Hillary’s convention speech II; and more Trumpery

imagesWell, Hillary did use some of the draft I wrote for her (see previous post). But mainly she insisted on giving the Standard Model Democratic Speech – covering every policy, every voter niche, stroking every interest group.

It was a speech for the ‘90s.

images-1Not only is Hillary running as a Democrat, she’s running as a Bernie Sanders Democrat (though Bernie always called himself not a Democrat but a socialist). Yet if Clinton is running as a Sanders Democrat, you wouldn’t know it from listening to the Bernie-or-busters. While her stances are practically a carbon copy of his, they still talk as though it’s a saint versus a Satan. As Sarah Silverman told them, they’re being ridiculous. Of course, their candidate always was.

UnknownHillary (like Andrew Cuomo) seems to think orating means talking loud. As though that shows your speech is really important and you really really mean it. Hillary often sounds as shrill as a harpy. And often looks like smiling is painful for her. Trump spent his entire speech scowling darkly, as though he could spit bullets. Why did Hillary try to imitate that?

Meantime, Trump has endorsed – encouraged – the idea of an enemy nation engaging in espionage against us and interfering in U.S. politics. This is the man who says only he can protect us.

But he also says he won’t necessarily protect other nations against an attack by that enemy, notwithstanding our treaty obligations to do so.

images-2And when asked about America’s opposition to Russia’s grab of Crimea, Trump said, “We’ll be looking at that.” Which is Trump-speak for “I don’t know what the frick to say, but that doesn’t stop me from saying something stupid.” His answer has been interpreted as bowing to the Crimea crime. But I doubt he meant that – rather, his answer revealed he knows nothing about Crimea, doesn’t know where it is, or why it’s an issue.

When a man thinks he knows everything, he thinks he needn’t bother himself actually knowing anything.

(I’m voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.)

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Hillary’s convention speech II; and more Trumpery”

  1. Jorg Lueke Says:

    Isn’t Gary Johnson’s position to Russia the same? He gave an interview after Crimea that stated we shouldn’t get involved in Russia’s military actions. Has he said anything about Nato?

  2. rationaloptimist Says:

    Isolationist foreign policy is in fact the one major point of difference I have with standard libertarians.

  3. bruce Says:

    come on, every tom dick and harry can understand the point of Trump’s plea for russia’s help finding Clinton’s lost emails. come on, its funny.
    Me thinks thou dost protest too much

  4. rationaloptimist Says:

    I have as much sense of humor as anyone. This is not funny.

  5. Dennis Says:

    Bowing to Bernie HC offered free college tuition and “expanded” social security benefits in her acceptance speech ( What does that mean – I get more or more people get some?) and “the banks” and “Wall Street” are going to pay for it ! Once again, the demonization of capitalism. I’m just wondering if the financial firms that over-paid to hear her speeches are having second thoughts ( Meanwhile in other news, I notice that the second larges health insurer, ANTHEM, is losing money on their Affordable Healthcare participants…..) I’m voting alongside you….

  6. rationaloptimist Says:

    And the gravest threat to America’s future — the sure-to-explode national debt bomb — was mentioned by NO ONE at either convention!

  7. Jorg Lueke Says:

    No one’s talking about the national debt since they’ve been doing it of over thirty years, ever since G.H.W Bush derided the actor’s voodoo economics and the debt first ballooned. After that much time of crying wolf people have stopped paying attention.

  8. rationaloptimist Says:

    It’s not “crying wolf.” Anyone who looks seriously at the issue knows that.

  9. Lee Says:

    In the spirit of “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,” the media is teaching us all about the broken eggs for the two most popular candidates. I wish the media would give some more attention to the omelettes. At least for a moment, I wish they would put aside ALL the broken eggs and discuss the proposals from each of the FOUR leading candidates. I am specifically interested in achievable proposals; which proposals of the candidates have a decent chance of making it through congress? Is that too much to ask?

  10. rationaloptimist Says:

    Yes. Nobody wants to hear such boring stuff.

  11. Lee Says:

    I’ve looked at the debt issue seriously. I don’t say “crying wolf” but I do say that those who focus on the size of the debt rather than on what the debt is used for are not seeing the full picture. A country that goes into debt to build infrastructure or jump-start an economy is creating wealth and saving lives; the recent run-up in debt prevented bread lines. However, the economy is on better footing, now and by the end of the upcoming four-year term we deserve surpluses.

  12. Lee Says:

    A misplaced comma changed the meaning; that should have read “the economy is on better footing now, and by the end of the upcoming four-year term we deserve surpluses.”

  13. rationaloptimist Says:

    We “deserve” surpluses? So I guess the baby boomers will cheerfully agree to forgo all their Social Security and Medicare benefits — which is why there WON’T be surpluses. Indeed, that is where the bulk of the money is going — pensions and other entitlements — not infrastructure and the kinds of things you romanticize as good investments. THAT we’re doing too little of because we spend too much on entitlements.

  14. Jorg Lueke Says:

    Really? Don’t social security and Medicare have their own taxes to fund them? How much of the current debt is due to borrowing to fund SSA and Nedicare? How much of the current debt is do to borrowing for war? How much is due to borrowing for domestic discretionary spending?

  15. rationaloptimist Says:

    Soc Sec & Medicare taxes do not nearly cover the liabilities. These two programs are the gigantic budget busters that are projected, in future decades, due to more retirees living longer, to explode in cost and create unsustainable debt levels

  16. Jorg Lueke Says:

    I’m talking about the current $20 trillion in debt. How much has been borrowed to pay for them and when did it start?

  17. rationaloptimist Says:

    What has been spent in the past cannot be changed. What will be spent in the future can be.

  18. Lee Says:

    I see three approaches for achieving surpluses; cut needless spending, make needed spending more efficient, and increase revenue. As a start: in the cutting department, there is plenty of welfare for the rich that could go. In the efficiency department, some aggressive diplomacy will make the expensive war machinery less necessary. If the cutbacks are not sufficient, we could make income tax rates for the wealthy more in line with places like Sweden, discussed here.

    If we had spent a trillion dollars bailing out deadbeat homeowners instead of bailing out deadbeat bankers, we’d have the surpluses already. Unfortunately, that (welfare for the rich) is water under the bridge.

    We produce enough wealth to keep us all going so this isn’t as impossible as some in the media make it out to be.

  19. rationaloptimist Says:

    Why don’t you run for president on this platform, let’s see how many votes there are for it!

  20. Jorg Lueke Says:

    So we accrue $20 trillion in debt, almost half of which is held by retirement funds like the military retiree trust fund, the SSA trust fund and others. All programs that have run a surplus. The debt being caused by excessive (that is unfunded) domestic and military spending (the discretionary budget). But your solution doesn’t involve cutting the debt causers but the programs that have provided surpluses? How would this cutting be done and who would vote for it? I’d rather cut the discretionary budget in half and remove the cap on the SSA withholding.

  21. Lee Says:

    Krugman says we could / should borrow more.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/time-to-borrow.html

  22. rationaloptimist Says:

    Krugman always says that. It’s wrong.

  23. Don Says:

    When I was in my high school government class, I remember my teacher carry on about the $700,000,000,000 national debt. Jimmy Carter was the president then. By the time Clinton left office it was around $4 trillion …now $20,000,000,000,000. Every bubble has to come to an end. There will be a very loud “pop” when the bubble bursts. Soon the national debt will be so great that if all the 2008 Zimbabwe $100 trillion notes were monetized, the debt still couldn’t be retired.
    Well, maybe that is an exaggeration……I hope so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s