On the subject of the November presidential election.

TOO much hatred on Facebook. And outside of it. But am I going to shut the door and avoid social media? No. I need to know what's on people's minds, no matter how harsh and foul, than not to know what's going on. Offline, I've been talking with older citizens of this country—and we share the same fear. People simply hate people these days. I am flabbergasted how those who categorically say if you post something religious (Bible verse or whatever), you are out of one's Facebook. Same people who unfriend people just because they don't agree about current presidential candidates. You are out because you don't like my candidate. You are not my friend because you don't sing with my choir? And these come from mostly people who call themselves progressives or activists. That is not activism to me. That is a very one-dimensional take at things. So instead of bridging gaps, we widen them. 
          I am not angry. I am writing/talking the way that I've been all through my life. And I don't shut it if I deem something has to be said.

IN 1999, when the hardcore activists waged a battle in Seattle against the World Trade Organization's (WTO) economic globalization program, not many were talking. Then China went in following its embrace of open-door policy (following the Tiananmen Square tempest in 1989) and so this is the world now, according to Beijing. Meanwhile Russia, the world's number #1 producer of oil, entered WTO as well in 2012. Due to globalization, most of what we consume in America are coming outside of this country, and labored by people in mostly third world economies. The Bernie Sanders camp should have learned after the Occupy din went silent, and groundworked the American mass—especially those who gravitate to Donald Trump, instead of calling them idiots. Groundworking/advocating beyond the choir is old school activism/advocacy. Yet it was effective and it always worked.

           We went deep into urban poor lairs and countryside/small towns and talked to people—while we forged tactical alliance with the middle class and the sympathizing rich. That was the activism that I knew. There was hope when the Occupy Movement gathered people. They could have used that massive throng to carry on and then reeducate the public vis a vis elections. I don't think Trump is the answer and I don't Bernie is either to America's woes. I don't know if Hillary is. America is very fragmented right now and Washington, both camps, are worried. China now has a WB/IMF counterpart and some European countries are joining in. Russia may rule OPEC. And South China Sea (where Foxconn, the largest manufacturer of our e-baubles, is located) and where regional security is utmost vis a vis global terrorism is holding forth. A US president who works around that, will be the effective one.

I WOULD like to gladly educate (or inform) my dearest friend, who is obviously a rabid Republican, not to fear or sound alarm that a socialist president will most likely turn America into a Third World nation. Here are six rich countries that somehow follow certain socialism tenets: Norway, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, France, Denmark. Then there is China, which uses the basis of socialism: the state controls everything for the benefit of the people with the absence of any real democracy. They are of course fast becoming a very rich superpower in a quaint mix of socialism and state-planned semi-free capitalism. Then there is Russia, the Numero Uno producer of crude oil globally. To illustrate how rich Russia is--the max salary of a WNBA player in the US is $250,000. In Russia, it's $5 million.

         Moreover, the countries that I enumerated above, for long periods during their ascent as a modern democracy, social democrats have had a large influence on their legislation and government policy. As a result, certainly by American standards, these countries can be considered socialist. They tend to favor government influence or regulation over free market dynamics. They're all in the top twenty of the world's richest nations.

Yet I still maintain that whatever a president's sociopolitical agenda is—socialism, democracy, donut freedom—if the people don't abide by it or this mode of governance doesn't gain public support, that administration will fall. I don't need to cite historical records.

         So there!