Election 2016

New Trump (and Clinton!) Revelations Make Airtight Case for More Options for President

"Millions of Republicans are facing a moment of truth," says Gary Johnson. So are the rest of us and we need MORE choices on the ballot and debate stage!

|

Donald Trump's presidential ambitions have taken a hit with the release of a 2005 tape of him bragging about kissing and groping women without their consent. His defiant sorry-not-sorry apology and promise to foreground sexual-assault charges against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's slagging of her husband's accusers during Sunday's presidential debate will only raise the stakes higher still.

Here's Trump's video statement on the matter:

At the same time, Wikileaks' release of "the Podesta emails," communications among people connected with Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, former Bill Clinton chief of staff, longtime lobbyist, and founder of the Center for American Progress John Podesta, raises serious issues for the Democratic presidential nominee. These emails will almost certainly be ignored by the press and the voters in the wake of the Trump scandal, but they shouldn't be.

The emails reveal that Hillary Clinton is clearly duplicitous on free trade (Candidate Clinton is staunchly protectionist while the emails reveal a globalist free trader at heart) and basic honesty (she talks about the need for having a public position and a private position on issues).

The most relevant email from the Wikileaks cache is this one, which quotes Clinton in speeches closed to the press saying things such as the following:

  • "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy."
  • "[The entitlement-reform commission organized by President Obama] Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth."
  • "We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one."
  • "If everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

(Read the full email after the jump below.)

David Deeble, https://twitter.com/DavidDeeble

As it happens, Clinton has pledged to massively increase spending and vastly expand Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, so she really is not at all convinced by Simpson-Bowles. But let's dilate a bit on those two final bullet points. It turns out that Hillary Clinton, who has been campaigning vociferously against not just the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and NAFTA (the trade deal implemented by her husband when he was president that she started attacking all the way back during the 2008 campaign) is actually a free trader.

From a libertarian perspective, that's good news but it raises real problems when joined to the idea that she might well have any number of "private" positions that are wildly at odds with her "public" ones. What else is she totally bullshitting people about? Probably her preference for a single-payer health care system such as Canada's (she notes that such a system keeps costs down while increasing wait times for the sorts of operations she and politically connected and wealthy people will always be able to get anyway). For a candidate that two-thirds of Americans already don't think is honest, that ain't good.

It's likely that most, if not all, of the issues and concerns raised by Wikileaks will be ignored in the wake of the latest Trump scandal. Indeed, even the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former. Here's his official statement:

Character and trust, should we not expect them from our Presidential candidates?

I'm shocked by these revelations about Donald Trump, but is anyone really surprised? It is just sad and embarrassing that a man who is now the nominee of a major party for President could display such a disgusting attitude toward women. America deserves better. Women deserve better, and our daughters deserve better.

Tonight, millions of Republicans are facing a moment of truth. As a former Republican Governor, I don't envy them.

But if Friday's revelations underscore anything, it's not simply that Donald Trump is vulgar in a way that no major political figure has been since at least 2007 (!), when it came out that Michael Bloomberg talked about the "wet dream" it was to be a "single, straight billionaire in New York City," that one of his hobbies was "chasing women," and more. The revelations also demonstrate why it's important that all voters, not just diehard Republicans and Democrats have more legitimate options in every election. For the same reasons that Trump and Hillary are already the most-hated presidential candidates in U.S. history since polling became a thing, each enters the weekend with brand-new reasons to disapprove of them.

How that relates to Trump is already being aired. But is Hillary Clinton actually lying about her positions on trade and if so, how should independent, third-party, and undecided voters react? It's not enough to insist that simply because the major-party duopoly does everything it possibly can to limit voters' options at every level of democracy that American elections are simply "binary choices" between two hugely unappealing parties, candidates, and ideologies.

Nick Gillespie

Whatever sort of shit show the Sunday night debate becomes—and it will be a shit show, and probably as mesmerizing as a hostage video plus a car wreck plus a sneezing panda Youtube video—we shouldn't forget that we will not get better candidates, political parties, choices, and better policies until we actively insist not simply on better Republicans and Democrats but on more, different parties and ideologies being represented and taken seriously by the media and the electoral process.

The election is a month away. And as a polity, we are exactly where we were a month ago and a year ago: Stuck with a system and "major parties" that represent and reflect the hopes, dreams, and preferences of fewer and fewer Americans. The Trump tape may well seal the election for Hillary Clinton—and it's clear that horse-race politics and near-term electoral advantage is all most partisans and media care about—but it's wise to recognize that absolutely nothing about the decades-long slump in confidence and trust in major social, cultural, and political institutions will be reversed or even addressed if we don't take a bigger-picture view. We have more and more choices in all parts of our lives that aren't governed by politics, and that makes us happier and freer (or perhaps better put: happier because freer). That proliferation of choice and options in lifestyle, consumer choices, technology, work arrangements, and more is the essence of what Matt Welch and I dubbed the "Libertarian Moment" and the only place where you don't see it is in the political realm.

Until we've got the same choice in politics we take for granted every time we order a drink at Starbucks, we'll forever be careening from weekends like this one where our "only" choices are revealed to be even less than we already knew they were. We can do better and if we actually care about creating a better future, we're going to start delivering on that.

(Full Wikileaks email after the jump.)

This is the email revealed at Wikileaks that covers excerpts from paid speeches Hillary Clinton gave after leaving the State Department. The writeup comes from a campaign staffer who is bringing areas of concern to the campaign because the candidate's statements jar with her current positions. Read more at Wikileaks and at Buzzfeed.

HRC Paid Speeches

From:tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com

To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, slatham@hillaryclinton.com, kschake@hillaryclinton.com, creynolds@hillaryclinton.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com

Date: 2016-01-25 00:28 Subject: HRC Paid Speeches

Team, Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy. In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-speeches-are-cozy-for-wall-streeters-but-closed-to-journalists/article/2553294/section/author/dan-friedman

*CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH* *Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy." *"And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY* *Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."* CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to—getting back to that word, "balance"—how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think—I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS* *Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis "Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened."* "That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: "Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us." *"Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy." [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

*CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET* *Clinton Said Financial Reform "Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself." *"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal. And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job." [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

*Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said "The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry."* "I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING* *Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. *"Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*Clinton: "It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters."* "So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something—I would like—you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign—I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

*CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR* *Clinton: As Senator, "I Represented And Worked With" So Many On Wall Street And "Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper" But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. *In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, "When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since." [Hillary Clinton's Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]

*Clinton On Wall Street: "I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People Who Do It." *"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do—I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

*CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE* *Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.* "SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small—MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE* *Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be "Moderate."

*"URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties." [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14]

*Clinton: "Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side."* SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles—and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today—put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

*Clinton: "The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth."* CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

*CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES* *Clinton: "At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across The U.S. Government."* CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]

*Hillary Clinton: "When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most—Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry." *"I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most—or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Hillary Clinton: "We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our Personal Devices" Off The Plane In China And Russia. *"I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

*Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices."* "You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

*Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can't Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. *"And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can't bring your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes. Now, we didn't do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it's not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It's what's the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you're sophisticated enough to know that it's not just, do it, don't do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13] *Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In Technology, Saying "People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of Security Issues." *"Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven't kept up with the changes necessary in government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20th Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and '10." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

*CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE* *Clinton: "So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…" *"So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14] *Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

*Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. "Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]

*CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER* *Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems "Can Get Costs Down," And "Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care," But "They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times." *"If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here." [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]

*Clinton Cited President Johnson's Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.*

"You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

131 responses to “New Trump (and Clinton!) Revelations Make Airtight Case for More Options for President

  1. The most important question here: can someone be shocked but not surprised?

    1. Just what I came to say.

      It is funny to me that people are surprised by this. Didn’t we all know already that Donald was a bit of a sleeve ball type based on publicly available info like his divorced/Marla maples etc?

      1. I only work about for 12k- $15k hours a week from home. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. Join the many successful people who have already started freelancing over the web. Visit this web and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/zvrrsk4

        1. Now that is shocking!

          1. But I’m not surprised.

          2. 12,000 hours a week? Good luke with that.

        2. good job thank you eila wow nice job

      2. Sleeve ball? Kind of like a baby arm holding an apple?

    2. Are you referring to the first paragraph referencing Trump, or the 10,000 words about Hillary’s scumbaggering?

      1. Johnson’s response to Puss-hazi.

        1. i guess shock sans surprise is certainly possible. It seems to happen whenever i review other people’s work – you go in with low expectations, but are blown away by how limited your own imagination is.

          I mentioned gay jay’s recent foreign policy speech in the previous thread. its worth a read.

        2. Is Puss-hazi the new Hungarian princess? What did she say?

        3. We’re finally getting away from the -gate suffix.

    3. Remember how back in the first years of school life, there was an annual Easter egg hunt? Inevitably, during the hunt when no one was looking, some kid knocks another kid to the ground, kicks them a few times and takes all the eggs in the victims basket, and put them in theirs. Then the bully runs to teacher crying and telling how they had actually been attacked by the victim and only tried to defend their self? Then the teachers says ‘oh you poor baby!’ and gives the bully some extra eggs to make them feel better.

