Clinton Creating Constitutional Crisis?

The words of a devout Democrat: “I am not able, under the circumstances we are now facing, to vote for Secretary Clinton.”

Those are the words of Democrat pollster Douglas E. Schoen, who worked for Bill Clinton during his presidency.

He explains his decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton:

“I am now convinced that we will be facing the very real possibility of a constitutional crisis with many dimensions and deleterious consequences should Secretary Clinton win the election. . . in good conscience, and as a Democrat, I am actively doubting whether I can vote for the Secretary of State. . . I remain a Democrat and proud of the work I did for six years for President Bill Clinton between 1994 and 2000 and I write with extreme sadness. But I cannot in the waning days of the election make the case that Secretary Clinton should be elected.”

Only if one believes that Donald Trump would be worse as POTUS than Hillary Clinton should anyone entertain the idea of voting for Clinton.

The problem with making such a judgment is that one doesn’t really know how a person will perform as the President until the person actually is the President. For all we know, Donald Trump might perform well if he were the POTUS.

At the same time, we have no guarantee that Hillary Clinton would abandon her Nixonesque sleaziness if she were to be elected.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is as oily as a politician can be, and while serving as U.S. Secretary of State, she behaved in a way that is unethical at best.

Certainly the Democratic Party could have chosen a better person to be its 2016 presidential nominee. Chuck Schumer would have been a better choice, and he has much more experience as a federal official than Clinton has.

Why Democrats were in awe of Hillary Clinton in the first place is something that this writer just doesn’t understand.

What If Trump Wins? Then What?
Right Wing Paranoia
  • jim_m

    It’s hard to see how anyone could compose a more mealy mouthed criticism of Hillary, but I am certain that you will post one before election day.

    Certainly the Democratic Party could have chosen a better person…

    Seriously? You manage to complete the entire post without a single mention of any of the scandals that are now under investigation. Nothing about the emails. Nothing about the Clinton Foundation. Nothing about the illegal coordination with the media. Nothing about the leaking of debate questions. Nothing about any of the issues that matter.

    My only conclusion is that you don’t talk about them because you really do not see them as issues.

  • Vagabond661

    You sling that term “writer” around very loosely.

  • Retired military

    David
    Your CYA miniscule threads against your pick for president does nothing but make you look bad. really. guy give it up.

    “Only if one believes that Donald Trump would be worse as POTUS than Hillary Clinton should anyone entertain the idea of voting for Clinton.”

    Gee and there you have David’s choice for POTUS. He has made his disdain known for Trump for months.

    • jim_m

      They are insulting. Which isn’t to say that the rest of his posts aren’t also insulting, because they are. But these fig leafs that he posts are offensive.

  • Retired military

    “At the same time, we have no guarantee that Hillary Clinton would abandon her Nixonesque sleaziness if she were to be elected.”

    NO GAURENTEEE> The only thing you can gaurentee with Clinton as president is 4 more years of corruption, investigations, scandals and the Press turning their heads and saying things like “Boy just like David RObertson we sure are glad Trump wasnt elected. He said P*ssy 11 years before the election”

  • Retired military

    “Why Democrats were in awe of Hillary Clinton in the first place is something that this writer just doesn’t understand.

    But you are damn sure going to vote for her because ummm Trump said pussy.

    • jim_m

      The list of things that David does not understand would fill the Library of Congress twice over.

  • Constitution First

    Let’s see:
    Loud-mouth-bragget, successful businessman / dirty, lying, walking security violation.
    One has no filter, the other is nothing but filter.
    Hard choice, I know, but you can only play the cards you’re dealt.
    Whining over spilt milk just make you a fool.

    • Jwb10001

      It’s becoming clear that if you want an administrations feet held to the fire you can not vote for democrats. If you want the press to actually do it’s job, and then some you have to keep democrats out of the white house. Hillary has nothing but catastrophe in her wake and yet the spinning the press is doing would make most people hurl.

      • jim_m

        I believe that this is nothing more than wishful thinking. The media won’t hold a GOP President’s feet to the fire. They will lie and fabricate scandal against him.

        Just look back at George W Bush. We had record high labor participation rates, we had record low unemployment (without fudging the numbers as they are currently) and the media was constantly reporting on how the economy was the worst since WWII. With 0bama all of a sudden we had the greatest economy ever despite double digit inflation (when you look at U6, which is the only remaining relevant measure due to government fudging) and historically low labor participation rates.

        The media is now an arm of the democrat party and should be regarded as such. They will not tell the truth about ANY candidate. They will lie about both dem and GOP, just in opposite directions.

        • Constitution First

          Right! The press gives equal billing to both parties…
          What planet did you say you were from?

          • jim_m

            Point out what I said that was incorrect.

          • Constitution First

            That George Bush somehow got a pass.
            You imply that the press would not hold every Conservative to an unattainable standard right out Alinsky playbook.

            I’ve observed media bias over the course of 45 years, if it wasn’t for double standards the malfeasant media wouldn’t have any standards at all.

            A Republican president always has, and always will face far more scrutiny than the democrat. Prove me where I’m wrong.

          • jim_m

            I will be nice and point out the you obviously failed to read beyond my first sentence. Otherwise you are a fucking idiot.

          • And the litigation begins:

            WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (Reuters) – Democratic Party officials sued Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in four battleground states on Monday, seeking to shut down a poll-watching effort they said was designed to harass minority voters in the Nov. 8 election.
            In lawsuits filed in federal courts in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona and Ohio, Democrats argued that Trump and Republican Party officials were mounting a “campaign of vigilante voter intimidation” that violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act and an 1871 law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan.