, , ,

It’s likely that most people have made up their mind about who they are voting for by now. But you may have noticed that the reasons some folks give for their decisions don’t inspire confidence in their level of information or even their seriousness – references, for example,  to Clinton’s emails, or Trump as a change agent are rampant but rarely convincing. Many of the people who speak this way aren’t able to accurately describe the problem with the Clinton emails. Nor can many tell you why they believe Trump’s claims that he can fix a problem he can’t define accurately. Well, there’s some last minute help if you want to gather your facts.

Clinton’s Emails

Vox has got the goods on all the silly allegations surrounding the putative email scandals. An article by Matthew Iglesias, descriptively titled “The real Clinton Email Scandal is that a Bullshit Story has Dominated the Campaign,” covers every angle of the current email derangement syndrome. Yglesias deals with Clinton’s reasons for using a private email account and personal server; the transparency issues that have been raised in the media, including the famous 33,000 deleted emails; general government email practices and regulations along with what he terms the classification “red-herring.” He concludes:

… Clinton wasn’t even breaking with an informal precedent. The very worst you can say is that, faced with an annoying government IT policy, she used her stature to find a personal workaround rather than a systemic fix that would work for everyone. To spend so much time on such a trivial matter would be absurd in a city council race, much less a presidential election. To do so in circumstances when it advances the electoral prospects of a rival who has shattered all precedents in terms of lacking transparency or basic honesty is infinitely more scandalous than anything related to the server itself.

Trump as President

The Daily Beast‘s Michael Tomasky writes convincingly about “What a President Donald Trump Actually Would Do in Office.”

First, Tomasky tells us just why Trump would not be able to follow through on some of his more extravagant promises like reviving manufacturing; keeping businesses from locating outside the US;  bringing coal back; and repealing and replacing Obamacare. According to Tomasky, what Trump would do, however, is start a financially disastrous trade war with China, and, assuming he follows through with his deportation plan, cost the U.S. treasury something in the neighborhood of 500 billion dollars, not to mention associated labor market costs.

To add to these potential disasters, Tomasky reminds us that Trump has not only shown himself to be morally unfit to hold office –  “he would be serving while involved in a fraud trial over his bogus university, and quite possibly a child-rape trial as well” – but that he has also demonstrated consistently that he is intellectually and temperamentally incapable of handling potential international or financial crises that may be in the offing. He concludes:

I suppose the people on this transition team [i.e. the Trump transition team] are fooling themselves by preparing briefing papers and whatnot. But really, they might as well be playing Free Cell all day. And through some miracle in these last few days it might be nice for cable news to stop obsessing about the latest supposed crisis in Hillaryland and remind people that they are voting for a president, and one of the two candidates has been deemed unqualified by nearly every newspaper in the country, by most retired generals, by a huge phalanx of foreign-policy people of both parties, by nearly every serious economist, and basically by everyone except a few people who are either blinded by their hatred of Clinton or too scared of their more rabid constituents to say a cross word about this madman. To quote someone close to the situation, believe me, it’s a disaster, folks.

In a nutshell, the gist of both articles is that one candidate is trustworthy and qualified to be president and the other isn’t.  We don’t need to know anything else. Thus armed, go forth and vote.