Is this our next President Clump?
I refuse to throw my vote away.
I'm so depressed about the two people allowed onto the stage by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It's no wonder I'm feeling glum -- we are told that we have only two choices, and that's that.
Bernie Sanders calls Trump, "the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar." But I won't be voting for Clinton either, because her foreign policy is bound to keep us in perpetual war.
We know with some certainty that Clinton will continue using drones to commit murder. As Secretary of State, she did nothing to stop it. Obama worried about presidents (perhaps even himself) using drone warfare. “Without Congress showing much interest in restraining actions with authorizations that were written really broadly, you end up with a president who can carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate.”
As part of her campaign to start a war with Russia, will Clinton continue to blame Russians for cyber attacks without any evidence? She has vowed to start a no-fly-zone over Syria, giving herself no choice but to retaliate against anyone who breaks "her" airspace.
Why would she be motivated to reduce war, when she and her husband benefitted greatly during her tenure at the State Department? A May 2016 International Business Times investigative report found that while she was Secretary of State, "countries that had donated to the [Clinton] foundation saw increases in weapons sales from the State Department at higher rates than non-donor nations." Concomitantly, defense contractor donors who had paid Bill Clinton for speeches "were more likely to receive contracts authorized by the department."
One of Trump's anti-Hillary campaigns successfully made the hashtag #DraftOurDaughters go viral to point out that Hillary would break the glass ceiling for young women to fight in her endless wars.
It should come as no surprise that violence erupts when more than half our taxes are used to fund weapons, defense contractors, the armed forces, and 800 bases all over the world.
On the Republican side, does Trump ever talk about scaling back these efforts? Quite the contrary.
"It is so depleted," Trump says. "We will rebuild our military."
Trump is calling for more defense spending, more taxpayer dollars used to continue what John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man calls the "death economy". Death and the destruction of people and the environment by the rapacious theft of countries' sovereignty and resources is big business.
I also worry about a Trump presidency chilling free speech. He's already threatened reporters and journalists when he doesn't like what they write or say.
In the process of making a sham of the First Amendment, will Trump deport 11 million foreigners, many of whom are the very fabric of our society?
Logistically, imagine ripping 11 million residents from their homes to deport them - the equivalent of sending 37 airliners over our border every day for two years. What chaos would that bring?
Economically, Trump's answer to create jobs is to give rich people more money. He wants to rid the inheritance tax for those who leave more than 10 million dollars to their heirs. He wants to decrease the tax burden on businesses from 35 to 25%, even though currently there are so many tax loopholes that most big businesses don't pay more than 25% and the largest companies paid no tax and often received huge subsidies.
Clinton must think she can create enough jobs by taxing the rich 4% more and spreading that around in infrastructure programs. According to economist Richard Wolff, "it won't change anything about the major problems this economy is facing."
Bernie Sanders assumes that his followers will have an effect on Clinton by applying continued pressure. "The day after the election, we begin the effort of making Clinton the most progressive president that she can become. And the way we do that is by rallying millions of people." The question is: will she listen to the American people, or the people who cozied up to her with campaign contributions?
I refuse to participate in electing either candidate. They are both dangerous people who care more about themselves and gaining power than in the climate crisis. Healthcare? Let the insurance companies control that (Obamacare)! Water? Buy your potable water in plastic water bottles gold-labeled with "Trump"! Banks gambling in the derivatives market? Bail them out! Schools too crowded? Let the charter schools take over education. The private sector can do no wrong.
Like my father used to say, "My problems have problems." That's why I'm not going along with the Democrat or the Republican this year.
I'm voting for Jill Stein. For all of you folks who want a woman president, Stein will break that glass ceiling just as well as Clinton would, thank you very much. But she has a platform that appeals to most Bernie Sanders fans, and, I dare say, most Republicans as well.
If a family used its money to become educated, eat right, brought cooperation in and kept toxic chemicals out of its community, if it decided not to carry debt, that family might be healthy. But if the same family ate food sprayed with RoundUp that causes neurological/gastrointestinal disorders, promised mental health to its children only if they took prescription drugs, heaped its children with debt to get an education, bombed its neighbors, planned targeted murders with drones, and gave untold sums to its irresponsible Uncle Fester, the banker/derivatives trader, well ... you see what happens.
I'm tired of the so-called "leaders" of my family choosing to give money away to crooks while naming the average person a pariah who is seeking entitlements.
The world isn't going to change for the better when this election is over, but perhaps, just perhaps enough people will vote for Jill Stein to qualify the Green Party for $10 million toward the 2020 campaign. And the Commission on Presidential Debates should have her on the stage debating against the two establishment party candidates.
I believe that if more people knew who Jill Stein is, we wouldn't even be talking about crooked Hillary.
