Over
a month into the Trump presidency, and we're continuing to see constant
complaining, protesting, and people speaking out against him. It
doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, which raises a question:
what was the alternative?
In
all of the backlash against Trump, it's something that not a lot of
people seem to be discussing: what would the country be like had the
Democrats won the election?
And
this is something that absolutely needs to be considered, because we so
many people who are in a furious rage speaking out against Trump, yet,
they don't seem to have thought about what would have happened if
Clinton would have won.
As
far as "politics as usual" - this is exactly what Clinton represented.
The corruption, bribery, and political favors for the elite would have
continued, as the things got worse and worse for the middle and lower
classes. That would have been a natural result, as Clinton would have
been the first president who opened expressed their complete and total
hatred of the average American. It is somewhat surprising that a
citizen would have even considered voting for a person who regarded them
as worthless, deporable, and unredeemable. Someone like this would
clearly not have the best interests of the 99% in mind.
As
far as equality goes, Clinton openly spoke of how she would fire men
from their jobs so that they could hire a woman in their place, in the
name of 'equality'. However, this is completely wrong: equality means
hiring the right person for the job, regardless of gender, race, or
religous belief. What this program would do is gender discriminate.
Women's liberation has fought for years against this very thing: not
getting a job because of a person's gender, and Clinton's plan was to
impose it once again, only in reverse: encouraging gender discrimination
against men, instead of women being the target. However,
discrimination is still a problem, regardless who the victim is.
In
foreign policy, Clinton was openly taking huge risks. She stated that
she wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria, where the Russians are
actively in combat duty. During the presidental debate, the moderater
asked her what would happen if a no-fly zone was imposed and a Soviet
fighter jet flew over Syria? Would the US shoot the plane out of the
sky and seriously risk a war with Russia? Clinton had no answer and
refused to talk about it, but it was a key question because it showed
that she was clearly willing to get into a war with Russia; a war that
most Americans do not want.
Some of the other complaints about Trump:
He's
a liar - so is Clinton, it's easy to search on the internet and find
videos of her saying one thing, and then a clip of the exact opposite
actually taking place. Clinton actually told people that she needs to
have one 'public' face and then her 'true' face. It's not possible to
say that Clinton was any more trustworthy than Trump; if anything, it is the opposite.
He's
catering to the elite - Look at the Clinton's history, and it's not any
better. Taking money from the ultra-rich of the world, pay for play
politics while Secretary of State, etc.
He's only in it for himself - Again, look at the history of donations to the "Clinton Foundation" - there is no way to claim that the Clinton family is altrustic in any way.
So what is the point of all this?
It's
simple: people who are protesting against Trump are so passionate that
HE is the problem with the country. Some of them are resorting to
political violence to make their point (which is never good). There is
so much passion and emotion behind their voices that Trump is wrong that
they haven't considered...
Would Clinton have been right?
The answer to this question is definitely NOT a clear yes.
No
one can say today that the country would definitely have been better
off if Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency.
But
that's the key point that all the blind anti-Trump protestors are
missing: you're essentially trying to tell everyone that the USA would
have been better off with someone more corrupt that Richard Nixon
running it. The most corrupt president in history, who hates the
everyday American, would somehow have been a better choice than Trump?
Can you see why most people don't buy that?
Yes,
Trump has a lot of problems, but it would be helpful if the Democrats
could actually admit that so did Clinton. Instead of raging against
Trump, it would be much more prudent for the Democrats to ask how
someone so corrupt was able to represent their party in the election,
and then take the necessary measures to prevent another person like
Clinton from ever being their nominee again.
Instead,
the more that they protest Trump, the more they are showing no remorse
for their decision to try to impose Clinton on the people. The more
unrepentant the Democrats are, the more they scream and get violent
about the election result, the more the support for Trump grows, because
it's quite clear that Clinton would have been a horric disaster as a
president.
And
what's most surprising about the Democrats is just how few of them are
actually willing to consider that. This is a candidate that was under
FBI criminal investigation during the campaign. No candidate in history
has ever under federal investigation before; it's amazing that the
Democratic party allowed Clinton to continue running - it showed an
incredible lack of ethics or morality on behalf of the party.
Yet, these same people now claim that Trump is wrong, but...
But wait.
Actually, most of the protestors and Democrats aren't saying that, are they?
They aren't saying "things would be better if Clinton won".
They are just protesting, they are just being violent, they are just yelling... and for... what?
Yes,
Trump's presidency is going to be problematic. He's certainly not the best person that could have been president. But Democrats, you lost
the election. Trump won fairly. What is the point of your protests now?
Because when you scream and yell that Trump is wrong, what you're really saying is that you think Clinton would have been right.
And that's just not true.
LKvi
