Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Preserving the Union in America Has Little Value

The benefit to preserving the Union is only to the military but the negative to preserving it is the requirement for the most corrupt political compromises on the planet short of the banana kingdoms of the third world.  Merging Dixiecrats with northern liberals isn't a political matter but rather they're different species and have no business together.  They obviously hate each other.  Let them be atheistic heathens in the North and whatever they pretend to be in the South ... in separate countries.  California is also a separate country but it doesn't matter much when it will be a marine kingdom after the earthquakes.

The examples of why the Union is a bad thing are many and the banks are the most obvious of them.  When they were state-level operations, they stayed generally civilized.  When they moved to national banks due to Bill Clinton, they nearly took down the global economy and they have controlled it ever since.  Until 2008, 'bailing out' usually meant a social program but it hasn't mean anything except corporations ever since.  Thanks, Obama.

The national insurance companies are another obvious travesty of inflated prices and mismanagement.  These would not likely work any better at the state level because the entire principle of privatized insurance is corrupt.  The state abdicated its responsibility and the replacement could not have been more evil if it were spawned by demons.  Tip: it was.  If you question that, review again your thoughts regarding Martin Shkreli.  How about if he were boffing your daughter.  That would be fine, wouldn't it, with an honorable young man like that.  The list is long so how about if your son falls mad in love with Heather Bresch or at least her money.



I understand my prediction was fulfilled and Donald Trump made a blithering idiot out of himself but he was anyway.  That aspect isn't the problem but living with the uninformed, evil, and heavily-armed troglodytes who support him is a huge problem.  Why would you want them in the same country you're trying to keep safe, healthy, and a good place to raise your children.  Is it your plan to let such people teach their myopic racism and their simplistic solutions for life to your children.  Is it your plan to let them anywhere near your children.

The femmebots see any failure in Trump as a validation of Clinton but that's why we don't need femmebots either.  Jessica Valenti said the problem with Clinton is because we don't trust women but she's not even a bump on Mark Twain's butt who said, "Men and women have one thing in common in that neither trust women."

Mark Twain is correct but that doesn't change the fact no-one trusts Hillary Clinton and any generic trust for women has nothing to do with it.  So far in this we've only confirmed entry into the Era of Smug, Uninformed Women.  Thus far, their management of their right to vote has been singularly unimpressive.


The fundamental problem behind all of this is the Federal tax rate on the rich and America, whatever configuration it takes, is constrained to the mediocrity of a state controlled by its military until its willing to pay the bills.  It has not been willing since Reagan dropped the rate and nothing much has changed with it since despite the parade of so-called Democrats who had every opportunity to repair the damage.

It's not likely Clinton is a two-term President because it won't last for long pretending Bill Clinton isn't the one really running it.  The problem isn't that she's a woman but rather she doesn't have the competence.  As you may recall, when there was trouble in one instance with North Korea, Hillary Clinton didn't go as Secretary of State but rather she sent Bill instead.  She's not the leader, she's just a surrogate.  It's a damn shame America can't have Merkel as she's a woman anyone except a PEGIDA racist (i.e. Trump supporter is the same thing) can respect.

No comments: