My 2016 Review Which Didn't Go As Planned

I had originally thought about writing a nice summary of the year's event; you know, kind of a wrap up for 2016. However, whenever I started to sit down and get started, something else would catch my attention, usually relating to this, for lack of a better expression, systematic shock by the Left that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton, despite the near foregone conclusion that she would crowned as the first female American President, lost and the subsequent trauma which has ensued beginning with denial and then quickly into the anger stage. Now, we seem to be well into the blame stage where, in an effort to find some reason---no matter how absurd or illogical---how America was denied its "queen", how "The Donald" won (never mind the mood of the country for the last eight or even 16 years with Establishment politics), the open takeover of the country by the Oligarchy not to mention international embarrassments--American officials don't bow damn it---and apology tours, a never-ending wars complete with illegal gun deals, the murder of an ambassador as well as open borders for illegals and potential terrorists and so on and so on.

So, now, in a quest to ignore the obvious and distract Americans (again) from the reality of what's actually happening, the DNC and members of the Democratic Party Establishment have, at Hillary's urging, started to fix the blame for Hillary's loss (and there has to be somebody to blame other than the candidate herself) on the Russians. Apparently, according to the current narrative, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directly Russian intelligence agencies to find ways to "rig" the election against Hillary (you know, like she and Debbie Wasserman did against Bernie Sanders) and to find ways to discredit her (like her failure to use secured servers and cell phones, using the office of Secretary of State to garner "pay-to-play" donations to the Clinton Foundation, attempts to cover-up unauthorized arms deals, failure to come to the assistance of a US Ambassador in Benghazi resulting in his death, the death of three other high value Embassy individuals and destruction of the Embassy itself and the subsequent cover-up, and literally thousands and thousands of pages of other "trivial points" in her words).

The story the current Regime is trying to sell to us via the corporate media, Russian intelligence operatives were able to bypass the National Security Agency, which is the largest and most powerful global communications monitoring network on the planet bar none and can literally monitor, record, and analyze every piece of electronic communication on in near real time; they broke through the communications net of the FBI, Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and its electronic monitoring capabilities, as well as the internal security features of the DNC, the US State Department (Hillary's repeated refusal to use secure cell phones or servers surely didn't help). Of course, let's not forget that most of what was released was from the very fingers of Hillary, her campaign staff, her SoS staff, the DNC, and so forth. In other words, what repeatedly damn them was their own words from their own sites, not manufactured emails or other electronic communications---but themselves. Yet, their complaint has been that someone else sabotaged Hillary's chances. Their arrogance is simply amazing, and then to demand an Congressional investigation and enlist the help of the aforementioned intelligence agencies to help find a scapegoat, and who better to blame than the one world leader who saw through both Obama and Hillary than Vladimir Putin.

According to Mr. Putin, he was less than disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost, especially given her oft repeated promises of continuing with President Obama's foreign policies, which has seen a refreeze of relations between Russia and the US, especially in the Middle East where Obama has repeatedly pushed for "boots on the ground" against Russia long standing regional ally, Syria. In addition, Russia has proven to be very successful with the efforts to target and remove terrorists operations, namely ISIS and Al Qaeda, in Syria while the US regards them as "allies" and refers to them as "rebels" since they are opposing President Assad's government and continued to arm and equipment them while outside Syria these same groups are the our enemies. Trump has expressed a willingness to work with Putin in eliminating these individuals wherever they are located or under whatever name they are currently using.

Nevertheless, Putin has repeatedly stated that neither he nor Russian intelligence was involved in rigging the US Presidential Election. Besides, if Russia could bypass our national intelligence network to this degree, I think our priorities need to be reexamined and we need to be more concerned how we could have a failure of this proporation than Hillary's loss. Next, we have Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks who, you know, actually leaked the information in question. According to Mr. Assange, Russian was not involved in any way in helping WikiLeaks in obtaining any of the volumes of emails and other documents which they've been making available to the public. Mr. Assange has stated, however, that most of his sources have been disillusioned staffers at the DNC, former Clinton associates and campaign volunteers, as well as former Bernie Sanders supporters. Huh. So, here we have a organization with the history of obtaining and releasing information and its presidents admitting to the leaks but this isn't acceptable to Hillary, the DNC, and the Political Establishment? I always thought that the keys to solve any crime were "motive, means, and opportunity", which WikiLeaks has, and here we have a public confession too but that's somehow not acceptable? Could it be that Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible for her own failure?

Lastly, we now have what I'm calling the "Revenge of the Talking Heads". From early on in the presidential race, it became more than clear that this was going to be about the two Establishment parties going through the formulated campaign with all the usual sound bites, glad-handing and scripted speeches as one cardboard candidate pretended to get indignant with the other cardboard candidate, and in the end you and I got to go vote for the one which sounded like they cared the most but didn't. You know, "the illusion of choice" which is American Politics these days. In this case, it was corporate owned Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. whoever the Pretender-to-the-Throne the other side would present. In the end, Hillary would emerge victorious after a "hard fought" but "honorable" race and call for the country to "come together" behind her administration and policy...blah, blah, blah. Well, it didn't work out that way did it?

Instead, we had a political outsider who the Establishment called a "clown", "the circus", and "didn't deserve to be there". Interesting. I thought anyone could run for President and it was up to us---the People---to decide who "deserved" to be there or not, but perhaps I'm mistaken. That must have been a cartoon from my youth. Throughout the campaign, the corporate media and its "talking heads" couldn't have been more non-transparent in their contempt for the non-establishment candidate or in the foregone conclusion that this "formality" of the election process was just the prelude to Hillary's coronation. No one, and I mean no one was any more dumbfounded than the camera perfect heads on NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBS, CNN, and the rest of the corporate owned media outlets, but of those who were actually listening to the American People---the non-traditional media (including yours truly), we weren't surprised at all. In fact, most of us had been saying so all along!

Now, we the corporate media with its image and credibility irrevocably tarnished, has launched an all out campaign to shut down sites it regards as promoting "fake news". This includes not only trying to ignore them but removing them from sites like Facebook and YouTube because, well, you know, you can trust them with telling the "truth" not independent bloggers, writers, talk shows and other alternative news sites. Of course, to be sure, there are more than a few news sites, etc who put "questionable" stories out there---some of which sounding quite legit---but then so has and does the corporate media. Kettle meet pot, although I think those of us in the alternative media are more honest since we aren't often beholden to a paycheck and making some corporate powerbroker happy or necessarily towing some party line.

