Would you like this deranged homicidal maniac to violently stab you to death, or would you like Hannibal Lector to do it with finesse over a period of a couple of days? Or, are you one of those extremists who would prefer neither?
A healthy individual would say "neither."
A healthy, intelligent society, when faced with a similar choice would say "neither" as well. If that healthy, intelligent society found itself, through a long series of circumstances, in a state where it discovered that "neither" wasn't an official option and that it was down to the savagely violent maniac and Hannibal Lector, the healthy, intelligent thing to do would be to work tirelessly to change things so that it would not have such a poisonous set of choices ever again.
Alas! We do not live in a healthy, intelligent society. When faced with something like Donald Trump (the violent maniac) and Hillary Clinton (the Hannibal Lector choice), many, MANY people wisely selected neither of them, but enough people, in enough strategic areas, ignorantly and/or stupidly and/or racistly and/or selfishly, voted for Trump.
In response, Clinton's supporters wailed and screamed and blurted out absurd conspiracy theories about Russia and basically did everything but take responsibility for how their candidate failed to completely demolish a babbling, ignorant, corrupt, perverted, buffoonish, openly racist shit-for-brains. Furthermore (but not surprisingly) they condemn their moral and intellectual betters (Green Party voters and disgruntled progressives who didn't vote at all) as being to blame for Trump and for practicing a deranged ideological purity.
Once again, I say to those stupid asshole Democratic dead-enders: Just as you (rightly) condemn a Trump voter who put their concern for the return of decent jobs over Trump's blatant racism and its likely consequences, I CONDEMN YOU for putting your fear of Trump and for putting your partisan self-interests ahead of the MILLIONS of innocent people both in the USA and abroad whose lives Hillary Clinton has destroyed. As "First Lady" she sabotaged the chances of single-payer health insurance, she championed the "Three Strikes" prison policy, and she endorsed "welfare reform" ... all three decisions having caused enormous suffering to ordinary US-Americans.
As Senator, she stupidly voted for an illegal war of choice against Iraq, based on a case built on what anyone who wasn't a moron could see was a pack of lies. That vote alone should serve to disqualify her as a champion for "progressives" anywhere. That vote produced an orgy of violence, over a million untimely deaths; millions more made refugees, millions upon millions of traumatized (mentally and physically) individuals.
In my view, a blunder of such gigantic proportions is not erased with an embarrassed "Oops!"
 |
| Baghdad |
 |
| Tripoli |
 |
| Mosul |
2 comments:
The reason I didn't vote in the 2016 Presidential election was because the choice you had was between two candidates in their late-60s/early-70s whose level of insight and emotional maturity was on the same level as the average six-year-old, as was their behaviors.
Even for a narcissistic bum like me it was just too beneath my dignity and way too over-the-top for me to deal with. Just way too unbecoming for any society that considers itself "first world", educated and cultivated
...and judging by its social climate we know it's obviously none of those three.
Anymore I just "detach" myself from the rest of the world (although it's impossible to keep from still being affected by it, unfortunately).
Tal,
Yes. We're trapped in their world. But from what I've seen of the Left Opposition, there's no escaping it. So you might as well stay as detached as you can until the eco-crises hit and society disintegrates.
(I wish I could be a sunny and positive as the empty-headed who believe in the Democrats or the Liberals or that 25 people showing up for protests is the start of something big. Or the fools who think the NDP should move into the Black Hole that is the political centre.)
Post a Comment