrats have chosen an apparently corrupt candidate to be their presumptive nominee. She’s still the better choice for president.
Related: How Conservatives Stopped Listening and Lost Control of the GOP
Circumstantial evidence of Clinton’s corruption is abundant and easily found by anyone not in denial. Although she is not responsible for her husband’s infidelity nor for Vince Foster’s suicide, other scandals are not so easily dismissed. As the recent State Department Investigator General’s report suggests, Clinton set up a home-brew email server in contravention of department policies to prevent disclosure of her correspondence. The IG report also confirms that, even today, Clinton has not turned over all the messages that passed through her personal server.
Some of the missing messages may have documented the inappropriate links between her job as secretary of state and her involvement with the Clinton Foundation. As documented by Peter Schweizer in Clinton Cash, State Department project approvals sometimes coincided with large contributions to the foundation by beneficiaries of these actions. After leaving office, Clinton continued to sell her influence to the highest bidder, as evidenced by the $225,000 speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs.
Clinton’s pay-for-play activity has a long history — going back at least to the late 1970s. As I previously wrote, Clinton effectively received a $98,000 bribe from interests related to Tyson Foods via a sham futures trading account. Her husband’s Arkansas gubernatorial administration then eased oversight of Tyson, allowing it to contaminate one town’s water supply with chicken manure.
Related: Most Americans Don’t Believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
In 1992, the cozy relationship between Bill Clinton’s Arkansas state house, Hillary’s Rose Law Firm and regulated entities was detailed by The Washington Post and raised by former California Gov. Jerry Brown during a presidential debate. Under Bill Clinton’s administration, Arkansas issued multiple no-bid contracts to the Rose Law Firm, assigned it up $175,000 in bond counsel work and authorized Madison Guaranty Bank — a failing Savings and Loan Association represented by Hillary — to issue preferred stock.
When political leaders fail to play by the rules applied to normal people, a natural reaction is to try and stop them. But, in this case, stopping Hillary Clinton means supporting someone else for president. And for those who think voting for a third party candidate is a waste, that leaves only one alternative: Donald Trump.
So rather than immediately dismissing Hillary for her ethical flaws, the correct approach is to determine whether she is better than the alternative. I tend to think the answer is yes.
A useful way to look at the decision this November is to ask whether continuity or change is the better option for the U.S. at this point in time. Clinton is likely to continue most Obama-era policies, whereas Trump can be expected to attempt some radical departures.
Related: Can Trump’s Nationalist Trade Policy Really Make America Great Again?
Complaints about the status quo notwithstanding, life in 2016 America isn’t horrible for most of us, and so radical change comes with a lot of downside risk. Although some of the doom and gloom predictions about a Trump administration are overstated (for example, I would not expect white supremacists to play a major role in his administration), there are legitimate causes for concern.
A major threat posed by Trump is the potential for a breakdown in global cooperation. Trump seems to view foreign countries like competing companies or candidates, failing to appreciate the interdependence that characterizes our global order. Trumpian brinkmanship could trigger a global trade war, repeating the error of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff. When Herbert Hoover signed that piece of protectionist legislation, the result was a cascade of beggar thy neighbor reactions from U.S. trading partners, greatly exacerbating the Great Depression.
Trump’s policies toward illegal immigrants would also be destabilizing. Millions of undocumented aliens take service and agricultural jobs that American citizens avoid. If these individuals are rounded up or “self deport” in large numbers, industries that rely on them could be crippled. Alternatively, as last week’s violence in San Jose portends, a Trump presidency is likely to produce more civil disorder…
Continue this story at Fiscal Times
READ ELECTION NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2016 Files