Regardless, I find it dangerous that the very same media outlets, 96% of which who are controlled by just six corporations---yes six---and beholden to corporate interests just like the two primary corporate political parties are should be allowed to "police" those who are trying to do an honest job and provide real news which they aren't even trying to report. To me, and I admit that I'm obviously biased on this point, but it reminds me of when the old Fascist and Communist regimes began imposing their propaganda machine on the countries, be it Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's Russia, Tojo's Japan or more recent dictatorships in Libya, Iraq or some of the countries in Latin America. As I think everyone knows by now, America isn't the Constitutional or democratic Republic it once was. It's an Oligarchy, and like most oligarchies, it's neo-fascist in its political ideology though it really doesn't care as long as they obtain and maintain control, be it the economy, the government, the military (which it uses as its enforcer), or control over our lives and, ultimately, our thoughts---our opinions and values---because as long as this illusion of choice continues, they still need to go through the formality of elections. It's, of course, much easier if they can predict our behavior triggers on certain issues and channel that in a certain direction to get the "official" results they wanted in the first place.

By the way, there's also another shift taking place which most Americans may be unaware of. In addition to this "witch hunt" against alternative media, there is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempt to delegitimize Trump and his incoming Administration underway; innuendos, understated questions, backhanded slurs against certain individuals, attempts to place doubts and undercut public trust going on by the corporate media. It's "as if" they are trying to plant in the mind of Americans that somehow the Presidential election was "stolen" or wasn't "legitimate" and that Trump isn't the "real" President. Some have started campaigns using the slogan "Not my President" and encouraging members of Congress, the military, the political bureaucracy to ignore Trump, his polices, and Executive Orders; a kind of passive aggressive resistance. Even Obama has been doing his best to undercut Trump by taking steps, especially in regards to foreign policy and immigration, that will hamper the new administration. Traditionally, the outgoing President didn't do much of anything as a courtesy to the incoming President, knowing firsthand how difficult it is hitting the ground running. It's part of the "peaceful transition" of administrations that we were known for. It appears those days are gone and we're witnessing yet another attempt by the Obama Regime to divide and disrupt America.

So, instead of looking back at the year, I decided that taking a closer look at how it ended was an excellent coda to the year and look forward toward 2017, and perhaps beyond. Of course, if we were to look back, I might suggest something more appropriate...like 1984. Have a healthy and safe 2017 everyone.

Campaigning On The Public's Dollar

Did you know that the cost to fly Air Force One is just over $228,000...an hour? That covers fuel (they carry their own extra fuel), food, water, supplies, and crew. Plus, the engines are inspected while on the ground and after each mission the engines are overhauled while Air Force One itself gets a nose to tail and wingtip to wingtip inspection. Can you guess how much it costs to fly the President of the United States around? Well, the 2012/2013 Christmas flight to Hawaii and back to Washington cost US taxpayers $4,086,355.20. A trip to Ireland in July of 2013, which included a sightseeing tour for Mrs. Obama, their daughters, and usual entourage cost taxpayers just under $8 million dollars. When they all decided to take a break and fly to Africa the same year, our tab was over $15 million dollars, and we didn't even get a lousy T-shirt! But, of course, that trip included US fighter escorts because we all know just how popular the American President is globally. In August of 2013, the cost for the Obama's to fly to Martha Vineyard for their August vacation and back to Washington was a little over $1,164,000---and that doesn't include lodging, food, or even souvenirs.

In fact, flying the President of the United States around is an expensive operation...a very expensive operation since the President travels with a battery of special armored plated vehicles, a small army of Secret Service personnel and advance security agents to scope out and secure the areas where he will be traveling, speaking or staying. Overnight stays requires that the White House chef must go along to prepare his food (often, they also bring food from the White House kitchen in order to insure it hasn't been "tainted" in any way. This goes for beverages as well) as well as doctors and surgical equipment (complete with blood supply matching the President, his family, and key personnel), speech writers, military personnel, office staff and equipment such as teleprompters, microphones, speakers, podium with the Presidential Seal, and much more.

On long trips, the total number of people travelling with the President (in accompanying airplanes of course) may be as high as 500. On shorter trips or "sorties", the number may be only a hundred or so. So, any trip by the President or even the Vice President, will cost taxpayers one million dollars minimum every time the wheels leave the ground (for short "day trips", the President may opt to use "Marine One", which flown by Marine Helicopter Squadron 1 or HMX-1 at a cost of approximately $2760 an hour. When caring the President, they usually fly with 3 to 5 diversionary helicopters. . The squadron is comprised of VH-3D and VH-60N "Whitehawk" helicopters). In fact, travelling with the President can cost as much at $200 million per day when you factor in the backup C-747, multiple C-17 cargo planes which carries all the goodies such as armored vehicles, the President's limo and the President's helicopter, not to mention security assets which can include fighter support and naval assets when travelling overseas. The Vice President travels in his own special plane with back up security at just slightly less cost.

My point in bringing this to your attention is this. Have you noticed the number of times that President Obama or Vice President Joe Biden has been out on the campaign trail stumping for Hillary Clinton? Well, the answer is about seven times for Obama and around five times for Biden. That's not an inordinate number of times I suppose, but when you consider that this amounts to 14 trips (seven out and seven back) and ten for Biden (five out and five back) at $228,000 an hour each time Air Force One goes wheels up plus security and so forth, we're looking at $1 million+ 14 times (24 times if you add in Biden). Now, I have a couple of issues with this. First, the President of the United States (as well as the Vice President) is suppose to represent the People of America.

The President should be above petty partisan politics. Secondly, according to the US General Accounting Office (GAO), the President, Vice President and/or their family, when using Air Force One for private, personal, or political purposes, is to reimburse the White House budget for the complete cost at the current commercial rates. For instance, if the President is using Air Force One for a holiday, he is to reimburse the White House budget at the same rate as a commercial plane ticket (I assume first class, but it could be business class just as easily), along with the costs for any family or friends. The President and his guests are responsible for their food, lodging, etc (I imagine someone else, like lobbyist or deep pocket donor, picks up the tab). Of course, the President's food as well as his family's and presumably that of any personal guests are to be purchased by, inspected, and prepared by the White House chef regardless of where the meal takes place. Therefore, we have to presume that the food and lodgings the GAO is discussing would be that acquired away from Air Force One.

Anything of a personal nature, such as hairdresser, clothes, and so forth, are paid for separately or from the White House personal budget, of course much of the jewelry and clothes are often donated. The GAO summary goes on to state that all other costs pertaining to Air Force One is picked up by the Air Force (and, thus, by taxpayers) regardless of the nature of the flight. Secondly, since this is the President after all, all security and support details accompanying the President and/or his family are charged to the White House budget. As for the guests, I'm sure that incidentals are paid for individually. I doubt that you get a bill for sleeping accommodations or meals onboard Air Force One. So, basically you're responsible for your own hotel rooms and private meals (naturally, I seriously doubt anyone travelling with the President or his family is worried about the cost of a room or meal).

So, while the President, who is supposed to represent all of us, is MIA from the White House and doing what we elected and paying him to do, is out campaigning in a partisan election on our dollar, and I think that's wrong. Now, don't get me wrong and assume I'm picking just on Obama. I'm not. This has been a practice of presidents of both political parties for decades now, and regardless of whom, I still thinks it's wrong and a violation of the public's trust. We elect an individual to do a job---a very tough job. Ok, I get that, and I have no doubt they need a break to get away from the stress and smell of Washington politics, and even then, they're not entirely removed from it---they're on 24/7/365 but they knew that when they campaigned for the job so they can't claim they didn't what they were getting into. I do have an issue with excessive breaks (for instance, more than two 10 day vacations a year) and at that, when the vacation is going to costs taxpayers some outrageous amount.

When the President, however, takes off from doing what we're paying him to do in order to get involved in some partisan political race, he isn't doing his job and he's obviously not representing the People. He's representing a political party which means that at least 2/3 of the public aren't being represented while he's out working on behalf of some candidate (for example, Obama is a Democrat yet 43% of Americans are Independents and around 27% are Republicans, so while he's campaigning for another Democrat, there is a majority of citizens not being looked after). I have no doubt this happens at the State level with governors, Senate President's and House Speakers, with the latter two being part time jobs, so they may not be on the public's dollar while the governor is a full time job. Thus, he or she would have access to the State's aircraft or helicopter and while the costs to taxpayers would be substantially less, the same principal applies.

To me, this is a misuse of public funds and of the public's trust. Of course, I also happen to believe that once you're elected to office, you are no longer a Democrat or Republican or whatever. You're a public servant, and the public is who you represent. You don't represent any political party or belong to any special permanent committees exclusively based on gender, race, political party, or even a religion. Your membership in these special interest committees says these groups deserve more attention than others; they are somehow more important than other groups. In this country, every group is interconnected to others. What affects one group affects other groups. Maybe not to the same degree, but it affects all nevertheless. You can't try to solve a problem for one and not all. Each individual elected to office is there to represent every citizen in their district or State equally. Let's stop with this built-in partisanship paid for at the public's expense.



Under Obama, Air Force One costs per hour jumps 27% to $228,228
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/under-obama-air-force-one-cost-per-hour-jumps-27-to-228288/article/2544831


It's ridiculously expense to fly Air Force One
http://www.businessinsider.com/price-to-fly-on-air-force-one-2015-2


Presidential Travel: Policy and Costs
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21835.pdf



When President's Travel...Updated 10/30/16
http://www.politicaldog101.com/2012/06/22/when-presidents-travel/

Are Hillary and Donald Qualified to Lead?

There are just about 344,000,000 individuals in America at this moment. That means we have the third largest population in the world behind the People's Republic of China and India. That means that 4.5 of the world's population lives in the United States. The majority of these individuals live in major metropolitan centers such as New York City, Los Angles, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Washington DC, and Philadelphia, Atlanta, and San Francisco. Not that it matters much, but the majority, 63%, are Whites of European origin. Almost 67% of the population is between 15 and 64 years of age. The average age is 36 for males and 38 for females. About 16.7% are Hispanics while Blacks make up just over 12% with the rest being comprised of Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and so forth.

The average household income in America is between $51,000 and $53,000 with Asians having the highest household income by race followed in order by Whites, Hispanics and Blacks (actually, Native Americans have the lowest levels of income based on demographic breakdown with those living on reservations living well below the poverty line). As one might expect, those with professional degrees (doctorate, law, medicine, engineering) tended to earn the most, followed by those with graduate or post graduate degrees, bachelorette degrees, an associate degree and/or professional certification, and high school diploma/GED with those having not completed high school or earning a technical/trade/professional certificate earning the least. Those with technical or trade school degrees such as plumbers or electricians tend to earn on par with those who had obtained a BA or BS degree.

When we break this down by the numbers, just under 88% of the population has a high school diploma or GED. About 59% has some college while 42% has an associate degree. 32% has bachelor degree. 11.77% has a Masters degree or professional certificate. Just over 5% has a doctorate or professional degree (these numbers are based on ages 25 and over). Women tend be graduating at higher levels than males, which is a complete reversal of pre-1995 numbers. In fact, 62% of all associate degrees awarded with go to women, along with 60% of all bachelorettes, 63% of all master degrees, and 55.5% of doctorates! Quite impressive if you ask me, but I'm sure you're wondering where I'm going with all these numbers and percentages.

Well, it's simply this. Given the size of America's population and percentage of individuals who've gone on to college (and beyond), why are we down to a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? As these numbers indicate, neither of these two are even remotely close to being the best this country has to offer for President. Hillary Clinton and "The Donald" are the two most disliked presidential candidates America has produced. Why is that? Hillary isn't unique when comes women who've graduated from college, or even women who obtained a doctorate or professional degree. Hillary attended Wellesley College and obtained a BA in Political Science and then obtained a law degree from Yale University. There's also a lot of women who are just as driven as Hillary is (except hopefully more honest). Trump attended Fordham University in New York City before transferring to Wharton's School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania) where he earned an undergraduate degree in Economics. Again, great but hardly extraordinary (I earned a BA in International Economics with a minor in Political Science as an example before going on to earn a dual Master's and a Postgraduate certificate among several other professional certificates).

Certainly we would want any president to be well educated, and both Trump and Clinton are as all of the presidential nominees since at least the turn of the 20th Century have been with one exception (Harry Truman had only a high school diploma. A total of 12 presidents never graduated college up to and including George Washington who had earned a surveyor certificate). Most, but not all, were lawyers. John Kennedy for instance briefly attended the famed London School of Economics but transferred to Harvard University where obtained a BA in Government with an emphasis in International Affairs (yes, I note the irony), but professionally he was a writer. Both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt attended Harvard University as well and while both briefly enrolled in law school, neither graduated. So, what else do they have in common to qualify them for president? Well, they're both filthy rich and being rich seems to be a required to be in Washington and member of the political or ruling class.

