A letter to Clinton's supporters...

bogansBMW

Just because you have thousands of beligerant, ignorant, deluded, hypocrites all screaming in unison with you, doesn't make you right. I wonder what percentage of the "im with her" crowd are really only in it for the validation they get from facebook likes and going along with what seems like the popular crowd.

Not everybody feels the same as you and screaming louder than everybody else won't change that. A lot of people are sick of the "progressive" bull***t and/or establishment politics.

One of the (countless) ironies is that most of the venom and hatred has come from the so called "liberal" side. These people seem to absolutely LOSE THEIR SH*T as soon as they find somebody who does not agree with them.

The worst part is that Muslims have been used as some kind of excuse for voting against Trump. Hillary is part of the establishment that has been sending weapons and money to all kinds of "moderate rebels" in the middle east for decades. Toppling middle eastern leaders and deliberately creating power vacumes to try and suit their own agenda. Just look at the state of the Middle East right now.

We all hoped that the interference and destruction of Middle Eastern governments was over when the Republicans were removed from the white house after GWB but Obama just picked up the torch and carried it along the same path. Nobody can say that Trump will or won't do the same because it's too early but Hilary offered ZERO chance for change.

With hindsight, the "arab spring" had f**k all to do with the rights and quality of life of the citizens of these foreign countries. We were all here drinking the koolaid and rooting for them like idiots, oblivious to what was really going on.

Hillary saying "Assad must go". Why? Because she cares so deeply about the citizens of Syria? The same way she cared for those in Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq?

Obama and Cameron saying "these are the good rebels and we must help them depose Assad". It looks morelike the rebels are helping America and their lapdog depose Assad rather than the other way around.
Then a week later we see the exact faction he was talking about, the FSA, beheading people in the street. I saw them give a knife to a child and have the kid behead their captive.. that's just one example of the jollies these "moderate rebels that we should be supporting" get up to.

When people in the west saw this type of footage and compared it to what our western governments are telling us, the cracks in that story finally started to show.. In the end Obama and Cameron stuck to their agenda but stopped trying to justify it publicly because they looked like clowns. Those wheels are still in motion to this day.

Did you hear the term "the silent majority"? They are silent because if they open their mouth to disagree with the "progressive" narrative they get slandered, vilified, generalized and sh*t on by the so-called "liberals" and mainstream media.

How can any rational dialogue take place when one side of the argument just starts screaming their head off calling the other side racist and predjudice before they even finished their sentence?

Another major irony is that the "liberals" actually seem to support this western establishment. More proof that highly-strung college kids don't have a f**king clue and are simply going along with whoever gets Jay Z and Beyonce to turn up.. cause Katy Perry and Lena Dunham MUST BE RIGHT! RIGHT?!
This selfie-stick, pumpkin spice latte generation of fake liberals don't really care - they only want to follow what seems to them to be popular.

The era of classified and extraordinarily aggressive foreign policies have destabilized half of the planet.
The people who claim to care, don't really care and those of us who are genuinely sick of witnessing barbaric crimes against humanity and want it to end seem to be totally misunderstood and misrepresented by all sides.

...and all you people want to keep the status quo?

Twigster

Is this like Trump supporters making a call to arms if he doesn't win cos the election is rigged but now he won and it's not ok for other to criticise now?

bogansBMW

Twigster, got any views that actually relate to the points made in the OP?

Twigster

Trying to figure out what the point is, is it about people "screaming in unison" at the result or is it that "liberals" spew as much bile as their racist counterparts or is it to do with the US involvement in the Middle East? Is it an attack at people calling out racist behaviour? Or is it about aggressive foreign policies by the establishment, when the anti-establishment people just elected a guy who praises Russia who invaded Ukraine, supplied weapons to allow rebels to shoot down a passenger plane, and are bombing the **** out of hospitals in Syria?

Also Muslims were used by Donald trump as a reason for voting for him, in that he tarred them all as terrorists and fed on the fear of a nation.

bogansBMW

Twigster, it's a very complicated subject with lots of intertwining points to consider.

