SYNDICATED COLUMN: Trump or Hillary: We’re Screwed Either Way

After disaster strikes, it often turns out that there were several contributing factors behind it. Looking back, though, there was usually one key moment when One Really Bad Decision was made — when catastrophe might have been avoided had the people in charge done something different.

This feels like that moment.

Unless something dramatic happens soon, either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will win the presidency this fall. Either candidate would be a disaster.

Yes, either.

You already know why Trump is dangerous. He’s savagely ignorant of politics, history and, surprisingly considering his profession, economics. He advocates violence on a vast scale: against protesters, against other countries, against millions of children whose only crime was to be brought to the United States by parents who snuck them over the border. He’s a rude, boorish, hostile, aggressive jerk — not a personality you want in charge of nuclear launch codes, or talking to other people in other countries who have their own launch codes. He’s so incurious and anti-intellectual that he makes George W. Bush look like Slajov Zizek.

Yet Hillary is just as scary.

Hillary Clinton is taking foreign policy advice from the last people anyone wants near a sitting president: those crazy neo-conservatives. We’re talking about extreme right-wing nuts like Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Richard Perle — the same exact lunatics who convinced Bush to invade Iraq. Henry Kissinger, who belongs in prison at The Hague, is on Secretary Clinton’s speed dial. She brags about it!

She’s in the pocket of AIPAC, the Washington lobbying firm that leans on politicians to support Israel’s most disgusting atrocities, like the recent Gaza War — which puts us square under the crosshairs of radical Islamist groups. Under a second Clinton Administration, the Forever War will continue and expand. There will be more drones. More political assassinations, like the murder of Osama bin Laden, which she can’t stop crowing about. She will provide many more reasons for people in other countries to hate the United States. Just what we need.

It certainly isn’t what we want. Most Americans think Bush-Obama’s “war on terrorism” is a mistake, and that the terrorists are winning.

At a time when we need to wind down interventionism and refocus on our long-neglected needs here at home — infrastructure, jobs, healthcare — we get Dubya in a pantsuit.

Speaking of jobs, Hillary Clinton seems determined to make sure there isn’t a single American left working in America. With the exception of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Clinton consistently supports job-exporting “free trade” pacts. (She backed TPP too before pressure from Bernie Sanders prompted her to change her mind.)

Ah, Bernie.

Hillary and her pet Democratic Party are planning to claim victory in the Democratic primaries over Bernie on Tuesday, June 7th. This is, of course, bull feces; neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates after the votes are counted Tuesday to claim the nomination. Hillary’s claim is based on her assumption that she will carry the majority of superdelegates, those establishment conservatives who make up a fifth of the total delegate count.

Thing is, the superdelegates won’t actually vote until the convention, which takes place in Philadelphia in mid-July. The Clinton campaign is relying on a November 2015 AP poll, which showed her with a commanding superdelegate lead over Sanders. A poll isn’t a vote. Moreover, it’s an old poll. A lot has happened since November, like the inspector general issuing a damning report about Hillary’s private email server, Sanders winning primaries and caucuses he was expected to lose, Sanders pulling in countless five-figure crowds at his rallies, and other polls showing Sanders beating Trump but Hillary, not so much.

Superdelegates can change their minds. In June 2008, when she was running against Barack Obama, Hillary urged them to do exactly that. As it played out eight years ago, they switched from her to him instead.

Much has been made of Sanders’ alleged hypocrisy: his only path to the nomination, Clintonistas smirk, is convincing superdelegates — a system that he opposes — that he’s a stronger candidate against Trump. Well, poo. I dislike capitalism, yet I charge money to media outlets that publish my column. Am I a dastardly hypocrite too?

Oh, and psst— Hillary Clinton was against the superdelegate system in 2008.

The base of the Democratic Party is moving inexorably left. Whether or not she beats Trump, handing the nomination to a right-winger like Hillary Clinton over an undeniably more viable leftie like Bernie Sanders could alienate so many liberals and progressives that it could destroy the Democrats’ future as a national political party. And if she loses — which now seems likely — we get Trump.

This is one of those weeks, or two of them, when it’s still possible to prevent a terrible thing from taking place.

On Tuesday night, the news media should refrain from declaring Hillary the victor. She won’t be. She can’t be. It’s not over until July, so that’s what they should report.

Between now and July, Democratic superdelegates should search their hearts, read the head-to-head matchups, and consider switching to Sanders who, for whatever flaws he has, is a real liberal — he’s not a Democrat, but he’s more of a Democrat than she is.

