Dave Chandler proud to serve as a spokesperson for Arvada for All the People and for more open and honest local government.
Much more at ArvadaForAllThePeople.com
That's how bad was the candidacy and campaign of Hillary Clinton.
So, what happened? Below is a link to and some excerpts from an article by Thomas Frank that fairly succinctly explains why Clinton lost where it counted (in the Rust Belt states) and why the Democratic Party is in big, big trouble.
Make no mistake, while Donald Trump may take the presidential oath of office in January 2017, the republic is also in seriously big trouble in light of Clinton winning the most votes by at least 2.5 million. In a democratic republic where the people are sovereign (that's the small 'd' democratic part), when the person who gets the most votes loses, there are fundamental problems with the system. While the form of our republic may be to protect the rights of political minorities, it is also meant to ensure the concept of majority rule. In a very real sense, as a nation we are skating dangerously close to a genuine tyranny of the minority; we ignore the significance of the popular vote results at our own peril.
Clinton's failure and Trump's triumph also highlights the increasing disconnect between America's governing class and everyone else. Hillary Clinton had no persuasive message for working folks feeling the distress of stagnant wages, while Trump the huckster had 'the talk', but has already demonstrated with his cabinet picks thus far that he is a supreme plutocrat.
How this sad situation has developed in a United States once proud of a strong and prosperous middle class can be explored in two very good and powerful books that I heartily recommend:
“Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, and
Joseph Stieglitz’s book “The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future.”
There are mega-earthquake faults in this country now that portend extreme danger: radical wealth inequality has the potential to rip apart the economy and impoverish middle America; and a dysfunctional democracy where minority rule can undercut and erode government legitimacy and credibility.
I opposed these major party candidates for President for similar reasons: both were, in my estimation, clueless to the plight of middle/working class Americans. If Clinton had been elected I would have opposed her when she proposed policies that favored the already rich and powerful. Likewise I will do whatever little I can to thwart Trump and his plutocratic-oligarchic cronyism and his disdain for individual liberty.
There are always rules that govern how a society and an economy function, they can prefer the very small slice that already have wealth and power; or they can help the vast majority in the working middle ... the American ideal as expressed by Thomas Jefferson is excerpted letter below. Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress are already giving strong indications that they are anxious to put their thumb on the side of the scale that favors the one percent of the one percent.
Despite Trump's populist rhetoric, he is a radical elitist and a plutocrat of the highest magnitude. It is critical that all good, patriotic Americans not be fooled by artful salesmanship and deliberate distraction -- watch what Trump and his fellow plutocrats do, not what they say.
It is your prosperity, your freedom, and the fate of our democratic republic, itself, that is on the line.
* * *
Instead of winning, the pragmatists delivered Democrats to the worst situation they’ve been in for many decades, with control of no branch of the federal government and only a handful of state legislatures. Over the years, and at the behest of this faction, Democrats gave up what they stood for piece by piece and what they have to show for it now is nothing. ...
But the media and political establishments, I suspect, will have none of it. They may hate Donald Trump, but they hate economic populism much more. If history is a guide, they will embrace any sophistry to ensure that the Democrats do not take the steps required to broaden their appeal to working-class voters. They will remind everyone that Clinton didn’t really lose. Alternately, they will blame Sanders for her loss. They will decide that working-class people cannot be reasoned with and so it is pointless to try. They will declare – are already declaring – that any Democratic effort to win over working-class voters is a capitulation to racism. Better to lose future elections than to compete for the votes of those who spurned their beloved Clinton. ...
... the real swing voters are the working people who over the years have switched their loyalty from the Democrats to Trump’s Republicans. Their views are pretty much the reverse of the standard model. On certain matters they are open to conservative blandishments; on economic issues, however, they are pretty far to the left. They don’t admire free trade or balanced budgets or entitlement reform – the signature issues of centrism – they hate those things. And if Democrats want to reach them, they will have to turn away from the so-called center and back to the economic left. ...
Today Democrats are wondering what went wrong, but before too many fundraising dinners have been digested they will have concluded they don’t need to worry, that demographics will bail them out sooner or later, and that the right and noble course of action is to proceed as before.
This will happen because what leading liberals cannot understand – what they are psychologically blocked from understanding – is that the problem isn’t really the white working class. The problem is them.
Let me explain what I mean by reminding you what this form of liberalism looks like. Somewhere in a sunny corner of the country, either right now or very shortly, a group of tech tycoons or well-meaning private equity investors will meet to discuss what went wrong in this election cycle. They will consider many things: the sexism and racism of Trump voters, the fundamental foreignness of the flyover, the problems one encounters when dealing with evangelicals. They will celebrate some activist they learned about from NPR, they will enjoy some certified artisanal cuisine, they will hand out prizes to the same people that got prizes at the last event they attended, and they will go back to their comfortable rooms at the resort and sleep ever so soundly.
These people think they know what liberalism includes and what it doesn’t include. And in the latter category fall the concerns that made up the heart and soul of liberal politics a few decades ago: labor and work and exploitation and economic equality. ...
Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 10, 1814
“We have no paupers ... The great mass of our population is of laborers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth. Most of the laboring class possess property, cultivate their own lands, have families, and from the demand for their labor are enabled to exact from the rich and the competent such prices as enable them to be fed abundantly, clothed above mere decency, to labor moderately and raise their families. . . . The wealthy, on the other hand, and those at their ease, know nothing of what the Europeans call luxury. They have only somewhat more of the comforts and decencies of life than those who furnish them. Can any condition of society be more desirable than this?”
In the main, I’m not voting on issues when it comes to candidates in 2016.
My meta-principles for my balloting decisions this election are based on the candidate’s honesty, forthrightness, and my perception of how committed they are to reforming what is clearly an increasingly corrupt political system.
Consequently, my choices are eclectic and meant to be a rebuke to party tribalism, which, in my estimation, has become so extreme that effective representative democracy, i.e., small ‘r’ republicanism is in danger.
For what it is worth, here is for whom and what I am voting for on my Arvada, Colorado ballot … with occasional commentary.
* * *
Gary Johnson: Libertarian
All explained at: Anybody But ... For President 2016
Arn Menconi: Green Party
The Democrats are trying to reelect one of the best oligarchs they have in Michael Bennet; the Republicans have nominated a wishy-washy extremist.
Menconi is a regular fellow with the interests of average Coloradans at heart.
U.S. Representative - CD7
Martin Buchanan: Libertarian
The Democratic Party incumbent has “gone Washington” … the Republican is narrow of focus and too far a right field.
CU Regent - At Large
Alice Madden: Democrat
State Senator - District 19
Laura Woods: Republican
Incumbent Woods is certainly forthright about what she believes in — and I disagree with much of it; but she is honest and centered on District 19. I have been impressed with how hard she has worked at the capitol. For the local level, Woods opposes corporate socialism/corporate welfare; her opponent has no problem with taxpayer dollars going to private, for-profit developers/businesses. Finally, Woods’ previously-appointed opponent abandoned her Arvada city council seat in 2013 — barely a month after being reelected — for her own and her party’s advancement, an act of faithlessness to the citizens that I find unforgivable.
State Representative - District 29
Tracy Kraft-Tharp: Democrat
One of the best state legislators in Colorado.
Jefferson County Offices
All of the Republicans should be punished severely when in comes to county offices — the worst kind of cynical and manipulative politics has been played by them for the purpose of holding onto power. The musical chairs, term limit evading game they have played with Faye Griffin, resignations, and appointments is corrupt and reprehensible, in my opinion. Vote the Republicans out.
District Attorney - 1st Judicial District
Jake Lilly: Democrat
County Commissioner - District 1
Marti J. Smith: Democrat
County Commissioner - District 2
Casey Tighe: Democrat
Just as a matter of formality, I always vote 'no' on judges ... they always get retained and I just want to do my little part in reminding them to what and to whom they owe their allegiance: the Constitution and the citizens.
Amendment T - Removal of Slavery Language from state constitution
Amendment U - Property Tax Exemption for Some Possessory Interests
Amendment 69 - Single-Payer Health Care
The costs of health care are literally and figuratively killing people. This amendment isn’t perfect, and with all of the governing class establishment of both major political parties against it, it will undoubtedly fail. However, a message needs to be sent that serious work needs to be done to make health care universal and affordable for all citizens.
Amendment 70 - Minimum Wage
Until demand is stimulated in our economy, it is going to remain relatively stagnant; furthermore, until income inequality is addressed, we are going to suffer more and more societal frustration and anger. Raising the minimum wage is essential for regular folks.
Amendment 71 - Constitutional Amendment Petition Requirements
The powerful special interests want to change the rules for their own benefit. Frankly, Colorado has done just fine with the process we are currently using.
Amendment 72 - Tobacco Tax
I have mixed feelings on this, but with the economy not performing as it ought to, well, raising taxes even on tobacco right now just doesn’t seem good policy to me. Furthermore, I'm not sure that this particular change ought to be enshrined in the state constitution.
Proposition 106 - Death With Dignity
The real ‘freedom agenda’ leaves you alone as much as possible … and I can think of no better example of promoting genuine individual liberty than to let you decide how you want to exit this mortal coil. The opponents are primarily theocrats and nitpickers who extol freedom as long as you chose their version of freedom. Please vote ‘yes’ on this proposal.
Party Primaries and the Political Process
The worst argument against these two proportions is that the two major political parties are ‘private’ organizations and that only their members ought to pick their candidates. Well, fine, then let them pick-up the entire cost of running primary elections and let’s revise the entire Colorado constitution and state statutes to eliminate any preferences whatsoever for the major party duopoly. These propositions are the least we can do to start making our government representative of all of us, Unaffiliated, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, etc.
Proposition 107 - Presidential Primary Open to Unaffiliated
Proposition 108 - Primary Other Office Open to Unaffiliated
Arvada Ballot Issue 2G - Sales Tax Increase
Something is wrong at Arvada City Hall … Vote No on Arvada 2G - 2016 Election
Arvada Ballot Question 2H - Pursue Government Internet
Really, are you kidding? A city government that can’t even keep our streets in good repair should be given any say in how our internet service is delivered?
Jeffco Schools Tax Hikes
As a strictly political observation this is a prime example of why Democrats get the tax-and-spend label attached firmly to their foreheads. Not a year has gone by since the school board recall put in all Democrats and their big solution to all the districts problems is to ask us for a BIG hike in taxes, debt, and interest payments ... at least a BILLION dollars. On a personal note, I vowed to myself not to vote for any tax increases for schools as long as the failed so-called Accountability-Standardized Testing-No Child Left Behind-Race to the Top policies are in effect. I’m sticking with my promise to myself. Let's be blunt, no matter who you elect, if you keep giving them more money nothing is ever going to change.
Jeffco Schools Issue 3A - Raise Property Tax
Jeffco Schools 3B - Increase Bonded Debt
Scientific and Cultural Facilities District - Renew Sales Tax
Of all of the 'extra' taxes we have, this is one of the best.
By Dave Chandler
For my Republican friends all I can say is that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States this November you can pat yourselves on the back for a job well done … because you did it.
Good grief, you nominated Donald Trump, what did you think would happen?
For many years now the inevitability of a Trump-like Republican catastrophe has been recognizable to any attuned political observer. Since the 2000 Bush Restoration (the Iraq disaster and the precipitation of the Great Recession), and the birth of the demagogic Tea Party in 2008, Republicans have given up their raison d’être to hucksters like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Louis Gohmert, Allen West, Sarah Palin, et al. Thoughtful formulation of conservative governing policy and philosophy jettisoned to make way for media sensationalism, celebrity, obstructionism, scapegoating, and raw nativism … characteristics now fully embodied in the candidacy of Donald J. Trump.
Especially since the election of the current President, the Republican Party abandoned traditional conservatism and became little more than a mob of rabid anti-Obama reactionaries, with predictable consequences: a presidential nominee who is a windbag New York real estate huckster and TV show host. For the party of Lincoln, TR, and Ike that’s pretty pathetic.
Meanwhile, since the ascendency 25 years ago of Bill Clinton, the establishment Democratic Party has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of America’s plutocratic corporatocracy — the New Deal as a powerful legacy is long gone — Clintonism has triumphed. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and their Democratic Party minions, despite Republican efforts to cast them as neo-Marxists, are, in fact, the epitome of the big business-corporate governing class — better Republicans in 2016 than most Republicans were even during the Reagan era. (By the way, the Clintonites are just as bad with the hyperbolic labelling, eg., ‘Trump is Hitler’ … the usual tendency of political tribalism that seems to always outshout vigorous, but rationale discourse.)
