Tags: Trump Administration | Donald Trump | GOP2016 | Supreme Court | clinton | trump | media

Disenfranchised, Kids Could Lose in 2016

Disenfranchised, Kids Could Lose in 2016

In this composite image a comparison has been made between US Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton (L) and Donald Trump. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

By
Wednesday, 12 October 2016 10:25 AM Current | Bio | Archive

Win, lose or draw, there are some clear losers in the 2016 Presidential Campaign, many not thought of in that regard.

First are U.S. citizens who have been fed so much candidate misinformation that it is hard to figure out the truth, or as Abbott and Costello noted, "Who’s on first?"  

Those without computers are disadvantaged, for it seems that online Internet usage is a priority for getting information on campaigns. With some services costing up to $90 per month many will be left out of the campaigns' lines of sight.

Second, is the media which seems to have lost all sense of objectivity — becoming not just reporters but the news itself; as well as the arbitrators for what news is fit to print; what point of view should be taken by the public making normal articles de facto editorials; television talk shows and radio programs showcases for real endorsements, etc., without a guarantee that all sides will be presented  — or none at all — thereby risking throwing out any pretense of holding to the Fairness Doctrine.

These actions may make freedom of the press suspect. The leaks and disclosures of private conversations should force all to believe there is no such thing as off the record, for all mikes should now be considered open and as the Snowden movie reveals “Big Brother” isn’t just watching you but has his tentacles in parts of your life that should be private.

Facebook, tweeting, emails and the like are not our friends.

They may come back to haunt us at any time.

Thirdly, is the unraveling of political parties where the object seems to be to win at all costs, no matter the mud slung or laws broken by candidates.

This presidential election represents an unusual convergence of events where two flawed candidates are so imbued with baggage — tipping the scales to tilt.

Do you give her a bit more slack for being a woman while appreciating her likely guilt of questionable lawlessness with national security issues or profiting from government service and connections while in office and handling of concerns regarding women personally as well as internationally; while allowing her to keep her cloak of secrecy?

Do you demonize him for being seemingly arrogant, over the top with prior limited filters, willing to use legal loopholes to his advantage, exposing the corruption of government and its henchmen, albeit crude as well as outlandish comments, in his past regard for women. All of which makes you feel better in taking him down a notch and seeing him knocked on his petard?

Party loyalty is taking a beating and Republicans haven’t learned from Democrats to stick with their candidates — coming together to give him their vote no matter their flaws.

Fourth, is the unwillingness to look for new answers to persistent questions which will bite us unless we address major political issues, e.g. if our national debt is 19 trillion and we only have 11 trillion in gold bullion. Where is the money to come from, and will our kids be able to carry this debt burden. Why not audit the Federal Reserve? Why not be willing to put all issues on the table eliminating perceived sacred cows?My vote will reflect the candidate who best operates within constitutional laws and understands the urgency of dealing with terrorism, nuclear proliferation, growing jobs outside of the government and illegal immigration.

And lastly, which is most important and should have been first, is the future of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees citizens and states (particularly under the 10th Amendment) certain rights being abridged by federal government overreach.

The Supreme Court Justices will determine our future with likely three vacancies in play within the next four years. Whether a more socialist trend will continue being legislated with government seizing more rights or freedom of choice from citizens or some balance introduced protecting our liberties while reigning in big government will be the big issue.

Not once in the response to how she would appoint justices did Hillary Clinton invoke the U. S. Constitution. Trump gave examples of people he would consider.

I stand for again teaching civics to secondary level students so that they understand the Constitution and its purposes. This could be an upset election not unlike that experienced by Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen but one, this time, touting a people’s champion who could "Trump" the competition.

Is a new American Revolution at hand against the establishment mantras and interests of lobbyists, bureaucrats, unelected officials who handle regulatory issues, and entrenched political figures who pile on the upstart with a passion?

Dr. Ada M. Fisher was the first black woman to serve as the Republican National Committeewoman. She was a candidate for the U.S. Senate from North Carolina, a candidate for U.S. Congress, and a candidate for the North Carolina House of Representatives. She is the author of "Common Sense Conservative Prescriptions Solutions for What Ails Us, Book I." For more of her reports, Go Here Now.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
AdaFisher
Win, lose or draw, there are some clear losers in the 2016 Presidential Campaign, many not thought of in that regard.
clinton, trump, media, constitution
832
2016-25-12
Wednesday, 12 October 2016 10:25 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved