Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Monday, February 17, 2020

POLITICAL MUSINGS


































































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 12, 2016

HOW DID WE GET HERE?












































MESSAGE TO TRUMP SUPPORTERS WHO ARE NOW ACTING SHOCKED AND DISMAYED THAT PEOPLE ARE UPSET AND HAVE CHOSEN TO PROTEST HIS ELECTION, NOT THAT PROTESTING IT WILL CHANGE THE ELECTION RESULT, BUT PERHAPS MR. TRUMP WILL RECOGNIZE THAT THE WIND HE HAS STIRRED UP DOES NOT BLOW IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION.

Why are there people upset at those who are upset that Trump was elected president? Those people have CLEARLY given their reasons - because of the many well documented abhorrent things Trump has said and done over the years. Even if you believe he's bluffing about deporting and wall building, or locker room bantering about stuff like groping women, there are still terrible things that are beyond dispute such as him belittling people verbally and profiling African Americans so they couldn't rent apartments in his building. Why be bothered by people who are angry and disrespectful towards a single person (no matter how important a job he now has, Trump's still just one very flawed man), but you were never upset about millions/billions of people that he apparently sees as lesser humans? This amounts to co-signing that you feel some people are inherently inferior to others. Can't you see that? If not, why not? For the love of God, the man's election is being celebrated by the Klu Klux Klan. How can you not understand why this would be upsetting to people? You are familiar with what the KKK represents, right? I'm not saying Trump's a member, but he barely bothered to disavow David Duke so if the hood fits. Why does this not bother YOU? Because Trump is soon to be THE PRESIDENT? If so then why weren't you upset when he falsely accused the sitting president of being a foreign born Muslim no matter how much evidence to the contrary was presented. Could it be that the office of president was no big deal to you for the past 8 years, but suddenly it's prestigious again now that Trump has been elected? I certainly don't co-sign outlandish statements such as calls to assassinate. Of course that's ridiculous. But why should protests and facebook statuses upset you? They're not about YOU. They're about this man who has been elected president of the entire United States of America who has been incredibly disrespectful towards a large % of its citizens. Or could it be that you're upset because you do co-sign his disrespect and superiority complex towards others of other races/religions/gender? Please tell me that isn't so. If it isn't, then respect the rights of others to be very bothered by Trump's election just as citizens of this nation have always used their freedom of speech to express dismay over various matters that have troubled them about this country. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, Loving vs State of Virginia ruling was in 1967. Not exactly ancient history. So of course people have the right to be very worried that certain inalienable rights are suddenly very much in danger of being revoked as result of the 2016 elections. You don't have to be worried or upset yourself. I won't insist that you feel empathy. But you can at least understand why others are troubled. This country was founded on the concept of protest after all.
                         MATTERS OF CONVENIENCE






Goodreads Book Giveaway

Matters of Convenience by Roy L. Pickering Jr.

Matters of Convenience

by Roy L. Pickering Jr.

Giveaway ends December 24, 2016.
See the giveaway details at Goodreads.
Enter Giveaway


For a chance to win a copy of MATTERS OF CONVENIENCE from Amazon - GO HERE
Cost of book is on me. All I ask from you is a tweet.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, June 10, 2016

#GirlIGuessImWithHer














































Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, October 17, 2008

Grace Under Pressure




One thing I believe democrats, republicans, independents, and could-give-a-crappers agree on is that possessing the ability to remain calm, cool and collected under trying circumstances is a commendable attribute. No matter what occupation a person may have or what activity he or she is involved in, it will no doubt be performed at a superior level by someone able to handle unexpected bumps in the road than by someone who crumbles when confronted by crisis. We don't all agree on how the economy should be fixed, or how the Iraq war should be dealt with, or on whether it's okay to wipe out endangered species in pursuit of oil, or on Roe versus Wade, or at which point the welfare system and government bail outs officially transform the U.S. from a capitalist to a socialist nation, or on the right of private citizens to bear glocks and AK-47's and missile launchers. We are all in agreement that nobody wants to pay taxes, but since it seems that we have to pay them anyway, we aren't in agreement on precisely who should pay exactly how much. This is a partisan nation because there are far too many choices for everyone to consistently be on the same side of the fence, and in fact, most people feel conservatively about certain issues and liberally towards others regardless of how they vote on election days. So it's tough to know every four years whether the donkey candidate or the elephant candidate or some wild card entrant like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader will be the best person to preside over our nation. It's a gamble each and every time. The various issues become so convoluted as the opponents distort each other's records that inevitably voters resort to what our overburdened brains can handle and make it a simple popularity contest. Which candidate makes us feel safest? Which one would we most want to have a beer with? Which one makes us feel more warm and fuzzy inside? Which candidate looks more like an actor who would most likely be chosen to play the president in a Hollywood movie? Questions such as these are usually easier to reach a consensus on than those vaguely and insufficiently answered on the campaign trail. Being in clear cut agreement on something creates a comfort level sorely needed in such trying times as the present, which leads me back to the first sentence of this commentary.




John McCain entered the presidential race credited as the most experienced candidate by far. Being the most experienced doesn't equate to having the best judgement or being the most competent or even the most knowledgeable, but it does count for something. It counts for more than usual when the person you're running against is basically a newbie, so you're able to say stuff like - "I can get started in the first minute of day one while my opponent would require a guided tour to learn where the nearest bathroom is". I paraphrase of course because that's a lot easier to do than actual research. My brilliant wit aside though, I'm sure McCain figured he would be the logical choice for Americans because of his claim to know his way around the corridors of Washington DC yet also declaring himself the ultimate reforming maverick, thus simultaneously playing the experience card and trying to wrest the change card from his opponent's grasp. Being a war hero didn't look too shabby on his resume either. He's the same race as every other man who has ever held the job, but just in case this somehow worked against rather than for him in these evolutionary and revolutionary times, he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to have an equally firm grip on the minority card. John McCain had everything figured out except for one not so small thing that he somehow failed to learn from his first presidential bid. While it is not quite so difficult as actually being President, running for president is a pretty tough endeavor. Challenges will emerge from every nook and cranny. Not a single skeleton will be left alone in the closet and no stones whatsoever will be left unturned, unprobed, unprodded. But no matter how many trials and tribulations come along between the announcement to run for president and election day, the recommended code of conduct is crystal clear. You are not allowed to appear ruffled, to seem unnerved, to become visibly agitated, to sweat even the big stuff never mind the small stuff, to appear dazed and confused and distraught and overwhelmed. Not without being penalized for it. If you want to become president, you need to be able to exhibit that you can consistently appear presidential. Squirming and grimacing and freaking out are not part of the profile. You aren't allowed to call 'time out'. Running for president is not for the faint of heart or character.




Here is a list of non-presidential actions. Suspending (in name but not actually doing it) your campaign in order to grandstand. Not being able to suppress looks of disdain in a televised debate. Selecting a running mate solely for gimmicky political reasons rather than qualifications. Referring to your opponent as "that guy" while doing everything under the sun to refrain from making eye contact with him. It has been difficult for John McCain to convince the majority of Americans that he is the best choice because he is a following behind the worst presidency of all time and happens to belong to the same political party. The fact that he has voted the same as Bush 90% of the time is not particularly helpful. Remarking that the economy is not his strong suit mere months before the collapse of our economy, stating that the fundamentals of our economy are strong just a few hours before all hell broke lose, definitely proved to be problematic for McCain. But these factors should have been minor compared to the obstacles Senator Obama has had to deal with. Obama is a black man with a foreign sounding name, including a middle name that is identical to the surname of the former leader of the country we're at war with and a last name that rhymes with the first of public enemy number one. Although untrue, it has not been difficult due to his background to imply with credibility that Obama is or was at one point Muslim, not the most popular religion in these parts nowadays. Reverend Wright's YouTube moments threatened to upend Obama's campaign, and when the holy roller chose to speak up for himself rather than be defined by short video clips, he did far more harm to Obama's candidacy than good. In order to earn the democratic party nomination, Barack Obama first had to get past the seasoned Senator Hillary Clinton in a grueling primary that at the time seemed to threaten to weaken the eventual winner, but in the end proved the old adage true that whatever does not kill you makes you stronger. Obama had to endure his wife being called unpatriotic because of a single comment that was twisted to mean what the opposition wanted us to believe, and an affectionate gesture between the senator and his wife was referred to as a "terrorist fist pump". If ever there was a moment to blow one's cool, that was it. He has been painted as elitist because of one poorly phrased statement, preference for arugula salad over artery clogging fast food, and poor bowling skills. The 99.5% of times he phrases things beautifully, his eloquence and abilities to articulate and think quickly on his feet have somehow been branded as character defects. How could someone be well spoken and in touch with the needs of the common man (apparently that man's name is Joe Six-Pack the Plumber) at the same time? You hear such nonsense over and over again and it makes you wanna holla. But you'd never know it from looking at Barack Obama. As financial institutions collapsed around him he remained in control. Russia invaded Georgia and he remained in control. He was accused of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids, palling around with terrorists, calling Sarah Palin swine in make-up, and various other false atrocities. Yet in each instance he simply set the record straight while maintaining his poise. Not once did he blink, much less panic. What he has done is fit the description of the job he is seeking. He has been presidential. Now we need only wait until November 4th when hopefully the people of this country will see through the BS and see fit to make Barack Obama our 44th president.


- Roy Pickering (Author of Feeding the Squirrels: A Novella)


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, May 9, 2008

Hillary Clinton in her own words




“There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me… I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

And now for my words on the subject. It doesn't take a linguistics expert to spot that Mrs. Clinton is equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans". Apparently she has conceded the shiftless negro vote. Desperate times do indeed call for pathetic pleas for support, but Hillary should be smart enough to realize that making statements to guarantee an endorsement from the head of the KKK is not what it takes in this day and age to secure a national political nomination. Call Barack Obama an elitist all you want (Such an absurd claim. Simply look at the backgrounds of Barack and Hillary and then decide which one is actually more concerned about and at ease among people making less than 10 million dollars a year), but there is nothing wrong with being educated, cultured, healthy (last I checked, eating arugula was not one of the Seven Deadly Sins) and open minded, and certainly nothing noble about scraping the bottom of the barrell for people who enter a voting booth with little information to base their decision on beyond the race of the respective candidates. Yet I'll give Hill a pass. Perhaps she had, as her husband of all people would put it, another "senior moment" during an exhausting and increasingly frustrating campaign. Maybe she was under the duress of sniper fire while being interviewed. I won't implore Fox "News" (aka Blatantly Republican Network) and CNN to dedicate the same amount and degree of coverage to Clinton's bold statement as they did to Obama's "bittergate" or "pastorgate", or even as much air time as was given to such critical issues as flag lapels and bowling scores. The reason I'm being so magnaminous is because I don't believe people should vote against the candidate who they have been most effectively scared away from. I feel reasonably comfortable saying this because none of the candidates has the last name Bush. Everyone should support the nominee who inspires the most confidence that their own interests and strongest held beliefs will be supported by the upcoming presidency. If that person in your opinion happens to be Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Ralph Nader (Ralph is a candidate too, right?), then so be it. If it happens to be Barack Obama, congratulations on your display of common sense regardless of how hard working you are or what your melanin count happens to be.

