I. Hillary Clinton is widely acknowledged to have the edge on intellect, reasoning, foreign and domestic policy experience.
A. On Tuesday a letter was signed by 370 economists, including 19 Nobel Prize winners, saying that HRC’s economies would be better for the nations, Today the respected journal The Economist endorsed her
The position held by these 300+ economists is clearly echoed by foreign policy experts , a prominent group of GOP experts in foreign policy, Even Republican foreign policy experts have cautioned that Donald Trump would be dangerous to the nation’s security.
The prestigious journal Foreign Policy, hitherto bipartisan academic journal has broken its long-standing tradition and endorsed Hillary Clinton, as has the Atlantic Monthly. In fact, over 186 major newspapers, including NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, and just recently The Economist have backed HRC. Many of these are traditionally Republican.
B. Yes, six papers have endorsed Mr. Trump, about one thirtieth of those endorsing Clinton. They are the St. Joseph News-Press, the Santa Barbara News Press, the Waxahachie Daily Light, The Hillsboro Ohio Times-Gazette and the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Few reasonable persons would argue that HRC is not clearly more experienced, capable, intelligent and competent than Mr. Trump. Still many oppose her because they believe she is so ethically flawed and criminal that they can’t vote for her. Which brings us to the next argument.
II. The long standing drumbeat of accusation and innuendo, including the FBIs recent suggestion that they are looking at new emails, without knowing if they are pertinent, fits into a long standing pattern of suggesting that HRC, and President Clinton are engaged in some sort of ‘vast criminal conspiracy’ and they suggest her ‘crimes’ range from theft to perjury to murder. In fact, she has NEVER been charged with a crime, any NONE of the dozens and dozens of investigations uniformly by Republican investigators have ever found evidence of crime, or wrong doing.
One cannot document this argument nearly as well as I’d like here, but an earlier argument on this same site details a rebuttal to these accusations, and one hopes that if there is anyone who really knows in their heart that HRC is the more capable but somehow cannot abide the idea of her ethical challenges, one might suggest they please take the time to see that rebuttal of the innuendo.
III. Mr. Trump has challenged and subverted those very things that actually make America great.
Our most fundamental liberties are the liberty of speech, press and religion. He has said he would exclude people on the basis of their religion, he has thrown reporters out of his rallies for disagreeing with him, he has repeatedly advocated for violence against protesters exercising their right of free speech. He has called for torture. He has called for the killing of the families of adversaries. He has called for jailing his political opponents. “Lock her up”, when she hasn’t been convicted or even arraigned for a crime? I think they call that kidnapping, so he advocates what might be a capital offense in some states. He has suggested that gun rights advocates could might be able to prevent HRC doing what they like…you know the implications. He has stiffed his employees, probably cheated on his taxes or at best bent the rules but he will not release his taxes for us to know, and his statements about the reason are not, shall we say, true. As a matter of fact people keep lists of his statements which, to put it politely, are not correct.
IV. Our children look to our leaders as role models. HRC may not be the angel her supporters feel she is, but the argument that he is a better role model is so false as to be, well, insulting.
Even if you assume the worse, that HRC was so sloppy as to leave a confidential memo on an unsecured source how would that ‘crime’ stack up against Mr. Trump’s demeanor in this election? He started by saying Mexican immigrants were rapists, all but “some whom, he assumed, were nice people”. He went on to infer an native born American judge couldn’t be fair because of who his parents were, inferred that a respected female right wing new-caster couldn’t be fair because she had “blood coming out of her…what-ever”. He has insulted, and perhaps assaulted woman, on tape!
V. The potential downsides of Trump presidency outweigh the potential downsides of a Clinton presidency by a large margin.
Markets are in the business of assessing risk. Here is an image of the Dow Jones industrial average since Friday October 28, when the FBI announced it was looking at the possibility of other emails. Until that announcement, an HRC presidency was considered by most to be inevitable. Here is what happened since that announcement:
Moody’s Analytics has analyzed a Trump presidency and found it likely to lead to very negative consequences for the American economy. They predicted, in contrast, a large positive effect for a Clinton election.
The Economist, another respected journal, listed a Trump presidency as one of the top ten global risks and just today endorsed HRC.
Mr Trump endorsed a Brexit vote, calling it “taking their country back”, and compared his victory to the unexpected Brexit victory. Let’s look at the effect of Brexit on the British economy. The following is a graph of projected British growth pre and post Brexit:
The data projections, from reliable sources such as the Bank of England, Thomas Reuters show a clearly decrement in estimates of GDP and growth.
This parallels very closely what could be expected, America Great rhetoric aside, from a Trump presidency. Or at least so say Moodys, the Economist, and several hundred prominent experts including numerous Nobel Prize Winners.
VII. In summary, HRC represents a better political philosophy, one which addresses better the concerns voiced by the supporters of her opponent than his would. She is more capable, more experienced, supported by far more economists, foreign policy experts and incomparable more and better editorial boards. Her temperament is vastly better for the position, and the objections to her have been, (pun intended) trumped up, exaggerated innuendoes and implications, none of which have ever been shown meritorious.
The arguments above are passionate, but they are logical and supported.
An election is a time to make an intelligent and informed decision, not a time to vent anger. I know the decisions I have made when I have been angry. They are not always the best decisions.
If someone is asking you to make your decisions out of anger and resentment for the system, you might not be making the best decisions.
Think it over.