I Have Not Yet Sealed the Ballot
I should, but something this year is... different.
Preamble: I have voted officially for president in every election since I was eligible in 1984. I'm not going to defend past presidential choices; no voter needs to defend past election choices.
This year, though, has been hard. This is the first year where I just don't give a shit which of ( Read more... )
Preamble: I have voted officially for president in every election since I was eligible in 1984. I'm not going to defend past presidential choices; no voter needs to defend past election choices.
This year, though, has been hard. This is the first year where I just don't give a shit which of ( Read more... )
I agree, and I did. But I can't regret my Reagan vote any more than I can regret my choice of college polo shirts (mine had the little frog in the cart on them from a National Lampoon cartoon, but were polo shirts still), any more than a short kid can regret not being able to reach the cookie jar before the growth spurt.
For the record, I resonate best with the third of your scenarios. Fuck Bush I, Casey and Gates. Fuck them hard, fucking treasonous traitors.
The fact that the Supreme Court made the final decision....
I'll stop you there. Gore won Florida. Yes, he made a tactical mistake in not insisting on a state-wide recount; but he still won.
Trouble here is, there have been close elections in the past. The Robed Ones stopped a standard recount, and included language in the decision that noted it must never be used for precedent. Which the Court has never done in its past.
Meaning your swap scenario? Would. Never. Have. Happened.
Dubya was given office because money paid for at least 4 of the 5 on the court to get him to office (nobody has figured Kennedy out yet). For one example, David Brock confessed to slurring Anita Hill just to get Thomas out of the negative spotlight, and it took money to get him to write those "a little bit nutty, a little bit slutty" articles.
Had those votes gone to Gore, the recount would have continued.
And here, I must note that you haven't commented on the Kucinich article to which I linked and from which I quoted. Money changes the thinking of think tanks toward thinking about more needless wars. Money gets Federalist Society "originalists" (who are hardly that at all) on the highest Court. Money forces Obama to give up the Public Option on health care (which was the fucking goal all along). Money gets Hillary to stop even thinking about talking about regulating money, and money makes The Donald's erstwhile opponents so obviously suck-uppish to their sponsors that all he has to do is spout his Cheeto Mussolini mouth (good one there!) and rally the hateful.
I will consider your conclusion, even though it reads to me like:
"Money could win, or money could win, so perhaps that money should prevent this money from winning."
Thanks!
Reply
You're right, and I didn't click through and read beyond the bits you quoted, because regardless of how well it's argued, at this point in the cycle those are not relevant considerations. The time for a "should we have a 'money' candidate or not" is WHEN CANDIDATES ARE BEING CHOSEN.
I will consider your conclusion, even though it reads to me like:
"Money could win, or money could win, so perhaps that money should prevent this money from winning."
I think the equation of Trump with Clinton, or of Democratic policies with Republican ones, is either ignorant or disingenous. Even leaving aside the issue of wars, the economy improves significantly under Democrats and crashes under Republicans, every time, because Democrats care about facts and results more than ideology. Society improves for more people under Democrats than Republicans because Democrats care about people more than ideology.
And bringing wars back in, I'll take Obama's Libya or Syria over Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if I'd prefer neither. And Trump's already on the record as saying he doesn't see the point of having nukes and not using them, and that he would like to nuke ISIS. Clinton's handling of the situation won't be what you want it to be, and it might even be objectively bad. You know what it WON'T be? A fucking nuclear first strike. Because Clinton is lots of things and "stupid" is NONE of them.
Americans don't *have* a good option, an option who makes all correct or even (depending on your perspective) mostly-correct decisions. What you have MOST years is an option that makes some good decisions and an option that makes very few good decisions. 2016 is unique in that you've got "some good decisions" versus "actively working to make the worst decision possible".
An actual Good Decision Candidate needs to get into the race when the race starts, and have a real base of support *when the race starts*. When the race is underway is too late. The weekend before the election is WAY too late.
And:
I'll stop you there. Gore won Florida. [...] Dubya was given office because money paid for at least 4 of the 5 on the court to get him to office (nobody has figured Kennedy out yet).
My point remains: The court only got involved because it was close. If Gore had won by 100,000 instead of 1,000, it wouldn't have been close, there wouldn't have been recounts, and it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
So no, the USSC were *not* the only decision-makers who mattered. They were just the people whose decision mattered LAST, in that specific circumstance.
Reply
Quite true. By the way, on that note, have you heard of the book Ratfucked? The author is making the radio rounds of late. I heard him on a show called This Is Hell. Right up your alley.
The time for a "should we have a 'money' candidate or not" is WHEN CANDIDATES ARE BEING CHOSEN.
Quite true, also. A pity money shut down the anti-money candidate. Which means....
Oh, wait....
Reply
Leave a comment