Sunday, June 26, 2016

Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore

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

No comments:

Post a Comment