Home > Analysis > On the Anti-Trump Agenda – a Personal Gripe

On the Anti-Trump Agenda – a Personal Gripe

There are so many things ovDonald Trump for Presidenbter which I disagree with Trump.  When he talks about China, I literally disagree with him on everything he says – currency manipulation, unfair trade, aggressive trade policies, an all out assault to gut America of jobs…

Yet I see every attack on Trump in the media – and yes here on this blog – as the worst of Western media propaganda.  I am writing here not to support Trump (although I would definitely support him over Clinton), but to show what I consider to be Western media’s hypocrisy … and the power of the hypocrisy to brainwash everyone here!  😉

According to the Economist, here are some of the worst of Trump’s offenses.

Because each additional Trumpism seems a bit less shocking than the one before, there is a danger of becoming desensitised to his outbursts. To recap, he has referred to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists; called enthusiastically for the use of torture; hinted that Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was murdered; proposed banning all Muslims from visiting America; advocated killing the families of terrorists; and repeated, approvingly, a damaging fiction that a century ago American soldiers in the Philippines dipped their ammunition in pigs’ blood before executing Muslim rebels. At a recent rally he said he would like to punch a protester in the face. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Trump has referred to illegal aliens as rapists?  That’s quite a twist of words.  Trump has said that we should stop illegal aliens because many crossing are criminals.  I have given Trump flap for this on the account that he is characterizing an entire group in terms of the acts of the inevitable few.  But he never said all illegals are criminals.  It is a documented fact that many illegals are criminals.  The news is full of such stories.  I don’t like Trump making the criminal part of illegals part of the national discussion because people who don’t pay attention (lazy democracy) will get the wrong idea.  But Trump’s idea to control crime by controlling undocumented immigrants is not per se fringe.

About the idea that Trump hinted that Scalia might have been murdered – again that’s reading too much into Trump.  It is well documented that choas and confusion surrounded Scalia’s death.  Arising from those have been many “conspiracy theories.”  Trump only mentioned that the report of a pillow on top of Scalia’s head after he is found dead is “pretty unusual.”  I don’t see any problem there…

About proposing banning Muslims from entering America until we figure out how extremism is being controlled and spread … I already discussed above:

Imagine if we know Africa has some serious pandemic that we understand little of, is it wrong to say let’s stop all people flow from there? At a certain threshold of seriousness, it must be ok.

Now imagine if the same pandemic is sweeping through the Arab world … or Islamic world (for whatever reason), what’s wrong with saying, ok, let’s hold everything for a few months until we understand what’s going on?

Terrorism … or more specially, radicalism, is a kind of pandemic … from certain perspectives.

To the extent we don’t understand how extremism is being spread, i.e. how ISIS reached San Bernardino, what is so crazy about that?  What if another world trade center type attack occurs…  What if two more …  three more?  AND if they are carried out by “Muslims” – even though I have written that we must not confuse political Islam from religious Islam – what is wrong with what Trump proposed?

Would China be so crazy if Tibetan exiles or Turkey trained Uighurs start carrying out more and more public terrorist act to restrict flow of ethnic Tibetans from India or Uiyghurs from Turkey?

As for the “damaging fiction” of American soldiers in Phillippines around turn of century dipping ammo in pigs blood before executing Muslims … I don’t know.  There are definitely enough “rumors” about or similar to it (see, e.g., this or this or this or this or this).  In any case, what’s so “bad” about what Trump is saying?  Doesn’t freedom of speech – Western style – include the freedom to discuss rumors? (after all often where there is smoke there is fire?) If it’s true … it’s the only way to uncover it.  If it’s false, it will be squashed and fall out of people’s attention anyways…

Torture

There are other things.  There is this flap about Trump’s comment on torture – that he’d use waterboarding and things that are even worse.  An ex-CIA director even publicly said that military would disobey Trump’s orders (should he become President) they considered illegal.

But Trump never said he supported torture.  He only said he’d support waterboarding (some consider it torture, others’ don’t) and things that are worse (worse things that might feel worse, but not necessarily be something categorically deemed torture).  Also – imagine if some Chinese military guy had said the same … there would be all the reports about the military controlling the political branch.  Who’s the CIA director to deem what is legal or not vis-a-vis the U.S. President?

