You're technically right in that this is just smart money playing both sides...
But the end result of a Clinton vs Bush win will be the same.
Further military action to push the same financial and strategic interests, expanded domestic surveillance, the kicking of multiple cans in regard to healthcare and debt, and favoritism for big money and big industry.
Any differences will be superficial, and only on issues that have no real relevance.
Good to know that Social Security & Medicare & the makeup of the Supreme Court have "no real relevance". Here I was naively thinking those things mattered.
Not to say I disagree with your points about further military action, expanded domestic surveillance, and favoritism for big money & big industry -- those observations are spot on and depressing -- but to extrapolate from those the conclusion that "there is no difference" is just flat out wrong. There are real differences and those differences do matter. While I would love to get someone in office who would really shake up the system for the benefit of all (a guy can dream, eh?), at least we should recognize and acknowledge the difference between a candidate who expressly wants to dismantle the social safety net and one who does not. Pretending that difference doesn't exist serves only destructive purposes.
You're technically right in that this is just smart money playing both sides...
But the end result of a Clinton vs Bush win will be the same.
Further military action to push the same financial and strategic interests, expanded domestic surveillance, the kicking of multiple cans in regard to healthcare and debt, and favoritism for big money and big industry.
Any differences will be superficial, and only on issues that have no real relevance.
Good to know that Social Security & Medicare & the makeup of the Supreme Court have "no real relevance". Here I was naively thinking those things mattered.
Not to say I disagree with your points about further military action, expanded domestic surveillance, and favoritism for big money & big industry -- those observations are spot on and depressing -- but to extrapolate from those the conclusion that "there is no difference" is just flat out wrong. There are real differences and those differences do matter. While I would love to get someone in office who would really shake up the system for the benefit of all (a guy can dream, eh?), at least we should recognize and acknowledge the difference between a candidate who expressly wants to dismantle the social safety net and one who does not. Pretending that difference doesn't exist serves only destructive purposes.
I don't believe either will accomplish anything in either direction with SS & Medicare, but I am extremely jaded and hope that I am wrong.
Regarding the SC appointments, you may have a point.
I personally find the latter list of issues (military, surveillance, corporate influence) to be of far more concern, however.
I honestly don't believe that positive change CAN happen in the SS/Medicare situation until after those other issues get out of the way of progress...
But that is just my own perspective.