In a 2010 survey, the collective wealth of Congress was $2 billion dollars. Yes, you read that right. That was a 25% increase over a previous 2008 survey. The minimum net worth of members of the House was $896,000 dollars while over in the Senate it's $2.7 million dollars. Doesn't sound like a nice cross section of America to me. Does it to you? No wonder these people have no idea about goes on in America. They don't live like us, how can they expect to know what we need or want? You could argue that Congress, as well as the Presidency and Supreme Court, are so far removed from us socially and economically, that they indeed constitute an entirely different class. Among those who ran for president this go around, Ted Cruz was the wealthiest candidate, yet he didn't even break into the top 100 richest members of Congress (the poorest of the GOP nominees was Marco Rubio, but give him time. He's still young yet).

The second richest was Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (for the record, former Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry has a net worth of $200 million). On the Democrat side, Hillary was by far the richest, even topping out over the many of the Republicans while Bernie Sanders is among the poorest member of Congress with a net worth of just over $163,000. You might find it interesting to know that the "working class" party as the Democrats are known are collectively wealthier than the so-called "business class" Republicans, but not by much---only around $47,000. As for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, how do they fit in? Well, according to Celebrity Net Worth, "The Donald" is worth $4.5 billion dollars and takes home a salary of $60 million dollars a year. Hillary Clinton has a net worth of $45 million dollars (Bill Clinton, who keeps his finances separate, has a net worth of between $80 and $100 million dollars while the Clinton Foundation, which is classified as a charity, had assets in 2012 of over $226 million).

The point I'm hoping to make is that there's nothing unique or special about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump except that are clearly among the top 1%, and it's the 1% which comprises the Oligarchy which rules America. Their wealth, while certainly nice to have, should actually preclude them for government. Why? Because government should represent the American People, not just the wealthy. Their outlandish wealth, almost by definition, means that they have no connection to ordinary Americans. We talk about a "disconnect" between the "Beltway Crowd" and "Flyover Country", well now you see why. They can't relate to what it costs to struggle between paying bills, going to the doctor, or buying groceries. We already face the widest and deepest income divide in our nation's history. They live in gated (and guarded) communities. They have little concept about crime other than what they read about or see on TV. Their education is above average, but not unique and definitely not superior, at least academically. It's not party affiliations since both parties shared near equally in the numbers of millionaires. It is their wealth and social connections which set them apart and gives them their sense of entitlement.

Clearly America can and must do better in not just its choice of Presidential candidates but in its selection of representatives it sends to Washington. Surely neither the likes of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump (nor any of the others who ran in the primaries) represent the best America has to offer. The same can be said the Congress. There are more than ample potential candidates with closer ties to the average American out there to pick from. Of course, elections have become outrageous expense (on purpose) to keep ordinary individuals out and with gerrymandering near guaranteeing reelection along with unlimited "free speech" donations courtesy of Citizens United and its "Frankencorporations" creations and absence of term limits the only hope of change will have to be grassroots driven. The question is not can we do it, there is no doubt about that. Instead, it should be whether we have the will do it? Are we sick and tired enough yet of being turned from a free people and citizen legislators into economic serfs and political bystanders?


The National Center for Education Statistics: Educational Attainment of Young Adults
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_caa.asp

Educational Attainment in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States

And Congress' Rich Get Richer
http://www.rollcall.com/news/And-Congress-Rich-Get-Richer-209907-1.html

The 50 richest members of Congress
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/21/news/economy/richest-congress-members/index.html

Celebrity Net Worth
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/richest-billionaires/donald-trump-net-worth/

Where Is America Going?

As most everyone knows, I like statistics. In fact, some would say that I "love" statistics. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I certainly believe there's a lot that we can garner from the proper interpretation of polls and surveys as long as they are relatively current, include a reasonably diverse and adequate sample, the questions and their responses are clear and unambiguous, and that we take them with a grain or two of salt. 

After all, most people don't like to be bothered and there are those who may fib (or outright lie) which, of course, skews the entire survey (hence the "plus or minus" or "margin of error" disclaimer).

 The reason I mention this is pretty simple. I recently watched a television show which discussed American's opinions of the two corporate sponsored Democrat and Republican candidates and America's failed political system (as most everyone knows, but may not understand, the U.S. is now a de facto corporate Oligarchy and no longer a Constitutional or democratic republic). 

The show went on to discuss the state of the economy, the rise in (manufactured) racial tensions, our economic/military involvement overseas, quality of education, and so forth. This made me wonder what, statistically, we Americans thought about these issues (the reason I chose a statistical measure was it would be easier to quantify and explain in simple English).

So, just what do Americans think of America? According to a Pew Research Poll from June of 2014, a slight majority of Americans, 49%, thought our best days are behind while 44% thought we still have good days ahead of us. Not surprisingly, those who believed our best days were in the rear view mirror were mostly conservatives; specifically 76% of Far Right conservatives. 

Among business conservatives, it was 59%. Among the remnant of the Middle Class, either those slightly Left or Right of Center, approximately 60% were pessimistic about the future. Where we saw a switch was among the Left such as the Millennials, where 65% were optimistic about the future. Among the Left, Religious Left and Far Left, that number ranged from 50% to 70%. Is this simply youthful idealism or the cynical perspective that often comes with age? Remember, many, if not most, of those on the Right who responded were once the wild eyed youth of the 50's, 60's and 70's.

When the question was slightly changed, and the respondents were asked if America is the greatest nation what would you think their answers were? Well, intuitively, most of us would expect that they would follow along the same lines as outlined above, and we would be mostly correct. Among all groups, 28% said that America was the great nation on Earth while 58% said we were one among the several great counties. 

When this was broken down, hardcore conservatives, including the Far Right, 92% said that if we weren't the best, we were among the best. Among just business conservatives that number rose to 98%! However, things changed radically when looking at the middle segment, where a significant majority said America was among the best but certainly not the best. 

We got a similar response among the Millennials and the traditional Left/religious Left at 67% and 51% respectively while the hardcore Left agreed at 71% with 16% saying that there were other countries ahead of the U.S. A related question asked why America has been successful, 51% said it was our ability to adapt while 44% thought it was our willingness to stand by our principles. 

Again, as expected, the numbers broke down along ideological lines with Conservatives of all stripes leaning toward standing by our principles, the flustered Middle nearly equally spit, and the Left arguing that it was our ability to adapt and change. What do you think? What had been our key to success over the last 200 or so years? The poll went on to discuss a wide variety of other related subjects---16 pages in all---which I will spare you, but if you have an interest in the subject, the link to the poll is below.

