Is Austin's Progressive Identity a Sham?

Standing across the street from Austin's NBC affiliate (KXAN), 

Robin S. protests the RNC/DNC duopoly on the presidential debates.

I live in Austin--a city that bills itself as a progressive bastion within the conservative state of Texas. But the more politically engaged I become, the less evidence I see to support this claim.

If alternative parties (such as the Greens and Libertarians) stand a chance anywhere in Texas, it should be in our self-consciously "weird" capital city, which blends the energy of politics, academia, technology, and entertainment. Austinites think of themselves as creative, empowered, and informed. So if any city in Texas should be clamoring for an alternative to the status quo, it should be Austin--right? 

Last evening, NBC aired a Commander-in-Chief Forum in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were presumably encouraged to explain why it's vitally important for all of us, as Americans, to rededicate ourselves to the task of imprisoning ourselves while terrorizing everyone else on the planet.

I didn't see the program because I was outside the local NBC affiliate protesting the fact that neither the Greens' Jill Stein nor the Libertarians' Gary Johnson will be allowed to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.

The email invitation I received to the protest indicated that supporters of Stein and Johnson should gather outside the NBC affiliate at 7 p.m. to let the world know how dissatisfied Americans are with Trump and Clinton as the major party candidates.

Since the email reached me just a few hours before the protest was scheduled to begin, I didn't expect much of a turnout.

In fact, I was one of only three people who showed up. I enjoyed meeting my fellow protestors (Robin and Elliot), but I'm unsure how much of an impact our trio had. When Elliot stepped away for a drink of water and I crossed the street to take the photo above, our protest looked like one man holding one flag.

I'm not sure anyone inside the NBC building even noticed that we were standing outside.

There was no reason for me to be disappointed by low turnout at a last-minute protest, but I was distressed by several things that became clear to me last night.

Problem #1: The invitation that I received from the Green Party yesterday suggested that this protest would be a joint effort between Greens and Libertarians, so I was disappointed to see that no Libertarians at all showed up.

It's not clear to me if the Greens reached out to the Libertarians on a national level or if it was left up to local Greens to reach out to their local Libertarian counterparts. If the message was supposed to be transmitted at the local level, then it would have been helpful for the email generated at the national level to indicate as much. But in any case, there clearly needs to be stronger communication between Greens and Libertarians in Austin. We may not see eye-to-eye on economics, but both Greens and Libertarians see the wars on terror and drugs for what they are: governmental excuses for oppression.

Solution #1: At an upcoming event featuring Martina Salinas, the Green candidate for Texas Railroad Commissioner, I hope to find out which of the local Green Party members have the strongest connections to the Libertarian community. If there isn't anyone who fits the bill, I will take it upon myself to become a liaison between Greens and Libertarians because few things are more important in the realm of politics than coalition-building.

Problem #2: There is clearly room for improvement in communication between Greens at the national and local levels. Elliot, the sole official representative of the Green Party at last night's protest, only found out about it after I contacted the local Green office to confirm that the event mentioned in the email was taking place.

Communication breakdowns happen from time to time. Maybe the communication between Greens at the local and national level is better than this event seemed to indicate. But my experience with the Green Party so far in 2016 (including several by-the-seat-of-the-pants events in Philadelphia during the DNC) leads me to suspect that the Greens' emphasis on decentralization may be incompatible with the clear channels of communication necessary for effective organization at the national level.

Solution #2: I'm not familiar enough with the Green ethos to diagnose or address this communication problem on my own. However, I think the rise of various YouTube personalities may provide us with an organic solution. As more people turn their attention to YouTubers such as Tim Black (of Progressive News), Mike Figueredo (of The Humanist Report), Debbie Lusignan (of The Sane Progressive), Will Gaillard (of Let the Madness Begin), and Joshua (of New Progressive Voice), the conversation that we all need to have with each other will become part of the fabric of our lives.

The progressive movement sparked by Bernie Sanders' candidacy is visibly losing steam by the day as the community of his supporters becomes ever more fragmented. When Sanders lost New York, we all held our breath for California. When Sanders endorsed Clinton before the convention, we held our breath for something magical (e.g. the death of the TPP) to happen in conjunction with Clinton's nomination. When Clinton's nomination became official, we held our breath for Tim Canova to defeat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. No matter how many times we move the goalpost, we keep failing to reach it. We're becoming demoralized in exactly the way the system is set up to demoralize us--and the temptation to check out of the political process only becomes stronger.

Solution #3: We need to set clear and achievable goals. If we can't set them collectively, then we must set them individually. Once we start reaching our individual goals on a regular basis, we'll find the energy to tackle collective goals again. But if we rely on other people for a sense of achievement, then we're at the mercy of factors beyond our control. Instead of resolving to get Martina Salinas elected as Railroad Commissioner, I'll figure out what goal I can set for myself to help get her elected. Even if Salinas doesn't win, I need to do something I've never done, learn something new, establish contacts I didn't have previously, and be in a better position to make a difference for the next Green candidate I can support at the local or state level.

The moral of the story is that the worst response I could have to last night's feeble protest would be to blame the Greens for not being more organized or the city of Austin for not being more progressive. If the Greens are indeed poorly organized, then it's important for me to recognize that deficiency and do what I can to help improve communications. If Austin is a sham progressive city, then it's important for me to recognize that reality and address it.

What could I have done to make last night's protest more effective? I could have reached out to the Libertarians. Next time, I will.

That's one positive step. If we put enough of those together, we have a path to a coalition. If we put enough coalitions together, then we have a shot at changing the system.

If you have better suggestions for what I should do, please leave your advice in a comment. And if you know any person or organization in Austin that I should contact, I'll be grateful for the tip.

Is Our Revolution a Step in the Right Direction--or an Aimless Lurch Meant to Dissipate Our Energy?

House parties for Our Revolution were held throughout the country last night. My wife and I hosted one such event attended by seven people:

From left: Liz, Michael, Marnia (hostess), Karina, Amanda, Paul, Amy, & Toni.

We gathered to watch a livestream from Vermont that featured Bernie Sanders and a number of other speakers.

None of us knew what to expect, but the livestream managed to disappoint expectations nevertheless.

Most of us had already heard about the resignations within Our Revolution following the appointment of Jeff Weaver as president of the organization. Weaver's commitment to raising revenue in traditional ways for spending on traditional television advertising troubles lots of folks for various reasons. From my own perspective, it is primarily objectionable because it fails to recognize that grassroots movements in the era of corporate media can only be successful to the extent that they subvert and defy that corporate media. The last thing we need to be doing is pouring millions of our own dollars into the very machine that is stifling our agenda.

Hours before the livestream even began, Debbie Lusignan put together a video in which she asked Our Revolution and Bernie Sanders to get out of the way of those of us who seek the large-scale changes that Sanders advocated throughout his campaign. I thought her video was unjustifiably harsh before the livestream aired.

Afterward, I could only conclude that Lusignan was prescient.

Some of the comments on the livestream from YouTube viewers reflected my own frustration as I watched Sanders rehash much of his stump speech. No one watching needed to be persuaded of the fact that we Americans must transform our nation from a marketplace into a society by seeking social, economic, racial, and environmental justice. We all share a sense of urgency concerning that task, and we need to discuss the best plans for achieving that goal.

Sanders could have explained why hiring Weaver (over the objections of the thirteen leading organizers who opposed Weaver's appointment) would help to achieve that goal. Instead, he told an aw-shucks story about how he had met Weaver.

Although Sanders never stooped to pleading for support of Hillary Clinton, he pointed to the non-binding platform document of the Democratic Party as evidence of some kind of progress. He even went so far as to assert that anyone who thinks that platform will simply gather dust in the coming years is "mistaken."

Color me mistaken.

I didn't need to hear about Republican governors who are suppressing the vote. I didn't need to hear about Democratic candidates who have agreed to advocate free tuition at state institutions of higher learning.

In fact, most Sanders supporters are sick of talking about the wrong things the GOP does and the right things the DNC says.

We're ready for a drastic departure from politics-as-usual. We're ready to knock on doors and pass out fliers. We're ready to phonebank, facebank, and textbank. We're ready to sacrifice our time and energy in the name of getting the right people elected. So what we needed to see from Sanders in the livestream was a demonstration of the vetting method that Our Revolution would be using to steer us towards supporting the right candidates in our local elections.

Instead, we got . . . it's not entirely clear what we got.

But whatever we got, it wasn't very helpful. Our guests stuck around for more than an hour after the livestream to discuss the practical steps we can take to make Austin as progressive as it pretends to be. Nothing that anyone said built on the livestream in any way. When the conversation stopped (a little before 11 p.m.), it was because people needed to get to bed--not because we were finished talking. 

If we had spent more time talking to each other and less time watching the livestream, we probably could have cobbled together a concrete plan of action before dispersing.

We hope to finish our conversation via email. And in fairness, even if the livestream from Our Revolution was largely a waste of time in terms of the content it provided, the house party did at least manage to put Marnia and me in touch with some knowledgeable and energetic people here in east Austin. 

But since it also put us in touch with some reluctant Hillary supporters who continue to bash Jill Stein as an "anti-science" candidate, I want to close this blog post by linking to an article from Counterpunch concerning "media as propaganda." Peter Lavenia's purpose in the article is to refute claims that Stein is "anti-vax" and "anti-wifi," but his larger claim about the propagandizing role of media only makes it harder for me to understand why people like Sanders and Weaver and even Stein herself continue to believe that the best way to reach people with their message is to give millions of dollars to the very organizations that are working overtime to distort and discredit that message.

Hitler Gave Us Quislings; The Clintons Give Us Quoslings

A quisling (named after Norway's Vidkun Quisling) is someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force. A quosling (my word for followers of Hillary Clinton) is someone who collaborates with corporate interests to perpetuate the status quo.

While I was protesting the DNC in Philadelphia last week, I met some Democrats who are so disappointed in the nomination of Clinton that they intend to vote for Donald Trump. I can't follow their logic, but I can paraphrase it:

"Clinton is such a heinous liar that I have to vote for Trump, even though I know he is also a heinous liar."

"Clinton is such a despicable fraud that I have to vote for Trump, even though I know he is also a despicable fraud."

"Clinton is so shamelessly self-serving that I have to vote for Trump, even though he's every bit as shamelessly self-serving."

I think these folks just feel betrayed by the Democratic Party right now (as they should), and I expect most of them to wake up to the realization (before November) that it makes no sense to reward Trump simply for not being Clinton. In fact, this is exactly the sort of nonsense logic that led the Nobel Committee to award a Peace Prize to Barack Obama simply for not being George W. Bush (even though Obama, after accepting the prize, would turn out to be more committed to wars of choice than any president in U.S. history).

I'm not terribly worried about the Democrats who say they will vote for Trump, but I am terrified of those who say that they will hold their noses and vote for Clinton--especially in swing states.

For heaven's sake, why?

Clinton isn't just a flawed candidate; she's unconscionable. And those who say otherwise are lying to themselves and the people around them. If Trump supporters are driven by raw stupidity (the stupidity of believing that Trump actually has the political skill to defeat the TPP as he promises), then Clinton supporters are driven by raw cynicism (the cynicism of pretending that she has the political will to defeat the TPP as she promises).

The pro-Clinton arguments are just as inane as the pro-Trump arguments:

"Trump is such a heinous racist that I have to vote for Clinton, even though I know that the war on drugs to which she remains committed is unabashed racism masquerading as policy for the benefit of prisons-for-profit and the pharmaceutical industry."

"Trump is such a despicable xenophobe that I have to vote for Clinton, whose indifference to human lives all over the globe led to the coup in Honduras, the destabilization of Lybia, the rise of ISIS, and the Syrian diaspora."

"Trump is such a shameless climate change denier that I have to vote for Clinton, who will sell out the future of the planet to her fossil fuel sponsors just as eagerly as Trump, but who at least knows better than to seem gleeful about it."

Clinton supporters don't mind institutional racism; they just want a candidate who knows how to keep racism on the down low, where it's sustainable (unlike the obnoxious and unsustainable racism of Trump). Clinton supporters don't object to xenophobia; they just want a candidate who can slaughter innocent non-American civilians all over the planet without calling too much attention to the phenomenon. Clinton supporters don't care about whether future generations will have clean air and water; they just want someone who knows how to present the illusion that the climate situation is improving even as it continues to deteriorate.

