Election 2016: Final thoughts
So, having to choose between two awful people to lead our country is something I hope we never have to do again. Really, truly, both major party candidates are awful people. For me, though, the lesser of the evils is obvious and I made my decision weeks, months, ago. When I cast my vote tomorrow, though, I feel like a small piece of my soul will die.
I don't want to vote for her, but I'm going to. But the reasons I don't want to vote for her do not include these reasons, which I see most often given as to why she's not a good candidate. If you aren't going to vote for her for any of these reasons and will instead cast your vote for the other guy, please reconsider while you still can.
1. She's a liar: Yep. No argument there. But so is the other guy. We missed our chance to have more honest candidates to choose from. Let's do better the next time around during the primaries. If you want to vote for someone more honest this time around, you'll have to go with a third party candidate.
But since we're stuck with these candidates, if you want the more honest one, you'll need to go with Hillary. Check out the Politico Truthmeter: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/. At least with Hill, you're going to have a really good shot at a fairly truthful statement, and she's not likely to give you a pants on fire lie.
2. The rape case: Yes, she defended a rapist. No argument. But, and this is really important, IT WAS HER JOB. Ask any lawyer who has been in the business for any length of time and they will tell you that they have had to represent someone they didn't really want to represent, and if you practice the kind of law she was practicing, you will have dozens of clients you don't want. It's a fact of life in this particular profession. Sad but true. Here are some things to keep in mind about this particular case:
a. She didn't seek him out and he didn't seek her out. She didn't decide one day she wanted to defend a child rapist and set out to find one. She was assigned the case. She had agreed to be on a list of lawyers who would represent indigent clients, and she was the unlucky one to get this case.
b. She asked to be relieved of the case. The judge said no. So she was obliged to continue with the case, and as a lawyer, you are legally and ethically bound to do the best job you can for your client, even if you believe your client is guilty. That's the way our system works and we should all be glad for it, and if you are ever in the defendant's chair, you will fully appreciate this.
c. Yes, the victim probably did hate her. The person on the other side of the courtroom typically does hate the other guy's lawyer, especially if that lawyer is doing what she's supposed to do. She didn't enjoy making a child uncomfortable, but again, she was doing her job. If Hillary hadn't been assigned the case, some other lawyer would have made the victim uncomfortable, because it was part of the job. And there WERE problems with the victim's story, she DID lie about certain parts of the situation and ANY lawyer assigned the case would have challenged the victim's story. Like it or not, the defendant has the right to challenge the accuser.
d. Hillary didn't get him off. He agreed to a plea deal that the victim's mother asked the prosecution to offer. He served time.
e. She never laughed about getting a rapist off. First, as mentioned above, she didn't get him off. He served time for this crime. Second, what happened was that she found it funny as in ironic or odd that the very polygraph that helped her client's case convinced her that polygraphs are unreliable.
(Here's a link to the snopes evaluation: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/)
Takeaways from this? Hillary was assigned a case she didn't want. When she wasn't allowed to leave the case, she took it on and did what needed to be done. She worked hard as she was obligated to do, and got the best result she could for her client, as she was obligated to do. This isn't a bad thing. It means we can count on her to do the tough parts of her job whether she likes it or not.
3. She is in favor of partial birth abortion: No, she's not because, and this is important, so repeat after me...PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS NOT A THING. Let's say that again...partial birth abortion is not a thing.
It isn't. At least, it isn't as it has been portrayed to us by various entities. Perfectly healthy mothers experiencing perfectly normal pregnancies carrying perfectly healthy fetuses aren't waking up in like week 36 and saying, holy shit, I'm pregnant! How did that happen? I'm going to get rid of THIS problem! And then strolling into one of the plentiful abortion clinics nearby and using abortion as a form of birth control.
Nope, this doesn't happen. Nope, nope, nope. Even if it was something that a woman wanted to do just because all of a sudden in the last trimester of her pregnancy, a baby would be inconvenient, there are virtually no doctors anywhere in the world who would agree to such a thing. There are only three reasons that late term pregnancy terminations are done, and none of them have anything to do with just not wanting a baby. They are:
a. The fetus is incompatible with life. That means that if it were to be born, it will not live. Once this is discovered, a pregnancy termination is usually in the mother's best interest for any number of reasons, especially if she has a history of high blood pressure, is older, has any type of heart disease, etc.
b. There are multiple fetuses, and there is risk to one or more of them if one remains in the womb because it is sick or otherwise endangering the other/others. In other words, one has to go or they all are likely to die.
c. The mother has a serious medical condition and her life is at risk. But then, if the fetus is healthy and far enough along to live, it will be delivered by c-section if that is possible and its life will be preserved.
If you still don't think any of those reasons that a late term pregnancy termination could/should be done, then I'm sorry, but you need to check your pro-life card at the door, because what you are saying is that the mother's life can't be considered in the equation...that any fetus, even one that will not live is more important than the living, breathing, conscious, fully formed woman carrying it. News flash, that woman is life, too.
While yes, Hillary is pro-choice, when it comes to late term pregnancy termination, which is any termination of pregnancy after the generally accepted week that a premature healthy fetus could live outside the womb, she is only advocating that exceptions remain explicitly preserved in any sort of anti-abortion legislation. It should be obvious that these exceptions should exist for medical reasons, but it historically hasn't been in many states where anti-abortion legislation has been enacted. Which is why women experiencing these hideous situations are forced to travel to other states and pay outrageous amounts of money out of pocket in order to save their own life or the life of one the fetuses she is carrying.
There is a ton of information about this topic out there, but here is just one article for more information: http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/10/21/13352872/donald-trump-abortion-wrong
4. The e-mails: OMG. Stop with the e-mail thing already. The FBI investigated and there were no charges. Why? Because no real crime was committed.
Here's the thing...No top secret information that is truly critical to national security is conveyed by e-mail. It doesn't happen. It would be the height of stupidity to do that. While I fully believe our government is capable of doing truly stupid things, this is just not one of them.
What's the story with the e-mails? The story of the e-mails is this. Our government had, and probably still does, although I am unclear about that, a very technologically backward e-mail system that didn't work on most mobile devices. This is very inconvenient, especially for someone like, say, the secretary of state, who can't be in the office at her desktop computer all day every day dealing with the avalanche of e-mail that is the bane of every working person's existence. The SOS has to be out of the office extremely often, meeting with people all over the world, and needs to be able to access e-mail from off-site.
This isn't just a problem for her, it was a problem for SOS Powell, too, and a lot of other government officials. She solved this problem the same way others have...by using personal e-mail. Yes, others do this too. Many others, including SOS Powell. She was not the first and will not be the last to do this. It would have been nice if her solution had been to push for better technology that would solve this problem for everyone, but it's the government and she probably realized that that was a losing battle. So she made do with the solution she had, because sitting at her computer in her office all day just to be able to deal with e-mail in the prescribed fashion wasn't a viable option for her.
What WAS unusual is that her personal e-mail is hosted on a private server. Yep, that made her situation unique, but did it really make it more sketchy than say, setting up a gmail account? No, not really, because she was already using this server. She didn't set up the server for her SOS e-mails, it already existed and she already used it. She wasn't trying to hide anything, and tons of people knew she was doing this. She was very open about it. Nobody did anything about it because nobody thought it was a big deal, because it is something a lot of people did, except for the server thing, which again, is no more or less risky than something like a gmail account.
A ton of e-mails were recovered, and only an extremely small portion even hinted at being classified information...but were they classified like we think of classified information from watching spy movies? Probably not, and they maybe weren't even classified at the time. I won't even pretend to understand the process, but it seems like things can become classified just because someone asks for it, not necessarily because it is top secret information.
Most of the e-mails are probably a lot like the e-mails we all get at work, and think about that honestly for a second. Would an unauthorized person finding out about cake in the breakroom really put American lives at risk? Probably not.
The takeaway here? She encountered a problem and figured out a solution. It wasn't ideal and it did violate policy, but she was following precedent and many others were doing the same thing. She was open about what she was doing and didn't try to hide anything. There is absolutely no evidence that she was trying to do anything untoward by using her personal e-mail server for her SOS work. She complied with the FBI investigation, and wasn't charged with anything. There is no evidence that she did anything out of malice or did with any ill intent or with any intention whatsoever to impede or violate any laws.
(See this story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you_us_580f5b67e4b099c434319bcf)
However, our good friend Donald has some experience with e-mail as well. Check out this story: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html
In a conversation I was involved in earlier surrounding this story, one party pointed out that the difference was that Trump's actions didn't put national security at risk, therefore Hillary's transgression was worse. I disagree.
Hillary didn't put national security at risk, because as we all agree now, truly top secret information is not conveyed via e-mail. So her transgression can't be worse than his because of any security issue. I would say that his is actually much, much worse for a reason that we all seem to be ignoring, and it this: INTENT.
He consciously, knowingly and willfully impeded at least one federal lawsuit. He purposefully violated court orders. He delayed court proceedings, knowing that it was costing taxpayers money, in some cases a LOT of money. He lied under oath. He threatened and bullied others to lie under oath. He committed fraud, more than once. This article doesn't even get to the Trump University case. Every single thing he accused Hillary of doing, he has done, and he has done multiple times, and he has done with intent. He cost our government time and money, and he has done the same to people exactly like us in private lawsuits. He has shown a shocking disregard for ethical business practices and for the law.
Just a couple of things to think about.
3. She is in favor of partial birth abortion: No, she's not because, and this is important, so repeat after me...PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS NOT A THING. Let's say that again...partial birth abortion is not a thing.
It isn't. At least, it isn't as it has been portrayed to us by various entities. Perfectly healthy mothers experiencing perfectly normal pregnancies carrying perfectly healthy fetuses aren't waking up in like week 36 and saying, holy shit, I'm pregnant! How did that happen? I'm going to get rid of THIS problem! And then strolling into one of the plentiful abortion clinics nearby and using abortion as a form of birth control.
Nope, this doesn't happen. Nope, nope, nope. Even if it was something that a woman wanted to do just because all of a sudden in the last trimester of her pregnancy, a baby would be inconvenient, there are virtually no doctors anywhere in the world who would agree to such a thing. There are only three reasons that late term pregnancy terminations are done, and none of them have anything to do with just not wanting a baby. They are:
a. The fetus is incompatible with life. That means that if it were to be born, it will not live. Once this is discovered, a pregnancy termination is usually in the mother's best interest for any number of reasons, especially if she has a history of high blood pressure, is older, has any type of heart disease, etc.
b. There are multiple fetuses, and there is risk to one or more of them if one remains in the womb because it is sick or otherwise endangering the other/others. In other words, one has to go or they all are likely to die.
c. The mother has a serious medical condition and her life is at risk. But then, if the fetus is healthy and far enough along to live, it will be delivered by c-section if that is possible and its life will be preserved.
If you still don't think any of those reasons that a late term pregnancy termination could/should be done, then I'm sorry, but you need to check your pro-life card at the door, because what you are saying is that the mother's life can't be considered in the equation...that any fetus, even one that will not live is more important than the living, breathing, conscious, fully formed woman carrying it. News flash, that woman is life, too.
While yes, Hillary is pro-choice, when it comes to late term pregnancy termination, which is any termination of pregnancy after the generally accepted week that a premature healthy fetus could live outside the womb, she is only advocating that exceptions remain explicitly preserved in any sort of anti-abortion legislation. It should be obvious that these exceptions should exist for medical reasons, but it historically hasn't been in many states where anti-abortion legislation has been enacted. Which is why women experiencing these hideous situations are forced to travel to other states and pay outrageous amounts of money out of pocket in order to save their own life or the life of one the fetuses she is carrying.
