Critical thinking in our society has been overshadowed by a dangerous form of group think, bolstered by the overwhelming influence of media and political pundits, and defined by immediate acquiescence to poll numbers. I explain in my latest YouTube segment why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would make similar presidents, while only Bernie Sanders offers America a real choice in 2016. Only Sanders addresses the structural issues behind epidemics like wealth inequality and perpetual wars, while Trump and Clinton serve as different faces upholding the status quo.
Speaking of a society enamored with group think, Gallup wrote in 2007 that "Clinton has led the Democratic pack in every Gallup Poll conducted between November 2006 and October 2007." Eight years after finishing third in Iowa, and even with an expanding FBI email investigation and 61% of Americans finding Clinton "not honest and trustworthy," today's polls are still viewed as crystal balls.
To many observers, Hillary Clinton is destined to win the Democratic nomination, despite two major prison lobbyist donors, a "neocon" foreign policy (the words of a conservative historian, not my own), and endless evolution from GOP stances to progressive vantage points.
I explain why Hillary Clinton evolves so often in this YouTube segment, something that Trump can relate to as well in terms of value system.
As for image, we view Trump to be a racist ideologue, which he is, yet for some reason ignore the racism and Islamophobia utilized by Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in 2008.
I explain why in a recent Huffington Post article titled Donald Trump Utilizes Racism, but Hillary Clinton Used Similar Tactics Against Obama in 2008.
To certain people, racism and Islamophobia are bad when a buffoon like Donald Trump utilizes them for political gain, but not when Clinton utilized them against our first African American president in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
If it's our side, then it's simply a "heated primary race," not the evil, mean, and crazy GOP.
We like to think of ourselves as different from Trump, who's a foil to progressive ideals, however Hillary Clinton had no problem acting like Trump in a more surreptitious manner, knowing full well that supporters would justify a 3 a.m. ad (with a "racist sub-message") or prison lobbyist donations.
Hillary Clinton also waited almost three weeks to address Michael Brown's death and Ferguson, just long enough to stay out of the controversy, yet still expects the majority of the African American vote in 2016.
The former Secretary of State's supporters will also ignore the fact future President Obama's campaign complained of "dirty tricks" by the Clinton campaign in 2008.
When Clinton's staff circulated a picture of Obama in African dress, knowing full well the political implications, Obama's campaign manager stated it was "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."
The word's "either party" speaks volumes.
But remember, vote for Hillary Clinton because she's entirely different from Donald Trump. I've yet to hear a Clinton supporter explain why, according to a recent Huffington Post article, "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC."
How does Clinton expect to differentiate herself from Trump with prison lobbyist donors?
If you're reading this, expecting Clinton to dominate Southern states in the primaries because of the African American vote, can you please explain why $133,246 from prison lobbyists will help Madam President actually end mass incarceration, or win the African American vote?
When taking into account the longstanding political relationship between Clinton and Trump, in addition to the $100,000 the billionaire donated to the Clinton Foundation and money donated to Hillary's Senate campaigns, it's apparent that only Bernie Sanders offers American's a choice. First, however, let's analyze Trump's ties to Clinton, in both dollars and value system.
As for direct links to Donald Trump, years of a political courtship is explained in a POLITICO piece titled Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems:
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump's vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.
Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.
...Trump defended his donations to New York Democrats in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that April, proclaiming that in the state, "everyone is Democratic" and implying that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money.
But remember, we must vote for Clinton, lest we become privileged and spoiled voters, who make the horrible decision of taking a stand against Democrats who accept money from xenophobic and racist billionaires.
After all, Trump didn't want his money to go to "waste," as he stated in his own words, and was forced to give money to Clinton and other establishment Democrats.
If someone lets me borrow five dollars, I feel beholden. To certain Democrats, however, voting for someone who accepted large amounts of money from Trump isn't egregious, even if this money is also coupled with prison lobbyist donors and four of Clinton's top five donors since 1999 are top Wall Street banks.
Finally, what certain paranoid observers conveniently fail to address is that President Obama is powerless to end the mass shooting epidemic, Planned Parenthood debate in Congress, or any number of issues that critics of my thought process cite when defending a Clinton presidency. The reality is that like Trump, Hillary Clinton will have a hawkish foreign policy and the power to unilateral wage war with the AUMF.
The new fear tactic encouraging Democrats and progressives to vote for Hillary at all costs rests upon the frightening notion of Donald Trump as president. The reality is that both Clinton and Trump would make similar presidents. Pertaining to Clinton's record on key issues like foreign policy and war (presidents have the power of the AUMF, allowing a president to wage unilateral wars) and ties to Wall Street, Donald Trump wouldn't be an entirely different president.
As president, Clinton will "make room" for neocons, as explained in a New York Times article titled The Next Act of the Neocons:
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.
Robert Kagan, by the way, has likened Clinton future foreign policy as president to being "neocon."
I wouldn't vote for Dick Cheney's "neocon" foreign policy, why would I vote for Clinton's neocon foreign policy?
Also, both Trump and Clinton made similar, hawkish statements, about defeating ISIS after the Paris attacks and ramping up U.S. military engagement in the region. Both will be influenced by neoconservatives, and Clinton might actually be more influenced by these advisers, since she has a longer history with them. Her Iraq vote and Libya bombing foreshadow a great deal in terms of a future presidency.
Therefore, the only other option is a man who attacks the billionaire class, rather than taking money from them. Only Bernie Sanders challenges billionaires directly in his speeches and his plans to break up "Too Big to Fail" banks and reinstate Glass-Steagall.
Only Bernie Sanders says "I'll be damned" if America continues to lead the fight against ISIS and demands that Saudi Arabia and regional powers fight the terrorist groups in their midst.
Only Bernie Sanders mentions the consequences of endless counterinsurgency wars on our veterans.
Vermont's Senator was also the only Democrat to mention Sandra Bland's name during the debates.
Don't complain if you don't vote for Bernie Sanders in 2016. Don't complain about the structural issues of wealth inequality and Wall Street greed leading to collapses, perpetual wars, mass incarceration, and a number of other mainstream issues. Only Bernie Sanders wants to address structural matters causing these dilemmas. Trump and Clinton might say different things, but ultimately do nothing to address the foundation of our problems. I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016, not Trump or Clinton, and I explain why in this YouTube segment.