Skip to main content

Election 2016, and why #ImWithHer and #NeverTrump

Note: This was originally posted a little over a week before election day. It is edited to have my list of posts in the series at the top:
Hello, all.  I haven’t blogged in some time, but I thought that this election season was too much to pass up.  I’ve written several posts, and I’m going to put out one a day for the next week or so.  I plan on coming back to this post to update it with links as I do.

The overall idea behind these posts is why I voted for Hillary Clinton in this election, and why, to me, this was a positive decision and easy to make.  Against Trump and all of his flaws, Hillary was by far the winner.  I’ll cover why some of his scandals matter, why hers don’t, why third parties were not a viable option, what the Republicans have given up in throwing in with Trump, and finally my positive reasons for voting for Hillary.

I don’t want to hide the ball. I’m a political moderate, with strong social libertarian views and moderate views on fiscal items likes spending, regulations, and the debt. In another era, I would be a swing vote, but today being moderate means I’m most closely aligned with Democrats.

But these blogs won’t be about the policies, except in passing, mainly because I don’t think people are voting about policy, and I know that the discussions I see have little to do with policy. On my way to vote, I saw an older gentleman holding a Trump/Pence sign on the street corner – which is not just fine, but great – but above that sign was another that said, “A vote for Hillary is a vote for,” followed by a picture of a devil. People call her, literally, “evil.”  If you ask for specifics, there is a bunch of judgmental terms and conspiracy theories, often accompanied by such literary gems as “Killary” or “Hitlary” and references to the “Clinton body count.”

To be fair, those on the left are also not discussing policy. It is about Trump’s “locker room talk” video, his crazy focus on items that make him look unhinged in late-night twitter tirades, etc. I would love to talk policy, but it’s just not what this election is about.

Here is what I will be talking about:
I’ll come back to this post and edit it to have links to the above when they are posted. And tonight I’ll push out two posts: this one and the one on the GOP giving up the moral high ground.

One final note: I link to a lot of sites in these posts. Sometimes I tried to find “neutral” sites, but often I did not. My litmus was whether they showed the empirical evidence, so sometimes I have liberal sites like DailyKos, sometimes conservative sites, etc.  I often wanted to find an aggregate of links on a particular subject, so I would search by a biased phrase like “trump flip flop abortion.” Unsurprisingly, those words did not show up as often in neutral sites as they did in biased ones. So, for those that want to debate the sources, do so by showing that the information is wrong, not by an inverse appeal to authority.  (Well, do what you want, but I will just refer you back to this point.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more