Burn it down and start things over
And the rich will live in clover–
And the poor? They won’t be living much at all.
When a problem needs some fixing,
You can bet my plan is nixing:
Burn it down and start things over, that’s my call!
Saving neighborhoods takes money
So–although it’s kinda funny
Spending more and saving fewer’s how to go!
Yes, and planning for prevention
Just defies my comprehension
Saving neighborhoods takes money–I say no!
Burn it down and start things over
And the rich will live in clover–
And the poor? They won’t be living much at all.
When a problem needs some fixing,
You can bet my plan is nixing:
Burn it down and start things over, that’s my call!
We’ve been burning up our planet
(Heard of “life”? This place began it)
And we’re doing stuff we really ought to stop
But such change would cut our profit–
Use it up, and them move off it!
Just make sure the billionaires go out on top!
Burn it down and start things over
And the rich will live in clover–
And the poor? They won’t be living much at all.
When a problem needs some fixing,
You can bet my plan is nixing:
Burn it down and start things over, that’s my call!
This debate has got me thinking
(And by “thinking” I mean drinking)
How the Hell did we arrive at where we are?
A tradition of oration
But, tonight–self-medication
This debate has got me thinking “how bizarre”
Burn it down and start things over
And the rich will live in clover–
And the poor? They won’t be living much at all.
When a problem needs some fixing,
You can bet my plan is nixing:
Burn it down and start things over, that’s my call!
Today’s verse was partially inspired by Trump’s “burn it all down” campaign, and partially by Johnson’s “burn it down and leave it” global warming plan.
I will be fine no matter who wins. I am a privileged white, middle class, yadda yadda yadda… But try as I might, I can’t stop caring about other people. And no, not everybody could survive 4 years (everyone says 4 years, no one says a generation of the Supreme Court).
I’ve watched these candidates for decades. It is abundantly clear who is the only choice. I have kids. I hope to have grandkids. This choice matters.
Oh… obviously, we need more verses. There is a tune to this one… and I think the closest thing I can find to it is Linda Ronstadt’s guest commercial for Plow King on The Simpsons. It’s not perfect, but once you have that in your head, you’ll get this one. And no, I did not actively think of that song while writing. Afterward, I recognized the similarity.
So write more verses! You have the tune–no excuses!
For some reason, that struck me more as a show tune sung by Rex Harrison and a chorus. Excellent as always, though.
Oh it’s true a generation
of this entire nation
is subject to the powers that they wield
But what about a treaty
put in place by greedy
corporations that is valid til repealed?
If the TPP (which Clinton supports) gets ratified, it’ll be screwing over us and a dozen other countries for longer than the term of anyone appointed to the supreme court in the next four years.
So a lie about Clinton’s current position is enough to get you to throw women and minorities under the bus? Not a good look, Jake.
I’ve been saying a generation of the Supreme Court, but I’m just an anonymous Canadian. Yes, Clinton is the moneyed interests status quo, but if Trump wins and gets to appoint a couple of justices, the US can say goodbye to voting rights, reproductive rights, and LGTBQ rights for years to come.
Seriously? Not this bullshit again.
Clinton was an ardent supporter of the TPP, and has a history of supporting corporate handout “trade deals” in general. As Secretary of State, she probably contributed to writing the TPP. However, once it became politically toxic, she suddenly declared she opposed it.
No one in their right mind would think for a moment that her newfound opposition to it is sincere— unless they’ve already committed to the idea that Clinton can do no wrong.
Just as a quick reminder, I’m voting for Stein, not Trump.
Stein has made racial equality a major part of her campaign (such as it is).
Clinton has a history of supporting laws that, at their most charitable, didn’t mean to be racist.
Stein was actually on the ground protesting Dakota Access.
Clinton, as far as we can tell, thinks the pipeline should be built.
Clinton believes that millions of Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, and Honduran lives are acceptable “collateral damage” in the name of Corporate America’s colonial ambitions.
Stein? Not so much.
Or by “minorities” did you mean LGBTA?
Stein’s record may be spotty to nonexistent, but Clinton’s record is actively shameful— forget basic dignity or nondiscrimination, Clinton opposed the basic right to marry until polls showed 51% of Americans supported it.
Or maybe you meant disabled people? That one hits a little closer to home.
Stein supports universal health care and a greatly expanded social safety net.
Clinton expects me to die as soon as my parents can no longer support me.
And you are so scared of Trump that you’re willing to throw all these minorities (including me) under the bus in the hope of being rid of him.
Jake Harban @ # 5: … I’m voting for Stein…
One (1) question: do you live in a swing state?
Does it matter?
In Cuttlestate, a vote for Stein (who would have both houses of congress stonewalling her, and can only be a spoiler and not a winner this year) would be a vote for Trump. Period.
So you’re saying that if you mark the ballot for Stein, it will be counted as a ballot marked for Trump? That’s a level of electoral fraud I doubt any state would be able to get away with so easily— do you have any evidence for it?
No, that is not what I am saying, and you know it. Everyone, yourself included, knows what I mean by this. It is why Pierce asked what he did in comment 6.
You can show yourself out; I am actively less likely to vote for Stein because of your comments here.
No, I’m well aware that you were arguing that voting for Stein instead of Clinton has the practical effect of supporting Trump.
As such, I’ve decided on a compromise— rather than voting for Stein-instead-of-Clinton, I will vote for Stein-instead-of-Trump.
That should be satisfactory for both of us, since I will regard that as a vote for Stein but you will regard it as actually a vote for Clinton.
Ah.
You must be the rare exception, then; Stein overwhelmingly pulls from people who would never have supported Trump ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440085/gary-johnson-jill-stein-hurt-hillary-clinton-more-than-trump ). But I’m guessing you knew that, since you recognized my point.
I got your point but you seem to have missed mine.
I would never support Trump, but I would never support Clinton either. Someone who would murder millions of people through imperialistic wars, condone the torture of political prisoners, support a massive surveillance state and sell out the country to whichever companies wrote the Trans-Pacific Partnership all while cementing these things as the liberal option against which the only alternative is the Republicans is not worthy of support no matter how many token concessions they make towards abortion rights or how many empty speeches they make about the minimum wage.
Your claim that my voting for Stein supports Trump rests on the assumption that Clinton owns my vote; that by failing to mark my ballot for her, I am depriving her of something rightfully hers, thus weakening her ability to defeat Trump. This is not the case.
The distinction between “Stein-instead-of-Clinton” and “Stein-instead-of-Trump” is meaningless; intention is not magic and whatnot. Both are a vote for Stein and nothing else. The claim that any vote for Stein “steals” a vote from Clinton (or supports Trump by extension) requires presuming that Clinton has a right to those votes before they were even cast.
I, like you, have the privileged position of making my vote over those issues. I am privileged enough that I could make my vote about science issues (where I have some strong disagreements with Stein). I choose instead to cast my vote on behalf of my less privileged friends who might lose big under Trump.
I don’t think anyone owns your vote but you. You vote about what you care about. I care about the consequences of my vote, about environmental issues, about voting rights, about women’s reproductive rights, about a string of things that Trump and Clinton differ on. Because one of those two is going to win in Cuttlestate. People I care about are scared shitless about a Trump presidency–knowledgeable, politically active people. Rather than listen to you tell me that Stein is their savior, I listen to them, and they are overwhelmingly lining up with Clinton. Of course they don’t agree with everything–they don’t agree with everything on any candidate, including yours. Clinton doesn’t own their vote; they have thought about the issues and decided she is their best choice in this election. I’m with her because I’m with them.
We’re done here.
There’s a certain lack of self-awareness in this one paragraph.
I point out the millions of lives likely to be lost as a direct result of a Clinton presidency (including, possibly, mine) and yet you, while acknowledging your own privileged position, proceed to ablesplain at me about how I should check my privilege because some of your friends who are less privileged than you (but apparently more so than me) might potentially lose big under Trump but not Clinton.
Millions of people in Syria, Libya, and anywhere else Clinton may decide to bomb in the future may not be your friends but their lives are not acceptable collateral damage to secure the relative safety of your privileged friends here in the States.
I’m certainly not your friend (even I’m well aware that I’m getting on your nerves) but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that the support I may well need to survive is not something you have any right to compromise to secure the relative comfort of your privileged friends not burdened by disability.
Very well. Then regardless of whether I live in a swing state or not, my vote for Stein is a vote for Stein— not Clinton or Trump.
(I deliberately avoid answering the swing state question because even if you’re willing to accept that people in non-swing states are “allowed” to vote for Stein, it still means I’m symbolically agreeing to receive permission from the Democrats before I vote against them.)
I care about the consequences of my vote, about environmental issues, about voting rights, about the lives of brown people in foreign countries, about the rights of political prisoners being tortured in America’s concentration camps, about disability benefits, about universal health care, about the future of the planet, and a massive string of other things that Trump and Clinton completely agree on. Peel away the empty rhetoric and focus only on what they actually believe, and Clinton is far far closer to Trump than to Stein. When looking at the broader effect on future governments, electing Clinton may well be worse than electing Trump.
Jake Harban @ # 7: Does it matter?
Disingenuousness will get you … nowhere.
I’d really like to see the Green Party get a major vote increase in 2016 – in the states where it won’t help Trump or his GawdOffal Party. Maybe that will draw in enough talent to, you know, actually organize a functional progressive party.
But for those of us who live in states where our ever-more-irrelevant vote does matter – then, yes, it matters. Even more than egotistical purism and empty rationalizations, believe it or not.
I’m pretty sure there are zero states in which voting against Trump would help Trump.
That’s sort of the idea.
Whether Stein wins or spoils, as long as she gets enough votes that the Democratic Party has to take notice, we have a shot at having progressive Democrats to vote for in 2018 and 2020 and beyond. And if the Democrats ignore the message, then there will be more Green votes in the future and the Greens become the new Democrats.
That said, I disagree with the idea that Trump winning would be a complete and unmitigated disaster. Even if he wins, he’s President not dictator— there’s very little a president can do without congress and there’s no way the Republicans will claim a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when polls are suggesting they might lose it outright.
Meanwhile, despite presidents having no power, they have a lot of responsibility and visibility— Trump winning means four years in which he’s the face of the Republican party and conservatism in general, during which time he can easily crater the Republican Party. On top of that, the President’s party tends to do poorly in the midterms, so the Democrats might well take back Congress entirely in 2018.
Meanwhile, if Clinton wins then we lose the White House entirely until 2024 at the earliest since it’s virtually impossible to primary challenge an incumbent president running for reelection. In the meantime, we have 8 years in which the public face of the Democratic party and liberalism in general is politically a Bush Republican who the media will prop up as the liberal edge of the overton window.
And while this may not mean much overall, it’s a little hard to ignore the fact that when Bush was President there was a massive outcry of progressives denouncing the Iraq war, but when Obama took office those same progressives started defending it (or at least defending his support of it).
Oh would you let this dumb trope die already? If you want to vote for a Bush Republican with a (D) after her name because you’re panicked about Trump, then fine. If you want to hypocritically call yourself a progressive, fine. But spare yourself the rhetorical aches of contorting yourself into claiming that as a supporter of progressive values, you oppose progressive values because the only reason anyone would be a progressive is “egotistical purism” whatever that means.
I said we were done here. Do you need help not commenting?
I had a replacement window salesman refuse to leave my house once. You remind me of him, mostly in that by the time he did leave (after we threatened to call the police), you could not have paid me enough to install those windows.
Jake Harban @ # 17: I’m pretty sure there are zero states in which voting against Trump would help Trump.
With that poor of an understanding of the peculiar arithmetic of US presidential elections, maybe our esteemed host is right @ # 12, and you really are a Trump Chump™.
In any case, he’s right @ # 14: this dialog is done.
As a Canadian lefty, I’ve often had to vote strategically (ABC, anything but Conservative) but I’ve always been happier with my options than I would be with Clinton. That said, the presidential election is the wrong time to try to give traction to a 3rd party, IMO.
Our current gov’t declared that, if they were elected, it would be the last First-Past-the-Post election. They have already begun looking into the options. I can’t frigging wait.