Everyone Is Voting For Trump

Democrats and their allies in the corporate media keep emphasizing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy who is so dangerous that he must be stopped at all costs. A vote for a third party, or staying home on election day, they say, is the same as essentially voting for Donald Trump. Whether or not you think they are exaggerating, there seems to be no limit to their arguments.

28 Comments. Leave new

  • I have been paying attention to the media coverage of politics and elections my whole teenage and adult life. I fear to say this because it sounds like hyperbole, but I have never seen the mainstream media so fully in the tank for a candidate in my life. After the DNC, it feels like they have gone into overdrive and thrown all pretense to the wind. Granted, Trump spews bile and filth from his orange mouth on the regular and I am not fully convinced he isn’t a Manchurian Candidate sent by the Clintons to ensure a Hillary presidency that would be an impossibility if she didn’t cheat or her opponent was anything less vile than a grotesque caricature. However, the biased coverage from the mainstream mefia toward Hillary would make the PR department of third world dictatorships pause and lighten the over the top propaganda a tad.

    • It’s ’64 all over again. Johnson had to pay to run ads that Goldwater was sure to start a nuclear holocaust. This year, the MSM is running those ads for Hillary for FREE!

      Snopes ran a check on Trump’s asking for the details of how he could launch a nuclear strike, and said it was an unverifiable claim by an MSNBC reporter without any supporting sources. I have seen this claim posted as fact on the front page of all the MSM in the US/UK/EU.

      The hilarious bit is that it is Secretary Redbeard who has promised war with Russia. Sorry, the US Constitution says, if majorities in both houses of Congress do not vote to declare it a war, it’s just a peacekeeping mission. So Secretary Redbeard has promised a peacekeeping mission against Syria as soon as she takes office, and also a peacekeeping mission against Russia if Putin does not unconditionally surrender and hand over Syria to the Salafis and the US, the Crimea to the Ukraine, and all of the Ukraine to NATO.

      And saying Trump will start a nuclear war? With whom? He says he wants to work with Russia, so whom do the idiots think is he going to nuke?

      And the Chicago Tribune had a great article that Secretary Redbeard should use nukes if it will save money and lives, as it did in Japan and will do again in Russia and Syria.

      And the readers of the MSM, having been told that, unlike the rest of the world, the US MSM always publishes the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, believe every word they read.

  • Fear is the only thing Hillary has going for her.

    “The only thing we have to fear is Trump himself”

    “The only thing we have to fear is Russia itself”

    “The only thing we have to fear is China itself”

    How long can the Dems peddle the fear factor?

  • I decided after Bernie dropped out that I would cast my vote for Jill Stein, but Gary Johnson is looking better as time drags on. 🙂

    • I’m still with Jill, if I’m still with anybody.

      I’m really for anybody not pledged to pillage the people for the Power Elite.

      There’s a great opportunity now for third parties to become recognized as national parties if the 5% rule holds: get 5% of the popular vote and get the same ballot access as the R’s and D’s in the next election.

      I’d like the Green Party do so well that Sanders would regret not taking his pound of flesh by running Green after the Dems showed him such disrespect.

      If the Dems lose they’ll blame Sanders anyway for bringing up divisive issues that Hillary never wanted to touch. It’s always someone else’s fault when Democrats lose.

      • Bernie should have accepted Jill’s invitation to take the top slot on the Green Party ticket. That he didn’t do so makes me wonder if he ever was a serious candidate. I think a Sanders/Stein tem could have easily taken it! 🙂

  • Considering the number of prominent Republicans to either endorse Hillary or refuse to endorse Trump, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and MSM aren’t the only ones who think the Donald is an existential threat to civilization. Ted, do you really hate Hillary/Obama so much that you have decided to take it easy on Trump? I get the whole progressive revolutionary thing you promote, but my background as an engineer (environmental with a background in California water rights law) doesn’t really allow me to engage in that kind of fantasy. Here’s my helpful hints (feel free to ignore of course):

    1. Who will nominate the most progressive candidate for the Supreme Court? (consider that the Senate may or may not remain in Republican control after this Trumptastrophy, I mean election)

    2. Who will allow (or do the least harm) to education in this country?

    3. Who will facilitate (or do the least to inhibit) the most efficient use of energy, water, and other vital natural resources (both within the US and worldwide)?

    If my train of thought isn’t clear enough:

    1. A new balance of power on the supreme court is needed to remove atrocities like Citizen’s United from the books and allow for real campaign finance reform. The real lesson of 2016 is when you require every candidate for any office (this includes even the lowest local offices) to be a prostitute, you get a field of candidates so weak we are left with Hill v. Trump.

