Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« on: 2008-02-02 00:42:04 »
Hermit, I have a hypothetical question for you, or anyone else that wants to answer it.
Pretend it's the night of the U.S. Presidential election this coming November.
It's approximately one hour before the polls close.
When you left home, exit polling showed the race to be almost exactly even, with the overwhelming majority of the votes split down the middle between the Republican and Democratic candidates, and a paltry few for the Independent and Green candidates.
You're in your voting booth, and the following choices are available:
1) Democratic party:
For president: Barack Obama For vice-president: Hillary Clinton
2) Republican party:
For president: John McCain For vice-president: Rudy Giuliani
3) Independent party:
For president: Ron Paul For vice-president: Dennis Kucinich
4) Green party:
For president: Al Gore For vice-president: Ralph Nader
There is no keyboard in the voting booth.
Your only choice is to select one of the four options above (or, of course, you may select none of them).
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #1 on: 2008-02-02 06:39:01 »
[Blunderov] My principal would usually be to vote my conscience, as opposed to voting tactically for a lesser evil result. So I would probably vote Paul/Kucinich.
But I would be very tempted to vote McCain/Guliani in this rather special election. This would, IMO, be a result likely to to set in motion events leading ultimately to the demise of both fascist Amerika and her succubus, Israel. (Primary exports: some fruit, occasional electronics and year round genocide. All subsidised by the American taxpayer.)
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #2 on: 2008-02-02 08:12:51 »
In your hypothetical election, my first choice would be the Gore/Nader presidency and my second choice and I had one, the Paul/Kucinich ticket.
Rather than the knowledge that he has previously beaten the the Republicans by a handy majority in a General election, where many votes for Republicans were simply a vote against Clinton, the reasoning for me is a simple matter of priorities.
Our impending doom from a combination of environmental issues (atmospheric CO2 and methane rising, water toxicity rising, global aquifer depletion, global warming, ocean and lake eutrophication, fishing collapses due to overharvesting and pathogens (with a consequent rise in jellyfish making it permanent), topsoil losses and soaring soil salinity, the spread of MDR pathogens, sea level height increases are only some of the more urgent, with the release of tundra and swamp methane and potential for releasing Methane clathrate (if shallow ocean temperatures exceed 18C or we experience a major meteorite/comet strike) probably the most Venusian) along with the end of cheap energy with its massive disruptive effects particularly on agriculture.
Though nobody is talking about it, do I need to remind you that the ever optimistic USDA thinks that the US can feed about 200 million with sustainable agriculture, and the world 2 billion; assuming that water and fertilizer remain at current availability (and both stipulations unlikely - and their inclusion telling). Given an anticipated 500 million US population by 2020 and the expectation that water issues will become widely apparent in the US by 2012-2015, particularly in the SW, the question is what happens when at least 3 out of 5 Americans - and 4 out of 5 in much of the rest of the world, need to die that some may live? It ought to be apparent that crowds are not good at making such decisions, particularly not crowds who have been suckered into imagining that growth will continue forever.
Of all the people named, Al Gore is undoubtedly the only one in touch with this terrifying collection of processes which taken together implies that the world of our children is going to be altogether different to and much, much nastier than ours. I think that Al Gore understands the need for International cooperation to moderate the impact of this now largely inevitable sequence. I think that Al Gore has the charisma, intelligence and personal knowledge of other leaders to avoid a tempting descent into near inescapable war. I don't think any other politician has the knowledge or the experience to both recognize and do anything effective about these pending emergencies.
My second choice would be the Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket. This would be based not only the fact that I think they could win an election, but even more on the concept of damage amelioration (First, do no harm), and the greatly reduced likelihood that these two would engage in nuclear Armageddon games with others, as the end of the modern age becomes apparent. Also their economic strategy and the possible introduction of laissez faire capitalism to America, combined with a massive reduction in military spending and taxation might allow some private industry to survive and solutions to our immediate issues be funded before it is too late for anything but survival. At the worst, they have the best chance of preventing the death pangs of the current form of the US from destroying the potential for a much more Jeffersonian future for a much smaller population of the planet.
As for the remaining tickets, there is no effective difference between them and no hope that their interaction with the AIPAC/Military-Industrial complex or Congress would mean anything good, as they are embedded products of and very much a part and parcel of that dreadful system. While I see and appreciate Blunderov's points, salient as usual, I think that Clinton might well be worse than McCain (for reasons having everything to do with personality and nothing to do with sex) and would react aggressively and hysterically to "existential threats." Further, I think that that any and all of them could and would fancy themselves in a role as some kind of Machiavellian leader guiding mankind through an escatological chasm - and the last 8 years have shown the consequences of that. Unfortunately, unlike the bogey man of "Islamic Jihad" (which is purely mythical, based purely on a myopic perspective and far too much positive feedback), these "existential threats" are real and are no longer in some distant future. The impending.arrival of at least some of them, if not the arrival themselves, are likely to become apparent within the term of the next Presidency. I personally think, largely for historic reasons, but partially on scientific, that large scale violence will make the situation far worse no matter how careful the calculations or how pure the intentions. With either of these teams, I'm not entirely sure that the calculations would be good or the intentions would actually be pure, but I am sure that the plans would gang agaley with rapidity on their first brush with reality. I am also sure that either a McCain or Clinton presidency would be far too quick to assume that violence is the answer. After all, when you are sitting there holding a 500 lb hammer and being told you are Thor, and somebody brings you bad news, are you likely to put down the hammer to reach for a pen. Or a nice cup of STFU tea? I think not.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #3 on: 2008-02-02 08:49:31 »
I'm going to pretend that we have Instant Runoff Voting for a moment. My first choice would be Gore/Nader. I think Hermit's reasons are sound there. For second choice I would vote Obama/Clinton (and only choice in the reality of US presidential elections). Somehow it seems Hermit thought Hillary was the top of the Democratic ticket. My vote would really be for Obama. I think of any of the Dem/Rep four listed, he is the most charismatic and the least insane. He has leadership qualities that I think would serve us well through disaster.
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #4 on: 2008-02-02 09:20:31 »
Mo, you are quite right. I didn't read the question well enough and merely replied to what I thought it was, rather than what it actually asked.
That said, my voting wouldn't change. All the reasoning I employed for my first two choices remains intact. Past the first two, and addressing the latter where my misperception might have affected things, principle would make me reluctant to vote for any person sufficiently hypocritical to obtain the endorsement of the current party system in the USA, and while my loathing of Hilary Clinton's sleazy personality and vapid posturing would be mitigated (and with her as VP would make me wish as honestly that the President remained healthy as I currently hope that until Cheney is no longer VP, that Bush maintains the office and his health right up to the moment that he is hanged, with CHeney preceding him), judging him on what he has said, I still see Obama as being as supportive of the tidal wave of US military spending, and nearly as easily stampeded into an hysterical overreaction, as Clinton.
Reading further, I see that I also missed the point that the hypothetical election is practically over, supposedly with the appointment of one of the representatives of corporatism now practically guaranteed to take office. Do you think I should waste my time voting if it isn't going to make a difference?.Perhaps looking for a flight to some place that offers a better chance of escaping the consequences of this final proof that there is no hope for the USA or the majority of her residents would be more sensible. We have seen how the majority of the spineless "impeachment is not on the table" Democrats are more enabling of the Bush presidency than even some Republicans. Watching the spectacle of the latest attorney general sneering at their posturing, why should anyone even imagine that things could possibly improve under a president from this same crowd?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #5 on: 2008-02-02 16:51:29 »
[Blunderov] Dr. John Moffett, whilst sympathetic, does not ultimately approve of the "let McCain win strategy". He has to live in America after all. Still, the question remains: does one rip the plaster off in a series of small but exquisitely painful tugs or does one suddenly tear it off in one mindnumbing shriek of unbearable agony? One of the timeless questions which Everyman must face in his own way. Aah freedom! I can feel it working...
In the last couple of weeks, as it became more likely that John McCain would be the Republican nominee, and as Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were tossed aside by early Democratic primary voters, a bizarre idea kept cropping up in my head. That Americans need to suffer significantly greater hardships before they will finally reject Republican political philosophy.
Listening to John McCain on the stump talking about 50 to 100 more years of war in Iraq, and more wars to come, it got me thinking that maybe a four year dose of McCainian hegemony is exactly what the US electorate needs to snap it out of its apathy and indifference. Just maybe, America will need to suffer a severe Republican tax cut, trickle-down economics-induced recession, and protracted wars across the globe before they will finally have had enough of Republican economics and empire building. Much more death and destruction meted out by the American military-corporate complex.
Maybe, and I have heard it from others, what America needs is four more years of unbridled, psychotic Republican rule and oppression, and just maybe John McCain is the right man for that job. Maybe Democrats who find the two remaining Democratic candidates much less than what they had hoped for in a progressive choice for president, should just sit this one out and let McCain win so that the bad times will continue to roll. Indeed, four years of McCain could be the final nail in the Republican Party's coffin. Like a drunk, or a drug addict, maybe America needs to hit bottom before it can start the process of recovery.
Then, after I regain control of my hypothalamus and limbic system, I find it relatively easy to suppress those urges. Emotional responses are really great when you're getting married or being chased by a lion. They probably don't play out so well when picking a president.
So without wasting any more of your time, I'll just quickly go over some of the rational reasons why almost any Democrat other than Joe Lieberman would be a better choice for President than John McCain or any of the current Republican candidates.
1) John McCain thinks we can “win” the Iraq war by staying indefinitely 2) Bolstering the five vote Republican majority in the Supreme Court 3) American spending priorities will never shift from the military to the US infrastructure with McCain as president 4) say goodbye to any kind of universal health care coverage 5) say hello to even more regressive, pro-corporate tax policies 6) forget about any kind of middle east peace accord 7) paint a nuclear bunker buster bull's-eye on Iran
There are plenty more reasons, but you get the idea. Just calculating the number of lives saved by getting out of Iraq sooner is more than enough reason to make sure John McCain never becomes president of the United States. The Supreme Court has been handing down some terrible rulings recently, and that will only continue unabated if the court is stacked with more ultraconservatives.
So when that little voice in your head says, “maybe America hasn’t suffered enough at the hands of the Republican party yet”, take out that mental stick and beat your hypothalamus into submission.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org.
Mo, you are quite right. I didn't read the question well enough and merely replied to what I thought it was, rather than what it actually asked.
That said, my voting wouldn't change. All the reasoning I employed for my first two choices remains intact. Past the first two, and addressing the latter where my misperception might have affected things, principle would make me reluctant to vote for any person sufficiently hypocritical to obtain the endorsement of the current party system in the USA, and while my loathing of Hilary Clinton's sleazy personality and vapid posturing would be mitigated (and with her as VP would make me wish as honestly that the President remained healthy as I currently hope that until Cheney is no longer VP, that Bush maintains the office and his health right up to the moment that he is hanged, with CHeney preceding him), judging him on what he has said, I still see Obama as being as supportive of the tidal wave of US military spending, and nearly as easily stampeded into an hysterical overreaction, as Clinton.
Reading further, I see that I also missed the point that the hypothetical election is practically over, supposedly with the appointment of one of the representatives of corporatism now practically guaranteed to take office. Do you think I should waste my time voting if it isn't going to make a difference?.Perhaps looking for a flight to some place that offers a better chance of escaping the consequences of this final proof that there is no hope for the USA or the majority of her residents would be more sensible. We have seen how the majority of the spineless "impeachment is not on the table" Democrats are more enabling of the Bush presidency than even some Republicans. Watching the spectacle of the latest attorney general sneering at their posturing, why should anyone even imagine that things could possibly improve under a president from this same crowd?
Kindest Regards
Hermit
If you are right about all the disaster we are headed for (and I generally think you are), there will generally be no country of escape. It's already been proven that our financial/economic problems span the globe anway so while being relatively wealthy may help some, it would probably be a good idea to be as globally mobile as possble. Anyone thinking they can find a safe fort anywhere in the world whether US, North Korea, or even the Antarctic is simply deluding themselves. I give the smartest (but only the smartest) homeless people in America much better odds of survival than most rich people anywhere in the world in the long run. If it comes to disaster on this scale they are at least trained for it already. (disaster equal to worst poverty and famine Humanity has ever faced - complete with global civilization collapse). If you are rich, perhaps you might purchase an RV and a boat? plane? I dunno, it might keep you alive a little bit longer than average, but that's different from unltimate survival.
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #7 on: 2008-02-02 19:30:40 »
I might say buy lots of guns, but those have a statistically greater chance of getting used on yourself or a loved one regardless, so that's probably not the best ultimate survival strategy.
Mo, you are quite right. I didn't read the question well enough and merely replied to what I thought it was, rather than what it actually asked.
That said, my voting wouldn't change. All the reasoning I employed for my first two choices remains intact. Past the first two, and addressing the latter where my misperception might have affected things, principle would make me reluctant to vote for any person sufficiently hypocritical to obtain the endorsement of the current party system in the USA, and while my loathing of Hilary Clinton's sleazy personality and vapid posturing would be mitigated (and with her as VP would make me wish as honestly that the President remained healthy as I currently hope that until Cheney is no longer VP, that Bush maintains the office and his health right up to the moment that he is hanged, with CHeney preceding him), judging him on what he has said, I still see Obama as being as supportive of the tidal wave of US military spending, and nearly as easily stampeded into an hysterical overreaction, as Clinton.
Reading further, I see that I also missed the point that the hypothetical election is practically over, supposedly with the appointment of one of the representatives of corporatism now practically guaranteed to take office. Do you think I should waste my time voting if it isn't going to make a difference?.Perhaps looking for a flight to some place that offers a better chance of escaping the consequences of this final proof that there is no hope for the USA or the majority of her residents would be more sensible. We have seen how the majority of the spineless "impeachment is not on the table" Democrats are more enabling of the Bush presidency than even some Republicans. Watching the spectacle of the latest attorney general sneering at their posturing, why should anyone even imagine that things could possibly improve under a president from this same crowd?
Kindest Regards
Hermit
If you are right about all the disaster we are headed for (and I generally think you are), there will generally be no country of escape. It's already been proven that our financial/economic problems span the globe anway so while being relatively wealthy may help some, it would probably be a good idea to be as globally mobile as possble. Anyone thinking they can find a safe fort anywhere in the world whether US, North Korea, or even the Antarctic is simply deluding themselves. I give the smartest (but only the smartest) homeless people in America much better odds of survival than most rich people anywhere in the world in the long run. If it comes to disaster on this scale they are at least trained for it already. (disaster equal to worst poverty and famine Humanity has ever faced - complete with global civilization collapse). If you are rich, perhaps you might purchase an RV and a boat? plane? I dunno, it might keep you alive a little bit longer than average, but that's different from unltimate survival.
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #8 on: 2008-02-02 22:06:38 »
This thread took a turn to the dark side, but maybe the current state of the electoral process calls that state up.
I've just dug myself out from under 50cm of snow and have noted my FTA is still down with no fix insight.
In spite of the lack of injections of wisdom from the US TV networks, the pressing issue the media has left me with in the great white north, that will shortly plague the US, is an economy that is about to tank and is being kept afloat by the current government to give the republicans a fighting chance. The subtext I drew from this, is that a national 50/50 split is extremely unlikely.
The figure that has got my attention the most up here is Ron Paul in terms of someone that will rock the boat and possible chart a new course. The rest seems to be a box of Smarties; different colours on the outside but still crummy milk chocolate inside.
Have I got the wrong impression under all this snow up here (300cm so far this year ... sigh) ?
