I remember what was said about Bill Clinton when his first scandals broke. It is just sex. Therefore it did not matter. I remember being influenced by the argument. But of course, it was not the sex that got him in trouble, it was the perjury about it. But I do find it amusing that the same people that said it was sex and therefore did not matter, are not saying that now with Trump being caught on tape being a vulgar ass.
Let’s face it, Trump at the very least, is what used to be called a “masher.”
Trump is as sleazy as hell.
What I find amusing is that Trump supporters tend to overlook his sleaziness in the same way Clinton supporters overlooked his. Or are right now overlooking hers. But it gets even worse. There is a messianic element to some support of Trump.
I can see someone voting for Trump. I can see someone voting for Clinton. What I can’t see is the idolatry. I suppose at this point I should be decided who is sleazier, Trump or Clinton. I suppose. But I am not going to do it. As far as I am concerned neither is fit to be President.
On our recent trip to Russia, as we ate at Top Burger, the manager heard me speak English to my wife. He asked my wife to ask me, "Why does America hate us?" I was somewhat taken aback, but my response was that the people did not, but the government was doing odd things. This seemed to satisfy him.
You will not get through a Russian dinner without a toast. While this was totally random, our friends in Russia were even more concerned. At various dinners with them the consensus was that if Clinton is elected, it would mean war. These were mostly retired military men, which included two colonels, one in the paratroops and one in what used to called the NKVD, think border patrol, but with tanks. There was also a retired Brigadier General who fought in Chechnya. These are not weak men. I would not categorize them as afraid, but they were very concerned.
I hope they are wrong, but as you will see from these clips, they are not alarmists.
Clinton on a no-fly zone in Syria.
Note that she will not shoot down the first or second, but will shoot down the third.
Here is her debate statement.
So she will negotiate with someone she just called a war criminal. She will talk to Putin, whom she has compared to Hitler. Is she really this dumb? I honestly don't know.
In a private speech to, of course, Goldman Sacs, she said this:
"They’re getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports. To have a no-fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we’re not putting our pilots at risk—you’re going to kill a lot of Syrians,” she said. “So all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians."
This speech is a little obsolete as the Russians now have two S-300 anti-aircraft systems in the area. These are extremely sophisticated. Since Russian advisors are embed in the Syrian army, an attack on Syria is also an attack on Russia. Russia has said that they will respond accordingly.
Obama's Joint Chief of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., said this:
The "deer in the headlight" look of Sen. Wicker is priceless. Sen. McCain is as gruff as usual. Whenever I see his grim face, I think of McGruff, the crime dog.
Note that a no-fly zone would require approval of the UN and the US Congress. UN approval is impossible, and Congressional approval is unlikely. If she is telling the truth about her plans, a huge assumption considering her history of lying, she won't bother to get approval. We live in a weird world where we hope a presidential candidate is lying.
So we have a madwoman who might just be president next year. Not a mad woman you say? Have a look:
Note that she is laughing about the brutal death of Gaddafi, who was sodomized with a bayonet. She is also, in a bizarre parody of Julius Caesar, claiming responsibility for it.
So we have a presidential candidate, who as I write is slightly ahead in the polls, who is corrupt, who accepts bribes disguised as speaking fees, who is reckless with our nation's security, who proposes to go to war with Russia, and who cackles like a mad woman over the brutal death of an enemy.
It seems that this election cycle we can chose between dangerous and sleazy verses sleazy and dangerous. Wonderful. Let’s begin with dangerous and sleazy, Hillary Clinton.
Although to be fair, she would never have gone to jail. She would have plead guilty and paid a fine, if she was not running for president. I will not comment on the current email crisis as when I am writing this, (the day before publication), I really do not have enough data to know anything more than something odd is going on. But it seems clear that at the very least Clinton as Secretary of State was totally reckless in the handing of her email, some of it classified. I can actually see some of you saying in your mind, “no she wasn’t.” Let me ask you this: Did her emails become public because she did not take sufficient care in securing them? Yes, they did. This is almost a dictionary definition of reckless. It also seems clear that it was not legal. All it takes is one classified document to be mishandled for it to be a crime. It was a crime.
This is as sleazy as hell.
Blaming Russia for the revelation of these emails is curious on several levels. First there is no proof that Russian hackers were involved. Saying something does not make it so. I admit that Russia is a likely suspect. So is China. So are random hackers having nothing to do with any government. There is a element of desperation in the charge, even if it is true. For if a foreign power did get these emails, then not only has Clinton admitted to the truth of them, she has also admitted that here handling of her documents was so bad that this enabled a foreign power to access them.
This is as sleazy as hell.
While the foundation has done some good work, the Clinton foundation is corrupt. The overlap in the list of Clinton foundation donors with those having access to secretary Clinton is large. Even if there is no quid pro quo, this smells to high heaven.
Here is what Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, had this to say about the foundation:
-- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.
(I do not know what add you will see if you watch this, but I found it amusing that for me it was Goldman Sacs.)
This is as sleazy as hell.
Both Clintons received millions upon millions for giving speeches. Why would someone pay such a hefty fee for a speech? Access, plain and simple. It is also payment for services rendered, or services that will be rendered. That is how government service works. You work for the government and then you work for private industry, in the same field that you were supposed to have oversight on, nothing to see here, move along.
Why is Trump doing as well as he is? Things just aren't going well for a substantial portion of the US population. I blogged about this earlier. I called it Lower Class Angst. This is my third post on this, which contains links to the other two posts.
Many leftists, often because thier disgust for Clinton is greater than thier disgust for Trump, actually support Trump. There is also the point that Clinton supports US wars, but Trump seems to not do so. Jill Stein wants your vote for president, yet she thinks that Trump is less scary than Clinton. This isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. I feel the same way.
Michael Moore is talking about the same issue in the following video as I did in my blog post. I usually do not post items with bad words, but in this case these words seems more appropriate than normal. Moore supports Clinton, but he gets it. There is quite a bit of confusion on this, even leading some to thinking that Moore's latest movie is pro-Trump. It is not.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:00AM 
I remember what was said about Bill Clinton when his first scandals broke. It is just sex. Therefore it did not matter. I remember being influenced by the argument. But of course, it was not the sex that got him in trouble, it was the perjury about it. But I do find it amusing that the same people that said it was sex and therefore did not matter, are not saying that now with Trump being caught on tape being a vulgar ass. 