Maybe it could be tackled piece by piece as its a bit jumpy in terms of sub topics (and in fairness its a bit edgy and I do generalize a bit more than I should have).

But to answer your question;
I guess the main thing I am trying to get across are the ironies and the fact that most of the support for Clinton seems to (conveniently?) ignore a lot of these points that I feel are quite important.

It might have been flogged to death already but I would like to converse about this topic with anyone interested to do so. My views are never set in stone and maybe some interesting alternative lines of thought will be brought up here.

Thomas_...

bogansBMW wrote: »

Twigster, got any views that actually relate to the points made in the OP?

Your OP is crap and you'll see this Big Chap Trump bringing even more damage to the Reputation of the USA on an international Basis than even the other warmongerer G. W. Bush jr. has managed to do when he was President from 2000 to 2008. One can nearly set the clock with the stupid Americans, eight years of a Republican bully is followed by eight years of a smart Democrat and now, as Obama has reached the end of his second term, the next half of another Republican nightmare is about to start.

How anybody can defend an "outstanding" and outrageous chauvinistic racist and misogynist is beyond me expect when the one defending the other shares his believes and world view. Both is just disgusting and utterly backwards.

But yeah, the Establishment got the punch in the face and the other poor idiots who voted Trump in will suffer soon enough at the Hands of his neoliberal and greedy capitalist presidency which will only make things even worse than they already are. More killings of people, civilians and cops alike because Trump stands up for the right of every US-Citizen to have guns.

The USA are utterly f*cked up with this muppet of a wannabe President who has no style and can only divide but not bring people together except those bigots on his own side. Another hard times ahead with a Republican President and a Republican majority in the Congress. Happy days for the Americans, thank God that I am none of them.

bogansBMW

haha ohhhhh boy.. where to even begin with this one..

Thomas, you are doing exactly what I said in the OP. Crying about (your perceived) misogyny and racism and totally ignoring all the points I made about Clinton's proven track record.

People are being killed, countries are being totally annihilated, and you think the world is doomed because Trump is sexist.

Also you quoted me asking somebody else for comments relevant to the OP and then proceeded to offer nothing in that regard yourself... only that the OP is "crap".

Coming to conclusions on my "world view" and saying I share Trump's views when I never even said anything of the sort.

Honestly man, you seem to be just the kind of belligerent, screaming, ignoramus that I described in the OP.

Feel free to share your opinion further but I won't lie.. I'm pretty dubious as to what you can really offer in terms of insight and I probably won't reply to another failed attempt.

CMOTDibbler

The fundamental question you're asking is whether or not the US has a role in world politics. Whether the role of 'world policeman' is one that it should continue to embrace or completely reject.

When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no escaping the consequences. It's a bit late to be washing the blood off their hands and walking away saying "it was already a mess anyway".

When you address your letter to 'Clinton's supporters', you're not really accepting that in reality it's people who are appallled by how Trump is proposing to deal with issues like the middle east. "Bomb the sh1t out of them" isn't actually a policy. "Why can't we use the nukes?" should put the fear of God in you.

These are complicated and serious issues. They don't get solved by trite soundbites and simplistic rhetoric. Yes, Clinton as secretary of state was knee deep in these issues. But they weren't of her making despite every effort that's been made to colour them that way. GWB left a legacy of division, war and terrorism. The US policy of direct intervention on the flimsiest of motives has left a hobson's choice of either clean it up or suffer the consequences for decades.

Well Trump now has (as GWB had for most of his presidency) the keys to the citadel. No trammelling by those pesky liberals, no difficulties with a congress that opposes him at every turn. We'll see how that goes.

Chips Lovell

I think you may need to step back a little and try to get a bit of perspective on the situation.

For example, you describe Clinton supporters as:

bogansBMW wrote: »

...beligerant, ignorant, deluded, hypocrites all screaming in unison...

or:

bogansBMW wrote: »

This selfie-stick, pumpkin spice latte generation of fake liberals

How would you react if someone used similarly disparaging terms for Trump supporters? Because you say:

bogansBMW wrote: »

They are silent because if they open their mouth to disagree with the "progressive" narrative they get slandered, vilified, generalized and sh*t on by the so-called "liberals" and mainstream media.

