Monday, October 31, 2016

Terrifying either way

I try to ignore Halloween. I don’t have kids. I avoid sugar. There isn’t much else. But today there weren’t any good movies in theaters – except maybe Rocky Horror Picture Show, which I’ve never seen. But it was sold out. I even tried to go to the church to do some cataloging of music (desperate, I know), but it was closed. So I turned off the front room lights and had my supper in the kitchen and read my current book (I’ll tell you about it when I’ve finished it). After 8:00 I went down the street to visit a neighbor who had a metal fire pit in his driveway and kept it well stocked. A few neighbors (and dogs) had gathered. Not many kids came by. Those that did came up to the fire and were offered treats. I stayed about 45 minutes, until the party broke up.

Melissa McEwen of Shakesville shares her fears about November 9th and after:
If Trump wins, his supporters are going to be terrifying because they have been empowered. If Trump loses, his supporters are going to be terrifying because they feel disempowered.

And that has been precisely his goal. It's no wonder he feels like he's winning no matter what the polls say.

I wrote yesterday about the (empty) can of worms FBI Director James Comey opened to put Hillary Clinton back on defense about her emails. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said what Comey released, which might hurt Clinton's chances, is bad enough. But what Comey is intentionally hiding, and thus protecting Trump, is worse. Reid alleges he has seen information that shows coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian gov’t.

It seems Comey knows something about the Russians and their meddling. But he doesn’t want to say what it is because that would be too political this close to an election. But making vague and unprovable allegations against Clinton isn’t?

Recently Senator John McCain was spouting off that the GOP won’t confirm any of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees. But it isn’t just McCain. Senator Ted Cruz is saying something similar, as is Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and Michael Paulson of the National Review. Wrote Paulson, “The the Supreme Court should be smaller so that it can do less harm.” To which I reply: Less harm to whom? So, yeah, never confirming any of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees is a real GOP policy.

If Clinton becomes president and Dems take the senate (and revoke the filibuster on Supreme nominees like they did for federal judges) I suspect a few of the old justices may retire in the next two years, giving Clinton a chance to replace them.

No comments:

Post a Comment