I can't stand Trump, and you can't stand Clinton. Who would be a logical choice for us if we could have only one person as president? This is a big problem when both candidates are equally easy to hate?
Over the years, Clinton has been pilloried by the GOP and lied about at every turn. But she had done little to make things better for herself, and has only reinforced the lies told about her. But Trump is no paragon of honor, as he has been in bed with foreign powers who are no friends of the USA. Even in this paragraph, you can sense a very slight bias towards Clinton - but not a bias I'd have if the GOP put up a more honorable candidate.
Recently, Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia. Her surrogates covered up for her instead of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. As a result, her health has become an issue for the campaign. Gone are the days that Kennedy could hide his Addison's disease. Gone are the days that Wilson could hide an almost fatal stroke. And gone are the days that FDR's polio related paralysis would be ignored by the press. The health of a potential president is very important to us.
Given Trump's doctor's note, I feel that the note was in effect written by Trump himself. Even a 12th grader would use more adult language than was on the note. (Trump's speeches have been analyzed, and they are at a 4th grade level. What does this say about the doctor's note?) With Trump calling for full disclosure by Hillary, but not being willing to do so himself, there is little reason to consider him an honorable candidate for president.
So where does this leave us? We do have a choice - the Libertarians and their candidate, Gary Johnson. No, I don't expect him to win. But I do expect him to be able to throw a monkey wrench into this election. Voting Libertarian is the best way of saying "NO!" to both parties and their corruption. Once they start getting some victories, it will be much harder for the duopoly to keep this third party off the ballot. And with victories will come change.
Some people will say that Johnson should have known about Aleppo. Yet, how many of us remember that Syrian city unless it is in the news? I can't fault him for being forgetful - he doesn't have the luxury of big staffs like the Democrats and the GOP can provide for their candidates. At least, he has a coherent philosophy. And if by some miracle he won our nation's highest office, I'm pretty sure that Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, and Bill Maher would be there at the swearing in ceremony - as well as the unofficial "after party". (I'd love to be there for that one!)
We have a lot to think about before November 8th. And I hope that either one of the major party candidates shows him/herself worthy of high office. Or I hope that the Libertarians would finally come of age and win something....
I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton. She is and always will be a Machiavel, but this is not a bad characteristic for someone running for the office of president. Instead, it is a potential risk if she wins the election, because one can't be sure of what will guide her when in office - save for self interest.
Strong leaders tend to be Machiavels to some degree or another. One has to be enough of a psychopath (no moral judgement here) to sacrifice one group of supporters for a "greater good" - and Hillary has proven herself capable of doing that. But she has a habit of snatching defeat out of the claws of victory, by underrating the power of her opposition. When her husband was president, she couldn't get healthcare reform done. Like her husband, she was a lightning rod for the opposition's political lightning strikes. And in the 2008 election cycle, she underrated Barack Obama - to her regret.
She is a very intelligent lady, and is very pragmatic. Yet, she put her foot in her mouth by agitating for a "no fly zone" in Syria. ISIS has no air force. So who does this affect? Russia! Can we afford to antagonize the Russians when we have a common enemy? Why shouldn't we let the Russians look like the bad guys - even if it means that we sacrifice our rebel friends to keep the Syrian government nominally in power?
Much noise has been made by the GOP about her use of private email servers. But government officials from the GOP have done the same thing. Given the data security breaches in Federal Government computer systems, it is likely that her private server may have been more secure than the government servers she was expected to use. (It is also possible that her private servers may have been "Honey Pots" designed to feed false information to people spying on her.) Bernie Sanders is likely right - this is a non issue.
There is something not generally reported in the press - she has a soft, human side that people don't often see on the political trail. She likely hides it because of the double standard imposed on women - if she is soft, she is weak. And if she is hard, she still can't be as imposing as a male. In short, she is not allowed to be herself - no matter how qualified she is for office.
So the big question is: Is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president? She hasn't done anything important enough to disqualify herself. But has she developed enough skills to steer this country? Or, is she the only logical choice left, given the non-logic coming from the opposition? Only time will tell....
Armistice Day. We now call it Veteran's Day, as a way to honor those who served. But, in America, we've lost the true meaning of the holiday.
There are many cemeteries in Europe in which are buried the bodies of soldiers who died in World War One. This was the first global war in our world's history, although most of the killing was done by the European powers and their proxies. It was considered "the war to end all wars", and yet, there was another world war within a generation.
What is it about humanity that leads us into war? Could it be the nature of the Alpha Male is getting out of hand when large populations are involved? I have no idea. But one would think that as a species, we'd have learned how to dampen this tendency in humans. Sadly, we haven't yet learned how to do this.
- - - - - -
We have one political party which has had a collective myopia, being hawkish about getting into war, but with no clear plan of what to gain from making that war. Have they learned anything from the lessons of 11/11/1918? I doubt it. They were responsible for us squandering billions of dollars in Iraq, claiming that we needed to make that nation "Safe for Democracy". Does anyone think that Iraq became better off because of our involvement? And then, this party wanted us to invade Syria and remove another dictator. Do they want to keep getting us involved in areas of the world, where a potential removal of our troops (once there) would create worse problems than had we not invaded in the first place? Do they want "Forever Wars" only to keep the Military-Industrial Complex profitable?
- - - - - -
Wars should be rare things, not forever things. America has made the big mistake of empire - we're using war to get our way in the world, and this is a tool that becomes much more expensive over time. In addition, history has shown us that a propensity towards war is the sign of a dying empire. Instead, we should be using diplomatic and economic power to get our way, to keep this empire. It's one of the better ones that have existed, as it did help people become free and prosper around the globe. But we can't make all the world safe or prosperous - the people and their cultures in areas that we have influence must want what we want for this to happen. That's why Iraq and Syria were failures for us.
- - - - - -
The fields of Europe hold many a cemetery from both world wars. Can we afford to add fuel to a fire which may result in another world war?
In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS. One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature. The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries. The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground. In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.
Normally, I'd agree with The Economist. But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something. Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump. There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.
The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders. He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on. Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates. (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)
Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs. Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS. It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people. And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do." So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.
There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe. In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring. No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.
A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It. One review of this book notes:
Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.
Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."
Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion
Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.
...
With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.
Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.
How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"
...
In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".
Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.
Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct. Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress. (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)
So we go back to Trump's candidacy. What do we do about it? For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party. (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.
Am I sure of this? No. But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....