And the Department of Justice should stop running out the clock. Hillary Clinton is not one for mercy: she thinks the heroic Edward Snowden should be tried for treason, and she’s still for the death penalty. She ought to be held accountable for the email scandal. Indict her. Try her. Let the jury — and the voters — decide her fate.

Which will be the opposite fate of ours.

(Ted Rall is the author of “Bernie,” a biography written with the cooperation of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. His next book, the graphic biography “Trump,” comes out July 19th and is now available for pre-order.)

 

 

13 Comments.

  • But y’gotta admit – Trump would be entertaining as hell to watch. Hillary would be a *boring* president.

    It’d also be fun to watch the Trump Chumps as it slowly dawns on them that they bought a pig in a poke. (well, those that are smart enough to realize they’re getting boned) ((come to think of it, most of ’em aren’t even that smart …))

  • I had supper with an Irish friend. He said some farmers in his home country were offered wind farms. The windmills would not prevent them from raising their crops and livestock, but would make them a little extra money, would provide cheaper electricity to consumers, and would help the earth. Win-win-win. But the farms were too close to one of Trump’s golf courses, and he got the wind farm blocked. The Irish friend also said he’d heard they’d filed a criminal indictment against Trump over Trump ‘University.’ Then on comicskingdom, someone wrote on Mallard Filmore, ‘Hillary is charged with a criminal offence, while Trump is only being sued in civil court.’ So I checked. That Hillary has been charged with a criminal offence is a lie. Whatever she’s done, there is not enough prima facie evidence to indict her. And Trump ‘University’ defrauded many poor, elderly people out of all their savings, but all the suits have been strictly civil. A New York Prosecutor is filing a civil lawsuit for license violations, and a lawsuit is proceeding in California, but neither is in criminal court.

    During the campaign, Trump said whatever he thought would get him nominated. I never go by words. But Trump ‘University’ and the suit to block the wind farm are actions that I detest. But Trump hasn’t killed nearly as many as Hillary has. And will when she’s elected.

    I have no idea what disaster might happen if Trump gets the nuclear button. I don’t even know if he could figure out how to use it. I have a very good idea of what will happen when President Clinton gets that button. She has said Obama was terrible for not removing the evil Syrian dictator who has killed more than 300,000 innocent, unarmed, peaceful protesters. Before the UK got rid of the old, unpatriotic staff at the Guardian.uk, it said most of the dead in Syria had been killed by those ‘innocent, unarmed, peaceful protesters.’ That’s been fixed, and the new Guardian.com says the evil Syria dictator has murdered all 300,000 innocent peaceful protesters, thousands with poison gas, and Obama promised to remove him but reneged, and we desperately need President Clinton to finish the job. Putin has foolishly said he will NOT allow anyone to remove the legitimate government of Syria. Foolish, evil man. We have to hope he’ll see sense and stand aside, because President Clinton will NOT be bluffing when she says the evil Syrian dictator (supported by about 60% of Syrians, including the secular Sunnis) must go.

    The New York Times columnists, Democrat and Republican, agree that the nomination contest and election are a really stupid idea. There is only one person qualified to be president of the United States, and the idiot voters must not be allowed to nominate or elect anyone else, since she and she alone is qualified. She and only she can lead the US in the direction it must go. How can anybody dream that anyone else could possibly do the job? The Republicans are demanding that the Republican leadership somehow give the nomination to anyone except Trump. The Democrats say that there is no one alive except for Secretary Clinton who is qualified. (And the Democrat columnists know that we need to get rid of term limits, while we’re at it. If it were not for term limits, we’d have had Bill instead of W, and he’d have used more drones and prevented the 4,000 needless deaths that Bush, jr caused.)

    The primaries proved that more than 80% of African-Americans will vote for Secretary Clinton, either because they like her, or they really, really liked Bill and figure this is his very clever way to circumvent term limits. Likewise more than 70% of non-Cuban Hispanics. Obama won with less than 40% of the white vote, and Hillary appeals to most white women over 40. So the polls that say it’s close are probably necessary, since the news media need the contest to be close enough that people will pay to read about it. Only angry, white men will vote for Trump.

    And what if Putin does NOT back down?

    Not to mention Kim and Xi?

    As the Chinese say, ‘Interesting times’ ahead.

    • > the farms were too close to one of Trump’s golf courses, and he got the wind farm blocked.

      “… when the windbag got wind of the wind farm …”

      (couldn’t let that one go by unremarked 😉

  • Mr. Trump’s shown time and again that he can win over almost anyone. For instance, recall that long feud he had with Megyn Kelly. He agreed to an interview and she was absolutely glowing throughout. So his public persona is blunt and brash. Get him in a negotiation and he demonstrates his mastery of diplomacy. I mean get real. Like he’s gonna insult someone into a nuclear attack.

    And I don’t get the “anti-intellectualism” charge. So he wants to appear relatable. But he must’ve talked with countless people. I find it absurd to believe he had no curiosity for them or didn’t have many “intellectual” conversations. I can only figure that again this is really a critique of his straightforward persona.

    • > Get him in a negotiation and he demonstrates his mastery of diplomacy.

      Examples, please? Being a good used-car salesman is nothing like ‘diplomacy.’ Nor can he “win over almost anyone.” Only only 34% of voters have a favorable opinion of him. (34% << "almost anyone," eh?) We've already discussed the people he's "won over" – those being poorly educated losers. In point of fact, used car salesmen have a higher approval rating than Trump – and the same page again highlights exactly which people he’s “won over.”

      > I find it absurd to believe he had no curiosity for them or didn’t have many “intellectual” conversations.

      I find it absurd that you think he has any curiosity or intellect to speak of. Again, I ask for examples. My counter examples include his insistence that the California drought is a myth; the ongoing flack over Obomber’s birth certificate; his yuuuuge lies; and his ludicrous belief that he has a very high IQ. (a common belief among thieves, swindlers, car salesmen and other assorted sociopaths.)

      • I’m sure you meant to say “poorly *indoctrinated*”

        Putin seems to have been won over.

        The point is that your examples are garbage, and you’ll think all my examples are garbage, so why ask? And anyway you’re one who believes it’s impossible to like women and not be a feminist, it’s tolerant and anti-racist to denigrate white people, and the only way to be intellectual is to parrot discredited Left-wing ideas.

        At any rate, we haven’t had anyone even *trying* to negotiate on the behalf of ordinary Americans in a long time. Whether our negotiators have been any good has been immaterial. So even if you think I can’t prove he has any skill, he’s already miles ahead for knowing what ails America though you also deny that.

        Hell this is all pointless since what you want is for Americans to hang their heads in shame, be citizens of the world, and be grateful to have so many noble savages flooding their homeland. I mean in your mind considering America foremost is heresy! America is *bad* after all.

        Take heart, CH. Hillary hates America just as much as you!

      • “you’re one who believes it’s impossible to like women and not be a feminist, it’s tolerant and anti-racist to denigrate white people … want is for Americans to hang their heads in shame”

        You’re the one who pulls off-topic nonsense out of his ass and attributes it to me in a pathetic attempt to avoid proving any of his previous nonsense. I’ve never said any of those things. You can’t find examples any more than you can provide the examples I asked for above.

        There’s a word for that. “Losing.” There’s also a word for someone who does so repeatedly.

      • All you did was demonstrate that you fail both to understand how these are very much relevant topics and to understand your own beliefs and their implications, assumptions, and roots.

        For example, you’ve shown more concern for Muslim “refugees” than for Americans, so what difference would it make to you whether Americans have good diplomacy on their behalf if they don’t deserve good deals?

  • alex_the_tired
    June 3, 2016 11:32 AM

    Our only hope is in the veeps. HRC gets in and is run out of down in an impeachment for some scandal within a year. Trump? I honestly think he will be impeached within 10 weeks of his swearing in. He’ll either do something or get gimmicked for something.

  • When Hillary pushes for WWIII the sappy suckers for her serious demeanor will solemnly accept their demise as inevitable.

    When Trump arouses animal hatred with his buffoonery even Democrats will be strong in opposition.

    I oppose Trump for the demagoguery common to both parties of this demogogcracy, but if any real opposition to the worst of which we are capable of as humans will be aroused, it will be more strongly in response to Trump, not Hillary, because Trump is more transparent.

    But only the people, not the demogogcracy, can save the people from demogogcracy.

    So I seriously consider voting for Trump in the general election, because Hillary will continue the move toward war with Russia, a move that Bush II and Obama have continued, one that began with the incursions of Bill Clinton’s NATO push east to the Russian border.

    I oppose Trump (and Hillary), therefore I will vote for Trump in order to generate an opposition to the Democratic Party policies that even a Democrat could support.

    Clinton Urges NATO Expansion in 1999
    By ALISON MITCHELL
    Published: October 23, 1996

    DETROIT, Oct. 22— In a rare turn to foreign policy on the campaign trail, President Clinton today called for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend full membership to a first group of former Soviet bloc nations by the spring of 1999, the 50th anniversary of the Western military alliance.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/23/us/clinton-urges-nato-expansion-in-1999.html

Menu
css.php