The current front-runner and imho likely choice is Mrs. C., of course.
In my gracious concession speech, reproduced below, I acknowledged the superiority of their analysis to my own, which is that the oiligarchs may not feel sufficiently in control of circumstances to take a chance on relinquishing the Executive. Hence, if they trust, say, Mrs. C. as their surrogate, wouldn't it follow that here we have irrebuttable evidence of the claims by Chomsky, Nader, and others as to the synonymy of the Parties' interests? I am glad they pursued that logic to the conclusion i missed. Good on 'em.
It would be shrewed, no doubt (or your tinfoil's wrapped tighter than mine--quick, check!):
Hillary as a both the sacrificial lamb and the scapegoat.
not two, but three birds: escape responsibility for the crash to come, blame the Dims, and demonstrate once and for all the essential weakness of 'women/fems', their insutability for "real" responsibility...
yeah, thad'd by quite a coup...
and there's no doubt the oligarchs/elites are capable of
man, that's too damn likely to be true...spookily...
and i been called paranoid...
S/he would have to be trusted NOT to use her power to pursue justice for the crimes of the previous regime, for example.
4 comments:
it's a hollow victory that leads to the tequila bottle. without a glass.
oh, well. all empires fall eventually.
Oh my yes, she will win and she will happily keep the war going, and people will continue to vote democrat because they will see that as their only recourse because 3rd parties are BAD BAD BAD!!!!
Lather, rinse, repeat. War without end. Amen.
woody, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
but you knew that already. :-)
and people will continue to vote democrat because they will see that as their only recourse because 3rd parties are BAD BAD BAD!!!!
not just democratic. "centrist, electable" democrats.
because short, elven progressives CAN'T WIN! and why? because no one will vote for them. because they can't win. because no one will vote for them. because ....
Post a Comment