Monday, October 3, 2016

Senator Clinton–Like or Dislike

OK, not trolling, not being facetious. This is more for conservative than liberal/progressive friends, but honestly answer if you feel like it.

Why do you think Senator Clinton is, or isn't, qualified for the position of POTUS?

I thought about this after a few recent events. I ran across a comment from someone that said that lots of people outside the US support Senator Clinton over Mr. Trump and this person couldn't understand why. It's "funny", was the comment.

The other item has been repeated a few times to myself and other friends. People say they do not trust or like Senator Clinton, but when pressed for specifics, they cannot come up with much other than a general dislike. The email server issue and Benghazi come up at times, but without much detail.

I will say this. I think many people outside the US look at our media and the reporting and they dismiss much of the complaints against Senator Clinton because they may indicate poor judgment but not any sort of disqualification. They also see the rhetoric of Trump, and his inconsistencies, and find him to be less qualified than others.

Stop here unless you have time.

I'll start, and I'll go from negative to positive.

TL;DR It's a mixed bag. I don’t really like Senator Clinton, but I think she will be an adequate POTUS.

I think the email server use as Secretary of State (SoS) makes sense since Senator Clinton had far, far too many outside dealings with The Clinton Foundation and other issues. However, using this system for any government business displays bad judgment. Even if the secure systems have issues, then address that part of the problem. I think rarely is an issue like being unable to send a secure fax or email going to result in a worldwide event that has long lasting repercussions, but I'll admit I could be wrong. I do think Senator Clinton has not addressed this well, at least from the media reporting (might be their issue), and hasn't really displayed much openness.

That leads me to the lawyer in Senator Clinton. I think she is far too much of a lawyer, from not quickly disclosing documents in Whitewater to seeming to be secretive too often, or refusing the speak out on issues and accept blame, make an apology, or produce a conciliatory, open explanation. I'm not saying she isn't truthful, but she does not encourage trust from me.

Benghazi. Grow. The. Fuck. Up. The SoS does not choose when to, or when not to, deploy troops. She does not decide the budget for overseas embassy security. Congress does that. The SoS can allocate that, and some was allocated in Benghazi, but that wasn't designated as an embassy. I don't know if Senator Clinton ordered Secretary Stevens to go, he went on his own, or what, but she's not at fault. That being said, she did apologize.

Whitewater, President Bill Clinton's affairs, TravelGate, Paula Jones, etc. - I haven't seen anything here that makes me disqualify her, but it does seem to be that she is loyal to President Clinton to a fault. She (rumored) has a nasty temper and can be vindictive. I think those are qualities of many of our representatives. Perhaps that's required to run and be successful for any length of time? Certainly doesn't make me like her as a representative or government official.

Foreign Contributions - Everyone may take these to some extend, including the major parties. Not a defense. If you want to be one of the people that inspires me, you can't do this.

Favors for Friends - Again, this looks bad. Recommending people for office when money is involved, even for charity just looks bad to me.

Ties to Wall Street – I think financial engineering, which is really large scale gambling in the banking/investment system, is a problem. I dislike our politicians being close to large banks, but I don’t know how to avoid this. I don’t know how you limit the money influence, unless you just take money out of electrions and even then you’d have to require open Tax returns from candidates for their office terms and years after to try and limit the corruption. I don’t fundamentally have an issue with her speaking for millions of dollars from her point of view. As an investor, I do. I hate having companies I do business with, or work for, paying large amount of money for speeches. I think it’s irresponsible.

The Good

Service to Country – From being picked as a lawyer in the Watergate investigation (She wasn’t fired, you can find multiple sources that show this wasn’t the care, plenty that claim she was without proof. Zeiffman admitted in a few places he would have fired her, but had no authority) to her election as Senator from New York to Secretary of State, she has served the country. Whether I agree with her decisions or not, I admire she has spent time serving when she could have just been a very rich lawyer.

FLOTUS – I think experience is invaluable, and while she didn’t have much power, she spent 8 years in the White House. I’m sure she learned to respect and appreciate the tremendous responsibility the position entails.

The Clinton Foundation – This is a great charity, and whether or not she is highly involved, this impresses me. Along with everything else, she has a group set up to help the world.

Taxes – With a tremendous income, the Clintons have paid a lot in taxes. As they should, but they haven’t shied away from this. I appreciate this.

Speeches – While there is some one-upsmanship at times, or a robotic feel to her speeches, overall I find her to be intelligent and thoughtful.

No comments: