If I was American I’d be voting Hillary Clinton. Well of course I would. I’m not a psychopathic ball of lukewarm vomit after all.

But I’d be very angry that in the general election, of the so called defender of world democracy, that the choice has been diminished to this.

Trump of course, is a dangerous lunatic, wanting to be president out of some fascistic need to be the head of a personality cult – America’s answer to Kim Jong-Un.

‘Let’s make American great again.’ he babbles. And with Trump ‘great’ means simply  ‘rich’.

But what timeframe is her referencing? When America became a democracy in 1920, when women gained the vote? Or does he mean earlier? The 19th century? What does he think made American ‘great ‘in the first place? Does he mean slavery? Probably. For Trump money seems to the sole arbiter of greatness. If you have money you are good. If you are poor then you are probably a Muslim or a Mexican and should be put behind a wall.

The fact that his core support seems to come from white, working and middle class male voters is laughably insane. Seeing as it was the economic policies of  his Republican predecessors like Reagan and Bush that seemed to accelerate the rot in America’s ‘greatness’ for that segment of the population in the first place. And Reagan was also lionised by these idiots – despite being simply a mediocre actor in a bad wig, who was the original corporate puppet.

Which brings us to Clinton  – clearly an efficient and intelligent person. Who should not be running for president, but is the sole hope for ‘American democracy’.

There I said it.

I have nothing against her, and can recognise the symbolic importance of finally having a female leader of the richest and most heavily armed country in the world.

But I can also see that she got that nomination through shady, shady means – those ‘superdelegates’ – unelected titans of business and money, whose opinion matters more than the regular delegates. Clinton was the anointed corporate candidate in 2008 but the groundswell of popular support enjoyed by Obama was so overwhelming it couldn’t be ignored.

Clinton doesn’t seem to be an inspiring choice of candidate. She represents the status quo – the unholy alliance of mega-corporations; obscene wealth and the arms industry. Her concern about the American population sounds nice, but skin-deep.

I’ve yet to hear her talking about how the banking industry is going to be strictly regulated to prevent future avoidable economic crashes. I don’t see he speaking about how the immoral levels of wealth of a handful of individuals is going to be redistributed among the masses – from which it was stolen – through taxing those mega-rich. I don’t see any plan to tackle climate change. I don’t see her condemning the 2nd Amendment – the ‘right’ to bear murder weapons – as a savage notion and a grave mistake made by a young country.

What I do see is lip-service paid to wedge issues like gay marriage. Not that gay marriage is unimportant to those who fought for it. But if your house is going to be repossessed because wages have been reduced as a result of government financial  policy then I suppose at least your relationship will now have legal status at the homeless shelter. You can still, of course, be fired for simply BEING gay, and earn a minimum wage that doesn’t enable you to feed yourself. But at least you can get married right?

These issues like gay marriage and trans bathroom rights and abortion rights and immigration rights are absolutely important and worth fighting for – but when they are used to hide the fact that larger government policy – on either the Democrat or Republican side – is for the benefit of the oligarchy then they serve only as a distraction. To show that there are differences between the two parties – on a purely cosmetic level anyway

Clinton is the only alternative to Trump and that is simply not good enough in a so-called democracy. Every election the mantra is the same. If you vote for a third candidate then you are going to the more extreme of the two anointed candidates. Therefore a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in 2000. A vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton in 1992.

A vote for a candidate who you support and believe in, is a spoiled vote. Therefore if Sanders – who represents the alternative leftwing voice – ran for election as an Independent he would be guaranteeing a Trump presidency.

There’s something wrong in the state of Denmark said Shakespeare. And it smells distinctly American.

As the electoral system seems rigged that there are only two possible outcomes ever – Democrat or Republican. And when both those parties (and by parties I don’t mean individual senators or congress-people who  try to work within the confines of the rigged system)  are owned by corporate America, the choice is not much of a choice at all.

It becomes the choice of the lesser of two evils – which is not a real choice. Clinton is not evil, but she is not going to change a damned thing – she is the corporate puppet who will make all the right noises on the right issues.

We’ll still end up with TTIP.

The alternative to her is simply too horrible to contemplate. Can you imagine the nuclear codes in the hands of a rabid megalomaniac like Trump?

At least with Clinton, the inevitable war she will involve the US in, probably won’t ensure he destruction of the planet.

And even if Clinton is elected (which is most probable outcome) by the time the next election comes round, not a damned thing will have been done to change the undemocratic core of the system.

Ireland is no better of course. Eight years after the financial destruction of the state – which has still not recovered, the architect of that annihilation Fianna Fail is leading in the opinion polls again, while in coalition with its doppelganger Fine Gael – their civil war opponent.

In the relentless race to the bottom the same refrain some things never change.

That is no choice at all.