As for Hillary vs. Bernie:
Well, certainly
if you're going to vote at all for a potentially viable candidate, Bernie is
the best choice. That said, he's too much of a hawk for me to be very happy
with him. If the perpetual war isn't ended, none of the other problems are
going to be adequately addressed, because there won't be the funding available.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the difference between Bernie and Hillary, or even
any of the GOP assholes, is largely cosmetic.
As for Bernie’s “Political Revolution”:
To me, what it
boils down to is that Bernie was an activist in the '60s and must remember well
what happened in the presidential election of 1968 and again--to a lesser
extent--in the election of 1972. So for him to imply that a
"revolutionary" change is going to occur now, within the two-party
system, is disingenuous. If he were a true “revolutionary,” he would have run
as an independent and not worried about what that did to the Democratic Party
(to which he does not belong.)
The choice between Bernie and Hillary in terms of workable policy is basically a coin toss.
The one thing that I care most about is ending the Orwellian perpetual war in the Middle East. And on that consideration, the difference between Bernie, Hillary and any of the GOP thugs is basically another coin toss: they are all hawks, even if it is for slightly different reasons.
The choice between Bernie and Hillary in terms of workable policy is basically a coin toss.
The one thing that I care most about is ending the Orwellian perpetual war in the Middle East. And on that consideration, the difference between Bernie, Hillary and any of the GOP thugs is basically another coin toss: they are all hawks, even if it is for slightly different reasons.
As for a Michael Bloomberg
candidacy:
I really can't take the prospect of a Bloomberg candidacy
seriously. In the first place, nobody in fly-over territory knows who he is, or
cares. And he doesn't have time to tell them. Americans don't like New York, or
New Yorkers. Other former NYC mayors have had presidential aspirations and
quickly found that their tenure in that office was minimally negotiable, at
best—more probably, a negative.
Bloomberg is
a rich Jew. Many Americans, whether publicly or privately, don't much like rich
Jews. Bernie is at least not a billionaire. He is rich by the standards of
ordinary working people, I suppose--but it's not his primary claim to fame.
Bloomberg
running would just be a stunt--like Nader's candidacies were stunts--not a
thing to be taken seriously.
Add to that—Bloomberg
is boring. Boring doesn't sell; particularly not in today's political climate.
I think the idea of a Bloomberg run for president is a non-starter.
Finally, on
the subject of a Bloomberg candidacy, people in fly-over territory would vote
for another Kenyan Marxist who's coming for their guns faster than they would
vote for a New York Oligarch who's coming for their Super-Sized fast food
sodas.
As
for Bernie’s demographics:
It's also true that Bernie Sanders is originally from New
York City. (At least a small percentage of the Americans who know that Bernie
is originally from Brooklyn also know that Brooklyn is part of New York
City.)
Bernie, however, has had the good sense to get out of that
vile place where his mother happened to have been when he dropped from the womb
and into Vermont: Bernie is now a full-fledged, gun-totin' Green Mountain Boy!
He’s been inoculated against his New-York-Jewishness by the fresh mountain air.
As for Donald Trump’s chances:
It's true that Donald Trump, who has drawn a fairly large
number of enthusiastic followers, is both a billionaire and a New Yorker. But
he is also a xenophobic fascist. Americans like fascists. Atlas Shrugged
continues to be a best-seller sixty years after its publication. But I don't
really believe that Trump will get the nomination. One way or another, it will
go to a career politician, because The Machine is stronger than any individual.
