Stockholm Syndrome and Voting for Hilary - or else.

It's seems like a contagious form of Stockholm syndrome and some sort of ransom demand to vote democratic in this election - 'Vote for her or we shoot the country'. Ok given the other choice is bonkers, deliberately making her as 'shitty choice' the only choice. Hmm. The choice being a right wing (her being centrist is illusion), corporate candidate who is a hawk militarily and voted for the Iraq war, has a husband who brought in NAFTA and she described TPP as 'gold standard' Also her choice of the VP is one of the 13 Democrats who voted for TPP fast track (deliberately not a left wing or liberal or any type of generous to the people running mate)

I copied def here from Wiki

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness."

So are we mistaking the apparent lack of abuse from Democrats as an act of kindness?

and this final sentence in the definition seems apt: aligning our values with those who are a threat to us to reduce threat to the egos belief system. Maybe this explains how people vote against their own economic needs and if for example a Republican poor will prioritize a 1% austerity for all agenda over their own needs.

 "It suggests that the bonding is the individual's response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they cease to be perceived as a threat."

That is, to me anyway, the system is bad for us and not working in our interests and we are the victims of the system - and so identifying with either of the abusers is not a solution. And those on the left who don't feel like going along are getting gaslighted by the ‘you must vote for Hilary’ media and the go-alongs.

And finally even when you do vote Democratic Prez he brings in things like TPP, TiSA, No Public Option and only fiddle about with legal issues in the crotch area to annoy Republican types as a kind of a "hey we are still liberal" aren't we flag bearing thing. Meh Hilary as a candidate. She will get in anyway - she is the establishment choice by a long way and will serve those who who are paying for her election. So vote away for the candidate of your own pleasure.

Who brought TPP through a secretive exclusive process and delivered it as fast track only? - A Democrat. A Democrat of 'hope and change'. Hmm. What is current today is not about Gore or Nader. That's the real issue to me anyway whether the TPP will be slipped in and by us all in the November-December lame duck session after this election BS and noise settles and we await a lovely new model of the Corporate MIC Military Industrial Complex President. New boss, same as the old boss.

Gore was n't good enough candidate to win. Maybe the Democrat establishment and internal cronies called super-delegates’ or whomever might have selected a popular and representative-of-the-citizen candidate this time if they wanted elect-ability and popularity. So all we get instead is a two right wingers ticket: Hilary and her TPP sidekick guy with support from an an army of gaslighting bullies saying - no don't believe the evidence of your lying eyes ' you must see that she is best!' Meh.

Agree with democrats on some things of course and the president has less real sway than we understand because of the limits constitutionally but why did he shepherd the TPP garbage through to fast track - and it seems so Republican an idea? So if you can’t trust Obama now after all the hopey-change how can you trust Hilary - no one trusts Hilary not even her supporters say she is strong in that ‘trust’ area.

I don't care much for Stein, for Bernie, for Trump or for Hilary none of the above will solve the huge issues for various reasons. I would n't mind a viable candidate that is neither of Trump or Democrat - just to be represented fairly. Like democracy should be but is n't. The system is ill inside and the establishment likes it this way. Hilary is just under spotlight now - she is a corporate war hawk pro TPP and all I'm saying is respectfully I don't see how I personally can vote for her as she does not represent any thing I personally want or believe in. I want less less less wars all around and less less less military spending on all sorts of security surveillance and the whole round of money sucking international military support gads. That isn't even on the table.

 A vote for Hilary is as vain as any other vote- she is 'made in the voting persons own image' which is point I made earlier. If she represents to her supporter then it's projected self and what more vain is there than that. Mirror mirror on the wall who is the fairest candidate of them all. Me! And there's no Snow White about cause that would be a third party candidate ;) and they are bad! bad! so don't anyone be worrying about Jill Stein I'd say she has any number of establishment witches handing her poison apples at this point. Democratic Apple Pie anyone? yum.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Screwtape, Immigration, Children, DACA and the Border Wall -

Is the use of the word ASS in lyrics explicit?

Fuck you google (YouTube Owner) you fuck.