Related to this is also Trump’s assertion that he’d go after the family members of terrorists.  Trump didn’t make clear exactly what he meant, but people jumped to conclusion that he’d go around innocent family members per se.  I am not sure if that’s what he meant.  He could have also meant that to the extent that family members often help each other out, and family members of terrorists are often involved, he would go after them first, and not presume they are innocent to start with.

Besides, even if he goes after innocent members per se to make would-be terrorists think twice, what would be wrong about it – as a matter of ethics? If we kill 5 to save 5,000 or 50,000 or more, what is the problem???

We already go after innocent Iraqis and Afghans and Libyans and Muslims to stop terrorism here.  What’s the morality in allowing for the killing of fellow countrymen and religious believers but not family members (remember, one reason we so kill is so they would oust their leaders)?

Look if terrorism becomes sufficiently dangerous – let’s say they are striking with much higher frequency or playing with dirty bombs, etc. – where do we draw the line?  Trump raises good issues – they should be discussed not snickered at.

David Duke

There has also been calls by politicians and media across the spectrum for Trump to publicly refute support from people such as David Duke (whom media brands incessantly as a white supremacist).  I find this odd.  Why single out David Duke – a private citizen?  It’s not as if David Duke is a politician that is appearing on stage with Trump as his running mate?

Should Trump publicly refute support from celebrities who happen to pro-Choice (Trump being pro-Life now)?  This is crazy.  People support Trump for any of several reasons.  They aren’t all saints.  Some criminals in jails … and some priests who has molested kids in Churches may support Trump for their own reasons … that doesn’t mean Trump need to decide to accept or reject.  In my mind: as long as they are American citizens, Trump can accept their support, no more question asked!

Remember, Trump also came under fire for saying that Planned Parenthood does good things outside of abortions…  He is not ideological.  He is not PC.  That’s what’s so great about him.

But just to do a sanity check, I decided to see why David Duke supported Trump.  Here is what I found.

In my lifetime, in such moments of dire international crisis, I do not ever remember a presidential campaign or season where the candidates, on their own or because they were forced to by moderators or by the public or the media, won’t tell us what they think other than a bumper sticker like “I hate Putin and I won’t talk to him,” things like that, tell us what they would do if they were president today or tomorrow. Of the Republicans, since Rand Paul left the race, all of them simply say “we’ll punch Putin in the nose and that will solve the problem.” Only Donald Trump, also in bumper stickers, has said something different. He said:

1) He doesn’t accept all of these criminal allegations against Putin because there’s no proof, they’re just allegations, and in America we have due process.
2) He keeps saying that he’s a man who knows how to make a deal with Putin. So I interpret this for Donald Trump, who never uses the word, to mean “diplomacy.” That he would do diplomacy.

Now what there’s been since the beginning of the New Cold War is a complete collapse of American diplomacy, or the militarization of American diplomacy towards Russia. Kerry is struggling, as we have already spoken, to demilitarize American diplomacy and to restore real negotiations. Trump in his odd way — “I’m the greatest deal maker in the world, I can make a deal with anybody, Putin doesn’t bother me, I’ll sit down and make him an offer he can’t refuse, and will make a deal and things will be okay.”

Alright, he probably doesn’t know exactly what he means. But I would prefer a president who tells me not that “I’m going to send more troops to Russia’s borders in order to provoke them into a war,” but a president who tell me “I’m going to sit down and discuss this with you and see if we can work it out.”

David Duke doesn’t seem to be supporting Trump for any white supremacist reasons.  I actually would accept all the reasons given above as reasonable…  Why the need to disavow him?  Does this also make me a “white supremacist”???

Crisis

Finally I read here and other places that Trump is taking advantage of people’s fears … and that leaders that arise from such crisis are inevitably bad…

But the truth is that the American Revolution also arose because of people’s fears and a sense of crisis, too.  To be honest, every revolution arises from that.  The Chinese Revolution that pushed away first the feudal systems then the corrupt Republic system was also.  So was the French Revolution.  So is the Arab Spring…  (I can go on and on and on…)

Just because a Hitler arose from such – and to be honest, Germany did have a gripe against the then-existing world order – doesn’t mean every other person that so arise is a “Hitler”… every system that so arise is “Fascist.”

Conclusion

The attack on Trump – that somehow he is illegitimate – to me is a result of the oligarchy propaganda.  People need to wake up.  I am not saying you should support Trump.  He is so wrong on so many things (relating to China at least), but he is not as ideological as Clinton and most other politicians.  To me that per se is a huge improvement.

