If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
Why don't you read what people write? I didn't say Trump represented a revolution. I said when he screws his supporters over then they might wake the fuck up and realise nobody can change anything for them, they'll have to do it themselves. And you can project all you want but the choice here was very simple. On the one hand we have a warmonger and a criminal with an established track record of being a warmonger and a criminal. So there are no grey areas there. On the other we had Anybody But Clinton. Which happened to be Trump. Basically a glorified landlord with a track record of screwing tenants. Yet still, he hasn't started any wars that I'm aware of. He might. But he hasn't. That's a pretty unambiguous choice and an easy one to make. The warmongering criminal who wants more wars and has a bag full of scumbags who are eager to help her get them, or the grubby corporate bloke whose primary focus seems to be accelerating the speed at which the rich get richer. With one you'll probably end up dead, with the other you'll be poorer but alive to fight another day.
I said it was encouraging that people decided not to vote for a criminal and with 87% of the voters stating Clinton's criminality troubled them then that just leaves the 17% who are either too ignorant to be aware of the rather public issues or else are too immoral to care. Does this mean 87% of people are now virtuous? No and I didn't say that. Analogy. The BNP. Isn't it somewhat encouraging that they don't get a lot of votes? Wouldn't it be rather discouraging if they became competitive? Wouldn't that say quite a bit about the people of this country, even if they were voting for other issues? Well it's the same with Clinton. It's encouraging that her criminality at least had a bearing and it would be bad news if it had been overlooked. That doesn't mean it was the only issue, just as the BNP might roll up with all sorts of promises to spring things their way. But fundamentally, whatever they say, you don't vote for people like that because you know what their true intentions are. Just as Clinton's true intentions are obvious after a 30 year track record.
The pushback against globalisation is happening all across the world. Plenty of people in this latest election expressed concerns about jobs and trade and these are the stock in trade of globalisation. Cheap labour markets and a greater divide between those who have and those who have nothing. The hallmarks of globalisation. Here in the UK we voted against a superstate and more of this centralised bullshit. In the States they voted against the status quo that has delivered the same centrist misery. I don't know why you are questioning the existence of a significant push back against the globalists because it's all there right under your nose. In America and across Europe. People have, at least, woken up to that bullshit. Or at least half the people to a degree that they are prepared to vote for outcomes that are directly opposite to the stated establishment wisdom and expectations.
You are projecting reasons why Trump is a bad choice while ignoring all the concrete reasons why Clinton was unelectable. You have placed way too much emphasis on Trump and everything you are saying seems to imply Clinton would have somehow been an acceptable choice. Well there were only two choices and Clinton thankfully lost. After that, Donald Trump or Donald Duck, it doesn't matter really does it? Not unless you think there is somebody out there in US (or global) politics that has genuine intentions and even a glimmer of a chance of getting elected. Do you? What are you arguing here?
Für eure Sicherheit
Yeah, no chance of a war with Trump in charge.
Can't you be honest maybe once a year? Nobody said there was no chance of a war with Trump in charge. Except you. Your usual. Tell somebody they've said something and then disagree. Usually because you are too lightweight to follow the debate so you have to simplify.
You do realise that we're involved in five wars initiated by the neoliberals that the Clinton gang represent? So if your argument is fuck Trump because he might start a war, let's go with the bitch who has already helped start five I can only say I pity you and there but for the grace of God...
Für eure Sicherheit
I don't get that at all. The poll tax riots were push back against one of Thatcher's more egregious attempts to steal from the poor. People hit the street, the bitch shit her knickers and discovered the lady was for turning and pretty damn fast. How is that the same as a bunch of ignoramuses crying and having tantrums about their criminal candidate not getting elected?
Für eure Sicherheit
They're crying and having tantrums because of the criminal (and misogynist, and racist, and bigot, and sexual abuser) who did get elected...
Is that what it's logically on par with? Like I said, thick as pig shit.
Here's one that works. You need a babysitter. Who do you pick? The known paedophile or the creepy looking guy? Neither I guess. But if you are forced to make a choice?
Well here's what you would do. You'd pretend the paedo wasn't a paedo.
Für eure Sicherheit