A brief post to explain my political position here. I don’t speak for the other permas at BCC and won’t pretend to make this a generalized editorial. I also won’t waste time on the countless reasons Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, as the Deseret News and other papers of record have already articulated those points. [edit: I’ll just focus on one]
I view Donald Trump as threatening the rule of law and the peaceful transition of power from administration to administration. He has specifically called upon “the Second Amendment people” to do something about his rival, Hillary Clinton. He has repeatedly suggested that the polls are rigged. He has also repeatedly said that if he loses the election, it would be the result of fraud and rigged voting machines. Trump has hinted that armed insurrection in the face of such a rigged election would be appropriate. That’s such an awful threat to make in America.
Under normal circumstances, it would be sufficient to have Trump lose and disappear back into his reality TV netherworld. But here, the specter of his vote fraud allegations is so problematic that he must not just be defeated, but defeated beyond all margin of possible tainted vote. As a Canadian I like a multi-party system (Sorry, Hugh B. Brown!). But when you’re facing a threatening demagogue you don’t splinter the opposition. Trump must be defeated by a completely undisputable margin. Hence McMullin is not an option despite him being a decent person (if underqualified). Gary Johnson is not an option for many other reasons as well.
This leaves us with Hillary Clinton. There are many flaws with Hillary Clinton. They are quite plain. Her email scandal, for example, is a symptom of a greater problem with the candidate, that of seeing herself perhaps as operating above the commoners. To say she is imperfect is obvious. To call her “evil” is an exaggeration, but neither is she the ideal candidate. I do not believe that minorities, the poor, our problems with immigration, our domestic economics or other problems will be miraculously solved with President Clinton.
The pros: she represents the political establishment. I don’t view this as a flaw; the economic markets and international geopolitics favor stability, and she offers stability that no other candidate can offer. She would be our first female president, a glass ceiling that should have been shattered long ago. And she brings critical experience to the table that is unmatched by any other candidate, period. She is the most qualified. Given a different roster of candidates, my vote might be with another. But this is the hand we have been dealt, and the choice is clear.
So yes, I’m with her.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
Me too. For different reasons, but I like yours too.
I couldn’t have said it better. I’m voting for her for the same reason. Voting for anyone else may assuage your desire to vote for the “ideal” candidate, but Trump is such a threat not only to our national system (as you’ve mentioned), but he is also a very real threat to the stability of our alliances with other nations, as he’s repeatedly threatened to pull out of our agreements with NATO and Japan, among others. That would be catastrophic. Don’t throw away your shot!
I’m with her because I want a president who knows that raising the status of women around the world makes the world a more stable and peaceful place. She was able to start working toward that as Secretary of State and I’m excited to see how she continues more fully as president.
So well said, except I don’t actually think Clinton has the negatives to the extent you accept here. Most of it is pure 1990s Republican propaganda that was meant at that time to damage her husband, and most definitely done in bad faith. Imagine living with such relentless, active, and hateful persecution for 25 years. Maybe you’d want to look into using a private email server too. I’m not excusing that but given that it was more or less standard protocol, though taken to a new level of using a personal private server, I do not see it as the ultimate evil that many in Utah and around the country do. Such people have a negative view of Hillary Clinton because of the decades of political propaganda against her and her husband. The email scandal (and Benghazi, a truly fake “scandal” cynically pursued by Republicans who never investigated their own Powell or Rice for the attacks and deaths in their tenures) provides such people with something concrete to pin their inchoate dislike of her on. But that inchoate dislike in the first place is the result of the Republicans’ and their donors’ concerted effort to put manufactured scandal after manufactured scandal before the public. A huge motivation for this was President Clinton’s huge success as president — from the budget surplus to major gains in prosperity to a very comfortable security situation.
Same. While Clinton wouldn’t be my first choice in a world with tons of options, she is my first choice, by far, of the options that are in front of us. And I believe that she will be a perfectly competent, perfectly capable president, which frankly counts for a lot.
Hillary is it
You didn’t waste time on the countless reasons trump shouldn’t be president — just on several iof them. :)
But yeah. This election is such a no-brainer.
Trump is not only a threat to those things, MattG, but to put things in Mormon terms, he is literally a threat to the family in ways that Hillary Clinton has never been and will never be. His serial adultery, his misogyny, his bragging about sexual assault, his profane and insulting personality — these all will have a direct affect on all of our children and grandchildren. That is impossible to deny. For the supposedly family values party to continue supporting him is rank hypocrisy. He represents everything degraded about our society that they’ve been supposedly fighting against for several decades, from the disintegration of the family to the more general decrease in civility in society.
Aaron, I meant none of his policy positions or personal failures, I guess. This is actually a fairly narrow slice.
Well, damn, I guess I’m going to have to cross-post my inevitable “Why I’m writing in Bernie Sanders” post here, then.
I agree with Steve, especially this part: “[T]he specter of his vote fraud allegations are so problematic that he must not just be defeated, but defeated beyond all margin of possible tainted vote.”
Russell, such an act of conscience is normally laudable, but in this election it’s unethical.
Yes, that is so, so important, gst. The country needs a landslide in favor of Hillary Clinton simply because of those statements he is making — because of our failure of public education in this country (attributable to the Republicans always obstructing funding for it), far too many people don’t know better and actually seem to believe Trump when he says that.
Yes.
I’m with her because she has significant experience, moreso than any other candidate, and I believe that she’s open to negotiating solutions. I recognize the Trump danger, but i was in with Hillary as soon as she announced (long before Bernie became a thing and back when I thought Jeb! would be the nominee.) I *like* that she’s more centrist than the other Dems. I *like* that she doesn’t want to burn down Wall Street. I *like* that she’s got foreign policy experience.
Stability is underrated. It tends to be good for individuals, families and nations. We forget the stability of our pubic and private institutions is what allows the much-discussed creative destruction to succeed.
I can’t stand her. I don’t like looking at her. I don’t like hearing her voice. This is my problem from being subject to baby boomers for years.
But she gets my vote. she has experience and its either her or the other guy. And ditto to what everyone else says about manufactured scandals.
I’m with her.
There are things I don’t like about her. But, for all the reasons articulated above, on this particular occasion, I’m with her.
Steve, she’s far from my ideal candidate, too, but for different reasons, having to do with a preternatural dislike of political dynasties and my abiding grudge as a New York democrat that the party basically just handed her the Senate nomination rather than make her run the primary. Her emails have almost nothing to do with it.
But I’m with her in spite of that. This election is really a no brainer.
I’m unaffiliated and typically vote third party (I live in a solidly red district in a solidly blue state, so I have the luxury of protest), but I’m enough of a pragmatist to vote D or R when it really matters. I told a friend the other day that I want to be part of a tsunami of repudiation. That man is unfit on every level. Clinton is ridiculously qualified. Yes, she’s status quo. I hope she can be pestered in better directions. She has my vote.
This post brings me out of the closet to agree and approve. I’ve been a clear and obvious Clinton vote from the beginning. For a number of reasons (which don’t bear repeating because they won’t say anything new) she stands out among the whole crowd of wannabe-s for 2016. I don’t like Hilary Clinton, but that’s irrelevant. I’ve only “liked” one president and one unsuccessful candidate (whom I judged not qualified and did not vote for, despite liking the man) in my lifetime.
So my only interest in following this election is in trying to understand Donald’s supporters. Not counting the never-Hillary crowd (whom I understand but obviously don’t agree with) and the party platform first crowd (whom I believe are misled in thinking that Mr. Trump believes or supports any of it, because I don’t think we know anything about what he believes or would do as a policy matter), there is quite clearly a core (~40%(??) of Republicans who are likely to vote) who really want a Trump presidency because of who and what he is and represents. I don’t understand that group and I’m scared of them and I think that one thing we all need to do at the voting booth is say “NO not that” as loudly as possible.
It kinda makes the decision a bit easier when the republican candidate turns out to be the long-awaited anti-Christ of the book of Revelation, don’t ya think?
Melissa, she’s status quo in the all the good ways — all the ways that provide the essential stability for a well functioning economy and trust among allies and the global markets. But I’ve observed that she is signalling really good things in areas that desperately need attention. I take this to be the influence of Bernie Sanders (whom I preferred) on her — because she’s reasonable and smart like that and is willing to modify to accommodate the views of such a large proportion of her constituents who liked her primary opponent specifically for his policy ideas.
Yes. And for all the reasons Steve so clearly lines out, I also am with her. Different election with different choices? Different vote. Today? There only one ethical option.
john f – agreed. I think Bernie was good for her and hope she has learned from the experience of running against him.
I’m a lifelong, actual-card-carrying member of the Socialist party. And I’m with her. We must vote our loudest *no* to what Trump advocates.
From one card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America to another, Olde Skool: that is, in fact, an opinion which a great many people agree with.
What’s this? Liberals have concluded that Clinton is the only choice. Shocking.
Jon, you assume everyone at BCC is a liberal/democrat? You’re wrong.
Democrats have always argued the Republican candidate is evil and must be stopped. What makes this election different is that Republicans know their candidate is evil and don’t care.
I wouldn’t take the political views of a person very seriously when there is documentary evidence that said person can’t (or won’t!) distinguish accurately between the Hookshot and Clawshot in discussion of Zelda weaponry.
It was an errant remark made in passing!
Your errant remarks cost lives, Steve. Or at least heart-segments.
(plays Song of Storms, cries in the rain)
(pours you a half-bottle of milk; affirms that you’re still my zelda)
Oh man.
I’ve been on board with Hillary all along (although I did make a detour to vote for Kasich in the Republican primary–vote early and often against Trump, I say). But I’m not trying to dissuade anybody from voting for McMullan, underqualified as he may be. People considering McMullan are conservatives who have a strong tribal affiliation with the Republican party and would otherwise vote for Trump. Denying Trump their vote has to suffice; getting them to swallow Hillary just isn’t going to happen.
I do not give a similar pass to liberals who vote for Stein, Sanders, or Johnson. If principled conservatives vote for McMullan, that doesn’t get Hillary over the top. Getting liberals to swallow Hillary for the purpose of stopping Trump is an entirely reasonable expectation and Steve’s characterization of doing otherwise as unethical is not over the top.
I do disagree, however, that the margin matters. Trump and his core supporters are so reality-challenged that I suspect no margin of loss will convince them that the outcome is legitimate. We’re going to have to deal with an ugly aftermath one way or another.
Maybe. Certainly they’re not going away. But we can get away from allegations of a stolen election.
I agree with john f.’s first comment. I’m with her, and I don’t feel bad about that at all.
Can’t stand her but will vote for her unless she’s leading significantly in Utah in which case I’ll vote for McMullin. However with an other Clinton in the presidency it’s going to be a painful four years for the Republic both because of Clintons being Clintons but also the inevitable warfare on the right. Maybe we’ll come out the other side better, but I bet we’ll miss this relative period of peace we’ve been in.
I’m with her too. And I can add one more incentive for folks voting in Utah. A co-worker of mine has offered to read the BOM if Hillary wins Utah. For awhile it was just a joke. But after Trump’s most recent debacles and the sharp denouncement from Utah politicians, he’s starting to worry that it might happen. So do your part to spread the gospel by voting Hillary along the Wasatch.
Sad day in America when we’re voting to avoid banana-republic-style instability. But I have to admit, you almost persuade me to vote for the liberal.
I hear you. But yes, I think that’s right.
I’m sold! (caveat: I was already sold).
You may vote for who you wish, Steve, and you stated those reasons well. But, you take it too far when you say that it is unethical to not vote for Hillary.
I am not a Trump supporter. Never was. I live in Oregon, and plan to vote for Evan McMullin.
Hillary is so flawed that I cannot vote for her for reasons that are not just “Republican propaganda” as John F. characterizes them above.
Those, such as myself, that want to vote their conscience and support someone who we actually would be proud to have represent the country instead of voting for the lesser of two evils are not unethical for doing so.
(And that is not to suggest that you or other Hillary supporters are not or would not be proud of her when she is elected).
I live in a state that will very comfortably go for Clinton, so I guess I can afford to be more “selfish” with my vote. Trump should not be President but I can’t support Clinton in good conscience. Maybe I will write in Evan McMullin… or Mickey Mouse.
In case people are thinking that my concerns about instability and uprising are unfounded: check out @BraddJaffy’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/785950167459434496?s=09
Hillary, too.
Bro B.: “you almost persuade me to vote for the liberal.” Voiceover: She’s not.
She’s very centrist. The fact that many people think she’s a raging liberal testifies to the success of the decades-long smear campaign by Republicans and their donors. This goes for President Obama too, who is most definitely a moderate centrist and not the extremist socialist Kenyan the right has portrayed him as in their long effort to discredit him and obstruct everything he does.
John, that last comment is so spot on.
This mormon is also for Hillary.
“…he must not just be defeated, but defeated beyond all margin of possible tainted vote”
Ha ha. You are assuming that there is a reasonable possibility that he will be defeated. Despite all the shock and talk, there is still a 50% possibility that he will be our next president. The Republicans who renounce him now will come out in whole-hearted support when he wins the electoral college and the popular vote.
The problem is this: Trump supporters are enthusiastic. They see him as their representative. They hear his as their voice in government. They will show up. Clinton supporters will hold their noses, and pull the lever, knowing that it is a vote for the status quo. Many will stay home, and no vote at all. It is so much easier to vote for something than against something.
No “scandal” between now and November will hurt Trump at all among his base. If you are hiring a man to burn your house down, would you be concerned to learn he has a history of arrests for arson?
Stacey, I hope you are mistaken, but the scenario you describe is possible.
I hate to agree so entirely with Steve (because I’m much less liberal than he), so it made me happy that he said it was unethical to vote for a third party candidate. I only sort of agree with that. I’m actually feeling a little fear at the crazies. I’ve been treated to the Evangelical nonsense declaring Trump their Cyrus whom God has selected to re-establish His people (yay Facebook), and it would be funny if it weren’t so unhinged and so many believed it. People calling voter fraud peremptorily sounds like something from a third world country. I’d be considered pretty conservative at BCC, but the crazies are scaring me even more than when they brought their guns to political rallies. I think it’s time to blow the Republican Party up and give the crazies their own so I can fit someplace. It’s terrible that one party can simply select their candidate the way the Democrats did, and the other explode the way the Republicans did. Time to get rid of the two-party system.
John F, she’s centrist in some areas like trade but leftist in others such as abortion, gun rights, redistribution and so forth. In foreign policy she’s actually to the right of Obama and Trump which is why most neocons have come out in support of her. Of course if you are on the left in Foreign Policy then her more hawkish international interventionism will be a big disappointment after Obama’s more cautious approach since HRC left as SOS. (Although looking at things like Yemen that is not as restrained as some suggest)
In my book while I don’t like her foreign policy overall I think it’ll be superior to Obama’s. Not because I want more intervention but because I think she’ll stand up to Putin more. Also she’ll have a grand strategy whereas Obama’s strategy is to act only when everyone else pretty much forces him to. (He was more interventionist his first few years, partially because of HRC but I think he pulled back from it due to many failures such as in Libya and Afghanistan)
I suspect she’ll try and fix the biggest problems in the ACA which will be a positive even if I don’t like the ACA. The GOP refused to really have a plan (one of many things put them in this ridiculous mess) beyond repeal. (Which, given the horrible state of things before the ACA too wasn’t much of a policy) I suspect she’ll remember what happened in Bill’s first term and will move towards incrementalism rather than big policies. So I don’t think she’ll be as bad as many conservatives think.
That said, I suspect she’ll be more activist with executive power than either Obama or Bush, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. Clintons have a tendency to cut corners and think the rules don’t apply to them which means probably 2-3 years from now we’ll be facing big scandals. Also while I expect her to do better against Putin than Obama, I fear Putin’s acts against her may lead her to overreact towards Russia especially in Syria. On the other hand Trump would either give Putin carte blanche or else overreact due to some perceived slight and bring us close to war.
“redistribution”? You mean she accepts that taxation is necessary in modern representative democracies in order to establish justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to all people?
Yeah, that.
Those schools, roads, postal service, police/fire protection, national defense, and overall economic infrastructure don’t pay for themselves, and private networks absolutely cannot be relied upon to provide those things broadly to society as a whole.
For example, I know Mitt Romney thinks, “I built this” when he looks at his economic empire (and I’m a Romney supporter, in general, don’t get me wrong), but his comment seriously ignored the myriad shoulders he was standing on, including millions of lower and middle income Americans from multiple generations whose taxes built the infrastructures that made his successes possible.
Yeah, this is a lame rant, I know. But as someone who has lived in the very free, very prosperous, and very wonderful free market social democracies of Western Europe for many years, I can absolutely say that the red-meat American cultural conservative ideology that holds any and all taxation, including for these completely necessary and beneficial purposes, to be “socialist” theft holds no appeal whatsoever to me.
Martin, I think a very strong argument can be made that the movement Trump is leading is *not* the Republican Party but because he’s essentially a con artist, he grabbed the name and attached it to himself and the substantial minority of voters who rarely or never voted before. So he successfully energized a dormant segment of the voting population that wasn’t participating and because he was calling himself a Republican, they did too — but their beliefs and motivations, as far as I can tell, do not remotely resemble those conservatives who have traditionally identified themselves as Republicans.
Nevertheless, the Republican Party made him their nominee officially (remember all the efforts to get a different result at the convention and how the Party officials prevented rules votes on a highly technical basis, thus ensuring Trump’s nomination). As such, his values are Republican values. If you’re a Republican and don’t agree with that statement, then show the world and do not vote for him.
Have you all signed up for your get out the vote shifts?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/volunteer-home/
I have never done this before. But this election seems more important that usual, and I’m wondering if I need to get more involved…. and signing up for service shifts seems like kind of a Mormon-y thing to do…
Current betting odds actually put Utah in play. Trump’s odds in Utah are not so different from Clinton’s odds in Pennsylvania or Florida.
https://electionbettingodds.com/4hr.html
Of course a scenario in which Utah goes for Clinton is probably not a scenario in which the election is close overall… but it’s possible Mormons will swing away from Trump harder than other right-leaning groups, given how offensive he is to so many of us (including Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, leading Utah Republican politicians, etc.)
I don’t think anyone can count on a Clinton victory. So much can happen in four weeks. And I agree with Steve that if things are at all close (think Gore-Bush) Trump is unlikely to accept defeat gracefully. So whatever value third party protest votes might have in a normal election, this is no time for messing around. I hope that as the election gets nearer, one or more people on third party tickets will formally encourage swing state voters to vote Clinton.
I was a long time Republican, but I was never really comfortable with the vilifying of the LGBTQ movement. The last five years I have started leaning increasingly left. I was for Bernie in the primaries but do see Clinton as a smart, capable woman who, importantly, is a good listener (at least that’s what those who know her keep saying about her). I think having the ability to see things through others’ eyes, to consider all sides of the matter and not just barrel through assuming one is right in all things, is a necessary characteristic for a good leader.
I think I might have yet been conflicted about voting for her, mostly because of how she has occasionally treated rape survivors in the past, if Trump wasn’t such an unmitigated disaster. I see him as a sexist, narcissistic, unhinged megalomaniac who could destroy our country on both the domestic and foreign fronts, and I have to admit that the fact that such a significant portion of America see him as a viable candidate sometimes keeps me up at night.
With all due respect, is there a reason why someone would care who anyone at BCC, or any of the commenters for that matter, will be voting for in the coming election?
I’m sure glad you afforded me all due respect before callously insulting me. With all due respect.
FarSide: I just love it when someone opens up with “With all due respect” and then proceeds to say something totally disrespectful. If you don’t care who other people are voting for, why read the post and all the comments and then take the time to comment yourself? I think maybe you care more than you let on.
Steve, you beat me to it. :)
If the question is a genuine one, it could be articulated more generally and less insulting way, such as “what difference does it make for individuals to express their political opinions?”
Which is a stupid question, but I’ve heard worse.
For myself I started out leaning towards one of the Republican candidates, but they bowed out way too early. Then I started thinking about why I would oppose Hilary Clinton, and the only reason I could think of was the email server. When I thought about it, most of the bad feelings I had towards her came from listening to Rush Limbaugh with my Grandparents in the 90’s. Since then I’ve developed some objective evidence evaluation skills and have tossed all of those dislikes out.
Hearing her biography, it really is like the Republicans saw that she was going to be running for President one day, back when her husband was first running for Governor of Arkansas; and have been trying to smear her ever since.
The email server thing, gives her a sense of political entitlement, which I dislike. But compared her primary rival, that makes her look humble and meek.
So as a very qualified individual, she gets my vote.
I also liked a comment I read by someone who says that they normally vote Republican. “With Clinton I don’t see a path to a dystopian future. Whit Trump, I see many.”
John F, I think it’s fairly straightforward what redistribution entails. I’m actually fine with it although I favor leaving the micromanagement and detailed conditions and just have some variant of a negative tax. The main difference between what I’d call mainstream conservative and mainstream center left is typically the level of redistribution and the form it should take. I don’t think there’s much disagreement some should exist.
Generally services aren’t considered redistributionist although there’s probably some disagreement with health care due to the different ways people perceive it’s status as a service. (Some see it as a right, some more a kind of duty and some a privilege that shouldn’t be done by government)
My point was just the relatively uncontroversial position that HRC wants more than any of the typical GOP candidates except perhaps Trump.
The problem with Romney’s 47% beside his general level of competence as a politician (which really wasn’t great) is that it misses all the taxes paid that aren’t income taxes.
Another reason Trump needs to lose in a landslide is so that the GOP is never tempted to do anything like this again. In 2020 some GOP presidential candidate is going to try to go after Trump voters by stoking white resentments just like he did (the Book of Mormon term would be “stirring them up to anger”). Scott Walker would fit the bill–he’s done a lot of that in his career already. We really need the rest of the GOP to say “No, we know from experience that that’s a losing strategy.”
Trump’s already done a great deal of cultural damage, but it will be far worse if he succeeds in turning the GOP into a European-right-style white identity party. Voting for Clinton now is the best way to push the GOP towards becoming a party I can respect and even vote for again in the future.
In my last comment I meant to say Political Elitism, not entitlement. Wrong E word.
Steve, do you believe that the landslide must be in the popular vote, or will the electoral college do? Because then your argument is relevant mostly to the swing states and those states which appear to be in play.. Being from Oregon or California would give you the luxury of voting third party ethically, yes?
She’s definitely part of an internal cabal (I’d say secret combination, but I presume there’s no elaborate oath.. although I assume there’s definitely communication about keeping it secret) that seeks to protect its interest and grow it’s power.
But Donald is either part of that too or just a craven outsider who got rich from the network effects of that cabal.
What’s tragic is we wouldn’t be facing the situation of either terrible person becoming president if Romney was elected four years ago. Many issues we now experience would have been mitigated (Heh) and the Democratic candidate would likely have been someone seriously, inspiring and fresh enough to counter Mitt. Hillary isn’t that candidate.
So the short sighted political judgement that reelected Obama, when shared by millions of others, will elect Hillary and will add to the mess we’re in. Four years from now things will be worse and you’ll likely shift the goal posts that what we need is more of the same or someone else from the polical cabal.
As a general strategy, the best thing the country could do is put a stamp of approval on neither. Write-ins, no votes, etc. A massive display of no confidence can’t be spun into victory; even though either the lying impulsive bafoon or the conniving power seeking liar will still end up in office.
If a plurality of voters vote for neither candidate, when either oversteps their bounds the congress has clear support for impeachment and the President is rightly constrained.
Right now, your voting strategy imposes no constraints. The courts barely impose constraint, and when they do it’s attacked. The congress vacillates between legitimate constraint and playing politics so no one can trust their actions. The president acts under the impression there’s no constraint at all other than just being able to arrange the pieces on the board how they’d like.
The solution is found in the voters and it’s a false choice to hold your nose and vote, because that vote gets the same weighting as a fervent supporter.
When the Savior was placed in such rhetorical or political situations, frequently he chose neither or remained silent. That’s the best guide for voting this cycle.
For the first time since I turned 18 I will not be voting in the presidential election.
Trump: Amoral adulterer, unstable, thinks women are objects for his aggression. unpredictible etc. Talks dirty about his daughter for Heavens sake. Nobody talks about daughters like that unless they are simply pervs. This guy needs a beating seriously. Dirty old man. Rich from birth. Entitled. Class free. Marries and disposes of trophy wives.
HRC: Criminal belongs in jail. Husband rapist. Sold US interests for speech fees. Corrupt in all aspects of her life. Aided and abbetted WJC abuse of women for 40 years. Liar, perjurer etc There is a video of WJC sticking his hand up a womans skirt on a campaign plane. Bill Clinton is serial sex offender belongs in prison and on the sex offender registry. HRC drove the getaway car.
HRC wins. Democratic base shame shame shame.
Trump: GOP primary voters shame shame shame
Bbell, the line of argument that holds Hillary Clinton responsible for her husband’s sexual misdeeds is pretty offensive.
Thanks Steve Evans. GSO: your “solution” to remain silent or choose neither only makes sense if the two main alternatives are equally bad. In this case, it is not so. I have to admit that I voted for Obama both times, and have not been unhappy with him. So you know I would have voted for H. Clinton in any case. However, when speaking with my children during the last two elections, I explained that while I was voting for Obama, that I consider his opponent (McCain or Romney) to be good people, worthy of my respect. If either had won I would have been able to accept them, support them, and hope that the country could work with them. In this election, I find Trump to be a menace. I am truly frightened of him and what his win would represent.
I fear that he will win. I have seen his fervent support. It is hard for me to understand. After the first debate, when he essentially agreed that he hadn’t paid any income tax, I saw a clip of him speaking to his supporters in Colorado. His most reliable support is composed of white, non-college graduate, men. I saw them cheer wildly for his admission that he doesn’t pay taxes. I honestly don’t get it. Don’t they pay taxes? Aren’t they upset that someone who has gold-plated toilets in his penthouse apartment, who arrives at rallys in his own helicopter, doesn’t pay federal income taxes? If Trump lived more modestly, I could accept that he is writing off bad debt. I do not doubt that what he is doing with his taxes is legal. I just can’t abide his extreme lifestyle in the face of huge debt. As Steve put so aptly, I see him as a menace, and I hope to see him soundly defeated. I fear that he will not be, however.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Hillary is responsible for so much of the instability in the world. She is the most greedy dishonest corrupt politician we have ever had put on the presidential ballot. While she is female I would be ashamed to have her be the first female president. She does not deserve that distinction. She is so far removed from what is great about the female gender – kindness, goodness, refining influences. She is my very last choice.
Lisa: I respect your position, but your hyperbole is unhelpful.
“defeated beyond all margin of possible tainted vote”
So, how large is the margin of possible tainted vote? Or in other words, the degree to which this is a legitimate reason to desire a large margin of victory for Clinton is also the degree to which Trump is right about vote rigging. I’m not worried about significant vote rigging, and I’m not worried about the pointless task of trying to convince Trump that he is wrong about something.
I’m not voting for Trump because of the jump in public depravity he represents, even far beyond what his golf buddy Bill gave us. It’s too bad that the only way not to elect Trump is the banana republic move of electing the term-limited former president’s wife. That these are the choices we gave ourselves means we’ve already lost regardless of which candidate edges out the other, and we won’t be recovering from this anytime soon. In 2020, after living with the results of The Alicia Machado Election, I probably will expect significant vote rigging.
Trump and Clinton now tied in Utah (at 26 percent each):
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/poll-trump-clinton-utah-tie-229658
Betting odds have adjusted accordingly:
https://electionbettingodds.com/4hr.html
All the leading Mormon thinkers are singing the same anti-Trump tune. Deseret News Editorial Board, Jon Huntsman, Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Reps. Mia Love, Chris Stewart, Jason Chaffetz….
As a people, we disagree on Clinton… but we may be converging to consensus on Trump…
I respect your opinion, Steve. And I respect those who have commented for not making this a big fight. I personally don’t whole-heartedly support Trump. I’m trying to decide if I can justify voting for a third-party candidate (I need to look into them and what they stand for.). But I couldn’t be more against Hillary.
I agree with Lisa. Am I the only one who’s been paying attention to the Oversight Committee hearings? How can we think that Hillary is fit to be president if anybody else in her position would be in prison?
If “most” of the reasons to not vote for Hillary are Republican propaganda (“manufactured scandal after manufactured scandal”), what does that make the reasons to not vote for Trump? How do we decide on what’s legitimate and what’s not?
I find myself amazed at how consistent to LDS values the LDS people I know are about this election. Very few LDS folks I know are voting for HRC or Trump. I have been polling my extended family and watching my social media accounts and find myself proud of my people. Trump got just ripped in a YM lesson by a super conservative Priest quorum adviser whom I know is quite conservative in a YM’s lesson this past Sunday. Used as an object lesson on how not to live ones life.
Our values are solid and consistent and cannot be bought by corrupt politicians from either party.
Since I have been able to vote, I have supported Republican candidates for both president and lower offices. I have generally agreed with most of the Republican platform every election except this one. The candidates I have voted for have never been my ideal candidate, but they appeared to be the closest I could find.
The Republicans started to lose me after they decided to shut down the government back in 2013. Whatever the motivation or message they were trying to send I thought that shutting down the government was the wrong medium for that motivation and message. Regardless of what size and influence I think government should have, we still need to have a government. Ever since the party decided to treat Trump like a legitimate candidate I was baffled and honestly offended. Once they actually nominated him, they lost me. I don’t think I can ever bring myself to vote for a Republican candidate for office ever again. Hopefully some legitimate & conservative 3rd party can rise up out of the ashes of the fracturing Republican party, otherwise I may be voting Democratic for the rest of my life.
I may be in one of the reddest states of the union – but I’m voting for Clinton this year.
Another quick comment. I do not think that either GWB or Kerry or Obama or Romney or McCain despite weaknesses or flaws in all of them come anywhere close to being as corrupt as these two jokers are.
I think I agree with you there.
Lisa on HRC: “She is so far removed from what is great about the female gender – kindness, goodness, refining influences.” Thanks for the pedestal, Lisa, but I’m pretty sure men are just as responsible to be kind, good, and refined. Given that equity of temperament, I’d prefer to be admired for being smart and effective.
I don’t think Damon Linker is wrong:
http://theweek.com/articles/654453/donald-trumps-garbage-heap-soul
RLD and others. The problem is that there’s no unified “Republican masters” who decide who runs or what happens. By and large the elites hated Trump, were stupid about dealing with him but feared Cruz more than Trump. The base more or less for better or worse wanted Cruz or Trump. While Trump might be a horrible representation for all of them except the so-called alt-right by and large their concerns which are largely ignored by the Republican establishment aren’t going away. Your issue really isn’t the GOP or conservatism but with a significant number of non-college whites who feel left behind by society.
Exactly how the GOP deals with this after the election isn’t clear. But given how they put their heads in the sands regarding moderate voters, their base and so much more in the repudiations of ’06, ’08 and ’12 I don’t have much faith this time. If anything it’s worse since they can blame it all on Trump the man rather than the structures and forces that brought him to power.
The one issue might be that the GOP is ridiculously divided over this issue. The ‘chamber of commerce’ wing and a significant part of the intellectual conservative wing see Trump as horrible and everything wrong with America. The populist and working class wing, even if they don’t necessarily love Trump at least saw him as representing them against what they see as establishment hypocrisy, selfishness and inattention. There’s probably maybe a third more without strong commitments. (The neocon wing is all in with HRC at this point – but they’re far smaller than their DC presence suggests) There’s no real way to bridge this gap at this point. As many have noted, this is how parties die. But it’s not clear that the more principled intellectual side of the part is going to be able to attract enough people to really be a significant force or form a new party.