Clinton supporters aren't dumb; they're just selfishly committed to the status quo because they believe it's their turn to reap their rewards for having supported self-serving corporatists such as Clinton over the years.

Clinton supporters are quoslings because they are actively and deliberately collaborating with the enemy--the corporate interests for whom the TPP amounts to a hostile takeover of the U.S. government.

Clinton supporters are quoslings because they are actively and deliberately working to perpetuate the institutional racism associated with the carceral state, the erosion of privacy associated with the surveillance state, and the genocidal impulses associated with the imperialist state.

Clinton supporters are quoslings because they are actively and deliberately working to help the Clinton media machine pretend that talking about climate change is the same as doing something about climate change.

They're quoslings because they know exactly what they're doing--and that's what makes their attempts to bully the rest of us into supporting Clinton even more repugnant than the anger that is driving some misguided Democrats into the Trump camp.

Quoslings are going to keep attacking Jill Stein for her lack of experience and her supposed non-viability because they don't understand that what draws us to Jill isn't her experience or her viability, but her fundamental human decency. They don't understand that no matter how flawed a candidate Trump may be, the monstrous indecency of Clinton will never become acceptable to those of us who know that the status quo has got to go.

Democrats keep telling me that I have to face the binary they're focused on: Trump v. Clinton. I'm not allowed to have a third choice because the political reality is such that anyone who doesn't support Clinton becomes a supporter of Trump. I don't accept that premise, but even if I did, it's plain to me that Clinton (who is spoiling for fights with Russia, Iran, and Syria) is a greater danger than Trump to the safety of Americans and people throughout the world.

But don't worry. I won't vote for Trump because I refuse to confine myself to your binary. If I'm going to be trapped in a binary, I choose this one: After the way the Democratic Party treated my candidate and my values in 2016, am I down with Dems or done with Dems?

That question is way easier to answer than choosing between the twin nightmares of Trump and Clinton.

I am done with Dems--done.

Also, I've seen Jill Stein in person, so I'm a lot more excited to discover what she can do than I am worried about whatever frivolous distinctions there might be between Trump and Clinton.

Stein/Turner Is a Stronger Ticket Than Sanders/Stein

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have long known about Jill Stein's offer to surrender her spot on the Green ticket to him if he would be willing to defect from the Democratic Party.

Sanders has never shown any interest in that offer--perhaps because he understands a point about sore loser laws that few Greens (apart from Texans such as myself) appreciate.

Most people understand that the Green Party doesn't have ballot access in all fifty states. In 2012, Stein was on the ballot in 37 states (and an eligible write-in candidate in 7 more). So far in 2016, the Greens have secured ballot access for Stein in 24 states and are currently working to achieve it in 23 more. It's certain that she won't be on the ballot in Oklahoma, North Carolina, or Indiana.

The good news for the Greens is that they already have ballot access in the states with the highest populations, including the big 4 of California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The bad news for Sanders supporters is that Texas is one of only a handful of states whose "sore loser" laws would disqualify Sanders from appearing as a presidential candidate for the Green Party. (In most states, sore loser laws only affect candidates running for local or state races, but Texas, regrettably, has legal precedents for denying ballot access to national candidates as well.)

As of this writing, the Greens lack ballot access in 8 sparsely populated north-central states that, added together, carry the same weight in the electoral college as Texas' 38 votes: Utah (6), Idaho (4), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3), Iowa (6), and Minnesota (10).

By Novemeber, the Greens will probably be on the ballot in most of those states, since they jumped through the hoops to qualify in 5 of them in 2012 (Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).

Missing out on ballot access anywhere in the country matters, of course, but for presidential candidates, it matters most in the states with the most votes in the electoral college. From any presidential candidate's perspective, it's simply more important to be on the ballot in Texas than in Wyoming.

If Bernie were at the top of the Green ticket--Texans wouldn't be able to vote for him. That matters even though Texas is a reliably Republican state because ballot access in Texas will help the Greens break through one of the most difficult barriers in American presidential politics: the 5% of the popular vote necessary to receive federal funding.

With Nina Turner as Stein's vice-presidential nominee, Texans will turn out in droves to support the Greens. Turner loves to quote one of the great slogans of Texas' own Barbara Jordan, who spent her career calling for "an America as good as its promise."

I live in Austin. Jordan is still legendary in these parts, and Turner strikes a powerful chord with Texans who were once inspired by figures such as Jordan (who is no longer with us) and Jim Hightower (who has been a vocal surrogate for Bernie).

By running a Stein/Turner ticket, the Greens are sure to get tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of votes from Texans who simply wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Sanders/Stein ticket.

Nominating Turner for VP is the smartest play the Greens can make for numerous reasons. I read earlier that Turner considers herself a reformer who intends to work within the Democratic Party, but I hope she will reconsider.

N re 2green party VP @ninaturner has officially stated ‘She is a reformer & will continue her fight WITHIN t/Democrat party' @MSNBC

— Tezlyn Figaro (@TezlynFigaro) August 1, 2016

Turner can help us all tremendously by recognizing the truth of Stein's assertion that it's hard to have a revolution within a counterrevolutionary party.

***

Update: This post became moot when Jill Stein named Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Here's a quick video from Tim Black that plugs Baraka:

Jill Stein's VP pick, Ajamu Baraka is an EXCELLENT choice, here's why! @DrJillStein @ajamubaraka #Greenparty pic.twitter.com/HTNr8laXSW

— Tim Black ™ (@TimBartender) August 2, 2016

Truly I Tell You, No Black Intellectual Is Heeded in His Home Country

Readers of the UK's Guardian heard from Cornel West yesterday about Barack Obama's failure to stem the tide of police brutality in America--brutality that is overwhelmingly and routinely directed at citizens of color.

West is permitted to tell the citizens of other countries about Obama's spineless complicity with the institutional racism of our police state, but the mainstream media in America feels no obligation to quote West when he correctly observes that "Whatever solidarity [Obama] does offer is just lip-service to suffering, but he never makes it a priority to end that suffering."

West concludes his article by expressing his support for Jill Stein and the Green Party--a position which is not only reasonable, but necessary in light of the Democratic Party's sustained betrayal of people of color through its support of a deeply discriminatory war on drugs, its decades-long promotion of prisons-for-profit, and its insidious neoliberal dedication to the project of talking endlessly about the intersectionality of race and class in America without lifting a finger to address that problem.

West's argument about supporting Stein was so powerful precisely because he grounded it in the context of the killings we saw in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Texas just last week. The teaser that UK readers saw concerning West's article was completely accurate as a summary of his argument: "Obama has failed victims of racism and police brutality."

But how have our media outlets in the US presented West's argument? In almost every case, West's nuanced and powerful condemnation of Obama's inaction has been reduced to his endorsement of Stein.

CNN says: "Cornel West endorses Green Party candidate Jill Stein." 

The Hill says: "Sanders ally Cornel West backs Green candidate."

Bloomberg says: "Cornel West Backs Green Party's Stein for U.S. President."

In fact, as of 2:30 p.m. EST the day after The Guardian published West's piece, here's a screenshot of all seven entries that come up via a Google news search for the terms "Guardian" + "Cornel West":

As you can see, not one article makes the slightest attempt to connect West's endorsement of Stein to the recent events that highlight the very real phenomenon of cop-on-black crime in America.

This glaring omission exposes our neoliberal media establishment for what it is. Instead of telling us why West endorses Stein, our news outlets focus entirely on the fact that he endorsed her, which is simply another implicit way of pushing the argument that Democrats are somehow on the side of people of color in this country simply because they are less hateful in their speech (and less prone to race-baiting demagoguery) than their Republican counterparts.

Meaningful debate on the intersectionality of race and class in America is long overdue, but that debate will never happen if the most important speakers can only be heard across the pond, which is the path to which we have apparently committed ourselves whether we elect Trump (whom West calls a "neo-fascist catastrophe") or Clinton (whom he identifies as a "neo-liberal disaster").

A Lullaby for the DNC before It Slumbers Eternally

Trump v. Clinton: epic fail

that proves democracy's for sale.

He plays with debt the conman's way.
She'll do the same with Fannie Mae.

It's bad he slurs Latino kids,

but ask Hondurans what she did.   

