On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:12:36 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:
<snipt>
Post by Francis A. MiniterHi Mique,
I will mention a few points only. President Obama's administration was
actually the cleanest in decades. There is on Wikipedia an article that
tracks all the scandals in every presidential administration, at least
in living memory. Check it out. The Obama Administration was, by far,
the cleanest. In a hundred days, the Trump Administration has
outstripped every other one in numbers and seriousness.
What is the Wikipedia link to that, Francis? Not that I doubt that
it's true, at least numerically, but we may have different definitions
of corruption. I think Victor Davis Hanson's little list is a good
guide. It's a long list which I'll post a link to when I find it.
As I think I've often mentioned here, I would have voted for Obama in
2008, despite having serious doubts about his qualifications and
suitability. But by the time 2012 came around he was top of the list
of worst presidents in my living memory and that goes back to at least
Truman and bits of FDR. He started to lose me with his interference
in the Skip Gates case and had done irreparable damage by his actions
in the Zimmerman case. It only got worse after that.
Post by Francis A. MiniterClinton was not a toxic candidate. She won the popular vote by 2.9
million votes. And she only lost three critical states, Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Wisconsin, by 78,000 votes, cumulatively, out of 14,000,000
votes cast.
Which all serious commentators on both sides seem agree was due as
much as anything else to her total neglect of the rustbelt states in
her campaign.
Post by Francis A. MiniterWhy did she lose? Several things: (1) Many would not vote
for her simply because she is a woman. America is still well behind the
world in recognizing the competence of women.
Once again, VDH - among others - disagree. See here:
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/how-to-blow-an-election-in-five-easy-steps/#more-10163
(2) Russian interference
Post by Francis A. Miniterat the Internet level with many fake stories (like the one that she ran
a child sex abuse ring out of a pizza shop in D.C., which led one idiot
to show up there with an assault rifle seeking to free the kids).
That's one fake story that didn't make it to Oz or at least that I
saw. The main fake news I saw came from the usual US suspects, eg the
NYT, Washington Post and so on, the unbelievable bias of which
(omission of any stories unfavourable to Clinton) was so evident that
the NYT even came out with a pseudo-apology after the election for
misleading its readers and promising to do better.
Post by Francis A. Miniter(3) Comey's October surprise.
Comey's October surprise was only possible because Clinton and her
team, particularly Abadin and Podsta, did everything illegal that they
were accused of doing and, no doubt, there's much still to be
uncovered. I agree the man is a dickhead who should have been fired
by Obama the moment he appeared on TV. I also agree with many
commentators that it's amazing that the sudden "school-of-fish" change
in direction by the liberal commentariat didn't break their collective
necks. Oh, the steaming hypocrisy. Trump fired him ugly, but his
being fired was unavoidable.
I don't believe that the Russians had anything significant to do with
trashing Hillary's chances. She did the crime., and the Russians
would have had nothing to contribute if she hadn't.
One commentator, perhaps the very conservative Diplomad 2 - a retired
FSO with 30-odd years in State, the latter few working for Clinton
whom he hates with a passion - makes the point that one of Comey's
major blunders was to allow himself to become a familiar media face.
He noted that FBI Directors since Hoover have made it a point to stay
out of the news, and he challenged anyone to think whether they could
name anyone other than Hoover as FBI Director until Comey. Many
Americans probably can, but I have certainly no idea.
Post by Francis A. Miniter(4) She did not portray a warm personality.
She talked about things like education, while Trump screamed about
Mexican rapists. She stirred minds while he stirred emotions.
Don't you have any recollection of Benghazi, where she lied about the
cause, lied about why no action was taken to relieve the situation on
the ground, lied to the families of the victims blaming some poor
idiot for a trashy video that never saw the light of day outside the
US if it got out of his city or state. That alone apart from the many
other debateable foreign policy outcomes during her reign at State
rendered her a toxic candidate in my view and in that of many
commentators. Who could possibly trust her?
