Part 6 in my series on the US Presidential Election. Disagreement is welcome; trolls will be ignored.
The Democratic Party is in deep trouble.
Put bluntly, it has a micro problem and a macro problem. The micro problem is called ‘Hilary Clinton.’ The macro problem is deeper, more profound and may – in the end – prove to be significantly more dangerous. It is nothing less than the threatened loss of all relevance to America.
Hilary Clinton, as I noted in two of my previous articles (here and here) is a simply appalling candidate. Indeed, her nomination is a joke in bad take. To all of the reasons I gave earlier, we can now add …
-There is a very strong perception that Hilary Clinton got away with a very serious set of criminal charges simply for being too big to indict. Laws are for little people, not for Hilary Clinton. The FBI did not clear her of any or all charges. Instead, it was decided not to go ahead with the prosecution.
-There is a very strong belief that Hilary Clinton won the nomination because the campaign was rigged in her favour.
-Hilary remains as laughably tone-deaf as ever. Appointing the person responsible for said rigging to a post within her campaign gives a very bad impression, yet Hilary is utterly unrepentant. Getting the father of a Muslim soldier to blast Trump on stage – and ignoring the parents of the soldiers killed because of her decisions was bad enough – but not checking his credentials beforehand was worse. Warning of the danger of giving Trump unfettered power over the IRS is just laughable when there is a whole series of scandals concerning Obama’s abuse of the IRS.
-Hilary still has a number of scandals dogging her heels. The Clinton Foundation – what happened to the money? Who gave them the money? What was the quid pro quo? What did Hilary say in those Wall Street speeches that have never been released? How close is Hilary to foreign investors, politicians and religious extremists? What about the links of her staff to foreign parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood?
-And so on and so on and so on.
Hilary simply has too many weaknesses to be a good candidate. Those who blast Trump for having no foreign policy experiences must somehow overlook the fact that Hilary has plenty of experience – all bad. Hilary played a major role in crafting a genuinely foolish foreign policy that weakened the United States at the worst possible time. She has flip-flopped from side to side, as the political winds blew hot and cold; she shows no sign that she is capable of choosing a policy and sticking to it when things threaten to go wrong. She certainly seems incapable of recognising a mistake and admitting to it.
Worse, she has to simultaneously defend President Obama’s legacy while moving away from it. Obama has proven a disastrous president – can she convince vast numbers of Americans that she can do better, after playing a major role in his administration?
Hilary has been a strikingly divisive figure ever since Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States. One may ask what Hilary has done to deserve this – to which one might toss the question right back. What has Hilary done? What are her achievements outside the political world?
The current global disruption has been categorised as a popular revolution against the political elites. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would not have done so well if there wasn’t a groundswell of popular revulsion against the elites. And Hilary is the ultimate representation of the elites. What does she have in common with the average American citizen? She doesn’t understand their lives, she doesn’t speak their language, she doesn’t have any comprehension of why the hoi polloi are tuning away from the political elites …
And, realistically, what charge can be levelled against Donald Trump that cannot also be levelled against Hilary?
In short, in this truly absurd election season, Hilary’s nomination for the presidency may be the most absurd thing of all.
The single most dangerous problem facing any revolutionary movement lies not when the movement is at risk of being defeated and crushed, but when total victory lies within its grasp. Victory does not just mean the end of the struggle, it means the end of the revolutionary movement itself. There is, quite simply, no longer any reason for its existence.
And yet, those who control such movements are rarely willing to abandon their power, now they have accomplished their goals. Power is seductive – and very few people are willing to give it up. History is littered with the remains of revolutionary movements that kept searching out new enemies, rather than sitting back and accepting the fruits of victory. The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution turned into tyrannies – and give birth to emperors with absolute power – because their leadership simply didn’t know when to stop. In order to justify their existence, they waged war on an endless series of newer and newer enemies, purging former friends and allies in their quest for relevance. Eventually, they collapsed in on themselves.
It may seem odd to discuss revolutionary movements in the same breath as the oldest American political party, but there is a point to this. Indeed, many of the problems currently facing the Democratic Party stem from its own successes.
The Democratic Party, in my view, can be fairly described as a set of ever-shifting voter blocs, presided over by the elites (the DNC). Each of these blocs – feminists, homosexuals, unionists, transgenders, blacks – has different sets of priorities. These priorities have a tendency to conflict, so successful candidates for the nomination must find a way to balance the desires and concerns of each of these blocs, without alienating too many of the other blocs. The general approach is to suggest, strongly, that these groups are victims – of everything but themselves – and that the Democrats will fix the problem if voted into office.
But the delicate balancing act may be falling apart.
I think it is fairly safe to say, right now, that the average right-winger in the United States accepts and tolerates the presence of homosexuals. He may not like the idea of homosexuality, but he accepts that homosexuals have a right to exist. And really, what more do the vast majority of homosexuals want? This acceptance allows them to start moving into the Republican Party – or, perhaps more dangerously, to start questioning the fundamental necessity for the Democratic Party.
The terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando illustrates the problem quite nicely. Nearly every political figure – Donald Trump was the only major exception – shied away from pointing the finger at Islamic Terrorism. Homosexuals suddenly had good reason to wonder if their best interests were being upheld. The enthusiastic support the Democrats had displayed, in the past, for gay rights had suddenly vanished. And they were not the only ones. Feminists, too, had good reason to worry about what might happen if more and more radicalised Muslims came to America.
In a desperate search to remain relevant, the Democratic Party needed more and more ‘victims.’ But every new ‘victim group’ they found came with its own baggage. The attempt to cast the transgender bathroom issue as the latest civil rights issue ran into the simple problem that every parent in America would be utterly horrified at the thought of their daughters sharing changing rooms with a biological man. Attempts to make people pity refugees from the Middle East ran straight into the simple fact that American patience with Islamic bad behaviour has almost completely run out.
And they have unleashed a whole series of dangerous new problems. Choosing to beatify a thug (killed during a violent attack) and a thief (shot in the process of committing a crime) has unleashed a wave of criminal activity as police refuse to do their jobs, fearing that they will become the latest target of the social justice mob. Black Lives Matter (which recently released a series of absurd demands) has done nothing more than confirm a number of very unflattering stereotypes about young black men; the absurdities on college campuses have more and more Americans screaming for repression, not tolerance.
One may argue that none of this is actually true. That doesn’t matter. All that matters, in politics, is perception. And the general perception is that the Democratic Party has played a major role in unleashing chaos.
The Democratic Party needs to take a good hard look at itself. Blaming Trump, or Putin, for its problems is disingenuous. The problems are structural and need to be fixed, urgently.
Someone – a grown-up – should really have gone to Hilary and explained, patiently, that she is simply an appalling candidate. She lost in 2008 to Barrack Obama; now, she’s a lame duck sinking in a quagmire of her own creation. The DNC should have looked for a candidate who could unite the party; Hilary could have been thanked for her services, then quietly pensioned off. (Or whatever – I have no idea how this situation could have been legally handled.)
Instead, they have a major problem. There is no reason to expect that Bernie’s supporters will automatically vote for Hilary. Why should they? They think Hilary fixed the nomination. Why should they not consider voting for Trump or simply staying home? And even without that, Hilary is not capable of being inspiring. Her credibility is non-existent. It seems unlikely that anything she says will be accepted without question …
And there is a growing perception that the media will always lie. As I have noted before, the media attacks on Trump are disregarded by his supporters – because they’ve seen too many decent candidates destroyed by media lies. And now the media has no credibility either.
Donald Trump has plenty of weaknesses. But many of them can no longer be exploited.
And whoever wins this election, the Democratic Party will have to spend some time cleaning up its own mess.
The Chrishanger 
I say put all members of the DNC on one island and all the members of the RNC on another island and then turn both islands to glass and start over. TO start with we need serious campaign reform, removing corporate donations and limiting the maximum amount that a single person can donation. I’m sure that other people can fill in the rest of the blanks.
Serious campaign reform as you have expressed it to be would involved serious amendments to the Constitution. There have been 13,000+ attempts to amend the Constitution and only 27 of them made it so far. A few required a vicious Civil War to become even possible to propose, yet alone, ratify. The last one took 202 years from start to finish to get ratified.
So, good luck with that! Really! You’ll need it.
Always fun to see what those across the pond think of our politics. My understanding though is that Chris’s view is quite unusual and that generally there is more support for Clinton and nearly universal revulsion to Trump – is that not so?
I don’t know about the “nearly universal revulsion to Trump” but I really wonder how many people really like Hillary.
Of course, my position is “revulsion toward Hillary”.
I’ll take a chance on Trump.
I meant for those “across the pond.” Which side of the pond are you on? I’m in the U.S.
I’m in the US.
Whether you intended to or not, but you bring up another point:
The Bradley Effect. Or rather its reverse: Anti-Bradley Effect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Basically, LA Mayor Bill Bradley — who was black — was running for Governor of California in 1982. The telephone polling conducted right up to voting showed that he was going to win. But when the exit polling on Election Day started to come in…there was a clear contrast in those results (which matched the actual balloting results calculated days later) and those showed that he was going to lose. Which he did.
Naturally, a bunch of people looked into this and studies were done. The conclusion was that a lot of people lied to the pollsters on the phone because they didn’t want to be regarded as racist.
So, all this ‘nearly universal revulsion to Trump’ stuff should be taken with a real grain of salt as there are definitely a lot of people who will vote for him but lie to human pollsters about doing so. If this is proven to be true, the SJWs are about to get their much deserved comeuppance.
And of course, this “nearly universal revulsion to Trump” may be the same thing as “nobody I know voted for Nixon”.
But then the polls don’t reflect this “nearly universal revulsion to Trump” either because if they did Trump would be extremely far behind Hillary in them.
As in Hillary would have a 60-70 point lead over Trump.
“…that generally there is more support for Clinton and nearly universal revulsion to Trump – is that not so?”
If you believe the spin the media puts on it and just about anyone you know who lives on either coastline in America, yes. But in reality, no. For one thing, your required denial of the existence of all the people living in ‘Flyover Country’ who are mad as hell and voting for Trump would have to be based on actual fact. But they exist, hence why I said ‘denial’. As in, denying that they exist so that premise of yours I just quoted had any chance of making any rational sense whatsoever.
When the choice is Clinton’s Crimes vs Trump’s Mouth, guess which is the lesser of two evils to a lot of people? Chris’ take on this is a perfect example. So, the people who complain the loudest about Trump’s mouth are those who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. Not in a million years. Big deal.
And Trump’s ‘mouth’ isn’t really that offensive to them anyway. They are being hypocrites for the most part. They are just really ticked that they don’t have their own foul-mouthed Trump running, like Sean Penn or someone like that. Slate pretty much exposed this in this piece: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/would_democrats_accept_a_wackadoo_nominee.html
Of course they would nominate Penn and not give a damn about people complaining of what comes out of his mouth. In a New York minute.
And speaking of ‘mouth’. Shrillary comes across as a total bitchy mother-in-law way too much. So it doesn’t matter how much of an asshole Trump comes across. Women politicians suffer far more then men from such associations. Go ahead and scream ‘sexist’ of me for bringing this up. But politics isn’t fair.
And that is just talking about all this within the framework of ‘Clinton’s Crimes vs Trump’s Mouth’. But the expanded framework really is: ‘Clinton’s Crimes/Obama Economic Times vs Trump’s Mouth’. Obama is the only president to have never delivered 3+% annual GDP growth since the end of WWII. This is why so many millennials who have come of age during the Reign of Obama are living in their parents’ basements. Hell, it is even negatively impacting family formation and the birthrate, as a recent study has just come out about. And there is no divorcing Clinton from Obama when it comes to the economy. Thus, she’s basically running for a de-factor Obama third term in the eyes of the majority of the voters.
So what I see more and more is a replay of the 2004 election with Shrillary playing the role of John Kerry and Trump as the ‘hayseed hillbilly Bush’, with an increasingly larger and large dash of Jimmy Carter running for re-election thrown in.
And I also suspect that internal polling not available to the public show that he’s doing a much better than the bogus polls showing her making a sudden comeback. On what basis do I derive that suspicion? The last 72 hours news & social media posting cycle has shown a total explosion in all kinds of anti-Trump garbage originating from BOTH elites — GOP as well as Dems — that clearly display a sense of major panic has settled in amongst them. The latest one claiming that the RNC is trying to replace Trump, when in fact there is no indication that they are nor could they in practicality (each state has their own election laws that cover how/when/even if replacement candidates after the convention can happen or not and the RNC rules do not supercede those laws).
Remember, it was the same CNN that has been a total shill for Hillary these past few months that claimed last year that there was a 1% chance that Trump would even get the nomination, too.
So, if I were you, I’d just kick back and watch and wait. Personally, I hope to see Trump lash out during the debates in detail about Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broaddrick TWICE and Shrillary’s role as an enabler of that. I’d like to see CNN try to turn the cameras off or cut to commercial break fast enough when that or something similar to that happens. Trump’s justification of bringing that up can be related to how — or even if — she will protect the young interns working at the White House from sexual predation by her husband or not.
I don’t know if that will actually happen. But I do know that no GOP candidate other than Trump would even have the balls to do that or something similar. So I recommend preparing for that possibility and enjoy the entertainment when it does happen.
And don’t even bring up Khan. He’s a proven Islamist that is blowing up in the Dems’ face. While Trump wants to “Make America Great Again!” by defending Khan the Dems are basically telling Real America that they want to “Make America More Muslim” instead. Everything backfires with these idiots, you see. They are not the ‘smartest people in the room’ despite their claims otherwise. Not even close.
Opinion is mixed.
Obviously, I have no direct knowledge of thinking in Whitehall (let alone Paris, etc) but from what I have heard there’s a lot of dislike and distrust of Hilary “the Falkland’s are a colonial issue” Clinton in London. A lot of people were quietly hoping she’d crash and burn during the fight for the nomination. No one really expects her to be good for Europe in any real sense.
Feelings are mixed about Trump. On one hand, he won’t be a pushover; on the other, Europe is in no state to make a bigger contribution to NATO right now (even if such a contribution is a good idea).
