Senator Clinton: Fantasies, Demagougeries, and Lies (of late)

1. (This was a bit of a while back) Hillary proposes that every child should be gifted $5,000 on birth.

Oh, doesn't Hillary love children, shouldn't we love her?

That money would come from where?

If you love a kid, you leave as many resources as possible within the control of their parents. I hope that one plays against her - I can't imagine anyone wanting Hillary as their State Mommy.

In the article:

".. She argued that wealthy people "get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can't afford to do that."

Okay, if that's true, how about opening up tax incentives (breaks) to more people in more ways? Does she really think people would prefer a tax over a break?

2. "Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan."

This was at a recent question-and-answer session after a speech by Clinton. Her campaign recently confessed the question was planted, or in other words one of her staff told a student in the crowd to ask the question. (Side note: the word "planted" has been mistakenly given in much of the media lately as "parsed")

Well, if it isn't obvious, that's basically deceptive: it creates the illusion that some student is interested in some point of her policy - where really the student isn't doing anything spontaneous: they've been told (intimidated by a campaign staffer?) to do so. It's like a friend buying a compilation of poems from poetry.com because their friend had a poem in it that "won" (was eligible for print because it resembles English and the poet paid for it to be published.) I always loved the nice feedback poetry.com sent out to potential subscribers who had submitted their own words: "Great Verse!" I wonder if they ever said "This verse needs work. We can't publish you." - how about it, Literature?

This is how the planted question to Clinton, and Clinton's answer, went down:

Question: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?

Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."

Wow. It's more than just the basic deception of planting the question as "spontaneous" that disturbs me about this (but that's basically deceptive). It's that Clinton pulled the feign to the highest possible level. Young people often ask you that question, Clinton? Young people are often concerned about that? Then why do you feel a need to compel them to ask it?

You know, I often find that young people intimidated by domineering power will say anything I want them to. Or, on the other hand, sometimes they'll just play "pretend" with me to get me my way.

Woohoo! Clinton's pretention. Down with that.

I'm aware this is a character attack. Well.. it's demonstrable bad character. What are Clinton's actual policies, and what do I think of them? She's into the Death Star is Approaching Planet Earth global warming nonsense. There are other substantial environmental concerns (like the oil supply that I've read we may dry up in the next generation). This global warming scaremongering is all bunk: here is an article by Orson Scott Card (I like his words! A lot!) on the topic. I found it flabbergasting and alarming - and it pretty much settled my mind against the notion of humans causing a warm-up of the earth as a joke.

There's also this that he wrote on related matters.

Mark my word: if the human race lives on this planet for more than a few hundred years before the end, Al Gore will go down as a fool. It's incredible in the face of this that he (with his global warming alarmist documentary - "A Fear-mongering Contrivance" - oh wait, is that what it's called?) won the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

3. "Former President Clinton said Monday his wife can handle the criticism from her presidential rivals even though "those boys have been getting tough on her lately." "

Oh, those good ol' boys. God love em' there just so mean and wrong. (Well, maybe they aren't. Oh, except when they are pointing out Hillary's lies and low tactics.)

"Clinton's comment comes amid debate as to whether the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's complaints about her rivals' "piling on" suggest the criticism is directed at the lone woman in the presidential race or the Democratic front-runner."

If you could even parse (as opposed to plant) that sentence (it was hard for me), he's saying they're attacking her campaign because she is a she. Well, that's logical. Not. So.. some folks point out that Hillary has been basically deceptive, and they're attacking her gender? No, they're pointing out she's basically deceived (please read this as either applying to herself or her actions toward others.) Planted questions are some of the criticisms and proof of bad character railed against her recently. As was noted, and I'll detail the matter gratuitously again: planted question equals misleading: oh, here is a person volunteering me a question. No, I didn't tell them to ask it! Come on. Accusing others (basically) of chauvinism when they point out a lie is.. I don't know. Does it need even to be disproved as illogical? It is simply fear-mongering. If you are against our campaign, you're against women, you're a chauvinist. Whatever. More demagoguery. It's pretty plain what is said in the accusations themselves: they rail against dishonesty. I dunno about you, but I like my potential presidents nice and honest. So take Hillary. Away. From the race. Please.