Content Advisory

Content Advisory: Whereas: this blog occasionally employs "colorful language,"

may also occasionally contain implicit and explicit references to

tobacco, alcohol, and other substances, as well as sexuality,

and favors logic over dogma, any or all of which may offend some,

and whereas I may occasionally give disclaimers,

but I do NOT give "trigger warnings,"

therefore, be it resolved that: this blog is intended for mature readers.

However, this blog is not age-restricted.



Monday, November 14, 2016

The City on the Edge of Forever




The City on the Edge of Forever,
or,
Post-Election Musings,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)


"For when the One Great Scorer comes
To mark against your name,
He writes – not that you won or lost –
But HOW you played the Game."
~ Grantland Rice, "Alumnus Football"



The quote above, from a poem by famed sportswriter Grantland Rice, is often paraphrased as "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."  We, who supported Doctor Jill Stein of the Green Party of the United States, did not win the election a few days ago.  Doctor Stein will not take the office of President of the United States of America in January.  This turn of events was not unexpected.  Going into the voting booths, we knew that Jill had very little chance of actually winning the election, but we voted for her anyway.  We could not support the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the bigotry and chauvinism of Donald Trump, or the "Objectivist" nonsense of Gary Johnson.  We voted our consciences.  Some would say that we lost.  I would say that we didn't win the election, but we also didn't lose, because we held fast to our principles, even though the outcome of the election is not what we would have preferred.

There has been a lot of speculation about "What if" since the results came in.  What if Bernie Sanders had accepted Jill Stein's offer to become her running mate?  What if Hillary and her drones had not rigged the primary to favor Hillary and undermine Bernie?  What if this?  What if that?  We cannot know with certainty the answers to those speculative questions.  If Bernie had become Jill's VP running mate, I am certain that the Greens would have gotten far more than 5% of the vote, but as it happened, he did not, and the Greens got less than 5%.  I believe that if Bernie had accepted Jill's offer, the Greens would have had a very good chance of actually winning, but without some means of travel to, or at least viewing of, an alternate timeline in which he did accept her offer, the ultimate outcome of such a situation will never be known, at least to us who have no such means at our disposal.

As usual, and as we expected, Hillary and her drones have attempted to put the blame for Hillary's loss on everyone but themselves.  It is a symptom of psychopathology to be unwilling to admit fault, and Mrs Clinton has evinced this symptom for years.  They have attempted to blame Russia, FBI Director James Comey, disgruntled Berners, and supporters of both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  The number tally demonstrates quite clearly that third party voters did not cost Hillary the election, but this is a mythology which the Democrats have credulously embraced whole-heartedly ever since 2000 when they claimed (falsely) that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election.  Reams of paper have been printed on which this blame of anyone and everyone other than Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, and all their cohorts and trolls has been published.  Fortunately, considerably more reams of paper have been printed on which the blame has been appropriately and correctly aimed at those who are actually responsible:  Hillary and her pals in the corrupt DNC and the corporate-owned, establishment, main stream media, and her condescending, insulting, and obnoxious disciples.

Not content with promoting what they referred to as "pied piper" candidates in the Republican primary, not content with anti-democratic collusion to promote Hillary and marginalize Bernie, these fools heaped insult upon injury by castigating, shaming, and mocking the Progressive Leftist base of the Democratic Party, attempting to bully them into supporting Hillary's bid for the presidency.  A certain narrative was repeated from her previous attempt, namely, that anyone who did not support Hillary was a sexist and a chauvinist and a misogynist.  That didn't work too well when many of us were supporting another woman instead of Hillary, and so they decided to attempt to besmirch Doctor Stein's reputation by making all manner of baseless claims about her supposed "anti-scientific" beliefs.  If this had happened in any sphere other than politics, they would rightly have been sued for slander and libel, and they would have lost that suit.  Doctor Jill Stein is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, who studied Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, who even served as an instructor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.  The claims made about her by the pro-Hillary crowd are nothing short of libel and slander (and Harvard should sue for slander and libel, too), but they have been debunked repeatedly.  Still, some of the gullibles continued parroting those claims up to and after the election.

Even after the election, however, Hillary's cultists continue to claim that Hillary lost because of sexism, but at the same time, they claim it was the fault of Jill Stein supporters.  The self-referential incoherence is astounding.

We did not support Mrs Clinton for many, many reasons, but sexism was not one of those, at least not sexism on our part.

While we mocked her and at times insulted her and her supporters, anything we said about them pales in comparison to the vitriol which they directed at us.  Tu Quoque is still a fallacy, I admit.  I will not attempt to justify our insults of them by pointing to their insults of us.  Our insults of them, however, were based on firmer foundation than anything they said about us, and so evade the charge of Argumentum ad Hominem.  Not every insult is fallacious.  On the field of politics, moreover, the game is one of rhetoric and not Logic, and so insults are all too common, and even expected.  It is of course preferable when they are based on some reality, rather than manufactured out of thin air.  No, our insults were true;  the supporters of Hillary really ARE a gaggle of gullibles.  Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton is or ever was a champion of women, the LGBTI community, Liberalism, Progressive ideals, or Leftism is excruciatingly gullible, for she was and is none of those things.

They tried to scare us into voting for Hillary, too, but after having heard this bullshit over and over again from the Democrats every time they put forth a deeply flawed candidate, we didn't buy it:

"If you don't vote for Hillary, you'll get the big bad wolf!"
:: yawn ::
"But, but, but ... TRUMP!"
Okay?
"He's a fascist!"
So is Hillary.
"How can you say that?  You've been reading Right Wing propaganda!"
No, toots, I've been reading WikiLeaks, but I also lived in Arkansas for all but about a year of the time her husband was Governor of the state, and I do my own research.  I might accidentally know a little more about her than your twenty-something-year-old Yankee ass which only listens to partisan Democrat and condescending pseudo-Liberal propaganda does.

Now after the election, they try to blame us.  Evidently, they are mathematically incompetent, because even if every third party voter had not voted for Jill or Johnson, it doesn't mean we would have voted for Hillary, and she would still have lost.  "You're responsible for this!"  No, you are.  I voted for an ethical candidate.  You voted for a candidate who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the ass, a candidate who apparently engaged in pay for play schemes, a candidate whose lust for war contributed to deaths of millions around the world, a candidate who admitted to her wealthy corporate donors that she had both a public and a private position, a candidate who advocated for toppling the Syrian government because Zionism, a candidate whose ambition and lust for wealth and power and position and prestige dominated her psyche to such an extent that she would not do what was right for the Republic and instead clung to her stolen nomination when she should have stepped down in favor of the candidate who could have won, in the midst of not one but two criminal investigations of her activities, a woman who derided and smeared other women who were victims of, or collaborators in, Bill's philandering, because she wouldn't admit the truth that she is not enough for Bill, and not enough for America.

No, we didn't win.  But we didn't lose, either, because Hillary did not win.  And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether we won or lost;  it matters that we were true to our principles.  I daresay few Hillary supporters can honestly make the same claim.  Suck it up, buttercup, you lost the election for your Queen (Wanna)Bee.  I'm not happy that Donald Trump won, but I am utterly delighted that Hillary Clinton lost.  I just hope Trump follows through on his declared intention to have a REAL investigation of Hillary, because the pimpette of Wall Street belongs in prison, for so, so many reasons.  Do you need a "safe space"?  Tough shit.  Go to Canada if you have the spine to do so.  We'll still be here, fighting for Progressive Left-libertarian ideals and goals, while you delicate little neurotics run away from an imaginary boogeyman.

And we'll sleep soundly at night, knowing that we were true to our values.  We may not have won, but we played the Game ethically, with honor and integrity, which is far more than I can say for Hillary and her drones.


Ἀστραῖα












The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 28;  episode 28 overall;  production code 28.


Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 



No comments:

Post a Comment