USA Today goes after Hillary

[lawpoke87]

Pretty tough stuff from the typical slightly left leaning rag. Here's the last paragraph of the opinion piece:

Clinton is the antithesis of that young captain, someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition. This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy. It is a question of character — not just hers, but ours. Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility. What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign. But beyond that, her responses to being found out — dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others — indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I definitely agree with most of those comments, but same sort of comments can be applied to Trump. Not having a better choice gets her the votes. A lot of people do care, that is why so many people are holding their noses when voting for Trump or Hillary.

The ones that do not care, or pay attention, or even understand are the mindless masses voting for Trump, or those who simply want the Democratic placeholder nod, as long as she is going to be representing the Democratic party.

 

[TUMe]

You have to wish that we could hit the reset button and do this campaign over again . I think neither of these candidates would get the nomination . Sadly , it doesn't work that way.

 

[TU_BLA]

I definitely agree with most of those comments, but same sort of comments can be applied to Trump. Not having a better choice gets her the votes. A lot of people do care, that is why so many people are holding their noses when voting for Trump or Hillary.

The ones that do not care, or pay attention, or even understand are the mindless masses voting for Trump, or those who simply want the Democratic placeholder nod, as long as she is going to be representing the Democratic party.

G$, there are a lot of people that simply vote by the (R) or (D) by a person's name, especially here in OK. No one knows anything about the candidates, listens to the news, or reads about their policy positions either in a newspaper or online. Or they choose to get their information from only one source (i.e. FoxNews or MSNBC) which only exacerbates voting for the party and not the individual running.

 

[TUMe]

G$, there are a lot of people that simply vote by the (R) or (D) by a person's name, especially here in OK. No one knows anything about the candidates, listens to the news, or reads about their policy positions either in a newspaper or online. Or they choose to get their information from only one source (i.e. FoxNews or MSNBC) which only exacerbates voting for the party and not the individual running.

I totally disagree with that . I Think this time people are more familiar with the candidates than ever before . The difference this time is that people are more locked into their positions than ever before . This is an election compromise is a dirty word . No one is unfamiliar with either Hillary or Trump and going by the party label .

 

[TU_BLA]

I totally disagree with that . Thing this time for people are more familiar with the candidates than ever before . The difference this time is that people are more locked into their positions than ever before . This is an election compromise is a dirty word . No one is unfamiliar with either Hillary or Trump and going by the party label .

In general. I wonder if the election commission in Oklahoma has available the number of ballots where someone fills in the "Vote Party Line" circle. Who are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz going to vote for? Trump, because he has the (R) by his name yet he called them names on live TV. Our political process has digressed to the level of voting for senior class officers in HS...who's most popular...except these individuals are granted actual authority and power and you can't escape them when the bell rings at 2:30pm.

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Agreed, TUMe. And hit pieces like this USA Today one only lock Hillary supporters in tighter. Matt Damon dogging Trump in the MIT commencement address? Just locked his supporters in tighter.

 

[TUMe]

If it was just about party then the primaries would not be so close and so bitterly debated .

 

[aTUfan]

Yeah!!!!!!

 

[lawpoke87]

It's a sad commentary on both parties when they nominate the likes of Hillary and Trump. If there was ever a rallying cry for a third party or parties then this election should be it. Unfortunately, I don't believe the money nor the press will allow for any third party to compete with the main two in today's political and media climate. Thus...we are stuck with these two options.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It's a sad commentary on both parties when they nominate the likes of Hillary and Trump. If there was ever a rallying cry for a third party or parties then this election should be it. Unfortunately, I don't believe the money nor the press will allow for any third party to compete with the main two in today's political and media climate. Thus...we are stuck with these two options.

Krystol's candidate sure wasn't going anywhere. French doesn't even have enough name recognition to run at this late of a date.

 

[aTUfan]

Does the libitarian have a chace?

 

[astonmartin708]

Does the libitarian have a chace?

If he gets on the debate stage later this year, he has a chance to outperform any 3rd party candidate in history... including Perot. I don't think he could win, but I certainly think he could make a difference in the outcome of the election, kind of like Nader did in Florida in 2000.

Maybe if the Libertarians have a positive showing, they'll get more traction in subsequent elections...

I say all this even though I don't necessarily agree with the Libertarian platform as a whole.

 

[aTUfan]

There was a report on the news that he needs to get 15% in some specific polls. Not sure of the details. The report had him at 11% after their convention.

I hope he gets it. I'd like to hear his views.

 

[astonmartin708]

My opinion of the libertarian party has always been 'Republicans that want to smoke weed too'

 

[TUBballJunkie]

My opinion of the libertarian party has always been 'Republicans that want to smoke weed too'

Nah, I like my wine and beer. I just don't care if you do it. I'll judge you for it, sure, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I'd say by far the biggest distinction from the republican platform is national defense and military spending.

 

[lawpoke87]

Nah, I like my wine and beer. I just don't care if you do it. I'll judge you for it, sure, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I'd say by far the biggest distinction from the republican platform is national defense and military spending.

I would argue abortion and gay marriage are also significant areas a distinction.

 

[astonmartin708]

There's also the problem that various Libertarians have drastically different ideas of how small their 'small' government should be. I don't believe in the ideals of leaving certain issues up to the states (because I think our society should have some sort of cohesive national consensus on certain issues like abortion, gay marraige, drugs, etc..) and I think states' rights is a main point of some Libertarians' philosophies.

I don't like the idea of shrinking the federal government to the same rate that the Lib. party does. Personally, I think many of the federal agencies have a purpose and usually do more good than bad.

 

[TUMe]

Like all political parties and religions, there is a wide range of beliefs, but basically Libertarians believe in governments, even state having very little involvement in our lives.

 

[astonmartin708]

Like all political parties and religions, there is a wide range of beliefs, but basically Libertarians believe in governments, even state having very little involvement in our lives.

To what degree? At some point, as you shrink government, things become more or less like the Old West...

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Like all political parties and religions, there is a wide range of beliefs, but basically Libertarians believe in governments, even state having very little involvement in our lives.

Agreed. I don't think Libertarians want state governments regulating marriage, drugs, abortion either.

And I wouldn't say Libs are pro-gay marriage. They are just pro-government shouldn't have a say at all for consenting adults. I think plenty of republicans would agree with the idea that marriage as a government institution is not necessary. Civil unions would do the trick. Heck, you can believe that and still not necessarily be pro-gay personally. That's basically where I am on legalizing pot.

 

[TU 1978]

 

[TUMe]

Not that I think Gary Johnson has any chance of being president but here is an interesting fact: During his 8 years as governor of New Mexico, he cut state spending but raised spending on education by over 30 percent.

 

[URedskin54]

Gary Johnson has just enough things that repulse conservatives and just enough things that repulse liberals to keep him from being a real player. Rand Paul on a libertarian ticket would have had a fighting chance.

In my experience though, there are a lot of libertarians that are really just conservatives or liberals but like the idea of being different.

 

[eastcane]

Pretty tough stuff from the typical slightly left leaning rag. Here's the last paragraph of the opinion piece:

Clinton is the antithesis of that young captain, someone with no honor, little courage and commitment only to her endless ambition. This has nothing to do with gender, party affiliation, ideology or policy. It is a question of character — not just hers, but ours. Electing Clinton would mean abandoning holding people accountable for grievous errors of integrity and responsibility. What we already know about her security infractions should disqualify her for any government position that deals in information critical to mission success, domestic or foreign. But beyond that, her responses to being found out — dismissing its importance, claiming ignorance, blaming others — indict her beyond anything the investigation can reveal. Those elements reveal her character. And the saddest thing is that so many in America seem not to care.

Who's opinion piece? Certainly not the newspapers. Good paper, not a rag.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Who's opinion piece? Certainly not the newspapers. Good paper, not a rag.

You must just like being a contrarion.

 

[eastcane]

You must just like being a contrarion.

I'd like to know the author of the piece, could have been Stacey Dash for all we know.

 

[WATU2]

I get emails containing a lot of the citations about HRC's dishonesties many of which fall into two categories: 1) Snopes debunks much of the story and 2) changes in position are equated with lying. The types of dishonesty one is left with (not saying there are none) does not worry me nearly as much as Trump's dishonesty, bigotry, and ability harm us both domestically and internationally where he has no judgement or experience.

Yes, I wish we had better choices, but the die is cast.