How to Ignore Hillary
How a Democrat can ignore the horrific factual data
Smoke, fire & lies
So in a world where it is generally believed that "where there is smoke there is fire," it has also become true that "if you tell a lie enough times and it becomes an accepted fact".
If it leads, it bleeds... and the viewers will follow
Another truth that this election has proved yet again is the old adage that "if it bleeds it leads". In other words, the more outlandish or controversial, the more coverage will be attained.
In all of the above, the most salient point we the public need to know is that the media today is all about getting eyeballs or ears, more than it is about presenting facts - or worse, having a social conscious or responsibility. The more listeners or viewers, the higher the ad revenue will be. In this scenario one can imagine what would happen if, for instance, 'Fox News' began slanting its coverage to favor Hillary Clinton and MSNBC began to slant its news to favor Donald Trump. It would not take long for the audiences to switch.
With the proliferation of media today, the public as never before can tune into the media outlet that tells them exactly what they want to hear - what they want to believe - and not what they should hear or believe. This makes it easy to have opinions ossify and become cast in stone. This is where we are in the 2016 election. It's no wonder each side will support their candidate no matter what negative revelations come out.
The lesser of two evils and wishes that won't happen
I have never seen or supported a candidate that 100% fit what I want to happen so every election was a matter of the best out of two choices. Or as some would have it, 'the lesser of two evils'. I also know that no matter who is elected, our system of government makes it difficult for dramatic changes to happen. Checks and balances are built into the system with every intention to prevent the dictatorship. So pronouncements by either campaign about what their candidate would do, are for the most part just wishes that wont happen. So who that relatively narrow independent section of the public "like' or "trust" becomes the central driving force on who will get elected. The only other thing that must be considered is 'fear' as we have seen that swing elections in the past.
All things considered my choice for President this time around must be Hillary Clinton. I see her negatives as follows.
1. The e-mail server issue is based entirely on the idea that use of a private server would give greater risk of being hacked - and therefore compromise national security, than if she had used the State Department server. Anyone who knows the reality of the internet world knows that there is no such thing as a secure server. All servers have been hacked and will continue to be so so whether a private or State Department server was used would make no difference on security. We don't want to advertise that US intelligence regularly hacks EVERYONE from Russia to even our allies, just as they hack us. There are no more secrets any more. So this reality makes the whole e-mail issue a silly ignorant issue for me.
The Iran nuke deal: Best and worst
The nuclear deal with Iran was the best option and no deal would have been the worst option. The fact that the Iranian hardliners and Republican Guard are opposed to the deal should make it obvious that it was to our advantage to have the deal. Paying money back to Iran with their own money was not an issue. It was not ours and to make any deal we would have had to give it back. Making sure we retrieved hostages only makes sense. If that had not happened, it would have created criticism as well.
The greenhouse-effected silver lining
On the positive side, there is no question that the most long term danger facing the US and the rest of the world is climate change. The US has already seen billions of dollars in damage as well as lives lost to its affects. This will worsen to the point that even the most ardent denier will have to face the reality.
Hillary knows it is real.
Citizens United is a bad deal. Hillary is against it. Roe vs Wade should stay in place and only a Democratic president will insure that.
Health care is an issue and no doubt "Obamacare" needs serious tweaking. The trade deals are difficult to judge as smart people on both sides of the argument have a case to make. Cheaper items at Walmart vs higher wages and duties on foreign goods will be an issue for a long time to come. No easy answers there.
Finally I want a smart, experienced, level-headed person in the oval office and a woman is not bad as well. I also want someone who knows the system and can work across the isle, making as few enemies as possible in the process or nothing will get done. Clinton has proven she can do that.
I welcome your response.