Don't you think that the doubts about the apparent (and in many cases
proven) pay-for-play abuses of the Clinton Foundation during her
tenure at State for her and her family's self-enrichment raise
questions of about her probity? Our ridiculous Foreign Affairs
department contributed something in the order of tens of millions to
the Clinton Foundation which nobody can find any evidence that the
money was spent as it was supposed to be. And then there's their
crony corruption in Haiti.
Bluntly stated, self-evidently the woman is a sleaze as was, and is,
her husband. That Bill was a fair average president is, I think,
beyond dispute, but neither he nor his missus should ever have gotten
within a mile of the White House. If other Presidents and their
consorts have been crooks, I can't think of any during my lifetime who
were ever quite so brazen. Oh, and spare me the argument that they
have never been convicted of any crime. From this distance, the
American justice system appears to be utterly corrupt, with only
ordinary people without political connections ever seeing the inside
of a jail. (Rare exceptions, eg Martha Stewart and Bernie Madoff.)
Sad to relate, that particular virus appears to be well-established
down here. My son is a lawyer and both I and my younger brother
studied law for some years. When I worked in a law office in the
early 60s, the Law Society and Bar Association practice rules
prohibited what was called "touting for business", meaning that
lawyers could not advertise anything beyond a change in practice name,
telephone number and address. Class actions as such were barred.
While I have mixed feelings about class actions, believing that
properly managed and controlled they give a voice to people who
otherwise could not afford justice, I think they have corrupted
lawyers and the law. (Current practice among the major class action
law firms down here has proven that the main, perhaps the only,
beneficiaries of such actions are the law firms themselves and their
underwriters. There's a book to be written about a recent case down
here concerning the victims of a major bushfire who one tens of
millions in a case but who have not yet, years later, received a penny
while the firm's principals have paid themselves the entirety of their
"costs" from the payout - in the millions, holding the unpaid balance
in their trust account far beyond any reasonable time while the
victims wait.)
Post by Francis A. MiniterI am not quite sure what you mean by weaponization of the judiciary. If
you mean that Republicans appoint conservative judges and justices and
Democrats appoint liberal judges and justices, at least that leads to a
range of ideas in the courts. The Supremes seem to be able to live with
it reasonably well. And if you look at all of the decisions in any one
year on the Supreme Court (about 600 of them in any year), you will see
that the justices mostly agree most of the time. There are only a few
issues which bring out strong emotional disagreements.
For instance, the Court recently declined to take the North Carolina
voter ID case on technical grounds. It would only have taken four votes
to have the court hear the case. And there are now five conservatives.
But four votes were not found, and Justice Roberts, a conservative,
wrote the opinion declining the case.
I think it's wrong that political battles are fought in the courts.
What I would hope for is a system where the Congress makes the law and
the Supreme Court takes a more passive role in determining its
compliance with the Constitution. In this I am closer to, but not
entirely, the traditionalist stance. I think unconstitutional law
should be sent back to the Congress and/or State legislatures for
amendment, and that the status quo ante should persist pending any
such amendment.
As things stand, I think the American electorate focusses far too much
on what is perceived to be at stake or as opportunities to make law
by-passing the democratic process. The prospects of Rowe v Wade seem
to govern people's thinking far more than much more vital interests,
eg the economy, foreign policy and so on that the Federal Government
should be more concerned with. Personally, while I am pro-choice, I
think Rowe v Wade is a stinking pile of intellectual ordure exceeded
only by the recent gay case. Of course, on the other side, you have
the fear that Second Amendment rights will rip the guns out of their
hot living hands. Pure emotionalism and stuff all logic in either
case.
To achieve a less politically charged court is probably impracticable
at this stage, but I fear their will be a new revolution if something
is not done to reunite the tribes that the Obama administration has
done so much to drive apart. That alone will seal his legacy as a
disatrous president.
Hillary will only have provided 8 more years of the same or worse.
It's past time for a house-cleaning on both sides.
Mique
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus