In a recent Facebook (FB) brouhaha, I started a shitstorm by (a) advocating that Donald Trump must not be allowed to have the nuclear codes but at the same time stating that (b) I find HRC to be at best a middle-of-the-road American politician whose stated policies, designed to be non-controversial, seem far too tame to me and insufficient for the situation that 30 years of "kicking the can down the road" has caused.. Because of the controversy this caused, I recommended two things.
The first was that we adjourn the discussion from FB which is more appropriate for slinging insults and take the discussion to my blog where I can actually have a paragraph without being offensive to someone's bad reading skills. And second was that I would examine HRCs positions based on what I believe, not what you believe, but what I believe and give her a score.
What would that achieve? Not much beyond a better statement about whether HRC holds positions that I support, or not. You are perfectly welcome to have your own beliefs, I mean, like, WTF. Duh.
In the following scores, a positive score means that it is a good thing, a negative score means that it is a bad thing, and a zero means that it is neither good nor bad overall. At worst we would hope that a candidate for political office that we supported would have a positive score, even if only a tiny positive score. A zero would be disappointing of course. But a negative score would be a very bad idea. Values range from -1 to 1.
The first was that we adjourn the discussion from FB which is more appropriate for slinging insults and take the discussion to my blog where I can actually have a paragraph without being offensive to someone's bad reading skills. And second was that I would examine HRCs positions based on what I believe, not what you believe, but what I believe and give her a score.
What would that achieve? Not much beyond a better statement about whether HRC holds positions that I support, or not. You are perfectly welcome to have your own beliefs, I mean, like, WTF. Duh.
In the following scores, a positive score means that it is a good thing, a negative score means that it is a bad thing, and a zero means that it is neither good nor bad overall. At worst we would hope that a candidate for political office that we supported would have a positive score, even if only a tiny positive score. A zero would be disappointing of course. But a negative score would be a very bad idea. Values range from -1 to 1.
HRC's positions were found by searching for "Hillarys position on <x>" where "<x>" might be "health care reform" or what have you. Then from the results, I picked those that looked official and tried to avoid political third parties whenever possible.
1.
Health Care Reform
"Defend
the Affordable Care Act and fix it." No thanks, what we need is for
the US Government to cover health care costs for everyone, and
control the greed of the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical
companies with legislation. We need to criminalize price gouging in
drug costs. Score 0. What she advocates is not bad, but neither is it likely to make a significant difference.
2.
Education Loan Reform
Some
of the reform ideas are pretty good. Of course, they should have been
there to begin with if this country was serious about helping people
get an education, which it isn't. I do not see anything here on
increasing the total amount one can get for education and the issue
(which may be a non-issue, it is just impossible to tell) of to what
extent these loans can pay for living expenses while attending
college/grad school. Without this ability, it is all just
pretentious bullshit. The poor have to live you know. Score 1/2. What she advocates is good and will make a difference. Not enough of a difference IMHO, but a difference nevertheless.
3.
Welfare Reform
HRC
was a force in favor of the destruction of the welfare system under
the Clinton administration. This reform was a complete disaster and you can read more about that on this blog, if you care. She has never disavowed her role in this egregious republican attack on the poor. I can expect no improvement in that area
under Hillary. I have been reminded since I first wrote this that HRC and Bill Clinton were not exactly responsible for this reform, the Republicans were. Bill did sign it however. Ok, I am going from a -1 to a -.5. Score -.5.
4.
Visa Reform
HRC
supports increasing the H1B, H2B visas in order to help corporations
destroy American employment. Score -1.
5.
TTP
HRC
backed off of her support of the TTP after assessing the rage that
egregious trade treaty provoked. But what does she really believe. I
have no doubt that she supports the TTP in her heart and will see to
it that the important provisions are put into law one way or another. To an extent this ties in to the HRC credibility problem. Do I believe her or not? In general, no I don't. Furthermore, we know her inclinations based on her initial support and role as Secretary of State in creating this abomination. Score -1/2
6.
Globalization
HRC
supports it of course. Anything to destroy American jobs and
impoverish as many Americans as possible. Score -1.
Conclusion
Our subtotal comes to 0 + .5 - .5 -1 - .5 -1 = -2.5.
Oh a score of -2.5 is terrible. Well, we will just have to examine more issues and see if we can not make this more positive. What shall we examine? How about where HRC stands on criminalizing corporate crime, on eliminating statute of limitations on corporate crime, on civic asset forfeiture for the poor and middle class, on civic asset forfeiture for rich and corporate criminals, on having the DOJ enforce the law even as it applies to local police departments.
Whatever this means, and I do not think it means much, we have a clear responsibility to vote for the candidate most capable of defeating Donald Trump at the polls. This is not my favorite approach to a political process, but we do not seem to have any choice.
Our subtotal comes to 0 + .5 - .5 -1 - .5 -1 = -2.5.
Oh a score of -2.5 is terrible. Well, we will just have to examine more issues and see if we can not make this more positive. What shall we examine? How about where HRC stands on criminalizing corporate crime, on eliminating statute of limitations on corporate crime, on civic asset forfeiture for the poor and middle class, on civic asset forfeiture for rich and corporate criminals, on having the DOJ enforce the law even as it applies to local police departments.
Whatever this means, and I do not think it means much, we have a clear responsibility to vote for the candidate most capable of defeating Donald Trump at the polls. This is not my favorite approach to a political process, but we do not seem to have any choice.
