Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Stay In Race To Be Good Democrat

Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination?

Should she put her own self-interests aside, put her party first, and yield to Barack Obama?

Well, let me ask a parallel question: should Democrats have put aside their own partisan interests aside, put their country first, and stopped undermining the war in Iraq and making false charges about the economy?

The phrase, “chickens coming home to roost” seems to be a popular one these days, so let me allude to it here: the Democratic Party has been selfishly seeking power against the best interests of their country for the past four years, and it is frankly their just desserts that a Democratic candidate should not come to personify total political self-centeredness.

There is no question that Barack Obama must be given the Democratic nomination. It has nothing to do with his wins or with his votes; but everything to do with the fact that his most ardent supporters are the worst kind of people, who would come unglued and destroy the Democratic Party if they don’t get their way. Hillary Clinton’s supporters – the working class, Catholics, and senior citizens – are more likely to roll up their sleeves and support the other candidate.

It is frankly amazing to me that “the candidate of hope and change” is presiding over such a bitter partisan contest without anyone pointing out the massive contradiction, and that his voters are the type of people who have literally threatened riots in Denver if they don’t get their way. It goes to show what a cynical – and completely phony – campaign platform the whole “hope and change” thing is.

But let me get back to the Democrat’s selfish undermining of the best interests of the country they claim to love above all else. I challenge Democrats to tell me when Republicans so bitterly denounced a Democratic President at war, with their troops on the ground. Vietnam? No. Korea? No. World War II? No. World War I? Again, no. You’ve got to go back to the Civil War when the pro-slavery Democratic Party was so upset over a President going to war. We have presented a divided front to the encouragement and emboldening of our enemies. I can’t even begin to imagine what would have happen if the Republican Party had tried to undermine the war effort while FDR was fighting Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.

The United States had a vote on the Iraq War resolution. And it passed by a substantial majority in both branches of Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). In the Senate, 29 Democrats supported the resolution, with only 21 voting against it. The Iraq War resolution actually passed by a wider margin in both branches than the Gulf War resolution in 1990.  There is a long record of Democrats acknowledging and affirming the key elements of the Bush White House’ position on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  Yet, incredibly, Democrats began to turn against the war and use it as a “wedge issue” the moment they began to sense that it was beginning to become unpopular.

It didn’t matter that CIA director George Tenet (whom Democratic President Bill Clinton had appointed) – speaking for the overall military and civilian intelligence community – said that the consensus view was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t matter than every major intelligence service in the world held the same view. It didn’t matter that the United Nations was inherently incompetent, or that countries such as France and Russia – opposing every meaningful resolution to enforce insepctions in the UN – had been bought by Saddam Hussein with funds and powers granted by the corrupt oil for food program. None of that mattered. Democrats began to literally undermine their president and routinely call him a liar and a war criminal.

Keep in mind that the first priority of enemy psychological warfare program is to undermine the credibility and character of the enemy’s leader. We attempted to do that with Saddam Hussein before we invaded in Gulf War I. We attempted to do that with Slobodon Milosivitch before we attacked Bosnia under President Clinton. The Democrats tried to do that with President George Bush after we attacked Iraq. Whose side were Democrats on? They were on their side. It is a matter of fact that they were NOT on the American’s side.

When Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said, “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything,” on 20 April 2007, the story was picked up by al Jazeera and eagerly devoured by our emboldened enemies. In spite of Harry Reid and his Party, history has proven that the surge has been a very successful strategy for the United States. It is a despicable shame that he attempted to undermine it without even giving it a chance to work.

Representative James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip (and the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives) summed it up pretty well when he said that success in Iraq would be bad for Democrats. That’s an incredible statement, which communicated to the whole world that the Democratic Party was so invested in defeat in Iraq as a political strategy to undermine Republicans that good news in Iraq amounted to bad news for Democrats.

The same is true of the liberal media, of course, as is demonstrated in a Harvard study and reported under the headline, “Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks .” Not that these people care. They would rather see the country in ruins than under the governance of a Republicans.

But we have liberal media reporters like CNN’s Bob Franken saying, “But many experts say that designating this a civil war will undermine U.S. support even more, which might explain why so many Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon.” I can’t help but get stuck on that “undermine U.S.” part.

I will always wonder what would have happened had the United States presented a united face. Would our historic allies begun to come around to our side? Would our enemies have been as emboldened and confident that the United States could be defeated? Would the critics of America have felt as justified in demonizing America had so-called “Americans” not said all the same things that they were saying?

Do Democrats want a good economy? Not right now, they don’t. They want a BAD economy so they can use it as an issue in the upcoming elections.

Apart from the fact that they economy didn’t actually start struggling until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Congress – which controls the purse strings – we have extremely negative and downright deceitful comments coming from Democrats to insure the economy remains in the doldrums. The fact of the matter is the economy has not been in recession, and recent economic indicators are pointing that the economy may very well be improving.

Fox News offered a little dose of reality in its story when it revealed the unrelenting bias in the media. “Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.” According to the report:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession…

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”

The report was based on the findings of University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, Jr.

It is perfectly appropriate for the party not in power to claim that they have a better solution for the economy. Frankly, such a debate is good for the country. But what is profoundly wrong is to demonize an economy in order to artificially bring down consumer confidence and create a perception of pessimism rather than a perception of confidence. Nothing is more important for the success of a national economy than perception!

The same Democrats who made it illegal for Americans to drill for domestic oil or build refineries now demonize Republicans for the energy crisis. The same politicians who wouldn’t let us drill in the Atlantic, wouldn’t let us drill in the Gulf of Mexico, wouldn’t let us drill in the Pacific, wouldn’t let us drill in Alaska now claim the energy crisis is Bush’s fault! Democrats told us 10 years ago that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it wouldn’t do us any good for 10 years. Now, 10 years later, they’re STILL saying that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it won’t do us any good for 10 years.

Had we fully developed our own massive domestic energy resources, we could have long-since freed ourselves from having to involve ourselves in what Democrats love to call “war for oil.” Were Democrats to walk or ride their bikes everywhere they went, this position would be slightly less hypocritical. As it is, their refusal to allow for any sensible American energy policy guarantees that we will be fighting in the Middle East for years to come.

Hillary Clinton is the quitessential Democrat – she only cares about her own power, and she is perfectly willing to pander, demagogue, or lie to advance her agenda. Let everything else be damned.

The completely anti-democratic tendency of the Democratic Party – brought to life in the super delegate rule – means that neither candidate can win the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination on their own. One way or another, the nomination will be decided in some “smoke filled room.”

So you go, girl. Keep on running. Show us what Democrats are really like.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Stay In Race To Be Good Democrat”

  1. hagee not Says:

    Re: the Iraqi wars

    Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain., Psalm 127:1

    VIDEO

    John Hagee- Iraq Winter Soldier for Babylon

  2. Thomas Jackson Says:

    First: Hillary Clinton.

    I’m an Obama supporter, and I do not believe Clinton should just “give up.” The fact is that she still has a shot at the nomination. It’s a long shot, but it still could happen. If it does happen, it will happen because the process produced that result. No doubt some boosters of Clinton tried to rig the process, and there isn’t much we can do to fix that now. If Clinton is the nominee, I’ll vote for her and work to elect her.

    The overwhelming majority of the Democrats will not support riots to change the process. Protests are appropriate. Suppression of protestors by the police is not. I do not believe that we will have the kind of scenario in Denver that we had in Chicago in 1968. You’re citing Michelle Malkin for the contrary viewpoint. It’s a far-right fantasy.

    Second, the invasion and occupation of Iraq IS A WAR CRIME. It is just ONE of the war crimes committed by Bush and his cabal, and those chickens will certainly come home to roost. Forgive me for undermining war crimes. I have a moral opposition to them.

    The vote for the AUMF was based upon fear-mongering and lies, and most of the people who voted for it, today will tell you that they were deceived and regret that vote.

    Despite overwhelming support for the AUMF, Bush didn’t abide by it. He violated the AUMF. While most people know that the reasons Bush gave for going to war were false, most people do not yet understand that Bush violated the AUMF by invading and occupying Iraq. But they will!

