Saturday, October 15, 2016

Four Years

Four more years of corruption, the Republic can take. Wouldn't be the first time.

Four years of Benghazi, we can survive, even if four Americans did not. We can even survive another 9/11.

Four years of even groping by a sitting president (or blowjobs for a first gentleman, if that's more of your concern) would not permanently hurt us.

Thirty or more years of a either more conservative or more liberal Supreme Court, America will endure. It's swung in the past, it'll swing again, but over time the Court will go where Americans eventually go.

Dissolving alliances and allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons starts to get into very dangerous territory. Potential enemies perk up their ears in anticipation, and allies start looking out for themselves more. The horror of nuclear weapons has been counterbalanced thus far by the lack of real political benefits from their use, but we now have resourceful terrorists who do not seem to share that concern. But even that, we can survive.

What we cannot survive is a loss of trust in the election. Democracy only works if the result that you dislike (or even disdain) is temporary and that other citizens overruled you. If you think the elections are rigged, or that you're being outvoted by the "others," the only remaining course is violence: assassinations, coups, civil war.

In this election, one candidate has brought up "second amendment remedies," stirred hatred against Mexicans and Muslims, and is now suggesting that a loss would mean the election was rigged for no more apparent evidence than his bloated ego not allowing him to accept the results.

This is beyond dangerous, and the man must not only be defeated, he must be repudiated. American elections are not perfect, but they have remained remarkably fair. It's treasonous (metaphorically, anyway) to risk civil war for your own political ambitions, especially when you're running on a platform of supposed patriotism. America will be far better off when the losers accept the results without exception.

...

At the end of the final presidential debate, Trump refused to promise that he would accept the results of the election. This is a man who values his ego over his country. Please vote accordingly.

Monday, October 10, 2016

In-between Lines

I didn't really watch the presidential debates this year, mainly because it's probably bad for my blood pressure. I do read parts of the transcript, and a couple of things jumped out at me from the second debate.

First, a digression. If you're of a certain age, you might remember Bill Clinton's impeachment. He famously said, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is," which makes the expression "splitting hairs" seem unexaggerated in contrast. Of course he was lying, if not in words then in spirit, but it's important for now to recognize how fine he was trying to be. He knew exactly where the line between the truth and falsehood lie, and skated up as close as he possibly could to it.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, said in the debate, "nobody has more respect for women than I do," literally just seconds after apologizing what he said had been embarrassingly bad judgement. (I'm paraphrasing, but yes, he used those words.) This is curious. How can he possibly think nobody has more respect for women? He clearly recognizes that only "stars" like him get to treat women like that, so wouldn't normal people have more respect for women? The other explanation, which is more plausible once you observe his speech pattern, is that he lied. He knows he doesn't respect women, and he knows that you know it, but he just doesn't care if the words that come out of his mouth are true or false.

I don't intend to judge whether Clinton or Trump is worse, just noting a difference.

On the subject of Russian involvement in Syria, the moderators cited Mike Pence as saying that:
provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.
to which Trump responded, "He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree."

Let that sink in for a moment. He couldn't stop talking about Syria and ISIS like it's the most important thing, but he hasn't spoken to his VP candidate about how to deal with Russian involvement? Anybody who pays the least bit of attention to Syria will know that the Russians are a major player, and no solution is possible without dealing with Russia. Yet the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates have not spoken about Russians in Syria?!

We're talking about a basic policy position regarding Assad and Russia, not some minor policy detail. They haven't spoken about it, even though ISIS appears to be a top foreign policy concern, or at least an area he hopes to hit Hillary Clinton on. He openly praised Vladimir Putin as a "strong" leader, so it's clearly not because he lacks respect for the Russian. So how could they not have discussed how to deal with Assad and his Russian puppet master, leading to an embarrassingly public disagreement?

The mind boggles. There really hasn't been a presidential candidate this unprepared for office in living memory.

At this point, I think it'd be best if the third and final debate could be hosted by Nickelodeon, consisting entirely of slime and physical challenges.