Hillary Is America, by Robert Gore
For all of Dostoyevsky’s skill, it probably would have been beyond him to dramatically render America's degenerate descent. Hillary’s supporters believe she’s extraordinary; her detractors believe she’s a tragic anomaly. They're both wrong. The real tragedy is that in contemporary America, there’s nothing exceptional about her other than her criminality, and how exceptional is that? Shutting out reality and the truth are national pastimes. She’s not psychologically differentiated in any way from the crowd, and her access to platforms allows her to peddle what it wants to hear.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the above link.
This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the above link.
I don't think 50% are enamored with government, we prefer to ignore it and move on with our lives, we don't like politicians and think of them as a joke.
Somewhere along the line we've become hardened by the lack of being able to do anything about it...we pay attention only at voting times and complain the rest of the time.
Now...the 47%?...different story and different idiotology that loves and believes the establishment which is made up of those strange creatures some of us viewed in the 60's and turned out even worse than what they replaced.
Even though we all have been denied true history, it's to much work to ferret out and the 47% depends upon the corrupt...they are the same and have been willingly transformed into an image the rest of us would never reflect.
I'm not sure if hiltery is an image or it's reflection but I know that she and her ilk are what nightmares are made of. Even though the 50% perhaps have not been the ever watchful Americans we should have been, I wouldn't say, by any stretch of one' imagination, "hiltery is America" or the product of America...perhaps your observation really points out that America has left us to our own bidding and is waiting somewhere for us to return, heads hung low and sorrowful.
I used to think poor character traits ,bad judgement and dishonesty coupled with criminal activity were ingredients for a failed political career. Huh
This is your 47%....That is Hiltery's America...
You don't usually see this stuff of the right...but they have their problems too.
Not sure about mccain or mr pineapple but the babuskies were globalist and possibly worse than that.
Answer: No
They desire power and/or wealth and they use government to get it, by stealing from others.
I want OUT of Afghanistan and IRAQ. Put that money into defense of our country. I want the elimination of the federal reserve and a return to the gold standard for the USA. No deficit spending for government at all,
Somehow I think these things would never make it past the establishment, until the establishment system just crashes. The future shown in AS was right.
Read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose.
Whoa! New thought. That DID work out for the RINOs.
O was in power for 8 years. That means everyone of those RINOs had to deal with being reelected during that time frame.
Never mind. Me dino no longer views the hypocrisy as curious.
As pathetic? Yeah. Pathetic. Pathetic representation.
You are exactly right: it was (and is) not only the left. I believe it as an axiom: people get the government they deserve. We all have a significantly higher standard of living than we earn. For how long we had a government spending more than the people are willing to pay in taxes? I could go into a long presentation of how we do it. You all know it. I think people are generally "myopic". They think mostly about a year into the future. Until the next April 15 and the IRS reckoning. While we need to think in generational cycles. Education of our replacements, imagining not yet invented technologies changing our economic assumptions, accepting the acceleration of change and a life of continuous learning. Not to speak of corruption in the political system. Vast majority of people choose to look the other way.
I wish you all the best.
Maritimus
Character also has little if anything to do with "serving" in that city. There may be a handful of representatives who went there with their constituents in mind and this handful has been able to retain their integrity. With that being said, evil does not well continence fidelity to one's true beliefs. To the contrary, the vermin that make up most of Washington loath such traits because they have already sold their souls for the trappings of power. By comparison, they realize that the good only make them look that much worse. Shine a light on cockroaches and watch them scatter to hide again in the shadows.
Welcome to Washington!
Both parties are in shock. Democrats call for donations as if Obama was still running for office, as if there was some "progressive" voice to hear... Republicans have been met with consistent failure in the legislature. And Trump, in all his divisive rhetoric, was heard around the world with his "both sides" comment, leading us to ask if he had known about the explicit anti-Semitic vandalism beforehand.
American psychology as I experience it is not about ideals. It is not even about values. It is about the squeaky wheels, the partisan road rage - if you will - and the incessant traffic on social media. Until Americans discover their morality, no lasting achievements are possible.
It reminds me of a woman I am very good friends with. Her husband cheated on her and lied to her and she stayed with them so their three daughters could learn to be obedient to bad men (that last part is my editorial). Well, her husband died a little over a year ago with cancer. Who is she with now? A guy who's rude to her, yells at her kids, bosses her around and took a "loan" from her from her kids' college fund. I'm so ticked off I don't want to even see her around anymore - which is tough because she's very good friends with my wife. Ugh.... When she caught her husband cheating she said she'd, "Just put it in God's hands..." ARGH!!!
I suppose if you had to write an article about this huge problem for an audience bored by economics but able to pay attention to lurid cheap shots demonizing an individual, this is what it would look like. It could be part of the school curriculum for low-life thugs in juvenile detention who can't focus on studies but are transfixed by a brawl. Maybe they could read this and learn something unsustainable gov't.
Those who defend Hillary Clinton are "shameless." To pick one of just many examples. She trashed the reputations and went after the women who accused her husband--on quite substantial grounds--of sexual harrassment, sexual assault, and rape. If criticizing her for that is shameless, then criticizing someone who criticizes her for that is even more so.
These are the same crimes for which Harvey Weinstein and others have been exposed and will be subject to both civil suits and criminal prosecution. Hillary Clinton was a potentially criminal accessory to Weinstein-like behavior, using her platform and power to denounce as "trailer park trash" and otherwise persecute a woman who won a $800,000 settlement from her husband. That's the truth, and to call someone to account for such behavior is simply telling the truth and asking that she be subject to legal process.
I notice you said nothing about the current allegations against Hillary Clinton concerning Uranium One and the Trump Dossier. I suppose my bringing it up was another "lurid cheap shot." However, there is a substantial possibility that under our "lurid cheap" laws, she committed crimes up to and including treason. Those potential crimes are as worthy, if not more so, of investigation as potential Trump-Russian collusion. If you want lurid cheap shots, check out the so-far unsubstantiated Trump dossier.
"If criticizing her for that is shameless.."
I only meant criticisms of her husbands affairs and her reaction to them.
"you said nothing about the current allegations against Hillary Clinton concerning Uranium One and the Trump Dossier."
I don't think those are lurid stories.
Uranium One: I think there's nothing to it. It think it's all politics. I'm glad they investigate it, but it sounds like nothing to me.
Trump Dossier: I suspect that there was a tacit understanding that DNC payments were being funded through that law firm to the firm that produced the dossier, and I suspect Clinton knew something like that was happening, although I don't have a guess as to whether she knew the details. The reason I think that is Clinton is experienced in politics, and Trump isn't, which makes digging up dirt a likely line of attack for a politician (good at playing dirty) against a non-politician with a history of working in TV and beauty pageants (where salacious dirt is likely to happen). So it rings true.
It's odd that the dossier didn't come out before the election. Maybe the campaign make a strategic decision that it would backfire. Or maybe the left hand really didn't know what the right hand was doing.
"Those potential crimes are as worthy, if not more so, of investigation as potential Trump-Russian collusion."
I'm glad they're investigating, keeping people honest. I have always thought the Trump-Russian "collusion" claims were bogus.
I took it as a dig against Trump, who I see as telling unsophisticated voters some group who looks different from them is the cause of their problems. So "Stronger Together" is a way of saying "my opponent wants to divide you." I generally agree Trump is divisive, so it was a "good" political dig.
"each side wants to take from the other without giving up anything."
Yes. I think it's almost a natural consequence of the gov't being so big-- people fight for a share of the big gov't pie instead of going out in the world and making their own little pie. It's bad situation.
"Stronger together "means that sticking together will get a larger share of the government freebie pie.
If you really want to understand Hillary, read the book by Milo Yiannoupolis (sp) called DANGEROUS. Its a real eye opener. You probably wont want to read it, but its hard to argue with the facts contained therein
I agree completely, except I think President Trump is right in there with them.
