Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The future president of the USA in 2016

The state of affairs

In 2008, Obama was elected president of the USA. Another way to look at it is: in 2008, everybody was so disgusted by 8 years of George W. Bush that any non-Republican candidate could have beaten John McCain. So, Obama was seen as the savior. And I, too, thought that Obama was the change we could believe in. Not change to turn the Earth into a paradise, but just to get out of Crazyland and put America and the world back on track towards a sane world where everybody goes about their daily activities without hurdle.

The banksters were traitors and there was hope that after clearing the rubble, we'd enjoy public contrition (if not public executions) of those responsible for destroying the life of others. But that didn't happen. Obama filled his cabinet with people in bed with the big banks. Tim Geitner, Rahm Emmanuel, Bernanke, etc.

It was found out that the subprimes had been especially targetting the black population. And nobody was prosecuted. We found out that banksters totally knew it was going to crash. And nobody was prosecuted. We found out that banksters knowingly sold subprimes mortgages to their clients while aware that it was going to ruin these clients while they, the banks, were making profits off of that. When people were evicted from their houses, the banks organized these evictions without being sure who the houses really belonged to. They even evicted people from houses that did not belong to their bank, but they control the money so they control everything. Not one bank and not one banker has been prosecuted despite evidence against them.

Later, we discovered that HSBC had been laundering money (tens of billions of dollars) for Al Qaeda, for drug cartels, and other organizations or regimes under international sanctions. And what happened? nothing. Who was prosecuted for treason and aiding the enemy? nobody. The banks are above the law.

One thing that was bad during the Bush regime and which Obama was supposed to change was called the "Bush Tax Cuts". It gave a tax break to the richest people. That was pretty bad, but it was time-limited and it expired during Obama's terms. So what did Obama do? After it expired, after it was over, he reinstated the Bush Tax Cuts, or something amounting to 96% of the Bush Tax Cuts, but this time it is permanent.

Obama did a few good things. Very few. He repealed "Don't ask, don't tell" so that openly homosexual people can be treated as equal citizens and equally serve their country in the army. He also started the "Affordable Care Act" that many people call "Obamacare" but didn't make it as good as it was originally supposed to be. For all the rest, Obama conducted politics that were even more right-wing than George W Bush himself. He droned the hell out of ally countries: Yemen, Pakistan, etc. He ordered the assassination of his own citizens (Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son). He gave the Republicans 98% of what they wanted. I'm not the one saying it! John Boener said that.

Obama is a very strong candidate who knows how to be elected, but he's an awful president and he's a sellout to the highest bidders.

The way forward

That's why, only 1 year in his 2nd term, it's already time to ask ourselves what's on the agenda and who will be candidate in 2016.

Hillary Clinton: despite being part of the Democratic Party, she's right-wing. She's a fundamentalist religious woman adhering to "The Family", a cult-like organization that promotes the traditional (aka "fundamentalist") values of her religion. She's a traitor who put in place the spying of foreign ally UN delegations. She's in bed with the establishment, which means nothing would change under her leadership. Banks would still abuse citizens and corporations would still be writing the bills of future laws in ways that arrange them at the expense of the people.

Rand Paul: following in the footsteps of his father Ron Paul, except that Rand Paul is less honest than his father. Even if we don't agree with Ron Paul's libertarian ideology, we must admit that he honestly defended the principles of his ideology. But Rand is a sellout and he'll curve his ideas if that gets him another donor to finance his campaign.

Ted Cruz: a tea-party crazy. He's about as bad as Osama Bin Laden. He's the one responsible for the government shutdown that happened 1 month ago. His campaign is run by his father who says things like "Obama is a Muslim and he should go back to Kenya" (though Obama's American and the Cruz family is an immigrant family from Cuba), or "Atheists are perverts and molesters" (though statistics show precisely the opposite). So of course these are the words from the father, but Ted Cruz doesn't disavow these things.

Chris Christie: he's basically the Republican counterpart to Hillary Clinton. That gives him good chances to gain funding from corporations and banks and win the Republican primary over crazier people.

And then, there's 1 person who's not sure to be a candidate or not. Based on her action, I'd say she's the person whose actions are the most inline with the majority opinion of the poor and middle-class people in the USA: Elizabeth Warren. Her photo's at the beginning of this article. She's been battling the banks. She dared to ask the SEC when was the last time that they prosecuted any bankster... to which the SEC was unable to answer because it's been like forever. Elizabeth Warren is conscious of the problems related to legalized corruption (aka "campaign financing and lobbying"). If she decides to run in 2016, there is hope.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Creative Commons License
Erik Lallemand's blog by Erik Lallemand is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.