Some interesting thoughts here:
LInker is correct. A similar article can be written about HRC. Both of these candidates have dark souls and pose a significant risk the the Republic.
I don’t like HRC. But I’m terrified of Trump. She might be a Teapot Dome Scandal, but if so, Trump is Franco. She might make a bad president, but I honestly fear he could be our last president.
You lean left? Look at Jill Stein. She’s bright and articulate and not politically corrupted.
You lean right? Look at Evan McMullin. He’s honest and experienced.
You want less govt? Look at Gary Johnson. He has a history of success.
You like a strong govt, but want an ethical gov’t? Look at Darrell Castle.
You want a strong, unethical, corrupt, vindictive gov’t? Keep looking at either Trump or Hilary. They’re both the same!
Jax, that’s absurd. Trump and Clinton are the same to the extent they’re both human beings; outside of that, they’re not even close.
They are both unethical, corrupt, vindictive persons who want a strong national gov’t and control of peoples lives. They are just unethical and corrupt and vindictive in different ways.
Clinton is at least competent and experienced which is more than one can say for Trump.
@bbell
Do you have evidence for that? Those who are in charge of placing people in jail couldn’t find a jail-able offence for her actions. I’m sure they would be very interested in information which will help them do their job.
And yet we’re not being asked for vote for him.
I suspect she sold her speeches for speech fees.
Like raising a who is now a contributing member of society, and keeping her marriage together?
Or just didn’t want to believe that her husband was a cheater. Do you think you’re spouse is a cheater?
According to all of the fact checking websites I’ve seen, significantly less so than all of the other candidates she would have been running against.
And we’re still not being asked to vote for him. And if you’re really upset about that, shouldn’t you be even more upset about how sexually aggressive Donald Trump is? And how he isn’t ashamed about it? And brags about it on a regular basis?
Some day someone is going to have to sit me down and vigorously mansplain to me why HRC is a more “flawed” candidate than pretty much anyone else. I join the chorus of people who are concerned about her foreign policy history and hope she keeps her aggressive streak in check while in office, but on pretty much every other issue I’m unimpressed by the characterization that she “isn’t perfect.”
Never in the history of ever has there been a person running for president that was ideologically or temperamentally pure. I have no idea why that caveat is so prevalent with Clinton and not with others. Bernie Sanders, who I admire for many reasons, showed a frustrating lack of interest in American foreign policy (including a dismissive comment on the crisis in Venezuela which would have been repeated frequently as a tone-deaf gaffe had it come from the mouth of Clinton or Trump) and made it rather clear toward the end of his campaign that he wasn’t sure how to execute the majority of his ambitious proposals and he didn’t think that mattered all that much (save, I think, for his free public college plan). He also has a history of statements related to radical socialist movements that are now clearly dated and unfortunate. The Burlington College stuff, the organizational failure and subsequent floundering of “Our Revolution.” The whole weird situation with his taxes. He was clearly an “imperfect” candidate but somehow has managed to escape that label.
Mitt Romney had all his servers scrubbed and sold when he left the governors office and used a personal email account while in office (and it was, like, a Yahoo email or something) but this idea that HRC is somehow more corrupt that Romney lingers in the consciousness of the politically moderate Mormon set. Same goes for Jeb and a slew of other Republican candidates leveraging the e-mail scandal against her. Even Martin O’Malley, the other Democrat, was hit for using personal email for official correspondence and deleting emails when he was gov. of Maryland.
I understand how ideological differences can lead to people not being comfortable with Clinton, but that’s always present when parties represent various political coalitions. Those on the left who ideologically disagree with Clinton on issues of trade, Wall Street, ect also clearly disagree with Obama as well. But he was never the “imperfect candidate.” Or at least not that I remember. He was just the one that appealed most widely to the various coalitions in the Democratic Party, and on those terms he was a pretty solid choice. I don’t see how Clinton is different from that in any substantive way. That’s why it confuses me when I hear people say they think it’s unfair that we are “stuck” with an “imperfect” candidate as the only alternative to Trump. They’re all imperfect. But this imperfect candidate happens to also be incredibly smart, experienced, and politically savvy. I guess what I’m saying is at the end of the day I don’t think supporting her is all that hard. At least not for me.
The whole email program fiasco shows how incompetent Clinton is. I think everyone has the wrong idea about our leaders “doing something”. I supposed it’s understandable considering we all don’t get to manage large organizations, but the newsflash is you’re electing a president to lead, not fight in the trenches doing things.
Hillary isn’t a good leader. She’s not a good legislator. Obama is a good leader in terms of persuasion, but he’s been terrible at leading the legislature, and when he got in the trenches of legislation he’s been abysmal.
Trump is an anomaly. I can’t imagine any boardroom seriously looking to him for leadership for any reason other than he cravenly hypes opportunistic deals. He’s not principled in his strategy, and he’s a terrible businessman in spite of his “success”. And from the size of his failures, it’s likely he’s one of those examples of someone who’s become successful through working the backroom financial deals are a tragic cost of insuring enough liquidity in the financial marketplaces.
Neither candidate deserves our vote. It’s frankly a foregone conclusion Hillary will win. Trump doesn’t stand a chance, it it almost seems as if he’s trying to lose (who runs for President without hiring staff in every state?!?! That’s not a strategy, it’s willful neglect. You don’t try to save money running for President. Any business leader should understand that some things you don’t skimp out on).
So Hillary will win, regardless of all the people who think this is a real horse race and vote for Trump. But what we need is as few people as possible to vote for her.
BTW, while Hillary is not complicit in Bill’s crimes, she is complicit in her disregard for the women he abused. She attacked them to preserve her own interests. That speaks volumes about her character. Forgiveness is a virtue, but the correct move is to forgive him after kicking him to the curb.Their marriage seems like more of a power arrangement. Unless you think Bill Clinton taking private airplane trips with a pedophile, while the pedophile is travelling with the underage girls is just some friends on a tourist trip — because I’m sure Bill just loves to play the tourist flying around the world with his private jet pals and random girls in the plane. It’s all wholesome. Yup.
And we’re still not being asked to vote for him. And if you’re really upset about that, shouldn’t you be even more upset about how sexually aggressive Donald Trump is? And how he isn’t ashamed about it? And brags about it on a regular basis?
Did you miss the part where I stated that Trump needs a beating like with fists? Or was a dirty old man?
HRC has been complicit in the sexual victimization of women for 40 plus years. At this point Bills issues are hers, HRC lacks personal character. A person of character would have divorced and denounced Bill Clinton and his crimes against women.
I am going to say that if you pull the lever for either of these two idiots you might need to revisit your primary lessons of years gone by.
I’m mystified by the currency of the absurd notion that a third Clinton term has nothing to do with the partner who served the first two terms. Partisanship begetting willful stupidity, I guess, as it tends to do.
Steve Sailer wrote an apt description of the Clintons:
“A funny thing about the Clinton marriage is how much it conforms to prefeminist stereotypes. You used to hear the saying ‘Behind every great man there’s a great woman.’ And Bill and Hillary have exactly the traditional male and female traits that made for a good power couple of a charismatic man and a careful woman. They’re like Vladimir and Vera Nabokov, the great novelist and his famously devoted wife, if Vera had been an egomaniac who thought she was the real talent.
“Without Hillary, Bill might have been, say, the Arkansas state senate minority leader, a legend of wasted potential to Little Rock insiders (‘He could have been the next LBJ’) as he struggles to pay alimony to three ex-wives. Without Bill, Hillary would have been, say, chief of staff to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), but nobody would have ever imagined her as president.”
http://takimag.com/article/sexual_politics_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4MtgDbn9x
JJ, Romney wasn’t handling secret/classified information. Speaking as someone who worked at LANL (as did John Mansfield above although I don’t recall if he had a clearance) they put the fear into you about how you deal with that. There are people who faced prison for less than what HRC did. At a minimum your career would be over had you done anything remotely similar to what she did. (Note that last link happened under the Clinton administration – notice the similarity?)
“Some day someone is going to have to sit me down and vigorously mansplain to me why HRC is a more ‘flawed’ candidate than pretty much anyone else.”
Every time I think I have a handle on what “mansplaining” looks like in practice, someone goes and uses it like this, and I wonder again if it’s just code for “a man disagrees with me.”
Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see a group of conservative Mormons counseling divorce to someone who ultimately didn’t want it, as well as speculating regarding the reasons behind a woman’s choice to support her wayward man. That doesn’t seem like any of my business. But perhaps the example of Enid Greene and her husband has made them extra vigilant. And I wouldn’t begrudge Secretary Clinton if she decided to kick her husband to the curb.
I’m voting for Clinton because I don’t see her doing too much to harm the Republic and because I think the accusations of corruption and deception are overblown. Your mileage may, of course, vary. The truth is I differ from Steve in that I don’t care who you vote for, so long as it isn’t Trump.
John, it’s the one and only reason that the Savior excuses divorce for. If there’s a time to divorce someone, it’s when your sexually harassing your intern while you’re President of the United States (dontcha have more important things to do?). The fact that he lied about it in a trial for sexually harassing someone else? Doesn’t that point to a problem? The fact that she immediately started attacking everyone publicly but not her husband? Doesn’t that rush to blame the victim anger you (especially when it’s to her advantage)?
The fact that he is almost certainly a serial adulterer and possibly rapist (ahem, plethora of BYU rape culture articles on this site) adds far more weight to the divorce side of the scales.
She’s not a battered or helpless wife naively being taken advantage of by a sweet talking lying husband. If she were, the council should definitely be to leave him! But even worse, she’s sticking with it for personal gain.
Please don’t claim to be in support of family values and also criticize a woman for her choice not to divorce her husband as evidence of his infidelity came to light. What you’re interpreting as her aiding and abetting his adultery is simply a woman finding things out piece by piece and fighting to save her marriage.
It is clear that if she had divorced President Clinton, you would use that as evidence that she promotes divorce and is against “The Family”.
I think this discussion could use a little more Johnny Cash.
For a number of reasons I’m an irredemable Trumpista, but I’ll name here only one: Hillary’s position on Syria and the Russian involvement there. At the last debate (and on previous occasions) Hillary said she would enforce a no-fly zone over Syria and characterized Russia as our adversary. This is a dangerous provocation the likes of which Trump’s suggesting a rigged election system (in light of the revealed media and party rigging, or at the very least the heavy-thumb-on-the-scaling, of the Democratic primary) doesn’t even come close. Since there are already Russian planes flying in Syrian airspace at the invitation of the Syrian regime, establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone would require direct military confrontation with Russia. Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not North Korea, not Serbia. Russia. And as in all of America’s recent wars, who do you think will bear the disproportionate brunt of any resulting conflict? Those southern hwyte males of whom Democrats were once so fond.
Why I’m voting for Hillary:
1) Because she is the only qualified candidate who has even a remote chance of winning.
2) She’s fairly centrist.
3) She will promote women’s rights, LONG overdue.
4) We are long overdue for a woman–any woman–as president.
5) She’s a credible statesman. She can sit at the G8 summit and not cause irreparable damage to our reputation as a nation.
6) She’s a known quantity. We know more or less what to expect from her, and stability is the most important quality in a president.
Why I would never vote for Trump:
1) He’s a complete loose cannon and totally unpredictable. If the role of president were to increase ratings through sensationalist wild statements, he’d be top pick. The presidency isn’t the Jerry Springer show.
2) He’s not even a conservative. How he got the nomination is something that should cause the party serious reflection. The GOP seems to have no soul right now, having been gutted by the tea party.
3) He has no qualifications to do this role. He doesn’t even seem to understand how government works.
4) He’s a sociopath and a narcissist. Maybe that ties in with #1 on my list.
I do certainly think people should vote their conscience, though. But I tend to agree with Steve that Trump’s base of supporters are a scary lot (not the hold-your-nose-and-vote voters, but the ones in a bloodthirsty frenzy at his rallies). The message to Trump’s supporters that this was not a close race could be an important one to keep them in check.
Fivethirtyeight.com still shows Utah as firmly for Trump. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo To me, that’s an embarrassment for the church, but the reasons the DN gave that Trump should step down weren’t completely satisfying to me either. The church’s record on women isn’t exactly above reproach, but it’s true that they don’t like profanity, infidelity, or sexual aggression.
538 updated things given today’s polls but said it’d be a couple of days before he adds it to his model. That’s why his map still shows Utah as red.
Oh, and from over here on the right nothing makes me happier than seeing the Neocons (red diaper babies all) make aliyah back home to the left.
GSO,
I’m genuinely curious. Do you spend time discoursing on the moral standing of Eleanor Roosevelt or Jackie Kennedy? I can understand not liking Secretary Clinton’s positions, or even her perceived political corruption, but going after some woman for failing to divorce a cheating, skeevy husband seems low.
Wilhelm,
Am I reading you correctly? Are you arguing that Secretary Clinton wants to go to war in the Middle East in order to stage a sort of Southern White Male genocide? That’s…um…interesting.
Just note the floodgates are opening tonight. Four separate women claiming inappropriate touching we’d likely call sexual assault plus a video from 1990 of him saying very inappropriate things to a 10 year old. All those Republican who didn’t leave him last weekend are going to look very bad. And we may finally break the historic low in votes 1964 gave us.
John C.,
No, you’re not reading me correctly. Since Madam Secretary has no skin in the game (unlike those deplorable Southern rednecks who are no longer part of her party’s coalition), her anti-Russian bombast is not only dangerous but immoral.
Clark Goble and Steve Evans
Do you believe the women that say Bill Clinton assaulted them and that Hillary intimidated them? Do you believe it was Hillary’s competence that has the middle east in its current state in Syria and Libya? Do you believe Comey when he stated he wasn’t sure Clinton was sophisticated enough to understand what a small ‘c’ was on a document? Do you disregard the proven overlap between the Clinton foundation and the State Department? I find both candidates objectionable. I am disappointed in my liberal friends who support the Clinton’s because her actions towards the sexual assault victims is not okay and the champions of rape culture dismiss it. I believe Trumps accusers. Both candidates are are not fit for office. My conservative friends will not support Trump but my liberal friends seem blind to the obvious corruption of Hillary and Bill Clinton. I find this sad.
I thought Fox News’ take on Hillary and her husband’s accusers was interesting.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/654613/megyn-kelly-judge-andrew-napolitano-shred-donald-trumps-latest-attack-hillary-clinton
They said she didn’t do anything wrong. Interesting coming from Fox.
I found the New York Times take on how Hillary and Bill treated his accusers fascinating. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html I thought we had come a long way in how we treat sexual assault and rape victims in this country, but this election has shown, it depends if they are on your team or not. If they are on the other side of the aisle, according to the left, it’s okay to dismiss them but every allegation against Trump must be believed. Sad. They should all be believed. Hillary and Bill are proven liars so their victims should be given the benefit of the doubt based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Thanks for posting. I still think that Fox’s assessment is pretty solid.
I actually believe the Pulitzer prize nominated journalist of the New York Times has a more thorough look at the facts than Fox News. That’s just my opinion but I appreciate the civil conversation here on BCC.
I think we’re comparing apples and oranges here, Jane. The NYT just didn’t look that damning to me. Politics is a rough sport.
@Jane Smith
I do disregard it. Primarily because, not only has it not been proven, but the accusation has been thoroughly disproven.
@jader3rd http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/friends-bill-clinton-controversy-haiti-2010-earthquake-42740478
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/emails-renew-questions-about-clinton-foundation-and-state-dept-overlap.html
You can disregard this too…
Let’s move this along, please. I haven’t intervened much in the discussion but things are getting a little circular.
Jane, both of them are a mess especially with the reports coming out tonight and tomorrow. We as a nation nominated two of the worst people ever. But as bad as Clinton is Trump is far, far worse. I just am truly praying that the rumors of the videos being released tomorrow about both are not true. Only Putin is laughing in all of this.
This election isn’t about issues, it’s about virtue-signalling. Signal on, but nobody focusses on Biden/Obama/CIA (latter heavily Mormon) selling out the Kurds in Rojava (Northern Syria) . . . No, we can just go die bc you want to virtue-signal. Carry on, peeps . . .
Yes, it’s true, the virtue of our presidential candidates matters to many more than all the machinations of the CIA with the Kurds.
Supporting something Clark wrote above, I’ll give a little of my perspective on the Clinton e-mail server from my position as someone in a position requiring a security clearance. First, my impression is that the country probably has not been damaged by her handling of her e-mail, and criminal prosecution would not be the usual outcome for this sort of security violation. Anyone where I work, though, doing what she did would have her clearance revoked and would have to find a different job. I don’t know how things are at the State Department, but at the Defense Department, it is impossible to be ignorant of such things. We have to attend hour long presentations once a year on how to handle classified information. Slips, such as sending an unclassified e-mail with a classified attachment, results in a personal conversation with the captain of our 2,000 person installation. It also results in him reporting the violation to the admiral over installations like ours, so he hates it when any of us do such things. Such things do happen a few times a year, however. One funny instance of the attention to such things is when some of Snowden’s leaks were published in the Washington Post, we were sent an e-mail telling us not to read those articles at work, because that would constitute a spillage of classified information onto an unclassified system.
In other words, what we have is a system of security clearance theater that fails to protect classified information while harshly punishing inconsequential lapses. In my own experience, a close relative lost his security clearance and consequently his job through no fault of his own when I took my current job that I guess somebody thought posed a risk to the processing of insurance claims down at the clinic on base. It’s not just the Lord who moves in mysterious ways.
Yes, there is some amount of theater. (See My NSA Conspiracy Theory: “Perhaps in studying its own workings, the U.S. government hoped the intelligence battle would be less asymmetrical if the adversary could be induced to smother its programs with counter intelligence training.”) It is also simply a very protective system that recognizes and responds to all lapses in procedure, the same sort of attention that an effective safety program requires. Lapses get people reprimanded, but not fired. Patterns of lapses or deliberate mishandling of information could lead to termination.
I don’t know what happened with your relative, but looking around my immediate cluster of offices, two of the ten of us are foreign born and keep up connections with the Old Country, and they have to report all of those connections. Having those connections is not disqualifying, but not disclosing them could be. I don’t know if there was something about your obligations, affections, and loyalties that your close relative should have disclosed, or if procedure was carried to a pointless extreme, as when I was instructed that yes, I should report whenever a boy in my cub scout den is the child of foreign parents, in a county where 30% of the population is foreign born.
Not wanting rapists in the White House is not about virtue signaling.
Even Glenn Beck is promoting Hillary. https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/posts/10154622008673188, but only because, he says, once elected, her policies can be fought. I, like Mike Lee, wish that the GOP could pressure Trump into stepping down. Like that’s going to happen.
That’s it, I’m closing it up. Remember to vote. Or don’t. Whatever.