Saturday, September 17, 2016

Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton Both Suggest They Represent Something New, But Both Are Actually Same Old Same Old

Basically, this is a case of just the same old same old.

Yes, he has a different style, and this has accounted, in large part, for this candidate's popularity. However, his proposed policies  are actually nothing new. The only thing different in this case is the manner in which these policies are being pursued and advocated.

Of course, it might not be immediately obvious that Trump essentially proposes the same old same old trickle down policies as his Republican predecessors, because his delivery and tendency to run off at his mouth is very much not the convention for major party nominees. Plus, he speaks in such definitive terms, and for the gullible, there really is no doubt that he would be the one person to fix all of the country's problems.

In terms of substance, however, Trump really has not offered anything new. He just packages it up very differently, and in a very divisive manner. His economic policies would benefit the wealthy, much like the policies of Mitt Romney four years ago, or John McCain eight years ago. And we had presidents who got in and basically pushed forward similar economic policies, from Reagan to the two Bushes. And lest we forget, George W. Bush and his administration, specifically, happened to be involved in all manner of economic scandals and corruption cases, from Enron to Halliburton to the Great Recession that his policies helped to bring forth. And, of course, there was a bailout at the expense of American taxpayers. That money, predictably, went right to the top, straight to the same banks that caused the near economic disaster in the first place. If that bailout money had gone to the homeowners, the banks still would have gotten their money. Instead, it went straight to the banks, people lost homes, and within months of receiving this essentially free money, banking institutions started handing out the same kind of big bonuses to their CEO's and board members that had caused so many problems in the first place. 


Yet, we are getting ready to elect yet someone else so closely associated with economic scams and a big mouth, promising simply wonderful results and giving the false impression to the gullible that there is absolutely no risk, that Trump will somehow wave a magic wand and set everything right again! Really unbelievable!

Frankly, he is a pathetic candidate. It is depressing to think about, as he closes in on Hillary Clinton, and suddenly seems like he just might win.

Of course, a large part of the reason for that is because Hillary supporters are blind. They so much want their candidate to win, that they adamantly refuse to see that she is an extremely weak and, frankly, pathetic candidate in her own right. Some, I believe, feel that as a Clinton, she will bring back some of the old magic of the 1990's when their president kept winning battles against Republicans. Others want so much for a woman to finally be president, that they would put her in no matter what. They feel that it is long overdue for a woman to be elected into the White House, and so they are willing to let themselves believe anything about her, and truly seemed shocked - Shocked! - when other people do not hold her with the same reverence that they do, simply because she happens to be the first woman with this much of a chance at winning the presidency. 

Here is a woman who was fired for lying during the Watergate investigation, and who was essentially caught lying and in shady deals while First Lady both in Arkansas and the White House. Her opponent in the 2008 election, now President Barack Obama, already said that Hillary would say and do anything to be elected president, and that once there, absolutely nothing would change. She changes her story on so many things, yet her supporters would suggest that this is normal. Just a few days ago, I saw a Hillary supporter defend her ever shifting positions, suggesting that it was a sign of maturity, of changing opinions over time because wisdom comes with age. The fact that both she and her husband have an extensive history of changing positions which just happen to change based on what is most politically pragmatic at the time apparently never crossed this guy's mind. 

Think about it: she voted in favor of Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq, yet she continued to criticize his handling of it. She voted in favor of the bailout, yet also criticized it. She has ties to weapons contractors and has taken a hawkish stance, yet cautions us about voting for Trump, because he presumably would get us into a major war. She takes enormous sums of money (or sorry, "speaker's fees") from big banking institutions, yet claims that she will get tough on those same big banks. She talks about finally making the rich pay their fair share for once, yet she and her husband are involved in all sorts of scandals involving the airplane money with the Clinton Foundation. She appears to be lying about her health, something that came much more to light last weekend, when the cameras caught her in a very vulnerable position. Of course, we all have by now heard about her poor handling of the whole email controversy, and even in being excused from prosecution, she was blasted as having exercised extremely poor decision making. Let us not forget the Bosnia sniper fire story, which she repeated several times, pretty clearly for political profit, yet which she and her husband both claim to have a foggy memory about, similar to Reagan's question about remembering what you had for breakfast yesterday. And so on and so forth. Indeed, she is a Clinton, after all, and that means all sorts of controversies like these are going to follow her wherever she goes. She and her husband will always have explanations, brilliant explanation to sweep it all under the rug. Yet, there is this nagging sense that many people (a whopping two-thirds of Americans according to polls) find her to be untrustworthy. 

