(Mensaje se repite en Español)

There's an old adage that says, "If you put a frog in boiling water it will jump out. But if you put the frog in water and slowly raise the temperature around it, it will boil to death."

Given that we do not have the luxury of a parliamentary democracy, which most often requires a coalition between different political parties in order to govern. And given that we do not have the "None of the above" option on our ballots, it is seeming more and more likely that we will be left with only being able to choose between the lesser of two evils.

If we decide to vote for Hillary Clinton, can we truly say that she is really the lesser of two evils? Or will she just be the latest installment of an exclusively corporate financed and agendized homogeneous Democrat and/or Republican controlled government that since Jimmy Carter was forced out of office after his one-term presidency ended in 1981 has not deviated in the slightest when it comes to big corporate backed issues like endless oil wars for profit in the Middle East or a complete laissez-faire approach to dealing with the mega-banks and Wall Street that has seen the richest get richer than they have ever gotten before at any other time in history, while the lower, blue collar, and middle classes needs are systematically ignored by government.

Can one really expect the present Democratic Party as constituted will institute any different policies under Hillary Clinton than the Republican Party? All one has to do is point out that the administration of Barack Obama has bombed 7 more countries than Bush, while spying on our allies and going after Edward Snowden and other whistle blowers for their having outed grossly illegal government behavior in complete derrogation of our constitutional rights. And of course, Hillary Clinton was intimately involved with this as Secretary of State from 2009-2013.

Now we are supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton, who has amassed an obscene campaign war chest from Wall Street and the banks, will somehow be able to maintain her ability to objectively deal with multinational corporations who pledge allegiance to the country that gives them the best deal. The expectation of such neutrality from a Hillary Clinton presidency would be in complete derogation of human nature. If the Democrats and Republicans up until now are not enforcing laws that once dealt with such clear conflicts of interest, why would you delude yourself into believing that Hillary would enforce them when she has never done so before? Let's face it, the corporations own her. And one only need look at her political history that started in college with her support for conservative Barry Goldwater to know that she has never had a belief that she was not willing to compromise or outright change for a price or perceived political advantage.

Is there any reason to believe that a third Clinton administration- when the first two got rid of protections like Glass-Steagall- will be anything other than the continued government maintainance of this completely unconscionable laissez-faire approach to dealing with "too big to fail" mega-banks and Wall Street that continue to foster overt corruption with no legal consequences irrespective of whichever party is in power? And when a candidate like Bernie Sanders has dared to question this corporate agenda, Hillary Clinton has attacked him for being an "unrealistic political idealist." Already she has shown a complete unwillingness to question the entrenched corporate agenda, which sees government existing at the will of the exclusively motivated for-profit corporate agenda.

Now, if one can even momentarily conquer their more than justifiable revulsion at the offensive and simplistic superficiality of a Donald Trump, is it fair to ask what a Trump presidency might be like? For starters, one might surprisingly get some insight from the candidacy of a Bernie Sanders and the unprecedentedly successful independently financed and truly revolutionary campaign he has mounted against our present corporate-homogenized government- while all the while having Sanders candidacy relegated to the "not serious" category by corporate media from its inception. Was it coincidential that corporate media took the same approach to Trump...and is still using it against him?

Might the palpable and real fear generated by a Trump presidency finally inspire a similar renaissant democratic motivated and energized electorate- across the political spectrum- that could no longer rationalize their apathy and doing nothing in the face of the extremes that Trump clearly makes possible?

Those who support Sanders...and to some extent those of good faith who support Trump- they're not all wall-building racists- do so because they can no longer rationalize doing nothing in the face of a monomaniacal exclusively for profit motivated corporate controlled government agenda that both the majority of Right and Left in this country unequivocal reject, since those policies taken to their logical and predictable conclusion threaten the very future existence of this country as anything even remotely resembling a democracy.

I recognize the risk of putting a Donald Trump in power, when I harken back to the initial democratic election of Adolph Hitler into power in German in 1933 and what transpired after. But I also see what just might be a much greater and more certain catastrophe, if this country is allowed to continue down a road where the usurpation of our democratic processes by corporations is rationalized by people like Hillary Clinton, when she attacks the New New Deal ideas of a Bernie Sanders as "no longer being realistic."

While you should feel free to send me to hell for my heresy, I would rather encourage you to comment as to why you are so sure that the tepid business as usual approach of a Hillary Clinton in the ever more present reality of things like global warming would be any less threatening to this country then that of a sure to be contested from all sides Donald Trump presidency- the opposition to which might just reinvigorate our comatose democracy. Might such opposition to the limited presidential power of a Donald Trump force a new era of democratic compromise between the Left and the Right that finally challenges the exclusive short-term profit motive of corporations that if allowed to continue unchecked will push this country over the edge?

En Español

Hay un viejo adagio que dice: "Si usted pone una rana en agua hirviendo saltará hacia fuera. Pero si se pone a la rana en agua y poco a poco aumentar la temperatura a su alrededor, se hervirá a la muerte."

Dado que no tenemos el lujo de una democracia parlamentaria, que más a menudo requiere una coalición entre los diferentes partidos políticos con el fin de gobernar. Y dado que no tenemos el "Ninguna de las anteriores" opción en nuestras papeletas, se pareciendo más y más likiely que nos vamos a quedar con sólo ser capaz de elegir entre el menor de dos males.

Si decidimos votar por Hillary Clinton, podemos realmente decir que ella es realmente el menor de dos males? ¿O será que acaba de ser la última entrega de una financiado exclusivamente corporativa y agendized demócrata homogénea y / o gobierno controlado por los republicanos que desde que Jimmy Carter fue obligado a renunciar después de su presidencia de un solo mandato terminó en 1981 no se ha desviado en lo más mínimo cuando se trata de a grandes emisiones respaldadas corporativos como guerras por el petróleo sin fin de lucro en el Medio Oriente o un enfoque laissez-faire para hacer frente a los mega-bancos y Wall Street que ha visto los más ricos se hacen más ricos de lo que nunca han conseguido antes en cualquier otro momento de la historia, mientras que las necesidades más baja, cuello azul, y las clases medias son ignorados sistemáticamente por el gobierno.

Se puede realmente esperar que el actual Partido Demócrata, en su composición se impondrán las políticas diferentes bajo, Hillary Clinton, que el Partido Republicano? Todo lo que hay que hacer es señalar que la administración de Barach Obama ha bombardeado 7 países más que Bush, mientras que espiar a nuestros aliados y yendo después de que Edward Snowden y otros denunciantes para su haber marginado a la conducta del gobierno groseramente ilegal en derrogation completa de nuestra constitucional derechos. Y, por supuesto, Hillary Clinton estuvo íntimamente involucrado con esto como Secretario de Estado para el periodo 2009-2013.

Ahora se supone que debemos creer que Hillary Clinton, que ha acumulado un tesoro de guerra obscena campaña de Wall Street y los bancos, de alguna manera ser capaz de mantener su capacidad para tratar objetivamente las corporaciones multinacionales que prometer lealtad al país que les da la mejor acuerdo. La expectativa de esa neutralidad de una presidencia Hillary Clinton sería una derogación completa de la naturaleza humana. Si los demócratas y republicanos hasta ahora no están haciendo cumplir las leyes que una vez tratadas estas evidentes conflictos de interés, ¿por qué engañarse a sí mismo en la creencia de que Hillary podría valer cuando ella nunca lo ha hecho antes? Seamos realistas, las corporaciones sí misma. Y solo hay que mirar a su historia política que comenzó en la universidad con su apoyo conservador Barry Goldwater saber que ella nunca ha tenido una creencia de que no estaba dispuesto a comprometer o el cambio de plano por un precio o percibida ventaja política.

¿Hay alguna razón para creer que un tercio Administración- Clinton cuando los dos primeros se deshizo de protecciones como la Glass-Steagall- será distinto del continuo mantenimiento gobierno de este enfoque liberal completamente inconcebible que se trata de "demasiado grandes para caer nada "mega-bancos y Wall Street, que siguen fomentando la corrupción manifiesta sin consecuencias legales con independencia de cualquier partido que esté en el poder? Y cuando un candidato como Bernie Sanders ha atrevido a cuestionar esta agenda corporativa, Hillary Clinton lo ha atacado por ser un "político idealista realista." Ya se ha demostrado una falta de voluntad completa a cuestionar la agenda corporativa arraigada, que ve gobierno existente en la voluntad de la agenda corporativa motivada exclusivamente con fines de lucro.

Ahora, si uno ni siquiera momentáneamente puede conquistar su más de repulsión justificable en la superficialidad ofensivo y simplista de un Donald Trump, es justo preguntar lo que una presidencia Trump podría ser como? Para empezar, se podría obtener una idea sorprendente de la candidatura de una Sanders Bernie y el éxito sin precedentes de campaña financiada de forma independiente y verdaderamente revolucionario que ha montado en contra de nuestra actual gobierno--corporativa homogeneizada, mientras que al mismo tiempo tener Sanders candidatura relegado al "no es grave "categoría de los medios de comunicación corporativa desde su creación. Fue coincidential que los medios corporativos tomaron el mismo enfoque para Trump ... y todavía lo está usando en su contra?

Podría el miedo palpable y real generada por una presidencia Trump finalmente inspirar una renaissant similares democrática motivado y con energía a través del espectro- electorado- política que ya no podía racionalizar su apatía y no hacer nada en la cara de los extremos que Trump claramente hace posible?

Los que apoyan Sanders ... y en cierta medida los de buena fe que apoyan Trump- no todos son de construcción de muros racists- lo hacen porque ya no pueden racionalizar el no hacer nada en la cara de un monomaníaco exclusivamente con fines de lucro motivado corporativa agenda del gobierno controlado que tanto la mayoría de derecha y de izquierda en este país inequívoca de rechazo, ya que esas políticas adoptadas para su conclusión lógica y previsible amenazan la propia existencia futura de este país como algo que se parezca ni remotamente una democracia.

Reconozco el riesgo de poner un Donald Trump en el poder, cuando Harken de nuevo a la elección democrática inicial de Adolf Hitler al poder en Alemania en 1933 y lo que ocurrió después. Pero también veo lo que sólo podría ser una catástrofe mucho mayor y más seguro, si se permite que este país para continuar por un camino donde la usurpación de nuestros procesos democráticos por las corporaciones es racionalizado por gente como Hillary Clinton, cuando se ataca al nuevo New Deal ideas de un Bernie Sanders como "ya no ser realista."

Mientras que usted debe sentirse libre de enviarme al infierno por mi herejía, preferiría que animar a hacer comentarios sobre por qué estás tan seguro de que el negocio tibia tradicional perspectiva de una Hillary Clinton en la cada vez más presente realidad de cosas como el calentamiento global sería menos amenazar a este país luego de un seguro de ser impugnada por todos los lados Donald Trump Presidencia- la oposición a la que sólo podría revitalizar nuestra democracia en estado de coma. Podría tal oposición al poder presidencial limitada de un Donald Trump forzar una nueva era de compromiso democrático entre la izquierda y la derecha que finalmente se desafía el exclusivo ánimo de lucro a corto plazo de las empresas que si se permite que continúe sin freno se le empujar este país sobre el borde ?


There isn’t much here to argue until the very end hypothesis suggesting that a Trump presidency might be the lesser of two evils if he spurs awakening and outrage on the part American voters based on what he’ll try to do in office. Rationally speaking, we should consider that both Trump and Clinton share the highest dissatisfaction ratings for candidates ever recorded with Trump having a clear lead. But that seems to be both his strength and weakness if not his forte. He excites people. He draws the full bloom of redneck out of even the most closeted crackers. But would his theoretical term in office bring the voting public to its feet?
Let’s look at the past. Previous to Trump, the most imposing buffoon to hold office award goes to George W. Bush. Here’s a frat party boy who won his first term against Al Gore through blatant sanctioned election booth cheating in Florida and still served a full term in the oval office and then won a second term against John Kerry despite making an absolutely witless ass of himself in every debate within that campaign year. The only memorable moments for this suit wearing chimp were his silly fly boy, half ass Top Gun performances and seeing him duck a shoe thrown at him while addressing a news conference in a foreign nation. But where was the outrage or, at least the point where America said enough is enough? It never happened.
Compare that to Trump with his mugging expression, burlesque level, comb over pompadour and his penchant for insulting women and every minority or perceived minority. How much damage would he do in office as compared to Clinton?
With Clinton we would see the same bowing to corporations and bell outs for them when they became endangered. We would also continue to support every dictator and potentate that she saw as being good for big business. Makes no difference if they were Saudis beheading and cutting off the heads and hands of dissenters or Zionists trying to drive Palestinians into extinction. With Trump we would find him attempting to launch his global war against Muslims, any kind of foreigner and anyone or group he sees as too foreign for his tastes and, of course, building the Great Wall of Trump along the American/Mexican border. Certainly he wouldn’t be entirely successful at putting his all of wishes into motion but he would certainly enhance our list of enemies and reduce out list of allies. But would that outrage the American public? First think about the media. It would love him. Every late night talk show would feature a skit on him every night. Sure that would poke fun at him but it would also soften the perception of his blundering in office. You can almost see Bill O’Reilly salivating at the opportunity to tuck his red neck back under his collar so he can pretend to be neutral or slightly critical of Trump. And this would all be stock entertain for the American public, a public which seems to prefer entertainment over substance. On this one, we just can’t win to save ourselves. There is no lesser of two evils.


I would not refer to H. Clinton's policies as a "tepid business as usual approach". Instead, it may be better to characterize it as an aggressive move to entrench oligarchy.

Under Clinton, we should expect to see significantly more concentration of wealth at the top, significantly more deregulation of banking and major corporations, an increase in Jim Crow laws, more torture of prisoners, more poison in our water, and more restrictions on abortion access (if you are poor). We should also expect a hot war or two, somewhere.

Let's keep working to elect people who are not corrupt. Let's reject evil, regardless of its degree.

Thank you for your work, Lennie.


Leave a comment