    Harry Reid was wrong to say “The war is lost.” He should have said “The occupation is lost.” We won the war. Hussein was overthrown. The regime in Iraq changed. The American people didn’t sign on for an endless occupation of Iraq, even if they supported the war.

    It is a foolish and unrealistic plan to occupy Iraq, try to loot their oil reserves, and to use that country to launch invasions of other countries. Did Bush ever tell us he was going to do that? Did he get our permission to do that? NO. But he went ahead and implemented that plan anyway.

    Just who does he imagine himself to be? A Roman Emperor?

    Third, the economy. The fascist policies of Bush and his supporters will create the kind of economic meltdown that we are seeing today. Democrats were shut out of the deliberative process in Congress while the Republicans controlled Congress. Republicans used their thin majority to assert one-party rule, a tactic they IN FACT borrowed from the Nazis.

    The results of the policies of Bush and the Republican Congress are playing out. They screwed up everything they touched, and that’s a fact. But you point at Democrats and say “SEE! They WANT this to happen!” What do Republicans offer to solve the problems? More of the same policies that GAVE us the problems. You don’t have to have a Phd in economics to sort that one out. You don’t have to be a liberal to understand that the situation has to change, and that more of the same won’t change it.

    Last, the drilling. Do you think we can drill ourselves out of our problems? Rather short-sighted. How long do you think drilling will sustain our level of civilization? Answer: Not even until all the baby-boomers are dead. Those of us who are younger, want a more secure solution to the problem. We will face other related problems sooner than we have issues with supply, and those problems demand the attention of the entire species.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    The United States Congress authorized the war in Iraq (the AUMF). An overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Senate voted in support of the resolution. It is deceitful and cowardly for Democrats to disassociate themselves from the war now.

    Further, it is fascinating how you refer to a Republican president’s economic policies as ‘fascist.” N.A.Z.I. is a German acronym for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party.” Industries were either nationalized or controlled in both German and Italian fascism such that their production was consistent with the needs of the state.

    Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters is FAR more consistent with fascism in her recent demand to nationalize the oil industry.

    As for drilling. If you and all Democrats renounce putting ONE MORE DROP of oil in your car, or refuse to use a single drop of oil to heat your homes or ANY other use, fine. Until then, you and everyone who shares your views are hypocrites and ideological loons who refuse to look at the real world. Energy experts say we will need oil for another fifty years, even if we develop a new energy technology during that period. To refuse to seek that vital supply here is stupid.

    Further, if we truly want to get out of the Middle East and other hot spots, what would work better than to have total energy independence with our own oil supply so we don’t need to involve ourselves in Arab/Islamic affairs? We need real answers NOW; not theoretical ones in decades to come.

    So it is rather difficult to imagine how you could be more wrong.

  4. Thomas Jackson Says:

    First, the AUMF.

    READ IT, Michael. The authorization was conditional. Bush did not meet the conditions, nor did the conditions to invoke it’s authority exist. John Kerry tried to tell you all that four years ago. At that time, Bush apologists were still muddying the waters with lies. But those lies have been thoroughly and conclusively debunked.

    War crimes, Michael. We know what happened, and we have the FACTS about what happened, and John Kerry isn’t the only one talking about it today.

    To adopt a policy of pre-emptive warfare, and then to fabricate pre-texts for war, and then to invade, occupy and loot another country, and then to terrorize the population with torture, is a specific war crime. All of those actions are collectively known as The Crime Against Peace, and the Nazi High command was tried for it and sentenced to death. That was the FIRST of the Nuremberg indictments. The later indictments were about the Holocaust.

    Did you know that part of the Nuremberg indictment is about conspiring to overthrow the German Republic? Did you know that the Nazis used many of the same mechanisms and policies to overthrow the rule of law that the Bush Administration later used? Did you know that all of these years, we have been documenting all of this?

    What’s worse, is that Bush seized power from the United States to order an illegal invasion. He knew the conditions of the AUMF had not been met. But, he pretended that they were. He didn’t think anyone would ever catch it. But we did catch it. TREASON, Michael. And that’s not the only count.

    Now about the economy. What kind of economy do you have when a tiny number of the population control the economy through interconnected corporate boards? Do you know how the Italian fascists controlled the economy? Look it up.

    What kind of economy do you have when government chartered organizations dominate it?

    Corporations are WHAT? Government chartered organizations.

    Nationalizing the oil industry isn’t fascist. It’s socialist. I’d like to know how Maxine Waters would administrate such a socialist venture. Depending on her answer, I could either support it or be against it.

    The Democrats have adopted a National Energy project as part of their platform. It’s a RENEWABLE national energy project, using technology we have today. So, you may have your wish to see the Democrats leave hypocrisy behind. I could hope that for all of us.

    Of course there are “energy experts” who say we need oil for another fifty years. Are they “energy experts” in the oil industry? How hard is it to figure that one out? Maybe what they mean is that we will need oil for another fifty years if we don’t do anything to change anything. Then they would be correct, but here’s a thought: we’re gonna change things!

    People who don’t want change, because they profit from the way things are, are lying when they say that change is “decades away.” I watched the Democrats make the case in committee for this new approach, with new technologies. It will happen, it IS happening now, and it is the change that will manifest from now forward. RENEWABLE sources.

    The truth about our domestic oil supply? There ain’t enough of it. We’ll use it up pretty quick if we switch to domestic totally and cut off imports. DUH! Why do you think we don’t do that? Why do you think we haven’t done it yet?

    I imagine the future, and I base that upon what IS happening right now. Please accept my invitation to look at what is going on today with renewables. All that is needed to make the change is a national project to plan the change nationally, rationally and wisely.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Don’t have time to go into it all.

    Fascism is a form of socialism. Fascism comes out of the left. If it is in any way “conservative,” just what on earth were NAZI’s trying to “conserve”? But it sounds like you, in your infinite wisdom, have decided to remove “socialist” from “National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.”

    The fact that corporations get a license from the government has nothing to do with anything. I have a driver’s license. I do not belong to the government. By your line of reasoning, since corporations have always obtained such a charter in this country, we have always been fascist? Even when we were fighting fascism? You make a strictly rhetorical point that is ridiculous.

    I wrote a series of articles on why the Iraq War was justified. They stand by themselves. We had a right to invade Iraq the moment Saddam Hussein kicked the arms inspectors out in 1998. That was a condition of the 1991 ceasefire agreement.

    Is your car driven by a windmill? Have you gotten rid of all products that were manufactured from oil?

  6. Thomas Jackson Says:

    Your interpretation of the history of ideology is at odds with actual history. It’s at odds with definitions accepted in the field of political science, too, which I know something about, having majored in that subject in college.

    Fascism IS a form of socialism. It’s an authoritarian form of socialism, as is Marxism. Fascism is a specific kind of authoritarian socialism which draws it’s political, legal, economic and social power from the abuse of corporate charters.

    Fascism DOES come from a “conservative” ideology. In the Nineteenth century, aristocratic, anti-republican, imperial, colonial ideologies were the “conservative” ideologies that countered republican, democratic, and non-authoritarian socialist ideologies. This is not my opinion, it’s a well-founded conclusion based upon historical facts and specific ideological definitions.

    The fascists in Italy, Germany and Spain came up with a path, under republican government, to restore an aristocratic, imperial, anti-republican and colonial, conservative ideology as the dominant ideology. The path was abuse of corporate charters. They eventually used that path to OVERTHROW republican, democratic governments and abolish non-authoritarian, socialist economic policies. That’s not an opinion either. It is the historical record of what happened.

    It’s not incorporation that is fascist. It’s ABUSE of the corporate charter to establish anti-republican governing bodies and aristocratic sovereignty and policies that undermine the rule of law and republican government that IS fascist. It’s defined as “fascist” precisely because that is what we historically refer to when we refer to the fascists who did it before.

    Not every authoritarian system is fascist. Not every authoritarian system is Marxist. Not every authoritarian system is monarchist. BUT, they are all authoritarian systems!