Most importantly, let us not forget that she and her cohorts had to resort to cheating in order to win the Democratic nomination, which once again, makes her have strong comparisons with George W. Bush. What she and the Democratic establishment did to make sure that she would be their candidate was nothing short of criminal, even though she herself, predictable, claims to have known nothing about it. Still, after Debbie Wassmern-Schultz was fired and in hot water for her role in this scandal, Hillary Clinton very quickly hired her for an honorary position in her campaign.

Surely, Hillary's supporters would equally quickly find a good reason for this, and be dismissive of any kinds of claims that there is something fishy in all of this. The last thing they would ever admit is that, in the best case scenario, their candidate exercised extremely bad judgment in this matter. And in the worst case, she is rewarding Wasserman-Shultz for criminal behavior that happened to be in Hillary's favor. 

Episodes like these would be the reason why people simply do not trust Hilary Clinton, and yet, Hillary still has her supporters. They look the other way or, much like their candidate, quickly explain away these kinds of awkward situations that place their candidate in a negative light, and seem to portray her as untrustworthy. They will always have explanations, and yet, they claim not to understand why people really just do not like or trust her. No, anyone who does not like her is automatically sexist. That criticism seems to have calmed down over the last few months, but it is that kind of thinking that will, if anything, exacerbate the situation, and make people trust her (and her unconditional supporters) even less. 

And she is supposed to be the best that the Democrats had to offer? They had a candidate their who offered the possibility of a real change, and they opted instead for the same old same old. The same old politics as usual. The same old name and face to supposedly resolve the new problems that the nation is facing. The same old same old games of politics by people who seem to truly believe that they are above the law. And the real problem is that they keep getting away with it, because of people like those unconditional supporters. And on the other side, within the Republican party, there are unconditional supporters who will opt for their candidate come what may. After all, the icon for the GOP is the late Ronald Reagan, who also lied a few times while in office, and earned the reputation as the "Teflon President." Until Bill Clinton took that title away, proving even less vulnerable to major scandals. 

This is what is supposed to take the country out of the depths of the problems that it now faces? Criminals posing as respectable and humble citizens, truly claiming to be "public servants"?

When you look at Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, is the first thought that comes to mind one that suggests that these two have the kind of humility to put the country before their own needs and desires? In both cases, an extensive history reveals otherwise, although to the unconditional supporters on both sides, there is a simple refusal to see this truth. No, to them, these are perfect candidates, who can do nothing wrong. 

It is just one thing after another with both of these candidates. I, for one, have grown extremely tired of this particular election. Never before have I felt that the level of failure, the proof that our system simply is not working, has been as glaringly obvious as it seems to be during this election. I thought it was bad back in 2000, but this is even worse! This one takes the cake!

Unfortunately, what this means is that the bar is getting ever lower and lower, and this election will provide for the real possibility that, in the future, things will grow worse still. Hard to believe, but it would not surprise me anymore. 

Neither of these candidates feel viable. Donald Trump might seem like something new, for better or worse, but his economic policies would continue to allow money to flow right to the top. As he always has, he is looking out for his own interests, at the expense of the rest of us. Take a look at this article below for more details on his proposed policies in greater detail:

Donald Trump Wants You Think He’s a Populist. But His Economic Plan Is Built for the Rich. 9.8k 169 257 By Jordan Weissmann

No comments:

Post a Comment