With the primaries basically over, the all-out scuffle for the presidency is in full swing. And with that comes the attack ads, the fake accents (depending in which state a candidate happens to be making a speech), and the repeated soundbites, providing little-to-no actual honest information for the voters.
When Hillary Clinton decided to have her husband, former President Bill Clinton, campaign with her, Donald Trump almost leaped over Trump Tower in a single bound for joy:
"If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women's card on me, she's wrong!" - Donald Trump via Twitter (@realDonaldTrump) 12/28/15
Of course, many would say that Trump, no stranger to playing offense ("AW-fence" or "ah-FENCE" - your choice), is out of line if he attacks Bill. The question is, is he?
Funny thing about the internet. I was always told that what you post is permanent. Yet, there have been mandates made to Google from European countries that if a person requests to have their history "removed from the internet", Google has to comply. This means that if someone wants bad things in their history to be unsearchable, Google has to make it so. I guess that goes for politicians running for President as well.
You see, I did some searching, but was unable to locate the video on the internet that I KNOW I saw when it took place (in 1992), where, in an interview with Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary makes the statement:
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." -- Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents
Whether or not Freud would think that just a slip, there are a few major implications to that quote, and in Trump's favor:
IF TRUE, then when it comes to vetting (making a careful and critical examination of) a candidate, then both the President AND his/her first . . . uh . . . mate, would be up for grabs. No longer can a candidate "hide" their spouse's past from the press and the American people. That means statements, tax forms, et cetera, are open season.
IF TRUE, then when it comes to the ballot, both the candidate AND his/her mate should be on the ticket, since a vote for one is a vote for both.
IF TRUE, then not only should the candidates have to debate each other, but their mates should also have to debate each other. Especially when you consider the mate's influence on the decision-making process ("I don't know, where do YOU want to go to eat?")
Is it okay for Donald Trump to attack Bill's history? I think so. After all, Hillary made it "clear".
One other thing. If her statement is true, according to the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, Hillary may have ALREADY served two terms, and is therefore disqualified from running for President.
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Don't You Know Who I Am?!?
As I've mentioned previously, I’m not a sports ball guy. Whereas guys my age will complain about injuries received during the big game (some while even playing and not just falling in the bleachers from too many "adult beverages"), I can show people my paper cut scars from being a book worm. Yet, I can't say that this year's NBA finals haven't gotten me a bit excited.
I’m from Cleveland, but I’m no LeBron James fan(atic). I'll root root root for the home team, and if they don't win (which, as a Clevelander I'm used to) it's a shame, but I won't go "hero worship" someone who makes a lot of money playing a game.
Yet, I have to admit, I love watching the polar-opposite playing styles of LeBron James and Stephen Curry (of the Golden State Warriors) during the finals. Whereas James' style is all brute force, muscling his way to shooting positions, Curry is all finesse - frequenting the 3-point line.
As I write this, both teams are in California (I keep wanting to say "Ca-lee-foh-ni-ah" as if I’m Arnold Schwarzenegger) getting ready to play game seven. I’m going to focus this particular blog article on a comment the Warriors coach, Steve Kerr, made in a Cleveland.com article by Chris Fedor concerning game six, where Curry fouled out of the game:
"Curry swiped the ball from Irving, had a clear layup going the other way and a chance to make it a single-digit game.
"Instead, Curry was whistled for a foul, his fifth. Five minutes later he fouled out of the game -- his first time ever -- chucked his mouthpiece and exited the court with fans waving at him mockingly.
"Following the game, both Kerr and Curry expressed displeasure with the officials and will likely be receiving a fine.
"'He had every right to be upset,' Kerr said. 'He's the MVP of the league. He gets six fouls called on him, three of them were absolutely ridiculous. He steals the ball from Kyrie clean at one point. LeBron flops on the last one. Jason Phillips falls for that, for a flop. As the MVP of the league, we're talking about these touch fouls in the NBA Finals.
"'Let me be clear, we did not lose because of the officiating. They totally outplayed us and Cleveland deserved to win. But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league.'"
Did you see the that? I love the last sentence: "But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league."
Are you kidding me?!? Listen. I’m not going to argue whether or not the fouls were appropriate or inappropriate. Frankly being a non-sports ball guy, I really have no idea that a foul even takes place, and am surprised when some actions AREN'T fouls. But the "MVP of the league" should have special dispensation when it comes to actions made is utterly ridiculous.
(I do wonder if Kerr would have been so vocal if it had been LeBron James who was the "MVP of the league" in a similar situation. Nah, I'll stop wondering.)
Currently, we are in an election cycle for President of the United States, where every word, action, tax form, and email are up for scrutiny for any candidate who decides to throw their hat in the ring. It doesn't matter how big or small the gaff, it will be played and replayed ad infinitum on the cable news outlets. Nothing is sacred (as a point, stay tuned for my next blog, where I talk about just that!)
If Curry is the "MVP of the league", shouldn't that mean that he should be under GREATER scrutiny for his actions, not less - as his coach seems to think?
I think I agree with Uncle Ben when he told Peter: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Now. Go take your free throw and quit whining.
©Emittravel 2016
I’m from Cleveland, but I’m no LeBron James fan(atic). I'll root root root for the home team, and if they don't win (which, as a Clevelander I'm used to) it's a shame, but I won't go "hero worship" someone who makes a lot of money playing a game.
Yet, I have to admit, I love watching the polar-opposite playing styles of LeBron James and Stephen Curry (of the Golden State Warriors) during the finals. Whereas James' style is all brute force, muscling his way to shooting positions, Curry is all finesse - frequenting the 3-point line.