Outside government? Trump has more support than you might expect. Just how important that is, of course, is an open question.
Chris
Well adding my rather limited knowledge of the UK opinion(Mostly south east England). Most people would agree that Hillary should never have been a Presidential Candidate. She is an awful choice yet many people here still think she is the best choice from two very bad choices. Apart from Muslims and immigrants Trump seems to flip and flop a lot as well or provide no opinion but his flips and flops are more extreme.
As for you comment on Obama. I would take him over the two current candidates any day(He is in my opinion also much better than Bush). Although I admit his foreign policy left a lot to be desired and his handling of Syria was disastrous.
The media put forth the revulsion image. Remember he took out 16 highly regarded Republicans in the primary. The media is Hillary’s press corps. Perception again. Hillary has not had a press conference in over 235 days because her handlers fear her unscripted response to a question. You don’t lie if you don’t speak.
Having just come from the other side of the pond (and a bit south of the point of reference) I think what you’re seeing is a media distortion. The elites seem to be mildly interested, but most people don’t care. Among those interested, Hillary is a known quantity, but they’re also getting information filtered by the U.S. media. The media overseas likewise picks up the U.S. media-filtered information and re-echoes it, making it an unreliable indicator of true foreign opinion.
Over here we spell Hillary with a double L. But you have the essential facts correct.
One thing that happened with the recent Khan episode that makes the media bias glaringly obvious are the repeated challenges directed at Trump over his “doubling down” on his criticism of Khan. At the same time, Hillary is calling the parents of Benghazi victims liars when they tell the tale about her lying to them at the casket ceremony as the bodies were returned to the U. S. She was attempting to enlist them in the administration’s lie by suggesting a youtube video was the cause of the attack and promising that she would punish the video maker. We now know that she knew better. So she has doubled down on her doubling down, and continues to call the parents liars. Because if they are telling the truth, then she is truly a most despicable liar. CNN broadcast an interview today with Charles Woods, the father of one of the victims, and he read an entry in his diary recounting his conversation with Hillary over his son’s casket. His entry, made the several years ago, confirms his charges against Hillary.
The problem with lying is that it requires an alternate universe in order to maintain consistency. The media has been happy to construct and maintain this universe, but it can’t go on forever. And what can’t go on forever, won’t. In this case their charges of Trump doubling down look petty and contrived against the real doubling down that is one of the foundations for Hillary’s campaign.
I don’t expect the media to pursue this, but Trump now has some high powered ammunition to attack both Hillary and the media. The only question is whether he knows this, and if so, whether he will abandon his attacks on what should be his conservative base in the U. S., and begin hammering on Hillary.
“The media has been happy to construct and maintain this universe, but it can’t go on forever. And what can’t go on forever, won’t.”
Yeah. That rule even applies to Shrillary’s own staff:
For over a year they have been saying her lost emails had nothing to do with national security — that all 33,000+ of them were about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding plans, etc. etc.
Then after the FBI announced that they thought Russia hacked the DNC emails which led to Trump tweet about asking Putin to find Shrillary’s emails for us too, some dweeb at Team Shrillary declared that Trump should not be making light of a national security issue.
Which started a lot of people to beg the question: “So which is it? Those emails had nothing to do with national security…or not? And if so, what would the Russians or anyone else be interested as far as US national security is concerned with regards to yoga and wedding plans, eh?”
Blew
Up
In
Their
Incompetent
Faces
So you don’t hear to much about this story in current news cycles anymore. Gee, wonder why?
When I was a kid the Democrat party was completely different than it is now, if you go to youtube and watch President Kennedy , he sounds like a extreme right wing Republican from this generation. He would not be a Democrat in today’s Democratic party.
There used to be something called a Yellow Dog Democrat. ( Yellow Dog Democrats mean that people would vote Democrat no matter if a yellow (Peed on ) dog was the candidate) I think that is where 1/2 of Hillary’s support is from.
The other 1/2 is because she is a Woman. The Woman card is a pretty big card. A lot of women will vote for her only because she is a woman.
Those two things are all she has going for her.
If she is elected – that will be a sad time for the USA and the entire world.
Interesting that you say that about the Democrats, that’s pretty much the feeling I have with the UK Labour party. As its name suggests, it used to be a party that would support and protect “the workers” (take that as you will), a not unreasonable position.
Now it’s all about finding fake victims and throwing tax money at them to keep them happy. That, and finding endless “isms” to talk and complain about. Everything can be labelled “racist” these days: now there’s a word whose meaning has been destroyed through overuse.
I am also waiting (popcorn in hand) for the inevitable clash between feminism and those followers of a certain religion that likes women to cover up in public. How can these two things be reconciled in one party.
If ever there was a need for a new party and new thinking, instead of (for instance) the shameful abuse of nationalism and justified national pride, then it is now.
That can’t – that’s the point.
Feminists are merely the latest group to be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.
Chris
Used to be? There are Yellow Dems for sure. I am surrounded by them here in the Belly of the Liberal Beast (San Francisco Bay Area), so I know.
We are talking about Walking Dead hordes of Yellow Democrats out there. Tens of millions.
Jill Stein is a woman running for POTUS. Green ticket. More commie than Bernie is, too. Yet nobody sees her having an actual chance of winning. So I don’t think the woman card is in play as much as people think.
This is an easy one. Kennedy was much closer to what is referred to in the US as a “Classic Liberal” than today’s Democrat party. In general, Classic Liberals believe in rights and freedom, and that the people should be in control.
Today’s Democrat party in the US has largely moved away from that and towards believing that government-control is better (they really HATE when you point that out btw). Sure, they still believe in rights and freedom (wink wink nudge nudge). Well, except when those rights and freedoms NEED to be curtailed for the “greater good” (which often means the good of government and/or the Democrat party).
Disclaimer, I’m an Independent. I think that BOTH the Democrats AND the Republican parties are out of their damn minds.
Given the disaffection of many democrats with Hillary and the numerous republicans who decline to hold their nose and vote for Trump, it’s just possible that the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, will have a shot. (A long one, to be sure.) G.
Sorry, but he nor any other third party candidate has ANY shot of being elected POTUS. None.
That is because it is a mathematical certainty as described in Duverger’s Law coupled with how Electoral College delegates are assigned.
All the third party candidate can do is throw the election to the major candidate that is ideologically furthest from his/her own.
Duverger’s Law in action: 1992. Bill Clinton ‘won’ despite the fact that 58% of those who voted, voted for someone other than Bill Clinton. Why? Because Ross Perot took away more Bush voters than Clinton voters. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote yet not one EC delegate, too.
And last I heard, Johnson is taking twice as many voters away from Shrillary than he is from Trump, too. So IF he replicated Perot’s success, it will be to Trump’s benefit mostly, just like it was for Slick Willy from Ross Perot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
I would add to your comment on Perot that when the attendance records were finally released for the “Hillary Healthcare” initiative (the one with a bus tour around the country, which took place after Clinton won the election) who should be named but … Ross Perot, or at least his computer company in Texas. What a magnificent quid pro quo. Many of my friends were taken in by Perot, and I understood their attraction to a man who would take action (like saving his employees during the Iranian Embassy assault,) but he was in way over his head in 1992. I suspect that Trump is in the same boat. He was supposed to disrupt the Republican primary process, not dominate it.
Not a prayer. Hillary camp is encouraging Johnson so it can’t be a good thing. Think Nader and Perot.
I dislike both candidates so much that this year, I am voting Libertarian, Gary Johnson for President
Only candidate that doesn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth
Monica Lewinsky released the following statement on Hillary Clinton’s nomination:
“I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. The last Clinton presidency left a bad taste in my mouth. As we get closer to November of this election year, citizens must remember that they cannot trust Hillary Clinton to create American jobs. The last time she had a meaningful job, she outsourced it to me. It was hard on my knees, too. And in the end, I simply blew it.”
LOL. I hadn’t seen it before. Did you make that up?
Yes/No. I modified it a little but someone else had posted it on some forum where I snagged it.
Then it is a wasted vote. Look at issues and the position each takes and vote that way. That is the intelligent thing to do.
I think the poor US voter faces an awful choice this election (and one that will have huge consequences for the rest of the world). They can choose from someone who is basically a party apparatchik in Hillary Clinton who I honestly think has never had an original thought in her head and to whom power and being in charge mean everything. She appears to feel that she is entitled to the Presidency just because she is Hillary Clinton. Or they can choose from someone who appears slightly loony in Donald Trump. And to me as an outsider he appears the best option. He is obviously smarter than he comes across in the media because he has run a big business successfully. (I heard he went bankrupt at one stage but he seems to have recovered). Even though I think he is is better than Clinton this is because I do not think there could be anybody worse. So as I say the voters in the US seem to have been presented with a poor choice – Dumb or Dumber.
I think though that despite this there may be hope in general for the Western Democracies. We in the the UK have delivered a poke in the eye to those politicians on both sides that have taken the ordinary voter for granted and thought that their job did not include listening to the “common” masses because we were to ignorant to understand anything and just because they were politicians (the vast majority of whom have never worked or had any experience in the real world) we should listen to everything they say and follow along accordingly. Hopefully we will build upon this in the UK – at the very least at the moment and for the forseeable future (at least until after the next election) they will be wary of us. This vote on the EU, from what I have read, had an impact on politicians around the world. How long it will continue I do not know but if the US presidential race is either a close run thing or an outright win for Trump then I do think politicians around the world will be looking at these results and be thinking that perhaps they can longer take their voters for granted and hopefully (I know it is a long shot) they will start listening to what people want and addressing peoples real concerns.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton will win. Her dependent voters don’t care as long as their particular gravy bowl keeps getting filled.
USA politics is seriously messed up and yes HRC is less than ideal but it’s her or him. As Trump has no intention (by all accounts) of doing the job except for prancing around looking the big man what other choice is there than the pantsuited one.
If Trump would prance around and pretend he was important for four years, that would be a vast improvement over Obama. Absent direct political obstruction, our bureaucracy would run in a rather admirable fashion. We would be much better off if Obama had decided seven years ago that his goal in life was to learn how to play golf, and dedicated himself to that task. But he keeps returning to D. C. with his pen and his mouth, interjecting himself into the lives of people who are his better in every possible way, except unbridled ambition. HRC is a liar, plane and simple, and what can you expect from a liar? Hasn’t she burned that bridge?
Quite the un-educated reply.
You can’t beat a illogical fallacy reply when you have nothing else to say.
As this election approaches-and not soon enough for anyone’s tastes-the witch’s cauldron of vitriol, avarice, dirty tricks, lashing tongues, subtle and outright lies threatens to boil over. Yet, many of the tried and true tactics are ineffective, and many new methods, untried but deployed in desperation. So unpredictable has it become, for a myriad of reasons, that the reactions of the entire electorate grasps for assurance and stable footing.
No longer does the size of the war chest make candidate. No longer do attack ads move the poles. And no longer do political bases meekly stay leashed. Was the Trump movement created by the failures or both parties?
Obama seems to have decided that the ends justifies the means, and is blind to the conservative positions – either by a malice or by the lack of empathy, a lack that seems rampant through all societies. He whittled away at the legislative branch because he sees it as doing what is right, and to hell with the wreckage in his wake. Just today he seeks to get the UN security council to, in essence, ratify the nuclear test ban treaty, so the US could be sued in the world court if they tested a weapon. Who needs the Senate, he reasons. And Republicans, cowed like a battered wife, refuse to exercise their constitutional power of the purse, and only embolden him.
That open cowardice, clumsily cloaked in show votes and blatantly empty promises, are the reason for Trump’s rise. They have had enough. They no longer care to see gentlemen losers, PC to the core. Votes taken for granted and wasted on the likes of McCain and Romney. They will forgive just about anything in someone if they would just FIGHT. And here comes a fighter, unafraid (or stupid enough, depending on you point of view) to speak the truth as he sees it. A hard truth that others are unwilling to acknowledge, much less utter.
Is Trump dangerous? Can he be trusted with the keys to the nuclear crown jewels? The democrats say no. Yet, they said the same of Reagan, an empty prophecy. The electorate, and I speak now of all Americans, has been pushed and pushed until willing to roll the bones.
I was in my late 20’s when Reagan was elected. The media had me believing he would start a war. I’d experienced being of draft age back during Vietnam. My draft lottery number was high enough to keep me from being drafted.
The media had me believing Reagan was going to lose. They kept showing polls that said Carter would win in a landslide. On election day they kept saying Reagan was losing. They kept at it until they could no longer hide the truth and then pretended they’d predicted it all along.
I voted for Reagan. I figured that if Carter had a second term he’d put buracracy in place that would destroy private ownership of guns.
The media here in the USA hates us older gun owners. Why? Because we have long memories and attention spans.
…and when the Revolution comes, their butts will be the ones lined up against the wall by the folks with said guns. 🙂
Wow, this article and the comment show that different worldview does affect anything.
From other side of the fence, Hillary and Obama is normal pol, Trump stunningly bad one, and probably dragged Republican party down with him. Bernie supporters (other than Bernie Bros) will vote Democrats like most Millenials.
I suppose this show, that in US and Europe, difference between Metropolitan area and rural area has simply grow too big to make understanding possible. I suppose we just had to wait until this right-wing wave died down. with most children now born in city of more than 400.000 people plus immigration, Trump-Tea Party-Brexit-UKIP-Le Pen-afG is the last gasp of last rural generations, after Baby Boomer, they would end.
I really feel for the choice that is given to the Americans.
In Australia we just went through election cycle that was given poor and poorer choice to lead the country. With one party (Liberal) who is and are in government doing pro-rich and right wing action that is insane while opposition has left bad taste to the people because of the past action while in power. Both party lied about their core promises.
Thus I did not vote for either of the major parties.
Liberals was given super majority by the 2013 election of 90 seats in the lower chambers but now got only 76 seats out of 150 seats. In the Senate extreme right wing party got 4 seats from zero after long time while extreme left retained 9 seats. They and other minor party hold the balance of power in the senate.
From news that I see that general population is losing fate and trust in the “elites” and politicians through the western countries as extreme capitalization seem to benefit the rich get richer and powerful get more power.
