It harms the spirit to think that the 2016 presidential election has distilled our collective vision to a choice between a war hawk who will assuredly leave a trail of black, brown, olive and yellow limp bodies — as well as a few white Slavic ones — across four continents, and another candidate where there’s a widely-held fear that a domestic version of the first candidate’s Global Body Count Tour is inevitable.
Plus I haven’t touched on the economic repercussions either option can bring to a global stage. More on that in another piece …
I’m sure this is the same conundrum Bernie Sanders is agonizing about, while people wonder why he hasn’t yet endorsed the Deep State’s Most Favored Candidate of 2016.
Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren appears to have made her choice — even in the face of all she knows about her endorsee’s predilection for the same monetary gangstas who destroyed much of Western and Eastern civilization in 2008.
And it’s not as if we’ll blissfully drown in domestic tranquility, should the Global Body Count option occupy the Big Chair next year.
Think of it this way — even with an African descendant sitting in the same chair for the past seven years who also expressed his lack of patience for America’s racial hatred and its shock troops of faux patriots, the number of faux patriots have increased like hives in reaction to a darkie infection.
Therefore, pardon my bitter laughter when you tell me the Domestic Body Count option will encourage these faux Patriots to act badly.
You mean, these bigots don’t already feel encouraged?
But you think the Deep State’s Most Favored Candidate will have a better run of luck in containing this hatred?
Back to choices — indecision is why the Feel the Bern Leader’s presidential campaign leverage is damn-near self-immolating. Warren’s endorsement of Deep State’s Most Favored Candidate of 2016 is going to have a glass-over-the-match effect if a choice — either way — isn’t made soon.
“So, what would happen to the rest of the world should we choose domestic chaos?” you may ask.
Let’s get really-real for a moment. Many of you aren’t asking that question at all.
I’ll answer in the order of benign, good and bad news: still a wild card, for the most part; we would likely see fewer wars; the one imminent war we’ll have with this option in the White House is going to be sufficiently nasty to make you understand that not all countries America has beef with is going to look like Panama.
Okay, I’ll hit a fraction of those economic repercussions I rapped about. Read this.
In addition to body count dilemmas, neither option has a sterling track record in fighting social stagnation and income inequality.
So … our choice, unfortunately, comes down to where we want the resulting body count to be performed.
Too bad our immersion in making our local hustle sing the right notes for the day stops many of us from seeing the link between fired Ohio factory workers, Baltimore’s Freddie Gray, Pakistani mothers who struggle to find the path forward after losing their babies to drone strikes and Ukrainians who are enjoying freedom.
Instead, we will effectively agonize — if not fight — over where we should count the bodies …
I fully intend to vote this year, but this blog will not publish a presidential endorsement. Given my love for fluid thinking should I encounter new data from what I see today, I reserve the freedom to change my mind …
song currently stuck in my head: “long live the queen” – kira neris