Clinton is a corrupt, cynical plutocrat and Trump is a reactionary, opportunistic buffoon. The two party system is broken and the evidence is that Trump and Clinton are their party’s presidential nominees. Big money, special interests, and decrepit party establishments have so compromised the Republicans and Democrats that they no longer represent even the rank-and-file of their own members, let alone the aspirations of most Americans. [Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominee, New York Times, August 1, 2016]
I laid out the case against Clinton in “A Thinking Person’s Guide To Why Hillary Clinton Is Not Fit To Be President Of The United States”. For me, having been a New Deal, pro-union Democrat in my youth, I feel a sense of betrayal in the Hillary Clinton candidacy, she represents so little of the principles I consistently advocated for in the past and so much of what I have been against. These days I am an eclectic political thinker with ‘conservative’ positions on some issues as well as ‘liberal’ ones — reason, facts, contemplation, and independence are qualities that I aim for — certainly not unquestioning party or ideological loyalty.
On display almost everyday is the case against Donald Trump — he is a boor and a wisenheimer. I simply can’t take him seriously; he demonstrates repeatedly that he does not have the knowledge or intellectual rigor to be President of the United States (I think he knows this himself, which explains his continuing careless, reckless, and inane rhetoric; it’s like he isn’t even trying very hard to be a serious contender for the presidency).
The Republicans have lost their minds and the Democrats have sold their soul.
Consequently, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump for President of the United States.
I will be voting my conscience and casting a ballot to strike in my own way against the decadent and destructive two party system. There are alternative candidates whose degree of success will send the message that we, the people, are demanding more honesty, integrity, and democracy in how our leaders and representatives are chosen. Consequently, this maybe the most valuable vote for President I have ever made — reform in our political and governing processes has to start now if the promise of this republic is to be renewed.
So, I’m not falling for the tired old argument that by casting a ballot for the Green or Libertarian candidate for President I am “wasting” my vote or am somehow actually picking Clinton or Trump. A vote in a representative democracy that is cast with good conscience and conviction is never “wasted” — for others to argue that is the height of arrogance and condescension towards you and me as equal citizens of this nation.
Your vote is your vote; it isn’t owned by anybody else or any political party.
I recommend “How Not To Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis"
Stephen Weese, Foundation for Economic Education, August 2, 2016
At the time of this writing I am considering a vote for Gary Johnson for President. I am not a Libertarian Party member and I have many disagreements with them especially on economic issues. However, I think that the Johnson-Weld ticket has governing experience that is lacking in the Green Party candidates for President and Vice President. I think that right now the Libertarian candidates are in a strategically better position to have an insurgent impact on the electoral process. In the event of a political miracle of cosmic proportions and Johnson is elected, the Congress, still dominated by stodgy old Republicans and Democrats, would stifle any Libertarian excesses … I’m not very worried about a ‘Libertarian’ takeover.
(By the way, I have a problem with the name of the Libertarian Party — genuine libertarianism is historically a form of socialistic anarchism, in many respects the opposite of the economic philosophy of the folks who appropriated the name for their political party in the United States.)
Of course, I am retaining the prerogative of changing my mind about which third party candidate to vote for … the Green’s Jill Stein and/or Gary Johnson both have more integrity than either Trump or Clinton, my overarching objective for this election is reform of our political system. Whomever is better positioned in November to further that goal will get my vote.
At this point, August 2016, my snapshot prediction for the presidential election is that barring a major unanticipated event, Hillary Clinton will crush Trump. For Republicans I think the situation is so desperate that their party may not even survive the rubble of the Trump cataclysm.
On the other hand, I hold out hope that Johnson or Stein get a high enough percentage of votes to telegraph to the nation that changes must be made that are meaningful, substantive, and revolutionary.
My forecast for another Clinton presidency is dire: Hillary is Richard M. Nixon redux, she is a scoundrel; and Clintonism is a prescription for social and economic tyranny at the hands of bankers, corporatists, and governing class elitists.
Heaven help us.
Take a stand and cast a vote for change … the revolution for real people power has to start somewhere at sometime.
I was born before the space age ... about a year before the launch of Sputnik. The Russians putting the first artificial satellite in orbit around the Earth changed everything, It became a national policy to encourage the development and study of science in schools, business, and government.
The modern miracle of the United States of America and the greatest technological advancements in human history occurred in this country in the the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s -- three decades in which we went from earth-bound human beings to Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon.
At school during those years we watched every space launch and science was accorded the status it truly deserved as the engine of human and American progress. We have reaped the rewards of that emphasis today in medical-biological advancements; the internet/computer/smart phone information bonanza; enhanced energy production from a range or resources; even more efficacious, cheaper, and high tech consumer products to make everyday living easier.
Then something happened: the rise of the religious right around 1980 and the emergence of 21st century rightwing reactionaryism. Now science is suspect and the fashionable 'conservative' mantra is to label inconvenient science as "junk science". The prime driver is political, not a counter scientific theory, but propaganda spouted primarily by those who make obscene amounts of money off of old technologies and legacy 20th century mega-corporations. They don't like the concept that there are negative consequences that have gone along with the many positive benefits of old production methods. So, instead of embracing the future, they have decided instead to preserve their cash flow and merely deny that serious human-caused global warming is a reality.
Nevertheless, the evidence bolstering human-caused global warming gets clearer and more substantial almost every day.
So, here are links to scientific papers and articles, gifs and charts that explain so much of the phenomenon that confronts us. I have grave concerns that it may indeed be too late to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic climate change enough to render the intermediate future pleasant ... as a species I think we may be in for a fairly rough ride. Nonetheless, knowledge is power and without understanding what is going on, we certainly cannot take any earnest action at all.
• • •
First, links reporting on a paper published earlier this year with a dire warnings. There are indications that the 'Day After Tomorrow' hypothesis may be happening.
The Struggle of Clear Climate Communication
Why it’s so difficult to talk about the new bombshell climate paper
(The Atlantic - March 23, 2016)
We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future
(Washington post - March 22, 2016)
No getting around it ... global warming/climate change is serious.
The Earth is warming at scary rates, and this GIF proves it
(Grist - May 9, 2016)
And ... let's be clear, humans are causing climate change. Believe your own eyes.
What's Really Warming the World?
(June 24, 2016 - Bloomberg)
• Click on this wonderful active presentation that graphically illustrates that it is not the earth's orbit, it is not the sun, it is not volcanos -- WE are causing global warming. •
And in language that anyone can understand.
Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know
(June 6, 2016)
Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950
Global warming attribution studies consistently find humans are responsible for all global warming over the past six decades.
(The Guardian - April 19, 2016)
About hydraulic fracturing, 'fracking' ... yes, there are sobering evidence about methane releases into the atmosphere.
Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry
Our leaders thought fracking would save our climate. They were wrong. Very wrong.
(Bill McKibben - March 24, 2016)
Finally, my point on so many problems that are confronting human beings on this planet: there are just too many of us.
Over-population is the real cause of climate change – it’s killing us all off
Despite all the warnings of global warming and imminent disaster, it is unlikely that we will change our ways until a real catastrophe actually occurs.
(April 23, 2014 - with four excellent videos)
By Dave Chandler
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe
Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton’s private server
(Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2016)
As federal agents prepare to scour roughly 650,000 emails to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, the surprise disclosure that investigators were pursuing the potential new evidence lays bare tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.
Metadata found on the laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter. ...
'She Created This Mess and She Knows It'
(The Atlantic, October 22, 2016)
The chief complaint that critics make about the Clinton Foundation is that the former and perhaps future presidents engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme, whereby donors—many of them foreign governments—would contribute money to the charity in exchange for access to Bill or Hillary Clinton, or worse, beneficial treatment from the State Department.
On Thursday, hacked emails from WikiLeaks suggest that is precisely what happened when the king of Morocco agreed to host a Clinton Global Initiative summit and give $12 million, but only if Hillary Clinton attended the May 2015 meeting. ...
That is why the Moroccan episode is such a quintessentially Clinton controversy. It’s not as if they are tone-deaf politicians. Like so many other “scandals”—from the alleged renting out of the Lincoln bedroom in 1990s, to the pardon of Marc Rich, to Hillary’s use of a private email server—the Clintons seem to know that what they are doing will look bad and raise questions of ethics and corruption, and yet convinced of their own righteousness, they do it anyway. And the fact that these lapses continue to repeat themselves so long into their time in the public arena offers little hope that the next four years of a possible Clinton White House would be any different.
The most revealing Clinton campaign emails in WikiLeaks release
The trove includes excerpts of Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches that were deemed problematic.
(Politico, October 7, 2016)
Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street
(New York Times, October 7, 2016)
Yet another Nixonian scandal tainting the Hillary Clinton candidacy: the disclosure by Wikileaks of the corruption at the Democratic National Committee.
See: The Scandals That Matter
* * *
Near bottom of this page is the latest on Hillary Clinton's lies and deceptions concerning her Secretary of State emails.
See: The Scandals That Matter
* * *
There are scandals, but it isn't mostly about scandals.
It isn't about woman versus man.
It isn't about age, looks, or demeanor.
The reasonable, rational case against Hillary Clinton for President of the United States is about lack of faithfulness to principles and trustworthiness.
To put it simply, Hillary Clinton has been on every side of almost every major issue confronting the country over the past two decades. You cannot believe her today because what she says today is likely different than what she said she believed last week, or last year, or when she was a Senator, or when she was First Lady.
We expect a certain level of “evolution” on issues from all politicians – that can be an indication of responsiveness to the changing will of the people. However, there is a level of trying to be all-things-to-all-people that speaks to a certain kind of manipulative character. Hillary Clinton's flip-flop list is too long and encompasses too many important subjects to be anything other than evidence of a deeply flawed personality.
Does Hillary not know what she really believes? Does she have ideological beliefs that she dare not share with us? Or are her principles so psychologically malleable that she sincerely changes her beliefs for political expediency, for her own advancement? Does she really even have political principles?
But there is this ... when examining the trajectory of Hillary Clinton's political history and governmental activities, it is abundantly clear that she and her husband are fully ingrained in the elitist cadre of Wall Street speculators, international banksters, military contractors, a myriad of powerful corporate special interests, and political insiders. Hillary Clinton is not one of us by any measure, she is indeed, emblematic of the .001 percent. What her fluidity on issues reveals is that she will say whatever is advantageous to her ambition and the best interests of the rarified elites with whom she has become so much an established member.
Presidential difficulties with honesty can have devastating consequences for the republic. For his slipperiness Richard Nixon was called 'Tricky Dick' and the line “Would you buy a used car from this man?” was (perhaps apocryphally) originated by comedian Mort Sahl to describe Nixon. My political intuition say there is a lot of Richard Milhouse Nixon in Hillary Clinton.
For Democrats and for liberals/progressives the alliances that the Clinton political machine has made have sapped the very soul and purpose out of the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. I cannot recommend strongly enough that these folks read the new book by Thomas Frank, “Listen, Liberal or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People.” (Amazon)
I was born during the Eisenhower administration; since 1968 I have been interested and active in politics (yes, I volunteered on my own in Wyoming during the Humphrey-Nixon contest); I've read history and politics extensively; and I've been a candidate for public office, so, I have some experiential depth – if we are indeed saddled with Trump and Clinton this will be by far the absolute worst choice of presidential candidates we have seen in my lifetime – it maybe one of the worst presidential election offerings in all of U.S. history.
For most of my life in politics I have tended to favor the honest, principled candidate over loyalty to any party or even strict adherence to political ideology. I will vote for a genuinely honest and forthright candidate before I choose one that merely fills in the check boxes on my issues list. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and independents – an honest and candid elected official, even one with whom I disagree, at least gives me a fighting chance to be heard and let's me know where I stand. An honest and principled elected official means that the compromise and checks-and-balances intrinsic to the governmental theory of the U.S. Constitution should protect us from destructive laws and policies. Conversely, with less than honest, only self-interested officials -- no matter how loyal they are to 'party' -- all bets are off for good or even tolerable outcomes.
* * *
The list of Hillary Clinton flip-flops is truly astonishing, especially from someone who takes herself so seriously and expects the voters to do likewise. She is not honest, she is not trustworthy.
For me this is a disqualifier for the office of President of the United States.
As of today, however, I offer no advice on what to do if we are so unfortunate as to have Trump and Clinton as the major party nominees. This is an unusual election thus far … I will just wait and see what transpires.
• Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
FLIP: Secretary Of State Clinton took "A Leading Part In Drafting The Trans-Pacific Partnership." "She's pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China's shadow. She's also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors."
(Elizabeth Dwoskin and Indira Laksmanan, "How Hillary Clinton Created A U.S. Business-Promotion Machine," Bloomberg, 1/10/13)
FLOP: October 2015, Clinton announced her opposition to the TPP. "After months of delicately avoiding expressing an opinion on the controversial trade deal, Mrs. Clinton said the agreement in its current form did not meet her high bar for protecting American workers, the environment and advancing national security… But while Mrs. Clinton's opposition to the trade pact could do much to appease Democratic voters and labor unions that have seized on the deal as a symbol for the perils of globalization, her decision to repudiate a major legislative goal of Mr. Obama's - one she initially supported - carries significant political risks."
(Amy Chozick, "Hillary Clinton Opposes Obama's Trade-Pacific Trade Deal," The New York Times, 10/7/15)
• U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS)
FLIP: Hillary Clinton slams proposed U.S.-Korea trade pact
(Reuters, June 9, 2007)
FLOP: In 2012, Clinton called the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement an "Historic Milestone That Will Lead To Even More Trade And Investment Between Our Two Countries." CLINTON: "Today, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) enters into force, marking an historic milestone that will lead to even more trade and investment between our two countries. KORUS will provide new market access opportunities in Korea's dynamic trillion dollar economy for U.S. exporters, creating jobs here at home while increasing opportunities for Korean companies in the United States. This agreement is another example of this Administration's commitment to deepening our economic engagement throughout the world."
(Press Release, "U.S., Korea Free Trade Agreement Takes Effect," U.S. State Department, 3/15/12)
• North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
FLIP: In 2006, Clinton said that she "Thinks NAFTA Has Been A Boon To The Economy." "CLINTON: Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy, but voted against the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, saying it would drive jobs offshore."
(Michael Rothfeld, "Newsday's Guide To Politics And Politicians," [New York] Newsday, 9/11/06)
FLOP: In August 2007, Clinton Said "NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum, Chicago, IL, 8/7/07)
• Colombia Free Trade Agreement
FLIP: In 2008, Clinton opposed a free trade agreement with Colombia, pledging to defeat it and claiming she'd do "Everything I Can" to reject it.
("Clinton Reiterates Opposition To Colombia Trade Pact," Los Angeles Times, 4/9/08)
FLOP: Secretary Of State Clinton said "We Are Absolutely Committed To Passing The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement."
(Hillary Clinton, Remarks With Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin, Washington, DC, 5/31/11)
• Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)
FLIP: Clinton, on the day CAFTA first passed the Senate in 2005: "This Is A Sad Day For Supporters Of Free And Fair Rules-Based Trade."
(Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 6/30/05, S. 7731)
FLOP: As Secretary Of State, Clinton touted her efforts relating to CAFTA and said "We've Worked To Promote Growth And Create Jobs Through … Multilateral Pacts Like NAFTA And CAFTA-DR."
(Secretary Hillary Clinton, Remarks At Pathways To Prosperity Ministerial, San Jose, Costa Rica, 3/4/10)
TAXES AND SPENDING
• Raising The U.S. Debt Limit
FLIP: In March 2006, Clinton called a vote to increase the debt limit "A Failure Of Fiscal Discipline … A Failure Of Foresight, Vision And Above All A Failure Of Leadership." (Press Release, "Sen. Clinton Issues Statement On Senate Vote To Increase Federal Debt Limit," Sen. Hillary Clinton, 3/16/06)
Senator Clinton voted against raising the debt limit three times.
(S.2578, Roll Call Vote #148 : Passed 68-29: R 31-15; D 36-14; I 1-0, 7/11/02, Clinton Voted Nay; S.2578, Roll Call Vote #148 : Passed 68-29: R 31-15; D 36-14; I 1-0, 7/11/02, Clinton Voted Nay; H.J.Res.47, Roll Call Vote #54 : Passed 52-48: R 51-3; D 1-44; I 0-1, 3/16/06, Clinton Voted Nay)
FLOP: In 2014, Clinton described increasing the debt ceiling as "common sense" and suggested she was "praying" Congress would vote to Raise it.
(Hillary Clinton, Remarks In Broomfield, CO, 6/2/14)
• Raising Payroll Taxes
FLIP: In 2008, Clinton had "flatly rejected" an increase to the taxable payroll limit, disagreeing with a plan candidate Obama had put forward to raise the taxable limit.
(Max Ehrenfreund and Anne Gearan, "Clinton Is Open To Raising Social Security Taxes On Six-Figure Earners," The Washington Post, 8/12/15)
FLOP: At a town hall, Clinton called the current limits "unfair" before "suggesting an increase in the limit."
(Max Ehrenfreund and Anne Gearan, "Clinton Is Open To Raising Social Security Taxes On Six-Figure Earners," The Washington Post, 8/12/15)
• Arming Syrian Rebels
FLIP: "Clinton Publicly Expressed Doubt With Arming The Rebels."
(Dan Merica, "Clinton Dances Between Loyalty And Self-Interest," CNN, 8/13/14)
Secretary Clinton expressed concern that arming Syrian rebels could lead to weapons going to al Qaeda.
(Wyatt Andrews, "Clinton: Arming Syrian Rebels Could Help Al Qaeda," CBS News, 2/27/12)
FLOP: Clinton advocates for arming Syrian rebels.
(Michael A. Memoli, "Clinton Distances Herself From Obama On Islamic State," Los Angeles Times, 7/30/15)
• Syria's Bashar Al Assad's "Reformer" Credentials
FLIP: In 2011, Clinton said Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was "A Reformer."
(CBS's "Face The Nation," 3/27/11)
FLOP: Clinton claimed that as Secretary, she viewed Assad as the "principal threat in the Syrian conflict because of his "ruthless behavior toward his own people."
(MSNBC Live, Hillary Clinton Interview With Al Sharpton, 9/30/15)
• U.S. Embargo On Cuba
FLIP: Campaigning for the Senate in 2000, Clinton said "she would oppose lifting the embargo against Cuba until democracy took root there."
(Dean E. Murphy, "Mrs. Clinton Suggests That U.S. Engage Aggressively In World Affairs," The New York Times, 10/18/00)
FLOP: In July 2015, Clinton called for a lifting of the U.S. embargo against Cuba.
(Michael Vasquez and Jenny Luna, "Hillary Clinton In Miami: Lift The Embargo Against Cuba," Miami Herald, 7/31/15)
PolitiFact: "Clinton Has Made A Full Change Of Position" On Cuba, So We Rate It A Full Flop."