Call him a bigot, a disgrace;

ignore the Syrians she displaced.

The Hillbots shriek and snarl as one:

"Fear what he says, not what she's done."

Apocalyptic claims abound

on their side, so let's turn that 'round:

If his words might start World War 3,

then her deeds will—I guarantee.

Flournoy, Sherman—ladyhawks

rouse old bloodlust with new warsquawks.

But they can't be as bad as Dick

because they're women. See the trick?

I've swallowed pills from Dems before.

They've brought me debt, disgrace and war.

So try to jam Hill down my throat

and watch me give the Greens my vote.

Prez Trump is your fault, DNC.

You could have had support from me.

If Hill's the nom, then I'm with Stein.

To stop Trump you should fall in line.

#SeeYouInPhilly

How to Spot a Hillbot: Entitled Shill Is Entitled

It's always slightly saddening to see one online poster respond to another by typing nothing more than "Troll."

It's not sad because trolling is sad. Sometimes trolling is funny.

It's not sad because the epithet is meant to shut down online arguments. Many online arguments need to be shut down.

It's not even sad because it's name-calling. I'm pretty sure the internet was invented for name-calling.

It's sad to see that one-word response because it's a lazy and witless way of asserting what we used to assert with a gloriously lulzy four-word formulation: "Obvious troll is obvious."

So part of me wishes that instead of reflexively labeling Hillbots trolls with a single word, we would all just go the extra mile and type out "Obvious troll is obvious" in our responses.

But that doesn't really go far enough. We should actually type "Entitled shill is entitled" because entitlement is what their primary argument ("Opposition to Clinton is support for Trump!") boils down to.

Seriously. The Hillaryans genuinely feel entitled to our votes.

It's not Clinton's job to earn our votes. It's our job to justify voting for anyone else. But of course, if we try to justify voting for any other candidate, we can't even finish our first sentence before the Hillbots interrupt with indignation, "But don't you see that if you vote for [insert candidate here], you're just throwing your vote away and helping to elect Donald Trump?"

No, I don't see that at all. The way I see it, the Democratic Party is electing Donald Trump by presenting us with an alternative who is a warmongering advocate of the carceral state with a track record of lying and a deeply unprofessional aversion to press conferences. Although she has a slight edge over Trump in the polls at the moment, history demonstrates that the longer Clinton remains in the public eye, the less people can stomach her. She's going to lose not because I refuse to give her my particular vote, but because she is unelectable. And when the Democratic party's unelectable candidate goes down to Donald Trump, the real finger of blame should point at the superdelegates who insisted on nominating an unelectable candidate--not the voters who failed to achieve the impossible by electing the most unelectable candidate in history.

That response only makes Hillaryans laugh because they are convinced that my vote started out belonging to Clinton and that any attempt to cast it for someone else is a deep perversion of immutable justice.

But the thing is my vote NEVER belonged to Clinton. I'm one of those pesky independent voters--you know, the folks who outnumber both Democrats and Republicans and wait for some candidate to step forward and win our support.

Of course I won't give that support to Trump. He's terrifying because, as Clinton says, his ideas are "dangerously incoherent." But neither will I support Clinton. Her ideas are terrifying because they are "dangerously coherent." I know exactly what her agenda is and that she has the political chops to accomplish it. I just happen not to be in favor of more police brutality, more displaced populations throughout the world, more poisoned water, more poverty, and more consolidation of power in the hands of those who are already abusing it. 

To say so, however, is to invite the scorn of countless Correct-the-Record minions who will gleefully point out that whatever atrocities Trump permits will be on my hands.

To which the first response is obviously that at least the atrocities Clinton would have perpetrated won't be on my hands.

But the second (more important) response is that if I can't vote for Bernie Sanders, then I'm going to vote for the candidate whose values correspond most precisely to my own. That candidate is neither trump nor Clinton. It's Jill Stein.

If we reach November and Clinton and Trump really are still the major party nominees (a matter I hardly take as settled), then I'll vote for Stein not as an act of petulance, but in the hope that enough other people will be disgusted enough by the Trump-Clinton binary to do the same.

I know that Hillaryans can't take that claim seriously. They understand that Trump is utterly loathsome and repugnant, but they can't grasp that their candidate is equally loathsome and repugnant. They know that the prospect of a Trump presidency is terrifying, but they can't grasp that the prospect of a Clinton presidency is even more terrifying to a lot of us.

Any attempt to express these sentiments to them prompts a sarcastic, "Thanks for electing President Trump"--to which the suitably sarcastic reply is, of course, "You're welcome."

Followed by: "Entitled shill is entitled to Trump."

Clinton Vs. Trump: Voters Choose between America Destroying the World and the World Destroying America

In 2016, American voters are being told to make a very difficult choice that turns out to be no choice at all--because we're going to destroy our species and our planet either way.

If we elect Clinton, we'll get to watch America destroy the world. Hillary Clinton will talk sweetly and incessantly about the importance of protecting women, children, and other vulnerable people around the globe as she forges diplomatic, economic, and military alliances with their oppressors.

She will say that she has kindness in her heart for all Muslims and that America has always stood for freedom of religion. Her rhetoric sounds positively mellifluous compared to anything coming out of Trump's mouth, but what she really means is that she will provide the Saudi royal family the weapons and credibility necessary for them to quash dissent among their subjects. 

She and her husband have always been sneaky that way. And they're very good at what they do. The honeyed words of the Clintons are toxic--but so sweet that the people they poison often die with smiles on their faces.

As the atmosphere chokes on its carbon content, Clinton will say just the right things to make distracted folks believe that important work is being done behind the scenes to improve matters.

As populations are displaced throughout the world by the various military campaigns that Clinton will doubtless sponsor in the name of "humanitarian relief," Americans will take solace in the fact that they are "winning" because widespread human misery will be confined (at first at least) to other people in other regions.

Under Clinton, America will be #1 again . . . by virtue of seeing to it that the rest of a blighted world has to fight over scraps for several decades--perhaps even the better part of a century--before we have to do the same here.

If we elect Trump, we'll get to watch the world destroy America. Donald Trump will talk angrily and provocatively about how everything that's going wrong is the fault of people outside our borders. When it becomes plain that no one really believes climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, Trump will acknowledge that it's a real phenomenon--but nevertheless the fault of the Chinese . . . and the Russians . . . and every Muslim nation on the planet . . . and any other perceived threat that he can get a vocal segment of the American population excited about bombing out of existence.

He has already alienated Muslims everywhere, and for his success with his base in America to continue, he will have to keep antagonizing disaffected Muslim-Americans. If only we could predict what kind of fallout there might be from ratcheting up antagonisms within the American population . . .

Unlike Clinton, however, Trump lacks the political skill, the patience, and the connections to start wars all over the globe and destroy/displace populations before they have a chance to strike back.

Unlike Clinton, Trump will make his enemies scared (instead of persuading them that they are dying because of humanitarianism gone horribly wrong). He will unite his enemies in opposition to the U.S.A. Even Canada will realize that unless we are stopped, we'll simply end up killing everyone. Our loyal Israeli allies will begin to wonder whether it's more important to accept our financial aid or to prevent us from deploying tactical nuclear strikes just outside their borders--because radiation has this pesky habit of not staying where one puts it.

Donald Trump will make America look like the Death Star that it has become, and all the orphans that the Clintons, the Bushes, and Obama have worked so hard to create will aspire to become Luke Skywalkers. Sooner or later, one of them will identify and destroy the exact right vulnerable target in our system to cause the whole shebang to collapse under its own weight.

The worldwide resistance to the Trump agenda will be strong enough to stop us and destroy us--but not before we do enough damage to the planet and other civilizations to ensure that those who defeat us end up as smoking ruins a few decades thereafter.

The strange thing is that refusing to choose between these two equally genocidal alternatives prompts scorn and derision. If I would rather support Jill Stein than the idea of America destroying the world or the world destroying America, then I'm apparently just a chump guilty of throwing my vote away.

But it's hard for me to believe that as Trump and Clinton compete over who will get to throw away the future, the only chumps in this picture are the ones willing to take a gamble with their votes.

I present these thoughts on Juneteenth to support YahNe Ndgo and the Revolt Against Plutocracy as outlined in the #GoGreen619 video. I recommend that everyone hear Ms. Ndgo out.