    2. Just because a crackhead once sang “I believe that children are our future” doesn’t mean it isn’t true. An educated electorate is pretty much required for any kind of democracy to work. Especially one that is educated on how things like allowing fish to go extinct results in future dramatic costs to maintain water quality.

    3. There is no way for a country to “save money” (since we print it). However, the country that invests in an energy and water efficient infrastructure will be in the best position to compete economically in the future. Plus, not having clean water to drink or energy to run our smartphones would seriously suck. You want a revolution? Take away people’s phones – that would start a revolution.

    • President Trump could be valuable as a placeholder because so many people hate him. For every policy position Trump takes there will be people to obstruct him, if not for what he says, then for how he says it.

      Unfortunately, that will make his election very unlikely, leaving Hillary to complete Bill’s push to militarize Europe up to Russia’s western border, to complement Obama’s development of “thinkable” nuclear weapons to emplace there.

      Hillary will push for the practically irreversible TPP and an equally so nuclear war with Russia without resistance from the Democratic Party, the war party that protests Republican wars but never protests Democratic Party wars.

      From a left position Trump is the most ineffective evil and Hillary is the most effective evil.

      You should drop by here more often to disabuse yourself of the notion that Trump gets a pass from Ted. Peruse the archives, if you can find some time away from your unabashed support of war monger Hillary.

      • I’ve read Ted off and on since the mid 2000’s….He even sent me a personal email in 2006. But I don’t have to go that far back in the archives to find Ted giving the Donald a pass. “Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about.” No Ted…I get to laugh at the idiot Trump for taking a stupidly racist position and then getting put in a no-win situation because of it.

        And Glenn, I expect much better reading comprehension from Ted’s commenters. Apparently my “subtle” use of the word “weak” and derisive shortening of Ms. Clinton’s first name somehow translates to “unabashed support”?

        As for trade agreements and outsourcing jobs, I’m much more comfortable guiding my sons to career paths that can not be outsourced as I am commiserating with them about lost job opportunities (I am white, they are half black) because the election of a blatant racist to the presidency empowered the racist underbelly of this country to return to its roots.

        I’d disagree with your point that Ms. Pantsuit will somehow be more effective than Mr. Born on Third Base thinking he hit a Triple. I’d propose that neither would be that effective, however the bully pulpit of the presidency doesn’t require congressional support to start a war because of some stupid comment. And since I was born in 1970, Russian nukes have been 20 minutes away from ending life on this planet. What hasn’t been a factor is a nuclear war between Japan and China. Since Hill-Bags is unfortunately going to be elected in November, lets work on getting a SCOTUS nominee who will reverse Citizen’s United and start there with incremental changes. Risking a quick flame-out by electing a buffoon is not the answer for me.

      • No.

        Let’s work on stopping TPP and starting a party that isn’t intent on pillaging the people, thereby creating fertile ground for Trump and all the Trump-types to come.

        Hillary will never work to overturn Citizen United. She gets too much money from Wall Street. Same as Obama, who bailed out Wall street after their reckless endangerment of the economy.

        Democrats are the more effective evil.

      • I’m curious what jobs you think are outsource-proof? Or automation proof?

      • For Glenn – you mean the same Obama who was roundly criticized by the right for calling out SCOTUS on Citizen’s United and nominated two of the justices who dissented? Or Hillary, who was the subject of the negative film which started the whole case? Please, now you are just imagining reasons to hate.

        For Meursault: Certain skilled trades are impossible to outsource – Is your electrician going to be flown over from India? I am a licensed civil engineer, however working in water rights I was basically a technical paralegal who essential wrote book reports all day. Any position where writing english is a significant part of the job is going to be difficult to either outsource or automate. I’d certainly agree that outsourcing and automation are significant threats to future job opportunities for American Citizens, but honestly will defeating one free-trade agreement end these threats? I think not.

      • @CaWaterLord

        There is the little matter of the 20 trillion dollar bailout of the thieving banks and no prosecutions.

        I guess in a Hillary defender’s mind a “call out” somehow redeems Obama, but for the life of me I can’t see how. Benevolent gestures just don’t make it for me.

        If Obama was serious about the Supreme Court he should not have been such a pushover for the Republicans calling him an ineligible Lame Duck. Simply shameful. I felt embarrassed for him.

        Obama should have named his choice, told the senate to show up and be counted, and if no senators showed up, then consider his Constitutional obligation to have been met with indifference, and then begin the swearing in of the new justice.

        FDR moved to pack the Court to overcome the opposition unlike the gutless one holding the office now. That guy knew how to push.

        You know that a Republican would have done something to still come out on top over this pushover if the the Senate and the President were on opposite sides of this argument.

      • I guess the whole appointing two of the four justices who opposed Citizens United isn’t a big deal? You call those “Benevolent Gestures”?

        And your proposal that Obama ignore the Senate and just appoint Garland to SCOTUS would have resulted in the House and Senate holding impeachment hearings/trial right now.

        And though FDR’s repeated bending/breaking of the law looks good now with the benefit of historical hindsight, please remember that the precedents he set were used to start the Vietnam and second Iraq wars – easily the two worst foreign policies this country has ever engaged in. So I’m going to come down on the side of being overly lawful and let the Republicans maintain their grip on lawlessness from the Chief Executive.

      • Why is Clinton using Trump to promote Republicans?

        Clinton is in a position to press this advantage against her political opposition and make them pay as high a price as possible for nominating such an unpopular candidate. Broadly, this would mean, among other things, winning as many legislative seats as possible in order to advance the Democratic agenda.

        Instead, we are seeing the exact opposite. From the recent email leaks, DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda:



    • ««Considering the number of prominent Republicans to either endorse Hillary or refuse to endorse Trump

      Who will nominate the most progressive candidate for the Supreme Court?

      Who will allow (or do the least harm) to education in this country?

      Who will facilitate (or do the least to inhibit) the most efficient use of energy, water, and other vital natural resources (both within the US and worldwide)?»

      No, «CaWaterLord», I fear that your «train of thought» – from which I cite above – is not quite clear to me ; are you saying that those «prominent Republicans» are either endorsing Ms Clinton or at least refusing to endorse Mr Trump because they wish to see progressive candidates nominated to the US Supreme Court ? Or that it is their desire to promote education in your country and the most efficient use of energy, water, and other vital natural resources that impels them to this choice ?…

      Quite frankly, given what they have publicly said, I doubt it. Rather, it would seem to be the fear that as US president Mr Trump might not rely quite as much as his predecessors on NATO as an arm of foreign policy, and that he might be able to reach a realistic accommodation with Russia that is the driving factor in their decisions not to support him….

      The problem with Mr Trump is that it seems impossible to judge from what he has said on the campaign trial what his policies would turn out to be – save, perhaps, for giving a large tax break to corporations and his super-rich pals – were he to become US president. With Ms Clinton on the other hand, while she’s certainly not above appearing far more «progressive» than she is if that be necessary to win primary votes, we do have her record on which to judge – vestigia terrent….


    • “Considering the number of prominent Republicans to either endorse Hillary or refuse to endorse Trump, it’s pretty clear that the Dems and MSM aren’t the only ones who think the Donald is an existential threat to civilization.”

      Existential threat to civilization? The real existential threats to civilization are climate change and nuclear war, of which both parties are unified in their support of Hillary’s pro-fracking and liberal McCarthyism in ginning up pro-war anti-Russian sentiment, which I see you have swallowed whole.

      The existential threat against which these parties are united is the existential threat to the hegemonic dominance of the Power Elite, of which both R’s and D’s labor in service to, and by which they are favored with existence under their tutelage.

      If not for Hillary’s actions in concert with the DNC against Sanders, both parties having moved far to the right of the voting public, could be facing the same challenge that the Republican Party does now.

      Only a victory by Hillary can save the Republican Party from its demise, by saving the root from which it springs.

  • I have maintained for a long time now that the US electoral extravaganza is nothing but vaudeville trash. It’s a gross spectacle and it should not be taken at face value. Trump is putting on an act. All the players have their scripts and their cues and they all know how the story ends. The 2016 rendition ends with Hillary being awarded the presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise is childishly naive.

    • I would agree with the part about Hillary being awarded the Democratic nomination because of her “sticking by her man” in 1998. The irrational part involves Trump following a script. That’s straight up impossible. (tongue firmly in cheek)

  • Ted, I fear you have ignored perhaps the most important category of people who are «voting for Trump», viz, all us foreigners who don’t enjoy the franchise in the US and who yet vastly outnumber those US citizens who do. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ! – I confess to the mortal sin of «voting for Trump» by not voting for Ms Clinton – and to make matters worse, nor do I have any designs on the lives and health of prospective Trump-voters (I don’t know any)….

    Guess I’ll just have to go and hang my head in shame when Ms Clinton presses the red button….


  • Something must be wrong : an accurate analysis of Ms Clinton from a person and a newspaper where such is generally verboten….


You must be logged in to post a comment.