    In a similar way, there are democratic socialist systems, and there are authoritarian socialist systems. Socialism is not synonymous with authoritarian government.

    Fascism is an example of a socialist, authoritarian system. But, as I pointed out, it did not come from “the left” as you say. It came from industrialists and conservatives who wanted to restore an anti-republican, imperialist, colonial, aristocratic system. That is what fascism is, dressed in corporate clothing.

    A corporate charter is not a “business license.” It is a governing charter for an organization that is granted specific powers and advantages, by the government, for the purpose of providing public benefit.

    Profit is a secondary incentive. Power and influence are INCIDENTAL, not an entitlement.

    The abuse of the corporate charter has gone unchecked and unrestrained for so long that we are currently in danger of losing our republic. Corporate officers are not supposed to have multiple titles. That is unconstitutional. That is just ONE example of the anti-republican abuses that have become customary.

    Now, about Iraq.

    There is no “right” in international law to invade and occupy another country. Nor is there any “inherent power” in the presidency to invade and occupy another country.

    The authority to conduct weapons inspections inside Iraq was contingent upon the reason FOR the inspections. Those weapons were all destroyed in 1991. The UN, and the United States, insisted upon verification.

    The weapons that existed before 1991 were destroyed. Weapons inspectors couldn’t verify that estimates of stockpiles before 1991 were accounted for. However, as many experts have since informed us, verifying the estimates of pre-1991 stockpiles became irrelevant because even if there were still stockpiles, they would have degraded to uselessness. No capability to restart WMD production could be found, either, contrary to the false assertions of the Bush Administration.

    All of this was known in 2002. Those experts and critics who tried to inform the government and the public of this reality were suppressed, intimidated, harassed and muzzled. The Bush Administration actively deceived the public and used fear and intimidation to stifle debate. They did this because they were determined to start a war.

    This is not a “far left” theory, Michael. It is the truth. As more people come forward, many will finally understand what really happened. And more people will come forward. Even from among the ranks of the Bush Administration. Know why? Because those who are coming forward know and understand what will happen later. They do not want to be counted among those who committed war crimes and treason. The gangsters are going to be prosecuted.

    Let’s suppose that a person has an unregistered gun. The government learns of it, and obtains a search warrant to find the unregistered gun. The gun is found, and the penalty assessed. But the government says “According to our estimates, you had TWO unregistered guns.” The person protests, saying “No, I only had the one that you found.”

    “Well, in that case, we’re going to inspect your house periodically by suprise for years until we find the other gun.”

    Is it your opinion that a person should be subjected to such searches, indefinitely, when there is no way for them to prove that they disposed of something they didn’t have? It’s a principle, Michael. We live by principles. We try to live by principles that are just. Even the worst actors must be treated justly, or we can justify jettisoning principles whenever it suits ambitions, and call it justice. Then we become just like the worst actors.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I do wish you would spend more time learning and less time writing to contradict me.

    Your analysis of fascism as a conservative political movement is simply laughable. In order to make this claim, you are de facto stating that fascism existed as a longstanding political movement, to which conservatives wished to return to. Obviously, this is not so.
    When Hitler began to come into power with a new, radical movement, he pushed out Paul von Hindenburg – who provided the continuity with the Germany of the royal family (Kaiser Wilhelm).

    Marxist ideologues sought to redefine fascism in a way that made it its own polar opposite, but the fact is that marxsim is class-based SOCIALISM, and fascism is national SOCIALISM. If you think conservatives are or ever have sought a socialist government, you are simply insane.

    Both Marxism and fascism favored controlled economies; both rejected capitalism; both bitterly opposed the class the Marxists called the “bourgeoisie”; both actively attacked conservatives; both called for strong, centralized governments and rejected a free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.

    The left-wing, right-wing metaphor you stubbornly cling to is incredibly deceitful. Jaroslav Krejci pointed out that the metaphor comes from seating arrangements in the French Parliament after the Revolution. Those seated on the right side of the aisle favored a return of absolute monarchy. They favored government monopolies and a controlled economy. Culturally they favored authoritarian control of the people. Those seated on the left side of the aisle favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty.

