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.
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.
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.
Then 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 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 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 
On 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.