(Washington, DC) In 2016, we have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis, cancer and the plague, teen Dance Moms and the 800 Club. Hillary and the Donald are each so repellant in their unique way, it's hard to imagine making a choice. The choice becomes even more difficult if you see each candidacy as a sign of the End Times. (Image: Maxwell Hamilton& DonkeyHotey)
When we discuss the dreadful choices for president, my friends tolerate my observations about Clinton's warmonger behavior and the threat she poses to the survival of the species. After all, I argue, as Secretary of State she helped formulate and execute the "Assad must go" strategy that kicked off the assault on the nation of Syria (aka, the Syrian civil war). The body count for Syria is now at 250,000 citizens. Add the 100,000 dead Libyans from that "civil war", another Clinton special, and you're talking about some very serious carnage.
Just when I think I've provided an indisputable rationale for not voting for Clinton, I get a sober and somewhat condescending look followed by the words "Supreme Court Justices."
Donald Trump's prospective choices to replace justices are somehow a more important factor in casting their vote than Clinton's trail of death and destruction (I never actually say this since these are my friends.) I also have to follow the old maxim: the poor workman blames his tool. In this case, my tool is an inadequate argument.
Enter the End Times
A better argument against a vote for Clinton is the very accurate position that both she and Trump are fully capable of ushering in the End Times. I'm not talking about the Book of Revelations or any other religious nonsense. End Times means exactly what it says -- time has run out for human society as we know it due to the vastly increased risk of a nuclear war resulting from the election of either candidate.
If most of us are dead and the survivors face a nuclear winter, does it really matter who gets selected for the United States Supreme Court? Seriously, who cares?
Over 1400 mayors of cities across the United States share my notion of the secular End Times. The U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Indianapolis approved a resolution calling for reduced tensions between NATO and Russia in very specific terms:
"The largest NATO war games in decades, involving 14,000 U.S. troops, and activation of U.S. missile defenses in Eastern Europe are fueling growing tensions between nuclear-armed giants, and according to former Defense Secretary William Perry: The probability of a nuclear calamity is higher today, I believe, that it was during the cold war." U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 24-27, Indianapolis, IN (Also see, AntiMedia coverage)
Clinton has a specific proposal to commence the final countdown to the end. One of her policies for the Middle East includes a U.S. declaration of a "no fly" zone over Syria. A declaration clearing the skies over Syria would require telling the Russian air force to cease their attacks on ISIS, Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria), and the Saudi supported Salafist terrorist organizations.
Her proposal would present a military challenge to the world's other nuclear superpower. Russia has already strenuously objected to the movement of NATO missiles closer to its border, a policy Clinton fully endorses. What might the response be to President Clinton's imperious command that they cease operations in Syria?
Surely, I thought, Clinton is just blowing off steam in the primaries. Wrong. The Intercept just reported that the Democratic Party Platform Committee turned down a platform plank stating that the "Democratic Party does not support direct U.S. military intervention against the Assad regime, including the imposition of no-fly zones or safe zones." Clinton supporters rose on unison to make sure that the resolution was withdrawn arguing that a President Clinton should not be bound by such a resolution. No, she should be allowed, they imply, to take us right up to the brink of nuclear war by attempting to humiliate a nuclear superpower that is doing the work we should be doing in Syria.
Clinton is a threat to humanity. But, what about Trump?
Amidst his Hitler Light proposals about U.S. Muslims and ranting about a wall that will never be built, there seem to be glimmers of rationality in his foreign policy statements. Trump says there is no need for a new cold war and that there is plenty of room for cooperation and trade with Russia. Does this get him off of the End Time hook? Absolutely not.
For those who haven't noticed, Trump is a relentless bully and has been one since at least the 1980s when he tried for years to frighten tenants into moving out of rent-controlled apartments he owned in midtown Manhattan. He constantly labels himself as a very tough negotiator who seeks to crush his opponents. He wants to create a U.S. military "so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us." He sought advice on terrorism policies from the National Rifle Association and says about terrorists, "you have to take out their families" to win the war on terror.
What happens when Trump decides he's been crossed or affronted by China or Russia? Will he take the humiliation and avoid approaching Defcon 1, imminent nucler war. Or, will Trump engage in his ridiculous bullyboy negotiating tactics by doubling down in any major confrontation he faces?