Many have taken the pre-election pose of radiant smugness in which they're convinced of their ever so righteous righteousness and all they want to do is wrap themselves in red, white, and blue bunting while they sing Kate Smith songs. It's so fucking down home heartwarming.
Hillary Clinton has now acquired her Teflon coat just like Bill so she could start banging the pageboys any day now and the novitiates would think no worse of her.
Neither would I, for that matter, but I couldn't possibly think any worse of her than I do already.
Kannafoot asked earlier if I'm ready to assist with a Ralph Nader campaign to bork the election but I'm not convinced it would bork it at all. Cadillac Man will likely know if there's a precedent in American political history in which neither party platform matches that of the people. However, that precedent, assuming it exists, couldn't possible match the current global environment so it's not heavily convincing evidence any previous outcome would be repeated.
Except for the ones I call the Eisenhower Republicans and True Platform Democrats, people are showing an exceptional malleability of principle and that's characteristic of the eyes glazing over but that makes it no less reprehensible to behold. The subsets mentioned won't budge on the platforms and the principles behind them but the others are all over the Google map.
Example: the flippitty flap jack flip flop over TPP and TTIP which are fully on, then fully off and then, presto, they're on again. That's not a platform but a cynical game of pachinko which was nothing more than political sleight of hand. Hint: they use magnets.
Therefore, yes, the plan is to vote for Jill Stein because anything else is a corruption of my principles in unacceptable ways. The only other alternative is to abstain from voting since I will not vote for Clinton although Trump is kind of interesting but he's too unstable to be predictable. I don't see Presidential material in either one of them. Clinton is easily predictable so that's why no vote for her.
Hillary Clinton has now acquired her Teflon coat just like Bill so she could start banging the pageboys any day now and the novitiates would think no worse of her.
Neither would I, for that matter, but I couldn't possibly think any worse of her than I do already.
Kannafoot asked earlier if I'm ready to assist with a Ralph Nader campaign to bork the election but I'm not convinced it would bork it at all. Cadillac Man will likely know if there's a precedent in American political history in which neither party platform matches that of the people. However, that precedent, assuming it exists, couldn't possible match the current global environment so it's not heavily convincing evidence any previous outcome would be repeated.
Except for the ones I call the Eisenhower Republicans and True Platform Democrats, people are showing an exceptional malleability of principle and that's characteristic of the eyes glazing over but that makes it no less reprehensible to behold. The subsets mentioned won't budge on the platforms and the principles behind them but the others are all over the Google map.
Example: the flippitty flap jack flip flop over TPP and TTIP which are fully on, then fully off and then, presto, they're on again. That's not a platform but a cynical game of pachinko which was nothing more than political sleight of hand. Hint: they use magnets.
Therefore, yes, the plan is to vote for Jill Stein because anything else is a corruption of my principles in unacceptable ways. The only other alternative is to abstain from voting since I will not vote for Clinton although Trump is kind of interesting but he's too unstable to be predictable. I don't see Presidential material in either one of them. Clinton is easily predictable so that's why no vote for her.
2 comments:
The election of 1860 comes to mind. The Democratic Party split into two parties after the Southern Delegation walked out of the convention. Stephen Douglas a moderate on slavery was nominated by the Northern Democrats. Their platform was essentially popular sovereignty. Each existing state or new state would have the right to choose to be a slave state or non-slave state.
The southern faction could not agree to this platform and formed their own Southern Democratic Party after walking out of the convention when delegates would not agree to force new states that were against slavery to accept. They nominated John Breckinridge as their candidate (Jefferson Davis soon to be President of the Confederacy declined the nomination). This essentially doomed the Democratic Party to defeat and forewarned of the likely succession of the South.
John Bell, former senator from Tennessee, ran as the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party. Formed to hopefully avoid succession of the Southern States its platform was to make no changes to the existing law. This would essentially keep the Kansas-Nebraska act in place even though Bell himself had voted against it.
The Republican Party front runner was William Seward. Seward was considered a strict abolitionist who favored abolishing the practice of slavery even in the existing slave states (Lincoln made him his Secretary of State). At the convention the decision was made to nominate Abraham Lincoln who supported the moderate view of allowing slavery to remain in the existing states, but abolishing the practice in all new states. There was no mention of the Kansas-Nebraska Act or the Dred Scott decision in the Republican platform.
Lincoln won the presidency with the majority of the Electoral vote and all the North but less than 40% of the popular vote. He didn't carry a single Southern State. Breckinridge carried the majority of the South, with Bell carrying Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. Douglas won just under 30% of the popular vote but carried only the slave state of Missouri.
The end result is well known. Most of South succeeded before Lincoln was inaugurated. It took four years to determine by force what could not be determined by compromise.
Many would say that even to this day nobody really got what they wanted then or now. The issue of states rights over the federal government rights had plagued the country from its inception. It still does today (I.e.: the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion laws in Texas). Fortunately, to date we have used the rule of law and the ballot box, not the battlefield, to settle our differences.
Outstanding and always a surprise when anyone in America knows anything about it, particularly in the current time.
It's an interesting comparison but I still can't draw that situation parallel with the current due to the extreme global pressures relative of modern time. For example, whatever America did overseas at that point wasn't germane because there was no engagement of much significance. Now such matters are paramount or played to be paramount, as the country will.
The illusion of settling things at the ballot box has exploded in the historical textbook face since so many have lost faith altogether in the vote meaning anything. Never have we seen more flagrantly the states rights don't serve to represent the People but rather throw the election to the politicians to control as they will. I doubt there would be much acceptance when so many are furious at the most recent outcomes.
My general opposition to states rights is due to the concept confounding any sense of real populism but the biggest opposition today is because it doesn't accomplish anything more than obstruction which has given the country the most massive need for a Fleet enema in its history. Your own party is a prime example as you saw the populist position and then worked feverishly to find a way to subvert it. The only positive out of that is you did not find a way to do it but you did undermine the golden boy so that was hardly convincing of democratic process (larfs).
This looks like growing evidence of the flaws in democracy which have been egregiously played since Nixon cultivated the moronic Dixiecrats and the country has had steadily reducing standards ever since. The level of bestiality in the electorate has never been more evident but it's not clear whether Nixon did this deliberately or if it was the same short-sighted stupidity as practically everything else coming out of Washington in the modern day.
Post a Comment