FLAIT

Four days before the election, I said, even as a liberal, I'd be angry after a Hillary Clinton victory and Democratic gains in the House and Senate because of the way Clinton and the Democrats campaigned. So after what happened you can imagine how I feel. Shocked, saddened and furious would be an understatement. It was supposed to be the Republicans who were left in shambles after the election, not the Democrats.

There are a few aspects to the election and I'm going to take each one separately.

What the hell happened?

Hillary Clinton had everything going for her. She had the money and the organization so she could have beaten Donald Trump through the air or on the ground. She had a number of endorsements from Republicans and a 500-26 advantage in newspaper and magazine endorsements. Athletes, celebrities and even the late-night comics were on her side. How could she possible lose?

Donald Trump meanwhile spent half of what Clinton did, didn't run many TV ads, didn't have much of an organization at the state and county levels, and the country's demographics were clearly against him. If that wasn't enough, Republicans were denouncing him and neo-Nazis were praising him. How can he possibly win?

Much has been made of the working-class, rural white voter who has been angry at establishment politicians for turning their backs on them in a post-NAFTA world. (February insert: Had Vice President Joe Biden run, and got the Democratic nomination, he would have won the election in a landslide and this wouldn't have been an issue at all.) The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald makes a good case for that and compares it to the United Kingdom's Brexit vote.

Not to dismiss this reasoning entirely, but Republicans have historically been against unions and labor. Heck, Wisconsin Republican governor Scott Walker, who tried to destroy unions, won re-election and a recall election. So why do these blue-collar voters in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin keep electing and re-electing Republican governors and legislatures? What have Republicans done for workers that was so special for them to keep giving them power? And why does Trump, who manufacturers his clothing line in a dozen countries, reap the rewards of this anti-trade anger?

Also, why didn't these anti-establishment voters show up in the polls? Why was Clinton consistently and clearly ahead in the polls, nationally and in these states, all year? And why did she extended her lead after the Access Hollywood bus video came out on October 7?

The polls indicated a big Clinton victory until the final week or two of the campaign when it tightened up. What could possibly have changed the voter's minds so suddenly?

Well, there was the Wikileaks release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails, hacked apparently by Russia (it's quite possible that Russia was involved in this election in more ways than one. Then again, maybe not.).

Then there's FBI Director Jim Comey's letter to Congress, 11 days before the election, announcing that the Bureau would be renewing their investigation into Clinton's email server. And according to the exit polls, that just might have made the difference.

And all this brings to the media. There's plenty of examples of the media hyping the wrong stories and not hyping the right stories. It was obvious that the media didn't treat Clinton fairly during this campaign. For instance, they obsessed over her emails and the Clinton Foundation "scandals," when there weren't any real scandals there. And they ignored her policies. Meanwhile, the media gave Trump $5 billion in free advertising and a free pass on the issues, his lies, his conflicts of interests and his own scandals.

Sher Watts Spooner of Daily Kos:

We waded through nonstop screaming coverage of Hillary Clinton's emails on every channel and every inch of print. Yet there was so little coverage of Donald Trump's coming conflicts of interest, his fraudulent practices at Trump University, and his pay-to-play dealings with the Trump Foundation that the average voter would react with a shrug and a big, "Huh? Never heard of it."

If there's a "liberal media," I'd like to know where it was.

One of the specific problems I had with the media, was that even as far back as the GOP primaries, I was wondering how Trump would benefit personally from his trade policies as president. It never became as big of a story as Hillary's emails (probably out of fear of being blasted by the right for being on "Clinton's side." The right's done one heck of a job of "working the refs" over the years.).

Actually, give Trump credit in that he brought trade, NAFTA and the TPP to the forefront of this campaign. And I was expecting the media to explain both sides of this complex issue in a non-partisan manner. But they never did (then again, the media never explains anything).

But regardless of how poor of a job the media did, you didn't have to be a genius to filter fact from fiction insanity in this campaign and determine who the better candidate was. So you can't blame the media if tens of millions of Americans didn't get the message or got the wrong message. But it shouldn't come as surprise because, as this blog has proven, the Republican Party and entire right-wing movement is a massive cult. And the followers are taught, programmed, and even conned brainwashed into not "getting it." Via their massive propaganda machine, Republicans tell their members what to think and what to believe. And they do, no questions asked.

For example, the right believes that climate change is a hoax, believes that Iraq had WMDs, still believes that Obama is not an American citizen and that cutting taxes increases revenue. They have to because if they don't, then the evil, Commie, pinko liberals would be right. And they can never, ever admit that, out of spite, even if it makes them look incredibly foolish. But it's also because the GOP has redefined "Democrats," "liberal" and "government" as incompetent, lacking in all credibility, and always, always wrong (when it's Republicans who aren't just always wrong, but can't be more wrong!). And the media can't do anything about it because the lies and propaganda fit into the follower's warped sense of reality conspiracy theories. Obama was born in Africa? Of course he was. Obama's Clinton's going to take my guns away? Of course he did she will. Obama increased the deficit? Of course he did. An FBI agent assigned to investigating Clinton's emails killed his wife and committed suicide? Of course he did. It all fits into the cynical, conspiracy-laden narrative they've been fed all these years. So what is the media supposed to do about that? "Correcting the record" can only do so much when half the country has been trained not to believe the "liberal media." (And the media can't do much about the deliberately placed fake news stories either because there's so much of it out there.)

So coming into this election, conservative voters never believed negative news on Republicans. They were always immune to it. And Trump was no different. Everything he said during the campaign was reported - the hate, the lies, the insanity - but it didn't matter because it came from the "liberal media."

But Trump has turned the media into an even bigger enemy on the right by literally pointing at the reporters at the back of his rallies and attacking them directly. Naturally, his supporters did the same, including a direct threat of lynching.

It's alarming when Trump discredits reporters and journalists and gets the public to turn on them with such vitriol. Because then, he can get away with anything he wants because he knows that if the media reports his lies, extreme policies or blatant conflicts of interest, it won't be believed, and therefore, won't matter. If anything, the report would further enrage his supporters and empower and embolden his stature even more for standing up to the "dishonest" media. And that's dangerous because a free press is what stands between a democracy and tyranny.

If that's not enough, in the Trump Lunacy World, there's "no such thing of facts anymore." And whatever he does is legal because he's president. So Trump can do anything he wants and can say anything he wants because he will be believed and not the media:

A 56 percent majority of Trump voters say that if a national media outlet reported that Trump said something untrue, they would be more inclined to believe him than the news outlet. Just 2 percent say they’d believe the media, with another 38 percent saying it depends on what the story is.

But wait, there's more (unfortunately).

As far as Trump voters and undeniable facts are concerned, 67 percent believe unemployment has risen while Obama has been office when it's gone down from 7.8 percent to 4.6 percent; 39 percent believe the stock market has gone down when it almost tripled; 40 percent believe Trump won the popular vote when he didn't; 53 percent believe California should not be included in the popular vote; 60 percent believe "millions" voted illegally for Clinton which is obviously a lie; and 73 percent believe Democratic financier George Soros is paying people to protest Trump, but he's not. (Here.)

That's unsettling to say the least because that shows mass hysteria, paranoia and brainwashing on a national scale. Surely, those Trump voters need serious help. But again, they have to believe these things in order to conform to their non-reality reality world where "liberals," "Democrats" and the "liberal media" are always wrong, and Republicans and Donald Trump are always right.

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos:

There's no need to work that hard. There's no need to ground "alt right" arguments in any reality. The audience is already so convinced of their inherent superiority that you can feed them anything, so long as it agrees with their pre-existing hatred.

This has been going on for decades on the right. The Republican Party and their massive propaganda machine have dumbed down America to the point where truth, facts and logic do not matter. All that matters is God, guns, gays, abortion, tax cuts, deregulation, "liberal media" and whoever the right's "enemy of the week" happens to be. And if reality gets in the way, they make stuff up. So it's a cult of extreme ignorance and conspiracy theories, void of creativity and individuality, where the members are kept in a perpetual state of fear and rage (to prevent them from wising up and leaving this cult). (MSNBC's Ari Melber had a very good segment on conspiracy "news" and how it's given credibility by Republicans.) (Dec. 28 insert: Proof that the right has turned real news into fake news and fake news into real news is here.) (Dec. 30 insert: It's only fair to point out that the left believes in fake news too.)

When you've removed the ability of your followers to think for themselves and spew inflammatory rhetoric, paranoia and conspiracies, and instill nothing but rage and fear of Democrats, liberals, Muslims, immigrants and the media, they'll believe you, no questions asked. And then follow through with deadly threats and homicidal acts. That's what cults are!

Sanctimonious conservative/Republican voters have always had this arrogant know-it-all attitude. They're smart and savvy enough to know that Democrats and liberals are evil, incompetent, destructive and wrong. And yet, too dumb to realize that the Republican Party is a political terrorist organization. They're smart and savvy enough to know that Hillary Clinton is "crooked," but too dumb to know that Donald Trump is a total fraud and con man. Or they do and don't care.

Trump voters held Clinton's email server against her because she put the country "at risk" for having a handful of "top secret" emails pass through a private server that she shouldn't have had. But they'll give complete control of our military and nuclear codes to a pathological liar and huckster who doesn't have a clue about history, foreign policy, the military or even current events, nor a fundamental understanding of our nuclear arsenal; and on a personal level, is incoherent, petty, vindictive, spiteful, impulsive, extremely sensitive to criticism and holds grudges. Gee, I feel safer already.

Lies. Fear. Hypocrisy. Conspiracies. Incessant attacks. Double standards. That's is how the leaders of this cult, and their followers and voters, justify everything they do. How else could anyone justify voting Republican? For anything? I'm serious. Therefore, you have to be, well, brainwashed into doing so, even if it means voting against your own self-interests, like your health care or the future of your union, when the rest of the electorate is selfish and votes in their own self-interests. But that's what cults get you to do!

So yes, the media did a horrible job covering this campaign. But it's not entirely their fault that Clinton lost when cynical, paranoid and brainwashed Republican voters believed what they want had to believe. And Jim Comey's letter and the hacked emails shouldn't have made a difference in the election either, assuming of course we truly had a smart and savvy electorate that wasn't so easily conned and fooled. That said, I better not hear a Trump voter say, "I had no idea he'd..." Yes, they did. And if not, then they're as mindless and gullible as Trump and the Republican Party - and possibly Vladimir Putin - needed them to be. Hey, that's what's what cults are!

There's two other things that were key to this election, and both have gone vastly underreported.

First, this was the first Presidential election with voting restrictions in place without full protection of the Voting Rights act. That forced Americans in a number of states to show a photo ID before voting even though not everyone has one. There were also millions of voters that were purged off the voting rolls, long lines at the precincts, and the usual Republican tricks where they played hide-and-go-seek with the polling locations, naturally in poor, non-white areas.

Voter suppression shouldn't be shrugged off. Republicans have strategically, systematically and deliberately blocked Americans from voting, mostly minorities who vote Democratic. And they admit that's their intention.

And you can be sure with Trump's delusions that "millions" of votes were cast illegally for Clinton (even though it was Trump voters that were caught voting illegally), red state Republicans will continue to make it harder and harder for Americans Democratic-leaning voters to vote. And that will tighten the GOP's grip, not only on power, but the power to re-draw congressional and state legislative district lines in 2021. So, in effect, Republicans have rigged the system with voter suppression, and also extreme racial gerrymandering, to ensure that they re-draw the district lines that will determine who will govern in the 2020's (one way to remove the GOP's election-rigging monopoly, would be for Democrats to pick off Republican governors in 2018).

(Samantha Bee had a segment that proves that Voter ID isn't about "voter fraud" at all and is really about suppressing Democratic turnout. You can begin at the 2:15 mark.) (February insert: Yes, voter ID laws do suppress minority voter turnout.)

Second, Republicans kept their eye on the prize: the Supreme Court. It was no secret the the next president was going to reshape the court for a generation. This was not lost on the NRA.

They made it clear to their members that guns were on the ballot in this election, specifically in the rural areas of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania where Trump out-performed and Clinton under-performed. Those voters may not have liked Trump, but because of their selfish and sick infatuation with guns, and the NRA-manufactured fear of having their guns taken away, the NRA made sure they got that message paranoia out to their members and to vote for Trump.

As I've brought up many times in this blog, gun control is a not an issue at all on the left. Democrats avoid it because it's become a political loser for them and it's not an important issue among Democratic voters. But on the other side, it's not the issue, it's war. Heck, the NRA and gun owners are a massive cult in and of itself (within the massive right-wing cult). So gun owners naturally believe what their leader tells them. And they vote accordingly.

(Earlier I said that conservatives vote against their own self-interests, but here, gun owners are voting in their self-interests. But guns will never be banned or taken away. So gun owners are selfish to their paranoia instead of being selfish to their union, health care, public schools, the environment, etc.)

And you can also add right-wing Evangelical voters - another cult within the massive right-wing cult - who want a future Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Even though exit polling does not suggest the Supreme Court had an effect, I think it might have in the key states.

All that said, Clinton beat Trump by more than 2.8 million votes (2.1 percent). But it came down to about 80,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania because Democrats didn't come out for Clinton the way they did for Obama in 2012. Did voter suppression have an effect?

Over the years, two decades in fact, Hillary Clinton paid her dues, and then some; enough for five white male presidential candidates. She worked hard for the Democratic nomination and, her personal and political failings aside, didn't deserve this devastating defeat. She was the better candidate. But even though she was treated unfairly by the media and Jim Comey, which was entirely out her control, she was the candidate and it was her campaign.

As I pointed out in my last post, she didn't mention the Republicans and their political terrorism at all during the campaign, and also allowed Trump to get away with a lot at the debates by failing to stand up for herself, the facts and President Obama.

And you'd think she'd embrace Obama's deficit-cutting, job-creating economic record that has seen the stock market almost triple while he's been president. But she didn't. Just like Al Gore who ran away from President Clinton's economic record when he was campaigning in 2000, Clinton ignored Obama's record. And by always setting up what she had to say by talking about income inequality, "bringing jobs back," or "the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes," she made it sound like Obama did a bad job, didn't try and address those issues, and accomplished nothing, economically. I never understood why she distanced herself from Obama and failed to give him any credit (if I was Obama, I'd be ticked off for getting dissed like that).

Clinton wasn't an inspiring candidate either. She went into the "prevent defense" after the convention by running a strict "stay on message" campaign, void of creativity, leadership, independence and ground-breaking policy initiatives. In other words, she was the a typical politician running against someone who wasn't.

Granted, the media wouldn't have covered a bold policy initiative because they were fixated on her emails, even more so than Trump. But she was the candidate. It was her campaign. And she has to take some of the blame.

Donald Trump wins

Even though Trump's a fraud, racist, narcissist and pathological liar, it did not matter. Even though he bragged about assaulting women in 2005, it did not matter. Even though he was accused of assaulting women, it did not matter. Even though he's never held elected office and has no experience whatsoever in government, it did not matter. Even though he's totally unfit for the office of President of the United States, it did not matter. He won the White House on what he said and how he said it. But what happens when he doesn't come close to following through with his promises? How will his voters feel about him then? For instance:

Mexico is not paying for a wall and it will not be built. And eleven million undocumented aliens will not be deported because it would be a logistical nightmare and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

Muslims will not be barred from entering the county (assuming they'd still want to come here) because it's unconstitutional (besides, how can you tell if someone's a Muslim or not?).

Outsourced and manufacturing jobs that moved overseas are not coming back. And mines will not suddenly need more miners because it's the "free market" (and fracking) that has dramatically cut the demand for coal.

Trump does not know more about ISIS than the generals, and bombing the "s--t" out of them is very revealing. It's exactly the sort of "strategy" you'd expect from an ignorant bully who's incapable of deep any thought whatsoever.

ISIS won't go away because of anything Trump does. In fact, his policies, and maybe even more so, his tone, could very well empower and embolden ISIS by increasing recruitment.

Tearing up trade agreements and the Iran deal is unlikely, and turning our backs on our NATO and our allies isn't happening either. (Trump voters will say, "Great, I didn't believe him when he said those things anyway!" But if Clinton won and back-tracked from her campaign promises...)

Trump and the Republicans will not repeal Obamacare in its entirety because there's nothing to "replace" it with except single payer. And repealing parts of it would lead to the collapse of the entire system. Republicans are like the dog that catches up to the car on this one (if it wasn't so serious, it would be comical to watch).

Trump already said he won't prosecute Clinton, so "lock her up" was just something to rile up his supporters who were stupid enough to believe it and chant it.

And then there's all the conflicts of interests he'll have.

So when he doesn't follow through with any of his impractical and controversial insane campaign promises, and makes decisions based on his own financial interests and not the country's, then what? How will his "mad as hell" anti-establishment constituency that put him into office to shake up the system react when he acts like, well, an establishment politician...an establishment politician who enriches himself like an African or Mid-East dictator? Will they say, "I had no idea he'd...?"

My guess is that Trump and his White House will bumble through the first six months or so. And then things will get steadily worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And then maybe, at some point, some his voters will have buyers remorse.

Now what?

Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos:

Clinton had a lot working against her, including not yet fully investigated Russian hacking of the election, an unprecedented politicization of the FBI by its director, James Comey, and a media that was incompetent if not outright hostile. She also was trying to break through a glass ceiling that, with all else working against her, proved just too tough to shatter. But don't let anyone say she was a failed candidate. Don't let anyone say she or her political agenda were rejected. The rules are the rules, but if this were a democracy, she would be the president-elect...

Over 1.5 (2.8) million more voters embraced Hillary Clinton's candidacy than Donald Trump's. Over 1.5 (2.8) million more voters embraced Hillary Clinton's agenda than Donald Trump's. By the arcane, undemocratic rules, Trump gets to claim the presidency, but he does not get to claim a mandate, and he does not get to claim an embrace of his extremist agenda. Republicans who claim otherwise are hypocrites. President Obama won two legitimate mandate elections, receiving more votes than any candidate in history while gaining seats in both houses of Congress, yet from day one Republicans fought him every step of the way. After a historically close election, they don't get to claim that Democrats must comply with agendas the voters did not validate.

As already stated, a shift of 80,000 votes out of over 135 million cast would have made Hillary Clinton president. And then we wouldn't be complaining about Russia, Wikileaks, Jim Comey or angry, blue-collar workers. Instead, Republicans would be complaining about appealing more to blacks and Hispanics a GOP primary system that nominated a lunatic for president.

What a difference a handful of votes makes. Anyway, maybe a shift in those votes and a larger Democratic turnout would have brought in a few more Democrats. They were poised to pick up the four seats they needed in the Senate to take control. But they only got two and were lucky to get the second one. They were expected to at least clear 200 House seats but came away with about five or 10 less then that. And after Republicans picked up 900 state legislative seats since Obama took office, Democrats had to start getting some of them back. But they actually lost 46 seats. So Congress and the state capitals are a sea of red (granted, it's because of extreme racial gerrymandering, but still...)

Democrats were destroyed in 2010 and 2014 and decimated in 2016. I'm getting sick and tired of this. Recklessness, irresponsibility, scorched-Earth strategies, bare-knuckles partisan politics, outright sabotage and political terrorism by Republicans have once again been rewarded because Democrats allow them to be.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama never attacked Republicans, per say. He went after George Bush. His reasoning was that he didn't want to insult Republican voters or Congressional Republicans because he wanted to have a good working relationship with them had he won. That's ludicrous! Do Republicans campaign that way? Do they care about Democratic voters? Are Republicans worried that if they attack Democrats they wouldn't be able to work with them? My God, literally the night Obama was inaugurated, Republican leaders were already plotting his demise! And days later, despite the Democrats gaining big majorities in the House and Senate in that election, Obama extended his hand to Republicans!

Juan Cole:

... are (Democrats) worried about being called socialists or about public opinion turning against them (if Obama did not name Republicans to his cabinet)? But W. and Trump weren't worried about those things when they appointed loony tunes Neoconservatives who told us Iraqis would drape garlands around the necks of invading Western infidel troops in gratitude for being occupied. Half of Trump's proposed appointees could probably be committed to insane asylums if their relatives cared enough about them to get them help. And the Dems are worried about reputational damage from appointing people who are merely left of center?

I can remember when Scott Brown won a senate seat from Massachusetts, and Obama said he didn’t want to push through Obamacare in Brown’s absence. What is this, a game of lawn croquet? What did President Obama get from being gentlemanly? Not a single Republican senator voted for the ACA, despite demands that it be reshaped in ways that hurt ordinary people, and now they will destroy it and toss 30 million people out of health care.

And when Republicans lose an election, such the governor's election in North Carolina last month, they change the rules stage a coup to strip the Democrat of power:

Republican lawmakers quickly proposed sweeping changes to state government, including proposals that would diminish the governor’s authority to make appointments.

Lawmakers want to hobble the incoming Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, before he takes office Jan. 1 by making his Cabinet appointments subject to approval by the state Senate and cutting his ability to appoint members to UNC schools' boards of trustees and the state Board of Education.

Another proposal in the mix would equally divide election boards between the two major political parties, ending control by the governor's party.

Yet another provision would cut the number of employees who serve at the governor's pleasure from 1,500 to 300, reversing an expansion approved for Republican Gov. Pat McCrory at the start of his term...

A Senate bill would shift power from the N.C. Supreme Court that will be controlled by Democrats to the 15-member state Court of Appeals that will have a Republican majority.

(More details here.)

This is what Republicans (and Fascists) do. But see the difference between the parties? Whether in power or out, Republicans attack, attack and attack again. It's double standards. It's hypocrisy. It's extreme partisanship. It's pigheaded obstinance. It's bare knuckles, attack politics, 24/7. Republicans can't govern responsibly - they don't want to govern responsibly at all - so they attack, they lie, they cheat, they spin, they blame, they sabotage, they obstruct, they obfuscate, they ridicule, they filibuster. They re-write history. They bully and intimidate. They rig the system. They game the system. They change the system. They blow up the system. They control the system. They create villains, confrontations and gridlock. They manufacture hate, fear, paranoia and conspiracies. And then it's on to the next attack, the next lie, the next obstruction, the next conspiracy and the next villain. Meanwhile, Democrats never responded to it, never fought back, beg Republicans to work with them and play Charlie Brown to Lucy's football. This has been going on for years, decades.

As I wrote six years ago:

Democrats are like a child that is constantly beaten by his father. To avoid these beatings, the child not only tries to appease his father to keep him from blowing his stack, but runs up to him for affection, as if that too will prevent the beatings.

What Republicans have also done for the last two decades, is constantly demagogue the words "liberal," "Democrat" and "government" and turned them into dirty words that mean bad and incompetent. When you say "liberals, bad" "government, incompetent" all the time without Democrats challenging it, and in fact feed into it, people begin to believe it. And they have.

Republicans have also made the country think the media is "liberal." So as I said previously, any bad press Republicans get is attacked on the right and not believed.

This constant barrage of attacks by the right-wing propaganda machine on "Democrats," "liberals," "government" and the media, without so much as a single word in defense from Democrats, has had an enormous and even brainwashing effect. By repeating conservative talking points over and over and over again, two generations of Americans have been indoctrinated: they must despise "Democrats," "liberals," "government" and the media (except Fox "News" of course). And for the most part, other than the election of Barack Obama, the country has elected and re-elected Republicans all over the country, partly based on the notion that government is bad and incompetent. So Republicans get elected and go on to prove that, yes, government is bad and incompetent (it's in the GOP's interests for you to spend hours in line at the DMV). But Americans keep voting Republican anyway. Hey, that's what cults get you to do.

And while all this was going on, again, Democrats were nowhere to be found. All Republicans have to do is scream Liberal! or Big government! or (Fill in name of Democrat) will take your guns away! and Democrats run away and curl up in the fetal position.

Republicans and the GOP have systematically stripped away the confidence Americans had in government and created an extremely cynical, dumbed-down electorate that rewards political terrorism and penalizes responsible, thoughtful governance. For instance:

About 60 percent of Clay County's 21,000 residents are covered by Medicaid, up from about a third before the (Obamacare) expansion. The counties [sic] uninsured rate for nonelderly adults has fallen from 29 percent to 10 percent.

Trump won Clay County with 86% of the vote.

Those voters, I'm sure, never gave Obama or "big government" the credit for the health insurance they wouldn't otherwise have. And you can be sure that if Trump and the Republicans force higher premiums, co-pays and/or deductibles on them, or take away their health insurance altogether, it'll be the fault of Obama and "big government."

And if Obamacare is repealed, miners - the ones who voted for Trump because he was going to save their jobs, but won't - would lose the compensation they would have received were they ever disabled because of "black lung" disease. And that'll be Obama's fault too. And it'll be Obama's fault if Republicans take away the miner's health benefits altogether in four months.

(Hmmm, let me see if I have something straight. It's okay to take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans. It's okay to take future compensation away from miners should they ever suffer from "black lung" disease, and take their health benefits away as well. But you can't take guns away. Okay, got it. "Pro-life" my foot. Why do Democrats allow them to get away with such hypocrisy? Ask a silly question...)

The same thing will happen if Republicans privatize Medicare and give seniors a voucher for them to buy health insurance in the "free market." Of course, it will be a disaster, but Republicans will make sure to blame it on Obama even though Obamacare extended the solvency of Medicare for 12 years.

This is what happens when Republicans treat politics like it's a street fight every single day while Democrats have been saps, wimps, door mats and punching bags. They never fought back and never called out Republican propaganda, lies, hypocrisy, demagoguery, talking points or political terrorism. And by failing to do so, it legitimized the GOP's rhetoric and actions and created the cynical, paranoid and anti-government electorate we've had for a very long time.

I refer you to a clip from a 2001 episode of the West Wing (yes, 2001!) where Ron Silver couldn't have summed up the Democrats any better.

(Jan. 1 insert: An excellent summery of two decades of Republican hypocrisy, double standards, obstruction, political terrorism and destructive policies and Democrat acquiescence and appeasement is here. Warning to liberals: it will tick you off. Jan. 4 insert: As will this one.)

As I've been saying for years, most recently last month, the only way Democrats are going to win at the ballot box, is when they fight back and begin to discredit Republicans. Call them out, put them on the defensive and make them look like the liars, hypocrites and political terrorists they are. Democrats also have to start slapping Republican votes upside the head and get them to realize just who and what they're voting for.

They also need to take the issues back, specifically guns (and abortion). Because as I've said, Democrats have been so intimidated on guns that they abandoned the issue a long time ago.

You know, the GLBT lifestyle was mainly private and not a political issue until the 1980s. In the 1990s it became accepted. Gay marriage is legal. And now, all Democrats and Democratic candidates are in full support of GLBT rights, even in red states and districts. We've gotten to the point that any Democrat who doesn't fully support those rights, wouldn't get party support for dog catcher. So gay rights have come that far in just 20 years. Fine, that's how it should be. But guns have been a problem for over 50 years. The daily shootings, bloodshed and deaths caused by the country's sick obsession and proliferation of guns, and lack of any meaningful state and national gun control, is beyond insane. But taking a stance against guns and for strong gun control is not a requirement for a Democrat running for office.

Why do Democrats give unequivocal support to GLBT rights, and aren't shy about expressing it, but not gun control? How come there's no hesitation whatsoever when it comes to GLBT rights, but when it comes to guns, Democrats are nowhere to be found (and please, spare me about their overnight temper tantrum in the House of Representatives last spring. Too little, too weak, and too late).

Hey, I had an idea. Why not stand up to the NRA and the gun nuts and use the power of persuasion to take the issue back? Maybe if Democrats weren't intimidated into silence on guns, maybe if they didn't give up on the issue, maybe if they stopped appeasing gun owners, and maybe if they called out the NRA for all the blood they have on their hands, maybe it wouldn't' be such a loser of an issue. (The problem with this is that probably more than half of the elected Democrats in Congress and the states oppose gun control. So in order for that to change, minds need to be changed so strong gun control advocates can be elected.)

Maybe if Clinton kicked off her campaign with gun control and showed some anger about it, and - dare I say it? - called for specific new national gun control laws and turned it into a top national issue that put Trump and the Republicans on the defensive, she would have won. But no, like all Democrats, she only mentioned guns when she was forced to. And when she was, proceeded to put herself on the defensive by appeasing gun owners. And lost anyway. Lot of good all that appeasing did, huh?

When it comes to abortion, do Republicans avoid the issue? Do they appease women? Do they put themselves on the defensive? No, no and hell no. Again, see the difference between the parties?

When you look at how Democrats have handled guns and gun control, it's really a microcosm of the party. They're intimidated into silence, they're on the defensive - heck, they put themselves on the defensive - they never show any anger, are always placating and appeasing Republicans, and don't even know they have the arguments on their side so they never use them. This is how Democrats are on every issue (except gay rights of course). And we wonder why Republicans control the narrative, the agenda and the system.

It was Karl Rove's campaign strategy to attack your opponent, not on his weakness, but his strength. So Democrats should go after Republicans on their strengths: God, guns, gays, abortion, "tax cuts" and "big government." In other words, their rhetoric, talking points, hypocrisy, demagoguery and propaganda.

And this can't be once a week by a couple of Democrats and quickly forgotten. No. Every Democrat has to call out Republicans in every interview and appearance.

Should Democrats begin to fight back (yea, right) and call out Republicans (Ha!), they wouldn't need polls, focus groups or even elections to tell them if it's working or not. An indication would be the ratings of Fox "News." I'm serious. Fox "News" is this cult's megaphone and "living room" where the followers get their marching orders. So if their ratings begin to fall, that would be proof that Democrats are getting through. If not, then the Democrats are just spinning their wheels.

But it doesn't matter anyway because as this blog has shown, today's Democrats are all rolled up in their fetal position, too stupid and too afraid to come out and fight. So it's not happening. Not from these Democrats anyway.

Get involved

In an act of defiance, Democrats and liberals took to the streets in the days after the election to blow off much needed steam. But as I said in March, just because they have the right to protest doesn't mean they should. And besides, vandalism, confronting the police and blocking traffic doesn't only hurt the cause, it's wrong. And a waste of time and energy.

Protests and civil disobedience should be reserved for real injustices like unjustifiable wars, civil rights, voter suppression and strong national gun control (good luck with that one). The objective of protesting is to bring attention to an injustice so grievances can be heard, addressed and hopefully made right. But this election can't be changed. There's nothing to protest.

What I'd like to see instead is a more practical response. I'd like to see these Americans, especially young Americans, who are angry about this election, use their passion and anger more constructively. And they can do that by volunteering and getting involved with liberal institutions.

Even better, I'd like to see them use Donald Trump and the Republican Party as motivation to run for public office themselves. Even if it's local school board or city council. Take that passion, anger and energy into the political arena and take on Republicans. God knows, the Democratic Party could use intelligence, ideas and fighting spirit because they got nothing now never had any to begin with.

Nothing will change until Democrats, liberals and progressives crack this this cult of paranoia, propaganda, arrogance, demagoguery, hypocrisy and brainwashing and slap America upside the head and smarten-up the electorate. We do have the truth, facts, logic and arguments on our side. While it may not mean much these days, you have to think it does count for something.

So instead of marching in the streets, blocking traffic and screaming at cars stopped red lights, liberals need to direct that passion and anger more constructively by getting involved and using the platform of a political campaign to prove Republicans, Donald Trump and the members of this cult wrong. It's about time someone did.

President Trump

Donald Trump isn't even president yet and already he's 1) Angered and deliberately provoked China by upending a 35-year understanding by speaking to the leader of Taiwan, 2) Angered India by fawning over Pakistan, and 3) Praised and invited to the White House Philippine leader Duterte, a human rights abuser who has killed thousands in his controversial drug war, undoubtedly because Trump has business interests in the Philippines.

Years before Trump ran for president he always had issues with China, at least as far as trade is concerned (and he just might get his wish to retaliate against China - military - immediately after taking office). So maybe he purposely spoke to the leader of Taiwan to tweak China because of his own selfish financial interests. Then again, who knows?

Mark Sumner:

Trump has built up a convoluted web of companies that allows him to pay no taxes and provide no visibility into his assets or obligations. It makes it impossible to know how any particular policy would affect Trump.

Would driving down the value of the dollar overseas create a gain or loss for Trump? We don't know. Would Trump benefit if Russia had greater control of areas in Ukraine or the Balkans? We don’t know. How much would Trump make from his tax proposals? We don't know.

How can we know? We can't. Trump is under no obligation to provide either his tax returns or a financial statement. Those things are just tradition, and Trump has already demonstrated his disdain for the openness of previous candidates or presidents.

We can't know if Trump has actually sold all his stocks. We won’t know if Trump actually steps back from his company. We'll probably never know just how much Trump’s policies are being distorted by the desire to line his own pockets—or pay off a particularly awkward debt.

Turkey's President is already using Trump's financial interests as "leverage" extortion. Gee, who could have predicted that? And Trump owes hundreds of millions of dollars to banks all over the world ($2.7 billion if you include real estate partnerships that's he's involved with). And that could set up even more extortion.

One of the reasons why President Bush wanted to invade Iraq was because "Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad." It was personal to him. Regardless, no president should ever make policy decisions based on emotion or for personal financial reasons. But that's exactly how Trump will rule. And that's not even the worst of it. Trump is skipping his intelligence briefings and instead gets his information from conspiracy theorists and is one himself. And so is his designated national security advisor, Michael Flynn, as well as his son who's his top aide. Flynn also "inappropriately shared" classified information. Hmmm...

As far as his cabinet is concerned - a cabinet that will have more wealth than one-third of American households combined - Trump started at the bottom by nominating a racist as Attorney General. And then it got worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And worse. And then it got obscenely worse when Trump tapped Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Huh? Who?

Tillerson's only, um, "qualifications" for this somewhat important position are oil and Russia. The Wall Street Journal via Jennier Rubin:

Friends and associates said few U.S. citizens are closer to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin than Mr. Tillerson, who has known Mr. Putin since he represented Exxon’s interests in Russia during the regime of Boris Yeltsin.

"He has had more interactive time with Vladimir Putin than probably any other American with the exception of Henry Kissinger," said John Hamre, a former deputy defense secretary during the Clinton administration and president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank where Mr. Tillerson is a board member.

In 2011, Mr. Tillerson struck a deal giving Exxon access to prized Arctic resources in Russia as well as allowing Russia's state oil company, OAO Rosneft, to invest in Exxon concessions all over the world. The following year, the Kremlin bestowed the country's Order of Friendship decoration on Mr. Tillerson.

Gulp. Oh, and he publicly spoke out against sanctions against Russia.

Of course he did because it's in Exxon's interests for the sanctions on Russia to be lifted. And as Secretary of State, Tillerson will literally have a vested interest in Exxon's future stock price.

With Trump and Tillerson's financial interests at the core of all this, their lack of experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs, and Trump's madness, the global ramifications that could play out are horrifying. And I didn't even mention Exxon misleading the public on climate change.

(MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had two very good segments, here and here, where she explained how Tillerson had Exxon engage in oil deals that consistently contradicted U.S. foreign policy interests. Why does Rex Tillerson hate America? Hey, that's what the right would be saying if this was an incoming Democratic Secretary of State.)

By assembling a cabinet full of conspiracy theorists, the inmates will indeed be running the asylum (assuming they get confirmed by the Senate). But it's even worse than that because that's only half the asylum! Republicans will control the other half.

So this will be a hard crazy, hard crazy, hard crazy right-wing government asylum, with all the ignorance insanity to match; and then some. Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and public education are in jeopardy. Regulations on the oil, coal, gas, timber and banking industries will be repealed (and it won't be difficult to do). Dodd-Frank, which placed some restrictions on Wall Street after the 2008 crash, will be dismantled. Securities regulations will be shredded and with Carl Icahn selecting the next SEC chairman, insider trading will be overlooked condoned. Federal gun, food, labor and occupational safety laws and regulations will be laughed at and ignored. Environmental regulations will be repealed and there will be a rebirth of fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy (obviously this will have a devastating effect on climate change). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which goes after dishonest banking practices and has returned $5 billion back to consumers via fines and penalties (Jan. 14 insert: make that $11.7 billion), will eventually become a rubber stamp for the banks. Even puppies will be at risk from this administration.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Citizen's United was nothing. In a few years Roe vs Wade could very well be struck down by an increasingly radical conservative court. Get used to rulings like that.

Trump will single out and publicly attack reporters and will severely restrict the media's access to himself and administration. He won't give interviews (at least to legitimate reporters) or hold press conferences. I assume he will partake in the customary press conferences after meeting a foreign leader (because he can't resist the global stage), but will only "communicate" with the public via Twitter, his rallies - which will have all the decorum and civility of a WWE wrestling match - and calling into Fox "News."

Every public appearance will be for his own self-glorification and self-aggrandizement. State of the Union speeches. Addresses to the United Nations. Medal of Honor ceremonies. Non-political public events. Even calming the country after a national tragedy. Everything will be about him.

Blatant hypocrisy and flat-out lies will be a daily, if not hourly occurrence. And if someone has the nerve to call him on it or voice an opinion that he doesn't like, Trump will seek revenge by responding with childish insults via Twitter.

If he has an issue with a business he'll attack them with a tweet that will result in a slamming of their stock price. He can also give a company's stock price a nice jolt with a positive tweet. So Trump can - and will - deliberately and knowingly manipulate financial markets and stock prices with his tweets; which means he could give his children, son-in-law or anyone else a "heads up" before tweeting so they can act accordingly.

This is not what a President of the United States should be doing. Obviously. But that won't stop Trump.

If all this isn't terrifying enough:

"Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!"

That's how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as "an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world."

So we shouldn't be surprised that Trump's chief White House strategist is a white supremacist and the aforementioned Michael Flynn met with Austria's far-right Freedom Party, a party founded by ex-Nazis, at Trump Tower.

And then there's this:

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is asking Energy Department employees for information about the agency's operations and personnel, including a list of employees and contractors who attended international meetings on climate change over the past five years.

The detailed questionnaire seeks a list of all political appointees and senior executives and asks employees to offer their opinions on who "owns" the department's clean energy mission and other policy goals...

An Energy Department official called the 74 questions a hit list and said Trump's team appears to be going after top scientists and employees who work on subjects ranging from the Iran nuclear deal to the internal operations of the national energy labs.

Why does Trump need this information? To intimidate climate scientists? To force them to wear a CS on their clothing so they can be identified as climate scientists? To lock them up?

The Energy Department told trump to get lost.

In a 2005 post where I compared the GOP to the Nazis, I wrote:

...at worst, if I'm right, Republicans are just like the Nazis - without the camps. At best, if I'm wrong, the Republican party has become a cult - with power.

At the time, I knew the post was not an exaggeration or hyperbole (and neither was this one or this one). I backed up what I said. But I never thought I'd be this right.

Donald Trump is a narcissist, sociopath and megalomaniac. He's delusional, egotistic and egomaniacal. He's selfish, scornful, petty, immature, combative, vindictive and a pathological liar. He will rule like an autocrat and his administration will be plutocratic oligarchy.

Donald Trump is mentally ill.

During the campaign, I thought there was a chance he could have had a fit of rage or emotional breakdown, publicly. The only setting where it could have taken place would have been at one of the debates. If Clinton used facts, logic and his own words against him, and boxed him into a corner, and proved to the world that he's a total fraud, that could have been the trigger. But she never got close to that (she didn't even try).

For Trump, the campaign was the deep end of the pool. But being president - with all its pressures, duties and responsibilities - is unfamiliar, uncharted and I think unwanted waters for him (I never thought he truly wanted to be president. I still don't.). A number of decisions - big and small, life and death - will have to be made every day. And he doesn't have the discipline, temperament or emotional stability to do so. At some point, something's got to give.

In a post worth reading in it's entirety, "Propane Jane," a psychiatrist, writes on Daily Kos:

To date, I have personally witnessed Donald Trump make threats against not just individuals but entire sovereign nations, and heard eyewitness accounts from individuals who report victimization at his hands. It is widely held public knowledge that he rarely sleeps, and spends the wee hours of the morning in fits of rage out of proportion to his perceived slights. It is widely known that he hasn't supplied comprehensive medical records, has a family history of Alzheimer's in a first degree relative, and that his children have yet to allow him alone with anyone but themselves. It is widely known that he has yet to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of any of the major issues facing America or the world, and that he immediately becomes defensive and accusatory when confronted with the expectation that he should if he wants to be president.

And he wants to have an even bigger nuclear arsenal at his disposal.

Conclusion

If I was a political cartoonist, the day after the election I would have drawn a two-sided cartoon. On the left, "2008," I would have drawn President Lincoln leaning over in his chair at his memorial giving Barack Obama a high-five. And on the right, "2016," I would have shown Lincoln hunched over with his head in his hands.

The amount of damage and destruction that this man-child and the Republicans could and will inflict on the country and the world is horrifying. This isn't going to end well.

This election wasn't a catastrophe. It was a deliberate self-inflicted catastrophe. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida...what the hell were you thinking?