Thoughts after Trump / Clinton 3rd Debate

     At the moment, I’m very disappointed in our nation.
     We’ve latched onto criticizing Donald Trump for questioning the outcome of this election, for calling it rigged.  The DNC colluded with the Hillary Clinton to siphon funds to her (without doing so for Bernie Sanders), Bill Clinton met on a plane with the attorney general responsible for investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server, Bill Clinton illegally campaigned right outside a voting location in Boston, Hillary Clinton’s campaign cheated in a vote at a Iowa Caucus, there was voter fraud in Arizona benefitting Hillary Clinton, and several voting areas in favor of Sanders had their polling places reduced.  Somehow, though, we’re criticizing Trump for stating that the election may be rigged rather than Clinton’s and the DNC’s rigging of the election.
     After working in defense for about a decade, I can say that if I had treated email as Hillary Clinton has, at the very least my clearance would have been revoked and I would have lost my job.  I know someone who did far less and received this consequence.  Clinton states that the FBI found she did nothing wrong.  In actuality, though, the FBI stated that there wasn’t enough to charge her with a crime.  “Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”.  What the FBI said was that she acted foolishly and carelessly; these are not how I want a president acting with classified information.
     With Trump, it’s difficult for me to believe that he has any support left after the Access Hollywood video was released.  In my opinion, that should have immediately and completely killed his campaign.
     I’ve come to realize that I have a much more rigid definition of honesty than the public.  What I think of as honesty is just that.  I think the public thinks a politician that lies for good reason is still a good politician.
     Hillary Clinton supported a pardoning of terrorists on the last day of Bill Clinton’s presidency.  I don’t understand why this hasn’t been brought up at all.  Again, it should have killed her campaign before it ever got started.
     I remain steadfast and (practically) unique in my opinion that Gary Johnson remains the only decent candidate.  He’s not ideal; he’s far better than the alternatives.  In yet another stroke of corruption, he was excluded from the debates (in spite of polling significantly higher than Ross Perot when Perot was allowed into the debates).
     Our nation, additionally, remains focused on issues that keep them from considering issues that I consider vitally important:
     – rank voting would allow the public to vote for their favorite candidate without feeling like they’re wasting their vote; it immediately changes the dynamic of the election.
     – the acquisition process for the military is incredibly inefficient.  The F35 (was supposed to be a cheap system but has now cost us $1 trillion) losing a dogfight to the F16 or the Bradley tank (supposed to be a fast soldier transport that no longer satisfies that purpose) or the Integrated Submarine Imaging System or the fact that M-16s jam in battle or the fact that our frequency hopping encrypted radios prevent our soldiers from communicating with each other are all examples of where our acquisition process has failed.  At the same time, DARPA is trying to create a smart suit that tracks all our solider’s locations and prevents guns from firing from the non-owner.  We’re doing an injustice to our soldiers; who are risking their lives with our current acquisition process.  We’re giving them guns that jam and telling them we’re going to give them a smart suit in the future.
     – The 20 trillion dollar debt is enormous; I think it can only be paid off through inflation.  This means that all of our money is basically worthless in future value.  And that doesn’t consider, at all, the unfunded liabilities, which is $84 trillion.
     – Our industry really is going overseas.  It’s a simple function of our minimum wage and other countries willingness to pay their people less.  So, effectively, we’re saying that it’s not ok to pay people extremely little, but only if they’re American.  We’re totally ok with exploiting people as long as they’re “over there”.  I think that we’re really only ok with this because of an inherent racism; we’re ok with exploiting people as long as they’re not white.  For example, Hershey and Nestle receive chocolate harvested with slave labor.  I think, instead, we should decide whether or not we’re ok with paying people very little.  If we are, then we should let those job stay in America.  If we’re not, then we should stop hiring people in other countries for slave wages.  This has the consequence of raising prices on everything.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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