Clinton: We need American Muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lawns. … Part of our homeland security.
Hillary Clinton reads from script during interview! WikiLeaks bombshell email Tax Chris Hayes MSNBC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfN9aFnqNy4
(Her biggest claim to helping "women and children" is the (State) Children's Health Insurance Program after the fiasco of her universal health care plan attempt during Bill Clinton's presidency. In fact, she told her staff to find some means of salvaging their efforts and was told about the Kennedy-Hatch SCHIP plan. She latched on and almost destroyed that, too.)
More scripts as needed to spin negative positions:
Wall St: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5512
Bankruptcy bill: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4394
Carbon tax (‘I don't recall any polling to guide us’): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8248
Date: 2015-03-21 10:48
Subject: Warning to Hillary Clinton
It was not uplifting to learn in recent hours that problems with foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation continue, Hillary Clinton was still making paid speeches for hire this week, and Tony Rodham is hustling gold mining deals in Haiti.
From the minute the email story broke I have been out there publicly and unequivocally supporting Hillary Clinton in multiple ways in multiple media unlike many Democrats and unlike most in the media.
My mama taught me long ago that when I am seriously angry I should count to ten and choose my words carefully. In that spirit here is my toned down advice which I seriously doubt the Clintons are hearing from those close to them, and if they are hearing it, they are not understanding it.
If there is one thing that could well bring down a Hillary Clinton candidacy it is this cycle of money issues about which I am now feeling red alerts, loud bells, warning signals, and red flags and I am now seriously pissed off that there is a real chance that her candidacy and the Democratic Party could be destroyed by these self-created dangers that continue to proliferate the closer she gets to presumably announcing her candidacy. …
(The most striking thing about the Podesta emails is the utter absence of Hillary Clinton from the discussions. She appears only as the product that the campaign is desperately trying to market, a product that most people don't really want or need.)
There is no foreign policy difference between the establishment Dems and Repubs. But Trump, and even more so Johnson, challenge that consensus. [As did Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, all of them ridiculed for that reason.]
You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, “How are you?” “Good luck”
But you don’t mean it …
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you
Neera Tanden and Brent Budowsky appear to have recognized how flawed a candidate Hillary Clinton was and is, if not that she will always be. Podesta's emails have many incisive critiques by them:
Clinton is the right-winger – not radical, but rather a promise of continuity for the imperialist war-driven economy. That's why Republican neocons prefer her and fear Trump. I would fear her Supreme Court picks more than Trump's, if only because Democrats would never question hers. Clinton is the craven soul-less figurehead of a craven soul-less party.
[Bill] Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. Faced with its consequences, Obama only perpetuated, even aggrandized, the result. And following his silence, [Hillary] Clinton is adamant against restoring the separation of commercial and speculative banking.
Hillary Clinton’s media flacks and assorted operatives and the partisan marks to whom they direct their campaign propaganda expend much feigned and fatuous outrage on the subject of Trump’s support among fringe-dwelling hate groups — yet it is crucial to remember (although Hillaryites strive to remain in belligerence enabled obtuseness about the fact) — HRC is connected with the worst, largest, and most deadly White Supremacist hate group on the planet -- the U.S. imperial war machine.
—Phil Rockstroh, https://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh/posts/1329055903794794
A couple of things that apparently don't bother Michelle Obama et al on behalf of the children (or maybe the selectively expressed umbrage is indeed merely political):
"Turns out I'm pretty good at killing people." (her husband)
"We came, we saw, he died (cackle)." (her candidate)
As a welcome respite to the groping-furor, been listening to Radio Stalingrad:
Available via Tunein (among other services):
‘The second idea[*] is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?’
*‘Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don’ change legislation for political donations.’
Her "mastery of detail" is actually a clear example of imperial madness, the "great game", the idea that "we" can manipulate and control the myriad players and outcomes, particularly by means of the providing for and the threat of homicidal violence. It also tends to foster a neglect of one's own people except as revenue sources and cannon fodder.
Those who posit that the far left and the far right are equally dangerous if not identical or making common cause, implying that that those making the assertion represent the moderate center and the greater good, invariably are themselves of the far right. They are in fact attempting to delegitimize popular action against the concentrated power and wealth which they have risen in defense of. In the name of fighting injustice and hatred, they persecute those who actually threaten the class and race divisions by which their power and wealth is held. Their rhetoric also invariably rises in defense of provoking and executing war, the consequences of which they are confident to be untouched by.
cf. Roger Cohen in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/anti-semitic-anti-zionism.html
Apt that a picture of Al Gore accompanies this, because the Supreme Court ruled after the 2000 election that there is no right to have your vote counted, that the "peaceful" and timely transfer of power is more important. Which suggests that democracy is not at all an essential element of how our leaders are chosen. Which suggests that it is indeed fundamentally rigged.
(Donald Trump's 'Rigged' Rhetoric Is Damaging Even If He Loses - http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/trump-time-capsule-143-rigged/504284/)
We have an electoral college system that essentially throws out half of each state's presidential votes. And we don't have proportional representation. Why vote if your voice is never heard?
Smaller parties don't have a chance in the US winner-takes-all arena that leaves the views of more than half of the electorate unrepresented.
Actually, precisely because of the state-by-state winner-takes-all Electoral College, roughly half of all votes in every state are wasted, thrown out, no longer counted. (‘Either way, a vote for a 3rd party candidate, is a wasted vote.’ - https://www.facebook.com/rusty.boersma/posts/10211148350054044?comment_id=10211148377334726)
In 2000, as everyone knows, Gore won in almost every state that Nader did well in. Only in NH might Nader have affected the outcome, but so did the greater number of Dems who voted for Bush. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in Florida on Bush's request. It is always noteworthy that Dems endlessly complain about the Green Party, but Repubs never complain about, let alone blame their losses on, the Libertarian Party.
As one of those Nader voters, I can say that my vote was thrown out by the Electoral College along with everyone's in the state that wasn't for Gore. The fact is that Gore did well in every state that Nader did well in. Only in NH might Nader votes have affected the outcome, but there were even more registered Dems who voted for Bush. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in Florida. "Willfully ignorant" was a phrase I just read elsewhere and would apply to this tired canard.
One also wonders why Dems always blame someone else when they lose. You don't hear Republicans constantly whinging about the Libertarian Party.
Videos Put Democrats on Defensive About Dirty Tricks - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html
The Hawk on Russia Policy? Hillary Clinton, Not Donald Trump - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-putin-russia.html
Falsely takes credit for SCHIP, denies support for DOMA and TPP and Keystone, has no problem with 3rd-trimester abortion bans, won't reinstate separation of commercial and investment banking, changed vote on anti-woman anti-everyone bankruptcy bill after credit card co donations, destroyed Honduras, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and plans for even more, provokes Iran and Russia and China …
I just finished reading Nicholson Baker's "Human Smoke". It's a documentation of the build-up to World War II and the world of war that consumes us still today.
It's a disturbing and angering book, not only because of what happened that could easily have been avoided, but mostly because so much of the madness is echoed in today's news.
It reads like a dystopian thriller.
I tried to watch Michael Moore's Trumpland (which is available via bittorrent for the less scrupulous of yous out there). Most of all, it's boring. And it seems to come down to his longstanding fixation that anybody who isn't a white man is good for that reason alone. The giant glamour shots of young Clinton behind Moore on the stage are sickening. (More appropriate is the mock-up missile in one corner.) His theme seems to be (from as much as I could stomach) that a Clinton presidency will benefit all of us more than a Trump presidency. He tries to warm the crowd to her by describing her conservative bonafides, and then tries to show how that is precisely what drives her purported liberalism. If anyone wanted to waste a few hours of their life, the whole monologue could be ripped apart as disingenuous (or pathetic) at every level.
I guess she is modeling the "Christians" of the Crusades.
MM has lost every single one of his marbles, he is marble-less.
—Cindy Sheehan, https://www.facebook.com/cindyleesheehan/posts/1009859352473250
(Michael Moore: Clinton doesn't just talk about Christianity 'she lives it' - http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/302578-michael-moore-its-great-clinton-doesnt-talk-christianity)
Like George W. Bush?
Rauch rather gives the game away with “In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, … but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes”. For Clinton's sake – and the sake of her apologists – he tries to present the former as the latter.
Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Be Two-Faced - https://t.co/nmy3a0R5c8
Neal Gabler says: "The fact is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t unpopular when she announced her decision to run in April 2015." She wasn't popular, either. In fact, her unpopularity had been steadily rising since 2012: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
(How the Media Manufactured Hatred of Hillary Clinton - http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/)
Yet Chomsky says it's important to elect Hillary Clinton, who virtually promises the aggressive pursuit of regime change in Syria. World War is better than having our liberal sensitivities offended by Trump as President?
(Noam Chomsky on Syria: A ''Grim'' Set of Alternatives - http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38133-noam-chomsky-on-syria-a-grim-set-of-alternatives)
It seems to be a pattern this week that after making Trump out to be an evil beyond reckon that requires supporting Clinton, everyone's now reckoning with the evil that is Clinton (oops!). Chomsky's comments evade even that. He says, even as the press and commentariat are are in full Syria war propaganda mode in support of Clinton and against Assad, that it won't happen.
It is very unlikely that Trump would be worse than Clinton. The country (and other countries!) could probably survive a Trump presidency better than it could a Clinton one.
(https://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh/posts/1342933879073663?comment_id=1342936312406753&reply_comment_id=1342940595739658 — [M]y point is protecting SCOTUS for the next 30-40 years by not having trump replace 3 or 4 justices in the next 4 years.)
Which even Democrats would happily approve, as they did with Roberts.
Speaking of the Watergate break-in, one remembers that "Deep Throat" was FBI Associate Director Mark Felt. FBI agents probably don't like to see their work thrown under the bus of the political expediency of the boss. I suspect that Comey is trying to contain a rebellion by kicking the can a little farther down the road.
Roe v Wade, civil rights, and voting rights have already been shit-canned over the past 8 years.
1. Roe v Wade is a Supreme Court decision and therefore will not be overturned except by an amendment to the Constitution. 2. Actual access to abortion has plummeted under Obama, who let the murder of Dr George Tiller pass without comment. 3. Obama has expanded spying on us and has assassinated some of us for our speech. He has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous Presidents combined. 4. The Voting Rights Act has expired and the opportunity has been leapt on in many states to restrict voting. The Supreme Court, in Gore v Bush, said we do not have a right to have our vote counted. Clinton does not represent change from these trends, but rather emphatic continuation and escalation. At least there would be some resistance to Trump where there would be none to Clinton, who is in many ways well to the right of Trump.
Crowd attacks homeless woman. But it's OK, even triumphantly crowed over, because she supports Trump and criticizes Obama.
John Pilger: ‘[W]hat is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.’
Inside the Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton & Trump - http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/28/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump/
The fact is that as many Clinton voters are just as deplorable. Whereas Trump voters tend to criticize the other candidate, Clinton voters gleefully attack the other voters as far beneath them, not just different (in experience, outlook, lifestyle). They did the same thing with Sanders voters. In the name of inclusiveness they express only hatred. They have made language meaningless and argument impossible. That seems to present a greater danger than Trump's cable-show candidacy.
I note that the Washington Post op-ed writers call it a "federal criminal investigation". It seems obvious that a candidate for President who is under "federal criminal investigation" is the one who is damaging our democracy.
(James Comey is damaging our democracy - http://wpo.st/Xqn92)
Clinton is already fascist. A neocon neoliberal agent of Wall Street and war profiteers who considers herself utterly above the law.
The Green Party obviously has to both challenge the Democrats' fear mongering about Trump and the belief that Clinton is at all progressive (while also pointing out that there is plenty to fear about her). Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is so weak that they feel the need to smear Stein. As Scott Adams said, the Dems are the bully party.
Neoliberalism is neocon imperialism directed toward the domestic population and our commons.
‘Parallels to the incipient stages of Nazism are not an exaggeration, and it is not a loud-mouthed Trump who is necessarily the greatest danger. He is predominantly all-surface. It is Clinton who plumbs the depths of arrogance, ambition, congealed militarism.’ (Norman Pollack)
One Week, and Counting: Bottom-Fishing in America - http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/02/one-week-and-counting-bottom-fishing-in-america/
I would say that neoliberal lies (like, "despite neocons loving our candidate, we're progressive") are threatening to bring a proven fascist into power, ie Clinton. The extreme language used against not only Trump but also his supporters is in service to war and Wall Street. If Obama shut out progressives, then it is even more delusional to believe that Clinton could be influenced away from her war games and cat-food commissions. For voters in swing states, where they might actually feel a need to choose between the lesser of two evils, I would hope that it is increasingly clear that Trump would do far less harm, not only abroad but domestically as well. He might even do some good, whereas we can be sure that Clinton would be a disaster in everything, since that is her record.
Hillarious! 1, 2, and 3 are questions that are more aptly asked of Clinton. 4: Neocons, the most destructive force on the planet, love Hillary. 5: It was Clinton who called a quarter of Americans deplorable, irredeemable, and "not America". 6: Hillary loves fracking and the growing oil independence of Obama's expansion of domestic drilling. Clinton would be a disaster. Trump would just be an embarrassment.
As I referenced with "cat-food" commissions, Clinton is open to cutting Social Security. Clinton is open to banning 3rd-trimester abortions. Clinton defends trade arrangements like NAFTA and TPP that destroy jobs and the environment for the benefit of multinational companies. Clinton has said we will "never ever" have single-payer health insurance. Trump has expressed admiration for single-payer. Trump promises to serve the American people, not Wall Street. Except concerning Iran and Palestine, where both candidates are equally frightening, Trump promises to work with the world, not against it. Clinton promises more war, and that means continuing neglect of social policy.
Calling people "uneducated" is a cop-out to avoid having to muster persuasive argument with someone who doesn't agree with you. It is telling that only Republican voters are described as "uneducated" – as if voting Democrat by definition makes one "educated". Yet Democratic voters are often blind to the fact that their "liberal" party has long been in service to neoliberal domestic policy and neocon foreign policy to an even greater extent than the Republican party. At least the libertarian aspect of the Republican party recognizes the utter failure of our government (though also helping to ensure it). But neither party actually helps the poor, the uneducated, the working man and woman beyond throwing a few scraps to their respective bases.
Call the other side "stupid", call your side "the truth" – pathetic avoidance of engaging with both.
The neocons backing Clinton actually carry out what the KKK only dreams of doing.
Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DXDU48RHLU
Is the Clinton campaign honestly worried about losing even "blue" states? If that is indeed the case, then it is not because the "liberal" vote would be split, but because Clinton has moved so far to the right, leaving only one choice for "liberal" voters: Jill Stein.
Obama expanded domestic drilling and Clinton promises more.
Not to mention the environmental destruction of endless war.
The lack thereof would certainly explain the lame charge of sexism being used to explain opposition to Clinton. How does Obama explain support for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka? (‘We need more and better science education,scientists and training in critical thinking...’ https://www.facebook.com/Ecopolitidae/posts/10209229083756180?comment_id=10209255606899242)
‘Science tells us we double down on strongly held beliefs when confronted with strong evidence they are wrong.’ (https://www.facebook.com/Ecopolitidae/posts/10209229083756180?comment_id=10209247010284332) Hence Obama's comments.
There's no possibility that voters for Trump may actually be acting out of principle or hope or mere desperation (after Obama's neglect)? That Clinton is a horrible candidate with horrible positions that will only escalate the worst of Clinton (I)–Bush–Obama neoliberalism/neoconservativism? It all wreaks of mere snobbery. Resorting to elitist bullying.
What about women who reject Hillary? Special place in Hell?
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders (a year too late) acknowledges: ‘I do not believe that most of the people who are thinking about voting for Mr. Trump are racist or sexist’. https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/794941635931099136
If it's necessary to vote for a "flawed" candidate, why not Trump? Clinton is clearly the more fascist in actual policy and deed.
Everything said about Trump can be said more truthfully about Clinton. It is classic projection. Fascism has always made inroads with the hurrahs of liberals, who put appearances above everything. Clinton – neoliberal enemy of Keynesian economics [let alone socialism], neoconservative enthusiast for world domination – would clinch it.
People think it's cute to tell people to vote, as long as it isn't for Trump. In fact it's presumptuous and antidemocratic. It's offensive and frankly a dangerous tendency.
Easy test: What if someone told you your vote is important, just as long as it's not for Clinton (or Stein or Johnson)?
Different kinds of dumb. But the dumbest of these is that of the "educated".
I mean those who call other people uneducated as if a college degree makes you smart. In fact, it often seems to mean the opposite.
Michael Moore has rightly noted that if anything puts Trump over the top, it will be the "fuck you" vote that is the only satisfaction that the powerless have.
What he neglects to note is that it is in response to the biggest "fuck you" campaign in history: the effort to make Hillary Clinton President. A Trump vote may be a "fuck you" by the people against the government that ignores them, whereas the Clinton campaign has been one long "fuck you" by that government against the people, not only ignoring them, but also mocking and deriding them.
“We are indeed drifting into the arena of the unwell. Making an enemy of our own future.”
Example: ‘Then, she was seen as the obnoxious teacher’s pet madly waving her hand with the right answer, the scheming careerist and résumé-stuffer who would stop at nothing to win. Now, the question is whether Americans’ perceptions of ambitious women have evolved enough to elect one as president.’ http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/campaign-stops/the-triumph-of-tracy-flick.html (But the problem isn't ambition, it's the sense of entitlement and obvious disdain for the people in whose name, for whose benefit supposedly, she would serve. Voting for Hillary just to vindicate her ambition (to vindicate your own) is not a positive development. Again, it's a big "fuck you" to voters who are justifiably concerned about many other things.)
“The revolutionary moment” by Paul Kingsnorth
“The Dems Are Deluded.”
[The election comes to pass.]
A comment to “Regarding the upwelling of anti-Trump protest …” by Phil Rockstroh (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1355238767843174):
These protesters are beyond pathetic. I’d have some respect for them if they’d all been out there at some point during the last eight years of Obama’s tenure, while he steadily expanded Bush’s wars, pondered his Tuesday “kill list”, deliberately droned countless numbers of people to death (and still is), including Americans, one a 16 year old child, looked the other way while Israel stole land and butchered and imprisoned thousands of helpless Palestinians, many of them children, and then he just sent Israel another 38 billion of US taxpayer money as a reward. He rabidly pursued, persecuted and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined, sits by while Chelsea Manning tries to kill herself and is thrown into solitary confinement, forced Assange to be a prisoner in the Ecuadorean embassy, forced Snowden to take refuge in Russia – these three are all an example of true heroism, yet are treated as dangerous pariahs by Obama. He increased arms sales to the most volatile areas of the world, passed out major weaponry to terrorists, promoted bloody coups leading to horrific death and destruction not to mention the creation of ISIS and terrorist havens in Libya, and Syria, and then there’s the mess in Honduras and Ukraine and the wildly irresponsible threats to Russia.
He never prosecuted the bankers responsible for destroying countless lives and creating misery and mayhem here and over the entire world. His first official visitor to the White House eight years ago was none other than Goldman Sachs itself, Lloyd Blankfein, and we now know, thanks to Wikileaks, that his cabinet was chosen by the banking industry. Then there’s his promoting fracking, oil drilling in pristine areas, pipelines, nuclear, Monsanto, etc etc.
And while he busied himself with this crap, he totally ignored the plight of the people he was elected to serve, many in desperate straits – Americans lost jobs hand over fist, rural areas left to fester and rot, descending into hopelessness, decrepitude and massive drug addiction, while the sneering urban Democrats mocked and blamed them for their own misery. Then there are the forgotten cities, Detroit, Flint, etc ... the rust belt areas still out there dying, the country’s infrastructure falling to bits, the US looks increasingly third world outside of the posher areas. Obama sold us down the river to the health insurance scammers, forcing people to buy that crap or else, now it’s an unaffordable mess for most people, he never even tried for a public option let alone single payer. He formed the infamous Simpson-Bowles “catfood commission” to try to cut Social Security and raise the age of eligibility. Under Obama, there’s been no cost of living increase for those living on SS. He refused to support unions when he had the chance. He never addressed the outrageous costs of college. A record number of abortion clinics closed down while he was president and he never said anything about it, never made a speech when the courageous Dr Tiller was murdered. So much for having a “pro-choice” president. Then there’s his insane promotion of the TPP, which gives corporations total power – fascism in its purest form. if that passes, it will be a disaster for the entire planet. He chose a corporatist as a replacement for Scalia, one who supports Citizens United! While Obama and Michelle hosted endless glamorous soirees with vulgarian rich celebrities, people were going hungry, sleeping on the streets, losing everything they had. Jobs went to H1B1 workers imported from India, etc, and more factories shut down and moved out of the country, leaving millions without any other avenue to employment. Gun violence increased horrifically. He hasn’t stood with the Native American nations who are courageously facing down the militarized police to protect our water. Quite the legacy! He’s a smooth con artist and a coward. Hillary Clinton ran on this record, believes in all of it, and would have continued all of the above, but even more so. But that was good enough for her fan club.
So during Obama’s time, here were no major protests, and no anti-war movement during the last eight years, it disappeared as soon as Bush left office. Invasions of other countries for corporate profits is just fine when a Democrat president is doing it, apparently. Imperialism and fascism is no longer a problem.
Now these dolts who think they’re the center of the universe are out protesting Trump, who hasn’t even done anything yet. They are enraged because Clinton, a criminal and a warmonger far worse than Obama, didn’t win. Clinton is just a dull neocon hack out of her depth, who has been relentlessly over-promoted and given everything on a silver platter due to her being married to Bill Clinton – and yet every task she has been given has been almost unbelievably bungled, resulting in the deaths and displacement of millions of people. Everything Clinton stood for was poison, yet these people are upset that they aren’t going to get Henry Kissinger/Margaret Thatcher/Attila the Hun in an ugly pantsuit? They should be relieved. There were no big protests when Bernie was cheated out of the primaries by the DNC and Hillary Clinton, interestingly. These people represent neoliberalism on steroids, fascism is fine with them as long as they remain the fortunate ones. The Democrat party stands for raw corporate power, nothing more, just as does the Republican party – though the Repubs are more democratic than the democrats.
Bernie would be the president-elect now if not for Clinton’s cheating him out of what was rightfully his. That’s what enraging. It’s just kind of tragic that he capitulated to her and lost his credibility in promoting the vile Clinton, instead of taking the opportunity to help Jill Stein and using all of that anti-establishment energy out there to promote a real third party. So despite all of the establishment’s heavy lifting for Clinton, the MSM debasing itself for her, her Hollywood celebrities, billions spent, cheating and lying, none of it worked. That’s cause for celebration, one would think – the “little” people, whether Trump or third party voters, fought back and won. They made people take notice of them.
Who knows what Trump will do; it could be okay or awful – let’s hope for the best, anyway. The time for protests may well be coming, but doing it now just seems like a spoiled-brat, sore loser temper tantrum. It’s just a dream come true that with Clinton out, we’ve (hopefully) seen the last of that greedy, destructive family and World War 3 was averted.
Delicious to see her smug fans so shocked and in meltdown – how dare anyone defy them?! Amazing the MSM and her supporters are so in a bubble they never saw this coming – Trump always had a good chance of winning, but they never believed it, because they live in an echo chamber, sneering at their less fortunate fellow Americans, who they somehow imagined couldn’t find their way to the polling stations. A much-deserved comeuppance for these people who smeared Bernie supporters, third-party supporters, and now Trump supporters as being somehow less than human. It’s understandable that people are worried about Trump; but the reaction by Clinton cultists is way over the top. They have learned nothing ...
So now all the people who were confident that Hillary Clinton was going to usher in a great awakening on top of the wonderful work of Barack Obama are now screaming about the horrors of a Trump Presidency. They rather lack credibility. These are the same people who called Bernie Sanders a gun-loving racist and sexist commie.
I haven't put the following thoughts into good form yet, but by the time I might, they may be irrelevant (which would be a good thing, according to these thoughts), so here they are:
The protesters against Trump's election remind me of the "liberal" Egyptians who protested their first elected President and welcomed in a new military dictatorship, and of the "liberal" Ukrainians who protested their elected President, sparked a civil war, and welcomed in a government collaborating with neo-Nazis and promising EU-style austerity and a selling off of the country's resources. In other words, they are actually, on balance, illiberal.
It all seems more about self-image than political reality. Because one gets the sense that there would not have been such demonstrations, such fear and loathing, had Clinton won (and whose policies were generally well to the right of Trump, as has been well laid out elsewhere).
There it is.
[For the Cairo hipsters, Morsi was too religious; for the Kyiv hipsters, Yanukovich was too Russian. In both cases, as the "elites" of Britain would like to veto outcomes like "Brexit", and the "educated" of the USA would like to veto outcomes like Trump's election, they were anti-democratic actions against the voice of the people.]
Reminder: When the US #ElectoralCollege results don't reflect the overall popular vote, that is precisely its purpose.
Tyranny of the Majority (ie, mob rule) is why there is constitutional democracy, to protect the rights of Minority groups.
The Majority, concentrated in a few cities, has not only numbers, but also money and media on their side: not a fair game.