So, this little gem appeared in my Facebook timeline...and after laughing out loud, I decided I had to comment on it. Is Hillary truly the most qualified candidate? Is Trump the least qualified?
In the past 36 years or so, I can think of 2 candidates who are MORE qualified than Hillary is.
1) George H. W. Bush (#41) - The Left ridiculed Bush relentlessly when he was running for re-election against Bill Clinton, but that doesn't in any way diminish his many accomplishments.
- one of the youngest naval aviators (age 19) in World War II.
- was in combat during the War
- was a US Representative from 1967 - 1971
- was Ambassador to the United Nations from 1971-1973 (having been confirmed unanimously by the Senate)
- was Envoy to China 1974-1975
- was Director of the CIA 1976-1977
And, most importantly, was Vice President of the United States from 1980 - 1989.
Of course, he had a marriage and children along with running businesses, etc. The man was highly accomplished. And, unlike "co-president" Hillary Clinton, Bush's Vice Presidential role is actually a Constitutional role and not some made up crap like "co-president".
2) Bill Clinton (re-election) - When Bill Clinton was first elected President, he had been his state's Attorney General and Governor beforehand, both impressive leadership roles from which to launch a Presidential campaign. When he was running for re-election, he could add "President of the United States" to his resume - again, solid training for becoming President of the United States a second time. These were real Constitutional roles, not made up roles such as "First Lady" or "co-president" like Hillary has on HER resume.
So right there, we can see that Hillary is NOT the "most" qualified candidate in modern history. She has some laudable qualifications but her ONLY true Constitutional role was as Senator from New York (NB: Secretary of State is not a directly created Constitutional role).
Now, the bigger question: is Trump the LEAST qualified? In some cases, he may be, only because many Presidents were previously Governors or had other direct government experience. In other instances, he does have some solid qualifications in his role as CEO of Trump Corporation. He's run the company for almost 40 years, has properties around the world (thus having to deal with various laws in each country) and has interacted with various levels of government here in the US and around the world wherever he has built something. Whether his company is worth $1.00 or multi-billions, he is still a successful real estate developer. Having executive experience such as his is fairly valuable. It would be more re-assuring had he had some government position under his belt (Mayor, Representative, Governor, etc) but such is life. Some Presidents with lots of "knowledge" failed miserably at the job such as Jimmy Carter.
In the end, I'd take the above meme with a grain of salt .. a large grain. She has some qualifications, but certainly is NOT the "most" qualified in modern history.
When Donald Trump announced his run for the Presidency, one of his first policies was to state that he would rid the country of illegal aliens. The crowds roared approval, but the Leftists and their media accomplices began gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands.
Those were some of the words thrown about by the Left.
Yet, on an almost daily basis, newscasts have reports of illegal aliens murdering Americans or pushing drugs, etc. The occasional drug tunnel is uncovered to remind us how the drug lords will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to push drugs into the United States. Ironically, as Anderson Cooper was interviewing Trump on CNN, the crawl below the video had a breaking story of an illegal alien murdering a young American woman.
Yet, the Left continued to be appalled that Trump and his supporters would call Mexicans murders, rapists and drug dealers.
The fact of the matter is that Mexicans ARE murders, rapists and drug dealers...
Just like Italians.
Just like Irish.
Just like Russians.
Just like Asians.
Just like Cubans.
ALL massive immigrant waves, from the Irish and Italian waves in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, to the Cubans in the 1980s to the Mexicans in the 21st century, have had their share of bad apples. Why? Because they are human! And that's what humans do - rape, kill, push drugs.
WHY are we suddenly appalled when Trump brings this up? Why is it taken out of context and turned into something it is not (racism)? Why? Well, that's the way you win elections - you keep badgering the other side with "racism" and hope it sticks. Your side is, of course, "pure" and only sees immigrants, legal or illegal, as saints.
I'm not advocating that harm come to illegal immigrants - I'm not for vigilantes. But, EVERY major group of immigrants has gone thru a "hazing period" while they were assimilating into American culture - they were feared, shunned, run out of town...until the next bogeyman came along.
