Why Should I Vote for Hillary?

I have a very simple question for Hillary Clinton Supporters:

Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie? 

In the past five to six months I have been asking this and have not gotten one substantial answer. The typical replies are: She's better than Trump/Cruz/GOP or I get accused of voting for Nader. Both replies ignore the actual question. The question is: "Why is Hillary better than Bernie?" - not better than the GOP or some third party candidate. Why should she be the candidate of the Democratic Party? It's very simple. If you are still confused, here's a diagram:

Now, let's talk about Clinton's record:

She apologized for her Iraq vote, right? So what? She may have realized that war was a terrible decision but it's obvious she learned nothing from it considering she has actively supported the same (or similar) strategies in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and even Yemen. Clinton was unanimously known as the war-hawk in Obama's administration and advocated for the most aggressive policies alongside Robert Gates. She continues to use antiquated Cold War thinking in regards to Russia and Iran, and advocated for every single one of our military "interventions" since her disastrous Iraq War vote.

Oh, did I mention she also defended torture during the Bush years and endorsed McCain over Obama on foreign policy in the 2008 election?

So, considering her vast foreign policy experience there is no secret how she will lead as Commander-in-Chief, which means, if you support Hillary Clinton, you implicitly support an escalation of our disastrous foreign policy and war profiteering which has exponentially made the situation in the Middle East the chaotic hellhole it is today. But heck, what's a few million lives lost and ruined in a far-off part of the world? At least she's got good domestic policies, right?

Is Clinton better than Sanders on domestic issues?  Her policy stances depend on which day you ask her.

Her ties to Wall Street and allegiance to the 1% with no real concern for economic disparity and environmental protection are well known so I'll skip those.

Some will bring up her gun advocacy but they conveniently forget her stance in the 2008 campaign against Obama when she had the same stance as Sanders. But, she went further claiming Obama was an "elitist" who didn't understand rural gun culture like she did. She even fondly recalled her duck hunting days to prove she was a supporter of gun rights.

When it comes to #BLM let's remember how as a candidate for the senate she stood alongside Al Sharpton denouncing NYPD violence against the black community than did nothing about it once elected. She can talk a good game but her actions speak louder than words. And her refusal to deal with our failed "War on Drugs" and stance against the legalization of Marijuana (even though her husband, our current president, and many other notable public figures have admitted to using the drug) is just plain hypocritical and a relic of the 1990's "tough on crime" garbage that lead to so many failed criminal justice policies in the first place. Add to that the financial support she's received from private prison companies and it's clear she still doesn't truly grasp the depth of the corruption behind so much of our prison-industrial complex and the damage it has done to poor communities (of all colors but especially black communities).

On education she voted for No Child Left Behind and supported charter schools and Common Core until just last month. In 2008 she campaigned for privatized "Retirement Savings Accounts" as a fix for Social Security saying "Through the discipline of good planning and the miracle of compound interest, you should be able to build wealth for yourself". She also campaigned alongside Bob Johnson — a public advocate of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and an active proponent of Bush’s plan to eliminate the estate tax.

Then there is her history of condemning Gay Marriage which she didn't evolve on until two years ago - well after any reasonably rational person had accepted gay marriage as a necessary Civil Right.  It's not just that she didn't support it, it was her actual words that were truly appalling (and historically wrong): "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Anyone who believed "one man/one woman" has historic precedence is ignorant of the many forms marriage has taken in human history.

On almost every important issue, other than Women's Rights, Clinton has either evolved just in time for the campaign or is still on the wrong side.  I could go on about domestic policy problems like her support for spying or flip-flops on the TPP, Keystone XL, Too Big To Fail banks, corporate welfare, poverty, and so much more, but let's move on.

Hillary Clinton has no party loyalty. Am I being melodramatic here? Nope.

As I said above, she endorsed John McCain over Obama on foreign policy in 2008 on television interviews and in a national debate calling Obama "irresponsible and naive" and implying he would need a "training manual". What if, instead of an economic meltdown, there had been another terrorist attack right before the election, and voters believed Clinton that Obama wasn't capable of protecting us? Clearly, she was willing to throw the election to McCain rather than lose to Obama.

