Posts
THE ABSURD TIMES
LATUFF
Every so often, there is a comment or question on twitter or even facebook that requires a response that is either too long for Twitter or needs some flash for Facebook, and this is one of those.
During a discussion, this time from Facebook (but forms of it appear on Twitter) about whether we can believe Hillary Clinton when she talks about preserving social or "entitlement" programs. I responded that she would, but the response was that she was untrustworthy and that she could not be believed. I was to respond.
Well, first I had agreed that she could be counted on to continue the neo-liberal activity that consists of interfering with other countries that attempt to commit the cardinal sin of thinking that their own natural resources are to be administered locally and for the benefit of themselves. It should be well understood that the power elite in this country consider all of these resources as belonging to the U.S. Any leader who dares think the contrary is now a terrorist sympathizer, a dictator, or otherwise evil. It was previously easier simply to say that they were communist, but the end of the "cold war," which was much to the benefit of both the capitalist elite here and the Slavic elite around Moscow, made it necessary for us to find other things to call them. "Oppressors" and "Dictators" seem to be the most favored currently.
In order to carry out this exploitation, it is necessary to keep the population of the United States relatively content. This means the continuation of so-called "safety net," and other programs, as irritating as they may be. Otherwise, the people will become unhappy and take steps to oppose the important role of government which, of course, is to further exploit labor and natural resources everywhere.
The people are well aware of some of these practices and willing to go along with them so long as they are comfortable. Now Donald Trump represents the sort of thing that can happen when the people are unhappy. For this reason, his supporters are portrayed as "uneducated white men," mainly. The image of a typical Trump supported is a middle-aged man, sitting with a beer in his hand, watching a football game while waving an American flag. This may be somewhat accurate, although it is not inclusive. People are increasingly irritated at the way our government is handled.
If that was the only segment of the population that was unhappy, perhaps the system could be accepted, but it does not account for the millions of people who supported Bernie Sanders who, in order to obtain permission to compete in the primaries, had to agree to support the winner (who was predetermined to be Hillary Clinton).
Now, to a great extent, there is truth in the statement that the election is "rigged," not in the sense that Donal Trump means it, but in actuality. The system is set up so that only a Democrat or a Republican is allowed to be elected to any office of great significance. At one time, Ross Perot threatened to overturn this system, but that was immediately corrected by first eliminating him from the race (the means are still not clear) and second by taking the debates out of the hands of the League of Women Voters who were foolish enough to allow Mr. Perot to be on the stage. You can be assured that the rules and regulations will be altered by the time of the next election so that a Donald Trump will never gain such a position in the future.
So, yes, Hillary will follow the dictates of the ruling elite here, escalate interference in any country that threatens to set a good example by running itself independently as did Saddam, Gaddafi, and now Assad. Mubarak became unpopular and we allowed him to be removed, but did not stop our interference until we managed to install Sisi. (Most people would consider him a dictator, but he is our dictator and, hence, acceptable.)
And that, of course, was too long for Twitter.
LATUFF
Every so often, there is a comment or question on twitter or even facebook that requires a response that is either too long for Twitter or needs some flash for Facebook, and this is one of those.
During a discussion, this time from Facebook (but forms of it appear on Twitter) about whether we can believe Hillary Clinton when she talks about preserving social or "entitlement" programs. I responded that she would, but the response was that she was untrustworthy and that she could not be believed. I was to respond.
Well, first I had agreed that she could be counted on to continue the neo-liberal activity that consists of interfering with other countries that attempt to commit the cardinal sin of thinking that their own natural resources are to be administered locally and for the benefit of themselves. It should be well understood that the power elite in this country consider all of these resources as belonging to the U.S. Any leader who dares think the contrary is now a terrorist sympathizer, a dictator, or otherwise evil. It was previously easier simply to say that they were communist, but the end of the "cold war," which was much to the benefit of both the capitalist elite here and the Slavic elite around Moscow, made it necessary for us to find other things to call them. "Oppressors" and "Dictators" seem to be the most favored currently.
In order to carry out this exploitation, it is necessary to keep the population of the United States relatively content. This means the continuation of so-called "safety net," and other programs, as irritating as they may be. Otherwise, the people will become unhappy and take steps to oppose the important role of government which, of course, is to further exploit labor and natural resources everywhere.
The people are well aware of some of these practices and willing to go along with them so long as they are comfortable. Now Donald Trump represents the sort of thing that can happen when the people are unhappy. For this reason, his supporters are portrayed as "uneducated white men," mainly. The image of a typical Trump supported is a middle-aged man, sitting with a beer in his hand, watching a football game while waving an American flag. This may be somewhat accurate, although it is not inclusive. People are increasingly irritated at the way our government is handled.
If that was the only segment of the population that was unhappy, perhaps the system could be accepted, but it does not account for the millions of people who supported Bernie Sanders who, in order to obtain permission to compete in the primaries, had to agree to support the winner (who was predetermined to be Hillary Clinton).
Now, to a great extent, there is truth in the statement that the election is "rigged," not in the sense that Donal Trump means it, but in actuality. The system is set up so that only a Democrat or a Republican is allowed to be elected to any office of great significance. At one time, Ross Perot threatened to overturn this system, but that was immediately corrected by first eliminating him from the race (the means are still not clear) and second by taking the debates out of the hands of the League of Women Voters who were foolish enough to allow Mr. Perot to be on the stage. You can be assured that the rules and regulations will be altered by the time of the next election so that a Donald Trump will never gain such a position in the future.
So, yes, Hillary will follow the dictates of the ruling elite here, escalate interference in any country that threatens to set a good example by running itself independently as did Saddam, Gaddafi, and now Assad. Mubarak became unpopular and we allowed him to be removed, but did not stop our interference until we managed to install Sisi. (Most people would consider him a dictator, but he is our dictator and, hence, acceptable.)
And that, of course, was too long for Twitter.
