Ted Rall's article is light hearted, but with serious under currents.
For me, it all boils down to his remark, "...she won't embrace the
$15-an-hour minimum wage (she gets
$225,000 for an hour-long speech but wants you to settle for $12) - she's a
creature of the corporations and therefore the political right. She's not
one of us."
***NOT ONE OF US!!!
Vote for Hillary Clinton, if you must, as the Lesser of Two Evils, but
don't ever confuse your vote with the belief that she is one of us.
After the first "presidential debate", and last night's vice
presidential "debate", I came to the scary conclusion that no matter
who grabs off the Brass Ring, we Working Class Americans are in deep
doodoo. If a public airing of the Democrats and Republicans
differences was the intention, it has to have been the entertainment's
biggest flop this year. Two Hawks trying to out Hawk one another.
But hey, both of these fellows are good Christian men, and they will
really and truly care for our young men and women they place in harms
way, and they will even care for the unborn babies so they might come
into the world that doesn't care about them, so they may grow up to be
"cared for" as they also march off to fight the Empire's Eternal War.
I am guilty of having said, in past messages, that our American System
is broke. Well, yes. Broken for us Working Class folk, but very
effective for those Elite members of the American Oligarchy. Things
have never been better, if we base "Better" on the accumulation of
wealth and control.
But I truly believe that the sleeping giant, the working class
Americans, is waking up and beginning to stir.
While these "debates" focus on continuing to support the Empire and
its Elite, the debaters are totally ignorant to the slow rumbling
building across the Land.
Their time is running out. But we still need to develop the sort of
government we will find agreeable to our working class needs.
Carl Jarvis
On 10/5/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
> - www.counterpunch.org - http://www.counterpunch.org -
> Hey, Clintonoids, Stop Bullying Me About My Vote
> Posted By Ted Rall On October 4, 2016 @ 1:57 am In articles 2015 |
> Comments Disabled
>
> To my many friends and readers who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton: please
> stop bullying me.
>
> Also please lay off other people, progressives and liberals and traditional
> Democrats and socialists and communists, citizens who identify with the
> political left, who plan to vote for Dr. Jill Stein or stay home.
>
> I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump. I agree with the mainstream liberal
> consensus that he should never hold political power, much less control over
> nuclear launch codes. He's dangerous and scary. But that doesn't mean I
> have
> to vote for Hillary Clinton.
>
> So I won't.
>
> 1. The main reason that I'm not going to vote for Hillary Clinton is the
> same exact main reason that I'm not going to vote for Donald Trump: I don't
> vote Republican. Being age 53, Nixon was the first president I remember.
> Hillary Clinton's politics (and her paranoia and insularity) remind me of
> Richard Nixon's. I can't bring myself to think of a Democrat as someone who
> solicits millions of dollars from Wall Street or votes with crazy
> Republicans (like George W. Bush, whose stupid wars she aggressively
> supported) to invade foreign countries just for fun. She plays a Democrat
> on
> TV, but we know the truth: she's a Republican.
>
> 2. I'm anti-political dynasty. There should be a constitutional amendment
> banning anyone related by blood or marriage to a former president from
> running for the presidency.
>
> 3. There's a big difference between an impressive resume and a list of
> accomplishments. Hillary has the former, not the latter. I hold her resume
> against her: she has held tremendous power, yet has never reached out to
> grab the brass ring. As senator, her record was undistinguished. As
> Secretary of State, she barely lifted a finger on the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict, contributed to the expansion of the Syrian civil war, and is more
> responsible than almost anyone else for destroying Libya. What she did well
> she did small; when she went big she performed badly.
>
> 4. #MuslimLivesMatter. More than a million people died in Iraq. She voted
> for that. So she isn't, as the current Clinton campaign meme goes, merely a
> "flawed" candidate. Voting for the violent deaths of over a million people,
> and the maiming of God knows how many more - when there was no reason
> whatsoever to think Iraq had WMDs - is not an "oops, my bad" screw-up.
> Those
> were real people, real human beings, and they're dead because of her. You
> don't get to soak your hands in that much blood and just walk away, much
> less into the White House.
>
> 5. She still hasn't made an affirmative case for herself. By clinging to
> President Obama, she's running as his third term. The standard way to pull
> this off is to present yourself as new and improved: the old product was
> great, the new one will be even better. Her campaign boils down to "I'm not
> Donald Trump." No matter how bad he is, and he is awful, that's not enough.
>
> Watching her in the first presidential debate, at the beginning when Trump
> was besting her over trade, I kept asking myself: why doesn't she admit
> that
> the recovery is good but has left too many Americans behind? Why hasn't she
> proposed a welfare and retraining program for people who lose their jobs to
> globalization? A week later, the only answer I can come up with is that she
> has no imagination, no vision thing.
>
> 6. She has made no significant concessions to the political left. Frankly,
> this makes me wonder about her intelligence. Current polling shows that the
> biggest threat to her candidacy is losing millennial, working class, and
> Bernie Sanders supporters to the Green Party's Jill Stein and Libertarian
> Gary Johnson. She would not have this problem if she'd picked Sanders as
> her
> vice presidential running mate. Even now, she could bag the millennial vote
> by promising the Vermont senator a cabinet post. Why doesn't she? For the
> same reason that she won't embrace the $15-an-hour minimum wage (she gets
> $225,000 for an hour-long speech but wants you to settle for $12) - she's a
> creature of the corporations and therefore the political right. She's not
> one of us. She doesn't care about us.
>
> 7. My vote is worth no less than the vote of someone who supports a major
> party nominee. So what if the polls say that Hillary Clinton or Donald
> Trump
> will be elected president? Why, based on those polls, should I
> strategically
> vote for someone whose politics and personality I deplore? By that logic,
> why shouldn't they change their votes to conform to mine? I have my vote,
> you have your vote, let Diebold add them up.
>
> I don't have a problem with you if you plan to vote for Hillary. This year
> is the best argument ever for lesser evilism. But the fact that we are
> selecting between two equally unpopular major party presidential
> standardbearers indicates that the two-party system is in crisis, if not
> broken. We need and deserve more and better options. The only way to get
> them is to start building viable third parties - voting for them,
> contributing money to them. What better time to start than now?
>
> Anyway, there's absolutely no way that my refusal to vote for Hillary will
> put Donald Trump into the White House.
>
> How do I know? Arithmetic. The closest state margin in an American
> presidential election was four, in Maryland in 1832. Like you, I only get
> one vote. Whatever I do can't and won't change the result.
>
>
>
> Tweet
>
>
>
>
>
> Email
>
>
>
>
> Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: http://www.counterpunch.org
>
> URL to article:
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/04/7-reasons-i-wont-vote-for-hillary-cli
> nton/
>
> Click here to pri
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment