Posted on 09/30/2016 9:18:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
You've heard and read by now lots of spin and speculation about who won and where the polls are going to move after Monday's presidential debate. We'll know the answers to these questions soon. The more important question for the long run is how each of these candidates would govern. The debate provides no certain answers to that question, but it does offer some useful clues.
Hillary Clinton started off with a laundry list of incremental economic programs -- none of which would promote economic growth. Some have already been legislated (equal pay for women, 1963), others are tilted to the upscale (debt-free college). A possible exception: the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she has renounced but which she might, as Donald Trump predicted, manage to find acceptable once elected.
What about the "investments" she called for? Infrastructure spending employs a few high-skill workers and may, some day, provide facilities. Other "investments" usually turn out to be subsidies for Democratic-supporting public employee unions. Revive the economy by building solar panels? The government tried that with Solyndra and lost $535 million.
Of course, Clinton's sharply higher individual tax rates and maintenance of the world's highest corporate tax would stifle growth to some greater or lesser extent. Her policies are based on pathetically weak economic theories: that the 2001-03 tax cuts caused the 2007 financial collapse; that "clean energy" will power every home cheaply and reliably; and that "trickle down" never works.
This looks like stuff concocted to attract Bernie Sanders voters. And little of it is likely to be enacted if, as just about every expert predicts, Republicans maintain their majority in the House.
A President Clinton could do more damage on other fronts. She wants federal "retraining" of local police and attributes racial disparities in law enforcement to "systemic racism" rather than to well-known racial disparities in criminal behavior. Encouraging grievances against police has already produced riots and increases in murder and violent crime. Central cities were ripped apart for decades after the 1960s. Clinton might set the process in motion again.
On foreign policy Clinton endorses the Iran deal as a "lid" on its nuclear weapons program, rather than the roadway it is, and promises victory over ISIS in a year or so. Let's hope. But her main case here, one with some foundation, is the ignorance and possible recklessness of her opponent.
From Donald Trump's debate performance emerge clues that she may be right. He returned repeatedly to his promises to tear up trade agreements and impose tariffs -- would Congress vote them? -- on imports. He continued to suggest he wouldn't defend allies if they don't spend more on defense. That's something every administration seeks, but it's Sisyphus' work, doomed to frustration -- because American leaders, at least till now, recognized that America benefits hugely from having free people and free markets around the world.
Several times in the debate, when his business success or personal behavior was challenged, Trump was distracted into self-harming monologues. On the Iraq War, instead of discussing a dozen-year-old Sean Hannity interview, he could have simply said he opposed it before Clinton did. On the birther issue, a brief apology would do. Instead he chewed up time when he could have noted that Clinton would shut down almost all fracking -- the one thing that has increased energy supplies and cut emissions and prices in the Obama years.
And he might keep up with the news. A recent government report showed increased illegal southern-border crossings. Last week, former Mexican Foreign Secretary Jorge Castaneda noted that a President Trump actually could make Mexicans pay for a wall there. On Monday morning the FBI announced that murders rose 11 percent in 2015. These things support Trump's arguments. He failed to mention them.
Numerous commentators pointed out that Clinton seemed better prepared than Trump and spoke more coherently -- something that appeals to us in the chattering classes. But both candidates' performances suggest underperformance as president. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and (some would add) Barack Obama came to office with intellectually serious and achievable platforms. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump would.
Clinton, as the email scandal reveals, cocoons herself in a very tight circle of sycophants. She prepares doggedly, but the homework she turns in is plodding and intellectually shoddy. Trump, as his campaign reveals, has shrewd insights but also vast areas of ignorance and seems too lazy to be anything but his improvisatory self.
Clinton seems too contrived to be a good president, and Trump seems too undisciplined. It's your choice Nov. 8.
Do either one of you wear hearing aids?
If yes, please show us.
If no, please show each ear to the camera to show there are no earpieces being used.
Do either one of you have electronic enhancements added to your podium?
If no, allow the camera to examine your podium.
If yes, explain why you are cheating.
One important factor is I think he tells the truth and just answers the questions.
Numerous commentators pointed out that Clinton seemed better prepared than Trump and spoke more coherently — something that appeals to us in the chattering classes.
****************************
Barone and his cronies in the chattering classes haven’t had to live with the consequences of the 30 year policy of non-enforcement of immigration laws or glibness would not be what they judge a candidate on.
Trump is the first candidate for any major party in 30 years to side with the citizens and the rule of law.
Not a tough choice for those of us not insulated from the flood of fraudulently documented foreigners.
Yes basically it was Clinton “If you like the stagnant failed Obama economy prepare for it on steroids if I am elected.”
Trump: This “new normal” for our economy the Dems are pushing is neither new, nor normal. We can do much much better then this.
If those persons have been big government advocates and political "insiders," then they are likely to advocate for the status quo, more big government solutions, and continuing with a "blind eye" to view the actions of their candidate which will lead to more government subjugation of citizens, less freedom, and fast-approaching tyranny.
We already know how Hitlery governs by her track record - incompetently, lazily and criminally.
We already know how Trump “governs” (runs his businesses) by his track record - successfully (mostly) and colorfully.
Stuff it, Barone.
Two more debates ahead. He still has ammo, she doesn’t.
Hmm
Hillary with sycophantic press and lapdog Congress would have no check at all on her megalomania and her demonstrate perchance for corruption and incompetence.
Really think giving a Clinton a blank check is a good idea voters?
Well of course Hillary Rotten Clinton was better prepared if she was the answers fed that Holt wanted to hear.
Well you can pick it apart if you please, but just think about what you would want the composition of the Supreme Court to be, then vote accordingly. It really is that simple.
excellent point.
See how that goes?
Kaslin, dear, you seem never to have been willing to give up your posts of negative spin about Trump. Even your boy Cruz finally endorsed him. The post was not directed at you. Is Michael Barone your friend or relative? If not, what is it to you if I am disgusted with him and all NeverTrumpers?
Don’t dismiss Barone lightly.
OTOH, he predicted a Romney tsunami back in 2012. Honestly, I lost a great deal of faith with politics in general and the political class in particular during that election.
I think the Political Class doesn’t have a clue how it’s done. “I’m going to tear up all existing trade agreements” threatens Trump. That is a negotiating position, and any business person knows that. The final results are usually a bit different.
If The Political Class doesn’t understand that, then...it’s no surprise to me.
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.