- Roy Pickering (Author of FEEDING THE SQUIRRELS: A Novella)
http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Conspiracy Theory of the Day








The Barack Obama - Reverend Wright connection has been troubling to many voters. Political analysts and opponents in the presidential race have not been willing to let the matter die a natural death, and probably will not do so any time soon. Even after Obama’s magnificent speech in Philly many people remained dissatisfied because Obama did not publicly “disown” Wright. For some odd reason Jeremiah Wright subsequently chose to pick on and insult Obama rather than quietly going away into the night, which one would have expected him to do if there was genuine friendship between the men. Why would he choose to sabatoge Obama's chances at getting elected unless something was going on that the general public was not aware of? Pride? Love of the spotlight? Betrayal complex? Or was there something more mysterious to it? Granted, it is understandable that Rev. Wright would want to defend himself and his church after being condemned and caricatured on a daily basis. But surely there was a way to accomplish this without doing further harm to Obama. For one thing, he could have waited until after the upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina before making public statements. When he did speak he could have made it clear that he and his former parishioner agree to disagree on certain principles, reinforcing that he speaks for himself alone and that matching every one of his beliefs (many of which are not especially outlandish or inflammatory despite what his critics claim) with those of Obama is ludicrous. The most unAmerican thing I can think of is to belittle freedom of speech by roasting a man for criticizing this country as if we're all supposed to have our heads stuck in the sand and believe the US of A is a utopian society. He is guilty perhaps of overstating his opinions. Someone who shouts at you will always seem less reasonable and rational than one who speaks calmly, even if they are saying essentially the same thing. With the exception of the US government inventing AIDS specifically to kill off African Americans I have yet to hear any commentary from Rev. Wright that did not contain a fair measure of truth and common sense, regardless of whether one is inclined to wholeheartedly agree with the truth as he views it or not. He said for example that Native Americans who had their land forcibly taken from them, Japanese American detainees during World War II, and African Americans from the time they were dragged here from Africa have not received the most polite treatment by this nation. Is this really something that any sane person can dispute no matter how rabidly pro Red White and Blue they may be? Would this section of his sermon even have been seen as particularly controversial if he did not take things a step too far by revising "God Bless America" to "God D**n America"? No doubt he felt that such phrasing would give maximum emphasis and flair to his criticisms, and so it did, but it also made them easier to condemn for being too extreme, even traitorous. Had Jeremiah Wright simply clarified his positions with minimal mention of Obama's agreement or disagreement with them, this would have been a sufficient response to fight against the tainting of his legacy. Instead Rev. Wright got in some digs while in the act of defending himself, implying that Obama was a typical politician who spoke out of both ends of his mouth, saying what he felt was necessary at the time to secure the maximum amount of votes, easily willing to change his tune if convenient and advantageous to do so. Why would he do this when Obama had certainly been far gentler on him despite the fact that he may have pleased more voters by being tougher? After the third and most outlandish stop on Wright's speaking tour, Barack Obama finally grew angry and distanced himself from the reverend just as many felt he should have done from the get go. Now that he has given the people precisely what they were asking for, one wonders if it will aid his cause or will be a case of too little too late. Either way, I’m left to ponder if Wright's seemingly unnecessary and certainly inappropriate dissing of Obama was for show. Did he act the part of bad guy in calculated fashion since he had already been cast in that role anyway courtesy of the YouTube clips? Was his actual objective to enable Obama to once again be seen as the good guy? By going out of his way to provoke the Democratic frontrunner, practically begging for retaliation of some kind, he provided Obama with a convenient out. Could it be that he intended to help rather than hurt his friend? If so, did Wright do so on his own or were they in it together? Perhaps I'm being overly cynical (following this election will do that to you) but it does make one wonder how much of what we're watching is real and how much is theater. Yet stronger than this wonderment is my hope that Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee (perhaps giving a central role to Hillary Clinton in spite of her less than admirable efforts to win the nomination for herself), goes on to defeat John McCain in the general election (perhaps giving him a central role in spite of his fondness for war because he does strike me as being a good and sincere man), and then proceeds to live up to his promise.
xxxxxxxx

Roy Pickering (author of Feeding the Squirrels)


xxxxxxxx

Newsweek article that comments on same topic, minus conspiracy theory - http://www.newsweek.com/id/134766
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)