> I guess I'm interpreting that level of surety and that degree of persistence as hostility. The surety is either that or bias. Because I think that absolute clarity in any of this is suspect. The persistence I can't explain any other way. The only way it gets to be honesty is if one has a magic pipeline to Truth.
I'm generally right leaning, but socially liberal. I do not believe HRC should be locked up and if I have used that phrase it is in a joking manner. I do think she committed serious crimes and her campaign was unnecessarily dirty, but her punishment is losing the campaign.
Politically, I would have to say Mitt Romney was closer to my views than any candidate I can recall dating back to Reagan. He just wasn't strong enough to overcome the Chicago Machine, which was formidable. Our failure to elect him was a pretty big mistake IMO.
So, why do I support Trump? Two reasons:
1. We had two choices and the other one was, IMO, a non-starter; and
2. I have long believed that we needed a more common-sense, less political individual as president to see if the country can be gotten off dead center. I knew Trump was crass and would be embarrassing in many respects but I judged him to be a worthwhile tradeoff. I prefer the formality of Reagan in the WH. But not if you're having do business with people like Pelosi and Schumer. These people are, in my view, political scoundrels who need to be steamrolled.
I have watched Schumer for decades on the Judiciary committee constantly trying to apply double standards to every candidate, putting politics before the law. We needed someone who push back. Trump, thus far, hasn't been successful because he didn't get quite the majority he needed.
So, while Trump is not my idea of a perfect candidate, I'd rather have someone who can get things done than to have someone who is more socially acceptable. And it is hard to argue that Trump isn't getting things done.
I don't like everything he's doing, but in some cases, I'm willing to accept a move in the wrong direction over stasis, because there are times when some action is better than inaction, even it is the wrong action. Notably, I don't know where the protectionism is going to end up, but as I've stated, I was willing to try it as a tactic against China because I believe Trump is correct that China has used its power to take advantage of us at times. I think the jury is out.
I definitely like what's happening wrt to NK, and that success cannot be taken away from him even if it eventually falls through. It is, if nothing else, a proof of concept that you CAN bring NK to the table. And in fact, I essentially agree with almost all of his foreign policy initiatives.
Domestically, unwinding Obama's mistakes has been fairly successful but clearly, ACA we're stuck with. It is my opinion ACA was a horrible piece of legislation and repeal would have been great, but I understand why it is just politically impossible at this point. Still, he was able to get rid of some of the more odious, obnoxious measures.
So, there you are. I don't hate HRC, I just think she is grossly unqualified to become president. While Trump doesn't grasp some of the decorum of the presidency, he is not a criminal and she is. That's not to say he never broke a law, but I think his infractions are nominal. While he may have spoken to some Russian somewhere, nothing TRUMP could have done would EVER sink to the lows of Obama's whisper about how he would have "more flexibility" after his '12 election. The media were fine with that.
I'm not going to start on the media or I'll be here another hour or two. There may be some hostility and some bias, but neither a guiding principle for me. She just wasn't the right person for the job at a critical moment when the overall objective needed to be to roll back as much of the Obama agenda as possible. |