      Politics is exactly like that. For some people, nothing ever changes. Hillary and Donald are those kids at the Easter egg hunt.

    4. You can be shocked by what was actually said but not surprised that more negative shit about Trump has been discovered.

    5. The match makers are usually shocked, but not surprised, when SIV’s gamecocks gas out in the middle of a cock fight. They keep telling him that he can either train them to fight or cultivate them for foie gras, but not both.

    6. I think the proper word is “astonished”.

    7. It does show the difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

      Repubs cant jump ship fast enough from an 11 year old tape of something Trump said.

      Yet there was an active sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones before Bill Clinton’s second run for President and Hillary supported him as well as most Dems.

      Trump should follow that line of thought and confront Hillary with her supporting Bill, who eventually settled the case out of court after his re-election.

      Interesting it was David Brock who broke the story.

  2. Somehow, I have a really hard time giving a rat’s fucking arse about what Donald Trump grabbed by the pussy. I am however very concerned about Hillary’s blatant corruption.

    That’s being said, I’m not voting for either. But, the media shows pure hypocrisy going on and on about Trump’s womanizing when they complete ignore the potential first dude’s womanizing. Double standards? What’s that? Especially Hillary’s fake outrage, she’s shocked, she’s… fuck you, cunt.

    1. Here there’s a Robby thread with about 900 comments if you want to go there and see exactly what you wrote about 600 times.

      I think one of the trolls there said that it’s gone from complaining about ‘but boooosh’ to saying ‘but hillary!!!’ Seems about right.

      1. Let’s leave the fact that I’m right out of this.

    2. Trump deserves to be sent back to Atlantic City, to lord it over the tawdry casinos and boardwalks. Hillary deserves to be impaled on a blunt stake up her self-important ass and put on the White House lawn as an object lesson and food for the buzzards.

      And f’Christ’s sake, don’t get me started on the part establishments that caused this to come about with their posturing and blovating.

  3. “We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.”

    There! Proof that she’s a communist!

    1. So question – do we think Hillary is a pragmatist in terms of getting elected (i.e. Taking sanders positions wholesale to edge him out) but will actually govern based on some sort of actual principles/beliefs (no clue if there actually are any) or will if he 4 years of focus group/polling governing? I ask as when I try to play the game of which one of these two nitwits is worse and on what – I think she might actually be better on trade.

      1. Hillary is slightly to the left of Mitt Romney and very focus poll driven. My best guess is that she’ll be Aitchdubya II, pursuing a center-right economic agenda and creating committees (Blue Ribbon committees when she feels dynamic) which make her look like she’s doing something without actually changing anything on social issues.

        She gets the “commie” label from an electorate that can’t think in anything but “I disagree with them therefore they’re Commies/Nazis” but really, she’s still the lesser evil.

        1. Hillary is slightly to the left of Mitt Romney

          lol

          I’m so using that. Only, slightly modified. Hillary basically IS Mitt Romney. He was full of shit about being a republican; she’s full of shit about being a progressive. They were both boring statist status-quo enablers who sooth people with their insider-professionalism.

          1. Pretty much.

      2. I assume that with people like her it’s about legacy. She wants to go down in the history books as a Good President. Economic growth is good. Some feel-good welfare program and regulations are good. A ‘humanitarian war’ or two is good. ‘Order’ is good (which involves more gun control). A health care system that pumps out optimistic numbers about ‘coverage’ and the like is good.

        I think she understands that protectionism will not be good for the economy – or, what matters, the GDP numbers and the health of known companies. I’m sure she underestimates the effects of regulation and govt spending on the economy, so I wouldn’t expect anything not-terrible to come there.

        1. Ridding America of guns and the scourge of hate speech seem to be what she wants to build her legacy on.

        2. More or less. Like any organized crook, she understands that she derives the most benefit from the status quo and won’t do anything to threaten that. A few token bones will be thrown here and there but nothing major will really change – for good or bad.

          1. Honestly, that’s how I feel, which is why I’m sad and embarrassed but not scared. I might be too optimistic. But I think she’ll be like Obama, going after one big legislative accomplishment and then being status-quo bad on the rest.

            And no way she’s getting a second term.

          2. “A few token bones will be thrown here and there but nothing major will really change – for good or bad.”

            Hopeless optimism there. Hillary will add a justice to the SCOTUS that firmly supports her agenda. She’ll then start writing Executive memoranda and Executive orders that amount to blatant Executive over reach. Congress will protest. They’ll go to SCOTUS, who will dead lock on hearing them, and she’ll get her way.

            Her desire will be to eventually replace at least one more Conservative judge to ensure that Democrats have a favorable leaning court for a decade or more. That’s time enough to ensure that the First and Second amendments get reduced in scope to something more amenable to Democratic rule and that Obamacare gets expanded to become another third rail bulwark.

      3. No. She only cares about getting power and keeping it.

        1. Oh, not just grabbing power. She has also consistently sought to avoid any hint of accountability. Don’t forget that part.

        2. Oh, not just grabbing power. She has also consistently sought to avoid any hint of accountability. Don’t forget that part.

  4. Wikileaks’ release of “the Podesta emails,”…. raises serious issues for the Democratic presidential nominee. These emails will almost certainly be ignored by the press

    You mean like burying them in some omnibus tl;dr mess of a piece on a Saturday when no one’s going to pay the slightest attention to them? Wow, i hope that doesn’t happen.

    1. To be fair, those emails are much less important than some vulgar remarks a guy made eleven years ago.

      Right?

      1. I’m curious why this is apparently the trump comment that’s finally done it. Stuff like saying McCain is a loser seems similarly offensive. Is this a case of the straw that broke the camels back or perhaps indicative of the intense fear of association with ‘rape culture’ ?

        1. Trump’s remarks can be used in a 60 second news story and excerpted for a 30 second commercial without losing any of their punch. The news reports and commercials can be used to alienate every single woman of voting age. Every modestly attractive woman has at some time or another been subject to vile and unwanted attention from an uncouth man. Trump’s remarks about his behavior with women he wants to fuck (his word) encapsulate the mindset of the boors who perpetrate such events. Similarly, every ugly woman has suffered insults from the likes of Trump. Trump’s remarks about ugly women have similar effect upon ugly women. So, with the possible exception of some sociopathic women, he’s on record with short, snappy, undeniable soundbites that provoke an instantaneous, visceral, and highly negative response that is rooted in the individual experience of every woman of voting age.

          Of course, Clinton is a sociopath herself, and has facilitated much worse misbehavior by her spouse, and has a rotten history as secretary of state, and is thoroughly corrupt in both word and deed. But one needs more than a 30 second commercial to explain the nature and evidence of her crimes, and none of them trigger a response that is rooted in individual experience.

          1. Absolutely right. I honestly think this will spell either the end for him and/or the start of insane chimp feces chucking

      2. Goddamned right. Which is the greater evil: an overgrown frat boy or someone who takes foreign bribes while in public office and who actively, with malice, tried to destroy rape victims…and also successfully defended a rapist she knew was guilty, got him off and laughed about it?

        Trump is just not qualified.

      3. The thing I find interesting is that a whole lot of the people who are pissed at Trump for this had no problems with Bill Clinton pretty much doing the same thing (and accused of doing worse). And that includes Hillary.

        1. Bill Clinton is a Democrat.

          Sexual misbehavior has been de rigueur and progressively disgraceful for Democratic presidents since FDR took up with Lucy Mercer Rutherford and Eleanor took up with Lorena Hickok. See, for example, JFK and LBJ. Carter apparently didn’t misbehave, but he only got a single term as a result.

          1. So who was Obama banging?

            1. Reggie Love.

  5. The fact that this comment by Trump is what is making Republicans run for the hills rather than his big government policies really shows how bankrupt the party is.

    1. Very few of them ever cared about big government besides their reelection speeches. See ‘Debt, National’

    2. I read an article somewhere this morning, talking about how the electoral map right now looks very similar to the electoral map for Obama and Romney. IOW, Republicans will vote for Republican candidates and Democrats will vote for Democratic candidates regardless of anything. Unfortunately, I think we’re still a long ways from breaking out of the team sport politics. So what it looks like is that we’re going to have a Democrat president and GOP congress for the long term. What that means is downright terrifying.

      1. In some ways isn’t that the best outcome – gridlock slowing the speed of the drive towards the cliff?

        1. It used to be until the Executive power got to the level it is now and Congress stopped trying to do anything about it. Gridlock is a thing of the past, there’s too many crony bucks at stake.

        2. You want a R president and a D Congress for proper gridlock, as the press will suddenly remember how important limits on executive power are, and at least try to hold the President accountable. The other way around means the president just _has_ to use executive orders to work around those obstructionist republicans.

    3. You’d prefer the GOP stood strong and insisted “OUR CANDIDATE CONTROLS THAT PUSSY LIKE A BOSS”?

    4. Have any “run” except those who had to hold their nose to offer an insincere endorsement?

  6. “What else is she totally bullshitting people about?”

    You have to ask? Does it matter? When you catch a liar lying you stop believing anything else they have to say. They are liars.

    1. Do you know of anyone who is actually supporting her based on issues? Everyone I know (my circle is mostly lefties types – tons of stein folks) is emotionally attached to the first woman/women’s rights/gays thing or is just a lesser of two evils argument against trump.
      The conversations I hear are largely the stein folks saying that she’s an unprincipled Wall Street hack (those emails are good proof of that) and the Clinton folks saying that well way – but at least she can get elected and trump is do much worse. I swear it’s exactly like talking to my dad about trump. It’s so amazing that we have two candidates that no one really actually likes. What does this say about a democratic system when that is the outcome? Doesn’t it seem completely contradictory?

      1. I live in Louisiana. I know three of her supporters and they won’t admit to me why they support her (they are proggies at heart, i.e. pinkos)

        All they will admit to is that Donald Trump is literally Hitler.

        1. Ah – that explains all the pornographically delicious food discussions from you.

          Something I’ve wondered – and I guess it must be cultural – is why does the LP do so poorly in the south – worse than anywhere else it seems based on polls this year. I grew up in the west but don’t live in the us and more – however i always thought there was some sort of a small town independent ethic down south too

          1. Mexicans and ass secks

          2. There is a small town independent ethic, but there is also a strong streak of ol’ timey puritanical protestant religion in our culture. Functionally most people here are nominal libertarians but they don’t poll well because they are ignorant of what the libertarian party stands for. They just see purple hair, patchouli and pot smokers. They are equated with the hippie left.

            Ask someone here “Who owns you?”, black or white, and you better explain quickly why you are asking or you are liable to find out what dirt tastes like.

          3. Tradition. I grew up down south. Those folks stick to their roots.

          4. ” – is why does the LP do so poorly in the south – ”

            Because the South is big on tradition, such as supporting the military, something many Libertarians active sneer at, religion, something else Libertarians often sneer at and the South has been hit relatively hard by cronyist economic trade deals (the text tile industry was wiped out, but the car industry was specifically protected) and much of the low skilled illegal immigration has come across the Southern borders and disproportionately impacted low skilled southern laborers.

            Of course, all that being said, Texas is ranked one of the most Libertarian leaning states in the US and the top 5 least are all Liberal states.

        2. Trump is Hitler

          Bush is Hitler

          By the time somebody who really IS comparable to that nasty Austrian comes along, the Porgies will have cries Hitler so often that nobody will believe it.

          Of course the odds are that when such a swine does run for the Presidency he will be (nominally) a Democrat.

  7. So the big reveal about Hillary is that she’s a “secret centrist”, or! that she has no real point of view at all, and just tells people what they want to hear

    It seems the only people scandalized by it would have to be screaming leftists who naively imagine she’s been converted to their cause.

    1. In other words, the lefties who are thinking of staying away from the polls or voting for Stein – the people Clinton and her journalistic supporters are waging a major campaign to win over.

      1. I know that Sanders/Stein types technically want to be bossed around, but are they so lacking in pride that they will vote for someone who courts them in public while insulting them behind their back?

      2. Stein’s impact on the election is virtually zero. But if you’ve been watching the polls for the last several months, you have to come to the conclusion, at least I have, that Gary Johnson’s support is in direct correlation to how well Hillary is doing. The more support for Johnson, the worse Hillary does and vice versa.

        1. Yeah, I should have alluded to that – all the “don’t you dare vote Gary Johnson” articles indicate where Hillary thinks the threat is coming from.

          1. The only threat to big government comes from Libertarians, and Gary is a quasi libertarian at best.

            1. I think Hillary is worried about the threat to her getting elected. If she just wanted big government, she’d endorse Trump.

              1. You don’t think Hillary wants big government? That seems odd to me.

            2. Didn’t you read all the gayj articles that magically appeared in hipster titled ‘news’ blogs at the same time? He’s the former military ruler or Somalia and thinks global warming.is cause by heat death of the sun and also doesn’t know that other countries exist or have rules. My god man – how could you even consider it

              1. Gary Johnson thinks that “a” is the indefinite article. How could I ever vote for someone like that?

    2. Hillary is a centrist. That means she’s going to give both the GOP and the Democrats the worst of everything they want. More war, more WOD, more militarized police state, more civil rights abuse, more spending, more regulation, more taxes, more cronyism. It’s going to be fucking great!

    3. Clinton is a secret crony capitalist, because the policies she espouses privately serve the interests of her billionaire buddies, not the private sector in general.

      1. This is why I don’t believe for a second that Hillary is in any way for “free trade.” She’s for laws that benefit her cronies but will call it free trade or whatever she needs to make it palatable to her audience. It’s verbal virtuosity, nothing means what you think it does.

  8. I find it funny that Clinton and her sycophants try to push this image of her as this supremely smart, sensible person, but in everything she’s said and done over the past year, it’s only these private speeches that are convincing. She’s not the old lady that doesn’t know what (C) means or thinks a Blackberry is secure or that the govt can abolish tuition. A bunch of her policies are terrible, but she seems to know or is willing to admit weaknesses and why policies might be opposed (‘universal health care’ means waiting times???).

    Fingers crossed the Rs don’t lose the Senate and she breaks a hip and perishes by next Christmas.

    1. it’s only these private speeches that are convincing

      She sounds like she’s talking to grownups.

      Everything else she says sounds like she’s talking to 4yr olds.

    2. Harken back to the last ‘budget’. R house, R senate. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden gloating, smiling and laughing saying “I cant believe what we got. We got everything we wanted and more.” , “If you had told me a year ago we would have this with the R’s in congress I would not have believed it.” and so on.

      What difference does it make who has the congress?

      1. Obamacare

  9. For a rich want to hear a very good example of reporting bias check out the frontline podcast ‘ ‘The Choice 2016’. It’s hard to believe the Clinton campaign didn’t produce it. Couldn’t be more blatant.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl…..oice-2016/

    1. Remember the leaked DNC emails? Of course the Clinton campaign produced it.

    2. I watched that. The biggest horror about Hillary was that she had to compromise her principles and take her husband’s name plus wear make-up and make herself look pretty.
      Trump on the other hand ….

  10. My theory about Trump’s comments is that more women will now say they won’t vote for him, but in the voting booth more women actually will vote for him.

    1. How so? Like the power thing is some sort of turn on to them? Honestly asking

      1. It’s the whole, women say they want a guy who respects them and complain about the douchbags being assholes, but they really don’t mean either.

        1. Was supposed to be a joke. Sort of.

  11. Enough about grabbing cunts by the pussy. There’s a fatty scooter epidemic to deal with. Wake up, you dumb cunts.

    1. Fat slob vs litigious old woman. I hate everyone.

    2. I like the visual image of ‘thrown 4 feet’

      Has anyone ever driven one of these (my town was too small for this stuff growing up) – they don’t exactly look capable of high speeds

      1. Momentum, dude. When you weigh 400 pounds, even at slow speeds, you are gonna be launching old ladies.

    3. If you don’t want to fall off your scooter, you gotta grab it tight with your pussy.

  12. Ice Bear is proud of you. Proud Bear.

  13. Hillary’s “true” ideas are actually far less terrible than the ones she expresses on the campaign trail. That’s almost comforting until you realize that this means her regime will be the most secretive we’ve ever experienced

    1. It’s gonna be even more of a shock coming in the heels of The Most Transparent Administration since the Hadean

    2. Her true ideas don’t matter. Look at the policies she has put forward. I don’t care if she is an actual progressive, pinko, libertarian, centrist, moderate, or adheres to the ‘the rent’s too damned high’ guy. I am just looking at what she has actually done and what she publicly says she intends to do.

  14. If I were a registered Republican or Democrat I’d be mortified at the candidates my fellows had nominated to run for president. These two are the best you could do?? Please, cleanse your soul and refuse to vote for these two turds.
    Maybe a huge vote for Johnson/Weld will convince one of the major parties to get serious about the major issues facing America? But I doubt it – the GOP will double down on a Trumpalike.

  15. It turns out that Hillary Clinton […] is actually a free trader. From a libertarian perspective, that’s good news but […]

    Nick, Nick, Nick…. Talk about grasping at straws. How much good from a libertarian perspective is free trade if it comes with a massive expansion of the welfare state, more taxes and regulations, plus flooding the country with millions of Third World peasants and refugees to suck up welfare and vote for more statism? Not to mention her threatened crackdowns on guns and free speech and so on?

    Still a worse choice than Trump.

    1. Not disagreeing. But do you actually have any clue what trump thinks about any of those things besides perhaps gun control?

      1. His website has a position paper about reducing regulation. He’s obviously the anti-mass immigration candidate. Hillary is talking about expanding the welfare state, and Trump is not.

    2. Hillary’s free trade comes with massive bureaucracies and secret treaties.

      Pass.

  16. Well, it isn’t really news, because anyone with a brain already knew that Clinton has changed her stance on so many things that she couldn’t possibly be telling the truth about what she planned to implement.

    This is simply confirmation.

    Of course, the exact same is also true for Trump.

    But at least we got to keep our doctors.

  17. I’ll say it for the tenth time…what a glorious missed opportunity for libertarians. Rand Paul could have actually been your elected President, and Johnson has no chance.

    Rand had a good chance to get enough support to be in the debates, Johnson never had a chance. Rand could have won Kentucky and one or two more- enough to get the election thrown to the House, Johnson probably won’t win New Mexico. And clearly Republican reps would have voted for Rand. I’m not so sure about Johnson.

    All it took was courage for Rand to seek the Libertarian nomination. You won’t get such a magnificent chance again.

    1. Perhaps, Though with the kinds of people the parties have been nominating the last few election cycles, You never know… it could always get worse.

  18. Bill Clinton groped and harassed women all the time. Why should that matter in a president? And Hillary seems to be vile and rude in person anyway, she just chooses her victims differently.

    All things being equal, I prefer a nice president, but I don’t have to work with any of these jerks. Ultimately, what matters in an election is policies, and Hillary’s started policies are a disaster.

    1. As bad as what Trump said is, he didn’t abuse public office to enrich himself and his family or accept money from foreign governments while he was the Secretary of State.

      “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

      —-Mother Jones

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..arms-deals

      Trump’s statement is inexcusable.

      Hillary’s behavior is inexcusable.

      Yeah, I see a difference there.

  19. If Trump stepped down and left Mike Pence on the ticket to debate Hillary at UNLV, that would be the best thing that could happen for the country.

    I have no problem with Republicans banding together and pressuring Trump to step down. It’s in the best interests of the Republican Party and the best interests of the country–and there isn’t anything wrong with either of those motivations.

    In reality, it isn’t in Trump’s character to step down. Hell, he’s mostly running for President because he loves the publicity. And if Hillary wins, these three things are still true: 1) We will be rewarding her for taking money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State, 2) Single payer will still be all but a foregone conclusion, and 3) our Second Amendment rights will probably be forfeited through her Supreme Court appointees.

    The libertarian argument for Trump was always about those three things–it was never about Trump’s personality anyway–and those three principles remain what they are (treason, no single payer, and pro-Second Amendment rights) regardless of what stupid shit Trump said on tape however many years ago.

    Personal attacks on Trump is principals over principles, and I ain’t fallin’ for that.

    Principles not principals today, principles not principals tomorrow, principles not principals forever!

    1. Question: if the ticket was Pence at the top – would you vote for it?

      1. I’d be tempted, yeah.

        Hillary taking money from foreign governments is a rule of law thing for me. If Hillary gets in office, it’s not just a question of where she stands on the issues. It’s a question of legitimacy.

        Our ethical responsibility to obey the law is predicated on our leaders being bound by the laws and propriety. If Hillary wins, I don’t think anyone is bound by ethics to obey the law.

        That’s a big deal.

        Yeah, I might vote for Pence.

        I don’t like Donald because of his free trade stance, among other reasons. Trump is to the left of where Bill Clinton was when he was in office. If Pence isn’t, then that’s not a problem.

      2. I’ve wondered this too. Pence’s SoCon bullshit is offputting, but if we’re actually doing the “lesser of two evils” thing…
        .
        Bigger question: could he win? A generic Republican could have taken down Hillary this year, but can a generic Republican do it with just a month to make his case?

        1. It seems only in retrospect that a “generic republican” would have a chance of taking out Hillary. Hard to argue with the non-logic that got Trump nominated, but Trump managed to wipe a record number of “promising” Republican candidates. Oddly enough, a lot of the opposition to the also-rans was based on their perceived weakness against someone like HRC. Go figure.

  20. If the republicrats continue to keep the ballot system closed, things aren’t going to change. If guys like Johnston don’t even acknowledge the issues that keep the vast majority of voters from voting for losers like Hillary and Trump, nothing will change. Don’t expect the republic to last much longer if the only option every four years is another protest vote.

  21. None of these revelations have changed the way I feel about Trump. He’s a big-government progressive who just happened to discover that publicly expressing his inner xenophobia got him further with the right than it did with the left (who would prefer that he keep it behind closed doors, at least while he had a D after his name).

    And I refuse to vote for a big-government progressive, whichever side of the table he’s on. And I refuse to vote for someone who I know is lying to me with every breath. And finally, I refuse to not vote.

    As much as I loathe the Johnson (for his positions on religious freedom/thought crimes) and Weld (For his positions on gun control) ticket, my vote for them will do the least damage, and might actually contribute towards convincing the public (or even just public figures in some GOP/DNC thinktank or campaign somewhere) that there’s a sizable percent of the population that doesn’t want Uncle Sam jumping into every problem, foreign or domestic, and that something shouldn’t be done just because it’s a “good idea”, if it infringes on the liberties of US citizens.

    And none of this has changed since Trump won the GOP nomination.

  22. True, the Kleptocracy’s candidates suck, but so what? It’s the LAWS both parties want to preserve and not repeal that have always brought financial collapse. Until the investment community realizes that prohibitionism, asset-forfeiture and related enforcement destroys the economy (1903, 1907, 1929, 1932, 1987, 1992, 2007), they will blindly vote Republican out of fear of the Democrats (who also favor the same thing). Prohibition and the Crash was simple causality, clear to the populace by 1932. Once Americans rediscover these hard lessons, they will quit repeating the same cyclic error over and over again.

    1. I don’t think an economic crash would change attitudes. It would just open the doors to autocracy.

  23. There’s no doubt in my mind that if Johnson/Weld want a shot, they have to focus their entire firepower on Hillary Clinton. Trump won’t win, but if Hillary doesn’t sink, neither will Johnson/Weld. They’re going to have to change the focus from the socially-approved easy target to the harder target.

    That means making the case both on political level and a personal level why Clinton is also unfit for the Presidency. Unless they do that, Clinton is going to skate into the White House.

  24. Remember ‘Inevitably some kid got knocked down’? No, I don’t, what I remember was the fun we had and we were smiling and giggling and yes a few might fall down. So what, SO WHAT? OK for Obama to issue an Executive Order proclaiming that in the interest of safety fun and games will cease NOW.

  25. So the only way the feminists can keep a crude, sex obsessed, loudmouth out of the white house is to vote for Gary?

  26. my Aunty Chloe recently got red Audi S5 Coupe by working online at home
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  27. my Aunty Chloe recently got red Audi S5 Coupe by working online at home
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

    1. I so want an Audi S5 Coupe, too.

      Please ask Aunty Chloe to tweet me @moron.r.us

      1. I’d be happy with a 1995 Honda Civic (carburetor, manual transmission). Mine got rear-ended last night while I was sitting at a red light.

  28. Inside the mind of a prog…

    America’s Choice: The First Female President, Or A Guy Who Says ‘Grab Them By The P***y’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..s_politics

    No prog – I will not hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton, who is a bigger war monger than Dick Cheney, whose hero is the international war criminal Henry Kissinger, and who supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

    No prog – NO – I will not hold my nose and vote for the racist war monger and foe of individual liberty, Hillary Clinton.

  29. Trump has to ask Hillary only one question. When you spoke to Goldman-Sachs about the boon of NAFTA, were you lying to them or are you lying to us?

    I can’t wait to hear some talking head refer to “Pussy-gate” while ignoring Clinton’s forked tongue.

    It’s fun to watch the most ignorant celebrity pseudo businessman to ever run for the presidency compete with a woman with no accomplishments aside from marrying a charismatic liar and whose “vast knowledge” is wrong on every issue.

    From now on when some parent tells his child “You could grow up to be president!” they won’t be lying because these two knuckleheads have proven that anyone can be president.

    In sixteen short years the US had gone from the moron son of an ex-president to a race-baiting bigot whose primary intellectual influence was an unrepentant Stalinist to one of two power lusting compulsive bullshit artists. At this rate the 2020 candidates will be a mass murderer against a necrophiliac.

    1. The new suffix is -azi. Puss-gazi. -gate is getting a little stale after three and a half decades.

  30. my mother inlaw got an almost new black Mercedes-Benz S-Class S63 AMG just by working online with a pc
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  32. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  33. War Against Men

    “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” -Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975)

    Yes, these United States of America need a new, different, political option. Ah, but what is it to be? Continuing the current lapse into economic, political, and sociological semi-psychosis can end only in national tragedy. One example? The War Against Men.

    The issue of the recent release of surreptitiously and probably illegally-made recordings of Donald Trump’s private conversation with another man more than a decade ago is but another example of blatant hypocrisy by cowardly politicians and the salacious Media in a long list of such examples. Yet, it goes more deeply ? to the heart of this nation in decline, this nation on fire. It goes to the real, sexual war; namely the War Against Men, particularly men who are Euro-Caucasians ? especially those unwilling to defend their manhood.

    For years, the corrupt, Republican establishment has enabled those who would destroy the remnant of American masculinity to wage their ideological war. With the Democrats, the voter gets that which he sees and hears. With the Republicans, the voter gets the opposite.

    Fortunately, there is a potential alternative. No, not the Libertarian Party. The alternative does not exist yet as a political organization, but it can. There even exists a blueprint for it to happen.

    See “Mangling Masculinity” under …
    http://nationonfire.com/catego…..iticians/.

  34. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

    ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.