That disaffection is been show in rise of extreme right and anti-establishment. eg Brexit is one example.
I hope that elites wake up and put hold on their greed before people find someone like Hitler or Stalin to follow to the extremes.
Chris I would challenge you factually on every single statement you made against Hillary Clinton, you have merely repeated the idiotic and inaccurate reporting by those who have hated her for 40 years that she has been in the public eye. RE: the FBI did you actually read the bottom of his statement, they found no reason to press charges essentially stating that no prosecutor would move forward as there was no basis for criminal activity.
Clinton foundation money: If you are referring to the Uranium deal the donations that are referred to actually occurred while she was running for President in 2008 so there was no way anyone could have been bribing her to do something as SOS when no one knew she would become the SOS.
Soldiers die, Benghazi was not her fault, 7 investigations 8 million dollars an 800 page report and even the GOP could not find her negligent. There were more investigations into Benghazi than there were into the 9/11 attack.
There is no doubt folks do not like her but she is by far the best qualified to lead our country at this time, I have studied her history and fundamentally she is an honest person.
Of course if all you read are the spin pages she is a monster that should either be locked up or shot.
I will challenge anyone to provide evidence of criminal wrong doing on her part.
As for your comments on the economy you are way out of touch with the actual facts the Treasury department just released a report stating in fact that Obama has succeeded in turning the economy around from the disaster he inherited. Wages are going up, unemployment is at its lowest in 20 years, our debt that matters has been cut by one third.
Trump is a blowhard, a showman, and an arrogant prick that should never be allowed to get anywhere near the Whitehouse, he has done nothing except divide our country with his racist comments and his fear mongering. The man has more than a few screws loose. He is a failure at business he has cost people their jobs.
Trump has no concern for our troops Hillary does. His response to the Khan family proves he is a moron of the highest level and has zero respect for those that have died for our freedom. If that idiot was to become our President with his total disregard for nuclear deterrent I suspect someone might use a nuke on us before he just up and drops one on them because they said something that made him angry.
His own party has repudiated him several times, the oldest Republican College Club has refused to endorse him in a blistering attack yesterday. Yes I am voting for Hillary I believe she will be an excellent President and will probably shock the hell out of folks for what she can actually get accomplished.
Ignorance is bliss. “No prosecutor would go forward” is the key to your defense of Hillary’s handling of classified material. The prosecutors referred to are Obama appointees working in a thoroughly politicized DoJ. The following is from the testimony of FBI Director Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.
Any number of ordinary Americans have been successfully prosecuted for treating classified materials in the fashion that characterized Clinton’s career at State. But no Obama prosecutor would go forward with the absolutely damning evidence of her crimes developed by the FBI. This is what we call the Rule of Law under Obama.
And your defense of the Benghazi fiasco is beyond contemp. “Soldiers die …” Good grief. The current issue in this regard is her characterization of the parents of the dead as liars. She is obviously the liar.
I think Chris has a better handle on the situation than you do.
Wow! George Soros-paid internet trolls have even penetrated Chris’ blog!
That means a lot of money is swishing around. Lot more than I had thought.
I hope they at least buy some of Chris’ books! The Empire’s Senate might cause them to reconsider their choice of careers. But then again, when you’re working in your pajamas from Grandma’s basement you have to take what you can get.
Having a different opionion makes no one a troll and you don’t have to be paid to see all the critism of HRC is blown out of all preportion.. She’s a corperate democrat beholden to money but that’s politics in America. Trump on the other hand get’s crazier by the day.
beswhitt —
You confuse ‘opinions’ for facts though. Then you try to push them as such. And you do so in the exact fashion that the hordes of Soros internet trolls do as well.
You call Trump crazy? Your denial of Shrillary’s criminality is crazy.
Comey went on TV and basically said, “yes she was negligent…no we won’t prosecute…but if anyone else does this, we WILL”.
“intent’ isn’t required in criminal negligence cases, btw. And that is what this is.
That is an example of actual reality clashing with your fantasies otherwise. You note others. All crazy stuff from the MSM libtard media and other internet trolls paid for by the Dems. That’s all.
Now Shrek, he might be doing it for free.
Why should Soros pay them when they’ll do it for free? 👿
Now THAT is a logical counter response.
Obviously, there’s a lot of room for disagreement .
I am no expert on US data security laws, but people I trust (people with reason to know) tell me that merely owning and operating that server was a MAJOR offense – it not only circumvented record-keeping laws, it was a gross display of negligence as the server was not properly secured. Both of those are crimes, as I understand it; a number of people have lost jobs, security clearances and even their freedom over acts on a far smaller scale. So yeah, Hillary pretty much got away with it.
And (as I noted) Hillary has some very disturbing trends. Blaming a terrorist attack (that was almost certainly pre-planned) on a movie hardly anyone saw was either a) a flat-out lie, b) a willingness to sacrifice our values to appease terrorists or c) both. And there is good reason to think that the answer is ‘c.’
Right now, it’s the devil you know versus the one you don’t.
Trump has the very definite advantage of … not being Hillary. (And the reverse is also true.) But would he make a good President? Probably not.
Chris
Khan, btw, is a total Sharia Law advocate. He just did an interview in Pakistan he thought would never get picked up on in the US where he bragged about how he only referred to the Constitution at the Dem convention to hoodwink us stupid Non-believers.
So therefore we have on one side Trump saying “Make America Great Again” while on the other side Hillary is saying “Make America More Mulsim”.
Guess which one of these will strike out with your average American voter?
shrekgrinch,
You gotta link for that Khan interview in Pakistan?
Bret –
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/khizr-khan-allah-causing-trump-make-stupid-mistakes/
shrekgrinch,
Careful here. Khan’s Sharia advocacy papers are from 1983 so that’s a little outta date. He might still believe that, but I’ve been looking for something more recent and I haven’t seen anything.
He really didn’t say that he “referred to the Constitution at the Dem convention to hoodwink us stupid Non-believers.” Or at least I don’t see how to interpret it that way. The closest quote seems to be “I showed the constitution only because I wanted to remind people that nobody could be discriminated against in the name of religion” which is rather different I think.
There is nothing ‘out of date’ about advocating for Sharia over the Constitution. You either have called for it or not.
“I showed the constitution only because I wanted to remind people that nobody could be discriminated against in the name of religion” in the context of his position on Sharia Law vs the BS they were trying to show with him there at the Dem Convention can be exactly summed up as I said.
Sharia Law and indeed the Koran itself divides humanity into believers, non-believers and apostates, basically. So yes, my specific reference to ‘non-believers’ is also adequate.
But, to each his own.
You are correct. Both storing classified material on a privately owned server, and transmitting classified material in an unapproved manner (like emailing with an unapproved private server) is against the law.
On top of that, Email is extremely insecure. That old joke about the kid up the street probably reads your emails really does have some basis in truth. Some very specific tech has to be put in place to mitigate that. That tech has to be set up on BOTH ends. In order for that to happen, state department IT would have to have known that the server existed and put that tech in place to make that happen (making her server an “authorized” server, which they have already said it wasn’t). There is NO indication that any of those things were done.
