Concerning: "'Unity'. This is What it Looks Like from My Side":
The Vietnam War coincided with the Hippie Era. It really helped bring it in. Peace and Love were a big deal. There were plenty of other problems too. However, we didn't have a Great Depression or Great Recession. More people are more radicalized by bad economic times ushered in by stupid capitalists than by anything else that's happened so far in the history of the US.
The timing of Barack Obama was very unfortunate. Had the election been about two or three years later and had a real democratic-socialist thrown his or her hat into the ring then after building an organization ahead of time, everything might have been radically different and for the better.
As for Obama, he is not clean. He lied to all of us about spying on us. When his man, James Clapper, admitted that James lied, Obama did not fire him. Obama has gone after more whistleblowers than all the Presidents before him combined, and that was after he promised to protect whistleblowers (promised during his campaign). Just because the Republicans haven't gone after him doesn't mean he's clean. It means they agree with him on spying and on whistleblowers, etc. Obama also aided and abetted Hillary Clinton illegally destroying evidence. I could go on, but I'm tired of citing the obvious.
Concerning: "Ginsburg Was Right: Trump Is Faking It":
Trump wants to be President. He has far bigger plans than the article speculates. I wasn't the least bit impressed.
As for Scotland, it's part of the UK and the UK voted leave. Just because Trump was in Scotland when he said what he did does not mean that he was referring to Scotland, per se, rather than the UK. People who hate people go out of their way to construe contexts. I don't like that and definitely try to avoid doing it. If there's another way of reading something, I want to know. Then I'll make up my own mind and not do so to fall in line with the crowd.
I'm not for Trump. I see his weaknesses. I also see where he's better than Hillary.
On balance, she seems a much more reckless choice. She won't be swayed on foreign policy. She's held the same views for decades. Trump won't be swayed on it either, and his views are vastly superior in that realm, not perfect but vastly better nevertheless.
All the social and domestic economic issues won't matter a tinker's damn if we're all incinerated because she picks a fight concerning which Russia and China and others will not fail but to fight right back with everything they have. People who think she's not dangerous are going to rue the day if she gets in.
If you're going to campaign against Trump, I suggest you always do it by campaigning for someone other than Hillary.
Concerning: "Hillary Clinton, Empowers Sanders in One Masterstroke":
- Too soft on Sanders
- Giving him too much credit for a solid plan going forward (I'd love to be wrong)
- Engaging in wishful thinking that the Party might even consider yet going with him as the nominee
She has it locked up, and he knows it. He also knows why but doesn't say it anymore and never really said it enough anyway. He is now a national politician: deal-making compromiser concerning things that he ought not have and didn't have to, to win anything.
He didn't know the moment.
He didn't realize how radicalized people could quickly become and that he should have left his options open to run 3rd-party. He also didn't understand how important foreign policy is to many who are well placed in alternative media of a more intellectual bent that influences other alternative media.
I always shook my head that someone his age and with his "socialist" background didn't understand what happened that brought in the New Deal and how well positioned he was to capitalize on the once-in-a-lifetime event in a way that would have made the New Deal look like chickenfeed. The same holds for foreign policy.
He's more conservative (staid) than most people seem to realize, not a firebrand. I mean the term "firebrand" in the positive sense, as in a person the plutocrats hate and call a trouble maker because he or she wants real democracy.
The monied interests are not going to let go of the top parties without a major fight. People will be bought if a firebrand doesn't rev them up against it to withstand the temptation.