Let's call it what it is - The Truth; there ARE bad Mexicans and they need to be deported. Good Mexicans need to help that effort. Illegal immigrants need to be dealt with (even those law abiding ones) in a humane way, but we MUST recognize that they broke the law by crossing the border without permission. Can everyone be deported immediately? Of course not and truthfully, more than likely, very few (percentage wise) will be deported at all. But we should at least go after the criminal elements and start to secure the border to slow down and/or prevent more illegal crossings. We need to come up with a guest worker program that is fast, efficient and workable so people can come to America and fill jobs as needed.
Enough with the rhetoric on both sides. It's time to do something.
Imagine, if you will, Hillary Rodham Clinton never switched political parties and remained a staunch conservative Republican like her father. Now let's imagine she did everything as a Republican as she did a Democrat - that is, First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State...with all of the ensuing controversies.
Now, here's where YOU come in ....
1) If you are a REPUBLICAN, would you defend this woman? Would the State Department private server issue be just "a mistake"? Would Whitewater and any other controversy she's been in be just misunderstandings or perhaps a "vast Left Wing smear campaign"?
2) If you are a DEMOCRAT, would you defend this woman? Would the State Department private server issue be "forgiven" because she is SO qualified to be President? Would you fear her because you are afraid of a strong, independent woman? Would you cross party lines and vote for this woman?
Try to be honest in your answers. It's hard to undo your partisan feelings, but try to do just that and give us some feedback below. I look forward to reading your thoughts on this.
IF Hillary remained a REPUBLICAN, how would you react to her based on your own party affiliation?
I have been seeing articles about the concept of a Universal Basic Income, but never read them until a few weeks ago. There was a short article on MSN that I decided to read and it really got the wheels in motion. I thought I'd be against the idea, but it does seem to have some positives to it.
The basic idea is that starting at age 21, the government would give each citizen a fixed yearly income (the article I read mentioned $13,000). In exchange, it was proposed that various government programs could be dismantled including Social Security. That one idea sparked other ideas in me. And so I thought I'd write them down here.
First, I think that the base income should be $15,000 as I think that's about the average a Social Security recipient receives.
Now, let's look at the Federal programs that can be eliminated:
Social Security - with a guaranteed income starting at age 21, this is a no brainer program that can be eliminated. We also eliminate all the paperwork and deductions for employers, too.
Unemployment Insurance - this is another no brainer that goes into the dumpster and passes the savings to employers.
Workmen's Comp - another program dismantled.
SNAP ("food stamps") - buh bye.
The elimination of the first 3 programs listed would give a huge lift to employers. SNAP wouldn't be needed since essentially the basic income would be a block grant to individuals to do with as they please.
Remember, most states would also eliminate their corresponding programs, too. The elimination of all these programs, their red tape and sticky taxes would kick the economy into high gear almost overnight.
Minimum wage would be repealed, too (at least Federally). A guaranteed $15k income is essentially $7.50/hour. Since workers would now have some leverage, they wouldn't have to take any job just to survive - they can wait out for a decent paying job. Employers would have to offer at least $7.50/hour (plus benefits) to attract workers. As the economy slows, employers would necessarily lay off employees who would have the guaranteed income as a cushion. Once the economy picks up, hiring would pick up too - wages would generally head up as available labor pools dry up. Instead of the government artificially keeping unemployment at a certain level, we would obtain a more natural rate of unemployment - those who want to work will, while those who don't want to won't (NB: productivity may also go up as you would essentially have motivated workers working; lazy people need not apply). Now, no one is saying that $15k is a livable amount, but it certainly is better than 0. And people could marry or live to together without fear of losing any of their income - this would hopefully help keep families together more. The Federal Reserve would no longer have the "low employment, fight inflation" conflict - it could actually just worry about monetary policy.
This is just a sampling of the benefits (and pitfalls) of a Universal Basic Income. Apparently there are going to be pilot studies in various communities and in Canada. There will of course be huge social issues to contend with - for example, take a group of 20-somethings gangbangers that suddenly have a pool of $100,000 or more to commit crimes - what are the repercussions? Or someone who spends his or her money every year without saving any of it for a rainy day? How do we address business taxation? Individual taxation? And the biggest question - where does the money come from? Taxing "the rich" to pass it to the poor isn't a long term viable solution. A national sales tax would probably be a good idea to start - though states may cry foul.
Would any of the power brokers in DC be willing to give up their power and money (think government worker unions and the slush fund they get now via weekly payroll deductions, among other players)?
As a society, I think it's really something to think about - but we must analyze it in depth. The repercussions need to be understood and solutions developed before rolling out such a program.
Do you have any thoughts on this? Please share them with us below! Links to any articles discussing this idea (pro or con) would also be of value.
I think if we're honest with ourselves, we have to admit defeat, once again, in a national election. As of now, it's inevitable Hillary Clinton will win the Presidency come this November. The current of history is running in her favor and there seems little that can stop it.
Why you may ask? Let me outline what I see:
1) The Reagan/Bush Parallel: Though Clinton is not Obama's VP, she has taken on that role in this election cycle. Last year, while attempting to do it on her own, her campaign was lifeless. The Democrats were running scared that Hillary wouldn't be able to win. She was moving away from Obama and his policies and kept her husband Bill at arm's length. After much internal debate and thought, she "re-booted" her campaign and began to embrace the men in her life - like she has always done to get ahead. Suddenly, Obama was her hero and husband Bill was giving as many speeches and rallies as she was - it was hard to tell which Clinton was running for President. As Obama's poll numbers rise and Hillary's stated goals not to change any of his major victories (ie, the only one - Obamacare), there's little to stop her train before it hits 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
This is basically what happened when Bush ran in 1988 - people were so enamored with Reagan that his VP was swept into office in the hopes of keeping the Reagan Revolution alive. Sadly, we saw how things worked out and our hopes were quickly dashed by 1992.
2) Female Population - A quick Internet search shows that there are 5 million more women than men in the US. While all of the women may not be of voting age or eligible to vote or even vote for Hillary, the number is fairly insurmountable for any male challenger - white, black, straight or gay. Women rightly feel it's their time to shine. While they may not want Hillary as their standard bearer, she's certainly better than nothing.
2a) Is Trump really Ross Perot? - For those of you old enough to remember Ross Perot running against Bush and Clinton and pulling enough votes from Bush to make Clinton victorious, you have to wonder if Trump isn't doing the same thing? Is this all a scam on his part - saying and doing stupid things to make way for Hillary's victory? Surely a billionaire such as he can't be that stupid and say such stupid off the cuff things and still believe he can be President? What's his real motive here? We know the Trumps and Clintons have palled around in the past - are they now on the "outs" with each other or just while discussing politics (like Tip O'Neill and Reagan were)? Or was this all crafted by Trump/Clinton as some sort of revenge to the Republican Party, perhaps hoping to topple it altogether so it remains impotent for a long time to come? I have long suspected that Trump wasn't serious about being President and was only in it for nefarious purposes. Only time will tell.
2b) Inevitability of the First - Like Obama being the first "black" President (he's really mixed race but that ruins their narrative so he's "black"), Hillary being the first woman President will certainly impel many people to vote for her so they can be 'part of history'. I did that when I voted for Obama in 2008; I thought how historic it was to vote in a black man as President in the hopes it would heal and unite this country. I won't make that mistake again this time around but it's meaningless as too many people will jump on the "first woman President" bandwagon and vote for Hillary.
Do you agree, disagree or have any further insights into the 2016 election? Please share them below.
This 36 minute video from former Good Morning America weatherman, John Coleman, is an EXCELLENT and IMPORTANT video explaining how Global Warming/Climate Change became the hysteria it is today. I don't want to give away too much, but a former Presidential candidate started it all.
Get the facts here - well worth your time. You can listen to it in the background, even though there are some graphics worth seeing.
Give it look and then SHARE it EVERYWHERE you can! Thanks.