In recent weeks I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what motivates Trump supporters, I watched interviews with Anne Coulter, Milo Yiannopolous and others, informed myself about the alt-right movement and tried not to let my political biases blind me. They have a point, the political establishment has neglected them, the middle class and the working poor have been ignored in favour of big business and minorities with ever smaller grievances. It is no wonder, that they turn to the only one who seems to give them a voice. But since I am more on the liberal side of the spectrum, as well as looking at it from an outside perspective, I also see serious flaws in Trump. I do not think he would be a good president, though certainly not the desaster the media wants us to believe. But he is demonstrably even less honest than Clinton. Another problem is, that he is quick to anger, which could prove damaging to foreign relations. And his businesses are not as successful as he makes them out to be. He inherited wealth, so his self portrayal as self made billionaire is not all that accurate.
Clinton on the other hand is utterly predictable, she represents the political establishment, there would not be any surprises to her presidency at all. She wouldn’t be a desaster either, but unlike Trump she wouldn’t be an inspiration for anyone. She may be corrupt, but I doubt she would be able to do much, since congress is dominated by the republicans, and I doubt this would change during her presidency. The assessment, that her politics would be a continuation of Obama is most likely correct. And that wouldn’t be as desastrous as republicans say it would be. The reason they are saying it, is hyper partisanship. She wouldn’t be a good president, but not all that bad either, just another democrat with the same kind of policies the democrats were making in the recent past.
The real issues in the US are more likely to be addressed by Trump, but I’m not confident that he would take the correct actions to solve them, and even if he did, congress would be reluctant to back him on that. Big buisiness in the US has too much influence to allow the reforms that are needed. Many republicans are opposed to him because on cultural issues he is too liberal for them and because many conservatives want to maintain the status quo. And in instances where the democrats should support him, they will not do so because he is a republican. And that’s one of the issues in the US, the political parties and the society as a whole is so polarized, that they can not work together. This is something that is extreme in the US, but many western countries show signs of this. For more information on this I reccomend watching the TED talk by Dr. Jonathan Haidt on the roots of liberals and conservatives ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw ), it’s very informative, or reading his book “The righteous Mind” if you have the time to spare. This also leads to another issue that the US and other western countries have, an increasing tendency towards authoriarianism, both from the left and the right. Though at the moment, at least in the US and UK, the regressive left, represented in the SJWs, is more prominent and worrying. And that is the main reason, why I think Trump may actually be the better choice, because unlike Clinton (or Obama for that matter) he will not be influenced by their nonsense, like that wage gap myth or pandering to Islam or what ever causes they get themselves involved in.
Trump may be more likely to address the serious issues, but don’t let confirmation bias blind you to the dishonesty he has exhibited so far. It is easy to see the flaws in people you disagree with, and overlook the flaws in people who share your ideology. Liberals do raise important issues too, that conservatives dismiss, just as liberals dismiss issues important to conservatives. Contempt and ignorance of opposing opinions are both very damaging to the democratic process. Diversity of ideas is much more important than ethnic or religious diversity, something that both liberals and conservatives have largely forgotten. Liberals, because especially in universities conservative professors are extremely under represented especially in the humanities and the social sciences, and conservatives because they tend to hold liberals in contempt (with good reason, but it’s still bad for democracy). And while the US has too much polarization, other western countries, such as France and Germany have the opposite problem, the major parties are too similar, which gives the more extreme elements room to go mainstream, without having the more moderate elements to provide balance. I just hope that Trump’s successes, facilitate some changes in the political landscapes of western countries.
Greetings Drowe
I’ll address this in my next essay, but yeah – the GOP basically abandoned a lot of voters (and so did the Dems). And then Trump came along and swept them up.
Chris
Yeah…I think you just DID address this. Pretty succinct, too.
But then again you are a professional writer. 🙂
Thank you!
Chris
Pretty good counter-analysis, Drowe. Spot on!
I am not a Trump fan myself. I HATE Clinton and the Clintons. And because of the non-proportional system of how POTUS is elected, my vote is a wasted vote anyway given the ultraviolet blue state that I live in.
I am also pretty conservative but mostly as one living in a very liberal part of the said ultraviolet blue state (San Francisco Bay Area, California), I object to libs mostly because of all the BS they throw around that is just plain wrong factually and their penchant for, prior to opening their mouths, not thinking ahead of what the logical conclusions people would derive with only using half of their brain about the BS they spout out. They definitely live in a total Alternate Reality Zone Bubble. And they expend a LOT of energy in keeping that force field up and constantly running, too.
And when they are confronted with actual reality no matter how many walls they put up to avoid facing it — like when Kerry lost in 2004 — they go nuts. Absolutely, batshit-crazy nuts.
I see that pattern going on right now, btw. Which means that they are scared of Shrillary actually losing. A bunch of opportunists posing as ‘journalists’ are now publishing outright lies about Trump (which Trump makes it easy for them, granted) and when I point them out to all my lib buddies when they post this garbage on Facebook, I might as well be talking to my cat. What they don’t get (part of that bubble thing) is that they and the others who are soaking all this BS up never were going to vote for Trump anyway, yet they ASSUME everyone else thinks like they do and will now also not vote for him.
Someone else on here posted how if true ‘near universal revulsion’ existed for Trump, the polls would show Shrillary like 60 points ahead of him. I borrowed that line recently by pointed this out to some libby after they screamed about the Fox News poll that just came out showing him 10 points behind her, and said libby mounted a huge defense of that FOX NEWS poll. Seriously! I am not making this up although it sounds so outlandish that I wouldn’t blame you for not believing me.
Of course, I responded that if this person suddenly decided that Fox News polls are credible, then said person would be equally as adamant in defending such polls in the future should they show a change in Trump’s favor and not bash it because it is ‘Faux News’, like libbies automatically do.
I got no response to that. See what I mean about how they shoot off their mouths w/o thinking things through first?
“I HATE Clinton and the Clintons”
What have they done to you personally to deserve your hatred? Hate is a very strong and personal emotion, on the same level as love is. I find it very hard to feel such an emotion even towards people such as terrorists. To me it is inconceivable to hate people I don’t know, never mind groups of people. I can understand why you dislike them, but not why you hate them.
As for the rest of your post, that matches pretty much with what I see going on. However, even though the regressive left is more extreme with such behaviour at the moment, conservatives are doing the exact same thing on other issues. Or more generally, all humans do that to some degree. I really recommend watching some of Jonathan Haidt’s videos, they really helped me in getting a better understanding of how liberals, conservatives and libertarians think. In understanding that, I am more conscious of my own biases and can try to minimize the impact of confirmation bias.
Greetings Drowe
” I HATE Clinton and the Clintons.” That, right there, is the problem.
Yep, you’re only allowed to hate the People that the Lefties hate. [Sarcasm]
No, it is a feature. Not a bug.
The problem is that the idiot Dems have fielded such a flawed nominee. I mean, they had ONE job. Just one: Pick someone who looks better than Trump or at least Trump’s Mouth does. Instead, they chose Shrillary the Bitchy Mother-In-Law on TV.
Haight was interesting. Thank you for the link. I prefer Thomas Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions” when grappling with the progressive/conservative divide. In Sowell’s view, progressives tend to believe that we are capable of vast improvement in our character. They assume that man is unconstrained in his quest for perfection. Conservatives, like me, have a less optimistic assessment of the possibility of perfecting mankind. Conservatives think that we are constrained by our nature.
Progressives dismiss the American founding documents. They regard the Constitution as a nuisance. Our regulatory state has been imposed to facilitate progressive projects. It is a vast departure from our founding. Regulatory agencies act as prosecutor, judge and jury, and the only recourse to their decisions is an appeal to the Supreme Court, and regrettably, the result of a finding in favor of the individual all too often just sends the whole issue back to the regulatory agency to reconsider the whole thing.
The American founding documents and the institutions they created were intended to protect individual rights and equality before the law. They set the various branches of government in opposition to each other, with the goal of preventing tyrannical behavior by the central government. But this is “inefficient” and cumbersome if you believe you have figured out how to perfect mankind by means of the governance of your fellow citizens. Woodrow Wilson was one such person, and he was racist who believed in eugenics. Our current batch of elitists has similarly weird views, and they hold sway in our both the bureaucracy and the media. They are willing to ignore a very credible written history and recent scientific results that show there was a worldwide Medieval Warm Period, and they do so to advance their theory of anthropogenic global warming .. er .. climate change. This is a manifestation of the unconstrained view of man. They’ve convinced themselves that they are right, and history be damned.
Haight acknowledges that we are preprogrammed, and I found his studies and his comments on Eastern religions to be thought provoking. But just after he talks about the need to embrace the ying and yang, he dives into the deep end and suggests that with our new knowledge, we can perfect man, merging the ying and the yang, or so I judged from remarks.
I think our founders had a more profound understanding of history than Haight, and we would do well to honor their wisdom by restoring our government to some semblance of the structure they created. Trump was created by the Republican Congress’s cowardice. Failing to provide a balance to an unchecked executive, they exposed the collapse of the system in D. C., and Trump filled the void.
Make that Haidt not Haight …
I certainly agree that Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions is an amazingly good description of the vast chasm between progressive and conservative thought.
I think a lot off people are not taking int he fact that the average American is stupid. There are still a lot people who actually think Obama is a great President. They look at Hillary and with zero understanding of current or past events say isn’t it wonderful we have a women running as president? People hear one of the many phrases that Trump has said blown out of proportion and taken out of context and they start calling him the next Hitler. It’s ridiculous. While there may be great ideological breaks in the parties the vast majority of Americans don’t really feel see how it matters to them or how it affects them.
I guess I’m pretty much an average American. However I fully agree with that meme that goes something like; ” I’d rather shove a wet noodle up a Honey Badger’s butt than listen to another Hillary or Obama speech.” BTW that’s not the exact quote. I changed one word.
The last time I heard Hillary laugh on TV my miniature dachshund went on a barking frenzy at the TV. She’s a fairly good judge of both human and canine character.
“I think a lot off people are not taking int he fact that the average American is stupid.”
That is simply not true, just because people disagree with you, doesn’t make them stupid. Most people simply do not choose to spend their precious free time investigating politics and to form their own informed opinion on the matter, instead they vote based on what feels right to them. And even if they do invest some time, they regularly fall victim to confirmation bias. That means, that people generally try to confirm what they already believe and to discredit what they don’t believe. Basically, whenever someone comes across a piece of information that seems intuitively right to them, they ask “Can I believe that?” if the information seems intuitively wrong, they ask “Must I believe that?”. Everyone acts that way. The result is, democrats seek the flaws in criticism of Obama and Clinton, but believe what they hear about Trump, while republicans believe the critisim about Clinton and Obama, but question what they hear about Trump.
Greetings Drowe
For me, this whole election boils down to Supreme Court openings. There is one now, but the next President may find him or her self in the position of filling multiple SC seats.
With Trump, we have no idea what kind of Justice he will pick. Although, he has SAID he would replace Scalia with someone of a similar vein (constitutional originalist). Who knows if he’s telling the truth though (or even has any idea what that means. A lot of people don’t).
Hillary has her hot-button issues, so we have an idea what she will look for in a SC pick. She would look for someone willing to overturn the Heller decision and the Citizens United decision, and basically join with the 4 existing Liberal Justices (modern American definition of Liberal) throwing the balance on the court WAY towards the Left.
For me, Heller was a good decision. I read it (the whole thing, not just the synopsis) and I read quite a bit of the source material (because nerd, and I was curious if Scalia had gotten it right or wrong). I also read the dissenting opinions which read to me like they were saying “Yea, Scalia’s right. That IS what the framers really meant when they wrote it, but we don’t like it and we think it should be changed”. Frankly I agree with the sentiment that the constitution is a living document that is intended to change over time. Except, it is NOT intended to be CHANGED by SCOTUS. The mechanism for change in the constitution is the amendment process. “But waa… getting an amendment passed is too haaaard!!!” Well suck it up. That is a feature, not a bug.
As far as Citizen’s United, my opinion isn’t quite as strong. Are Corporations people? Should a Corporation have the same rights as people? I do have to agree that corporations ARE made up of people. People OWN corporations after all. However, there is something to be said for the idea that corporations are able to push much larger quantities into campaigns, thus drowning out the free speech of normal people (why listen to me and the $5 that I can afford when MegaCorp can give $5 million?) What is the correct answer? I don’t know for sure. However, I would be willing to say we should err on the side of ALLOWING speech, rather than the side of shutting down speech.
On the subject of speech, which is one of my pet issues if you haven’t noticed. Historically, the Democrats have been the party of protecting free speech. However, political parties change, and while they would want you to believe they still are the party of free speech, it sure looks to me like the Democrat party has moved away from their position that free speech as sacrosanct, towards actively trying to squelch dissenting opinion through legal and social means. Democrat Attorneys General around America have been talking about criminal charges against Global Warming deniers. Liberals in Universities creating “safe spaces” and accusing anyone saying anything even remotely conservative of “micro aggression” (that’s your Democrat supporters for you). Frankly, the proper defense against unpopular speech isn’t to shut that speech down. The proper defense is MORE SPEECH! “I think you are wrong about X! And here’s why!” That sort of thing. Not running off and crying that someone is going to “trigger” you. How does this relate to Supreme Court pick? I foresee future court cases where people and/or corporations are charged with fraud because they spoke out denying the existence of global warming and/or spoke out against global warming legislation. Whether you believe in global warming or not, prosecuting unpopular speech is NOT a good precedent to set. I would say the same thing if they tried to prosecute people for denying that gravity exists, and I am dead sure that science has that one right.
Frankly, if I were to cast my vote PURELY on the basis of their Supreme Court pick, I would almost HAVE to vote Trump, because I KNOW Hillary isn’t going to pick someone that I like for the position. At least with Trump, maybe there is a (teeny tiny) chance we end up with a SC Justice that I like. I really hate that… Anyone know where I can get a good barf bag to take to the polls with me. If I do end up voting for Trump, I’m pretty sure I’m going to need it. (Yea.. you could say I’m not a fan)
Obama picked Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia, a judge who is respected by democrats and republicans alike. Before his nomination a republican senator even endorsed him, but the Senate refused to even hold a hearing. A move unprecedented in US history. This is entirely a symptom of polarization in the political landscape. The only reason for rejecting Garland is that a democrat nominated him.
As for the rest, you’re pretty much spot on. Free speech is indeed under attack from the regressive left, or illiberal liberals if you prefer.
Greetings Drowe
I agree that Hillary is a bad candidate, however I believe that Trump is much worse. I would argue that not all of her foreign policy has ended in ruin. Also you have to consider Trumps records, both in the current election and previously in the business world. Yes, US politics need massive reform, but I am confronted with only two choices for the presidency, nether of which can/will deliver on that reform. With great reluctance I am forced to endorse Hillary as the lesser of two evils, and I would urge all Americans to do so as well. At least with Hillary I am confident that America will be standing in four years so we can try to reform her (America) again.
Chris, I have to say that, if your blog is any indication, you have some intelligent, well written fans. Even the posters I don’t agree with are an interesting read. It’s a breath of fresh air at a time where the paid Hilary-PAC “correct the record” trolls seem to be at every political discussion, usually with a “Drumptf sux” one-liner, and no mention of Hillary at all.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
I have some very smart fans
Chris
It’s not so much that Americans are stupid … Pretty much everyone is. Or if not stupid, then at least self-interested, short sighted and in it entirely for themselves. Brexit, anyone?
Lots of people supported Bernie. Why? When you boil it down, he promised to give 90% of the public everything for free while targeting and taxing the wealthy evil people. The Evil Other.
Trump promises much the same, and he’s just as full of b.s. He promises the return of good jobs for 90% of everyone by kicking out all undocumented workers, The Evil Other … never mind that those people do the jobs that Americans turn their noses up at. He’ll make us all safe by building a multi-billion dollar wall (that we won’t have to pay for – Mexico will!) He’ll ban Muslim immigration … pay no attention to that pesky constitution! He’ll make the economy better by quitting all the trade deals we’ve made over the decades – then you cheapskates won’t be able to go to Walmart to buy five t-shirts for ten bucks made in some third-world sweat shop.
There are fewer blue-collar manufacturing jobs because fewer people Buy American, fewer mom-and-pop stores because terminally shortsighted consumers shop at big-box discount stores and buy cheap crap made overseas … and then whine and snivel when their factory, steel mill, etc. closes down. And it’s not just cheap stuff – where was your Apple device made, or your big screen tv?
Aww, we didn’t do nuffin’! It’s all THEIR fault!
As granny used to say, “When you point your finger at someone, remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.”
You wanna stop illegal immigration? Fine businesses $100,000 for every undocumented worker ICE finds. No appeals, pay up in thirty days or you’re out of business and the government seizes your assets, whether you’re a small farm or a multi-billion dollar corporation. Use ninety percent of the money for job training programs and the like, so these poor disenfranchised slackers can go to work mowing lawns, working the fields and cleaning hotel rooms (and all the other undesirable jobs illegals do), then give ten percent of that fine to every officer who discovers an illegal worker. You’d have a flood of law enforcement applications to ICE, who would then have the manpower to do frequent inspections of every business. No jobs = no illegals, no wall necessary.
Hillary is a snake, and we all know this because she’s got a track record decades long to prove it. Trump has no political track record, because he’s never done anything. It’s easy to say you’ve never crashed your private jet if you’ve never been a pilot.
Here’s a few more thoughts.
I was watching one of those shows where they supposedly have a panel of regular voters on it to make comments.
The subject of illegal immigrants came up. A very well dressed woman in expensive clothes jumps up and says ” I will not vote for Trump!” “If he gets elected and bans immigration who is going to mow our yards, clean our homes, and wash our dishes!!!????
I wish I had been there because my reply popped in my head as soon as she finished speaking.
I’d have looked at her over the top of my glasses and said. ” Most normal Americans out in what you call flyover land do all those things themselves. They can’t afford to hire people because their wages are stagnant or dropping. If immigration is banned people like yourself will have to pay more to hire your servants.
The elites on both sides think that Trump supporters believe everything he says. The truth is most of us KNOW that he will not be able to do everything he says. We roll our eyes when he talks about how far ahead he is in the polls. What we really want is someone who goes to DC and upsets the apple cart PLUS puts his foot in the elites fat butts. If he don’t do that we will cheerfully go to the polls in 2020 and put our foot in Trump’s arse.
I do not agree with Bernie Sanders but I liked him anyway for the simple fact he was an outsider targeting the DC apple cart. Yes I know he endorsed Hillary in the end but to me it was like someone was holding a gun on him offstage. He got a raw deal from Hillary and Debbie Wassernan Shultz.
Speaking of Trump’s baby flap the press even had me believing that He’d kicked a baby out of his rally like one would kick a football over a field post. Fox news was bashing him.But then I asked mtself where is it’s mother? Surely she’ll be seeking her 15 minutes of fame as on outraged and offended mother. No one seemed to know her name, even Trump did not know.
She’s finally on the news tonight. She’s mocking the mainstream media as I write this. She says it’s nothing like they portrayed.
Quote: The Democratic Party, in my view, can be fairly described as a set of ever-shifting voter blocs, presided over by the elites (the DNC). Each of these blocs – feminists, homosexuals, unionists, transgenders, blacks – has different sets of priorities. * End Quote
The Free Stuff Bloc is the Democrats biggest bloc by far.
Example: I saw a post somewhere about a young man in his early 20 ‘s getting so much money in Food Stamps to get free food anywhere he wants.
Everyone posting was saying things like , he should get 100.00 worth of food or 200.00 or 50.00 or he could starve or whatever.
I posted that he should grow a garden so that he could eat. It was like , that was a alien concept. That he should grow his own food instead of he off the government (by taking my tax dollars)
There are community gardens in most every city in the USA with free water to grow food , almost all of them are empty and full of weeds, because no one wants to grow their own food.
I wonder why they don’t want to grow a garden and eat their own food, they want *Other People* to buy them food.
That is a major voting bunch for the Democrats the Free Food etc people.
Yes, I call them the ‘Coalition of Life’s Losers’.
Of course, they have done quite well for themselves with Robin Hood economic policies enacted by Dems and not seriously wiped out by the Reps.
As for the food thing, same thing happens in Africa. Do-gooder libtards fund foreign aid that goes in there and distributes free food, utterly destroying what local farming activity that remains in the process. Why grow food if someone else will be supplying it for free?
Of course, to recognize that would be to admit that Says was right and Keynesianism is complete BS. THAT can’t be allowed. Keynesianism is the ‘economic priesthood’ of the Left, you see.
There was a time when I was working that I only had money enough for one meal a day. I lost a lot of weight that year. To correct the situation I took on a second job.
At my second job I’d see the welfare people come in and blow their checks on high priced items. When a well to do person came in they’d only buy what was on sale and even then it had to be a good sale.
As this was going on there was a nuclear power plant under construction. They paid top wages and were always hiring. The welfare abusers chose to stay home even though the construction company offered training programs that would have given them the skills to make good wages for life.
When I was short of money that year I’d have grown my own food if I could. My situation improved and I have had my own garden for 30+ years.