I recently found myself going through a sample ballot with survey answers that happened to include a question on gun control. The answers from the two candidates running were very illuminating:
OK, that's a simple and straightfoward statement in support of the 2nd Amendment and gun rights, with a nod towards mental health funding emphasizing veterans. If I was a veteran I might be a little offended by the implication that veterans are nuts who need mental health treatment in case they shoot people, but generally, it's a good answer.
In other words, Paul supports the 2nd Amendment... and every single gun control proposal out there, including gun bans. "I support the 2nd Amendment" is truly a meaningless phrase in his mouth. I'm surprised he even bothered, but it is Texas, after all.
Huma says Hillary is still not right in the head... in 2015
Still not perfect in her head, but fit to serve in the highest office our nation has? An office where lives depend on making good decisions quickly under stress?
Let's face it. Even if you're a fan of Hillary pre-collapse, pre-concussion, pre-Parkinsons, pre-stroke... at this point if you vote for her you're voting for a puppet run by her "body people" who can just about hold it together well enough to recite her lines from written notes.
As Glenn puts it, this woman is who we want standing up to Putin?
I could believe an occasional calibration error on a touchscreen device that misregistered a press. Or, to be honest, user error in that situation.
But voting "straight ticket Republican" and having your vote display for Hillary? I don't see how that can be a simple calibration error. It might be a configuration error of a different type, I suppose -- malicious or not -- but it seems like it would be something that should absolutely be checked during testing of the configuration and, if it leaked into the actual election, be corrected immediately.
Note that it has, in fact, leaked into the actual election (early voting). So I'll be keeping an eye out for any reports of an explanation and correction. Or, I suppose, conviction.
In the meantime, Texas voters should carefully check their ballots and insist on any errors being corrected.
The responses are here. There are a number of general objections, most notably one that seeks to narrow the scope of the questions to firstname.lastname@example.org (one of several of Hillary's email addresses on her server) rather than focusing on the whole server or even all of Hillary's addresses on that server. That particular evasion seems to be the one with the broadest potential for abuse. There are also broad objections based on various forms of privilege, including attorney-client and immunity.
I'm going to pull a few noteworthy examples out of the response below the fold.
FBI agents have decided to talk.. but will it be too late?
That's actually not the most important thing of all. The most important thing of all is still an open question. The question is, "Will the FBI agents who have decided to talk actually be able to talk before the election?"
I have absolutely no problem with Trump saying he would wait to look at the election results -- and presumably any necessary recounts and investigations of voter fraud -- before deciding whether or not to accept the results. That's what serious people do: they look at the evidence before making promises.
The evidence about our elections so far isn't exactly promising. Voter fraud is rampant with few safeguards in place to prevent it. Democrat political machines run the cities, and the dead walk to the voting booth in California. In New York, multiple Democrats admit on hidden camera to large-scale vote fraud and inciting violence.
Trump would have to be nuts -- or just eager to lose -- if he chose to concede a close election before looking at it closely.
It was obvious, in retrospect, that the third debate was different. Part of that was the moderator, who asked tough questions on both sides and wasn't blatantly pro-Hillary while focusing mostly on policy. (Congratulations, Chris. I didn't think you had it in you.) Part of it was Trump showing determination to stick to the high road and discuss policy. I think most of it was a hard-to-define sense that Trump was finally taking this thing seriously. Hillary was her usual well-polished, factually-challenged self, but Trump was suddenly exuding discipline and demonstrating his command of the issues rather than the insults.
I don't think that Trump's performance is going to change the mind of anyone committed to Hillary, but he's converting people who were reluctant to back him because they doubted his seriousness into supporters. Some within his own party and some independents. Really, anyone who can see through Hillary's lies but was reluctant to back Trump because of his personality got to see a sober, serious, disciplined and knowledgeable Trump tonight.
Maybe it will be enough.
As for me? Well, as the saying goes, you go to war with the Trump you've got rather than the Cruz you wanted... but you still go to war.
First question is about the Supreme Court. Trump says he will appoint justices who uphold the 2nd Amendment. The language is clearly unfamiliar to him, but he's trying. Question to Hillary brings up her opposition to the 2nd Amendment in the form of criticizing the Heller case. She lies and says she supports the 2nd Amendment but immediately comes back with "reasonable regulations", and says that the 2nd Amendment allows people to "kill you". She supports things like closing the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist. She lies and says she was talking about how the Supreme Court applied the 2nd Amendment in the Heller case, mentioning "toddlers with guns" by which I assume she means safe storage laws. That was a tiny part of the Heller case.
Trump gets a followup, but the moderators interrupt him to ask Hillary to repeat her talking points. She hits the "safe storage" point and lies about supporting the 2nd amendment "except for reasonable regulations" again.
Reminder: The Heller case was about a complete ban on functional firearms within the District of Columbia.
Tag back to Trump who says Chicago has the toughest gun control laws and the worst gun crime. Good point. He says he will appoint justices who are strong on the 2nd Amendment. Good closing. Moderators moving on to abortion, below the fold...
Overall impressions... Actually a substantive debate that focuses on issues. Only occasional digressions into personal attacks. Hillary was more polished, but she can't help making all sorts of checkable lies, and her polished policy positions are generally the wrong ones. Trump mostly avoided being detailed about policies, and occasionally was obviously reciting what he had memorized, but did have the right specifics and facts to back him up. When he did go into detail, mostly on taxes, he hit it well. Hillary was left making absurd claims about how she would grow the economy by raising taxes. It was absurd bullshit, but very polished absurd bullshit. Trump's domestic economic policies, on the other hand, are likely to work. (His trade policies are an open question).
If you measure the winner by who shifted closer to the other's policies, I think Hillary shifted a lot closer to Trump. She wants amnesty, but consistently called for border enforcement along with amnesty and even attacked Trump for using illegal alien construction workers. She also shifted on trade, her "public position" is that TPP is a bad idea now. Her private position is open borders, amnesty, and pro-TPP. So she shifted the most towards Trump, and thus Trump won.
If you care about the Supreme Court, I think Trump won pretty solidly on that. Pro-gun, pro-life. Hillary had to lie about the 2nd Amendment there, and kept coming back with "reasonable regulations" which gun owners know is poll-tested code words for gun control. And she was unashamed about supporting abortion.