With less than a month to go, the countdown for the most important collective decision in living memory has now begun. The two contenders are therefore presented to ascertain the direct or, more likely, indirect effects of their policies on the blockchain industry. I covered Trump last…
With less than a month to go, the countdown for the most important collective decision in living memory has now begun. The two contenders are therefore presented to ascertain the direct or, more likely, indirect effects of their policies on the blockchain industry. I covered Trump last week. My views on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is presented below.
Never before has the elite, in America or any western country, so fully backed only one presidential candidate. Not one CEO of Fortune 100 companies supports Donald Trump. All mainstream newspapers endorsed Hillary – something that has never happened before in any western country for such high office. Is this an elite ordering the free people in a co-ordinated fashion or does Hillary actually present something to our nation?
Hillary Clinton’s path to such height is now familiar and resembles aristocracies. Born to a rich businessman, she graduated from Yale Law School more than 40 years ago when a cold war between the superpowers of the Soviet Union and USA constantly threatened Armageddon, when civil rights of African Americans had just been won, with a long road for gay rights having begun.
In this unrecognizable era for millennials and most of the electorate, presumably through the political connections of her parents, Clinton secured advisory and consultant positions in the halls of Washington, beginning the acquisition of continued political power for almost four decades, from governor’s wife, to co-presidency, to senator, secretary of state and now, perhaps, president.
However, what one finds striking is that not one achievement stands out nor does she present any reason why she wishes to be president or what she aims to achieve. Instead, with some of the highest political power in the land and world over four decades, Hillary has given this generation a return of dangerous tensions with Russia as in her youth, a burned Arabia, the greatest economic recession in more than a century which almost brought us to the brink of total collapse, a level of debt that one can’t comprehend, an embodiment of corruption, enriching herself from being broke in 2000 to now being worth $200 million despite a salary of around $100k a year, mass surveillance, enthusiastic support for the Iraq War and a cavalier attitude towards human life.
Hillary’s economic plan is a traditional tax and spend position with more than half a trillion on infrastructure and debt free universities plus hundreds of billions on smaller programs, on too many issues to mention, paid for by more taxes.
For our industry specifically, she is the first presidential nominee to comment on blockchain technology, stating that she wants America’s government services to use public blockchains. As UK and China are doing the same, this is probably more a position by America’s civil service than a presidential candidate with the project probably implemented regardless of administration.
Of significance, however, is Hillary’s stated aim to “identify, review and reform legal and regulatory obligations that protect legacy incumbents against new innovators” according to her campaign. However, this is a yearlong effort in our industry with results dependent primarily on civil servants rather than the president. What may, nonetheless, effect the speed of those results is the overall tone of the administration which for Hillary would be an increase in regulation, taxes on financial institutions, and a probable continuation of the very slow response by US regulators to the fast moving pace of the blockchain environment.
Of particular note is that under the Democratic administration Fintech centers of California and New York have earned the title of the least regulatory friendly, out of seven global fintech centers, with London’s conservative (republican) government earning the crown of the Fintech capital of the world primarily due to its highly welcoming regulatory environment.
The candidacy of Hillary Clinton is mainly dependent on the battles our parents fought and won in their youth. That is racial equality, sexual equality, and the overall principle of judging others by their character.
The role of the state in such matters, now 50 years later, is no longer very clear as instead of discriminatory legislation we have laws against discrimination with no one suggesting any amendments. Our generation therefore largely considers these matters as non-issues. We have grown up and now work with people of all races, sexes, sexual orientations and nationalities. We see no discrimination in our daily lives, so having individuals of all inclinations in the highest of public and private offices. We, therefore, consider equality of opportunity as self-evident.
What is in debate, and is more a cultural issue than a legislative matter, is whether critiquing certain sexual gender teachings – there are apparently now some ten sexual orientations, including gender fluid – a phobia of some kind or debating important matters, especially for teenagers who are going through confusing years? Is a white person writing about a black character racist? Is saying that Mexican immigrants who engage in the drug trade come in through pours borders xenophobic?
What many fear is that in the name of equality we are instead recreating racism, sexism, and other isms by turning individuals into groups, in the process creating walls and perpetuating an us vs them which only stigmatizes. Trumps position is to unite all groups, whether black or white, man or woman, or any other “group,” under one banner: American while Hillary re-iterates self-evident position that find wide agreement – equal pay for equal work, no racism, religious tolerance, etc.
However, she has successfully managed to use words as a weapon, repeatedly calling and painting her opponent as racist, sexists, etc, in the process effectively using the nazi’s tactics of dehumanizing and scapegoating, turning a very complex and successful businessman into somehow less than a human due to a label given from on high – bringing to mind the visibly symbolic Star of David that turned men and women into scapegoats with some even suggesting some sort of T stigma for Trump supporters.