I think if you want a polite, respectful debate, you should hold yourself to the standards you'd like others to maintain.

emmet02

I think the word 'liberal' is fast becoming a 'literally'.

It is losing its meaning altogether.

bogansBMW

CMOTDIbbler,

Re world police; I think by default, the US should not be policing the world but there comes a point when intervention is warranted in my opinion.
When an outfit like ISIS is operating as they are, then it's time to take action against them.
What the resulting reaction should be? I don't know. All depends, but the end effect should be ISIS and their affiliates being wiped off the face of the earth.

70 years ago in WWII, the bombing of civilians was completely deliberate and done on a massive scale by both sides.
Now a days with precision weapons the civilian casualties can be greatly reduced but of course not eliminated completely. I would consider civilian deaths caused by bombs being dropped on ISIS as victims of ISIS. The same way German citizens killed by Allied bombs could be considered to be victims of Hitler.


You say that people are appalled by Trump and I need to take that into account..
What about people who are appalled by Clinton?
Trump has offended some people while Clinton's actions have perpetuated a far greater evil. Overthrowing foreign governments with all it's associated consequences.

Indeed, Obama and co inherited a very tough situation but what did they do about it?
They provided funding, weaponry and air cover for the "Arab Spring", killed Gaddafi in Libya, deposed Mubarak in Egypt, performed drone strikes from Yemen to Pakistan and then lastly tried to sell some bulls**t story to western nations about how we now need to remove Assad from power in Syria.

Bush and Blair started it and the Obama administration carried it on PLUS SOME! All pointed out in the OP but nobody really seems to care..

Anyway thank you for your comment, the main point we can agree on is the fact that this is a serious situation.

bogansBMW

Jep, what came first? The chicken or the egg?

I think there is a difference between calling somebody a racist and calling somebody ignorant.

For the record I did state in a subsequent post that I did generalize a bit in the OP or at least it comes across like that.
Of course I realize many types of people voted for Clinton but this OP is aimed specifically at the types of people I am describing with those words... which seems to be a massive percentage of her camp if social media is anything to go by.

How would I react if they spoke about trump supporters like that? They do.

In my opinion you can say what you want so long as you still allow your opposition a chance to speak their views which is something the Clinton camp of social justice warriors and fourth-wave-campus-feminists have a very hard time doing.

But regardless, you made a fair point.

alastair

bogansBMW wrote: »

Indeed, Obama and co inherited a very tough situation but what did they do about it?
They provided funding, weaponry and air cover for the "Arab Spring", killed Gaddafi in Libya, deposed Mubarak in Egypt, performed drone strikes from Yemen to Pakistan and then lastly tried to sell some bulls**t story to western nations about how we now need to remove Assad from power in Syria.

Obama, or at least NATO, provided air support to end the mass killing of civilians in Libya by Ghadaffi's air force, and to support the UN resolution imposing that no-fly zone.

The Egyptian people deposed Mubrak.

Yes - the US employs drones, and Trump will continue to use drones - even Bernie is supportive of the use of drones. Clinton is not any exception in this regard.

Assad does need to be removed from power. There's no moral or practical argument for propping up his regime, which has never had a mandate from the Syrian people.

I think you're a bit confused on the nature of 'evil'.

bogansBMW

Alistair,

There is no hope for you. Please, in future, leave some koolaid for the rest of us.

Your condition is terminal and I cannot reason with somebody like that.

RIP

alastair

Quoted for applicability in this case:

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think if you want a polite, respectful debate, you should hold yourself to the standards you'd like others to maintain.

Note - debate actually involves a willingness to support your argument. If you can't do so, then perhaps 'koolaid' quips are a substitute, but it's a pretty poor substitute.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

OP, this is not a forum for rants. Maybe a blog would better suit your needs.

As for insulting other posters, that is against the charter. Please read it before you post again.