She also started/amplified the racist condemnation of Obama with Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan by demanding - in a televised debate and on TV interviews - that Obama denounce both Wright and Farrakhan. Those attacks had nothing to do with substantial policy differences and everything to do with destroying her Democratic opponent with no regard for Party unity.

So, if you are a Clinton supporter do not complain about Sanders being an Independent with no party loyalty. He is running for the Democratic candidacy, he has already stated he will support Clinton if she is the nominee, and is doing everything he can to build a Democratic coalition. His only criticisms of Clinton have been on policy and he's even defended her against trivial attacks by the media and GOP. That is what party loyalty looks like.

Hillary Clinton is not more electable than Bernie Sanders. Stop saying that. She is not.

Almost every poll states Sanders would do better than Clinton against a GOP candidate in the general election. Also, Sanders has a better track record of getting legislation passed, working across the aisle, and winning over independent voters. So, when Clinton claimed she is a "Progressive who can get things done" there are no facts to back her up - unless by "getting things done" you're talking about starting more wars. Also, she proudly embraces her reputation as a "moderate".

Now, please tell me: Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie?

If you support Clinton's positions over Sander's positions don't be ashamed, just say it. But, if you consider yourself a Progressive or Liberal then please tell me why you support Margaret Thatcher Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders.

 

Personally, I prefer a candidate with the moral maturity to know right from wrong without polling data or decades of tragic mistakes to enlighten them.

Hot Commodity

Down the drain.

I'm sure you're familiar with the food crisis going on in many parts of the world, the current rising oil prices here in the US, and the rise in gold prices. Hopefully you're aware that all these are primarily a result of commodities trading.

"The sheer amount of investor money flooding into commodities markets is overshadowing any supply and demand numbers."

Whether this is good or bad is a topic for another discussion. The topic here is the growing trend of privatizing our world's water supply and the future of our most precious and essential natural resource becoming a commodity which is traded on Wall Street.

First, the problem:

Everyone agrees that we are in the midst of a global freshwater crisis. Around the world, rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than Mother Nature can possibly replenish them; industrial and household chemicals are rapidly polluting what’s left. Meanwhile, global population is ticking skyward. Goldman Sachs estimates that global water consumption is doubling every 20 years, and the United Nations expects demand to outstrip supply by more than 30 percent come 2040.

Yes, I made Goldman Sachs bold because I think it's important to highlight the fact an investment bank of is tracking these issues.

Now, the solution... if you want to call it that:

Proponents of privatization say markets are the best way to solve that problem: only the invisible hand can bring supply and demand into harmony, and only market pricing will drive water use down enough to make a dent in water scarcity. But the benefits of the market come at a price. By definition, a commodity is sold to the highest bidder, not the customer with the most compelling moral claim.

Who is buying up our water supply? You'll recognize these names I'm sure:

"Back in September 2010, J.P. Morgan purchased SouthWest Water, a large national water company. The Carlyle Group announced it plans to purchase the Park Water Company, which owns water systems in California and Missoula, Montana."

Yup, the most powerful companies on the planet are buying up our water supply and as the crisis worsens, these will be the companies deciding on prices and availability. Some things are worth more than money. To a moral human being this means it should not be a for-profit commodity. To a corporation, this means it's worth more than all the money in the world.

The reasons why our local governments are selling their water utilities are varied but much of it is due to immediate financial troubles being "fixed" by selling off these public utilities - just as we've seen with prisons, schools and about everything else. Why fix our budgets when we can just pawn off our resources? That works, right? Everyone knows people who pawn off their possessions are making sound financial decisions.

One thing to note is that this privatization does not result in better access or prices, it is often worse and much more expensive. Here's a few links to browse:

Under the plan, the combined monthly wastewater and water bill for the average residential user would climb from the current $63.29 to $117.67 in 2013

Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is about to make a killing by selling water he doesn’t own.

Aqua America - Strategies of a Water Profiteer