Posted on 11/03/2016 5:49:30 PM PDT by Brilliant
Americans go to the polls next week facing what millions believe is the worst presidential choice of their lifetimes... But one of them will be the next President, so in the next two days we’ll try to summarize the risks...
with Mrs. Clinton... she would continue President Obama’s progressive march to a French-style welfare and regulatory state...
She wants higher taxes, more spending on entitlements that are already unaffordable, more subsidies...more regulations on businesses of all kinds, more limits on political speech, more enforcement of liberal cultural values on schools and churches.
The greatest cost of this would be more lost years of slow economic growth. The U.S. economy hasn’t grown by 3%...since 2005, and the explanation from Mrs. Clinton’s economic advisers is that America can’t grow faster and inequality is a bigger problem in any case...
But as we’ve seen...the costs of slow growth are corrosive. Flat incomes lead to more social tension and political enmity. The fight to divide a smaller pie would get uglier in a country that was once accustomed to rising possibilities. Imagine the 2020 election after four more years of 1%...
Lurking behind all this, as we’ve seen these past two weeks, is the familiar pattern of scandal fed by her penchant for secrecy and political paranoia. As journalist Carl Bernstein has noted, she shares Richard Nixon’s “obsession with enemies...”
The most astonishing revelation of the 2016 campaign has been that neither she nor her husband learned anything from the ethical traumas of the 1990s. ...instead they built the same pay-to-play structure via the Clinton Foundation.
Mrs. Clinton made the astounding decision to use a private email server for official business so she could duck federal records laws. Mrs. Clinton has ratified the worst things her critics say about her...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
“They don’t endorse Trump but they sure do trash Clinton. Maybe that’s coming. Of course they haven’t said what they think about Trump yet.”
Trump hasn’t actually “done” anything yet to judge. I like the potential of what he sais he might do implicitly and explicitly and all the ramifications that flow after. He may or may not accomplish anything of value. Clinton, on the other hand has 30 years of actions to judge.
I think it said in the opening that they would give negatives on both and they just started with Hillary.
The WSJ is a uniparty/plutocrat journal of record. At best they’ll damn Trump with faint praise.
So the media, in concert, has adopted the proven Saul Alinsky tactic of saying your opponent is exactly who you are. Hillary is an extremely poor candidate for the Democrats and instead of focusing on her weaknesses the media preaches 24/7 the choice of Donald Trump to be horrible.
They don't actually trash Clinton, only tepidly outline her negatives. They really don't seem to think that what she has done is all that bad on balance. To which I say barf big time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.