Nevertheless, this got me to wondering what Americans thought of the current political situation. It's no big secret that Americans across the political spectrum believe the political system is broken beyond repair. Even with the slanted news coming from the corporate media, we know that the political system is blatantly rigged and that both of the two major political parties, along with media, is bought and paid for by the corporate and financial elites; we are a de facto corporate Oligarchy after all. 

We routinely see the mask of legitimacy dropped on both sides without apology. Both of the two selected presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are without question the worse candidates we have seen in decades if not ever. We've got from scraping the bottom of the barrel to scraping underneath the barrel. The majority of Americans strongly dislike either "choice", and yet both corporate parties and their media counterparts have worked hard to exclude, ignore, and belittle any other candidates and/or their political parties.

Ever since Ross Perot ran for President, both parties have cooperated to exclude any and all third party or independent candidates (even though independents are by far the largest political bloc (43%) in the country) both parties and the media behave as if the Democrat or Republican nominee is our only choice. I

n fact, the largest demographic voting bloc in the country is the Millennials; the majority of whom are independent, and that number continues to grow. I suspect that will prove to be a fatal error for both parties and the elites. When polled, Gallup learned that 57% of those polled thought we needed a third party (which would include independent candidates). 

Interesting, over half of registered Republicans (the GOP is third in registration behind Indies and Democrats) supported the notion of a third party while 43% of Democrats and 73% of independents supported a third party or independent candidate(s). In the current presidential race, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is polling around 12% while Green Party nominee Jill Stein is hovering around 9%; either way, these are some pretty high numbers considering their lack of exposure (thanks to the corporate enforced media blackout) and slim campaign dollars (again, the Oligarchy controls the flow of "big money" in politics as you know ever since the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" mistake which said money was "free speech" and corporations were "people", these legally created "Frankensteins" were permitted to unlimited "speech" while we were left mostly mute).

All of this begs the question as to whether a third party or independent could actually win a presidential race. Well, third parties and independents aren't new. They've been around almost since the beginning of the country (the Republican Party was actually a merger of several third parties which came about after the implosion of the Whig Party for instance). 

However, more recently (historically speaking), Theodore Roosevelt, who bolted from the Republican Party, ran under the Progressive Party label (more popularly known as the "Bull Moose Party") in 1912. Teddy garnered the largest percentage up to that point, 27.4% while the GOP incumbent and party nominee, William Howard Taft, received only 23.2% and Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs got 6%. 

However, Taft and Roosevelt split the vote, which allowed Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win with 41.8%. Fast forward to 1992, we had Ross Perot run as an Independent. Perot drew support from across the political spectrum, earning 20% of the liberal vote, 27% from conservatives, and a whopping 53% from moderates!

Economically, the majority of Perot's base were those in the middle class bracket (57%) and the rest mainly from the upper middle class (29%). In June of 1992, Perot was polling at 39% of potential voters. In the presidential debates (then hosted by the League of Women Voters), Perot blew Democratic candidate Bill Clinton and Republican candidate George H. Bush out of the water. 

Though Perot ended up with 18% of the overall vote, exit polls would show that Perot took 38% of both Bush's and Clinton's supporters while most of the remainder had intended on staying home until Perot entered the race. In 1996, Perot had formed the Reform Party and made another run at it, but due to internal squabbles and what some called a "personal meltdown", failed to do as well, although still respectable.

Voters today are clearly dissatisfied with both corporate party nominees, and for that matter, with Congress and the Supreme Court. Approval ratings for all branches of the government have been setting new lows for years (according to a 2016 Rasmussen survey, Congress has a 11% approval rating compared to 86% who give Congress a failing grade). 

The majority of Americans have come to accept that the system that we once knew is gone and not likely to return anytime soon. About two years ago, a prominent academic study revealed what most of us already knew, that the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers had been squandered away, mainly by its beneficiaries and guardians---us. In its place is an Oligarchy comprised of a corporate and financial elite. 

We have witnessed a two tiered economic and judicial system, open and very public abuse of the system and corruption, and use of our military for the economic benefit of a tiny few, increased surveillance, rigged voting, militarization of the police, manipulation of the news and public opinion, manufactured protests and riots, and so forth.

There is a complete and total disconnect between the People and the Government (including the two corporate political parties) that is beyond repair (only 28% of Americans think we're headed in the right direction. Not what the news media or politicians would have you to believe is it? 

Remember too that revolutions tend to occur when public disapproval reaches just 1/4 of the population. We're obviously far past that number and have been for years if not decades ). It's time for the American People to put aside the media created distractions and manufactured differences and focus our attention on the real source of troubles. Perhaps then we can restore America as it should be. It won't be easy, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy is it? So, what do you think America, is this country still worth fighting for?

  If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 



Pew Research Center: Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-2-views-of-the-nation-the-constitution-and-government/


Americans' Desire for Third Party Persists This Election Year


Rasmussen Reports: Congressional Performance

The Dark Horses: Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein

Most major parties have chosen their nominees and the general public is less than thrilled about either one. In fact, the highest disapproval rating for both candidates some of the highest on record. A full 70% of registered Republicans disapprove of Donald Trump, with approximately 1/3 saying "the Donald" doesn't represent their views. Hillary Clinton is doing only slightly better, with just over 25% disapproving of the former Secretary of State and about the same about saying that she doesn't represent them. A minority of whites have a positive view of Clinton while 69% doesn't. On the other side, 94% of blacks have a negative view of Trump along with 89% of Hispanics and 88% of other non-white racial groups. For either candidate, that's pretty significant (in another poll, 38% of Democrats say they have no confidence in the Democratic Party's primary process while 44% of Republicans say the same thing about their party's primary process). However, as alluded to in my last article, Americans have more choices than these two lackluster candidates mentioned above (or the media will tell you about).

For perhaps the first time since Independent candidate Ross Perot ran in 1992, there are two strong third party candidates who have an excellent chance this go around of doing well, and who knows, perhaps beating one of the two corporate party candidates; dare I say even beating them? Perhaps the best determinant is to look at the Millennials, who are America's rising key voting bloc, replacing the ageing Baby Boomers, and were strong supporters of Bernie Sanders. According to a GenForward Poll, only 28% have a favorable opinion of either party. More than 58% say the Republican Party has no interest in them. The Democrats did slightly better with 53% saying the Democrats care about them, with the focus of their anger aimed squarely at Hillary. Although around 42% said they would support Clinton over Trump, more and more are looking elsewhere. Let's also not forget that the majority of Millennials are independent, and that number among all voters is growing. Already independents are the largest voting bloc in America, followed by Democrats and Republicans. So, without further ado, let's look at the other two contenders for President, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein.

Gary Earl Johnson was born on January 1, 1953 in Minot, North Dakota. His father worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs while his mother was a school teacher. Johnson was raised as a Lutheran. He attended the University of New Mexico and graduated with a BA in Political Science. It was there where he met his future wife, Denise "Dee" Simms. While attending college, Johnson worked as a door-to-door handyman. Afterwards he started his own business, "Big J Enterprises" in 1976. By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was a multimillion dollar operation with over 1000 employees and one of New Mexico's largest construction companies. Still, Johnson can almost be viewed as a pauper compared to the Trump and Clinton with an estimated net worth of "only" $10 million dollars.

In 1994, Johnson ran on the GOP ticket for New Mexico Governor on a strong fiscally conservative, low tax, and anti-crime platform, defeating his Democrat opponent. During his tenure, he was known for his libertarian views, using a cost-benefit analysis in making his budget decisions and use of line item veto power. In his second term as Governor, Johnson concentrated on shifting Medicare recipients into managed care programs, supported school vouchers and decriminalization of marijuana. After leaving office, he founded "Our America Initiative" in 2009. The non-profit political advocacy committee focused on promoting free enterprise policies, limited government, non-intervention in foreign affairs, and government-to-business privatization efforts. Johnson describes himself as fiscally conservative and social liberal. He favors limited government, supports same-sex marriage, lower taxes, auditing the Federal Reserve, and maintaining a mandated balance budget. He also supports reducing military presence in non-hostile regions, maintaining separation of church and state, creating a strict two year path way to citizenship (starting with obtaining work permits) for illegal immigrants, and opposes gun control.

Jill Stein was born to a Reform Jewish family in Highland Park, Illinois on May 14, 1950. In 1973, she graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, where she concentrated on anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Stein went on to study medicine at Harvard Medical School, focusing on internal medicine, and later to teaching medicine before retiring in 2006. As a physician, Stein began to take an active involvement in social activism, specifically regarding the quality of health and the local environment. She served on Boston's "Physicians for Social Responsibility" and became a leading member of Boston University's Community Outreach Core, and was the co-founder and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities . Dr. Stein also served on numerous other community health oriented organizations, including several which involved recycling, reduction of coal powered emissions, developing local "green" communities, promoting healthcare facilities, reduction of toxic waste, clean water, and grassroots oriented democracy. In addition, she has written several articles improving local healthcare, reducing toxic waste and emissions, global warming, developing "green" jobs, and ways to create a healthy planet. Dr. Stein also served on the board of the "MassVoters for Fair Elections", which promoted fair elections and representation. Dr. Stein is married to Richard Rohrer, and like her, is also a physician. As for her net worth, most sources put her in the $10 million dollar range, which, like Gary Johnson, is considered almost poor compared to Trump and Hillary.

Dr. Stein has run for office a number of times, always on the Green Party ticket. This has included two attempts at governor (2002 and 2010), one run for State Representative (2004), one run for Secretary of the Commonwealth (2006), and two runs for Lexington Town Representative (2005 and 2008) in which she was successful. In the majority of the others, however, she came in third. Nevertheless, despite her losses, Stein generated some strong results at the polls in what were often crowded races.
On the issues, she favors auditing the Federal Reserve and further "democratizing" it. Like the majority of Americans, she deeply opposed the Wallstreet bailouts and has said she would not raise the debt ceiling. Dr. Stein says that she will work to promote sustainable resources, "green" jobs, renewable energy, regional based organic food systems and cooperatives, as well as reduce pollution through increasing mass transit, especially inter-city, as well as inter-city trolleys and railroads. She opposes school privatization and cancelling all school debt through what she calls "quantitative easing", which would not involve raising taxes. Furthermore, she calls for increasing the taxation on wealthy individuals to help for proposed programs. This would include an increase in taxes on stock market and real estate speculation, and offshore tax havens; calling her various proposals a "Green New Deal" after FDR's depression era "New Deal" programs. Lastly, Dr. Stein is in favor of "slavery reparations".

Dr. Stein said that she would also reduce military expenditures by 30% as well as reducing our military presence overseas and promote the National Guard as our military "centerpiece". She would continue to focus on global health related issues, including global climate changes, clean and accessible water, sustainable energy and food production. She has said we seem to invent enemies simply in order to sell military arms and supplies and implied that the US has intentionally pursued a policy to encircle Russia and supports China's claims in the South China Seas as a territorial border issue. Regarding healthcare, Dr. Stein favors repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act ("Obamacare") and implementing a single-payer healthcare program, which would be potentially cheaper and fairer to the healthcare industry, employers, and individuals. She supports a moratorium on pesticides, GMOs, and other chemicals until further testing regarding the human and environmental safety impact can be fully determined. Finally, Dr. Stein favors a "slight" reduction in space exploration while maintaining current levels of medical and scientific research.

There you have it folks. Along with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, these are your two other choices for president. So, who will you choose? Will you go for the lesser of the two corporate sponsored candidates or will you reach out of your preconditioned comfort zone and vote for Johnson or Stein? Some people will tell you that voting for one of the "non-approved" third party candidates is wasting your vote and your best choice is to pick one of the lesser of two evils. The Oligarchs who now rule our nation don't care so long as we follow their script and pick a "mainstream" candidate. Well, remember that the only "wasted" voted is the one you didn't cast, but also that voting for the lesser of two evils is still for evil. It's also a voted wasted because you voted for someone you really didn't want and didn't agree with. But hey, no pressure. You have three more months of this to decide.


Poll: 7 in 10 Americans See Trump Unfavorably

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/poll-trump-unfavorable-224356


Americans want nomination system changed
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/31/ap-norc-poll-americans-support-changing-primary/


Poll: Most young Americans say parties don't represent them
http://www.grandhaventribune.com/Politics/2016/08/07/Poll-Most-young-Americans-say-parties-don-t-represent-them


Here's what most Americans now think of Clinton and Trump
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/08/heres_what_americans_think_of_clinton_and_trump_in_poll.html


On The Issues: Gary Johnson
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm


Net Worth of Republican Candidates: Gary Johnson
http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/news-networthrepublicancandidates/10/

On The Issues: Jill Stein
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

Temperance: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Temperament. I think it's the key to success. The best educated individual can be a complete disaster if they fail to understand and adapt to the nuances of a particular job. I'm sure you've heard the expression about a "clash of personalities". Well, there is also the clash of social environments, whether it be in business, the classroom, or (and especially), in politics. One has to be adaptable and sociable to be successful. It has long been said that politics is the "art of the possible" or "game of compromise". It was the great former US Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn who once said "to get along, you have to go along" or John Kennedy's famous remark that "success has many fathers but failure is an orphan". We are face to two main choices for president in November, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (there are to other individuals worthy of consideration too, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, however for the sake of brevity, I will focus on the first two).