BTW, I've never met the national candidates more than very briefly. I don't care about their rhetoric. I don't believe their public personas mean much. I am absolutely sure most of them do not start with philosophical beliefs and then try to sell them. I don't buy into the left/right thing. I think it's mostly theater, and I would not be shocked if they occasionally collaborated informally: "We're both sending out our last set of fundraising letters before this next filing deadline. I'm thinking about saying something about gun control that will get your people back in Fond du Lac fired up. Maybe you want say something about trans-gendered people to get my people here in Madison fired up. This quarter could be a bumper crop."
"means that sticking together will get a larger share of the government freebie pie. "
Like any politician's tagline, it's designed to mean whatever you want it to mean. I'm almost sure it doesn't mean gov't largess because people think the gov't grants, contracts, and programs they receive aren't really "gov't freebies". Although Sanders came pretty close to saying freebies for everyone, so I don't know; maybe some people are moochers and proud of it. I don't think so though. You hear it in their language. "We need reforms of the healthcare system," instead of "I want to some people to pay for other's medicine." I think when you put the naked truth out there, most people don't want handouts.
To a degree, they are right so long as the productive people keep working and put up with having their work stolen from them. The more the productive people work and allow their work to be taken, the more empowered the hillary/sanders group gets and the more they feel they are entitled to the goodies and should just take them if they are no longer available.
Pretty uninformed view I would say
Yeah. From "billionaires".
If some charismatic person figures out that Sanders and Trump are very similar, at least IMHO they are, and exploits it, we will have a dangerous situation. Maybe I should be happy Trump's antics are so transparent and Sanders pronounces the word "billionaires", who he wants to fund all kinds of handouts, with such contempt. It keeps people from realizing it's the same message: Someone who is different from you is evil and is to blame for your problems in life, and you need to give me power to fight them.
I guess you can put it that way. But I think giving it a label and then generalizing to a supposed group that fits that label doesn't make things any clearer. I actually think it's a trick. I don't even think leftism or rightism are real things in the modern political world. If I am correct, it's all a trick to change the subject from actual policies, i.e. digging into if "billionaires" have enough money to send most everyone to college and if there are any limits one when it's okay to take other people's stuff. This grouping trick is not a conspiracy. It's just hard to get elected, and it's hard for commentators to get viewers/readers, and this formula of dividing people into named groups and inviting them to path themselves on that back happens to work.
I probably seem naive for taking at face value the investigations into the campaigns and elections, yet I completely reject the idea that politicians are at odds with one another ideologically. People on this site who are vocal about this issue mostly accept that politicians are engaged in an ideological struggle along some vague (to me) left/right continuum, but they think the investigations and gov't's institutions are governed by shadowing political machinations and are often pawns in an ideological battle. I have the exact opposite view.
I like the analogy of politicians as sales people for the gov't!
Saying it is designed to further its own goals implies intentional design. I think it is designed to be a limited gov't, but it has insufficient protections against it growing in power and cost, so it's not operating within its original spec.
Some people on this site say it's a run of bad politicians, which I categorically reject. ewv says it's bad philosophy among some citizens. That makes sense, but I wonder if it could be structured to be less dependent on citizens to contain it. This is why I'm open to CoS. To work it would have be only empowered to limit gov't. Everyone would have to be prepared to cut programs that make them honestly think, "oh no, but if you cut that people will die!": Federal drug law enforcement and prisons, nursing home care assistance, food stamps, military bases around the world, social security, cancer research, SBIR grants, school lunches. Politicians, for whom the status quo is working, will offer great arguments as to why the programs benefiting their constituents shouldn't be affected. For that reason, I think it's a long-shot that it will work. Instead we'll wait until a series of mini-crises over the course of decades forces incremental change.
That scene in 1984 where he asks OBrien what the purpose of the torture is: "The torture is the purpose." People are embracing destruction. Would they even elect a leader who is true to his wife and children? I have serious doubts.
I'm going to sit with a big glass of syrah tonight and read through this completely.
I obviously don't know the answers, but I suggest trying to file it as an unknown. It's the way I think of the Vegas shooting. I read some articles, and didn't follow any rumination on it. If I'm going to focus my attention on something, more than the basic facts, let it be something positive and something I can do something about.