On our leased land, it's pretty, but tansy is poisonous to cattle. On these plants are the caterpillars that will strip it given enough time.
On the lapse that the media is salivating over, it's a tad interesting, why Bill Clinton, being accused of raping and molesting women and then lying about an eventually proven, consensual liaison, was considered not a big deal for many liberal voters; but with Trump it is the whole tamale.
Well, I confess, I didn't consider it a big deal with Clinton in terms of my voting for him for President-- twice. I never figured he was an angel. I do believe the women who dared speak up, claiming he groped or raped them, were treated poorly. Because of the support of the news media and his wife, the women ended up being the ones attacked-- even those where it was not consensual.
That won't likely happen to Trump's accusers. They are on the 'correct' side and helping to take down a dangerous dragon. It is possible Trump lied when he has denied what the women claim. It is also possible, given inconsistencies in some of the stories, that the women lied. Most of it is he/said/she/said. What do we believe? What suits us ideologically.
Bill Clinton, who have those who say he crudely discusses women, is benefited by not having a tape (yet anyway) with him saying that's exactly what he did. There are the stories of him golfing with a proven sexual predator where they shared successes. There are the stories of him partying (as did Trump) with a proven pedophile. But you know birds of a feather don't necessarily flock together-- unless it's someone on the other side anyway ;).
Trump's sexual words were disgusting. If he followed through with actions, that's not seduction but abuse-- and most likely sexual addicion (likely true of Clinton also). I would ask why these women never reported it at the time. One of them said he put his hand on her leg in a crowded nightclub in the '90s but why she didn't stop him right there, I don't know. I can't imagine letting a man touch me inappropriately without moving away or telling him what I thought of him.
Maybe they had heard from the Clinton accusers where they found their reputations were destroyed, they were insulted, and the media dismissed them as well as Hillary's possible threats to them. Reputations can be ruined when women go up against powerful people.
It is possible, with Trump, that he is still acting this way (Clinton continued with his predatory behavior into the White House). Nevertheless, his sexual addiction (the part he admitted) won't be what I'll be voting on. I wish it had not come out and that this whole had stayed on issues, which to me matter more. It will now look like he lost over this and that Americans want Hillary's policies-- whatever they might be.
Trump does have personality issues that I consider bigger deals-- unwillingness to educate himself; thin skin; too easily diverted, all of which could make him high risk as a President. He can't let insults roll off his back (not sure Hillary can either). It's not good to have a President who has to strike back-- not when the world knows how easily he's provoked.
I consider both candidates for President in 2016 to be ethically challenged, with huge egos, and a desire for power, for which, they will do and say anything.
"Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris." Colin Powell wrote in an email. I'd say he described it pretty well regarding her. If you go back through her history of who she appoints, what she promotes, how she operates, you see it time after time. That's a big deal in a President and any other year might've been the end of her chance to be President.
In my place to rant, I wrote about the reasons people don't trust her: [transgressions or not]. To me, the emails carry through to today with destroying over 30,000 from her private server when doing business for the government as Secretary of State. Of course those were personal-- just about yoga and weddings... Seriously, only diehard liberals buy that one. Why would she care if the FBI or anyone looked at those innocent posts? There likely was more based on what's coming through on her staff and friends' emails.
I think we all know that her staff got rid of anything that looked illegal or embarrassing, and she got away with doing it because the FBI chief knew he dared not indict her and used the excuse she just didn't know what she was doing. That doesn't get other offenders off the hook but do liberals care? Not much.
HRC has the entire establishment backing her-- Republicans, Democrats, and media. For those like me, who want to vote on issues the Wikileaks material is disturbing since what she says in those paid speeches, like who better to guard then henhouse than the foxes (bankers for the Cabinet and on helping write regulations proved to also be Obama's favorite picks). No wonder she does not want those speeches being aired, the ones that made her millions of dollars, but no strings attached-- of course.
So will she have an enemy list? Has she used political power to gain wealth, sold access to the State Department for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Did the Clinton Foundation do good work or was it all about cushy jobs, jets and plush offices? The fact that no journalist has seriously looked into this gives her fans wiggle-room, but, as with Trump, there is a lot of smoke out there.
After I'd written this I saw that she went on a daytime talk show, which leans heavily left (full disclosure I've never seen the show as I watch no daytime TV). She was horrified at how Trump had stalked her during the second debate. Seriously, that's what she said when the photo they used to illustrate it is her walking to his side of the stage to answer a question from a participant and him leaning on his own chair. The host was equally horrified at his behavior. This kind of accusation helped Hillary win the Senate race in NY; so guess she figures it will work again as many lefties were posting what he'd done. Seriously, this is how they saw it. It was not how I saw it or the other half of the country.
You can see how unhappy I am with either candidate. I am not convinced either will do what they have said regarding the issues. Both pander to their bases-- what do they really hope to do? Are they avoiding some issues to not have to say? As it stands, I cannot ethically vote for either; so what do I do? I'll be getting into that later, but first will come issues, which I wish Americans would care more about than many appear to do. If we get a President, who people don't trust, they better darned well be watching that chicken house themselves!
Next blog, I'll take a whack at the question of globalism or nationalism. It's complex and a biggie which influences many other issues from economics to laws. It was behind Brexit. I believe there are good folks on each side of the debate. Yes, we have a changing world... Wait, that'll be next Wednesday ;).