I hate this goddamned process we have in this country, I hate the people who own it, who participate in it, and who write about it. Each and every one of those entities is fully committed -- whether they know it or not, whether they admit it or not -- to maintaining a vicious status quo, a system whose only purpose is to keep the proles tethered to a machine that milks them steadily, from birth to death, in an endless cycle of wage slavery and debt peonage.
The media narrative is tautological; Hillary Clinton is ELECTABLE, because we say she's electable. Bernie Sanders is NOT ELECTABLE, because STOOPID MURKINS think he's COMMUNIST. Forget that Sanders has attracted crowds comparable in size and passion to Trump's, with a mere fraction of the media coverage. Trump picks his nose and smears his greasy boogers across his Twitter feed daily and they can't pimp it fast enough; Sanders could fuck and behead a live goat at the National Mall and it would barely register notice.
All of this nonsense, of course, is this year's model of rear-guard nagging and DFH-punching, lest anyone get a mind of their own and go full Nader. Here's an idea: why don't you save your fucking finger-pointing for all the registered Democrats who are going to jump ship for whoever the Republican nominee ends up being, simply because they don't like Hillary? Because I can promise you, that's going to be a much larger number.
I dunno, can anyone think of a reason why people might have this perception of Hillary Clinton as off-putting, disingenuous, transparently insincere (a real accomplishment, in an industry characterized by its high levels of insincerity)? Could it be the massive amounts of money she and her husband continue to rake in for public speaking fees to the vipers and thieves of the world? You think people don't make the connection that since her husband's repeal of Glass-Steagall fucked up the economy and made the scumbags at Goldman Sachs even more obscenely wealthy than they already were, her personal enrichment doesn't smack of corrupt log-rolling? You wonder why average people don't trust her to represent their interests at all?
As opinionated as I have endeavored to be here over the years, I don't presume to tell people whom they should and shouldn't vote for. I try to find relevant facts about the players, and put them in a context and present some sort of coherent analysis of it all, probably with much less success than I might like. But if you want to vote for Donald Trump, go for it. Just understand that unless you happen to in his elite class of pelf-grubbing "net worth" cocksuckers who use money simply as a tool for keeping score, you will get nothing but a brief blast of the entertaining illusion of empowerment.
And I'm repulsed by people who do think it's their role to lecture other people about why they should vote for someone who plainly doesn't represent them on any level. Usually this revolves around making sure that the right sort of SCOTUS judges get appointed, and that Roe v. Wade remains intact, even though every Republican governor and state legislature has already gutted it in any practical sense, state by state by state. The impetus of their considered opinion is that we should just eat shit because so-and-so will preserve what's left of reproductive rights, even if people won't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, because the same candidate also can't seem to pull Wall Street's pelf-engorged cock out of their mouths.
These halfwits have inflicted themselves upon the opinion journals of this country like maggots on roadkill, to no benefit at all to anyone. In fact, it is their refusal to understand that there are far more Democratic voters who defect to the Republican candidate than there are self-absorbed progressives who selfishly vote for a loser protest candidate, that has caused the most harm. It's what makes them end up with crap candidates like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, instead of developing a deeper, fresher roster and crafting a message that actually addresses the concerns of average Americans. To expect Hillary Clinton to do anything about those concerns, when she has directly partnered with and benefited from the very entities that have victimized the peons, is ludicrous.
And that's what Senator Bernie Sanders has done, is craft just such a message, and it is resonating. If the self-appointed media nannies expended as much energy getting that message out, instead of regurgitating the oft-vomited conventional wisdom, maybe Sanders would be more ELECTABLE, per their renowned criteria for such things.
Look. Chances are that Clinton will indeed become the Democratic nominee, since she has the money, the name, and the party support. In such an instance, I'll hold my nose and vote for her, because I recognize that everyone on the Republican side is either a moron or a psychopath (and in the case of several of them, both). I'm willing to bet serious money that most real Democratic voters will as well. The fact is that there is probably less than 1% of the registered Democratic vote who will tack left to a protest candidate instead of Clinton.
But you can bet even more money that the number of registered Democrats who jump ship to the Republican candidate will be much greater. And you can bet the farm that the hectoring nannies will have fuck-all to say about any of that. They're like Lucy with the football -- every four years, they nag you into Doing The Right Thing, and when nothing changes, they tell you to just wait another four years, over and over, until you eventually die, and are finally relieved of having to listen to their fruitless jabber.