Great Forums and Website; I've followed since 1995, thought I'd lost you all this fall, but when I got connected again, this time I signed up.
This thread took a turn to the dark side, but maybe the current state of the electoral process calls that state up.
I've just dug myself out from under 50cm of snow and have noted my FTA is still down with no fix insight.
In spite of the lack of injections of wisdom from the US TV networks, the pressing issue the media has left me with in the great white north, that will shortly plague the US, is an economy that is about to tank and is being kept afloat by the current government to give the republicans a fighting chance. The subtext I drew from this, is that a national 50/50 split is extremely unlikely.
The figure that has got my attention the most up here is Ron Paul in terms of someone that will rock the boat and possible chart a new course. The rest seems to be a box of Smarties; different colours on the outside but still crummy milk chocolate inside.
Have I got the wrong impression under all this snow up here (300cm so far this year ... sigh) ?
Great Forums and Website; I've followed since 1995, thought I'd lost you all this fall, but when I got connected again, this time I signed up.
Saturday, February 2, 2008 The illusion of choice in US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America? Sat, 2 Feb 2008
Illusion of Choice
The illusion of choices in the US elections: Does it herald the dissolution of these United States of America?
The 2008 presidential elections were likened to the World Wrestling Federation matches: take time and energy but obviously fixed/staged. A more apt analogy would go beyond these elections: the whole political system in the US is a theater play with predictable script but different actors. Yet, the damage caused by elected officials is getting so severe that another four years may finish off the experiment that is otherwise known as the USA (whether those are of a Clinton, McCain, Obama, or Romney administration).
Candidates of both parties are allowed to advance to final rounds whether in congressional or presidential elections only if they are cleared by the real powers to be. This is evident from issues they can and cannot tackle. The cleared Democratic and the Republican nominees cannot for example tackle the broken system with no proportional representation (rather than winner takes all) and no system to allow instant runoff elections. Both cleared nominees must believe in maintaining the US Empire by force and are only allowed to differ in tactics of advancing the "white man's burden" of "civilizing" and "improving" the world. They will not be asked about why US troops are stationed in 140 countries. Cleared Candidates of both parties will continue to support pouring billions directly into Israel and many more billions to support conflicts perceived to help Israel (e.g. Iraq and Iran) or help bring money to coffers of wealthy corporations. ExonMobile just set a world record with PROFITS in 2007 exceeding $40 BILLION. Both will ignore (or at best pay lip service to) the racial and economic divides that are growing. Both will ignore the inability to face-up to the US criminal history (Slavery, Genocide of Native Americans, support of brutal dictators abroad, militarism etc).
Both have no interest, let alone ideas, in tackling the entrenched military-industrial complex that is bankrupting the US. They all support the pathetic "stimulus package" (with minor variations) that will give some $600 tax rebates to 117 million Americans so that "they can spend it" and stimulate the economy. Yet the real issues gate keepers will not allow to be addressed: trillions in private debts (corporate and individual), $9 trillion in government debt (which means our children will have to pay for it), a multi-trillion dollar mortgage debacle involving large scale fraud, the scandal of a raided/depleted social security safety net, the collapse of the fiat currency otherwise known as the US dollar, and much more. Yes, some candidates maybe allowed to pay lip service to reducing government deficits but the system is now beyond that. Corporations (e.g. General electric, United Technologies) and governments (e.g. Israel) who sucked up these trillions are getting to a point where they do not need the United States as a functioning or stable economic system but only a military power overseas to guard their interests there.
Cleared candidates for presidential elections will never have to answer any real difficult questions about these economic matters or about the equally important legal and social matters. When was a candidate really challenged about the violations of the US Constitution, violations that they implicitly or explicitly support? Gatekeepers make sure that cleared candidates are not challenged on impeachment or on taking legal action against an administration that:
1) Violated International treaties repeatedly. Treaties like the Geneva Conventions prohibit most actions done in Iraq and beyond from torture to collective punishment to targeting civilians etc and these treaties are mandatory under the constitution as they were ratified by congress.
2) Violated the constitution in supporting warrant-less spying on US Citizens and now seeking retroactive immunity for companies that helped and immunities for officials who did this
3) Violated the constitution by holding people in jails without due process, without habeas corpus etc.
Congress and Senators cleared for final rounds actually supported these policies with laws like the renewing FISA, funding Guantanamou, funding the CIA etc.
Cleared candidates are also not allowed to be challenged on the broken US (In)Justice system: the highest incarceration rate in the world, more than three million people are in custody or on parole (and they cannot vote), a system that employs more people than anywhere else in the world, privatized jails etc. No wonder our economy has been called a service economy.
Ron Paul articulated that the Republican party of today bears no resemblance to the party of Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln for example was against the war with Mexico). But the media gatekeepers did not give Paul much airtime or exposure. Paul is also correct that despite the rhetoric of the cleared candidates in both parties, they are all pro big government, massive debts, and destroying the future of our children for short-term political gains. The differences are minor and relate to ratio of discretionary spending on the military vs. on domestic service industries: one wants it 60:40 and the other 40:60.
Cleared Republican candidates say that governments can't run healthcare or other social programs but this sounds hollow when they say in the same breath that government is to be trusted with our money to run the biggest government beauracracy in the world: the US military. The US with 6% of the world population spends nearly the same amount as all other countries combined on the war machine. With military industries, bases, and other outlets spread in just about every congressional district in the US, it is politically impossible to tackle this issue with logic. Thus when the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight (a lesson there not understood in the US), that military industrial complex found it convenient to latch onto the offered alternative (offered by Zionists): the threat of "Islamic extremism".
Cleared Democratic candidates can talk all they want about the rich not paying their fair share. But a logical person asks if this rhetoric can mean anything in the real globalized world. Democrats know very well that if they try to tax the rich, all the rich will have to do is relocate to other countries who would welcome them. Some already have dual citizenship (e.g. British, Israeli). In fact, many have already done so thanks to laws they have lobbied for ("free-trade" agreements, globalization which means capital and its owners can move freely between countries whereas workers cannot). Many billionaires like the Zionist Haim Saban (the largest single contributor to the Democratic Party) have already concluded that the US has been squeezed to the max and are already positioning themselves in other countries. Rupert Murdoch is buying European media. Haliburton relocated its headquarters to Dubai (the same Haliburton which bilked taxpayers of billions supposedly to rebuild Iraq and ended up with no completed projects in Iraq). There are literally hundreds of examples. So even as the US dollar continues to decline and the US Middle class gets squeezed more, profits of these companies continue to rise. Worse comes to worse, those cleared elected officials can oblige with new wars/conflicts (look at Haliburtons profits before and after the war on Iraq as an example).
Six months ago, I stated that it is easy to predict who will be allowed to advance for final rounds of the US elections and who will be shunned and marginalized. I stated that the best indicator is to look who the Zionists in Israel and the US like. This is because Israel is not an ordinary country but is rather unique (see http://www.qumsiyeh.org/isisraelunique/ ). Israeli preferences were published months ago and those were more predictive than anything else. Those who got the lowest scores (on "friendliness to Israel" scale) were quickly marginalized by a compliant media (e.g. Ron Paul, Garver, Kucinich). Those with the highest scores were elevated and exalted in a media that is populated heavily by those to whom Israeli interests are number 1 (e.g. Wolf Blitzer used to be a Zionist spokesperson before he was to become a CNN spokesperson). Those in the intermediate levels like Barak Obama have to jump many times before he is taken seriously (he is called a Muslim, his middle name Hussain becomes a weapon to use against him, he is chastised for once accurately saying that no one in the Arab-Israeli conflict suffered more than the Palestinians etc). Of course Obama was attuned to this from the beginning and he started to pander to the Zionist lobby very early on when he ran for the Senate. In the past three years, he was thus supportive of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon in 2006, Israeli collective punishment of the Palestinians (crimes against humanity and war crimes), Israeli extrajudicial executions, Israeli settlement activities, maintenance of US occupation forces in Iraq (although like Sharon with Gaza, he called it redeployment to the periphery), and most recently a strong stance against Iran to serve Israeli interests. Obama even hired the services of Dennis Ross who was a lobbyist for Israel before Bill Clinton hired him and went back to work for the same lobby outfit after leaving government. Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun explained: "Jewish voters are only 2% of the U.S. population, but they are mostly concentrated in the states with the highest number of delegate and electoral votes (New York, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois), they contribute financially to politicians disproportionately to their percentage of the voters, and they are often in key roles as opinion shapers in the communities in which they work or live." Shlomo Shamir wrote in an analysis in Haaretz (in Hebrew not English version) that whether Obama wins or does not win the nomination or the election, that establishment Jews in the US supported him financially as a replacement to the aging black leadership which has always been looked at with suspicion (e.g. Jesse Jackson) http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/949160.html
Of course Hillary Clinton is a bit to the right of Obama and so are McCain and Romney. McCain and Clinton from the beginning were the favorite with Zionists in the media who play the game of Democrat vs. Republican. They range from Charles Krauthammer to Thomas Friedman to Mort Zuckerman to Wolf Blitzer to Alan Combs. Giuliani was an interesting phenomenon. He was so wanting to please that Zionist establishment and distinguish himself from other pandering politicians that he chose for advisers, staff, and friends some of the most fascist/racist neoconservative and other Zionist extremists (from Daniel Pipes to Alan Dershowitz). This was a mistake on two fronts: 1) these are people who know nothing about winning elections in the US (they are mostly about a scorched earth policy abroad), 2) these are Natanyahu Likkud Zionists who alienated the other mainstream Zionist forces in the world (Labor Zionists, Kadima Zionists, even religious Zionists etc). Most Zionists were not disappointed when Giuliani dropped out of the race (actually most Republican Zionists in Florida voted for McCain). Giuliani himself emerges a winner, as he will likely be a vice president with the McCain administration. The template for that role will be Dick Cheney's relationship to Bush. Instead of Afghanistan and Iraq, this time it will be Iran and Sudan (or Syria). The actors are altered but the script is the same.
We must face the reality that while some candidates give lip-service to challenging special interest lobbies, this is a government by and for special interests (the Israel-first lobby, the Military Lobby, the Industrial lobby etc). So what can be done beyond voting for the lesser of two evils while ignoring how these people get cleared into the final choices? We must always remember that it is our (the citizens) responsibility. We all know that real social change occurs from grass root movements. We all know that that is what achieved ending the genocidal war on Vietnam, ending support for Apartheid South Africa, civil rights, women rights, labor rights etc. We all know that freedom is never freely given; that it must be demanded. Even the simplest things would help (like flyering and speaking out at all Candidates appearances in your state). We all know that we must look in the mirror and refuse the task given to us of being consumers rather than citizens. So if you do get your $600 check "for shopping" why not spend it only for activism. Why not join an activist group or build your own. Why not block congressional offices. Why not build the revolution that could transform the US and the rest of the world. After all, the alternative is far too disastrous and is becoming clearer every year.
Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON at 11:14 AM
Re:Hypothetical Question for Hermit
« Reply #12 on: 2008-02-03 01:16:27 »
Hermit wanted me to edit my stance on Obama. There were the secret calls, Ron Paul activists started showing up at my house, black helicopters and all, but my man crush has always been Barack Obama, because he accepts evolution and Ron Paul does not. He's already better educated than any of those Republican twits, Ron Paul Included. I might accept a Kucinich Pres and Ron Paul Veep. Besides Kucinich has a cute wife . . . I'd bend her over at least twice if I had the chance. By far the single most reasonable bastard of any of them. I can't believe he's dropping out. As short as he is, he could be the next American Napleon. But enough of those exiting the stage, my crush is still on Obama. I'm not voting for Ron Paul for president.
Author
Logged