If Trump was actually racist, as in he would not shake hands with a black man or woman, or he goes into a tirade about racial theory and all that nonsense, then of course we would want to shame him and send him to the fringes, but labeling an ordinary American, brought up in the most diverse country on earth, with employees of all races, nationalities, religions, and two daughters, one of whom has converted to Judaism, a presidential candidate who won the nomination with the highest number of votes by any candidate ever, as all sorts of isms or phobias is destructive and dangerous authoritarianism.
It is an indictment of American democracy and public level of discourse that this election seems to mainly rely on coordinated scapegoating of a presidential candidate with the latest example, by what used to be a respected publication, fully taking out of context and twisting words to outright and overtly smear.
Yet when it comes to actual issues, there is as good as no discussion in the mainstream media, especially on Hillary’s positions on what really matters and is at stake, such as war and peace where the president has unchecked power.
Clinton’s stated positions on ISIS are very much a continuation of her policies as Secretary of State which itself is a continuation of Bush’s policies that have led to the current heightened geopolitical situation where a small sparkle may turn into a terrible fire. Russia is or feels encircled, as does China, resembling very much the awful geopolitical games that our grandparents’ elites used to play, ending up with our grandfathers sent to the trenches.
Far more strikingly, Hillary’s own campaign page calls ISIS “radical jihadis.” Jihad has a very specific meaning in Islam, translating roughly to holly war. Hillary therefore is calling individuals who have been highly manipulated and brainwashed by their leaders to go and kill themselves while their leaders most probably enjoy all sorts of luxuries, individuals who carry out the most atrocious acts, including medieval barbaric beheadings, burnings, outright massacres, individuals who have opened fire in the streets of Paris against perfectly innocent and defenseless civilians, she calls those who stole our peace, in effect, holly warriors, inviting more of such heinous crimes in our countries.
This gives credence to accusations that the far left and political islam have formed a temporary alliance to gain and retain power at the expense of human decency, life and peace itself, as well as people’s description of Hillary as a warmonger, to the point where a lifelong democrat, who served under John Kennedy and further benefits from the perspective of more than half a century, felt compelled to write in a brilliant article that he was voting for Trump.
The real issue in this presidential election is not civil rights which have long been won in the west, but a far more important question for all sexes, races, religions. Are we happy to allow the continued increase of geopolitical tensions that may end with us being sent to the trenches, or shall we elect a candidate who finds common ground with Russia, who actually intends to defeat ISIS, restoring the image of both Muslims and the west? Are we happy to allow the continued cronyism with elected officials getting rich by selling laws, a political FED which keeps on money printing, a career politicians class which follow aristocratic paths with laws discarded and whistleblowers prosecuted for serving the American people or should we give a chance to a self-made man who does not depend on lobbyists and actually knows how to run and manage a business empire?
Hillary doesn’t talk about any of this or her policies. She has nothing to offer nor do we have any reason to believe she cares, so solely relying on scapegoating her opponent. When we look, however, we find a perfectly ordinary American on one side who largely shares our values and has some good policies that aim to actually solve problems, and an elitist warmonger on the other side, who asks whether she can drone an Australian citizen in the great city of London. This is without even going into her past scandals showing a den of corruption, numerous presidential pardons for alleged accomplices and even allegations of the highest crimes as well as the impeachment of her husband for perverting the course of justice, her enthusiastic support for the Iraq War and her close connections to Wall Street. Receiving money and donations from military manufacturers, alcohol and drug industries, banks, oil industries, Saudi Arabia, Russia and anyone else who wants to buy a favor with no care for the basement dwellers.
Why anyone would support her presidential candidacy (although it is doubtful anyone does considering no one shows up to hear her) after looking at the actual facts and acts, can only be explained by the mass media’s highly irresponsible coverage of this election with some accusing them of acting as a propaganda arm (they even tampered his microphone) scapegoating almost 50% of America, which in effect amounts to a coronation and an end to the charade we call democracy that has so incredibly overtly revealed itself.
However, we might have a chance to change all this through Trump, if he delivers. He too is an aristocrat of sorts, but what scandal has come out is incredibly minor and often justified or maybe a small slip showing he is actually human with no allegations of terrible crimes. Though imperfect, realistically he offers hope for a better future and change of direction with plans and solutions of how it can be achieved. Hillary, instead, leaves us not just hopeless, but with fear and worry for the next decade.
Nonetheless, there still remains another four weeks until the election. Therefore, the author, although now leaning Trump, is not yet fully decided with a final position statement to be published around the end of the month.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are solely that of the author and do not represent those of, nor should they be attributed to CCN.
Images from Shutterstock and Wikimedia.
Last modified: January 25, 2020 11:54 PM UTC