IS HILLARY CLINTON THE DEMOCRATS'
RICHARD NIXON?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on
04/21/2016
Authored by Eric Zuesse,
...
Introduction.
by Hugo Adan. April 22. 2016
False premise = weak argument. The chances for Hillary to be President are very uncertain. At economic & political level changes can affect drastically her chances to be President.
1- At economic level, in 6 months the world recession could affect severely the US and the mood of the working and middle classes can create more instability .. that will affect any defender of the establishment like Hillary.
2- At political level the correlation of forces between Dems and Reps and internally inside each party can change even faster. All depends on changes in levels of org (party & Fronts), theoretical cohesion and popular will to defy the institutional frame set for this election (starting with super-delegates manipulated by Hillary & the trap of the bipartisan system). Soon after the primaries in CA the whole political context will be different.
3- That favored the victory of Hillary in NY is the manipulation and fraud in current migration of voters fed up with current charade of democracy run by both Hillary & Trump. The electoral frame is obsolete, many people were denied be real citizens of America and the effect of this will come before Nov.
4- So, there is not real basis to compare a President with a candidate to be Pres. Instead, I would say that the Ec & Pol context favor the arrival of Nixon to the Presid (this does not happens to Hillary today). The correlation of political forces changed for Nixon after his arrival (in the case of Hillary this changes will come before elections in Nov).
----
----
The article :
Richard Nixon’s similarities to Hillary Clinton are
remarkable:
:
1: Both were highly successful politicians who had exceptionally negative net-approval ratings from the U.S.
public, but were viewed highly favorably by the voters within
their own Party.
2: Both were unsuccessful in their first run
for the Presidency, but managed to come back and ran considerably more
successful campaigns the second time around.
3: Both were highly distrusted, except by the voters within
their own Party.
4: Both went into their Presidential campaign years
(especially the second time around) as being “the candidate
with experience.”
5: Both were war-hawks and proponents of a
big military, but were also liberals on social policies and regulatory policies
(for example, Nixon signed into law the National Environmental
Policy Act, several environmental initiatives including the
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Mammal Marine Protection Act, and
the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; and, he started
the Earned-Income Tax Credit, which "now
lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program”).
6: Whereas Nixon, running during the Cold War
against the sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968, lied that he had ‘a secret plan to end the Vietnam war' (he
actually had — and applied — a secret plan to extend the Vietnam war), and he
won the Presidency on the basis of that lie; Hillary Clinton, running
against the anti-restoration-of-the-Cold-War progressive Bernie Sanders in
2016, lies by saying that she has a plan to end the war in Russia-allied
Syria. Sanders says: “Of course Assad is a terrible dictator. But I think we
have got to get our foreign policies and priorities right. The
immediate — it is not Assad who is attacking the United States. It is
ISIS. And ISIS is attacking France and attacking Russian airliners. The
major priority, right now, in terms of our foreign and
military policy should be the destruction of ISIS.” Clinton
says an emphatic no to that: "Assad has killed, by last count, about 250,000
Syrians. The reason we are in the mess we're in, that ISIS has
the territory it has, is because of Assad.” So, she is promising
regime-change in Syria and saying that it’s the prerequisite to defeating
ISIS — which is an absurd lie, since ISIS, and Al Qaeda, and all
the other jihadist groups who have flocked into Syria to overthrow and replace
Assad, are certainly not the way to defeat ISIS, nor to defeat the
other jihadist groups there, all of which are anti-Assad, as is Clinton
herself. Clearly, then, her ‘plan’ to win the war in Syria is, essentially, to
replace Assad with jihadists — to whom the U.S. is sending thousands of tons of weapons.
Her Big Lie there is merely stupider than Nixon’s
(it’s transparently stupid, because both she and ISIS aim, above all,
to overthrow Assad), but it’s just as much a lie about war-and-peace as was
Nixon’s ’secret plan to end the Vietnam war’; and, in that sense, it is
remarkably similar and (like Nixon’s lie was) can be believed only by liar-trusting
fools, including virtually all members of the candidate’s own Party, plus a
large percentage of political independents.
7: Both Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton
were/are famous for being secretive, and for distrusting everyone except
his/her proven-loyal personal entourage — loyalty is a higher value to them
than is any other. They are paranoid — very us-versus-‘them’ — and
all-too-willing to use unethical means of defeating ‘them’
(not really the American people’s foreign ‘enemy’, but, above all,
their own domestic “enemies-list”).
8: Both Nixon and Clinton famously use curse-words profusely in private, and treat their
subordinates like trash, and rule them by fear.
9: Both of them had/have established records
backing coups abroad, in order to impose the will of America’s
President, no matter how bloody (such as the coups that overthrew
Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and Allende in Chile in 1973, and the coups that
overthrew Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, and Yanukovych
in Ukraine in 2014).
* * *
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario