A good friend wrote a fact-based article many would consider a Hillary Clinton hit piece. I think he is wrong for forgoing voting for her if she is the nominee.
I want Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination. I want him to be our next president. It isn’t some blind love for a politician. It is all about policy and the direction I think is ultimately best for our country. The policies that he stands for aren’t giveaways. They are a redefinition of America into a humane society where all have access to success.
I was euphoric to watch Asher Edelman on CNBC come out in support of Bernie Sanders, not because he is some pinko socialist but because he understands Economics 101.
Asher Edelman gives Economic 101 lesson to the wards of the plutocracy
Edelman said the following:
“Well I think it is quite simple again,” Edelman said. “If you look at something called velocity of money, you guys know what that is I presume; that means how much gets spent and turned around when you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five-ten percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend a hundred, or a hundred and ten percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money. Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation.”
You can read the entire blog post I wrote on his ‘rant’ here. In a nutshell, the antithesis to the policies Bernie Sanders supports explains the state of our economy and its direct impact on poor and middle-class America.
Unfortunately, our titans of finance seemed to have forgotten what they have learned and instead use voodoo economic theories like the Laffer Curve and trickle down economics to justify their failed attempt at creating successful policies.
I believe Americans still have the time to see the light and vote their economic interest and not the fear that the bone they earned and deserve is out of their reach. Fighting indoctrination is not easy, and it can be time-consuming. As such, Hillary Clinton may just be the nominee of the Democratic Party.
My friend Jacob Santillan wrote a piece on my blog site titled “The Clinton Family Can’t be Trusted – Why Do So Many Vote for Hillary Anyway?.” Many Democrats get upset when opposing Democrats write or promote critical articles of this type. Of course, the Republican opponent in the general election will have all of this opposition research already done. As such it is best that the candidate is ready to address these critiques.
Santillan wrote the following.
Hillary Clinton, however, is so protean in her non-convictions that she has evidently decided to take on the mantle of triangulator-in-chief. Clinton is a human windsock who’s candidacy reflects that the Democratic Party establishment is morally, intellectually, and ideologically bankrupt. Like her husband, she’ll say anything to get elected, and steal policy positions from Republicans and Democrats alike to keep it that way. Clinton has already shown the willingness to adopt her husband’s past practices of triangulation when she steals rhetoric from Bernie Sanders’ campaign speeches.
She was the “sanctity of marriage” politician who opposed equal marriage rights until she realized in 2013 she needed the LGBT vote. She’s the ~$200,000-a-pop Goldman Sachs speaker who suddenly wants to “get tough on Wall Street”. She was for the Trans-Pacific Partnership before she was against it. She and her surrogates evidently think people are genuinely stupid enough to believe she’ll do anything to benefit working class people.
Read Santillan’s article. It is very in-depth with corroborative links. I agree with most of it. I take exception to Santillan’s statement earlier in the article.
Year after year, we’re told we must vote for the lesser evil. This year I’m told by Clinton surrogates that I must vote for her to stop a monster the creation of which they are at least, in part to blame. “Lesser evilism” is a form of emotional blackmail that for nearly a decade has been a dry well for me – principle trumps (no pun intended) party every time for me.
In other words, at the time of his post, Santillan is unlikely to vote for Hillary Clinton. I think his reasoning is flawed and shortsighted.
Recently Bill Maher had a New Rules on Real Time worth watching.
Bill Maher New Rule on Liberals
I wrote the following in the corresponding blog post.
Maher then castigated a growing movement on the Sanders side called Bernie or Bust. Followers of that movement say they will stay home if it is Hillary Clinton who wins the Democratic nomination, or they will vote for the Green Party. “On their website they say they are revolting against the plutocracy,” Maher said. “No, actually you will be helping elect a plutocrat who is revolting.”
Maher then slammed the wild ones who went on the Elizabeth Warren Facebook page to criticize her for not endorsing Bernie Sanders. It ‘s hard to see the infantile thought process that does not understand that Warren was not supporting anyone makes her an objective broker if need be. The fact that she did not get on the Democratic Establishment train or fall in line to endorse Hillary Clinton is probative enough.
It is true that Maher’s piece was a bit shallow. It did not provide enough context. Not because Hillary Clinton has moved ever closer to Bernie Sanders’ positions does it mean when elected she will make it a part of her being. It does not mean she will fulfill the promises one expects from said movement.
But here is the reality. One should always vote for the lesser of two evils. Less evil is better than more evil unless more evil is the catalyst needed for change. I believe you take what you can get for the better short term good. Followingly you work your ass off to educate and enlighten as many as you can until critical mass is reached to achieve the inclusive, egalitarian democracy we all want but not necessarily believe is attainable.