Every politician I know in the U.S. (or other Western democracies) have huge egos.  There are very very few that wouldn’t lie … or that have real personal ethics (thinking about Hillary now…; see also her 10 other scandals).  So why single Trump out as the worst … when he may be the breath of fresh air this country so need???  That’s hypocrisy at its highest…

  1. pug_ster
    March 3rd, 2016 at 07:30 | #1

    What you said is the problem of Trump. His stance on many positions are vague, from Torture, KKK, and even today on healthcare.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-reveals-details-his-health-care-plan-n530701

    He is against and wants to replace Obamacare but the only thing I see different is that Trump’s plan is not forcing people to get health insurance but pushing medicaid for low income people? I don’t see his plan is to ‘replace’ obamacare, rather just reform it whereas other Republicans want to get rid of it entirely.

    I do give points for Trump who speaks his mind whereas dishonest snake oil salesmen like Obama voted in 2008 but gave alot of false promises. And no, I did not voted for Obama but for McCain in 2008 because of Obama’s audacity of hype speech then. Not to mention that he actually got a Nobel prize for being an ‘Anti-Bush’? Give me a break.

  2. March 3rd, 2016 at 08:22 | #2

    @pug_ster

    What you said is the problem of Trump. His stance on many positions are vague, from Torture, KKK, and even today on healthcare.

    Vague in what sense? All the “detailed” policy studies we used to see from traditional candidates are vague too in the sense they are made up (by various think thanks) and in reality are never followed through anyways.

    It’s a like a business plan. A good venture capitalist mentor told me once that the importance of a business plan is not to test one’s prediction abilities: he’d never seen a business plan that’s carried out as is on paper! Things always change – by a lot! The business plan merely presents an excuse – a framework – for people to discuss issues. It’s like chess – an opportunity to see in how each other think.

    That’s why these presidential plans are. It’s a work of fiction … like any speech. The details masks a lot of assumptions that candidates themselves never get into … probably don’t understand.

    Being “detailed” thus is just a “language” thing … it’s a political style that ultimately means nothing. Democracy’s talk and rants are all “vague” in my opinion.

    True details will come only when push come to shove in real life, shaped by the president, but hammed out by lawyers, government officials, military personnel, etc. when the candidate is president.

    He is against and wants to replace Obamacare but the only thing I see different is that Trump’s plan is not forcing people to get health insurance but pushing medicaid for low income people? I don’t see his plan is to ‘replace’ obamacare, rather just reform it whereas other Republicans want to get rid of it entirely.

    So?

    Who says Obamacare needs to be replaced vs. gotten rid of vs. just reformed? Who says the Republican platform dictate any one of these results?

    Only “ideologues” say only one result works…

    Taking the nation as a whole, there are a lot of people who hate Obamacare and a lot who love it. So the end result is that there has to be a compromise. It will be a test of American Democracy if we can get something everyone can live with, rather than something everyone hates!

  3. pug_ster
    March 3rd, 2016 at 10:01 | #3

    @Allen

    I’ll give you credit that about the “business plan” of his presidency. Then he should say it as that but his temperament of ultimatum like telling voters that he will build a wall in mexico and making them pay for it says otherwise.

    About Trump on Obamacare: “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,” said Trump.

  4. Black Pheonix
    March 3rd, 2016 at 12:26 | #4

    “The attack on Trump – that somehow he is illegitimate – to me is a result of the oligarchy propaganda.”

    That is true in part. Only as far as Democracies are essentially oligarchies, of the many dominant factions and their alliances.

    Naturally, it is fair for Trump to participate in that Oligarchy of the GOP.

    But as we well know, the GOP (and indeed Democracy) tend to attack the most feared opponents as “illegitimate”.

    That is a well established trademarked tactics of the Democracies.

    Trump should know that, because he participates and does that himself.

    Afterall, calling Mexicans “rapists/criminals/whatever” and calling for deporting Muslims are his tools of putting “illegitimate” on his targets.

    Heck, he even targets journalists.

    So, I don’t feel sympathies for him. He’s part of the game. If he loses the GOP primary, I have no doubt he would be calling the GOP illegitimate.

  5. March 3rd, 2016 at 14:07 | #5

    @pug_ster

    About Trump on Obamacare: “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people,” said Trump.

    A healthcare system as anyone would tell you is incredibly complicated – especially when it is intertwined with the tax system to boot. I don’t know exactly the steps that he take will be, whether it be reform, completely replace, or something in between…

    Here is the latest on Trump’s ideas.

    This is one of those things where the devil is in the details. We have many conflicting interests/needs/objectives/philosophies/desires. So it is… To criticize in wholesale – that’s just plain politiking … which unfortunately democracy is mostly about…

  6. March 3rd, 2016 at 14:07 | #6

    @Black Pheonix
    Have no idea what you mean by “illegitimate.”

  7. N.M.Cheung
    March 4th, 2016 at 08:29 | #7

    “Yet I see every attack on Trump in the media – and yes here on this blog – as the worst of Western media propaganda.”
    I started the Trump blog by trying to open a debate on the election of 2016 which I think might have serious consequences for everyone in the world, including China. It’s true that establishment figures in both parties consider Trump and to a smaller extent Sanders as a threat to the status quo, but I resent implied from the quote above that I am part of the Western media propaganda. I have seen that I have overstayed my welcome here and will cease my blogs here after my response.
    Yesterday on the Guardian, there were profiles on Trump supporters from various strata of society, from people angry at the status quo, Sanders supporters, those who hated Hillary, and even from Muslims and minorities. It’s interesting to understand their motives and I do not condemn them for their opinion. Last night during the Republican debate those bothered to see it can form their own opinions.
    I do not condemn Trump because I think he’s worse than other candidates on policy ground as he has no real policy and changes constantly. I fear him for what he is, a bully that is attempting to reach the nuclear button. He wants to make America great again, by whatever means, which leaves force as the only lever. He wants American to win, win, and win until you are sick of it. What do you think where that win is going to come from? The others may be worse on immigration, planned parenthood, or China, yet they are part of the system, there are boundaries which they will not cross. Trump want to break the system, and other oligarchs are right to fear him. One of the question last night illustrated it. What if the military refuse your unlawful order to kill the families of terrorists? His response, “They will obey me! They will obey me.”.
    As for your defense of Trump, all I will say is when I cited Hitler, I do not try to comb through Mien Kampf to find his justification for fascism. I just look at the result of the gas oven for 6 million Jews. Similarly when looking at KKK I look at the thousands lynched by those wearing bed sheets, and not bother to comb through David Duke’s endorsement statement.

  8. March 4th, 2016 at 10:46 | #8

    @N.M.Cheung
    Please don’t see argument as signs that someone has overstayed his welcome…

    But I disagree again with what you wrote again, even here…

    Gas chamber, 6 million dead, black lynching … are historical facts. But when people label someone as white supremist, or nazi … it’s up to those listening to incorporate critical reasoning and see if the label matches.

    So I went to David Duke’s website, and I don’t see anything in his endorsement that contains white supremism in any ways…

    Someone may call Duke a Nazi, or equate him with the worst of slavery … but when I checked up on Duke’s endorsement … I don’t see it.

    I only see mere labeling by the media.

    Besides, the point is not Duke. It’s this public mob lynching mentality that when the media label someone as Nazi or KKK, we are just supposed to take the media’s word at face value…

  9. Black Pheonix
    March 4th, 2016 at 12:24 | #9

    Allen :

    @Black Pheonix
    Have no idea what you mean by “illegitimate.”

    I mean it the same way Democracies mean it: anything they don’t like is “illegitimate”. Which is quite broad, yes.

    Trump does it too, and more often. He basically says it without any arguments: his opponents are just “losers”, “liars”, etc.

    I.e. Trump doesn’t even bother to address criticisms or arguments, because all his opponents are just “illegitimate” to some degree.

  10. Black Pheonix
    March 4th, 2016 at 12:27 | #10

    @Allen

    “So I went to David Duke’s website, and I don’t see anything in his endorsement that contains white supremism in any ways…
    Someone may call Duke a Nazi, or equate him with the worst of slavery … but when I checked up on Duke’s endorsement … I don’t see it.
    I only see mere labeling by the media.”

    I get your point, Allen.

    But modern day racists don’t openly say they discriminate anyone, or advocate hate, etc.

    They say they are for “White enpowerment”.

    Is it really media labeling?

    Or is it that their racist codewords are pretty obvious?

  11. Charles Liu
    March 4th, 2016 at 13:58 | #11

    @Black Pheonix you mean speaking in tongues? Mainstream media does that with China issue all the time.

    Trump won’t be able to do anything he said and be any different than the presidents before him. His appeal to populism is in itself contradictory and irrational. I fully anticipate Trump saying “it was all a big joke; now vote for my good friend Hillary Clinton.”

  12. March 4th, 2016 at 15:49 | #12

    @Black Pheonix

    But modern day racists don’t openly say they discriminate anyone, or advocate hate, etc.

    They say they are for “White enpowerment”.

    Is it really media labeling?

    Or is it that their racist codewords are pretty obvious?

    “White empowerment” – like “Black empowerment” – is a loaded word, and means many things to many people…

    But I still ask – in context – so what?

    If David Duke were running, then I’d want to know what he did before, what his notion of “white empowerment” is…

    But to ask Trump to disavowal Duke (which he did in yesterday’s debate), why? If Duke had said I support Donald because he will most further white empowerment and bring back the days of segregation or even slavery, I’d say, ok maybe, Trump needs to disavowal … I’d Duke were a politician and a public figure.

    But if the reason Duke gave for his support of Trump is what I quoted above, and he is just a private citizen, why disavowal?

    Any candidate should take the support as is – from private American citizens. Every citizen come potentially with baggage – but that’s their private affairs. The candidate should take support from civic leaders, religious leaders, saints … but also from incarcerated criminals, mentally retarded people, the poor, the sick also. If a homosexual couple comes out to support Trump, and the Republican doesn’t look kindly on homosexual marriages, does Trump now need to disavowal that support?

    Oh … besides, I don’t see the word “white empowerment” anywhere in the article I linked…

    The closet I came to seeing that term on Duke’s website was this article (http://davidduke.com/the-hateful-face-of-the-media/).

    And after reading it, I sort agree that as a matter of principle, if blacks are entitled to “empowerment,” so do whites. It’s too bad it has to be white or black empowerment, rather than just empowerment, but that’s the world we live in now.

    Of course, I also understand the political context. In general, I do think blacks need a lot more “empowerment” than whites. Just look at the police brutality cases on blacks we have … just look at the number of black males incarcerated (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html?_r=0)…

    I side with Zuckerburg on the flamewar he is having with his employees over black lives matter (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/25/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-black-lives-matter-diversity/80933694/).

    But someone advocating “white empowerment” per se I don’t think is racist…

  13. March 4th, 2016 at 16:11 | #13

    @Charles Liu

    Trump won’t be able to do anything he said and be any different than the presidents before him.

    And you are probably right. That’s why I like him. He’s not going to be that much different if he gets to be president because the system is rigged and controlled. So he cannot be much of a danger. But he does bring a gust of fresh air that I much welcome. To those who think he is “vulgar” – I don’t think he is any more “vulgar” than other politicians / leaders in the West.

    People feel disgusted about his talk about torture? Well we have killed millions of muslims as collateral damage since 1990. Are “polite” talks that much more ethical than “vulgar” Trump talk?

    Talk about Trump’s wall? People think it’s so cruel – so unethical even of Trump. (In many ways, I feel that way too. As an immigrant myself, I feel the U.S. should open its doors to all immigrants. It still has plenty of land and resources. The only reason it doesn’t is for political reasons.) But let’s think the other side. The open border has allowed for a huge volume of illicit human migration that is dangerous. (See e.g. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/18/why-immigrating-to-the-united-states-is-more-dangerous-than-ever, http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/08/an-immigrants-journey/100573/, http://abc13.com/news/why-are-so-many-crossing-border-illegally/169895/, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-american-migrants-and-la-bestia-route-dangers-and-government-responses). If the border can be closed, we will also cut down on the number of people taking this dangerous journey.

    Now, people may say, they come because it’s worth it. It’s so much worse at home.

    To which I would reply, then please legally allow more immigrants to come. Take them all in. Don’t make them undocumented and take the treacherous path (involving criminal trafficking)…

    So what’s make Trump so “vulgar”?

    Politics as currently framed with Western norms – despite the pleasantries – is fundamentally vulgar.

  14. March 8th, 2016 at 02:36 | #14

    I agree the anti-Trump thing is shaped nearly entirely by oligarchy propaganda, perhaps even by DESIGN! I don’t think any of them would make any difference except for the rhetorics and tactics they favour, in order to meet the exact same imperial goals. I don’t see any substantial or fundamental difference between Trump, Clinton the Second, and Sanders, though the script writer for Election-2016 might have understood that they need something entirely different to keep the spectators engaged again, yet one more time, with hope and passion. I’ve recently made my comments in a blog piece which I should have syndicated here. Anyways, here it is:

    ” The US election is a reality show which many outsiders follow as if their own. But non-Americans of the Brave New World should remember there’s no point agonising over the theatric competition. Entertainment is just entertainment. Don’t risk hypertension over it. Moreover, pardon my perennial repetition: Whoever wins makes no difference. That said, I still have an impertinent preference for Donald I over Clinton II, and I’m not even being sarcastic.

    Many non-Americans irrationally cringe at the prospect of a President Trump. Well, I confess I wouldn’t want a friend like him. My contact list is full. But the arguments against him, from an outsider’s perspective, are mostly invalid or irrelevant.

    Here’s why: http://guo-du.blogspot.hk/2016/03/trump-for-president.html

  15. Black Pheonix
    March 8th, 2016 at 10:29 | #15

    @Allen

    “But if the reason Duke gave for his support of Trump is what I quoted above, and he is just a private citizen, why disavowal?”

    Because Duke wasn’t just a private citizen. He was a celebrity public figure. There is no separation from that. Trump (or anyone else) cannot just arbitrarily decide to separate the controversies from a public figure.

    Also, Trump could have also used disavowal to say “I disavow what Duke stood for” to separate the controversy of Duke.

    Trump could say I have no obligations to “disavow a private citizen’s support”.

    But as a public figure and a candidate, he does have the duty to clarify, if he wants the votes. (Otherwise, we are basically saying, there is no obligation to clarify anything, and let the idiot voters vote).

    “But someone advocating “white empowerment” per se I don’t think is racist…”

    I think you are missing the obvious history of that phrase and who uses it. It is a racist catch phrase by its history.

    The same racists also use racist slurs and pretend that they are some how not offensive.

    Racism is never obvious when viewed by words alone. It’s the HISTORY of the words that provide the context meaning of racism.

  16. Charles Liu
    March 11th, 2016 at 13:51 | #16

    @Allen

    The Republicans have been using this kind of “dog whistle” language for decades. When racism became unpopular in the 80’s, the Republicans resorted to less offensive language that still appealed to the bigots. Same thing happened in 2010’s when marriage equality and gay rights causes rose, Republicans framed it around “biblical family value”, “religious freedom” to appeal to the homophobes.

  17. March 14th, 2016 at 06:46 | #17

    @Allen

    I agree that the demonization of Trump is oligarchical propaganda. However, just because it’s oligarchical propaganda doesn’t make it automatically false or unjustified. I believe most of the anti-Trump rhetoric in the mainstream media is quite reasonable & justified. Trump is an obvious demagogue that plays to the fear of an extremists in the US & consistently encourages violence in his rhetoric. He’s not the only one that does this, but he does so to a greater extent.

    That said, I’m NOT saying Trump is a fascist, because he seems to lie more so than other candidates (just compare his statements to that of others on politifact), & we really have no idea how he’ll try to govern if he ends up in office. But it is quite apparent that he is RUNNING AS a de facto fascist, & actively attracting that crowd.

    I think Trump’s popularity exposes the true ugliness of REAL American political ideology among the American people, rather than the one being advertised to the rest of the world by the MSM, & that has its value. But I’m quite disturbed by your statement about Trump as a “breath of fresh air”, or your preference for Trump over Clinton. Just because the current oligarchy is a corrupt, unjust system, doesn’t mean that whatever replaces it will automatically be better. That’s the same flawed logic as “The CPC is a corrupt oligarchy, so its overthrow is automatically good for China”, or “Qaddafi/Hussein/Yanukovich/insert bad guy here is supposedly a brutal dictator, so getting rid of him is good regardless of the consequences”.

  18. pug_ster
    March 15th, 2016 at 15:58 | #18

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/march-15-exit-poll-results-mood-gop-primary-electorate-n539251

    Western propaganda is totally clueless why Republicans want Trump in the first place. In this poll 90% of the Republicans are either Dissatisfied or Angry about Washington.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.