PeterZ wrote:Daryl,
In a previous post you proudly proclaimed that you were progressive if you had to choose a label. That you believed the progressive ideals would eventually supplant other beliefs such as mine in the fullness of time. I took you at your word. Thank you for clarifying your belief structure further.
That does not refute my objections to your initial post. You supported Clinton and believed she was the best candidate based on your values. Well and good. Yet, those values would seem a bit flexible if Clinton passes muster for you in terms of her honesty, patriotism, concern for the less fortunate and belief in giving everyone a fair go.
I hope that your country never has to deal with choosing between a known unpleasant candidate and an apparently less unpleasant unknown candidate with the potential of being better. It was a hope and prayer election that has turned out to be better than I had feared. Our leftists here have fought the President's America First agenda tooth and nail. Which I take as evidence that he is doing the right thing for our nation.
This last point is based on the US progressives' complete disgust for any thing remotely considered US patriotism. I love my adopted country dearly, just as you love yours. Being attacked in part because of that love of country does not endear them to me in the slightest.
Daryl wrote:Once again you make the incorrect assumption that anyone who disagrees with you falls into the designation of a "leftist".
I have a variety of values and opinions, and it's true that many would be seen by you as being "leftist". However I am fiercely to the right on personal and country security.
As to Clinton and Trump, I was surprised that a country of 320M plus put those two up. Neither would get any respect from me.
My values include patriotism, security, respect for the less fortunate, total lack of respect for the dishonest, and a general fair go for all.
I admit to not respecting religion, or those who worship the dollar. We are all products of our environment, mine is different to yours, but closer to western Europe.
Just to comment on this aspect of the 2016 election and also the 2008 election.
I was no fan of Senator McCain because I remembered the Keating Five Savings and loan scandal. His only claim to virtue is that he was the one Senator who didn't accept the briefcase full of cash. Given the fact that his wife was an extremely wealthy heiress of a beer distributorship, that was no great virtue.
I was also vaguely aware of Senator MacCain's enthusiastic philandering after his release from the Hanoi Hilton. Although there were mitigating circumstances, it didn't speak well of him.
More importantly to me, Senator MacCain's efforts to redeem himself for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal by "reaching across the aisle" offended me. He was also a complete idiot on energy policy.
As a result of my displeasure with Senator McCain, I seriously evaluated Senator Obama. At the time, Senator Obama had positioned himself as a moderate liberal. He professed opinions on several issues that I actually respected. Obama lost any chance of getting my vote when his association with the Reverand Wright was exposed and Obama gave his infamous "crazy uncle in the attic" speech.
I was willing to "hold my nose and vote for McCain" until he selected Governor Palin to be VP. I was familiar with Governor Palin because I am an energy policy geek. He staunch advocacy of paying dividends to citizens on oil extraction is brilliant policy to motivate the electorate to make intelligent decisions. Her other positions on tax policy and spending met with my approval. I confess that I didn't know what Governor Palin looked like until Rush Limbaugh's drooling over the radio inspired me to call my then 18 year old son and ask him to turn on the television news. His "oh my God," reaction was priceless. Given my concerns about demographics and population implosion, the prospect of an accomplished VP then President who had given birth to five children was exactly what was needed to inspire Americans to start procreating rather than just fornicating. America elected Obama and birth rates have fallen to historic lows as a result.
Unfortunately; Senator McCain's "I'm suspending my campaign to work on the mortgage crisis" revealed him to be a panicked old man. Obama managed to appear to be confident if not competent. Bush was to eager to pass the buck to his successor. Governor Palin was pilloried for having the audacity to talk about who and what had caused the mortgage crisis. (Read Architects of Ruin).
Romney was a none entity to me who received my vote only because I hated Obama.
Fast forward to 2016 and Trump was absolutely not my first choice for President. I was well aware of his repeated philandering. His bankrupties were far from unusual in the real estate industry and the creditors usually suffer minimal losses, but it was unimpressive. Then Governor Palin anointed Trump. It became obvious that the two had made plans over a very public pizza lunch in 2012. I then listened very carefully to Trump during the debates. He was the only man with a plan (Congresswoman Bachman was not doing well).
Now fast forward to the current impeachment proceedings. President Trump is accused of threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine to motivate their President to reopen an investigation of an oil and gas company that gave Vice Pressident Biden's cocaine addicted son a multimillion dollar per year for a job that he was totally unqualified for in return for VP Biden using his influence to get the US to give billions of dollars in US aid to Ukraine. This is in context of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exploiting her position to solicit hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation slush fund. The Democrats also want to expand the investigation to include alleged Emoluments because certain governments or government officials rented rooms in Trump's hotels.
Exactly whose alleged corruption should we be investigating?
