Sifting through the ashes, Part 16

Greetings and Salutations;

An interesting conversation arose on FaceBook today,  and motivated me to write this entry.    A person I was discussing politics with (yes,  I know that is a tightrope),  had this to say to explain how he felt about Hillary Clinton:

Many reasons. She’s unlikable, dishonest, covered for her rapist husband, filthy rich on a politicians wage, can’t relate, never accomplished anything, has ties to multitudes of unsavory friends, her and Bill are probably the unluckiest couple in the world to be friends or business associates with, she felt entitled to the office, she has flip-flopped on all the important issues, she constantly passed out on the campaign trail, she’s a bitch to her security detail, she ripped off the Haitians, her non-profit is a huge scam, her fake laugh, I could go on and on and finally, she couldn’t beat trump.

I thought I would address these points directly..

1) “She’s unlikable…her fake laugh” – Why, I wonder, should this be a factor? My focus is on other things that I consider more important. For example, her qualifications. We all know her long list of offices she has worked in during her career. When she was in Congress, she was very respected as a policy wonk, showing up to meetings and hearings with a stack of paperwork, and having a deep understanding of the issues at hand. An aspect of this, too, is the question of “does she have the strength to control the government and deal with foreign leaders” As for that, she was the ONLY candidate in the 2016 election that actually scared Putin. It is no wonder he fought her election as hard as he could. Now then, to get back to the original objection. It is often true that great leaders are not likable people. They are called on to make difficult decisions, and often the path they chose is not a happy one for many folks. It may be best for the country, but, it is optically bad. Also, there is the fact that we rarely see the real personality of a politician. Secretary Clinton wears a strong game face, yet reports from people who meet her off the arena report that that she is a warm, caring and fun person.

2) “Dishonest”. Now one is honest, so why should or could we expect more from our politicians. Now, according to objective fact checkers during the 2016 election campaign, she was at or near the top of the list at producing truthful, and evidence based statements. As I recall, at least 55% of her pronouncements were absolutely true. In comparison the POOO was down in the teens – a place that he has stayed even after two years of sitting in the Oval Office.

3) “Covered for her rapist husband”. That is certainly claimed, but, on further explorations, it seems that the hard shell tactics people claimed she used were exaggerated at best, and a lie at worst. Speaking of family values, In spite of a terrible betrayal by Bill, she and he found a way to work through it, and remain a family. That is far better than many politicians do these days.

4) “filthy rich on a politicians wage” Hardly a valid argument, since politicians make more per year than many Americans. Also, she and Bill get premium payments for their speeches. That, to me, is capitalism succeeding – she is making a lot of money by using the reputation and knowledge she has gained through the years.

5) ‘can’t relate, never accomplished anything, has ties to multitudes of unsavory friends” These, alas, are simply without merit. There is no truth the first two, and, as to her friends…again, are all YOUR friends Angels? I would bet that if I looked in detail at anyone’s life, I could find some pretty unsavory friends….

6) “her and Bill are probably the unluckiest couple in the world to be friends or business associates with” This appears to be based on debunked stories about mysterious deaths. Not the DEBUNKED part of the comment.

7) “she felt entitled to the office” Show me a politician who does not feel this way. This is akin to saying that she is a bad person for being just like everyone else in the game!

8) ‘she has flip-flopped on all the important issues” This argument lacks merit for a couple of reasons. First off, “All” makes it meaningless. Secondly, yes, she has changed her position on a number of important issues. However, unlike many politicians, she has owned the fact that she was wrong before, and, had changed her mind after receiving more and better data on the issue. Would we, as a country, want a politician in charge who simply changes their minds randomly, with no data or thought? Well, perhaps we would, since the POOO is exactly that. I, though, for one, would prefer a person in charge who can recognize when they are wrong, and are willing to change their position.

9) “she constantly passed out on the campaign trail” This is simply a lie. There was ONE episode where she got wobbly, because she was ill and had gotten dehydrated.

10) “she’s a bitch to her security detail” She is a strong-willed person, and, frankly, no different from any other politician in the game. I am sure that EVERY president and presidential candidate has blown up at their security detail while they had them. However, on than one report from one person, I never saw a vast flood of objections to her way of treating the security folks. Also, I wonder…afterwards, did she do something to apologize to them for being testy? That sort of news does not sell papers, so it is unlikely to be reported.

11) “she ripped off the Haitians” This is simply a lie.

12) “her non-profit is a huge scam” Another lie. The Clinton foundation is highly rated by Charity Navigator and other independent monitoring organizations. It is also a fact that while the Clintons have poured millions of their money into the Foundation, they have not taken a penny out for their own use. This, by the way, is a notable contrast with the current administration and the Trump Foundation.

13) “she couldn’t beat trump” this is without merit. The fact is that she DID beat the POOO, gathering 3 million more popular votes than him. However, he took the office because the Right-Wing has manipulated the system so as to give them an advantage in the Electoral College. They have done this with two major tools – the “Winner take all” laws, and the “unfaithful Elector” laws. The former artificially boosts the votes to a candidate, and the latter threatens the Electors with fines and prison time if they do not vote for the people’s choice. As for these two factors, I point you to Hamilton’s exposition in Federalist Papers #68, where he lays out very clearly the job of the Electoral College. Comparing what Hamilton wrote with the 2016 election shows a clear example of how the College has been broken.    Here is a link to Federalist Papers #68

So, after looking at these objections, I see nothing more than a series of invalid, Right-Wing talking points, and spew from the Russian Bots that influenced Social Media in the 2016 election.

God help our Country
Bee Man Dave

This entry was posted in Ethics, General, Humanity, Nuttiness, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.