What kind of person is Hillary Clinton? We've all seen her, either in person or on TV. To some, she comes across as friendly, genuine, and honest while others see her as hateful, arrogant, vindictive, and as crooked as a snake's back. Let's briefly take a look at Ms. Clinton. She was born Hilary Diane Rodham on October 27, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois and raised a United Methodist in a conservative middle class household with other two siblings. The former Brownie and Girl Scout was a Barry Goldwater volunteer in his 1964 Presidential campaign and strongly anti-communist like Goldwater like her parents, their minister, and their friends.

In 1965, she attended Wellesley College, where she majored in political science and was president of the college's Young Republicans. She supported GOP centrists John Lindsey for NYC Mayor and Ed Brooke for US Senator in Massachusetts. Her attitude toward social issues changed, and she soon found herself as supporter of the far left Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Nevertheless, she interned at the House Republican Conference and helped GOP moderate Charles Goodall's efforts to elect another moderate, David Rockefeller. She attended the 1968 GOP Convention but was disappointed by Richard Nixon's portrayal of Rockefeller and "veiled racism". She cemented her departure from the Republican Party with her senior thesis on radical organizer Saul Alinsky's tactics on community organizing (as First Lady, access to her thesis was restricted). She graduated with a honors BA in Political Science in 1969.

After graduation, she held a variety of typical jobs before enrolling in Yale Law School where she served on the Yale Law Review. She was allowed to work on cases involving child abuse as part of her studies. She worked on Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee of Migratory Labor. She interned for the law firm of Treuhalf, Walker, and Burnstein in Oakland California which was then known for its work on constitutional rights and civil liberties issues (allegedly, two of its four partners had links to the Communist Party). She received her law degree in 1973, while she was dating Bill Clinton. The two campaigned together in Texas on behalf of Democrat George McGovern. She also worked for the Children Defense Fund. By 1974, she served on various committees during the Watergate Hearings (and fired for unethical behavior according to her former boss, General Counsel and Chief of Staff, Jerry Zeifman), afterwards returning with Bill Clinton to Arkansas to teach law courses at the University of Arkansas. She continued to remain involved in child advocacy issues throughout the 1970's into Bill Clinton's election as Governor. In 1979, she became the first female to made a full partner at local law firm, from where she would continue to earn more money than her husband until his election as President. During this same time period, there was several questionable investments such as Whitewater Development Corporation and cattle futures, which would haunt the Clintons for decades.

That brings us to the point where the Clinton's entered the White House, with its ups and many downs, including disclosure of Bill's numerous affairs throughout the years and failure of a national healthcare plan, which was headed up by Hillary. After the Presidency, Hillary ran successfully for US Senator from New York and then made her own run for President; ending unsuccessfully against an unknown upstart, Barak Obama. Hillary struck a deal for Secretary of State as part of an apparent deal to support Obama's run against John McCain, the Republican Senator of Arizona, Navy veteran and former POW. Her tenure as Secretary of State was marred by serious controversies over the decline in relationships with Europe, Israel, Russia, and China and efforts to revive the Cold War, the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other individuals in Benghazi, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the disintegration of Syria, increased illegal immigration and expansion of the drug cartels, as well as a failure in judgment concerning her mishandling of government emails and refusal to use secured servers, FBI and Senate investigations which revealed a complete lack of empathy, sense of non-culpability, misjudgment, self-entitlement, and arrogance. More recently has been the shadow of "election rigging" in her Primary race against Bernie Sanders due to dumping of email exchanges involving her campaign and DNC Chairperson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was since been forced to resign.

"The Donald" as he is known, is an icon of glitz, overindulgence, glamour, New York City street smarts, brashness, and yes, arrogance. Trump is also known for his overreach, misjudgments, high dollar bankruptcies, abrasiveness, and hyperbole. He is the epitome of the New York real estate tycoon and star of his own "reality" TV show with its catchphrase, "you're fire" a part of our lexicon. He founded a now defunct university to teach people how to be successful, authored numerous books, and even has board games (I have several of his books and the board game. He was also required study during my undergraduate days while working on my degree in international economics, along with some of the other modern day "robber barons" like Carl Ichan and T. Boone Pickens).

Donald John Trump was born with money. His father ran a small but successful real estate development business, but it "the Donald" who turned it into an empire. He was born June 14, 1946, the fourth of five children, and grew up Jamaica Estates in Queens. He attended an upper-class "prep school", Kew-Forrest. By age 13, he had enrolled in the New York Military Academy and obtained the rank of captain. Trump went on to attend Fordham University in the Bronx before transferring to the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated in 1968 with a BA in Economics. Trump didn't serve during the Vietnam War; having received several deferments, first because of "heel spurs" and then because he was enrolled in college (Bill Clinton also received deferments and didn't serve). Later, however, he was found fit and though he received a high draft number, was never drafted.

While attending Wharton, Trump had already begun to try his hand in real estate, beginning with the revitalization of the Swift Village Apartments in Cincinnati, Ohio. By 1971, he had moved to Manhattan and jumped into what would become a very successful career and soon developed a reputation for bold, over the top projects which usually involved properties no one wanted and turning them into highly desirable (and profitable) developments, such as the Commodore Hotel which was later to become the Grand Hyatt Hotel and the Bonwit Teller department store which became the site of the Trump Plaza, other investments weren't always as successful. While Trump has never filed personal bankruptcy, some of his holdings, including a few casinos have been included in one of the four chapter 11 bankruptcies filed. Trump revamped the Wollman Rink in Central Park, $750,000 under budget and operated the ice skating rink for one year with all profits going to various charities.

Despite the setbacks, Trump continued expanded his empire into boxing promotion, golf courses, the "Miss USA", "Miss Universe" and "Miss Teen USA" beauty pageants and even a football team, "New Jersey Generals", in the now defunct USFL. Trump is no stranger to controversies. In addition to the bankruptcies, Trump has been involved with several lawsuits beginning in 1973 with the Department of Justice over claims of housing violations, the Trump University (later named the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC), the various pageants and television networks, including NBC and Univision), and several others. Then there are the personal spates with individuals such as Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg, and more recently, Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Nevertheless, Trump keeps rolling along with financial interests in books, a magazine, board games, modeling management, mortgages, air shuttles, perfumes and cosmetics, television production, vodka and steaks, bottled water, an online travel search engine, men's accessories that include watches and clothing, catering, a line of coffee (and yes, even a line of ice cream), plus investments in banks and financial institutions, construction equipment, hedge funds, and even substantial shares in Facebook. All told, his estimated net worth is somewhere between $2.9 and $3.3 billion, give or take a hundred thousand here or there (to be fair, neither Hillary or Bill are exactly paupers. They have an estimated net worth of just over $32 million for Hillary and $80 million for Bill---that's a lot of cigars). Much of Hillary's income comes from speaking fees which are all in the six figure range, along with heavy investments in banks, hedge funds, pharmaceutical and financial services companies as well as in telecommunications.

Politically, Donald Trump has been a member of the Reform Party during the days of Ross Perot, a Democrat, and a Republican. He appears to base his political affiliation more on his personal relationships than on any ideology, such as with the Clintons and the Reagans, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, which isn't unexpected for a businessperson. Trump has, on occasion, left based on personalities too, such as David Duke's or Pat Buchanan's involvement with the GOP. He has also given freely to various political causes and candidates. However, when it comes to ideology, Trump considers himself a "populist" and appears to be fairly conservative, especially on foreign policy, gun control and social issues like illegal immigration and pro-life, with a ban on late term abortions. He supports "traditional marriages" but isn't necessarily opposed to same-sex marriages. He favors the death penalty on capital crimes. Trump supports lowering the corporate tax from its current 15%, replacing Obamacare with a as-of-yet undefined "free market" program, opposes Common Core and supports school choice with local and/or state control. He would like to see improvement, if not overhaul of the VA system. He favors "fair trade" and considers himself a "protectionist". He calls NAFTA a disaster to US businesses and unions, and opposes the super-secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and calls the EPA "a joke". In foreign policy, Trump defines himself as a "nationalist" and while preferring non-intervention, believes that if we must be involved, to be aggressive and decisive, especially when dealing with terrorism. Trump would also halt immigration from nations currently involving with terrorism and all individuals seeking to come to this country must be thoroughly vetted and be willing to swear allegiance to America. As stated before, Trump strongly opposes illegal immigration and believes immediate action needs to be taken.

So, there we have it. Two former and possible future friends, bucking to become the "CEO" of America, Inc and manage this country on behalf of the Oligarchs, with whom both have not just close connections, but could actually be considered a member of. Both are well educated, successful, intelligent, wealthy, and have the arrogance to go with it. Hillary Clinton has the skill of a lawyer. She has political expertise, both as the wife of a former Governor and two term President, but in her own right as a Senator and Secretary of State. Donald Trump has a very keen business sense, exceptional negotiation abilities and can get "down and dirty" with the best of them when it comes to deal making or making a political stand. He is on personal terms with most of the world's elite. That means he can talk with them on their terms as friends, not as a term limited politician.

Hillary has suffered through a troubled administration and now, with the email revelations regarding the DNC Chairperson and her former opponent following on the heels of Senate hearings over Benghazi, illegal gunrunning, and the deaths of a US ambassador and CIA personnel (and her infamous "what does it matter" quote when questioned about the deaths), an FBI investigation regarding serious security violations concerning her mishandling of government emails (not to mention possible ethics improprieties between AG Lynch and Bill Clinton), Hillary has some culpability and honesty issues. She has demonstrated a rare arrogance and capacity for lying (even for a politician and Beltway insider), a surprising lack of empathy given her early and admirable advocacy on behalf of youth, when it came to military, veteran, Secret Service, or other government personnel along with a significant sense of self-entitlement. Maybe it was her earlier loss to a inexperienced and nameless contender (Obama) that stole her moment in the sun which has harden her, or the unwelcomed but politically necessary association with his often hapless administration that she feared would tarnish her (as it ultimately did). Perhaps it's her public humiliation by the repeated indiscretions of her husband or too many under-the-table behind closed door deals and compromises which has warped her integrity. Politics can do that to a person, especially if you make your living inside the Beltway.

So, what about "the Donald"? He too has much to answer for. It certainly wasn't his fault to be born rich or faulted for his excellent education (we all should be so lucky). Personally, I don't think he should be faulted for being a successful businessman, after all, that's part of the American Dream right? Without question he has made serious mistakes. Yes, he's had public martial issues, but then he's a public man, and none of his former wives have anything negative to say about him (he wasn't a drunk, a drug addict, child abuser or even a playboy). His children have all turned out terrific. They too are well educated, as down to earth as they can be, and each are rather successful on their own. Yes, he is vain. Yes, he has an ego the size of the Grand Canyon, but he also has a sense of humor about it too. No forced or faked laughter here. He has proven to be generous with this time and with his money. He has made so business mistakes, but then that's the nature of what he does. The trick is figuring out what went wrong and not doing it again, which he is very good at. True, he doesn't have the political experience that Hillary has.

He is a CEO. He is used to snapping his fingers and getting what he wants done...pronto. If you have an issue or question, fine, but Trump also expects you to prove a solution too. Whiners, excuse makers, and bellyachers won't do. In business, that's fine, however, this is politics. People don't jump because you say so. Things neither happen as you want or as fast as you need. People take credit where it isn't earned and place blame where it isn't deserved. There is a whole lot of give and take (mostly take), especially when you're dealing with individuals who are nearly as rich or powerful as you are and have egos that match yours. But, given "the Donald's" history as a dealmaker, it might just work. Given his attitude toward "the art of the deal", Trump may get along just fine with individuals like Russia's Putin or North Korea's Kim...or Congress. I'm sure ISIS and others out there will give pause.

This election cycle, amid America's deep disgust of the sellout of our democratic republic to the Oligarchs, wage inequalities, encroaching police state, endless wars-for-profit, declining quality of life, the illusion of the fair elections, and so on, will prove historic in not just whether a woman or a non-politician will be elected to President, but which direction will we go. Both candidates have very different ideas for us. One is very similar to what we've had for the last eight years. The other is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan in many ways. Both choices contain a great deal of unknown too. As Betty Davis once famously said in her role as Margo Channing in the 1950 movie classic 'All About Eve"', "fasten your seatbelts. it's going to be a bumpy night" and it's still a long way till November.


Hillary Clinton Fired for Lie, Unethical Behavior form Congressional Job
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/hillary-fired-lies-unethical-behavior-congressional-job-former-boss


On the Issues: Hillary Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm


2016 Net Worth for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton
http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/hillary-clinton/


Bill Clinton's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/bill-clinton-net-worth/


On the Issues: Donald Trump
http://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm


Donald Trump's Net Worth
http://net-worths.org/donald-trump-net-worth/