The nation faces quite a choice this election between the affirmative action legacy candidate seeking promotion to her level of incompetence potentially and Donald Trump, the last capitalist in a sense from the nation before the complete swamp of dopiness flooded it. I believe one question about Kamala Harris that is relevant is would she take a natural female receptive role if President and make the U.S.A. a bimbo of Europe and its rise with the EU and NATO expansion into potentially taking the leading role in the trans-Atlantic relationship.
Germany has less than a half trillion dollars of public debt. If one may use the term lem; in this case not used as a synonym for "nigger" as public radio use the depricative (I should clarify that because of the controversial nature of lem and nigger as hate speech. One might say 'don't hire that lem' instead of using the n word which is politically incorrect) then Germany's economy isn't a lem (meaning lemon) while that of the U.S.A. is nearing that stature with 33 trillion dollars of public debt. The U.S.A. need be somewhat more independent and self reliant and not just leave the public sector as a lem holding the bag on the massive debt that generate result with real austerity some day.
In his farewell address George Washington expressed concern about establishing permanent foreign alliances that would impact the sovereignty and security of the United States. N.A.T.O. is a prime example of the problem of a foreign alliance that has outlived its founding reason for being and seems to insist on a hostile relationship with Russia in order to have a reason to exist. The Ukraine issue should have been settled by diving the country in half and just moved on. Instead since the end of the Cold War 1.0 N.A.T.O. has increased in size and became an existential threat to invade Russia long before Russia took the Crimea back as it has owned it for hundreds of years- even before the Soviet Union captured Russian government for nearly 70 years.
One wonders is Democrats have forgotten world history and the violence and conflicts that occurred in Europe over the millennia. The U.S. should have been happy to let the original N.A.T.O. just continue as a kind of appendix that isn't used much, not a threat yet of actual deterrence value. Expanding it created a monster. It is a potential future rival to American military power sometime when the U.S.A. doesn't agree on some critical policy concern. It is also part of the Orwellian expansion into some kind of 1984 three global blocks at perennial enmity or war sort of circumstance...and such an egregious bit of idiocy without good sense or political aesthetic value.
Democrats were happy t bring about a conflict rather than rationally settling in without violence. They could have used the mostly non-violent transition from the Soviet Union to Russia in an albeit imperfect allocation of boundaries as an example. Instead the methodically increased the numbers of N.A.T.O. and the E.U and seemed to further try to marginalize Russia. Obviously the decision of the Democrat Party and EU members to prosecute Russia as an adversary building up military stores in the Ukraine to defend its western affiliation was a result of the founding of Ukraine at the end of the Cold War 1.0 as an independent state and unavoidable since Democrat Party leaders had no intention in any way to relinquish any part of Ukraine to Russia. Kamala Harris has expressed her full intent to continue the war until it is free of Russians; in other words until the last Ukrainian is dead on the battlefield.
Is there really a substantial different orientation for American women concerning jobs, natural security and the deaths of foreigners in wars that could be prevented with U.S. leadership to settlement that bring people like Kamala Harris to feel entitled to have everything their own way? Do they take their position in life for granted- as if it were usual to have vast incomes without dirtying their hands? Should they when buying a ‘starter home’ with their $120,000 annual income and spouse’s $40,00 feel that is normal and usual- that they have some right to a higher standard of living than that of most of the world’s working men? Do they just want more of the same inertia of prosperity and ecological inefficiency moving forward without the slightest concern for the decline of natural resources ad the ecosphere? U.S. politicians that have their relatives getting government jobs are hardly inspirational to those that haven’t got relatives in high elected positions.
Do American women and politicians of the left believe that the crass consumerism, abortions, atheism and fossil fuel engines while the country has 33 trillion dollars of public debt is the best way to shape an economy? Economists may say that illegal migration doesn’t hurt the gross national product yet that is somewhat meaningless to the people without good income because wages were undermined by surplus labor. The G,N,P. Can be great and yet it can also mostly go to the 1% and the 10%. Of course their economists would say everything is wonderful.
Some wonder if flooding the nation with illegal migrants while expanding the conventional economy without ecological economic reform and while waging a economic and limited military global battle with Russia, China and the BRIC nations while concentrating wealth paying for government programs with public debt is likely to be sustainable. Others wonder if Kamala Harris has a clue.
No comments:
Post a Comment