Wednesday, June 8, 2016

The only thing “historic” about Clinton’s inevitable nomination is the level of corruption in both the candidate and the media to secure it

With that infamous wild and crazed Charles Manson look in her eyes, Hillary Clinton basked in her “glory” at the Brooklyn Navy Yard following her primary victory in New Jersey, which allowed her to clinch the number of delegates needed for a majority to secure the Democratic nomination. Of course, a few of us may recall at this time in 2008 that Clinton, far from conceding defeat, caused some to question her psychological state when she suggested it was not “over,” because “something” could happen; remember Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, she asked. What was she trying to infer? That Barack Obama might be assassinated, allowing her to be the nominee? Naturally the media didn’t take it as seriously as it deserved, but we may still fairly ask what was going on in her diseased mind. And that wasn’t the first time she made bizarre comments under pressure; it seemed then and it seems now that she is only comfortable when she has her prepackaged lies ready for delivery.

Although Bernie Sanders gave Clinton a run for her megalomania, since most super delegates had made up their minds for Clinton before they even bothered to find out who Sanders was (note the huge Internet traffic to fill the information hole left by the pro-Clinton media following their first debates), in hindsight he had no chance. The super delegates gave her what in the eyes of many voters was such an insurmountable early lead that gave an air of inevitability. 

That “inevitability” was fed by many factors. The media and the Democratic leadership did everything it could to deny Sanders’ a fighting chance; that they mostly failed is indicated by the fact that Clinton’s so called “broad support” was largely illusory. In ten Southern states won by Clinton by huge primary margins that Obama lost in the 2012 presidential election, Clinton won 525 pledged delegates to Sanders’ 253; this would be the difference between the two in pledged delegates in the end. These results came early in the primary season; in those Red Republican states the vast majority of Democratic voters are black, who voted primarily on the “good will” held for Bill Clinton, and ignored the 180 degree difference in civil rights activism  and racial justice between both Clintons and Sanders.

Then there was the media’s deliberate indifference to Hillary Clinton’s career of corruption, lies and scandal; more than her husband, she supervised the law-breaking behind the scenes, mainly because she was a “natural” at it. And finally—and most importantly, as the headlines are telling us—there was “history” made: nominating a female at any and all cost. But the truth of the matter is this was one of the media’s most successful stage-managed programs in history. That the media could literally enable one of the most corrupt and unethical candidates ever to run for president as its chosen favorite and persuade the gullible to vote for her is the real “history” being made. 

The Clinton campaign is supposedly sending out “feelers” to the Sanders campaign, but it is my hope that Sanders does not sacrifice his principles in the name of “unity,” because that would give Clinton undeserved credibility. Clinton only believes in one thing: satisfying her own massive megalomania. For me, I absolutely refuse to vote for either Clinton or Trump; this is not a selection of the lesser of two evils. They both represent an “evil” choice in their own way—Trump is a bigoted, unprincipled blowhard who excites the worst impulses in his supporters, and Clinton is a corrupt, pathological liar who absolutely cannot be trusted. 

As an aside, the novelty mints tin that I mentioned previously with the “Hillary for Peppermint” caption features Clinton with an expression of smug,  barely suppressed laughter; what is she laughing at—“provincials” like you for voting for her?

No comments:

Post a Comment