    This metaphor simply breaks down in 20th century politics, as any honest historian and economist understands. In terms of the original model, American conservatives call for LESS government and trust the free market – and would have been seated on the LEFT in the French model. Liberals want more of a government-directed economy – and would have been seated on the RIGHT in the French model.

    Liberal and conservative are themselves relative terms – depending on what one has to conserve. The liberals of the 19th century, w/ their free-market economics and their resistance to government control, are the conservatives of the 20th/21st century.

    When it comes to socialism, Kraci showed that the range of left and right becomes meaningless altogether. Marxist and fascist socialists practiced a controlled economy and favored a strong, authoritative central government with strict control over the population. They would be in the RIGHT wing of the French Parliament. On the other hand, both are radical and revolutionary, and thus definitely anti-conservative.

    Krajci dispelled whatever idiotic myth remained that Marxists should somehow be viewed on the left and Nazis on the far right.

    As I’ve said before about your analysis: you couldn’t be more completely wrong if you tried.

    Read Jaroslav Krejci’s “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left” in the book “Neo-Fascism in Europe” edited by Luciano Cheles and try to actually learn something.

    American conservatives have for years been calling for a strict-constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution rather than a view in which non-elected judges impose their will from the bench. American conservatives hearken to the Federalist Papers, which call for a limited central government with more autonomy by the states.

    I don’t have time to review the rest of your material. I simply couldn’t get past the gigantic errors you assert in your opening sentences.

  8. Tom Jackson Says:

    “American conservatives call for LESS government and trust the free market”

    Your trust is misplaced. That’s the crux of my argument. You have been duped by FASCISTS, who favor a corporate-dominated market, run by interconnected boards and few, few people with multiple titles pretending to aristocratic power by abusing charters granted to them by the government. Just because you SAY that this situation is a capitalist free market doesn’t make it one!

    The FACT is that fascism, as a political and economic ideology, came from corporate charter abusing wealthy industrialists who wanted to run countries the way corporations are run. If you can READ the history of aristocratic government, and then READ the history of fascism, and NOT SEE that the two are connected ideologically, economically, politically, legally and socially, then you are blind. Your willful blindness to the copious evidence that fascism is aristocratic imperialism in corporate clothing, in favor of some pet theory that lefty college professors invented fascism by deconstructing texts, is ludicrous.

    What kind of organization do we have inside corporations? Republican? Democratic? Not at all. Instead we see hierarchical organization topped by people with multiple titles. That’s ARISTOCRATIC organization. Fascism came from the desire of ARISTOCRATS, and wealthy industrialists who wanted to be aristocrats, to remake republican governments into aristocratic ones, and they used abuses of the corporate charter to achieve those ends. Fascism is a conservative backlash to the republican revolutions and reforms that took place all over the Western world in the Nineteenth Century.

    If you want to make the argument that American conservatism is not aristocratic because they don’t owe their roots to Nineteenth Century aristocratic imperialists or later, fascists, then you’re halfway to a realization of the truth.

    These neofascists who lead the Republican Party and mouth their support for free markets and individual liberty are not talking about free markets for captalist businesses or individual liberty for PEOPLE. They want the government to be less powerful so that corporations can run our entire society. Their whole plan for any kind of change is to turn over power, money and influence to corporations. That’s not conservative! It’s radical. It’s a radical ideology called FASCISM.

    The most conservative interpretation possible under our constitution is a republican, anti-aristocratic, and democratic interpretation. You’ll see none of that from people who want the whole society to be run by a hierarchical aristocracy through corporate charter.

    What does it mean to “trust the market” in a market dominated by corporations, controlled by a very tiny minority? Do you mean it’s conservative to turn control of the country over to an aristocracy?

    For what reason do you want more control by corporations and less control by the government, whom we ELECT? In what way could THAT be a conservative point of view?

    I’ve heard these nonsensical and unrebutted arguments from these faux populist, crypto-fascist politicians for far too long to buy into it at all. When they say they want less government power and more power for the people, they always stab us in the back and give that power over to corporations. EVERY freakin time. So, why are YOU still fooled by it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: