What Happened?

So, Hillary Clinton is releasing her new book, and I have all the intentions of writing a long winded commentary of it chapter by chapter over the course of the next month, while giving my personal views of it, and as already known about my current view (which will be restated here), and how it changes after attempting to see her point of view of this debacle. But in the meantime, since I have yet to read it, you get suck listening to me talk about a press release made today, and some other things.

The first thing I am going to talk about is Ms. Sanders talking point about Trump being the leader of the GOP, and how this is true of any political party. You see the PotUS, while being pretty impotent in terms of political power, is the defacto leader of his or her party. The same is true of any Presidential nominee. Dr. Stein is the leader of the Green Party, Clinton the leader of the Democratic Party, Gary Johnson is the leader of the Libertarian Party. They set the tone for the policy each party wants to implement. Dr. Stein would want to investigate the effects of vaccines, cell phones and Wi-Fi, while pushing those in Congress to alter various aspects of vaccinations, and investigating further the effects of cell phone and Wi-Fi use on the human mind. Clinton implementing her third-way triangulating neo-liberal policies, and Trump... Yeah Trump is just going to do what the GOP generally does, lower taxes for the wealthy, deregulate everything (the same thing Clinton would do), and otherwise push back against pro-choice policies (among other things). You can scream that this years Democratic Party Platform was the most liberal ever created (at least in the modern era of politics), but ultimately, it was nonbinding, and she would have had the final say in the matter. As it stands, the Democratic Party is heavily stocked with conservative Democrats. At any point I expect to hear the Honorable Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, switches parties and goes full on GOP, because if you are honest and really look at the man, outside of a few ideological talking points, the man is a Republican. The thing is, he is not alone, we watched as Jim Justice defected to the GOP (which he has always been a big business Republican), and there are countless others who could very well switch sides, even someone like Tim Kaine, former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. You see, he is a fairly conservative Democratic Senator hailing from a fairly conservative state.

Up next, is the Clinton saga, this is really as bad as a daily soap opera you see on TV. She accepted her part of the blame in her election loss, but turns around and continues to point fingers in other directions. Yeah, going to rehash this again, for the millionth freaking time, again, because it just seems to constantly come back around. Hey there are six (6) dead elders in a nursing home in Florida after Irma, more are expected to die, from a storm that was made much much worse because of Global Climate Change/Disruption, but hey, we have to rehash this Clinton loss for the billionth time, because... So, when this spot came up on CNN, I just shook my head. Look, Clinton has the right to write anything she wants, its still a mostly free country anyway, people are mostly free to write books if they want to, for now anyway, and good for her. I don't want to see her “dead broke again.” But at this point, she is “taking her part in the blame,” but also pointing out the extenuating circumstances, and her cult of personality is eating it up like the Cookie Monster and, well, cookies. At this point, the list of who is to blame for this past presidential election rivals a Stephen King tome. Yeah, generally when I accept the blame for something, I don't deflect. I take the brunt of it. Basically, I don't say, “Yeah I messed up, but so and so was doing this which caused me to do that.” Own it, don't deflect. It is one thing to say that you messed up, you are at fault, and that you would have done things differently given the situation, as you saw it. It is another when you say, “I am to blame because I didn't do things right, but if this had not have happened, I would have been perfectly fine.” That is what is currently happening. Hey, if Russian hadn't hacked the DNC email, then Wikileaks wouldn't have released the emails, we would have won. Eh, at this time, I stand by what I said then. Its not the problem that the emails were leaked, its not that I read through some, but largely ignored it, its that these emails even existed in the first place. Its the fact that our elected officials, and those who head up our parties are so completely stupid, that their emails were hacked. That is my problems with them. It is the fact that they even exist, its the fact that they were accessible, and its the belief that it doesn't even matter. Rather than focusing on the fact that they were hacked, solely that they were hacked, we should be focusing on why they even exist, and how this happened. Priorities people, first we need to find out why they even exist, then how they were hacked. Then we put a stop to both people. FFS its not rocket science. Oh, but it is, because a handful of people don't understand the basics of email. Sorry, I've had an email for nearly twenty (20) years here, and never once has it been hacked. Its been cloned a few times, but that was back in the day when I had the letters I and L in the email, and usually it was when I had angered someone I had encountered online and they wanted to play rough (Thank you AOL RP).

Next I have the, “Why did I bother coming back to FB?” question. Anymore, I find FB largely trivial, full of angst, and well, repetitive, just the same as the news. It is, after all, an extension of the whole “Whose to Blame?” thing that Clinton is continuing to perpetrate, and her followers continue to feed upon. First off, let me say, as so many have, we get it. Alright? I think by and large every person who voted against Trump and Clinton, all what, 3% of us understand the “damage” we did (those who voted for anyone but Clinton and Trump), at this point I would hope that the 40% some odd people who said “Screw this!” and didn't even go to the polls understand what they did, or maybe they don't care. Too busy with other things they consider more important, or couldn't go vote for whatever reason. Doesn't really matter now, does it? Clinton won the popular, but lost because people were disinclined to vote for her in some key states. That is on her campaign, it didn't do its job, she failed as a candidate that was flawed like every other candidate. Now, before someone jumps up and says “Are you implying Bernie was perfect?” Far from it, the man is not perfect, it just happens that I politically agree with him more than anyone else who was running, and as such, that was where my vote would naturally go. I don't agree with him on everything, and I know my ideals are flawed, so it should go without saying that if my ideas are flawed, and I agree with his ideals at times, it would mean that some of those ideals we share are flawed. So, that whole, “Don't let perfect be the enemy of serviceable” thing a moot point in my book. Bernie was not the perfect candidate, he has issues, just like the twenty (20) GOP candidates, Stein, Johnson, Supreme, and everyone else who ran. Bernie was never a God, he was a guy running for a political office, just like everyone else. It just so happened that those things that many of us disagreed with him on, probably could have been reconciled, or overlooked. I'm not entirely behind a Single Payer System, I would prefer a Single Payer Option, but would accept either option if presented, more so if they could reign in hospital charges, and stop this process of corporations taking over every hospital in the US. In my mind, both of those options are preferable to what we have now. But even if what we have currently could limit the costs at the insurance level, and at the hospital levels, I wouldn't be totally against it as a starting point. Some of the PPACA is awesome, but much of it is lacking (basically dump the ACA because its not all that affordable now, and keep the PP and medicare/medicaid expansion, just take it out of the states hands and fund it via the Federal government).

Then we have this double speak coming out of many of the Clinton Wing members. They call for unification against Trump, while continuing to take shots against those who didn't side with Clinton. Well, where I reside, Clinton won. She won the state (which is very conservative), and the City (which is super-conservative tea party country). My vote (and the 20 or so of us who voted for neither candidate) did not in any way influence the general flow of the election, all we did was not pad the General Election numbers, and if the Clinton Wing wants to be honest or even attempt real research, they would find that what I am saying was the case in most areas. There are, what, two or three states in which that might not be the case? And if we really look back at the election, and are honest about how we really saw this playing out, the contradictions are to blame here. Clinton said things that did not play well to those in specific areas, her campaign failed to see the warning signs, and people tend to get angry when they feel like they are being played, and they felt like they were getting played. But here we stand, being told we must unify against the GOP and against Trump, while on the other hand we are being told that its all our fault for the GOP and Trump winning. We are told that we are far too rigid, and yes we are often too rigid in some of our beliefs. I admit it comes to my core issues, those things I hold most dear, I am rigid, unwavering about how I would proceed. Once again, if one is honest, they would admit that they are also rigid in those beliefs. The thing is, where people are rigid, is different. I am fair less rigid in my ideals about healthcare than I am about eliminating the endless sums of money in our politics. I know how I am personally, I know that if given a large sum of money, I am going to pay more attention to the desires of the person giving me that money. I might not agree with them, I might feel that their desires are wrong and go against the grain, but I will still listen. The problem is, not all people think like that, and it is good and bad. Certainly, to make the best choice, one should listen to a variety of sources, but some people are only concerned about what benefits them. Certainly I am not on board with a Single Payer System, preferring an Option System, and its not about tax increases (which saps money out of income). In my mind it is a question of the potential privatization phase that will follow, and the damage it will eventually do, because we as Americans cannot seem to keep a coherent line of progression going. We'll get it, then in four, eight or twelve years, we'll inevitably decide to reverse political course and then it'll get privatized for the sake of debt reduction, and we'll have a system similar to what the UK currently has, and while its certainly better than our own current programs, it falls short in terms of actual care. Those things that are not at the core of my political ideology, I can work with, if I trust the candidate I am about to vote for is serious about discussing those things. I support the second amendment for most people, ideally people would be able to be trusted with firearms, that people who are violent criminals would never have access to them, but it has been shown that, we simply cannot trust all people with them. Some safeguards are required to ensure the safety of all. That means that I, as a participant in politics, will have to find common ground with those who want strong regulations of the sale and possession of firearms. It requires give and take, and certainly there are all stripes of politically active persons who cannot give anything. Its not limited to progressives.

Remember back to Iowa? Yeah, since we are dragging up the past, might as well go full throttle. Clinton said Single Payer would never happen, at one point anyway. It was a theoretical discussion while people are suffering. Well, people are suffering, because of a flawed bill, because lets be honest here, whats the point of having medical insurance if you can't afford to use it? So, her solution, keep the PPACA as is, I guess, I mean I never heard what her plan was to fix it. Just the alternative, going back to how it was before, which is a bad thing. No doubt, that is a bad thing, just as bad as what we are seeing now. Fewer choices in coverage, higher costs for said coverage, and hospitals making a killing in profits. So, the alternatives for compromise were, continued useless insurance coverage or not having insurance at all. Pretty lousy choices, if you ask me, that equate to the same thing. No healthcare coverage at all, unless something catastrophic happens. In this case, the compromise was not all that appealing, and that is the problem. Compromise for the sake of compromise isn't a compromise at all. Its a bad deal, going in the wrong direction, but dictated as what has to be done. Its not good, because we all loose, and the people who win are the ones who have started rigging the game.

The fact of it all boils down to this. We won't drain the swamp in DC until we drain the swamp in the Democratic Party, in our local and state offices. I cannot stress that enough. Until we start purging the conservative members of the Democratic Party, we cannot drain the swamp. Just because someone is pro-choice, but conservative on nearly everything else, we cannot really call them liberal. Now, I realize that people are never fully liberal or conservative, we are all degrees of moderate, the problem is that people tend to label people based on one or two policy positions as a liberal or conservative. The GOP is certainly more conservative than the Democratic Party, but what do you do when the goal of the Democratic Party is to snag up all those more moderate conservatives? The more moderate Republicans are still very conservative when it comes to finances, even if they are slightly more liberal when it comes to social matters. By liberal on social matters, they might not be all that concerned about abortion, or welfare. They are still concerned about budget costs, having a strong interventionist military policy, and deregulating everything, while breaking unions (which I have no love for).

As it stands we are watching the fragmentation of the two big parties, and we are well within the throws of it. Eventually it will settle out, it always does, and usually one party dies as a result. As it stands, it will probably be the Democratic Party this time, and from its ashes a new more liberal party will come along. But don't count out the GOP going away either. As it becomes more entrenched and radicalized, it will continue to shed members, and the Democratic Party will continue to court these voters, and as a result it will also loose members. As it stands today, nearly half of voters consider themselves to be independent, and the first party that comes along and actively seeks those people out, will be the real winner of this political realignment.