(Amy Sherman, "Did Hilary Clinton Change Position On The Cuba Embargo?" PolitiFact, 8/3/15)
• Iran's Right To Enrich Uranium
FLIP: Clinton said in 2010 that Iran could enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
(Kim Ghattas, "Clinton Urges Iran To Fully Engage In Nuclear Talks," BBC, 12/3/10)
FLOP: Clinton, August 2014: "I've always been in the camp that held that [Iran] did not have a right to enrichment." (Jeffrey Goldberg, "Hillary Clinton: 'Failure' To Help Syrian Rebels Led To The Rise Of ISIS," The Atlantic, 8/10/14)
• Iraq War
FLIP: Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote.
(CNN, April 21, 2004)
FLOP: Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake'
(Politico, May 19, 2015)
FLIP: Did Hillary Clinton Just Admit on LIVE TV That Her Iraq War Vote Was a Bribe?
(U.S. Uncut, March 15, 2016)
The real Benghazi scandal that is ignored: How Hillary Clinton, the Obama admin. and NATO destroyed Libya
Republicans are trying to create a scandal where there isn't one -- while they ignore the biggest scandal of all
(Salon - Ben Norton, October 25, 2015)
• Honduras Coup 2009
Clinton insists she hasn't changed her position on 2009 Honduras coup
(Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2016)
"She's Baldly Lying": Dana Frank Responds to Hillary Clinton's Defense of Her Role in Honduras Coup
(Democracy Now!, April 13, 2016)
Before Her Murder, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Criticism
(The Nation, March 10, 2016)
• Keystone XL Pipeline
FLIP: Clinton favored construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
(Alex Seitz-Wald, "Hillary Clinton (Finally) Comes Out Against Keystone Pipeline," MSNBC, 9/22/15)
In October 2010, Clinton said she was "inclined" to approve the Keystone XL pipeline because "we're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada."
(Hillary Clinton, Remarks On Innovation And American Leadership To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 10/15/10)
FLOP: Clinton announced that she opposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. "Hillary Clinton moved from being 'inclined' to support the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to announcing Tuesday that she'd oppose it. The move that comes as the former secretary of state seeks the Democratic presidential nomination and felt pressure from rival candidates as well as environmentalists and progressives."
(Theodore Schleifer, "Hillary Clinton's 5 Takes On The Keystone Pipeline," CNN, 9/22/15)
Clinton: "Therefore I oppose it and I oppose it because I don't think, I don't think it's in the best interests of what we need to do to combat climate change."
(Hillary Clinton, Remarks At A Community Forum In Des Moines, IA, 9/22/15)
• Ethanol Mandate
FLIP: "Clinton Opposed The Ethanol Mandate In The Senate In 2002 And Called It A 'Tax.'"
(Timothy Cama, "Clinton Meets With Ethanol Representatives," The Hill, 4/15/15)
FLOP: In 2008, Clinton announced that she was "strongly supportive" of an ethanol mandate.
(Timothy Cama, "Clinton Meets With Ethanol Representatives," The Hill, 4/15/15)
• Coal Flip Flop
Hillary’s Latest Flip-Flop: Let’s Keep Selling Coal
(Planet Experts, May 3, 2016)
• Natural Gas Hydrological Fracturing
FLIP: Hillary Clinton Tried to Push Fracking on Other Nations When She Was Secretary of State, New Emails Reveal
(Alternet.org, May 27, 2016)
FLOP: Hillary Clinton's Big Shift on Fracking
(Mother Jones, March 7, 2016)
• Deportation Of Illegal Immigrants Working In The United States
FLIP: Clinton In 2003: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
(Hillary Clinton, John Gambling Radio Show, February 2003)
FLOP: Clinton says she "would go further" than Obama on illegal immigration and "shield some Illegal immigrants from deportation."
(David Lauter, "Clinton Has Shifted Left, But So Have Americans," Los Angeles Times, 5/22/15)
• Deporting Children
FLIP: Hillary: Deport Kids. Just Not Too Many. During a Democratic forum Monday night, Clinton indicated she was against the recent raids carried out by the Department of Homeland Security—but deporting kids, well, that’s mostly OK. (Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast, January 12, 2016)
And less than two years before that, Clinton argued passionately that undocumented children in the United States be subject to deportation. On June 17, 2014, she told Christiane Amanpour that children fleeing from violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala shouldn’t be able to stay in the U.S
FLOP: Hillary Clinton’s Child-Deportation Flip-Flop
(Betsy Woodruff, The Daily Beast, March 10, 2016)
• Driver's Licenses For Illegal Immigrants
FLIP: In 2008, Clinton opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
(Lisa Lerer, "Clinton Patches Relations With Liberals At Campaign's Outset," The Associated Press, 4/19/15)
FLOP: Clinton said she supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
(Jose A DelReal, "This Time, Hillary Clinton Supports Giving Driver's Licenses To Undocumented Immigrants," The Washington Post, 4/16/15)
• Sanctuary Cities
FLIP: Clinton advocated for local law enforcement to ignore federal agencies requests.
(Hillary Clinton, 2007 Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)
FLOP: In July 2015, Clinton stated that San Francisco should have listened to the Department Of Homeland Security's request to deport this criminal.
(CNN's " The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer," 7/7/15)
• New Federal Gun Control
FLIP: During a 2008 Democrat primary debate, Clinton argued that federal "blanket rules" on guns "doesn't make sense."
(Christopher Massie, "Clinton In 2008: Federal Government Trying To Impose "Blanket Rules" On Guns Doesn't Make Sense," BuzzFeed, 10/3/15)
FLOP: Clinton "has made strict gun laws a centerpiece of her presidential campaign" and has become "one of the fiercest proponents of tougher gun control."
(Lisa Lerer, "Clinton To Push New Gun Controls After Oregon Shooting," The Associated Press, 10/5/15)
"Clinton Has Been A Strong Proponent Of Gun Control This Election Cycle."
(Christopher Massie, "That Time Hillary Clinton's Campaign Attacked Obama In 2008 For Flip-Flopping On Guns," BuzzFeed, 10/12/15)
• Gun Ownership
FLIP: In 2008, Clinton said guns were a part of America's "culture."
(Peter Hamby, "Clinton Touts Her Experience With Guns," CNN's Political Ticker, 4/12/08)
In 2008, Clinton sent out a mailer that "attacked Obama for first coming out in favor of a ban on handguns" and for saying that small town people "cling to guns."
(Christopher Massie, "That Time Hillary Clinton's Campaign Attacked Obama In 2008 For Flip-Flopping On Guns," BuzzFeed, 10/12/15)
"Obama Shot Back, Accusing Her Of 'Talking Like She's Annie Oakley.'"
(Christopher Massie, "That Time Hillary Clinton's Campaign Attacked Obama In 2008 For Flip-Flopping On Guns," BuzzFeed, 10/12/15)
FLOP: Clinton says "That gun culture in the U.S. has become 'say out of balance,'" and that "we've got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime."
(Laura Stampler, "Hillary Clinton Blasts 'Way Out Of Balance' Gun Culture," Time, 5/6/14)
• Gay Marriage
FLIP: In January 2000, Clinton said marriage should be "between a man and a woman" because "marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time."
(Jim Fitzgerald, "First Lady Opposes Recognition Of Gay Marriage," The Associated Press, 1/20/00)
October 2000: Clinton said "I don't support gay marriages…"
(Marc Humbert, "Hillary Clinton Says She Supports Vermont-Style Civil Unions," The Associated Press, 10/24/00)
FLOP: Clinton has evolved on same sex marriage and is thrilled that same sex marriages are "the law of the land."
(NBC, "Meet The Press", 9/27/15)
PolitiFact: "On Same Sex Marriage, We Give Clinton A Full Flop." "It's up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop."
(Amy Sherman, "Hillary Clinton's Changing Position On Same-Sex Marriage," PolitiFact, 6/17/15)
• Defense Of Marriage Act
FLIP: Clinton said that had she been in the Senate in 1996, she would have supported the Defense Of Marriage Act.
(Joe Siegel, "Hil Nixes Same-Sex Marriage," The [New York] Daily News, 1/11/00)
FLOP: In 2007, Clinton repudiated her support for the Defense Of Marriage Act signed into law during her husband's administration.
(Ben Smith, "Hillary Repudiates DOMA," Politico, 6/3/07)
FLIP: In 2008 Clinton stated that there was the possibility that vaccines were linked to autism. Clinton wrote, "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." (American Prospect, April 22, 2008)
FLOP: Hillary Clinton: The earth is round and vaccines work
(USA Today, February 3, 2015)
• Hillary Clinton Flip-Flops On Superdelegates
In 2008 Hillary Clinton wrote a letter to the superdelegates asking them to switch to her despite Barack Obama having more pledged delegates. Now that the shoe is on the other foot she has of course changed positions.
• FLIP: Clinton: Debate anytime, anywhere.
Debate-Ducking Hillary Clinton in ’08: Candidates Should Be Tough Enough to Debate “Anytime, Anywhere”
(The Intercept, March 29, 2016)
FLOP: Hillary Clinton Says No Thanks to Fox News Debate With Bernie Sanders
"We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California"
(TIME, May 23, 2016)
• Moderate, Progressive, Conservative?
FLIP: “I take a back seat to no one, when you look at my record, in standing up and fighting for progressive values”
FLOP: “I get accused of being kind of a moderate and center…. I plead guilty”
• Draft Registration for Women
FLIP: “Senator Clinton, do you think women should register for Selective Service?” Cooper asked at a South Carolina debate.
Clinton didn’t hesitate: “I do. I don’t support a draft. I think our all-volunteer military has performed superbly. But we’ve had women die in Iraq. We’ve had combat deaths of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do think that women should register. I doubt very much that we’ll ever have to go back to a draft. But I think it is fair to call upon every young American.”
FLOP: “I have to think about whether I think it’s necessary to go as far as our military officers are recommending,” Clinton responded.
“You know, from my perspective, the all-volunteer military has worked, and we should not do anything that undermines it because it has provided a solid core of people who are willing to serve our country. The idea of having everybody register concerns me a little bit, unless we have a better idea of where that’s going to come out.”
(Hillary used to support registering women for the draft, now she’s not sure, New York Post, February 4, 2016)
* * *
The Scandals That Matter
• 18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails
(BBC, October 27, 2016)
• An aide says he once arranged for $50 million in payments for Bill Clinton
(Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2016)
* * *
• As She Rakes in the Cash, Clinton Fundraisers Still Shrouded in Secrecy
Reporters cling to chain-link fences to catch fragments of private speeches to wealthy Provincetown donors
(Common Dreams, August 22, 2016)
* * *
• Top Clinton State Department aide helped Clinton Foundation
(CNN, August 11, 2016)
• Emails Renew Questions About Clinton Foundation and State Dept. Overlap
(New York Times, August 9, 2016)
* * *
• EXPOSED: New Leak Shows DNC Officials Tried to Destroy Bernie Sanders’ Campaign
(USUncut, July 22, 2016)
The emails show an unprecedented level of collusion between top party officials and political reporters at establishment newspapers, as well as DNC staffers obviously favoring Hillary Clinton while devising ways to attack Bernie Sanders. ...
Despite Wasserman Schultz repeatedly denied allegations that she was favoring Hillary Clinton in the primary, but WikiLeaks’ emails expose her treating the Sanders campaign as an adversary.
• New Leak: Top DNC Official Wanted to Use Bernie Sander's Religious Beliefs Against Him
(The Intercept, July 22, 2016)
• DNC Chair Resigns as Tensions Threaten to Roil Convention
(USNews, July 24, 2016)
• Wasserman Schultz immediately joins Clinton campaign after resignation
(Washington Times, July 24, 2016)
• Wasserman Schultz booed off stage in Philadelphia
(The Hill, July 25, 2016)
The corruption at the Democratic National Committee was not just talk, it was consequential.
• DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign
(Rolling Stone; Matt Taibbi, July 25, 2016)
... it shows that the primary season was very far from a fair fight. The Sanders camp was forced to fund all of its own operations, while the Clinton campaign could essentially use the entire Democratic Party structure as adjunct staff. The DNC not only wasn't neutral, but helped with oppo research against Sanders and media crisis management.
* * *
• Clinton Broke Federal Rules With Email Server, Audit Finds
(NBC, May 25, 2016)
• Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules
(Washington Post, May 25, 2016)
• Mika: It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out | Morning Joe | MSNBC
(MSNBC, May 26, 2016)
Hillary Clinton lied and dissembled repeatedly about her Secretary of State emails.
The FBI investigation has now confirmed Clinton's deception and recklessness.
AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe
(Associated Press, July 5, 2016)
Note that Hillary Clinton lies about the emails in a different venue than the above video.
VIDEO: Watch the FBI refute Clinton email claims
(CNN, July 5, 2016)
Hillary Clinton’s email problems might be even worse than we thought
(Washington Post - Chris Cillizza, July 5, 2016)
FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath
(The Hill, July 7, 2016)
I don't like Rep. Trey Gowdy ... he is in my judgement conceited, arrogant, and a political hatchet man; nevertheless, this questioning of FBI Director Comey by Gowdy is very revelatory of the elitist preference give to Hillary Clinton by the Washington, D.C. establishment.
Hillary Clinton disqualifies herself
(Chicago Tribune - John Kass, July 7, 2016)
State Department Reopens Internal Clinton Email Probe
(Voice of America, July 7, 2016)
The Clinton Contamination
(New York Times - Maureen Dowd, July 9, 2016)
Hillary Clinton simply has great difficulty telling the truth: Four Pinocchios here ...
Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’
(Washington Post, July 31, 2016)
* * *
• Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton… the Wall Street Journal tells us that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments including Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas …
(Washington Post, February 18, 2015)
• Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
(Mother Jones, May 28, 2015)
* * *
• Whitewater Rose Law Firm Billing Records
Elusive Papers of Law Firm Are Found at White House
(New York Times, January 6, 1996)
* * *
• “Stand By Your Man” Yes, Hillary Did
'90s Scandals Threaten to Erode Hillary Clinton’s Strength With Women
(New York Times, January 20, 2016)
... Her reflex was to protect him and his future, and early on, she turned to a longtime Clinton loyalist, Ms. Wright, to defend him against the allegations, according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral histories.
“We have to destroy her story,” Mrs. Clinton said in 1991 of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband’s first presidential campaign, according to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide who described the events in his memoir, “All Too Human.” (Three people signed sworn affidavits saying Ms. Hamzy’s story was false.)
When Gennifer Flowers later surfaced, saying that she had had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an “aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit” Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, “A Woman in Charge,” by Carl Bernstein.
Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.
Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton’s impulse to “blame the woman.” ...
* * *
• The Clinton Scandal That Still Matters Is Not the One You Think
(The Tyson commodity futures bribe)
(The Fiscal Times, February 2, 2016)
• Hillary Clinton's Futures Trades Unusual, Experts Say
(Los Angeles Times, March 31, 1994)
* * *
• $153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented
(CNN, February 6, 2016)
* * *
• Investigation: How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board
Nixonian style corruption.
(ABC News, June 10, 2016)
Yesterday’s Sunday Denver Post reports just the latest example of this: ‘Transit-oriented development chugging down the A-train tracks’.
Six high density, traffic congestion-inducing so-called ‘Transit Oriented Developments’ are noted in the article as a consequences of the opening of the ‘University of Colorado A-Line’ (yes, a public university bought the naming rights … an institution always angling for more money from the taxpayers uses its funds on that kind of frivolity).
Just as we see in Olde Town Arvada, all of these FasTrack train routes are geared towards increasing population and compacting more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces. Any alleged benefit of reducing automobile traffic congestion has long ago been obviated by the increase in the metro area’s population. Since train routes are fixed, their inherent inability to adapt to changing human behavior, i.e., where people want to go, means that cars and trucks are just as essential as ever for most folks.
Despite what train lovers may argue, FasTracks has always been really about politically connected developers, government power, the transfer of wealth from working people to bond dealers and bond speculators, and pathetically to a segment of elitists with an inferiority complex — about Denver’s standing as a “world class city”.
If instead of the tens and tens of billions of tax dollars spent on trains and interest payments, we had built a 21st century Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, we would have had a much more effective and affordable public transportation system already in place for the past a decade. BRT could have been routed and rerouted to where people actually live instead of “we know what is best for you” governments and urban renewal authorities manipulating the market place to force population into ‘Transit Oriented Developments’.
FasTrack is a failure — years and years behind schedule, billions of dollars over budget, totally irrelevant to mitigating traffic congestion and environmental concerns, and too expensive for most commuters.
But it is too late now … we will pay, pay, pay for this for decades to come.
The great irony for many residents and politicians of the oil patch is that we heard from many of them in 2012 that Pres. Obama was bad, bad, bad because of the high price of gasoline ... better vote for Romney; he'd get the price of gas down, right?
Now the cost of a gallon of gasoline in many parts of the nation is $2.00 or less and the price per barrel of oil stands at $40 or less. Predictably those same denizens of the oil patch now proclaim that Pres. Obama is bad, bad, bad ... it is somehow his fault that layoffs and bankruptcies are hitting the oil fields because the low price has taken all the profit out of production. The adage applies here: be careful what you wish for (but for the reactionary right no matter what happens, it is always Obama's fault).
The basic concept of Peak Oil that the end of the era of cheap, conventionally produced oil is upon us is an incontrovertible fact. Indeed, half of the petroleum produced in the United States today is through unconventional methods that demand a high price per barrel to make it worth extracting from the ground.
It is a flaw of capitalism that high price/high demand can lead to more production, but occasionally then oversupply and price collapse occurs causing economic dislocation, sometimes severe. And in the U.S. this is what has happened ... in large measure because junk bonds financed the tight oil 'fracking' drilling frenzy, to survive at all producers need to try and keep pumping even at a loss just to make interest payments, thus exacerbating the oversupply and low price problem.
Thus recession in the oil patch in the United States is primarily the fault of the petroleum producers themselves -- too greedy and too shortsighted. As usual, workers and their families suffer; owners, CEOs, bankers, bond dealers, and speculators just move on to other lucrative endeavors.
Whether or not we see a recovery in the price of oil remains to be seen, but circumstances tend to argue against that in the short or medium term. While actually Saudi Arabian production has remained relatively static over the last couple of years, Iran, Libya, and Iraq are putting more conventional (cheaper) product on the market. Furthermore, the anemic state of the U.S. economy (the still declining purchasing power of working and middle class Americans, i.e., the income inequality problem) likely means weak demand continues; indeed, we may be witnessing the beginnings of a deflationary spiral, in my estimation. 'Fracked' oil therefore may not return to profitability for a long, long time ... and that will have very little to do with environmentalists or Pres. Obama.
To further understand the intricacies of the petroleum situation right now, I recommend a very good podcast discussion between Jim Kunstler and oilman, Art Berman. Listen!
Dave Chandler accepts contributions -- not tax deductible.
7930 Kendall Street
Arvada, CO 80003