As I write this, both teams are in California (I keep wanting to say "Ca-lee-foh-ni-ah" as if I’m Arnold Schwarzenegger) getting ready to play game seven. I’m going to focus this particular blog article on a comment the Warriors coach, Steve Kerr, made in a Cleveland.com article by Chris Fedor concerning game six, where Curry fouled out of the game:
"Curry swiped the ball from Irving, had a clear layup going the other way and a chance to make it a single-digit game.
"Instead, Curry was whistled for a foul, his fifth. Five minutes later he fouled out of the game -- his first time ever -- chucked his mouthpiece and exited the court with fans waving at him mockingly.
"Following the game, both Kerr and Curry expressed displeasure with the officials and will likely be receiving a fine.
"'He had every right to be upset,' Kerr said. 'He's the MVP of the league. He gets six fouls called on him, three of them were absolutely ridiculous. He steals the ball from Kyrie clean at one point. LeBron flops on the last one. Jason Phillips falls for that, for a flop. As the MVP of the league, we're talking about these touch fouls in the NBA Finals.
"'Let me be clear, we did not lose because of the officiating. They totally outplayed us and Cleveland deserved to win. But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league.'"
Did you see the that? I love the last sentence: "But those three of the six fouls were incredibly inappropriate calls for anybody, much less the MVP of the league."
Are you kidding me?!? Listen. I’m not going to argue whether or not the fouls were appropriate or inappropriate. Frankly being a non-sports ball guy, I really have no idea that a foul even takes place, and am surprised when some actions AREN'T fouls. But the "MVP of the league" should have special dispensation when it comes to actions made is utterly ridiculous.
(I do wonder if Kerr would have been so vocal if it had been LeBron James who was the "MVP of the league" in a similar situation. Nah, I'll stop wondering.)
Currently, we are in an election cycle for President of the United States, where every word, action, tax form, and email are up for scrutiny for any candidate who decides to throw their hat in the ring. It doesn't matter how big or small the gaff, it will be played and replayed ad infinitum on the cable news outlets. Nothing is sacred (as a point, stay tuned for my next blog, where I talk about just that!)
If Curry is the "MVP of the league", shouldn't that mean that he should be under GREATER scrutiny for his actions, not less - as his coach seems to think?
I think I agree with Uncle Ben when he told Peter: "With great power comes great responsibility."
Now. Go take your free throw and quit whining.
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice
As a short addendum to my "Who Told You That?!?" post, I wanted to address another example in recent social media:
"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I want to be a part of history electing the first woman President."
Let me make this perfectly clear: IF you vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are sexist. IF you vote FOR Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are ALSO sexist.
So what's an open-minded, 21st century person to do? You are to vote based on criteria that directly pertains to the position. In other words, if you feel that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the JOB, that you agree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then vote for her. If you don't think she is the best person for the JOB, and you disagree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then DON'T vote for her.
You do NOT vote FOR or AGAINST Hillary Clinton based on whether or not she has ovaries. THAT is sexist.
And lest you think I'm only talking about Hillary Clinton, the same voting criteria pertains to whether or not you vote FOR or AGAINST Donald Trump, or any other candidate.
The President of the United States is considered the most important and powerful position in the entire world. Why in the hell is the election process treated like we're choosing the next American Idol?!? (Which, by the way, is the reason Donald Trump won the GOP primary: he treated it like a reality show, and he knew he could win a reality show. Shame on us!)
So which is it? Is the President 'The "Leader" of the Free World' or not? You need to choose the what.
And then you need to choose the whom.
©Emittravel 2016
"I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because I want to be a part of history electing the first woman President."
Let me make this perfectly clear: IF you vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are sexist. IF you vote FOR Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is a woman, you are ALSO sexist.
So what's an open-minded, 21st century person to do? You are to vote based on criteria that directly pertains to the position. In other words, if you feel that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the JOB, that you agree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then vote for her. If you don't think she is the best person for the JOB, and you disagree with her policies and where she stands on issues that directly concern the office of President, then DON'T vote for her.
You do NOT vote FOR or AGAINST Hillary Clinton based on whether or not she has ovaries. THAT is sexist.
And lest you think I'm only talking about Hillary Clinton, the same voting criteria pertains to whether or not you vote FOR or AGAINST Donald Trump, or any other candidate.
The President of the United States is considered the most important and powerful position in the entire world. Why in the hell is the election process treated like we're choosing the next American Idol?!? (Which, by the way, is the reason Donald Trump won the GOP primary: he treated it like a reality show, and he knew he could win a reality show. Shame on us!)
So which is it? Is the President 'The "Leader" of the Free World' or not? You need to choose the what.
And then you need to choose the whom.
©Emittravel 2016
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Stuff My Brain Says #77
I've been seeing quite a bit of Donald Trump Hate on social media.
First off, I'm no Trump supporter, so those anti-Trump protesters can keep their violence to themselves (Funny, but you never hear in the news which candidate those morons DO support!).
Much of the Trump hate I've read is pretty well deserved. He's made an awful lot of "enemies" during the primaries. Now he's trying to show himself as the joiner of the party. I guess he's the oil to the watered-down GOP (get it?)
I do want to remind those spewing the hate one thing: You do realize that your only other option is Hillary Clinton, right?
Make sure you think long and hard about that.
©Emittravel 2016
First off, I'm no Trump supporter, so those anti-Trump protesters can keep their violence to themselves (Funny, but you never hear in the news which candidate those morons DO support!).
Much of the Trump hate I've read is pretty well deserved. He's made an awful lot of "enemies" during the primaries. Now he's trying to show himself as the joiner of the party. I guess he's the oil to the watered-down GOP (get it?)
I do want to remind those spewing the hate one thing: You do realize that your only other option is Hillary Clinton, right?
Make sure you think long and hard about that.
©Emittravel 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)