Posted on

Trump, Koi Fish, and the Agenda Driven Media

November 5th was a day like any other day. The sun rose in the morning. Birds started to chirp. McDonald’s opened at 5AM and started serving sub-par breakfast. Media outlets and blue check-marks threw integrity to the wind, logged into twitter, and greeted the day with their daily doses of lies and dishonesty.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump was in Japan meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. While there, he took part in traditional Japanese pastimes, like playing golf, and eating hamburgers.

Then he fed some koi fish, and the hysterical man-children and women-children of the media were given the opportunity to prove they could be every bit as childish as Trump.

Both Trump and Abe were enjoying a staged photo-op, feeding koi fish from wooden boxes, flinging spoonfuls of feed down to the fishy maws below. Then PM Abe tossed the remainder of his box into the water, and President Trump followed suit.

Precisely 27 seconds later, twitter erupted with countless tweets and links to incompetently-penned click-bait articles by millennials with over-valued Communications degrees.

The basic gist of most of these tweets was: “Trump is moron. Other guy feed fish, but he dump fish food out like moron!!1!”.

Or course, this was in fact not the case, but journalism has changed a lot in the last few decades, and now D+ students are the gatekeepers of news. People who are unable to be objective and deliver a story without a blatantly partisan bias have become a rare breed within the modern media. Hence the increased volume of outright propaganda that gets passed off as actual journalism these days.

Any “journalist” very easily could have looked at the source material, done a little research, and very easily debunked the narrative that was being pushed. The simple act of watching a 30 seconds video that was readily available could have prevented dozens of goofs from posting tweets or writing articles that were so easily debunked.

Trump_IndependentThen what happened, The Independent (blue_checkmark.jpg)? Trump showed his “usual bluntness” by copying the actions of the Prime Minister of a foreign country he was visiting? The same thing all visiting Presidents do? Did Shinzo Abe, the actual Prime Minister of Japan, not know the “ritual for visiting dignitaries”, but you arrogant mouth-breathers do?

Trump_MetroTrump got impatient, did he, Metro (blue_checkmark.jpg)? He got impatient by calmly parroting the Japanese Prime Ministers actions? How do you know what Trump was told? Were you there, Metro (blue_checkmark.jpg)? You weren’t, were you? So essentially, you’re just creating an alternate narrative to push an agenda? This seems out of character for such a dependable, credible media outlet such as yourself.

Trump_Guardian“Trump dump”. That sure is a creative headline, The Guardian (blue_checkmark.jpg). Did someone with a writing degree from a college come up with that? I can’t help but notice you’re running the same false narrative as all the other outlets writing stories about this non-event. It’s good to know that British “news” organizations are just as unreliable and dishonest as their U.S. counterparts. Keep up the good work.

Trump_JezebelOn the other end of the (autism?) spectrum, we have the childish bastion of anti-intellectual, non-content known as Jezebel (blue_checkmark.jpg). This site not only posted a factually-inaccurate story (practically their business model), but refused to change it after finding out it was wrong. It’s almost as if facts and truth don’t matter at Jezebel (blue_checkmark.jpg). Sounds like an intelligent choice of places to go to get your news from.

Countless other sites posted lazy, copy-and-paste articles about this topic as well. CNN posted doctored footage, conveniently cropping out PM Shinzo Abe dumping his container first, which shouldn’t surprise anybody familiar with CNN’s level of journalistic integrity. HuffPo wrote some 5th-grade level, emotionally-based drivel that 50-year-old women with 8 cats no doubt ate up. There were many more, but I think you get the point.

The grand irony here, is that these articles represent the very #FakeNews that Trump has become known for railing against on his twitter account and at press conferences. Keep in mind, this wasn’t an incident that was easy to get wrong. These outlets either A) didn’t actually watch the footage before deciding to write and post these articles, or B) saw the footage, and still decided to write what amounts to slander. Can someone please explain to me again why trust in the media is at an all-time low?

This wouldn’t be a problem if it were merely an isolated incident, but it isn’t. Most of these sites seem to exist solely as politically-motivated propaganda machines dedicated to writing hit-pieces on a daily basis. If a politician legitimately messes up, journalists should write about it. If that person doesn’t mess up, journalists obviously shouldn’t then alter reality in order to write a negative piece about him or her. This seems like common sense to me. The fact that people still read this type of stuff and don’t question it, is quite disturbing. It’s almost like society is intellectually regressing back to the medieval era.

People are willing to believe absolutely idiotic things as long as it confirms a bias that they already hold. Hence, we’ll continue to get misleading or outright fabricated articles over the next 3 (potentially 7) years, to fuel the partisan dementia that infests social media, and provides a lucrative business model for increasingly dishonest media outlets.

Hopefully we get a Democrat in office next so that we can get back to reading all those cult of personality based fluff articles instead. It’ll be nice to be back in an era where the media outright buries and refuses to cover human right’s violations, corruption, and unconstitutional acts from politicians they share a political affiliation with. After all, that’s truly what journalistic integrity is all about.

Posted on

It’s All Downhill From Here.

Every creative mind eventually reaches that point where they accomplish their masterwork; that definitive statement that symbolizes the culmination of their life’s work. Well, my friends, family, spam bots, and random Nigerians who arrived here via bad search-engine optimization… here is my Citizen Kane:

 

Wow.  I don’t know about you, but that left me breathless.  I can’t even right now, you guys.  Just… wow.

Seriously though… can you believe how deep that was?  All the nuance.  All the layers.  It was like a visual feast of lasagna for the soul.

Seriously seriously though… I learned a lot while crafting this modern day epic.  I learned that tomatoes are actually a fruit.  I learned that all the numbers on a roulette wheel add up to 666. I learned that everybody I disagree with is more than likely “literally Hitler”.

I also learned a bit about cult of personality.

I never understood why so many seemingly intelligent people would gleefully back a modern politician, when none of them does more good than harm while in office.  Between the last two administrations, U.S. citizens have had their privacy and rights stripped at an alarming rate.  From the passing of the Patriot Act, to the limp, sort-of-a-fix Freedom Act that followed, to the continued propagation of a surveillance-state, the overreach of the NSA, FBI, and CIA, etc.  On top off all this, both parties have continually ignored improving the education and industry in the poorest areas, both black and white, whom they have no qualms gleefully preying upon for practically guaranteed votes.

So why would anybody slap their hands together like a trained seal over any of these regressive, ineffectual goofs?

While making this video, I amassed quite the collection of presidential verbal and physical gaffes.  In doing so, I started to notice something.  George W Bush was a goldmine of physical and verbal slip-ups, while Donald Trump has been a verbal train wreck, and Hillary Clinton held it down in the physical slip-up department.  I could have produced a full 5 minute video with any of these folk’s gaffes alone.  Barack Obama was a different case, however.

The guy rarely said anything stupid, and only tripped on one occasion that I could find.  Most of his gaffes had to do with him playing sports very poorly, or working out with the finesse of a little girl.  I didn’t even use much footage of him in my video, because quite frankly, it wasn’t very entertaining.

All of this footage acquisition served to bolster a belief I’ve had for quite some time now.  That belief being that people who don’t follow politics very closely tend to judge politicians purely on optics rather than actual policy.  This seems like a fairly obvious observation, but the people who are prone to this behavior tend to be in denial of the fact that they operate this way.  They think their opinions on politicians are dictated by some sort of knowledge they possess.  Grill them about some basics on politics however, and you realize they’re merely absorbing their opinion on the matter from some source, much like a plant suckling sweet sun milk out of that great teat in the sky.  Whatever that means.

Hence, people who engage in this cult of personality, elevating up politicians for no actual legitimate reason, will always focus on the gaffes.  Obama had great optics.  He spoke well, looked sharp, and never looked confused.  Even if he had shanked 14 Guatemalan children in the face, there are people who would have ignored that transgression, and still held him up as something extraordinary.  Meanwhile, Bush said something moronic, or tripped over something at least twice a week, and so it was easy for those same people to set him up as the villain.  To anyone actually paying attention to the policies however, neither guy was exceptional, or all that bad.  They were two sides to the same coin.  They could have been in a buddy cop movie together.  Maybe they still will be.

The point I’m trying to make here, is that 9/11 was an inside job, and every president had their hand on the button just a little bit.  We were all an inside job.  We were all 9/11.  Never forget us.  Never forget that you were an inside job.  Never forget that Tower 7 was because of you.  Yes it was.  Stop lying to yourself.  You did that.  I forgive you though.

Posted on

My Thoughts On The #MuslimBan.

Trump is setting all kinds of precedents as a U.S. president.  Chiefly among those is the fact that for better or worse, he’s actually following through with all his campaign promises.  Nobody who obtains the U.S. presidency actually follows through with most of the empty promises they made in order to get there, let alone this early into their term.

Obama ran on a platform including things like: 1) overturning the Patriot Act 2) protecting whistle-blowers, and 3) closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.  None of these happened, and if anything, civil liberties have been compromised further via the bolstering or renewing of the polices he was supposedly against.  This isn’t meant to be an out-and-out attack on Obama, however.  He accomplished a lot of other things he said he would.  The point being, that candidates don’t always follow through on some of the bigger things they say they will.

Trump seems dead set on actually doing everything he said he would.  I guess nobody told him that politicians pander and lie, and that we tend to accept the fact that they regularly renege on their campaign promises.  You don’t actually need to do everything you said you would in order to get voters.

So far, he’s shot down the Trans-Pacific Partnership, committed to building a border wall (I’m still not convinced he’ll actually go through with this one), and imposed his #MuslimBan.  I don’t particularly agree with these last two accomplishments, nor do I see them solving any kind of problem, but regardless, he’s actually following through, which is mind-blowing to me on many levels.

This post is strictly about the #MuslimBan though, so that’s what I’m gonna type about for a hot minute.

To start things off, the #MuslimBan isn’t even an actual #MuslimBan.  Right from the outset, the name is a misnomer being unscrupulously pushed by people who should probably know better.  It is a temporary 90-day ban on citizens from seven individual countries from gaining entry to the United States, and a 120-day ban on refugees from those countries  One of those countries (Iraq) had previously been on a ban implemented by Barack Obama back in 2011, lasting for six months.  As you may have guessed, there wasn’t much, if any outrage when this transpired.  This is to be expected in our current age of egregious double-standards, I suppose.

Secondly, the #MuslimBan isn’t even an actual #MuslimBan.  The ban is essentially blocking roughly 200 million people from entering the United States for three months.  That is a large number of people for sure, but a fraction of the 1.6 billion Muslims who would be banned by a legitimate #MuslimBan.  You can be against the ban, but also be intellectual honest enough to not mislabel something merely for hyperbolic effect.

For instance, seven Muslim countries are included in the ban, but there are eleven Muslim countries that aren’t affected by the ban at all.  By “Muslim” countries, I’m referring to countries that are at least 85% Muslim, even though most of those are above 95% Muslim.  If this were an actual ban on all Muslims, at very least, there would be 18 countries on that list, and not just seven.  The fact that only seven are in the ban leads me to believe that they were selected based on some other legitimate criteria.  Perhaps they were deemed the biggest hotbeds for terrorism, or those with the most substantial ISIS presence.  Saudi Arabia would probably have ended up on the list under those criteria however.  Emperor Donald has businesses in Saudi Arabia, so perhaps we have a conflict of interest at work here as well.  The plot thickens.

Finally, the #MuslimBan isn’t even an actual #MuslimBan.  From what I gather via reading the actual order that was released, the ban is meant to either allow the vetting process to be slightly reworked, or to allow for more thorough background checks on individuals already in line to get visas to enter the U.S.  It’s hard to get a simplified, yet honest assessment of this order from most U.S. media outlets, who have become increasingly incapable of delivering non-biased, propaganda-free articles on the matter.

Regardless, the whole point of this was to demonstrate that with a middle-school kids’ level of research, one could have ascertained that the #MuslimBan was actually a country ban, and not a “muslim ban”.  Muslims from England, Nigeria, Chile, etc. aren’t part of the ban, after all.  Why exactly those seven countries were chosen, I’d be interested to find out, but reacting to these situations like a hysterical child instead of actually researching it helps nobody.  Most of social media is only able to react like hysterical children though, so perhaps this is too much to ask.

This is the Trump presidency though, so you’re going to have to brace yourselves, like someone riding shotgun in a car next to a driver who’s had a few too many drinks.  Hopefully it all turns out for the best, and you don’t die in a horrible fireball of a crash.  I can’t be too overly critical of anything that’s transpired thus far, but tomorrow is always a new day.

Posted on

How Did Trump Win The Presidency?

As you may have heard by now, Donald Trump is officially the 45th president of the United States.  He wasn’t my first choice, being that I’ve always voted third party, but I can honestly say that his win doesn’t surprise me in the least.

He was running against a corrupt, establishment, career politician, whose party had become so used to getting away with murder that they weren’t even trying to cover their tracks any more.

Between the countless WikiLeaks email revelations, the damning undercover videos released by the likes of James O’Keefe, and the sloppy reporting and blatant partisanship demonstrated by many “reputable” news organizations (CNN anyone?), anybody who was actually paying attention should have realized that the cards were grossly stacked in favor of Clinton from the outset.  Despite all this corruption being brought to light, the Democrats still felt entitled to a win due to their own rampant hubris.  When you go through life with as much self-righteous entitlement as many of them do, the possibly of failure never seems like an option. Perhaps this is why Hillary Clinton wasn’t ready to deliver a concession speech upon losing the presidency to Trump.  There was no way in her mind that she could possibly have lost with such an overwhelming advantage.

If Donald Trump had run against Bernie Sanders, perhaps he would have lost.  A large portion of the Democratic voter base wanted Bernie Sanders to be the presidential candidate.  He had an enormous groundswell of support that was inescapable on social media throughout the year.  Unfortunately what the voting public wanted and what the Democratic establishment wanted were two very different beasts.

The Democratic establishment wanted a career politician who already had his or her tendrils in every sector of the American political/financial sector, and Hillary was that candidate.  Bernie was a mere civil rights protestor who worked his way into politics to further his civil rights agenda.  The Clintons however, were both on track to be politicans since they were in their teens.  They have been a political power couple for 40 years, planning their every move around climbing the political ladder.  The Clintons both represent the very corruption that Bernie ran on a platform of purging from U.S. politics.  It’s quite ironic that the very corruption he rallied against, took him out of the running for president, and yet he refused to disavow them.

How exactly did Trump win though? For one, there was a huge discrepancy between the reality of whose corner Americans were in, and whose corner the media wanted you to believe Americans were in.  The media set Trump up as the bumbling buffoon who had no chance of winning.  These channels and sites ran the narrative over and over that Hillary was sure to win by a landslide victory, all the while, doubling down on reporting Trumps transgressions, while ignoring Clinton’s, and actively painting her as some sort of victim.  Even their scientifically-sound, factually-accurate polls continually placed Hillary as the shoe-in, despite all of those polls ending up incorrect.

The thing is, these polls were propaganda.  The weren’t there to serve as an informative litmus test for how the country as a whole was swinging politically.  They were meant to serve as an ego boost for the Democratic party, i.e. “We’re winning the battle you guys. We’re the best!”.  Unfortunately, cooking the polls by largely asking partisan Democratic voters who they are voting for, then passing it off as a sample of the entire populace doesn’t do you any favors.  The people who viewed Hillary as the guaranteed winner might have been less apt to go out and vote, while those who saw Trump as the underdog, might have doubled down in their efforts to get him elected.

Another factor that played in to Trumps favor was the fact that a large portion of modern leftists are overly emotional babies who don’t understand how government works.  This was fairly evident before the election even took place, but is as clear as ever, post-election.

In the week since the election, we’re seen numerous riots throughout the country in Hillary-voting cities, rife with violence and destruction.  Mind you, these aren’t civil-rights protests, but a bunch of self-righteous millennials throwing temper tantrums because the candidate they voted for didn’t win.  Though to be fair, about half of them, as it turns out, didn’t even vote (color me surprised).  Remember all those people who destroyed property and wasted everyone’s time because Obama won, and they voted for a different candidate?  Yea… me neither.

Not all of these brilliant protests involve violence and destruction being carried out under the amazingly ironic banner of “Love Trumps Hate” however. There is currently a change.com petition attempting to “correct” the election that 4+ million individuals felt the need to sign, because it’s unfair their chosen candidate didn’t win.  It states that Hillary won the popular vote, which they feel should be more important than the electoral college, which she lost.  Now, it’s perfectly fine to feel that way, but the electoral college trumps *rimshot* the popular vote in U.S. elections.  It did in 2000, when it George Bush beat out Al Gore, just as it did all the way back in in 1876, when Rutherford B Hayes defeated Samuel J Tilden (who?).  And now some entitled babies want to change it to their own benefit.

Why else could Trump possibly have won?  Let’s see… Perhaps it’s because of the absolute lack of ability to make a cogent argument that the Democrats have displayed time and time again.  If, whenever someone takes a stance against something like illegal immigration, your response is to not provide a viable counterpoint, but instead to hurl accusations of “racist”, you lose that argument in the eyes of a rational centrist.  If the topic of abortion comes up, the other side gives a reason why they are against it, and your response is merely to call them “sexist”, you lose that argument.  If someone expresses concern about the rise of radical Islam, or the rampant human rights violations in Islamic-state countries, and all you bring to the table is calling them “Islamophobic”, you lose the intellectual debate.  Ad hominem attacks do not equate to valid arguments.  To anybody undecided in these debates, the side who proposed extreme things like bans and walls potentially won out over the side who proposed absolutely nothing but personal attacks.

It appears a lot of the left is completely unaware of this critical flaw in their ability to debate and argue, unfortunately. One need look no further than the popular leftist folk all over the t.v. box and social media to verify this.

Trevor Noah, the current figurehead of Comedy Central’s Democrat promotion arm that masquerades as a non-partisan comedy program “The Daily Show”, non-ironically believes that Hillary Clinton lost the election because of racism, sexism, and misogyny, and that she “would have been president if she were a man”.  Never mind the fact that she has enough corruption under her belt to fill multiple books, including more death and destruction than a Michael Bay movie, while her opponent was merely a brash jackass.  Obviously, nobody ever votes on conscience, or votes for the lesser of two evils.  Everybody votes primarily on gender and race politics, always, in every election, ever.  How are you even on a political-based show, you monumental goof.

Then there are the celebrities with children’s levels of political knowledge, who never let that hinder the constant stream of regurgitated, misinformed opinions they spew out into self-constructed echo-chambers of social media group think.  Think Sarah Silverman or Patton Oswalt.  Both are comedians whom I actually find funny, but whom aren’t capable of exercising any level of nuance in their political opinions.  Both also have millions of followers on their twitter accounts, largely because of their political beliefs and constant virtue signalling, and less because of their actual comedy.

patton01

It’s amazing that for a lot of liberal comedians, writing actual material has been replaced by this virtue-signalling on social media.  Why craft a clever joke when you can just type out “Trump won because sexism and racism you guys!” and get loads of empty likes from people who would fail a basic competency test on U.S. government.  I’ll tell you why.  Because comedians generally have low self-esteem and a need for acceptance, which overrides their need to exhibit integrity and reasoning to obtain that acceptance in an intellectually honest fashion.  Hence this constant pandering to emotions in exchange for validation on social media platforms.

silvermantweet

The factor a lot of people seem to be overlooking in Trump’s win, is that for most rational people, the left has become the greater of the two evils in recent years.  The party that used to preach tolerance, has become the epitome of intolerance, hurling baseless accusations, and creating false oppression narratives to set itself up as the eternal victim.  After all, the “victim” is the one who is always on the “right side of history”.  Being the victim comes with great power in today’s fabricated oppression culture.

