Monday, November 7, 2016

And my vote goes to....

The level of paranoia of the Democrats in this year’s presidential election very nearly equals that which is more usual of the Republicans. Such paranoia is typical of those who feel that there is a grand conspiracy afoot to benefit their opponents, and we would expect that kind of thing from the Right. But this year we are hearing it even more hysterically from Hillary Clinton and her surrogates both inside and outside the media. Now they are claiming that the Russians are hacking into voting machines in a dastardly effort to alter election results in favor of Donald Trump, or at least cause enough confusion to put the results into questions. 

While the pro-Clinton news media is hyping the alleged pro-Trump predilections of Putin, it is ignoring or purposely misinforming the public about Clinton’s own ties to the Russians, particularly in regard to the Clinton Foundation, which appears to be as much a den of corruption and lawbreaking as the Clintons themselves. The pro-Clinton media is also trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes in regard to the numerous email leaks revealing Clinton’s duplicitous nature and the Democratic leadership’s attempts to corrupt the electoral process, especially during Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign. These emails were “stolen,’ the media tells us, and that is what we should be most “concerned” about—not what they actually tell us about Clinton. 

Along with the equally hysterical gender pandering of this election, what we have seen since the party conventions is that Clinton and her media supporters are going all-out to demonize and dehumanize Trump. Yes, Trump is engaging in some highly questionable rhetorical tactics himself, although not all of them as untrue as the media is claiming; but then again, how do you defend yourself from a distinctly unfair fight? 

The reason why this election has gotten this “ugly” is because it is much closer than it was expected to be, despite all the gender attacks on Trump. In any “normal” election season, Trump would have been a virtual fringe candidate as Barry Goldwater had been in 1964, or George McGovern in 1972. But it is close because there is also a deep antipathy toward Hillary Clinton, who appears to many as someone who feels (as does the media) “entitled” to the presidency, so much so that we are supposed to ignore her Mount Everest of corruption, scandal and lying, which she doesn’t even have the vaguest of scruples to stop right up to the present time. And of course the media is completely enabling her personal corruption and pathological lying. We never heard about the racist aspect of opposition to Barack Obama during his administration, yet will a steady stream of female victim politics be the defining “leadership principle” in a Hillary Clinton administration whenever it is under pressure or questioned?

News "flash": Hillary directed her maid--who has no "security clearance" other than given her personally by Clinton--to print out classified emails from Clinton's home computer. Naturally the Clinton News Network and others with a stake in "history" are either ignoring this or denying its relevance. And people still think that this incredibly arrogant and irresponsible person should be president??? Why???

Oh, I forgot.

So who did I vote for? I did not vote for Clinton, even though I otherwise voted straight Democratic. I did not vote for Trump either, and this is more a function of my despising of his racist white core of voters. I see these people and their hate-filled expressions and actions, and I wonder if a Trump election will allow them to believe that they can “act” out on their hate in a more substantive manner. I remember how at various Trump rallies during the primaries how he defended the cowardly thuggery of his supporters who beat on lone protesters.  Although I suspect that Trump himself has no use for such people personally, he has made little effort to distance himself from them, since he still “needs” their vote to get elected. 

Who else is out there? Former governor Gary Johnson, whose viability I examined in a previous post? He may be “honest” and “principled,” but I find much of what he is “honest” and “principled” about not particularly admirable; so-called “libertarians” tend to hold some rather bizarre and irrational beliefs. The rest of the field is a smorgasbord of the usual suspects, none of them worth wasting one’s time with. There was, of course, a “write-in” candidate block on my ballot. I might have written in Bernie Sanders, but he has alienated me by abandoning his principles and campaigning for Clinton, despite all the evidence that the Democratic establishment actively sought to derail his candidacy, with the help of the Clinton News Network and its baldly Clinton partisanship during the primaries. He owes the Democratic Party nothing in this election, yet he is out there. I was one of those “Bernie or no one” voters, and I am still one, save for one minor exception.

Since no one on the ballot inspires or represents me, I have to ask myself how do I best voice my disgust with the “choices” I have been given this presidential season. Who do I think best represents me, if not anyone listed? There is only person out there who fits the bill. What name did I place in the write-in block? 

My own name.
I hope others will voice their disgust with this election similarly.

No comments:

Post a Comment