There is a ton of information about this topic out there, but here is just one article for more information: http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/10/21/13352872/donald-trump-abortion-wrong
4. The e-mails: OMG. Stop with the e-mail thing already. The FBI investigated and there were no charges. Why? Because no real crime was committed.
Here's the thing...No top secret information that is truly critical to national security is conveyed by e-mail. It doesn't happen. It would be the height of stupidity to do that. While I fully believe our government is capable of doing truly stupid things, this is just not one of them.
What's the story with the e-mails? The story of the e-mails is this. Our government had, and probably still does, although I am unclear about that, a very technologically backward e-mail system that didn't work on most mobile devices. This is very inconvenient, especially for someone like, say, the secretary of state, who can't be in the office at her desktop computer all day every day dealing with the avalanche of e-mail that is the bane of every working person's existence. The SOS has to be out of the office extremely often, meeting with people all over the world, and needs to be able to access e-mail from off-site.
This isn't just a problem for her, it was a problem for SOS Powell, too, and a lot of other government officials. She solved this problem the same way others have...by using personal e-mail. Yes, others do this too. Many others, including SOS Powell. She was not the first and will not be the last to do this. It would have been nice if her solution had been to push for better technology that would solve this problem for everyone, but it's the government and she probably realized that that was a losing battle. So she made do with the solution she had, because sitting at her computer in her office all day just to be able to deal with e-mail in the prescribed fashion wasn't a viable option for her.
What WAS unusual is that her personal e-mail is hosted on a private server. Yep, that made her situation unique, but did it really make it more sketchy than say, setting up a gmail account? No, not really, because she was already using this server. She didn't set up the server for her SOS e-mails, it already existed and she already used it. She wasn't trying to hide anything, and tons of people knew she was doing this. She was very open about it. Nobody did anything about it because nobody thought it was a big deal, because it is something a lot of people did, except for the server thing, which again, is no more or less risky than something like a gmail account.
A ton of e-mails were recovered, and only an extremely small portion even hinted at being classified information...but were they classified like we think of classified information from watching spy movies? Probably not, and they maybe weren't even classified at the time. I won't even pretend to understand the process, but it seems like things can become classified just because someone asks for it, not necessarily because it is top secret information.
Most of the e-mails are probably a lot like the e-mails we all get at work, and think about that honestly for a second. Would an unauthorized person finding out about cake in the breakroom really put American lives at risk? Probably not.
The takeaway here? She encountered a problem and figured out a solution. It wasn't ideal and it did violate policy, but she was following precedent and many others were doing the same thing. She was open about what she was doing and didn't try to hide anything. There is absolutely no evidence that she was trying to do anything untoward by using her personal e-mail server for her SOS work. She complied with the FBI investigation, and wasn't charged with anything. There is no evidence that she did anything out of malice or did with any ill intent or with any intention whatsoever to impede or violate any laws.
(See this story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you_us_580f5b67e4b099c434319bcf)
However, our good friend Donald has some experience with e-mail as well. Check out this story: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html
In a conversation I was involved in earlier surrounding this story, one party pointed out that the difference was that Trump's actions didn't put national security at risk, therefore Hillary's transgression was worse. I disagree.
Hillary didn't put national security at risk, because as we all agree now, truly top secret information is not conveyed via e-mail. So her transgression can't be worse than his because of any security issue. I would say that his is actually much, much worse for a reason that we all seem to be ignoring, and it this: INTENT.
He consciously, knowingly and willfully impeded at least one federal lawsuit. He purposefully violated court orders. He delayed court proceedings, knowing that it was costing taxpayers money, in some cases a LOT of money. He lied under oath. He threatened and bullied others to lie under oath. He committed fraud, more than once. This article doesn't even get to the Trump University case. Every single thing he accused Hillary of doing, he has done, and he has done multiple times, and he has done with intent. He cost our government time and money, and he has done the same to people exactly like us in private lawsuits. He has shown a shocking disregard for ethical business practices and for the law.
Just a couple of things to think about.
Comments
Post a Comment