Anyone who disagrees with the modern leftist is immediately written off as wrong.  Any minority who proclaims to be conservative, or holds any kind of conservative value is immediately accused of “selling out”, or being an uncle Tom or “coon”.  Evidently, tolerance to these types of leftists doesn’t include the tolerance of differing views and opinions.  You must think the exact same thing I have been conditioned to think, or else there is something wrong with you, and shaming and name-calling are justified.

A lot of the young college-uneducated millennials love slinging around accusations of conservatives being fascists, and everybody and their mother being Hitler, despite having a very obvious lack of knowledge of history, or politics.  Donald Trump has nothing in common with Hitler, and anyone who is even remotely educated realizes this.  Fascists tend to believe in silencing dissenting opinions, and using violence to suppress those with differing views.  Remind me again who constantly tries to shut down rallies, and speaking engagements of people they disagree with, and continually engage in riots to “solve” their problems. Hint: 99% of them are in the #NeverTrump crowd.

This is what happens when a society fails to raise it’s children correctly though.  When kids are brought up without any adversity and are used to always getting their way, they don’t know how to react when things don’t turn out in their favor.  They throw temper tantrums and lash out.  This is what happens when everyone is given a participation award as a kid for simply showing up.  They can’t deal with the idea of losing at something.  When you lose at something in life, you either try again, or accept the loss.  You don’t break things.

This whole Clinton/Trump ordeal mirrors the Brexit vote over in Europe to an almost uncanny degree.  A vote was taken to decide if the U.K. would leave the European Union.  The vote passed by a 3.8% margin in favor of leaving the E.U.  People on the left immediately started calling everyone a racist or xenophobe because the vote didn’t turn out in their favor.  They then tried to get a petition going to redo the vote, only to have it overturned by the government.

One more possible reason that Donald Trump won the election, is that a good deal of the population had become fed up with the identity politicking of the left.  Everything has become about identity politics in the last few years.  Meritocracy has been completely thrown out the window, in favor of voting for people based on trivialities pertaining to pigment and chromosomes.  The common idiom of not judging a book by it’s cover has all but been neglected in favor of judging books solely by their covers.

There are warehouses full of people out there who voted for Hillary based solely on the fact that she is a woman.  Check out the comments section on mensa-level websites like BuzzFeed, Salon, or HuffPo to see the proof of this.  There exists zero nuance or fact in any of the comments posted under pro-Hillary, or anti-Trump articles on these sites.  It’s nothing but 24/7 identity politics and regurgitated ad nauseam arguments.

Progressive rule #36: If you don’t have a valid argument, throw out accusations of sexism

The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton had two types of people in her corner: those who were partisan voters, and would have voted for whomever ran as a Democrat, and those who voted for her merely because she was a female.  Nobody who was even remotely versed in politics went out and voted for Hillary because they viewed her as a good candidate.  She was a terrible candidate.  They were both terrible candidates.

Trump had three types of voters in his corner however.  Partisan voters who would have voted for the Republican candidate regardless, people who voted for him merely because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton, and people who voted for him because he was the anti-establishment choice.  He wasn’t a traditional Democrat or Republican.  He was essentially a third party candidate who managed to hoodwink his way into being the Republican nomination.  He has a lot in common with Bernie Sanders in this regard.  Neither of their parties wanted them to be the nomination.  Evidently 15% of potential Bernie voters decided to vote for Trump over Clinton, which is quite telling.

I’m going to end this here, because I could ramble on forever on this topic, but I’d rather take a few of these points and expound upon them in in future posts.  Hopefully I’ll up the creative output on this site in the coming year, and maybe even try to veer back into the comedic/creative writing field a little more.  Now that this 24/7 debacle of an election cycle has come to an end, my blood pressure will slowly lower and I can focus on things other than politics and social issues for a while.  I have about a dozen half-written posts on political/social topics, and those will see the light of day, but I’ll try to work in some other content as well.  I’m out.

 

Posted on

The Wrong Side Of History

I’m seeing a lot of people in preschool on social media proclaiming certain individuals to be on the “right” side of history and others to be on the “wrong” side.  Bernie Sanders is on the “right” side of history, because he showed up to a few rallies in the past in support of civil rights.  Of course this somehow means he is completely infallible and qualified to be the president in the eyes of certain groups of people.  Donald Trump is on the “wrong” side of history, because he says things that go against what we’ve been indoctrinated to believe by an overwhelmingly liberal media.  Of course this somehow means that he is “Hitler”, and the worst thing to happen to America in forever.

The truth of the matter is that the “right” side of history is the side that protects the freedoms of of the individual.  This just so happens to include the protection of free speech.  Anyone who tries to silence someone else whom they disagree with, is the on the wrong side of history.  There has never been a time in history I can think of, wherein the “right” side of a conflict actively tried to silence the other.  Let’s take the civil rights movements for example.  Were blacks trying to silence the white establishment, or was it the other way around?  How about the genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis?  Were the Jews trying to repress the German’s freedoms, or did the opposite happen?

So when you see anyone, on either side of this political circus trying to block, silence, or shut down the other side, you are witnessing the “wrong” side of history in action.  Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders, despite his record of being on the “right” side of history, a nice portion of his groupies are increasingly displaying their propensity for being enemies of free speech.  Enemies of free speech are consequently also enemies of freedom and the Constitution.  Enemies of… America. (cue patriotic music)  As I’ve started time and time again on this site, freedom of speech applies to everybody, not just your side.

Granted, Trump’s supporters also have a tendency to be a bunch of knuckleheads as well, but this just shows that the same harmful mentality tends to follow both of these candidates.  They both may be “outsiders” within their own parties, but both continue to represent everything that is wrong with their respective parties.  A large portion of these two groups subscribe to that “us vs them” soccer hooligan mentality that has all but caused this country to grind to a halt, and become increasingly divided.  “My party is the epitome of everything good and the other party is pure evil!”, exclaimed both parties simultaneously.  It’s kind of like watching two obese people argue over which fast food restaurant is healthier.  Just realize that you’re both going to die early of heart disease.

As far as the Hitler comparisons go, both parties reflect shades of fascism.  Fascism is defined by a belief in one true party, authoritarian control over the individual, and violence as a means of accomplishing an end.  As previously mentioned, both of these parties like to fancy themselves as being the “correct” party, while viewing the other as the flawed, incorrect party, rather than seeing themselves as two different varieties of essentially the same thing.  Both also love pushing their authoritarianism onto the country; the red controlling what you can do with your body, and the blue dictating what can be said or what is allowed to be owned.  Lastly, both tend to attract volatile types, who view violent opposition as an acceptable reaction to those who have differing views.

To wrap this up, neither party is necessarily on the “right” side of history, because the future hasn’t happened yet, and can’t be predicted.  You can only tell if somebody was on the right side of history in retrospect.  Both parties have been responsible for a wealth of terrible ideas that have had a negative impact on this country.  Both parties continually attract individuals who aren’t particularly intelligent, engage in mud-slinging rather than rational discourse, and are easily manipulated into voting against their own best interests.  If you’re truly looking to be on the “right” side of history, always take the position of protecting everybody’s freedom of speech.  The second you feel it’s alright to silence another individual’s opinion or viewpoint, you’ve officially cemented your position as being on the “wrong” side of history.  Now stop shitposting your inane political memes all over social media.  Thanks!

WrongSide