|
Edited on Tue Jan-24-06 04:44 PM by Peace Patriot
tabulation in the U.S. with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, and with virtually no audit/recount controls, in an election system put in place by a $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle, compliments of Tom Delay, aimed an entirely corrupting our election system, and at lining the pockets of Bush's buds at Diebold and ES&S. Until this egregiously fraudulent election system is discarded by the American people, we will have no say in who our candidate for president is in 2008, no say in who is "elected," and little or no say in the composition of Congress.
2. Personally, I think Hillary has already been selected by the War Party, and has maybe even made a deal about becoming president. She's a woman after the main chance, and she knows perfectly well, I think, what positions she must take in order to be so selected, in the poisonous, fascist atmosphere of DC/NY/corporate war profiteering power politics. 60% of the country despises Bush and his war and, indeed, everything he stands for (poll after poll after poll after poll), yet we will NOT be permitted to nominate a candidate who represents that huge, 60%, progressive American majority. Instead, we will get someone who LIKES Bush's murderous war and who is just as much of a hypocrite as he is, as to using "the flag" to murder tens of thousands of people who possess the oil that we want. I am reviling her here, but I WILL support her--if my guess is right, NOT that she's a shoo-in among voters (Americans wouldn't choose a pro-war candidate on their own), but that she's the anointed and "selected" one, by the War Party. See #3 for my reason for supporting her (after the Primaries).* The War Democrat side of the War Party (about half of our Democratic leadership) wants to keep the war profits coming in, and also have the lunatic idea that the US military being fully present and fully hated in the Middle East somehow protects Israel. The fascist side of the War Party (all Republicans) want, a) a military Draft (Bush can't do it), b) a Democrat to put down the food riots, Draft protests, veterans' protests, and so on, c) a Democrat to invade Iran and Syria (they will arrange Gulf of Tonkin II for that purpose), and d) a Democrat whom they can start blaming for Bush's domestic and foreign policy disasters, preparatory to their installation of the real Hitler in '12. (I have thought that would be Jeb, but these days I'm thinking Donald Rumsfeld.) In '12, we will then see what all these extraordinary executive powers that Bush is setting up, are for.
*3. I think a War Democrat can be talked into serious election reform. Even a War Democrat has to pay lip service to progressive values, such as transparent elections. Getting our election system back into the public venue, and out of the hands of private Bushite corporations is a MUST DO, PRIORITY #1 item for me. Without transparent elections, we have guaranteed fascist rule forever, and our democracy is over. So, after putting my two cents worth in during the Primaries, on the candidate who is most anti-war and most progressive, I will do everything I can for Hillary, with election reform at the forefront of my mind, and I hope to help put it on her legislative agenda, for a quick federal fix (along the lines of Russ Holt's HR 550) of the currently NON-TRANSPARENT system, to get as much transparency as possibly as soon as possible (and we can push for more in the state/local election reform movements). I am reminded of Martin Luther King trying to head a civil rights movement, and achieve voting rights for black citizens, in the midst of the Vietnam war. You cannot ignore the larger reality, but you have to stay focused on what you consider THE most important reform for long term benefit.
----
Note: Why would Hillary need my help? Diebold and ES&S can't simply manufacture an election--not yet anyway. The candidate has to have some support--you can't tweak the vote if there aren't any. The candidate has to get competitive, to be Diebolded into office. This is the only strategy that makes sense to me, given Bushite control of the vote count--to go with their Democrat (after the Primaries), and hope that, a) they've decided to go with a War Democrat, to have somebody to blame for everything; or b) that, if they haven't, we can catapult her/him into office with an overwhelming vote. (In 2004, I believe they were limited by the need to pre-program certain percentages of vote switching from Kerry to Bush, and we could possibly overcome this automatic disadvantage in any Diebold/ES&S controlled election with a huge turnout.)
------------
I realize how cynical all this must sound to some. But I do NOT intend it in any way as cynical or sarcastic. I think that we must strategize on the basis of truth and reality. What I've said about the election system is the truth--it is real and provable. A lot of what I've said about Hillary Clinton is based on long experience as a U.S. voter (first vote in 1964), and as a political activist and observer of the American political scene. It is my best guess. (There are other possible scenarios.) But the upshot is that I think the deck is totally stacked this time, and it is folly to think that we, the people, will have any say in who our candidate is, or who gets selected for major offices. We have to deal with this REALISTICALLY and try to get our election system back in public control.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
